Over and above the normal work of the Minister's Department, the other work falls for consideration under two main headings: firstly, organising the increased production of food to meet, as far as possible, our national requirements both in human and animal food and so bridge the gap left as a result of the falling off to an almost insignificant quantity of the imports of food and raw materials for the production of food, due to the indiscriminate destruction of shipping in the blockaded zone; secondly, the work of grappling with and eradicating the foot-and-mouth scourge. Examining the position, one is forced to the conclusion that there was, in reality, no food plan or no organised effort at a food plan. At most, there was simply an appeal to the farmers by the Taoiseach and the Minister, in this House and, occasionally, on visits down the country, to produce more food on the ground that it was their patriotic duty, and their responsibility as Irishmen, to produce sufficient food for our requirements during this emergency. That was their conception of a food plan—coupled with a Compulsory Tillage Order.
I think it must be admitted that that was not enough. I have no doubt that when the estimate of the acreage under cultivation comes to be made this year, the result will be very disappointing. This is the first time in the history of the country, under a native Government, that we had to face an economic crisis of the first magnitude, and I had hoped that we would be able to face up to the problem and show that we had organising ability and capacity to deal with it. I do not believe in recrimination, and I do not suggest that a retrospective examination in that respect would serve any good purpose. It is sufficient to point to a few things that should have been done. The farmers should have been protected from the avarice of the opportunist and profiteer in the purchase of his seeds and manures. The Minister's attention has been drawn to the operations of that type of individual on many occasions in this House. It was pointed out to the Minister that, even on his own scheme of licensing certain individuals to assemble seed wheat at a price of 2/6 over and above the fixed price of wheat, he had a basis for fixing a fair price for the seed when sold back to the farmer. There were some merchants in many parts of the country who charged exorbitant prices for seed wheat.
Then, we had the question of artificial manures — an essential raw material for the production of grain for the coming year. The price of superphosphate in England was £5 a ton and here it was £8 a ton—£3 of a discrepancy. Those are matters which required the attention of the Minister and his Department forthwith, but very little was done to get an adjustment of the price which would make it comparable with that in Britain, with the result that the farmers were fleeced by manure manufacturers in this country. The attempt to provide credit for farmers was a very poor one and many farmers found it exceedingly difficult to expand the acreage under cultivation owing to lack of sufficient credit facilities. Taking into account the increase in the cost of production and the acute shortage of raw materials necessary for the production of food crops, a guaranteed price should have been fixed sufficient to ensure that farmers would get a net return equal, at least, to their profit prior to the emergency. I am not suggesting that the agricultural community should take advantage of the times to amass money. I do not think that they could do that in any case but I have no doubt that the price fixed at present will not give to the farmer a net return equal to that which he enjoyed prior to the emergency, taking into account the increased cost of production. There should have been far more co-operation between the Department and the agricultural community, and more help should have been given the farmers in their effort to increase production during the present year.
Let me give an example of what I mean. Recently, the Minister had to enter upon and compulsorily acquire certain farms for tillage purposes. It was very late in the year when that occurred. It is very doubtful whether that land, ploughed at that time of the year in a very slipshod and rough way, will give any return. It is very doubtful whether it was in the national interest at that time to put that land under cultivation, the period of the year being so late. We should have profited by what was done during the last Great War, when the Department of Agriculture sent inspectors through the country to ascertain how far farmers were complying with the Tillage Order. They discovered in non-tillage counties that farmers lacked equipment. They had no means of doing tillage and, when they attempted to set land by conacre, they could not find anybody interested. In those circumstances, the Department co-operated with the farmers in securing the necessary help to get that land into cultivation. They went into the tillage areas and asked people to send horses and ploughs into the non-tillage districts to do the necessary cultivation for those farmers who were unable to secure horses for hire. They offered an attractive return for horses used in that way. There was nothing to prevent the Department, in the present emergency, from inviting people with tractors to go into those districts and do that class of work for farmers who were not in a position to provide equipment for themselves. They could have done that and offered a decent return to those who would give the use of their tractors. There was no co-operation, and no attempt by the Department, to help the farmer under the Tillage Order. That co-operation was forthcoming during the Great War, and it is extraordinary that a native Government should have lacked the necessary sympathy and foresight to afford that co-operation to our people. One would expect that help would have been extended by the Department to those upon whom the nation depended for food for the coming year.
Again, the Government set up parish councils, and parish councils could have given a great deal of valuable assistance by co-operating with the agricultural community in the many problems confronting them. Take the credit and seed problems. The local parish councils could have gone to individual farmers to encourage them in their work. If their work involved increased cultivation, they could ask them if they had any seed problem or credit problem or anything like that. The Minister may say that a farmer could apply for a loan to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, but the Minister ought to realise the type of individual he has to deal with. A lot of our people hate writing letters; it is the last thing many farmers are prepared to do. I suggest that more use could have been made of the local parish council or the local agricultural committee.
