Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 1 Jul 1938

Vol. 72 No. 2

Vote No. 52—Agriculture.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £439,620 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 seirbhísi 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.

We had made some progress with the discussion of this Estimate when the Dáil was dissolved, so that I take it we can now resume the discussion at that point.

Mr. Dillon

From what the Minister says, I take it that he does not wish to make any statement on the Estimate now, over and above the one he made before Parliament was dissolved.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Nevertheless, I think he will recognise that any Deputy who took part in the debate previously would be free to take part in it again.

An Ceann Comhairle

Quite so.

Mr. Dillon

It is not our intention to go into this Estimate—or, indeed, into any of the other Estimates—in the detail which is customary on this occasion, because we have to face the fact that, since the Estimates were presented to the House, there has been a general election at which the general policy of the Government was canvassed in the country, and that there has been an electoral decision. However, there are certain matters which properly arise and to which attention should be drawn, matters which clearly call for reform at an early date, no matter what Government is in office. The first matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the Minister and of the House is to the extraordinary effect that the policy of the Government has had on the balance of trade between this country and Great Britain during the last few years. When this Government came into office we had a favourable trade balance with Great Britain. The excess value of exports from the Irish Free State to the United Kingdom over the value of United Kingdom products and manufactures imported was £5,147,000 in 1931. Fianna Fáil then came into office and the excess value fell to £216,000 after the first year in office. Then the balance of trade went the other way, and we began buying more from Great Britain than Great Britain was buying from us. In 1933 we were actually buying goods from Great Britain value for £1,692,000 more than Great Britain was buying from us. In the following year that adverse trade balance was £3,272,000. In 1935 the adverse trade balance had fallen to £2,080,000, and in 1936 to £1,379,000, whereas prior to the introduction of the Fianna Fáil policy we had a favourable balance of £5,000,000 a year in our trade with Great Britain. After four or five years of Fianna Fáil economic policy we had an adverse trade balance of £1,379,000 per annum, and on a very much smaller volume of trade. The Minister and anyone who understands the economic position of this country knows that a continuance of that situation would be fraught with disaster to this country. We used to be told in the glorious old days that if our trade with Great Britain went to hell we would find alternative markets, ones that would be better and more profitable outside Great Britain for the things we had to sell. That is now all gone up the spout, and no one pretends that it was anything but balderdash.

We are back to terra firma, and we are facing the fact that this Government will have to devise other plans and methods—face the plain economic facts of the situation. One of the most formidable facts is the adverse trade balance of our trade with Great Britain. Many people and many Deputies believe that if you get sufficient votes for the proposition that two and two make five, that two and two make five. But that is not true, and it does not matter how many Deputies are elected to sustain the proposition that two and two make five, two and two will only make four no matter how many votes there are for the contrary proposition. That is what we have to face now. There is no use in marching into the division lobby 75 strong for the proposition that we can go on buying far more than we sell, because that is a vote for the proposition that two and two make We have to open our eyes to the fact, when the shouting and the tumult has died, that two and two made four before the general election and that two and two continue to make four after the general election. We cannot too soon address our minds to the task of adapting our trade policy to the unescapable fact that two and two make four, no matter what way the figures are added up. They always did make four, they always will make four, and though you may postpone the ultimate effect of economic facts by various palliatives provided by legislation, sooner or later economic facts will catch you up, and the longer you postpone the inevitable consequence of these economic facts, the more disastrous the calamity will be when they catch up on you. The wise thing is not to allow economic evils to begin to grow at all, but to look ahead, to foresee the dangers and to provide against them before they manifest themselves. That is not the policy which Fianna Fáil have followed. Their policy has been, not to stick their own heads, but to stick their supporters' heads in the sand and tell them that everything was all right and that it would all come out in the washing. Well, it did not come out in the washing. All the little birds that were let loose four or five years ago are now coming home to roost, and they have been fattening on our people for the last four or five years. They went out small sparrows, and they are coming back as big as barn-door fowl and they have got to be provided for. That is the job we have now before us for the next five years. They are robbed of their republican plumage and they are plain grey, uninteresting barn-door fowl. They are not a bit romantic-looking or exciting. They are just depressing, and we have got to make provision for them during the next five years. It is going to be a pretty formidable job, but the longer we postpone the steps necessary to correct the economic evils that afflict the country at the present time the worse these evils will become. The sooner we put our hands to the task of setting right what is wrong the less difficulty we will have in surmounting the obstacles that confront us now.

So much for the general question, Sir, but I want to direct the Minister's attention to one branch of agriculture in this country, which, above all others, stands in need of urgent attention and reform. That is the pig industry. Two or three years ago we established under the Pigs and Bacon Act two bodies, known as the Pigs Marketing Board, and the Bacon Marketing Board and these two bodies were supposed to represent everybody who was interested in the production, export and manufacture of pigs, and it was thought that they would take counsel between themselves and operate the industry to the greatest advantage of the greatest number. What actually has happened is that the big curers have got complete control of both boards and are running both boards and the entire industry with the sole object of increasing their own profits. Let me make that clear. They are running the entire industry, in my judgment, with the sole object of making immense profits without any regard whatever to the prosperity of the pig-rearing industry as a whole or without any regard whatever to the legitimate interests of the pig producers in this country. I have challenged the Minister time and again if he does not believe that to go and ask the curers for their balance sheets and their profit and loss accounts for the last ten years and let him see for himself what appearance those profits present before and since the establishment of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board, and then let him ask the Deputies in his own Party what they have to tell him about the experience of the ordinary small farmer in this country who produces pigs. Has his profit gone up in the same ratio as have the profits of the bacon curers? I think he will find that whereas the bacon curers' profits have sky-rocketed up—and in that connection he must take careful note of the increased expenses which the bacon curers undertook at the same time as their own profits were steeply rising, because these increased expenses represent increased gross profits—when he comes to examine these figures he will find the bacon curers' profits have sky-rocketed up, whereas the profit of the man who is rearing a couple of pigs has not risen at all. The net result of that situation has been a steep decline in the pig population in this country and hundreds of farmers who made a comfortable little income out of rearing a few pigs have been forced out of the business and have given up pig-rearing altogether, which has resulted in a substantial reduction in their standard of living and also a substantial reduction in the national income as a whole.

I am primarily interested at the moment in the repercussions of this situation on the people of County Monaghan. County Monaghan, I suppose, is one of the largest, or was one of the largest, pig-raising counties in this country. Cork, Monaghan, Cavan and Mayo are probably the largest pig-raising counties in this country. Practically very small farmer in Monaghan made a considerable income out of raising pigs. A very large number have been driven out of the business altogether. Why? How have they been driven out? Nobody in this House, I believe, realises the ruthless and ferocious persecution to which the people of Monaghan have been subjected by the Department of Agriculture in the matter of their pig production. They were accustomed, when they fattened a pig, to have it slaughtered on their farm and brought in as a carcase to a pork market, and into that pork market came representatives of the Northern curers and the Southern curers, and they competed for these carcases and bought them and brought them home, brought them to the factory and turned them into bacon or exported them as pork according to their usual practice. The farmer kept the offals and converted them into food on his own farm and used them in the ordinary way. A lot of people were persuaded that the slaughtering of pigs on the farms was a very unhygienic operation and resulted in a very unsatisfactory carcase, that it meant that the pig was crudely slaughtered and crudely dressed and partially spoiled for the purpose of conversion into bacon or for sale in the pork markets of Great Britain or elsewhere. That is all nonsense. Of course, the farmers did not kill their own pigs, but you had in Monaghan and all these Northern counties skilled craftsmen who went about, just as we have in the West of Ireland thatchers or weavers, and when you had a pig you communicated with the local butcher, who was in Monaghan what the thatcher is in County Mayo, and you told him you had a pig to kill, and he came with his paraphernalia and slaughtered your pig, dressed it and prepared it for the pork market. On the following morning, or on that day, you brought it into the pork market and it was there sold and removed to the factory or despatched to Great Britain, wherever it was intended for.

I do not mind admitting that before I came to study this practice I found it difficult to understand how the business was carried on myself, because it was quite strange. In the West of Ireland and in the South of Ireland we depend principally on live pig fairs, so that this system of slaughtering pigs was something new. But I was talking to one of the largest pork shippers in Northern Ireland and I said to him: "But surely, if a live pig was sent into the factory and slaughtered there, that would make a better carcase than a pig slaughtered on a farm.""Well," he said, "opinions differ about it; some people would tell you it did, but from my own experience I often saw farmers in Scotland send in 20 barn-door pigs slaughtered by a journeyman butcher on a farmer's farm and brought into the market, and the Scottish curers preferred the pigs so slaughtered to the pigs slaughtered in a factory. Because in their experience, when pigs were driven into market they were beaten about with sticks and heated, and the result was that the carcase was not so satisfactory as that of a pig slaughtered without any preliminary excitement or pushing about such as droves of pigs must get in a factory." I often heard of barn-door fowl, but this is the first time I heard of barn-door pigs.

Mr. Moore

Did not their Government take a different view?

Mr. Dillon

Who?

Mr. Moore

The Scottish curers' Government.

Mr. Dillon

Well, the Northern Ireland Government certainly has not taken a different view. They continue the pork markets. The difficulty is this—one of the great dangers of bureaucracy is that the best intentioned of men look into a problem in a theoretical kind of way, anxious to do their best. They approach the problem from a different angle, from the angle of their own experience and they lay down as a definite rule that everyone must conform to that experience of theirs. If Deputy Moore will let me finish we will get somewhere. I have no doubt that the officials in our Department of Agriculture who are responsible for wiping out the pork market were convinced that they were doing the best in the interests of the farmers. But I do not believe they understood the customs and practice in Northern Ireland. No men in the South of Ireland understood that practice. No men raising pigs in Cork understand it. It is a different system altogether and unless one goes down and consults these people one cannot realise the position. One does not realise the advantages that they can plead to offset the disadvantages that the bureaucrats allege against it.

In Northern Ireland I am aware that the pork market has been retained. Now you have this astonishing situation. The pork market was abolished in the Northern counties of the Free State because it was laid down that there must be ante-mortem veterinary inspection for the protection of the consumer. But we now admit into this State Northern Ireland bacon. One can buy Belfast bacon in Sligo, Cavan. Louth, Donegal and in most counties along the Border. None of that bacon is required to be manufactured from pigs that have been inspected, ante-mortem, by veterinary inspectors. Most of that bacon is manufactured from pigs that had been slaughtered on the farm and the carcases of which have been brought in to the curer. But in Clones, where that bacon is brought in and sold, the people will not be allowed to hold a pork market. Though the Northern curers are willing to come in and buy carcases there, they will not be allowed to do so. The Clones Urban Council asked the Minister for Agriculture to reopen the pork market in Clones so that the Northern buyers who have a right to send bacon into Clones should be in a position to buy the farmers' pigs in that area, cure them and sell them to the Clones people. They were told by the Minister that he would not let them do so; that they could buy bacon manufactured out of pigs killed in Lisnaskea, but that they would not be allowed to buy bacon from pigs killed by the farmer in their own area.

Clones is surrounded on three sides by the Border. The town has been frightfully injured as a result of the establishment of the Border. Since the high tariff policy began it has been further injured and with the start of the economic war it was absolutely flattened. With the conclusion of the economic war the Clones people had some hope. But they then discovered that if a beast was to be brought into Clones for sale from its hinterland in Fermanagh that pig would have to travel a distance of nine miles in order to come in through an approved road, though over an unapproved road the distance would be only half a mile. The people would not be allowed to admit Northern buyers to come in and buy pigs in the Clones market, for conversion into bacon which was destined eventually to be sold in Clones.

