Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1960

Vol. 179 No. 7

Committee on Finance - Vote 49—Agriculture.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,133,500 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1960, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, including certain Services administered by that Office and for payment of certain Subsidies and Grants-in-Aid.

Most of the sum required is accounted for by the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme. The amount voted for this Scheme in the current year was £3,500,000, which, with receipts estimated at £1,680,000, would have left the net cost for the year at £1,820,000 It is now estimated that the gross expenditure for the year will be £8,784,000 and that receipts resulting from salvage realisation on reactors will be £3,810,000, thus leaving the net cost at £4,974,000. This is an increase of £3,154,000 on the net cost as originally estimated.

The additional gross expenditure on T.B. eradication for which approval is now sought is, therefore, £5,284,000. The expenditure of this large additional sum is fully justified. It is now more essential than ever before to press on as speedily as possible with the job of eradicating bovine tuberculosis from our herds, and the Government are determined that the marked intensification of effort which has developed during the past year and has given rise to this additional expenditure should not be hampered by lack of money.

Since yesterday, 1st March, all Britain has been finally closed to untested store cattle, as her remaining free-testing areas then became Eradication Areas. This closure should be a final warning to our farmers—if, indeed, any further warning is still needed—to get rid of reactors and build up their herds to accredited status.

Over 95 per cent. of the additional provision sought is required to finance the purchase of reactors. The number of reactors originally provided for was 56,000, but it is now estimated that the total number of reactors taken up by my Department during this financial year will be no fewer than 168,000. or three times the number originally envisaged. Gross expenditure on reactor purchases for the year will, accorddingly, now amount to almost £7,600,000, representing an additional £5 millions over the amount already provided.

The rate of reactor removal has been particularly high during the second half of the present financial year and shows no sign of slackening. The removal programme has been particularly heavy in recent months in the western clearance area, because, as the goal of eradication is being approached in those counties, there is close concentration on all reactor herds, which are kept under frequent retest until they become clear. It is expected that the seven counties of the western clearance area can be declared accredited areas during this year, as the disease has now been virtually eliminated there. In fact, the problem in those counties from now on will become mainly one of movement control.

As regards the eastern counties, the position in the early autumn was that the initial round of testing had been almost completed and farmers were, therefore, then ready to start removing reactors. At the same time, a more general awareness of the urgent need for eradication began to show itself, and has since built up, with the result that cow reactors were offered to the Department in all these counties in increasing numbers from October onwards.

In the southern dairying counties, no fewer than 12,000 cow reactors were offered to the Department in the second half of September alone, prior to the coming into operation of the new eradication arrangements on the 1st October last. Under this new scheme, an estimated 39,000 reactors will be removed by the end of the financial year.

There is an estimated increase of £190,000 in the cost of the fees payable to private veterinary surgeons for testing. With the extension of the eradication measures to the entire country, there was an increased demand for initial testing as new herds joined the scheme, but it was also found necessary during the year to provide additional testing facilities. These include the "60-day" retest which is granted to any herd outside the clearance area from which all reactors have been removed and which complies with certain other requirements, or to a herd which was clear at its last test and is going accredited. Free retesting of animals in isolation in accredited herds has also been granted during the course of the year. The present position is that virtually every herd in 23 counties is under test; in the remaining three counties, viz., Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford, full participation in the scheme has not yet been reached.

In Subhead N2, which deals with the operation of the Bovine Tuberculosis Order, 1926, there is an increase of £17,000 due to a rise in the slaughterings of cattle clinically affected with T.B. The number of cattle slaughtered in the year ended 31st December last was about 25% higher than in the previous year.

Under Subhead F.7, there is provision for an additional £34,110 for the University Colleges. The amount already voted for the Agricultural Faculty of University College, Dublin, has proved insufficient to meet the increased operating costs of the Faculty, and it is proposed, therefore, to increase the grant in the current year by £30,000. I might mention that the output of graduates in agricultural science has increased very considerably in recent times.

More money is also required for the Dairy Science Faculty of University College, Cork, and I am seeking authority for an additional amount of £4,110 for this purposes.

Because of the transfer of a number of institutions and services from the Department of Agriculture to An Foras Talúntais during the year it is now necessary to provide an additional sum of £95,690 under Subhead K.5. The revised estimate of £145,690 under this Subhead includes a grant of £45,000 plus the expenses of running the transferred institutions and services for the proportion of the year during which they have been operated by An Foras Talúntais. The institutions and services in questions include Johnstown Castle Agricultural College, Grange Farm, the Peatland Experimental Station at Glenamoy, and Peatland Investigations at Derrybrennan and Clonsast. As a result of the various transfers, there will been savings under other Subheads which will very largely counter balance the increased provision for which I now seek authority.

An additional £200,000 is required under Subhead M.7 to enable the Land Project to be continued without interruption for the remainder of the financial year. The number of applications has shown a substantial increase during the past year and a larger number of grants has been earned; moreover, the average amount of grant per acre has been tending to increase. The indications are that this increase in the volume of work done will continue. The total number of applications received in the year 1959 was 24,800—an increase of over 2,000 on 1958. The net additional amount required is £200,000.

An item of £469,549 arises under Subhead S because of the necessity to write off losses incurred on superphosphate imported by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann from the Netherlands on behalf of the Department of Agriculture in the years 1950/51 and 1951/52. Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, who acted as agents for the Department of Agriculture in importing and distributing the fertilisers, were guaranteed against financial loss in carrying out the transaction. About 84,000 tons of superphosphate were imported in 1950/51 and of this some 18,000 tons remained unsold at the end of the season. Because of the outbreak of the Korean war in 1951/52 and the danger that it might develop into a wider conflict resulting in shortages of essential commodities, it was decided to import a further consignment of some 40,000 tons of superphosphates. Prices had risen very steeply in 1951-52 under the influence of the War; as a consequence home demand fell and at the end of the 1951-52 season 55,000 tons remained unsold.

With the improvement in the world political situation prices of fertilisers fell and prices of the imported stocks had, therefore, to be substantially reduced. Stocks were, however, slow to clear. Due to the slow rate of sale it was necessary to provide £923,000 to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann out of voted moneys in the financial year 1952-53 to enable the Company to reduce its overdraft. This sum was to be refunded according as sales were effected.

Because of the fall in fertiliser price levels, the cost of storage and the deterioration in the condition of some of the material during storage, the sales of superphosphate realised much less than expected. Of the sum of £922,717 advanced only £453,168 was recovered by the Department, leaving a loss of approximately £469,549. I now seek authority to have this amount written off.

The submission of a Supplementary Estimated for this item was delayed because certain insurance claims remained to be settled. Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, who are the Department's agents in the matter, have been actively negotiating a settlement of these claims but because of their complicated nature and the large number of underwriters involved, the matter has not yet been brought to finality. I understand that normally there is a long delay in the settlement of this type of marine insurance claim and that it may be some time before a final settlement is reached. Payment by the insurance companies so far amounts to £1,475 and the amount still under negotiation is approximately £10,000.

An additional sum of £6,500 is also needed under Subhead B because a greater volume of travelling has been necessary than was anticipated when the original estimate was being framed.

As a partial offset to the additional expenditure involved in the Subheads mentioned there are savings under other Subheads estimated at £1,525,849, which, with additional appropriations-in-aid of £2,447,500 reduce the total net amount required to £2,133,500.

Mr. Dillon

There are certain matters arising from this Supplementary Estimate which call for comment. I can, of course, emphatically endorse what the Minister says in regard to the need of farmers all over the country collaborating in the fullest possible degree with the Department of Agriculture in the task of eradicating bovine tuberculosis. I am prepared to go a little further than the Minister appears to have gone, as I think farmers have on them a duty not only to do what they are asked to do but to offer their collaboration to the Department in any area where, by special effort, they can do even a little more than the strict regulations require of them. In fact, I think it needs to be put on record pretty explicitly in this regard that in this matter particularly, as in so many other matters, the Department is not only the servant but the friend of the farmers of this country, but they cannot do for the farmers all that they would wish to do if they do not get from the farmers the most generous co-operation which it is in the power of the farmers to give.

In another context I had occasion to criticise the public relations of the Department of Agriculture though I know from personal experience how difficult it is for any Department of State to conduct effective public relations when they are not geared to it. It is unfamiliar and it is not always readily understood by accounting Departments if an administrative Department, like the Department of Agriculture, seeks the resources effectively to publicise their activities, but I cannot help feeling that there is some failure to get over to the farmers of this country what the Department wants them to do.

Now, I did get a helpful circular from the Department setting out four or five things that a farmers, who wishes to co-operate with the Department, ought to do and I assume that was widely distributed but, having read that, I could not help asking myself is there nothing more they want us to do? That circular asked us to see that all reactors were removed from our herd and that we should refrain from buying any but attested cattle. Having eliminated all the reactors, having ensured that all the cattle on my farm had green tags in their ears, and having arranged that we would not buy any cattle hereafter that had not a green tag, I could not help asking myself are there no instructions as to how we are to dispose of our cattle, or is there anything further we can do to help expedite the eradication of tuberculosis in our area?

If that is all the Department wants I suggested to the Minister, having distributed that document, it would be no harm to repeat its contents pretty regularly in the provincial newspapers. I think country people read, and keep in their homes, the local newspaper pretty carefully. It is one of the distressing facts all of us discover that stating the obvious once is not enough. I know when I was Minister for Agriculture it often exasperated me when we published advertisements exhorting people to do things which manifestly would be greatly to their own advantage, yet if I went down the country and asked a group of people "Why have you not done so and so?" to be told they never heard of it.

The only method that I ever discovered for getting any kind of message like that over is constant reiteration to the point of boredom, but I do believe that if you can reduce its recommendations to four or five simple headings it is well worthwhile continually repeating that advice through the medium of the Press, and through the medium of circulation pamphlets, until the adoption of the measures recommended is no longer requisite but, so long as it is desirable, these producedures should be adopted and sustained. I think it cannot be too often repeated that this is necessary and desirable.

