Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 May 1938

Vol. 71 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Agriculture.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £439,520 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1939, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Talmhaidheachta agus seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riaradh na hOifige sin, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £439,520 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and of certain services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

The Estimate provides for a decrease of £40,012 in payments and an increase of £77,722 in Appropriations-in-Aid, compared with 1937-1938, making a net decrease in the Vote amounting to £117,734. I will first take the sub-heads under which there are increases. The first is salaries, wages and allowances. The personnel of the staff as is shown on the printed Estimates shows a reduction of 43 as compared with last year. The reduction is mainly due to the cessation of farm butter levy work. The increase in the money provision, £5,550, is mostly due to normal increments of salary and to the fact that the Estimate is based on an average cost-of-living figure of 75 for the whole financial year whereas the 1937-8 Estimates were based on a figure of 65 for nine months of the year and 70 for the other three months.

The next sub-head is F (3)—Veterinary College. A clerk-attendant and one additional laboratory attendant are provided for in connection with work under the Poultry Diseases Act, 1934. The normal increments of salary and a higher rate of cost-of-living bonus account for most of the balance of the increase under the head of salaries, wages, etc. The provision under General Expenses is £599 more than in 1937-1938. This is rendered necessary by the increases in the number of students attending the College and the number of animals under treatment. The number of students in attendance during the Spring term of the current session was 173.

Now we come to sub-head G (2)— Improvement of Live Stock. This shows an increase of £37,975. The provision of £35,000 is for the purchase of one high-class thoroughbred stallion of classic standard at a cost of say £20,000 and of three sires not quite up to classic standard at an estimated cost of £5,000 each. That is against the total Estimate last year of £10,005. I may mention that in the original Estimate of last year this £35,000 was also shown but it was altered when the Supplementary Estimate was brought in, as it was found impossible to spend any money under this head last year. The idea was that with this £35,000 in the Estimate we might be able to buy one thoroughbred stallion of classic standard and three sires at £5,000 each. It is very hard to say whether this money will be spent this year. Last year, as I say, we made provision for a similar amount of money to be spent but no suitable stallions came on the market.

There is a loss on resale of thoroughbred hunter stallions. The explanation of the apparent increase for high-class thoroughbred stallions also applies to the apparent increase of £2,005 in the provision for loss on thoroughbred hunter stallions compared with 1937-1938. The original provision for 1937-38 was £4,000 and similar provision is made this year. The original provision was reduced when the Supplementary Estimate was brought in, Four thoroughbred hunter stallions were purchased in 1936-37 at a cost of £1,688 and the loss on resale was £938. Ten thoroughbred hunter-stallions were purchased in 1937-38 at a cost of approximately £3,822 and the loss on the resale was £1,963. Having regard to the intensive foreign competition it is anticipated that the Department will have to pay high prices for any thoroughbred hunter stallions purchased during the current financial year. That is why the Estimate has been increased for the present year.

There is sub-head G (3) for the inspection, purchase and keep of yearling thoroughbred colts. The provision of £1,500 for this purpose is £500 more than was provided for in 1937-38. During the last year we bought four yearling colts for location during the current financial year. They cost £929 exclusive of the cost of keep, etc. Under the next sub-head provision is made for the purchase of stock rams for leasing or resale at reduced prices. This is a new scheme for which £500 is provided. The number of rams proposed to be purchased annually is six or eight, depending on the prices prevailing, which may vary within wide limits. It is intended to give preference to leasing rather than resale in order to insure more control over the location and general utilisation of the rams. The leasing fees proposed to be charged are:—£5 per annum for rams costing £50 or less; £7 10s. per annum for rams costing from £50 to £75, and £10 per annum for rams costing from £75 to £100. That is all I have to say so far as stock rams are concerned.

With regard to special agricultural schemes in congested districts, there is an increase of £1,548 in the Estimate compared with last year. Provision is made for an additional agricultural overseer. The cost of travelling for the last few years has been about £5,000 and that represents £1,650 over the previous Estimate. The Estimate of £5,000 is based on actual expenditure on travelling in the last few years. The provision of £9,500 for the purchase of bulls for sale at reduced prices represents an increase of £1,000. The £9,500 is for the purchase of 210 bulls. There is an additional £300 provided for the purchase of rams for sale at reduced prices. This is a different scheme from the previous scheme that I mentioned in regard to rams; it is for congested districts only. The Estimate of £1,650 is for the purchase of 150 rams at an average of £11 each. The provision of £430 is made for the supply of 123 fully-stocked beehives at half cost. Beehives were supplied at reduced prices in 1936-37 and 1937-38, but this is the first year that the item has been shown under a separate head in the Estimates.

The next item is sub-head K (4), which provides for a grant in respect of the development of the manufacture of milk powder. This is to provide a subsidy to a creamery society in respect of milk powder manufactured by them. The subsidy will be paid to the Dungarvan Co-operative Creameries, Limited, on their sale in this country of milk-foods manufactured by Messrs. Cow and Gate Limited, Surrey, from milk powder supplied by the Dungarvan Co-operative Creameries, Limited. The subsidy is to be calculated as follows:—Milk foods packed in tins, 800 cwts. at 6d. per lb., making £2,240, and milk foods packed in cartons, 200 cwts. at 3d. per lb., making £280.

In explanation of this I should say that for some considerable time we have been considering the manufacture of baby foods in this country, knowing that we have at least the perfect milk and milk products to make these baby foods. But, realising that there is such a strong prejudice amongst mothers as to what they should give their babies, we thought it inadvisable to prohibit or even tariff the incoming baby foods. We thought it better to subsidise the baby foods made from native milk, so that they could be put on the market at a somewhat lower cost and in that way we tried to induce people here to buy these foods of their own free will, but not through any compulsion. I was afraid if anything happened to a baby the mother might blame me for the loss if she fed the baby on Dungarvan food.

With regard to the sub-head covering miscellaneous work, there is a net increase of £2,033 in the Estimate compared with 1937-38. There was a sum of £2,500 additional provided for advertising and publicity in connection with wheat propaganda and the drink more milk campaign. The milk campaign is a new item, for which £1,500 is provided.