I know that since the pork market has been closed farmers have brought pigs into a town in the County Monaghan to some factories there. They implored the factories to take the pigs. I know of several cases in which a man has come in with two pigs that he had every reason to believe were of the ideal weight and quality. The large ideal white pig which the Monaghan farmer finds a difficulty in fattening because it is a new type of pig is not the pig that the modern farmer looks for. He was accustomed to the Ulster pig. He has brought in his two pigs. He is told that the factory is not ready for them. He has every reason to believe that these pigs were then grade A. He has to take them home and feed them for three weeks. Then when he brings them in he is told that they are too fat. They are grade C pigs and he is cut 10/- a cwt. on each pig. Is it any wonder under these circumstances that the farmer gets nothing out of pig raising? What is the use of raising pigs if by burdening yourself with a pair of pigs you reduce yourself to the position of the landlord's tenant of the old times? With the hanging gale in those days you had to go in and pay your rent with your hat in hand, soothe the agent and the bailiffs. Now if you have a pair of pigs you have to lick the feet of the curer with far more subserviency than the tenants had to lick the feet of the landlords. I am told that this sort of thing costs the pig raiser 10/- a cwt. because when he brings the pigs back to the factory they are either screw pigs or grade C. If the farmer gives the curer any back-chat the factory will cut them down to grade C 3 pigs. Remember it is not the small farmer alone who is suffering by this. It is the country as a whole that is suffering. Our pig production in this country has fallen by 25 per cent.

The pig population of this country in 1931, before this Government came into office, was 1,227,003. It has steadily gone down and now it is somewhere over 900,000 pigs; it is, I think, 920,000 pigs. That is the effect of making pig production impossible in this country; that is the effect on the farmer. I ask the House to consider the effect on these Northern towns. Clones gave a considerable amount of employment—I am taking it as one particular case, but the same could be said of several other towns in the North. There was great employment given there every week to a large number of men. There was a very large revenue brought into the town by the pork market in relief of rates. All that has been swept away. There was a very large influx of people and a considerable quantity of money was spent in Clones. All that has been swept away. Shops have been closed down. The rateable valuation of the town is going down because premises are unoccupied. The revenues of the pork market are abolished. The number of unemployed is growing. The urban council are expected to keep the town in existence under these conditions, and the Government will do nothing to meet them or facilitate them in any way.

A great deal might be done for that town. One of the principal things would be the restoration of its pork market, and that could be done for every other town in Monaghan with great advantage, and for every town in County Cavan to their great advantage. If the Northern Ireland curer is to be permitted to sell bacon in this country—and I think it is a good thing that he is—it is unreasonable that he should not be allowed to come in and buy pork here. It is unreasonable that the only bacon that will be permitted into this country from Northern Ireland is bacon manufactured from Northern Ireland pigs. If the bacon manufactured in Northern Ireland is good enough for consumption by our people there can be no valid reason why the practice of selling pigs as pork carcases in pork markets should be prohibited here, while it is permitted on the Northern side of the Border.

While the facts which I have outlined have substantially contributed to the decline in the pig population, which is a very great menace to this country, that decline has been further contributed to by the ghastly folly of the maize-meal mixture. I understand the Minister is trying to devise some method of saving his face and getting out of the maize-meal mixture, winding up the whole cod, fraud expenditure; but not before he has done boundless damage. I dare say he will be making a speech, possibly in the Autumn, indicating that he has made his mind up to wind up the maize-meal mixture scheme, and perhaps the reason will be something to the effect that the Emperor of Siam has got a cold in his head. Anyway, I am sure he will have some peculiar reason to advance. But the real reason is because it has at last forced its way into his head that the whole thing is a cod, a fraud and a disaster. The fact is that the maize-meal mixture has increased the cost to the farmers by 2/6 per cwt. and that has been going on for the last four years.

What was it designed to do? It was designed to increase the acreage of oats and barley, to increase tillage, and to provide more employment on the land. What, in fact, did it do? It substantially reduced the acreage of both crops; it contributed to the reduction in the pig population; it practically wiped out the fowl population altogether and reduced our egg exports from £2,000,000 to £700,000. It wiped out one of the most valuable industries we had. The Minister has only awakened to that fact and, instead of abolishing the scheme the moment he realised the damage it was doing, he is now in consultation with some of the best experts in the country with the object of devising some formula which will save his face.

We were, he told us on a former occasion, going to increase the acreage of oats, and of course he was quite oblivious to the fact that if he raised the price of maize meal sufficiently the women in the country would kill their hens. Having no knowledge apparently —although I believe the man was born in rural Ireland—of the usual practice of a farmer's house, that the farmer's wife goes to the oat bin now and again when the eggs were slow on the uptake, and takes a handful of oats and gives them to the hens behind her husband's back, he proceeds gaily with his scheme. Apparently he thought the hens would not take oats at all. Anyway, he raised the price of meal as a result of his great scheme, whereupon the women in the country wrung the hens' necks, whereupon they stopped putting their hands in the oatmeal bin and the consumption of oats went down. The genius we have presiding over the Department of Agriculture visualised a wonderful future for his maize-meal mixture scheme, failed to understand how the oats were being consumed, and took it that they were being used for the purposes of the maize-meal mixture. He laid the soothing unction to his soul that this was how the oats were being consumed. The conditions, however, worked out quite differently and, when we had lost several million pounds with all this sort of codology, the Minister discovered that we had substantially reduced the consumption of oats instead of increasing it.

He has succeeded in paying the producers of oats in certain areas about a shilling a cwt. more for their oats than the world price, with this astonishing result, that the farmers of West Cork, the farmers of West Mayo, of West Donegal, North Monaghan and North-West Cavan, the smallest and the poorest farmers perhaps in Ireland, were having levied on them a shilling a cwt. on oats in order to provide a better price for the tillage farmers in the eastern counties, possibly the richest men of their type in Ireland. I have no grudge against these men, these grain producers. They are prosperous, thriving farmers. I do not believe they want to be subsidised at the expense of struggling men in North Monaghan, West Mayo or West Cork. The genius we have presiding over the Department determined that equity and fair play demanded that a tax should be levied on the smaller farmers in order to provide a bigger price to the best-off farmers for a rapidly diminishing acreage of oats. Outside of Bedlam was there ever such havoc wrought by an irresponsible man on an unoffending people?

That scheme will be ditched shortly, I believe, and the most eloquent reasons will be vouchsafed for ditching it. Possibly Deputy Allen will say that fresh ground is being cleared in order to grow Manitoba No. 1 wheat in Wexford, and everyone will believe it; the whole Fianna Fáil Party will stand up and cheer. I am trying to open their eyes so that they will not cheer as loudly as they otherwise might have done if they were not prepared for the confidence trick that is going to be tried upon them.

It is of vital and urgent importance that steps should be taken to revive the pig industry and restore the fowl industry. One of the first essentials is to abolish the idiotic and futile maize meal mixture scheme. The second thing is to tell the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board that they must either change their tune and adjust their policy to suit the requirements of the pig producers or they will be abolished. Abolished they ought to be, if they continue to do as they have been doing for the last three or four years. A much more strict eye should be kept on the administration of the hypothetical price fund. I sometimes despair of trying to get the Dáil to take action in that matter, because half the Deputies are too lazy to apply their minds to a complicated question of that kind when it does not affect themselves directly. The hypothetical price fund was started under the pigs and bacon legislation for the purpose of equating the price in Great Britain with the price in the home market in normal times, with the ultimate object of maintaining an approximately level price in this country for pigs all through the year, so that there would be approximately the same number of pigs coming forward for manufacture at all seasons of the year, instead of having a glut in autumn and a scarcity in spring, as we usually have.

What actually happened was this. A sum of about £260,000 had been levied on the pig producers of this country by the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board and put into the hypothetical price fund. The Minister for Agriculture wanted to get money to help to pay the export bounties on bacon going to Great Britain, but apparently he could not knock it out of the Treasury, and so he went to the Pigs Marketing Board and said: "Look here, if you recoup yourselves on your losses as a result of the economic war in exporting bacon to Great Britain out of the hypothetical price fund, I will put the telescope to my blind eye." I now suggest that the curers on the board replied to that, in effect: "Well, if you are prepared to do that—if you want us to do that, or, in other words, to recoup ourselves for these losses out of the hypothetical price fund, we want your assistance in wiping out the small curers, because unless they are wiped out, we cannot gouge the consumers to our satisfaction for the reason that when we are putting the screws on the producers and raising the price to the consumers, some of the small curers may come in and undercut us; for that reason we want to have the small curers controlled, or to get rid of them if they cannot be controlled." Accordingly, a Bill was brought in, the purpose of which was to wipe out the small curers of this country and hand the industry over to four or five of the big curers, and at the very time the Bill was being drafted two of those curers were actually engaged in negotiations with the object of securing complete control of the entire bacon industry in the State and dividing it up between them. While carrying on those negotiations, on the one hand, they wanted the Government to come, on the other hand, and wipe out the small curers so that when they could form a monopoly among themselves it would be an absolutely closed ring into which nobody else could get and of which they would have complete control. I exposed that matter in this House, and when it was exposed the Minister dropped it.

Dr. Ryan

What did I drop?

Mr. Dillon

The whole scheme to wipe out the small curers.

Dr. Ryan

I did not drop out anything.

Mr. Dillon

Maybe the Minister did not know. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister was perfectly innocent.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is talking absolute nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

It is the Minister who is talking nonsense, but I think he is innocent. I think these curers are just pulling his leg.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy will have to face another five years of this nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

No, because we have educated you greatly, and I hope that before the end of this term of office, however long it may be, we will have educated the Minister still further. I really believe that the Minister is innocent in this matter. I think that these people are just pulling his leg, but if he heard what they are saying behind his own back, he might believe what I am saying.

Dr. Ryan

Who?

Mr. Dillon

The big curers. They think they are getting away with murder. Let me here again say that, in using that phrase, I am speaking figuratively. I do not picture these curers going around with stilettoes killing their enemies, but what I mean is that they are trying to get away with all that they can get away with, and that they are pulling the wool over the Minister's eyes. They are doing that, and they say it quite publicly.

Dr. Ryan

Publicly?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, quite casually; and why should they not? Why should they not keep going while the going is good? The astonishing thing is that I do not think the Minister realises it, but he has got the means of satisfying his own mind with regard to this matter if he would only insist on these curers producing for him their profit and loss accounts and their balance sheets for the last five years.

Dr. Ryan

We have to suffer all this because the Deputy was put off one of those boards. Why does the Deputy revenge himself on me because he was kicked off one of those boards?

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister going to draw my personal affairs into this discussion?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, because it is personal. All that the Deputy has been saying is personal.

Mr. Dillon

Well, I am gratified, at least, that I have stirred the Minister. I know now that I have got home. If he has no answer——

Dr. Ryan

I say that this is all personal.

Mr. Dillon

——if the Minister has no answer to my argument but personal abuse I know that I have at last stirred him into activity, and that is all I want. I say that if the Minister will look into the matters that I now publicly allege he will find that they are true, and there is no use in his casually tossing them off, because every Deputy of his own Party who comes from such constituencies as I have mentioned knows that they are true. Every one of the Deputies of his own Party, coming from these constituencies, must know that the difficulties that have been placed in the path of the pig producers by the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board are intolerable and constitute a grave abuse.

Mr. Smith

Not at all to the extent the Deputy alleges.

Mr. Dillon

Is it true to any extent?

Mr. Smith

Of course it is true to some extent. There were initial difficulties.

Mr. Dillon

Yes. The Deputy admits that it is true to some extent. I told the House that I would educate them, but it takes time. However, now that Deputy Smith is realising that what I say is true, I ask the Minister to retire into a cubicle with Deputy Smith and try to benefit by Deputy Smith's knowledge.

Mr. Smith

I would not want to do anything the Deputy tells me.

Mr. Dillon

I ask the Minister to get the Deputies of his own Party to tell him what is true. There is no use in the Minister trying to turn off what I am telling him on the ground that it is a personal matter of annoyance or vexation, because that is not true, and the Minister knows it is not true.

Dr. Ryan

What is not true?

Mr. Dillon

That it is a personal matter.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, it is true.