I shall refer later to the desirability of a national advisory service but it is in circumstances such as this that I think we suffer so disastrously in this country for the lack of a national advisory service. If we had a decent advisory service, with a good parish agent in most rural parishes, it would be the least we would expect at a time like this to see that one of the parish agent's first duties in calling on every farm would be to ask the five questions in the Department's leaflet—"Have you done this, have you done that and the other thing? If not, there is a copy of what the Minister is trying to do for your benefit! Nail that up on the door and ask yourself every morning have you given effect to these recommandations."

At the present time the Minister for Agriculture is asking county agricultural officers in every county to give him their closest co-operation but the individual C.A.O.s. interpretation of what "closest co-operation" is will vary very gravely from county to county and, if it does not conform to the Minister's estimate of what it should be, there is very little that he can do about it.

That problem arises in regard to many of the activities of the Department of Agriculture which are in the national interest and one of the most distressing features is that where the Department of Agriculture is going about urging national business of that kind the liaison between it and the individual farmer for whom it is trying to work is deplorably insufficient. I would therefore ask the Minister, with the resources he has at his disposal at the present time, to intensify the publicity on what he considers to be the necessary steps to give the Department the full co-operation that they must have if they are to complete the job. For instance, I have held my fire as far as I could because I do not understand the problems the Minister is confronted with at the present time in connection with this whole clearance problem. I fully appreciate there is no use in adopting a certain line of our own if we cannot bring our principal customers with us, in confidence, in the precautions we are taking.

I had hoped in the early days that when we tackled Sligo and Clare we could at an early date declare them attested areas. I understand the Minister is now of the opinion that, in all the circumstances, it is best to wait until we can declare the whole area west of the Shannon an attested area and I am prepared to accept that, if that is the position, but I do not think I am being unreasonable if at this stage I tell the Minister that I think the time is overdue when we should be given the answer to two questions.

When are we going to declare the area west of the Shannon an attested area? The Minister says some time this year. I wonder could he be more precise about that? There are strong rumours circulating in Sligo that the Minister is going down to address the Sligo County Committee of Agriculture and that he is going to make a pronunciamento there. I want to suggest to him that Dáil Éireann is a much more suitable place even that the Sligo County Committee of Agriculture although I recall that that body is entitled to special consideration, as is the County Committee of Agriculture of Clare, because these were the first two counties where the scheme was launched. At the time of its launching there were a good many reservations in Sligo as to whether they ought to collaborate at all or not. They overcame their misgivings and did collaborate in the early days and there would be something perhaps suitable in paying them a special compliment by making the pronouncement there. The matter is of national urgency and I think I am entitled to ask the Minister, if he has the date in mind, would he tell us because, out of his answer to that question, arises another query.

Suppose we are able by the 1st July, say, to declare the Western area an attested area, what plans has the Minister in mind for the sale and transport of cattle from that area? How are we going to get cattle out of the attested area in Ireland into the attested area in Great Britain? Are we going to have special trains? Are we going to have special boats?

The more precisely the Minister can paint that picture for us in the future, the better prospect there is, in my judgment, of making the people west of the Shannon realise how eminently worthwhile it is to put their very best effort into completing the job in the shortest possible time because its completion will result in a manifest, obvious and immense benefit for all farmers in the area and, therefore, it is the interest and the duty of every farmer to be diligent in realising at the earliest possible moment the attestation of this area.

On the other hand, if attestation leaves unanswered the question of how are we going to get our cattle from the Irish attested area into the British attested area, there will be wiseacres locally who will be raising the question, "What good is it going to do us to be attested unless plans are completed to enable us to get the full benefit of our attestation?" I do suggest to the Minister that if the vision of the benefit of attestation was sufficiently clear he could get the degree of collaboration that perhaps he is not getting at the present time, that is, if one neighbour saw another neighbour letting down the scheme the proximate prospect of real advantage from complete attestation in the area would induce that neighbour to bring moral pressure to bear on any delinquent in his neighbourhood who put the prospects of the whole area in jeopardy by his dishonesty.

I am sometimes in the difficulty in which I find it hard to know what is best to do in matters of this kind. Generally, it is better for somebody in a responsible position, if he has any information of abuse, to communicate it to the Department of Agriculture and allow them to deal with it. I have not any evidence but I think it is desirable to mention the matter here in public so that the Minister would be given the opportunity of scotching the rumoure, if it is a rumour, or dwelling on it if there is any substance in it. I have heard it suggested that green ear tags were being trafficked in. I want to say this quite explicity: I have a long experience of rural life and my experience of rural life teaches me that if there is a possibility of impropriety there will always be found some dismal Jimmy to allege that it is rife and going on all over the place and when you come to investigate it with detachment and care you discover that there is really no substantial ground for the complaint at all.

Where that kind of talk is proceeding it is better to mention it here so that the Minister may be in a position to say that the matter has been fully investigated and there is no truth in it. To tell the truth, when I began to examine it, I asked myself who could benefit by taking a green tag out of one beast's ear and putting it into another beast's ear? It did not seem to me to be clear how anyone could benefit. Nevertheless, that kind of talk goes on and it is expedient for the Minister to say a word in regard to it to-day. If that is the answer, let it be given.

There may be other Deputies who have heard talk of this kind. They can confirm me if they have because I am satisfied that in a matter of this kind it is better to let the Minister deal with it in public lest idle rumour of that kind grow in rural Ireland and operate to promote the suggestion that the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis is generally unsound and not worth helping on account of the abuses.

I do not believe that there is any substantial foundation for allegations of this kind. I am quite satisfied— and it is my job to find fault with the Minister when and if I can—that the administration of the tuberculosis eradication scheme is effective, on the right lines and is entitled to the support of every farmer, large or small, in this country. It would be not only my duty but possibly my political advantage to say otherwise if I were in a position to do so. In a matter of this kind it is vitally important that whatever the truth is should be faithfully recorded and if there is any other Deputy who has a different tale to tell then I consider, whatever side of the House he sits on, he has a duty to tell it because it is better that the Minister should be afforded the opportunity of dealing with such rumours, if they are in circulation anywhere in the country.

I would be particularly grateful if the Minister would give us, if he is in a position to do so, a clear reply to the question, when we are attested West of the Shannon, how are we going to get our attested cattle from West of the Shannon to the attested areas in Great Britain?

The Minister said that the present position is that virtually every herd in 23 counties is under test; that in the remaining three counties, Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford, full participation in the scheme has not yet been reached. Is that delay due to difficulty in getting staff heretofore? Because, if it is not, I fully agree with the policy of getting the rest of the country well under way before tackling these three counties to which I have referred but I think the time is now overdue when we should take our courage in our hands and tackle the remaining counties. The Minister is appropriating large sums of money in order to expedite the completion of the task. I think he is perfectly right to do so and if excessive caution restrained him in this matter he would be greatly to blame. The job has to be done. The argument, from a purely financial point of view, could be made for spreading it out over a longer period, with consequently smaller annual appropriations, but such argument is utterly baseless and would be a great mistake.

I fully appreciate when the Minister talks of Limerick, Tipperary, Waterford that he may be confronted with very serious loss, because he had very large numbers of cattle to deal with but I think he should take his courage in his hands and if he has the staff he should tackle these counties without further delay.

Mr. Smith

It is not a question of staff.

Mr. Dillon

I see. Well what is the problem?

Mr. Smith

The Deputy has just as good an answer to it as I have.

Mr. Dillon

All I want to say, so far as this Opposition is concerned, is that if the Minister's problem in dealing with this matter is one of capital investment, we are prepared to support any measure to enable him to proceed with the utmost expedition in this matter. We are satisfied that whatever the cost may be, the loss that would accrue to our economy if, through lack of courageous finance, this matter is not pressed forward with all possible expedition, would be out of all proportion to whatever economic problems will arise as a result of going full steam ahead.

Mr. Smith

We have tried to encourage and help every county.

Mr. Dillon

I fully appreciate there are various considerations which have to be carefully weighed. One has to bear in mind the available outlets for the produce of intensive eradication in areas where there is a large cattle population. I understand there are various outlets at present which fortunately are relatively buoyant and that is something of which I think we should take full advantage. I want to press the Minister further to see that the position in these three counties is tackles. I think I am entitled to say on the whole that, formidable as is the problem in Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford, the solution is now overdue and the longer we recoil from the task of facing it the more grievous the problem will become.

It is a source of some surprise to me that under subhead (2) there has been more slaughtering of cattle than are clinically affected with T.B. I should have thought that with the scheme in operation for six years, the incidence of clinical T.B. as defined by the Act would become more and more infrequently encountered. Why anyone should keep a cow until it manifests clinical T.B. in accordance with the present Act is a mystery to me, when he could, by getting the cow tested to establish it as a reactor, get his market value.

Mr. Smith

She would not be bought under the scheme outside the clearance area.

Mr. Dillon

I see. And these will be perhaps dry cattle?

Mr. Smith

That is right. That same question puzzled me too. I worked that out. That was the only explanation I could find for it.

Mr. Dillon

I think it argues all the more for pushing on with the bovine T.B. scheme so that in every county we should be able to arrange that any reactors that exist be eliminated before they become clinical cases of T.B. because as the Minister knows clinical cases are a public menace, not only to the farmer's own herd but to other cattle on adjoining farms.

Subhead F7 makes provision for £34,110 by way of additional grants to University Colleges. The Minister has said that the output of graduates in Agricultural Science has increased considerably in recent times. Who is going to employ them? I put it to this House: outside Bedlam is there any sense or meaning in our educating a steadily increasing number of agricultral graduates and shipping them to Rhodesia, to Canada and various places when it is notorious that in many parts of the country our advisory services are grossly inadequate for want of personnel and that it is quite impossible in many parts of the country to get the local authority, who happens to be the local county committee of agriculture, to employ a sufficient number of graduates whom we are educating at great cost, to benefit the farmers of the country? Their advice was never more urgently needed than it is at the present time.

I am almost afraid to mention a matter of this kind in Dáil Éireann or anywhere else because bitter experience is beginning to teach me that I have only to mention the necessity for reform in the educational system of the country when I have the Minister for Education getting up and saying he is going to reform it; I have only to mention the need for intergration with Britain and the next morning the Taoiseach is in Britain trying to get an agreement—and failing. I venture to suggest that if I now press upon the Minister for the establishment of advisory services, long before the next general election he will have established them. Even at the great risk to myself of seeing Fine Gael policy implemented by Fianna Fáil, I do press upon him that it is the most urgent problem we have.

