I was thinking last night of some of the complaints made because of the length of my speech on the introduction of this Estimate. I had no idea how long it would take to reply and I am sorry that the fact that I was unable to conclude last night apparently was the cause of some disappointment to Deputies on all sides.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 26—Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. —(Deputy Dillon).
No, no.
Well, I do not know to what extent that is correct but I thought by the sort of titter that took place sometime before 10.30 that I had upset the apple cart.
We were just laughing at the fact that the Minister was so engrossed in his subject that he did not see the Minister for Health.
I saw the Minister for Health but it is not a bad way to be.
It is an excellent way to be.
I have no apology to make that I was engrossed in my subject. I always an engrossed in my subject—
I can remember an occasion when the Minister was not.
—and I am prepared to claim credit for that. Let me say that if the time I took was a source of annoyance or trouble to anyone and the cause of breaking any understanding, I am sorry.
I never claimed there was an understanding.
I would ask the Minister not to make any suggestion that our Party here wanted in any way to restrict him regarding his discussion on the very important subject he was dealing with.
Then nobody was disappointed and nobody was inconvenienced and there was no need for me to say what I did say.
No, nobody is asking the Minister to do that.
That is even more perfect than I thought.
The world is even a more perfect place than some of us think.
There were a number of matters to which I was anxious to refer. One of these was the number of occasions on which Deputies who spoke to this Estimate referred to the task of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Members of the House know, I believe, the general pattern that has been growing up in regard to that task. In the early stages, a start was made in a small little parish down in Tipperary. I suppose it was purely an experimental effort. After that a good deal of thought and a good deal of discussion took place as to the areas to be selected for an intensive approach. The two counties selected were Clare and Sligo. These two counties were selected because of geographical and other reasons and, with Bansha, they have been the subject of intensive treatment since then.
As for the rest of the country, there was free treatment and after some time it was felt that a new approach would have to be made. The Department came to the conclusion, again having regard to geographical factors and the incidence of the disease, that the next effort should be directed to the counties west of the Shannon, with Donegal thrown in, and that the remainder of the country should be treated on the basis of the establishment of accredited herds.
This whole matter of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis is tremendously difficult. During the course of this discussion, I think it was Deputy Sweetman who, when speaking of the meeting which took place in Kildare the other day, at which I was present, made a number of statements. While I have no hesitation in admitting they did not represent any effort on his part to misrepresent me, they did not give a fair presentation of the position —at least as I saw it and as we see it in the Department.
There was and there is the feeling, not only in this country but outside it, that a good deal of this scattered free testing effort was wasteful and was not achieving the purpose it was urgently necessary to achieve, and that the best policy would be to concentrate on clearing some particular area, be it large or small. I must confess that that line of argument fitted in with my reasoning also. I have no complaint to make because of other procedures which may have preceded this change because it is only natural that there will be a fair share of groping round in order to find what is the best method. But now this course has been decided upon and I believe it is the right one. For geographical reasons and because of the low incidence of the disease, we should concentrate on the area I have mentioned.
Even after the making of that decision, there are a few problems which present themselves. We were in some doubt as to whether or not we should face the complete clearance of County Sligo or whether we should wait and attempt the complete clearance of the area I have mentioned because, when we make the decision, we will have to make other decisions that will present difficulties and impose hardships on some people. We will have to control the movement of stock inwards. In fact, we will have to make that decision fairly soon. It would have been made now were it not for our desire, because of its being a matter of only a couple of months, to save as many people as possible from the hardship that decision would cause. I refer to the movement which is always taking place— the movement of young calves from the south to the west, part of the north and north Leinster. It was not a time of the year when one would want to clap down restrictions and cause a good deal of trouble to these people. The time is quickly approaching when we will have to make a decision on that and some other matters.
From my replies to a number of questions in Kildare, Deputy Sweetman seems to have got the impression that I was hesistant about making decisions; that I was unable to see clearly and that I was apparently incapable of making up my mind on these matters. Whatever can be said about me, whatever charge can be made against me, I do not think that represents my form at all. I believe that I have the capacity to make up my mind. I also feel that I have the wisdom in a case of the kind I have attempted to describe to make the necessary postponement so as to ease as many as possible of the hardships which will result from a decision of this kind.
