Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Feb 1940

Vol. 78 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Agriculture (Resumed).

Mr. Dillon

We have reached a stage when I wanted to make certain categoric inquiries. I had already written out these inquiries and sent them to the Minister so there is no necessity on his part to take a note of them now. I had written him saying I would raise these matters here on the appropriation for Agricultural Schools and Farms. I am glad that on this Estimate the Minister for Education is present. I want to put it to the Minister for Agriculture that the scope of these agricultural schools and farms is not wide enough. In Australia, and in New Zealand, too, it seems to me that every young fellow who is going to make his livelihood out of the land has an opportunity of learning to be a farmer. In this country the only employment upon which you embark without any training at all is that of common labour and agriculturist. Common labour requires no skill at all; agriculture requires the most highly skilled type of labour in the country. I think our objective should be to provide in every county in this country an agricultural school to which those children who are to make their living upon the land should go and learn practical agriculture. I am quite convinced that the money expended on that would give an ample return in improved production and in raising the standard of living upon the land. I think we should have boarding schools in each county worked very much like the diocesan colleges, and marching alongside the diocesan colleges. Let the son of the farmer who is to be given a profession go to the diocesan college, but the son, the heir, who is to be a practical farmer on his own homestead go to the agricultural college, and let him be there trained to be a skilful help to his father when he goes back to his own farm. If he can find a lady who would be instructed competently in domestic economy the standard of living would be very substantially improved for our people, the loss of which more than anything else has failed to keep the people on the land. Because until we can dissociate agriculture from dirt and from being looked down upon you can never keep the young people on the land. Agriculture, that is really the most dignified profession, is being looked down upon and so is the farmer. Any futile academic pursuit is being regarded as superior to that from which the means for our national life come. There are a couple of other matters to which I wish to refer in that connection. The Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Education are now present. I ask the Minister for Education did the Minister for Agriculture forbid him to continue evening schools in practical agriculture? I know of a county where schools were stopped by the Minister for Agriculture. I am glad now that the two Ministers are here cheek by jowl at this discussion. I have already told the Minister the name of the county in which the stoppage was made.

In regard to sub-head F (3)— Veterinary College—of this Vote I notice there is a very big appropriation here for the purchase of drugs, laboratory and surgical equipment. I would like the Minister to tell us why he is not able to get supplies of acapron, a Bayer product. This was a specific for red water, and we are in very great difficulty about getting supplies, and this difficulty has manifested itself since the beginning of the war. Further, I want to ask the Minister what research work is being done in the veterinary college in the use of the prontosil group of drugs. If there is one affliction from which live stock suffer most in this country it is mastitis. Are any measures taken in the veterinary college to discover whether injections of benzine ring drugs into the mammary tissues help in correcting this infection?

If any such discovery were made, the saving to the country would be immense. A cow that loses a quarter is always the best cow of the herd. It astonishes me how this country can go on as it has been going on with virtually no veterinary research being conducted here at all. I admit that I am not so familiar with the work done in veterinary medicine as in other branches of analogous science. But it does seem to me that veterinary research is of a low standard. In many branches of veterinary medicine the outlook is antediluvian. They are talking in terms that were employed by Niemeyer in the eighties of last century. Why is that? Surely this country should be a centre for veterinary research in respect of cattle, swine and horses. I can well imagine this being a country to which students would come from all parts of the world. I can all the more imagine that condition of things, bearing in mind that the greatest centre in the world for the teaching of gynaecology and medicine is Dublin. Is there any reason why we should not advance in the same way in veterinary research and veterinary medicine? The gains in the savings of our live stock would be immense. The distinction which veterinary surgery would bring to the country in the prevention of disease and in the curing of such diseases as contagious abortion, mastitis and sterility would be immense. The annual losses to this country through these diseases are appalling. They must come to near £4,000,000. It is hard to believe that, but it is true. Take sterility, for instance. Take the cows in this country that cannot be got in calf. I am now distinguishing between contagious abortion and cows that do not come in calf. Is there any work being done to correct that condition amongst our cattle? If there is, I cannot find any one to show me any of the fruits of the work? Has any research been made to ascertain whether sterility in cows does not arise from the absence of vitamin E, or whether wheat germ incorporated in the diet of the cattle might not correct any part of the sterility that obtains in the country? I do not know of any work of that kind being done. I think it is a great shame that we should continue to appropriate large sums for the veterinary college unless something of that kind of research is being done.

Now, to come to other matters—is it proposed to continue or extend the principal's tenure of office? I am told that there are grounds for thinking that the principal is entitled to an extension of tenure in the hope of securing a more adequate pension.

I have already spoken on sub-head G (3)—the Fertilisers Scheme. The Minister spoke of onions coming from Kerry. Now, the most beautiful onions are being grown in this country. That is one of the few good schemes for which the Minister is responsible, and if the growing of onions is properly located, it is a fine scheme. But the Minister waxed wrathful with me when I said that there were certain areas in this country where onions could not be grown. I tell the Minister he should open his eyes to facts. If he does not, he is going to damn the whole scheme of onion growing.

The counties of Kerry and the Gaedhealtacht are places where onions can be well grown in this country. But now we are reaching the time when the success of this industry can be very easily jeopardised by the failure properly to cure the onions. Onions usually will keep until Christmas but unless one is able to cure them properly it will be found that from Christmas to March many of the onions will deteriorate and no merchant will care to handle them or if he does he will lose money on them When one buys onions at 15/- or 16/- a cwt. he may have to sell them for as little as 3½d. a lb; the prospect of making a profit out of them is very doubtful if they are not properly cured. I put it to the Minister that the most urgent measures should be taken so that nobody will put onions in a bag branded "Irish onions" unless they are properly cured. In Egypt and Spain, I am told, the onions are cured by the sun. We have not got that kind of sun here. If you want to cure onions for sale in the spring in this country, you have to grow the right variety and cure them with artificial heat. If you do not do this, Irish onions will become a byword and it will be a great pity because I think there is hope for the production of Irish onions. I have been complimenting myself that I gave notice to the Minister of several questions of a specialist character which I proposed to raise so that he would not be taken unawares. I have dealt with each of these and I invite him to deal with the matters in detail when he is replying.

Mr. O'Donovan

I should like to refer to the Flax Act. I understand that there is no pure-line seed available this year for flax-growing. I should like to know what seed is available. Is it only commercial seed which is available?

Dr. Ryan

Probably Dutch seed.

Mr. O'Donovan

It is not a pure-line seed.

Dr. Ryan

A commercial seed.

Mr. O'Donovan

The unfortunate thing about Dutch seed is that it only suits certain areas. In Deputy Dillon's constituency—Monaghan—Dutch seed will grow fairly well. In Donegal, I do not think that Dutch seed would suit. In Cork Dutch seed was invariably a failure If the only seed available is Dutch, the encouragement to growers to go in extensively for flax this year will not be very great. I suggested a few years ago that we should go in for saving flax seed. It is a great pity that, when we had the pedigree seed, we were so short-sighted that we did not start saving our own seed. I understand that the Minister is going in for flax-seed saving and Deputy Dillon suggested that Monaghan should get the preference. I have an open mind on that matter but if you go in for any line of pedigree seed you must choose some isolated area. You cannot have it anywhere near where flax is grown because the pollenization will spread.

If you go in for the production of pure-line seed, you should do so in some area where no flax has been grown. Get into a county where flax was never grown and where you will be operating on virgin soil, and I guarantee that you will have seed that you can stand over as pedigree stock. From the little experience I have I give that advice to the Minister.

I can visualise a big price for flax for some years to come, even if the war were to end in the morning. I think, therefore, that it would be advisable for the Minister to recommend the saving of flax-seed in every area where it is grown. I do not refer to the saving of it in bulk. The man who grows three or four statute acres of flax should have one acre for seed. When we started saving flax seed in 1914, when the war broke out, we had only the ordinary commercial seed. I was connected with the Department, and I happened to be in Monaghan. We saved a lot of seed there. It was well saved, although the people had no experience of saving seed. They have had much more experience since. They had experience during the four years of the war, and in the last years of the war they used only their own seed. The man who saves his seed will also be able to save his fibre and will have results both ways. I recommend that flax-seed saving be undertaken this year, and that every grower of flax be asked to save a rood, or two roods, according to the quantity he has sown. There is going to be a big increase in the acreage of flax this year. During the past 12 or 15 years, when the production of flax went down practically to nothing, the mills went into disuse. Loans should be available for the erection and equipment of scutch mills where they are necessary to handle the increased crop. There will, I presume, also be grants available for the training of scutchers where flax has never been taken up, or even in other areas where scutchers have to be trained. I shall not go further into the flax question save to say that I do not think the development of the seed should be taken up where commercial fibre-flax is grown.

The question of artificial manures is important, and I am not satisfied with the way the Minister has handled it. Even the Bill discussed to-day is a belated measure. Knowing the demand for increased tillage—in fact, for compulsory tillage—it was a mistake that this Bill was not introduced and passed when the war broke out. I know a number of farmers who, when there was danger of a scarcity of artificial manures, sold their cattle at a loss so as to be able to buy artificial manures which would help them to raise crops for the coming year. If this measure had been passed, they could have held their stock until next April or May, when they would be more valuable. I am not at all satisfied with the way the Minister has handled this artificial manure question. Belated though his efforts are, I appeal to him to remove the tariff and restrictions on continental "super" and give people a chance of getting it, if at all possible. Remove the tariff and see if we can get it. I do not see any reason why there should be a 20 per cent. tariff on artificial manures, or why the subsidy should be withheld on foreign stuff. It is the height of nonsense to have that going on.

I should like to refer to another aspect of this question. Along our sea-board—I raised this matter with the Minister for Industry and Commerce last week and this week—sand and seaweed are of considerable importance to everybody. Certain strands have been closed by order of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I know the Minister for Agriculture cannot help that. I may, perhaps, be going beyond bounds in referring to it, but I want to explain the position. There is a complaint from somebody about erosion—probably from some official who does not care a damn whether the farmer will be able to grow fruit, potatoes, corn, or anything else, so long as he himself is going to have enough while he is in his position. However, the complaint comes to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that erosion takes place. Now, I know one particular strand for almost 50 years, and whilst there has been an encroachment of the tide—perhaps there would be 8 or 10 acres submerged by the tide—the erosion has not been caused by that. Nature provides for what may be drawn away. You can go in and draw 200 loads of sand from that strand to-day, and yet to-morrow you will have that sandbank full. No matter what sand is drawn away, nature will come and fill up the sandbank again, and yet it is the proposal of the Minister to take away that sand from the people who need it. No matter what you may put up in the way of groynes or anything else against coast erosion in these particular places, the storms will come and fill up the sandbanks again.

I think it is nonsense for a Minister, who professes that he is anxious to help his brother Minister in the development and encouragement of increased tillage, to deprive at the same time these hard-working people of the benefits they derive from the sand that is available in their districts. Dredged sand is available in these districts. You have that sand dredged along the Courtmacsherry, Glandore and Bantry coast, and I think that the Bantry sand contains something like 70 per cent. of sulphate of lime— it is a complete manure factory in itself. This dredged sand is being taken into the inland areas by lorry, and I think that they pay about 2/- or 2/6 a load for it, and those people who take it use it as manure. They have the advantage that they are in a position to pay for it because their valuations are low and they are able to pay 2/6 a load, whereas, along the seaboard, under Griffith's Valuation, those who live beside the sea are taxed by about 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. more than the others, and are deprived of the use of the sand at the moment. The result is that the inland man is in a position to pay 2/6 for a load of dredged sand, while the poor man beside the sea is being deprived of the free sand to which he should be entitled. I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter of great importance, and that it is creating a lot of trouble and turmoil along the seaboard where these people are deprived of the advantages of the use of seaweed and sand to which their fathers and their grandfathers were used for generations before them. I suggest to the Minister that, no matter what the law may be in this regard, since there is this drive for increased tillage and since there is a scarcity of manures, it is an awful thing that a responsible Department of State should prevent people from producing the best possible crops at the least cost to themselves and to the State.

Coast erosion does occur and will continue to occur, but, in regard to the districts to which I refer, a storm will come and, in one day, restore what has been already taken away, and I want to urge the Minister to point out to his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that, in regard to the districts I am referring to, no matter what quantity of sand you remove from a strand, there is as much sand again in on the following day. However, I think I have said enough on that.