Mr. Smith

It is a safe risk.

Mr. Dillon

I rejoice. I stand for the proposal that all these graduates should be kept at home and used for the benefit of the farmers of this country in the inestimable services that the Department of Agriculture could place at their disposal if they got the chance. I take it the Minister's attitude is that the wider we export, the wider area our sowing will cover. I say we should sow our own fields.

Mr. Smith

I should like to give my own view on that which is slightly different.

Mr. Dillon

At any rate, it rejoices my heart that at last I have found an issue on which Fianna Fáil is not prepared to gallop away the morning after I mention it. I have no doubt that the Department of Agriculture could treble, quadruple, the value of all the knowledge and all the inestimable wealth of assistance that is available in that Department to those farmers if they had at their disposal an effective advisory service and if these young graduates were enabled to get a living at home doing work of incalculable value which they would gladly take at one-half the salary that countries all over the world are willing and eager to pay, to work for the people.

I take it that the provision made for Foras Talúntais is simply a bookkeeping entry. We are taking it off the Department itself and handing it over to Foras Talúntais and that of course is the inevitable and necessary consequence of transferring certain activities of the Department to Foras Talúntais. I cannot allow it to pass though, without reiterating something I took the satisfaction of saying in this House before. I hope that when Foras Talúntais, as at present constituted with all its informed critics, took over from the Department of Agriculture these institutions like Johnstown, the pest experimental station and Clonsast, and saw what they had got, they made a soft retreat —I mean a retreat for reflection and examination of conscience—and asked themselves who built these establishments up to the state in which they were on the day they were transferred because they then might remember that it was the much despised Department of Agriculture who built these institutions up from the ground. They were the admiration of the world, I have no hesitation in saying; Johnstown certainly was. They handed them over to Foras Talúntais.

I hope that in the years that lie ahead Foras Talúntais will do half as much with them as the Department of Agriculture did when they were there under its responsibility. I thought that was particularly illustrated when the present Chairman of Foras Talúntais so kindly invited me to attend on the occasion of the handing over of the Glenamoy station by the Minister for Agriculture. On that occasion I was constrained to reply thanking him for his courtesy in extending that invitation to me but inasmuch as I gathered that this was to be the inauguration of the peatland research station at Glenamoy I did not think it was appropriate that I should attend as I had twice already inspected it in operation as Minister for Agriculture. I mention that only to emphasise again that I confidently hope Foras Talúntais will make similar good use of the splendid resources handed over to them and which were and are the fruits of the labours of the incomparable personnel of the Department of Agriculture.

I come now to subhead M. 7. Perhaps I should be forgiven for throwing my mind back a few years to the day when we first inaugurated the land rehabilitation project in this House and the howls of Fianna Fáil that this was a scheme calculated to raise everyone's valuation. So you remember that?

Mr. Blowick

I heard it all over the country.

Mr. Dillon

Then when that cock would not fight, the second Fianna Fáil allegation was that nobody but a lunatic would have his land resting on pipes. When that cock would not fight they made up their minds that they had better get in on the band wagon themselves. All the Fianna Fáil farmers came in feeling fully confident that all the wrath of the Department, as administered by me, would be visited upon them. They were shocked to discover that they were all taken in strict order and it is an unquestionable fact that under our administration everyone was taken in his turn without any inquiries being made as to how he had voted in the previous election. That went on. The late Mr. Thomas Walsh, God rest him, kept it going and it is a distinct source of exasperation to the Fianna Fáil Party that the people have obstinately refused to dissociate the Land Reclamation Project from the inter-Party Government.

The Minister announced his intention of wiping out section B without notice. It was wrong to wipe out section B. It has done very valuable work, work that could not be done under any other part of the project. Of course there were mistakes made. I found, when I came back to office in 1954, that the Department was buried in a particular farm into which they should never have gone. It appeared that an officer of the project who, I understand, is no longer with the Department, had made a mistake in signing contracts which bound the Department to carry out extensive drainage on a farm situated very extensively on rock. The plain truth was that the Department could not get out of its undertaking and sustained tremendous loss.

That would have happened whatever Minister for Agriculture was in office. There was no degree of care and supervision which would avoid isolated incidents of that sort. That case has been trotted out in this House time and again as being typical of what happened under section B. That is a gross distortion of the facts. It happened once as far as I know and there may have been one or two other cases but when you realise the hundreds of thousands of farms where excellent work was done you can see that it was a great mistake to have suspended the operation of section B and I hope that some day we will be able to re-establish it on the basis on which it was inaugurated.

There was a further gross inequity in the Minister's decision to wind it up without notice. I know three brothers in a certain part of this country who had gone to England on public works and they saved between them between £3,000 and £4,000. They came home and set up as contractors under the Land Rehabilitation Project and invested their entire capital in machinery to carry out contract work under section B. In that part of the country you cannot get individual farmers to hire machinery. They are not used to it and they know nothing about it.

These three fellows were making a good income. They worked hard and were doing well. They were hard working fellows who had not to pay people because they were skilled in the use and management of machinery of that kind. If they had got 12 months' notice of the suspension of section B, they could have got out of that machinery and sold it to the local authorities or somebody else. Instead, they were suddenly faced with the decision out of the blue. Two of those brothers have gone back to England to labouring jobs and the machinery is still on their premises, deteriorating. Every penny of their savings is gone.

I believe that that state of affairs was reproduced in many parts of the country. That was done simply and solely as a result of the irresponsibility of the present Minister. It could not have done any harm if 12 months' notice had been given and it would have saved infinite suffering to people who had made heavy investments at the request and with the encouragement of the Minister for Agriculture for the time being.

Every Minister for Agriculture in this House is entitled to get from the people the fullest measure of co-operation but if there is a perennial feeling amongst the people that the instructions of one Minister are to be repudiated out of hand by his successor you will not get that measure of co-operation. I am not implying that there never can be a change of policy. That is obviously absurd, but what I am saying is that if one Government succeeding another Government decides there should be a change of policy, careful regard should be held to individuals who have made heavy commitments on foot of the previous Minister's policy and due regard should be had to any consequential losses that may accrue to them as a result of the incoming Minister's decision to change that policy. Certainly in respect of this decision which, in my opinion was unsound in itself, great additional and unnecessary harm was done to hard-working individuals who had staked their savings on the belief that if they helped the Minister for Agriculture for the time being they would not be thrown on the refuse heap by his successor. They were bitterly disappointed and it is a grave reflection on the present administration that it was possible for such a thing to happen.

I come now to the fertiliser business. I direct the attention of the House to the fact that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann imported superphosphate on a number of occasions. They first imported it in 1950/51. I was the Minister for Agriculture at the time. We had authority on that occasion to import 100,000 tons of super from Holland and my recollection is that the price paid for it was £9 per ton. In fact we secured delivery within the season of 84,000 tons. At the end of the year all that was disposed of except 18,000 tons, and that 18,000 tons had been bought at £9 a ton.

The price of super went up the following year to something like £24 a ton. In any sanely operated establishment the 18,000 tons which had been brought in at £9 a ton would then have been worth twice what it cost to buy it under the new circumstances. But my successor, doing what he thought was the wisest thing, bought an additional 40,000 tons in the following year for which I think he paid over £20 a ton and, of course, he could not sell it. As a result of that transaction we are now called upon to find a sum of £469,549 to recoup the loss as a result of that purchase of 40,000 tons.

What is the purpose of mixing up the 18,000 tons which cost £9 a ton. as far as I recollect, and which was left over from the 84,000 tons purchased in 1950/51, with the 40,000 purchased in 1951/52 at at least twice the price paid in the previous year? It is wrong to suggest the inter-Party administration were in some way responsible for a part of this loss. I do not think it was. I think all the 84,000 tons of superphosphate could have been marketed, some at a modest price and some at a very large profit, the latter being the 18,000 tons which were held over from 1951 to 1952. The purchase of 40,000 tons at the inflated price that obtained in that year was ill-advised but I hasten to say that hind-sight is always better than foresight.

I do not know what I should have done if I were Minister for Agriculture at that time. It is true that at that time there was an acute shortage of superphosphate. It was urgently necessary to bring it in. Nobody would bring it in and I look back with satisfaction on the fact that when I got the opportunity of bringing in 100,000 tons I asked the Minister for Finance could I have £1 million wherewith to do it; he said: "Yes, you may." Unless my memory deceives me I remember the representatives of the Dutch combine being in my office and making me the offer in the confident belief I would not be allowed to accept, and getting a rude shock when I accepted it there and then, because the Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, was a man of vision and understood the situation.

The purchase of superphosphate the following year was not, in my opinion, a wise decision but I hasten to add that I do not entirely criticise the then Minister for Agriculture, the late Mr. Tom Walsh. His judgment was influenced by the fact that there was this acute shortage and the important thing was to get in plenty of it and send it out. He failed to sell it and as it lay in store it became progressively difficult to dispose of it. However, although one can be too rash in a matter of this kind, I think a Minister who takes his courage in his hands and does what he believes to be right even though sometimes it turns out wrong, is deserving of more praise from this House than the kind of Minister who is so cautious that he never does anything. Therefore, although this was a costly transaction I have no doubt everybody learned by the experience, and if a mistake was made I am prepared to say it was made in the right direction. Anyone can make a mistake of that kind once and I am satisfied the same kind of mistake is unlikely to be made again.

I have no complaint to make, therefore, in regard to that subhead of the Vote except I cannot fully understand Why the 18,000 tons bought at £9 a ton are brought in as being partly responsible for the loss when in fact the profit realised on the ultimate disposal must have operated to minimise the loss which was sustained on the 40,000 tons brought in the following year.

There is one odd feature I do not fully understand and which the Minister's statement has not clarified for me. If the Minister will look at subhead S he will see that losses are estimated at £469,549. If you then look at the appropriations-in-aid you will see the figure for receipts in respect of amount provided under subhead S is £496,549. Is this just a double entry?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

That is what I understood. The Minister in his statement said the amount for the Sugar Company was £453,168.

Mr. Smith

It is a matter of bringing it before the Dáil.

Mr. Dillon

These two items are just double entries.

Mr. Smith

That is right.

