Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1943

Vol. 27 No. 16

Artificial Fertilisers and Exports—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that in the interests of agriculture, immediate action should be taken by the Government to negotiate with the British Government for an adequate supply of artificial fertilisers in exchange for the export of cattle, flax, beer and spirits.

Are we likely to have the Minister here for this discussion?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Our information is that the Minister will not be present.

As I am likely to be some little time on my feet, I wonder if I would be in order in addressing the House from a sitting position? I will explain what I mean, in this way: there is a number of enterprising gentlemen outside who have recently shown a desire to capture a seat, possibly my seat, and I fear that, if I remain too long on my feet, one of those enterprising gentlemen will, in the meantime, have captured my seat. Perhaps Senator Dr. Rowlette would like to make a similar request. I listened with mixed feelings to the debate which the Minister wound up the other evening. I should like to say that I think the Minister gave a favourable turn to a debate which at one stage seemed to develop into the usual acrimonious back-chat that leads nowhere. I am not without hope—I am sorry the Minister is not here to hear me say it—that I may be as successful in turning the Minister into a statesman as he has been in turning me into a politician. At all events, that indicates the spirit in which I—I think I may say "we"— approach this whole matter. We want to do what we can to give the Ministry our moral support in pressing on our British neighbours to adopt towards us, with regard to artificial manures, a policy which we think is right and just so far as our interests are concerned, and which, further, we are convinced is in the interests of our British neighbours as well.

This shortage of artificial manures is not a new phenomenon in our agricultural circumstances. In fact, the history of that shortage goes back at least ten years. In giving some account of how that shortage has come to be as serious as it is now, I want to emphasise the fact that, if we had had more artificial manures available for our agriculture during the years 1932-1939, it would not have mattered quite so much if we had been somewhat short of manures during the war period because certain artificial manures, especially phosphates, have persistent effects in maintaining the fertility of the land and we could have gone on living on the accumulated results of the original fertilising of the land, if only the land had got that original fertilising.

The situation is as acute as it is now because we are short of artificial manures now due to war conditions, and because we were short of them for other reasons during the years 1932-39. These were the years of the so-called economic war. I hesitate to refer to that war because it sometimes causes people to go off at the deep end, but I think the wound that was then inflicted on our agriculture has left a sore which still festers. I should like, if I could, to apply the cleansing lotion of objective analysis to that sore in order that we might see what are the causes of our present difficulty and what the moral responsibility was of the various agencies concerned. As to the economic war itself, I am not going to say that any one Government was wholly responsible. I am not going to say that the responsibility should be divided on a fifty-fifty basis between the two Governments concerned, but I am going to say that the responsibility is shared in some proportion between these two Governments, whether it be in the proportion of 99 per cent. and 1 per cent. or some proportion between these two ratios and fifty-fifty. I am not going to say which is which; you can take your choice with regard to that. The point there is that the economic war situation was in some proportion the joint responsibility of both Governments and consequently both Governments have a certain moral responsibility, even now, to do what they can to restore the ears which the locusts have eaten, if I might use a Biblical expression.

In this connection I think it is a source of legitimate regret that we did not four years ago go forward to the constitution of a national Government representing all sections of the community, because I think in our negotiations with Britain, the fact that the Minister represents only a Party, a Party which in the past has not perhaps been so outspokenly friendly to Britain as certain other sections of the community, may possibly discount what he has to say and prevent him from being able to produce the results for the whole nation that we should like to see produced. When the Minister makes representations to his opposite number in the British Government, which he undoubtedly has been making both personally and through his officials at odd times during the past three years, when he attempts to get a higher price for our beef cattle, or attempts to get us more artificial manures, he is in that capacity really-and truly representing every Party and every section of this community, including the ex-Unionist farmers who are in some cases more closely associated with me than with him. I want to make it quite clear that we want the Minister to feel that he does represent every section in the community in negotiations with our British neighbours.

The facts of the case are that for any kind of sustained and extended tillage we must have manure. There are two principal sources of manure, one farmyard manure and the other artificial manure. Farmyard manure is quite an admirable thing and in certain circumstances could certainly supply most, if not all, of the manurial requirements of an intensive tillage economy, but an adequate supply of farmyard manure has been lacking, too, during the last ten years because one of the immediate results of the economic war which broke out in 1932 was that stall feeding of large animals, the fattening of large animals, went out of fashion and has not yet come back. It went out of fashion for the simple reason that with the price of beef cattle at 18/- per cwt., live weight, at one time in the Dublin market, and with the price of oats, the production of which it was the national policy to maintain during that period, it simply did not pay to use threepence worth of oats in order to produce twopence worth of beef. One result of that disappearance of stall feeding from the tillage areas was that even in years subsequent to the economic war they had to carry on a tillage economy as best they could with no profitable foundation in live stock which would provide them with farmyard manure. They had to give up stall feeding in the winter time and they had to relate what profits they could make out of their tillage crops to a policy of less and less farmyard manure and more and more artificial manure. That is true especially of regions such as Wexford or Louth, in which it was profitable to grow increasing areas of barley, wheat and beet. I think artificial manures played in these areas a relatively greater part in that economy and farmyard manure played a relatively small part, because stall feeding had simply disappeared.

One might ask the question why has stall feeding not come back now that the price is very much higher than it used to be? In that connection, I would say that while stall feeding even now is desirable, from the point of view of the quality of the farmyard manure which it would produce, it is no longer possible in present circumstances to feed and fatten animals on such things as oats which formerly formed the principal part of their ration, and it is physically impossible to get such things as linseed cake. In fact it would be quite uneconomic in present circumstances to stall feed animals in the country. Even now, however, it would be possible to stall feed cattle in the winter time on a ration of straw and silage. I am told that good silage and straw as a foundation will make it possible to make animals reasonably fat.

It is certainly one of the cheapest ways in which fat cattle can be produced under present or indeed, under any, conditions. Here we are up against another factor which makes it unprofitable to stall-feed cattle even with the cheapest materials under present conditions, unprofitable certainly to finish cattle up to the point that they are ready for the butcher's block at the time they reach the British port. I refer in this connection to the differential price policy which was introduced in Britain in 1933 and has been maintained in one form or another ever since. Under that policy, the British pay for an animal reared, fattened and finished in their own country a price some 14/- per cwt. live weight higher than the price which they will pay for an animal of similar quality reared, fattened and finished in our country and exported for slaughter.

Further, they pay for what is called forward stock, an animal that has reached the stage where in a couple of months it will be fit for slaughter— a price some 9/- per cwt. more than the price they are prepared to pay us for an animal already finished and fit for slaughter by the time it reaches the English port. Putting it in figures, if the price of a fat animal of a given grade, reared and finished in Northern Ireland, is 64/- per cwt., liveweight, the price of a good fat animal finished in Eire and ready for slaughter would be 50/- per cwt., liveweight, and the price of forward stock finished for slaughter in two months time would be 59/- per cwt. liveweight. So that a farmer who finishes his beast up to the point when it is ready for slaughter is in considerable danger of losing 9/- per cwt. in the value of the animal, and he will lose more in the price per cwt. than he will gain in the price for the increase in weight.

That makes it a dangerous speculation for our farmers and cattle men to carry out the process of fattening up to the point at which they are ready for slaughter by the time they reach a port in Britain. This has the incidental result that our agriculture has lost the value of manure which those cattle would have produced in the final stages of their fattening, and I am informed on the highest authority that the manure produced by bullocks or fattening dry stock is much more valuable than that produced by younger cattle or even by milch cows.

