Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 May 1941

Vol. 83 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a sum, not exceeding £622,377, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1942, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, and of certain Services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid. — (Minister for Agriculture.)

Mr. Esmonde

I should like to make one or two observations in connection with this Estimate. The first matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention may seem a very trivial one, namely, the question of goats. I do not know whether the Department regards the existence of goat herds in this country as of any importance to our agricultural economy, but there is no doubt that if things continue as they are at present there will not be a single goat left in the country in the course of the next few weeks. They are being exported, as I understand, by the thousand. They are being taken from all parts of the country and are being sent out of the country. I do not know, as I say, whether the Department regards the existence of goats as of any importance, but if they do I think they should consider some means of preserving our goat stocks. I suggest that something should be done about it.

The next matter to which I should like to draw attention is the fact that the Department has a magnificent opportunity at present to foster and encourage the cultivation of garden crops in this country. The emergency has brought home to members of the public, whether they have a large or a small amount of land, whether they have been able to obtain allotments or plots outside or in the vicinity of our small or large towns, the value of garden crops and the splendid return that can be got from the land by a little extra work in cultivating these crops. I think that the Department would be well advised to bear in mind that the growing of crops and vegetables for the human population should not be a matter only for a period of emergency but something that should be fostered and encouraged every year, apart altogether from any danger to our food supplies. The advantages that are to be gained by such a course are obvious. I suggest that it is the Department's function to engage in some long-term planning in that direction and to foster and encourage a spirit amongst us under which the growth of vegetables which is proceeding at present will be continued for an indefinite period as part of our economy.

The next matter to which I should like to refer is the growing of wheat. In many of the debates in this House this question has been thrown to and fro. I have had some slight experience of the growing of wheat and I have taken the trouble to look into the historical aspect of Irish wheat-growing. I have come to the conclusion that, perhaps, we are not exactly going the right way about wheat-growing. It is a historical fact that, a great many years before the middle-west of America and Canada were developed as big wheat-growing areas, we grew a very large portion — if not the entire crop — of wheat necessary to feed the population and that was at a time when the population was larger than it is now. It was, however, grown differently in those days. It was grown, more or less, as a garden crop and was intensively cultivated. Each person with enough land grew wheat sufficient to meet his own family requirements and the requirements of his workmen. That is exemplified by a particular district in County Wexford which is heavily rated having regard to the valuation of land generally. When the general valuation of agricultural land was first introduced — about 100 years ago — it was based upon the produce of the soil. A certain district in County Wexford known as the Mackamore district was valued very highly by reason of the crops of wheat obtained by intensive cultivation. Gradually, we had the rise of these foreign wheat-producing countries with virgin soil. There was the middle-west of America and there were the prairies of Canada, fertilised by the droppings of buffaloes and other wild herds for hundreds of years, and they proved to be places that could be exploited for wheat-growing. Under the system of modern commerce and transportation, our wheat-growing efforts diminished and we became dependent on the foreign market. I think that, in dealing with the wheat-growing system in this country, our Department think of the Ukraine, in Russia, or of Canada or the United States. They seem to regard the land of this country as virgin soil. The Ukraine has up to 18 feet of good crop-soil and, in the American countries, the soil is of such a virgin nature that these areas are like wheat-producing factories. Even these lands are becoming used up. Since we are faced with a shortage of foodstuffs, the Department should bring home to the people the necessity for each person providing his requirements in the shape of wheat, same as he would do in regard to potatoes. From that point of view, I criticise the Minister's handling of the wheat situation. I think it would be much better that ten people should grow one acre of wheat each than that every tenth man should grow ten acres. The results would be better and the soil would be less impoverished.

I listened to the discussions which have taken place on the foot-and-mouth disease. Unintentionally, perhaps, some speakers criticised the technical experts of the Department— the veterinary surgeons. I think that credit should be given where credit is due. I am acquainted with some of these veterinary surgeons. I have been in a district where foot-and-mouth disease is very rampant and I am aware that these men have been working extremely hard and have been doing their best to stem the disease. If fault lies at anybody's door, I do not think it lies at the doors of the veterinary surgeons employed by the Department.

I do not know whether the matter to which I now propose to refer comes within the province of the Department of Agriculture or not, but I do not think the Department has seriously tackled the question of ascertaining to what uses the plant life of this country can be put — what sort of plants can be grown here for the production of raw materials for industry. With the advance of science — chemistry in particular — and with the inventions that are taking place from day to day, it is apparent that all sorts of synthetic raw materials can be produced in this way. In that synthetic combination, plant life plays a most important part. I am not sufficient of an expert to know the exact articles that can be manufactured as a result of the chemical treatment of plant life but I know that their number is legion. The Department would be well advised to ascertain what sort of plant life can be produced here economically for the creation of synthetic raw materials for use in our various industries.

This would be a suitable time to foster and encourage the growth of tobacco. Tobacco was grown largely in County Wexford and some other counties. It is still grown in some of these counties but there has been an easing off in Government encouragement of late. Having regard to the fact that we are, more or less, cut off from our sources of supply, I think that the Department would be well advised to encourage the growing of tobacco. Another thing to which the attention of the Department should be directed — it may be receiving attention at present but there is no great evidence of it — is the production and use of substitute feeding stuffs. We are very conservative in the use of feeding stuffs for our animal population and there is no great evidence of any guidance or encouragement from the Department as to the substitute feeding stuffs that are available or that could be grown. There must be a great shortage of bran in the country — and there will be a still greater shortage. More publicity should be given to whatever alternatives there are to bran. I mention bran merely as an instance. People would like to know, as a result of the experiences of the Department, what sort of food should be grown to take the place of bran in farm economy.

A loan scheme for farm works was introduced last year by the Department. It was a very excellent scheme, but it was introduced too late. A certain return had to be made by the occupier of land in order to get any benefit from the scheme. These returns had to be passed by the Department and the lands had to be inspected. If any work is to be done on the land next winter under such schemes, now is the time to advertise them and give the figures, so that at the end of the autumn or the beginning of the winter everything may be cut and dry and each person who will benefit under the land scheme may know where he stands.

Mr. Fagan

In connection with this Estimate, I should like to refer chiefly to the foot-and-mouth disease. It has been suggested by the Minister and by officials that the farmers are to be blamed for its spread. In my opinion, it is not fair to blame them so much. Some of them may be rather lax, certainly, but if the Minister and officials put themselves in the position of some of the farmers they would see the situation in a different light. A farmer may have the disease on his land for a day or two and not know it. It is well known that one case came from the middle of Ireland and travelled to Birkenhead, passing through many veterinary surgeons without being detected. The farmers are doing all in their power to stamp out the disease — it is they themselves who are most concerned — and it is not fair that it should be broadcast that they are to blame. I do not want to blame the officials of the Department, either, as I know they are working tooth and nail to stamp out the disease.

This disease presents a very serious problem. Everything is being held up and it will cost the country a large amount of money. The Government should put a ring right round any county or district where the disease appears and allow no one in or out for a fortnight. The people in that area could stay inside the area for a fortnight, for the good of the country. The disease seems to be so infectious and to travel so mysteriously, in spite of the precautions of the Department, that it would be well for the Minister to consider putting a military ring around any district in which it appears. The life-blood of the country lies in cattle shipments at the present time, and if we do not get rid of the disease within the next fortnight or three weeks the English farmer will not want our cattle and will have made arrangements to turn his land to meadow or to something else. That occurred the last time the foot-and-mouth disease broke out here, and people could not dispose of their cattle as the English farmer had made other arrangements.

Many Deputies have received letters from the Roscrea factory in regard to Deputy Dillon's remarks. I think Deputy Dillon was quite right. I do not blame the Roscrea factory; they had a monopoly of the business and it is human nature to buy as cheaply as possible when one has a monopoly. However, now that the disease has spread so far, the Government should organise some scheme to avoid a monopoly. They should make it compulsory to buy by weight and then no farmer will be defrauded. One official of the Department told me that the farmers are not fools and that they would know the value of the cattle, but that is not so in the case of all the farmers. One poor farmer walked into a market recently and sold cattle at £8 a head less than a fair price, because he did not know his business. When there is no competition, it is hard for farmers to know the price. Live-weight buying should be made compulsory and no single body of people should be given a monopoly of the business. The Roscrea factory need make no excuses; they bought as cheaply as they could, and that is only natural; but it is not fair to give them the chance.

The ports should be opened for the export of fat stock as early as possible. The Government should draw some line across the country and ask the British Government to accept fat stock for immediate slaughter. We are now coming into the month of June and if no move is made the country will be flooded with fat cattle and lambs. I understand the British are taking fat stock from Northern Ireland and I read in to-day's paper where a Glasgow market had many cattle from Northern Ireland for immediate slaughter. I cannot see why the British Government should object to that Northern Ireland line being extended well up into the Midlands. That would relieve people who have fat lambs and sheep at the present time.

Regarding the fixed price for oats, this was discussed here before, but I am very much afraid that the Department is shutting the stable door when the horse has gone. The farmers were robbed last year in the price they got for oats. Owing to the shortage of wheat, and with no prospect of any wheat coming in to make flour, we can see that there will be no bran or pollard from whatever wheat we have and, as a result, there will be a shortage of feeding stuffs. We will have to fall back on oats and barley and that will create a market without fixing a price. If the Government fixes a price, they may fix it too low to cover the present cost of sowing oats. I see that in my county the Department have got the county council to sow oats on land which was taken over and the rate has been £3 10s. 0d. an Irish acre for ploughing, harrowing, supplying and putting in seed oats. That roughly works out at £7 10s. 0d. an Irish acre as the cost of putting the oats into the ground, without the cost of taking it out. That ought to be a headline to the Department as to what it costs to sow oats. Oats and barley will find their own level if they go into the market, and there is no necessity for interference with prices.

The farmers have had a very bad time this year and now is the time to make up for the shortage of artificial manures and make sure there will be no shortage later. We can see that the crops all over the country are hungry through need of artificial manure, after this drought through which we have passed. In my opinion, unless artificial manure is made much cheaper and given to the farmers, the land will become more hungry and fit to grow nothing but weeds in the future. Why had we a famine in '47? It was not due to failure of the potato crop, but to intensive tillage for years previously and as a result the land was "run out". We may be heading for that danger again. The Department could prevent it if they arranged that artificial manures would be available for farmers, so that the land would not become impoverished.

Another question that deserves attention is the saving of the harvest. We never had so much oats and wheat sown as this year, and there will be only a fortnight or three weeks to save the crops. All depends upon the weather. The Department should make provision to help farmers during that period, either through the parish councils or otherwise. If each parish council was doing its work it should be in a position to supply 100, 50, or 40 men, and to switch them from one place or another during harvesting operations. I do not want to interfere with the unemployed in a district. I suggest that the parish councils should look after them by seeing that they had work before others were employed. My experience is that when there is a big rush for labour during the harvest, men cannot be got. Consequently the saving of the crops is prolonged and full advantage may not be taken of fine weather. Another question with which the Department might concern itself is the securing of binders. Many people want these machines but they are not available. I suggest that the Department should get in touch with the English Government with a view of having binders released and sent to Ireland.

I read a lengthy speech in a local paper recently by the County Commissioner for Westmeath, Mr. Bartley, in which he stated that he had written to the Department asking for permission to sell live stock belonging to farmers who had not paid their rates. I consider that the Department should be very slow about granting anyone permission to sell stock at present. Farmers will pay their rates if they get a little time. They are trying to build up their resources after undergoing a bad time. I hope that stock will not be taken and sold for little or nothing when in a few months it might realise full value. I impress upon the Minister again the serious situation caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. It is such a grave menace that it must be stamped out, no matter what the cost. I suggest that there should be a ring of military around places where there is an outbreak. I do not wish to say anything against the efforts of the Local Security Force, but I think they are not strict enough. There should be a string of military put around places where there is an outbreak, and even though that might cause hardship, when it is for the good of the country some such measures must be taken to stamp out the disease.

Mr. Beegan

I congratulate Deputy Esmonde on the constructive contribution he made to the debate. It was very pleasant to listen to a contribution of that kind. The same applies to other Deputies on the opposite benches. Deputy Esmonde's contribution was in striking contrast to that of a colleague of his who stated more than once in the course of his speech that one statement made by the Taoiseach in March regarding the growing of wheat that had given that particular Deputy consolation, was that the weather was against it. If for Party purposes any Deputy of that particular type sinks to that low level it is rather sad in a time like the present.

General Mulcahy

I ask Deputy Beegan not to attempt to misrepresent Deputy Dillon. I deny absolutely and emphatically that Deputy Dillon spoke in any way that suggested interference with the wheat crop. The Deputy ought to keep to the line in which he started, and not sink to that low level.

Mr. Beegan

The inference anyone would draw from what the Deputy said was that the wheat scheme of ten years ago, of last year and this year was codology, and that the Taoiseach had to admit that the weather went against them. I do not see what other inference should be drawn, except that that had caused satisfaction to him. If it gave the Deputy consolation that the weather went again us I hope if anyone goes hungry, or is on the starvation border line next winter, it will not give the same consolation. I am glad Deputy Dillon does not represent his Party.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy is misrepresenting him.

Mr. Beegan

Deputy Mulcahy is entitled to have his opinion and I am entitled to express mine. If Deputy Dillon is a specialist in profiteering or things of that kind — I am not alleging he is one himself — he is certainly not a specialist in agriculture. There are very few here entitled to speak for agriculture, particularly the type of people who never soiled their boots in a ploughed field.

General Mulcahy

Let us hear something constructive from the Deputy.

Mr. Beegan

I will make my own speech. I did not interrupt other Deputies.

General Mulcahy

I am sorry I interrupted the Deputy, but I did so in fairness to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Beegan is in possession.

Mr. Beegan

It can be proved beyond yea or nay, that wheat can be grown very well in this country on large stretches of land. If the Deputy criticised the wheat scheme from the point of view that certain steps should have been taken, such criticism would be very helpful and very welcome. I agree with Deputy Belton that to ensure a good winter wheat crop it is advisable to have it sown in October. There is a risk in sowing it after Christmas. I fear there is too little importance attached to the growing of spring wheat. I mentioned before that spring wheat in many parts gives a better yield and is much more easily grown than winter wheat. There is the further advantage that it is a shorter time in the ground, and that the soil is not so weedy after it. The land, however, must be judged by those who have experience of it. A good supply of seed for spring wheat should be assured. The price of seed wheat was undoubtedly abnormally high this year. I suggested some time ago that the price should have been controlled. We must not give all our time, however, to brooding over the past. If there are any shortcomings, it is advisable that farmers who are growing wheat should be instructed to keep sufficient for seed purposes. From time to time it has been stated that some farmers are not in a position to do that, and that they sell at a low price and then have to buy seed at three times what they got for their crop. It should not be beyond the power of farmers to keep seed in stacks. It can be safely stacked on stands. If grain is stacked on stands it would be the cheapest way for farmers to have seed to meet requirements in wheat, oats and barley. It would be in a very good state if threshed late in the month of February or in the month of March, and it would be in a proper condition to put into the ground. I think that serious attention might well be given to this aspect, and it would be advisable to instruct the farmers to keep it in that way.

The fact that people sell their oats in the early autumn is no indication that, even if they had suitable accommodation, they would keep it over. That is where a guaranteed price would be useful, because if a guaranteed price were fixed for barley and oats it would be the foundation of a sort of credit scheme. The people from whom the farmers receive certain essentials of life would know that the farmers were sure of getting a guaranteed price on a graduated scale, the price increasing from month to month. In that way the farmers would not have to sell their crop. They could hold it until they got a good price. The shopkeepers who would be supplying them with goods would not press them for cash, knowing that a guaranteed price would be assured.