Mr. Dillon

It is outgoing on one side and incoming on the other side. The important figure from the point of view of the House, if it wants to know the loss, is £453,168 and the other is simply a bookkeeping entry?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

That covers that. I would have been interested if somewhere we had details of the savings on the other subheads. The Minister in his statement gave us no further enlightenment. As a partial offset to the additional expenditure involved in the subheads mentioned there are savings on other subheads estimated at £1,525,849. Bearing in mind the original estimate amounted only to £2,384,000, subsequently revised to £4,831,000, it is a bit offhand to tell us that the extra charge is reduced by savings of £1,525,849 on an original Estimate of £2,384,355.

Mr. Smith

It is a very long list.

Mr. Dillon

I suppose it is. I can well imagine the proceedings that went on paring a bit off here and a bit off there, but I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Minister to tell us where there was a saving in excess of £10,000 on a subhead. He should tell us the subhead on which the saving was made because it should be of interest to the House to know what other services had to suffer at the instance of the Department of Finance in order to effect this saving so as to reduce the Supplementary Estimate as I mentioned.

Mr. Smith

It need not necessarity be as a result of the activities of the Department of Finance. It had nothing to do with it in fact.

Mr. Dillon

Not necessarily. That is very satisfactory.

Mr. Smith

If you cannot spend the money as provided for a particular service and shown as available for that service in the year in which it is to be spend, any portion of it not spend is credited as not having been spend.

Mr. Dillon

On my Estimates that never arose. They were carefully drawn.

Mr. Smith

The Lord protect us from extravagance.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Minister will find that at the end of the financial year there were rarely savings on any vote amounting, as in this case, to more than half of the original estimate. Come now, I should not mind a saving, owing to incapacity to spend, of ten per cent. of the original Estimate but when a Minister rambles in and says that the explanation of the savings on his vote is that he was not able to spend half of the original Estimate he will not complain if responsible members of the Opposition raise an eyebrow and say: "We would like to know where and how these extensive savings were made." Subject to these comments, I wish the Minister luck in his bovine T.B. eradication drive.

Having said so much, I want to add that I feel I am bound in duty to say, and I mean no personal offence by it, that I think the Minister is a grossly incompetent Minister for Agriculture. If he succeeds, luck must play a large part in the success that attends his efforts. I think if he can put his foot in it anywhere from horses to pigs you may depend on its being put into it, a size 12 boot with nails in it. That is all right if it only affects the Minister for Agriculture but when his incompetence seriously prejudices the vital interests of our agricultural industry and of the country itself, that is another story. I do not think the Minister ought to be where he is. He was much happier in Local Government or anywhere else. I know why, probably, they reconciled themselves to the horror of putting him back where he is—because Deputy Blaney dirtied his bib in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and they had to get rid of him out of that Department and they had to put him somewhere else or get rid of him altogether. They could not leave him in vacuo.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely this does not arise.

Mr. Dillon

I think I am entitled to criticise the Minister for Agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs does not certainly come in for criticism on this Vote.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, would never be where he is if the former Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had not dirtied his bib. Some corner had to be found to poke him into and the Custom House was available. It was that or the ashcan. The present Minister had to evacuate and some hole or corner had to be found to accommodate him and he was sent back to a post he was not deemed worthy to fill when the Government was first constituted. I think that has been a misfortune and we are paying for that unfortunate mistake now.

I should not be honest if I did not say that much because I want the Minister to know quite clearly my belief in that regard, but however incompetent he may be in my judgment, he is Minister for Agriculture, of our Government—the present Government is our Government, the Government of our people freely chosen by the Oireachtas of which we are Members—and in that capacity because it is his responsibility to do national work of vital importance, I offer him in his work for the eradication of bovine T.B. the wholehearted support of this Opposition and our best wishes for the success of his endeavours. I would urge him to recall that it is important in addition to doing his best to take good advice especially when he is opening his mouth in public or in circumstances which are liable subsequently to be published.

Mr. Blowick

I was delighted to hear the Minister say that sometime during the coming year the western areas would be accredited or attested but I would like him to be more specific and tell us when. My reason is purely selfish from the point of view of the west. I know the Minister is quite well aware of the disastrous situation that has arisen in regard to store cattle and which, rightly or wrongly, is attributed to the T.B. eradication scheme which is blamed for freezing the market.

Every Government in the past has requested farmers to increase production. They have done so and figures released by the Central Statistics Office in regard to the number of livestock in the country have borne out that fact. There has been a very substantial increase in production of livestock but the farmers are beginning to get very sour in many areas. In the South, where milk production is one of the principal activities, they find more production pays less. In the West we are beginning to find the same thing— that when we produce more cattle all that happens is that they are left on our hands. I am sure it is within the competence of the Minister and the Government to do something about it especially when it is considered that the farmers have responded magnificently to the call of the present Minister and his predecessor, Deputy Dillon, who started the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme. The farmers have responded very well and the abuses, I think, are negligible. As Deputy Dillon said, much of the talk about abuses was just a storm in a teacup. One isolated case may give rise to rumours that spread all over the West of Ireland creating the impression that everybody in the West is involved. On the contrary, I am glad to say that abuses were not substantial in number, and I think they are very few or non-existent to-day.

I want to impress on the Minister that one of the big questions at present is the full accreditation of the Western areas from the point of view of the store cattle trade. At present fields all over Connaught are filled with the very best store cattle and they cannot be sold or even given away. Arising out of that I want to ask the Minister when the area West of the Shannon is accredited, and if British buyers of store cattle come over as they have always done up to now, has the Department any special arrangements made for the transportation of these store cattle across to England? I think some special arrangement would have to be made seeing that the rest of the country through which they will travel, if they are going by train, is not accredited to safeguard them as the British regulations demand.

The same applies to shipping. Has the Department made arrangements, or is it possible for them to do so, to have direct shipping from western ports for green-tag cattle to the English ports? These are very important questions and I would like the Minister when replying to say what exactly the future will hold. He has asked for the co-operation of farmers and I know he is getting that co-operation very wholeheartedly in the wiping out of T.B. Leaving out Counties Sligo and Clare because they had the start on us by some years, the other counties, Mayo, Roscommon, Galway and Donegal, did not start so soon and it is certainly very encouraging to hear that we are so far ahead as to stand a good chance of being accredited this year.

I want to refer to item 24. Appropriations-in-Aid, receipts from cattle slaughtered under the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme, £2,130,000. I am sure the Minister has the figures. For my own information I should like if he would tell me what number of cattle that sum covers and if he would have a segregation as between store cattle and, let us say, cows and heifers? What did the Department pay for the cattle for which they received, from the canning factories I presume, £2,130,000? What I would like to know, and what most Deputies would like to know, is what is the loss to the taxpayer under this scheme. While it is costing a lot of money I have a suspicion that the Department are not losing a whole lot on the purchase and resale of these reactor cattle.

Most people I have met grumble and say that while they are willing to help the Department in getting rid of the reactors, the Department's buyers give very unsatisfactory prices even taking into account that the prices at fairs and markets are unsatisfactory. However, I do not blame the Department's buyers for buying the reactors as cheaply as possible, but I submit that if they do so they should not take advantage of the willingness of the farmers to get rid of reactors. It is well known that some farmers have too much of a fear of a reactor beast in their place at all. Perhaps the Minister would give us an idea of what these reactor cattle cost. That would satisfy a lot of people who felt they did not get a fair price for their reactors from the Department's buyers.

A circular on bovine T.B. was sent out recently to practically every farmer. It was a very useful circular and was applauded by everybody to whom I spoke. Those responsible for it certainly deserve a word of credit. Very often we are inclined to criticise civil servants and it is only right that when a good job of work is done they should equally get the credit for it.

I want to impress upon the Minister that the sale of cattle is practically frozen. I am sure the Minister for Finance knows all about that by this time. Things are in a very serious state because people cannot sell their cattle. The Bovine T.B. Scheme is blamed for that. Whether the cause is that the British will not buy our store cattle because of a doubt as to whether we are clear or not, I do not know. I suppose that is a contributory factor. Buyers in other parts of the country who are accustomed to buying our store cattle west of the Shannon are, I suppose, a bit scared until they know the area is accredited and they can buy safely. As far as I can see, the truth of the matter is that the whole of the western area is now practically clear of bovine T.B., as much as ever it will be. Of course, exceptional cases of an outbreak of bovine T.B. will occur from time to time. In any event, some people in the West are very badly hit at present. The sheep farmers were severely hit last year, and most farmers there do a little in both cattle and sheep. Sheep improved slightly during the Winter but cattle have frozen completely. If the Minister could do anything to remedy that position, he would be doing something very necessary at present.

I want to say something now on the Land Rehabilitation Scheme. Is there any hope of re-establishing, even to a limited extent, the section B scheme? The Minister will probably tell me that the Department have sold all their machinery. One of his predecessors in the Fianna Fáil Government did what he was perfectly entitled to do: he arrived at the decision himself, he did not have to come to the House for permission or even acquaint the House that he was going to terminate the B scheme and sell the machinery purchased by his predecessor, Deputy Dillon, who started the scheme.

That B scheme did a vast amount of useful work—work that could not be done under any other scheme and is not being done to-day. I do not want to make an issue of the matter but I want to impress on the Minister that if the B scheme could be reinaugurated, even at the cost of buying some new machinery, it would be well worth while. At present everybody has to fall back on the A scheme where they undertake the work themselves or get a private contractor to do it. Many small farmers—and I believe these are the people to whom the scheme should apply—have not the capital or the dry cash left aside to enable them to do it. The Minister for Lands, who is in charge of the Land Commission, has to come to the rescue of some of the smallholders by giving them additional land. But a sizeable portion of the smallholders at present have land which could be brought into first class condition if they could get the benefit of the Land Reclamation Scheme. In that way the Minister could help them out at much less cost to the State.