Mr. Dillon

It is not true. The Minister knows that I raised this matter repeatedly, long before I severed my connection with the board. I raised the matter repeatedly, and I do not think it becomes the Minister either to refer to that company's position specifically, or to my relation with it, any more than it would suit me or become me to refer to the Minister's own relatives and their ordinary employment. I have always studiously refrained from doing that, and I do not propose to take example from the Minister, but I think he ought to realise that he is in a somewhat delicate position. However, let us leave all personalities out of this debate. I am asking the Minister to fix the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board with notice that unless they are prepared to run the industry in this country in the interests of the pig producers, he will abolish them—do away with them all together. I ask him, secondly, to abolish the home sales quota as a perfectly useless institution which only facilitates the curers in exploiting the consumers in this country. It is through the home sales quota that the curers in this country are enabled to charge unreasonable prices for bacon to the consumers. I say that it ought to be abolished. It serves no useful purpose; it only serves to facilitate the formation of price rings by the members of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board, and the members of these boards have no authority under the law to fix the wholesale prices of bacon in this country. Does the Minister know that, from their headquarters, there issued a circular exhorting all and sundry to charge a certain price wholesale for bacon, and admonishing the trade not to fall below those prices? Does the Minister know that? He did not know it until I told him because at one time he stated in this House that they had the right to fix those prices. Under the law they have no right to do that, and never had that right.

Dr. Ryan

I never stated that they had the right to do it.

Mr. Dillon

I understood that the Minister did.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy should try and stick to the truth.

Mr. Dillon

I accept the Minister's word. But does the Minister know that they have done that?

Dr. Ryan

I know they issued a circular.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister knows that they sent out that circular to fix prices.

Dr. Ryan

Not to fix prices: to give advice on prices.

Mr. Dillon

To fix prices. Did the Minister give that circular his approval?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister did not give it his approval what steps did he take to stop it? The Minister does nothing so long as no one draws public attention to these facts, but if a Deputy does draw public attention to them, then he is told that he is doing it from motives of private venom and spleen.

Dr. Ryan

How could I stop it?

Mr. Dillon

By telling them overnight that if they persisted in doing that you would abolish them.

Dr. Ryan

I cannot do that.

Mr. Dillon

Come in here and ask for the power to do it and you will get it immediately.

Dr. Ryan

The Dáil can do it, but I cannot do it.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister has not the power all that he has to do is to come here and ask for the power and he will get it.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy should not say that I can do it. I cannot do it. The Dáil can do it.

Mr. Dillon

If you believe that they ought to be abolished, then you ought to come in here and ask for the power to abolish them.

Dr. Ryan

I have not said that I believe that.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister ought to believe it, if he does not believe it now. What I am afraid of is that he will believe it when it is too late, and will let them get away with too many activities of the kind that they have been engaging in in the last two or three years. What I fear is that when it is too late the Minister will come in here and ask immediately for legislation to put the matter right.

An Ceann Comhairle

Legislation should not be advocated in discussing Estimates.

Mr. Dillon

I agree, and I apologise for having been betrayed into that indiscretion by the Minister's question. I am quite satisfied that if the Minister is serious about this ways and means can be found, and very quickly found, to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the members of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards to make them do what is right and equitable. At any rate, it is some satisfaction to me to realise that at least I have got members of the Fianna Fáil Party to rise up behind the Minister and declare that the people are suffering under hardships as a result of interference by the members of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards.

Mr. Smith

Initial hardships under the order.

Mr. Dillon

Whether the Deputy describes them as immediate hardships, or medium or final hardships, it is some satisfaction to me to know that I have dragged members of that Party some distance along the path of sanity. It is an encouragement to one to know that he has succeeded in knocking some commonsense into the heads of the Fianna Fáil Party, and to discover that he has made a crack in what he had heretofore regarded as a bit of granite. It is also some gratification to me to know that the Minister contemplates taking the requisite steps to bring adequate pressure to bear on the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards to put an end to the scandalous practices that they have been going on with during the last two or three years, and to realise that at last he has learned that the maize-meal mixture is a "cod," and that he is going to get rid of it. That is some progress made.

Dr. Ryan

I did not say that.

Mr. Dillon

I know.

Dr. Ryan

And it is not true.

Mr. Dillon

No one knows what the Minister means, but, at any rate, it gives one courage to carry on.

Mr. Smith

Would the Deputy deal with the price of bread?

Mr. Dillon

That is a matter that requires attention too, but I do not know that this is the appropriate time and place to go into it.

Mr. Smith

Has the Deputy seen the last order issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce fixing the price at which bread should be sold?

Mr. Dillon

They have not yet started to fix the price of calves.

Mr. Smith

I thought the Deputy pleaded in court that he had not seen the order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. T. Kelly

It is very hard to keep order.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Kelly knows his colleagues well, and it would help greatly if he would try to restrain them. He knows them better than the Chair can be expected to know them.

Mr. Smith

Has the Deputy seen the Order issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce fixing the price of bread?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Dillon

I think that if Deputy Kelly were to move up a row he might have a good effect by acting as a silencer. The last matter in connection with the pig business to which I wish to refer is this: that, amongst their many other misdeeds, the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board have apparently made up their minds that they want to wipe out of existence our fresh pork export trade. Shortly before the dissolution of the last Dáil, I was asking the Minister for Agriculture to negotiate with the British Department of Agriculture so as to relieve us of the necessity of stamping our eggs. The Minister said:—

"Oh, I do not want to do that because we stamp our pork with the result that, so far as our pork is concerned, we have got a position of unprecedented preference on the British market. That is because they think so highly of our pork."

I think the man is innocent. Really I do not think there is any harm in the Minister, but the unfortunate thing, I am afraid, is that he does not know what he is talking about. The result of this glorious preference that we have got for our pork on the British market is this. Our exports of fresh pork have dropped from 373,306 cwts. in 1932 down to 53,000 cwts. in 1937. That is the nett result of this superb preference that we have got in the British market—that our exports of fresh pork have dropped by five-sixths. If that continues much longer, the trade will have vanished altogether. The truth, of course, is that the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board, by the policy they are pursuing, have destroyed our export trade in fresh pork because they do not want that competition.

Dr. Ryan

How did they do it?

Mr. Dillon

But putting every kind of difficulty in the way, and by encouraging the Minister to do the same thing.

Dr. Ryan

What difficulties have they put in the way?

Mr. Dillon

Every difficulty they could.

Dr. Ryan

Mention one.

Mr. Dillon

One was the abolition of the fresh pork market.

Dr. Ryan

The ignorance of the Deputy is overcoming. That pork never went to the fresh pork market.

Mr. Dillon

I submit that a great deal of it did. I believe that a prudent restriction of the Order relating to the large Ulster white pig in the Northern counties might have enabled our farmers to use that pig for the production of small pork carcases which, I understand, are eminently suited for the pork market. The Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board insisted, I believe, on the complete abolition of the large Ulster pig because admittedly, and I do not deny it, the carcases of the large Ulster pig do not suit the bacon trade.

Dr. Ryan

The Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board have nothing to do with that either.

Mr. Dillon

I say that it was largely as a result of their representations to the Minister that an absolute restriction on the production of that type of pig was enforced. Let us be clear on it. I could get, and I believe every other Deputy representing a Northern constituency could get, certain kudos by denouncing the Minister for discouraging the production of the Ulster white pig for the bacon trade. I am not looking for that kudos because I think the Minister was right about that, but what I do think is that he went about it too precipitately and without sufficient sympathy for the difficulties of the people who had to make the change over. So far as the bacon trade is concerned, I think that the large Ulster white pig has gradually to be eliminated. I am not satisfied that the large Ulster pig might not have been retained for the pork trade. If my opinion is correct, its capacity for coming to maturity more rapidly than the large Irish white made it peculiarly suitable for that trade.

Mr. Smith

It is coming on.

Mr. Dillon

What is coming on?

Mr. Smith

You are coming on.

Mr. Dillon

I say that the Minister has received abundant representations from the fresh pork exporters. I put it to the Minister that several of them have had to close down—some in the West and some in the North of Ireland —and I submit that he has in his Department ample evidence of the fact that their business is being wiped out. I suggest that early and vigorous steps should be taken to rescue that trade which, according to himself, was of great value to this country and had every prospect of going from strength to strength if left alone. If the Minister will go into this whole question and bring the Bacon Marketing Board to a sense of responsibility, I believe we shall get some progress made.

There are two other matters, relating generally to agriculture, to which I want to refer. One is the problem of milk. An immense amount of tinkering with the milk and butter trade has been going on in this country for years. No substantial progress has ever been made in overcoming the real obstacle to our developing a butter industry on sound economic lines. So far as I am aware, the principal obstacle to our getting really into the butter business—if we are going to stay in it—as a primary product of our agriculture is that our farmers are cursed with a too mild climate. The result is that we are tempted to leave the cattle out in winter and so have adapted our milk-production cycle to the assumption that we shall have practically no milk in winter. That means that, during the winter months, we have virtually no supplies of butter for export to those who handle Irish butter in the British market. That gives the Danes, who maintain an all-the-year-round supply, an inescapable advantage over us. If we are ever going to make butter-production an industry in this country, we shall have to go in for winter feeding. Some people will argue that it would be better not to try to develop the butter industry but rather try to consume the milk as fresh milk. That is a matter which will have to be discussed and determined—as to whether we are going to address ourselves to milk or to butter. If we are going to press forward butter, the time has come to consider the question of winter feeding. It does not seem possible, with the world prices that obtain for butter at present, economically to import cake and other feeding stuffs to feed milch cattle. I suggest, therefore, to the Minister that he ought to examine the Scandinavian system of making ensilage with an acid. I am told that, in the Scandinavian countries, they cut crops of clover and even of grass and store them in silos; adding a little acid as the silo is filled. That supplies an abundant and excellent winter feed, closely approximating to the value of fresh summer grass. It means that you can get a much greater return of herbage and feed from a given field than you would if you saved its produce as meadow-hay. This is a kind of operation which would be of immense benefit to our people—almost as great benefit as was the discovery of the turnip. It will, however, make very slow progress unless the Government is prepared to encourage individuals scattered all over the country to attempt it. In order to do that, we ought to provide some small grant to construct the silo, which can be an inexpensive thing. We should also provide the services of an expert who would demonstrate to groups of farmers all over the country how these silos should be constructed and filled. There is the danger that, if the silo is incorrectly filled, the whole product may go to waste. If that happens one year, it will so discourage the man who has attempted the experiment that he will abandon it and tell his neighbours that it is all a fraud and that there is no use in trying it. It is very important that the experiment should be carried out, when first introduced, in a wide number of centres and by highly skilled men who will make a success of it and let the farmers see how useful it is. If it were a success, it would, in my opinion, revolutionise the whole system of winter farming and immensely reduce our present expenditure on imported feeding stuffs for live stock.

The last matter to which I want to refer is one to which I referred 12 months ago—veterinary research. Our people are at present afflicted in this connection by two main troubles, the failure of cows to come in calf and mastitis. So far as the failure of cows to come in calf is concerned, the venerable veterinarians are inclined to say: "That is contagious abortion; we know all about it; it is a complicated problem." That is all nonsense. I should say that not half of it is due to contagious abortion. The vast majority of the failures of cattle to come in calf is due to some catarrhal condition of their genital organs, and the losses that result from that to small farmers are quite astonishing. A man may have three cows. Two of them may have a calf only every second year. He may be waiting six months, bringing his cow to the bull continually before he gets it in calf. That is an immense loss in milk and live stock to a man dependent on two or three cows. I do not know what work is being done in that connection. I do not know if the problem is being widely studied in this country at all. If it is, it is very difficult to get information from the Department of Agriculture about it. Usually one can get a leaflet which goes into the whole story on any pressing problem of that kind. The only information I could get—I believe I got all there was to be had—was that it was bovine contagious abortion, and there you were. In some of the Scandinavian countries there has been an iodine treatment which has proved reasonably successful for the catarrhal condition. I understand that contagious abortion is caused by Brucellus Abortus Bang and, in so far as that organism has been found in human beings, considerable progress has been made in its treatment by the employment of some of the benzene by-products. I do not know whether these drugs would have any effects on the organism in cattle, but I think we ought to be examining that question.