We have heard a good deal about fertilisers and the shortage of them during the past year. I believe we are going to be faced with even a graver situation in that respect in the coming year. I do not know where adequate supplies of fertilisers are to come from, in view of the fact that we have not been able to get more than 50 per cent. of our requirements this year. At the same time, that is not such a great drawback. As was pointed out by Deputy Esmond, we had good crops of wheat in this country, and intensive tillage generally, 100 years ago. I believe that wheat was grown then on a large scale because the land was manured with farmyard manure. For farmyard manure we have in this country a number of raw materials and, in the long run, it is much cheaper and better than any artificial manure, because it will leave a residue on the soil which artificial manure will not leave. The very large quantities of straw which you will have this year will give us the first essential. We can combine with that the mud from our bogs and the lime that we can procure in the country and, if we mix them all together, they make an excellent manure. Although it may be a somewhat laborious process, if we take into account the cost of artificial manure we cannot but come to the conclusion that the labour involved in mixing that type of farmyard manure will be well repaid.

Deputy Esmonde dealt with another matter to which I also would like to refer. I wish to congratulate the Minister and his Department in connection with the farm improvement scheme. That scheme has given new hope to the farmers and I am glad it is being continued. To my mind it is the proper form of derating, because the farmer is given something for whatever improvement work he carries out on his holding. If we were to give money as a gift — and that is the way some people regard the giving of money in the form of derating — I believe it would not be nearly as useful as is the grant given for farm improvements. If a farmer carries out certain improvements on his holding he is given half the estimated cost. It was late last year when this scheme was put into operation; it was late when the inspectors got out and they had to travel over wide areas. I suggest that, during the current year, once last year's scheme is completed, the inspectors should be sent out again. In that way the work will be started much earlier, and the scheme will be much more beneficial.

There may have been some looseness, but it is hard to avoid it at the moment because of the short period at the disposal of the inspectors. As regards any looseness that there might have been, I believe it would not have occurred if the inspectors had started in July last. So far as tillage is concerned, I think that during the year 1942 the area of land to be tilled should be at least one-fourth of the arable land in the country. This should be made known to the farmers not later than August or September, and even that might be too late. At any rate, the Government ought to let them know at the earliest moment what amount of tillage will be required, and then they will not have the excuse they had this year, that it was too late when they got the notification. The farmers should be notified in time as to the amount of tillage required, so that they may prepare their land for wheat and other crops.

This debate has travelled over a wide area and it has lasted for a considerable time. If the debate was left to people who have practical experience of working on the land, and if the professional men avoided butting in, I believe it would be much better for agriculture. Professional men, even with the finest ideas, are not so well informed on agricultural matters as people who have practical experience of farm work, because their opinions and intentions are regarded with suspicion by the farming community. It would save a good deal of time in the Dáil if the discussion of the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture was left to men like Deputy Esmonde, Deputy Belton, Deputy Hughes and other Deputies who understand agricultural matters.

General Mulcahy

If you could keep the politicians out of agriculture — some of them, anyway — it would be all the better.

Mr. O'Reilly

This is undoubtedly the most important Estimate that we have to deal with in this House. The Minister for Agriculture has, to my mind, a far greater responsibility than any other Minister, more especially at the present time, and under the circumstances in which we live. Therefore, I am rather glad to note that the majority of the speeches here were sympathetic and constructive, with the exception, of course, of the few speeches that created the usual amount of sparks. Of course, that type of thing really does not do very much harm. I think the people to-day do not regard such speeches with any great seriousness; they have succeeded to a large extent in properly estimating their seriousness.

The Minister for Agriculture is charged here with responsibility for the production of food in order that the country will be able to maintain itself during this crisis. That is, of course, an enormous task. Not alone that, but the Minister has to deal with a community who are largely dependent, one on the other. After all, farmers sell from one to the other, and therefore, the determination of a policy which would give anything like equal chances to each of the sections of the farming community is extremely difficult. As well as that, the Minister had to face here this calamity of the foot-and-mouth disease. I think that nothing less than the word "calamity" would describe the situation which now confronts us. It is indeed a calamity, and I feel that I am in agreement with Deputy Fagan in what he recommended. In fact, I should be inclined to go a little bit further. I must say that it is disappointing to most of us that, after quite a number of months' experience, very extreme steps seem to be necessary if we are to avoid the calamity that is staring us in the face, and I think the time has arrived when we must make some endeavour to organise stringent methods of isolation so that farms that have the misfortune to be afflicted with this disease will be definitely isolated, and if the Guards are not in a position to deal with the matter, then the military must be turned out to deal with it.

As far as I can see, the disease is spreading, and spreading to counties where it has not been known before, but contact evidently must be continued in some way. Therefore, I think it is essential, if some of the misfortunes to which Deputy Fagan referred are not to take place, that we should handle this whole thing in a more determined fashion — even to the extent that the unfortunate farmer whose stock has been afflicted with this disease, will have to suffer such isolation that his children cannot go to school, and, possibly, that he and his family cannot go to Mass. I think we cannot avoid looking upon this as a very serious matter, and one that is at the moment undermining the finances of the State. As I said already, the Minister is the most important Minister of State. It is he who, to a large extent, through his policy of production, finds the finance that the Minister for Finance has to deal with, and has to put at the disposal of the Government in order to carry on the social services and other such matters. Consequently, as I said, I am glad to hear that he has received a great deal of co-operation, and he deserves every bit of it.

Now, after mentioning this calamity of the foot-and-mouth disease, it seems to me that the next most important thing that the Minister has to deal with is the question of food production. I am not going to say that food production was tackled in the best possible manner during the past year, but I am going to say that the Minister had great difficulties to contend with in tackling that problem. Those difficulties mainly arose out of the changing war situation, and, I suppose, out of the different policies that heads of States, engaged in a war, found it necessary to announce from time to time. Consequently, we were to some extent unaware of the situation with regard to food and other supplies, such as petrol, tea, and other commodities for the supply of which we depend on other countries. There was some excuse, therefore, to be found in regard to such supplies, but I think it is only right to say, with the experience we have had of the past year or so, and bearing in mind the possibility that this war is not going to stop to-morrow morning, that we can now lay down a definite and permanent scheme to deal with these matters, and, having arrived at such a scheme, then announce it in time. I say that, because I must admit that, last year, such schemes as we had were not announced in time. That, of course, was due to the fact that the war situation was something outside our control, and if the schemes were announced at a time when, possibly, it was too late for the schemes to be really effective, at least it could be pleaded that that was due to things outside our control. Besides that, as Deputy Fagan has pointed out, weather conditions had a good deal to do with the difficulties which the Minister and the farmers had to meet. For instance, artificial manures applied within the last month or two would be of very little use. In fact, yesterday I saw artificial manures applied, and it would appear to me that they would be of very little use. The recent rains attracted farmers to use these manures on the land, but if it does not rain within the next fortnight the benefit will not accrue to these farmers.

These were some of the difficulties with which the Minister and the farmers had to contend, but in my opinion the main difficulty was that we could not announce whatever schemes we had in sufficient time for the farmers to be able to avail of them properly. For instance, the scheme of a fixed price for wheat was not made known in sufficient time for farmers to avail of it. Farmers were not able to utilise the security of that fixed price, in the way of getting credit; because the scheme was not announced in time. The result was that seeds were not available.

I think the Minister should consider giving a little more control, in this matter of the administration of food production schemes, to the local bodies, such as the county committees of agriculture and so on. I do not know exactly how the turf scheme stands, but I believe it stands pretty well. That was a very good scheme, and its administration was handed down to the local bodies, the county surveyors, and so on. I believe that if the local bodies, were to be given certain borrowing powers you would avoid the kind of thing we had happening last year, where farmers sold seed wheat at 37/6 and had to buy it back again at £3 and £3 10s. If such borrowing powers were given to the local bodies I think the farmers could be guaranteed almost the full price of £2 this year, and out of the sale of the seed, when certified, these people could repay the county councils. That would be one way of utilising the £2 guarantee that exists at the moment, and there would be interest on that. I think that such a scheme would be of the greatest possible advantage nationally, and I certainly think that it is one that is worthy of consideration.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of spring wheat. In my opinion, we will not have a very large supply because a good deal of the spring wheat has been a partial failure. There has been unequal, patchy, and uncertain growth, and consequently that wheat will not give the best class of seed. As a result, we may be faced with a serious shortage. Therefore, there is all the more necessity to husband that wheat and to induce farmers to keep it in stack or in some other way for next year. As things are now, it is not easy to keep that wheat. Farmers have not been able to sell their stock. They have lost three or four months so far as the sale of cattle is concerned and, no matter how we may look at it, cattle were a ready source of revenue to the farmers. They were actually currency, so to speak, and therefore it is quite obvious to anybody that farmers have received a big jolt so far as their finances are concerned. This year, above all other years, I hold that the farmers deserve some consideration, and if county councils or other bodies are going to promote loan schemes these schemes should be announced in time, because it is essential that the farmers should know in time what amount of money is going to be made available to them. The farmer should be advised of any such schemes well in advance, so that he may be able to purchase in time.

To my mind, we must look on this thing as being one of the greatest possible importance, and no stone should be left unturned to see that everything possible is done to assist the producers of food, because it is obvious to everybody that we must now depend upon ourselves, that the rich prairies of Canada, South America or any other country are now very far away from us, and, consequently, if we try to organise the community here, I think we will avoid starvation. No matter how much we should like to see unemployment and other evils relieved, if we succeed in getting through this war without starvation, we should be very thankful. It may not be easy to relieve unemployment all the time. We may be able partially to relieve it, but the main thing we should aim at is ensuring that there is no starvation. The important thing for farmers this year is a suitable form of credit, and that can best be promoted by the local bodies who are in continuous touch with the farmers and who know their day-to-day difficulties.

There is another point which arises in connection with food production. Last year we had in view entirely the maintenance of the human being, but this year we are faced with the necessity of maintaining the human being, plus live stock. Last year the farmer growing rape did not qualify under the compulsory tillage scheme, and I think that was rather a mistake. Manure is one of the important items. Rape is certainly a magnificent feeding for live stock, and it also provides a magnificent soil fertiliser, replacing manure, and I think the Minister should consider allowing rape as a crop fulfilling the conditions of the compulsory tillage scheme. I urge that on the ground that the situation has changed and we are now faced with trying to maintain not alone human beings but live stock. We may be faced with the necessity of maintaining these live stock for quite a considerable time—how long will depend on our success in exterminating foot-and-mouth disease and getting the ports reopened. In that connection, if the Minister were to make representations to the Ministry of Agriculture or Board of Trade in Great Britain, they might allow cattle from the area north of Dublin to be shipped. That would ease the situation to a very large extent. The Minister possibly has discussed this matter with, and has made representations to the British Government. I hope he will continue to do so, and thereby arrange for the relief to some extent of that portion of the country.

I should also like the Minister to consider a renewal of the growing of tobacco. At one time, I took some part in advocating tobacco growing. It did not turn out a success, due very largely to the fact that enough of the tobacco was not mixed and people did not get an opportunity of cultivating a taste for it. It is really a question of cultivating a taste and many people now would be very glad if we had tobacco grown here. The main difficulty in connection with it was that it was a revenue crop. At the same time, revenue is fairly well upset now and, by the end of the war, we may have a complete change around, and I suggest that the Minister should see what he could do to make us as self-sufficient as possible in this respect. The tobacco crop is very important in connection with wheat growing. It is a root crop for farmers. In Meath, we cannot grow very much beet and one of the difficulties is that it is not easy to continue to grow wheat without manured lands. The quantity of root crops we grow there is not excessive, and, as we were denied the beet factory, the amount of beet grown cannot be very large. A certain amount is grown, but some sort of cash root crop is very essential for the growing of wheat, and if tobacco growing could be revived and a different outlook with regard to it adopted, farmers would have a little manured land for their wheat crops. No matter what the experts may say, the best winter wheat I see is winter wheat grown on manured ground and we cannot get away from the fact that quite an amount of the failure in County Meath has been due to attempting to grow spring, and sometimes winter, wheat without manure, and sometimes on lea land. I do not think anybody could say it is satisfactory.

In that connection, I should like to say a word or two with regard to the Department's propaganda and instructions. The Minister and his officials should seriously consider that propaganda—their leaflets and instructions. General instructions are very often liable to deceive people and sometimes people who adhered strictly to the general instructions either sowed too much seed for their district, or too little. That is a further reason why local bodies and their instructors should be taken into consideration and their views listened to carefully and attentively. They should be given greater freedom because conditions in parish and parish differ and the more decentralised these arrangements are, the more successful will they be. Centralisation is a very general term, and although it was popular up to a few days ago, I think certain weak spots have appeared in it, and people generally are satisfied that the centralisation of Government or anything else is not the best possible plan. The Minister should decentralise his methods a little more, and it would be to the advantage of what we all have in view, that is, the provision in an agricultural community like this of full and complete food rations. That is really his duty and, in that respect, he has the full and complete co-operation of everyone, notwithstanding an odd spark of opposition here and there. He may take it that he has the full and complete co-operation, as well as the sympathy, of everyone, and in that way he will be able to tide us over the serious days ahead of us. If he does resort, after advice from his advisers —when one is dealing with professional people, one must be very careful what one says—to compulsory and complete isolation in respect of foot-and-mouth disease, he will have the fullest co-operation of the House and, I am sure, of every sensible farmer in Ireland.

Mr. Hickey

According to Deputy Beegan nobody but an agriculturist should take part in this debate, but any citizen who realises that over 50 per cent. of this population are engaged in agriculture must take an interest in agriculture as such, and, as one who sprang from the land, I want to say that I have not forgotten what I learned while I was on the land. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in my time on the land—a good many years ago—I found these demonstration plots run by the local committees of agriculture highly educational for the farmers and I regret that there are not enough of them throughout the country to-day. I remember, when those plots were started in the different areas, one found farmers coming on Sundays to study their results. The exchange of views which took place and the information they got from visiting these demonstration plots were a most valuable contribution to the education of the farming community.

I must say that Deputy O'Reilly was constructive in the statement which he made. The whole trend of his argument, however, was that there was great need for credit facilities for farmers, especially during the coming year. As one who has some knowledge of those engaged in agriculture from visiting the country districts occasionally, I entirely agree with that statement. Farming cannot be carried on in an economic way with the accommodation in the way of poultry houses and piggeries some of the farmers have at present. I believe that if a reasonable amount of credit was given to the farmers they would build decent and up-to-date poultry houses and piggeries. I suggest that that is a most important matter so far as the agricultural community is concerned.

As to foot-and-mouth disease, I think the people in the cities and towns are just as much concerned about this disease as anybody else. Any serious citizen must regard the matter with great concern. I wonder whether sufficient attention is being paid to those people who travel from one county to another in caravans, putting up at the roadside and other places for the night. These people may be responsible for conveying the disease from one county to another. I agree with Deputy Fagan that there should be a ring drawn around the infected places which those people should not be allowed inside.

I do not intend to go into the bigger question of agriculture, but I must say, from my experience during the time I lived on the land and from going through the country at present, that there are not so many of those demonstration plots in which farmers took such a great interest. They had there an opportunity of seeing the different classes of seeds and manures that suited different soils. From what I know of the farming community they are rather inclined to adhere to the old methods and customs, to believe that the old ideas are the best, and I think the more education we have for the farming community the better. I suggest to the Minister that the giving of credit, especially to the smaller farmers in the remote parts of the country, for the building of suitable houses for poultry and pigs would be one of the most advantageous things he could do.