The immediate task now is the concentrated effort on that area. I want to assure Deputy Sweetman that there will be no hesitancy or no doubts that are not justifiable, in so far as I am concerned, where decisions have to be made in regard to the achievement of that task in that area in the shortest possible space of time. What we were thinking of, following that, was that Kildare and the effort in Kildare seemed to fit in entirely with our thoughts in this regard. We were thinking of encouraging farmers and others in the midlands to give us as many accredited herds as possible.
Kildare proceeded to organise themselves. They had discussions with the officers of my Department and, all the herd owners, having canvassed the area, held this meeting. I am told now—I was told then—that, as result of the announcement which I made, I killed much of the enthusiasm which existed there. I do not think there was any justification for that. It certainly was not my mission to kill enthusiasm; it was not my mission to mislead. My mission entirely there was to announce as clearly as I could what we were prepared to do in regard to their efforts. What we were prepared to do was to give them free first testing of all animals and remove reactor cows on the same basis as they are being removed from the clearance areas. The herd owners of Kildare were then expected to follow this by carrying out tests themselves and if, after two separate tests, a particular farmer could show that the herd was clear, we would proceed to retest and accredit the farm and be responsible for an annual test afterwards.
I find it difficult to understand the attitude of many Deputies who say, "What is the Department prepared to do for us in Kildare? Are you not prepared to give us the same facilities as you are giving in the clearance areas west of the Shannon?" In the Munster counties, in the milk producing areas, you are met with the question, "What are you prepared to do for us in the way of replacements. Who is going to provide the replacement stock for us?" I do not know but I think it right to say that the time has come when those whose interests are most affected and bound up in this matter—all our interests are bound up in it but those whose interests are most bound up— will have to demonstrate their seriousness.
Having regard to the fact that we were not prepared, and are not equipped at the moment, to go into the rest of the country on an intensive basis, I do not think it unreasonable to expect the people of Kildare to take that first test from us free, to accept our gesture of purchasing from the herd owners of Kildare whatever cows were shown to be reactors on the terms and conditions on which they have been purchased in the clearance areas and to follow that up by trying to establish as best they could the highest number of accredited farms so that, when the whole area west of the Shannon came to be an accredited area, whatever store cattle were produced there, whatever percentage might be exported direct to Britain or the Six Counties or purchased as stores for further development and feeding, we would have all over the midlands, starting with Kildare— because it is Kildare that started this campaign—and hoping that it would spread to Meath and Westmeath, a chain of accredited farms to which the store cattle could be transferred and in which they would retain their immunity and the high standard to which they had been brought in the areas where they were raised, I do not know if there is any lack of clarity in that approach. I do not see where it arises.
I did say at the meeting the other night, and I would say it wherever that meeting might be held, that in inviting the herd owners of County Kildare to take what has been given to them without cost, we in the Department were not unapproachable and that if, in the course of carrying out the test, they could make suggestions that would be acceptable to us as to the manner in which that approach could be amended or improved, we would always listen to them.
I mentioned the fact that it is a common occurrence to find questions emphasising the difficulties that present themselves to herd owners, whether they live in the store beef raising areas of Kildare or belong to Limerick, Cork or Kerry, where the cow population is heaviest. In one case you are met with the query, "Where will we get T.B. free stores?" In Limerick, Munster and the dairying areas, you are met with the query, "Where will we get replacements?"
The Department cannot provide T.B. free stores or replacement heifers. Suggestions have been made that farms could be purchased and taken over and that the Department itself could get into the business of breeding heifers, testing them and having them there to meet the requirements of those areas that are so heavily stricken with the incidence of the disease. That is not serious. Even if it were attempted, it could not be achieved to the extent of making a real, serious contribution to the replacement problem.
No matter how much a Minister for Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture may preach, lecture and talk, there would still have to be, and it is vital that there should be, evidence of a serious approach on the part of those who alone can provide themselves with these replacements and T.B. free stores which is what I expected in County Kildare following their great effort in organising themselves.
Might not co-operative societies do it for their own members?
I am not saying that they cannot do it. If co-operative societies can do it as a demonstration, by all means. No matter what they do, it will still be only a very small contribution to meet what will be required in this regard. I am not discounting anything that can result from any effort, even if it were by the State to some extent. The State is doing, and has been doing for a number of years, this kind of thing in a very small way. With regard to this mental attitude, "What will we do for this and what will we do for that?", expecting the Department to be able to solve that problem, I am trying to make it quite clear that it cannot be done. If it is not done on some other basis, I can see no hope of its being done in any reasonable period of time.