Now, with regard to this matter of land reclamation schemes in congested districts and other special areas, we generally hear complaints here of too much money being expended and of extravagance in Government services, but I think that, instead of extravagance, in connection with this matter, we have meanness displayed. Take the case of the congested areas in West Cork. Those schemes are not developed, and not half developed, and there again you have the case of people who are deprived of the sand and seaweed. They get a certain quantity of seed oats and seed wheat at a reduced rate, but in any case, I think, that under the special circumstances these poor people should get these free, since they are striving under such terrible difficulties in order to exist. I should like to see a much bigger sum of money being provided for these schemes in such areas. What good is a few pounds for draining and reclaiming schemes at the moment? It is no more than a flea-bite when you come to deal with such a question as the reclamation of land, and these people should get a little more help and a little more encouragement; and if they got that help and that encouragement you would not have the drift from the land that you have at the moment. If they were to be provided with a little more comfort, it would be an encouragement for them to stay on the land, and you would have happier and better conditions generally.

With regard to this matter of improvement in the creamery industry, I cannot say very much, except in the case of, let us say, the travelling creamery, such as the one in Castletown. I think that that is a success and that it should be encouraged. I think it is a step in the right direction, but I do not know about the other areas, particularly such areas where you have co-operative and proprietary creameries in the one district, one working against the other. I think that is unfair. Take the case of a co-operative creamery that might be compelled to set up in opposition to a proprietary creamery. I take it that the policy of the Minister is to buy out the proprietary creameries as soon as he can?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. O'Donovan

Very good. Well, take the case of a proprietary creamery that is old-established and that, perhaps, has a grip on practically every supplier to the creamery, as a result, perhaps, of having a store as well. Then you have a co-operative creamery across the road, into which people are expected to put their money, and how, in the name of God, is that creamery going to get any milk so long as the proprietary across the road is allowed to have his creamery there, run his store, and have a grip on every possible customer? I think that the sooner the Minister can buy out the proprietary creameries, the better, and I think that no matter how much money may have to be spent, it will be money well spent and will give the co-operative movement the necessary fillip that it has not got up to the present.

As to the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, I do not know what to say about that matter. I think the matter has been bungled badly. At the moment, I do not know if there is any quantity of pedigree seed oats in the country. I do not think you can get these oats in in any commercial quantity and I think that, after years of trying to develop seed production here, it is a bad state of affairs when we have not seed oats and when we have not pedigree pure line seed oats. The Department of the Minister will not allow seed oats to be brought in except under licence, but an individual farmer can get a certain quantity under licence.

How many farmers in the State are in a position to pay for five or ten barrels of seed oats? Of course to-day they cannot get it, but last year or the year before, or in any of the last five years, how many farmers were in a position to get the quantity of pure line seed oats they required? I venture to say that there was not one in 100 who could do so. No doubt they would be all anxious to get the seed, but they had not the money to pay for it. This was a useful suggestion put up to the Department more than once. The idea was that merchants of repute, who would be in a position to give full guarantees of what they were going to do with the seed, should be allowed to procure and distribute it. They would have the money and they could pay for the seed. Those merchants would already have had years of experience of purchasing seed and they could not be fooled in the matter of purchase. They would be in a position to deal with all the customs requirements, matters about which the average farmer would not bother or worry. If merchants of repute had been allowed to bring in seed oats and distribute the seed among their customers, we would have a plentiful supply at the moment. As it is, we have not a plentiful supply. I am very much afraid that when we come to the next harvest—that is, if one is to judge by some of the samples of seed oats one has seen—we will be reaping a very poor harvest.

On the subject of agricultural schools and farms, I would like to know what is underlying the £1,000 in connection with the Athenry agricultural station. Does that refer to the general expenses of management, or is it an increase in the cost of management?

Dr. Ryan

No, it represents increased stocks.

Mr. O'Donovan

That is a step in the right direction. The more we can increase our stocks, the better. Reference was made to the contribution in connection with the staining of the wheat. In the name of God, what was the wheat stained for this year? Why was it necessary to keep a bunch of officials staining wheat and getting the importers to pay £2,000? The man who bought the wheat had to bear his share of the £2,000. The wheat was dear enough without that, and why stain it? The top price for our best wheat was 30/6, and the price charged for the first seed wheat that came into my county from abroad was 35/-. It was all right last year. Possibly there was reason to stain wheat last year. I believe some people tried to make money on it. They bought it at 15/-and 16/- and were selling it at 30/-. This year, when the imported wheat was 35/- and we were selling at 30/6, could you not put these officials at something else instead of wasting their time so foolishly staining wheat?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy would be right if his figures were correct.

Mr. O'Donovan

We sold the best wheat at 30/-, and the cheapest seed wheat that came in to West Cork cost 35/-. We were, I believe, getting it as early as anyone in the country, and I know it was sold at 35/-.

Dr. Ryan

Cheaper wheat than that came in.

Mr. O'Donovan

That was the cheapest that came in. It went up to 39/-.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. O'Donovan

I got it and I paid for it. It was selling at 35/-, but I missed the tide.

Dr. Ryan

There was cheaper wheat than that. It might not have been as good, of course.

Mr. O'Donovan

It was not fit for seed—it was not seed wheat. They should have stopped the fooling and got the inspectors to do something else which would be of some advantage.

Dr. Ryan

They will not be doing that any more.

Mr. O'Donovan

I hope they will not. With regard to the sand, I hope the Minister will appeal to his colleagues to see that those of us along the seaboard will get sand from every strand that is available. I would go further and ask him, at a time of stress like this, to put lorries on the road and take sand further inland, where it would be of great advantage to people who are not so well circumstanced in the matter of lime and other things.

Mr. Corry

I would like to support Deputy O'Donovan's proposal that restrictions on the supply of super-phosphate and artificial manures from abroad should be withdrawn. I support the proposal for a different reason to that which Deputy O'Donovan has in mind. I support it so that those people will be in a position to see that the supplies cannot be got from outside. I heard Deputy Dillon talking in his usual foolish manner—I cannot refer to it in any other way—about all the supplies of superphosphates that could be got from Britain. Anybody reading British farming journals will see that the farmers there are threatening to strike, and they refuse to till because they cannot get sufficient artificial manures. They cannot get superphosphate in Britain, and they refuse to plough. According to Deputy Dillon, there is so much of it to spare there that they are going to throw some of it over to us. If there is anything that has shown how utterly foolish are Deputy Dillon's statements in this House during the few years that he has been here, it is what has occurred since the 1st September last. If we had taken Deputy Dillon's advice and allowed foreign artificial manure merchants to swamp our markets and push out our native manufacturers of artificial manures, where would we be now in regard to those artificial manures? I suggest we would be in the same position as was the Irish Sugar Company in September last when the British informed them that, although they had contracts made and supplies of sugar ordered from Britain, they would not get any supplies, and for any they did get they would have to pay an increased price of fully 100 per cent.

What applies to artificial manures applies with equal force to agricultural machinery, with reference to which Deputy Dillon was also howling. The tariff on the harrow that Deputy Dillon was so noisome about was 10/-, and if British manufacturers were unable to compete with the Irish manufacturer, with, I might say, a greenhorn manufacturer starting up here, then they were not worth considering. If we had not encouraged the Irish manufacturer, if we had not protected him and kept him in production, I wonder where would the harrows come from now, and I wonder what the price would be, with the ships carrying them going down every week.

I think that what has happened here since the 1st September last affords a complete justification for what the Government have done in regard to the protection of Irish manufactures. Deputies have not such short memories that they cannot remember what happened in the case of beet. I invite them to direct their minds back to that little item of three-farthings a pound on the poor people's sugar. That was put on in order to pay to foreigners what was refused to the Irish farmer when he looked for an increase last year. Deputies should keep their minds on that as well as on what the position of the people of the country was going to be at the present time if they were totally dependent on foreign supplies. I, for one, would like to see the tariff taken off artificial manures, because for one thing it would enable us to see how much of them were going to come in: how much John Bull could afford to send across to Cinderella.

I would urge on the Minister to give serious consideration to the points brought before him with regard to sand and seaweed. Undoubtedly, you find covenants in old leases with regard to both sand and seaweed. Land within three miles of the sea coast in the old days was valued on the basis that the sand and the seaweed were available to land occupiers. Now the unfortunate farmer finds himself in the position that, due to coast erosion, a few acres of his land have been eaten up by the ocean, land for which he still has to pay an annuity to the Land Commission and rates to the county council. Due to the fact that some gentleman from town has taken it into his head that he would like to spend his summer holidays in a tiny house by the sea coast, the farmer finds himself in a difficulty with regard to the removal of the sand. The gentleman objects to the horses and butts drawing the sand from the seashore. That, according to him, interferes with the amenities of the place, and he makes representations to the county council and the Department of Industry and Commerce. He gets a couple of civil servants down, people of the same tribe as himself, and they, seeing eye to eye with him, arrive at the decision that the proper thing to do is to stop the horses and the butts drawing sand from the seashore. The result of all that is that farmers in those districts are deprived of what they have always been entitled to, namely, free sand, for which they have been paying in their rates. They require this free sand now for the cultivation of their holdings.

I do not know what Deputy O'Donovan meant when speaking about seed oats. In connection with that I did not find any difficulty in the last couple of years. The farmer got the permit and passed it on to his merchant. The merchant, having received a large number of permits, imported seed oats for all his customers. The position to-day is that seed oats is anything up to £25 a ton and cannot be got at that. The blame for that, as well as for the shortage of barley for feeding stuffs, rests with Deputy Dillon and with the people who were foolish enough to take his advice. I often think that some Deputy, with time to spare, would be rendering a useful service if he went to the Library and endeavoured to make out an estimate of the amount of the time of this House Deputy Dillon has wasted by the speeches he delivered here attacking, as he called it, the utterly foolish idea of endeavouring to fatten Irish pigs on Irish oats and barley. It would be a very valuable thing indeed if we had made available for the country an estimate of all the money that has been wasted in printing the foolishness that Deputy Dillon has uttered on that subject. It would give Deputies, too, an idea of what Deputy Dillon's presence in this House has cost the country within the last five years. Of course, it would be necessary to add to what the Deputy's foolishness has cost the country an estimate of the losses that Irish farmers have sustained by not having oats or barley now.

This, of course, is a trying time for farmers. It will have to be got through in one way or another. I am afraid that even the measure that was before the House to-day which aims at providing farmers with seeds and manures will not enable them to get over their present difficulties. As I have already said, farmers have to-day to pay £25 a ton for seed oats. If this measure, to which I have referred, had been introduced last September, instead of at the present time, farmers would have been enabled to seed ten acres of land for a sum that to-day will only seed five acres. I admit that Deputy Dillon has a rather brazen way of doing things.

He gets up and complains that because tariffs are not taken off agricultural machinery is not coming in. He knows very well that in any event agricultural machinery would not come in: that the people who used to be engaged on that work at the other side are now employed making dum-dum bullets and high explosives. They are more in their line than agricultural machinery. If we were depending on them for our supplies we would simply be told that we would have to wait. As a matter of fact, one manufacturer in my district is doing very well at the present time manufacturing a few articles. I have heard members of the House— Deputy Belton and Deputy Hughes— spend a good deal of time attacking his manufactures. He is engaged in making shovels, forks and implements of that description. I am glad to be able to say that during the last few months he has been doing a very prosperous export trade with Birmingham in these articles. The position we were in used to be that we had to go to Birmingham for manure forks, hay forks and such like: now we find the position is that we are sending them across. That is rather a change in the programme; however, that is how change comes about. If there is anybody who is going to tell me that, when you find the English farmer threatening to go on strike because the British Government cannot supply him with artificial manure sufficient for manuring his land, John Bull in his generosity is going to make a position of greater scarcity over there in order to supply us, then such a person does not know John Bull as well as I hope I know him.

Mr. Hughes

I do not wish to think that anyone, either inside or outside this House, will object to any increase in the amount expended by the Minister's Department on agriculture, provided that it is spent to good purpose, to promote and foster agricultural prosperity. Most of our people now realise that a prosperous economy for this country must be built on a healthy and prosperous agriculture as a basic industry. Just at the moment we are chiefly concerned with the provision of seeds and fertilisers for our increased tillage operations, to provide essential food for our people and our livestock during the emergency period. Reference has been made in this debate by other Deputies to a number of people who are conversant with the real artificial manure situation in this country being quite worried about the policy of the Government in regard to the supply of superphosphates. I believe that a sufficient supply of potash manures is available; we will have ample supplies of potash manures, both from France and Spain, and I think we can rely on a sufficiency of nitrogenous manures. However, the basic manure—phosphates—is likely to be short and it is doubtful if we will reach the amount of super that we used last year. With the increase in tillage, and particularly with the big increase in the amount of land likely to be put under beet crop requiring intensive dressing of artificial manure, the situation is very serious.