Captain Giles

As the Estimate for agriculture is such an important one a lengthy discussion on it is usual. During the past year agriculture has gone through a very severe test owing to the war conditions and the calamity of foot-and-mouth disease. Fairs have practically ceased to be held throughout the country, and this being the month for the paying of annuities, I put it to the Minister that he should stand between the people engaged in agriculture and the Land Commission and see that there is no pressure brought to bear on the people for the payment of land annuities. The annuities are generally paid at this time of the year when the farmers sell their store cattle. As there are no fairs, the people are not able to sell their cattle and therefore are not able to pay their annuities. They will pay when they are able to pay; all they want is time.

I agree that what is wrong with agriculture is lack of money and that some type of credit will have to be provided for the farmers. If credit had been given to them in the last year or two to build barns and lofts to store grain, we would not have the great complaint there has been about the huge prices charged for and the profits made on wheat and oat seeds, etc., because the farmers would be able to keep their own seeds and if necessary swop with their neighbours. I ask the Minister to devise some scheme of credit, so that after the coming harvest farmers will have some place to store grain. If they have not sheds or lofts to store it, they will be forced to sell the grain at the wretched prices which they get every year, whereas if the larger part of the crop could be held until later on they would get a reasonable price. At present the majority of farmers have only sheds with no lofts. The ground floor is always damp and they cannot keep grain for more than a fortnight or three weeks as it would get musty and smelly and would be of no use either for the market or for themselves.

Foot-and-mouth disease is at present a grave menace, but I am glad to say that it has practically disappeared from the Midlands. It was very fortunate for County Meath, which is such a large cattle-raising county, that it did not get such a grip there as was at one time feared. It spread to County Meath in the early stages and did great havoc there, but happily it was possible to check it. I would ask the Minister, as Meath is an important county for fairs, if possible to allow fairs to be held there, so that the small farmers of Meath and the neighbouring counties can sell their store cattle to the bigger farmers. At the present time, these farmers can only get wretched prices for their cattle; in fact they can hardly sell them at all. If fairs were allowed to be held it would help to stabilise prices and give the small farmers a chance of selling their cattle. Farmers cannot afford to sell them at the present prices. In fact it would mean selling them at what they paid for them last October or even less, and if that continues it would be a calamity. I, therefore, ask the Minister, if possible, to allow the fairs to be held in Meath so that the store cattle can be sold to the larger farmers.

I think the Minister realises, as we all realise, that vast tracts of spring wheat are dying off all over the country. One farmer told me that he was after ploughing up ten acres of lea wheat and sowing oats in its place; another man had to plough up 15 acres and another six acres. These farmers tell me that that is happening all over the area. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the whole problem of wheat growing, because it is my belief and the belief of the ordinary farmer that lea wheat is a failure in most cases; that wheat can only be grown successfully on well-manured ground, and that, if possible, it should be sown in October. We know that owing to the continuance of the war a drive for further wheat growing will have to be made next year. I ask the Minister to start that drive next month, so that the wheat will be sown at the proper time. If we do not get winter wheat in, the spring wheat will be of very little use. As I say, large tracts of wheat have already been destroyed, in many cases I believe owing to wire worm, but in most cases from having been sown on lea soil. I think we shall have to go back to the old system of following, which was followed with great success. When wheat is sown on soil which has not been tilled for 20 years the crop is generally a failure. If the land were ploughed and left until the following season a good crop could be got.

I also ask the Minister to do what he can to revive stall-feeding in this country. If we do not do that, there is very little hope of having manure for wheat growing. I believe it was a great calamity that stall-feeding was allowed to die out. Farmers who went in for stall-feeding always had plenty of manure for cereal crops, and even a little over. At present in the ordinary farmer's place you would not see eight or ten loads of manure. All a farmer has is a few loads from his milch cows. If we could revive stall-feeding in this country, we would have the manure that is so necessary, and a decent rotation of agriculture, which is so essential for the country. If that is not done, we can have very little hope that the land will be restored to the condition necessary to enable us to get good cereal crops out of it.

What we want is a more balanced system of agriculture. The one thing that will enable us to get that is a return to stall-feeding of cattle. The farmers who stall-feed must, of necessity, be tillage farmers because they require roots and cereals to finish off the stock. That system also gives them two essentials for practical farming— offals and manure. That was brought home to my mind the other day when I had an opportunity of inspecting a crop of winter wheat. The crop is being grown on well-manured land and is, I am glad to say, in splendid condition.

One of the things that we have to complain about in our county is the composition of the county committee of agriculture. The county council, unfortunately, was elected on a political ticket, with the result that we have not got on our committees the good, practical men that we need to help on agriculture. While I agree that the chairman and a few other members of our county committee of agriculture are good, practical men, for whom I have every respect, I am satisfied that they are being completely held back in their efforts by certain types of men on the committee who know absolutely nothing, and care nothing, about agriculture.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has no responsibility for local elections.

Captain Giles

I would like if he would shift the responsibility for this to the Minister concerned, and see if something could not be done. As far as our county is concerned, the practical farmers in it do not take the slightest interest in the county committee of agriculture for the reason that they see on it men who should not be on it—people who are there simply to get what they can for themselves, and nothing more. If you had on it the right type of men there would be greater co-operation between the people and the committee. At present the people do not even bother to read the reports of the proceedings of the county committee. They are tempted to bless themselves when they think of some of the people who are members of it because they realise that those people care nothing about agriculture.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have already reminded the Deputy that the Minister has no responsibility in that matter.

General Mulcahy

Who should be more interested in those county committees of agriculture than the Minister for Agriculture?

Dr. Ryan

The electors,

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, but the rules of debate must be observed.

Captain Giles

I now desire to direct the Minister's attention to the land improvement schemes. I find, in going through my own county, that there are a good many people availing of those schemes simply to benefit themselves. They may be getting grants of £20, £30 or £40 to enable them to clean up gripes, ditches and drains, but, instead of giving some extra employment in getting that work done, they are doing it all themselves. My submission is that this money should be availed of for the purpose of relieving unemployment in an area. I do not think it is fair that men with pretty large holdings—"snug" men as they say in the country—should be able to get these grants and retain them themselves. Many of them are doing that. They are not giving employment to one extra man. I appeal to the Minister to see that, in future, grants are given on condition that they will be utilised for the purpose of relieving unemployment in an area.

I agree with what Deputy O'Reilly said about tobacco growing in the County Meath. At one time it was a thriving industry there, and it is a pity that it was allowed to lapse by our Governments. It used to give a huge amount of employment. If the industry had been kept going it would mean the retention of very large sums of money in the country. That is an aspect of the question that the Government should pay attention to. We have in the county quite a large number of men who are expert in the growing of tobacco. I hope that, in present conditions, something may be done by the Government to revive the industry there.

Weed cutting is a matter that requires to be specially attended to in the County Meath. I have observed that the Land Commission are very great offenders in this respect. I have seen thistles and, in fact, all sorts of weeds, growing on land that they have held for years. When these weeds ripen the seeds are blown on to the land of the neighbouring farmers and do immense damage. Something should be done to put an end to that kind of thing, because it is most unfair to the thrifty and hard working farmers of an area. I would say that drastic action should be taken against the Land Commission and others who offend in that respect. One would expect that the Land Commission would give good example and not allow such a thing to happen, but what I have stated has occurred.

On the question of prices, I want to ask the Minister to fix minimum prices for oats, potatoes and barley. If that is not done farmers will have no incentive to go in for increased tillage. At the present moment we have a huge area of the land of the country under tillage. It is my belief that if we had about half that area properly tilled we would get much better results. I see that the tractor is being used very much in the County Meath. The amount of work that one of them is able to do in a day is really alarming. Some of the work done is good, but a lot of it is, I am afraid, rough and slipshod. It does not take a tractor very long to plough 30 or 40 acres, but since, as I have said, a lot of the work done is rough and slipshod, the results are not very satisfactory. The seed, for one thing, is not properly covered, with the result that the crows are able to pick most of it up, so that in a very short time one sees nothing but bare acres of land. It would be far better if half that area of land had been properly sown and the seed well covered. There is not much use in tearing up hundreds of thousands of acres of land and not getting a good return from it. A good farmer will get a far better crop from one acre of land than the bad farmer will get from three or four acres. During the last eight or ten years the prices for agricultural produce have been so bad that farmers have been tempted to till a bigger area of land than was really economic. They simply tilled the land, put the crops in and then let them take pot luck. That may be all right when prices were bad, but what we want in this country to-day is good practical farming. We cannot expect to have that unless the farmer is assured of a remunerative price for the crop that he is going to put in.

I agree with Deputy O'Reilly that we want more decentralisation in agriculture as well as in government and in other things. In a sense, I think the war has been a blessing, because it has brought home to the Government and to others that what we really want is to get back more amongst the people. Prior to the outbreak of the war, the object seemed to be to bring everything to the big cities—to bolster up all sorts of schemes whether they were good or bad. In most cases the people who act on agricultural committees are city-minded types of men, and the practical-minded agriculturists down the country can take hardly any part in them, because they are not wanted there.

I would strongly urge the Minister to do everything he can to bring back stall-feeding. To do that, compulsory tillage powers are necessary. Stall-feeding always gave a fairly good return, and provided work for our labouring men in the winter at a time when there is very little other work for them. The Minister should do what he can in that regard. If he does, he will be doing a good day's work for tillage, and a good day's work for the country. Tillage will be a success if we have the manure to put on our lands; if not, it will be an absolute failure.

Mr. Gorry

I join with other Deputies from various parts of the House in congratulating the Minister for Agriculture on having succeeded in launching the farm improvement scheme last December. We all know that, owing to war conditions, there were very big difficulties in the way of putting that scheme into operation; otherwise, it would have been launched earlier. Anyone who takes a genuine interest in farming in this country must admit that this is a scheme which will revolutionise the whole countryside if it gets the proper amount of support from the people whom it is intended to benefit. I do not agree with some of Deputy Giles's comments with regard to this scheme. The farmers' sons of this country are as much entitled to be employed as anyone else. We all know that the sons of small farmers have a good deal of time which is not fully occupied, and to what better account could their services be turned than to have the most important Department of State making available a scheme whereby in the idle months of winter and early spring they will be enabled to devote their skill and energies towards improving their homesteads, and improving their fields by reclamation and otherwise? I think the Minister deserves to be congratulated from all sides of the House, and that there should not be any complaint if the Minister has to come to the House in the coming year for twice the amount of money which has been devoted to this scheme in the last year. On various platforms, we hear a lot of talk about how to help the farmer, but when it comes to providing the wherewithal there are plenty of complaints. The Department of Agriculture has at its disposal a young staff which has done very well so far, and which is being guided by officials in that Department who are equal to the officials in the Department of Agriculture of any other nation. We hear comments made in this House and elsewhere about what is being done in other lands, but we are talking nonsense if we do not realise and admit that our own officials in the Department here are as eager for the development of agriculture in this country as are the officials in any other country. What we really want here is more intense co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, which has now come right to the front as the most important Department of State. Everybody must admit that it is due to the development of agriculture and the development of food production which has been going on here for some years that to-day we have 50 per cent. of the basic food requirements of our people produced from the soil of this country.

I would remind the House that in May, 1929, when the Taoiseach was speaking on the question of a tariff on flour, he referred to Dr. Ryan's policy of wheat growing, and put forward the plea that it would take ten years to make a success of the policy of Dr. Ryan, who was then pleading for the change over from being dependent on the prairie lands of other countries from which wheat produced under slave conditions of labour was being imported to this country, killing our own farmers' chances of producing wheat here. I will quote what the Taoiseach said at that time, and I would ask Deputies listening to me to remember that I am not putting this forward in any contentious spirit. I am merely pointing out that ten years have elapsed since then, and we should remember what has happened in the meantime; never again should the same disparaging remarks be made against the production of wheat here. I know a little about wheat-growing, because during my childhood my father, God rest him, grew wheat eight years out of every ten. I do not say that in any boastful spirit, but in order to show that I know what I am talking about. Here is what the Taoiseach said on the 23rd May, 1929, column 179, volume 30 of the Official Debates, when speaking on the motion calling for a tariff on imported flour:—

"Our proposals are intended to provide for the promotion of wheat growing, extending over a period of about ten years. We did not expect that we could get quick results. We believed that time would be necessary, and that confidence would come from experience. We expect that the programme could not be worked out in much less than ten years. In that time it was hoped that we could, by making a fixed price certain to the farmers, induce them to provide something like half our wheat requirements. The amount that would be required to meet our present consumption, making allowance for seed, for a 70 per cent. extraction of flour, and allowing 20 per cent. off for wheat which would be unsuitable for milling, would be 860,000 acres. Of course, the half of that would be 430,000 acres...."

I will leave the quotation at that. I think that what we really want is a true spirit of sincere co-operation from every citizen in this country on a matter which is so vital to the interests of the nation. The position is too serious for thoughtless criticism on a subject of this kind. I think the matter may safely be left between the Ministry of Agriculture—with the Minister for Agriculture as its spokesman here, representing the Government of the day—and the farmers of the country. I speak as a representative of a county which need not be ashamed of the change over to wheat growing which it has achieved in the last ten years. Ten years ago, in round figures, there were 400 acres of wheat in County Laoighis. Last year there were 20,000 acres, in round figures. I will take the opportunity of quoting from the report issued to the farmers of County Laoighis by our respected and efficient county agricultural instructor at the end of the year. Referring to that particular response to the wheat-growing programme, he said:

"Already Laoighis has responded in a very marked degree to the appeal of the Government for the increased production of home-grown food. For every acre of wheat grown in the county ten years ago there are now at least 150 acres, even while the normal areas of barley and oats have been roughly maintained. Some farms have, in the production of wheat, already reached "saturation" point, but on most there is still room for extension. No effort should be spared to secure this extension. It is sound patriotism and, at the same time, good business, and these seldom go hand in hand. The profit motive as a major incentive to production may in some extreme cases have to be ignored."

We will have to prepare again for sowing wheat and sowing it extensively in the coming seed time which will be opening next October. I agree with those who suggested making early provision to encourage greater response to the appeal to produce more of our basic food needs, that is, wheat. I believe the Minister for Agriculture and his staff realise the importance of doing so. I think it should never occur again that we should be solely dependent, or almost solely dependent, upon ships to bring our foodstuffs here. I think wheat production should be part of our national economy. In regard to all the talk about increased cost of foodstuffs and increased cost of living which was hurled against this policy, I put it to the people concerned, people living in cities and towns, where the cost of living undoubtedly is a question worthy of careful consideration, that what we want is a give-and-take policy between town and country, realising the importance of one to the other. I would put it to the House, are we not much better off to-day, having our full sugar needs, even though it cost the people more to erect the sugar factories and give the Irish farmer an opportunity of tilling the land and producing beet? Are we not all satisfied now that it was a good policy? When we contrast the present position with the position in the last war, are we not all agreed unanimously that in regard to that important item of food we were well advised? In regard to the question that Deputy O'Reilly referred to the production of foodstuffs for our live-stock population, the position has been very much improved in the past few months by the greatly increased acreage of beet. The beet pulp was a real godsend during the last winter and spring and up to the present time as supplementary food for our live stock.

I agree with Deputy O'Reilly that in the next few months it would be well to consider the question of a scheme for providing against the difficulties which a very large number of our farmers had to contend with this spring in getting ample seed supplies or getting seed at the right price. At the present time there are farmers who have seeded the ground with seed at 4/6 a barrel and other farmers whose seed cost from £3 to £4 a barrel. It is quite obvious that that will make a difference in the returns next harvest. I think the proper people to handle that question are the Department of Agriculture. When the time comes I think the lead will have to be given by the Minister for Agriculture, he or his Department having considered what is the best plan for overcoming that difficulty which arose this year.