Sub-head M (4) deals with loans and grants for agricultural purposes. The sum of £2,000 inserted in the Estimate for loans for the purchase of stallions is £500 more than was provided in the last Estimate. It is anticipated that this will enable 27 loans to be granted. An additional £700 is provided for loans for the purchase of bulls in view of the advance in cattle prices and it is anticipated that there will be no falling off this year in the demand for these loans. Provision was made in the last Estimate for 1,000 loans for the purchase of hand-spraying machines, but this was not sufficient to meet the demand. The provision has therefore been increased from £1,750 to £3,500. This will enable 2,000 loans to be made.

There is a sum of £2,000 provided in respect of a new scheme of loans for the purchase of poultry equipment, including incubators and hoovers. These loans will be repayable in three equal annual instalments, together with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. The scheme of loans for the improvement of flax scutch mills was initiated in 1937-38. There is an undoubted need for a substantial improvement of scutching facilities and the scheme may be availed of to a greater extent this year. A provision of £1,000 has been made for this scheme, showing an increase of £500. A sum of £1,000 is provided for loans and grants for the erection, equipment and repair of corn mills. This indicates an increase of £500.

With regard to sub-head M (5), concerning the improvement of the creamery industry, there is an increase of £6,900 in the Estimate. The principal item is £30,000 for the erection of creamery premises and the operation of travelling cream separators in the Cahirciveen, Kenmare and Castletownbere areas. I mentioned that scheme here before. For some years back the people of these districts, which everybody knows are very poor —that is, the West and South Kerry districts and the peninsula of Castletownbere—have been making various suggestions with regard to schemes that might help them, and amongst them was one that they should have a creamery to take their milk. On surveying the district it was found that no stationary or fixed creamery could be made an economic unit, because there would not be a sufficient supply of milk in any particular district. We have now embarked on this scheme of having a collecting centre in Castletownbere, in Cahirciveen and a central creamery in Kenmare. There will be three travelling creameries working from the Kenmare centre, three from the Cahirciveen centre and three from the centre in Castletownbere. It is hoped it may be made an economic proposition under these conditions. I should say it is largely experimental and, even though the scheme is going to cost somewhere between £30,000 and £40,000, it was considered necessary in the interests of the people in these areas to ask the Dáil for that large sum of money without being sure of success. The scheme is now in operation for two or three weeks and the prospects are not too bad.

With regard to sub-head O (7), dealing with the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Acts, the Estimate is £4,782 more than in 1937-38. The increase is mostly in respect of the remuneration of part-time veterinary examiners. Provision is made for two additional examiners for duties under the Fresh Meat Acts at Cappamore and Cootehill, and 12 additional officers who may be required for duties under the Pigs and Bacon Acts, consequent on the registration of new premises under the latter Acts.

Sub-head O (11) covers the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts. There is an increase of £28,898 in the Estimate. There is an increase also of £82,400 in the provision for the purchase of cattle for export. On the other hand, there are reductions of £36,000 under the heading of compensation for animals slaughtered, and £14,995 under the heading of compensation to manufacturers of cattle products. Then there are reductions amounting to £2,507 under sundry heads. The provision of £450,000 for the purchase of cattle for export to Germany and Belgium is based on the assumption that the number exported will be much the same as in previous years, but that higher prices will have to be paid for them. The numbers exported in the last few years were:—1935-36, 21,486; 1936-37, 21,326; 1937-38, 18,092. I should say that the reduction in the number last year was due to the shipping strike at Dublin in December last, which was responsible for the reduction in exports by about 2,000. The Roscrea factory has not been supplied with any old and uneconomic cattle since 25th March last.

With regard to sub-head O (15) concerning the Agricultural Wages Act, there is an increase of £5,029 in the Estimate. As the Act had not come into operation, and some time would elapse before the board could be appointed and a full staff recruited, it was not necessary to provide for a normal year's expenditure in 1937-38. The provision made in that year was also exclusive of the cost of the clerical staff. The high cost of advertising and publicity is due to the fact that the board's orders are published in many provincial papers. If attendance at a meeting involves a loss of wages, compensation for the actual wages lost is paid to the workers' representatives, in addition to subsistence allowance.

Now I come to the decreases on the Vote. The first important decrease comes under sub-head O (9), which refers to the Agricultural Products (Regulation of Exports) Acts. The total amount in that connection is £35,250. There was a sub-head in 1937-38 that is not repeated in this year's Estimate. It concerns expenses in connection with the provision of butter for winter requirements, and the amount is £111,000. There are also decreases in sundry sub-heads amounting to £3,002.

The total decreases there would be £149,252. The decrease of £35,200, under sub-head O (9), is arrived at as follows: For exports of butter, there is a decrease of £76,250, and for exports of eggs, an increase of £41,000—that is, in the years 1937-38 and 1938-39—leaving a net decrease of £35,250. Appropriations-in-Aid show an estimated increase of £77,722 compared with 1937-38. The most important increase is: Receipts in connection with the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts— £89,780, of which £87,000 is in respect of exports of cattle. The most important decrease is: Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Acts—Sales of butter and eggs, a reduction of £14,000. I think it will be seen that where the estimate for the purchase of cattle shows an increase, the Appropriations-in-Aid also show an increase; and where there is a net decrease in connection with the butter and eggs figures, there is a decrease in the Appropriations-in-Aid.

There are some smaller items to which I wish to draw attention. First of all, with regard to the seed propagation division, there is an increase of £470. The additional funds are required mostly for the scheme for the production of pedigree seed wheat. With regard to the grants to county committees of agriculture, the normal grant provided is £88,886, compared with £84,855 in 1937-38, an increase of £4,031. It is estimated that the produce of the 2d. minimum rate raised by the county councils in 1938-39 will amount to £73,083, and that the produce of the extra rate raised will be £15,803, a total of £88,886. There is a reduction of £3,000 in the provision for Special Temporary Grant compared with 1937-38. The Special Temporary Grant is not considered a desirable arrangement in the financial system of the committees of agriculture, and the institution of a more satisfactory system is under consideration. Meanwhile, the Special Temporary Grant for 1938-39 has been fixed at £5,000, which is the lowest possible figure considered necessary to enable the more needy committees to carry on essential services. I should say that the Special Grant was allocated almost entirely at the discretion of the Minister for Agriculture. Admittedly, it was not a satisfactory system, and we are trying to evolve a more satisfactory system of financing the county committees.