Hanly's Mixed Farming is a work of recognised authority on Irish, or indeed any agriculture, and he says on page 53, and I would like to put it on the records of the House:—

"The quantity of manure produced by a farm animal depends largely on the quantity and kind of the food consumed;"

Then he goes on:—

"Growing animals, or cows producing milk, will give poorer manure from similar food than, say, fattening cattle; because, while nitrogen, phosphates and lime are largely retained by the former to produce muscle, bone and milk, only fat, containing neither ash nor nitrogen, is mainly retained by the latter. Of the percentage of nitrogen in the food consumed by a milking cow, approximately 25 per cent. is retained in the body and in the milk, 18 per cent. is voided as solid excrement, and 57 per cent. is voided as urine. The corresponding figures for a fattening bullock are about 4 per cent. retained in the body, 23 per cent. voided as solid excrement, and 73 per cent. voided as urine."

In other words, the fattening bullock only retains about 4 per cent. of the valuable nitrogenous element in its ration. The rest is voided and becomes manure. The cow, on the other hand, retains 25 per cent. Therefore, the manurial value of the excrement of fattening cattle is more valuable than that of any other kind of live stock. This is the kind of farmyard manure that circumstances have deprived us of possession of during the years both of the economic war period and up to the present, because of the continuation of that economic war under a different form through this differential price policy.

In that aspect of the matter the fact that during the economic war years we diminished greatly the imports of feeding for live stock had an indirect effect in diminishing the quality of farmyard manure available in those years. The import of maize in various forms which was as much as 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 cwts. in 1931 came down to about 4,000,000 cwts. in the depth of the economic war, and has never recovered since. The imports of the more concentrated foods, such as oil cake and meal, also diminished very seriously. The average annual import of oil and seed cake and meal between 1926 and 1931 was 963,000 cwts., and in the subsequent six year period from 1932 to 1937, the average annual import was 653,000 cwts.—a substantial diminution.

That diminished use of the more concentrated forms of food had an important effect in impoverishing the quality of the farmyard manure available during those years. I would like to read another selection from Hanly's Mixed Farming. On page 80, he says: “Experiments carried out at Rothamsted showed that manure produced from bullocks fed on roots, hay, and from four to eight lbs. of cake, gave an increase of crop the year it was applied, approximately double that from a similar quantity of manure produced by bullocks fed on roots and hay alone,” so that farmyard manure was scarce in those years, and the quality of it was impoverished by reason of the fact that we were feeding our animals less nourishingly than we used to. For that fact, I contend that both Governments are responsible in some degree and, therefore, should be responsible for remedying that serious situation in the interests of both countries.

With regard to the importation of artificial manures, the figures there are equally significant. During those years there was a substantial decrease in the imports of artificial manures especially of those kinds of manures which are prolonged in their effects although they do not give immediate results. I refer to phosphatic manures and things like basic slag, the value of which can only be realised over five or six-year periods. In some of those economic war years there was no import whatever of basic slag, and when, towards the end of the time, there was some increase in the aggregate import of artificial manures, the increase was mostly in respect of nitrogenous manures for giving quick results and entirely appropriate to a policy of snatching a quick profit from a catch-crop like wheat or beet, but having no permanent effect in maintaining the fertility of the land. Here are the aggregate figures for phosphatic potassic and nitrogenous manures. The average imports for the six years 1926-31 were: phosphatic, 220,000 tons; potassic, 11,500 tons; nitrogenous, 20,000 tons. I should have said that the average annual supply of artificial manures was represented by these figures, taking into account the fact that rock phosphate, imported and made into manure here, becomes about twice its weight of artificial home-produced manure. Consequently, the figures I gave are the figures showing the total supply available for Irish agriculture without reference to whether it was manufactured at home or imported in the finished form.

Again I give the figures, phosphatics 220,000 tons, potassium 11,500 tons and nitrates 20,000 tons. In the next six years 1932-37 the average for phosphates was 154,000, for potassium 6,500 tons, or about half the previous normal supply and nitrates 15,000 tons, about threequarters of the previous normal supply. I do not attach any importance to the fact that the import of nitrates kept nearer to normal because these manures only last for a year and have no bearing on the subsequent fertility of the land. My point is that the land is more impoverished now by reason of the inadequate dressing of the more permanent manures which it got in the years immediately before the war, and consequently a greater measure of artificial manure is now necessary. We are to some extent to blame because we made it our business to restrict imports of artificial manures during the economic war years, and down to quite recently in doing so we deliberately injured the interest of 600,00 agricultural producers in order to forward the interest of 1,000 workers who derived their livelihood from the manufacture of artificial manures. I wish to argue that it is a British interest as well as an Irish interest that we should have more fertilisers and have them now. The Minister in his remarks said he thought that the total amount of artifical manures available would be somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000 tons. Well, that is a mighty poor total in comparison even with what was available during the economic war period. When the total of phosphates was 154,000 tons, potassium 6,500, and nitrates 15,000 tons, there is not in this year more than half the previous normal supplies. We are a very long way now from the desirable total of artificial manures.

It is a British interest that we should have more fertilisers and have them here and now. If we do not get them I am not suggesting that the only alternative is to send an ultimatum to Britain and say we will not sell her cattle. That would be sheer lunacy. All we have to do is to point out that if we do not get them we will have to put a larger area of land under tillage in order to get the total wheat, oats and other things we require.

If we put a larger area under tillage we are going to have a smaller area under grass, and if that happens we are going to have less grass for our dry stock. Even if we have the same number of dry stock on the land as before, they are going to be less well nourished and the net result will be that lighter and leaner live stock will find their way to the British market, and into the British larder. If they gave us artificial manures it would enable us to obtain our tillage requirements on a smaller area of land. A similar practical difficulty occurs with reference to providing silage for hay. I find with my limited experience that I have to cut off a larger proportion of my available grass land in order to make up the area for silage for winter feeding. On the other hand if one could only get hold of some sulphate of ammonia in the early spring, when dressing the land to get the silage, we could do with a much smaller area, and would have more land for maintenance of cattle in summer pasture. There again we would be able to produce a greater weight of cattle for the British market by reason of having a larger supply of grass. It is in their interests that we should not have to waste too much of the grass land in order to provide tillage and in order to secure that all they have to do is to give us adequate supplies of artificial manures to enable us to get sufficient crops on a smaller area of tillage land.

Now I might make the case that a bargaining power in dealing with our British neighbours is somewhat weak. I am quite aware that under the present circumstances our products do not bulk so largely in the British market as they would if we had pursued a different policy, and if they also had pursued a different policy during the last ten years. I know that they have ceased to depend on us for butter and bacon, and that they get remarkably increased supplies of these products from places such as New Zealand and Canada. I know that there are various technical means in the processing of dead meat which enable tremendous quantities to be conveyed in remarkably small amounts of shipping space, and that when subsequently they appear on the table they have almost the same quality as fresh meat. Some people say that this development of dehydration of meat and other products will remain, even after the war, and bring even the most distant markets into closest competition with us as a source of supply for the British market. That is probably true but, nevertheless, I maintain that we still have a certain bargaining power in our dealings with Britain though it is weaker than it should be.

We have a case which is a strong case, both on moral and economic grounds. The next time the Minister is talking to his opposite number at the other side about the price of cattle or the like, I wish he would ask that Minister point blank how does he square the price for our beef as compared with the price in Northern Ireland, with the principles of the Atlantic Charter, of which we have heard so much, and to say if the whole position will bear examination in the light of the principles of that Charter, by which I think the British people are quite sincerely trying to establish good relations with the rest of the world, but which they somehow overlook when it comes to a question of their relations with us. I should point out that we could safely put a larger area under potatoes if we had more artificial manures. If we had more potatoes we would be able to have more pigs and poultry, and easily get back to the position in which we would have bacon to spare for export, and could expand in proportion egg production, which would be available for export. In that way they have an interest in expanding our production of potatoes for export.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is now 6 o'clock at which hour it is usual to suspend business. Perhaps the Senator will move the adjournment.