In the course of this discussion Deputy Dillon invited me to deal with one matter. However much I would prefer to let the whole business pass, the words in which the invitation was couched tempt me to respond. Shortly after I came into this office, the need arose to review certain matters. One of these was how we stood in relation to the provision of what is known as the double byre grant. I asked for all the papers in connection with it. I sought, as all Ministers do, the assistance of the officials in my Department. I reviewed the whole background to this question. I saw what had been done and I agree 100 per cent. with what Deputy Dillon has stated here in this invitation to me. So much do I agree with it that I have already placed this exact same view on the records of this House, that is, that no Minister should in a deliberative assembly, or outside it, start to whine about what his predecessor did in the way of making a decision that is reversible by him. I accept that fully if it is a reversible decision. If it is a decision that cannot be reversed then you simply have to put up with it and say to yourself: "I would not have done it that way myself if I had the power."
I saw the decision that had been reached in regard to this matter. Having studied every line of it very carefully. I agreed wholeheartedly with what had been done. As a result of that agreement on my part, an announcement was made; following that announcement I was invited down to County Kerry to meet the members of the Committee of Agriculture there. One of the items on the agenda for that meeting was the abandonment of the double byre grant. Naturally I would prefer if the Deputies opposite believed me but I am not going over this litany merely for the sake of inducing them to believe me if they do not want to. But I went down to that meetings knowing that that was one of the items on the agenda and I am quite sure, although I did not see them, that the local papers there will confirm that in the course of my discussion with the members of that committee on that question, I never once mentioned the fact that this matter had been considered by anybody other than myself.
I took that line because of what I have already stated, that no publicity had been given and that it was a decision made that was reversible if I wanted to reverse it. I did not want to. That was my own decision and I defended it on that basis. When the change came as far as this attitude was concerned it came at Parliamentary Question Time. Even though, in supplementary questions and further remarks directed to me by Deputy Dillon, he indicated that I was misleading the House, that I was not truthful, and so on, I did not feel any way hurt about it, because I know that, as he has stated, it could not be expected that a Minister leaving a Department even for six months, a Department such as Agriculture where you are signing documents and plunging through papers every day, could be in a position after that length of time to say: "This is what happened here, and that is what happened there," and "I have a clear recollection of this." I have a fairly good memory myself and I know I could not do that. When Deputy Dillon was confronted with my reply to his supplementary, I suppose it gave him a bit of a shock and his first reaction was to say: "I never did that."
To me that was understandable, but let me say here and now that I have been in more Departments than this and I have been served by officials of these Departments just as these officials serve other Ministers, and I have always admired the attitude of the senior officials, because it is mostly these with whom the Minister is dealing. After a change of Government you know how suspicious we all might be inclined to be about things that might have happened. You might see some decision and you might just fall for the wrong sort of conclusion. This kind of situation has not arisen for me very often but to whatever extent it has occurred I have never known a State official in any of these Departments in which I have served who did not make it clear to me—irrespective of their own inward feelings about which you would know nothing and would not want to know anything—as to how this happened, as to how that happened, and so on. I do not like to "plaster" officials. What they do is their duty. They are men who get to the top on merit; they serve all Governments and all Ministers, but the public outside do not realise how hard they work and the credit that is due to them. I want to say that, although I do not want to give the impression I am just plastering them.
I served in this Department for a short time before, and some of the people who have been serving other Ministers since are there now. Does any Deputy think that I would dig up or attempt to dig up documents in relation to a decision to prove something against some man to who preceded me in office which these officials would know was untrue, inaccurate and incorrect? Even if they were never there to keep me on the dotted line I would not do it. I am not doing it now and I have not done it. I hear Deputies—I suppose it happens on my own side also—rushing to the defence of a Minister or rushing to the defence of a former Minister in some matters concerning which they could not possibly know anything. I heard a former Minister say here that this question I had mooted here never came before the Cabinet. I never said it did.
I heard other Deputies on the Fine Gael benches rising to the defence with great vehemence. I suppose if I were accused Deputies on this side would come to my rescue also without knowing the facts fully and I am prepared to admit that this matter that I have been discussing for some considerable time would only be completely understood by a person who is immediately in contact with the file and the relevant documents. Only such a person would know what is happening. Do not let it be said that I am trying to shirk my duties or hide behind anybody's decision.