Again, I take this opportunity of saying that no matter what the Ministry of Agriculture, or other Ministries may do in certain respects, there are external factors that come in between the Department concerned and the farmer as the producer. I wish to refer to the difficulties that arose this spring in regard to oil supplies. Whilst the Ministry of Supplies made permits available for the necessary fuel oils for the working of tractors, I am well aware that the failure to supply could be placed at the doors of the oil companies in not honouring those permits quickly. To my own knowledge, tractors were left standing idle for over a week or a fortnight when they could have tilled 30, 40 or 50 extra acres. That is a matter worthy of attention. I do think that quite a lot of the criticism we hear— well-intended criticism—would be more useful if it were sent along directly to the Department concerned.

General Mulcahy

Surely the Deputy does not wish to suggest that people did not apply directly to the Department of Supplies for petrol for their tractors? It is only when that line failed that people began to complain here.

Mr. Gorry

I want to tell Deputy Mulcahy that I know definitely that permits were in the hands of the tractor owners and they approached their ordinary suppliers down the country and it took them eight, nine and ten days before they got their supplies from the people concerned. No blame could be attached to the Ministry of Supplies in that case. It was in the distributing line that the mistake lay. I am definite about that, because in one case the tractor owner concerned is a neighbour of my own and I had an opportunity of examining his permit, etc.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

It has nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. Gorry

I would say it is not fair. I should say the distributing company should give a helping hand in a case like that and if they could not send out their lorries to the district concerned they could send a barrel of oil by rail to the nearest station and send a wire. I believe the matter was urgent enough to do that so as to get the engines going at that particular time, more critical this year because weather conditions created a rush when February came.

To revert to the question of the farm improvements scheme, I agree— and I am quite sure the Minister and his Department realise—that the scheme ought to be, if you like, a ten months' scheme. By that I mean that a more extended period would be given to farmers to avail of the benefits of the scheme, so as to enable them to carry out work that could be done under the terms of the scheme. I remember in years gone by, in my father's time, that at certain slack periods on the farm, after hay-making and before the harvest set in, when there was time to spare, it was the general practice on most farms to carry out a certain amount of cleaning of necessary farm drains and to keep field shores open.

In more recent years, it has been found impossible to carry out that work to any great extent, and there is a very big leeway to be made up on farms all over the country. In fact there are thousands of acres in which the drains have not been cleaned up for many years, the result being that the water lodges on the land and it cannot be turned back into cultivation until the water courses are cleaned out. I have estimated that as a result of the work done in the past winter and this spring—by winter I mean the period since December—at least 2,000 acres have been made available for cultivation as a result of the farm improvement scheme in counties other than the Gaeltacht counties. That acreage has been made available for tillage by those who applied for grants under the scheme. Two thousand acres of tillage—principally of grain crops —as a result of the scheme is something well worth while when we realise the value of grain in the coming harvest. There were many fields in which ditches were levelled and drains put in, and the obvious thing was to plough these fields. I have seen more than a dozen such fields, and they are a very gratifying sight at present with grain crops flourishing in them.

I think that a very much greater acreage will be made available before next spring, provided this scheme receives the encouragement it deserves from all who are in a position to encourage it. For one thing I would suggest to the Minister that the scheme is worthy of more advertisement than it has hitherto received. There are many farmers who are not constant newspaper readers, and unless the scheme is brought particularly to their notice, they are unlikely to be aware of the benefits to be derived from it. I would suggest that it should be brought particularly to the attention of committees, of parish councils, and others so that farmers may be made cognisant of the advantages that are to be derived from it. In that way a lot of land that is semi-derelict at the moment can be brought back into cultivation.

I hope that during the coming year arrangements will be made to receive applications at a much earlier period, so that an appreciable number of idle men can be provided with work on the holdings of those who apply for grants all over the country. I know myself of at least 20 or 30 cases where men who normally had been casual workers on the farms concerned, and who would have been laid off after the harvest work was finished in November, were kept on by the farmers in order that they might be available when work under the scheme started later. These particular men were kept in employment right through the winter and on to the spring, when the ordinary farm work was again available. I speak from personal knowledge in this matter, and I think that very many other farmers would be in a position to contribute similarly towards the relief of unemployment in their respective districts, were it not for the fact that the scheme provides that before a farmer starts work he should get a certificate from the Department that his application had been approved.

I am not blaming the Department for the fact that there was a certain slowness in issuing certificates. There was a rush of applications after the 1st December with the result that the staff, in my opinion, was inadequate to deal expeditiously with applications.

A sufficient staff was not there to issue the certificates as quickly as might be desirable. In the coming year, I believe that by spreading out the time for applications over a longer period, and giving the staff of the Department a longer period to handle the applications, to issue the necessary certificates and to arrange for the inspection of farms, the whole scheme is bound to work more smoothly.

I shall conclude what I have to say by asking the Minister to have no hesitation in approaching the Dáil for double, or even treble, the amount he asked last year for this particular scheme. From time to time here, complaints are made that the beet scheme benefits only certain counties and that in other counties it is not possible to grow wheat. I heard my friend, Deputy Giles, state to-day that wheat cannot be grown successfully in certain fields in County Meath. Here, however, is a scheme that is equally applicable to hill and valley, as applicable to Meath as it is to the Gaeltacht. In short, it is applicable to the land of the whole country. It definitely will do much to relieve unemployment. By encouraging farmers to take more interest in the development of their holdings, it will open up channels of employment that we should all like to see opened up in the country. It is my belief, coming from rural Ireland, that the major part of our unemployment problem can, and will ultimately have to, be solved in rural Ireland. Now that there is a tendency towards decentralisation everywhere, we hope that men who have come to Dublin looking for employment in competition with residents in the city in industries already full to saturation point, will be encouraged to go back to their own localities to seek work there. Even at the present moment, there are parts of the country where there is a scarcity of labour owing to the intense activity on the bogs. On that point, I would agree with other speakers that the Minister for Agriculture and his Department should make special representations to the Minister for Defence in regard to the temporary release of skilled agricultural workers when harvest time comes. We all know that the harvest work, the proper saving of the crops, will last probably about three weeks or a month. At that time the temporary release from the Army of men who could go back to their former employers, men who joined up for the emergency period, would be a very useful contribution to the saving of the crops and would considerably ease labour difficulties. Men who understand the work are more useful at that period than others. They can fall immediately into their customary place on the farm and do much more useful work than untrained men.

I should also like to support Deputy O'Reilly's plea that more consideration should be given for the coming year to credit schemes to provide farmers with seeds. I believe that would be a big incentive to farmers to till more land. It would make it possible for farmers who were handicapped in the past season in procuring seed supplies to secure such supplies in the coming year on more advantageous terms.

General Mulcahy

It grates on one's nerves to hear Deputy O'Reilly talking sense 18 months too late. There is an old joke that every War Office has a plan for winning the last war. That is a joke that is born out of a considerable amount of loss and suffering. Nevertheless, one cannot help feeling that Deputy O'Reilly and other Deputies on the opposite benches have great plans for winning the last harvest. Even if it is a bit late, I am prepared to be irritated more and more if Deputies on the opposite side are prepared to talk a little more and more sense because they may, in time, catch up with time and help, in time, in the saving of some harvest or other. Deputy O'Reilly and other Deputies told us that the farmers did not know what was expected of them, that they did not have enough credit schemes, that there was confusion about seed and that it would be better if there was far more local control. In September, 1939, we tried to impress upon the Government that the economic and agricultural side of things was much more important than the defence side, although the Government had rushed to mobilise the Army at that time. When it came to the Budget of last year, we said that, with the Army mobilisation scheme then costing £2,000,000 and with money being refused to the agricultural industry to enable it to get on its feet, to meet the emergency and take advantage of any opportunities that offered, there would be severe criticism of the Government. We pointed out then what we hear echoed now more and more.

Deputy Gorry says that the Department of Agriculture is the Department. Deputy O'Reilly says that the Minister for Agriculture is the man who makes it possible for the Minister for Finance to get in money because production of agriculture is the foundation of everything that brings money in here. Most people are prepared to accept that. We, on this side, have always urged, and still insist, that not only the agricultural community but the industrial community depend upon the better and more intense development of agriculture, that you cannot have sound industrial development without further agricultural development and that you cannot have intensive increase in agricultural production, in the initial stages at any rate, without an increase in exports. If we all agree that the well-being and intensive development of agriculture is the key to all further progress, we ought to look more closely at the agricultural position.

Speaking on the Budget the other day and replying to suggestions that potato prices and other prices should be subsidised in order to make food cheaper to city people, the Minister for Industry and Commerce disagreed with the proposal and said that, if they had a scheme like that, what they would probably have to concentrate upon would be bread, flour, butter, milk, fresh meat and bacon. These would be the things they would have to concentrate upon if they were to assist the city communities. The remarkable thing about this list is that, before the present war emergency ever arose, the price of each one of these items had been forced up by artificial means as a result of Government policy. The prices of bread and flour were forced up in order to encourage the wheat scheme. The price of butter was forced up in order to subsidise the export of butter. The price of milk in the City of Dublin was forced up in order to concentrate the milk industry in the hands of the larger interests and give milk distributors in the city better facilities. The price of bacon was forced up to subsidise the export of bacon, and the price of fresh meat was forced up but only for a time. Before the war came, our industrial workers had to pay more for these things, for some reason or other, and these are the things which constitute the foundation of the agricultural industry. It is like somebody trying to lift himself with his boot straps.

If we compare agricultural production, generally, with agricultural production in Great Britain, we find that, for every £100 worth produced by a person occupied in agriculture in Great Britain, a person similarly occupied here produces only £39 worth. While we have to deal with the emergency, we have also to look to the future. If we cannot improve our conditions here without more intense development of agriculture, and cannot get that without greater exports, we should be very much concerned for the future. Taking gross production per occupied person in agriculture in Great Britain and here for the last year for which returns are available for the United Kingdom, we get very striking figures. In 1937-38—that is the last year for which figures are available for the United Kingdom—gross production in this country was £49,600,000. The total number of persons occupied in agriculture was 643,900. The gross production per person occupied in agriculture was £77. When allowance is made for the amount of money spent on animal feeding stuffs, seeds and manures, the net production was £65. I have not been able to get the net-production figure for Great Britain and, therefore, I make the comparison simply in terms of gross production. In the United Kingdom—that is to say, Great Britain and Northern Ireland— the gross production in the same year amounted to £281,348,000. The number of persons engaged in agriculture was 1,415,000. There you had a gross production of £199 per person occupied. A slight adjustment has to be made in respect of Irish store cattle—about £6,000,000 worth—which are included in the figure for agricultural production in Great Britain. That would give a figure of £194 for production per person occupied in agriculture in Great Britain as against a figure here of £77. We are faced with the problem of how to improve our agriculture so as to prepare for the future.

It is a matter which needs the very gravest consideration. There should be a little less glib talk and less bandying of what people say or think, from the purely political point of view, in such an emergency as we have at the present moment. If we are to get the proper co-operation in dealing with the fullest possible agricultural production at the present time, we should be prepared to face the future with a little more openmindedness.

We had one speech here on the Budget from the opposite benches which indicated that all that we had been saying here in opposition for the last ten years was not entirely wrong, to say the least of it. We found echoed from the Fianna Fáil Benches what we put before the Government in September, 1939. We asked them, in the face of the situation that was developing, that special attention be given to the economic side of things; that, apart from any views the Government might have on defence—if they did not accept our view that the economic situation was a matter of urgency and one that demanded prior attention rather than the matter of defence—at any rate they could understand that our economic well-being lay at the roots of our defence and that if anything went wrong with our economy our defence would collapse. We asked them at that time to set up machinery to review the position from a long distance point of view. We pointed out that Professor Copeland, in Australia, had been appointed as economic adviser to the Australian Government for the period of the emergency.

We said that there had been a review of the circumstances in the country here by the Banking Commission and asked that a group of, say, three should be set up here, as detached as the Banking Commission was from any interference with administration or any influence on the military policy of the Government. Standing back and looking at what is happening from day to day, or from month to month, both here and outside the country, they would be able to advise the best course —more or less as "the hurler on the ditch". In that way, the policies being pursued here during the period of the emergency would have the benefit of a review by skilled and detached outside minds, and we might have their assistance in seeing that the policies being pursued here would help us to take our place in the outside world on the termination of the war.

We will not be able to occupy our position in the world outside with efficiency, with strength and with ability to seize opportunities, of which we should be capable, if there is not some kind of rectification of agricultural production here, and if something is not done to remedy the difference in output between agricultural workers here and those in the United Kingdom. We should be able to study, in a thorough and scientific way, the difficulties which exist. I find it hard to understand why, in a country that is so dependent upon its agriculture for its well-being, the prices of what are regarded as the most essential things for urban workers should be forced up artificially and without reason. Whether it is for some internal reason with regard to the internal economy of agriculture here, or for some external reason—so that we can export to an outside market—I do not know; but the fact that production per person occupied compares so unfavourably with the United Kingdom, the fact that the necessaries of life of a large number of our urban workers are unnecessarily forced up here, suggests that there is something wrong. In a case like that, we should be making every endeavour to overcome the difficulty.

Deputy O'Reilly suggests that the local bodies should be brought into more close co-operation with the general plan and policy. Deputy Gorry on the other hand, says that it should be left to the Minister, the Department and the farmers. Unfortunately, when the Minister was pressed, in the beginning of the first Compulsory Tillage Order, to adopt the system adopted in Great Britain of bringing the local county committees of agriculture—or some such bodies—into the scheme, to get their co-operation and their direction of the scheme in local areas, the Minister elected to do the whole thing himself. The failure that we have had is due, in my opinion, to the Minister and the Department—left alone to direct the farmers—not having the close co-operation with the farmers that was necessary so that the scheme would be understood in time.

I think it is patent to everybody that the matter has been thrown now as a kind of responsibility on parish councils to supplement, by their evangelising efforts, the rather generalised advertisements in the newspapers, and thus to endeavour to speed up the scheme. That is not systematic and is not the best way. There may be some little defect in the working of the county committees of agriculture, but if there is it should be remedied. If agriculture is to play the important part that it must play, the committees of agriculture should mean something. I have always considered it incomprehensible that, in the development of the Compulsory Tillage Scheme, where so much was needed, our county committees of agriculture were ignored. They should be brought into future schemes and should be tested, by what they are able to do in future schemes, as to whether they are worth having as such. Those who are in touch with the work of the officials of the county committees of agriculture realise how essential and valuable they are. Where there is a good committee there is great backing and help for the Department and for the local workers. The committees could be tested in the present circumstances and, if there are committees which are unfit for their job, public opinion should be—and is— alive enough at the present time to clear them out.

I would like the Minister to say what exactly is being done, or is contemplated, from the long distance point of view in his Department. In connection with that, I would like to ask whether all inter-Ministerial contact between ourselves and Great Britain in respect of agricultural matters is completely cut. I think it was Deputy O'Reilly who complained that one of the difficulties was that policy outside changed so often that the farmers here were left unprepared. In my opinion, if there were reasonable and ordinary inter-Ministerial contact between ourselves here and the Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain, it would be possible to keep abreast of the position and of the changes likely to come about which might create difficulties for our farmers here. That is a point upon which the House would like some information.

As foot-and-mouth disease has now spread to Kerry, I should like to know from the Minister whether the position will be examined, with a view to tracing systematically how it got there. When a new outbreak takes place, as in Kilkenny and Limerick, is there a systematic review of everything that might have led up to it, so as to put the Department in the position of discovering how it happened? If we are not in a position to know what is happening in such districts, I do not think the people in Meath can feel very much at their ease concerning their fairs and markets, because if this disease can appear in Kerry "out of the blue" it can return to Meath in the same way.