If I could continue for five minutes I would then finish. Then, again, I think we have a possible bargaining point with reference to the production of beet. The normal requirements of this community in beet sugar are about 100,000 tons a year. Last year the beet crop was rather less productive for us, and we are all painfully conscious of the fact that we are now on about half rations of sugar, probably having only about 60,000 tons of sugar to go around. I am not without hope that the recent promise of a stone of sugar for every ton of beet produced will have a considerable effect in adding to the acreage under beet, especially on the part of small growers. I confess that I have fallen for the temptation myself, because up to now it was contrary to my principles to have anything to do with beet, good, bad or indifferent.

That being so, I think we can go to the British Government and say that we are in a position, with the help of artificial manures, to grow enough beet to produce 100,000 tons of sugar, our normal requirements, and that, under the circumstances, we would like to share that total with our Northern Ireland neighbours in the proportion of, say, 70,000 tons for ourselves and 30,000 tons for them, which would mean leaving ourselves perhaps slightly short. Notwithstanding that, we could still give a share to our Northern Ireland neighbours who are our fellow-countrymen. We might be willing to make some sacrifice in their interests. As individuals we have in the past frequently shared our relatively larger sugar ration with them in a way that was winked at by the authorities on both sides. I do not see any reason why some such agreement should not be openly arrived at between the two Governments, so that if the British Government would give us more artificial manures we would undertake to produce not only enough sugar for ourselves but Northern Ireland as well. We could divide the total amount available under some agreed proposal.

Similarly with regard to flax. We have there also a bargaining point. I think the British Government are interested in our flax production. We might endeavour to grow a greater quantity of flax if they would be reasonable on the question of artificial manures. Finally, I would like to say that the Minister could command the moral support of the section of the House which I may claim to speak for, and, I would hope, of the whole House in this matter, and so be a truly national Minister in his contacts with the British Government. With the moral support of all sides of the House he could put the case, which is strong both morally and economically, with great force. I feel certain that if he were in that position some good results would come from it, both from the British point of view as well as from ours. Consequently, I hope the Minister will accept the motion, and that the House will give it its unanimous acceptance.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m., and resumed at 7 p.m.

I would be inclined to support Senator Baxter's motion, whether it is approached from the national or the economic point of view. Economically at least, it is very doubtful if we are not losing ground to our neighbours in Northern Ireland. From the international point of view, and from the long-term view, that is clear enough for all to see. That is why I attach considerable importance to this motion. The policy of doing the best we can from year to year, and hoping for something to turn up, is dangerous, and whether peace is just around the corner or many years away, it should be the aim of all of us to contribute to a constructive programme. Whether we accept the theory that peace is around the corner or that the emergency may be long drawn out, vital forces confront every citizen at practically every meal and may well increase as the days pass. These are increased by our international surroundings. Neutrality must be paid for. Its price is a big consideration, and I think that Senator Baxter's motion accepts the fact that the agricultural community must make a sacrifice by paying for it in the most serious way. In this emergency, maximum production must be our unswerving aim and no side issues should be permitted or condoned. Our present efforts of tapping and drawing upon our resources, tending to call for still more effort, more labour and more cost at a time when there is evidence that the sand in the glass is running out are to be deplored.

I saw that the Taoiseach at Limerick recently was well enough advised to admit that it was necessary for the country to look to such counties as Meath and Limerick as reserves from which our immediate needs might be satisfied. It is well for us to have these counties, but that statement shows that we are in the danger zone. What of to-morrow? I read, too, his statement that more barley was necessary and that it was our greatest bargaining asset. Barley, beer and spirits are ready to be placed at the disposal of this nation or of our neighbours if the means to the end be granted immediately. A real live effort should once again be made by the Taoiseach and our Minister, and I think we should do all we can to give them our best support.

To my mind, it is not only necessary at the present time, but even more necessary for the decades that are to come. We have a great deal of raw material but we want certain stimulants, and those who want our products are daily taking active and vigorous steps to see that either openly or surreptitiously what they have to spare does not find its way to us. I hope that in a prepared programme, methods will be found of providing us with stimulants for our land which will give us a sufficiency of products badly wanted by everybody. From a carefully drawn bargain, other avenues may open which will provide us with the stimulant and the manures which we got up to ten years ago, when stall-feeding for beef production—a subject so efficiently handled by Senator Johnston in his remarks—gave a highly successful manure, and the resulting barely crop gave the offal which in turn produced the milk, butter, bacon and beef that left well-nourished families in our homesteads.

I was present at a lecture at University College last March where Mr. MacEntee, the former Minister for Finance, expressed a gloomy outlook for the future of Ireland if we continue to look towards the cattle trade. Since then, the present Minister for Finance and, if I mistake not, the Taoiseach, and the Minister for Agricure, gave it as their opinion that we would be well advised to continue the live-stock trade and to regard it as our greatest national asset. Last September it was my good fortune to be present at a meeting addressed by Mr. Hudson, British Minister of Agriculture, when publicly and insistently he told British farmers and producers to buy and to buy early from the thousands of magnificent store cattle which Ireland had then in her fields and pastures. It will be admitted that the better the manures and the more extensively they are used, the better and more mature will be the stock available here. With goodwill on both sides, it should be possible to find a means by which both countries might pool their assets for each other's good.

To my mind, it is a task the successful accomplishment of which opens a vista in a land where successful husbandry will breed a contented and happy people. It will help to replace a soil, now giving evidence of exhaustion, by a fertile soil giving a living to those who own it. I may be told that we have not much to give, and less to receive, but there is evidence that we have a great deal to give, and that in return a great deal may be expected if a commonsense basis for discussion can be found. Every little counts, and God has favoured both our islands with marked fertility and resources, which it is criminal not to utilise. It must cause all of us—it certainly causes me—pangs of uneasiness when we see our immature store cattle, leaving the country and workers leaving it to be fed elsewhere, while our stall-feeding sheds are idle and our breweries dilapidated. If our produce stands in the beef market of Newry or Belfast it is tariffed to the tune of £8 or £10 per head. These handicaps affect us all, and I doubt the wisdom of exporting store cattle if it is humanly possible to produce the finished article at home, because from the finished article the best manures will come, and the results will be better for everybody. In the country I come from, the flight from the land is largely due to the fact that the stall-feeding industry has ceased to exist.

Only last week or the week before we saw that the proprietors of the cinemas in England and in this country reached some agreement for pooling resources for their common good. I think the Taoiseach and our Ministers here could fail in no better cause than the one I have mentioned. If there was any necessity to broaden the responsibility, I suggest that they would find all Parties just as helpful in regard to those matters as they did on the Defence Council, which has proved such a magnificent success. Experience exhibits the benefit of that mixed gathering of forces. Desired qualities are enhanced, undesired weaknesses are reduced, courage is unified, and there is a determination to see that the deterioration of our Irish land is not aggravated by neglect of opportunity on the part of our statesmen. To my mind, the times are too critical for any wishful thinking. The suggestions in this motion come down to solid earth, on which experience has shown us that a solid footing may be found for our agriculture during and after the emergency. I was left cold and comfortless by the speech of the Minister the other evening.

