Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 May 1956

Vol. 156 No. 10

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Walsh).

Mr. J.J. Burke

As I was saying yesterday evening when progress was reported, having heard the speeches of Deputies from all sides of the House, I was glad to know that at least we were in agreement on one fundamental question, that is, that the economic survival of the country depends on the farmers' ability to increase production. The more the farmers can increase production and the higher the prices they can get, the higher standard of living we must all have. Fianna Fáil, in its long term of office, did nothing to increase production or to increase prices. I honestly think their efforts were in the opposite direction. I know that the statement that the British market was gone and thank God for it, was typical of that Party's whole approach to agriculture.

It is little wonder that when the inter-Party Government took office in 1948 they found the agricultural industry here in a deplorable state. At that time, after 16 years of Fianna Fáil Government, we had fewer cattle, sheep and pigs than in any year since the Famine and the fertility of the land was never so low in history. That was a shocking record after 16 years of native Government. The problem that then faced the incoming Government and the Minister for Agriculture was how best to increase production from the land. The obvious thing to do was to put the land back into the highest state of fertility. I think the Minister handled that problem very expeditiously and very well.

By his introduction of the land reclamation scheme he put thousands of acres into production that would otherwise be lying derelict and of no use either to the farmers who owned them or to the State. By making available to the farmers adequate supplies of ground limestone at a very low cost, by making available up-to-date soil testing facilities and by ensuring as far as he possibly could that farmers got reasonable prices for their produce, he did a very good job. If we have not got results as spectacular as we would like from those schemes, it is the fault of the farmers in not availing of the facilities provided for them, and not the fault of the Minister.

I was amused the other evening to hear Deputy Moher remind the Minister of the progress that had been made in England regarding the eradication of bovine T.B. and the consequent danger to our live-stock industry, if we are not in a position to put on the market attested cattle. Surely, Deputy Moher knows that the Party to which he belongs was a very long time in office and did nothing whatever to protect our farmers from this danger. I think he should also know that the present Minister for Agriculture initiated the scheme for the eradication of bovine T.B. at the earliest possible moment. I am glad to know that the scheme is progressing favourably, and I am even better pleased to know that the incidence of bovine T.B. in this country is not quite so high as we anticipated it would be a few years ago. I heard Deputy Moher also tell us that it took four acres to feed a cow.

Mr. Moher

And her follower.

Mr. J.J. Burke

I think Deputy Moher must be living in the past before the land reclamation scheme and the ground limestone scheme and up-to-date soil testing facilities were made available to the farmers. I can assure Deputy Moher that it does not take four acres to feed a cow now, and it is a very good job too that it does not because if it did, half of the farmers in the West of Ireland would be in the poorhouse for a long time.

Last year, when I was speaking on this Estimate, I asked the Minister to draw attention to what was happening regarding the breeding of cattle throughout the country. Farmers throughout the country are refusing point blank to bring their cows to a Shorthorn bull. In my opinion, it is very hard to blame them, in view of the fact that the Shorthorn calf is worth £6 or £7 less at birth than the Aberdeen-Angus, for instance, or the crossed calf. It is very hard to blame the farmers for breeding the type of cattle that pays them best for the moment, and at the same time if live stock is to be maintained, I think the foundation stock must be preserved.

How that is to be done I really do not know, unless the Minister would consider paying a subsidy for every Shorthorn calf born or, alternatively, if the Department of Agriculture takes over a number of farms to be used exclusively for the breeding of Shorthorn cattle. I think that proposition is a feasible one because the revenue from the stock on the farms would, in the long run, pay for whatever cost was involved to the State. I would ask the Minister to give his own opinion on that matter. It is a very serious problem, because, in a very short time, we will not have a cow or a heifer here capable of breeding any kind of a reasonably good store beast.

The farmers are very glad to know that we have now a guaranteed minimum price of 235/- per cwt. for grade A pigs and also that there is a new buffer grade that will protect our farmers from serious loss if the pigs are a very little bit over or under weight. They are also glad to know that the shipping of live pigs was opened up again.

I heard the opinion expressed by Deputies on both sides of the House that they did not know what benefit that would be to farmers, or whether it would be any benefit at all. In my opinion, it will be a great benefit to them, because it will give a market for the heavier type of pig that is not wanted in this country, and I understand that there is a market for that type in some of the big industrial cities in England. If my information is correct, it has improved trade considerably for all types of pigs. I was told yesterday evening by a pig dealer that pigs yesterday in Limerick, even though the guaranteed price per cwt. is only 235/-, made 25/- more than the guaranteed price.

All this is very important, especially to small farmers in the West of Ireland. It matters very little to them what price cattle are going at, if they have neither the capital to buy them nor the land to feed them. Pigs are an entirely different proposition. Once it becomes profitable to feed them, any small farmer with an initial outlay of about £10 for a slip can have ten or 12 pigs fit to sell inside a year. I am convinced from a certain amount of experience, that if he grows his own barley and feeds them with it, he will have a nice bit of profit.

I also heard views expressed on both sides of the House that a very low percentage of our breed of pigs here is grade A. I agree that that is so up to the moment, but I think it is the fault of the way pigs were fed more than the fault of the actual breed of pigs. The custom in this country—at least in my part of the country, in the West—was that the farmers wanted to get the pigs out in the shortest possible time. There was actually competition between the smaller farmers to see who could get the pigs out in the shortest time. They put them into warm, stuffy little houses and crammed them with food and as a result, got a very fat pig I am convinced that if they used exactly the same amount of food but extended the feeding period by a fortnight and gave the pigs a little exercise, we would get a higher percentage of grade A bacon from our own breed of pigs than from landrace or any other breed.

While I agree that grants for the erection and repair of farm buildings, for water supplies, etc., are very desirable, I still think that if some of the money expended on such schemes were spent on the subsidising of manures for smaller farmers, we would get a much better and a much quicker result as regards increased production. The unfortunate thing about many of those schemes is that the smaller and poorer farmers in the country are not able to avail of them. They have not the capital to pay their end of the bargain and so the richer farmers get most of the benefits from the schemes.

I also understand—I should like that the Minister would correct me if I am wrong—that a lot of money is being expended on bogs throughout the country to find out whether or not they are capable of growing beet. I have one bog in mind, the Burrow bog, and if my information is correct, almost £1,000,000 has been thrown into that bog already. Money is being poured into it every day. I understand it has now been found that the bog will never be any good for anything, much less for the growing of beet. That is my information, whether it is correct or not. I would urge on the Minister that, if there is money to spend, it should be allocated to subsidising manures for the smaller farmers. We would then get some result for our money.

I should like to compliment the Minister on his efforts to increase production on the land. I think his pet scheme, the parish plan, will go a long way towards achieving good results. I think it is only by demonstration we shall get the farmers of this country to adopt new ideas and new inventions. Speaking for my own county, we are very fortunate in having a fine staff under the county committee of agriculture. From the C.A.O. down, they are very energetic. They go throughout the country and give very fine lectures which are well attended. If, as envisaged in the parish plan, organised groups of farmers, let them be Muintir na Tíre or Macra na Feirme, apply for the services of a parish agent, I feel quite sure some of those young farmers will allow their farms to be used as pilot farms.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. J.J. Burke

I feel sure they will do exactly as is suggested to them by the parish agents and I feel equally sure that if they do that their production will go up considerably and their income will be accordingly increased. If John So-and-so down the road sees his neighbour doing well, because he has adopted the advice of the agent, he will prick his ears and fall into line very quickly. It is only by demonstration we shall get the desired results.

There is just one other point I should like to impress on the Minister. It will be necessary to have the utmost co-operation between parish agents and the officers of the county committees of agriculture. Without saying anything derogatory to anybody, it seems to me that when graduates leave the universities they have a lot to learn and that they will learn a considerable lot by experience afterwards. The senior officers of county committees of agriculture have had that experience. They know exactly what suits the type of land with which they are dealing and they are only too willing to place that experience before the younger men, if those men are agreeable to co-operate. I would ask the Minister to ensure that, when those young agents go out, they should at least hold conferences with chief agricultural officers in the different counties. They would consequently improve the whole scheme. The Minister has been attacked by various Deputies——

Mr. Cunningham

Laois-Offaly.

Mr. J.J. Burke

——because he told a certain newspaper in this country what he thought of its attitude in forecasting the complete collapse of the plan. I think the Minister was perfectly justified in what he said. If he had not gone out of his way to impress on the farmers that there was no truth in what the newspapers said and that there was no danger of collapse, many of the farmers would have lost considerably. In fact a good few of them did lose because undoubtedly the price of cattle went down £3 or £4.

Mr. Blaney

It is a powerful paper.

Mr. J.J. Burke

If any newspaper wants to have a crack at its political opponents, it should confine itself to minor matters. Agriculture is much too important in this country to be made the plaything of any newspaper.

Mr. Walsh

The Deputy should not then be making a plaything of it.

Mr. J.J. Burke

I wish the Minister health and strength to carry on the good work for the farmers, particularly for the smaller farmers in the West. He is doing a very good job and they know it. In fact they would be very surprised if he were not. Generations before him were the champions of the small farmers in the West when it was not popular to be their champions and you seldom get crows out of magpies' eggs.

Mr. Davern

I shall be very brief. Representing, as I do, a constituency that is concerned about the request for an increased price for milk, I should like to impress upon the Minister that there is grave unrest in the dairying area of Tipperary because of the failure to expedite the publication of the findings of the Milk Costings Commission. I think the Minister should, be aware that the patience of the farmers is exhausted. When the commission was set up four years ago I believed, and many other people believed, that a year would have been a reasonable time for the commission to ascertain what the result of their deliberations should be. We still seem to be as far away as ever from their findings. The Minister should give an assurance to the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association as to when they can expect a report. We are now at the beginning of May and we have very little indication as to the results of this Milk Costings Commission. The Minister should do something now before the question crops up again in an acute form. The milk producers will receive another cheque a fortnight hence and, when they see no increase, that will be bound to have an adverse effect. Their patience is exhausted.

I appeal to the Minister to increase the price of milk, to increase it on the basis of his own knowledge of the position, without waiting for a report from the Milk Costings Commission. Of his own knowledge, he knows that the cost of producing milk has increased very substantially since Deputy Walsh, as Minister for Agriculture in 1952, gave a much needed increase to our dairy farmers.

The cost of fertilisers has increased. Rates have gone up considerably in the last few years. The cost of transport has increased and that is an important factor from the point of view of the conveyance of milk to creameries and so forth. The wages of farm workers have increased. It is up to the Minister now to make a gesture, if he is serious in his contention that we need to produce more milk and keep more cows for that purpose. It is up to him now to say that he has considered the matter and is prepared, from his own knowledge and because of the information that has been given to him, irrespective of the findings of the Milk Costings Commission, to give a much-needed increase to dairy farmers.

There is a great deal of uneasiness. The farmers' patience is exhausted. Nobody can blame them for that. We do not want to see discontent in the dairying industry. The farming community as a whole is unquestionably the backbone of the nation. If there are no cows, there will be no calves. If there are no calves, there will be no cattle for export subsequently and, remember, the cattle export trade has rectified the financial position from the point of view of our external trade balance very substantially in the past, and especially in the past year.

I think it is time the dilatory methods of the Milk Costings Commission were exposed. I fail to understand why men of intelligence and men with all the facilities at their disposal, as the Milk Costings Commission have, should take four years to find out what is an economic price for a gallon of milk. It is quite beyond my understanding. I am beginning to think, as many of our dairy farmers are thinking, that there is some deliberate delay in publishing this report. Why that should be, I do not know.

It is unfortunately true that many people are getting out of cows at the present time. Many dairy herds are being disposed of. One inducement to such people to remain in dairying would be the provision of an adequate price for their produce. That would ensure an increase in the number of dairy cows. It would, I suppose, be unpopular to increase the price of butter. It is an old saying: "You cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs". Suppose we had to import all our butter, what would the position be then? Some years ago, we had to import butter from New Zealand and our money went into the pockets of the New Zealand farmers, instead of into the pockets of our own farmers. We will be faced with the same situation in the future, unless measures are taken to satisfy the dairy farmers.

I think it is regrettable that the Minister should have reduced the price of wheat last year and again this year. That reduction came at a time when our farmers had suffered serious losses because of the inclemency of the weather in 1954 and the extraordinary dryness of the weather in the following year. The year 1955 was equally adverse from the farmers' point of view because of the inordinate dryness. The Minister ought to have shown some sympathy in that set of circumstances.

We can grow the finest wheat in the world. I do not think anyone will dare to contradict me when I say that Irish wheat is unquestionably the best wheat. It is true that there may be excessive moisture, but, from the point of view of food value, Irish wheat is unquestionably the best in the world. If the Minister persists in trying to kill the growing of wheat, he will eventually succeed in killing our agricultural economy as a whole. Is it not absurd even to think of importing £10,000,000 worth of wheat when we could produce that wheat ourselves, to say nothing of the effect such a proceeding will have on our adverse trade balance?

Apart from that, there is the position of the unfortunate people who purchased tractors and all the other equipment essential for the cultivation of wheat. Some of them went into debt by availing of the facilities to borrow made available to them by Deputy Walsh when he was Minister for Agriculture. Some farmers who were unable to make a livelihood on their own little farms purchased tractors so that they could make an existence by working those tractors for themselves and their neighbours. I know that, in many instances, their fathers, uncles, aunts or friends went security for them.

Last year, there was a reduction of 29,000 acres and one can appreciate that those who had bought tractors had to face a seriously diminished demand for their services. If the Minister's bias against wheat growing continues, we will find these tractors thrown by the roadside or handed over to the banks or to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Remembering that we need wheat and that we have the way and the will to cultivate it, is it not time the Minister had the moral courage—I admit it takes moral courage when one has spoken against some particular policy for years and suddenly finds out one is wrong—to say that he was wrong when he said this country could not grow wheat and that he is now satisfied it can and he asks the people to grow wheat? If the Minister will do that, it will be a tremendous incentive. As well as that, he should revert to the old price of £4 per barrel. The raising of the moisture content is bound to militate against wheat growers because of the fact that we have a climate which lends itself to a high moisture content.

I advise the Minister that, if he wants the farmers to grow wheat, he will have to go back to the old price. If he does that, the farmers will grow the wheat. Let there be no doubt about that. It is no excuse to say that 2 per cent. of "fly-by-nights" or racketeers cashed in on the growing of wheat. There were 98 per cent. of honest people who grew wheat in order to earn money on a cash crop and, in the growing of that wheat, they gave very substantial employment. Many unemployed in every one of our towns used to look forward to the threshing period of October, November and December.

Notwithstanding the fact that modern methods of threshing exist, very substantial employment can be given in the threshing season. It is hard to break with tradition and there are people who will always believe that the old way is still the best way of doing things. The unemployed persons look forward to that period. Last year we had very little threshing. Possibly some of that was due to the adoption of modern methods, but nevertheless it does not account for the whole story.

On the subject of beet, I would point out that we still import £2,000,000 worth of sugar. It is obvious that that affects our balance of trade very adversely. Two million pounds is a lot of money. I am certain that if better facilities and a better price were given our people would grow more beet. The time for reaping beet is mid-winter and that work can entail grave hardship. During that period, it is very difficult to get people to pull beet and nobody will deny that any money the beet grower gets is hard earned by himself and his workmen. I feel that the only way in which we can encourage them to grow more beet is by giving them a better price. We all know that the factory facilities are there. Last year, they were all finished by Christmas. There was a time when the sugar beet campaign lasted into the middle of February—again giving very substantial seasonal employment at a time when work is scarce. There is the setting and the harvesting of beet and undoubtedly the work gives good employment although we all know that it entails hardship. During the Christmas period it gives many hundreds of factory workers the prospect of more employment.

Somebody criticised Deputy Moher for talking about the "cow to four acres." I am afraid some people did not fully appreciate what Deputy Moher was trying to convey. If we had a cow on every four acres in this country we would be doing very well. Unfortunately, we have many hundreds of acres without any cows on them. I should be glad if the Minister would devise some method to induce our people to put cows on their land. Nothing gives more employment than the dairying industry. Hundreds of people in this country would have cows on their land if they could get the credit they require. Some people are perhaps not creditworthy through their own fault; but there are many others who are creditworthy but who have met with hard times. The price of cattle has been so high in recent years that, if a farmer has had hard luck with his dairy, it is very difficult for him to replace his stock at the moment, because the credit facilities are not there to the extent that would enable him to do so.

I know many people with five, six, seven or eight cows whose farms would carry 12 or 16 cows but they cannot increase their stock due to the lack of suitable credit facilities. I know of one case in particular where the Agricultural Credit Corporation refused a person and that person had no difficulty in getting the loan he required in a commercial bank because the bank manager knew that the family had one credential above all others, namely, honesty, and that they would repay. In my view, the Agricultural Credit Corporation is stingy. They should be more liberal. I know they get stuck here and there but that should not prevent them from giving credit facilities to honest farmers who, through circumstances over which they have no control, require credit to stock their farms. If we can give further credit to that type of person, I have no doubt but that the dairying industry will survive. I might say that the high interest rate has never worried the hard-working man because, if he gets the money and if he has luck with his purchases of cattle and the there is not any doubt about being able to repay the loan.