In Great Britain, agricultural committees interest themselves quite a lot in that sort of work and give help and assistance and co-operation to individual farmers in facing these problems. What happened here is that there was no attempt at an organised plan of State assistance, and no sympathetic help or consideration by the Minister's Department. The farmer was left absolutely and completely on his own. He was simply told that he would have to face up to a compulsory tillage order, and that if he was not prepared to do it or was not able to do it he would have to get out and the State would do it for him. I do not think that is the attitude that ought to be adopted. I think it is absolutely wrong. I know for a fact that certain farmers' lands have been entered upon by the Minister, operating through the local authority, and acquired for tillage purposes. I take it that the Minister's inspectors reported early on that an effort was not being made by these farmers to till the quota that they were bound to till of one-fifth of the arable land. In that case the Minister should have taken time by the forelock and organised some means of doing that other than the system of taking over the lands by compulsion.
At present we are absolutely and completely in the dark as to where we stand with our food production campaign this year. I suggested before that there should be an early census of production taken. There was nothing to prevent the Minister getting the Guards on the job in mid-February in order to find out what our position would be. Any farmer at that time could tell accurately what he had sown and what he proposed to sow during the season. A census could have been taken even on the 1st February, which would give an indication of where we stood. If a further effort was required in March, while there was still time to do the work, the work could have been done. Now, at the end of the sowing season, we do not know where we stand. The Minister was asked a question to-day about the acreage under wheat and his reply was that the weather was against the early sowing of winter wheat; that he felt that the effort at early sowing was disappointing, but that he was satisfied that there was a considerable increase in the acreage under spring wheat over last year. Yet, I understand that within the last few days the admixture of Irish wheat for the coming year was fixed by the Minister at 50 per cent. That was a very pessimistic figure, but I presume the Minister is right. I am afraid that the figure will be very disappointing. If that figure is correct, it means that we shall have to find 50 per cent. of wheat or wheat substitutes for our bread requirements next year.
In dealing with this question of wheat, Deputy Dillon expressed certain views on the last day we were discussing this Vote that were somewhat at variance with my views, and I think with the views of other Deputies in this Party. I think that our attitude about the wheat scheme during the present emergency should be made quite clear. No matter what Government is in office I think that we have to advocate the growing of as much wheat as possible during the emergency period. But what we do object to definitely is a Government wheat policy that encourages people to grow wheat on every type of soil irrespective of whether the soil is suitable for the production of wheat or not, and to grow wheat intensively. The intensive production of wheat means exhaustion of the soil. I know that very well because I have had experience of it. I know farms where the soil is practically exhausted as a result of intensive wheat growing in recent years.
It has been pointed out that it was a very wise policy for this country to have a wheat scheme prior to the emergency. My answer to that is that there is land under wheat this year which, if it had not been growing wheat for the last few years, would be in a position to grow a better crop of wheat during the emergency. I can bring the Minister to farms where the soil has been exhausted owing to the growing of wheat, and where production is falling off enormously from an intensive production of wheat. That sort of thing certainly ought not to be encouraged.
Farmers ought not to be encouraged to produce wheat intensively without compensating the soil for what it has produced. Wheat is very severe on soil; any Deputy who is an agriculturist knows that well. It is a gross feeder; it uses up the fertility of the soil rapidly. You cannot continue to grow wheat intensively except on a farm where you have stall-feeding and an extensive feeding of live stock and where you are restoring the fertility of the soil through the medium of rich farmyard manure.
Deputy Dillon did not attempt to make clear that our attitude with regard to wheat growing is that a scheme of intensive cultivation of wheat in normal times is wrong. We have examples of that from other countries. When we went into wheat production here in 1932, Austria, which was an intensive wheat-growing country, was appealing to the League of Nations for financial aid to enable it to go in for live stock because the soil there had been exhausted by the production of wheat; the average yield had fallen to three or four barrels per acre. There is no doubt that when we went out of intensive wheat production after the Franco-Prussian war it was because of the condition of the soil; the soil had been reduced in fertility and had become foul and dirty with weeds. A policy of building up and preserving the fertility of the soil would be a sound policy for any country to pursue. During an emergency period of that sort we would be in a position to draw upon that built-up fertility stored in the soil, while in normal conditions we are opposed to a policy of intensive cultivation of wheat. I stress the word intensive. We think that during an emergency period, such as the present, it is good policy to encourage the production of home-grown wheat intensively.