Only last week I saw an article in Irish Industry which stated, in alluding to a remark of my own, that the sole cause of the deterioration in the agricultural position and the flight from the land, was the fact that the output of our Irish farms has not increased in the past 20 years. I have no doubt that that is true, but the only remedy they give us is to promote cow-testing. If cow-testing were to solve our difficulties it would be an excellent thing, but in order to increase our output it is absolutely essential that we get the best fertilisers. It is absolutely essential, too, that we revert to stall-feeding. In the debate on this motion at the last meeting of the Seanad, Senator O Buachalla told us that in a certain area, which he visits from time to time, the farmers who he said were undoubtedly amongst the very best tillage farmers in Ireland, had adopted a scheme of carrying the straw from the fields and throwing it around the gates. They were able, he said, to accumulate a considerable amount of manure in that way, but I am afraid that manure will not have the desired effect. In fact, if they keep on throwing the straw round the gates long enough, they may block the gates, and they certainly will not have much sub-soil afterwards. I think a national policy on the lines of Senator Baxter's motion has much to recommend it, and it will have my wholehearted support.

Do chuir mé anashuim sa chainnt do chualamar ón mbeirt Sheanadóir atá tar éis labhairt. Chuaidh an Seanadóir MacEoin siar go dtí 10 mbliana o shoin agus rinne sé tagairt do chogadh na gcáin. Dubhairt sé go raibh milleán maidir leis an gcogadh san ar ár Rialtas fhéin chó maith le Rialtas Shasana. Ach bhí Rialtas Shasana sásta géilleadh mar gheall ar 90 per cent den airgead a bhí i gceist agus be léir uaidh sin nach raibh an locht céadna ar an dá Rialtas.

I was very interested in the speeches made by Senator McGee and Senator Johnston. Senator McGee gave us the good advice to come down to hard earth, and we heard much talk about the quantity of artificial manures that were available. As far as I understand the average Englishman, he is not a very "givish" person where his own needs are concerned. He will see that his own requirements are satisfied before he passes on anything to his neighbour. Senator McGee put this question more forcibly than Senator Johnston. A price has to be paid for any concession we get from England. Senator McGee's price might be a price of blood; Senator Johnston's price would be a price of Irish national self-respect. So far as I understood Senator Johnston, he does not appear to have a very high opinion of the character or mentality of the members of the English Government, because he suggested that if we were to send over to England Ministers, not those responsible for the economic war, but Ministers responsible for other interests, they would receive more respect from the English Ministers. Does Senator Johnston suggest that English Ministers are swayed by prejudice and that they would not make a fair deal with Ministers of this Government who have been in office for 11 years?

The Senator has not been as unfair as many other speakers who have dealt with the economic war. Senator Johnston agreed that all the faults were not on one side, that the English Government have their faults as well as the Government on this side, but I maintain that the Government which conceded 90 per cent. of the moneys in dispute, along with giving us back the ports they held here, acknowledged by that fact that they were in the wrong. But whether they were in the right or in the wrong, the policy of the English ruling class—the ordinary Englishman may be all right—has always been a selfish policy. Senator Johnston referred to the differentiation in the price given for fat cattle reared in England and in the Six Counties and the price given for fat cattle coming from this portion of the country, but he did not explain what was the cause of it. The Senator must be a very innocent man if he believes in the so-called paper Atlantic Charter. It is refreshing to find in those critical times a man who believes in what is turned out as war propaganda. I think the English people and the English Government would have more respect for us if we stood on our rights. There is no reason why we should go hat in hand to them at all. As the Minister for Agriculture explained here recently, they were not prepared to give us an economic price for our butter, and now they are getting none of our butter. They are not giving us an economic price for our cattle. They are not giving us a price that will enable people to stall-feed cattle on the present high price of feeding stuffs. It may be that the English people cannot be fed with imports from New Zealand and South America as Senator Johnston stated, but in any case this policy of going hat in hand——

May I interrupt the Senator to point out that I never suggested we should go hat in hand to the British Government? I urged that we should approach them on the basis of mutual self-interest.

If Senator Johnston were able to show that there is a surplus of artificial manures such as sulphate of ammonia and superphosphates in England, there might be some reason for going there with bargaining powers, but we have not that assurance. We have not had it from the proposer of the motion and I am one of those who do not believe in the so-called generosity of the English people. It is natural for them to look to their own interests first. They have pets in the Six Counties whom they will subsidise afterwards and they will give us nothing here except what they cannot help.

We all agree with Senator Baxter's motion and the views expressed in advocating it, because we all agree that agriculture and the land are the backbone of the country, that it is a fundamental industry, and that it is our first duty in public life to do everything that is possible, and to use every means in our power, our resources and our wealth, to make the people on the land self-sufficient, to hearten them, and to raise considerably the general standard of living. That has always been the general policy of the Government as a whole, and there is no use in people getting up here and using pious platitudes and phrases which are meaningless. We find ourselves in a country at peace but cut off from sources of supply of practically any kind, and our community dependent on the produce of its own soil. As I see it, in this debate the members of the Opposition Party in the most flippant manner are playing Party politics to have a rap at An Taoiseach and his Ministers in one form or another, and all that only goes to mislead the people into the belief that if a Minister were to cross to London all the worries and troubles of the community would be at once relieved by some sort of barter system.

Anyone who desires to be perfectly honest about the situation knows very well that it is beyond human power to-day to bring here, or to give to the people, normal pre-war facilities for the development of agriculture. Every body knows perfectly well that it is our duty to get everything possible done to meet the food requirements of the people. The nation and its survival are far more important than this petty little squabbling and tinkering that is going on. Who cares who governs this country if we can survive the awful catastrophe that has befallen Europe?

We are living in a very foolish atmosphere, looking at Ireland from within, and ignoring the difficulties and the despair that exist all over Europe. We are looking at Ireland and the world from a commercial point of view, as if ordinary trade and commerce were the urge in life to-day. Behind Senator Baxter's motion is the idea of a trade or barter agreement. Does Senator Baxter realise that England is not interested in trade and commerce at all? We are looking at England from a trading and commericial point of view, but England does not give a damn about trade or commerce. That apparently has not struck Senator Baxter or his supporters. Within the last two days we heard a British Minister announcing that because of the concentration of industrial life in England he was able to save 10,000,000 square feet of industrial space. Does Senator Baxter understand what that means— that they closed down on trade and commerce, and on industries, even with a large export trade? They are not interested in trade any more, they are interested only in the war effort, and, from their point of view, they are quite right. But, looking at the world from a commercial viewpoint only, we expect England to meet us on a commercial basis. The suggestion is too stupid for words. We could not expect them to do it if there was any appreciation of the difficulties that exist in England. I think we are wasting time talking about barter and trade. England has nothing to barter with us at the present time.

That is the way I see the position. I think that is a perfectly frank and honest point of view, and also a practical one. I saw it stated some time ago that England would not buy our bacon when we had bacon to sell, that it was much cheaper to bring it from Canada and the very ends of the earth instead of getting it here. If we look at the world, or even at England, from that point of view, we can only say: "Very well, you have given up all trade and commerce; you are interested only in the war effort. What surplus have you that you can give us?" Do you mean to tell me that Senator Baxter and his colleagues have all the brains and all the ability to find a solution, and to get something from them which the present Government cannot get? It would be unnatural to think that.