Another question raised was as to whether there will be the necessary amount of labour available for the harvest, and at the proper time. I should like to know if any arrangements have been made to carry out an inquiry through the Department of Industry and Commerce and the employment exchanges to see what the position is going to be in important districts, or what assistance will be required from outside.

Mr. Coburn

Listening to this debate, and hearing the suggestions put forward, especially from the Fianna Fáil Benches, one would think that farmers could do very little for themselves but for Government support. We should be realists in these difficult times, and recognise the fact that one of the things that trouble the Minister for Agriculture at the present time is that we cannot get into the British market in the same manner as in the past I think that truth is being brought home now to members of the Fianna Fáil Party, and that they regret some of the statements they made a few years ago, when they thanked God that the British market was gone for ever. The fact is that most of the difficulties confronting the Minister for Agriculture, and incidentally the farming community, are due to that cause. With a view to helping farmers in their present plight, especially in regard to the disposal of their live stock, I wish to put before the Minister the position that may occur in the near future concerning the disposal of what will be a great source of wealth, and that is the issuing of licences for the export of lambs which, owing to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, cannot be exported now. I should like to have a definite assurance from the Minister as to the measures he proposes to take to assist farmers to dispose of the large number of lambs that will be ready for killing in the next few months. The Minister will remember that in the early stages of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease the difficulty was the disposal of fat cattle that could not be exported.

Many farmers, and especially members of the Fianna Fáil Party, seem to forget that the Minister is not the master in that respect; that another Minister has to be taken into account, although his name is never mentioned here, the British Minister of Agriculture. As I understand, the Minister for Agriculture was counting, as many of us did, on the disease being brought under control in a short time, and that live cattle could be exported. That hope was not fulfilled and, in the last resort, the Minister had to arrange to have the cattle slaughtered here. I want to tell the Minister that there was, in my opinion, an avoidable delay of almost six or seven weeks before licences were granted to dealers who had bought cattle, but were not in a position to have them slaughtered, to export to the British market. I hope the same delay will not occur in regard to the export of lambs.

There are sufficient slaughter-houses in various parts which may not fulfil Government requirements for licences, but in times of stress the Minister should arrange that where slaughter-houses are tolerably suitable for the slaughter of lambs, licences should be issued. The Department must be aware that, although there is a slaughterhouse in Dundalk to accommodate from 50 to 100 cattle per week, it was for a time almost impossible to get a licences, because the premises were not, possibly, of sufficient dimensions, or did not comply with the conditions required before licences could be issued. A similar position will arise shortly about lambs, and for that reason I impress on the Minister this fact, that there are sufficient slaughter-houses in Dundalk, Drogheda, and towns of that size, that could be availed of for the slaughter of lambs for the British market.

The reason I suggest that is that there would then be competition. Everybody knows that if licences are issued to one person or one factory, there is no competition, and farmers are dissatisfied. They would prefer to have two or three competitors for their stock. When all is said and done, it is those who produce live stock who should have any little profit that is going. They give their time, invest their money, and have all the trouble, and the least they should get is a fair price when disposing of their stock. In order to ensure a fair price, I suggest to the Minister that, as far as the buying of lambs in particular areas is concerned, it should not be left to one, two, or three persons, as happened in Dublin recently, thus cutting out all other competition by those who earned their living in that branch of the industry, but who, owing to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease, cannot do so at present. In that way the Minister would enable farmers to dispose of lambs when they are fit, and have competition so far as price is concerned.

Several complaints have reached me from farmers, even in County Meath, that many machine parts that they have to buy for their agricultural economy are not of the type they were accustomed to getting in former years. I saw one piece of machinery that had only been use for three months, and it was practically useless. I asked a farmer how the parts he got now compared with those he got previously, and he told me that similar parts had lasted previously for at least five seasons. The thing is almost unbelievable, but yet, seeing is believing. He showed me the old plough-sole that was almost worn to a thread, and he was going down the town after buying a new one. He told me that the used one had lasted him at least four seasons. That type of thing is not conducive to helping the farming community, and yet there are some Deputies who would lead us to believe that that is what we are out for.

Many farmers have suffered considerably through lack of seed, particularly mangold and turnip seed. Has the Minister any contact with the British Government at the present time? I have reason to know that tons of mangold seed have come across the Border, either openly or surreptitiously, and if certain people can in that way get tons of seed across the Border, how is it that our Government cannot make some agreement with the British Government, or the Northern Government, and have the seed brought here in broad daylight and sold to the farmers? That would avoid having men acting as smugglers and earning easy money at the expense of the producers here. I cannot understand why that situation is permitted.

The same thing applies to flour, but that matter does not arise on this Estimate, and at any rate, it is more a matter for the Minister for Supplies. This business is proceeding every day and it is extraordinary that our Government cannot do what a smuggler can do. We seem to be keeping away from any contact with the British Government, and it strikes me that we are afraid the Germans may drop bombs. Why should we live in fear of that? There is no use in living in fear and trembling of such things happening. If we are neutral we should stand up for our rights as a neutral country and not be afraid of anybody—that is my policy, anyhow.

I have listened with great interest to Deputy Gorry. He referred to the farm improvement scheme, and I agree with him that that scheme has done much good. It will enable small farmers to carry out much-needed improvements on their farms. But I would not go so far as Deputy Gorry when he stated that the scheme will revolutionise farming. I think Deputy Gorry is putting himself and his Party in a very false position. He is attaching too much importance to the scheme. If this scheme, which I admit is good in its own way, is going to revolutionise farming, the obvious question arises: Why did it take Fianna Fáil ten years to embark on such a scheme?

It is not going to revolutionise farming at all, but it will help farmers to erect fences, carry out minor drainage schemes and improve their holdings and in that way it will be an advantage to the country. The Government, I am sure, will take full credit for that. But do not overdo things and do not place the Minister in a false position or create the false impression in the country that it is going to revolutionise farming. The one thing that will revolutionise farming is free access to the British market. I hope that will come about as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the spread of foot-and-mouth disease is preventing that from being put into operation. I hope the disease will be quickly eradicated.

Much has been said about wheat-growing. Deputy Beegan alluded to certain statements made by Deputy Dillon. Of course, Deputy Beegan can have his own opinion; he can go down to the cross-roads in County Galway and make whatever statements he wishes, but what I understood Deputy Dillon meant to convey was that the Government depended too much on the wheat scheme and they were neglecting to get supplies of wheat into this country. I have a shrewd suspicion that the Government and members of the Government Party had an idea of being able to go around the country, saying: "Only the Fianna Fáil Party, was in power, you would all be starving." Do not forget that the people in Northern Ireland have white bread yet and can buy white flour at 12/- or 15/- per cwt., while the poor people down here have to pay almost 4/- a stone for it. Why do you not establish the same conditions as we had even last year?

Deputy Gorry asked us to compare conditions now with conditions during the last war. I suggest that it would be well if you had the same conditions prevailing now as prevailed during the last war. The people would be better off. I believe I am just as good an Irishman as Deputy Gorry or any other member of the Fianna Fáil Party, yet there are some who might describe me, because of what I have said, as an Imperialist. I say that our people would be much better off if we had the same conditions as existed during the last war. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The people in Northern Ireland have white flour, white bread, petrol, tea and many other things. Do not imagine that you have to shout "Up the Republic" in order to be a good Irishman these days. According to some people, you must not mention England or Great Britain because, if you do, you may be breaking our neutrality.

That is the answer to all this flap-doodle about the growing of wheat. The farmers in this country know their business and I could put up a good argument that it would be far better if there was never an acre of wheat grown in this country until this year, because the land would be in much better condition. Do not swell your chests about wheat-growing. You are doing certain things now in this country because there is a war on, but when the war is over you will have to change your economy. After this war there will be wheat on the Dublin quays, millions of barrels of it, at 12/- a barrel. Think of these things when you are talking about wheat-growing. Do not think that the prosperity of this country depends on the tillage of a particular year or even five years. I told you ten years ago in this House that there would come a time when statements that were then pooh-poohed would turn out to be true. They will turn out to be true when this war is over. You will change your economy over-night.

Deputy Gorry and others have told us that never again will we have to depend on wheat from America or other countries. I say you will have to depend on it. If this war has proved anything it has proved the hollowness and the futility of the policy of self-sufficiency. Even our industrial policy, upon which we have concentrated so much, will not achieve everything that is claimed for it. I am a realist in all these matters. I should like to issue a warning. Do not let us plume ourselves on the fact that we are doing certain things now. Do not tell the people that they ought to thank God they have a particular Government in power. When this war is over your whole system of economy will have to be changed. You will be up against greater difficulties after the war than you are up against now.

Mr. Hickey

We hope not.

Mr. Coburn

Well, time will tell. Members of the Labour Party will realise a good many things, too, and possibly they will become realists. I should like to know from the Minister what measures he will take—assuming that this unfortunate foot-and-mouth disease is not going to be mastered within the next few months—to enable the farmers all over Eire to dispose of the lambs they will have in very large numbers and which will not be consumed here in the home market? They cannot be consumed, and that is that. They will have to be slaughtered and sent away as dead meat, exported to the British market. They cannot be consumed at home. I do not know whether Deputies are aware of this or not—at any rate they did not mention it—but only about six or seven weeks ago I saw eleven bonhams being sold for about 7/- each, or less than £4 for the eleven. That is really the position in the country, and that is what I should like to impress on members of the Fianna Fáil Party with a view to making them recognise the position. Whether you like it or not, that is the position. You may try, if you like, all the tricks of the old fox, and try to stave off the one eternal truth, but the position is that we have got to get back free access to that market again. We have been prevented from free access to that market chiefly by reason of the spread of the foot-and-mouth disease, and that is why I impress on the Minister that he and the officials of his Department should give all their energies to mastering that disease. At the moment, as far as this country is concerned, I believe that the effects of that disease are worse than those of actual war. You may look for your fairs, but there is very little use in holding fairs when you have not got access to the outside markets. Some people who are lucky enough to live alongside the Border are able to hop across it, but so far as the rest of the country is concerned, the Minister should do all that he possibly can to provide facilities to enable those people—and there are many in the county I represent—who are in a position, if they got the necessary facilities from the Department, to slaughter these lambs and have them exported to the British market—that is, assuming that the ban still continues. They are in a position to do so. They have done it already in the case of cattle, and why should they not be given the same chance with regard to lambs? When all is said and done, at this time of the year, when the farmers cannot change a shilling with regard to his crops until the harvest comes, it is only through sheep and cattle, especially sheep, that he can get any money. At this time of year, as a matter of fact, he would get very little money even from cattle; it would not be until July or August that he would expect to get money from cattle, and in the meantime he depends for ready money on the disposal of his lambs, and the disposal of his lambs will depend on the facilities offered by the Department of Agriculture in regard to the slaughter of these animals.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

This debate has gone on for a long time-this is the fourth week, as a matter of fact—and I think it would be well if I were to deal with some of the points that were raised to-day before going back on points that were raised previously. Deputy Esmonde raised a few points. One was in connection with the export of goats. That is a question that has given the Department some cause for thought, but of course it may have an effect both ways. It may encourage the breeding of goats if people see a good price, or it may have the effect of removing the stock completely from the country. However, the position is being examined and we shall see what is necessary to be done. Deputy Esmonde also said that the provision of food by plot-holders should be made a permanent feature. Well, of course, it is already a permanent feature. Legislation to that effect was enacted in, I think, 1934, and the provision of plots was provided for at that time. There was also provision for the giving of seeds and manures free to the unemployed. Accordingly, what has really happened is that the plots scheme we had in operation has been enlarged and developed more during the last two years than previously. Deputy Esmonde also asked whether we had investigated the possibility of plant provision for industrial purposes. We have done so, in a number of instances, wherever the problem was put to us. For instance, for a few years we did investigate the possibility of growing the soya bean, which is the raw material for a number of industrial processes, but we were not very successful in getting it grown here. We also tried New Zealand flax to replace hempen sisal in the making of ropes and cord, again without success. We also tried the growing of hops for industrial purposes, but again without success. And, for instance, before potatoes were used for the manufacture of alcohol and so on, we tried various types and varieties of potatoes here to see if we could get a potato with a higher starch content than that of the potatoes grown here in the ordinary way. Deputy Esmonde also asked about substitutes for the feeding stuffs we have been importing. I do not think it is necessary. We have the grain and the root crops that we grow here ordinarily and I think that they are really perfect substitutes, and therefore it is not necessary to do anything in that way.

A point was raised here by Deputy Beegan in regard to the farms' improvements scheme. I do not think it is necessary to say anything about it except that it is intended to continue the scheme for the coming year. We hope to have the scheme in operation much earlier for the coming year than last year, and if possible, and if the financial position will permit, we hope to have a bigger Vote for it this year than we had last year. I agree that the tillage scheme was not announced in time last year—that is, the increase from 17½ per cent. to 20 per cent., which announcement was only made at Christmas. That was not in time, but as Deputy O'Reilly very rightly points out, there were changes in the international situation and in the import situation of which we were not aware in October and which only became obvious in December.

That is what necessitated the changing of the tillage quota from 17½ per cent. to 20 per cent., and it also necessitated a much bigger drive for tillage than we had anticipated. As Deputy O'Reilly points out, if we had as much knowledge of the whole situation last October as Deputies who have criticised us have now we could have acted more prudently, but we are always in the difficulty that we are expected to have the knowledge beforehand while the Deputies opposite have the knowledge when the thing is over, and then can very well criticise us if anything goes wrong.

Deputy O'Reilly also raised a question with regard to rape. His information is wrong about that. Rape is accounted as a tillage crop, provided it comes on in rotation—not where it is sown the first year, say, in the month of August or so, but where it comes in as a rotation between the other crops as an ordinary root crop. However, as a matter of fact, there is only a remote possibility of any rape seed being got in this year, and so the question hardly arises. Now, with regard to tobacco, we have offered 2d. per lb. more for tobacco of the 1941 crop, and of course the intrinsic value of the leaf will be higher than it was previously. Accordingly, the farmer who produces tobacco this year will probably get £10 or £12 an acre more than he got formerly. That is a very good inducement to tobacco growers.

Then the question of credit was raised by Deputies O'Reilly, Giles and Hickey. Deputy Hickey gave an instance of the very poor houses that are provided by many of the country people for pigs and poultry. If Deputy Hickey had been here when I was introducing the Estimate, he would have heard me deal with the scheme for the erection of poultry houses. There is such a scheme under which loans are given. It has not been very much availed of, but loans are available for the erection of poultry houses, but not for piggeries, except in the Gaeltacht. I do not know whether that scheme, which was administered by Gaeltacht Services, is still in being or not, but there was such a scheme.

Mr. Hickey

What interest is charged?

Dr. Ryan

Five per cent.

Mr. Hickey

That kills it immediately.

Dr. Ryan

Five per cent. is nothing on a small sum. Deputy Giles was anxious that we should revive stall-feeding. The point in that connection is that if we encourage stall-feeding and have more stall-fed cattle on the market, we have too much for ourselves, and they must be exported. Taking the pre-war position first, these stall-fed cattle were exported and put on the British market in competition with beef from the Argentine, and the stall feeders went out of business because they could not get what they considered a remunerative price on the British market. That is something which perhaps Deputy Coburn might think over. He talks about the British market as if we had refused it. All we have ever done is to warn the people that the British market is not always going to be there as the Utopia which it appears in the mind of Deputy Coburn to be.

Mr. Coburn

You miss it now all the same.

