Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Aug 1956

Vol. 46 No. 10

Expansion of Agricultural Production—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that more effective measures should be taken by the Government to promote the expansion of agricultural production.

Mr. Cogan

It is, perhaps, appropriate that a motion such as this, which aims at promoting an increase in our agricultural output, should be taken immediately after the Bill which has been debated for the past two days. We have been discussing the advisability of seeking ways and means of improving our external trade balance, and I think it will be accepted that there is no more effective means by which we can accomplish this than by increasing our agricultural output.

I welcome the Minister's presence here to-day. I should like to take the opportunity of making a personal apology to him for an incident which happened on the last occasion here. It will be remembered that the Minister left rather abruptly at the opening of my speech. He evidently left because of something which he thought I was about to say. I now sincerely apologise for whatever it was he thought I was about to say.

Those of us who represent the agricultural community listened to-day with some resentment to a statement made on the other side of the House that more stern measures should be taken with the farmers and the agricultural community. I should imagine that all sections of the community at the present time realise that the farming community—I mean both farmers and workers—are doing their best under difficult circumstances, contributing their best to the nation and contributing it for a declining reward. Over the past few months, there has been a persistent campaign to convince public opinion that the farmer is securing an excessive reward for his services to the community and is making an inadequate contribution to the general welfare and to the pool of national output.

It is right and desirable that that campaign should be nipped in the bud. The latest figures at my disposal— those for February—show that, while the agricultural price index stood at 333 in February, 1955, it fell to 311 in February, 1956. That is a substantial decline in the remuneration of the entire farming community. When we come up against a campaign of this nature, it is right to point out that there is a grave misconception in regard to the agricultural income and, in particular, to the income of individual farmers. It is necessary to point this out because we are being told that there is no use in doing anything for farmers, that they are already too well off, and, because they are too well off, they are sitting down and doing nothing.

I admit it is difficult to secure a really accurate figure of the income of farmers. There is a total figure— called in statistics the "net income"—of £114,000,000. This only includes outlay on machinery and fertilisers and does not include labour, so that it is not really the true figure of net income. Some time ago an investigation was held in Scotland to ascertain the net income in respect of a number of farms. From the information I have, those farms appear to have been intensively worked. The investigation was held by the Edinburgh and East Scotland College of Agriculture and it applied to four different types of farms: arable, dairy, pig and poultry holdings and market gardening holdings.

The significant thing is that this survey shows that, in the arable group of farms, the net income was £9 per acre, and this was in respect of East Scotland where prices are considerably higher than they are here. In the case of the dairy farms, the average net income was £6 per acre, notwithstanding the fact that the gross output per acre amounted to £34 in the case of the arable group and to £43 in the case of the dairying group. This showed that, although the farms were reasonably intensively worked, they produced a net income of only £9 per acre in one case and £6 per acre in the other case. We can gather from those figures what the net income of a 30 or 40 acre farm would be. It is no harm to have those figures in mind when people are inclined to suggest that the farmers are excessively rewarded for their services.

The purpose of this debate is to endeavour to establish the urgent need for increased agricultural output. It will be accepted on every side of the House that an increase in our agricultural output is desirable and it will also be accepted that it is possible. When a thing is possible and desirable, we ought all to bend our energies towards achieving it. The average net output of agriculture stood at 112 in 1945; it is 109 to-day. That means that over a period of ten years, when great efforts were made in every direction to intensify farming, the total net output of agriculture declined by three points.

I do not want to dwell too long upon these statistics, nor do I want to go into the points discussed by the Minister elsewhere as to whether those statistics are reliable or not. We have the figures supplied to us in the Irish Statistical Survey by the Bureau of Statistics and, whether we like them or not, we have got to accept those figures. The Minister often reminds me of one of those enthusiastic sportsmen who frantically applaud the referee when he gives a decision in favour of the enthusiast's own side, but is quite prepared to boo the referee off the field when he gives a decision in favour of the other side. The Minister has been rather severe upon the manner in which these statistics are compiled, though, on occasion, he has used these statistics in an attempt to show that progress has been made under his administration.

Now, he cannot have it both ways: he must either disagree completely with the official statistics or he must accept them completely. I, as a farmer, knowing how these statistics are prepared and everything about them, am not absolutely convinced of their accuracy but I think they are reasonably accurate and that they, at any rate, show existing trends. The trend they show at the moment is that, over the years since 1945, irrespective of a slight rise or a slight fall, there certainly has not been the significant increase in output that there should have been. There is no use in quarrelling about one or two points in the index. What we should be concerned about is the fact that there has not been an increase of 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. in the total net output, the increase that could have been achieved and that has been achieved in other countries.

I hope I shall approach this matter in a constructive way and, approaching it in a constructive way, I want to set out now as clearly as possible the suggestions I have to make in order to bring about increased agricultural output. I will give them in what I consider to be their order of importance. First, we must establish a real agricultural council and not merely a hole-and-corner consultative council which the Minister may convene at his own convenience and which is not generally recognised; secondly, we must increase the use of fertilisers enormously; thirdly, we must ensure that, for the key products in intensive farming, there shall be a secure market and a guaranteed price; fourthly, credit facilities must be very substantially increased and improved for the ordinary farmer; and fifthly, our entire agricultural, educational and research services must be drastically and completely overhauled. Though I put that last, it is not the least important.

These are the five points I want the Minister and the House to consider as absolutely essential in order to bring about an increased agricultural output, so essential if we are to preserve our present standard of living and hold even our existing population and prevent the country from becoming the laughing stock of Europe. In this State, we have 15,000,000 acres of land, 12,000,000 acres of which is good agricultural land. In other words, we have five acres per head of the population and 25 acres per family of five persons. If this nation, with those resources, were to go bankrupt, we would appear despicable in the eyes of the entire world. If a member of this House were to meet a farmer on the street who asked him for the price of his supper and who told him that he was a poor man with a wife and three children and 25 acres of land, I wonder would that Senator be moved to compassion.

If we cannot make a living for our people out of these resources, then we are not fit to enjoy the independence we have. I suggest that, in setting up an agricultural council, we would be to a considerable extent lifting agriculture out of the more embittered type of Party politics. I do not hold the view that agricultural policy should not be the function of the Oireachtas. I do not hold the view that it should not be the duty of the Government to make decisions on agricultural policy and, since it is the duty of the Government to make decisions on agricultural policy, it is essential that such policy should be discussed here and in the Dáil. We would like, however, to get away from the shallow, barren, futile type of discussion in which one Minister blames another for conditions over which the other Minister had no control and in which one Minister claims credit for achievements with regard to which he had nothing whatever to do. If we can get away from that type of discussion, we will go a long way towards evolving a better agricultural policy.

One of the advantages of having a vocationally elected agricultural council is that the people who constitute that council—representatives of the farmers' associations and representatives of the workers; if organised, the workers would be entitled to representation—would go in prepared to discuss matters not from the point of view of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, but from the point of view of agriculture. They might differ and they might have violent discussion, but discussion would not be directed along the lines of purely Party conflict. In establishing such a council, therefore, we would lift agriculture away from the barren and futile type of discussion which we have so frequently had in relation to agriculture in the past.

That council would provide for representation of every truly representative vocational agricultural organisation. Tests, of course, would have to be applied, but that would not be an insurmountable difficulty. Such a council would be an even better way of dealing with this matter rather than following the precedent in Great Britain where the Government meet the representatives of the National Farmers' Union because, on the council I suggest, there would be representation of both the agricultural organisations and the agricultural workers themselves. Such a council is, of course, only the first step towards the evolving of a better and more effective agricultural policy.

The second point in the programme which I have outlined is that we must encourage the use of fertilisers. Increased output in agriculture is like increased output in any other industry. It depends upon the amount of raw materials you put into the industry. The output of a factory depends to a great extent upon the input of raw material. Fertilisers are one of the essential raw materials of agriculture and a very important essential, because even relatively good land, or what appears to be relatively good land, has shown that it will produce absolutely worthless crops, if some particular chemical element is missing, so that, until all the various chemical elements required are put into the land, we cannot expect to get from the land the output that is desirable.

In this connection, it is almost startling to realise how low we are on the list of fertiliser-using nations. It is hard to believe that a nation with our reputation for education and intelligence, with our reputation for producing the best agricultural scientists in the world, could fall so low in regard to the consumption of fertilisers. I have figures showing the consumption of fertilisers in European countries for the year 1954-55 and the figures I am giving are tons per 1,000 acres of arable land.