Reference has been made to the parish plan. I wish it the best of luck. I sincerely hope it will succeed. If it does, it will do a great deal of good. I am sorry if any misinterpretation is placed on what Deputy Moher stated with regard to that excellent organisation, Muintir na Tíre. I should be very sorry indeed if anybody were to say anything hurtful, even in a jocose way, about the work of the Very Rev. Canon Hayes. It is possible that, at times, people say things in a jocose fashion that were never intended to be taken seriously. I should be very sorry indeed if anybody were to say anything that might be represented in any way as hurtful to the Very Rev. Canon Hayes. He has done, and is doing, a good deal for this country. I sincerely hope he will be successful in reaching the goal at which he aims. Undoubtedly, he has a very difficult task. I trust he will attain that goal during his lifetime.

Quite a lot of stress has been laid here and elsewhere on the ground limestone scheme. We have even heard people say that at one time we had not enough ground limestone in the country to fill an egg-cup. Most of the limestone industries were put into operation by Fianna Fáil. One of the biggest of them was started while Fianna Fáil were in office. We realised that it was essential to have ground limestone supplies. I might say at this point that an Englishman visited this country a couple of hundred years ago and wrote a book on his experiences here, during the course of which he mentioned that our principal industry was the ground limestone industry. Do not forget the testimony of that visitor a couple of hundred years ago that ground limestone was our principal industry.

I give full credit to the present Minister for Agriculture for anything he has done to further that industry but I should just like to make it perfectly clear that, long before he ever became a Minister, ground limestone was not neglected by Fianna Fáil. the use of talking about ground limestone during the war period when you could not get enough petrol or oil to distribute it? Where would you get the lorries or the vehicles to distribute it? Where would you get the oil to drive the machinery to quarry it? How could the lime be quarried unless you went back to the old, antiquated hand method? The fact of the matter is that you would get very few men now with sufficient knowledge to burn it in the old kilns.

The Irish Press was attacked. It is a very natural thing for one political Party to do but it is a very serious thing to attack any political organ or indeed any organ at all except it deserves to be attacked on grounds apart from political grounds. For example, if some newspaper prints or advertises something against the national interest, then it behoves everybody to condemn it. But if the Irish Press or any other newspaper in this country is to be muzzled either by a statement of a Minister or a Deputy or anybody else, I think that would straightaway be introducing methods employed in totalitarian States of which Russia and her satellites are very good models.

On the whole, the Press in this country is national. They may not think politically the way I do. Nevertheless, during the past 30 years, the newspapers here have very rarely tried deliberately to belittle the national interests. Some of them might do something foolish in that regard, but, on the whole, the Press in this country is reasonably white and never deliberately tried to denigrate the national interests. The Irish Press should be given a fair crack of the whip.

I am not satisfied with regard to the operation of the reclamation scheme. I find that the very large farmers with very large deposits and good credit always get in first and the small man with the acre or two has always been put on the long finger. When one comes to think of it, an acre of land to a small man is much more valuable than 25, 30 or 40 acres to the man with 200, 300 or 400 acres.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Deputy permit me to ask a question? Has the Deputy ever had a case of undue delay——

Mr. Davern

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

——in which the Deputy wrote to me?

Mr. Davern

I cannot say I wrote to the Minister.

Mr. Dillon

And why did the Deputy not write?

Mr. Davern

I have seen cases where the bigger farmers with a greater number of acres get preference over the smaller man.

Mr. Dillon

Why did the Deputy not write to me and permit me to have the matter investigated and checked up? It certainly should not happen. Everyone should be taken in exactly the order in which he applies.

Mr. Davern

Even where that applies, I think the small man with a couple of acres should get preference. Again, I have seen some land in respect of which thousands of pounds have been paid and I doubt if it will ever grow anything except what it grew previously. I think that reclaiming very bad land is useless. I have personal experience of all this. You must fertilise the land and reclaim it year in year out. If you neglect it, in two or three years' time it will be a question of being back again to where you started. You will have the rushes growing on the land in a couple of years. We ought to make sure that the mediocre land of the smaller farmer is given attention first. He is entitled to his crack of the whip. He will get only a few benefits, but, nevertheless, he is entitled to his chance.

There have been many complaints about delay in making grants. I hope the Minister will see to it that, as far as possible, these grants are paid immediately the work is carried out. In many places the farmers who make the complaint are always satisfied they have complied with everything but whether that is true or not I do not know. The farmers to whom I refer should be given their grants immediately the work is carried out.

I am glad we will have no more talk about Tulyar or any more interference with the National Stud. I am satisfied they did a good day's work. I might not be satisfied that the sale of Tulyar was the right thing. I should have liked to keep him another year or two, or maybe three years, until an opportunity was given us to know whether cup horses were within our reach or not as a result of his progeny. It is very important that we should be able in this country to get a horse that would sire a cup winner. That is one of the things in Irish horse breeding which has been very noticeable—our failure to win some of these cups for many years. Not since the time of Brown Jack have we won a cup of any consequence.

I am very glad that we shall hear no more of the catch cries in regard to Tulyar and that we will have no more interference with men who are trying to do a good job of work. I think it is a dangerous and un-Irish thing for any of us to criticise the possibilities of what one of these sires may give us eventually. I hope that the purchase of Vimy will prove to be wise. We have got to wait about six years to know whether we were right or wrong. Next year I hope Deputy O'Leary will be satisfied beyond all doubt that the purchase of Tulyar was one of the things that this country can be very proud of.

The horse-breeding industry is a very important one—next, in fact, to agriculture. It would be a pity if it ever became the plaything of politicians either in this House or outside it. Deputy O'Leary is still of the opinion that the purchase of Tulyar was bad. Up to now it has been proved very conclusively that it is the reverse. He was bought for £250,000. His fees, I imagine, would be something in the region of £80,000 and he was sold for £240,000. Now, if my mathematics is correct, those figures show a very substantial profit and should be very consoling to Deputy O'Leary.

Money is not what counts so much in these matters; rather is it the prestige of our horses. The prestige of the Irish horse must be kept up. Surely we cannot all the time rely on the generosity of individuals in order to keep up the prestige of Irish horse breeding. The cost of doing so for the individual would be very high—too high for private people engaged in the horse-breeding industry. We might have one or two people in this country who would be able to pay a sum of £250,000, but that is such an enormous amount to put up that we should not expect a private person to put it up or, indeed, ask him for it.

The purchase of Tulyar has now proved conclusively that the National Stud and the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Walsh, were very wise. I feel satisfied that the progeny of Tulyar will keep Ireland on the map for many a long year. Tulyar has such an outstanding record that he is spoken of all over the world. That is good for Ireland and the Irish horse-breeding industry. It keeps both on the map. Our American friends come over here when the sales are on to purchase a type of horse which is not obtainable in any other country in the world for the same money. I wish the parish plan every success, but I would say that we should have some more local control. I would like to see some of the representatives of the farmers' organisations with more control in the local area. I think it would be an excellent idea if our local people were represented by, say, one member from Macra na Feirme, one from the National Farmers' Organisation and other non-political organisations of this kind. If such people were invited in with a certain amount of control, I believe it would make for the success of the parish plan.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to do something immediately about the price of milk. As I have said, the farmers' patience is exhausted. They are sick and tired of meetings, protests, and so on, and unless something is done in the very near future, I feel that grave harm will be done to the dairying industry.

Mr. Gilbride

This is a debate on what I would call the principal industry of this country, agriculture, and I was disappointed by the approach of both the Minister and different Deputies to it. I expected that we would have a statement from the Minister pointing out what was being done by the Department and showing the benefit that would accrue to the farmers from it. Instead of that, he started off with an attack on the Irish Press, and we had one side of the House defending the Irish Press and the other side condemning it and pointing out the damage it had done. Personally, I do not think that what any paper writes makes the slightest difference. The pay packet of the English worker and the English housewife has more control over the price of our cattle than either the Irish Press or the Minister and there is very little we can do about it. But what I do think might have an effect are the pronouncements we had from the Minister for Finance a few weeks ago in which he said that the price of cattle had gone down. That, in my opinion, was far more important and would have a far more serious effect on the situation. However, as I said, I do not think it makes a great deal of difference.

In regard to cattle prices, none of us has anything to shout about. The price of cattle or the price of any other produce of the farmer has not gone up to such a great extent. I can remember back to 1912—I suppose the last normal year that any of us could remember—and taking any list of commodities that we had to buy then and have to buy now, and comparing those prices with the prices obtaining now, on an average, I would say that all those commodities, clothes, shoes, food, drink, tobacco and so on, have gone up eight times in price. Has the price of cattle gone up eight times? Has the price of milk gone up eight times? Has the price of any of the farmer's produce gone up eight times? I say it has not. For that reason, we have nothing to shout about. Agriculture is our principal industry and any Minister or any Government who allows the price of farm produce to be depressed is doing a bad day's work for the country.

I should like to think that the Minister or any member of this House in charge of agriculture would be anxious for the welfare of the farmer. I should like to think that and I believe it to be a fact, but, to do that, the Minister must have the support of the people. I do not think the Minister has that support. Quite recently, the Minister came down to Sligo to meet the county committee of agriculture. A special meeting of that committee was called —I was not present because I had to be here in Dublin—to mark out the programme to discuss with the Minister. Eighty per cent. of that programme was confined to drainage, something that the Minister has nothing whatever to do with, and very little of the time of that meeting was devoted to agriculture. One member did bring up the price of oatenmeal, and it was a most amazing thing that a member of a county committee of agriculture should advocate a lower price for oatenmeal, one of the farmers' principal products. The Minister may smile, but that is a fact.

During the last election, I had occasion to go round to a different county, Mayo, and on the walls there I saw the slogan to vote for a certain Party and bury the plough. I do not want to mention any names. I am just telling the Minister what was being said. The Minister always tells us that he is carrying out the policy of the late Paddy Hogan: one more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough. If the plough is buried how does the Minister hope to carry out that policy?

Mr. Dillon

You must bury part of the plough to make it work.

Mr. Gilbride

If the people were charitable, they might accept that explanation. I wonder, when these people were out advocating the division of these lands and the division of these ranches, were these slogans put up? No, it was the slogan of: "The land for the people and the road for the bullock." When the land was divided, the slogans were changed to. "Vote for us and bury the plough." I say the Minister is not getting fair play; he is not getting the support and advice he should get. If he had that support and advice, he would have a different approach to the agricultural policy of this country.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on setting up the insemination station in Sligo. I am glad he had the courage to do that, in spite of the advice of certain people. However, I would ask him, when replying, to state whether he proposes to go ahead with that scheme and develop it. There are rumours current in Sligo that the project is being slowed down.

Mr. Dillon

How?

Mr. Gilbride

It is supposed that there was to be a contract to build a place there and to develop it, and that it was scrapped.

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Gilbride

I am glad to hear that I hope that scheme will go ahead and that the proper types of bulls will be kept there. I did suggest to the Minister at one time in connection with that farm and the replacement of T.B. reactors that he might consider getting the Department to buy up good T.B. tested heifers and keeping them there to be sent to farmers who would want them to replace reactors under the T.B. scheme.

Mr. Dillon

That is already being done.

Mr. Gilbride

In Sligo?

Mr. Dillon

Well, they are available to farmers in Sligo.

Mr. Gilbride

On this farm?

Mr. Dillon

Not on that farm. They are being kept at Grange, Clonakilty and Athenry and if any farmer who wants one of them will write to the Department, we will give him full particulars.

Mr. Gilbride

If they could be kept there, it would be very useful.

Mr. Dillon

If any farmer who wants one will write to the Department, if we can help him, we will.

Mr. Gilbride

I am glad to hear that. I should like the Minister to make sure that this insemination station will go ahead and will be developed in the way he intended. I mentioned the T.B. testing scheme. I want to say that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with that scheme and hope it will be successful. I am as anxious for the speeding up of the scheme as anyone in this House, because I realise that it will be a big advantage to County Sligo when the county is declared free from T.B., but I have personal experience of the working of the scheme and I feel that the Minister will have to go very slowly.

There is no good in thinking that we can do in two or three years what other countries have taken 30 years to do. I am told that, in the case of Denmark, it was 35 years. I have personal experience of some of the difficulties. I have seen herds being tested. In one case, a man who had six cows, all young cattle, found, on test, that two were reactors. They were tested in May or June. At the end of August, the Department's inspector bought the two reactors and gave a fair market price. Nevertheless, the man had to do without the milk of those two cows from August until the end of the year. There was no way that I knew at that time of getting two T.B. tested cows to replace them. The price he got for his two cows was £70. One of the cows was not very good; the other was a good cow. On the whole, the price was not bad, probably more than they would fetch on the market. On the other hand, the man was without the milk of the two cows for that period. He had to wait for replacements until the following spring and the replacements cost him £105. That represented a loss of £35, plus the loss of the milk for a couple of months, a total loss of probably over £40.

Personally, I would go as far as anyone to get the scheme working, but I can see around me small farmers who are not able to avail of this scheme, who have not the money to replace reactors, who have not the money to avail of grants for the building of byres, even though the grant is generous. When the scheme becomes compulsory, as the Minister has promised, in 1957, what will be done with these people? The Minister's answer in Sligo was that the farmer who is keeping four cows should put in another four heifers and the farmer who is keeping six should put in seven more, but the Minister did not tell us where the money was to come from in the first place to buy the heifers, or where the grass was to come from to feed them. All farmers have cattle on their farms to the utmost capacity and a farmer would have to go outside to get grass to keep these extra heifers. That is not the point. The point is, when the scheme becomes compulsory, what will be done with the small farmer who is not able to improve his byres, as will be compulsory, or to buy replacements?

I should not like to see the Minister being put in the position that he so often talked about. The Minister has said that he would not put an inspector into any man's field. Remember, the day that the Bill becomes law, if the law is to be enforced, whether it is the Minister or anyone else who is in charge, that will have to happen. I cannot see any way out of it, except to compensate such a man and to buy the whole outfit completely for him. That is another day's work.

I introduced this matter because I see now the working of the scheme and I see the difficulties, and I want to warn the Minister in time to be careful in putting the scheme into force. I am not making any criticism, because, as I have said, I am wholeheartedly behind the scheme. If I thought I had a cow that was infected with T.B., I would not keep her 24 hours because I realise that such a cow is dangerous where there is a family and that it is not right that her milk should be consumed. It is for that reason that I am so much in favour of the scheme, apart from the sale value of the cattle. We must face the difficulties and it is better to face them in time, before we rush into something that we might not be able to deal with.

The same considerations apply to milk pasteurisation. The creameries now have to pasteurise all the milk and it is causing so much annoyance that many people are getting out of milk production. Deputy Davern raised the question of the price of milk. My remarks about the price of cattle apply equally to milk. The price of milk has not gone up to the same extent as the price of any other commodity and, in my opinion, the farmer is entitled to a better price for his milk. The Minister and other people say that the solution is to produce more. We have to manure our land and feed our cattle and all these things take money. Rightly or wrongly, the opinion is held by farmers that if they produce more it means they must take a lesser price for their produce. I do not think you would get a business man to invest in a second shop if it means that he has to take less profit from each. The farmer has that opinion.

Those are the things into which the Minister would want to look and on which he would need to make a statement. We hear that margarine is being used more and more as a substitute for butter. I have been told by a shopkeeper that he has been offered 5d. a lb. to place a certain brand of margarine on his counter, to try to sell it in preference to butter. There must be something in it when a firm can afford to pay that commission and at the same time sell margarine at a very small price. I am afraid that is going to damage the butter industry.

Coming back to the insemination stations and to the question of cattle breeding in the West of Ireland, we pride ourselves on having some of the best Shorthorn cattle in the country. I am in complete agreement with the Minister that we must not lose our ground stock, the Shorthorn cow. In my young days I saw plenty of Shorthorn cows, but, no matter what money was made on them, the big movement was in favour of the cross of the Shorthorn and the Aberdeen-Angus bull to supply baby beef to England. That alone ruined the Shorthorn cow. We admit that it brought good money but as a long-term policy it was bad. The Minister who devises some scheme to bring back the Shorthorn cow and to keep her as the ground stock of our cattle industry will have the blessing of every farmer.

We have our fine cows and heifers crossed with Aberdeen-Angus bulls and the result is that we are able to fetch the highest prices on the market. The English cattle dealer comes along and buys our calves and our good heifers. The result is that the Shorthorn cows are sold and the bulls are kept. The result of all this crossing is that we do not know what kind of a cow we are breeding at the moment. The Minister should do something to get the farmers to keep a pure Shorthorn cow. Farmers are tempted to cross with the Aberdeen-Angus because the calf of that cross will fetch at least £10 more than the Shorthorn calf so that it is very difficult to ask the farmer to depend entirely on the Shorthorn cow particularly in the West of Ireland where, because of the size of the farms, they have not got the liberty to keep on cattle for any length of time. Apart from that, the mixing of the bloods has ruined the cattle. I would suggest that in the insemination stations the Shorthorn bull be let at a nominal rate in preference to the Aberdeen-Angus or the Friesians. The farmer needs some enticement to keep the Shorthorn pure. If something like that is not done, I do not know what will happen.

Another point I should like to bring to the Minister's attention is the necessity to build grain stores. At the moment, because of the lack of stores, farmers have to put their grain on the market immediately. If more generous grants were given for the building of grain stores——

Mr. Dillon

There are grants for grain stores.