Under I (c)—Demonstration Plots— there is an increase of £500. The increase is to provide for the purchase of onion seed and the purchase of glass frames for the growing of onion seedlings. Under sub-head K (1) (2)— Miscellaneous Grants-in-Aid—there is an increase in the annual grant of £200. Provision is made for an increase of this amount in the annual grant of £100 to the Connemara Pony Society, amongst other things. Under sub-head K (1) (4) there is an increase in the expenses of the Department's education exhibit. The character of the Royal Dublin Society's Spring Show has so materially altered in the last few years, owing to the expansion of the industrial side, that the necessity for a more attractive presentation of the Department's exhibit has become apparent, and £300 additional is provided for this purpose. As a matter of fact, we are trying to get a larger space for our exhibit at the Spring Show because we feel that we could show many more attractive items there if the space were available.

The next item is under sub-head K (2)-Contribution to Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. There is an increase of £540. The grant to this society consists of (a) a fixed grant of £5,700; (b) a contribution of £1 for every £1 by which the society's receipts from affiliation fees and special subscriptions exceed £3,000; and (c) a contribution of 10/- for every £1 received by the society by way of subscriptions from private sources. The total grant is subject to an overriding maximum of £7,260 per annum. The fixed grant was at the rate of £6,000 for a number of years, but in 1935-36 it was reduced to £5,500, and in 1937-38 was increased to £5,700. The question of a further increase—the amount is not yet decided—is under consideration, and this explains the necessity for making additional provision.

What heading is that under?

That is K (2). Well, these are the principal headings that are altered, either up or down, during this present year, as compared with last year. There are some matters which I should also like to mention so as to guide Deputies who may be inclined to speak on this Estimate and with a view to anticipating any questions that might be asked. I anticipate, since the matter has been referred to frequently of late, that questions will be asked about the Pigs and Bacon Act, and I should like to say that a Departmental Committee has been examining this question since the beginning of the year. I would say to Deputies, therefore, that it is not necessary to impress upon me the advisability of having this whole thing examined, but I should like very much to have any suggestions that can be made, because the committee will be reporting, I expect, in the very near future, and I shall have the obligation placed upon me of coming to a decision. If any Deputy, therefore, has any suggestion to make with regard to any change that he thinks should be made, I should be very glad to have it.

Another matter that will arise, probably, is the question of our policy with regard to feeding-stuffs. That also is being examined by the Department. However, I should like to say that I would prefer that no change in the scheme should be made before the 31st August next. My reason for that is that it will take until about that time to absorb the barley and oats on hands with the merchants who purchased on the understanding that their supplies would be absorbed up to the end of the cereal year. At the end of that period, however, I am quite prepared to examine any suggestions that may be made.

Another question that has arisen from time to time, and which may arise again—I do not know whether it will or not—is the question of the slaughter of calves. I mentioned here, on the last occasion, that in my opinion a very much smaller number of calves were slaughtered as a result of the bounty that was given than has been mentioned by many people both here and elsewhere. I should like to repeat what I have said several times already, that that scheme was instituted to encourage the consumption by our people here of veal, at a time when I was being told by Deputies opposite that farmers in the South were slaughtering their calves and throwing the flesh to the dogs. I thought, therefore; that, if that were so, and as our people here might need more meat as a food, it might be possible to get the butchers of this country to slaughter these calves in a proper way and to sell the veal as cheaply as possible to the people if we were to offer a bounty on the skins of these calves. It was pointed out to me at the time that those farmers whose calves died a natural death would also avail of this bounty and, of course, it was recognised that they would do so. However, no objection was raised to that, because it was considered as a sort of compensation to the man for losing his calf. That scheme, admittedly, failed in its first objective, which was to induce the people here to use veal as a food, but it did not fail in its second objective, which was to compensate the man whose calf had died a natural death. In this connection, I should like to say that there was no compulsion on farmers to slaughter their calves. Deputies opposite, whether purposely or not I do not know, have sometimes given the impression that we compelled the farmers of this country to slaughter their calves. There was no such thing ever done. It was merely done, as I say, to try to induce butchers to give that flesh to people who needed meat rather than have it thrown to the dogs.

This is the first time that we have heard the Minister express it in that way.

Not at all. We are getting this annually now.

How many butchers used it?

I do not think any of them used it. It was very disappointing.

Before the Minister goes away from that——

I am not going away from it at all.

——would he give us a definition of what he means by veal?

The meat you get from a calf.

Did the Minister ever hear of such a thing as a fat calf?

I not only heard of it but I saw it.

Would you call it veal?

I would, of course.

And what would you call the meat of a calf that was killed three days after it had been dropped?

Baby veal. As I felt that some of the speakers from the Opposition side, on the Estimate, would have to find some new material for their speeches, now that they cannot spend the day talking about getting back our markets, I decided to anticipate them, and perhaps save them the trouble of making mis-statements, by dealing with some of these points. We know that members of the Opposition have said that we destroyed 500,000 calves and that if we had them now they would be worth a lot of money. On turning to the census figures, I find that the number of cattle in the country in either 1936 or 1937 under one year old—the survivors of the slaughter of calves——

The cattle under one year old are not the survivors.

They were the survivors for these particular years. In 1936 and 1937 the number of calves of that class in the country was higher than in 1930 or 1931, when there was no such slaughter and when Fine Gael were here to protect the calves.

How many did you slaughter, in fact?

We did not slaughter any. The Deputy should try to get it into his head that we never made the farmers slaughter calves.