I am of the opinion that the co-operation that is necessary between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of supplies on the vital matter of the supply of essential raw materials for increased food production, appears to be absolutely lacking. I brought to the attention of the Ministers of both Departments the question of making more lime available for use on the land. I got a sympathetic answer from the Minister for Agriculture. I should like the House to know that, under the lime scheme, we are in a position to produce all the lime we require. It is important that lime should be made available, especially at present when there is an acute shortage of artificial manures. Lime, when applied to sour land, will release a valuable plant food that is lying dormant in the soil. Lime in itself is not a plant food, but it will stir up a chemical reaction in the soil, releasing a certain plant food on sour or acid land. We had that lime available in several places, and we also had people who had entered into contracts with local committees of agriculture to supply it to farmers. We found, however, that we got no sympathy, help or co-operation from the Minister for Supplies. He was not prepared to release any petrol to enable the lime to be transported. The Minister for Agriculture did realise how essential the delivery of that lime was to the farmer. Yet we had, as I have pointed out, this lack of co-operation between the two Departments. One would think that the Minister for Supplies would have facilitated the making available of an essential raw material of that sort during a critical period such as the present. Apparently he did not think it was essential. He did release a supplementary allowance of petrol about a fortnight ago, but it was then too late.
This was primarily a question for the Minister for Supplies. I am of opinion that the Minister who is responsible for increased food production this year should have made it perfectly clear, when accepting that grave responsibility, that he was only doing so on the condition that when he said he wanted an essential raw material to enable him to achieve that object, he would get it right away—that it could not be held from him by another Minister, because if so it would have the effect of retarding production.
I should like the Minister to tell the House what steps he proposes to take about the assembling of sufficient cereal seeds to meet our requirements next year. I think he adopted quite a sound policy last year when he licensed certain individuals to assemble seeds, and that he ought to pursue that policy still further by giving licences to individuals who have facilities for assembling seed grain and are in a position to condition it. A start ought to be made on that work now. We ought to see to it that the best grain we can produce is reserved for seed purposes. The Minister should fix the price that the merchant will pay the farmer for the grain to be kept for seed, and allow a fair margin for handling purposes, and a fair profit. We should not have occurring next year the ramp and profiteering that went on this year when we had people who enjoyed a monopoly in the storage of seed wheat charging what they liked for it. The prices they charged amounted to a rob. That ought not to occur again.
The Minerals Bill got a Second Reading last week. I want to ask the Minister for Agriculture to impress on the Minister for Industry and Commerce the necessity of working, to the uttermost capacity, the deposits of rock phosphate in County Clare. As soon as that Bill becomes law, the company that it is proposed to set up under it should take immediate steps to go ahead with the work of development. In the absence of artificial manures, any attempt to produce crops in old tillage districts will, I fear, be attended with disastrous results. There will be a steep falling off in the yields. Now is the time to get the rock phosphate deposits in the County Clare worked so that the phosphates will be available for next season's tillage. There is also the question of making potash available. I understand that during the last war a firm in Galway produced a lot of potash from kelp. There is no reason why the same should not be done now. The people in the west, who are in a position to make the potash, ought to be appealed to to get on to its production as quickly as possible, so that some quantity of potash can be produced in the country.
On the question of foot-and-mouth disease, I think we should be satisfied that the position is somewhat better, and that the Department are now getting the scourge under control. Undoubtedly, it is to be regretted that the precautions taken at first were not sufficiently drastic to cope with this dreadful disease, and that it was allowed to spread all over the country into many counties. Our agricultural community has suffered a very severe handicap, financially and otherwise, as a result of the hold-up of the export of live stock for the last few months. At the present time the disease has been practically cleaned up, with the exception of County Kilkenny, and that county certainly appears to be in a very bad state. In my opinion, every possible precaution should be adopted and a very strong cordon should be thrown about County Kilkenny so as to prevent the disease spreading into new centres. I understand that it was difficult to get co-operation in County Kilkenny, and that some farmers there were badly advised on this matter. It is very stupid for any group of farmers to try to prevent the inspectors and veterinary officers of the Department from doing their work. I understand it was suggested to a certain group of farmers in that county that it was through the officers of the Department travelling through the country that this disease had spread. I do not believe that is occurring, and it was stupid to suggest it. However, I do not propose to go over that question again, as it would be unwise to shake any of the confidence that our people have at present in the ability of the veterinary officers to cope with the disease. This is not the time for criticism or recrimination of any sort.
There is a suggestion which I would like to make. I understand that approximately 2,000 cows were slaughtered here in the City of Dublin, and that there are now very few cows in the city. This is the time to consider whether it is wise to permit such a large number of cows in a modern city like Dublin. I am glad that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is in the House at the moment: he might consider whether it is in the interest of the health of the people to permit such a state of affairs to continue. We know now how disastrous it was to have such a large stock of cows in the city when this disease broke out, and that it was almost impossible to eradicate it in the city without a complete eradication of the live stock in the city. The Prussia Street type of area is a very difficult one to deal with. Those who know the lairage accommodation there will appreciate that.