Mr. Gilbride

A grant is all right for a man who is able to avail of it. It is all right for the man with money in his pocket, but the small farmer is not able to put up his part of the money. We hear a lot of talk nowadays about the farmer being subsidised. He is not subsidised and he does not want any subsidy. It is the consumer who is subsidised. There is no subsidy given to the farmer to provide clothes or a pair of shoes or anything like that and it is very bad reasoning to make out that the farmer is subsidised. As I said in the beginning, agriculture is the main industry in this country and anyone who tries to depress farmers' prices is depressing the community as a whole. Accordingly, I would ask the Minister not to be led by certain types of advisers but to go out among the small farmers and find out what they have to say. He will find out that he will get a different point of view on these matters.

Mr. Roddy

The last speaker seems to be dissatisfied with the way the present Minister opened the debate on the Estimate and said that he did not give sufficient proof that the agricultural policy he was operating was of much benefit to the people. He said that he did not see any results. Quite recently, there was a paragraph in our local Press drawing the attention of the people to the fact that most of the farmers of County Sligo were availing of the agricultural grants and the schemes that the present Minister was and is responsible for. It is not necessary for the Minister or for anyone else to give a list of the benefits that flow from his policy. It is quite evident to anyone going around the countryside. Anyone can see the farmers' outoffices being renovated and new ones erected, and the approaches to the farmers' houses being reconstructed and new gates erected. All that is due to the agricultural policy which the Minister initiated and which he is pressing through so expeditiously. For that, the farmers are very grateful and they have the utmost confidence in the present Minister.

It was mentioned that he should keep more in touch with the people. Of course, he cannot always be going about the country, but the more often he comes to Sligo, the more the people think of him. It is amazing to listen to Deputies opposite criticising the Minister's policy in this debate. It is the policy they operated from 1951 to 1954, the policy which the Minister initiated in 1948. I do not think it is the policy they are criticising, but that they do not like the Minister who is operating that policy.

Coming from the West of Ireland, where there is not much land for acquisition and sub-division, I should like to dwell on the land reclamation scheme and to say a few words on it. I ask the Minister to expedite that scheme as much as possible in the West and to do in Sligo what he has done in Mayo, that is buy some extra units of machinery and operate them through his Department. I see mentioned in the statistics given to us by the Minister that there are two units operated by the Department in Mayo. The same effort could be made in Sligo and Leitrim and the people there would be very grateful if he would consider doing that, because at the moment the land project is not operated to the full in Sligo. We have contractors coming and going, and schemes half completed, and no one seems to know who is at fault. All that would be eliminated if the Minister would purchase some additional units and have them operated by his Department.

Before long, Sligo will be free of bovine T.B. and will be a distributing centre for in-calf heifers. That is all the more reason why the Minister should direct his attention more and more to the land reclamation scheme and give the small farmers more land, so that they can keep an extra cow or two.

An acre of land to the man in the West is of much more value than ten or 15 acres to the man in the Midlands or around Dublin. The economy in the West is different from that in any other part of the country. The farmers there do a lot of mixed farming, though some of them have acres of land covered with shrubs and studded with rocks. If that land was cleared up and put into production, there could be more cattle reared on the farms, and there would be more cattle for export, to help redress the balance of payments which is causing so much annoyance at the moment. I hope the Minister will see that that scheme is operated to the full and that he will reclaim all the waste land that is there.

I also direct the Minister's attention to the fact that acres and acres of cutaway bog are going to waste. If that bogland was reclaimed and brought into production, it would ease the land hunger that exists at present. I see that in other places the Minister is giving attention to the question of cutaway bog and is investigating the reclaiming of it. I hope he will direct his attention to the County Sligo in that regard, because there is great land hunger there.

I am glad to see that the Minister has opened up an export market for pigs. That, to my mind, will encourage the farmers to breed more pigs and feed more pigs, so that more pigs can be exported. Up to the present some of the farmers felt that they were not getting the full price for their pigs at the factories and that, when there was only the one market, they were not getting a fair deal from the buyer. Because of that, some of them went out of pig breeding and pig production. Now that the export market is open it will give them new life and they will get back into pig production again.

I should like to say a word with regard to the parish plan. I think the Minister should be rather cautious at the moment in the way in which he is operating this plan. Evidently there will be no co-operation between the county committees of agriculture and the parish agents. The agent is only responsible to the Department. I think that is entirely wrong. There should be the closest co-operation between the parish agent, the agricultural instructors and the committees. The Minister will be losing touch with the people in the rural areas, if he relies solely on the parish agent and his report.

There may be good men in the universities, but some of them are only theorists and have no practical experience. The only way they would acquire that is by being in contact with the officers and members of the county committees of agriculture. It seems, at the moment, that if the parish plan continues to be operated as it is now, the county committees of agriculture may disappear altogether. I think that would be a very sad state of affairs and would be more or less placing agricultural policy entirely in the hands of civil servants and operating it from Dublin. I am sure the Minister will consider that aspect of the matter, go a bit easy and insist that there will be co-operation between agricultural instructors and parish agents. The agricultural instructors—at least in the West—are a fine body of men. They do everything possible to assist the farmer; they are very energetic and are doing a good job of work in advising the farmers in every way possible.

I am glad that the Minister is pushing the ground limestone scheme to the utmost. It has been said here that he is not responsible for that scheme. He might not be solely responsible for the scheme but he is responsible for putting it into operation and, if it was the intention of the previous Government to do so, they were very slow to do it. But there is evidence of the benefit of that scheme throughout the country wherever the farmers applied it. They find they are able to keep more stock and their fields are showing a grand, healthy green hue, proving that the land has been put back into heart again.

I do not know if I have much more to say except to reiterate my point about the cultivation of bogland. To my mind, if a good deal of attention is not given to those bogs and if this country does not develop its bogs as they are doing in continental countries, the day may come when we may not be able to support our own Government. I conclude by congratulating the Minister on the good work he is doing for the farmers and I say that when he is doing it for the farmers, the prosperity of every other section of the community will be assured.

Mr. Blaney

Listening for a considerable time for the last few weeks one could be very much amused at hearing the Government supporters praising the Minister and the Department for the very good work they had done in the past year. I say we could be amused if the situation was not so serious. During the past year, the farming community has found that far from there being reason to congratulate the Minister or his Department the markets, which are the mainstay of the farmers, are in a chaotic condition. The egg market is something that is fast disappearing; the market for cattle is up and down, one day up and the next day down; and as everybody knows, a fluctuating market in live stock is anything but healthy for producers. At the same time we have ups and downs in the bacon trade and the pig trade. Taking those things together with the very definite downward trend brought about by the Minister and his Department in the price of wheat—because he is solely responsible for that decrease—I feel that there is very little on which to congratulate the Minister and his Department during this debate.

To listen to the other people who support the Minister—who, I suppose one might say, must support him in this debate—could be amusing, but unfortunately, it is not amusing for the general reasons I have mentioned. The year has not been a satisfactory one and there is no indication that the year to come will be any more satisfactory, so far as the farmers are concerned. We have heard much talk about the great job the Minister has done—and the Department, too—in regard to the land project, the lime scheme and the T.B. scheme, but we must also recall that there was a ground limestone scheme before the present Minister became Minister in 1948.

It is true that after 1948 the ground limestone scheme went ahead somewhat more quickly, but we must also remember that the limestone scheme had just been initiated by Fianna Fáil before they left office and they did not have any foreign money with which to boost the production of lime or pay for its distribution. Having got this money from abroad, the then Coalition Government and the Minister for Agriculture set about the limestone scheme as we now know it, but the figures that I would like to recall to the House, and to the people generally, show that despite this financial assistance obtained from abroad in order to finance the limestone scheme, when Fianna Fáil took over office in 1951 the total tonnage of lime supplied in the preceding 12 months was 75,000 tons.

Fianna Fáil were in office for almost three years up to 1954 and these people who are condemned for doing nothing and who according to some speakers on the other side of the House did nothing, with the same facilities in 1953 and 1954 as the Coalition Government had in 1949, 1950 and 1951, increased production and spreading of lime from 75,000 tons in 1951 to a figure of around 800,000 tons in 1954.

It is well to get clearly into the minds of the people just how this thing came around and to realise that while Fianna Fáil initiated the scheme in the first instance without any outside assistance, the present Minister and the Coalition Government in 1948, 1949 and 1950 had the assistance of outside money, and even with that outside money, and with the scheme already undertaken, all that could be produced by the Minister in 1951 was 75,000 tons. Fianna Fáil, in three years, pushed that up to 800,000 tons. So much for the praise of the Minister and the Coalition Government about what they did in regard to ground limestone.

We also had a good deal of talk on the other side of the House about the land project. We find again, in regard to this scheme that, before ever there was any land project mentioned, Fianna Fáil, within the limits of the resources at their disposal, had a farm improvements scheme, a forerunner of the present land project. No one can deny that scheme did quite a lot of good, and if it was the forerunner of the land project some credit should be given to those who initiated that scheme. In the year just passed, we find that the B scheme under the land project has not been going ahead as we might expect. We might ask the Minister, instead of congratulating him on doing a number of other things, why the B section of the land project is not progressing as it might. We might ask why the number of acres drained under this particular section of the land project has decreased by 3,000 acres approximately.

In asking that, we might be told that there was an increase, in the figure under the A section of the scheme, of 16,000 acres. Let me tell the House that is something which is not entirely due to the Minister or his Department. When Fianna Fáil were last in office, the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Walsh, realising that the maximum allowed per acre in grants under the A scheme was not sufficient —the figure of £20—had that figure increased to a figure of £30 or a maximum of two-thirds of the total cost, whichever was the lesser. It is directly as a result of that improvement in the financial arrangements of the A scheme under the land project that you have had during the past year an increase of 16,000 acres drained under that section of the scheme. It is, however, still to the discredit of the Minister and the Department that the B scheme is being put aside and that it has decreased by 3,000 acres in the same period.

In regard to the wheat position, we all know and we have heard much about it, that the price of wheat was reduced during the past year by the present Minister and that the farmers of this country actually lost anything up to £2,500,000 as a result. The reasons given by the Minister and the various spokesmen of the Government were that there were racketeers engaged in the growing of wheat to the detriment of our financial and national position and to the detriment of our economy generally.

I want to put it plainly to the Minister that, while that may be the view of himself and his colleagues at the moment, it is not the view of the wheat growers of rural Ireland, as shown just two days ago down in Laois-Offaly. I want to say to the Government that the reduction in the price of wheat was not only a bad day's work from a national and economic viewpoint but that the present Government must realise very forcibly to-day that it was also very bad from the political point of view.

As a result of the serious political position which has arisen due to the decrease in the price of wheat and in other items I will mention later, the Government might now well mend their ways and give an increase in the price of wheat. This increase will be well worth while, apart from the political aspect, because we have been importing wheat to the tune of £5,000,000. At the same time we have been running an adverse trade balance of many million pounds. We would not have had that adverse trade balance to the same degree as we have it to-day if that £5,000,000 worth of wheat had been grown in this country. It would have been grown if the price had remained at the same level. If the Government to-day is serious in the matter of redressing that trade balance, in looking after the interests of the farmers and keeping more people on the land, then surely, even now at this late stage, the Government will mend their ways and restore to the farmers of this country the price which they had been getting and to which, having regard to the many other increases in costs which have taken place since, they are most certainly entitled.

We might also mention that, in addition to the £5,000,000 in respect of wheat imports, in the past 12 months we have been importing cereals, including wheat, to the tune of £14,000,000 or £15,000,000—cereals including wheat, which we could well grow at home, which should be grown at home, and which we should like to grow at home, The Minister may well say in regard to certain of these cereals outside of wheat that he has done, for instance, a good day's work in regard to the growing of barley, that he is encouraging the growing of barley in the coming year by suggesting that there will be a guaranteed market. I remember distinctly that on this same Estimate last year we were given to understand that there would be a similar guaranteed market for oats last year. The oat guarantee scheme did not work. I tried to indicate to the Minister on this Estimate last year that it would not work and that there was no proper provision made for its working. It is only too true that that was so.

We had in my county, which is a very large oat-growing centre, a chaotic market in regard to oats, which is a cash crop grown by our farmers. At times one could not get the crop taken away at any price. Another week, one might have a fair price but, generally speaking, there was no guaranteed price and no guaranteed market on which the farmer could sell during the past months. The Minister should bear this in mind in the coming year when talking about a guaranteed market for barley. Where is he going to purchase the barley at a guaranteed price? Where is it going to be stored? What sort of agency will be responsible for the taking up of surplus barley in the counties which grow it? How will the barley be distributed to the counties which require it as a feeding stuff? The Minister must regulate these things if the guaranteed market for barley is not going to be the flop that the guaranteed market for oats was last year.

The farmers have been fooled in the past but they will not be so easily fooled in the future by any grandiose proposals made in this House on the spur of the moment or during a debate on any Minister's Estimate. They are not going to be led into sowing their land all around in barley because the Minister has said: "If you grow barley you will get a guaranteed price". They are becoming a little wiser in that respect; they do not take that type of proposal seriously any more.

The farmers no longer have sufficient confidence in this Government to take any of these proposals at their face value and, as well as that, they are not inclined to take, from the present Minister more so than from any other Minister, promises of this kind. They are not inclined to take them from a Minister who recently told them that, if they could not grow wheat at a profit under the present price, they should go back to school. That type of talk from a responsible Minister to the farming community is not good enough. It is on the farming community that this country depends for its very life and for its very economic existence. Surely, in a previous term in this Government, the Minister should have learned his lesson and should have realised that, when he is talking to the farmers of this country who have to work and earn their living the hard way, he is not talking to a lot of school children.

In his reply, the Minister, in relation to this question of barley, should give an indication as to whether there will be a central purchasing agency for barley for the coming year's crop, the type of storage facilities that he proposes to make available for the gathering of that crop, the method of distribution to the consumer and the minimum price that will be paid. That is the very least the farmers are entitled to know. I think the Minister would be behaving very badly towards our farmers if he would not at this stage go further than saying: "You are going to get a guaranteed market next year." If he is serious in the matter, he must give that information; and if he does not give those particulars, then one can assume that he is not serious in regard to this matter and that the proposal to give a minimum guaranteed price next year for barley is purely something that is being thrown out at the moment in order to keep a section of our tillage farmers quiet.

When we consider the question of the bovine T.B. eradication scheme, we see that this is a necessary scheme, one for which the Fiana Fáil Government must be given credit in regard to their part in it, whether or not those on the Government side of the House like it. There is no use in people on the Government Benches standing up and talking as if this T.B. scheme were solely the brain child of the present Minister for Agriculture. That is not so. It is a fact that, before the present Minister for Agriculture came into office, the T.B. scheme had actually been drawn up and the only thing lacking at that stage was the sanction of the United States Government, which is, in fact, providing the money for this very necessary scheme. We should not forget that this scheme was drawn up and brought to the point where it could go into operation but was awaiting sanction. That was done by Fianna Fáil.

In our praise of the Minister to-day, we should consider the situation in the light that the Minister had only to get the sanction and carry on the scheme. Remember that that scheme was formulated by Fianna Fáil and that the money to implement the scheme is coming out of the Grant Counterpart Fund provided by the United States Government. That is the position in regard to the T.B. scheme; and we should have no more of this propaganda disseminated here and elsewhere to the effect that credit for the scheme is due solely to the present Government.

In regard to the cattle trade, during the past year the Minister in talking to the farming community and to the public generally must think he is talking to a lot of children, when he tries by all the tricks of his oratorical prowess to impress on the public generally that the Irish Press, and the Irish Press alone, was responsible for the bad market during the past few months in relation to our cattle trade. Surely the Minister is not so daft as to try to put that one across. Surely his colleagues in the Government cannot be so lacking in intelligence as to believe that the country generally, and the farmers in particular, will swallow that, or that any amount of repetition will make them believe that the Irish Press was responsible for this situation. Surely they will not try to ram that down the throats of the people; surely they will not try to make the people believe, by saying it often enough, that the Minister had no part in this; that he was the wronged party; and that the Irish Press went out of its way to damage the cattle trade and our national economy generally to the detriment of our farmers' income. Surely the members of the Government, excluding the Minister himself, and their supporters are not so far gone that they will grasp at this straw now in an effort to keep themselves afloat.

We all know that, during the past year, were it not for the healthy cattle trade that we had, the country would have been sunk beyond any possibility of refloating. In that set of circumstances, it is fantastic to find some paper held out as responsible for trying to sink the country by wiping out the cattle trade through the medium of false reports. The reports were true, only too true unfortunately. Every farmer knows they were true. If one takes up the National Farmers Journal, a paper which cannot be said to hold Fianna Fáil political views, what does one find? One finds, as Deputy Walsh has already pointed out, that that journal carried reports identical to those in the Irish Press. It would be the height of lunacy for anybody to suggest that the National Farmers Journal was trying to sabotage the cattle trade. The National Farmers Journal is representative of the farming community. It is fantastic to accuse the Irish Press but it becomes sheer lunacy when one remembers that the National Farmers Journal carried identical reports; and the reason why those reports were carried in both those papers was that they were true. That was the real reason, and a sad reason it was.