Mr. Dillon

On the next page, the Senator will get the information for all land.

Mr. Cogan

I think this is arable land and I am dealing only with arable land. I was going to say that the figures are taken from the F.A.O. monthly bulletin of agricultural economics and statistics for April, 1956. In the Netherlands, the total amount is 76.3 tons per 1,000 acres. The Netherlands is first on the list. Ireland is 14th on the list with 9.1 tons per 1,000 arable acres. I might add that there are only three countries below Ireland: Spain, Yugoslavia and Greece. In other words, in the matter of using fertilisers, we are away down the line along with the primitive peasants of the Balkan States, and if that position is to continue, we cannot expect an increased output from our land.

It is no harm, when considering this matter, to point out that, while we are third lowest in Europe as far as the utilisation of fertilisers is concerned, we are the third highest as far as price is concerned. I have here a list of prices which shows that the country paying the highest price for fertilisers is Turkey. The country paying the second highest price is Switzerland and the country paying the third highest price is Ireland. Turkey pays £90; Switzerland, £89; and Ireland £79. The lowest prices are in respect of Denmark with £50 which is a long way down on the list and Austria with £41 which is still further down.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not dollars?

Mr. Cogan

No; it is £50. In any event, in regard to fertilisers, tons and cwts. do not mean very much. You have got to take the content. I am simply pointing out the place of Ireland on the price list and Ireland's place appears to be very high. I am not blaming the Minister or any Government for that. I think that has been the position for a considerable time. The question is: can anything be done to bring about a reduction in the basic price of fertiliser to this country? Is there anything we can do? First of all, we have got to ask ourselves what are the reasons Denmark can purchase these fertilisers so much cheaper than we. Have they got some special concessions in the producing countries and have they got some special concessions in regard to shipping, or what is the real reason?

I should like to see a thorough research into that question, but, in addition to that, I should like to see some effort made to ensure that at whatever price the raw materials for fertilisers can be purchased abroad, the margin between that price and the price ultimately charged to the farmers is reduced to the very lowest margin.

I know that the Irish Sugar Company have done good work in this respect, and they have contributed to a certain extent in bringing down the price of fertilisers, but, unfortunately, they have not been able to do very much. Our fertiliser prices are still altogether too high. I may be touching upon what I intend to say later in regard to credit, but, perhaps, it is better to deal with it now. I wonder could the Government assist in the matter of credit for the farmers or co-operative societies and of securing fertilisers in bulk and storing them? I know that it would materially aid in bringing down the price of fertilisers, if a certain amount of credit were given to the farmers for the purchase of fertilisers at the season of the year when they are cheapest. That is one way that would be effective, or partly effective, in this respect. We know that the storage of fertilisers by merchants costs a considerable amount. If the farmer could be financed to purchase fertilisers in the summer or autumn rather than in the spring, it would tend to bring down the price.

It is appalling that we use so little fertilisers. Our imports are in or about £5,000,000 worth per annum. That represents less than 10/- per acre. We cannot expect a substantial increase in production from an outlay of 10/- per acre on agricultural land.

Could we not have research into the question of the production of nitrogenous manures in this country? It is a matter for consideration. We often hear that the requirements of the country are not sufficient to justify the enormous expense involved in setting up a manufacturing plant, but, if we were to think in terms of our requirements if we were using the maximum amount of fertilisers, it might be possible to justify the setting up of a manufacturing industry here. I will say that the only justification, or the main justification, for setting up such a manufacturing industry would be the provision of fertilisers at a price cheaper than the price at which we can import fertilisers. If that could not be done, it would not be justified. The matter is worthy of investigation.

Another matter that is worthy of investigation is the question whether or not it would pay the community in general to subsidise the price of fertilisers, or of certain types of fertilisers, or even the supply of fertilisers to the smaller farmers. Many of our large farmers, those who are seeking to increase output, use fertilisers very extensively and have no prejudice against the use, of fertilisers, but many small farmers are strongly prejudiced against the use of fertilisers, and a subsidy, even if confined to farmers under a certain valuation, would certainly justify itself, because our main concern in the development of agriculture should be to ensure that our small farmers in particular are producing their maximum as they are the larger number and are the more important.

It will be remembered that the Government, in 1940, introduced a lime subsidy scheme. There is no doubt that that scheme grew in popularity. In 1947, we were expending about £100,000 per annum on that scheme and we are now expending about £700,000 on the subsidisation of lime. Every penny of that money is well spent.

As the Minister is here, it would be no harm to correct a false impression which he has in regard to ground limestone. He has stated on a number of occasions that there was no ground limestone produced in this country prior to 1948. In actual fact, ground limestone was manufactured in County Wicklow on a very large scale from 1941 and in 1943 there was an output of 180 to 200 tons per week. That was a fairly substantial beginning, but it was only a beginning and, in the main, was only experimental. Great credit is due to the firm that undertook that experiment. It is no harm that that false impression should be removed.

The production of ground limestone was not due to any brain-wave on the part of the Minister. It took place as a result of research into our agricultural needs and how to meet them. It was due, in the main, to the enterprise of a progressive business firm. As far as the subsidisation of ground limestone is concerned, the credit must go in the main to the E.C.A. representative here, Mr. Paul Millar, and that credit should be given to him. I mention that because a precedent was established in the subsidisation of ground limestone which might be followed, at any rate to a limited extent, in regard to fertilisers generally.

To the question of fertilisers, there are two or three approaches. One is to see if it is possible to bring down the price of the raw material or the imported fertiliser. The second is to provide credit facilities for the purchase of fertilisers. The third would be subsidisation, if not for all farmers, at least for the smaller farmers. That might and should lead to an expansion of the use of fertilisers.

There is no doubt that over the past seven or eight years, in one particular branch of agriculture, at any rate, the value of fertilisers has been very clearly established, that is, in regard to the growing of cereals. It has been proved that by the use of a compound fertiliser good grain crops can be grown—wheat, barley and oats—on land which formerly did not yield satisfactory crops.

I have dwelt on the question of fertilisers because it is on the import of raw materials that we must depend for increased output and we must face up to the need for a very substantial increase in the use of fertilisers. That may affect our balance of payments in one way, that, instead of spending £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 on the importation of fertilisers, we may have to spend £15,000,000 or £20,000,000, but we can reap a reward in increased output and increased exports which will completely justify that expenditure.

It is idle to tell the farmer to increase output without showing him how he will benefit not only the country but himself by doing so. Everybody recognises that increased output of agricultural produce will confer an immense benefit on the community. Every farmer knows that increased output does not always confer an immense benefit on himself. There are many farmers farming for low output who secure just as high a net return as if they were farming very intensively.

Only yesterday I was speaking to one of the most intensive farmers in Wicklow, a man who is getting the last ounce of productivity out of every acre. He even levelled every fence on his land in order to enlarge the size of his holding and to avail of every scheme for the improvement of his land. Nevertheless, he told me that, in spite of everything he had done, he doubted if he was making as much money as some of his neighbours who followed the old-fashioned way of permanent pasture, low expenditure and low output. That is a strange thing, but it is true. We have to fight against that viewpoint.

We have to widen the margin between the man who is farming intensively and the man who is farming not so intensively. We can apply this to business. A man may own a factory and may be making a net profit of £1,000 a year. He may enlarge that factory, install new machinery and employ more men. At the end of all his efforts, he may still get only the same net profit of £1,000 a year. It is just the same in regard to agriculture. For that reason, I think it is the duty of the State to come down firmly on the side of the farmer who is farming intensively. There are a number of methods by which that can be done. One way is by securing the market and the price for certain essential products of intensive farming. I would say it is not in the power of the State to guarantee a price for such things as cattle or sheep, because, in the main, they are governed by the law of supply and demand. However, it is in the power of the State to guarantee the price of milk, bacon, pigs, wheat, barley, oats, sugar beet and, perhaps, seed potatoes.

With regard to milk, at present there is a guaranteed price, but there is widespread discontent in regard to it and it is time that discontent were cleared away completely. The milk producers—certainly in Leinster—are very intensive farmers: every producer should be an intensive farmer. Security of price for milk is something which put the foundation stone under agriculture. The foundation of good farming is the cow. On a number of occasions the Minister said he would like to see the number of cows increased. Unquestionably there is room, from every standpoint, for an increase in the number of cows. The number has remained more or less stationary at about 1,250,000. If we were to stock this country properly I think that number could be brought up to at least 2,000,000.