Dr. Ryan

We miss any market, naturally, but is it not only proper to warn the people that it is not a Utopia and that it is not what it appears, in Deputy Coburn's dreams, to be—this great market in which people can sell everything they like and get whatever price they like? That is not the position.

Mr. Coburn

I said no such thing.

Dr. Ryan

That is the impression the Deputy gave.

Mr. Coburn

I said that the lack of it was your chief difficulty.

Dr. Ryan

I am speaking of the stall-feeding position.

Mr. Coburn

I did not mention stall-feeding at all.

Dr. Ryan

The position with regard to stall-fed cattle is as I have described it. We can absorb only a certain amount of beef here. The rest must be exported, and the people who were stall-feeding cattle found that they could not continue stall-feeding because the great market Deputy Coburn speaks of could not give them enough for their cattle, and they had to go out of business.

Mr. Coburn

What about stores?

Dr. Ryan

The stores are still going, but I am speaking now about stall-feeding. As the Deputy knows, the British Minister of Agriculture has made an order allowing in only stores with two teeth, and more, from now on. I agree with Deputy Giles, and every Deputy with any sense must agree, too, that the stall-feeding of cattle promoted a very good system of agriculture, but we must face the situation that, to stall-feed cattle, you must have a market, and a remunerative market, which will pay the person who stall-feeds cattle. The difficulty for some years has been that that market was not available, and that is what caused a certain amount of reduction in the stall-feeding business. I agree also with Deputy Giles that the Weeds Act has not been carried out as it should have been during the last few years. A change was made in the system which I do not think worked satisfactorily, and it is a matter into which we are looking at the moment.

Deputy Mulcahy said that I had ignored the county committees of agriculture in this tillage scheme. That certainly is a bit of an exaggeration, to say the least of it, in view of the fact that I, the Secretary of the Department, or the chief inspector, visited every county committee of agriculture in the country and consulted them about the production of more food. I must say that these county committees were very willing to help, and did give all the help they could. They helped in getting the county councils, so far as they could influence them to do so, to promote more schemes. They also helped in the provision of seeds for farmers in their own areas. They helped in every way they could and they certainly were not ignored in relation to this scheme. Deputy Mulcahy went on to deal with the gross income of farmers here compared with the gross income of farmers in Great Britain.

Deputy Brennan, on the other hand, talked the other day about the reduction in the number of people employed in agriculture. If we increase the number of people employed in agriculture, the gross income of each individual goes down, so that if Deputy Mulcahy is going to complain about the low gross income per individual in agriculture here, Deputy Brennan cannot, at the same time, complain that there are fewer people employed in agriculture, for the gross income we have. We must take one view or the other. We must either take the view that it is a good social system which we are pursuing at present: to keep as many people as we can on the land —that is the system followed by both the previous and this Government, both of whom pursued a system of breaking up the big ranches and putting people on the land, the object of that being to keep people in the country where they can support themselves and sell whatever surplus they have—or that the system requires changing. We could change that system if we thought it good policy; we could change more towards the system in England of the big mechanised farms with fewer workers and a bigger gross income per person employed, but, if we did that, half our country population would have no land and nobody to employ them on the land. What we would do with those people, I do not know. That, however, is a point ignored by Deputy Mulcahy when he complains about the low level of the gross income per person here as a compared with Great Britain.

Mr. Cosgrave

Does the Minister think that if we earned more and produced more, we could not employ more?

Dr. Ryan

If we produced more, yes, but if the Deputy looks up the figures he will find that from 1922 up to the present year, covering the period of the régime presided over by himself and our term of office up to the present, the gross output in volume never varied very much. It never varied more than about 5 per cent. in a year. We had the same number of cattle all the time, the same number of sheep, the same number of pigs and the same number of poultry. Tillage varied a little, but not very much.

Mr. Cosgrave

Five per cent. is the difference between good and bad business.

Dr. Ryan

If we are going to talk about the 5 per cent.—I did not want to talk about it because I thought it might embarrass the Deputy—I may say that it is all on our side.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why do you not get the value for it?

Dr. Ryan

I am talking about gross output.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why do you not get the value for it?

Dr. Ryan

The value, as I have already explained, depends to a great extent on world prices, over which we have no control.

Mr. Cosgrave

They were petty bad in our time, and you complained about them.

Dr. Ryan

We did.

Mr. Cosgrave

And you have better prices now.

Dr. Ryan

We have, just at the moment.

Mr. Cosgrave

Are you making the money?

Mr. Hughes

Does the Minister contend that the pig population is as high as it was ten years ago?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Hughes

Has there not been a decline in the pig population over the ten years?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister might look up the figures.

Dr. Ryan

I looked them up this morning. The average population of pigs has gone in cycles, but has not varied anything in the last ten years. At the last census, it was higher than it was in many of the years of the previous Government, and lower than in others.

Mr. Cosgrave

Nonsense.

Dr. Ryan

I will get the figures in a few minutes and read them out. Deputy Coburn also talked about spare parts for machinery and mentioned the point with which we are so familiar that we no longer pay very much attention to it, that a part that came from England lasted for five seasons, while a part made here lasted for only three months.

Mr. Coburn

I did not mention any country. I simply stated the difference between them. I did not mention Irish industry or any other industry. I simply gave the difference, because I did not want to score any point, not having asked the man the question. All I know is that he showed it to me and said: "That is one part after one season, and I had another for five or six seasons."

Mr. Fagan

My experience is that a plough-share from England will last twice as long as one from Wexford.

Mr. Allen

That is not so.

Mr. Fagan

I say that that is my experience.

Dr. Ryan

I do not agree with Deputy Fagan at all and I am sure that Deputy Esmonde will not agree with him, either.

Mr. Fagan

That is my personal experience.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Fagan will agree that it is just like a razor blade. You will get one point which will last a good time and another, from the same place, which will not last half as long. The same thing applies to a plough-share or anything else. They are all the same.

Mr. Coburn

This farmer is a decent man and would not tell a lie.

Dr. Ryan

Did you ever meet a farmer who would tell a lie? The next point that Deputy Coburn raised was with regard to seeds coming across the Border. I do not know how these seeds are coming across. It is possible for seeds to come across legally. The British Government refused to allow root seeds to be exported to this country for a certain period. But when it became clear that they had sufficient for themselves about the middle of March—I am not sure about the time —they allowed their seed exporters to fulfil any orders already in hands provided they had seeds to spare. Some seeds came into this country after that order was made. It is possible that some came across the Border. Some of them may come across the Border in another way.

Mr. Fagan

The less said about that the better as we want the seeds.

Dr. Ryan

So far as the Government are concerned they made every attempt to get in seeds. Deputy Coburn need not think that any Minister is afraid to communicate with a British Minister because a German bomb might be dropped on him. Deputy Coburn may not be as familiar with bombs as some of us here have been. We are not afraid of those things. The Deputy may be afraid, but we are not.

Mr. Coburn

I was never afraid of them.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy asks us to be realists. I think the Deputy's point was that we ought not to base our policy on a temporary situation and forget about the permanent conditions.

Mr. Coburn

What the future has in store for us.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy should also regard the Dundalk abattoir from that point of view. The situation created by foot-and-mouth disease is a temporary one. What is the use of opening abattoirs to meet a temporary situation? The situation will come to an end some time and we will go back to the permanent conditions.

Mr. Coburn

There is no analogy between that and opening a slaughterhouse for the slaughter of sheep and cattle for export.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Dillon spoke about the committee that bought cattle for slaughter in Dublin. I have only to repeat what I said before—that it was considered very dangerous, when foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent about Dublin, that there should be any traffic between dealers and farmers. On the other hand, it was necessary to bring meat into the City of Dublin. We thought that we could reduce that traffic to the minimum by allowing only one buyer to go to a farmer who had cattle and try to buy the cattle from him. Working on that theory, we set up this committee and asked them to do the buying. The prices which they were to pay for the cattle and the prices to be charged to the butchers were laid down. As we got experience, of course we tried to improve matters. First of all, we paid the committee on a commission basis because they were accused of not paying proper prices to the producer; and afterwards we arranged to have the prices fixed on a live-weight basis whenever the producer asked for it. The idea behind the whole thing was a veterinary or scientific one—that we should try to prevent contact so far as was possible between dealers and farmers, and not have more than one dealer going from farm to farm.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister says the buyers are on a commission basis. If the cattle show a profit what becomes of the profit?

Dr. Ryan

That was explained before. They have an account in the bank which is audited every week. It always shows a credit, of course, but we try to keep the credit as low as we can by raising the price to the farmer or lowering the price to the butcher. The credit varies from £500 to £2,000 or £3,000.

Mr. Hughes

What will become of it?

Dr. Ryan

We will try as far as we can to leave nothing there at the end. I have already announced that whatever is there will be devoted to some agricultural purpose.

Mr. Hughes

What is there belonging to one man may go to some other person in the future.

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy can put forward a scheme by which we can hand back what is over to the producers I will promise to put it into operation. It is impossible to do it.

Mr. Hughes

I suggested one before— a selling agency.

Dr. Ryan

This is a selling agency.

Mr. Hughes

It is not properly worked.

Dr. Ryan

I know that we might disagree about that.

Mr. Hughes

I admit that the Minister has improved the position.

Dr. Ryan

These buyers were accompanied by a veterinary official. They were disinfected before going into and after coming out of every farm and a licence was given on the spot for the removal of the cattle. From a veterinary point of view, the scheme worked very well. I do not think there was any case where the disease was spread as a result of that system of buying. The next point raised was with regard to the Roscrea Meat Company. I do not like attacks being made on companies like that who are not in a position to defend themselves here. I do not say that Deputies should be completely silenced so far as criticism of these things are concerned. Unfair attacks, however, should not be made and really I think an unfair attack was made on this company. The company were in the canning business and were exporting their meat to the British market. Undoubtedly, they had raised considerably the value of the type of cattle they were dealing with in that business—middle-aged cows and that type of cattle. They may have been doing well. Anyway, they did a certain amount of good to the farmers by raising the price of these cattle. Whatever profit they were making was got on a foreign market and they were not doing any harm to anyone here. They were content to carry on that business. My Department, however, approached them and asked them to go into the dressed meat business. They did not want to do it, but in the end they consented to do it. They only carried on the dressed meat business for four weeks. They asked to be released from it as soon as possible and we released them at the end of four weeks and then they dropped out of it.

Mr. Fagan

Were they not making more money canning good beef? I think the Minister stated that they could give 50/- a cwt. for good beef and get more profit out of it than out of dressed meat.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think I made that statement. If I made that statement, it would be wrong. They were not making a success of the dressed meat business. They are not the only ones. I know other firms in the business that have not made a great success of it.

Mr. Fagan

They are making more money out of the canning business.

Dr. Ryan

They are doing much better with the canning business. They were not making any fortune out of the dressed meat business and they tried to get out of it as soon as they could. In view of the fact that they had only come in at our request to try to clear some cattle down there, I think the attack that was made on them was unfair. I do not think it would be possible to can meat for which they had paid anything like beef prices.

Many Deputies have spoken on the wheat policy during the debate. I do not know whether or not they misinterpreted what Deputy Dillon said. In any event I do not think it makes much difference, because we all know that Deputy Dillon is against the wheat policy. Generally, the Party opposite have been against the growing of wheat. Personally, I think it is a pity that there should be any such thing as a Party policy in wheat-growing. I have heard that there are farmer-Deputies on the other side who grow wheat just as successfully as any farmer on this side. Therefore, if wheat can be grown successfully, it is a pity that there should be any difference on that point. The alternatives to wheat-growing that Deputy Dillon put up were absolutely ridiculous. He said that if we had not grown wheat, and I think Deputy Coburn supported him on that to-day——

Mr. Coburn

No.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Dillon, at any rate, said that if we had not grown wheat we might have a good store of wheat here to-day. I do not want to be dogmatic on that, but, as far as I know, if we had every store in the country full of wheat when the war started it would not have lasted us for six months. Deputy Dillon did not tell us 12 months before the war started that we should put in a two-years' supply of wheat. If he had, there might be more force in what he said. But, supposing we had done that, the position to-day would be that all the wheat would be gone. As Deputy Coburn has said, we could have had the white loaf up to now, but from this on we should have to rely on potatoes or something else. We would have no bread of any kind.

The other suggestion Deputy Dillon made was that we might grow 400,000 acres of barley and exchange it for wheat with England. I do not know whether or not we would get the wheat from England. I have seen some orders made recently by the British with regard to feeding stuffs and foods. These orders go to show that they have not much of these things to spare themselves. I dare say they have enough for themselves, but nothing to spare. But where, may I ask, could we get 400,000 extra acres of barley? I think any Deputy who wants to be fair on the matter will agree with me that it is much easier to get wheat-growing land than barley-growing land. Practically all the land of this country that grows oats, and grows good oats, is capable of growing wheat, but there are only patches of the land of this country that will grow barley. Wexford, I think, is one of our biggest barley-growing counties, but even there, there are only three or four patches that will grow barley. Outside these, you will not get good barley grown in the County Wexford at all. If the Deputy had made the suggestion that we should grow oats in exchange for wheat, one could understand it, but the suggestion he made shows clearly that he has not given any great consideration to this question at all.

I have been accused, and the Government have been accused, of pushing this wheat question too much, of persuading farmers who should not grow wheat on the type of land they hold to do so, of persuading them to grow wheat in fields of old lea, or for some other reason, such as not growing the crop in proper rotation, and also of persuading them to use seed that was not fit to be sown. All these things may be true. I admit that we had to try and persuade farmers to grow more wheat, but now are we to be blamed altogether for that? If the farmers, for instance, were only anxious to grow wheat we would not have to induce them to do so, or if they all believed that they could grow any amount of wheat we would not have had to go out to encourage them to do so, but really what happened was that the doctrine had been preached to the farmers that we could not grow wheat in this country. Deputy Brennan, for instance, spoke on this question in the course of this debate. He was one of those who signed a report in 1928 to the effect that wheat could not be grown in this country. He gave several reasons why it could not be grown. Now, Deputy Brennan and Deputy Dillon and others are prepared to admit that we can grow 250,000 acres of wheat here, and that if you take selected land—well-manured land —you can get very good crops of wheat off it. Deputy Brennan, however, said at that time that wheat could not be grown in this country, and that that was the end of it. We had to break down the prejudice that had been created against the growing of wheat. I am sorry to say that we did not succeed in doing so, because what did I find when down through the country yesterday? On making inquiries I found that many farmers with good land that had not been broken before, land on which good wheat could be grown, were instead growing crops of oats on it this year, because oats was an easier crop to grow.

Mr. Bennett

There is a reason for that this year. No sane man would put in winter wheat on the 10th March when he could put in a crop of oats. The appeal in connection with the increased tillage was made in January. From January until practically the end of February, in fact, up to the beginning of March, it was impossible to put in wheat.

Dr. Ryan

Does the Deputy hold that a farmer could not sow spring wheat in March?

Mr. Bennett

I would not put in winter wheat, or any variety of wheat, on lea land on the 10th March in preference to oats.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps not on lea land. I venture to say there are good farmers who are able to grow spring varieties of wheat successfully, even on lea land, and even though the crop is not put in until the 10th March. The Deputy said that the appeal was not made until January. The order for the 17½ acres was made in October, so that if a farmer intended to obey it, he had plenty of time to plough the 17½ acres out of the 100, even if he did not plough the other two and a half acres until we came to him again. Deputy Beegan—he was not speaking of the present year—said he thought that over a period of years we had not given sufficient thought to the spring varieties of wheat. I do not agree with him. If the Deputy were present at any of the demonstrations given at the Albert College, Glasnevin—this is the work of the scientists and not of the Department—he would have heard Professor Caffrey say to the farmer visitors when showing them around the crops that what we want in this country are good varieties of spring wheat. I have heard him say that myself time and again at these demonstrations. That is what we are trying to get. The scientists are the people to do that work, and not the Department. The Department will try to push the varieties when they get them.