The Minister came along then—I think there were some by-elections in progress—and his advice was: "Hold your cattle until the month of April." Now, that is all very fine. I agree with the Minister, with one reservation, that it was quite all right to take the chance and hold one's cattle until the month of April in order to get a better price. An improvement generally takes place at that time of the year. That was all very well for those who can afford to hold their cattle, who did not need the money badly at the time; but there are numbers of farmers who must sell for financial reasons. There are numbers who must sell because of lack of feeding, farmers who buy their cattle in the late autumn and who finish them on hay or silage. Surely it would be madness to hold well-conditioned animals from the month of January to the month of April in order to get a better price. What one gains on the swings one loses on the roundabouts. Surely the Minister was stretching his imagination to an unprecedented extent and belittling the intelligence of the farming community when he advised all and sundry, without any reservation, to hold their cattle—not to mind the Irish Press— until April, when they would get a good price.

Mr. Donegan

They got it.

Mr. Walsh

They are not getting it to-day.

Mr. Blaney

That cock will not fight at the moment, and well the Deputy knows it. The month of April and early May is a good time in the cattle trade. Prices are always on the upward trend then for the simple reason that grass feeding is available and more people are anxious to get cattle to put on that grass. It is for that reason that there is an improving trade in April and May. It is silly to suggest that the Minister's prophecy and prediction have been borne out and that the farmers have got the good prices he said they would get if they held their cattle, irrespective of their then condition, until the month of April. While it is true that there was a very quick rise in prices a few weeks ago, there has been just as spectacular a downward trend in the same cattle prices.

To-day we are faced with what is, as I said earlier, one of the most detrimental things that any trade can face, namely, a fluctuating market. Prices are up to-day and down to-morrow. There is no market that creates more havoc than does that type of market and, no matter what the Minister may say or what he may do, there is no getting away from the fact that the cattle trade is not all we would like it to be, is not as good as it was 12 months ago, and not as steady as it was for some time before that; and the Irish Press is not to blame, and well the Minister knows that.

If there is any blame attaching to anybody it is to the Minister himself and to his Department. He has encouraged farmers to produce more cattle and rear more cattle. Yet, the record for the last year shows that there were 93,000 head of cattle which we failed to sell. That is one reason why the market in cattle is to-day fluctuating, up and down. The real reason is that we are producing cattle and we have made no provision for a market to absorb those cattle at remunerative prices. Despite that fact, we have the Minister, and all others concerned, calling out to-day for more production on the land. As Deputy Gilbride said earlier, the farmers know that, when they produce more, nine times out of ten, they will be asked to take less; and there are none of them so far gone that they will indulge in that game for very long.

In relation to pig and bacon production, the Minister is well aware that the guaranteed minimum price which he has fixed for grade A pigs is an encouragement, but it will not save the pig trade, as he hopes it will. If the farmers breed and rear pigs, as the Minister now asks them to do, in sufficient numbers, then 235/- will not be only a minimum; it will also be a maximum if the farmers produce the pigs in the numbers the Minister wants. Pig production at that price, taking one's chance on grade, is not a very remunerative occupation. When the Minister is replying to-night, I hope he will refer to the fact that no later than yesterday some of the ingredients which go into the production of these same pigs, in relation to which he has guaranteed 235/- for top grade, will now carry an extra 30/- per ton, for example, pollard and other offals. There is no word of that here to-day, and I should like the Minister to let us know whether or not that 235/- will be moved up in any degree to compensate for that increase which took effect from yesterday.

I should like also to know where the subsidy that may have to be paid in order to compensate the curing industry for exporting bacon to Britain at lesser prices than the 235/- they must pay here to the farmers, or that must be paid to them if they receive a lesser price than that on the British market, is to come from. It is suggested that there is some fund being set up, and I have seen it stated somewhere that some figure of 3/11 per pig is going to be deducted at some source in order to build a fund. The figure, I understand, is 4/7. However, I am not really concerned with the actual figure.

I am trying to find out whether or not that 4/7 will have to be added to from some other source, and who will add to the amount of 4/7 per pig to produce the pool from which the producer will have to be paid for this market he is being given. On the other hand, I want to know if the price in the export market drops so much that the 4/7 pool will not meet the difference, will the taxpayer in this country have to foot the bill, or will the price of bacon to the Irish consumer be increased by the bacon factories to the degree that would compensate them for any loss they may sustain on the export market?

Will the Minister let us know in his reply—and I ask this in a genuine spirit, trying to clear the matter up, because in my own mind and in the minds of some people I have been talking to, there is this fear, that we, as the bacon consumer group, will have to pay higher prices for our own bacon, possibly, in the future, if enough pigs are produced to give a surplus to Britain—if we will have to pay more for our rashers in this country in order that we can get the British to eat them in Britain? If that is the situation, let us have the truth, and do not have us going around with our heads in the sand kicking up our heels and crowing about what we have done for the bacon industry by giving a guaranteed minimum of 235/- per cwt. for grade A bacon. It would be well to have that in the open. Let us know who is going to pay this deficit, if a deficit does arise. Will somebody, whether it is the taxpayer, the bacon consumer or the pig producer here who has other pigs, pay as well as the Supplementary Estimate of £50,000?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Supplementary Estimate is not before the House at the moment.

Mr. Blaney

I merely referred to it in fairness to the Minister in making this case in regard to the 4/7 levy, because the 4/7 levy must be considered with the question I have asked the Minister and, in replying, he naturally will give this £50,000 as part of the explanation and of the moneys that will supplement the 4/7 levy in order that we may be enabled to guarantee this price for the coming year or two.

I am finished, really, with that item for the moment, but I would ask the Minister, again, to let us know if the taxpayer is going to carry £50,000, or will the producer, or each member of the bacon consuming public, be asked in some eventuality to carry more of the cost? Let us have now, clearly and without question, stated just who is going to carry what. Then there will be no disappointment in the future and nobody will be able to say to the Minister: "You codded us again". We do not want that to be stated about the Minister in the near future.

In regard to a question which, again, rather concerns my own constituency and a few other counties, the production of potatoes, this year, when there is a scarcity of potatoes, we in Donegal who habitually export our surplus abroad to England and elsewhere find that, with, as a result of the scarcity on the British market, a very great demand for potatoes from Donegal just now at this late time of the year, the Minister steps in and prohibits the export of potatoes. Does he compensate the farmers at the same time for the loss they may sustain as a result of not having that market available? I agree that it would be rather foolhardy to allow potatoes to go out of the country while our own people had to do without them, but it is grossly unfair at the same time that the farmers of my county and other potato producing counties should be debarred from a most remunerative market and get no compensation for it.

If they are told to take their surplus to markets elsewhere throughout the country, the Department should insist that the difference between the prices obtainable on the Irish market to-day and those obtainable on the Six County or British market should be made up to the farmers of my county and other counties who sell them potatoes. They should be paid that difference, and should not be mulcted in this manner, by being deprived of this market. Supposing the shoe was on the other foot and we had the potatoes, as we had them in the past under the present Minister, rotting behind the ditches. Did we find the Minister then coming along and saying: "You have too many potatoes this year, and if you can get no price, I will take them from you and pay you something for them". We did not have that then, and I do not see why we should have this now. If we cannot have a market when we have a surplus, we should not be confined in our markets when we have a scarcity. That is one of the matters on which I want the Minister to be specific and clear. In cutting off this market at the moment and keeping the price down to the producer on another occasion, why not give the farmer a guarantee for any surplus he might have?

Mr. Walsh

Fianna Fáil used to be accused of doing things like that.

Mr. Blaney

Of course there is nothing in the whole gamut right down the line that Fianna Fáil has not been accused of, and accused falsely in my opinion. People were led for a time to believe those tall stories, but I am telling you that the people are certainly much wiser, if a lot poorer, to-day, and they have seen through the tactics of the present Government and their accusations against Fianna Fáil in the past and their misrepresentations that have been carried on throughout the land for a number of years. The chickens are certainly coming home to roost, and they are not only coming home to roost to the Minister before the House, but they are coming home to every Department in the State, and every Minister is getting back those same chickens, weary and footsore. Those birds, with their false promises and accusations, came flying back to-day—23,500 of them brought in here in spirit by Deputy Egan from Laois-Offaly, to tell the Government that they are not satisfied with the manner in which the Minister for Agriculture has carried on his business during the past year, that we are not satisfied with those chicks coming home to roost.

As well as those chicks, is the Minister aware that at the moment we are having thousands of chicks coming across the Border and being distributed throughout the country at fairs and markets? What I am told in regard to those chicks is this: that not only are the hatcheries at home being left without business, but we also find that those chicks, in many cases— although they are supposed to be mixed lots, as hatched—turned out to be 99 per cent. cocks. Surely the Minister should do something about this matter, and not leave our hatcheries and supply farms to the mercy of this type of marketing, and do something to stop these chicks joining the other flock of chicks coming back to his Department to roost on the Government? Surely he should do something about it before it has entirely wiped out the hatchery trade and hatchery proprietors and supply farms in this country?

God knows, the egg trade, the chick trade and the poultry trade got enough wiping-up in the past from the present Minister without anything further such as this being allowed to crop up now. If, as we have seen, poultry production and the poultry population fell drastically as a result of broken promises of good prices in the past, and if our egg production went down for the same reason, surely that is no reason why we should allow into the country chicks from outside that are not genuine from the point of view of being as hatched and that will have the effect of wiping out the very centres from which, in the future—if there is any future in the poultry trade—we might look for supplies. The Minister should look into that matter as the position may turn out to be very serious indeed in 12 or 24 months' time.

There is one other thing which I want to mention to the Minister on this Estimate and that is that, as he may know, on various occasions at our committee of agriculture the question of the Aberdeen-Angus bull premiums has been raised. The present situation, so far as I can understand it at the moment, is 2:3. We have to take and place three Shorthorn premium bulls in order to get two Aberdeen-Angus premiums. Due to the geographical nature of our county, I suppose, and its lack in many cases of really lush grazing and feeding, the demand to a large extent is for the Aberdeen-Angus. To my own knowledge, in many cases the Aberdeen-Angus breed thrives best in my county. While I can agree to an extent with the sentiments voiced here to-day by a number of speakers about the desirability of getting and retaining the Shorthorn at all costs, I must make the reservation that there are parts of the country and parts of my county where the Shorthorn is not suited to the poorer type of feeding it can get and forage for itself. The grazing is poor. The amount of feeding that may be gained on the little land they have is insufficient to provide properly for the Shorthorn. We find that the hardier animal—the Aberdeen-Angus—gives the small and the poor farmer a better return.

We have been up against a stone wall so far as the Department is concerned. While we could place twice as many Aberdeen-Angus premium bulls as we do at the moment, we cannot give the people all they require for the reason that, in order to do so, we would have to place more Shorthorns and we cannot place more Shorthorn than we are doing at the moment. We are limited in the distribution of the Aberdeen-Angus because of the lack of demand for Shorthorns. I think it is unfair that, because people in the better parts of the country and the better parts of my county do not take sufficient Shorthorn bulls, the people in the poorer parts of the country should be deprived of the Aberdeen-Angus. That is the actual position, and there is no reason or justification whatever for it.

Unless the Minister goes into this matter himself and gives it his sympathetic consideration and alleviates the situation the only hope I can see for the future is the advent of the new artificial insemination centre which we hope, despite some rumours to the contrary, will start in the near future and actually within the next two or three weeks. We have been advocating and supporting the introduction of this scheme in our county all along the line. We were held up by objections in other quarters in the other part of the region to which we are attached. We would have been glad to get it years ago, rather than now, and I hope we will get it very shortly. I think Deputy Gilbride mentioned that there was some rumour of another hold-up but I trust it is only a rumour and nothing more. I do not think there is any truth in the rumour, but, lest there should be, I would ask the Minister to look into this matter and ensure that we will get this service which we are expecting will start during the present month.

I will conclude by saying to the Minister, to his Department and to the Government to beware of the praise showered upon them by their supporters sitting behind them during this and other debates. On this Estimate, the praise is not justified for the Minister's work during the past year. It may not be his personal fault, and it may not be because of any lack of enthusiasm on his part, but the fact is that the praise has not been justified. Our markets to our farmers for their produce are unstable and unkind. In many cases, prices are much too low to be remunerative. We are now importing £14,000,000-£15,000,000 worth of cereals, including wheat, which we could well produce at home, at the same time giving extra employment on the land. That matter should be looked into by the Minister. He should not allow himself to be taken away from the path that would give us a sufficiency of home-grown wheat and cereals to meet all our own needs, thereby helping the farming community and labour on the land and, furthermore, his colleague the Minister for Finance to the tune of £14,000,000-£15,000,000 in connection with our adverse trade balance which is such a pressing problem at the moment.

Mr. Sheldon

I meant to begin by a few general remarks on the subject of the sort of catch-cry that seems to crop up here every year such as: "Take Party politics out of agriculture" or that the Party sitting on one side of the House produced more than the Party on the ministerial side. Usually the other cry is: "Give agriculture a long-term plan". I am slightly put off by having to follow my colleague, Deputy Blaney, who is a very forceful speaker but who, behind a sort of facade of Party politics, has a lot of shrewd common sense. I suggest the Minister should not be put off sometimes by the way Deputy Blaney says things from considering the very sound basis of truth underlying what Deputy Blaney says.

With regard to taking Party politics out of agriculture, I do not know that that matters half as much as some people seem to think it does. Deputy Blaney talked about the farmers not being codded any more. I do not think they are codded by one side of the House blaming the other for all the ills of agriculture and ascribing to themselves all the good things. I think the country knows very well that that is show and that a member of a political Party has to say that his Party is responsible for all the good things and that their opponents are responsible for all the bad things. I do not think the people are deceived about all that. I do not see that Party politics and agriculture can be divorced.

As to a long-term plan for agriculture, that is easier said than done. So many factors are outside our control. Deputy Blaney referred to the way prices can militate against us. When we have to sell abroad, there is not very much we can do about prices. There is no point in blaming the Minister when prices go wrong on the world markets though something can be done at the other end and I will refer to it later; it is tied up with the plea to produce more.

Deputy S. Collins very sensibly pointed out that what happens if you suddenly produce more is that the price goes "phut"; that is the term he used. He is definitely right, as that is exactly what happens. Part of that is due to Party politics in agriculture and part is due to the fact that when anybody gets into power, they want to show they did something positive. They want to show that there is a sharp increase in production in all lines. They also want to show how efficient the Department was under the new Minister. That can have disastrous results because the market is not ready to take that sudden increase in production. I think that Parties would be well advised, when they get into power, to make haste slowly, build on firm foundations and not rush into sudden increases in production which would lead to disaster.

Mr. O'Donovan

Will the Deputy give an example?

Mr. Sheldon

Certainly. Take the example of the sudden increase in oats in 1947-48. You have also the example of eggs.

Mr. O'Donovan

Give an example of something recent.

Mr. Sheldon

I am not blaming the present Minister for Agriculture. I am talking on the general level of Party politics in agriculture.

Mr. O'Donovan

So long as it did not happen recently.

Mr. Sheldon

I am not putting all the blame on the present Minister for Agriculture. Neither am I saying that had we so-and-so in power everything would be all right. I am not saying that the present Minister is incapable of making mistakes. I am adopting an intermediate position.

Having said that, I should like to say something about one or two particular crops. The first one to which I wish to refer is potato oats. Recently on a Supplementary Estimate I asked the Minister favourably to consider the question of a better variety of potato oats in this country. Potato oats suit my constituency. That is not because we refuse to accept some other type. We have perfectly sound reasons for sticking to our own variety because it suits the type of soil and climate in our area.

There are areas in my constituency which could grow some of these other strains of oats but they are very restricted. I would be very much afraid that, if they were encouraged there, you could very easily put the man on the least fertile ground out of production. He would be in competition with those on good land. In recent years nothing has been done in regard to Sandy oats. It is practically impossible to get them in a pure form at all. I believe the Department sent a sample this year for trial in the areas around Inishowen and Fanad. I think something more might be done. It is not just a matter of sticking to what our fathers and grandfathers did. It is not like that in Donegal as the Minister knows. We are quite prepared to tackle anything new and give it a trial. The Department should take a more active interest.

With regard to potato oats, there has been a marked improvement in good strains in the North and I hope the Department here will do something about it. The only pedigree oats grown in this country are Ardee oats. They were tried out in a few cases in Donegal. The experiment did not prove very successful because the oats lie down at the least provocation. That is the general complaint. There are strains which could be developed and I would urge on the Minister that something should be done in that line.

With regard to potatoes, I have nothing but praise for the system of inspection that obtains at the moment. The inspectors of the Department are worthy of the highest praise that can be given them, not only for their efficiency but for the amount of energy they put into the work. They take a tremendous interest and the benefit to potato-growing as a result of the enthusiasm and expert skill of those potato experts is beyond praise.

With regard to the marketing of potatoes, I am not quite so happy. The Potato Marketing Company seems to sit on an Olympian height from whence it issues its orders down the country and no one can question them. They cannot always be right. Occasionally, they can be as wrong as any individual. The Minister will appreciate the confusion that arises when potato growers are first told that Aran Banners will be required, and then informed quite suddenly that there is a change and that King Edwards are required.