However, the man who is going to increase the number of his cows is entitled to know what price he will get for his milk not merely in the present year, but for the next three years at least, so that he will have a chance of investing money in a dairy herd, if he is not already in the business. Furthermore, he will have a certain amount of security in spending money, if necessary, on the improvement of his dairy buildings.

It is a pity that there should be any wrangling about the price of milk. I think the Minister should take steps immediately to reach finality on this matter by announcing whatever price he has in mind. The general forecast is that the price will be increased but, in addition to increasing the price, I think he would do even better if he guaranteed it for at least three years and put the security of the State behind a guarantee to the farmers that if they supplied milk to the creameries, the price and market will be secure for a period of at least three years. I know there are difficulties in this matter, but difficulties are things that have to be faced. We cannot have a secure agricultural economy unless we start off with a sound and sufficient dairy herd of about 2,000,000 cows.

Consider the present dairy herds. We have 12,000,000 arable acres of land in this country and we have about 1,000,000 cows. That represents practically a cow to every 12 acres. It will be agreed that that is not an adequate stocking of land. I do not want to delay the House now, but I have the figures somewhere of the stocks in Denmark. They are almost double what we have—not quite double, but almost so.

Mr. Dillon

Cattle stocks?

Mr. Cogan

I think the stock of cows per 1,000 acres there is greater by 50 per cent. than the number we have here. They have fewer sheep, but I think we could bring our dairy herd up to 2,000,000 without overstocking the country. Phrases like "one more cow" are merely silly, because—I admit every farmer's circumstances differ—with the low average stocks in the country, there are some farmers who already have too many cows on their smallholdings, while there are other farmers with too few cows on their holdings. In the Midlands, you will find farms of say, 200 acres carrying only two cows. It is futile to tell these farmers to carry "one more cow." There are also a number of people who would like to keep more cows—and I have met them—but who find it impossible to raise the capital for that purpose. It is sad but true that, in our present banking and financial arrangements, there is no real credit for an extension of agriculture in that respect.

I was rather shocked to hear the Minister say, in regard to the Milk Costings Commission that those who organised the protest against the Minister's failure to increase the price had the costings report in their pockets. Of course that was not true and it was the kind of statement which would only make for discontent, rancour and ill feeling. I hope the Minister will avail of this opportunity to correct it. The whole position in regard to the costings investigation is entirely unsatisfactory and it is a pity that that should have happened, because costings should be the basis of a real and true approach to the improvement of agricultural output.

There is at present a guaranteed price for pigs, and I welcome that. However, the floor that is being put under pig prices is altogether too low at present production costs. I would not stress that point too strongly, but the point I should like to stress more particularly is that there is a sort of uncertainty as to the duration of the guarantee. I have been speaking to people engaged in the pig feeding business and they have not been able to secure any information as to how long the guarantee will last. The Minister should make a clear statement on that. I do not know how long in advance it is possible for a Minister to guarantee a price, but, if it were possible, there should be, in regard to milk, a guarantee for at least three years and in regard to pigs for at least 18 months. That would give the farmer a certain amount of security in the purchase of a sow and in the breeding of pigs for fattening.

The problem about pigs is, and always has been, that supplies have fluctuated violently from year to year. I have here the figures showing the numbers delivered to factories for the week ended 31st July last and for the corresponding week of the previous two years. In 1956, the number of pigs supplied during that week to the factories was 17,600; in 1955, it was 22,700; and in 1954, it was 24,500. The figure for 1956 represents a sharp decline by comparison with the previous two years.

The Minister will recall that, immediately upon taking office, he met representatives of the Farmers' Association or Macra na Feirme—I do not know which—and he said: "Pig prices have taken a bit of a wobble, but give me time and I will straighten it out." The Minister has had two years since then, and the wobble in the price of pigs and in the numbers, at any rate, has continued. A good many sows, tens of thousands of them, have wobbled away to the nearest bacon factory and that is an entirely unsatisfactory position. It did not begin, I want to say in fairness to the Minister, when the Minister took office and it did not begin when this State was established. We have always had this violent fluctuation in price and supply. I hope now that the position will be rectified and that the price of pigs will be guaranteed for a period of at least 18 months. It may be that the Minister has in mind a longer period. I do not want to make any excessive demand, but the pig producers are entitled to a guarantee over a period of 18 months.

Professor Hayes

Before the Senator passes on to another topic, may I say that the House is supposed to adjourn at 10 p.m.? Presumably the Minister is going to be heard to-night and there is another motion on the Order Paper which is of more limited application than Senator Cogan's motion and which is of some importance. Have we any chance of finishing that to-night? Senator Cogan has spoken already for an hour and threequarters. Does he intend to give the Minister a chance of speaking at all or could he tell us to what hour we ought to meet in order to finish this matter?

Mr. Cogan

I am anxious that the Minister should have an opportunity of speaking. I cannot speak very much faster than I am speaking——

Professor Hayes

I do not want the Senator to speak faster and I do not want to restrict him, but there is a motion on the paper, apart from his own, which is of some importance, which is of limited application, and on which people can speak briefly. His motion is so general that he could speak on it presumably for five or six hours. We must adjourn at 10 o'clock. What is the position therefore?

Mr. Cogan

The position is a question for the House. If the House decides to sit later than 10 p.m., the House is entitled to do so.

Professor Hayes

Certainly.

Mr. Cogan

If the House decides to sit to-morrow——

Professor Hayes

The House will not decide to sit to-morrow. That has been decided.

Mr. Cogan

If the House decides to sit late——

Professor Hayes

What does the Senator propose to do about the sitting late? He is in possession and apparently he is going on. Presumably the Minister ought to have some opportunity of speaking and presumably Senator Sheridan ought to have an opportunity of moving his motion, which, as I say, is of limited application and can be dealt with in a reasonably short space of time. What does Senator Cogan intend to do?

An Cathaoirleach

I presume Senator Cogan would desire to give Senator Sheridan an opportunity to move his motion to-night. Could the Senator see his way to facilitate the House in having a discussion on that motion?

Mr. Cogan

That would mean adjourning this motion and going on to the other?

An Cathaoirleach

For how much longer does the Senator think he will speak?

Mr. Cogan

I do not think I should take any more than 15 minutes.

Professor Hayes

That means that the Senator will have spoken for two hours on this matter. If the Minister is given an hour to conclude, it will bring us up to 11 p.m. That does not conclude the debate on this motion, because Senator Cogan, if he insists, has the opportunity to reply. I wonder is there any possibility of reaching finality? The motion is so framed that it could last for ever.

Mr. Kissane

There is also the consideration that other people may have a few words to say.

Professor Hayes

Of course, I am allowing for that.

Mr. Cogan

It would be an extraordinary position if this House was to be so circumscribed that we could not devote four or five hours to a discussion on agriculture. We have spent a much longer time on matters of less importance and it would be an extraordinary thing if this House were to be curtailed in debating an issue of so much importance.

Professor Hayes

There is no suggestion that this House is being curtailed. It was agreed between Senator Kissane and myself, and it was announced to-day, that this House would adjourn to-night. This is the 2nd August and it is reasonable to expect that the House will adjourn to-night. This motion is so framed that it could go on for ever and it is reasonable to say to the Senator that he should make a speech, allow the Minister to speak and let us see if anybody else wants to contribute to the discussion and then go on, say, not later than 11 p.m., to Senator Sheridan's motion which, I think, should be concluded in an hour. That would take us up to midnight and that is a reasonable proposition.

It is not fair to say that this House is circumscribing Senator Cogan. He is the last person who should stand up in this House and say he is being circumscribed. Anybody who looks at the debates will see that the word "circumscribed" and "Senator Cogan" should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

Mr. Cogan

I think Senator Hayes is misrepresenting the position. What I am concerned with is the right of other Senators to speak.

Professor Hayes

Why then does the Senator not give them a chance?

Mr. Cogan

There is no time limit to motions in this House and I do not think it would be right for us to permit the introduction of a time limit. I am not responsible for the fact that this is the 2nd of August. This motion has been on the Order Paper for a considerable time and might have been dealt with earlier in the year.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would proceed, and facilitate the House in having the motion dealt with now. I believe that is what he desires.