Would the Minister say how many calves were slaughtered?

If Deputies allow me I will come to that. The highest number of cattle under one year old that we ever had in the country was in 1932, and the number in either 1936 or 1937 was only 17,000 under that figure, so that the number that we had in 1936 or 1937 was higher than in any year under the Cumann na nGaedheal régime.

Is the Minister talking about June, 1932?

These are all June figures. The number of cattle from one year old to two years—these again are the survivors of the year before— was higher in 1937 than in any previous year. Going back even to the time of the British régime, we never had as many cattle between one and two years old as in 1937. That is a rather strange fact. I was rather surprised to find it, but it is true.

The Minister should have a look at the fairs.

The Deputy now wants me to go to the fairs. Some Deputy spoke about exports. There was a larger export of calves in 1931 or 1932 than in 1936 or 1937. The average export of calves for the four years of the slaughter—1934 to 1937—was 38,000 less than in the last four years of the Cumann na nGaedheal administration. In 1931 we had a higher number of calves in the country, but were down in our exports by 38,000. Actually, therefore, the number of calves between what were there to be counted in June and exported during the year would be about 30,000 less than in the years when Cumann na nGaedheal were in office. Listening to the speeches of the Opposition, one would think that the number was about 500,000 down. As a matter of fact, since the recent Agreement was made I have had inquiries from Deputy O'Leary's constituency as to how they stand now about the slaughter of calves and the sending of veal to England. The Deputy is aware that for many years in the Macroom area, and around West Cork, farmers have slaughtered calves and exported the veal to Great Britain. I have now got inquiries from them to know if they can slaughter calves again, and send out the veal.

What age were the calves?

Under a week old, probably. I was accused here by the leader of the Opposition—a man who is supposed to know what he is talking about when it comes to a question of morals—of going against nature, the inference being that I was inducing farmers to slaughter calves. I am not going to stop them, and I do not know whether the Fine Gael Party want me to go against nature now.

Some Deputy asked me about the number of calves that were slaughtered last year. I tried to get a report as to the number, as my conscience was troubled by what the leader of the Opposition said. If I took the reports of all the inspectors we have and added the figures they gave, I believe the total would show that less than 1,000 were slaughtered last year, although we paid a bounty on 138,000. That is the point I want to make, that there were not 1,000 slaughtered. Of course, the explanation is that this scheme was insuring farmers of this country against the mortality of their calves, a thing they never got before. The bounty has been discontinued, and the only result of this will be that the farmer is losing that insurance that he had against ordinary mortality. If Deputy O'Leary, Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies claim a victory over me —that they have compelled me to drop this scheme, well I can tell them that all they have gained is to deprive the poor farmer of that insurance.

And the Minister has no pity for the poor farmer.

The Deputy has not much.

What will he get for the skin now?

He will get 1/-. He used to get 11/- for it with the bounty.

What about the factories?

The Deputy should allow the Minister to make his statement.

The Minister is looking for interruptions.

I am looking for good advice. I also anticipated that the Deputies opposite would be saying on this Estimate that there are no pigs in the country. It is true that the number of pigs is low. In my opinion the Deputies opposite have far too high an opinion of the influence of this Government, because as regards the number of pigs in the country we have had cycles —a movement up and down—long before we came into office, and we had them even before Cumann na nGaedheal was ever heard of. In fact, it is true to say that we have had these cycles for the last 40 or 50 years. We had them in the time of the British, and powerful and all as they were, they were not able to control them. Anyone who takes the trouble to look up the figures will find that the number of pigs in the country in 1927 was up, while in 1929 the figure was down. In 1931 the figure was up, and in 1933 it was down. Again, the figure was up in 1935 and down in 1937. There is a certain cycle, and every two years that is what happened.

When they were up they were up, and when they were down they were down.

When they were up they were going to come down. Probably everybody will admit that that is one of the few things in Fine Gael policy which we could not improve. We could not do away with that cycle. We do hope to do away with it, though. I want to get an idea of how we stand at the moment. I said that in 1937, they were down. Take the last three years and let us compare the number of pigs dealt with during the last three or four months with those dealt with in previous years. I find that for the 19 weeks which have passed, for which returns are in, the figure is 361,000. In 1936 there were 391,000 fat pigs dealt with, that is, either exported or taken into the factory; in 1937, that was down to 370,000, and this year it is down to 361,000. That last figure must be corrected to a small extent. Since 31st March this year, the Pigs Marketing Board is not getting returns from the minor curers, and whatever they have dealt with are not included in that figure. The Pigs Marketing Board, or rather, in this case, the Bacon Marketing Board, have been complaining very bitterly to me for the last six months that illegal killing—Deputies will know what I mean—is very much on the increase, and if that is so, I should say that between that illegal killing and the numbers the minor curers have dealt with, the figure for this year is about the same as that for last year, so that we are probably at the bottom of the curve, and about to go up.

In our time, it was not illegal to kill a pig at all.

There were many things done then that were not illegal. Another sign of improvement is that small pigs are very dear. I want to mention also, in support of what I say about the cycle, that, in Denmark, the number of pigs is now down by 25 per cent. compared with last year and the number in Northern Ireland is also down, so that the cycle is working against them as well as against us. We all wish to see the number of pigs in the country increased and we all wish to see an increase in production. We all recognise that one of the lines in which it is possible to increase production most quickly is pigs and bacon, but I want to give to Deputies opposite a little advice. I often give advice to them, but, unfortunately for themselves, they do not take it. There is no use in saying that you are going to get pigs to an increasing number if you say here, responsible Deputies as you are, that pigs do not pay, because there are farmers in the country who believe that when a Fine Gael Deputy says a thing like that, he knows what he is talking about. I know all about them, but some farmers believe them when they say these things. I have met farmers who said: "Such and such a fellow said that pigs were not paying"; and, therefore, went out of pigs, because they said: "These are clever fellows. I do not keep books. Maybe they are right and I am wrong." You will not get farmers to increase pig production if you say that pigs are not going to pay, nor will you get that increased production if you say that the maize meal mixture, as has so often been said from the opposite benches, is not suitable for feeding, or if you say that the grading is against the producer, or that pigs, when produced, are left on the farmer's hands.