So far as mastitis is concerned, I understand that that is caused by some special variety of streptococcus—a type of streptococcus not ordinarily found in human beings at all and quite distinct from the streptococcii ordinarily associated with human inflammations and infections. Still, so much encouraging work has been done in the treatment of human beings with pamino-benzene-sulphonamide that one would imagine that active measures would be going on to examine the potentialities of that drug and analogous drugs in the treatment of mastitis in cattle, because, as the Minister knows, if they do develop mastitis, it will always be your best cow that will get it. It is the heavy milkers that are peculiarly susceptible to it. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister ought to consider, now that we have got rid of a good deal of the heavy expenditure that was on us during the last four or five years, the desirability of endowing a really tiptop veterinary college in this country. We ought to make ourselves a centre of veterinary research here, and I believe that if we did it would redound greatly to our advantage everywhere. It would get us a lot of useful publicity in the world and would be of material advantage to the farmers of our own country. I do not want to elaborate that further, because I spoke on the subject at some length last year, but I direct the Minister's attention to it, and assure him that if he will consult his colleagues he will find that they agree in private with nine-tenths of what I have said about pig production in this country, and that, with the assistance of the knowledge they can afford him from their daily contact with the people, he ought to take urgent and immediate steps to set right the wrongs which have grown up in the course of the last three or four years.

Mr. Dowdall

The Deputy who has just sat down had discussed the adverse balance of trade on very many occasions and he has discussed it again to-day. It is quite right that he should discuss it, but, in doing so, I think he might be more candid than he was. The Opposition could be of considerable assistance to the Government if they were quite honest in what they had to say and if they told the full story, and not merely part of it. The Deputy referred to the adverse balance of trade and to the decline in our trade for the past six or seven years. The subject was discussed here a couple of years ago and Deputy Dillon and, I think, Deputy Mulcahy, were amongst those who took part in the discussion. I then endeavoured to give some explanation of the position of the adverse balance of trade in most countries. They said, of course, that we were heading for bankruptey and that would have been the position if what they told us was correct, but it was not. It was only half the story. I brought forward figures to show that for 15 years the accumulated adverse balance of trade in Great Britain was over £4,500,000,000, and I suggested that if our adverse balance was going to lead us into bankruptcy, Britain should have been bankrupt long ago.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, oh, Deputy! How very disingenuous of you!

Mr. Dowdall

The figures I gave on that occasion are probably available in the report of the debate which took place. As I say, this is a very proper thing to discuss, but if the Opposition wishes to be helpful to the Government, and they ought to be, because they are here as part of the Government, having been sent in here by the people, they must contribute to what is useful and for the benefit of the people and not confine themselves altogether to discussions which contain nothing but destructive arguments. They never do refer to the invisible exports which will partly account for the adverse balance. After all, there are such things as invisible exports and it is just as well that the people should not be kept in the dark about them as they are.

Mr. Dillon

I spoke for half an hour on our invisible exports on the occasion of the last Budget debate, and if the Deputy will read the debate on the Budget of 1937, he will find that I gave an estimate of each item of our invisible exports.

Mr. Dowdall

I will accept that, but that was not stated on the occasion of which I speak—a couple of years previously when I spoke on the subject.

Mr. Dillon

What are Great Britain's invisible exports?

Mr. Dowdall

Roughly speaking, £300,000,000. I am speaking now of the adverse balance. As a matter of fact, in one of the years I am speaking of, there was an adverse balance of as much as £1,500,000,000, and it was not a war year. The Deputy also referred to the decline in our trade. There has been a decline. We admit that, and it would be ridiculous not to admit it; but there is no reference made to prices or to the value of the commodities. We hear of the prices in 1931 during the time of Fine Gael, and in 1934, but what is the use of comparing 1931 with 1934 without mentioning that there was a drop of 100 per cent. or 80 per cent. in prices? There is no reference to that at all. The Deputy spoke also of the fabulous profits of the bacon curers. I am not going to dispute that point for a moment. The Deputy, however, wanted the Minister to get hold of their balance sheets. I do not think the Minister has that power. The Prices Commission may have the power, and the Revenue authorities have the power, but they cannot disclose the information. The Minister might be able to find out if the Prices Commission has authority to look into those matters, but usually in any of the Acts dealing with such matters it is set out that the information so obtained must go no further. However, I daresay the information could be obtained, and if there is an excessive profit in the bacon trade, and the farmer is not getting sufficient, I think it only right that some of the bacon trade profits should be divided up and that the farmer should get some of them.

The Deputy also referred to the decline in the number of pigs, and, of course, that is all due to Fianna Fáil being in office. The number of pigs in Ireland is about 1,250,000, or less; the number of pigs in England is over 3,500,000; and the number of pigs, or hogs, as they call them, in America has risen sometimes to over 60,000,000. As a matter of fact, about the time the statistics were taken, the number was greater than the human population of the country. There are so many matters that affect the prices and numbers of pigs that I do not think anybody can speak with any real authority on the matter. If there is a big maize crop this year, pigs are going to be cheap in America next year, and, as America supplies well over half of the bacon of the western hemisphere, prices here will be affected very considerably.

The Deputy also referred to pork, and I think he said that our pork trade fell from 300,000 odd cwts. to 50,000 odd cwts. The pork trade is quite a new trade and a trade which we did not have until the British Government kept out the Dutch supplies of pork. Up to then, we were not doing a pork trade from the Free State. It is, as I say, quite a new trade and, in my opinion, it would be far better if we supplied all our stuff as bacon instead of pork. We would be building up a reputation which would be more useful to the country than the pork trade. That, however, is only a matter of opinion and I do not want to press it, but it is something to remember that the pork trade is a trade which has existed only for seven or eight years since the British Government made a regulation, in view of the foot and mouth disease that might be carried by the packing of pork, that pork should not be sent in from outside countries.

Mr. Dillon

The pork? God help us!

Mr. Coburn

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the position of the pig industry in my constituency. Deputy Dillon has pointed out that there are many hardships endured by the farmers in the counties adjoining the Border. If my memory serves me correctly, when the legislation dealing with the pig industry in general was going through some three or four years ago, I expressed certain fears and, unfortunately, those fears have come to be realised. In the case of pigs reared in those counties I think I remember asking the Minister whether the Southern curers would come up to buy them. The Minister did not give me a satisfactory answer to that question. The position that I visualised then is now in existence, because when the farmers have their pigs ready for sale they are not able to dispose of them owing to the fact that the quota which has been allocated to the local factory is not sufficient to absorb all the pigs reared in that part of the county. I do not know what is the Minister's extraordinary reason for allocating a quota that averages only from 140 to 150 pigs a week to a factory which some 20 or 30 years ago was able to take in from 1,000 to 1,500 pigs. The Louth County Committee of Agriculture, composed mostly of farmers who are engaged in the rearing of pigs, has brought this matter very forcibly to the notice of the Department of Agriculture, but, as I say, for some reason or other which is hard to explain, nothing has been done.

I want to put a straight question to the Minister here this morning and I hope he will give me a straight answer. What are the reasons which prevent him from increasing the quota to the Dundalk Bacon Company? Are they personal and private reasons? Is one of the reasons the fact that the owners of this factory have given a certain amount of trouble to the Department, and have to be punished? Almost every other week those people have been served with summonses for exceeding their quota. We now have the extraordinary position that the owners of that factory are prepared to take in pigs from the farmers, but the Minister's Department will not allow them. Not alone will they not allow them, but they will actually summon them. That is a very serious state of affairs. I see that Deputy Smith is smiling. Probably he can get his pigs away in County Cavan. Probably he has some means of going by a back door to the Department and getting certain facilities which are denied to the people in Louth. Those facts cannot be contradicted, and such a state of affairs imposes great hardships upon many of the farmers in North Louth who are engaged in rearing pigs. The peculiarity about the situation is that if a farmer does not get his pigs in at the first of the month he has to take them home again and keep them for three or four weeks longer. That would not be so bad if, at the end of the three or four weeks, he got a better price, but the irony of the whole situation is that the longer he keeps the pigs the less he gets for them, because in the majority of cases it happens that during those extra weeks the pigs have got so fat that instead of going into grade A. they sometimes go into grade C., with the result that 8/- or 10/- less per cwt. is paid for them. The position, therefore, is that in spite of the extra cost of fire, light, foodstuffs and everything else the farmer loses 15/- or £1 per pig. That is all because of the fact that the Minister has allocated a quota of roughly only 150 pigs per week or 600 pigs per month to a factory which, as I stated, could cure 1,000 pigs if allowed to do so, a factory which gave employment to 40 or 50 men when bacon was coming here from every country in the world. To-day, they employ only eight or nine men, and even those for only half the week at times. That factory is not being used to its utmost capacity. I do not know whether the Minister has distributed among the other curers the quota that used to go to the Louth Bacon Company, but the fact is that this company has not got an extra quota, with the result that the farmers are not able to dispose of their pigs when they are ready.

I want the Minister to give his personal attention to that matter, and, if he is not prepared to increase the quota, at least to tell us he will not do it. There has been too much hedging about this whole question. Deputation after deputation has put very clearly before the Minister the whole situation as it exists at present and has existed for the past three or four years, but nothing has been done. I say to the Minister that it is about time something should be done by way of increasing the quota which is at present allocated to that company, or, in the alternative, to allow the Urban Council of Dundalk and the other councils in the small towns of Louth and Monaghan to re-establish the pork markets which they used to have. I am reliably informed that the bacon curers of the North are quite prepared to send representatives to those pork markets to purchase pork carcases there as they did before the introduction of the legislation which prohibited the holding of pork markets altogether. I think the Minister should examine the whole situation and should confer with the Northern Government or the representatives of the Northern curers, with a view to ascertaining whether those curers would be prepared to attend for the purpose of buying the pork carcases in the ordinary weekly pork markets. That would be a good way of enabling the farmers of North Louth especially, as well as the farmers of Monaghan and Cavan, to dispose of their pigs when they have them ready. Deputy Dillon has dealt with that aspect of the situation, and what he stated is perfectly correct. Anybody who has had experience of the industry in those areas knows that such are the facts.

I do not know whether the Minister is justified in doing away with the large Ulster pig. Undoubtedly, the York is a better pig for bacon, but, on the other hand, the large Ulster is a pig that fattens quickly. As far as my information goes, the representatives of the Northern curers, if allowed to come into the Free State, would be prepared to buy Ulster pigs. In fact, one of their representatives informed me that they would prefer the Ulster pig because he has better hams. I myself know for a fact that when the Louth Bacon Company was carrying on operations in Dundalk they attended the local pork market, and bought Yorks, Ulsters and everything else. They did not buy them for the fun of it. People do not pay 50/- or 60/- a cwt. for pigs to bury them. They cured the bacon and they sold it. They must have sold it somewhere. They sold it in the Free State. I have stated the actual position as it exists at the moment so far as County Louth is concerned. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to visualise the position of the small farmers there who find that they cannot dispose of their pigs when they take them to the factory, and so have to keep them for three of four weeks longer. I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to examine that situation, especially in so far as it affects our local factory. The Minister is perfectly well aware that some few years ago we had two factories, the Louth Bacon Company and the Dundalk Bacon Company. Those two factories bought, cured and sold bacon to the tune of between 500 and 600 pigs per week. The Louth Bacon Company bought and cured from 250 to 300 pigs per week. They are not carrying on operations now. Where did their quota go? Who got it? In justice, that whole quota should have gone to the Dundalk Packing Company, if they were prepared to take it, and I believe they were at the time. But it has not gone to them, with the result that farmers who formerly took pigs to that factory have been victimised and, as I say, have to keep their pigs very much longer than they would have if that company were in a position to take the pigs from them. I hope that that matter will receive the very careful consideration of the Minister and his Department.