I must say that Deputy Corry's attack on Deputy Dillon simply shows how blissfully ignorant Deputy Corry is of the whole history of the manufacture of artificial manures in this country. I am quite well aware of the fact that after the Great War, when foreign continental phosphates were brought into this country, there was a substantial discrepancy between the price of home manufactured manures and that of continental super. Usually, the continental super was of good quality: sometimes it suffered damage in shipment, possibly through heavy seas; sometimes one did not get it in the same condition as the home manufactured article—but, on the whole, it was certainly much cheaper, the difference in price approximated to £1 a ton. When that manure came in at that time, the home manufacturers sat up and realised that, if they were going to maintain the home market for super here, they would have to manufacture superphosphates at a keener price. Eventually they were able to do that—there is no doubt about it; in an open market here the home manufacturers held their own right through. Any reduction in recent years in the amount of artificial superphosphate in this country was effected in the amount of foreign superphosphate coming into this country; but the amount of superphosphate that was allowed into this country secured for the farmer a keen competitive price. The farmer knew and felt that he was buying at the very best price, as the competition was there at all times. One thing that ensures a keen price to the consumer is the element of competition.

Then Fianna Fáil came into office and, for no reason, put on that tariff. The amount of foreign super shut out by the introduction of that tariff was negligible, but the price automatically went up; the ring was formed, they fixed their own price and charged it. The reaction that set in immediately from that was a reduction in the amount of superphosphate used and that was detrimental to the interest of our primary industry—agriculture. There is one thing we have been trying to get into the minds of the Government—and particularly into the mind of the Minister for Agriculture— namely, the necessity for an intensive use of artificial manure. We have pointed out, over and over again, what our competitors are using relatively per acre of arable land; what the Danes have been using, for instance. Denmark and Holland are using approximately ten times as much per acre of arable land, New Zealand is using about the same, and Great Britain is using about six times as much. Yet we boast of our agriculture, though we are easily the lowest users of artificial manure in the world, relatively speaking. We ought not forget this fact, that we can probably get the best results in the world from the use of artificial manure. One thing absolutely essential for that is a moist climate and we have that above most countries. Yet this is our position in the use of artificial manure.

Never have I listened to such balderdash as one listens to at times from Deputy Corry, who went on then to chase Deputy Dillon into what he had said about machinery. I want to draw the Minister's attention to this: there is a tariff on a particular machine—a manure distributor—and there is no decent manure distributor made in this country. There is one thing essential to the best results: proper distribution of artificial manure. The quantity spread over an acre of land is relatively very small and even distribution is difficult. If you have it thrown on haphazardly on a cereal crop you will have lodging occurring at one spot, while others will not get any assistance at all. We have to-day produced by people who make agricultural machinery—particularly the International people—an excellent machine. As I say, there is no such machine made in this country. They do make some attempt to make a manure distributor, but the pattern is obsolete—it is at least ten years obsolete.

Mr. Allen

They have one for the last two years.

Mr. Hughes

There is no pattern on the International pattern.

Mr. Allen

There is.

Mr. Hughes

It is an old Westphalian pattern and is at least ten years obsolete. Any farmer can tell that it is not suitable, and that it is not in the same class as an International machine. We talk a lot about the use of artificial manures, but a tariff of 33? per cent. is clapped on the one machine necessary for the even distribution of them. Is that a progressive policy? Is that in the interests of agriculture? The number of manure distributors that are made in this country is relatively small, and the number of men employed on the manufacture of those few machines is relatively small. We give a monopoly to a few individuals to make an obsolete machine here, and then compel the unfortunate farmer to pay 33? per cent. too much for that machine, or go without it. That is the position in regard to artificial manures and machinery in this country. We stick too long to the old pattern in those machines; there is no progress at all. Deputy Dillon mentioned the mowing machine. The modern machine, made by the International people again, is on the very latest lines, all run on ball races, made like a motor car, but we are still sticking to the old pattern in this country, and the people are forced to pay the difference in price.

On the question of seed oats, Deputy Corry told us that it was quite a simple matter. Deputy O'Donovan complained that the position with regard to seed oats is bad, and that the seed oats generally had deteriorated. I must say I agree with Deputy O'Donovan. The seed oats in this country has undoubtedly deteriorated, because we have not available here sufficient supplies of imported seed oats. Deputy Corry said it was easy for the farmer to secure a permit, to hand that permit over to the merchant, and to get his seed without any difficulty. But we must remember that, taking the average farmer in this country who is working in a small way, as a rule he does not bother about permits or anything else. He goes to his merchant and orders what seed oats he requires. If the best is not available at the time, he takes what is available and sows it. That may be downright carelessness on the part of the farmer, but nevertheless that is the case, and the Minister must face the situation. There is no earthly reason why the merchants should not be permitted to import seed oats in bulk, and have it there available for the farmers.

Many of the sub-heads have already been covered by other Deputies, and I do not propose to deal with them again, but there is one matter to which I should like to refer, and that is sub-head M (10)—Travelling Expenses for Trade Representatives. I take it that, under that heading, we paid certain travelling expenses for the representatives who went across to make the recent live-stock trade agreement with the British Government. I have no objection to paying those travelling expenses, except that I feel that those expenses were paid for the wrong men. I think the man who should have gone over—we would not object to chartering a special 'plane to take him across to do what I consider was a vital job for this country—was the Minister himself. I think he should have gone over, and taken with him a special advisory committee consisting of two men from the cattle trade, two experts from the live-stock trade, and two farmers. Instead of that, what did the Minister do? Does the Minister or does this House really appreciate what the live-stock trade agreement means for this country, and the necessity of straining every effort to get the very last ounce out of the people who are going to buy our produce? Do we not know that the people at the other side would, right away, appreciate the fact that the Minister himself had gone over to make that agreement? Was not the agreement of such importance to this country that it called on the Minister himself to go over personally to get the very best terms that could be secured for our agricultural people? Instead of that, we sent over civil servants to negotiate this agreement. I have very great respect for the civil servants in this country, but I do submit, Sir, that they had not the expert knowledge required to discuss a live-stock trade agreement with the Ministry of Food at the other side.

The Minister went down to his own constituency recently, and he had very little to say about the agreement. He told the people down there that he considered it was a good agreement no matter what anyone said. I do not know how the Minister satisfied himself that the best that could be secured was obtained by that agreement. If the method of approach had been different, and the personnel had been different—the Minister himself going across, with the people I suggested—I feel that better terms could and would have been secured. In effect, what does the agreement mean, this agreement which the Minister thinks is a very good one? There are five recognised ports of landing at the other side. You have Birkenhead, Holyhead, Bristol, Fishguard, and Preston. Our cattle are landed there. They do ten hours' detention, and they are virtually handed over to the Food Controller.

We are entitled to one representative at each port, and that representative is only entitled to see our cattle weighed. We have no representation or no right of inspection in regard either to dressing or grading, and to my mind both dressing and grading are as important as weighing. You can be "had" on dressing. You can go up a notch or two on the neck; you can go up on the knees, and you can go up on the hocks. Again, in grading, you can get your cattle put into a lower class than they should be put into. Is it not natural that, with the big interests we have involved in both those operations, we should be entitled to inspection in order to see that we get a fair crack of the whip?

I do not know what attempt was made to secure that the British Ministry of Food would purchase our fat cattle on a live weight basis, but I feel that if at the time the best effort had been made we would have secured an agreement on that basis. I might point out that, on the dead weight basis, if there is anything wrong with the carcass, the carcass is simply confiscated. The carcass is lost; we are paid nothing for it. On a live weight basis if T.B. is present in the carcass, we are paid anyway. No matter what the price is at the moment there are definitely disadvantages and losses which must be offset against that price. On this dead weight basis again, it is really only the heavy cattle that will travel well and kill out well, and that are graded as "tops". The policy which has obtained in this country during the last few years has tended to force our people into younger cattle. The Minister has often stated here that our numbers of live stock are no lower than ever they were; in other words, that we have maintained our live stock numbers. I am not disputing that, but I do definitely want to point out that we have far more immature cattle to-day than ever we had before, and that we have far less three year old cattle. The demand to-day is for the mature beast. The Englishman with a subsidy held out to him wants to turn his cattle three or four times a year. With the very high cost of feeding stuffs to-day he wants to get a forward store in good condition that can be fattened off in a very short period, that he can cash and draw a subsidy and start turning again.

It is stated that the price for English fat cattle is higher than for Irish, because the Minister took into account the increase in the cost of feeding stuffs in England. The increase is estimated to average 33? per cent. For the life of me I do not know how the officials of the Department of Agriculture satisfied themselves that that estimate was correct, that animal food in England is costing 33? per cent. more in England than it is here. I am very much inclined to question that.

Dr. Ryan

Who said that?

Mr. Hughes

It is stated in the Minister's statement published on 11th January.

Dr. Ryan

There is some mistake about that.

Mr. Hughes

I will read it word for word. It is stated that the price for English fat cattle is higher than for Irish cattle, because the Minister took into account the increase in the cost of feeding-stuffs in England. The increase is estimated to average about 33? per cent.

Dr. Ryan

Two things are related there that should not be related. The Minister in England?

Mr. Hughes

The Minister in England.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister in England thought the increase in the price of cattle there was justified, but that is not the reason why there is a difference between their cattle and ours.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister in England took that into account.

Dr. Ryan

Wait now. That refers to the increase in the price of cattle in England, but not in relating our price to theirs. It has nothing at all to do with that.

Mr. Hughes

I understand that, because they have a subsidy and other facilities that we have not, but the British Minister in fixing the price took that into account, as stated.

Dr. Ryan

In fixing his own price.

Mr. Hughes

Yes, but we had something to say to it.

Dr. Ryan

Not in connection with the price of English cattle.

Mr. Hughes

We went over to make a deal with them as to what price they should pay for our live stock.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Hughes

And naturally when they advanced the argument that it costs the English farmer 33? per cent. more to feed cattle in England than it did here——

Dr. Ryan

No, not 33? per cent. more than here, but 33? per cent. more than pre-war in England.

Mr. Hughes

That is not the way it is put.

Dr. Ryan

It is put wrongly so.

Mr. Hughes

On the question of quotas, I would like to ask the Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy please indicate with which item in the Estimate he is proposing to deal?

Mr. Hughes

M (10), Sir—Travelling Expenses for Trade Representatives.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are no quotas in that item.

Mr. Hughes

I am discussing what results we got from the efforts of our trade representatives. If we spend money we expect results, and I am discussing what were the results—what I think about them. I would like to ask the Minister was there any attempt made to get rid of quotas? The quota system that we have at present is a product of the economic war. We never knew anything about quotas in this country until the economic war. We have now a quota for fat cattle. We have a quota for pigs. Was it said to the British Minister that we are prepared to encourage our people to go into intensive pig production provided that whatever production figures we reach during the war period will be maintained in the post war period? Is the Minister alarmed about the quota being preserved? Does not the Minister know, as we all know, that at the present time the quota is a noneffective quota, that it is an unlimited quota? Any number of licences the Minister asks for the month of March, or April or May next he is going to get because they want our pigs. What is the necessity for preserving that quota? Is it not obvious that the British are preserving that quota for the purpose of using it against us in the post war period when the Danes come back into competition against us? If they think it necessary to depress our numbers they are going to do so. Is not this the time to get rid of that quota? What effort was made in this particular agreement by our representatives to get rid of that quota, which is a most objectionable thing and can be used any time against us? What encouragement can be given to our people to equip themselves properly to go into pig production in this country, to build proper pig-styes, if, when the war is over, our numbers are going to be pushed back again? Obviously, this is the time to straighten out all. This is an opportunity that is offered the Minister at the present time to get rid of this imposition. What is being done about it?

Then again we are told that the British Government are spending huge sums of money at present in subsidising food. Approximately £1,000,000 a week is being spent in subsidising food. I am aware that a considerable proportion of that £1,000,000 a week is going towards subsidising wheat, but there must be a considerable portion going towards subsidising other food. For instance, quite recently, the Canadian Government made an agreement with the British Government to supply 7,000,000 lbs. weight of bacon weekly. I believe that before that Canadian bacon is put on the British market it is credited with whatever portion of subsidy is coming to it and that we are selling against the lower level created by the assistance of that subsidy on foreign food coming in. It may be said that the English farmer has also to sell against subsidised foreign foods coming in, but then he is an interested party. He is an Englishman and wants to do his bit to win the war. We are not in the same position at all. We want to make use of the situation that is there and to get the best price. Was that aspect of the case examined and discussed? Does the Minister know whether those foods that are imported at the present time are credited with subsidy before they are put on the market on the other side, or where exactly we are selling? Are we selling against a lower level after these foods have been credited with subsidy?

Of course, I do not agree with the Minister's statement at all that any effort was made by the Minister himself to get the best that could be got there with the opportunity that has arisen. The Minister bears a very grave responsibility in this matter that he did not make a personal effort himself to get the best deal that he could get for this country. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that his Department has made an agreement recently with Northern Ireland for the sale of our live stock in Northern Ireland, and one of the clauses in the agreement says that fat cattle exported for slaughter in Northern Ireland will be purchased by Government buyers on a live weight basis at authorised collecting centres in Northern Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

On what item of the Estimate does that arise?