These are things said by Deputies opposite and there is not a scintilla of truth in any of the four statements, and Deputies opposite know that. I think they ought to try to get some other political programme besides one of making statements which injure the farmers of this country. It is not right or fair. I am going to explain why I say there is not a scintilla of truth in these statements. If Deputies opposite will get the reports of the Department of Agriculture during the term of office of my predecessor and read them, they will find that experiments were carried out by county committees of agriculture practically all over the country for three or four years from about 1927. These experiments proved that a mixture of oats or barley in the same proportion as we now have in the maize meal mixture gave better pigs and was more economical than feeding whole maize.

But the farmer did his own mixing then. You took it out of his hands.

That is a question of the paying basis and I will deal with that in a minute. What I am talking about is its suitability. I say that it was proved over and over again—and not since I went into the Department, but during the term of office of my predecessor—that the mixture for a pig was improved, from the point of view of economical feeding and of giving better bacon, by putting some oats or barley into it.

We knew it well.

I am glad to hear the Deputy say so. It is accepted, then, that the maize-meal mixture is a good feed, provided it is cheap enough.

At a certain age.

At producers' prices.

It is said that the grading is against the producer. I went to the trouble of getting the number of pigs delivered to Northern Ireland factories and to factories here, and the number of pigs in each quarter that were graded A, B and C and lower, and I find that grading is much better here. What is more, I find that for the first three months during which the Act was working, 65 per cent. of the pigs going into factories here were in Grades A and B, and recently that has increased to 70 per cent. Any farmer, if he is a fairminded man, will know very well that if you are producing pigs, you will occasionally have a pig which is over weight or under weight, which has something wrong with it—a limp or something of the sort. There must be a certain proportion that will not come into Grade A or B, but the grading is obviously done fairly, and, as a matter of fact, if the truth were known, it would be found that the bacon factories have erred and have contravened the Act by putting too many pigs into Grades A and B, rather than in not putting enough into those grades, because it was their way of paying higher prices when they wanted to get pigs.

Am I to understand that there is a better grade in this country than in Northern Ireland?

Why was it necessary for the Minister to go to the North for pigs?

Because the factories got pigs so cheaply. If the Deputy had any sense, he would realise that the North of Ireland farmer is not going to sell a pig to a factory here if he can get a better price at a Northern factory, and the fact that he could get a better price here made him sell his pigs here.

It would not be right to say that you could not fill the quota?

It would be right to say that pigs came in here from over the Border because better prices were to be got. Nothing else would make any difference.

We will look up what the Minister said in the past.

The Deputy will find that I always said the same thing, whatever it is.

"Whatever it is".

We are told that pigs will be left on the farmers' hands. There is not a Deputy opposite who can deny that if he rang the Pigs Marketing Board at 12 o'clock on the day of a market, that board would say: "We will clear the market." Deputies know very well that that board will clear the market wherever the pigs may be, but although they know that is true, they will come in here and make the statement, and they will go to county committees and make the statement that pigs will be left on farmers' hands. That is purely political propaganda which is doing harm to the whole pig trade and Deputies ought to think of something other than making statements like that which hit the farmer.

Take the question of cost. What is the cost of production? Those Deputies who have taken an interest in this read, I am sure, the report of the Pigs Industries Tribunal which sat about 1931 and issued a very fine report, a report with which nobody could find any fault and which, in fact, everybody admitted was a splendid report on the economics of the entire pig rearing industry. In that report, they gave a formula. They said that to cover the costs, the price of a dead weight cwt. of bacon should be the price of a cwt. of feeding-stuffs multiplied by 5.42 plus 7/-.

That was the formula. That was to cover the feeding of the sow all the year round, when rearing the litter and so on; interest on capital, depreciation of the sow and the pig house and everything else; labour; insurance against mortality, and the feeding of the pig to bacon-weight. What would anybody in this House regard as a very moderate allowance for 1 cwt. of feeding stuff at the moment? The Pigs Marketing Board put it down at 10/6, which, in my view at any rate, is far too high. I know that I could buy—and I suppose every Deputy in this House could also—the balanced ration at a much lower price, but in taking that figure they were acting on the assumption that the poor man who was feeding pigs could buy only 1 cwt. at a time. Taking it at 10/6, the entire cost should be 63/11; anything over 63/11 that a farmer gets for his pig, dead-weight, is profit. What are the prices? The prices are at the moment 81/-, bonus price, 77/-, 72/- and 66/-. That is the range of prices. That gives to every farmer at least 10/- a cwt. profit over and above the costs of feeding stuffs and everything else. Now, I have said already that over 70 per cent. of the pigs in this country come into classes A and B, and any farmer whose pigs come into the 70 per cent. class gets £1 per pig better than that formula.

Will the Minister guarantee £1 profit?

The Deputy wants to find some fault with what I have been saying in order to keep the farmers from producing pigs.

I am taking the Minister at his own word.

I will say this: that every farmer who is as good as 70 per cent. of the farmers of Ireland has at least £1 profit on the pig produced. What is more, I say that if he is a comparatively large farmer and buys his feeding stuffs by the ton rather than by the cwt. he has an additional 5/- per pig added to his profits. I think that should be sufficient to induce the farmers of this country to go in for pig production. I repeat that the grading is fair, that the grading is good; the big majority of pigs come into classes A and B. I repeat that the Pigs Marketing Board will see that every pig is taken off the hands of the farmers, and I repeat that the maize meal mixture is a good feed for pigs. I say that on the formula laid down by the tribunal in 1931 the prices now will guarantee the farmer about £1 per pig profit, and that is good enough.

Will the Minister apply that formula over the last three years, and tell the House what the profits were at the prices given?

I could argue that that is specially fixed for the Minister for this Vote.

Suppose I admit that it was not so good for the last three years? What good will that do the Deputy? Is that going to keep the farmers from producing pigs?