The decision to terminate the B Scheme was a disastrous one. I do not know what was the cause of it and I shall not hazard a guess. It was a mistake. Whoever advised it gave very foolish advice indeed. It was a much more useful section than section A. It may be contended that the Department were relieved of a certain amount of administration because the B scheme involved a good deal of difficulty. At the present time the whole responsibility is thrown on top of the farmer who is contracting to get the work done. That is all nice and easy for the Department but it absolutely removes the bottom from the whole basis of the Land Project. The Minister should re-establish Section B and even if it were on a very limited scale he would be doing a very good job of work.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I shall not delay the House very long but there is one matter which has always disturbed me in regard to the operations of the T.B. scheme. That is the fact that a condemned animal is retained by the owner pending collection at owner's risk. In cases where there is considerable delay between notification on the part of the owner of his desire to have his herd tested and the actual testing, and subsequent considerable delay of some weeks between the condemning of the animal and its collection, and during the latter period the animal dies, I do think it is most unfair that the owner should be deprived of all benefits. That is particularly true when the number of animals owned by a farmer is small, a situation which occurs particularly in the western counties where the average holding is small and, consequently, the average number of beasts on it is minute.

Deputy Dillon referred to the fact that rumours were circulating regarding traffic in green cattle tags. I agree with him that if there is anything in these allegations they should be most carefully investigated by the Department, and I would like to say that in the last week I have heard two complaints regarding abuses of that sort in the vicinity of the town in which I reside and that I propose to give such particulars as I have been able to acquire to the Minister for very careful investigation. I have some grounds for believing that in one case, at least, an abuse of the scheme was attempted if not successfully accomplished.

I do not hold very much with Deputy Blowick's speech because I think he made the kind which he considers will appear well in the local newspapers next week. I think it is contemptible to say, or indicate in any way, that the T.B. scheme has an adverse effect on the cattle industry. It is quite wrong of anybody to make that suggestion but it is very contemptible for a member of this House to do so, considering the issues that are at stake.

The grave problem where the west of Ireland is concerned is the one referred to at the end of the Minister's speech. That is the problem of the movement of cattle out of a clearance area. That is a matter which has already been the subject of certain court proceedings but it is my view that the penalties exacted were not severe enough and that the law in respect to the movement of cattle out of a clearance area, or from a non-clearance area into a clearance area, should be tightened up considerably and that, after the western counties are declared accredited—I think I am using the right word—the penalties should be very severe indeed. In that respect I am sure the Department will ask that the Garda give very special attention in the early stages so that punitive fines, and possibly terms of imprisonment, may be imposed on offenders and in that way act as a deterrent to others.

The only other matter to which I wish to refer is one which was also raised by previous speakers in reference to Section B of the Land Project. I should like to say that I was satisfied at the time the decision was made that, from a national point of view, it was the correct decision. I also felt, and feel more so as time passes by, that it has worked hardship, in particular on some western counties. In that respect I agree with what Deputy Blowick said, that the small holdings in Mayo and Galway are of a nature which are not very well suited to Section A and that some consideration should be given to a re-introduction, perhaps on an area basis, of Section B.

I appreciate that there are difficulties in that but the plain facts are that the types of land vary enormously from one part of the country to another and the conditions under which people farm also vary to a tremendous extent. Over the weekend I spent some time in the southern counties, particularly in Co. Limerick, and of course there is no comparison at all between the conditions there and those in the poorer parts of the congested western counties though, fortunately, we have on average a very low rate of T.B. in cattle, much lower than they have in Limerick. In passing I think the Minister, in time, will have to give special attention to areas where the number of reactors is as high as two-thirds. That, of course, is bound to put a tremendous burden on the farmers themselves because they will lose, even through subsidies, the replacement value of the cattle and per head will probably have to find something in the order of £15 for 40 or 50 cattle in each herd.

I did not intend to mention these counties except to point out that the conditions of farming there, and the type of land they have, are vastly different from what we have and to support the contention that the Minister might consider reintroducing section B for certain counties, especially because I think the figures prove that since its discontinuance the volume of applications has substantially fallen, particularly in north Galway and Mayo.

Mr. Smith

It has increased by 2,000 during the year 1959—mind you, 2,000 applications.

Mr. S. Flanagan

That may have been from the whole of Galway and the whole of Mayo.

Mr. Smith

From the whole of the country.

Mr. S. Flanagan

But my information is that it has not increased from the areas I mentioned.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy's information and my records are different.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I do not wish to argue with the Minister; I am merely putting a point of view. If the Minister can prove to me that the areas I am talking about—north Galway and the poorer parts of Mayo—have been able to keep up the impetus of the land reclamation scheme since Section B was discontinued, I will be prepared to swallow my words but I am not prepared to accept national records because the type of farms differs in other parts of the country from what they are in the parts to which I refer, and which I mentioned in the course of my speech.

As I say, I am prepared to be proved wrong and I merely raised this question because I believe from my interpretation of the figures, and the information I have been given locally, that the discontinuance of section B, while being a proper decision from a national point of view, was a decision which worked hardship on certain areas in the west of Ireland and that the Minister, therefore, if he is satisfied, and only if he is satisfied that what I am saying is substantially accurate, might consider reintroducing that section for limited parts of the country.

I regret very much if the Minister got in any way annoyed. I am merely saying what is the result of my observations, of my discussions with the farmers and other people involved in the administration of the scheme, and something which I feel bound I ought to convey to the Minister publicly. I would welcome a statement from him on this, more particularly because of the way in which Deputy Dillon misrepresented the Minister's motives for his original decision and, for that matter, misrepresented the position under this scheme which was responsible for the Minister's decision in the first instance.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The leader of the Opposition has made it quite clear that the Fine Gael Party fully support the provision of money for the purpose of eliminating bovine tuberculosis but many people believe that we are not getting value for the money that is being spent. Farmers are hesitant and doubtful about availing of this scheme, one of the reasons being the uncertainty that has prevailed in the cattle trade in the last twelve months.

I have called at the Department of Agriculture in regard to this matter and have been assured repeatedly that everything is all right, that the prices are as good as, if not better than, they were last year and that they are certainly better than they were the year before.

The fact is that farmers who have attended marts and fairs in the last six months have been unable to sell their cattle. That led to doubt and uncertainty. I have seen cattle that passed the 14 day test being put up for sale shortly before other cattle which were not attested and the price differential was very small. That caused farmers to ask themselves the question, if they went to the expense and trouble of having their cattle attested, would they be suitably remunerated for it. The Minister ought to be able to make a statement to the House which would reassure the people concerned that there is some certainty of being able to dispose of such stock in the future.

Another factor which affects the eradication scheme is that statements have been issued recently by experts in agricultural journals to the effect that British farmers have been perfecting dual pregnancy in cattle, by which a vast amount of their store requirements can be produced in future.

A statement by the Minister would help to remove the doubts that exist with regard to the sale of cattle. Farmers must be assured that if they succeed in eradicating tuberculosis, they will certainly sell their cattle, can earn substantial incomes from such sales. If huge sums of money are spent in order to reserve the store cattle trade, we must be sure that they are not being spent in vain.

The administration of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme is a matter for the professional section of the Department of Agriculture. When Deputy Dillon was speaking here this evening the Minister assured him that there was no shortage of veterinary staff. I think the Minister is perhaps misstating the case there.

Mr. Smith

I did not say such a thing.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I withdraw but that is what I understood.

Mr. Smith

I said we had made the same effort and given the same encouragement to all the counties, whether or not they all responded in the same way.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

That clarifies the issue. The position is that the Minister is short of veterinary staff. Until he has the requisite veterinary staff he will not be able to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. A scheme like this, for which we are voting large sums of money, requires supervision. The major part of the work will have to be carried out by veterinary surgeons in private practice but there must be supervision from the Department in order to ensure that there will be a cohesive and practical scheme. For that purpose, the Minister must have a skilled veterinary staff. The salaries provided must be sufficient to attract veterinary surgeons. Since the inception of the scheme here, the incomes of veterinary surgeons have increased and their services are in constant demand. Veterinary surgeons cannot be expected to enter the Government service unless they are adequately remunerated. I understand that any difficulties that existed between the Minister and veterinary surgeons have been solved. The Minister should employ a bigger veterinary staff and give it a much bigger say in the administration of this scheme. In that way he will get better results. A highly specialist scheme such as this cannot be administered by an enormous staff. The Minister should create a small subcommittee within his Department, to be responsible to him for administering the scheme effectively and efficiently throughout the country.

I may be wrong but from my contacts as a Deputy with the Department of Agriculture I am under the impression that in regard to many facets of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme there is considerable overlapping, that there are huge unnecessary files, that there is a great deal of unnecessary administrative work. If the Minister wants to complete the scheme in a hurry, the further he gets from the Departmental mentality and all the administrative details connected with it, the better.

With regard to the testing of herds in various counties there are delays which, of course, are due to lack of veterinary staff. The herd testing scheme was initiated in Wexford a long time ago and there are literally hundreds of herds waiting to be tested. Repeated applications have been made. I have made applications on behalf of herd owners. There is no certainty as to when the herds can be tested. That boils down again to lack of veterinary supervision from the Department, though the West, and the other counties, Cavan, the Minister's own county and Monaghan, I am glad to hear, will soon be free.

At the same time, notwithstanding all the money spent and the emergency facing us now, if we are to maintain our store trade I think that the scheme is not going ahead as fast as it should. I consider the staff—these are the buyers that are dealing with the reactors—must be inadequate, anyway in the part of the country in which I live. That would include the country along the east coast as a whole because I think it is all administered from the one centre; it is administered as far as I know from Waterford. I consider that there are not sufficient buyers to go round and buy in these reactors. I am not saying anything against the price because, taking it by and large, the price offered in comparison with the competitive prices that exist now on the open market has been in the main pretty satisfactory. But I do know certain cases, three or four cases, in which people have been waiting having had their herds tested. Having had the second test done, they have been waiting for periods like three to four months to have their reactors bought.

That is not a proper administration of the scheme. I do not know who is responsible but I do know that the only person who can put it right is the Minister for Agriculture. I ask him to accept those statements as facts of which I am personally cognisant in my own area. The difficulty that I see is that it is impossible in counties that are not attested areas to get rid of the infection. We get our herds tested and we can have our reactors bought; that is true. We can have them bought out of our herds but what are we to do with the rest of our tested stock—the dry stock, bullocks of varying ages, two to three years or whatever they may be? If we take them out and sell them—I am dealing entirely with stock that are stores—are we not, in effect, only passing them over the ditch and pushing them on to the next farm? It seems to me if we are to eradicate bovine tuberculosis, if we ever hope to do it effectively to the point where we would have the same system applying to the whole of Ireland, as applies at present to the attested areas, I say it cannot be done the way you are doing it. Possibly there may be some change as a result of the new scheme that the Department are now considering introducing and I believe have introduced in some cases, a system about which many people know nothing.