Mr. Beegan

The agricultural instructors, in the main, have not, I submit to the Minister, stressed that point. I think they have shown a preference for the other.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Dillon also asked whether we had any hope of developing our own resources in the matter of artificial manures. That matter is being looked into, and we will do what we can. The Deputy also said that the live-stock inspectors under the Live-stock Breeding Acts paid too much attention to the conformation of bulls. I do not agree with him. As a matter of fact, the live-stock inspectors are instructed not to do that, and I do not think they have in any way departed from their instructions. Deputy Belton spoke for an hour and 40 minutes. He made only two points that I think call for a reply. He said that every farmer should be compelled to put 5 per cent. of his arable land under wheat. I do not agree with him, and for the reasons that I have just given. I think we will have to leave a discretion with the farmers as long as we can. It may be necessary at some time, if we do not get the wheat, to do what Deputy Belton suggested. I think it will be a pity if we have to do that.

I think we should leave it to the discretion of the farmers to grow the wheat we want, and perhaps we may have more success next year. I agree with the point made here that we should try to get in all the wheat we can in October. I hope we may be able to do that this year, as it is usually more successful. The other point referred to by Deputy Belton was horse racing and foot-and-mouth disease; I will leave that for the moment, as I intend to deal with foot-and-mouth disease later on.

Deputy Hughes asked if any attempt had been made to barter exports of food, etc., for raw materials. That attempt has been made. It certainly had been made over and over again, but the position is that the British will only take our exports, whether they are cattle, or meat, or butter, at their price, not a very good price sometimes, and also they have always reserved the right to limit the quantity they will take. They have applied that limit in some cases. On the other hand, they say they cannot provide us with some of the raw materials we are looking for. Deputy Hughes went, in some detail, into a transaction on the Belgian market where we lost some money on butter. It was an isolated incident. Taking our whole trade on the Belgian market, I am not sure whether there was a loss or a gain, but I am quite sure that on our whole trade on the Continent for butter, taking Belgium and Germany together, there was a good profit, and it was well worth going into.

Deputy Cogan has advocated that we should announce our programme in August, so that the farmer could get going in September. I think that is advisable, but on the other hand I do not know that a farmer has any great complaint to make if he gets, even at any time before Christmas, the announcement as to the amount of tillage which is required, because the farmers do not plough lea land, as a rule, very early. I admit there is a possibility that they may plough lea land which is not too old in October, and sow wheat in it. On that account it would be well to make the announcement as early as possible, and I think we should be able to do that in this coming year. Deputy Cogan also alleges that there is a definite shortage of spring seed wheat. I do not think that is true. As a matter of fact, I know a man who got seed wheat last week, and had no difficulty in getting it.

Mr. Corry

What was the price?

Dr. Ryan

45/-. He got it cheaply through waiting.

Mr. Corry

The thief got caught out all right.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Nally wanted to know whether the Farm Improvements Scheme applied to Mayo. If he went into the Department and looked at the returns he would think it applied to no place else. Deputy Childers raised a few points, which were rather surprising, I must say, because they appeared to me to be so far from the actual situation. Deputy Childers was talking about the improvement of our lands, and referred to the work of Sir George Stapleton "as it is now largely adopted in Britain and New Zealand".

I do not know about New Zealand, but I am quite sure it has not been adopted in Great Britain. I do not know if Deputy Childers read Sir George Stapleton's book, or whether he only saw extracts from it. Sir George Stapleton said in his book that only something like 50,000 acres are needed for the growing of the necessary seeds, but the scheme could not be adopted in Great Britain as he had no hopes that that acreage would be given for years and years. Another thing he said in his book is that the ideal way to start is by a farm improvements scheme. He outlines his farm improvements scheme, and one would imagine that he had taken it from our scheme. Another recommendation of his is that, in order to get the land kept in proper hands, and so on, when it is improved, a Ministry of Lands should be set up. He outlines the Ministry he has in mind, and it is very like our Department of Lands here. Therefore, of the three big recommendations he makes in his book, the first can never be adopted in England, in his lifetime anyway, and the other two have not yet been adopted in England but have been adopted here. Yet, Deputy Childers talks about taking a leaf out of that book, and doing what they are doing in England. They are not doing it in England, and will not for many years to come. Deputy Childers also said that when one meets agricultural experts from other countries one finds they are always amazed at the amount of land which is actually wasted here. I do not know; that may be possible, I suppose, with experts from certain countries, but certainly when travelling through England one is not struck by the good farming there any more than here. I think that on the whole the farmers here, especially the tillage farmers, appear to keep their land in better condition than they do there. Three or four years ago I was in Germany, where they do everything so very thoroughly. I spent some days going around the farms, and I certainly can say that they do not keep their land any better than we do, and they do not keep their animals nearly as well as we do. A lot of the talk about what they are doing in other countries and what we are not doing here, simply means, literally in this case, that "far off hills are green".

Deputy Brennan said that the difference between the policy of the previous Government and our own is that the late Mr. Hogan called for "another cow, another sow, another acre under the plough". I do not think it is right that we should always argue here as if this Party wanted all tillage and no animals, and that the other Party wanted all animals and no tillage, because that is not true. Every Deputy who gets up from the opposite side, as well as from this side, always speaks about the ideal thing being mixed farming.

When we came into power here we did not want to cut down the number of animals in the country, and we did not do it, as a matter of fact. What we did want was to get more tillage going, and to try as far as we could to lessen the imports of wheat, maize and other things which we thought we could produce for ourselves, or at least if we could not produce maize we could produce a substitute for it. We did not try to get the other cow or the other sow; they remained as they were, but we did try to get the other acre under the plough. There was a small increase in tillage. It was nothing to boast about, I admit, but I myself believe that the fact that we had got a certain acreage under wheat was very helpful to us when this crisis came along. I think Deputy Coburn said that if we had no wheat at all we might have got 300,000 or 400,000 acres this year, but it is much easier to go from 200,000 to 400,000 than from nought to 400,000, and it was well to have at least that much under wheat.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would the Minister say what percentage increase there was before the war?

Dr. Ryan

I will try and get the figure. My recollection is that something under 100,000 acres was the increase, that is, from 1931 or 1932 to 1939. Deputy Brennan says that agriculture is less prosperous because there are less people employed in the industry. There are two points one must keep in mind when talking about that figure: If we take the figures for 1926 and 1936, which are the figures very often taken, in 1926, when the census was taken, one can imagine what happened in places like Connemara. When a person was filling in his occupation, if he was living on a bit of land, he filled in "agriculture". The sons of the house also filled that in. In 1936 the position was quite different. Those sons were drawing unemployment assistance, and when they were filling in the census form they did not put down "agriculture", they put down "unemployed". I do not know what that would amount to, but it would represent a fair number. That is one point to keep in mind. Another point is one I have already dealt with, namely, that most people who are writing on this from the economic point of view look at it more from the point of view outlined by Deputy Mulcahy, which is, that the less people you have employed, if the output remains the same, the more prosperity there is. From the social point of view it is not a good way of looking at it, but from the economic point of view it is the proper way, because the individual income is greater.

Deputy Brennan, although he professed to be impartial on this whole subject, made a remark that he did not think anything was done right by the Department of Agriculture. It is a strange thing that in the same speech he gave one the impression, if he did not say it, that everything was going right before 1932. A person who says that everything was done right in the Department of Agriculture before 1932 and that everything was done wrong now can hardly be taken as an impartial or reliable person because Deputies will agree, I am sure, that there are some things at least that are being done in the same way in the Department as they were done then. Deputy Brennan and I had some argument over artificial manures, and Deputy Brennan came the next day and said I had absolutely misled the House. The argument was to this effect: Deputy Brennan said we had starved the land of artificial manure during our term of office. I said we had not starved it any more than the previous Government had. He said the figures will show, and so on. I may have been wrong in saying that absolutely the same amount of manure was used during the eight or nine years since 1932 as was used in the eight or nine years previous to 1932. But the difference is not very much. Of superphosphates, which is the biggest item in artificial manures, taking the years 1924 to 1931, 160,000 tons a year were used. I am taking superphosphates there, or the equivalent, because some of it came in in the form of raw materials, but that is the amount used. During the other seven years, that is, 1933 to 1939, 130,000 tons per year were used. Therefore, the difference was 30,000 tons, or 19 per cent. On the other hand, although undoubtedly the quantities of superphosphates were less, we had a 50 per cent. increase in potash manures during the seven years referred to compared with the seven years before 1932, and we had a 60 per cent. increase in sulphate of ammonia. Deputy Brennan forestalled any argument I might make in regard to sulphate of ammonia by saying it is a stimulant, and takes more out of the land than it puts into it. Some farmers hold that that applies to all the artificial manures, and some hold that it does not apply. I think the fact is that if you put in artificial manure, whether it is phosphate, potash or nitrogen, it is there until it is used up. It may be a stimulant but it is also a food, as far as it goes, so there is not very much in the point that less artificial manures are being used or, at least, that there is a considerably less amount of artificial manures being used. There was, as I say, less phosphates, more potash, more nitrogen, but the fact is, of course, that there was not nearly enough artificial manures used at either time, and it would have been a great thing for this country if we had used double the amount right through from 1929 to the present time.

Mr. Cosgrave

On those figures, does it not mean a year-and-a-quarter not being supplied in the last seven years? Does it not amount to that—one whole year-and-a-quarter?

Dr. Ryan

That would be about right.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is very serious.

Dr. Ryan

There is another point I may mention. It was on the downgrade in 1931. It was down to 139,000 tons in 1931, so that one could infer, I suppose, that even if the country had been fortunate enough to return Deputy Cosgrave and his Government in 1932 that downgrade might have been continued.

Mr. Cosgrave

Did the Minister inquire as to the reason for its being down in 1931?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Cosgrave

There was a reason.

Dr. Ryan

The two high years were 1929 and 1930, and I think phosphates were cheaper in those years than they had been previously. The same thing applies, of course, to the increase in sulphate of ammonia in the last seven or eight years. Sulphate of ammonia became cheap and, therefore, there was more of it used.

Deputy Meaney raised a point about cow-testing and said he thought, first of all, there was too much pen-work in it and, secondly, that instead of asking the farmer to weigh his milk once a week we should let the supervisor go around and do it once a month. I do not agree with either of these points. In the first place, I do not think there is too much pen-work. I suppose there are members of the House who are members of cow-testing societies. The farmer gets a form in the beginning of the year and has to fill in the figures. He has to fill in, say, "12 cows"; then he has to write in "24/-"; sign his name and send 24/- with the form back to the society and he is a member. He then has to weigh his milk once a week, morning and evening, and record it on a sheet. The sheet is ruled; the headings are on it. He has only to write in the figures. There is not very much in it. I do not think it would be right to have it reduced to once a month because everybody that is recording yields will agree with me in this, that if you look at the list of figures of any cow, say, every ten weeks, you will find that she may give, say, 28, 26, 28 and then, maybe, 20 gallons, then back again to 26, 28 and then 18. For some reason or another, you will have a very low recording, perhaps, in one week now and again. If the recordings were only taken monthly that would be a very serious thing, but as it is done once a week it is not so serious because the average for all the weeks are taken and, therefore, the one drop does not make such a big difference.

Deputy O'Donovan says that all the potash was used for flax, under my directions. That is not true at all. What happened was this: We had 5,000 tons of potash in the country at the commencement of the season. We authorised the manure manufacturers to use all that potash in the compound manure. There was no free potash given out at all, that is, from the wholesalers or manufacturers; there may have been a little potash on the hands of retailers, but that is all the potash that was available in the free form. We authorised them to put this 5,000 tons in the compound manure, and that compound manure was used largely, I take it, for potatoes and beet. We were offered 700 tons by the British Ministry of Supplies, provided we applied it to flax. It was given for that purpose. We said, "All right; we will distribute it to the flaxgrowers," and that is all the potash that was distributed.

Mr. Hughes

Did that not operate against the farmer who made up his own mixture on the advice of your Department?

Dr. Ryan

It did, but it was a terribly difficult situation.

Mr. Hughes

It was very unfair.

Dr. Ryan

Five thousand tons are 100,000 cwts.—that is two stone for every farmer in the country. The best chance of every farmer getting some quantity was to put it into the compound.

Mr. Hughes

A man who did not buy compound last year could not get it this year.

Dr. Ryan

The next point raised had reference to the fixation of grain prices, a matter to which Deputy Bennett referred. Deputy Fagan does not agree with that, but I think that we shall have to fix prices. I do not agree with Deputy Fagan that, if we took a chance on it this year, the farmers would do as well. I think you would probably have the same position as arose last year. It is probable that we shall have a very big oat harvest this year. I am assuming that the weather will be favourable from now on. If so, there will be a lot of oats thrown on the market immediately after the harvest, and it is quite possible that, if we do nothing about it, prices may again go down to 12/- or 13/- a barrel, with the same result as last year. I think it is much better to regulate prices right through.

Mr. Fagan

Why not have a minimum price?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think it would make any difference whether you have a minimum price or a fixed price. If we fix a minimum price, then the merchant will only pay the minimum price, and we might as well make it a fixed price.

Mr. Fagan

You had a price of £4 for wheat last year.

Dr. Ryan

We shall have to have a fixed price right through from the merchant to the miller and from the miller to the feeder.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will you have a guaranteed market if the price is fixed?

Dr. Ryan

That is a question that has to be considered. We have to see whether the millers will take it all.

Mr. Cosgrave

Nothing has been done about that yet?

Dr. Ryan

No, but we are making preparations. Deputy Moran complained about some of our regulations concerning the export of eggs. I do not think that the regulations are too severe. He thought that we should cooperate with the exporters. We have already a consultative council on which exporters, dealers and producers are represented. That council meets occasionally and these regulations are all discussed. Deputy Flynn asked whether we had set up a plant for the extraction of nitrogen from the air. We have not. Deputies have frequently stated in this House that I, as Minister for Agriculture, should have objected more strenuously to certain things that were done for other industries. Here is an instance in which I did object. We could have had a nitrogen-producing plant if I had agreed that a price higher than that at which the imported article was available would be paid. I did not agree to that because I thought they should be able to market the product at the same price as that at which it was imported. The result was that the project was held up. We now have not got any nitrogen as a result. Sometimes a certain amount of harm is done by holding out too long on questions of that kind.

The only other matter with which I want to deal is foot-and-mouth disease. A number of Deputies have referred to it, and it occurred to me that I might make a few notes and deal with all their points together. First of all, I should like to make the point that the staff who are dealing with foot-and-mouth disease are, in my opinion, a very competent staff. It is not since I took charge of the Department that I formed that opinion. Even when I was in Opposition, such contacts as I had with the veterinary staff of the Department convinced me that they were very competent and that they were very well able to deal with any situation that might crop up. My belief in their competency has been strengthened since then. There is no reason why anybody should say otherwise. I am quite sure there is no political reason because the members of the staff have been recruited over many years. Some were recruited before the State was set up, some were recruited by the last Government and some by this Government but they were all recruited in more or less the same way. I think every member of the House feels that the staff is thoroughly competent and undoubtedly they worked very hard to control this pest. It is really a pity that Deputies should criticise the work done by the staff because, I am sure, Deputies on every side of the House know that that there are people in the country who have no confidence in public servants. They think that a civil servant is hopeless from the very beginning.