You were unable to put them out of pig production.

I am appealing to the farmers to produce more pigs. I am giving the figures all round, and showing how it pays, but Deputy McMenamin and Deputy O'Leary are trying to find fault with my argument so that the farmers will not produce pigs.

Will the Minister be good enough, because he is in a responsible position, to give the authority for that statement, which was never made by me? I told the Minister, when the last Bill was being introduced here, that unless he did something to reduce the costs of feeding-stuffs the pig producers would go out of production, and they did.

Exactly what I have said——

I should like to point out to the Minister that we on this side of the House are not responsible for the number of pigs down the country.

Well, you are.

Do not try to run away from it.

If the pig industry is so profitable why was it necessary to provide 10,000 sows in order to increase the pig population here?

I remarked already that if I were to try to educate Deputy O'Leary it would take me weeks. I have gone into all that already. I have said that Deputies opposite should at least admit the fact that it pays to produce pigs now.

The farmers would always produce them if it paid.

It did pay them to produce pigs during the last two years. There is not a farmer I have come across who keeps accounts—except, perhaps, a Fine Gael farmer who does not do his business well—that could not bear out what I say, that pig production paid during the last two years.

When I was in Donegal in August and September the mixture was 11/- per cwt. Would the Minister calculate that in relation to pig production?

The Minister knows ——

The Minister should be allowed to make his statement.

It is very hard to get on with people here who presume to know something about farming when they do not even know how to feed a pig. A farmer who feeds his pig on maize-meal mixture cannot make it pay. He must feed the pig properly. When Deputy McMenamin gets to know how to feed pigs properly we can discuss this in a reasonable way. I am at it all my life, and I make it pay.

Apparently the people do not.

They do, but I say Deputy McMenamin does not.

At 11/- per cwt, I do not.

I say that every farmer who keeps accounts can show that his pigs paid him during the last two years. At least, let us agree on what I have said about the present position; pigs are paying at present. If Deputies look up the report of the Pig Industries Tribunal, and look up the formula, they will find that pigs are paying. Let them at least have the grace, and the consideration for the farmers in this country, to admit that pigs are paying, and advise them to go in for pig production.

The farmers themselves are the best judges.

Deputies opposite will not do what I ask them because they want to look at the census next year and say that pigs are going down. Just for the sake of a few votes in West Cork Deputy O'Leary will not do it.

I never consider the votes; I always do what I think best. I do not do as the Minister did when he went down the country and told them that nobody should take a salary of over £1,000 a year; then he and his associates came along and took £1,700.

Surely even a Minister is entitled to make his statement? No matter how much Deputies may consider he is a good mark for attack, the Minister is entitled to make his statement.

The Minister is entitled to make his statement, but he is supposed to make an honest statement. That is what he is paid for.

Deputy O'Leary can challenge the Minister's statement to any extent, within the rules of order, when the Minister has finished.

I will depart from that to a less controversial topic, but I should like again to ask Deputies to appeal to the farmers of this country to produce more pigs because it pays them to do so. I thought the question of tobacco would be raised, because it has been said from the opposite benches on occasions that we had dropped the tobacco scheme. I say we have not. As a matter of fact, when the tobacco scheme was first introduced I said that we were going to permit only a small acreage to be grown, and that we would continue to grow that for some years until the quality had improved. I am glad to say that we have now got an immense improvement in the quality of the tobacco grown in this country, and we are prepared from this on to allow a gradual expansion in the acreage. There is no departure whatever from the policy of growing tobacco here, and the same applies to wheat growing, beet growing, and so on.

I have been asked questions during the last few weeks from various quarters with regard to the regulations attaching to the export of various items, the principal ones being cattle, pigs, bacon and potatoes. I want to say a few words about these items. With regard to cattle, the position is that the farmer need not do anything except sell his cattle. He has not to do anything with regard to licences or anything else except to get the best price he can for his cattle. With regard to the trader who exports cattle, he need not have a licence, but he must grade his cattle properly. Regulations have been issued and published, which can be procured by any trader, pointing out exactly how this grading must be done. The grading must be done in a proper manner, otherwise the cattle will be sent back to be regraded, and it will only put the exporter to additional trouble and delay if he does not do it properly in the beginning.

The position with regard to pigs and bacon is exactly the same as it was before the Agreement was signed. Regulation of the bacon trade still exists in England just as before. I remember on many occasions telling Deputies opposite that if there was no economic war the position would remain as it was with regard to the regulation of bacon going into Great Britain. That is the case still—the position remains the same. We have a bacon quota going into Great Britain and a quota for a certain number of live pigs which must go out under licence. As before, live pigs can go without a licence, but if exported without a licence they cannot go to a bacon factory in Great Britain; they can go for pork or any other part of the trade.

There is a change, as Deputies are aware, as now we are allowing in a certain amount of bacon from Great Britain. We are not allowing live pigs in under quota, but are allowing a certain amount of freedom of trade across the Border. That is, if pigs, whether fat or store, are driven across the Border to a fair on this side, or brought in the farmer's own cart, they will be allowed in without restriction. Apart from that, live pigs are not allowed in.

Have we filled that quota in the British market?

We went within I per cent of filling it each year. You cannot fill a quota exactly.

For bacon and live pigs. It does not apply to pork. Pork was outside the quota and is still outside the quota. Certain pigs, even up to 16 stone weight, can go to certain parts of Great Britain for pork. They are absolutely free of quota restriction. The only other matter is the question of potatoes. They are much in the same position as before the Agreement was signed. In the case of potatoes, the British Government gives a quota for the import of potatoes to importing merchants in Great Britain and they can bring in any potatoes under that quota from any country they like, so that it is rather a chance whether potatoes are taken from this country or some other country. It all depends on whether the merchant importing under licence in Great Britain is in touch with this country rather than another country. If he is, he will bring in the potatoes from this side.