There is just one other matter in connection with the approved road for cattle going into Northern Ireland. I understand that the people in the Omeath district, which is the most northerly part of the county, have to go five or six miles out of their way to get their cattle across the Border. That is a matter that could be easily rectified by the Minister and his Department if they would examine the situation as it exists at present. There is a post at Omeath which would be very accessible to the farmers of that area and which is on the direct road to Newry. At present they have to go six or seven miles to Carrickarnon, whereas the other post is in the immediate vicinity. I should like the Minister to take note of that and see whether he could not make more suitable arrangements than those existing at present.

Mr. Corry

There are a few matters in connection with the Department of Agriculture with which I should like to deal, in particular the admixture scheme. I understand that pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister either to modify or wipe out that scheme this year. I hope that the Department, when considering that, will cast their minds back to the condition of affairs that existed before the admixture scheme was brought in to relieve the pressure on the tillage farmer. Away back in 1931 and 1932, before that scheme was brought in, we were faced with a position in Cork County at any rate, and I am sure it would apply to other tillage counties as well, where farmers who were growing barley had absolutely no market for it. In 1931 I saw over 100 tons of barley pulled up before the maltster's door in Midleton, and he told the owners to take it away, that he did not want it. They had no other means of selling it. These are not farmers who go in purely for grain-growing. They are general tillage farmers who keep milch cows and till their land and for whom barley comes in as a rotation crop, and I hope the Minister, if he is considering any change in this matter, will take into consideration the position these farmers will be placed in if they are left with no market for their barley except the brewers. The position at that period was that the brewers took what barley they wanted in September and October, and the price for it was not fixed until the end of November or December. We do not want to get back to that condition of affairs.

I doubt very much whether any change in the admixture scheme is going to benefit the pig producer, because undoubtedly the admixture is far better than the pure maize which was being fed to pigs previously and has given far better results. On the other hand, I understand that the Department is setting its face against licences for the purchase of maize to farmers who have small mills of their own. I think that farmers who have small mills of their own should be entitled to a licence for the purchase of maize and then let the inspector see that the proper mixture is put in. I think that the putting of these farmers in the position of having their own mills idle and having to sell their grain to the millers and to go to the millers to buy the mixture should not be carried much further. I should also like to point out that the changed conditions now may have an adverse effect on the tillage farmers. Nobody in this country wants to go back to the condition of affairs which existed in 1931 and previously in which the country was being turned into one vast ranch. The economic war certainly worked in favour of tillage. Now that the economic war is over and we have 100,000 more milch cows in the country, which means after all more employment because milch cows give employment, and when we have an increase of tillage, we should be very careful this year, in particular, in regard to the price of both wheat and beet. The acreage of beet has been reduced a lot this year because the farmers cannot get what they consider an economic price for it. You are going to have operating against the production of wheat and beet, and the carrying on of tillage generally, the old ranching system practised in this country formerly. Nobody wants to get back to that. If we are to provide employment for our people on the land we will have to encourage the tillage farmers; we will have to increase our tillage area year by year.

Apart from that, in the present world conditions we must have some insurance policy if we are going to provide food for our people in the event of war. The only insurance policy we have is the growing of wheat and the production of sugar here. If the people have to pay a little more for their bread on that account, I say that it is money well spent. Therefore, I urge on the Minister that this year, in particular, the tillage farmers should get a fair price for their produce. We have a decent crop of wheat; I do not think it was ever better; it never looked better anyway than this year, despite the bad start. In my opinion, therefore, the Minister should pay particular attention this year to the tillage farmers by seeing that they get a fair price for their produce. If he does not, there will be the temptation to get rid of labour and to get back to grass and the ranching system.

I therefore urge on the Minister that this year, in particular, when there is a danger of that change over, the tillage policy must be fostered and looked after by the Department; that the tillage farmer must get a fair economic price for his produce. I urge this matter on the Minister particularly now with the changed conditions in this country, and I think it is the proper time to do it. The harvest is coming on, and if the farmers are going to be left with their barley on their hands this season and with a bad price for wheat we are going to have the tillage policy wiped out and the farmers going back to grass. I do not care what any Deputy here thinks but, in my opinion, the day that this country goes back to the ranching system and the grass system, is going to spell the ruination of this country in more ways than one. I would particularly urge the Minister to give very careful consideration to these matters when he is dealing with the general policy of his Department. I do not want to delay the House further.

Mr. McMenamin

There is just one matter I should like to mention in connection with this Estimate, now that the economic war is over. It has reference to sub-head O (11)—the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts, 1934 and 1935. It is not necessary to dwell on the point as to whether these Acts were of advantage to the country or not but the Minister is aware that a considerable number of small men, particularly in the congested areas, took up the slaughter of animals when these Acts were passed in order to provide beef in these areas for the people who were supposed to get it under the Acts. Normally, butchers did not exist in these areas at all. These men generally lived in areas where no cattle were fattened, and very often they could not go to places in inland districts where suitable cattle could be found. They supplied beef that was not heifer or bullock beef and hence they did not comply strictly with the conditions prescribed in the Act. The Minister can examine a number of cases that are on the files in his office in connection with this matter, and he will find from them that the beef in many cases was that of a young cow, perhaps of a young heifer after her first calf. Undoubtedly it was good beef, beef that anybody at all could use. It was beef that these men could not improve upon, particularly during the months from January to June, when it is desperately hard to get beef of the quality prescribed under these Acts. These men were small men in every way. They were very poor, and now they are deprived of considerable sums of money which they believed the Department would pay them. I think that in order to liquidate the amounts due to them, Deputies would support the Minister if he came before the House with a proposal that these men should be paid the amounts due to them.

There may, of course, be some cases where the claims are being set off by the amount of levies due, but I think the House would unanimously support the Minister in making the provision necessary finally to dispose of this matter. Many of these men are suffering from a very real grievance. I think everyone will agree that, while they were only getting 3d. per lb. for this beef, the beef was of excellent quality and that the men who supplied it gave good value. In very many cases, the Minister is aware and his officials can confirm it, these men were labouring under the difficulty that I have already indicated, that during certain months, that is to say, from January to June, it was next to impossible for them to get the beef prescribed under the Act. I would earnestly ask him to reconsider the claims of these people and I am sure he will get the support of all sections in the House in making provision to discharge the liabilities of the Department to these people. The sum, I take it, would be comparatively small, and I think it would be an act of justice if the claims of these people were treated in this way.

I am not saying at all that the officials of the Department have been inaccurate or unjust in dealing with these claims. I admit that they discharged their obligations fairly, but, in that connection, this much should be remembered, that where an inspector inspected an animal after it had been killed, and perhaps came to the conclusion that it was a young cow, he did not always indicate to the man supplying the beef that it was a young cow and that it was not beef of the quality specified under the Act. I think it would be much better if the inspector there and then told these people that this was not the beef specified under the Act, and that it would not be paid for. These men were permitted to supply the beef to the people who were entitled to get it at the special price under the impression that it was all right. Very often these small men were not aware of the kind that the specified beef really should be. It would have been better if the inspectors had told them there and then that the beef which they were supplying was not the specified beef, and that they could not sanction it as such, and that if they killed similar animals in future they would again reject the beef. Perhaps it was months afterwards that the inspectors reported adversely on the beef, adversely in the sense only that it was not heifer or bullock beef and not in the sense that it was not beef of good quality. A poor man then found, when he applied for £60, £70, £80 or £90 which he thought was due to him by the Department, that he was not entitled to get it. As I said before, they supplied this beef at 3d. per lb. The beef was of sound quality, and I think that in justice and equity they should be compensated by the Government for the losses which they incurred. I think the House would unanimously agree that it would be an act of justice on the part of the Minister if he paid these people the amounts which they believe are rightfully due to them.

Mr. Gorey

One has got to face certain handicaps in dealing with this Estimate. We had a good deal of powder dry and ready for this discussion when suddenly it was cut short. Not knowing that the Vote was to be re-introduced to-day, I am afraid that many of us left material on which we desired to speak behind us.

Dr. Ryan

You have no powder.

Mr. Gorey

The powder has been left behind us. There are, however, a few things which cannot be let pass without comment. The economic war has been settled and the general election is now over and many of the things that were said, even here in this House before the election, can easily be dispensed with now. We can see a long life in front of this Dáil, five years, and we ought to deal with the truth and make only statements that have some relation to fact. I hope we have got rid of all the misrepresentations we heard during the election, some of them uttered in my own presence. Deputy Corry's speech gave us some indication that he was alive to the new position. The subject-matter of his speech was somewhat different from what it used to be but, nevertheless, it definitely indicates that there is still a war of interests here. I think I might describe it like that. The tillage farmer who produces raw materials, which he is not able to use or will not use himself, still requires some other citizen of the State to use it for him. There is a definite war of interests or conflict of interests there. We find unfortunately that the worst producers of livestock are the people living in the corn-producing counties. They produce foodstuffs but they will not produce livestock to consume them. They want to transfer these foodstuffs to other counties or other portions of the county in which they live, where the stock feeders reside. You might describe that class of farmer as a bag farmer. His produce goes out in a sack and his manures come in a sack. While undoubtedly beet gives a considerable amount of employment, the production of wheat and some other corn crops gives very little employment. The crop is sown, the gate is shut and no more employment is provided until the crop is reaped. Now, I do not intend to make war on that particular class of farmer. I can see that it is necessary, because of the quality of his land, that he should continue in that particular class of farming. I can see the claim there but, at the same time, there is the other claim, that of the producer, who is not a bag farmer, who walks the finished article off the land in the form of bacon, beef, milk, eggs.

It must be borne in mind by anyone who looks at the matter fairly that during the economic war the one resource farmers had in order to make a living, was bacon production. They were forced into it. They could not feed calves. They might as well kill the calves—as they were ultimately killed—in view of the prices they were bringing. The only thing that gave them a chance was either pork or bacon. Under stress of circumstances they went into bacon production. During these years the pig population decreased. No one can attempt to deny that it was impossible for some people to carry on in the circumstances that prevailed, and the only alternative was to get out of pig production. The only explanation was that as the admixture scheme did not give a return the people would not use it. Some means should be provided to make the admixture scheme a paying proposition and to induce people to produce bacon, pork or fowl. One of the results of the scheme has been that fowl have practically disappeared. The cottiers say they could not rear chickens as there was something wrong with the hulls in the mixture, and there was high mortality amongst young fowl. Although it is to the interest of tillage farmers to have an alternative market you cannot force this scheme on them. It is a question of weighing one interest against another. Good may be done to one class, and harm to another class, but I consider the harm will outweigh the good. The Minister is trying to hold the scales fairly and is doing his best, but if there is not production there cannot be results. You cannot force the admixture scheme on people if they cannot use it with profit. We cannot afford to sit down quietly and see the pig population disappearing. There has been a reduction of something like 15,000 sows to date. The position with regard to fowl is alarming and must cause concern in the Department. There is no use in having legislation which may bring a profit to one class of people but a loss on another class. That would be ridiculous.

I am inclined to think that there is no truth in a statement which was made by the Minister for Finance during the progress of the general election that deposits by farmers in the banks had increased by 12 per cent. during the six or seven years of his administration. Some people must be rolling in prosperity, while others are suffering from depression as a result of the economic war. If there are any figures available to show that wheat growers, beet growers or others are in a better position now than they were previously, then the Minister should get these figures to prove the statement. I do not accept the figures mentioned by the Minister.

Mr. Corry

Does the Deputy believe his own statements? He stated here about six weeks ago that 50 per cent. of the farmers had suffered no loss during the progress of the economic war, but had made profits.

Mr. Gorey

What I said was that people who produced a certain type of article on which there was a tariff had to bear all the losses, but that people who produced nothing that was tariffed had borne no loss, or very little loss. I repeat that statement. The Deputy can get the statement in the Official Debates.