Until this war is over we have got to make up our minds that it is the duty of all not to expect anything from anybody else, but to make full use of all the resources we have inside the State in order to ensure that, whatever we may be short of, we will not be short of the staple foods of the people, and that everybody in the State will get sufficient. Speaking as a farmer, I do not see why there should be any difficulty about staple foods being in sufficient supply at present prices, which are guaranteed by the Government. They are reasonable; they can be profitable, and they are profitable. Farmers are having a fair time at present—not as good as in the last war, but a fair time. They have a ready market for everything they have to sell. As long as we can ensure the survival of the State we as individuals have to submit to little jolts at present. But what are these little jolts? If we can tide over things we will be in a better way at the end of the war. Then there will be a better opportunity to aim at a higher standard of life than we ever had before. Why these little bickerings at the Minister? Who cares who is Minister at the present time? It is time to stop such talk. The situation is too serious. If we are all prepared to bury our pride in the interests of the country, then this little island will be well worth living in when the war is over.

I do not pretend to have understood all that Senator McEllin said. I think I agreed with some of the things he said but other arguments about Britain and so on are beyond me. He has said that England is not interested in trade, that she has nothing to export and that she is only interested in the war effort. Well, the British Government is certainly very interested in the war effort and wants people working and producing for war purposes. The British Government knows that they have to have food for that purpose. It has taken enormous steps to increase agricultural production in England. The British publicists are always warning the people of the difficulty of convoying the imports they need across the Atlantic and other seas. The fact is that the English people do not want to send anything out; they have not enough and have nothing to export. They need more than they have and they need consequently to look to other countries. You may say it is not trade and commerce, but they do need a great deal that is produced outside the country, and as sensible people and as honest men they realise that they must pay for it, whether by lease-and-lend methods, by barter or in cash. I think it is not impossible—although I am not going to pretend to pontificate on this —that, therefore, they might feel it was good business on the British side to save shipping space by getting as much food as possible from this country, because with all they have done, they are not producing all they need. All this talk about their not being interested in trade means nothing. I knew a man who said he took no interest in money; he said that all he asked for was to have his needs supplied. I was impressed until I found his needs were not only more than I have ever had but more than those of anybody else I have known.

The proposal, I understand, in this motion is that there should be a recognition that one of the most conscious needs is food supply. The proposal is that we should send over certain things we produce and ask in payment that which will enable us to produce more. Implied in the motion is the argument that greater production here is for our own good and our greater production in the agricultural sphere, in so far as it exceeds what we ourselves require, will be of benefit to England. Therefore, if we send them goods they need, and if they send us means of producing more, they have got additional benefit, in that the payment they give is going by repercussion to give them a greater payment. Senator McEllin talks about squabbling and attacking the Government. I do not know whether it was this morning or whether it was at 1 o'clock or on last night's wireless, but I noticed that a number of questions had been put to the Foreign Minister in England. I must say they were questions of which, had I been in his position, I would have taken a very poor view.

I think it was about a section of the army at Stalingrad coming over to England and a section of the people who had participated in the battle of Britain going over to Russia. That was proposed and though, as I say, if I had been in the Minister's position I would have given it a very short answer, the Minister replied that he thought this a very good idea, and if it suited the Russian Government, he would be very happy, and the whole British people would be very happy to receive this section of the defenders of Stalingrad. He quite accepted the suggestion that representatives that defended Britain should go over there. He did not say that that was attacking the Government. The attitude we find on the other side of this House makes communication almost impossible. Senator Baxter made a most reasonable speech. A Senator on the other side—I know his knowledge of English is very little, although I am prepared to admit that his information is quite unlimited—made most scandalous suggestions about Senator Johnston. I do not think you will ever get anywhere, here or in any Irish legislature, if it is always assumed when people make a reasonable proposition that there must be something devious, malicious and vindictive behind it, and you begin answering the malice that your mind has conceived as being behind the words instead of answering what they have said. This is not an attack on the Government. The Minister has said that the British have no artificial manures. I do not think that word "no" must be taken too absolutely. The British certainly want artificial manures. No doubt they would be happy to have more. It comes to considering whether what they need would possibly be better secured by passing a certain proportion of the available artificial manure to the Irish producer. I would have imagined the Government here making a specific proposition that, in the allocation of so much manure, it would be devoted to production of a particular item that was useful to us and useful to the British, and that they would guarantee that a certain proportion of the result of Irish production would be exported to them. It is easily possible that it would pay the British Government to send more artificial manures even if by doing so they had to reduce the percentage given to their own people. I am simply saying that it is possible.

It is even probable.

I am not expressing an opinion on it.

The Minister said that they had their own opinions on that.

Running right through the Minister's remarks here there was a sense of despair. He said that there was no hope of getting anything from England. What happens in war times, even more so than in peace times, is that a proposition which seemed unfeasible can, in changed circumstances, appear in an entirely new light. I do not pretend to know more than others, but I do know that when Algiers and North Africa were entered by the Allies it was immediately clear that in so far as they had been previously exporting to France the new situation meant that any exports they had must be diverted to the Allied countries, principally to England and America, since the other ends they supplied were cut off from them. I heard on the wireless that one of the big products that used to be exported from North Africa was artificial manures. I also heard, possibly from unenlightened people, on the wireless that it would be important for England to import, and to take and pay for in kind, as much as possible of the products of North Africa. Senator Johnston knows a good deal more about these matters than I do. It seems, therefore, that it may happen that England will be receiving from North Africa what that country produces, and will aim at taking the maximum in the interests of North Africa. In that case it seems possible that whereas, some months ago, there was no possibility of diverting artificial manures from England to Ireland, in the early future there may be a sufficient supply of these manures to justify the British Government in calculating that it would better serve the British war effort, in the matter of food supplies for their people, to send artificial manures over here.

I do not know why Senator McEllin and Senator O Máille should get up and talk of this motion as being a Party affair. I agree that the Minister is certainly in a better position to judge as to the feasibility of this than Senator Baxter. But it is a tradition of Parliaments that the Opposition Parties can get up and make suggestions in regard to a great many matters that the Government knows urgently require to be done. Sometimes a suggestion has the implication and the possible effect that it indicates and leads to a certain priority being given to one item rather than to another.

All that Senator Baxter's motion has done is to call attention to a fact which the Minister and most people are aware of, namely, that the country is in need of more artificial manures. He has suggested that another approach should be made to the British Government by the Minister on this matter. That is exactly the thing that was done in England this morning by the Opposition Parties, but the Minister there did not get up and say that by meeting the wishes of the Opposition the Government there were selling their self-respect. There was nothing of that kind said. There was none of the silly talk of the kind that we have had from Senators on the opposite benches or any suggestion that what was said had anything to do with Party manoeuvring. In regard to innocent remarks that I have made myself from time to time other people have read into them the most blackguardly and scandalous implications. Such implications had never entered my mind until they came from the other side. I am not saying that if they had entered my mind I would not have made them, but on those occasions I was inadvertently innocent.

There is no necessity to get hot on either side about this motion. It is a purely business matter. The British people are realists and are quite as ready to make a bargain as we are. Senator Fitzgerald made a rather good point with regard to North Africa. A vast quantity of the phosphates reaching this country come from North Africa. That being so, I think we would have the right to claim that some at least of those phosphates should be directed to our shores. We have to remember that the British, over the last couple of years, have been engaged in carrying out a vastly increased agricultural policy. Like ourselves they have been calling on their farmers to produce more and more. Unless they have a surplus of artificial manures, it would hardly be fair, in view of that, to expect them to divert to this country what they may want themselves.

They would get more food by doing so.

There is the other end of it to be considered. At the moment we are not exporting butter because we want it ourselves. If the British happened to be short of butter, would we leave ourselves short in order to give it to them? Frankly, I do not think we would. We also are realists. The people at the other side are not giving us for our cattle the same price that they are giving to their own farmers and the farmers of Northern Ireland for cattle. Our cattle, it must be remembered, are very useful to them. In any bargaining that may take place that should be pointed out to them, and in all fair play we should demand that our farmers would get the same treatment as their own farmers and those in Northern Ireland are getting.