I think the Minister would do well to advertise this scheme on a greater scale. It is a system of farm attesting, under which fields are cleared for a month and are then considered attested areas. If a farm is big enough the farmer can divide his stock into halves; he can then have one half attested and gradually eliminate any stock that does not pass the test, passing later to the other half. I understand in that case the Department are willing, after the second 14-day test, to buy reactor stock whether of the herd or the ordinary dry stock. That is a scheme that commends itself to me but I do not think the majority of farmers know anything about that scheme. I do not think there is sufficient advertising to the public as a whole that such a scheme is in existence and that brings us back again to the question of agricultural advisers. If we had enough agricultural advisers, if those agricultural advisers could be, as Deputy Dillon believes they should be, stationed practically in every parish; if they could go round to the people giving lectures and interviews and discussing these things with the farmers as a whole; if they could make it clear to them that such a scheme does exist, I think that would be the road to the eradication of bevine tuberculosis.

Before I leave that subject I want to say that until such time as there is security of trade for the sale of livestock in this country, any scheme will fail so whether the Government are in a position to improve the trade or not I do not know. We do not know what is going on in these negotiations but I feel that the Minister for Agriculture should put it to his counterpart or to whomsoever he has discussions with in the United Kingdom that this is of paramount importance, that if the British want to continue getting store cattle from Ireland, if they want to get tuberculosis-free cattle from him, they have to guarantee that they will buy those cattle over a long period. If they do that, I think it will go a long way towards helping to eradicate bovine tuberculosis.

A word on the land reclamation scheme. I agree with what all the other speakers have said about the abolition of Project B. I think it was a disastrous thing and that it caused tremendous hardship. The case Deputy Dillon mentioned this afternoon of three people putting their life savings into this scheme, of later losing their employment and having to emigrate, is only parallel with many other cases. I think, apart from everything else, it imposed a hardship on the small farmers who were largely depending on that scheme. I think it worked well and was a satisfactory scheme; the Minister would be well advised to reconsider it. He said himself, intervening when Deputy Seán Flanagan was speaking, that there were only about 2,000 cases in the whole of Ireland. If there were only 2,000 cases in the whole of Ireland, was it worth wrecking a scheme when it could easily have been carried out?

Mr. Smith

I made no such statement.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Would the Minister tell me what he said?

Mr. Smith

I do not understand how I could be misunderstood. Deputy S. Flanagan had stated that the number of applications had fallen under the scheme. I corrected him by saying that that was not accurate. In fact, the number of applications in 1959 was 2,000 more, making a total in all of 24,000 applications but 2,000 more than the previous year.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Would the Minister mind telling me how many there are altogether?

Mr. Smith

24,000 in one year.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

That is not a terrible lot. How many small farmers are there in the whole of Ireland?

Mr. Smith

If you take the percentage of the number of small farmers in the country, it is a fairly large percentage for one year.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

What is going to happen to the small farmer who wants to have his land done?

Mr. Smith

He can apply with the 24,000.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The small farmers can and do apply in County Wexford; they wait and their land is not inspected. There is no sign of the scheme being carried out on their land. When I apply on their behalf—as do my colleagues and I am sure people on the other side—they get the usual stereotyped letter.

Mr. Smith

How do I come to have spent £250,000 more this year under Section A than any previous year?

Sir A. Esmonde

The Minister has not spent it in Wexford wherever else he spent it. He spent it in Wicklow. A farmer can apply in Wicklow and the job on his farm is done within six months. A farmer in Wexford applies; he goes to myself and my fellow Deputies; we make application on his behalf and we always get the same answer, that the matter has been noted. The Minister can inquire into what I have said and if necessary I will give him a list of applications that have been made.

I am continually going to the Land Reclamation Office. While the scheme may be going ahead in other counties—I am not qualified to speak for them but I am qualified to speak for my own county—the scheme is not going ahead in Wexford. I have nothing else to add except to welcome the expenditure on Johnstown Castle. I hope the Agricultural Science Committee there will be of some benefit to the country.

Mr. Corry

I think that the principal thing we are concerned with in this Estimate is the eradication of bovine T.B. I should like to see the Estimate trebled in this respect if I thought that a good job was going to be done. However, I think the greatest mistake is being made in the dairying counties. We have had a very good leaflet issued by the Department showing the danger of a farmer retaining those cattle in his possession. It showed very clearly the manner in which the infection is passed from those cattle but I think it is ridiculous to have half a dozen borders in this country as far as this matter is concerned.

I know that in County Cork the scheme is being worked very well indeed and I cannot express too highly my appreciation of the work of the officer in charge, Mr. Gilmore. However, it is unfair that in a county like Cork a man like that, in charge of this scheme, should have to give two days in the week to other duties. That is ridiculous and wrong.

Then you have the position as regards what you call store cattle. In some counties, if a bullock or a store beast goes down with T.B. it is compensated for and cleared out. But the farmer in Cork and the dairying counties has to keep his bullock and endeavour to fatten it and sell it as best he can. It is hard to put meat on a T.B. animal. That results in a store beast remaining on a farm and spreading infection. If we are to deal with this problem at all let us deal with it straightaway and get done with it. Let us not have one law for Wexford, another for Cork, another for Waterford and another for the West of Ireland. Let us deal with it from the point of view that if the Department are correct in issuing the leaflet they have issued in regard to the spread of infection by keeping a T.B. animal on the land, and from my experience they are correct, they should come along and compensate for the bullock and the store animal and get rid of them at the same time that they are getting rid of the cows. Let us make one shot at it.

If a farmer finds that a couple of store cattle go down in a test, they are left on his hands. There is no way of disposing of them; they are reactor cattle and they remain on his land. The next time he has a test he finds that a couple of his cows go down owing to being infected by the reactor animals. We should have realism in this matter. An Estimate of £8,700,000 ought to bring home to everybody the enormous cost of this scheme. If we are to approach it from that point of view, let us not leave on every farm infected beasts to carry on the disease after we have cleared the cows.

I was amused when I heard Deputy Blowick complain of the bad prices paid by the valuers. We experienced the same thing in Cork and we produced a scheme, through the kindness of the Minister, whereby the animal is sold and the Department pays the farmer £15 in compensation in addition to what he got for the animal. I was surprised to find that in the last month in which the old scheme was in operation there was a rush of people to have the Department's valuer come in and do the job. These people wanted the old scheme instead of the new one and a number of people still complain and seek to have the old scheme restored.

I happen to be a member of the eradication committee in Cork and I saw what was happening there. At every meeting you had delegates making complaints about the prices being paid by the valuer and when you got your list you found that the valuer was paying something from £15 to £22 over the value of the animal. The two arguments could not be right so we came to the decision that the farmer should sell his beast for the best he could and let the Government take on there.

I do not know how far the Department have investigated the question of the replacement of cows that have to be slaughtered. I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter to which he should give very careful attention and I think that the Minister is on the generous side in the manner in which he is treating this question of bovine T.B. If a man has fourteen cattle, and ten cows go down under the test, he sells them for what he can get and then gets, in addition, £15 each for his reactors. There is a 60 day test and the other four or, in some cases, the other two are tested. Again he gets £8 apiece. He has already got £15, so that is £23 apiece from the State. That is good compensation and I do not think any man has grounds for complaint.

He has the price of his animal and he is entitled to £23. I have seen it tried out by a few people up to now and I can say they had to add very little, if anything, to that to buy a heifer. There seems to be a widespread dread that replacements may not be available and if the Minister could reassure the people in that respect it would speed up the clearance of reactor cattle.

I would appeal to the Minister to send somebody to help Mr. Gilmore in his duties in Cork. At least one veterinary officer in charge of the whole county of Cork for bovine T.B. eradication should be a wholetime officer. I cannot find words to express the appreciation of the committee in general of the manner in which Mr. Gilmore is carrying out his duties. He has given some of us a far different impression of the Department of Agriculture from what we had.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy did not have to wait so long for that.

Mr. Corry

I shall not go into that now. Since the Minister has alluded to it I wonder if he could tell us how many reactors were left in Bansha or is it a ticklish question or a wrong question? Would the Minister tell us why in relation to this scheme which was brought in seven or eight years ago with a flourish of trumpets——

Mr. Smith

No question is wrong as far as I am concerned, but I do not have to answer them all.

Mr. Corry

We got a return in relation to this village, and it has a very dampening effect on a county that goes to clear bovine T.B. to find that in one little parish where they have been working hard at it for ten years there are more reactors today than when they started.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

Is the Deputy not going into too much detail on the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Corry

I am going into details in relation to a sum of £8,000,000, a substantial amount of money.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

That is the major point.

Mr. Corry

That is the major question and that is the reason I am devoting my attention to it. There is an additional sum of £5,284,000. I am aware many people think that is only a bagatelle at the present day. However, tied up in this Estimate is the whole future of our cattle trade. I have endeavoured from time to time here to point out the foolishness of the Department and to indicate where they were wrong. I cannot understand the Department clearing, for instance, Cork County and the Port of Cork. Where are the attested cattle to go now to be shipped? We have about 80 farmers already clearing out cattle for attestation in Cork, and they are going ahead to finish the job. I consider that fairly satisfactory. Nevertheless I would set a limit to the period of clearing out reactors by the farmers. I think nine months is a reasonable period. If there is a cow in full milk which has reacted it should be given a period in which the milking season would finish. There is no use in spending £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 and at the same time having the danger of losing our cattle trade. We must have some assurance in order to be able to carry on with confidence.

That is my only anxiety in regard to this Estimate. Deputies have been talking about the land project and how the different schemes under it have been worked. As far as my constituency is concerned I can say the project is working satisfactorily. I have not heard of the delays Deputy Esmonde complained of. I do not think there is any farmer in Cork who applied who did not have an inspector down at least within a fortnight or three weeks. As a matter of fact it is the one scheme in which great satisfaction is being given by the officials concerned. I see no ground for complaints.