Mr. Corry

I will.

Mr. Gorey

If there is any point about what I stated I will repeat it. People who produced no article on which there was a tariff, and which had to pass through the ports, suffered practically none of the effects of the economic war. The whole burden of the economic war fell on others. I do not know if I am in order in dealing with that matter now.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may reply to the question.

Mr. Gorey

It was only people who produced tariffed articles that were going through the English ports felt the effects of the economic war. Any one who argues to the contrary must be a great fool indeed, and is deserving of the sympathy not only of the House but of the general public in his affliction. If there is any truth in the statement about the deposits in the banks—which I do not believe—it could only refer to a type of beet grower or wheat grower who could possibly be included amongst those whose deposits increased by 12 per cent., amounting, I think, in all to £15,000,000. It is either that or there must be some dishonest bodies or a pack of rogues.

Either the Minister's statement is false or we have a considerable number of rogues who are not telling the truth. The Minister for Finance or the Minister for Justice should get at them. Is it possible for the Minister to try to induce some farmers to insist on growing cereals which they say they cannot get a market for at home, or can he induce them to adopt some system of using that portion of what they produce and that they cannot get a market for? Surely it is the duty of these farmers to help themselves and not to expect other people to do their duty for them. The Minister does not expect farmers in South Kilkenny or in a considerable portion of Cork, who follow a certain type of farming, to do what the type of farmer Deputy Corry referred to should do. These people should be self-reliant, without expecting other people to help them. Even though the Government has a majority we cannot get away from the natural law of supply and demand. I do not wish to labour the question further, because I know that there are two interests involved. I want to approach this question in a reasonable way, and to try to have it dealt with so that it will be just to all. I see the problem that the Minister has to face. I understand Deputy Corry's position, just as I realise my own position. The Minister is confronted with the problem of trying to right the position so that it will be just to all. I think Deputy Corry must have forgotten some remarks he made on the subject previously. He talked about 100 tons of corn in cars outside a Midland maltster's stores that the owners were told to take away. I always thought that people brought in samples of corn before they carted it in to the stores.

Mr. Corry

Not in 1931.

Mr. Gorey

To say that 100 tons of corn could be outside a malster's stores without having been sold is too vague. I ask the Deputy not to make such a ridiculous statement.

Mr. Corry

It was a true statement.

Mr. Gorey

If it was I did not think there were so many lunatics in Cork. They do not produce many lunatics there.

Mr. Corry

The lunatics are confined to Kilkenny.

Mr. Gorey

I thought they were too hard-headed in Cork to start carting in 100 tons of corn to a maltster's stores without having first sold it. I ask the Minister to try to be just to other interests in the country.

I do not want to mention another matter by way of sarcasm, but I know that the Minister remembers what is known as the Roscrea factory—known as the Roscrea Meat Factory, I think it is. I have the title in my bag. It is not fair to other concerns producing edible meat products that this particular factory, with its history, should carry a title of that description. I want the Minister to see that that is ended. I shall not make any further reference to it. It certainly does not deserve the title of a meat factory, and it is detrimental to other people engaged in legitimate trade.

There is a matter I want to draw the Minister's attention to. I spoke to him in private about it and that is what could be done with regard to the fruit trade in this country. We have a considerable amount of fruit, especially cooking apples, in this country—more than we need—much more than we need, and for a considerable amount of that a market cannot be found and it is, practically speaking, wasted. There are very up-to-date research works in England in connection with this—the Long Ashton Research Station—and they have produced what I believe is a very palatable and very refreshing fruit extract—fruit juices. There is no doubt about it that a very considerable market has been developed for that class of thing in this country. One cannot go into any hotel in the morning without seeing fruit juice of some description being used at the tables. Perhaps in the country they cannot afford it but for the better class people in the towns—we have any amount of them now—and hotels there is considerable trade in that direction. We have not the same handicap here as they have in England. We have embarked on a particular policy and it is merely including this in our list. It would be quite different in England; she could not very well adopt our policy considering her colonies are producing these fruits. We are not under the same difficulties. It would be a simple matter here. It would merely mean that the Minister would avail himself of the progress that has been made on the other side by the Long Ashton Research Station and see if native fruit juices could not be substituted altogether here for the fruit menus on our hotel breakfast tables every morning. I think it would amount to a considerable thing— thousands—I do not know how much. It would save the fruit situation here. I shall not say any more about that.

There is a matter in connection with the Pigs Marketing Board I would like to mention. Recently we had to send pigs from Waterford factory to Kerry owing to the quota. Pigs came in in excess of the quota and we had to leave ourselves open to prosecution or find some means of disposing of the extra pigs. The result was that they had to be put on train and sent to Tralee at the expense of the unfortunate producer, expense both in freight and shrinkage in weight. Surely some other means could be found whereby it could be treated in Waterford. It is an extraordinary situation where this sort of thing can occur and even I, who know a little bit about it, find great difficulty in understanding why this is so. There should be some other means, some sort of give and take, without putting the unfortunate producer in that position. The Minister may be aware that a lot of the pig collection for factories is done by lorry going to the yards. The quota may be 25 to 30 pigs; the agent goes in to a man; he has ten pigs; he may take five and leave the other five there. If you take the other five the only thing is to send them away to Tralee or somewhere else. An impossible situation has arisen and nobody is taking any notice of it. It is utterly impossible as far as the producer is concerned because there is never any notice taken of him or as to what he suffers, in this House or anywhere else. Something ought to be done. Surely it is not impossible to find a way out of this extraordinary situation without having the present position operating.

I know the policy of the Department in regard to the type of pig produced in the country—a policy with which, up to a point, I fully agree, that is that the Large York should take precedence over the Ulster pig. But a peculiar situation still exists, and nobody will know it better than the Minister's advisers—that is, that there is a peculiar market for that particular type of pig still in existence. The most profitable trade there is—the Scotch and Glasgow trade—is still clamouring for a peculiar type of bacon known as rolled bacon. I, perhaps, know more about it than most of the people talking, because I have gone into it and have gone to the Scotch markets, and in every place you see the rolled side, boned and rolled. This particular type of pig lends itself to that. It is the only type of pig that will lend itself to that, and the Scotch people will pay more for that particular type of bacon than they will for the best Danish or Irish. It used to be more marked than it is now. The Danish, perhaps, is creeping in a little bit more on the Scotch market because of the lesser price they are able to sell it at, not because of the better quality but because of the lesser price. I do not know what progress there has been in the last four years, but up to four years ago that particular North of Ireland cure, that could be made only from this particular type of pig, was the most valuable type of bacon sold in Scotland, not only in price, but because it was easier to produce. While that type of trade is there, it seems to me inadvisable that we should cut it out.

That particular type of trade and that particular type of pig need a certain class of treatment. They are very fine-skinned pigs, and any marks show considerably, with the result that they had to be killed at home in the producer's own yard so that there would be no marks and no scars, just as they market the dead pork trade. I am not confusing the two. This was a pig killed for the bacon trade and was not killed for the pork trade as we understand it in the London market, and the fact that it was killed at home and was able to be sold in the North of Ireland markets prevented the discoloration and scars that would otherwise disfigure it and perhaps lessen it considerably in value. I think it is injudicious that, while that market exists, we should not let our people—even a limited number of them—cater for it. We do not want that particular type in the South at all. We have a different class of trade—a totally different class of trade. The trade we have would not absorb that pig at all, but where they have a trade for it and where the peculiar trade will absorb it, I think we ought to think twice before we wipe it out. Let us produce enough of it to meet the peculiar trade that exists in Scotland and the North of England.

There is also, now that the economic war is settled and we can ship pigs, a considerable trade for the heavier pig in England, for pigs up to 20 stone, that is three cwt. live weight. That trade is there and that is the pig they want in certain of the mining districts, I know, and all over Lancashire. People here would be amazed at the class of pig that finds the ready and the best market trade. That is the more profitable trade to the pig feeder, the trade when the pig reaches a weight of that kind. The farmer wants the particular type of pig that will produce such a weight. It would be an injudicious thing to cut out that type of pig and that particular trade. A good market can be got for that type of pig in South Kilkenny for Denny, Matterson's and our own bacon-curing establishments are close at hand. Such establishments will always go in for that particular type of pig— the heavy pig or the shipping pig, and nothing should be done to curtail in any way that particular trade. That is all I wish to say now on this matter.

Mr. Cogan

Like Deputy Gorey, I am at a disadvantage inasmuch as I was not aware that there was going to be a discussion on the Agricultural Estimate to-day. However, as I am as much interested in agriculture as any member of this House I want to give my views as briefly as possible. Immediately after the general election the Taoiseach called for co-operation between all Parties and the Government. As a member of this House, I am prepared to offer my co-operation, and I am prepared to offer any suggestions which I think would be likely to lead to an improvement in agricultural conditions. We can judge and we must judge the position of agriculture by the output in that industry and by the condition in which the people engaged in that industry are living. We have statistics that prove that the output of the agricultural industry in almost every branch, except perhaps beet and wheat, has declined during the past five or six years. We have also statistics which go to prove that the income of each individual farmer has also decreased during the past six years.

Therefore, it is clear that the industry is declining and some big effort must be made to put that industry on its feet. First of all, the farmer who has suffered so much, the farmer whose capital has been depleted and whose courage has gone, must be put in a position to restock and re-equip his land. Livestock or tillage products cannot be produced without capital expenditure. It is the same in farming as in every industry. Expenditure is required and capital must be provided.

It is the duty of the Minister for Agriculture, in consultation with the other Ministers, to devise a scheme under which capital will be made available for farmers so as to enable them to recover from the condition to which they have been reduced in the past six years. These conditions are due to the economic war and to world depression. We know that the Minister for Agriculture during the past few years has taken a great interest in the agricultural industry. But his efforts and his policy have been so conflicting that they have only resulted in an injury to the industry. We know that the Minister for Agriculture, shortly after taking office, declared that it was his policy to maintain the then livestock population of the country. We know that very shortly afterwards he decided to reduce the livestock population and so he ruthlessly slaughtered calves. I am not now going to refer to that except in so far as it affected the people in the farming districts of Wicklow and Carlow. These people were accustomed to purchase calves from the South of Ireland dairying districts. They reared these calves and sold them as stores. One of the results of the Minister's policy in the slaughter of calves was to make it impossible for the Wicklow and Carlow farmers to purchase the calves when they required them—to purchase them at a price which would compare with the price of store cattle. During the years 1933 and 1934, the price of two-year-old and three-year-old cattle fell to £3 and £4 per head. It was impossible for the farmers to continue to purchase the calves unless they got them at an absolute sacrifice or almost for nothing. The policy of the Minister for Agriculture resulted in preventing the unfortunate farmers of Wicklow and other counties buying calves or young stores. Had the Minister allowed calves to be brought up from the dairying districts and distributed in the area to which I refer we would to-day have increased stocks of cattle in these areas. The sale of these would enable the farmers to meet the demands of the rate collectors, the demands for the land annuities, the demands made by the flying squad and every other demand. The policy of the Minister was to cut off the supply which these people required to stock their lands. He ruthlessly slaughtered calves in the dairying districts. That is a policy that must be condemned, a policy which must never again be introduced into this country.

Reference has been made to the admixture scheme. I believe that it is the duty of the Government, as far as possible, to increase the production not only of live stock but of tillage. It should be the duty of the Government to see that the farmer who produces any useful product, whether wheat, barley, oats, or beet should get a fair price for his produce—the price that will cover the cost of production. For that reason I am not in favour of the abolition of the admixture scheme. I think the Government should take whatever steps are necessary to see that the farmer who produces barley or oats gets a fair price for his produce. But also they should see that ample measures are adopted so that the people who are engaged in the production of live stock, in poultry keeping and in pig raising are not debarred from carrying on their industries.