The houses have to be cleared and the other variety must be picked. The Department's inspectors try, and usually succeed, in getting the alternative crop ready for the boat. I know there are shipping difficulties. Several boats may come in from different destinations. Anything can happen, but I think this Olympian body might make a better job of it. The ordinary poor merchant down the country is not allowed to make his plans. There may be a year when the market is good and when they can sell their seed freely abroad, but when a difficult year comes, from the point of view of selling abroad, there is a certain amount of rigidity in the present system which might be overcome.

If an individual merchant, through his trade association in another country, sends an order for 500 or 1,000 tons of seed potatoes, that special order will not be allowed to be operated by the merchant who succeeds in getting the order. He must put it through the Potato Marketing Company and it is then distributed over the entire trade, so that his competitors in his own area get some of it and people in other counties get some of it.

I know the Minister is very keen on private initiative. I suggest that this operation on the part of the Potato Marketing Company is not very good and some other system could be devised. If individual merchants can get individual orders, particularly when trade is difficult, they should be allowed to get them and not forced to spread them over the trade. If they are spread over the trade it means that the merchants will not bother their head to look for these orders. That happened in the past and the result was that merchants are not now interested in looking for any individual orders. The Potato Marketing Company should not be so rigid.

I do not wish to condemn the company. The situation is not always an easy one in the potato seed market and the company possibly manage better than is generally believed. I am trying to give the picture as it presents itself to the grower. If it is not as bad as the grower and merchants think it is, the company would be well advised to get a public relations officer.

There is one thing that has gone well ahead in this country—particularly in my county—and that is grassland. I know there is a long uphill struggle ahead yet but in my own short time as a farmer I have seen a market improvement. The farmers generally seem to be very well aware of the advantages to be derived from the better strains of grasses. In places which would appear to be backward areas you will find good new grasses growing. There is a general desire to improve grasslands and farmers generally have made use of all the facilities the Department give them in the way of finding how better to produce grass. Of course there is the limiting factor and it is the one that limits all production, that is, the price of fertilisers. This is a sore point with me because I am tired reading in papers about learned gentlemen berating the Irish farmer for his low rate of usage of fertilisers as compared with his competitors in Europe. There is a perfectly simple reason and it is not that the Irish farmer is backward or does not want to use fertilisers and does not know anything about them. It is the price.

The optimum use of fertilisers depends not only on the physical return, but on the price of the fertiliser and the price of the end crop. The price of the end crop is, I admit, in many cases beyond our control, but I think we should attempt to get some control over the price of fertilisers. When any step is taken to produce more of any crop, the usual result is a fall in price which more than offsets the increased yield. The achievement of an increased yield demands the investment of more fertilisers and the higher the price of fertilisers, the more reluctant farmers will be to gamble the extra money. I do not see how anyone can argue around the proposition that one of the first steps to take to increase production in a balanced way is to reduce the price of fertilisers.

The use of fertilisers here is dictated not by any ignorance on the part of the Irish farmer, but by pure economics. There is no point in adding another pound's worth of fertilisers if you are going to get only an extra 10 shillings' worth of crop. If the farmer could be reasonably sure of getting an extra 30/- for the extra pound's worth of fertiliser, he would have no hesitation in spending the extra money.

I urge on the Minister and the Government to grapple with this problem and find some solution, because it is the bottle-neck that is holding up our production. The price of fertilisers here is so high that they are in the top bracket in Europe; I think only Switzerland and Turkey are ahead of us in price. The knowledge that they are very expensive and that if you add more, you are merely increasing your gamble stake with a very shrewd idea that the price will go against you, is not an incentive to an investment of this kind. If the farmers could see that it need not be such a shocking gamble, if the stake were lowered, they might be prepared to risk a slight drop in price at the beginning. The usual thing, when there is a sharp drop in price, is for the farmer to get out of that crop. Farmers are not such fools and if they could be convinced that, with plans for an expanding market to absorb the increased production, any set-back would be only temporary, I feel sure they would take the necessary steps in that direction. As the crop got bigger, alternative markets could be found to absorb it.

As it is, how the Minister can plan at all, I do not know. We are faced with an appalling outlay to get a crop at all here and we know very well that the least shake in the market and we are destroyed, because everybody throws everything in, as happened in the case of cattle. Bang goes the price and the answer is: "We will get out of that". Down goes production and up goes the price. All the time, the farmer is being forced into this system of low production and high prices, which is bad for the country, bad for the individual farmer and certainly bad for the land itself. The only way to see a steady improvement in the land is to get good high production of one sort or another. That high production will inevitably lead to higher stocking and that is the only answer to long-term increasing fertility. I know the Minister and the Government have financial difficulties, but there is a great deal of money spent in numerous ways, and I do not believe there is a pound spent on anything by the State that would give a better return than money spent on bringing down the price of fertilisers.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Is dócha go bhfuil an tAire tuirseach agus bréan den chaint go léir le tamall anuas ar an meastachán seo.

Séamus Ó Diolún

Tá an ceart agat.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Labhair a lán Teachtaí ar gach gné den talmhaíocht, ar gach taobh den tír. Nílim chun mórán moille do dhéanamh ná chun seasamh idir an tAire agus an ball ar feadh i bhfad, ach tá ceist amháin a ndearna a lán Teachtaí tagairt dí agus is mian liom labhairt ina thaobh, 'sé sin, ceist an bhainne agus ceist Choimisiún Costas an Bhainne. Is léir anois go bhfuil obair an Choimisiúin sin marbh——

Séamus Ó Diolún

An bhfuil?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

——agus is léir gurb é an tAire féin a thug buille an bháis dó nuair a bhí sé ag labhairt sa Teach seo dhá bhliain ó shin ar an abhar seo. Bhí sé ag freagairt na díospóireachta ar an meastachán céanna seo agus cuireadh ceisteanna chuige mar gheall ar an gCoimisiún sin ar an Iú Iúil, 1954. Do dhein an t-iar-Aire Talmhaíochta, Tomás Breathnach, our isteach air agus é ag tagairt d'obair an Choimisiúin. Do labhair an tAire Talmhaíochta, an Teachta Séamus Ó Diolún mar seo an uair sin, agus táim ag tagairt do cholún 1030 Imleabhar 146 de Dhíospóireachtaí na Dála den Iú Iúil, 1954:

"When it (the Costing Report) comes you will get it, for all the good it is likely to do you. You will get it, for whatever it is worth, and cross my heart and hope to die I feel the Deputy will agree with me that it is largely cod."

An chaint sin a thug buille an bháis d'obair an Choimisiúin sin. Bhí sé le teacht chugainn i dtosach Mhárta, bhí sé le teacht chugainn le deireadh Mhárta; níl sé le fáil fós agus do réir dealraimh is ar éigin a chífimid é roimh lá Philib an chleithe anois. Na daoine a raibh suim acu sa déiríocht i gContaethe Luimnighe, Tiobrad Arann, Corcaigh, an Clár agus na contaethe eile thugadar an-aird ar obair an Choimisiúin san ach tá eagla orm go bhfuil siad searbh anois mar gheall ar an scéal ar fad. Sílim go bhfuil dóchas caillte acu go bhfeice siad aon toradh ar an obair sin go bráth, agus deirim anois gurb é dearcadh an Aire féin agus caint aiféiseach an Aire féin fé ndear an mhoill go léir atá ag baint le hobair an Choimisiúin sin. Tá fhios agam go bhfuil na daoine a raibh suim acu ins an scéal searbh ach bhíos ag éisteacht le cuid de na Teachtaí ó binsí Fhine Gael ag cur síos ar an scéal i rith na díospóireachta seo agus bhíos ag cuimhneamh ar cad é an sort cainte a bheadh ar siúl acu dá mbéidís ar na binsí seo agus dá mbeadh sinne thall agus an scéal ceanna amhlaidh is atá anois. Do phléaschfadh an Teach seo leis an nglór agus leis an achrann a bhéadh ar siúl acu dá mbeadh an scéal amhlaidh agus dá mbeadh Tomás Breathnach ina Aire agus dá mbeadh Fianna Fáil i réim, mar gheall ar cheist na déiríochta agus Coimisiún Costas an Bhainne. Dar ndóigh, na feirmeoirí ar fud na tíre, ní dóigh liom go mbeidis chomh ciúin nó chomh mín dá mb'é Rialtas Fhianna Fáil a bheadh i gceist agus dá mbé Aire Fhianna Fáil a bheadh i gceannas na Roinne agus an scéal bheith mar atá sé mar gheall ar an gCoimisiún sin.

Teastaíonn uaim go n-inseodh an tAire go lom láithreach conas mar atá an scéal. Bhfuilimid chun aon tuarascáil d'fháil go bráth? An dtabharfar aon tuarascáil don Dáil nó don phobal go bráth nó an mbeidh deireadh leis an obair sin go bráth? Muna dtugtar, ní beidh aon tsuim ag lucht na déiríochta ins an obair agus níl dochas go leor acu go bhfuil aon tairbhe ag teacht as obair an Choimisiúin. Ba cheart don Aire insint dúinn anseo, go cruinn agus go deimhnitheach, conas atá an scéal i láthair na huaire, cad 'na thaobh nar comhlíonadh an gheallúint a thug sé dúinn go bhfeicfimís an tuarascáil roimh deireadh Mí na Márta, go bhfeicimis é ar an 5ú lá de Mí na Márta. Ní bhfuaireamar é roimh deireadh Mí na Márta agus ní bhfuaireamar fós é.

Tá cupla pointe eile go mba mhaith liom tagairt dóibh chomh maith. Maidir leis na deontais a bhíonn le fáil ag feirmeoirí fé'n scéim leasú talún, bíonn moill ró-mhór ins an Roinn á n-íoc. Níl fhios agam cé tá ciontach leis. B'fhéidir gur ar na hiarrathóirí féin atá an locht. Bíonn moill thar mar is ceart go minic i ndíol na ndeontas sin. Tá an scéim ar siúl chomh fada san anois go mba chóir go mbéadh an scéim níos cruinne maidir le híocaíochta do chur amach go dtí na feirmeoirí nuair a bhíonn an obair críocnaithe. Is minic a chonaic mé moill leathbhliana agus bliana leis an airgead a bhí ag teacht chucu ón Roinn mar gheall ar obair a bhí déanta acu fé scéim leasú talún agus scéimeanna eile —scéim tógáil tithe feirme, scéim uisce do thabhairt go dtí tithe feirme. Ní cóir go mbeadh an mhoill chomh mór san.

B'fhéidir go n-inseodh an tAire dúinn go mba cheart scéal a chur chuige féin mar gheall air sin. Téann Teachtaí go dtí an Roinn nuair a gheibheann siad scéala ó iarrathóirí mar gheall ar mhoill in íoc na ndeontas. Ní cóir go mbeadh ar aon iarrathóir a bheith ag rith go dtí na Teachtaí Dála. Tá an scéim ann chomh fada anois gur chóir go mbeadh sí ag obair i dtreo nach mbeadh aon mhoill mór ann nuair a bhéadh an obair déanta ag an bhfeirmeoir.

Bhí a lán cainte ar siúl ar an Vóta so agus cuid mhaith daoine ar aon aigne. Ní raibh an díospóireacht chomh searbh ná chomh géar is a bhíodh sé ins na blianta nuair bhí Aire Fhianna Fáil ann. Táimid ag teacht níos mó ar aon aigne maidir leis an gcóras ceart talmhaíochta agus an polasaí ba cheart bheith i réim sa tír i n-aghaidh an lae. Tá cuid againn buíoch do Dhia mar gheall air sin. D'airíos duine ar na binsí thall ag caint ar chomh tábhachtach is atá ár margadh féin. Nuair tosnaíodh ar an margadh sin do mholadh i réim Fhianna Fáil bhí magadh ar siúl ó binsí Fhine Gael mar gheall air. Tuigtear anois chomh tábhachtach is atá an margadh sin d'fheirmeoirí na hÉireann agus dá mbéimís ar aon aigne ar fad ba mhaith an rud é agus bheadh an scéal i gceart dá mbeadh an tAire sásta na rudaí adúirt sé fadó, le linn a óige, mar gheall ar chúrsaí áirithe a bhaineann le talmhaíochta sa tír seo, na rudaí adúirt sé i gcoinne cruithneachta agus biatais agus cuireadóireachta, a tharraingt síar.

Táimid tagaithe ar aon aigne sa Teach seo i dtaobh a lán rudaí. Ní rabhamar ar aon aigne orthi súd fadó. Ba mhaith an rud é dá mbeadh an tAire sásta admháil nach raibh an ceart aige ins na rudaí a deireadh sé fadó mar gheall ar chruithneacht, biatas agus cúrsaí cuireadóireachta agus dá mbeadh glacaithe sa deireadh ag gach aon dream sa Teach le polasaí náisiúnta cuireadóireachta agus talmhhaíochta don tir.

Dhein mo chomh-Theachta, Seán Moher, tagairt d'obair Mhuintir na Tíre, nach bhfuil sé ar aon aigne leis. B'fhéidir go bhfuair An Teachta Moher ina cheanntar féin lochta ar obair Mhuintir na Tíre nach bhfuil le feiscint i gceantracha eile. Tá an-chuid maitheasa déanta ag an gComhlucht sin mar is eol domhsa é i mo chontae féin. Tá an-chuid maitheasa déanta do mhuintir na tuaithe agus tá súil agam go rachaidh an obair ar siúl acu agus go leanfar leis, agus go mbeidh rath ar an obair atá ar siúl ag muintir na tuaithe, idir Chléir agus tuath. Tá cead ag gach aoinne a thuairim féin bheith aige. Sin iad na tuairimí atá agam maidir le Muintir na Tíre agus tá na tuairimí céanna ag cuid mhaith de mo chomh-Theachtaí.

Do luas cheana Coimisiún Costas an Bhainne, más aon mhaitheas bheith ag tagairt dó, agus an mhoill a bhíonn le híoc deontas fé scéim fheabhsú talún ag an Roinn Talmhaíochta agus fé na scéimeanna eile den tsórt céanna atá dá n-oibriú ag an Roinn sin.

Tá ceist eile a mba mhaith liom tagairt a dheanamh dó agus 'sé sin ceist na feola—na monarcain feola a d'fás suas le roint blian anuas. Tá deacrachtaí agus achrann ag cur as dóibh anois. Do thosaigh siad ceart go leor agus ba cheart anois go ndéanfadh an tAire agus an Roinn rud éigin chun go mbeadh siad ar an gcos cheart arís gan mhoill. B'fhéidir leis an tAire agus an Roinn scrúdú a dhéanamh ar na deacrachtaí atá ag baint leo, mar is rud tairbheach do chúrsaí talmhaíochta na monarcain feola céanna. Bhíodar i ndon feoil reóite agus earraí eile a chur chuig margaí iasachta. Rud ana-thábhachtach do chúrsaí talmhaíochta é sin agus pé cabhair atá an Roinn agus an tAire i ndon a thabhairt, ba cheart go mbeadh sé ar fáil ag na monarcain feola.

Mr. Dillon

This has been a practical debate and I think on the whole a useful one of which no reasonable Minister could complain. Several topics will fall to be covered before I conclude, but for convenience sake I think I might refer now to a matter mentioned by Deputy Ó Briain and other speakers. That is the Milk Costings Commission. It is sought to make the case that the delay in furnishing the report of the Milk Costings Commission to this House is in some way due to me. I doubt if Deputy Walsh himself believes that.

Mr. Walsh

To a certain extent.

Mr. Dillon

He knows the history of this.

Mr. Walsh

Of course.

Mr. Dillon

I shall refresh the memory of the House on this business. The decision to set up a Milk Costings Commission was first taken by Deputy Walsh, on the authority of his Government, on the 1st February, 1952, and there was an official notice issued on the 12th February, 1952. Then there was a delay while the membership of the commission was chosen. That was chosen by Deputy Walsh.

Mr. Walsh

No.

Mr. Dillon

Well, it was chosen under the Deputy's jurisdiction. The first meeting took place on the 1st May, 1952. Then nothing happened until the 13th September, 1952, when the commission requested the authority of the Minister for some minor amendment in their terms of reference. On the 3rd November, 1952, the Government authorised the Minister for Agriculture to approve the alteration in the terms of reference sought. On the 6th November, 1952, the chairman of the commission, Professor Smiddy—at that stage there was a chairman and a technical director, the technical director being Professor Murphy of University College, Cork—said the commission were unable to continue because they could not agree as to whether or not provision for interest on capital and regard for managerial services should be included as an element of cost of production. On the 12th November, 1952, Deputy Walsh, then Minister for Agriculture, replied stating that the commission's report should set out two sets of figures, one including and the other excluding the matter in disagreement.

On the 19th November, the chairman replied saying that the producers' representatives would not accept the Minister's decision and that the commission could not continue. On the 22nd November, 1952, Deputy Walsh asked the chairman and the technical director and all the members to meet him on the 26th November. Two days later, on the 24th November, Professor Murphy resigned. I refer the House to Volume 134 of the Official Report of the 20th November, 1952. Deputy Corry got wind of the word of these disagreements and put down a question to the then Minister. Being dissatisfied with the Minister's answer, Deputy Corry asked for and was given leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment and a debate took place.

During that debate the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Walsh, informed the House of this disagreement and expressed the view that in the light of the disagreement the costings could not go forward. The Minister then expressed his dismay and he seemed to criticise the producer members for their failure to be reasonable. I intervened in that debate and, as reported at column 2079 of the volume mentioned, asked the question:—

"Why could they not accept your proposal? It is a most reasonable proposal."