Again I appeal to the Minister to consider the position of a farmer who has four or five cows which go down under the test, who also has a couple of store cattle which go down, and who, whether he likes it or not, is compelled to keep on these store cattle. I suggest it is time the scheme that applies in the west should also apply in the east. Those cattle should be taken away and compensated for.

Mr. Wycherley

It seems to be quite easy to vote large sums of money here but it does not seem to be so easy to spend the money wisely and to the best advantage of those who should benefit. Unfortunately, the farmers do not always get the benefit of money which is intended for them. That happens particularly in regard to the £15 bonus which dairy farmers in the southern areas were to get when the scheme started last October, because no sooner was the scheme put into operation in those counties than the price of reactor cows dropped at least £15 with the result that the position was no better after the introduction of the new scheme. The result was that large numbers of reactors were taken back from the fairs and the marts to the byres of the farmers because of the uneconomic price offered last October, November and December.

It may be a good thing that those cows are still there because some of them are now calving and producing calves which will be exported at some time. They will also produce another season's milk but it will postpone the day for the eradication of bovine T.B. It was regrettable that such a thing should have been allowed to happen at that time and I think the Minister should ensure in future that when a scheme is put forward for the benefit of the farmers that the farmers will, in fact, benefit. What happened last year slowed up the disposal of reactors but I would not want anybody to say that the farmers are to blame. They certainly should not be blamed if they had to take back a reactor because of the low price offered. I have plenty of experience of that in my own area. The prices offered were shocking and nobody could expect the farmers to accept them for reasonably good animals.

Mr. Smith

To take up 40,000 of them in a matter of three months was not a bad job.

Mr. Wycherley

There are thousands of them still there that would have been disposed of were it not for the slump in prices.

Mr. Smith

We are more sure of the thousands we have taken up than the thousands the Deputy speaks about and about which, I suppose. nobody knows anything except for a bit of guess work.

Mr. Wycherley

It is not guess work so far as I am concerned. The cows are still there and only yesterday I heard Mr. Gilmore complaining of the poor co-operation he was getting from farmers, that they were not getting rid of the reactors quicker. That is because of the drop in price. I know prices have improved now but when cows are near calving nobody could expect farmers to sell them.

As regards store and beef cattle, last Fall I saw where cattle for the canneries and the carcass beef trade went to higher prices than cattle sold for export on the hoof. For that reason I think the all-important matter at present is to develop that trade as much as possible so that all reactor bullocks can at least be sold to the canning factories at reasonable prices. There was very little difficulty in getting £6 per cwt. for them last fall if they were in fair condition. You could not do better even on the export market. It is very important then that foreign markets should be explored by An Coras Tráchtála or other interested bodies, to get an outlet for dressed carcase beef or canned meat because there is no other way of disposing of our reactor bullocks, as far as I can see.

Good housing for young store cattle is also very important in relation to T.B. eradication. Most young cattle are born free of T.B. but because of bad housing they often become infected. I strongly urge the Minister to give every encouragement by way of grants for the building of houses for store cattle, especially young cattle, because at that stage they can pick up infection easily. They are less liable to if well housed.

Some farmers who went into this scheme of bovine T.B. eradication five years ago have a grievance because they went to all the trouble and expense of getting rid of T.B. at that time. They claim that they are getting no benefit from the scheme. They were first in the field in getting rid of T.B. and the people who were slow are now getting all the benefit and encouragement. It would be appreciated if the Minister could see his way to give some compensation to such farmers by way of increased prices for milk from T.B. free herds. It is not sufficient to encourage the people who have T.B. cattle to get rid of them; it is also necessary to back up the people who in the early stages succeeded in eradicating T.B. and to give increased milk prices to those who were enterprising and industrious enough to do so. They were really the pioneers of the movement; they helped in no small way to lay the foundation of good herds and I think that after their labour and expense they are entitled to some recompense.

Not alone would that give compensation to those who have got rid of T.B. in their cattle but it would also encourage those who are at the stage of being nearly rid of it to finish the job as quickly as possible. I strongly urge the Minister to hold out that bait to all farmers now nearing completion of the job—give increased milk prices for milk from T.B. free herds. If he does that I believe the eradication will be carried out much more quickly than at present.

I wish the Minister every success in his great effort. It is the most important problem confronting us today. I believe the Minister will get the full co-operation of all the farmers. But the farmers will expect common sense to prevail and will expect a fair deal in the matter of disposing of their reactors and of supplying their milk to the creameries when T.B. is eradicated. The attestation of farms is also a very important matter. I would agree with Deputy Corry that the staff in Cork are not sufficiently large to cater for the present demand. Sufficient staff must be provided to deal with the amount of work involved in the eradication of bovine T.B. Sometimes I hear farmers saying that if there was a demand for the cattle in the moming, we would hear very little about T.B. The same thing was said when the foot-and-mouth disease was in England, that if there was a demand for the cattle there would be no talk of foot-and-mouth disease. However, the fact remains that we must supply the customer with what he wants. I believe the farmer is doing a reasonably good job and I have no doubt but that he will make a reasonably good success of it in the space of a few years.

Mr. Coogan

I was amused to hear some of the Deputies opposite express fears about the cattle trade. A couple of years ago we had them going around telling us that the cattle trade was finished and thank God. That is as far as I shall go in that. I feel you would not allow me to go further, Sir.

Under subhead F.7, I see here an additional figure of £34,110 for University Colleges. The amount was voted for the agricultural faculties at U.C.D. and U.C.C. The figure for Dublin for the current year is £30,000, and the figure for Cork represents an increase of £4,110. We have passed resolutions in Galway asking for an extension of the agricultural faculty at University College, Galway. I note that in the amounts before us there is nothing at all for the College in Galway, and I must express my disappointment at that. There is a demand for an extension of the agricultural faculty at Galway, and the Minister should take up the matter. We have heard that U.C.D. is completely overcrowded and is bursting at the seams. The Minister can play his part in meeting the demand from Galway by extending the Faculty of Agriculture, there. I put it to him that we have in Athenry one of the finest agricultural colleges in the country and that College in conjunction with the University could meet the demand from Galway while not costing a lot of money.

I must change now to a very different subject and draw the attention of the Minister to the great dissatisfaction in the pig trade in Galway and the west generally. This dissatisfaction has been caused by a system introduced by the bacon factories known as purchasing on dead weight. The producer does not know from one fair to another what price he will get.

Acting Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

That is more a matter for the general Estimate.

Mr. Coogan

Before the general Estimate comes up I should like to put it to the Minister that great damage would be done to this trade in the west. The producer will not be prepared to produce. Briefly, I would ask the Minister not to leave the producer at the mercy of the bacon factories. I should have liked to enlarge on those points but I shall wait until the main Estimate. However, I should like the Minister to look into them.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This Supplementary Estimate deals mainly with the provision of money for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and to meet the demands until the end of the financial year in connection with the Land Rehabilitation Scheme. I want to take this opportunity of making an observation on both of these very important schemes. If there is any section of the community seriously feeling the pinch of economic conditions today, it is the agricultural community. Therefore, the Minister for Agriculture is charged with very great responsibility, particularly in regard to the eradication of bovine T.B. In all fairness I want it to go on record that from the experience I have had— limited and all as it is—of the Minister's Department, particularly the section dealing with bovine T.B., I have found it efficient in the discharge of its duties and I am satisfied that the officers in charge of that section are capable and competent. Furthermore, I believe they have a clear understanding of the problems facing the farming community and particularly of the problems facing dairy farmers and the owners of large herds of cattle. From time to time I have had occasion to get in touch with the Minister's Department in regard to various aspects of this scheme and I am quite satisfied that whenever a farmer or group of farmers had any grievance concerning the purchase of reactors, the Department lost no time in dealing promptly with it. They are doing a difficult and thankless job in a very satisfactory manner.

It is most important that this scheme should be completed with the least possible delay. Deputies on all sides know the importance of the eradication of bovine T.B. For that reason this issue cannot be described as a political issue. It is absolutely necessary in the interests of the future of our livestock trade, and absolutely necessary in the interests of the health of the agricultural community that this problem should be tackled, and tackled courageously, with every speed and efficiency.

It is true to say that farmers who are participating in this scheme may have suffered loss and may have their own problems, and I am inclined to agree with the observations made by Deputy Wycherley when he referred to the fact that there should be more generous schemes by way of grant to farmers in those areas for proper water supplies and proper housing accommodation for live stock. I think the time has come when the Minister ought to give consideration to the question of grants to farmers for cow byres, for the provision of water supplies to farm yards, and that the time has come, in view of the increased cost of materials and the increased cost of labour, that there should be a general reorganisation of those schemes. I would highly recommend to the Minister, in view of the importance of finishing this job with the least possible delay, that those grants be very substantially increased and that a greater measure of financial support be given to farmers as a source of encouragement to them and as an aid to securing their full co-operation.

When this scheme was started some years ago, a certain number of years was set out in which progress was to be made, and it was emphasised at that time that it was absolutely necessary that the support of every farmer in the country be obtained. I cannot say that the Party who are now in office as a Government gave that scheme their fullest co-operation and support and, by not doing so, I feel they have added to the difficult task which lies ahead of the farmers. I also feel that they have made more difficult the job which lies ahead of the present Minister for Agriculture. They did that by not driving home the importance of this scheme when they had the opportunity of doing so. In other words, the scheme was practically shelved for a few years.

One of the reasons why it was practically shelved was that it was the inter-Party Government who were responsible for introducing it. That is one of the great tragedies of this country as far as agriculture is concerned. There is an old legacy of spite which passes on from one Government to another. If a Government introduces a scheme which benefits the community, the Government which follows it shows its spite against the Minister who introduced it by sabotaging the scheme, or giving it a rest in which it is surrounded by cobwebs and dust. They say "That is a scheme he brought in and we will show him and his supporters that we are not going ahead with it."

That brings me to the Land Rehabilitation Scheme. If any of us were to take up a newspaper and read of some continental country that was responsible for introducing a scheme which, over a very short period of time, was responsible for adding an extra million acres of arable land to the land of that country we would be inclined to say that whatever kind of Government they were they had appeared to have their heads screwed on, and that they were progressive. Any scheme which adds a million acres of arable land to the land of a country is worth a certain amount of recommendation but the Land Reclamation Scheme, introduced by the inter-Party Government, which brought an extraordinary change on the land in rural Ireland has been slowed down. Any Deputy in the Government Party can see that that scheme has not been carried on with the same drive and force as was the case before Fianna Fáil resumed office.