There is just one suggestion which I wish to offer and which is possibly constructive, in connection with this particular branch of industry. It is this, that in considering increased production of material necessary for food supplies, the Minister should seek to promote not so much increased growing of barley and oats as the increased production of potatoes. I think the Minister's efforts should be concentrated on devising some scheme for an increase in the acreage under potatoes so that the potato crop would to a very large extent take the place of maize in the feeding of live stock. I believe that such a scheme is possible, but it requires very careful consideration and very careful thinking out just as the production of beet or the production of sugar from beet requires very careful consideration from the Department of Agriculture. At the same time I think the attention that might be given to that problem would be justified. The growing of beet has to a very large extent benefited the farmers of this country. It has provided increased employment, and it has reduced the importation of sugar into this country. In that way it has helped the country economically. It has helped to put the country on a sounder economic footing.

The same, perhaps, might be possible, and I believe would be possible, in connection with the increased production of potatoes as a food stuff in substitution for maize. I ask the Minister to consider how necessary it is to put the farmers in a position to increase the acreage under tillage, to increase employment on the land, and also to increase every other branch of agriculture. The cost of production in agriculture is increasing every year. It has increased during the past year, so far as the farmer employing labour is concerned, by over 50 per cent. That is a very serious consideration. The State, acting in the best interests of the people, has decided to impose a statutory minimum wage in the agricultural industry. In order to make it possible for the farmer to carry on his industry and pay that minimum wage, it is the duty of the State to see that the farmer gets a sufficient return for the products of his land. Unless that is done, you will have in the near future, not an increase, but a tremendous reduction in the acreage under wheat, barley and other products.

The farmers at the present time are finding it extremely difficult, not only to meet the weekly wages fixed by statute for their employees, but also to obtain suitable workers on the land. At the present time there is so much competition on road work, building and other branches of labour that the workers are not inclined to work on the land, and they will not be so inclined unless the farmer is able to pay them a decent wage, and provide them with decent conditions of living. Such conditions can only be obtained by putting the farmer in a position to get a fair price for everything he produces, not only live stock, but wheat, barley, oats and potatoes. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this problem, because otherwise we shall have, not a "back to the land" movement, but a "back to the grass" movement, which will be absolutely disastrous to the country. We have no unlimited opportunities of providing employment for our present population, or an increasing population, unless our agricultural industry is intensively developed, and intensive development of that industry can only be achieved by guaranteeing to the farmer a remunerative price for such produce from his land as this country requires, such produce as is absolutely essential to the well-being of the nation.

Wheat has often been mentioned as one of the most successful branches of the Minister's policy. I know that in my district, and I think it is true of other districts, there are many farmers who have lost more by endeavouring to grow wheat than they have lost through the depression in agricultural prices. This is a tragic, an unfortunate state of affairs. It is a state of affairs which must be ended by increasing the price of wheat, and by providing better facilities to enable the farmer to secure exactly the type of seed that is best suited to his particular district. The farmer must be safeguarded as far as possible against loss when he is doing a national duty, a duty to the Government, by adopting a policy which is in the best national interests. In such circumstances, he should be amply insured and guaranteed against loss through the use of improper seed, seed which is not true to quality, seed which is not suited to the particular district in which he farms, and he must also be provided with such credit facilities as will enable him to use an ample quantity of the proper artificial manures which are required for the successful growing of wheat. Above all things, he must be enabled to carry on the only type of farming which will make wheat growing possible; that is, mixed farming. He must be enabled to carry on the raising and the stall-feeding of stock and the profitable production of pigs and poultry. I should like the Minister to give serious attention to these suggestions.

Mr. J. Flynn

There are one or two matters upon which I would like to dwell. Unlike Deputy Dillon, I will approach this question of the Pigs Marketing Board from a different angle. The board was initiated to remedy certain grievances, mainly the menace of pig rings and other combines through the country, and the idea generally was to provide a better system of marketing, one which would be more profitable to the producers in the different centres. I should like to refer to what might be described as anomalies in the system that is operated by the board. Take, for instance, this question of grading. It has been alleged that pigs may fetch different prices in the different factories and that the grading system is so complicated that at the whim of the curer the price may be changed from the highest to the lowest; in other words, the system is so arranged that, with very little difference in weight in the particular consignment of pigs, the curer can, if he so desires, allow the lower price as distinct from the higher price. I suggest that the system that is operating lends itself in that direction. That is one point. Then there is this question of where the consignments have been refused on the ground that the quotas are complete. That has caused great inconvenience to the producer and to farmers who have to convey their pigs over long distances.

These are points which, I submit, can be adjusted. They are certainly matters of importance, but they in no way detract from the principle of the benefits conferred by the board as a whole. I submit to the Minister that, as a result of the recent Agreement, this whole question can be regarded as one for review. The suggestion has been put forward that the quota system be changed completely and that the people should be given an opportunity of having recourse to export. The suggestions of the various Deputies are to the effect that the export quota can be regulated as a result of the three years' experience which we have had to work upon, and that if the Minister feels that a price must be fixed, he could fix a minimum price. These are questions that might be considered in so far as the future outlook of the industry is concerned. At the same time, we admit that the board have done their utmost to remedy the economic needs of this country and to stabilise the industry.

Another matter to which I should like to refer, and which is very important in this country, is the question of reclamation schemes. Under the Department of Agriculture we have a system of reclamation which, in my opinion, could be bettered. The amount allowed for development purposes is to restricted. We have had occasion to ask the Land Commission to go all out in extensive reclamation work in our county, but they have referred us to the Minister for Agriculture. They state that the machinery is available under the Minister's Department to carry on this work and to see that our requirements are filled, but under the present system, as operated by the Department of Agriculture, it is only on the fringe of that development. I would ask the Minister to make it possible, through the co-operation of the Minister for Finance, to have large schemes of reclamation carried out throughout the country, particularly in our county, which lends itself to that type of work. It would be a great benefit to the small farmers and the unemployed people in our county. Such reclamation work will justify itself. It will recoup itself. Any money spent upon it will be money well spent, and, seeing that the Land Commission have more or less turned down our proposals, I submit that it is up to the Department of the Minister for Agriculture to consider the question of extensive reclamation schemes in the different counties.

There is only one other point to which I should like to refer, and in connection with which I should like to make a special request to the Minister. I refer to the extension of the creamery system to Valentia Island. The scheme that is operating in that part of the country at the moment has more than justified itself, and on behalf of the people down there I wish to thank the Minister for the initiation of that scheme and for the benefits that have accrued from its operation. The point to be considered now is the extension of the scheme to Valentia Island. As I have said, the scheme, generally, has more than justified itself. It has proved to be an economic and successful venture in so far as it operates on the mainland, and the construction of an auxiliary creamery on the island would be a great benefit to the farmers there. There are, approximately, 800 cows concerned, and I venture to say that it would be an economic unit. At any rate, it will bear investigation, and I am sure it will prove to be a success. In so far as other areas are concerned, we have every reason to be grateful to the Department for seeing to it that the travelling creamery system has benefited the small farmers and made it possible for them to eke out an existence under adverse circumstances.

Mr. Hughes

We, on this side of the House, welcome the change in the Fianna Fáil policy with regard to agriculture, and particularly with regard to the British market. When Fianna Fáil came into office six or seven years ago we were told that the British market was gone; that the British Empire, like the Roman Empire, would be soon a thing of the past; and that it was necessary for this country to develop other markets; that far-seeing people realised that it was necessary to look around us in order to secure these other markets. We were told at that time that the British market was gone, and gone for ever. Now, under the Agreement that was made recently, we have a complete reversal of that policy, and it has been stressed by Ministers of the Government all over the country during the election how important the British market is to this country. We are glad to see that, and we welcome that attitude, but in order to supply that very important market which we, on this side of the House, always pointed out was essential to the agricultural community here, it is necessary to equip the farmer or the producer. At the present time statistics show that there is an alarming shrinkage in our agricultural production, and that the farmer needs assistance and is in a delicate situation. He needs help, and the situation will have to be very carefully handled. What is the exact position with regard to the farmer at the present time in this country? It is this: that the difference between the cost of production and the price realised by the majority of the articles produced by the farmer in this country does not show a reasonable margin of profit. The cost of production is too high, and the farmer's overhead charges are too high. That is as a result of the present tariff system of the Government.

I would point out to the Minister for Agriculture that this is a matter that requires close attention. Recently we had a Wages Board set up, and we had wages fixed for agricultural workers. Now, we do not object to a decent or a living wage for the agricultural worker. As a matter of fact, as a farmer, I think that the agricultural worker is entitled to a good day's wage. He is a skilled worker in a sense, he is not the machine type that does a certain operation over and over again. It is necessary that he should know his job and be able to turn his hand to a variety of work according as the seasons pass. He needs to know how to do his job and do it well, and he should be well paid for his skill and his work. There is very little use, however, in fixing a wage if the industry cannot afford that wage, and I am convinced that, in the near future, you will have a shrinkage in the number of people engaged on the land. It will be an unfortunate position if it occurs. There is every indication, all over the country, that it is going to occur, and if it is possible to prevent it, it ought to be prevented.

In my opinion, the cost of many of the essential commodities that the farmer requires for the production of agricultural produce is far too high. The farmer, as a purchaser, has no protection. In the case of a number of articles that he requires there is no such thing as a competitive price. Take binder twine, which is an essential on a tillage farm. The price of Irish-made binder twine is about £52 10s. per ton. The price of the foreign article is approximately £36 per ton. Surely there is no justification for such a big difference in prices. We are all anxious to encourage Irish industry, but we do not want the consumer to be fleeced every time. We do not want the agricultural community in the position of having to shoulder all the burdens, with no protection for those who comprise it. In the case of tools that are required on the farm, such as shovels and forks, the cost of them is far too high. Take nails, for instance. The wholesale price of foreign-made nails is about £10 a ton, while the price of Irish-made nails is in or about £40 per ton. You have there an enormous discrepancy. The same is true of artificial manures. During the war period, our home manufacturers had a monopoly of the market here. Shortly after the war, foreign superphosphates were allowed in on the advice of the Department of Agriculture, and they compared favourably with what were being manufactured here. Speaking from recollection, the foreign-made artificial manures were from 17/- to £1 per ton cheaper than the Irish-made manures in the first year that they were allowed in. There was a huge quantity of them sold here. They were found to be in good condition, and in quality they compared favourably with the artificial manures manufactured here. In the second year, the Irish manufacturers came more into line, and the gap, as regards price, was narrowed considerably. The difference dropped to less than 10/-, and in the following year it was down to 3/- or 4/-.

Now, under the Fianna Fáil policy foreign competition is shut out in the case of artificial manures, with the result that, I believe, the price charged for them to-day is far too high. The Irish farmer cannot buy them at a competitive price, and it is absolutely essential, in my opinion, that they should be available to our farmers at the lowest possible price, because we all realise that we have here a tremendous amount of land on the border-line of production and fertility. It is only by careful husbandry and nursing, by the use of both farmyard and artificial manures, that you can hope to get any return from land of that type. Very often you do not get a remunerative return from it at all. The use of artificial manures ought to be seriously developed by the Minister's Department as has been done in the Scandanavian countries. In those countries tremendous strides have been made in the last few years in the application of artificial manures to every type of land—grass land as well as tillage land.

It is only by following that method that we can hope to increase the production of the type of poor land that I have referred to. In that respect, I suggest to the Minister that more and more experimental work ought to be carried out by his Department. In my opinion we have a shortage of winter feeding in this country. We do not do enough of it at all. The cattle market is going to be more remunerative to our farmers if they are in a position to put their forward live stock on it in the spring time rather than at the back end of the year. Too big a proportion of our live stock are being marketed at the back end. We have there a difficulty that can only be overcome by the production of good quality winter feeding. Too much of our grass land and of our hay is of an inferior quality. I admit that something has already been done in that direction, because under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture it is only the best grass seeds that are being allowed in. But, while that is so, we are not, when we compare the position with other countries, producing sufficient bulk off our land. The reason is that we have not been using artificial manures to the extent to which they are being used in other countries. I would appeal to the Minister to have more experiments carried out in the use of artificial manures, and to have increased quantities of them applied not only to our tillage land but to grass land as well, so as to encourage more feeding and more production.