With regard to seed potatoes, we will be entitled to send in a good supply. I think we need have no fear about expanding our seed potato trade, that we will be able to get sale for them in Great Britain and other countries, because we have a very good name for seed potatoes in most markets and they are being asked for by many countries now. In fact, we can find a market for a larger volume of seed potatoes than we have. We often get requests from certain parts of the country to send a person down to try to inaugurate a seed-growing scheme. I should like to point out that the Department of Agriculture has built up a trade for seed potatoes by being extremely careful in keeping the potatoes free from disease, true to type, and having them properly graded, so that wherever they are certified they are absolutely sure to be right. That was a slow process, and it took many years to build up that trade. We should, therefore, continue to be very careful, but we cannot be careful in maintaining and expanding that trade if we expand too quickly. We are expanding as quickly as we can with safety. I expect as years go on we will be able to keep on expanding and be able to build up a trade which will be useful all over the world and which cannot be taken from us whatever happens. It is one of these things like the horse trade. We appear to have special facilities in this country for producing horses that no other country has. If we build up a horse trade with any country we can hold it against anybody. The same thing applies to seed potatoes. We seem to have something in the soil and climate here favourable to that trade, as well as the great experience we have had in growing potatoes. Anyway, we seem to have something here which enables us to compete with any country in the production of seed potatoes and, therefore, we should be careful about their production.

I have also been asked how the producer will stand with regard to the bounty. The duty is now removed on potatoes going to Great Britain and, therefore, there is no necessity for a bounty, because one more or less cancels out the other. Many growers, however, had sown potatoes this year after making contracts perhaps with some foreign country on the understanding, I suppose, that they would get the bounty. We have, therefore, agreed to continue the bounty of 17/6 per ton on seed potatoes exported to any country except Great Britain and the United States of America. I do not know whether Deputies understand that the United States is excluded because there is no use in paying a bounty on seed potatoes going in there as the United States will always add on the amount of the bounty to their tariff. It is just added on, so it would be only putting money into the United States Exchequer if we gave a bounty. Therefore, we do not give it.

I would be very glad, as I said, to get suggestions from Deputies about matters we have under consideration at present—matters which I mentioned on previous occasions as well as to-day. One is the future of the Pigs Marketing Board, and the Bacon Marketing Board—whether we should make any changes or not, and, if we should make any changes, what they ought to be. Secondly, I know there is a difference of opinion amongst Deputies on the maize meal mixture scheme. There are Deputies who hold strongly that we should not abandon it. There are Deputies who hold strongly that perhaps we should modify it in some way. There are other Deputies who hold that we should scrap the whole scheme.

Will the Minister make a statement as to the cause of the reduction in poultry and eggs?

I have not gone into that matter, and the only thing I can say off-hand is that I think the Deputy will find, if he looks up the figures in Great Britain, which is the nearest country to us, that there has been a similar reduction there. There was a report issued there on the matter within the last couple of months. That report went very carefully into the cause of the reduction in poultry in Great Britain. Probably the same thing will apply here, but not to the same extent. The first reason they gave was that when persons went into poultry rearing on a semi-extensive scale inevitably disease came, and they reduced their production or went out of the business completely. That is the biggest cause of the reduction in poultry in that country. Secondly, there was the question of price, which probably applies to us more than to others, because I am glad to say that, although we have our troubles here arising out of disease, we are not so badly affected as other countries in that respect. I think the question of disease does not play as big a part here as the question of prices, which have been very low.

As Deputies know, even though we get a free entry into the British market for our eggs now, we have to give a bounty to keep the price up. Deputies opposite would not believe me during the last two or three years but I always told them during those years that if the economic war were over, and if tariffs were gone, the producer would not get any more for his eggs. We have proved that now. Tariffs have gone and we have still to give 1/- per great hundred by way of bounty on our eggs in order to maintain prices as they were. If we did not give that 1/- bounty, prices would have come down which of course proves, if anything can prove it, that what I said for the last two or three years was correct, namely, that the producer was getting as much, or more, for his eggs than if there was no economic war.

Has the Minister any information about the number of pullets sold for slaughter?

I suppose I could get the figures for export. We have no estimate of home consumption.

Is the Minister aware that pullets are being killed?

As long as I remember pullets were being killed.

Before the Minister sits down, would he please tell the House what is going to become of sub-head O (12) which makes provision for the distribution of cattle export licences? What is to become of the temporary inspectors under that heading?

There are two things in connection with that sub-head which I am not sure of. First of all, the arrangements in connection with export licences go completely but the inspectors who are in charge of these were taken over for the inspection of cattle at the ports in connection with the fat cattle bounty that is being given. That will continue until 15th June.

Were they not both running concurrently?

They were made to do both jobs. That is going to continue until 15th June. I am not sure how it will stand after that because of course that did not arise out of the economic war. The British are giving a subsidy on their fat cattle. That is plain to be seen. If we do not provide something in that way, it would pay the farmer better to export all our good store cattle rather than fatten them. In order to counteract that we are giving this bounty.

Will the services of these inspectors be dispensed with after 15th June?

The services of a number of them will be dispensed with after 15th June.

Will you give them pensions?

No, they are non-pensionable.

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I think the House would not expect of me, nor indeed of any other Deputy of any Party, a full, comprehensive view of all the phases represented by the administration of the Department of Agriculture and accounted for in this Vote. The fact that the total Vote reaches a figure of £659,320 goes to show how futile it would be, for the purposes of any compact, convincing argument in this House, to range over the whole line of the administration of the Department. I propose, therefore, to take the line of concentrating on two or three main items in the Estimate and asking the House, as a result of my criticism under the headings in question, to refer the Vote back. Firstly, I want to deal with the question of agricultural labourers, and in making the examination necessary for that purpose one comes up against rather strange and striking facts. In the controversies that have raged in this House and outside it during the last three or four years, one observed that there was one main line of division between the two big Parties. It was held in one quarter that it was bad for the country entirely to forget that important aspect of the agricultural industry that was represented by cattle rearing. On the other hand, it was very strongly emphasised that the most important end of the agricultural industry was tillage of all kinds, the production of crops, having regard to the employment that resulted therefrom.