That is a matter of policy.

What I dislike about the motion is that there is implicit in it the suggestion that the Minister for Agriculture and his Department are not doing all that they could do to make a better bargain, and that they should be able to get better terms for the produce that we are sending out. On the last evening that the motion was debated in the House, the Minister made it quite clear that they had done all they could in that respect, and could not persuade those on the British side to give us more stuff in return for what we are sending them. If Senator Baxter could tell the House how that difficulty can be overcome, he would be doing a very useful and valuable work.

What the motion aims at is so desirable that it would seem that there could be only one opinion about it. All the speeches should be directed to the strengthening of the Minister's hand, making the arguments so cogent that the British will yield to them. I liked, therefore, the speeches of Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Goulding. Senator Fitzgerald made a very important point that the situation has changed, especially since the developments in North Africa, that home of manures, and that at present Britain might be in a position to give us what we want without detriment to her own farmers. At all events, that is worth investigating, and everybody in this House should help with constructive criticism. That is why this motion was put down and with no other intention.

No other intention.

Many of us are familiar with the story that Moliére used to try his plays on the old nurse. I am in the position of the old nurse in relation to Senator Baxter. I am just an ordinary intelligent woman, and I believe that there is a good case to be made for his motion. I deprecate the implication that our Ministers have not done what they could already in this matter. It seems obvious to anybody that an arrangement would be of advantage to both parties. It is a case of business relations between ourselves and Britain, and that is why we want to be good neighbours and to exchange commodities with each other. I remember a man I knew once who said he never failed to do a good turn if it cost himself nothing. That is why we want to impress on England that if they do us a good turn, there will be no injury to themselves, but positive benefit. The progress of the U-boat campaign might make it more imperative for them to seek from us goods which they are now getting from far away. For this reason, I am glad the motion was presented to the House and debated in the most realistic and commonsense manner.

We use three kinds of manures—phosphatics, potassics and nitrogenous manures. The big bulk of phosphatics came from North Africa in the past. Basic slag, which is a by-product of the manufacture of steel, came from England in small quantities. Potashes came from Germany. I do not know how much potashes are reaching England from Germany now.

In concentrated form!

Sulphate of ammonia is a by-product of the manufacture of gas, and that has largely been produced in England, but I take it that with nine-tenths of their arable land cultivated, they require all the nitrogenous manures they can get or have. The possibility of getting phosphates from North Africa is very remote. Recently we lost a shipload of phosphatic manures on the high seas, and I have heard some expert pointing out recently that if all the farmyard manure now going to waste could be preserved and saved it would far outweigh that shipload of phosphatic manure which was lost with the lives of 33 men.

I think it was Senator Buckley who was quoted here as having referred to the spreading of straw around gates and farmyards. I believe the quotation was given in a sneering kind of way. That is not right, and is hardly in keeping with the attitude that we ought to adopt towards this question of manures. Senator Buckley's remarks were very much to the point, as the increased quantities of straw we have could be very well utilised to absorb the nitrogen which undoubtedly has gone to waste in many farmyards in the past.

We had big areas of tillage long before the introduction of artificial manures and I am wondering how the people managed then. A hundred years ago there were extensive areas of tillage—even up to 50 years ago— and we had not any artificial manures. Reference has been made to the shortage of linseed cakes and such feeding stuffs. I submit that we have a product known as meat meal which is being manufactured in fairly large quantities in three or four centres and which is not in sufficient demand. This is very strange, because in meat meal we have a good substitute for these cakes. It is a protein feed the same as the imported cakes. Senator Johnston told us of the advantages of silage and wheaten straw.

Silage and oaten straw.

It would be no harm if he had said wheaten straw.

I do not think they would eat it so well.

I have experience of wheaten straw used in conjunction with pulp. We have meat meal in excess of the demand and it is just as valuable, if not more valuable, than the cakes we have been importing for years. This resolution urges:—

"That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that, in the interests of agriculture, immediate action should be taken by the Government...."

Does that imply that no action has been taken up to the present?

No, you cannot read that into it.

It is not meant to do that.

If it implied that I would take exception to it. The ordinary person reading behind the lines in the Press to-morrow may see that implication in it.

It lends itself to that construction.

I think it does and I take exception to it for that reason. The Beet Growers' Association have had constant interviews with the Minister for Agriculture, and even with the Taoiseach, and they have been stressing the necessity for doing what this resolution asks should be done, to get all the things agriculture requires. The resolution asks that we should get an adequate supply of artificial fertiliser in exchange for the export of cattle, flax, beer and spirits. Senator Baxter suggested we were sending flax to England, and I think that is so, but in exchange we are getting sufficient binder twine for the next harvest.

What are the respective values of the two products, in cash?

I think this country would be in a very miserable condition if we had no binder twine for the next harvest. The food of the people would be in jeopardy, because if we had no binder twine the harvest could not be saved.

I do not want to stop the import of binder twine. I only asked for the relative values of the two products. The Senator would be surprised at the figures.

Cash value is a bad basis these times.

We should consider how our most urgent needs are served.

Professor Johnston at one point told us that he had become a convert to beet growing. I am extremely glad of that. I am glad that we will have his assistance in all our future activities. Senator McEllin is not in the House; if he were here I would say a little more than I intend to say. I am glad that in the future we will have the benefit of the ability and the intellectuality of Senator Johnston to help us to do better than we did in the past.

I am afraid I am only an emergency convert.

He is only doing it for the sake of the sugar.

I think Senator Johnston also told us that the Minister had made a politician of him. Now, I doubt if the Minister has done a good job there, because I think Senator Johnston is as bad a politician as myself, and that is very bad.

I hope I would make a better job of being a statesman than the Minister has done.

Those negotiations for which Senator Baxter asks have been going on behind closed doors since the war began. I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister and the Government have been doing everything they possibly could in that direction. I will go further and say that the position is marvellously good.

I agree that discussions on motions like this are, on the whole, useful. I have no objection to them. Discussions here are often not only useful but very interesting, and do a great deal of good. Like some other Senators, I certainly got the impression when I read this particular motion that the implication was—whether Senator Baxter meant it or not—that the Minister for Agriculture was not doing his best to get all the manures which we need so badly. Even before I heard the Minister's speech I had learned from a source which I know to be very reliable that we had no great hope of getting any artificial manures from England for the simple reason that England has not enough for herself. That is what the Minister told us.

He pointed out that we would not be prepared to send them bacon or butter because we need those commodities so badly ourselves. He illustrated that they were in much the same position, that the British were not prepared to send us artificial manures because they required those manures so badly themselves.

I think the Senator has taken more out of the Minister's speech than was actually in it.

That may be the Senator's opinion, but I do not agree.

What I mean is that, if the British Government said to us: "We cannot produce more artificial manures because we lack butter, but if you send us more butter, it will enable us to produce a surplus of artificial manures, which we will send you," that might put a different complexion on the amount of butter we would be prepared to send them.