Mr. Hughes

We had trade representatives again dealing with this.

An Ceann Comhairle

Under what item?

Mr. Hughes

M (10), Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is far-fetched. On an item for travelling expenses in connection with a trade agreement the Deputy claims freedom to discuss that agreement in its entirety, and also an agreement made with Northern Ireland. The Deputy cannot be serious in his claim.

Mr. Hughes

I submit, Sir, that we incurred these expenses in making the agreement.

An Ceann Comhairle

The terms of that trade agreement are not before the House.

Mr. Hughes

I submit that we are entitled to discuss the advantages or otherwise that we receive from the expenditure of this £150.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to discuss whether or not the money should be granted for travelling expenses.

Mr. Hughes

I think it should not be granted because it was very badly spent. I think it was spent on the wrong men. I would have no objection if it were spent on the Minister, in providing him with elaborate travelling facilities or with a staff of experts, if he had only done the job himself. I shall not go into the matter in further detail except to point out to the Minister that the result, as far as the Northern Ireland agreement is concerned, is that Northern Ireland at the moment is more attractive than the British market, especially for sheep. Sheep are fetching more money in Northern Ireland than if they were sent direct from Dublin to Great Britain. What is the effect of that? That most of our live stock, intended for Great Britain, will be sent by rail through Belfast instead of having a direct trade with Britain ourselves.

Another matter is that it is very much easier to get shipping for live stock from Belfast than from Dublin. There are only three cattle boats going from Dublin, and it is more difficult to get live stock shipped from Dublin than from Belfast. We should have direct trading. The Minister should have seen to it that the British agreement should have been more advantageous than the agreement made with Northern Ireland. I do not think it wise that we should encourage exports through Belfast rather than through Dublin. Although it is a relatively small sum, I am not satisfied that this amount of £150 under sub-head M (10), was wisely or judiciously spent in the interests of the country. I am satisfied that a golden opportunity was lost, but there is still time for the Minister to make an agreement, extending over a ten years period at least, for this country. I ask the Minister to make use of the opportunities that are available, and try to get the best terms that can be got for this country. Such terms can only be got by personal representations from the Minister himself.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like the Minister to tell us whether item 4, given in the details of sub-head F (3)—Laboratory and Surgery Equipment—includes the X-ray apparatus that was recommended by the House Breeding Commission some years ago. I think the Minister told us some time ago that he was about to purchase this X-ray apparatus, and I should like to know whether it has been since installed. There is also an item on page 6 under sub-head AA—losses arising out of misappropriation of National Health and Unemployment Insurance stamps, and of cash provided for the purchase thereof, £227. Can the Minister tell us what happened in that case?

Dr. Ryan

It was a case of misappropriation. I said that the case was under investigation. I could not say more at the moment.

Mr. Belton

In discussing the Bill that was before the House to-day and yesterday, which was 100 per cent. an Agricultural Bill, we missed the smiling face of the Minister for Agriculture. We thought he should have been behind the Bill. However, there were matters in that Bill which can be related to this Estimate. Speaking generally, I think the situation which arose at the end of last year should have been foreseen by our Government. It was certainly foreseen by ordinary intelligent citizens who were not in the Ministry. From day to day nobody knew when the emergency would arise, but they foresaw that the emergency was inevitable. No attempt whatever was made to cope with the situation that was staring this country in the face. In the matter of fertilisers this country is in a hopeless condition. I should like to hear if the Minister, with the experience he has had up to date in the matter of the supply of fertilisers, can still assure the House that 100 per cent. of the fertilisers procured last year are available for this year. He made a Tillage Order making it compulsory to till 12½ per cent. of all arable land—I do not think the word "arable" was used in the Order—but he showed no practical appreciation of the problem. He did not even learn from his predecessors in similar circumstances. He did not learn from the British. He made no exemption of dairying land, as the British did. Dairying land is as essential for the food of the people and produces food as useful for the people, as tillage land. He did not look for seeds and manures.

Merchants cannot promise more than 80 per cent. of last year's requirements but we have twice the amount of land under tillage, or will have, if the order is even substantially obeyed. The extra tillage will require more artificial manure per unit under tillage, because we will scarcely have the same amount of farmyard manure. We will not have as much farmyard manure as last year because stallfeeding is very much reduced compared with last year's figures.

The conditions in agriculture manifested themselves in an unique way before Christmas. I am relating what I am about to say to sub-head M (5)— Improvement of the Creamery Industry. For the first time this city found itself confronted with a milk shortage, and the Minister, using his special emergency powers, issued orders to 30 or 40 creameries in the South of Ireland to come to the rescue and supply Dublin with milk. To do that the Minister wiped out all the public health regulations which had to be observed in order to provide the city with a supply of wholesome milk. He undertook to break the strike by dumping into Dublin milk that was not fit, according to medical testimony, for human consumption. That went on for some time. Then an effort, in which I took part, was made to settle the strike.

An Ceann Comhairle

The settlement of the strike does not enter into sub-head M (5), which deals with the improvement of the creamery industry.

Mr. Belton

I relate it in this way, that sub-head M deals with the creamery industry. And I am coming to the point where creameries were deprived of their grants because the Minister broke his word.

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall read again Standing Order 108 of which apparently some Deputies are still ignorant:—

"In the discussion of Supplementary Estimates the debate shall be confined to the items constituting the same, and no discussion may be raised on the original Estimate, save in so far as it may be necessary to explain or illustrate the particular items under discussion."

There is an item here, to which I draw the attention of the House, of £369,053. It is not for me to decide what particular point the Deputy should refer to, but of that sum sub-head M (7) deals with £301,995. One Deputy spoke for fifteen minutes on an item of £150. I maintain that is not really the item before the House.

Mr. Belton

I am not the Deputy who spoke on that.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is so, but the Dublin milk strike of last December has nought to do with the provision of an additional sum for the improvement of creameries.

Mr. Belton

Arising out of that situation, it is agreed that there was a settlement which involved 30 creameries, and also the sub-head to which I am referring. Of course, I am speaking subject to your ruling, Sir. The Minister admits that he has withheld some £1,600 from these creameries. I submit that under the expenditure in the original Estimate of £7,000, and the revised Estimate of £20,000, as well as £13,500 now required, it is in order to refer to the withholding of sums to which they were normally entitled from these creameries.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not unless it is in the Estimate.

Mr. Belton

May I make this submission for your ruling, that grants were withheld from these creameries which they would have got only for that strike? The Minister agreed that they should get them in the conditions of settlement. Is it in order to refer to that?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the first reference I heard to-day about the Dublin strike. I will hear the Deputy on the point, whether these sums should be withheld, but not as to the circumstances of the milk strike in Dublin.

Mr. Belton

These sums were with held from some 30 creameries, and amount to about £1,600. From Drinagh Creamery, near Dunmanway, in West Cork, £240 were withheld as a penalty for not obeying the Minister's order to supply milk during the period of the strike.

An Ceann Comhairle

I presume the Order was made under the Emergency Powers?

Mr. Belton

Not exactly. I am not touching on the Order at all. I say that the creameries were penalised, although in the terms of settlement the Minister agreed that there should be no victimisation. I am not going to burden the House with the correspondence, but it is clear from Clause 7 of the settlement, which was sent by the secretary of the Milk Producers' Association to the Minister, and dated December 5th, 1939, that that clause has been broken. Clause 7 was an assurance that there would be no victimisation. That was agreed to by a letter from Mr. Twomey, Secretary of the Department, on December 9th, but subsequent to that the Department deducted £240 from Drinagh Creamery and about £1,400 from about 30 other creameries. When the Minister and the Department made an agreement they should have carried it through. They should have honoured their bond. I do not want to prolong this debate, as this matter was discussed upon the Bill that got a Second Reading to-day. A case, when made at all, if it is a good one, needs no repetition. Deputy Hughes dealt with the agreement that was made in England about Irish cattle. I cannot understand how anybody could make such an agreement. Under it we send our cattle over to Britain at our risk, and the cattle are graded there by a British grader.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy inform the Chair if that trade agreement has already been discussed in the House?

Mr. Belton

I do not remember the agreement being debated in this House. I should like to have an opportunity of having a debate on the agreement, and going into the details of it. After all, in any business, the art of selling is the art which denotes whether the business is paying or not. No matter how efficiently we produce, if we do not sell well, business will go down. The business of this country has been let down by a bad agreement. I cannot understand why it is that the Minister who is responsible to the country through the Government and the Dáil did not go over to Britain and make an agreement first hand with the Minister there. Every risk has to be taken by us. Everybody in the trade would prefer to go back to the old system of selling cattle in Irish fairs or in the Dublin market.

An Ceann Comhairle

Under which item does that arise?

Mr. Belton

Sub-head M—Travelling Expenses of those who made a bad agreement.

An Ceann Comhairle

Which does not introduce the agreement?

Mr. Belton

It brings in the question whether we should pay the expenses of a bad agreement or refuse to do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

And discuss the agreement in full as well?

Mr. Belton

Only the results of the agreement. We have to sell our stock over there. Heretofore, we could make a bargain, but now we have no voice in making a bargain, and we have agreed to that. We take the risks of submarine warfare and bombs from here to Britain, in order to get the article landed in Britain safely, and if it is, according to the British classification, of a certain grade, the Britisher will pay according to that grade, but he is taking no risk whatever, while we have to pay for the cost of it all. Surely we have a business Government. I do not think there is any use in labouring the matter, nor is there any use at this time of day in trying to correct people who do not know enough to know the depth and volume of their own ignorance on this matter. They will have to educate themselves before they realise how little they know about it.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is one point on which I should like some information from the Minister in connection with sub-head M (5), the additional sum required for the improvement, reorganisation and extension of the creamery industry. There is one firm in Cork City which had a creamery out in the country. That creamery was about to be acquired by Lissavard or Drinagh. The first negotiations started as far back as 13 years ago, and the price asked for the creamery was not regarded as a fair price by the Dairy Disposals Board. Subsequently, one of the creameries offered a sum of approximately £1,500, but the Minister gave a licence to the other competing creamery in the district, and they built a new creamery.

The owners of the original proprietary creamery facilitated the new creamery extension. They did not interfere at all with the progress of the extension, but they are in this position, that while they could have got £1,500 from one of the two competing creameries, by reason of the Minister giving a licence to the other, the original proprietors are going to get only £70 a year for eight years.

I am not making any case for the manner or style of the negotiations on the part of the proprietors of the creamery, but I do say that, from an examination of all the documents submitted to me and of a fairly impartial description of the circumstances from the beginning, all that one can say is that there may have been unwise business proposals from the proprietary creamery people, but it is scarcely fair in all the circumstances to mulct them to the extent to which they have been mulcted. They are not now in good circumstances. It may be that according to regulations, rules and all the rest of it, they have lost the tide, but if we pride ourselves in any way at all upon equity in our dealings with the people, there is certainly a case for consideration in this particular instance. I think the Minister knows of the case.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

I dislike mentioning names. I make no pretence whatever at putting forward a case for the way in which the business was handled, but I do say that, notwithstanding that, the property is there and the new creamery extension has got all the advantages which it would have had if a fair price had been paid, and that in the circumstances as I have had them described to me—and I have had them described from more than one side in the case— these people have been dealt with unjustly. They have not had a fair deal and it ought to be one of the primary attributes of a Government Department to deal fairly with a case of this sort and not to deal unfairly or unjustly in regard to the acquisition of property, where a question of public policy arises. It was not the original intention in connection with the institution of the Dairy Disposals Board, and the matter ought not now to be disfigured by one case of complaint.

Mr. Bennett

I should like to see some provision made for something approaching an economic price for milk during the coming year. I do not see it in the Estimate, unless it is in sub-head M (5) or another sub-head.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must show the relevancy.

Mr. Bennett

I suppose the sub-head for the improvement of the creamery industry. It would certainly be an improvement. I do not want to delay the House. I will put it in the form of a question. The Minister has been approached on various occasions on the matter, and I freely admit that it is a very difficult matter for the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am prepared to hear a question.

Mr. Bennett

Could the Minister possibly see his way by some method— and it will require expense—I see the Ceann Comhairle frowning at me——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy had better put his question without further delay.