Mr. Cogan

I pass from the question of eggs merely with the statement that a reasonable guarantee could have been given to the producers. I think such a guarantee should be followed by the establishment of a co-operative marketing organisation, as far as possible on national lines.

I think the price of wheat should be increased to £4 a barrel, with a guarantee. I hold there is never any necessity to guarantee the price of wheat, or any cereal, for more than a year. I want to say in this connection that, when I made the case previously for an increase in the price of wheat to £4 a barrel, the Minister left the House rather abruptly and consequently did not hear the case I made. He raised one point then with regard to the price of wheat which deserves to be dealt with. His case was that if a situation arose in which there appeared to be a likelihood of a surplus, the Government had no alternative but to reduce the price. I controverted that at the time and I do so again now. There are a number of alternatives, but the alternative I would recommend is that, if you think the acreage will go too high—I do not think that is likely—the alternative would be to raise the price of some other cereal which would have the effect of bringing down the acreage of wheat.

There is no necessity at all to bring down the price of wheat. Having regard to our balance of payments position, we import too much wheat. We import about £5,000,000 worth of wheat annually. We should seriously consider the question of raising the percentage of Irish wheat in our loaf. It has been proved that a 100 per cent. Irish loaf can be used, but, without going so far, it should be possible to use a four-fifths native grist. For that, we would need a substantial increase in the wheat acreage.

With regard to barley, I think the Minister fixed the price too low, having regard to the prices of other feeding stuffs imported from abroad. I believe that a minimum of 45/- would be a fair price. The Minister's predecessor fixed the minimum price for barley at 48/- per barrel and I think he was wise in doing so. If the price could be restored to that figure, it would be very desirable, but if we are to have a permanent fixed minimum price, I think 45/- would be fair and reasonable. In regard to barley, I want to say there should be a clear cut policy in favour of a readily available market, so that it would be possible to dispose of the crop immediately after harvesting.

Farmers are a little worried in regard to barley, not so much about price, because they can count upon getting a price somewhat in advance of the fixed minimum. However, there is the question as to whether the crop will be taken off the farmer's hands immediately after threshing. That is an important consideration which should get full attention. There is scope for enormous expansion in the acreage under barley. We imported in the region of £5,000,000 worth of maize last year. We could have produced enough barley to eliminate the necessity for that importation. I believe that an annual production of 300,000 acres of feeding barley would not be an excessive target. One can imagine what the benefits of such a production would be to the farming community and to the State generally. The acreage under barley has been substantially increased this year; I hope that increase will continue next year.

With regard to oats, I want to compliment the Minister on promoting last year a scheme for the growing of oats under contract. The Minister will recall that he and I had a violent quarrel with regard to the price of oats in 1948. I contended it was possible to guarantee a price for oats by the introduction of a contract system. That has now been done to a limited extent. I say "limited" because I am surprised more publicity is not given to this system. I have met a number of farmers who are not aware contracts are available. There are a number of towns where they cannot get this system from the merchants who, in turn, are not aware of its existence. In this connection, I have nothing whatever to say with regard to price. In 1948, I fought for a price of 28/- per barrel, whereas the minimum price under the present system is 40/- —41/- for oats bushelling 40. That is a reasonably good price.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is aware that he has argued this question of prices. He argued it when he introduced this motion on a previous occasion.

Mr. Cogan

I have finished with the question of prices. I should like to dwell very briefly on the question of credit facilities. There is, at the present time, a credit squeeze which affects the farmers rather severely. Banks are tightening up on credit: the farmer who happens to have an overdraft is reminded of it. The merchant is also being restricted to a certain extent, with the result that he finds it difficult to extend credit to the farmers. In view of the national position, I am not suggesting that there should be an unlimited loosening up of credit, but I am suggesting that, for certain important objectives, credit should be provided to an increased extent.

There should be better credit facilities for the purchase of cows with a view to improving dairy herds, particularly in view of the matter that will come up for discussion on the next motion. Apart from that, in view of the need to enlarge dairy herds, special credit facilities should be given to any farmer who cannot obtain the necessary money to purchase cows through the banks or the Credit Corporation. I know several farmers who had to change over to the creamery system of dairying and who consequently wanted to enlarge their dairy herds. They tried the banks and the Agricultural Credit Corporation, but their applications were rejected, without any reason as far as I can find out. That is an absurd position which should be remedied.

All we want is that the Department of Agriculture would step in in regard to certain types of loans, underwrite them or guarantee them, provided they have the necessary safeguards that the loans are for specially desirable purposes. Those specially desirable purposes, I would say, are the enlargement of dairy herds, the provision of fertilisers and perhaps the provision of good type breeding ewes, because I think our sheep herds should also be improved and increased. Increases for other proposals could be allowed to take a chance under ordinary commercial conditions.

The last point to which I propose to refer is that educational and research facilities should be drastically changed and here, in order to be as brief as possible, it would be best to submit to the House with my endorsement, the suggestions made by the joint commission of Macra na Feirme and the National Farmers' Association on the question of the Agricultural Institute. The commission recommended:—

(1) The proposed Agricultural Institute should take over the functions of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the advisory services.

(2) The service should continue to operate on a county basis, and the county committees of agriculture should be strengthened by increased co-option of leading farmers, by becoming corporate bodies, and by being given a measure of financial autonomy.

(3) The employment of advisers by groups of farmers as in Barryroe and Boherbue should be encouraged, and subsidised, when sufficient advisers are available. County and specialist services should be available to such groups.

(4) We do not approve the Department's "Parish Plan" in its present form for the reasons outlined in the report. Two over-lapping public advisory services would only lead to confusion, and a lack of co-ordination.

These four recommendations are set out very clearly and are self-explanatory. The Minister, I think, has indicated that he is not prepared to accept the first one, to hand over the advisory services of the Department to the Agricultural Institute. It is difficult to know what is his reason for that decision. As far as I know, most vocational bodies control the system of education and research in regard to their particular vocations. Why should not agriculture as a vocation control its own system of education and its own system of research and it can control them through the Agricultural Institute on which farmers would have a substantial representation?

I am quite in agreement that agricultural policy as such should not be handed over to any vocational body and could not be handed over, because it is the function of the Government itself and of Parliament, but advisory services and agricultural education could very properly be handed over to the Agricultural Institute. I entirely agree with the recommendation in regard to the parish plan. We all approve of a parish plan in the sense in which it was outlined by Canon Hayes, which is that the parish should have a certain kind of local parliament which could consult with, and help in, the administration not only of agriculture but of other services. There never seems to be any justification for setting up two separate types of organisation for agricultural education and advice.

Mr. L'Estrange

Would you recommend that we put a time limit on the speakers under this parish plan?

Mr. Cogan

I would not. This is a free country and I hope it will remain so.

An Cathaoirleach

I would point out to the Senator that the 15 minutes which he allowed himself have more than passed.

Professor Hayes

More than passed.

Mr. Cogan

My remarks will now be brought to a finish. I have said that in my county we have an agricultural instructor for less than 1,000 farmers. We have set up in one district a local district committee representative of the various farmers. At the same time, we accept the county committee as the governing body for the county. The local district committee consults with and assists the local agricultural inspector, and that is the better type of organisation rather than disrupting the whole system by having two advisory services cutting across each other and having the agricultural instructor of the county committee crossing the territory of the agricultural instructor of the parish plan. That is the kind of confusion that makes for bad administration.

I should like to have said a good deal more, but, having given a promise of 15 minutes, I will honour it, but I will have the opportunity of replying.

Professor Hayes

This is a kind of serial that is going on. I understood that we were to finish this motion tonight. I was going to suggest that we take this motion until 11 o'clock, conclude it and then take Senator Sheridan's motion from 11 to 12 o'clock. The Senator has already spoken for more than two hours on this matter; it seems that he wants to talk for ever. I think it is a most unreasonable waste of time. We should finish the motion at 11 p.m. and then the Senator can put down another motion. I can suggest any number of motions on which the Senator can make long speeches, if he comes to me in the autumn.

Mr. Kissane

It appears to me that we are wasting any amount of time now and time is precious. In order to bring the thing into some order, I formally second this motion and reserve the right to speak later.

Professor Hayes

Would the Senator second the proposal that we sit until midnight and conclude this motion at 11 o'clock?