Most of the city producers must have found it difficult to make an economic living, as they had to pay for all their winter feeding, for hay, straw, mangolds, concentrated foods and grain. When they put their cows to grass during the summer it means buying grass by the 11 months' system. In my opinion we might very well consider whether it would be wise to permit these people to re-stock or not and to determine the amount of money necessary to compensate these people for any loss involved through their not re-stocking. There is an opportunity now to examine that question and see whether cows could be kept out of the city. I believe that the whole system of lairage in the Prussia Street area is wrong. We have a very valuable live-stock industry, and the fact that our markets are situated in the Prussia Street area, away from railway termini and shipping is altogether wrong. The Department should consider the possibility of providing proper marketing facilities at the North Wall port. As a matter of fact, if it were possible we should not permit the reopening of the market at Prussia Street at all, as it is a very costly method of marketing our live stock. when they arrive at Cabra they have to be driven a considerable distance to the lairages, then put on the market, and then driven down through the city to the boat.
Our live-stock industry is well worth the investment of a decent sum of money to provide proper modern markets at the North Wall, with railway termini situated in the market, proper lairage facilities and, on the other side, easy access to the boat. That would eliminate much of the costly handling charges which farmers have to pay at present. I suggest that this matter is well worth consideration, and that some committee should be set up to examine the whole problem. Certainly, the congested area around Prussia Street provided a dreadful problem in tackling the foot-and-mouth disease when it reached the city. Everyone realised that when a case occurred in the abattoir here it was bound to spread through all the lairages.
Unfortunately, the measures taken in that regard were, in my opinion, the worst possible. The outbreak occurred on Wednesday, February 19th, at the abattoir. Cattle had arrived in the city for the following day's market, and most of the lairages were occupied. The Minister made an order that night banning the next day's market, but he permitted victuallers and dealers to buy live stock and travel from one yard to another, with the result that there was a number of people trapesing from one yard to another all over the Prussia Street area. Naturally, if there was any infection there it was dragged from one yard to another. It was the most effective way one could adopt to spread infection in the Prussia Street area. In my opinion, it would have been far wiser to permit a market to take place that day. A market could have been thoroughly washed down and disinfected. All the facilities for doing that are on the market. There were no facilities for thoroughly washing down and cleansing poky lairages in the Prussia Street area. Thinking over that matter, I personally feel an opportunity is presented for again examining this whole problem of whether the market as at present situated is badly placed for export purposes, and the question of whether the lairage accommodation is old-fashioned and obsolete. If our live-stock industry is worth anything to this country, at least it is worth giving it a market which is properly situated within reasonable distance of railway termini and shipping facilities, with modern lairage accommodation. I think there is sufficient space in the North Wall area to provide for that. I suggest some examination should be made of the possibilities of doing that. As a matter of fact, there would be nothing to prevent us from even providing a modern abattoir there if we have to continue for the duration of the war to export beef on a dead meat basis. Even in the post-war period when we might have to revert to the export of live stock, we would have an alternative way of exporting which would ensure a certain amount of competition.
In the last report published by the Committee of Public Accounts it is reported that in 1938-39 the sum of £2,598 5s. 6d. was paid to the Newmarket Dairy Company in respect of a licence to export butter to Belgium. I should say the butter cost £3,922 and it was exported to Belgium without any price being made for the butter. It was simply exported on an open market there. We took our chances on the open market. We had to pay customs duty to the Belgian Government.
The customs duty and licence cost £3,040, making a total cost of the butter on the Belgian market of £6,963. The butter failed to realise the price that was anticipated by the officials of the Minister's Department, and it was shipped back home. The Department applied for a rebate of the import duty. The Belgian Government refused to hand back the £3,040 paid as import duty. The butter was then shipped to England, and the Department paid £840 penal import duty at that time, so that the butter cost £7,803 on the English market. The butter was sold on the English market, and the price realised was £2,029, so that we lost on the transaction the difference between £2,029, the amount realised, and the cost of the butter on the English market, £7,803, which equalled £5,700. It amounts to this, that for butter for which the Department, through the Newmarket Dairy Company, paid farmers in this country £3,922, we lost £5,700. The quantity of butter was 585 cwts. It would have been far better for this country if that butter had been dumped in the sea or had been given out free to the poor. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that the Department should have decided to ship butter to Belgium without knowing what we were going to get for that butter, or without making any attempt to sell the butter prior to shipment or finding out what the conditions there were, or what the market was like at the time. They simply chanced their arm; exported the butter, paid an import duty of £3,040 to the Belgian Government, and then found the market was not any use to us.