Mr. Bennett

Could he possibly see his way to provide something approaching an economic price for milk, milk which is to be converted into butter? As the Minister knows full well, with the increased costs lately of wages, materials and other things, the price which butter will produce will not give the farmer anything near the cost of production, not to speak of a profit. This is a very difficult matter and the House is providing large sums of money, I will admit, for the creamery industry generally, but this matter of butter provision is possibly one of the most important in the State. It is the one article of food for which, as the Minister knows, the producers generally are getting less than the cost of production, and if the industry is to be maintained, something akin to a profitable price must be provided. The Minister has had various deputations on the subject, and I do not think I could add anything to what he has already been told. The general opinion seems to be that anything under an approximate price of 8d. or 9d. a gallon would not, in present circumstances, provide the cost of production, much less a profit for the farmer.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has promised to ask a question.

Mr. Bennett

The question is asked. Could the Minister give some promise to us that he will endeavour to see that the situation in regard to milk and butter prices will be somewhat improved during the summer months?

Looking over the Estimate, I do regret the number of additional sums provided under various headings for additional overseers, assistant overseers and so on. Many of us thought that we had already a sufficiency of officers and inspectors and that a stage had been reached when we could begin reducing rather than adding to the number.

Mr. McMenamin

There is one matter which I wish to refer to, and that is the question raised by Deputy O'Donovan with regard to the taking of sand along the coast. I am not quite clear as to whether this order is a general prohibition with regard to the taking of sand, or whether it is peculiar to the district to which Deputy O'Donovan referred. I do not know whether the Minister is acquainted with this matter or not. If it is a general order, I cannot see how it can be defended at all. The Minister's Department, of course, does not deal with this matter, but he should get into contact at once with the Department concerned and have a discussion about this matter. Unless the grass that holds the sand and protects the coast against erosion is cut, no injury is done by the taking away of the sand. You can take 1,000 tons of sand away where there is a current running and that will be replaced by the next tide.

As a matter of fact, that quantity of sand will be taken away again if it is left there. Provided the portion where the grass known as bent grass is used for the purpose of holding the sand on the sand bank proper and not on the strand, and which was planted by the Land Commission and by the landlords in other days, is not interfered with, no injury is done. The Minister should get into consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and come to some agreement with him in regard to that matter.

A lot has been said about fertilisers, and in connection with that matter also the Minister should get into contact with the Minister for Lands with regard to the development of the kelp industry. Some five years ago we asked the Department to get into consultation with the Department of Industry and Commerce in order to get a portion of the money distributed by that Department on unemployment assistance, together with money voted to the Department of Lands, in order to pay a price of £6 per ton for the curing and storing of kelp. If that advice had been taken five years ago, we would have heard less to-night about fertilisers. It was looked upon then, I suppose, as a hare-brained scheme which it was ridiculous to suggest, as the kelp would never have been used.

Apparently, there are four or five years of war before us, and I should like the Minister, and the agriculturists who talk about supplying fertilisers and the fear they have of submarines to look to the source they have all round the coast for producing fertilisers. In the last war a Deputy here paid £10 per ton to curers and burners of kelp which was sent to the manufacturers of artificial manures here to be manufactured and sold to the farmers. Farmers paid as much as £10 and £12 a ton during the last war for kelp to be used as a fertiliser. I take it that it was not used in a treated form after the extraction of the iodine, but that they used the whole kelp as a fertiliser. There are so many expert agriculturists in this House that one fears to venture an opinion on a matter of this kind. But I venture to submit that anybody who has used whole kelp as a fertiliser will agree that for the production of cereals and flax there is no other fertiliser to approach it.

I should like the Minister to deal with this question of sand. It is a serious matter for the small farmers around the coast. He should inquire if the order is general, or if it only applies to the district to which Deputy O'Donovan referred. He should also inquire from the Land Commission as to whether or not there is grass growing in this place from where the sand is taken. If it is only taken from the strand which is controlled by the tide, then the farmers should be permitted to take whatever quantity they want. I would also ask the Minister to get in touch with the Minister for Lands in connection with the production of fertilisers by the development of the kelp industry. I should like, however, to give him a warning. The Department of Lands three months ago issued a notice offering £5 10s. 0d. per ton to the curers of kelp. They will have to give another 30/- per ton if they want to get the work done. I do not think that £5 10s. 0d. per ton is an economic price.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that is in this Estimate. Although I have given a good deal of latitude to the Deputy and to Deputy O'Donovan, sand is not relevant either.

Mr. McMenamin

I do not want to quarrel with your ruling, but the whole debate has centred around the question of fertilisers. There has been a lot of talk about submarines. I am dealing with a matter which submarines cannot affect. This stuff is washed up on the seashore, and all that is required is to gather it up with a fork and save it. It does not relate to the Minister's Department, but in these days there must be co-ordination between the various Departments.

An Ceann Comhairle

And order in debate.

Mr. McMenamin

Yes, as far as possible.

Mr. Keating

I should like to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that there are sufficient seed oats in County Wexford to supply the needs of the farmers. The constituency which the Minister and I represent will not stop at doing 12½ per cent. tillage. There is a great scarcity of seed oats in Wexford, and I should like to ask if the farmers can have an assurance that they will not be robbed when buying seed oats. After the last threshing the farmers sold oats at 13/- and 14/- a barrel, and I think the price of seed oats will now be at least twice that price. I ask the Minister to see that the farmers will get good seed oats and also that they will get their share of fertilisers. Artificial manures are very scarce in that constituency. The people there do not order them until a week or two before they want them, and this year they may find themselves without any. It would be a good thing if some advice were given to these people to look after their fertilisers in time.

Mr. Victory

We, on this side of the House, have had some consolation out of this debate to-night. For the last four years, we have been subjected to ridicule because we have dared to talk about making the country self-sufficient as far as it is possible to do it. To-night it is the other way about. We are blamed by the Opposition because we did not go fast enough. However, there is some consolation for us in that time has justified our policy, and the only grievance now is that we have not gone fast enough. The only thing I want to say to the Minister is that tillage is being taken up very generally as far as I can see. There will be a large amount of land ploughed up for grain crops and, in my opinion, unless fertilisers are available, the return will not be what it should be. As to the statement that there is a tariff on foreign superphosphates coming in here, I know the argument can be used that there are about 200 people engaged in the manufacture of manures here. But there are many thousands of people engaged in agriculture, and the return from the land that will be broken up this year has got to be taken into consideration. Therefore I would appeal to the Minister that if any superphosphate can be brought in here from any place, it is essential in the interests of the agriculturists to have it allowed in.

Mr. Brennan

I am very glad that Deputy Victory has intervened in this debate in the way he has. I am sorry that other members of the Fianna Fáil Party had not thought fit to intervene in the same way. Other Deputies of that Party understand the condition of things down the country. Deputy Victory knows perfectly well that if we are going to have increased tillage in this country, and if we cannot get adequate supplies of manure we are going to rob the land. It is about 12 months ago since a motion was put down on this side of the House for a Commission on Agriculture. I was the first speaker and the Minister for Agriculture spoke after me. As a matter of fact he agreed to grant the commission. The germ of my contribution at that time was to provide artificial manure for the lands. Deputy Victory supported me. He realised the importance of my suggestion. But the Minister did not see it and apparently he has not even yet seen it. I endeavoured to point out that the salvation of this country was to be found in greater agricultural production. I tried to impress on the Minister and upon the House as far as I could that artificial manures ought to be heavily subsidised. I did not anticipate at any time that a subsidy such as is suggested here would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the situation at all. I really do not think the proposed subsidy is any use now. It is no encouragement to the use of artificial manures by the farmers. The difference between £5 and £5 10s. is not enough. I said then that the subsidy first granted and now continued only cheapened the manure to the man buying it. It did not induce the man to buy any larger quantities. That is not the way to tackle a big question. We had money for alcohol factories. We put practically £500,000 into bogs down the country. That is all gone waste. If we only had put this money into artificial manures we would have a different country to look at now. We would have made a good investment in the soil for years to come. I thought that after the settlement of the Economic War, Fianna Fáil would rise to the occasion and my aim was that by the use of artificial manures the man who previously had been able to rear six calves would thereby be able to rear eight. Had this country provided £2,000,000 for artificial manures no better investment could have been found because it was something that would remain there and give a return year after year. Now we are having an extension of the 10/- per ton subsidy in this particular Estimate. My opinion again is that that is not going to encourage anybody to use more artificials. Deputy Victory has said, and I am informed that it is true, that the Minister has informed the importers of manure into this country that the Government will not pay a subsidy on foreign manures. The farmers of this country will consequently be deprived of the use of manures for their crops. This Government is guilty of many crimes against the country. If the Minister were now to make another grant outside the original subsidy which he is giving to the Irish manure firms—even if he were to pay absolutely for the manure out of the Public Funds—he would be justified in doing so. Attempting to grow crops in this country without the aid of artificial manure is robbing the land. We are taking plant food out of the land, and giving nothing back. The Minister is here making a further provision for agricultural schools and farms to the extent of £5,500. That is the additional provision made for these five schools and farms. There is indeed in this figure clear evidence of the increase in costs in the running of the farms.

Dr. Ryan

There is not. It is a pity Deputies will make statements like that. On three occasions since this debate started I explained that figure and if the Deputy was not here on either of these occasions I am not going to explain it to him again——

Mr. Brennan

I am sorry I was not here, but the Minister need not get excited about it. It appears however to me that on this Estimate we have to provide £1,000 extra for each of these farms. That is the impression I get.

Dr. Ryan

Always think the worst.

Mr. Brennan

I am not thinking worse of the Minister. I am trying to impress upon him that farming costs have gone up and they have gone up on the individual farmer down the country as well as in the case of the farm at Ballyhaise.

Dr. Ryan

The costs have not gone up at Ballyhaise.

Mr. Brennan

Does the Minister say the costs have not gone up at Ballyhaise?

Dr. Ryan

They have not.

Mr. Brennan

Then the Minister is very lucky. The costs of seeds, manures and implements have gone up everywhere else. I am very glad to hear that in the case of the Minister's farms the costs have not gone up. I would be glad to hear if the Minister is going to live up to the Agricultural Wages Board's awards for labourers, will the costs go up, and if he is to buy manures and seeds will the costs go up. Unless the Minister has curtailed his activities his costs must go up. I was trying to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that costs everywhere are going up and here is evidence of it.

Dr. Ryan

They are not going up on these farms.

Mr. Brennan

Well I think there is pretty clear evidence of it for the Minister that they are going up. When providing an additional £2,600 for travelling expenses the Minister explained how this expenditure has arisen. He said this was in connection with officers who had been seconded to the Department. I had an idea that the Department of Agriculture had increased its staff enormously in the last eight years. Now, when agricultural production in this country was valued at over £60,000,000, the administration cost was much less than it has been lately. I had thought if an occasion like this arose that the Minister would possibly utilise some of those people whose services he had engaged some years ago when agriculture was on the low grade. It appeared to me that he would have utilised them for the purpose of the extra tillage, instead of taking officials over from another Department at further expense. I think Deputy Corry, one of the Minister's colleagues, was of the same opinion at one time. I remember when this House passed some Acts in connection with the inspection of beef, it fixed a price for beef, but that Act was never operated. There was a number of inspectors appointed under that Act.

Dr. Ryan

They are not employed now.

Mr. Brennan

They are not at that job because that job did not "go" at all. Nevertheless, we paid for it. Now, when we do want extra inspectors we have to provide extra expenses. The Minister should realise that the most important thing with regard to tillage is manure, and he should take the advice given him from these benches and from his own back benches and remove the tariffs and other difficulties that are operating against the delivery of manure. Unless he does that, we shall not get anywhere. A very good case was made by Deputy Hughes and other Deputies regarding the agreement with Britain. I do not think that it is satisfactory or that a satisfactory state of affairs exists with regard to pigs or any of these other products. On a later occasion, I hope to thrash out the whole matter, and I trust the Minister will be able to put a better face upon it than it bears at the present time.

Mr. Flynn

In regard to this question of manures, I believe that, even if the tariff were removed, supplies would not be available and that there is a good deal of exaggeration about the matter. Eventually, this question will have to be dealt with, and I suggest that, where possible, lime should be made available through the creameries in certain areas. A scheme should be devised whereby the creameries would co-operate with kiln owners in the congested areas in certain counties. A scheme of that type would be well worthy of consideration, especially as, as time goes on, there will be a greater shortage of artificial manures. It will be a question of obtaining them at any cost.

I should like to refer to the question of cheap seed in congested areas. People down our way were keenly disappointed at the action of the Department in the allocation of seed in these areas. The deprivation of cottiers in the Gaeltacht districts of their usual allocation of cheap seed was commented upon. Heretofore these allocations worked out satisfactorily and the cottiers had the benefit of the scheme. To our amazement, this year these people were deprived of the usual supply and some explanation should be forthcoming in regard to that matter. In South Kerry and along the south coast these smallholders—particularly cottiers—were deprived of any quota or allocation of cheap seed whatsoever. Even now, I think the Minister should consider some means of assisting these people.