Mr. Cogan

I take it I may be allowed time to reply?

An Cathaoirleach

I call the Minister. We shall see what happens between now and then. There must be a spirit of reasonableness about this.

Dr. McHugh

May nobody else speak on the motion?

Professor Hayes

The time limit is 12 o'clock.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

I agree with Senator Cogan that the delay in presenting the report of the Milk Costings Commission is deplorable and I have made that view known in public, and I have explained to the Dáil, as I now wish to explain to the Seanad, that I am resolved not to abridge the autonomy conferred by my late predecessor on this committee, and therefore do not feel justified in giving it any direction in regard to the performance of its function; but I understand that two members of the committee, Mr. Fehily and Mr. Hill, have recently interviewed the director, and I trust the representations made by them to him in the course of the last fortnight will bear early fruit and that the director will bring his report to the costings committee at an early date.

There are a few points specifically made by the Senator who proposed this motion to which I would like to refer briefly, before turning to the general subject matter of the motion. At column 678 of Volume 46, No. 8, the Senator refers to the Irish Statistical Survey for 1955 and he says:—

"From a base of 100 in 1938, the manufacture of transportable goods has gone up to almost 200. On the other hand from a base of 100 in 1938, the volume of agricultural output, both gross and net has increased by only nine points, and this in face of the fact that nearly every comparable European country has increased its output, since the termination of the war, by as much as 50 per cent. and, in some cases, more."

I would suggest to the Seanad that it is disingenuous to compare the performance of European countries as from a date immediately after the war with the performance of Irish agriculture as from 1938. You must compare like with like; but if you want to make the comparison for agricultural output in Ireland to-day with agricultural output in Ireland at the termination of the war, I will submit to the Seanad that an increase in gross output of approximately 32 per cent. has been accomplished by the Irish farmers.

I circulated for the benefit of Senators a table setting out the gross agricultural output, including and excluding turf, and the net agricultural output, including and excluding turf, for the years 1938, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1955. I believe that the most significant return is that representing the gross output, excluding turf. I do not regard turf in our circumstances as an agricultural product. I do not regard net output as a significant figure, because I think, as the Senator pointed out, net output sky-rocketted during the war, and when speaking to-day, he pointed out that if you get a high output from fertilised land, without putting back into the land fertilisers, or feeding stuffs which are converted into dung and thus fertilise the land, you may get a very large output with a small input. That reveals a very high net output, but that is not a criterion of good farming. That is a criterion of mining your land. If you take everything out of the land and put nothing back, you get a very high net return, but a good farmer——

Mr. Cogan

On a point of order, could the Minister give us the figure for 1945?

An Cathaoirleach

That is not a point of order, Senator.

Mr. Cogan

I ask that, as the Minister has stated that he wanted a period when the war had ended.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must permit the Minister to make his speech. So far as I know, he was not himself interrupted.

Mr. Cogan

I was interrupted.

An Cathaoirleach

Not in my time, I think.

Mr. Dillon

As I was saying, that criterion is, in fact, the criterion of the success with which you mine your land and a good farmer getting a similar return from his land and putting in an abundance of fertiliser to replace what is taken out, or providing quantities of feeding stuff for his stock which is converted into manure and returned to the land, might have a very much lower net return but would, in fact, be using his land to real advantage.

If you take the gross return over a number of years, you get a figure which is not affected, whether the farmer is, in fact, mining his land or not. You have the certainty that if the farmer is consistently mining his land, there would emerge the figure of diminishing returns. Therefore, if you take the gross production over a period of years—and the important thing to remember is that statistics are rarely of any significance, except when taken over a period of years— you find that, in 1947, to the base 1938-39 of 100, gross agricultural output in Ireland was 87.8. I am not going to go into the reason why gross agricultural output in 1947 was 87.8 of what it was in 1938-39.

Mr. Cogan

Give us 1945.

Mr. Dillon

But that is a fact, and that is the fact we have to face, that it was from that nadir of production when we had less cattle on the land than at any time since the Famine, when we had less sheep on the land and less pigs in the country than at any time since the Famine, and when the land of Ireland was in such a state of dereliction that the cattle were dying of starvation——

Mr. Cogan

That is absolute nonsense and the Minister knows it is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

It was from that point when production was 87.8 that we proceeded to build up, and, if Senators will look at the succeeding eight years, they will find agricultural production in 1947 represented by 87.8; in 1948, by 98.5; in 1949, by 108.1; in 1950, by 103.2; in 1951, by 100.7; in 1952, by 1057; in 1953, by 111.5; in 1954, by 112.4; and in 1955, by 116.2.

Mr. Cogan

Would the Minister give 1945?

Professor Hayes

Let us hear the Minister and let us have no more nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

That was approximately an increase of 32 per cent. on our gross agricultural output, excluding turf, but including annual changes in stocks as between 1947 and 1955.

That performance, while giving us no grounds for complacency, should, I think, finally dispose of the suggestion that I thought I detected in the Senator's observations, that it was fitting and proper that the farmers of this country should be held up to the ridicule of Europe for their failure to compare with other countries of Europe in the increase in their output. I think, considering the point of departure at which they had to start, bearing in mind the massive assistance that was forthcoming through Marshall Aid to countries like Denmark and Holland as compared with the minuscule assistance available to us from a similar source, that performance of our farmers, in all the circumstances, has not been discreditable. I confidently hope that it can be improved upon in future, and I will suggest to the Seanad before I sit down that we are, I hope, taking steps to help the farmers to that end.

The Senator, at column 681 said:—

"I am not suggesting for a moment that Parliament should resign its function of having the final decision in regard to policy, and in regard to agricultural policy in particular, but I am suggesting that a truly representative agricultural council should be consulted in the fullest and most serious way, openly and publicly consulted in regard to agricultural policy before it is decided upon."

The Senator said to-day that he did not consider that the existing consultative councils were of any value for that purpose. I can assure the Seanad that, over and above the consultative councils—which, I think, have a value —regular and constant consultation takes place between myself and the N.F.A. and the various committees of the N.F.A., Macra na Feirme and the I.C.A., when they seek an interview with me. I do not agree with the Senator that it would be of any assistance to conduct these discussions in public. On the contrary, I believe that free and friendly discussion with such organisations in private, when both the Minister and these organisations can speak openly and freely to one another, are very much more valuable than public disputation between them would be.

At column 683 the Senator said:—

"If you get down to the root of the matter and you want to ensure that the maximum output is secured from the land, you have to concentrate on encouraging the intensive farmer. There is no question in this connection of compulsion. We in Fianna Fáil, as a Party, have never believed in compulsion in regard to agriculture."

I think it is proper to place on record that, in 1948, a general election was fought in this country, and one of the planks in the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party at that time was that compulsory tillage should constitute a permanent feature of our agricultural policy.

Mr. Kissane

No; it was not.

Mr. Cogan

That is not true.

Mr. Dillon

My submission is that it is. It is very easy to verify if it is not right.

Mr. Kissane

I can verify it.

Mr. Dillon

I should be glad if the Senator would refresh his memory on that matter. I think he will find that it was after the general election of 1948 that that feature disappeared from Fianna Fáil policy. I welcome that conversion. I think the Senator is mistaken in believing that the Fianna Fáil Party have never believed in compulsion in regard to agriculture. Indeed, I think I heard the Senator, before his conversion to Fianna Fáil, make passionate speeches in other places in criticism of that policy of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Cogan

That is not true. I never made such speeches.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will resume his seat.

Mr. Crosbie

The Senator has been talking for two hours.

Mr. Cogan

On a point of order, I never made such statements

An Cathaoirleach

That is not a point of order, and the Senator is old enough in Parliamentary procedure to know that.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister should withdraw that.

Mr. Crosbie

What about the time the Senator swallowed the elephant?

Mr. Dillon

I have already referred to our gross agricultural production. There are certain other facts in regard to agriculture to which, I think, the attention of the Seanad might properly be directed. It is not infrequently suggested that the output of the farmers has not increased as might reasonably be expected; but I submit for the information of the Seanad the index number of the volume of gross output— in this case, including turf, because I have not got it excluding turf—per male person engaged in agriculture. Taking the base year as 1938, the output per male engaged in agriculture in 1926-27 was 86; in 1947, it was 98; and in 1954, it was 139. That represents an increased output per male person engaged in agriculture——

Mr. Cogan

Resulting from emigration.