Looking at both sides of the case, one comes up against a very strange position because, making a comparison of the statistics in recent years, one finds it hard to understand either one set of arguments or the other. Figures taken from the Statistics Branch returns for the years 1936-37 reveal a very striking state of affairs. They reveal, in the first place, a reduction in live stock, a reduction in cattle, in sheep and in pigs. They reveal also a reduction in tillage, a reduction in the number of farmers and in the number of agricultural labourers. The comparative figures for 1936-37 can be given in detail as follows: The number of milch cows in 1937 was 5.3 per cent. less than in 1936; the number of heifers was 8.5 per cent. less. The total cattle in the whole of the State at June, 1937, was 57,532 fewer than at the corresponding period in 1936. The decline in the number of sheep was 61,893, whilst the decline in the number of pigs represented a total of 82,042. That being the position in regard to the number of live stock, one would have expected, remembering the line of argument between the two main Parties in the House, that the position with regard to tillage would be entirely different, but the figures relative to tillage also reveal a very striking situation. The total area of ploughed land in 1937 was 28,747 acres less than in 1936. The area under potatoes decreased by 7,213 acres, and so on in regard to all other produce.

Now we come to the most important element in the agricultural industries —the human beings engaged in that industry. Between 1931 and 1937, the number of male persons engaged in agriculture decreased by 6,268, that is from 562,573 to 556,305. In order fully to understand the seriousness of the position, it is necessary to say that there was actually an increase of 1,600 in the total number of adults temporarily employed in agriculture. Every other category of persons engaged in agriculture declined in number. The number of farmers and their relatives decreased by 5,000. Permanent adult employees decreased by 1,000 and temporary juvenile employees decreased by approximately 2,000. In view of that very startling series of facts, it is very hard to understand the statement made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health some time ago at the annual meeting of the Federation of Saorstát Industries.

Speaking on that occasion the Minister said: "The transformation in industry which had taken place in this country had not been accompanied by a decrease in agricultural employment which, in fact, in 1937 was something in excess of 1931." Having shown from the official figures that not alone had the numbers of live stock been very substantially reduced, but that the new development of the agricultural industry, the tilling of the land, had shown a very striking shrinkage, the total number of people, whether farmers or workers, on the land had also diminished considerably. It would be no exaggeration to say that one of the most striking indictments that could be framed against a native Government is that associated with the treatment of agricultural workers, who lived under wage conditions that could hardly be worse in any European country. One would imagine from the standard of wages given them in the past that they were to be regarded as a sort of outcasts in their own country while, at the same time, it is generally agreed there was no more patriotic class in it. In every generation in the history of Ireland, agricultural workers have given of their best to the national ideals. Very many of them are ordinary people, who had a very limited education, with no material gain in view from the ideals and struggles towards which they contributed so generously. Every chapter in the history of Ireland contains shining examples of the devotion of agricultural workers to every movement for the development and advancement of this country. One would have hoped that their time would have come now. I am old enough to remember people who were interested in public and political questions talk of what advantages would follow from the land agitation. The main question then was to give the farmers security, to give them control of their lands and homes, and after a long struggle and much agitation that object, in the main, has been accomplished. Very laudable and desirable measures were passed by the British House of Commons as far back as 1903, and several land purchase measures have been passed under Irish Governments, beginning with the Act of 1923, that brought within its scope many people who, for one reason or another, had not benefited by Land Acts passed by the British Parliament. A number of other Acts have been passed since then, some of them not so much for the purpose of hastening land purchase as to remedy defects revealed in the operation of previous land legislation.

But it is true to say that there was no official recognition whatever during all that time of what was due by the Irish nation to agricultural workers. It was not until quite recently we had some attempt made to recognise the claim of agricultural workers, by the passage into law of the Agricultural Wages Act. It may be said that that was the only reform that came their way, because schemes for the housing of rural labourers and their families were only beneficial to the extent of the number of cottages provided. It is true that during the emergency created by the Great War, the British Government made provision for the payment of a minimum wage. That was not in any sense a recognition of what was owing to the agricultural labourers, but to make sure that the food supply was maintained, as the British Government felt that there was a special necessity to maintain agricultural production in order to assist in the military struggle in which England was then engaged and to carry it to success. When we got our own Parliament we thought we could say that the country would at last awaken to the need for doing something for agricultural labourers. The Agricultural Wages Act was a measure that, I think, was put through this House unanimously. It is true that it took a long time to have it done, and that there must have been some reluctance about facing the question. When talking about the position of agricultural labourers one is often met with the argument that they are badly paid because, in many cases, their employers are almost as poor as themselves. We know that that is so in the case of many small farmers in certain areas, who endeavour to get a living out of the land under circumstances of harassing toil, and hard and grinding work. Their difficulties are very numerous. Anyone who lives in rural areas knows that. It has never been suggested from this quarter of the House, and I am sure never will be suggested, that impossibilities could be expected in the way of payment for agricultural work. It could be held I think validly, that in order to secure the payment of a reasonable and fair competence for agricultural workers, measures could and should be taken to enable farmers to meet reasonable payments of that kind. Our complaint is that in the administration of the last five or six years under the Minister there has not been that attempt to secure a balance that would enable that position to arise.

It seems to me to be the policy of the Minister to change from day to day. I am not an expert in these matters, and it may have been necessary to do that, because one could say in the last four or five years there was an emergency situation, in which many things had to be done that would not be done if things were different. It is no harm to refer to the matter now when the situation has entirely changed, and when we hope to be able to discuss all our problems in a normal way, without being misrepresented abroad or anywhere else. I am sorry to say that on the question of wages for agricultural labourers the complaint is that no progress of any consequence has been made. Their feelings were optimistic and were made known on the passage of the Agricultural Wages Act. It was a great measure, and they felt that in the end they were getting from their own people recongnition which had been denied them, and that generations that preceded them were always denied. They have, however, been very severly disillusioned. I move to report progress.

Progress reported: The Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 25th May.
Barr
Roinn