We all know that the British factories are not making anything like the amount of artificial manures which they produced in normal times. Those factories are so constructed that they can be switched over to make munitions of war. We also know the difficulty of importing manures from North Africa or anywhere else. I am quite satisfied that the Minister would have done his best to get them if they could be got, and that the reason he failed to get them is that the British were not prepared to give them. I thoroughly agree with what Senator Counihan said, and with what Senator O'Callaghan said to-night, with regard to concentrating on producing whatever artificials we can produce here, and also paying greater attention to our supplies of farmyard manure. As Senator O'Callaghan has pointed out, for many years before we heard of artificial manures here we were producing ten times the amount of tillage we had in recent years, and certainly three times what we have even yet. I should be as glad as anyone else if we could get a sufficiency of artificial manures, but if we are to produce all our own food we must make a very much bigger effort than we have been making to save all the farmyard manure we can, and devise every conceivable plan for increasing the production of it. At one stage I thought, like Senator Johnston, that you could not feed cattle on wheaten straw, but I have found from experience that cattle will eat wheaten straw even when there is good oaten straw beside it. I was very glad to discover that, because I grew wheat long before there was any demand for wheat growing, and I was under the impression that the straw was no use to me and that I would have to sell it to some person who owned racehorses.

It is a new one on me.

I learned it by experience. Of course, there is no great point in that, because we would always have to feed straw to cattle, whether it be wheaten or oaten straw, and the more cattle we have the more farmyard manure we will get. Senator Baxter referred to the question of flax. I grew flax myself during the last war, and was very interested when I found that we are growing it here again and that there is an opportunity of disposing of it profitably. I made inquiries and was in touch with people in the flax industry and in the ropemaking industry, and the impression I got was that we are making a good bargain in getting binder twine in return for our flax. We could not possibly get on at the moment if we did not get binder twine. Consequently, we are very lucky to have flax to give in exchange for it. I am quite certain that, if there were any means of getting artificial manures, they would be got.

On the whole, I have no complaint to make about the general tone of the discussion. I welcome especially the contributions of Senators Goulding and Mrs. Concannon. I should like to disabuse the Seanad of the impression that I put down this motion merely in order to find fault with the Minister. I had no such intention. Our problems demand a different type of approach altogether. The contributions of Senator O Buachalla and O Máille were, of course, no help whatever, but I am refreshed by the approaches made by Senator Goulding and Senator Mrs. Concannon. To be quite frank with the House, I put the motion down in this form because it is a fact that whatever efforts the Minister has made up to the present have not borne fruit to the extent which is necessary. Looking at it from the national point of view, I think it is not the right attitude for members of this House— I do not mind what side they are on, whether it is Senator Sir John Keane or anybody else—to make the British case. Why should anyone here say that there is no use in asking the British to give us artificial manures when they have not enough for themselves? We are so decent and we have so much consideration for them that we would not dream of asking them for anything so long as they want it themselves? That is not my attitude at all. I have been challenged on many occasions for displaying a sympathy with the British that was foreign to people on the other side of the House——

It should not be said either that neutrality must be paid for, and that agriculture must pay for it.

I do not know who said that.

Senator McGee said it.

As I said the last day I think it is a help to the Minister that people like Senator Johnston and myself and other members of the House should stand up deliberately and say that we think the British ought to give us a square deal. It should be a help to the Minister in dealing with the British to know that there are people here—not of his Party at all, but people whom the British might regard as more moderate—who are not at all satisfied with the results of our bargaining with Britain. That is why we have approached this matter in this particular way. I repeat that we ought not to make the British case by saying that they cannot be expected to give us what they want for themselves. The Minister did not make that case, and it would have been helpful if some Senators had read his speech more carefully. On the particular point as to what the situation is in Britain with regard to artificial manures, the Minister was questioned by Senator The McGillycuddy, who said:—

"There is one question which the Minister definitely did not deal with. I asked him whether he could tell us if, having regard to the British programme of agriculture, they have artificial manures which they could give us?"

The Minister replied:—

"I did answer it in this way, that I said that the British Government tell us they have none to spare. We may have our own opinions on that."

I am quite satisfied that the Minister has. Senator McEllin has left the House, but he could tell what some farmers in the west are paying for sulphate of ammonia. When the Minister was addressing himself to the question, he referred to the fact that he was there in 1941, but I would like to mention that there is a great change in the Britain of 1943, and that it is going to change with increasing rapidity inside the next 12 months. I agree absolutely with Senator Mrs. Concannon and Senator Johnston in that respect, and we ought to try to make hay while the sun shines. Whatever An Taoiseach or the Minister may say, we farmers know that a serious situation with regard to our soil fertility is developing, and to the extent that we are losing fertility we are getting poorer every day. I do not want to see at the end of the war and for years afterwards—like the people who are building up the Tennessee valley in America and putting a huge amount of capital into it to restore the desolation—our farmers having to put colossal capital back into the land to restore its fertility, apart altogether from the destruction of the construction of the soil. That is the process which is going on side by side with the loss of fertility. When you take away the fertility you alter the construction of the soil, and that is one of the things which practical farmers know and dread. That is why we must fight for a situation here to ensure as far as we can that we are going to get the material to keep our land in good heart.

Senator O'Callaghan adverted to the point I made about binder twine, but if I gave the impression on the last occasion that I was excluding the importation of equipment for our threshing mills and repairs to our binders, or binder twine, nothing was farther from my mind. We want all those things because they are all part of our whole tillage plan. In exchange for what we are sending out we want all that is necessary for the equipment of our agriculture. It may, however, interest Senator O'Callaghan to know that we grew last year 18,000 acres of flax. When I questioned the Minister on the relative values of imported binder twine and exported flax, he left the House under the impression that he thought one equalised the other. I have gone to the trouble of trying to get out figures. We grew 18,000 acres of flax last year, and I am sure some Senators will be startled to know that one neighbour of mine from an acre of this crop got £80 plus 80 half-crowns. Let us put the value down at £60 per acre and you get over £1,000,000 for the whole crop, grown mainly in the three northern counties, with a little bit in West Cork. Senator Johnston will corroborate the price, which was about 22/6 per stone.

I wish the Senator could give us the weight in stones. You might grow flax as you might grow wheat on virgin soil, and get a very big crop, but then go to the next place next year and you might not get half the crop. I think £60 an acre is very big.

It was not a very good crop, and not all the land is suitable for it, and nobody is growing flax unless he has the soil to suit it. Anyway, I put it down at £60 an acre, but even if you put it down at £50 an acre you have practically £1,000,000 as the value of your flax exported.

Do you need artificials to grow that?

The point I was making is that we are actually encouraged to produce flax as against oats or potatoes, or even wheat, because if I am growing an acre of flax I can buy 1 cwt. of potash from the merchant, but I cannot do that if it is potatoes or oats. You can get the potash for beet also; and I am afraid that altogether too high a proportion of the fertilisers available are going to be allocated to beet, leaving a much smaller proportion available for greens and roots. I am much more concerned about the production of potatoes, especially at the present time.

Is wheat not supposed to be more severe on land than any other crop?

That is not a supposition at all.

Would the Senator say what is the capital outlay on an acre of wheat?

I agree that the labour is very considerable. I have not gone into the question of the number of men that would be required. Perhaps 16 men would pull an acre of flax, and I put their wages down at about 6/- a day. What I am trying to point out, however, is that we may put down the value of our flax last year, taking one acre with another, as close on £1,000,000. I have been trying to ascertain the value of our binder twine as against that, but I cannot get figures as to the binder twine imports last year. The methods by which these returns are given in round figures prevent a segregation of different imports, so I do not know what the value of the imports was last year. I have gone, however, to the statistics, and the highest figure I could get for the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 was for 1936.

The binder twine imports for 1936 were valued at £18,000. Let us assume that they were doubled, quadrupled or even ten times the quantity last year. That would still represent only £180,000, and we are sending out £1,000,000 worth of flax. If we were able to import fertilisers at the 1936 figure they would approximately represent £500,000. Our flax exports alone last year would have done much more than pay for all these artificial fertilisers, for the 200,000 tons which Senator Johnston gave us to-day while imports of binder twine would also make a very big contribution towards the payments for fuel which we are using in tractors and other machinery.