Mr. Dillon

——of 62 per cent. as compared with 1926-27, which is, of course, an indication of the increasing mechanisation of the agricultural industry and of the fact that, with that increased mechanisation and efficiency of the industry, there has been manifested in this country that which has appeared in every other country in the world—a drift from the land to the cities. Remarkably enough, that tendency seems to have been halted here in Ireland, but it is right for the Seanad to remember that it is not peculiar to Ireland. It is of universal application, and is most dramatically demonstrated in the U.S.A., where, 50 years ago, 60 per cent. of the population lived on the land and 40 per cent. lived in the cities. To-day 12 per cent. live on the land and 88 per cent. live in the cities. A similar trend is manifesting itself in every country in Europe and is a source of perplexity to every Government in Europe, where it is regarded as an undesirable development.

I think Ireland is, perhaps, one of the countries in Europe where that trend of people from the land to the cities shows some signs of being checked; but it will be well for the Seanad to remember that the efficiency of the agricultural industry shows a very substantial increase in the output per male worker engaged, and the result of that has been that those who now get their living on the land are enjoying a higher standard of living than they enjoyed 20 years ago. That is something over which we should greatly rejoice, and it is worth nothing and remembering.

I want the Seanad to be informed about certain fundamental facts in regard to where the agricultural industry now stands because I think it is a very bad policy to keep up a constant howl of derogation of the farming community, with the implied suggestion that they are inferior to every other farming community in Europe, when that is demonstrably false, if one has regard to the facts.

In last year, 1955, the total output of cattle, including changes in stock, amounted to 1,048,000 head. That is the highest figure ever recorded since statistics were first kept in this country. The intake of creamery milk in the first six months of this year amounted to 113,900,000 gallons, which is the highest delivery of milk to creameries in Ireland ever recorded since statistics were first kept. The export of cattle in the first six months of this year, in all forms, amounted to 364,019 head; last year, it amounted to 403,516. That is largely accounted for by the fact that, for reasons into which it is unnecessary to go in detail to-night, in the spring months of last year, the price of fat cattle rose to unprecedented and, I think, now admitted to be, fantastic heights, reaching in some cases £9 per cwt. That resulted in quite exceptional exports of cattle on the hoof.

If we are to compare the export of cattle in the first six months of 1956 with the first six months of 1954, when the price per cwt. was something about the same order, we find that the exports for the first six months of 1956 were 364,019 head and the exports for the first six months of 1954 were 355,581. That figure, standing alone, would give ground for encouragement: but, when it is taken in association with the fact that the numbers of our cattle have been increased substantially over last year according to the January census, then we have reason to hope that the future exports of live stock can and will be as good as, or better than, those that have taken place in the past.

I have here some preliminary figures for the month of July. They are not without encouragement, but they refer only to live cattle which have been exported to Great Britain and the Continent, excluding Northern Ireland and excluding all carcase meat. Cattle shipped to Great Britain and the Continent in the month of July, 1954, amounted to 31,357; in 1955, 35,518; and in 1956, 45,380. I think it may be right to remind the Seanad that the figures for the total cattle population in January, 1956, show an increase of 86,500 over the figure for 1955. As Senator Cogan pointed out, the figures for sheep show an encouraging increase of 195,600. Pigs have been declining, but I hope to satisfy the Seanad that we are now taking measures to ensure that that decline shall not only be arrested, but reversed.

With the exception of 1954-1955, which was a very wet year, and 1945-46, I think that the mill intake of wheat constitutes a record. It is interesting to observe that, though many people believe that our purchases of wheat are increasing, the fact is that the average annual purchase in the period 1945 to 1947 amounted to 2,719,000 cwt. Our average annual purchase in the period 1948 to 1950, inclusive, amounted to 3,700,000 cwt. Our average annual imports of wheat in the three-year period 1951 to 1953, inclusive, amounted to 5,344,000 cwt; and our average annual imports in the two-year period 1954 to 1955, inclusive, amounted to 2,349,000 cwt. I think the Seanad may be glad to know that the acreage of feeding barley this year will constitute, unless I am greatly mistaken, a record for all time.

Now, what of the future? I must plead guilty to having a pragmatical mind. I agree entirely with the proposition that increased agricultural production is essential for the economic wellbeing of this country, inasmuch as our main, if not our only, natural resource is 12,000,000 acres of arable land, and it is on that 12,000,000 acres of arable land that the people live and get their living. I think if I induce them to increase output, they are entitled to ask me: "On what lines do you suggest we should go?" Now, I do not think they are entitled to ask me in detail: "What is each one of us to do upon our own holding?" I do not think it is the duty or function of a Minister for Agriculture to pretend that he is competent to give any such detailed advice; but if I am asked, as I think farmers are entitled to ask: "On what lines should our increased output go?" I would answer them quite reasonably: "If you kept five cows in the past, try to keep seven hereafter: if you kept ten in the past, try to keep 14 hereafter: if you kept 20 in the past, try to keep 28 hereafter." Farmers hearing that advice are, I think, entitled to ask: "How are we to keep seven where we kept five, 14 where we kept ten, and 28 where we kept 20: how will they survive on the same acreage of land?" and to that I am entitled to reply: "On 90 per cent. of the holdings of Ireland, there is an increased potential available to every farmer who will realise it" and that is on the grassland of his holding.

Whether we like it or not, we have 12,000,000 acres, of which we might aspire to bring 4,000,000 under tillage in any given year. That leaves 8,000,000 under grass. God bestowed upon this country an invaluable asset of an annual average rainfall of 42 inches, equally distributed over the 12 months of the year, a temperate climate, the Gulf Stream and the greatest market for live stock in the world at our backdoor. If we are to exploit these four advantages to the greatest extent, then we should make every acre of grass in this country produce its maximum.

I have said before in public, and I now wish to repeat it, that I believe the tillage techniques of our farmers compare favourably with those of any farmers in the world, but our exploitation of the potentialities of the grassland of the country falls far short of what it should be. If I am asked by farmers: "Where do we fail?", I am prepared to answer them that they fail in the user of phosphate, potash and lime on their grassland. And I say to farmers generally it is well within the capacity of the vast majority to undertake the increase in the number of their cattle suggested by me, if they will use adequate quantities of phosphate, potash and lime on their grassland, with the proviso that, within certain limits, reseeding may be necessary.

If they are in any doubt or ambiguity as to what course it is requisite for them to follow, they may have recourse to the agricultural instructor or parish agent in their own vicinity who will give them clear and certain counsel on what fertilisers they should employ and where the improvement cannot be achieved without recourse to reseeding.

I would recall to the Seanad that we have at the present time a guaranteed price for wheat, beet, barley, milk, grade "A" pigs and the guarantee of the trade agreement in respect of store cattle. Let us face the fact that if the continued influx of beef on the British market continues from the Argentine on the scale at which it is at present arriving, then the prospects of the carcase beef trade and of the fat cattle trade from this country to Great Britain are not at all as hopeful as they were 12 months ago, but happily, under the terms of the trade agreement, our store cattle are closely linked with the price guaranteed to British farmers for fat cattle and, through that link, we have the assurance that there can be no destructive slump in the price of store cattle which is, of course, of such fundamental importance, particularly to the small farmers of this country. I turn to remind the Seanad of the facts, however, in the context of my request to the farmers that they should increase their number of cows, because, through increased production of milk, the availability to the farmers of increased quantities of skimmed milk and the prudent user of that skimmed milk, I would hope for an arresting and a dramatic increase in the exportable surplus of agricultural produce available at an early date in the shape of pigs, with this added advantage, that with the adequate user of skimmed milk, a complete diet for pigs can be provided by home-grown barley.

I would suggest to farmers that if they grow their own barley which they now can do and add to every cwt. of barley meal approximately one pound of salt and feed it to pigs with skimmed milk ad lib, they have a complete and adequate diet for pigs, with the assurance now that there is an unlimited market for all the grade “A” pigs they can deliver to the factory, and no possibility of any violent oscillation in price such as that to which Senator Cogan referred as being a feature of the past. He said some time ago that I told the farmers I would take the wobble out of the price of pigs. I think I have fulfilled that undertaking by a guarantee to the farmers. There is a minimum price of 235/- per cwt. for all the grade “A” pigs they can deliver to the bacon factories of this country.