Again, the farmer has to carry a very serious burden at the present time in the way of poor rates. The poor rates have been increased enormously to meet the cost of increased social services and social schemes. I do not see why one particular section of the community should be asked to pay for poor law and medical services in the country. You have many people in salaried positions in this country— professional men and men in Government positions drawing big salaries— whose contributions to poor law and medical services are relatively small because they happen to live in houses with a low valuation for rating purposes. The farmer has to pay for those services on the valuation of his holding which, very often, bears no relation whatever to his income. We all know that in a Christian country like this all sections must contribute to the cost of poor law and medical services, but I think it is only fair that people should be asked to contribute according to their means and their income. That is not the case to-day.

As regards unemployment relief schemes and the cost of them, the farmer has in the first instance, to contribute his share as a general taxpayer, but then you have this vicious system introduced by the Government. These schemes are made available in a locality if certain conditions are complied with, namely, that a sum of money equal to the Government grant is put up by the local authority. In that way the farmer's contribution is out of all proportion to that made by other sections of the community, and this in a matter that is not his responsibility at all. These are a few of the burdens that are weighing heavily on the agricultural community to-day. If the members of that community are to be put in an economic position, a sum of money will have to be made available by the Government to enable them to re-stock their land, and if that money is to be made available, you must have some form of negotiable security. In the past the one great source of security here was the land. I suggest that, again, the land of the country must be made the great source of security for the future if we want to put the farmer in the position that he will be able to borrow money and so be enabled to put his industry on a sound basis. That means he must get security of tenure. He must be in a position to raise money on the security of his land. That security has been destroyed in recent years. We shall have to get back to that system which is the only system wherewith the farmer can raise money to re-stock his land. A great many members on the other side of the House are coming to a realisation of the fact that serious attention will have to be given to this matter. If any secondary industries are to prosper, the one great industry we have—the primary industry and the real source of wealth in the country—must be put in a prosperous position. That must be done, and done immediately. A careful and serious examination of our position should be made by the Minister's Department. More scientific methods should be adopted. Our methods are often old-fashioned—"what was good enough for my father is good enough for me." Competition in food stuffs is so keen and transport has brought every producing country so close to the big markets of the world, that we must be in a position to produce our goods scientifically if we are to compete with the products of other countries.

Our chief competitor in the English market for most of the commodities we produce, such as bacon, eggs and butter, is the Dane. There is no doubt that we are behindhand in a great many of our methods and in the price of the raw material available for the articles we produce. The admixture system, undoubtedly, hampers the producer of bacon, eggs and butter. We cannot hope to compete if that is going to continue. We shall lose the market. The margin of profit in the world-market to the producer is at all times small. If the raw material available to the producer in this country is not obtainable at the right price, then he is going to disappear. He will be swamped by keener people. These are matters which are harassing the farmers and which have had the effect of seriously reducing their output. There is no necessity for me to refer to the shrinkage of our pig population or to the huge reduction in the value of our poultry products from £2,500,000 six years ago to £1,750,000 to-day. That is a serious loss to the small farmer and to the cottier, who are the real poultry-producers. These are matters that must be dealt with immediately if we are to avoid an economic collapse in this country.

Dr. Ryan

One of the principal matters raised in the course of this debate had to do with pigs and pig production. A number of Deputies referred to it. I am only sorry that they did not refer to it in the same spirit in which Deputy Gorey did, because Deputy Gorey was, evidently, anxious to give sound advice on this whole subject, so far as he felt he could do so. It is generally contended by speakers on the other side that the number of pigs is going down. As I pointed out before, if you go back over a number of years, you will find that whether the British Government or the Cumann na nGaedheal or the Fianna Fáil Government were in power, you had a certain cycle in regard to pigs—a four-year cycle. The number of pigs is at its lowest now. If I am right as regards the four-year cycle, the number should be increasing henceforth, and I believe it is increasing. Reports which I received recently show that the number of small pigs at the fairs has increased considerably. Many more small pigs are being offered for sale than was the case six months or 12 months ago. If we follow the cycle which has obtained as long as we have had statistics, the numbers should be increased next year. If the numbers are increased, it will show that we are following the cycle. If they are not increased, it will show that something has broken the cycle which has obtained for a hundred years.

A number of complaints were made about the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board. I want to make very clear—I said this here when opening the Estimate about five or six weeks ago—that I did not think everything was right with the Pigs or Bacon Marketing Board and that I had set up a committee in the Department to examine the whole matter and make recommendations with regard to any changes which they thought should be made. I do not at all agree with Deputies who hold that the whole system should be scrapped. I do not want to go back to the days when I myself went to fairs with pigs, after reading the day before that the price was 56/-, and found that the highest price obtainable was 48/-. You had to sell the pigs or bring them home. When you looked at the paper next day, you might find that pigs were 56/- somewhere else, while you had to sell for 48/-.

That was the sort of thing we wanted to stop, because we did not see why one curer should pay 7/- or 8/- less than another on the same day or on two succeeding days. We wanted to fix a price. A fixed price meant grading because an over-fat or a too lean pig would not be as valuable as the pig of the right type. We did take other steps with regard to quotas which were not, perhaps, absolutely necessary. We are examining that matter to see if we can make any changes. As soon as I get a report from this committee, I hope to bring in proposals for changes if I think changes can be made for the better.

Deputy Dillon referred to the dead pork market. I do not at all agree with Deputy Dillon in that regard. We can say that we know certain people who slaughtered their pigs properly, who were very careful in bringing these pigs in in a clean condition to the market, and that these pigs were turned over to a good curer who converted them into good bacon. But look at all the risks involved in that process. The pigs may not be slaughtered properly; they may not be bled properly. The killing may not be carried out under really clean and sanitary conditions. The pigs may be subject to disease. They may be brought to the market, and there the great crux arises because they have to be sold. You can bring a live pig back if you do not sell, but you have to sell the carcases. The buyers very often took advantage of that position. Then the pig may be over-stale—to apply a mild term. It may be brought to a factory and turned into bacon in that stale condition, so that it would not make good bacon. I say that there were too many risks in that process, and I think we were perfectly right in abolishing these dead pork markets and in trying to get to a system of having the live pig brought to the factory, slaughtered on the premises, and turned into the best possible type of bacon. I do not think that the curers are controlling both boards, and, in fact if they are, the producer-members are at fault. All I can say, as I have said before, is that the producer-members are not doing their business if that is so. Whether it is necessary to have two boards or not I do not know, but these are matters which we can go into in the very near future.

I think it is very bad to stress this matter of "no profit in pigs" because I believe it is something which might influence farmers to some extent in getting rid of pigs. I quoted figures here recently and I should like every Deputy to consider them with regard to the prices for pigs. The board took the formula set down by the Pig Industries Tribunal what sat in 1930 or 1931. That tribunal went into the cost of feeding of pigs and gave a formula on which that cost could be calculated. The Pigs Marketing Board in fixing their prices for bacon have taken that formula into consideration. They allow for feeding the sow during dry and pregnant period; feeding the sow during suckling period; interest on capital—sow and food; depreciation of sow; insurance against mortality; labour, and feeding of pig to bacon weight. They take the cost of feeding stuffs at 10/6 per cwt. which I think is too high. Certainly they cannot be accused of taking it at too high a figure, taking the ordinary ration into account. I know that it is possible to get one of the best rations produced in the City of Dublin at present at something under £9 a ton. It is a good ration, well balanced, and with the proper amount of meat meal, fish meal, minerals, and so on. On the basis of 10/6 per cwt. for feeding stuffs, a pig should pay at present, if the producer got 63/11 per cwt. The actual prices range from 81/- to 86/-.

Mr. Gorey

What is the margin of profit?

Dr. Ryan

I say that if he got 63/11, the pig would pay. There would be no profit, but the published prices are 81/- to 86/- so that there is at least ten shillings per cwt. profit at present. I think these are things which should be stressed in debate. I do not know if the farmers are fully aware of the profits in the rearing of pigs at present and surely we should not be stressing all the difficulties of rearing pigs. I think it is wrong. I quite agree that Deputy Gorey pointed out the difficulties in a genuine way, but I do not agree with Deputy Dillon who talks about the farmer taking two pigs to the factory and being told to go home again. These are things that are not occurring. Surely, as Deputy Gorey says, before you bring your barley to the market, you bring your sample, and surely you do not bring your pigs to the factory, if you are being treated in that fashion. You might do it once, but on the next occasion, you will ask the factory if it is going to take your pigs. If a farmer writes to the factory and the factory tells him: "We cannot take your pigs" and if he then writes to the Chairman of the Pigs Marketing Board and tells him the story the chairman will write to the factory and tell them to take these pigs. I have stated that publicly over and over again, but Deputies keep on talking about the difficulties, instead of showing the farmers that their pigs will be taken, that there is a profit in producing pigs and encouraging them to get back into pigs as soon as possible.

Another question raised was the maize meal mixture scheme. There are Deputies for and against that scheme also. Deputy Cogan and Deputy Corry say that to abolish the scheme would be dangerous, while other Deputies, like Deputy Gorey, say that we should abolish it and produce the cheapest possible feeding stuffs for our farmers. We introduced that scheme at the beginning to bolster up the price of barley and oats. I have been consulting the millers, the exporters, the buyers of grain and so on and if I am told that the price of grain is likely to be good this year, even if we had no maize meal mixture scheme, and if I am convinced that people will get a reasonable price for their oats and barley without the scheme, we can drop it, but if I am not assured of that, I do not see what we can do except to continue it. That is the simple case. We might give notice to the farmers and say: "Wheat is going to carry a guaranteed price and a guaranteed market and if you want a cash crop, grow wheat"; we might tell them: "If you want to grow oats and barley for yourselves, we shall be very pleased, but if you want a cash crop, grow wheat, because we do not consider that we can any longer bolster up the price of oats and barley"; but, for this year, I am afraid we shall have to continue the maize meal mixture scheme unless we can see that they will get a decent price otherwise. We shall, however, probably have to have some amending Bill before the Dáil in that connection and we can discuss the matter then.

Another point raised by Deputy Cogan and Deputy Hughes was that the farmers were depleted of capital and want some capital to enable them to build up and to carry on. It is all right if you can reduce the farmers' costs—that is a very good thing—but I have stated here previously that if the Government said to me: "We have £1,500,000 towards derating," and if they asked my advice about it, I would say: "Give it to me, or give most of it to me, and I will make very much better use of it for agriculture than using it for derating." That is my honest opinion. If we had that sum of money we could make very good use of it, but this is the point I want to put to Deputies: I think it would be dangerous to give out credit on a lavish scale to farmers for the purchase of live stock. What is going to happen in that event? If it is done on a big scale, farmers will go into competition in purchasing on our fairs and will drive the price of live stock above the level at which it ought to be; then, when those live stock are to be exported, the export price will remain at whatever figure it is at, and they will make nothing on their purchases.

We want to be cautious in the matter of giving credit for the purchase of live stock. It may be said, if you like, that the Credit Corporation or the joint stock banks are not doing as much as they should, and we might all be in favour of some development along those lines, but a big mass movement of credit for the purchase of live stock would put the farmers in a worse position than before.

I do not think it is true to say, as Deputy Cogan and Deputy Hughes have said, that we have neglected certain things, that the farmers are paying much more for certain things and that nobody is taking any notice. That is not true. A number of these matters have been considered and, as a matter of fact, the price of artificial manures has been referred to the Prices Commission. I think it is the next item for their examination. We in the Department feel that there is something in what Deputy Hughes said, and the matter is being examined. I merely mention it to show that these things are being noted. If we find that farmers are being charged too much for artificial manures, agricultural machinery or anything else, we do not neglect to consider it, but I have no power to say to anybody: "You must charge less." All I can do is to refer the matter to the Prices Commission and that has been done.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 5th July, 1938.