On this question of the development of the creamery system, I am glad to say that, in our areas, the development of travelling creameries has been a success. The experiment has justified itself, and we have made a case for further development in some of these areas. I cannot understand the statement of the Department that, even though a case can be made for further development, the question is one of money—a question as to whether or not the creamery can be built at a certain cost. That is very shortsighted policy. It is not what one would expect from the Department. For instance, in an area where there is a cow population of, approximately, 1,800, the Department would hesitate to build a creamery, or ask the Department of Finance to approve the expenditure on account of the cost. I think that there is something radically wrong with the whole system if development is to be held up simply because £500 or £600 cannot be provided for the building of a travelling creamery for such an area. I know that the Minister has done his best in that direction, but I again appeal to him to consider the urgency of that scheme. In conclusion, I want to mention again the question of the fertilisers. The creameries should endeavour to get the co-operation of the kiln-owners in order to make lime available in the congested districts. In the event of a severe shortage of artificial manures, lime would be a fairly good substitute.

Mr. Coburn

This Supplementary Estimate for £300,000 makes, with the amount provided in the original Estimate—£500,000—a sum of almost £1,000,000 available for the purposes of agriculture. I am sure that, if that money be wisely and usefully spent, it will yield a very good return. We must all agree that, in the difficult times through which we are passing, agriculture is the one industry on which we must absolutely depend. For that reason, I agree that it is only right and proper that the responsible Minister should do all he possibly can to help that industry.

Various sub-heads go to the making of this Supplementary Estimate. I am not going to deal with them seriatim. I propose to refer only to two of them. There is a Vote of £50,000 for fertilisers. That money should be very useful at the present time. The pity is that the amount is not greater. I gathered from the Minister's opening remarks that this sum will enable the farmers to procure fertilisers at 10/- per ton less than they would otherwise have to pay.

In connection with the question of supplies of fertilisers, I understand that the great danger will be a shortage of superphosphates, and I should like the Minister to give all the attention he can possibly give to the question of ensuring that a proper supply of that particular fertiliser will be available for our farmers. I find that the bulk of this Supplementary Estimate is taken up with the provision of butter for winter requirements, and so on. The amount, in that connection, is something over £300,000. I think that, again, that money will give a very good return. Heretofore, during the summer months, we were in the fortunate position of being able to supply the British market, but unfortunately, when the winter months came along, we were not in a position to keep up that supply, and, as a result, we lost a very considerable portion of the British market to the Danes, who, by their fostering of the winter dairying, were in a position to keep up their supplies of butter to the British market all the year round. I think that the provision of this sum is a step in the right direction. If this Vote for over £300,000 will enable our farmers to increase their butter production and thereby enable them to keep the market for our butter, not alone in the summer months, but during the winter months, it will have a good reaction upon the whole industry.

While I think that it is necessary that we should help this branch of agriculture—that is, in connection with creameries and the dairying industry generally—I also think it is only right and proper that the Minister should bear in mind that there is a danger that the result of this might mean an undue rise in the price of butter to the consumers here and that, thereby, a hardship might be imposed upon the consuming portion of our own population. I think the Minister should bear in mind that there are over 100,000 unemployed people in this country at the moment and that, besides these unemployed people, there is also a very large number of people whose incomes provide them with only the barest necessaries of life. If there should be any increase in the price of such an essential foodstuff as this, I hope the Minister will bear in mind that even the slightest increase would mean a great hardship on these people.

I should like to issue that warning on this occasion, in the hope that the Minister, in making this provision, will take care that it will not increase unduly the price of butter to our consumers and thereby increase unduly the hardships already existing among very large sections of our people who at the present time find it very difficult to make ends meet.

Mr. Beegan

In connection with this fertiliser scheme, I think it is a very useful proposal. A situation, however, has arisen in the West, in this connection, which, I think, has been brought to the notice of the Minister already, and in any case I wish to bring it to the Minister's notice now. This subsidy is very useful to people who are able to pay cash down, but in the present circumstances in the West I understand that merchants are not inclined to give manures out on credit; it has to be cash down, and they will not even accept the guarantee of the sugar company. If something is not done to remedy that situation, it will have very serious consequences for the beet sugar factories, particularly in the West, and I think it would be very detrimental to the scheme generally. I should like the Minister to take this matter up so as to ensure, at any rate, that, where the guarantee of the Sugar Company is given, a sufficient supply of fertilisers for the beet crop should be made available. Otherwise, the acreage under beet will go down. I have been listening all the day to the same swan song from Opposition Deputies that I have been listening to for the past seven or eight years. It is always the same kind of talk that goes on, and it is always to the effect that the Minister's policy has been a whole series of blunders. I am just wondering——

Mr. Dillon

If it is not true?

Mr. Beegan

——if it is as bad as all that, why the people can be induced to go in for extra tillage at all. They are going in for extra tillage. As a matter of fact, I believe that there will be very little necessity, if any necessity at all, to invoke the Compulsory Tillage Order. I believe that the people will go wholeheartedly in for tillage because they see that it will pay them and because they realise fully that the policy of the past seven or eight years is the best policy for this country.

Captain Giles

On this side of the House we are always very glad of small mercies. To my mind, this kind of Supplementary Estimate in connection with agriculture is nothing more than tinkering with a huge problem, and I believe that we must take a brave and bold decision in connection with this matter, that we must forget about past programmes and policies and face the situation that exists, which is more or less desperate. What we want here in this country for agriculture is money. We hear a lot about the provision of fertilisers, machinery, agricultural implements and so on. To my mind, however, every farmer wants something different from what his neighbour wants. One man wants a horse, one man wants machinery, and another man wants manures. They all have different needs, and I think that the farmer could solve his own problem if we put money into the farmer's hands. He knows how to solve his problems, if he has the money, and I think that we should float a loan of at least £4,000,000 in order to put agriculture on its feet. I think that the farmer is entitled to that because of the huge losses he has suffered within the last ten years. I do not think that this loan should be given out through officials or Government servants, but that it should be floated as a loan in the ordinary way so as to pay the land annuities to the Land Commission for two or three years, thereby leaving the farmer free to have the money, which he used to pay for annuities, to enable him to work his land. In my opinion, that would save a good deal of overhead expenses and would give immediate relief to the farmer. It would mean that the farmer would know where he stood and that he would know what machinery to buy, and so on. There is another way to save agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing about loans in this Supplementary Estimate.

Captain Giles

Yes, I think so, Sir. Sub-head M (4) deals with loans for agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a specific loan for machinery.

Captain Giles

At any rate, I think that that would solve the whole problem. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. If the war lasts for a long time everything will probably be all right as far as the farmer is concerned, but if the war should terminate in eight or nine months' time, as it may, where is the farmer going to be, with the huge amount of grain crops that he will then have on hands? If that should happen, he may make bonfires out of his corn, straw, and so on. I think that the Minister should guarantee against that happening by boldly taking his courage in his hands and going to Britain and arranging for a guarantee to the farmer against such huge losses as happened in 1918 at the close of the last war. If the Minister does not do something like that, I think there is very little hope in us floundering along as we are to-day. I think that the Minister, for once in his life, should beard John Bull in his own den and make an arrangement such as I have suggested, and I think that the Minister, if he were to do so, would be a match for John Bull.

Mr. Childers

I do not want to keep the House more than two or three minutes, but having seen this figure of £50,000 for fertilisers, I should like to ask the Minister whether it would be possible for him to increase that amount still further in view of the desperate necessity of this country at the present time for a far greater volume of fertilisers. I was looking through figures for the yield of crops during the last war, and I think it is well that the House should recall the fact that the yield of wheat fell from 21 cwts. per acre to 15 cwts. per acre; that, in the course of the war, oats fell from 18.4 to 13, and potatoes from 6 to 4, indicating that the sudden intensive production of crops had its adverse reaction. Although much more land was tilled by the end of the war, the land was yielding far less. That picture may not repeat itself in exactly the same way during this war, but I have an idea that to a certain degree the yield of crops may decline as a result of rushing into tillage in the way that is necessary on account of the war situation. One of the things that can stem that decline is fertilisers.

We have one of the lowest consumptions of fertilisers of any of the western European countries having principally an agricultural trade. We spend, as far as I can make out, about 1/4 per acre of land in fertilisers. Having regard to modern conditions and modern agricultural methods, that is fantastically small. I use the word "fantastically" advisedly and deliberately. It is really a fantastically small amount, 1/4 an acre. It is a terribly serious thing to face the present emergency with that fact confronting us. We have never reached anything like an adequate consumption of fertilisers at any time, either during the period of office of this Administration or the last one. Other countries have a far greater consumption of fertilisers than we have. There is the fact that on the outbreak of this war we had that abnormally low consumption as compared with other countries. I find, as a matter of fact, that we consume about one hundredth the amount of nitrates that are consumed in England. In the consumption of superphosphates we are the lowest of a number of countries, including Iceland, Denmark, Holland, England and Switzerland.

I should like to plead with the Minister to take us into his confidence as far as possible and assure us that the most desperate efforts are being made to secure extra shipments of fertilisers, and that he will consider, if he possibly can, increasing the subsidy. I believe that if we could have an agreed financial position in this country, if we asked depositors in the banks, or the banks themselves, to advance credits for the purchase of fertilisers, they would be willing to grant loans running into millions of pounds to enable us to give subsidies totalling practically 75 per cent. of the cost of the fertilisers, and it would be one of the finest investments that this country could possibly have. I would once more plead earnestly with the Minister to let us know exactly what the position is.

Mr. Dillon

How does the Deputy reconcile that view with the imposition of an import tariff of 20 per cent. on Belgian superphosphates, thus effectively preventing us from getting any in at all?

Mr. Childers

I am waiting to hear the Minister inform us about that.

Mr. Dillon

So am I.

Seosamh O Mongáin

Faoi'n Vóta Breise seo feicim go bhfuil £383,600 ghá vótáil ag an Aire seo. Dhe sin cé mhéad atá an Ghaedhealtacht fháil? £4,000. £380,000 le haghaidh na fir mhóra móra agus na daoine móra agus £4,000 le haghaidh na Gaedhealtachta agus na daoine beaga. Nach é an seanráití arís é: "An té atá thuas oltar deoch air agus an té atá thíos buailtear boc air". Seo é an Ghaedhealtacht más fíor atá ag fáil gach uile rud, ach tá a chomhartha le n-a chois annseo an méid atámuid fháil. Tá mise ar aon intinn amháin leis an Teachta O Donnabháin as IarChorcaigh nuair a labhras sé faoi na trághanna agus faoi'n fheamuinn agus cur na dtaltaí láidre. Dubhairt mé cheana sa Teach seo dhá bhfuigheadh na daoine sa nGaedhealtacht ar a laighead £20 ar gach uile acra sléibhe a bhrisfeadh siad isteach agus a gcuirfeadh siad fál air go ndéanfadh sé maith mhór. An £20 seo féin dhá bhfuigheadh siad é, ní dhréineálfadh sé é agus ní chuirfeadh sé fál leis gan caint ar an leasú agus an síol a chur ann. Ach chuirfeadh sé fonn ar na daoine é dhéanamh agus bheadh gach uile dhuine acu ag cur leis an ngabhaltas beag atá aige cheana.

Anois, ná ceapadh duine ar bith nach bhfuil mise buidheach den Aire faoi'n mbeagán atá sé a thabhairt amach faoi láthair. Tugann sé £5 ar an acra. Leis an mbeagán sin féin tá go leor dhá dhéanamh. Ach an £5 seo is ar éigin a shocruíonn sé an áit ní hé amháin é dhréineáil agus fál a chur leis. Rud eile ba ceart dó a dhéanamh aol a thabhairt do na daoine seo antsaor. Déanann sé beagán den obair seo. Ach an costas bhaineas na lorries as an aol fhágáil ag na daoine marbhuíonn sé é. Ar a laighead sa tír seo againn caithfe lorries dul 50 míle. Cuireann sé sin £1 an tonna breise le na luach. Cén duine bocht atá i ndon é seo íoc? Na mílte dhá thabhairt do na dairies agus don talamh saibhir agus an fhíordhéirce dhá thabhairt dhúinne. Ar chuala tú ariamh a leitheid de chleas? Agus annsin an tAire agus a dhream ag iarraidh orainn tuille agus tuille eile a chur agus gan iad ag tabhairt morán congnaimh dhúinn as ucht a dhéanamh. Deirtear go bhfaghann na ba bás an fhad is bhíos an féar ag fás, ach tá faitíos orm go bhfuigheadh muid bás dá mbeadh muid ag fanacht go ndéanfaí morán dúinn.

Anuraidh fuair mé leathghealladh go gcuirfí vet in a chomhnaí in áit eicínt i gConamara, ach níl focal anois faoi. Tá súil agam nach bhfuil an tAire ag déanamh dearmaid air.