The Minister replied and the following ensued:—

"Mr. Walsh: One was above the line and the other below the line.

Mr. Dillon: Why did they not accept it?

Mr. Walsh: I felt it was the fairest way for the people concerned. There would be one above and one below and it was then a matter for the Government and me to take into consideration every factor in determining the price of milk.

Mr. Dillon: Why would they not accept it?

Mr. Walsh: They have not accepted it.

Mr. Dillon: Tell them to take a running jump at themselves; tell them to accept it and not to be damn fools."

Some further discussion took place at the end of which the Minister said, as reported at column 2082:—

"I am glad I have the support of the House in this matter because I believe that it is one thing which every farmer in the country needs and desires."

I intervened again, as reported at column 2081:—

"Mr. Dillon: I believe that costings are all a cod, but let the Minister not start attacking these people.

Mr. Walsh: There are many things the Deputy believes to be a cod."

Later on in the debate I said:—

"I regard costings as a complete cod, but if the Minister has asked these people to conduct a costings inquiry and they agree to do it, they should comply with his request to give him two reports, one containing the disputed costings and one without them."

Deputy Walsh then said he was glad there was agreement throughout the House that he had made a reasonable request upon them. He said he would make a further effort to get the Costings Commission to go ahead.

On the 24th November Professor Murphy resigned on the grounds of ill health. Then there was a proposal that an official of the Department of Agriculture should be appointed technical director of the commission. That was on the 21st March, 1953. It was made by Deputy Walsh, then Minister for Agriculture. On April 17th, 1953, the commission replied that they would not have an official of the Department of Agriculture and on May 15th, 1953, it was suggested by the Government that a search should be made in the British universities and elsewhere for a suitable technical director. On May 29th, 1953, the Government instructed Deputy Walsh, as Minister for Agriculture, to consider whether Professor Smiddy would not function as technical director and on June 5th, 1953, Professor Smiddy was appointed as technical director. At this time, 18 months had elapsed between the establishment of the commission and the date they had got a technical director.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister must remember——

Mr. Dillon

I am not blaming Deputy Walsh.

Mr. Walsh

I am not saying the Minister is blaming me.

Mr. Dillon

I said in public that I thought his proposals had been reasonable and that I thought they should be readily accepted by the commission he himself had set up. Let me finish my story. Then Professor Smiddy was appointed in June, 1953. The next information I had that there was any communication or remonstration or representations to the commission, or anyone associated with it, seeking expedition of the report, was a communication made on the 18th March, when Professor Smiddy wrote to the secretary of the Department stating that there was an amount of further investigation to be carried out and that the report would not be ready by the end of March, 1954. He added that every effort was being made to submit the report by the end of May, 1954.

Mr. Walsh

There are many other details that the Minister has not touched upon, but, if he wishes, I will produce the file.

Mr. Dillon

I am not seeking to apportion blame to anybody. I am seeking to make it clear to the House that, as far as I know, everybody associated with the commission has done his best, but there have been difficulties. I do not believe that they are engaged in any obstructive campaign to withhold the report, but I think the stage has been reached in which the technical director has tendered to the members of the commission a report in the manner that Deputy Walsh said he would wish to have it submitted—that is, in the form of a preliminary report of prime cost and a separate report, a preliminary report, of management and interest charges, and I think the members of the commission do not want the report in that way.

Here is the question that we have to decide. My predecessor laid emphasis on the desirability of setting up a costings commission that would be independent, autonomous, and free from Government control. That is the position. Are we going at this stage, at the very end of the proceedings, to abandon that proposal and ask the Minister to move in and sweep aside the commission and say: "You have delayed too long and I am going to take over"? If we do that, all the time spent since 1952 is wasted and it will be paid in the heel of the hunt, that the Minister moved in and extracted from the documents whatever report he himself wanted.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister for Agriculture had one responsibility only and that was to supply the staff and to get the money to pay them.

Mr. Dillon

That is what I have done and what my predecessor did. So far as I know there has never been any refusal of the staff. There was a time when wastage had reduced the number.

Mr. Walsh

There were 12 people from the Department of Agriculture——

Mr. Dillon

I do not think the Deputy is polite. I listened patiently to the debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Forty-two Deputies spoke in this debate and surely the Minister is entitled to have his say now.

Mr. Walsh

I am not going to listen to the Minister presenting a false picture and asking the House to believe that it is a true picture.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is entitled to his presentation of the case as he knows it or sees it. Deputy Walsh may disagree. That is why we are here, because we disagree.

Mr. Dillon

The question now is whether it is desirable to throw away that whole principle of autonomy, owing to the very understandable impatience with the delays that have arisen. I want to be very frank with the House. If I believed that the technical staff or any other members of the commission were in a conspiracy to delay, or prevent this House from havin access to the knowledge to which it is entitled, then I would feel obliged to come to the House and inform it that I intended to intervene. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that, in all the circumstances in which they have found themselves, they are doing their best. They have undertaken an extremely difficult task as Deputy Walsh well knows.

He himself chose a technical director, Professor Murphy, who had to retire owing to ill health. He then thought of looking for a technical director, highly trained in the procedure associated with costings commissions of this kind, and it was only subsequently that he charged the present chairman and technical director with the responsibility of carrying on. I believe that, in all the circumstances in which they have found themselves, they are doing the best they can. I do not think it wise, at this eleventh hour, to wipe out the whole value of the work done. I never thought it would have much value. I do not think that it gives you much indication of the price of milk to take costings on 45 farms and get an average figure which will give you any clear indication of what it costs to produce milk generally. I do not believe there is such a figure. In the current number of Agriculture, which is the British agricultural journal, there is an article which states that the differential between two farms engaged in the production of milk can go to the point of £20 a cow, from one of the lowest efficiency to one of the highest efficiency.

What purpose can be served in taking an average figure between the lowest cost and the highest cost for a week? It does not seem to me to be of the slightest value to anybody. If you declare the price to be the middle price, it means that the efficient farmers are making excess profit and the less efficient farmers are going bankrupt. What value do you get out of arriving at an average price from 45 farms producing milk? Suppose you get that, where do you go from there? The Agricultural Review of May, 1956, contains an article on “Costings in Milk Production” by C.H. Blackburn, who points out that, in one costing they did, the cost per cow averaged £76, and the average return was £113, leaving an average profit of £37 per cow. He says:—

"In these averages there are wide variations. A few farms made up to £60 per cow while, at the other end of the scale, about the same proportion lost money."

There is a costings operation carried out——

Mr. Walsh

Is it not the same in every business?

Mr. Dillon

The point I am making is this: here is a costings operation carried out and it covers a fairly wide range of farms, and at the end of the whole performance the fact emerges that some of them are losing money on every cow and others are making £60 per cow, and you marry the quick and the dead and then you can declare an average of 37. What is the mystical figure, the average? The only person in the world that does not exist is the average person and you proceed to fix the normal on the only figure that you can say with absolute certainty does not exist. Is not that the truth? Every other figure is possible above it and below it, but you reject them all and you take the average.

Mr. Walsh

How did the beet costings work out?

Mr. Dillon

I am putting this before the House, but although I put this view, and I have no desire to conceal it from anybody, I believe the best interests are served by allowing this Milk Costings Commission to reach the end of its deliberations and to give us the fruits of its inquiry.

Mr. Allen

Will it end this year?

Mr. Dillon

If there is anybody in the House who has influence with the commission other than myself—I happen to occupy a ministerial position at the moment—including Deputy Walsh, to expedite the completion and delivery of this report, I shall be personally indebted to him because I can then bring the matter before the House. But I think there is one person who should not try to do it and that is myself because, in the last analysis, I could seek and procure authority to set aside the commission altogether and take over their work. But if there is anybody else here who can make any contact with the personnel of the commission and endeavour to make that report available quickly, the sooner I get it and bring it to the House or lay it before the Government with a view to getting a decision in the light of its findings, the better pleased I shall be.

But I still adhere to my view, particularly as we have waited four years since Deputy Walsh constituted it, that we should not throw away the whole substance of that four years' waiting by overthrowing that commission and depriving it of its autonomy and independence at this, the eleventh hour of its deliberations. That is the only comprehensive answer I can make to the query addressed to me by Deputy Ó Briain and I make it in that comprehensive form because I interpreted his inquiry to be fair and honest, and I reply to it in the same way.

Mr. Walsh

It is not quite comprehensive enough for me.

Mr. Dillon

I did not undertake to satisfy Deputy Walsh. I merely undertook to reply as comprehensively as I knew how to the specific inquiry addressed to me by Deputy Ó Briain in what I conceive to be moderate and courteous terms. That disposes of milk costings.

Mr. Allen

Not for long.

Mr. Dillon

I want to go on to a broader question. Far be it from me to suggest we are ever justified in approaching the question of agricultural production with complacency. It always seems to me that there is wide scope for improvement in our methods and expansion in our volume, but on the other hand, do not let us sit down by the waters of Babylon and weep as if this country was going to pot altogether. Let us look at the facts coolly and deliberately. The House is aware, probably, that the Central Statistics Office is conducting a farm survey and until that farm survey is completed I do not think the Central Statistics Office is prepared to accept responsibility for any concrete figures in regard to farm output. So we, in the Department of Agriculture, have to turn our minds to that ourselves, and, therefore, the figures I am about to give you now do not carry the authority of the Central Statistics Office, but are merely our own statistical estimations made in the Department of Agriculture and are not given to the House on the authority of the Central Statistics Office. This has nothing to do with the price of the goods, it is a matter purely of volume. I take the volume of the gross agricultural output, beginning with live stock and live-stock products, for the year 1926-27 to a base of 100 in 1938-39. The volume is 99 and that dropped in the year—Deputy Childers will shiver with indignation—in the year 1947 to 87 while in 1954 it was 108.

Mr. Walsh

Not 1951?

Mr. Dillon

In 1954. I thought I picked out four years and that I was doing fairly well.

Mr. Walsh

No, not quite honest. What about 1951?

Mr. Dillon

You will have to wait for the farm survey for these additional figures. I have four figures and Deputy Childers always shivers when I mention 1947 which was the last year of Fianna Fáil, but in deference to his shivering, I have put in 1938-39 and 1926-27.

Mr. Childers

It is a great improvement.

Mr. Dillon

Very well. Now we come to crops. The volume of production in 1926-27 was 84 to a base of 100 in 1938-39; in 1947 it was 110 and in 1954, 135.

Mr. Walsh

1951 is missed again.

Mr. Dillon

If we take the total of the gross agricultural output for the whole country, excluding turf—I have always been interested in the figure excluding turf which I could never really feel was part of our agricultural produce whatever else it was—we find for 1926-27, the figure was 97; for 1938-39, 100; for 1947, 91; and for 1954, 114.

I am not saying by any means that these are figures about which we should throw our hats in the air, but they are figures about which we need not hang our heads in shame. Let us examine them a little more closely, because the fact is that for many years in Ireland there was a very large volume of under employment on the land particularly in the West of Ireland where we had large families leaving their small holding. There might be three or four grown boys and all of them remained as agricultural workers on the land. Unfortunately a great many of them have left the land, not to seek industrial employment in their immediate neighbourhood but very often to emigrate. It has meant that there are less people working on the land and that has had this interesting result, and it is worth noting—I have tried to get made out an index of employment of the gross output per individual male engaged in agriculture in Ireland. In 1926-27 you get a volume of 86 as compared with a base year 1938-39 of 100; in 1947, 98, and in 1954, 139.

Mr. Walsh

The introduction of machinery is the answer to it.

Mr. Dillon

There seems to be a passion whenever you produce any ray of sunlight or consolation to persuade ourselves that we are not the most abandoned race in Europe; it seems to madden Deputy Walsh and he always has some explanation to show that it it not half as good as we think it is.

Mr. Walsh

Is it not terribly foolish to be using these figures——

Mr. Dillon

It is no harm to tell the Deputy about them.

Mr. Walsh

——without giving reasons for them?

Mr. Dillon

It is no harm to tell the Deputy about them and that is all I am trying to do. I do not want to preach the doctrine of complacency at all, but I want to try and get this whole picture into some kind of rational perspective. Are the farmers of this country better or worse off than they were? Is not that an important question?

Mr. Walsh

It is.

Mr. Dillon

I conceive the only purpose for which a Minister for Agriculture exists is to ensure that, over a long term, the farmers of this country will be better off than they were. For that purpose, I like to recall not only the annual increase in the volume of their total production, but I like to look at how now do they stand, because it could appear that farmers were doing very well and yet transpire that what they were in fact doing was living on their capital. I would like to look at the end of the period to which I refer to the condition of the farmer's stocks. Has he run them down or has he built them up? If he has run them down that mitigates substantially the satisfactory nature of the picture that the first statistics appeared to reveal; but if, in addition to that increase to which I have referred, it transpires that at the same time his stocks have greatly grown, then I think we have reason to say that things are not so bad as some people seem to think.

The total number of cattle in this country in 1939 was 4,057,000. By June, 1948, there was a slight decline to 3,935,000. How many cattle are there to-day? 4,483,000. That means the farmers of this country own 400,000 more cattle to-day than they did in 1939 and they own 500,000 more than they did in June, 1948. What are 500,000 cattle more worth at an average? It is a substantial sum of money, and it is owned by the farmers of this country —£20,000,000. You would not put it in a child's hand. Let us pause a moment.

Mr. Allen

They are not all at £40 each.

Mr. Dillon

This is what puzzles me: the moment I demonstrate that the farmers of this country have £20,000,000 more the whole Fianna Fáil Party are objecting and are quite indignant about it. I would expect all the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to say that is good news——

Mr. Walsh

How does this expert arrive at this figure?

Mr. Dillon

Half a million cattle more. What are they worth? Let us not get vexed about it. Let us go £5,000,000 either way. If you look at sheep, in 1939 the farmers of this country had a stock of 3,047,000 sheep. By 1948 the stock of sheep had fallen to 2,057,000. They now have 3,268,000. They have 1,250,000 more sheep than they had in 1948. In 1948 they had 457,000 pigs. To-day they have 798,000 pigs. Let us not over-estimate the effect of these figures; but surely they are relevant for the purpose of considering how Ireland stands?

Fianna Fáil appear to me to spend their time vacillating between two courses when they refer to the land project. One is to say that they started it and the other is to say that it is "not so hot" in any case.

Mr. Walsh

No, it is not.

Mr. Dillon

There is not need to get cross.

Mr. Walsh

Does the Minister deny there was land reclamation in the country——

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Deputy will let me speak after listening to 47 speeches. I think it was Deputy Davern who was saying with pious forbearance that he did not wish to say anything inimical or obstructive about the land rehabilitation project but he felt he had a duty to say that there was a lot of land being reclaimed under that scheme, that mountains of money were being spent on it and that it would never be worth sixpence.

Mr. Allen

And it is true.

Mr. Dillon

Wait a moment. Then Deputy Neil Blaney gets up and he says in reference to the land project that it is important to remember that this work was put in hand by Fianna Fáil——

Mr. Walsh

No.

Mr. Dillon

You can have it either way. I do not give a fiddle-de-dee. All I am concerned about is this: no matter who started it, there will be 1,000,000 acres reclaimed or in the process of reclamation at the end of this year.

Mr. Walsh

Yes, since 1936.

Mr. Dillon

I do not give a fiddle-de-dee. There will be 1,000,000 acres of new land in a country whose entire national resources consist of something between 10,000,000 and 12,000,000 acres of land. Does not that suggest that we are a little better off than we were ten years ago?

Mr. Allen

What will the 1,000,000 acres have cost?

Mr. Dillon

Are they not there?

Mr. Allen

What will they cost?

Mr. Walsh

Are they being utilised to the best advantage?

Mr. Dillon

I would like to think that, without lining their ditches with Civic Guards or employing ten fields of inspectors, the farmers will use that land to the best advantage——

Mr. Walsh

We are off.

Mr. Dillon

I am not asking the House to believe by any means that these figures are, as I say, appropriate material for complacency, but I think we ought to have regard to them when we are reviewing the whole question of the Irish countryside.

I sometimes get tired listening to ferocious comparisons being made between our farmers and the farmers of certain continental countries, and the comparisons are usually made to the disadvantage of our farmers. I am prepared to concede at once that a successful agricultural industry is founded on hard work and I think that probably applies, too, to any other form of worthwhile human effort; but I do not see why, in a modern society, where everyone aspires to the 40-hour week, the minimum trade union rate of wages and every other sort of protection for the rights of man that the only section of the community to be excluded from these benevolent dispensations should be the farmers on the land. I think they ought to work and work hard, but I think they have the same right as any other section of the community to say: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

I should like now to read a short objective survey made, not by a citizen of this country, but by a citizen of Great Britain who travelled abroad. This appeared in the Farmer and Stockbreeder of the 10th and 11th April. Ceux sont les gens qui travaillent.

It was not to Belgium that he went. He went to Denmark, and I would like some of the critics of our farmers, who compare us so unfavourably and who compare our performance so unfavourably with that of the Danes, to ponder on this: "Half of the 200,000 farms in Denmark are less than 25 acres. The typical Danish smallholder's farm would be about 15 acres". I wonder what Deputy McQuillan would do if he were a member of Parliament in Denmark?

Mr. McQuillan

I would wait until the Land Commission Estimate comes up.