In that connection, I want to interpolate this observation. There are some people who take a queer kind of delight in denigrating anything we have and comparing it unfavourably with something that somebody else has, but it is a dramatic and significant fact that, over the past 12 months, the percentage of grade "A" pigs delivered to the bacon factories has increased from 54 per cent. to over 63 per cent. If you take the grade "A" plus grade "B", 86 per cent. of all pigs delivered to the bacon factories in this country fall within these two categories so that there is almost developing here a shortage of the heavy pigs of which we used to have a surplus which are required for conversion into the hard quality of salt bacon popular in certain parts of the West.

I hope to see 70 per cent. of all our pigs delivered to the factories being grade "A". I would remind the House that if this comes to pass, as we believe it will, then the strain of pigs we have in this country compares favourably with the strain of pigs available in any other country in Europe or elsewhere.

I do not want for one moment to suggest that we can contemplate resting upon our oars in agriculture in this country. We want to continue the effort, but I regard our past performance as in no way unseemly. On the contrary, I believe we have done well and we hope we will do better, and to that end I would remind the Seanad that, while it is true that we have not in the past used adequate quantities of fertiliser, there are historical reasons for that into which I do not now propose to go, but all that persuasion can do will be done to bring home to the farmers the advantage of using greater quantities of fertiliser.

Any Minister for Agriculture would welcome the prospects of being able substantially to subsidise fertilisers and reduce their cost to farmers, but it is to be borne in mind that it is not possible for an agricultural country, depending for its existence on agricultural produce, always to make the same contribution by way of subsidy on the raw materials and on end-product prices to agriculture. That is possible for an industrial country which derives the bulk of its income from industrial pursuits, such as the United States of America or Great Britain; but we should bear in mind that, by the end of this year, under the land rehabilitation project, we will have 1,000,000 acres of Irish land rehabilitated or in process of rehabilitation.

I think I am entitled to say that the statistical matter which I have laid before the Seanad is in itself evidence that the policy of investment in the land is beginning to pay dividends. I would remind the House that the progeny testing of pigs which is proceeding at Ballyhaise, and in other forms in every factory in the country, is, I think, earning dividends in the increasing percentage of grade "A" pigs appearing in the factories.

I am aware that Senator Cogan does not agree with my concept of the parish plan, but here again I have the pragmatic approach. My proposal is to bring within the reach of every farmer in this country adequate facilities to help him to get from his own holding the maximum return. Where the county committees of agriculture are providing that advice, I am quite content. Where they are not providing that advice and the people ask me for it, I will provide it. It is working very well on that basis at the present time.

I find no conflict; I find no confusion; and I find that farmers welcome the service, wherever it is made available. Some county committees of agriculture have asked me to send parish agents to their county, notably County Longford, and in that area the two services are operating amicably and reciprocally side by side and I do not doubt that, if any Senator wishes to make inquiries in that area, he will find that the service is greatly appreciated by the farmers for whom it is provided. I judge by results and I like to test a policy by its results and I find that, after the theorists have finished talking, when the parish agent goes amongst the farmers, he is welcomed and they want to have him, and, when they have the benefit of his advice, they increase their output, they improve their holdings and they make for themselves and their families a better life. That is the only thing in which I am interested and, so long as that need exists in rural Ireland, I consider it to be one of the primary duties of the Minister for Agriculture, directly or indirectly, to supply it.

There is one matter on which I think the Senator might with advantage have dwelt at greater length. He took two hours and in that time I thought he might have touched on this matter because this, I think, is a real lacuna in the general scheme for increased profitable agricultural production and it is a lacuna not easily to be filled, that is, in the marketing of our agricultural surplus abroad.

I feel—and I do not mind admitting this to the Seanad—that in respect of bacon, in respect of carcase meat and in respect of eggs, and probably in respect of fowl, our marketing arrangements are antediluvian and are placing us at a material disadvantage compared with certain of our competitors in foreign markets but there is this difficulty, that there are in existence old-established trade connections between this country and Great Britain and the case can be very energetically made that to disrupt these old-established channels of trade and to substitute therefor an entirely new organisation canalising all trade through one channel is to exchange something of proven and established value for something of speculative value. I have no doubt that in respect of our continental markets the canalisation of exports is overdue but it is extremely difficult to arrange it on a voluntary basis.

I have a profound and instinctive reluctance to pushing people about. I would much prefer to achieve these objectives through consultation and agreement, but I think it is true that, if that cannot be achieved, statutory authority must be sought to place our export trade in certain products on a basis of competitive equality with other countries catering for the same markets.

Senators will have noticed that recently Denmark has decided to canalise all its bacon exports through one export channel in Great Britain. We frequently find, when arranging for export quotas of carcase meat into European countries that, at their end, the purchase is canalised through one channel and that the only result of there being a number of competitors for the business from this end is that the single authorised importer on the Continent is in a position to canvass competitive business from a number of independent exporters at this end, resulting in disadvantage not only for the exporters but for the producers here, advantage for the importer, with no corresponding advantage for us.

I am not without hope that we will be able to overcome this difficulty through the medium of consultation and agreement, but I think it is true that, if we cannot, then it will be my duty as Minister for Agriculture to approach the Oireachtas in the autumn to seek a method whereby, with the approval of the Oireachtas, the necessary measures can be taken, where the national interest requires it, to strengthen the competitive position of our export interests for some commodities to which I have referred.

I know that the world in which we live is much given to elaborate plans drawn out on paper. I know that we are told that China is going to embark on a five-year plan, that Italy is going to embark on a five-year plan. Russia has been engaging in five-year plans for the last 20 years. I wonder do Senators realise that we are always told in great detail at the beginning of a five-year plan of the glorious horizons to which these planners are about to advance but nobody ever tells us at the end of a five-year period what the results have been? We know that some of them succeeded, but, in the course of achieving the success, the people for whose benefit they were launched died, in some cases, in millions, of famine, of slaughter and of exile to the salt mines of Siberia, all for the common good.

I understand that the Chinese five-year plan has now collectivised all the farmland of China. I do not know, and I am in no position to test that claim, but I am also informed that hundreds of thousands of people have perished in the course of the operation. I do not know what the results of all the five-year plans are. I am not qualified, and I do not believe anybody else is, to set out on paper the destiny of a people and to marshal and drive them, if needs be, into fulfilment of these theoretical objectives.

We do know what this country needs, and that is increased output from the land. I do know the general direction in which that output can be increased with a reasonable certainty of our being able to dispose of the surplus for money in foreign markets with the intention of using that money earned to pay for the imports from foreign countries which we require if we are to maintain the kind of standard of living for our people in this country that we desire them to have. I will agree with Senator Cogan that our objective should be to see upon the land of this country 2,000,000 cows. I think I mentioned that figure before, and said that I invited the farmers to join with me in a five-year plan, the ultimate objective of which would be the increase of our cow and heifer population from its present level to a figure of 2,000,000.

I said then that if we were to put our hands constructively to that policy, let those who keep five cows keep seven, those who keep seven keep ten, those who keep ten keep 14, those who keep 14 keep 20 and those who keep 20 keep 28. I understand that kind of planning, but I do not understand the kind of planning which purports to forecast exactly what every acre of land on every farm in Ireland will be used for during the next ten years—something approaching to anthill economy which is not consonant, in my judgment, with the dignity of property-owning farmers on their own land.

Maybe I am wrong and that there is a more modern approach founded on the gospel of efficiency which makes my approach inappropriate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day. If that be true, I will make way for another person who believes in that approach and secures from the farmers of this country authority to impose it upon them. But I do not think I am wrong. I think we have ample evidence before us. We can get from the farmers of this country an infinitely better return by telling them what it is requisite to do, by offering them the help that they require to achieve their objective and by trusting them to produce the desired results.

However, I agree that it should be incumbent upon us all, in so far as conscience would allow, to speak with a common voice, and I suggest that there is nothing in the programme of increased production that I have put before you that could be described as controversial or calculated to justify disputation or the instilling of confusion in the public mind.

I do not know that I have heard from the Senator any suggestion of a new departure—I say, deliberately, "of a new departure"—other than that we should subsidise fertilisers and that we should appoint an agricultural council with which I should take counsel in public. I wish we had the resources to subsidise fertilisers, but we cannot provide money to rehabilitate the land, to provide grants for farm buildings, which we are doing on a very elaborate scale at the present time, to eradicate tuberculosis from the cattle of the country and to do everything else we would desire. I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that we are subsidising, very heavily subsidising, one very essential and valuable fertiliser.