I shall show how this arose as far as I am concerned. In the Official Report, Volume 165, column 649, we find under the heading "Cow Byre Grants":—
"Mr. E. Rooney asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state (a) why the amount of the grant available per cow in respect of the construction of cow byres has been reduced, particularly having regard to the importance of the bovine tuberculosis scheme, and (b) the amount of such grants paid since the scheme for the payment of a double grant was commenced.
Mr. Smith: Because I find myself with a commitment of £3,000,000 in respect of applications for these double byre grants which cannot be disposed of for a considerable time, I cannot accept further commitments. I have, however, decided that the grant payable for repairs to byres, will in future be the full approved estimated labour cost of repairs subject to a maximum equivalent to three-fifths of the appropriate grant for a new byre. This is double the rate of grant for repairs payable up to now.
A sum of £645,100 has been paid up to 31st January, 1958, in respect of double grants.
Mr. O.J. Flanagan: Having regard to the statement made by the Minister that he is considering resigning, is he in a position to tell the House when he will reach a favourable decision and resign?"
That had not much to do with cow byre grants. The report continues:—
"Mr. Dillon: Bearing in mind the supreme importance of an expeditious realisation of the tuberculosis eradication scheme in cattle, would the Minister not reconsider his decision, especially as the liability in respect of these double byre grants does not come in course of payment until the herd has attained an attested status? Though his present liability may appear very large, as it does not come in course of payment until each new herd has attained attested status, the probability of the charge falling on any one year is remote in the extreme.
Mr. Smith: That is a supplementary question on which I could make a very long speech but I do not propose to do so. In fact, it is not a decision made by me at all because my very good friend and former Minister, Deputy James Dillon; in January, 1957, decided that the double byre grant should be abandoned."
And that was true or false?
It was true.
I do not think so. The Minister has never produced the documents. Where are the documents?
The Deputy must read the change in the tuberculosis scheme in 1956 and follow it up in 1957. He will have to consider all these things together to realise that what I said was fully, completely and absolutely true. As far as I am concerned I have not the slightest interest in doing anything but answering a question fairly and I do not want anybody to accept it if they do not wish to. If I am a liar I am known to the officials of my Department who serve me as a liar. But I am not a liar. I shall not read any more of it.
Fair enough.
There was a good deal of talk on milk prices——
I thought the Minister was going to clarify the position regarding double byre grants. He has spoken about them for the past 30 minutes but we are just as much in the dark now as when we came in.
Some people will be always in the dark.
The Minister has clarified nothing.
Order.
I did not expect to be able to convince Deputy Murphy. I do not even want to convince him.
It is part of the Minister's business to clear the point for the Government.
Do not be sore. If I have been effective, do not be disappointed. I cannot help being effective.
I heard a good deal of talk about milk prices and the reduction of them and, just as in the case of some other subjects that were discussed here, the talk and the criticism came from rather surprising sources. Shortly before I came in to reply I heard a Deputy here last night say that the announcement in regard to milk prices would result in a reduction of 1½d. a gallon. I would suggest to that Deputy that there is no purpose, not even a political purpose, to be served by saying that when he must know that the reduction would not be more than half that amount. I wonder what interest will be served by a statement of that kind? I cannot think of any.
I also heard Deputy Dillon talk of all the decisions that had been made in recent times that would affect milk producers and producers of wheat, bacon and barley. But how does a former Minister for Agriculture think that kind of criticism will go down with people whose memories surely serve them to the extent of being able to recall his own attitude at a time that was entirely different, so far as milk was concerned, from the present time? We scarcely had the taste of New Zealand and Danish butter out of our mouths when Deputy Dillon proposed to the farmers that they should take a shilling a gallon——
He never proposed any such thing.
There you are.
And the Minister knows it.
I have all the letters that were issued to the creameries of the country asking them to express an opinion on this policy——
Read them out.
Deputy Dillon went down to Dungarvan and made a speech which appeared in pamphlet form on this matter. I have the replies from the creameries to which these letters were sent and the strange part about it is that about seven of the creameries in different parts of the country, some of those that were up in arms because I reduced the price of milk to help to meet the export subsidy, actually wrote back approving of the proposal——
Because it was not what you say it is—that is why.
It was a five-year proposition at a shilling a gallon.
No, no, and you know it was not.
Do not be protesting your honesty.