Mr. Dillon

He would keep about seven milking cows; fatten some 20 pigs a year; and keep a flock of 200 hens. "The holding is too small for a tractor; the number of cows too few to justify the full economic use of a milking machine, although he often has one; the area under each crop too restricted to allow much mechanical work. But he has one advantage— that he does most of the work himself and he does not think of it in terms of hourly rates or overtime. The hours of work are long, perhaps 70 hours a week. There is no paid labour and only in exceptional cases can be holding support an adult son."

Mr. McQuillan

They did not go to England.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know where they go.

Mr. McQuillan

They stay there in their own country.

Mr. Walsh

Is the Minister suggesting that for our own farmers?

Mr. T. Lynch

Nobody suggested anything.

Mr. Dillon

I think of my neighbours who go to Strandhill for a fortnight in the summer and who think it no crime to go to a football match on Sunday. They think it no disgrace to claim a little leisure time. And, then, I think of the Emperor Hadrian, to whom the following reflection is attributed—I invite Deputies to dwell upon it: "I doubt," said Hadrian, "if all the philosophy in the world can succeed in suppressing slavery. It will at most change the name.""I can well imagine," said the Emperor Hadrian, "forms of servitude worse than our own because there exist lands where they transform men into stupid, complacent machines, who believe themselves free just when they are most subjugated or where, to the exclusion of leisure and pleasures essential to man, they develop a passion for work so violent as the passion for war amongst barbarous races.""To such bondage of the human mind and imagination I prefer," said Hadrian, "even our form of slavery."

Mr. Allen

He must have been a poet.

Mr. Dillon

Nobody will charge our people living on the land with that form of slavery. And, so long as I am Minister for Agriculture, I do not ask our people to emulate the example of those who conceive it noble to develop a passion for work as violent as the passion for war amongst barbarous races, because, to such bondage of the human mind and imagination, I would prefer the Roman form of slavery.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister is driving them in that direction very quickly. Cut the price, and the Minister has them then.

Mr. Dillon

At least the Deputy subscribes to the views and sentiments I have expressed.

Mr. Childers

We are all agreed they should go to football matches. There is no disagreement on that.

Mr. Dillon

I invite the Deputy to study it. I think we have a way of life here that may not produce the same return in cash, but probably produces a better return in the combination of reward and a decent life. That is what I want for our people.

When I listen to debates here, I often wonder do people ever fully appreciate the breadth and scope of the work of the Department of Agriculture. I have tried to emphasise it by the publication of this explanatory memorandum. It is well known to Deputies, such as Deputy Walsh, who had the experience of presiding over that Department. The work is very wide, and I do not know whether Deputy Walsh sympathises with me in the dilemma which seems to me to harass every Minister who presided or presides over that Department since the State was founded.

The Minister spends one half of his time exhorting people to do things for themselves. He spends the other half of his time repelling accusations that he wishes to set himself up as a universal dictator, supervising everybody and everything he does. I am sure Deputy Walsh will agree with me that, from the viewpoint of most Ministers for Agriculture, the most welcome guest is the man who comes in and asks: "Am I free to organise this and am I assured that, if I set this in motion, the Department of Agriculture will not intervene at all?" Such visitors are rare: 90 per cent. of those who call want to know what the Department is going to do about something. In certain areas of activity, however, where the intervention of the Department is absolutely indispensable, a Minister who seeks to do his duty as best he can is not infrequently largely occupied in repelling the charge that he wants to establish a dictatorship or that he wishes to upset the whole social system upon which a Christian community is founded.

I was asked to-day, and several other days, too, why did I not warn the people of the trend in cattle prices? The answer is perfectly simple —because I was not able to do so. But in so far as prudence would allow, I think I did give the people who were concerned a warning when, speaking in Dáil Éireann on 26th May last, in Volume 151, at column 223, I spoke of the prices then ruling in the Dublin cattle market at the time, and said that they were:

"...going £9 a cwt. in the Dublin market a couple of weeks ago. I am not at all so sure that this is a realistic price. In fact, I think that price has gone so high as almost to cause us concern."

The plain truth is that nothing that I or anybody else could say would dis-made farmers both here and in Great Britain from buying store cattle last year on the basis of the prices they got last May for fat cattle. I sympathise with them, because many of them did lose money this spring because they confidently expected, and nothing would persuade them that it would not come to pass, that when February and March came the same dramatic upswing would take place this year as took place last year. Most objective observers knew full well that it would not take place, but none the less there were many men so obsessed with the validity of their own judgment that they were resolved to try, and they lost money.

It was no part of my duty or my right to overrule their judgment Every man has a right to make his own judgment in matters of that kind. But I do not think that the strictures which I passed upon the Irish Press were unduly severe. Remember, I never suggested that many of the big farmers of 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 acres, or the sophisticated and experienced operators in the fat stock market, were going to be impressed by what they read in the Irish Press; but what I was concerned about was that where you had a small farmer in the West of Ireland with a few store cattle and he read in the Irish Press, beginning on the 2nd February: “Cattle Prices Down: English Demand Slackening Off: Cattle Down by 16/6 per cwt.” and all this in flare headings—“Cattle are down by 8/- to 10/- a cwt.: Many Remain Unsold.” February 8th—“Cattle Boom Over — Childers: February 9th: Price——”

Mr. Childers

I was using the term in its normal sense. It is over. The Minister said so himself.

Mr. Dillon

It is the presentation of this matter in that newspaper with which I find fault.

Mr. Walsh

Did the Independent publish that?

Mr. Dillon

I have no fault to find with any newspaper that conceives it to be its duty to record the news as they saw it, but my objection was to a series of flare headings, day after day, inserted by people who ought to know what the repercussion of that would be down in the West of Ireland and other areas in the country where small farmers had some cattle and were naturally nervy, and who, if they feel that the bottom is going to fall out, will rush into the market and the first offer they get they will take.

Mr. Walsh

Who bought them? Who was buying them? There was no demand for cattle at the time.

Mr. Dillon

Let us not go into that. We heard Deputy Crowe saying here a couple of nights ago—he is a plainspoken and shrewd man—that he knew a few people who sold their cattle and sold them cheap. I do not think my strictures were unduly severe. If my strictures had been so grossly unjust as subsequent speakers described them as being I cannot imagine that they would have been referred to with such passion by the speakers on the Fianna Fáil Benches, for they would have felt that my strictures would have condemned themselves. All I am asking for is for a sense of responsibility.

Nobody wants to ask a newspaper to publish something that is not true, but I do ask them, if they are dealing with matters relating to the markets, particularly in which our small farmers trade, to use a due sense of proportion and responsibility, and present things objectively and with all proper reservations. But if there is an oscillation in the fat stock market in Dublin do not plaster it all across on top of a daily paper, "The bottom has fallen out of cattle prices", the only result of which will be that you will make certain small people to whom the loss of £10, £15 or £20 is a cruel blow, lose their money, to the advantage of less scrupulous neighbours who are only too glad to take advantage of any temporary panic into which they may be thrown.

Mr. Allen

You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Dillon

I do put it to the House that in a matter of that kind my responsibility to protect the farmers ends with the small farmer. The large, well-to-do, sophisticated, experienced farmer does not require any advice from me or the Irish Press or anybody else as to market conditions, but it is the small farmer, who is going to a fair, perhaps, twice a year, and who is quite disproportionately conditioned by publicity of that kind, who may suffer, and suffer acutely, if some sense of responsibility is not shown. In so far as the Irish Press offended in this matter the sum of my endeavour is to ask them not so to offend again, but to retain some sense of responsibility when dealing with such matters in the columns of their newspaper.

Mr. Allen

And make you the editor.

Mr. Dillon

Well, I am sure that the Fianna Fáil Party has wished me many ills, but I never thought that Deputy Allen would sink to that.

Mr. Allen

Could the Minister tell the farmers how to sell the 100,000 cattle they have on hands now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Allen should cease interrupting. He has already spoken at length.

Mr. Allen

He is looking for it.

Mr. Dillon

I see here in the speeches of Deputy Childers and certain others a kind of implied suggestion, an implication, perhaps no more than that——

Mr. Allen

I asked the Minister a question but did not get an answer to it.

Mr. Dillon

——that I had some distaste for the National Farmers' Association, or that I do not give it its due status, or welcome its emergence. I am obliged in those circumstances to remind the House of the chronology of events. I think I am right in saying that the National Farmers' Association was established at a meeting which took place on the 6th January, 1955. I think I am entitled to remind the House that at Robinstown Macra na Feirme Club on October 12th, 1954, I spoke as Minister for Agriculture and, having dealt with certain matters, I went on to say:

"There is one other matter I want to say a word on to-night, about which I have thought for a long time but which until to-day I was not sufficiently sure about to speak on in public. I think the time has come when Macra na Feirme should use all the influence of which it is possessed to permit the establishment in this country of a national farmers' union to which all farmers, whatever their political affiliations, may belong. I strongly advise you to insist that the national executive shall consist of men and women who are not members of Oireachtas Éireann. You will remember that I am myself, as my father and grandfather before me, a politician and a member of Parliament and, therefore, when I advise you to exclude those actively engaged in politics from the executive of a National Farmers' Union, I do not thereby mean to belittle politicians."

I think I am entitled to say that the exhortation delivered by the Minister at Robinstown on October 12th, 1954, made some contribution to the development which ensued on the 6th January, 1955. I am happy to read in the speech of the recently elected chairman of the National Farmers' Association, Dr. J.N. Greene, 28th April, 1956, that he has it to tell that "friendly and helpful relations have been established with the Department of Agriculture. This had been a matter of policy and they regarded an association with the Department as complementary to each other and not as opposing forces."

I think it is right to inform the House, lest there be any misapprehension about the matter, that frequent consultation takes place between my Department and the various sub-committees of the National Farmers' Association and that the President, Dr. Greene, knows he has a standing invitation to come and see me personally on any matter which he considers to be of sufficient substance to justify discussion at that level. That there should be any closer contact between the association and the Department, I consider to be impossible. It is very necessary that the association should maintain its independence while at the same time feeling certain its view will always be welcomed and that whenever in the judgment of its chairman for the time being it is necessary to discuss a matter at ministerial level he will always feel that he has full access to the Minister's room to raise any matter or discussion which he cares to name.

Again, I do not want to suggest for a moment that there is any reason for complacency but our instructors are often compared unfavourably with those of elsewhere. I think at present they are not adequate but they do not compare as unfavourably as some of the wholly illusory comparisons that were made would suggest. A common comparison is to take the position in Holland and say there are so many instructors per 100 farmers there and then compare the position here but carefully restricting the comparison to the number of agricultural graduates who work as county instructors or parish agents or horticultural instructors with the number of instructors of all kinds available in Holland. It is only on closer inquiry that one discovers that a very large number of the advisers in Holland are not university graduates at all. Those making the comparison choose to ignore or overlook the 112 parish agents in the congested areas which we have here who closely resemble the agricultural advisory services which obtain in Holland. Having made clear that the comparison between our circumstances and those of European countries is not as bad as some would suggest, I want to make it quite clear that the ideal at which I aim is to ensure that in every three parishes of the 800, approximately, rural parishes in Ireland we should have one satisfactory parish agent whose job it would be to bring within the reach of the farmers in that area all the information they require and who would serve as a means of informing the Minister for Agriculture of anything they lack.

I do not care to attribute base motives to my neighbours. When Deputy Moher is talking, sometimes I find myself believing that this is a perfectly honest straightforward man —and the next minute I find myself beginning to say: "This is the shrewdest operator I have ever heard talking."

Mr. Moher

That is hardly fair.

Mr. Dillon

He gave a most emphatic description of how his soul rose up when he received a certain circular I sent out to the county committee of agriculture. He pictured how he rushed to his venerable typewriter —a man stalwart and resolute albeit poor—and, with the inadequate equipment he had, his ancient typewriter, tapped away in the public service, dashing off the letter to all and sundry. You saw the picture of Paul Revere riding at night, sounding the tocsin, calling to those who felt with him to rally to the flag. He hastened to add that he just sent it to them: "This is what I got. What do you think about it?" That was very moving but if you are having a fiesta or something you can always cast Deputy Moher for the part of Paul Revere— the wide hat and the cloak. That is a very moving story. I think it is true that in some of these envelopes Deputy Moher inserted a little note to say: "Anything you can do——"

Mr. Moher

I can do better.

Mr. Dillon

No. "Anything you can do to stop this, stop it."

Mr. Moher

Oh, no.

Mr. Dillon

I should like Deputy Moher to examine his conscience about that.

Mr. Moher

I have a clear conscience on the whole thing.

Mr. Dillon

I am sure you have, but it all depends on the particular instrument with which one burnishes the conscience. I am sure Deputy Walsh will agree with me that, in so far as the functions of the Department are concerned, no Minister has ever sought to control his technical staff provided he is satisfied they are doing their job and getting the stuff over to the farmers. He does not give a fiddle-de-dee how they do it. In fact, technical men would not take it. I think Deputy Walsh would agree that if he or I asked the officers of the Department of Agriculture to propagate that which they knew to be wrong they would not do it—and we would not ask them to do so because we know the answer we would get.

All this talk about control is pure cod. However, I am so anxious to get the thing done that I do not care who does it. If any organisation such as Muintir na Tíre, Macra na Feirme or the National Farmers' Association want to avail of the parish plan and do not want direct contact with the Department of Agriculture and go to the county committee and tell them to do it, I shall be delighted. However, whenever a group of bona fide farmers in parishes seek that service and cannot get it from the committee of agriculture, I will supply it.

Mr. Walsh

Why not go to them first and ask them to do this thing?

Mr. Dillon

I have asked all the branches who have applied to me to go first to the county committee.

Mr. Moher

Are you not competing against the county committees of agriculture with the limited number of graduates you have?

Mr. Dillon

I want to get the stuff to the farmers as soon as possible. If the county committees provide it, that is well and good.

Mr. Walsh

You asked them to do this?

Mr. Dillon

Yes. I have told every applicant who came to me in Cork to go to the Cork County Committee and see if the committee will give them a parish agent who will be personally responsible to the county committee of agriculture for his three parishes, and who will be charged with the responsibility of bringing to people in those three parishes——

Mr. Walsh

The county committees of agriculture have refused to do that.

Mr. Dillon

Not that I know of.

Mr. Walsh

Let the Minister ask them.

Mr. Dillon

That is what they are being asked to do now. It is not for me to ask them. I have no right to go to any county committee and ask them to charge the rates. I never did it. If county committees of agriculture come to me with their schemes and ask me to approve of them, unless they are completely at variance with the general policy of the Department, my answer is in the affirmative. It is for the county committees of agriculture to take the initiative, and not for the Minister for Agriculture. Any person who wants something in Cork should go to the county committee of agriculture and if they do not supply it, I will endeavour to do so. As long as I am Minister for Agriculture, we are going to keep up the fight to get access for the small farmer, and ultimately for all farmers, to a parish agent, who will be charged with personal responsibility for the development of agriculture along the right lines in the area of which he is in charge. That is an indispensable part of a truly progressive policy.

I do not think we ought to close our eyes to the fact that we have short courses operating in Athenry Agricultural College which are second to none. I have this strange difficulty. It costs £6 for a two-weeks' course all-found and it is very difficult to get fellows to take it up. It costs more than that to feed them, never mind providing the college with staff to teach and demonstrate. I find it very hard to get the courses filled. I approached Macra na Feirme, as I think my predecessor did, and offered to let them fill the courses with their own nominees.

Mr. Moher

Has the particular time of the session anything to do with it?

Mr. Dillon

We vary the time. We had them at all sorts of times. Even when fellows attended a course, finished it and asked for another course, we tried to arrange it for a fortnight. The odd thing is that it is hard to get the courses filled. I believe that, if we had parish agents more widely scattered, we could encourage our fellows to go to courses of that kind. It is not always so easy to do it.

I wonder do Deputies entirely forget that in every technical school in Ireland there is a teacher of rural science? As far as I know, in every one of those schools there is a first-class qualified teacher of rural science. His difficulty is that he cannot get pupils.

Mr. Childers

Four thousand five hundred in all.

Mr. Dillon

I know. Here is Macra na Feirme. Here is the National Farmers' Association and surely to God one of their first jobs should be to overwhelm the teachers of rural science in every technical school in Ireland with applicants for a course. The facilities, I think, are there. You observe that I now have to speak with a certain note of doubt in my voice because for some strange reason, back in the 1930's or some time, instruction of that kind was taken away from the Department of Agriculture and is now vested in the Department of Education. I intend to try to get some closer liaison between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education in respect of agricultural education in the technical schools. But, if Macra na Feirme, the National Farmers' Association, Muintir na Tíre or anybody else wants a job to which they can put their hands in the morning without consulting anybody, let them organise young lads in their own districts and ask for a course in elementary agriculture in the local technical school. The elementary agriculture is not all that elementary. It is an excellent course for any young fellow working on his father's farm, or who intends getting married and setting up a house of his own.

I wonder whether any Deputy has been out at Ballsbridge? Certain people suggested to me that we should try to do something to suggest to people how an Irish farm kitchen in rural Ireland could be improved from the point of view of amenities. I said there is nobody in my Department qualified to tell a woman how to run her kitchen, but that if the Irish Countrywomen's Association would like to undertake the business, I would facilitate them and undertake the costs within reasonable limits. I would let them set up what they in their experience, would consider a typical Irish country kitchen, having regard to the modern facilities which have become available with the introduction of rural electricity and such other facilities as are now available.