That is ground limestone which, after all, is available to every farmer in the country at 16/- or less per ton delivered to his gate wherever he may be. I think it is worth nothing that Senator Cogan agrees it was in abundance in County Kilkenny long before 1950 when the existing scheme was initiated. I think the Senator overlooked a very essential distinction, that the commodity he referred to was available at 30/- per ton, ex quarry.

Mr. Cogan

It started at that price and was reduced.

Mr. Dillon

It was reduced when ground limestone became available at 16/- per ton delivered to the gate, but of course you may call a rose by any other name and it may smell as sweet. But if one costs 30/- at the pit and the other costs 16/- at the gate, to my way of thinking they are not the same thing, and for the man who is buying by the ton there is a very substantial and significant difference. I am very well aware that limestone flour, so called, was available at 30/- a ton, ex pit, in 1949. Ground limestone, as I understand it, at 16/- a ton delivered to the farmer's gate, became available in 1950 and is now being used at an annual rate of 1,000,000 tons.

I hope the farmers of this country, having experienced the advantage of the use of this valuable fertiliser in great quantities, will believe me, and those others on whose advice they depend, that a corresponding use of phosphates and potash would double, treble or quadruple the results they already have achieved with the limestone alone. I do not quite know what more effective measures we can take than the measures we are taking now, unless we use compulsion. I welcome suggestions from anybody for more effective measures——

Dr. McHugh

If the Minister gives us time to make them——

Mr. Dillon

It is not for me to give the Senator time. The Senator must not summon me to the Seanad to answer a speech that took two hours and ask me to stand by for ten hours.

Dr. McHugh

Because the Moguls of the House decided we are not to sit in the morning.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot attend in the morning because you require me to attend a meeting of the Government of the Republic in the morning. I shall not be drawn into a discussion with the Senator. I have been at the disposal of the Seanad for a long time to-day and I have tried to treat the Senator's motion with the respect I conceive to be due to any motion presented by the Senator. I do not think I have said more on the situation than the Senators required. I was about to conclude when the Senator intervened; I was about to say I do not know what more effective measures we may take. I would welcome any proposal. I have heard none, with the exception of a suggestion about marketing, about which, discussions are proceeding.

I think perhaps publicity has failed. I welcome suggestions as to how we could communicate to farmers and carry conviction to them that the key to 90 per cent. of our problems of increased production in this country is phosphate, potash and lime. But will Senators tell me how can that be done more effectively than I am trying to do it? Will Senators believe that last week at a meeting of the Kilkenny County Committee of Agriculture a responsible man was heard to say he believed the solution of the problem of the bacon industry would be for the Minister to guarantee a price of 230/- for grade "A" pigs? That statement was made by a responsible member of the Kilkenny County Committee of Agriculture, although the Minister had guaranteed a price of 235/- for them three months ago. How can we carry the knowledge of these things to the people? If Senators have any suggestions to make, I shall be happy to hear them. I have appointed an experienced public relations officer of the Department for no other purpose than to try and broadcast these facts. I will accept most cheerfully advice from anybody on more effective measures to promote the expansion of agricultural production.

I am certain that the expansion of agricultural production is essential. I am proud of the progress Irish farmers have made in the expansion of agricultural production since 1947. I believe they will continue it. However, I would remind the Seanad that with the passage of every day, week, month and year the atmosphere in which we trade abroad becomes more and more competitive. We must take measures to equip ourselves effectively to trade in that atmosphere. To that end, we hope to improve our marketing methods but, fundamentally, what we must do— and here is something which all must realise is indispensable—is to face the task of bringing down our own costs of production by efficiency in our own method. I would point at once to two spheres in which that can be promptly done. The first is to ensure in the production of creamery milk the use of phosphate, potash and lime, so that cows kept for the production of creamery milk are fed and maintained on grass, grown as hay and ensilage and the farmer undertakes no outlay on concentrates for his production. The second is that the right kind of pig be kept in increasing numbers and fed on barley, salt and skimmed milk. If these two methods are employed they will, in themselves, very substantially contribute to the indispensable necessity for reducing our costs and restoring our competitive capacity in the foreign markets in which we shall be plying.

Has anybody else any suggestion to make? A Senator has remarked that time is running out to-night but to-morrow and to-morrow and to-morrow are all new days and, although I would not dream of unduly trespassing on a Senator's time, I am always at his disposal. If Senator McHugh has any suggestions to make to me other than those expressed here and if he gives them to me personally or under any other circumstances I will give them every consideration. If we do not agree we can at least courteously agree to disagree and very often better understand one another. Perhaps we can devote an hour or half an hour to personal discussion; I am proceeding on the assumption that Senator McHugh wishes that to happen.

Dr. McHugh

I shall be delighted.

Mr. Dillon

I apologise if I have unduly delayed the Seanad, but I think it was necessary for me to deal with the matters raised in the motion and to repeat the invitation for a constructive proposal for increased production through methods as yet untried.

Dr. McHugh

Since the Minister has very courteously offered to consider my suggestions, I will communicate with him in writing. That will give the mover of the motion time to reply.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Cogan to conclude.

Mr. Cogan

I intend to be very brief. Before I proceed any further, may I ask if the debate on this motion will conclude to-night, or can it be adjourned and resumed whenever the House meets again?

An Cathaoirleach

I have called on the Senator to conclude the debate.

Mr. Cogan

There has been no agreement on that.

Professor Hayes

The motion has been proposed and seconded that this debate conclude at 11 p.m. to-night.

An Cathaoirleach

I suggest that Senator Cogan should proceed. He will have many other opportunities.

Mr. Cogan

I am sorry the Minister is not listening to me at the moment.

Mr. Dillon

I can hear the Senator well.

Mr. Cogan

I just wanted an assurance on that point. I was rather sorry that the Minister—perhaps because he was rushed—was unable to deal with some of the points I raised. I made five suggestions and the Minister dealt with only three or four of them. The Minister had no remark whatever to make on the question of credit for agriculture. It is idle to talk of increasing agricultural production, of increasing the dairy herds of this country, unless somebody is prepared to provide the necessary capital. It is not there and we know it is not there and no arrangement is made whereby it can be provided. I was sorry the Minister perhaps overlooked that point and did not comment upon it.

I suggested that the Department of Agriculture should step in in regard to at least two or three branches of agricultural production—in regard to the purchase of cows, the purchase of fertilisers, the purchase of breeding ewes—and guarantee loans where necessary. Through his Department the Minister could, if necessary, provide a credit advisory service to supplement existing facilities. It is difficult to explain all this in a matter of five minutes.

Another point the Minister skipped over rather lightly, or in fact did not refer to, is the question of guaranteed prices. I suggest there should be a period in regard to certain guaranteed prices. If, for example, the price of milk is guaranteed at a certain figure it should be for a certain specified period, say, at least three years. However, the Minister avoided any reference to that matter.

The Minister appealed for suggestions. In addition to those which I have made, there was one which I had intended to make if I had been able to reach it before the time limit expired and that was that there should be in this State an extension of adult education. As far as the advisory services are concerned, there should be in every parish without exception in every week of the year one night on which a class or a lecture would be held. I could go into that in more detail if the time were available, but it is necessary to point out how essential it is to the preservation of continuity of contact between the instructors and the farmers. I hope we shall have some other opportunity of going into this question of advisory services. There is a big field for development, for new ideas and new suggestions which I hope I shall have an opportunity of dealing with later.

An Cathaoirleach

What is happening about this motion on the Order Paper?

Professor Hayes

I presume the Senator is not pressing it.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Senator wish to press the motion?

Mr. Cogan

Yes.

Professor Hayes

The Senator told us he would not press a division on this motion.

An Cathaoirleach

Will those desiring a division please stand?

Mr. J.D. Sheridan

On a point of order, I have a motion here——

An Cathaoirleach

I have put a question.

Professor Hayes

The Senator may not put a point of order pending a decision on this matter.

An Cathaoirleach

I have put a question and that matter must be cleared before you put a point of order.

Mr. Cogan

On a point of order, in deference to the wishes of Senator Sheridan, I shall not press the motion to a division.

Professor Hayes

Too late. The Senator has wasted Senator Sheridan's time. It is disgraceful.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.