It was the intention of the originators of that scheme, and it is the policy of the Fine Gael Party, that that scheme will remain in operation until its full and final purpose has been achieved, until the last acre of land has been reclaimed for the biggest as well as the smallest farmer in the country. From my own experience I know that a large volume of applications is still coming in from farmers but the usual reply from the Department is that applications are dealt with in strict rotation. That may be so but nevertheless the amount of work that has been carried on under that scheme in very recent years is not in accordance with the volume of applications coming in from farmers to avail of the facilities offered by it.

I am sorry to say that Section B was discontinued and the reason put forward by the Minister for Agriculture was not one that would carry weight. I do not know if Deputy Dillon dealt very fully with this matter when he spoke this afternoon. I expect he did and I expect he made it very clear, not alone to this House but to the farmers of the country, that when the Fine Gael Party resumes Government after the next general election one of the first steps to be taken will be to implement Section B of the Land Scheme so that the Department of Agriculture may undertake work for those farmers who were denied its benefits by the fact that the present Government cancelled it.

The Department of Agriculture must know quite well that one of the greatest assets to a farmer is to have his land free of flooding, free of rocks, and shrubs, and furze, and all that was done under the scheme. The farmers readily appreciate the amount of work which the officials of the Department of Agriculture did in connection with that scheme and I would be unjust to myself, and to the Department of Agriculture, if I did not point that out. That was one of the best and most progressive schemes introduced in this country since the State was established and it is a great pity that it did not find more favour with the present Government. The reason for that is the story I have just told, because it was not brought in by themselves, because they did not think of it themselves, and because of spite for the Government who were responsible for it. They tried to sabotage the scheme and they have been successful in holding up a vast amount of useful and valuable work that could have been carried out under it for the benefit of the farmers.

Land drainage is of the very greatest importance and when we see the major schemes of drainage that have been undertaken on the Clyde and Dee, the River Brosna, and other main drainage schemes, it is clear that there are sufficient falls to carry water off farm land but it has been my experience that in many cases where joint applications were made by groups of farmers there has been unreasonable and undue delay in dealing with their applications. There has, of course, never been any question of delay in dealing with correspondence but there has been great delay in putting the works into operation. Whether that delay has been due to difficulty in obtaining suitable contractors to carry out the work, I cannot say. Any scheme which would improve the fertility of the soil, which would provide additional land for small holders, is of the greatest possible importance. It is difficult enough to eke out an existence at present on land that is properly drained, in a high state of cultivation and in good heart.

The Government would be well advised to change their tune so far as the land rehabilitation scheme is concerned. That scheme has the support of every farmer. Even the most outstanding supporters of the present Government have admitted publicly that the land rehabilitation scheme was one of the best schemes ever introduced in this country. Therefore, I am rather disappointed with the amount of money provided in the Estimate for last year and the amount that it is anticipated will be provided in the coming year. In my opinion, the amount of money so provided is not sufficient for the large volume of work that farmers are anxious to undertake.

I would be glad to hear from the Minister if his Department have any fixed time by which they hope to complete the land reclamation scheme. There is a large volume of applications that have not yet been dealt with. I cannot say that in respect of my own constituency. I can say that schemes which are easy to undertake are the schemes that are carried out and difficult schemes seem to be deferred for consideration. I would be very glad if steps were taken to expedite work under this scheme.

There was a time when emigrants who had saved money by their industry and thrift returned to this country and invested their savings in the purchase of machinery. Land reclamation machinery costs thousands of pounds. The complete equipment may cost £7,000. Many land project contractors have been in a very serious plight as a result of the curtailment of the scheme. Such contractors were a great asset to the country in providing productive employment. Land reclamation is important from the point of view of increased fertility of the soil and the provision of employment.

Farmers generally are under the impression, perhaps correctly, that this Government are not favourably disposed to the land rehabilitation scheme. I trust that in the Estimates for the coming financial year there will be a vast increase in the provision for that scheme. The amount of money provided in the Estimate last year was not sufficient. That may be the reason for this Supplementary Estimate. If sufficient money had been provided at the commencement of the year, more useful work could have been undertaken.

I had a number of aspects to deal with concerning the Minister's behaviour. It is no harm to place on record here that from a Minister for Agriculture, responsible for the land rehabilitation scheme and the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme, a little more diplomacy would be welcomed by everybody who has reason to contact his Department. I do not intend to be personal. I should not like to be personal on this occasion but everybody knows that the Minister for Agriculture is not noted for his kindliness, hospitality or friendliness.

Mr. S. Browne

That is the most impersonal statement of the year.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I said I did not want to be personal. If I were personal, I would have said something. Farmers who have come in contact with the Minister have not been impressed by the manner in which they were received. A Minister for Agriculture should have a little more diplomacy when dealing with people in connection with schemes sponsored by his Department. The N.F.A., Macra na Feirme, land project contractors, associations connected with the Department, do not want to get a slap in the mouth when they offer their co-operation. There have been occasions when agricultural organisations and associations that were prepared to help the Minister in implementing schemes provided for in this Supplementary Estimate and in other votes got a slap in the teeth. I do not propose to elaborate on that matter. I will have something to say in regard to it on the main Estimate. By having made this observation in regard to the land reclamation scheme I hope and trust that if those in charge of the various organisations which are concerned with the scheme have occasion to approach the Minister they will be received with hospitality. I know that courtesy is not provided for in this Estimate. Nevertheless, it is no harm to warn the Minister that he lacks courtesy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I would be very sorry to do so. I will leave it at that in the hope that the warning I have given will be the means of sowing the seed of courtesy, which may bloom within the next 12 months.

Mr. Smith

I was very anxious to have an opportunity of expressing my disappointment to-night. I might not be in the same humour for doing it to-morrow.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

What is the Minister disappointed at?

Mr. Smith

I thought I was a brave, a generous and a nice fellow to meet. The fact that Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Dillon have not found me so does not prove I am not.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is a good thing to have a high opinion of oneself.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am concerned with dairymen in so far as this Supplementary Estimate is concerned. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter which nobody else has mentioned. My experience is that when a man gets his cows tested, half of them may react. The best cows generally react and he finds it very hard to part with them. I want to say at the outset that I do not consider this sum of money anything out of the way for the purpose for which we are to vote it. It is a big sum of money by any standard, £5 million, but it is small when we look at the purpose for which we are to vote it—the saving of the cattle trade, a business worth £50 million a year to the country.

We on this side of the House will support the Minister in this field. We have no intention of sabotaging the scheme. We shall ask the farmers to co-operate. I would only respectfully point out to the Minister that if a farmer has a cow which is registered, a non-pedigree shorthorn say, and he is getting more than one thousand gallons and she reacts, it is a great sacrifice to ask from him to have that cow sold, at a break-up price possibly, plus the Minister's subsidy. Where a man has been a member of a cowtesting association and his cow is on record as a milker with a yield of from 900 to 1000 gallons, where it is clear that it would be impossible for that man to replace that cow, with the money he is paid, even if he added £30 or £40 to it, I think there should be special consideration for that type of case. When the cow is a registered animal and the record is shown to be all right, an exception should be made and an increased grant paid.

Complaint has been made about slowness on the part of the Department in taking up the cows. I have seen an enormous number of cows that the Department bought going into the various places around Waterford. I have seen the enormous number of cows offered and I must admit it was a rather difficult problem for the Minister and his Department to meet because the more successful the testing scheme, the greater amount of reactors coming on to the market. I bear with the Minister in that difficulty. I would ask him to remember the case I mentioned where a man might have an exceptional milker and can show that that cow was an exceptional milker through her being on the Department's register.

In the matter of pigs, I would say that there is great dissatisfaction amongst farmers whom I know in the matter of the grades they have been getting for some time past. Even though curers say there are many fat pigs coming into them, they are penalising the farmers inasmuch as the bacon from these fat pigs is sold over the counter in the country at the top price. When it is sold over the counter in the country at the top price, I do not see why the farmers should not get top price for them. I have drawn the Minister's attention to that matter on other occasions and I again draw his attention to it now.

A certain proposition was put up to the Minister. I asked him to increase the reward to farmers who have attested herds by giving them an increased price for milk. I think that is a question that would bear re-examination as it would help the scheme. The great difficulty that the Minister will meet is the overholding of reactors—not overholding them because farmers are not getting the price for them, but overholding them because if they got rid of them they would have very little milk to send to the creameries or little milk at all for their farms. These are the problems that have been there and that are showing themselves as the Minister breaks on to a successful conclusion of the scheme. Beyond yea or nay, we must as a nation see to it that this scheme is brought to a successful conclusion.

In the matter of agricultural education and development, a colleague of mine here made the complaint about money not being given to his constituency in the same proportion as it was given to Cork and Dublin. Well, I would not blame any Deputy for fighting here for his constituency. I am not now claiming something for my constituency but I want to draw the Minister's attention to one feature in regard to agricultural education and development. There are some splendid officers in the Minister's Department: there are some splendid agriculturists attached to the universities and we constantly read of lectures given by experts brought in from other countries here in Dublin, Cork or other centres. But not enough of these lecturers are brought down the country to reach the ordinary farmers' sons and these boys are anxious to attend agricultural lectures. I can tell the Minister that.

I happen to be a member of the Vocational Education Committee for the city of Waterford. We used to have so many lectures a year, and I suggested we should have lectures with an agricultural bias. Up to that we would have very few people attending there. We might have a lecture on the renaissance in painting and there might be ten or fifteen of an audience. We then said we would have lectures with an agricultural bias. The first was on the scientific eradication of weeds and you could not get into the building. People came from fifteen miles around the city to it. I want to suggest to the Minister that whenever possible, if a lecture on an important or a new science is given here in Dublin, or even a series of lectures, and then given in Cork or Galway, and if the lecturers are competent to speak authoritatively on their subjects they should be sent to other centres in the country, more especially to places like Wexford, Waterford, Kilkenny, Tipperary, Tralee and Athlone.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.