There is no use in that sort of thing. There is no use in talking about this matter if that is not true——
Read them out.
I do not know if I have them here, but I have them in the office.
On the double byre grant question I offered to the Minister that I would make copies of the documents available to anybody who wanted to read them and said I did not want to explain any further than that.
The people outside, especially the dairy farmers, will agree I am telling the truth when I say that such a proposal was made for acceptance by the creamery organisation by the then Minister in a letter he issued on the subject and in the speech he made in Dungarvan. That proposal was made at a time when we were having butter imported from New Zealand and Denmark. What do the members of the Fine Gael Party think they are likely to achieve by talking about butter and milk prices as they have been for the past two or three days?
Does the Minister want to know?
I am sure I do know. There has been evidence for the past 30 years. That is a good enough test, even for spirits. That evidence shows that the people do not trust you or believe you, and I believe they are using their intelligence in coming to that conclusion.
When I came into this office ten or 11 years ago shortly after the war the removal of many of the restrictions which had operated during the war enabled me to consider the circumstances of the milk producers. They know that I understood their circumstances and made a case to the Government to secure a reasonable improvement for them. I do not want to be shouting this from the house tops, but they know it is a fact. No matter how you try to paint the picture otherwise they will not believe you. It is because of their confidence that there was really no outcry against my approach to the present situation in regard to our butter surplus.
I am not so sensitive that I mind the Opposition criticising my policy. I have no hesitation in going to Limerick, Cork or Kerry and defending myself with the greatest of ease. I do not want the Fine Gael Party, which has been on the border of extermination from one year to another, to be using arguments which only tend to further discredit and weaken them.
When introducing the Estimate I made clear our position in regard to other problems which have arisen concerning our butter surplus. The New Zealand Government, the British Farmers' Union and the Butter Marketing Board made an application concerning our butter surplus as well as that of two other countries. The British have considered that application and we have presented our case. In reply to a question in the House of Commons they conveyed their decision, so far. We have been invited to further discussions with them and these will take place. I do not think it would be useful for me to make any further comment on the matter at this stage.
I agree with the Minister but would it be reasonable to ask him—I do not press him to go beyond what he has already said if he thinks it better not to—whether our position under Articles 4 and 5 and Section G of the Annex to the 1948 Trade Agreement will be energetically pressed?
I can only say if there is any document in existence, whether it be the 1948 Agreement or the 1938 Agreement, containing any evidence useful to us in establishing a case— and I think it can easily be established —you can take it from me we shall avail fully of it.
Last night I was speaking about the importance of expert advice. When I was in this Department in 1947 the first artificial insemination station was being established at Ballyclough Creamery. The experts of my Department, with all due respect to them, were very sceptical of that proposal. In fact, they cold shouldered it to such an extent that none of them would even visit the place. I decided to go and see it myself. Following that visit it became necessary to introduce a Bill here to control the activities of artificial insemination stations and ensure they would be supervised only by proper persons.
We were discussing wheat last night. I remember in that year, too, there were grassland experts who pointed out to me that if one broke up a certain swarth, it would take 30 years to restore it to its original condition. That was one of the arguments advanced against compelling people to till. I was no time out of the Department when the whole tune changed. One would think that I never had any enthusiasm at all or interest in artificial insemination. One would not think now that, in relation to the grassland problem, the experts ever took the line or gave the advice that I have just recounted to the House. I do not think it is one bit of harm to put that factual story briefly on the records.
The one disappointing thing that I see about this cattle breeding business, and I have no deep prejudice for or against any particular breeds, is that the people do not seem to want to help themselves. Now, I am quite prepared to accept whatever the majority desire. Those who are interested in milk production and the breeding of store cattle will have to wake up and realise that, unless they breed for themselves, nobody else will do it. In the fairs and markets with which I am familiar, even in areas where it was possible with one's eyes shut to buy young Shorthorn heifers, it is now just not possible to buy them to-day. There are herefords and Polled Angus and all the rest of them, but there are no Shorthorns.
The artificial insemination stations all over the country certainly meet this problem in a very special way, but the worst of it is that in matters like this everybody leaves something that should be done to somebody else, and somebody else leaves it to the other fellow, and the other fellow leaves it to someone else. Nobody does anything and finally one gets to the stage when nothing at all is done. At the moment they talk about Herefords and Polled Angus, but no animal is as dear at the present time as the small Shorthorn heifer.