The Senator is not suggesting that the export of flax went for the purchase of binder twine?

I am refuting that. The Minister at first gave us the impression that that was the position, but later on he did not stand over that. It is important that we should know these things. As far as the Minister's approach to this is concerned, I am not finding fault with it. I would not expect the Minister to come to the House and say that there were other things which could be done. I would not expect him to tell us that there was negligence or that there was a situation in which it was obvious that there had been failure. I am not approaching it from that angle at all. I do not want to pass judgment in a way which is unfavourable to the Minister, but I want the House to say that the line I am taking indicates a proper approach to this question. I think no one attempted to deny that we want artificials. I do not like the attitude of Senators in this House who use the argument that Britain also wants these artificials. Let Britain make that argument if she wishes, but if that argument were put up, I would make the point that in the case of nitrogenous manures and sulphate of ammonia, which she makes in immense quantities, she has been able to give her farmers 4 cwt. to the acre. If she gave her farmers 3 cwt. to the acre, the yield would probably be just as good, and if we could get that other cwt. per acre, it would make a tremendous difference in our yields.

They could probably give us 2 cwt. to the acre.

I would say that that is the kind of argument that should be used. I would go further and say that it would help the Minister immensely if the House were unanimous in saying that the Minister should take this matter up directly.

The Minister used these words:—

"You cannot press too hard in a case like that."

What was troubling the Minister was what more might he do in the event of refusal.

Senator O Buachalla is always boxing a shadow.

There is a shadow that needs to be boxed. The words were: "We tried to persuade them but we failed. You cannot press too hard in a case like that." If they refuse, what would you suggest doing? I think that is the trouble.

I do not know from the Senator's speech that he was the least bit troubled by that.

Would Senator Baxter mind giving us the authority for the statement that English farmers got 4 cwt of sulphate of ammonia to the statute acre?

I know what is happening across the Border.

Would you put 4 cwt. to the Irish acre?

I know what conditions are across the Border. I have been across there and have seen it. Senator O Buachalla puts me the question: What would I do if the Minister were turned down, would I show fight? Well, I would say that I would not run away from a fight if anybody wanted fight, but I would choose my ground, and I do not see why we should have to fight at all. The Minister told us he was across in 1941. I say there are a great many people dead since that time, and I believe that the time is ripe for a fresh approach. Senator O Buachalla told us that there were continuous negotiations. He told us a number of things of which I have no personal knowledge. I could not get any information on this by any other method than by putting down this motion.

Senator O'Callaghan was rather explicit tonight, and he is a practical farmer.

So am I. Senator O Buachalla said there was a sort of plan by which certain commodities were purchased in order of preference? I know nothing about that. How could I be expected to know it? The Senator puts me the absurd question: "If the Minister asks for so and so and does not get it, what is he going to do." Anybody who knows anything about negotiations knows that the party which is seeking something will not go up to the other party and say: "I am asking for so-and-so, and if you do not give it to me, I shall strike you between the two eyes." It is quite absurd to put a question like that to me. I think that there is no necessity to anticipate a refusal because we are having discussions with them frequently about certain commodities.

About artificials?

Would Senator O Buachalla tell me when last a communication passed between us and the British on this matter? I do not know. I have not seen it. There is no such thing as continuous negotiation about artificials or anything else. In discussions of this kind discussions are carried on between Department and Department, and you know the way these communications go on. You know very well, even if you were in love, there comes an end to these continuous communications, and it could only be said by someone who does not understand the question that we are writing every day about artificials and they are telling us that they are not going to give them. It is all too grotesque. I refuse to be drawn along that line. I do not think that we have to face up to the situation of what we have to do if they refuse to give us more, because they are giving us some. My view is, as it was the view of Senator Johnston, that the farmers can make better use of the land and that they would have more for the British if Britain were more expansive. The Minister talks of 1941, but that is two years ago. Perhaps we are all in a different mood now. If we got into discussions of that kind it might be the foundation for the wiser course of action on many other problems. It does not mean that it must be a policy of compromise or that compromise must be all on this side. In any dealings we are going to have there must be a quid pro quo. My feeling is that Britain is getting more from us than we are getting in return. In circumstances like these I do not think fault ought to be found with me for asking this House to put it to the Government that the soil conditions, the profitability of agriculture and the whole future of our people are bound up with our ability to sustain soil fertility. That is the object of my motion.

I feel that I am justified in asking that of the House in view of the fact that every farmer knows that unless we can get more artificials into our land for the next year or two in return for what is being taken out of it, it is not the farmers who are going to suffer most. No matter how strenuous the efforts farmers make to get the crops it will not pay to get them, and it is not the farmers who are going to go short. The farmer and his family are not going to be anything like as short as people in the towns. We could not get a price from Britain for our bacon and butter, and what was the consequence? Our own people are also short of bacon and butter. The agricultural industry is very complex and the machine highly geared up, and you have to plan in terms of years, and if you are negligent the consequences are inevitable. I put it to the House that my approach to this question is reasonable and fair. I had no desire to score off anybody and certainly no desire to score off the Minister. The Minister was quite clear, and we got a great deal of valuable information which we would not have got if this motion had not been put down. I beg the House to appreciate the fact that there are things on which we should be able to agree. It is in no way humiliating to the Minister for one of the House of the Oireachtas to say unanimously that the situation is such here that we ought to have an effort made by the Minister, and that such effort in the new circumstances would bring more fruits than we have been given up to the present. That does not say that the Minister has not done his best. As Senator Johnston has put it, I believe that those on the other side might have done more. It is quite conceivable that they may be in the mood to-day to do more. I would certainly put it up to them. I do not want to continue this discussion nor to go into any of the points, some of them quite cantankerous, but I ask the House to accept the motion.

I asked Senator Baxter a question because he said that the farmers are getting chemical manures with greater facility for growing flax. I asked if flax was not more severe on land than other crops.

Was it flax?

It was flax I said.

It was wheat you asked about.

If it was wheat I asked about it was flax I meant.

We do not know what you meant.

The question I meant to ask was about flax, and if it was wheat I asked about I am surprised.

You said wheat.

I meant to ask about flax to prove the wisdom of the Government in giving greater facilities for the production of flax.

The Senator cannot make a speech now.

I was going to suggest that Senator Baxter might consider an alteration which would make the motion more acceptable. It is that the word "immediate" be altered to "further." The motion would then read——

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that, in the interests of agriculture, further action should be taken by the Government to negotiate with the British Government for an adequate supply of artificial fertilisers in exchange for the export of cattle, flax, beer, and spirits.

There might be no objection to that.

I am quite prepared to accept that alteration if the House gives permission. It would satisfy me. The motion is an expression of opinion.

Is it agreed that the alteration be made?

What is the alteration?

That the word "immediate" be deleted and the word "further" be inserted.

The alteration is that the word "further" be substituted for the word "immediate" before the word "action".

Does that mean any commitment?

Of course, that is not for the Chair to say.

Permission given to make the alteration.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Motion: Item No. 4 on the Order Paper in the name of Senator Counihan postponed until the next sitting.
Motion: Item No. 5, in the name of Senator M. O'Dwyer, called.

Does the Senator desire to go on with the motion now?

It might be better to postpone it until the next meeting.

Motion postponed until next meeting.

Motion: Item No. 6, in the name of Senator Sir John Keane, not moved.

As it is not likely that there will be any Bills for the Seanad for three or four weeks, perhaps, I suggest we might adjourn sine die.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share