Tá caint mhór ar fertilisers ar an Vóta seo, fertilisers a caithfí a thabhairt as Belgium agus as Africa agus a leitheidí d'áiteacha, ach níl focal faoi fertilisers a bhaint as an rud atá againn sa doras. Sin í an fheamuinn. Aimsir an Chogaidh Mhór seo caithte cheannuigh mise mé féin le haghaidh Mháirtín Mhac Dhonnchadha os cionn 300 tonna ceilpe i gceanntar beag bídeach i gConamara. Thug mé £10 10s. 0d. an tonna uirthi. Meileadh í seo i nGaillimh, gach uile bhlas di. Shaothruigh na fir i nGaillimh airgead dhá meilt, dhá cur i malaí agus eile. Bhí an t-airgead uilig dhá chaitheamh sa mbaile agus deir na feilméaraí a chuir ar an talamh í nach bhfuair siad a leitheid de leasú ariamh. An t-am sin budh é Rialtas Shasana bhí againn. Anois, tá Rialtas againn dúinn féin agus shaoilfeá ar a laighead go ndéanfadh siad an oiread is rinne na Sasanaigh, ach tá faitíos orm go bhfuil sé ar nós gach uile rud atá siad a dhéanamh agus a rá. Is glas iad na cnuic ach ní féarmhar.

Mr. O'Reilly

Deputy Dillon referred to the question of veterinary research. I also would like to call the Minister's attention to that, and to urge the need for it in a country like this, where there is such an enormous amount of live stock. Not only is it important, but I think a step further should be taken by arranging with professional men to deliver a series of well-thought out lectures with a view to spreading knowledge and thus preventing the many diseases that live stock suffer from. The loss that the country sustains in that respect was put by some Deputies here at £4,000,000. I went to some trouble to prepare a rough estimate myself, and I am sorry to say that my estimate exceeds the £4,000,000 figure mentioned by Deputy Dillon. My estimate is based on figures obtained from kennels and knackers' yards, and on the information I obtained I have put the loss at about £5,000,000. That is a very serious thing. All these losses were not directly due to disease. Quite a number of them might be attributed to malnutrition. It is true to say that veterinary surgeons have no remedy for that disease but, at the same time, by their advice, they can do a good deal. Much of this mal-nutrition, it appears, arises from the feeding of crops, raised on very poor soil, to live stock.

I should like to support the plea made by other Deputies that more artificial manures should be made available. If more were used, they would help to improve the quality of the soil. A good deal of this malnutrition may be due to the fact that the soil is deteriorating. The matter, at any rate, is one that should get serious consideration from the Minister, not alone at this time but at ordinary times. Everything possible should be done to improve the quality of the soil, because where you have a good soil you will have healthy animals, and that will have its effects on human beings as well. We are all agreed in advocating more production. If a more generous use of artificial manures will bring about more production and give us healthier live stock, then I feel that I must join in the request to the Minister to look seriously into the matter.

Mr. Dillon

We are beginning to make converts in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to seeds and manures, Deputy Dillon gave his own experience of the amount of manures which he hopes to receive from the Irish manufacturers. I think he will be lucky if he gets 100 per cent. of the quantity he received last year. So far as I know, the position at the moment is that about 50 per cent. had been sent out up to about two weeks ago, the third 25 per cent. is in process of being sent out, and probably will be supplied to the trade by the end of March. I am doubtful, in our present position, if the remaining 25 per cent. will be supplied in full. I have not much fault to find with this debate, but I think we should try to understand one another's difficulties if we hope to make any progress in dealing with the problems that we are up against. There is no use in the Opposition accusing us of doing things in the wrong way unless they have a fair foundation for their statements. The present position with regard to manures has not arisen through want of energy on the part of the Government. The raw phosphates were purchased by our manufacturers. They purchased very much more than they did last year, but the whole difficulty has been to get them over here—to get shipping.

As far as the Government are concerned, they have done everything possible to get shipping to bring these raw phosphates across from North Africa. They are there at the moment. They had already been purchased by our Irish manufacturers, but it is extremely doubtful if we will get these raw phosphates moved in sufficient quantity by ship to deal with this year's crop. Everything possible is being done, and I only hope that things may turn out better than we can foresee at the moment. With regard to getting manufactured phosphates in from other countries, I do not know if we can get very much. I do not see that there is any great objection now to the removal of the duty, but there are certain formalities that must be gone through before that can be done. I hope that we may be able to get the duty removed.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! Another miracle.

Dr. Ryan

I will be interested to see if very much phosphates will come in when the duty goes.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not late in the day that the Minister is thinking of taking it off?

Dr. Ryan

I do not care how late it is. What happens is this: that a merchant here will get in touch with a merchant in Holland, Belgium or elsewhere and ask if he can supply him with some phosphates. The merchant will say that he will sell at such a price. But when it comes to exporting those phosphates, the merchant is faced with two big obstacles. The first is, will the Government of that country allow the phosphates out. I may say that very few Governments are allowing phosphates out at the present time. I am doubtful if Belgium or Holland will let phosphates out. The second obstacle is that, suppose the Government in that country does let them out, will a ship be available to bring them over here? I do not know that the fact that a tariff is there prevented phosphates coming in here. Deputy Dillon, for instance, spoke of British exporters who might be willing to keep up their connection here. There is no tariff on phosphates coming in from Great Britain so that there was no difficulty in that regard.

Mr. Dillon

But the Government here refused to pay the bounty of 10/-.

Dr. Ryan

We had agreed to pay the bounty on phosphates going into the County Donegal, but found that could not be arranged through the ordinary trade channels. The traders in Donegal could not get phosphates into Donegal from the Six Counties without Government intervention. This Government had to intervene and use whatever influence it had with the other two Governments concerned in order to get that small transaction through. It was found extremely difficult to get even a limited amount of phosphates shifted from the Six Counties into the County Donegal. I do not know if it would be possible to get phosphates from Great Britain into the rest of this country. It was only on the plea that a normal trade was there for generations from Derry into Donegal, and that, if that trade was not permitted to go on during those war years Donegal would be put to very serious inconvenience, that it was possible to get that much done. I presume the exporters in Derry were at the same time using the argument that they did not want to lose that trade in Donegal. But, even with all that pressure, it was not very easy to get the thing made effective.

Mr. Dillon

Will you take the 10/- bounty off the home manufactured super?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know about that; we will take off the duty and see if the supplies will come in.

Mr. Dillon

They will not come in.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Brennan will not agree with that. He said this 10/- did not matter in the least; that was the whole gist of his speech.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister knows that that is not so. He is blocking all possible supplies of superphosphates.

Dr. Ryan

I am only quoting Deputy Brennan.

Mr. Dillon

I do not mind whom the Minister is quoting.

Dr. Ryan

I would say that Deputy Corry made a point which I think was perfectly right. Whatever criticism we have had to stand here in the past from the Opposition, I say now that we were perfectly and fully justified in keeping those manure manufacturers in production, if it were only for the sake of having them there when a war situation like this arises, as we may be short of fertilisers any time. We are not using nearly as much as we should. We may be short of the amount that our farmers are prepared to use at present prices, but we would not have had anything like the present quantity were it not for the position of the home manufacturers.

Mr. Dillon

Were they not here before you were ever heard or thought of?

Dr. Ryan

They were, but they were not going to remain. After all, the duty was only put on to keep the factories in production.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense.

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy goes on in that strain there is no use in my continuing.

Mr. Dillon

Gouldings is one of the most prosperous firms in this country.

Mr. McMenamin

It is the most famous.

Dr. Ryan

Any Deputy with even a modicum of sense should know that a duty would not have been put on unless the Government were satisfied that, were it not for that duty, those industries were likely to go out of production.

Mr. Dillon

That is pure nonsense. Gouldings is one of the most prosperous firms in Ireland.

Dr. Ryan

The same applies to the foundries of the agricultural machinery manufacturers. If any of these had gone out of production it would be extremely difficult to get any agricultural machinery at the moment. We have been able to import certain types of agricultural machinery such as tractors —some of the types not manufactured here—but we have been very limited in the amount of the shipping that can be put aside for that purpose. If we were in the position of having to import all the agricultural machinery, we certainly would be left there. I do not think it is necessary at all to defend these tariffs on the basis of employment given by the individual agricultural machinery firms or manure manufacturing firms. I think they can be defended just as easily from the point of view of the agricultural industry, as, unless we have these industries to supply the agricultural industry, the agricultural industry not only in time of war—although then it is very badly off—but also in time of peace may be exploited just as badly.

Deputy Dillon also spoke regarding cold stored butter. I must say that I have not get any complaint from any source regarding any of our cold stored butter. I remember that, when we went into this business first, we were assured —not only by experts in the Department but also by people in the trade—that butter, if properly put into cold store, improves rather than disimproves as a result of its being kept there. I think that any Deputy who has gone into a hotel or restaurant in this city during the last two months has been all the time getting cold stored butter, and so far it seems that nobody has found any fault with it. It is quite possible that Deputy Dillon has come across some particular sample of butter which was not altogether right and we would be very glad in the Department to have that traced up, in order to see to whom it belonged or what creamery turned it out.

Deputy Dillon raised a few points about proprietary articles of medicine, the first one being "Acapron", one of the Bayer products. It is not to be got now, but I understand that the firm is making a strong endeavour to have this manufactured in America and, if they succeed, we would be able to get supplies again. We will be very lucky if we can get those supplies before the summer, since "Acapron" is regarded as specific in the treatment of red water disease in cattle. With regard to prontosils, which have proved so very useful in the treatment of streptococci in the human being, and also of staphycoccal infections, they have been used for mastitis, which is streptococcal disease in the cow, but it is found that they must be used in very large quantities and almost constantly and, although they are effective when used in large quantities and constantly, it is uneconomic because the quantity is so large. That has been learned from the experiments carried on in other countries, as naturally the veterinary people here keep in touch with research elsewhere.

Our veterinary surgeons here have carried on experiments with one of the group of prontosils—sulphanilanide— which was supposed to be a specific remedy for brucilla abortus, the principal organism in this country causing contagious abortion. This particular drug was used on cattle and similar animals in the laboratory, but so far the results have been entirely negative and very disappointing. We do research in the laboratory here, and in the veterinary college a certain amount of it is carried on. It is impossible for any country to do all the research that would be necessary, but, if we do our part and keep in touch with other countries, it is all that can be expected of us. We have been trying for some few years past to devote a little more, not only money but also men, to this very important subject of research, and it is possible that we may be able to do a little more in the near future. We had expected when enlarging the veterinary college—enlarging both staff and premises—that it would be possible to do more research there, and I think it will from this out when the staff has been suitably increased.

Deputy Dillon also asked about the principal of the veterinary college. Last July, I think, the principal of the veterinary college reached the age limit under which civil servants retire, and a certain extension was agreed to by the Minister for Finance until we got the college going again. The principal is, as Deputies are aware, the professor of surgery. A case was then put up to the Civil Service Commissioners to recommend a candidate for appointment as professor of surgery. That appointment has not been made yet, but may be made, I understand, in the near future. The procedure would be, of course, when a professor of surgery is appointed, Professor O'Connor would resign and a new principal would be elected in his stead.

Mr. Dillon

Is it proposed to secure to him the maximum pension?

Dr. Ryan

That matter is being looked into. It is a rather difficult matter.

Mr. Dillon

It is being favourably considered?

Dr. Ryan

I have personally been doing everything I possibly can in that matter. With regard to onions, I do not know that Deputy Dillon was right——

Mr. Dillon

If I might interrupt the Minister, I should like to say that I also mentioned sterility in cattle. Is any research being made?

Dr. Ryan

I forgot to mention that. We carried out some experiments with regard to sterility, I think about three years ago. We had two veterinary surgeons for about six months doing experiments under the direction of the Research Department. They got a good deal of information. I think that is all we can claim that they got, because they did not get any useful results, but we cannot blame the professional men who were on this job, considering that every other country is also trying to get results and has not succeeded so far.

Mr. Dillon

Are the papers in connection with this research available for perusal? Have they been published?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know that they have been put into any sort of order, that they have been indexed or anything like that, but I am sure our veterinary staff could direct any person as to where the material could be got.

Mr. McMenamin

Did they issue reports?

Dr. Ryan

Our own men?

Mr. McMenamin

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

They did from time to time. There has not been anything published lately, anyway. Another matter raised, I think, by Deputy O'Reilly, was that, in addition to this, lectures should be given. I believe that very useful lectures were given by veterinary surgeons travelling around from place to place some years ago, and we have been urged for some time to try to have that system reestablished. We are at the moment seeking the necessary finance to have that done, and I hope that we may be able to revert to that system of having lectures from time to time through the country, at which the farmers could attend, and where veterinary surgeons specially suited for the purpose would give the farmers lectures on veterinary subjects, making them, of course, as intelligible as possible for laymen. It is not an easy thing to get a professional man who knows his business well and who at the same time can make the subject plain and intelligible to the person who has no scientific claim.