That is a good thing.
I agree, but I would prefer if they were more plentiful.
But the way to make them plentiful is to keep the price up.
One can go too far east as well as too far west. Many farmers will not buy a Shorthorn bull because they know that they will be more or less isolated and, unless their own herds are very large, the expenditure is not justifiable. Artificial insemination comes to the rescue there. As I say, I have no special prejudices. I accept fully what the public do, but I recommend very strongly the breeding of more replacements. Not only do I believe it will be a good thing, but I believe it will be a paying thing. There will be the double-barrelled inducement.
They will have their share and their credit.
Exactly. References were made here to the activities of the Marketing Committee and the small amount of money spent. The comments were fairly critical. Deputies know, of course, that a long period elapsed before the composition of the board was finally determined. It is not easy to get people to serve on a board like that. I was Minister when the first meeting took place and in the course of my remarks to the board, without claiming to have any special knowledge of the difficulties confronting them or the task assigned to them, I told them: "The task we ask you to undertake is a very difficult one and, as far as I am concerned, I want to rest assured that if, as a result of your labours, you contribute anything of tangible value, you will have justified your being set up. Do not think I do not appreciate the difficulty of the task assigned to you. I know you will be criticised. Big things will be expected from you and we who are close to you, realise that the problems with which you have to deal and in relation to which you will be expected to make recommendations are tremendously difficult."
The amount of money spent so far has not been large. If the occasion arises that they have to spend, the money will be there and will be freely available to them. The sub-committees that have been set up to deal with specific problems have been working very, very energetically. These people are working voluntarily and, whether they succeed or fail, their contribution will be substantial in the way of time and I would not like them to think there was nobody to say a word in their defence.
It is rather peculiar that the Minister for Justice did not, in the course of his reply, mention anything about the Milk Costings Commission report and what action, if any, he proposes to take on it.
The Deputy may not make a speech.
I am not Minister for Justice, though I should be, because I am a very just man.
The Minister did not mention anything about the report of the Milk Costings Commission. Do we take it now that it is in the wastepaper basket?
I would not like the Deputy to take anything he does not want to take.
The Minister covered a very wide ground. I should like to ask him if he has had time to consider two matters which I drew to his attention. Can he give us any further information about this systematic remedy for warble fly which was part of his exhibit at the R.D.S. Show? Secondly, does the Minister propose to extend the parish plan beyond the region where it is at present operating, or has he any alternative plan for increasing the availability of technical advice for farmers?
I am afraid I cannot give the Deputy any information on the first question. I have seen the result of the experiment. I think the Deputy has addressed parliamentary questions to me on this matter. I just cannot tell the nature of the reply. It is a very technical matter.
It is proceeding?
Yes.
Does the Minister happen to know if the drug or the drench used in that experiment is now available in this country?
I cannot say; I am told it is not. As to the parish plan and my intentions in regard to increasing the advisory services, I have not yet had time to give much thought to all these matters. I do not hesitate to say that I believe in the provision of the fullest possible advice on all technical matters and subjects. There is one thing I am always doubtful about, and its effect, and there is one line on which I think it is not serviceable to get ahead of public thought and public demand. However much or however well many people may be qualified to advise and encourage and help the farmers, the worst and the most demoralising thing is to have many officials loose through the country, if there is not a full demand for their services. It is very difficult for them to create the demand for advice unless it originates with the people.
There is also the question of the parish plan and the supervision of those who have been employed on the parish plan. I have seen one example only where it was necessary to make certain inquiries as to the activities of a parish agent. The amount of time and money that was lost in that, the amount of racing up and down from Dublin to and from that parish in that part of the country and the overlapping of services as between the county committee of agriculture and the parish agents created an unfavourable impression in my mind.
I have not, then, given this matter all the thought which I suppose it would require. The policy to be pursued is very important. It is essential that we should provide and encourage all the advisory services we can but we must not allow ourselves to get ahead of the demand. If we do, it means we have parish agents, officials of county committees of agriculture, land improvement officials, land drainage officials, housing inspectors of one kind or another and so on. To my mind, all these add up to a good deal of confusion and overlapping, to a good deal of waste of time and effort and to a good deal of assisting in the creation of an impression in the public mind that is objectionable from every point of view.
Motion put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Burke, James.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Russell, George E.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Griffin, James.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Moran, Michael.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Motion declared negatived.
Original question put and agreed to.