There will be certain differences of opinion as to whether the rural kitchen they set up is too elaborate or not sufficiently so, but I am sure that the Irish Countrywomen's Association would say that this is their first year and will invite criticism and suggestions for amendment. Where the Department of Agriculture gets the co-operation of a voluntary body of that kind, that is the right approach. I think voluntary bodies can do these things better than the Department of Agriculture and better than the most conscientious bureaucrat or civil servant. The fact that they are prepared to do it voluntarily and man it voluntarily is in itself something of real value.

Deputy Hughes referred to the desirability of meeting the views expressed by certain growers of wheat concerning giving them a 1 lb. escalator rather than a 3 lb. escalator which they are at present enjoying. That is easier said than done, but I agree that something ought to be done. I know there is a great desire on the part of many people who grow grain to have an escalator arrangement for moisture content. As far as I can see, the administrative difficulty of doing that is virtually insurmountable. The present position is that if wheat is under 23 per cent., you get paid the basic price, and in a normal year 90 per cent. of the deliveries agreed upon between the farmers and the millers comes within that category. It is only when you get up to 24 per cent., 25 per cent., 26 per cent., 27 per cent. or 28 per cent. that you begin to make very heavy penalty reductions. It is only in these high levels that it is necessary to have oven tests made of samples.

What the growers wanted, having got the norm fixed at 23 per cent. moisture content, is a bonus in respect of every 1 per cent. moisture content below that. I sympathise with that approach, but the fact is that the norm was originally set very high and 23 per cent. moisture content, as a norm, is very high. But, in addition to that, there would be a great many administrative difficulties and costs which would make it utterly impossible. What the growers feel is that it would throw back on them the right to dry their own grain and be remunerated accordingly.

The administrative difficulties of doing the thing in the way suggested make it next to impossible to do. When the old wheat system was first set up, there was a certain number of people in the business called the grain dealers. They are still there and there are no new ones created since 1939. I said to the farmers' representatives that if they believed there was any jam in this business of drying grain and selling it to the miller dry, let them form co-operative societies of grain growers, to handle the growers' grain, and I would give them a grain dealers' licence, and, if there was any jam in it, they could have it. As at present advised, that approach is as far as I can go. It goes a certain way to ensure that if there is jam there, those accessible to it have the device of constituting themselves a co-operative for the purpose of taking the jam.

Deputy Colbert is a Deputy who, I am obliged to say, prima facie made a very valuable contribution to the debate because he seemed to talk moderately and reasonably, and what he was saying seemed to me to contain a very great deal of horse sense. He threw very special emphasis on the advantage of silage. I agree with him entirely and I would like to inform him that the Department has just completed a new leaflet on silage of which copies are available on application by post to anyone who will write and ask for them. I think the leaflet expresses all the views that Deputy Colbert expressed and they are designed to make it possible for any farmer, including the smallest, to make silage on the lines mentioned by Deputy Colbert Colbert. I agree with Deputy Colbert that grass growing and in the shape of hay and in silage is the keystone of economic creamery production in this country and I hope the parish agents operating at present in West Limerick will be able to do a great deal to enable the farmers of West Limerick to achieve the right level of grass husbandry to meet the objectives that we mentioned.

I listened with great interest to the speech made by Deputy Donegan and I want to thank him for his contribution to the debate which dealt very largely with the problem of barley and other grain crops. I must say that as I sat listening to-day to Deputy Neil Blaney from Donegal who happened to speak on very much the same topic, I got the impression that every phrase that Deputy Blaney uttered was designed to increase, if possible, the difficulties of a Minister for Agriculture in disposing of the grain crop. I would recommend to Deputy Blaney to read Deputy Donegan's speech because there he will find a speech, dealing with exactly the same problem, every phrase and sentence of which is designed to help the Minister to deal with the grain crop. That is the difference.

I welcome and value the contribution made by Deputy Donegan and I hope I do not embarrass Deputy Colbert by saying that I welcome and value such contribution as he made. I do not complain in the least if a Deputy deems it his duty to be critical if he goes on to say: "And here is the way to put it right." But when people like Deputy Blaney intervene it is a different matter. I knew well what he was up to because I know every hair on his head. He was trying to kick up a row. He would love to have it to say that he had a row with me, but I am too old a hand for that. It is a disgraceful and futile misuse of this House for a Deputy to conduct himself like that. However, I suppose in 20 years' time he will have more sense and less voice and that it will be better for himself and for the country. I once told Deputy Blaney that he stood in grave danger of damning his soul through hatred which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. He does not hurt anybody else by hating someone. The only person an individual ever hurts by hating someone else is himself. Hate corrodes the hater; it never hurts the object hated. I just want to show Deputy Colbert, before I depart, this new leaflet on silage. I think its exterior gives promise of its most excellent content.

Mr. Colbert

What is the title?

Mr. Dillon

Just "Silage". It is devoted entirely to silage. I shall deem it a privilege if I may have the pleasure of sending the Deputy a copy.

A Deputy

Autograph it.

Mr. Dillon

I dare not do that. That would surely destroy the Deputy. I want to deal with another facet of this debate. I think it was Deputy Moher who mentioned it. I have no complaint if the Deputy was critical. He was interested in the Landrace pig and the desirability of reviewing the position. I do not know if Deputy Moher read what has recently occurred in the Isle of Man. In the Isle of Man it has suddenly been discovered that the pig population is riddled with atrophic rhinitis and this has turned up in the relatively few bacon factories in the island. The consequence is that there was clamped down on the Isle of Man the following morning an absolute prohibition against the export of live pigs from the Isle of Man to Great Britain. We are perfectly free to export live pigs. It may not at this moment be a very valuable market but the fact is that it is there and can be a very important stabiliser to our pig market.

My problem is this and it is only this. I have not the slightest desire to control, compel or coerce anybody. So far as everyone knows, I am a devotee of the Shorthorn breed. I am certain that in our conditions, compared fairly with other breeds, it will match and beat most of them, if you take all the facets into consideration. But I have never sought to compel people to keep Shorthorn. I have never sought to coerce people who want to keep Friesians, Jerseys, Ayrshires or any other breed they like. Nevertheless I have always felt free to say in public what I thought was the best breed. I have never sought to interfere with those who preferred the Aberdeen-Angus or the Hereford. In fact I have been able to provide facilities which my predecessor had not time to provide for the transporting of Jersey cattle from Jersey. There is now a quarantine station in Jersey. We cannot do it in respect of Guernsey cows because Guernsey Island has not the facilities.

Mr. Moher

Before the Minister concludes will he say, in respect of Landrace pigs, has there been a veterinary investigation here?

Mr. Dillon

We kept a constant and vigilant watch in all the factories because we know that somebody has brought in at least one half-breed Landrace boar; we have actually prosecuted in this case and are now in the process of having the animal castrated. What vexes me about it is that you will get people to stand up in public and suggest that it is some desire to frustrate people that induces me to enforce regulations against the importation of Landrace pigs. The only reason I enforce regulations against the importation of Landrace pigs is that wherever they have come in they have been followed by atrophic rhinitis.

Mr. Moher

They were not imported to the Isle of Man.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, they were.

Mr. Moher

My information is that they were not.

Mr. Dillon

I assure the Deputy they were and the appearance of atrophic rhinitis is coincidental with that Mark my words. I should say, probably, the discovery of atrophic rhinitis is identical with the introduction of the Landrace pig but I must say that certain Swedish authorities have resented this reflection. They have conducted inquiries both in Great Britain and I think, recently, in the Isle of Man and the tenor of their inquiry is to establish that this disease was endemic both in Great Britain and the Isle of Man before the Landrace ever came in but that nobody had noticed it. The Department of Agriculture in Great Britain repudiate that idea completely and say that they knew the condition well and had been constantly vigilant to protect themselves against it but that it came in upon them through the extraordinary fact that this disease factor can be suppressed in the carrier and you can have a carrier pig that does not appear to have any symptom about its snout at all but whose progeny will manifest the defect. It is even suggested that a carrier pig can have progeny which itself shows no evidence of the disease but the progeny of the progeny will turn up with atrophic rhinitis. That has been suggested, but it is certain that a boar or sow showing no symptom itself can affect all its progeny.

Mr. Moher

Is the Minister perfectly certain that there were importations of the Landrace to the Isle of Man?

Mr. Dillon

I am virtually certain there were importations from Jersey or from Scotland—not directly. I do not know whether they came directly or not but I am virtually certain. There are, certainly, Landrace pigs there now and there are two schools of thought, one which says the disease was endemic there before and the other which says it was not.

Mr. Walsh

Is the statement true that we have thousands of Landrace pigs?

Mr. Dillon

No; that is a gross exaggeration but I do not doubt that some half-bred Landrace-Large Irish White sows may have come across the Border because, the Deputy understands, they keep a very close watch but you cannot watch every part of the Border. The Border is not that effectively watched on either side any night.

That is my sole concern, then, this question of disease. If that element were eliminated, I would not mind a fiddle-de-dee but that element is present. I am bound to add that I would be strongly opposed on grounds of policy to the introduction of any of what are called the forest breeds of pig from Great Britain, like the Tamworth and these coloured pigs which are naturally indigenous to forest country. We have in this country, fortuitously, it is true, but none the less truly, a pure breed of pigs, to wit, the Large Irish White. Nothing but considerations of the gravest significance should induce us to depart from that but I would certainly be prepared to consider the Landrace on its merits but for this disease factor.

I would like to say this: The case is made that all you have to do is to bring in the Landrace and all your troubles are over. I checked up on that and it is not true. The Landrace, like any other pig, can produce various results which are largely dependent on the environment in which they are reared and the feeding methods employed. I found at one factory in Denmark that the grade A percentage over the previous year of pigs going in there—and they were all Danish Landrace—was 55 at one factory. At another factory it was stated to be 75. The explanation given for the wide difference was that in one area there was better feeding and management practice than in the other.

If I could get every breeder of pigs in this country to pursue nothing but the best feeding and management practices and if we could have five or six years battering away at the pig progeny testing we would be well on the road—well on the road—to getting the type of pig that would be equal to the best the Continent is in a position to produce. I think that would be our best method of procedure and, as at present advised, it is along those lines I intend to travel.

I have tried to cover the points raised by most of the Deputies who have spoken in this debate but before I finish I want to talk on one other matter, that is a matter which was referred to in the course of this debate by Deputy Childers. He said that he did not wish to embarrass me by referring to the institute. That does not embarrass me in the least because there is nothing to conceal. There is a very odd story. When I came back to office this time I understood that substantial agreement had been reached between the Government and University College, Cork, and University College, Dublin, on the desirability of establishing an institute to meet National and Trinity College, Dublin, in principle at least, but I discovered, to my amazement, later, that Cork had changed its mind, that they wanted to set up a faculty of agriculture in Cork and they repudiated their previous decision. I discovered that the President of University College seemed to have changed his mind, which anyone, I suppose, has a right to do. An entirely new situation had then arisen.

I want to make it clear what I believe to be the ideal but we have to remember that in matters of this kind it is not always possible to attain to the ideal. I have no doubt what I think is the ideal. I would like to set up a full-scale agricultural university in this country into which we would concentrate all the best we have so as to make it the rival of the finest institution of its kind on the Continent of Europe and I believe it would do it.

What we have to remember is that in this country we do not accept in matters of education the fact that you can separate into water-tight compartments matters material from matters spiritual and I accept that proposition. Then there is another breed of proposition put forward by a certain type of university professor, that is, that you cannot study agricultural science without contact with the humanities. A great deal of that is cod. Ask an engineering student in University College, Dublin, or a medical student, what humanities he comes in contact with and see the answer you will get. But, when you come down to the question of sociology and philosophy, I think you do run a danger if you seek to set up an institution dealing with agricultural science divorced from all contact with the fundamental truths on which life is founded.

I would have been very happy to see an institute which was a true, complete, sovereign, independent and absolutely autonomous agricultural university providing for every aspect of agricultural science and into which would be invited one of the great Orders of the Catholic Church to provide such a course of philosophy and sociology as might be requisite and for which we might turn to the Protestant Church in Ireland to make corresponding provision in the spheres of philosophy and sociology for those students who were of the Protestant Faith. I want to warn Deputies that even to discuss these matters is liable to bring a hive of bees around your hair. Some of the people that buzz, you would think, would be more at home——

Mr. Allen

Should the Minister not wait until he brings in the legislation?

Mr. Dillon

Do not tempt me to make a tart reply. That is the kind of interjection I would expect from Deputy Blaney. Deputy Childers asked a question. I am answering it. Is that not what I am here for? What is the point of his asking me a question if I do not answer it, or if you put your finger to your nose and say: "Yah, why do you answer him?"

Mr. Allen

Why did not you wait until you introduced legislation?

Mr. Dillon

I did not introduce legislation.

Mr. Allen

I asked the Minister why he did not wait until he introduced legislation rather than arguing the pros and cons of the matter now?

Mr. Dillon

Because Deputy Childers asked me a question which he had a right to ask and because I am answering that question.

Mr. Allen

All right. Go on.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Deputy satisfied?

Mr. Allen

I am.

Mr. Dillon

Then, that is the position. I think the idea I have in mind is the right one, but I am not at all sure I will get there because the vested interests are now massing in every direction. Galway wants a faculty of agriculture; Cork wants a faculty of agriculture; Dublin wants to retain the faculty of agriculture; Trinity are now seeking it. If we have an institute of agriculture, we must have five faculties, according to those people, when we have not the personnel adequately to staff one good one. The National Farmers' Association and Macra na Feirme want us to set up a most elaborate organisation for the distribution of grants. There is to be a liaison with the county committees of agriculture and there is to be transferred from the Department of Agriculture to some august body most of the functions of the Department of Agriculture, including all the advisory services. So long as I am Minister for Agriculture, the responsibility for the advisory services will not be transferred from the Department over which I preside. I do not know whether Deputy Walsh is prepared to resume office for the purpose of delivering these services over to somebody else. I am not. So long as I am here, they will not be transferred and anybody interested in that had better note it.

Mr. Corry

It will not be long now, James.

Mr. Dillon

That is a pious wish bursting out, but piety associated with the Deputy is not convincing.

Mr. Corry

The farmers in Laois-Offaly are praying now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Childers

Will the Minister say a little bit more? Is he trying to compromise? How far has he gone?

Mr. Dillon

I would like to meet a number of interested parties when embarking on something of this nature and I think that is the right way to proceed. It is extremely touchy and all sorts of people are touchy about it. I cannot get people to see what seems to me to be as plain as a pikestaff, that I regard it as an essential element that such an institute should have, in every respect, without qualification of any sort, all the independence and autonomy of a university. I must have said that 40 times in public in the most substantial language and yet you will find an imbecile trotting up and saying: "Ah, but you want to control the institute." It is like talking to a mirror or a lunatic who does not understand a word. You can say: "There is no legislative device the mind of man can conceive that I will not employ to ensure the autonomy of the institute," and, in the end, an imbecile will say: "Ah, but you want to control the institute." All you can do is shake them warmly by the hand.

Mr. A. Barry

You are aware, of course, that the Cork University people did not change their minds in this matter.

Mr. Dillon

I am aware from the records that, if they changed their mind from the position they originally took up, they did so under duress.

Mr. A. Barry

Yes.

Mr. Walsh

Who is Deputy Barry's informant?

Mr. Dillon

I think I have covered the ground opened in this debate to the best of my ability. I do not think I need deal specifically with everything every Deputy said over and above the survey I have tried to make of the speeches made. They will be carefully studied in the Department of Agriculture and the suggestions offered examined carefully, with a view to determining how they can be availed of to improve the services.

I think I should end by reaffirming that it is not within the power of the Minister for Agriculture, however well intentioned, to increase the output, to increase the numbers of cattle, sheep or pigs, nor can he increase the gallonage of milk. The only people who can do that are the farmers on the land. It is my duty to bring within their reach all the facilities requisite to do these things, if the farmers are prepared to do them. I freely concede that my own reputation rests on the ability or will of the Irish farmers to do just that, given the opportunity and the facilities required. If I am wrong, other methods are appropriate, and these have been outlined on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party by Deputy Smith in one of his frank and revealing speeches. His method was to tell the farmers that if they did not do the job there were plenty of inspectors supplied with plenty of money and machinery to burst open their gates and break down their ditches.

Mr. Walsh

Laois-Offaly gave you the answer to all that.

Mr. Dillon

I may be right and I may be wrong. As long as I am Minister, we shall trust the farmer to do the job, and I think, on the statistical material I have submitted to the House, we can assume that we may, with a reasonable measure of confidence, look forward to the farmers of this country resolving the fundamental economic problems of our community by expanding production and providing the wherewithal to purchase the essential imports we must have, if an appropriate standard of living is to be provided for all our people.

Mr. MacEntee

It is better than going past a graveyard.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Tá: 60; Níl: 72.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donough.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Glynn, Brendan M.
• Hession, James M.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Larkin, James.
• Leary, Johnny.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Morrissey, Dan.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Carroll, Maureen.
• O'Connor, Kathleen.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Mrs. O'Carroll.

Question declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.