Mr. Curran

I think Deputy O'Reilly was referring more to post-graduate courses in veterinary subjects.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to onions, I must say I am not convinced from any reports I have got from the technical staff in the Department that artificial heat will be necessary to cure onions even for the purpose of keeping them for a long time. They have been doing experiments in storing in different types of stores, with regard to ventilation and so on, and I think it may be possible to have those onions stored in rather a simple way, while ensuring that they will keep quite well.

Deputy O'Donovan advocated the saving of a certain amount of flax seed in addition to the pure line seed we may save under the special scheme which I mentioned, because he was afraid we might possibly find ourselves in an even more difficult position next year than this year, and might be very glad to have our own seed. That is a matter which I will certainly look into. He believes that loans should be made available, especially for the equipment of mills. There is a sub-head in the main Estimate which has not been availed of to any great extent. I think it is under sub-head M (4) that loans could be made to scutch mills for improvements and so on. The Deputy complained also that the Vote for reclamation and drainage in congested districts is not sufficient. That may be so. I think we would all like to see as much as possible spent under this particular heading. I must say I have never yet met anybody who criticised that scheme for the reclamation of land in congested districts. The smallholder gets a grant of £5 per acre for the reclamation of the land, and in the following year gets a grant for the liming of that land, and something towards seeds and manures, and he has a really valuable addition to his little holding.

Deputy O'Donovan seemed to be under the impression that in certain cases in West Cork, where co-operative creameries are in competition with proprietary creameries, the Department was compelling the co-operative creameries to go into competition with the proprietary creameries. That is not the position. The position really is that the Dairy Disposals Board, which, of course, is working under the Department, or reporting to the Department anyway, has been endeavouring to buy out the remaining proprietary creameries but has not been able to get agreement in regard to price. As Deputies will recollect, a great deal was done in the buying out of those creameries at the beginning of 1927. A great deal was done in the first two or three years; then it tailed off, and it is very slow work to get the last few of those creameries bought out. Those co-operative creameries in the area were continuously complaining that the Dairy Disposals Board and the Department and the Minister for Agriculture were not using pressure on the proprietary creameries to make them sell. I explained to them several times that I did not think the time had come when pressure should be used.

I thought we might eventually get voluntary agreement with regard to the sale of those creameries. Then those co-operative creameries insisted as far as they could that, if we did not force the proprietary creameries to sell out, they should get licences to operate in opposition to them. That was eventually agreed to, and licences were issued to the co-operative creameries to build creameries in the areas that had so far been controlled by those proprietary creameries, but that is a very different story from the impression that Deputy O'Donovan seemed to have that we had been urging those co-operative creameries to go into competition. We really were not urging them. In fact, we had prevented them, if you like, for three or four years by not issuing the necessary licences.

I will deal now with the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave, because it is an analogous point. Deputy Cosgrave referred to a certain incident with regard to a proprietary concern in West Cork. I do not want to mention names any more than Deputy Cosgrave. There was a certain proprietor there, a small proprietor, who was offered a price by the Dairy Disposals Board some years ago. I think it was probably eight or nine years ago, if not more. The price was not accepted, and no agreement was made between the Dairy Disposals Board and this particular proprietor. The negotiations broke down, and they were not revived for many years. Then after some years the negotiations again started between the two parties, but again the negotiations broke down and no agreement could be reached. Some time after that, this proprietor ceased to carry on business. He more or less went out of business as a creamery proprietor, but he did carry on a certain amount of factory butter manufacture. His premises were no longer regarded as a creamery, but were regarded only as a factory for the manufacture of butter. At that stage two co-operative creameries asked for a licence; each wanted permission to build a branch near the place where this proprietor had his premises, and after due consideration the Department recommended me to issue a licence to A. I believe it was more A's territory than B's.

At that stage B came along and said to this proprietor: "If we had got the licence we would have given you £1,500." Of course A were under no obligation to give this proprietor any thing. They were not buying his business; they were merely building in an area where a number of farmers had asked them to come in as a co-operative society, but when I heard of the case I asked co-operative A if they would, ex gratia, give this man something, because with his goodwill naturally they would get more business than if operating against him, and they did agree to give an ex gratia amount. I do not know what the amount was. Deputy Cosgrave knows, I think, what the amount was but he thought the amount was very small.

With regard to this agreement that was made with the British Government, we may debate that perhaps at another time because it does not, I think, fit into this debate very well. I would like Deputies, however, to realise this: In the first place, I think, I may say that it is not only extremely difficult but impossible for our farmers to get more for their produce on the British market than the British farmers are getting. In the case of bacon, sheep, mutton and lamb and a number of other products that is what they are getting. The two big exceptions to that are fat cattle and eggs. In the case of fat cattle, during these negotiations we did make every endeavour to get the same price as the British farmer was getting for his fat cattle, but the British Government did insist and continue to insist that they should maintain the element of subsidy that was there for the British farmer. That in the end was the result. In the case of eggs, if we find that our eggs will reach the maximum price, in other words, if we find that the consumers in Great Britain are prepared to give the maximum which is fixed for our eggs, then I think we will have a very strong case to go back to Britain and say that the maximum was not high enough but, so long as the price given by the consumer there is below the maximum fixed for our eggs I do not think we have any great case to go to the British Government.

With regard to the agreement made with Northern Ireland, I foresaw that if the price we got in Northern Ireland was favourable compared with Great Britain a certain amount of our trade would be diverted to Northern Ireland. On the other hand, if the price we got in Northern Ireland was not as favourable as it should be compared with Great Britain, then the farmers who live on the Border, in Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal, and so on, who have been accustomed to send most of their goods to Northern Ireland, would be victimised because they would not get what they should if there was no control whatever. It was an extremely difficult matter. We considered it very fully.

Mr. Dillon

This was in relation to what?

Dr. Ryan

The price in the North of Ireland. In the end, in regard to the prices that were arranged, I think I agree with Deputy Hughes to some extent that they were a bit favourable to the North, but if you put one thing against the other I think Deputy Hughes, if he were in my place, would say that it is not fair to victimise the farmers of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan by fixing them too accurately, and that if there is going to be any mistake it is better they should get a little more than a little less. That is the position.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister realises that he is diverting some trade from the Port of Dublin?

Mr. Dillon

But he is diverting it to Monaghan, which is the great virtue in that.

Dr. Ryan

I am very much afraid that if we had erred on the other side so that the farmers in Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal had to send their stuff down to Dublin rather than Belfast, the attack in this House would be much more intense, and there would probably be more justification for the attack.

Mr. Hughes

Has the Minister anything to say about the inspection and grading?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I cannot recollect at the moment, but I can look it up, whether these agents for the exporters here have a right to see the grading but they certainly do see the grading in practice. I have discussed the matter with the exporters here on many occasions and they evidently have no difficulty whatever about seeing the grading. After all, the great test of this thing is that the exporters have no complaint.

Mr. Hughes

Has the Minister any information as to the discrepancies that arise in the grading, say, of young cows?

Dr. Ryan

At different ports?

Mr. Hughes

Of young cows.

Dr. Ryan

No, but there were discrepancies in the begining as between one port and another. I think that has been made right. There was one particular port where the grading was extremely severe as compared with the others. That was pointed out and made right.

Mr. Hughes

I am told by men in the cattle trade that for cows which, in their opinion, were similar in weight and quality there was actually a difference of £7 or £8.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know. I have been talking to the trade from time to time. The people in this export cattle trade tell me that they have no complaint and they are not men that lie down under things.

Mr. Keating

Would the Minister like to hear complaints? I can bring him some if he likes.

Dr. Ryan

There were some complaints in the beginning, I admit.

Mr. Keating

Those who have no complaints are the men who got rich at the expense of the country.

Dr. Ryan

The men who got rich at the expense of the country?

Mr. Keating

Yes, and the Minister knows them.

Dr. Ryan

I do not, because they must all compete in the market. I do not know how one can get rich more than another unless he is a better judge. I am surprised at a Wexford man talking like that.

Mr. Keating

I am telling the truth.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Keating asked a question about seed oats. I do not know—but I can make inquiries—how the County Wexford stands for seed oats. I think, taking the country as a whole, there will be no shortage of seed oats. I would be surprised if there were a shortage in County Wexford.

Mr. Keating

I am sure the Minister will take a special interest in his own particular constituency.

Dr. Ryan

Taking the country as a whole, I do not think there is any fear of a shortage of seed oats.

Mr. Dillon

I am inclined to agree with the Minister. My impression is that there is not going to be a shortage of seed oats, but there are parts of the country, notably Cork and Wexford, where the people think there is going to be a shortage of seed oats.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister has good information that there is not going to be a shortage, the farmers ought to hold off and not buy seed in the confidence that the price will come down when the seed comes on the market, but if the Minister is not sure he ought not encourage people to hold off buying seed and leave them in the position that they will not be able to get seed at all. I am rather inclined to agree with the Minister. In my district the tendency is for the seed oat market to soften, but that may not be universal.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, as a matter of fact, in the Department we have been advising farmers to see about their seed now, because it is the only way we can find out as soon as possible whether we have enough seed or not. We get reports regularly from all our inspectors through the country, and as far as we can judge from these reports I think there should be no shortage of seed. As I said here before, it may happen that in individual districts a farmer who is a bit late with his crop may have to change from barley to oats or from Spring wheat to oats or from oats to Spring wheat. I think that a farmer need have no worry. He will get some cereal seed in the end, sufficient for his land.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister feel free to name a fair average price for seed potato oats as a kind of headline to what farmers ought to pay?

Dr. Ryan

We paid 28/- to farmers for it.

Mr. Dillon

A barrel?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, 14-stone barrel, that is 2/- a stone.

Mr. McMenamin

That is a special price for very selected stuff.

Mr. Hughes

Could the Minister supply any of that to me?

Dr. Ryan

It is supplied to the congested districts. Deputy Brennan is quite wrong when he says that I did not realise the importance of this question of artificial manures. I think there is really no question to which I and the Minister for Supplies have given so much time, and to which the officials of my Department have given so much time. As I explained already, the whole trouble is shipping. I do not know whether we will be able to do anything better next year. We probably will try to commence bringing the manure in at a much earlier date and, as soon as the season is over, commence bringing it in again.

Mr. Dillon

Take off the tariff, give the grant of 10/- a ton, and the merchants of this country will help you very well.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Beegan spoke on the question of artificial manures and said that merchants in the West were not inclined to give credit. He spoke in particular about beet-growers. I have discussed that question with some of the officials of the Sugar Company. I am not sure if we can get a very good solution of the matter, but at least we have not lost sight of it. Deputy Childers says, quite truly, that the people of this country are very poor users of artificial manures. He says, in fact, that our consumption is the lowest among civilised countries. I am not sure whether that is true. Perhaps it is, but I think Deputy Childers should not assume that the falling yields in the last war were entirely due to lack of artificial manure. I think they might be attributed to other causes. Towards the end of the last war, people tilled their land very unwillingly. I am quite sure that if you compare the crop secured by a good tillage farmer who tills his field well, who prepares a good seed bed and sows his corn in that, with the crop secured by a man who only half tills his land and who puts a good dressing of artificial manure on it, probably the good tillage farmer would get a far greater yield. He has paid more attention to tilling the land properly than to putting artificial manure on it.

Mr. Hughes

The good seed bed was completely absent in many cases in the last war.

Dr. Ryan

That is right. It is a bad conclusion to draw from the fact that yields were small, that we are poor users of artificial manures. If I wished I could show that a small yield followed the extensive use of artificial manure in certain cases, and that therefore, no country should use artificial manures, but that would be a very wrong conclusion, too. I think I have now dealt with all the points raised by Deputies.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has forgotten one point which I raised. I directed attention to the fact that he had forbidden agricultural classes which the technical instructors were conducting.

Dr. Ryan

I am sorry. I meant to look up that point in the meantime. That is all I can say at the moment. There was a discussion between the technical branch of my Department dealing with education and the technical branch of the Department of Education, with a view to laying down certain principles. Something might have happened arising out of that, but I should like to have an opportunity of going into the matter before making a statement about it.

Mr. Dillon

May I take it that the Minister, on principle, would not prohibit technical schools from conducting evening classes in agriculture, if such a course tended to spread agricultural education in the country?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think we would. Certainly we would not prohibit it if they were able to do it with the county committee staff.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister can have a word with the Minister for Education, to whom I gave all the details.

Dr. Ryan

I shall look into it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.