It is a pity to give any encouragement to people in the country who hold these views. In particular, when you have responsible persons like the Leader of the Opposition saying that both the Minister and his staff had dealt with the position hopelessly, it does give certain support to the views these people may have about the competency of the staff. That is a bad thing inasmuch as it reduces the influence of these officials and makes it very much more difficult for them to deal with the disease.

Apart from the question of confidence in the staff, there is the other matter of co-operation. Deputy Fagan said that we have been blaming the farmers. We have not blamed the farmers. I wish to goodness the Deputy would not say that, because I denied it before.

Mr. Fagan

I read a statement recently in the papers in which it was said you were blaming the farmers.

Dr. Ryan

There were certain farmers that I blamed, but there was never a time I said that, that I did not also say that the majority of farmers were very helpful.

Mr. Fagan

It was stated in the papers that they had been blamed.

Dr. Ryan

The majority of the farmers have been very helpful, but there were certain farmers who have not been helpful.

Mr. Fagan

It might not be their fault.

Dr. Ryan

As a matter of fact, generally speaking, we got full co-operation from the farmers. In Dublin, amongst the dairymen we did not get that co-operation, but I would not say that it was deliberate in their case. I could not accuse them of obstructing deliberately. It was just due to carelessness. They did not seem to realise the seriousness of the position and it was very difficult to get the Dublin dairymen to fall in with the regulations. Apart from that, we got general co-operation except in the instance I have already mentioned, the Tullaroan-Kilmanagh district, where we did not get co-operation from a small section of the community. There was a certain amount of advice given by people who were regarded as leaders of public opinion by these farmers, not to mind about inspectors coming to their places.

Mr. Fagan

The farmers all over should not be blamed.

Dr. Ryan

Nobody ever blamed them.

Mr. Hughes

Did the Minister take any steps to have that advice corrected?

Dr. Ryan

What advice?

Mr. Hughes

You said that a certain advice was given by leaders of public opinion there.

Dr. Ryan

In the beginning, as I said, there were a few people in the district who advised the people not to have these inspectors coming into their places. Some of the people actually took their advice and inspectors were met on, at least, one farm with pitchforks and told not to come in. These people have changed their minds and they now admit that they were wrong in giving that advice. Apart from two instances, we got general co-operation from the farmers. These two cases are being dealt with by the courts, and I need not refer further to them. The courts will deal with them.

In respect of another point we failed in that we did not get the information we should like to get. The farmer is, naturally, a bit hesitant when a public official comes to him and commences to question him. A farmer may have a case of disease on his land. An official comes down and asks him where he was during five or six days previously, who were at the farm, where were his children and his employees. In a number of cases, the official did not get candid and open answers to these questions. If we had got these questions answered promptly and candidly, we might have been able to stem the disease more effectively than we did. Personally, I find it hard to blame the farmer for being cautious when a public official comes along to question him. Of course, there was no danger to him whatsoever and we tried to impress that upon him. He may have notified the case on a certain day. The fact that he was visiting people on the day prior to that or that other people had visited him could not possibly injure him in respect of his compensation. No blame would attach to him because, at that time, he did not know the disease was about the place. But if we had got more information promptly, we could have got on better. I leave that point, emphasising this, for the benefit of Deputy Fagan and others, that I am finding fault only with a small percentage of the farmers. The big majority of farmers were very helpful. They gave us all the help they possibly could.

The next point made in the debate was that I took a very light view of the whole business. That is not true. A Deputy said that I had stated that I was satisfied that the outbreak was only a mild one and would be easily controllable. I never said any such thing. Every time I came here I spoke of the gravity of the situation. A Deputy—I think it was Deputy Belton —said that, from my statement on one occasion, it looked as if I were "throwing in the sponge". It is very hard to make statements about which one will not be accused either of taking too light a view of the situation or "throwing in the sponge". We must try to deal with the matter as fairly and as candidly as we can.

The allegation that I took to light a view of the situation was made, I believe, because I did not accept certain suggestions for dealing with the disease. I was asked by Deputy Belton why, if it was necessary to stop horse-racing, horse-racing had now been resumed. That is a ridiculous question, if I may say so. When an outbreak of measles occurs in the city, the schools are closed but they are opened again when the medical officers think they have the outbreak under control in that particular area. No question is asked about their action in that regard. The same applies in this case. I said in the Seanad, and I do not mind saying here, that one of the things I did without the support of the veterinary staff was to stop horse-racing and dog-racing. The veterinary staff told me that there was no reason for doing that at that time. I said that, even so, it would be better to do it because people might be afraid that, if horse-racing were permitted near their places, it would lead to contagion.

Mr. Hughes

You were quite right, particularly in stopping dog-racing.

Dr. Ryan

I was told that horses and dogs do not take the disease and that there was no reason why we should stop a congregation at a race-meeting any more than a congregation at church.

Mr. Bennett

They travel farther to a race-meeting than they do to a church.

Dr. Ryan

Then, when we found that the area up here where most races are held—the Curragh, Leopardstown and the Park—was fairly clear, we announced that we would license race-meetings. We have licensed certain meetings and we have refused applications for licences for others. That regulation is still in force. We stopped a meeting, in the first instance, because we thought the outbreak at Rathkeale was carried by an attendant on a racehorse who went down there. We found that that was not correct. The disease did not come from that source.

Mr. Bennett

Is the Minister yet satisfied as to the origin of the outbreak at Rathkeale?

Dr. Ryan

I am not sure as to that.

Mr. Bennett

Nobody else is sure, either.

Dr. Ryan

Possibly the Department knows the origin of it, but I myself do not know.

Mr. Hughes

Is not that the most alarming aspect of the disease—the jump to a new centre? How can you account for the jump to Kerry?

Donnchadh O Briain

The Minister was assured that the outbreak at Rathkeale was not due to the racehorses?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. The horses were in a yard where no outbreak occurred.

Mr. Bennett

That is only one of the unfounded things to which rumour gives currency.

Dr. Ryan

It was alleged against us that we were not sufficiently thorough as regards disinfection and preventing contacts when an outbreak of the disease was notified. The Deputy who made that allegation was mistaken. I know of no case where the disease has spread once our veterinary surgeons got in. I am positive of that. The veterinary surgeons took the necessary measures in every case, and the disease did not spread from the farms concerned. Neither the people of the house concerned not the employees were allowed out until disinfected, and there was disinfection after burial of the carcases. The disease always spreads a day or two days before it is notified. It really spreads before the farmer knows that it exists on his farm. No staff, however competent, could deal with that.

Mr. Bennett

Has the Minister considered the point I made as regards the man reporting the disease?

Dr. Ryan

I took a note of that point and sent it to the veterinary staff for examination. There is something in the point the Deputy made. The disease is spread by the employees or by contact between the animals, but, very often, by the people themselves in their movements a day or two before the existence of the disease is notified, and before they know of it. Wherever we have got a true and candid statement from the farmer who notified the disease, we have always been able to say: "We are nearly sure to get another outbreak of the disease on such a farm." We were nearly always right. The advantage is that we are able to watch these farms because of having got the statement.

Mr. Hughes

Does that apply to a case where the disease jumps to a new centre?

Dr. Ryan

Sometimes.

Mr. Fagan

Does that apply to Kerry?

Dr. Ryan

I shall say a word about Kerry before I conclude. Another Deputy said that we were lax in the beginning in dealing with the cases. What I have said about taking control of the affected farm once the disease was notified goes back to the beginning. Once we got control of the farm there was no spread. We are quicker in dealing with cases now than we were then. Were it not for the help of the military authorities, we could never have dealt with the disease in the way we have done, as regards disposing of the animals and so forth. Let me give an instance. The Kerry case is the latest case we have had to deal with, and I shall tell you how we dealt with that. It was notified on a Saturday to the police. As Deputies know, Glencar is a long distance off, and it was evening before a veterinary surgeon arrived from the Department. Of course, in the meantime, the place was in the charge of the police and nobody could go in or out. The veterinary surgeon arrived and confirmed it. He immediately telephoned to the head office here. I was not there personally at the time, but the office here got in touch with the military and those animals were slaughtered and buried by 7.30 on Sunday evening—that is, within 24 hours of the time the veterinary surgeon confirmed it. I say that we are dealing with all cases practically as promptly as that now.

The Deputies will be anxious to know—and the people, of course, are anxious to know, too—what I think of the present position. I wish to tell the House now what I think, after having consulted the staff. For goodness sake, do not misinterpret me—one way or the other. I do not wish anybody to say that I took it too lightly or let the responsibility go out of hand. Let me put it this way. The position here in Dublin was much worse than if we had an infected fair or byre. Those who have been accustomed to the Dublin cattle trade know the traffic that goes on from lairage to lairage. It was a desperate situation to deal with—much worse than we have now. We thought we would be months and months before we could clear it up in Dublin and the surrounding counties, but I can say now truthfully that we appear to have got it under control. We may have an isolated case yet, but we certainly have got over it much more quickly than we expected in the beginning.

One likes to give hope, and I can say that we were dealing with a worse position then than we are dealing with now. Now, however, we are dealing with a new problem—one which we had not got before—namely, one in a creamery district. There are two creamery districts concerned in particular—Mountgale and Ballingarry— and the cows evidently were affected there in some way—that is, the infection got into the milk. It is possible, of course, if a milker's hand came in contact with infected milk of any kind and he milked, that milk was infected and that in that way the skim milk was infected and the disease spread to the pigs and calves. It is a new problem to deal with, and a very big problem, too. There is no doubt about that: I do not wish to minimise it in any way—it is a very big problem. It has occurred in a very large district covered by six or eight creameries. These creameries are all closed, of course. They were closed immediately, and the creameries in the surrounding areas were obliged to install sterilising plants immediately, and they are doing that. They sterilise the separated milk before it goes back, and we hope to be able to prevent the disease from spreading outside the ring in which it is now by those measures. The closed creameries also have been obliged to put in this plant—not that we intend to allow them to open for some time—as we hope they will be able to open after some time, and then they will have the plant to deal with the skim milk.

We have also issued a special appeal to every creamery supplier in the country—not in that area alone—that, if they notice an animal sick from any cause, they should notify the Department and should not send milk to the creamery until the Department's officer sees the animals and tells the supplier whether everything is all right or all wrong, as the case may be. We may be able to check it, by these measures, from spreading further into creamery districts but, undoubtedly, it is a very serious thing.

An infected creamery is really worse than an infected fair—except that it is within a certain radius. I am afraid that it will be followed by more cases than would follow from an infected fair. For instance, in Ballingarry creamery the disease has been confirmed already in the case of about 20 suppliers to that creamery alone and, in all probability, most of the 180 suppliers will be affected. It is very hard to see—as it is such a virulent disease—that it could go to 20 without going to the whole lot. If it gets into the cans at all it goes through the whole lot, unless—and there is this hope—the infection may have come when the milk was half way through the separation, or more than half way, so that those who got the milk first may be safe. I take it that it was in that way it was spread.

That is the position as far as the creameries are concerned. It is not to be taken lightly by any means but, on the other hand, I think—and so do the technical staff in my Department—that we were up against a more difficult position in Dublin than we are up against now, and we feel more hopeful than we did at that time. The outbreak in these two counties is very serious, and I am afraid many farms will be affected before it is brought under control, but we have the advantage of having a much bigger staff down there, as we were able to withdraw our staff in the other areas— though not completely, of course. The staff was much bigger than we could have spared six or eight weeks ago; if that particular outbreak had come at the same time as the Dublin outbreak, we would have been in a very bad way, indeed.

In all the other areas—that is, Donegal, Offaly, Dublin, Kildare, Limerick, Clare and Meath—I am hopeful—of course, one never can be certain—that we have seen the end. As I have said already, there may be an isolated case or two, but if it is only that it will not give too much worry. The latest county to experience the disease is Kerry, and two farms have been affected in Glencar. The travelling creamery there has ceased to operate—that was the first precaution taken. I suppose that a good many Deputies here know Glencar as it is a famous tourist resort, and those who know it know that we are favoured in that it is surrounded by mountains and can be isolated from the rest of the county; but, on the other hand, there is practically no fence. If any Deputy ever drove through Glencar, as I often did, he knows that there is a great number of sheep on the roads.

Mr. Bennett

They run at large there.

Dr. Ryan

So that there can be a great mixing of cattle and sheep before the disease is notified. That is a disturbing feature. Another disturbing feature is that they appear to be a curiosity loving people or, perhaps, people desirous of getting some knowledge. I believe there were strings of visitors to see these cattle before they were notified. That is, as I say, a very bad feature also. We are afraid that it will spread a lot in Glencar. On the other hand, there is a hope that we may keep it inside the valley of Glencar.

Mr. F. Lynch

Has the Minister any idea as to how it originated?

Dr. Ryan

At present I have no idea.

Mr. Bennett

Or a good case?

Dr. Ryan

No, but in time we will probably find out. I will give an instance. When it occurred in Clare, though it was a big jump, we had no idea as to how it originated; but after some time we found out that it was through a dealer who had been smuggling sheep across a lake. We are certain of that, but we are not certain enough to give proof to a court of law, as Deputies will understand. I do not know how it may have been carried to Kerry but, possibly, it was through some dealer or other also. Some Deputies advocated very drastic provisions to stop the spread of the disease. There is a limit to that. I stated before that anything the veterinary staff asked me to do I did, and where it was necessary to get some of the other Departments to co-operate that was always done. If they thought it necessary to be more drastic, certainly I would help them in every way to have any drastic measures carried out, but there is always a danger that people may think we are going too far, and may not give the same co-operation. There was talk of putting a ring of military about an area affected, but people might resent that. They might have very good reasons for trying to get out of that area. They might have business requiring attention.

Mr. Fagan

For a fortnight.

Dr. Ryan

I am only making the point that if you make that sort of regulation some people there will try to evade it, because they will think it is unfair or too drastic, while the same people might be willing to co-operate as long as things were reasonable. We should not overtax them in that respect.

Mr. Fagan

If you put a ring around an area for a fortnight?

Dr. Ryan

I am not saying that I am not ready to go even further than the Deputy.

Mr. Bennett

In the Kerry area, with the danger of the disease running through uncontrolled districts, that area might be enclosed.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, there might be something in the point about Kerry which has a natural sort of boundary all round. It might be easy to do that there. I am only making the point that in the first place, whatever the veterinary staff has considered necessary has been done. It has to be remembered that it is not the cases of which we get notification, but the ones that are going to be notified to-morrow or the next day that are doing the damage. It is very hard to know anything about them. One Deputy asked when the fairs and markets would be resumed in Meath. We allowed fairs to be resumed as soon as we considered it safe. I think permits have been issued for some fairs to be held in County Meath, one being Oldcastle. Whenever a permit is applied for it will be considered.

Another point was about approaching the British with regard to exports. That matter has been discussed unofficially with the British practically every week. If the Kerry outbreak had not taken place, or if there had been a week without any notification of an outbreak, it would be another question. The matter is not being lost sight of. There is constant contact between the two Governments about it, and as soon as exports are allowed they will be resumed. So that I will not be misunderstood, I want to repeat that we did get co-operation from the great majority of the farmers and from everybody else. We also got splendid co-operation from the military and other forces. I do not want to praise the officers of my Department because everybody agrees that they did their part well. I want it to be perfectly clear that while I am not saying that we are by any means out of the wood, or that the position is hopeless, it is the considered opinion of the veterinary men in my Department, and my own opinion after discussing it with them, that we were up against a worse position in Dublin than we are in now.

Donnchadh O Briain

What about the question of closing public halls, dance halls and cinemas in affected areas about which there has been very much discussion in County Limerick?

Dr. Ryan

That question was considered, and I think the Deputy will agree that if you do not allow the people to go to dance halls they may take up walking through farmers' lands and do very much more harm.

Question put and agreed to.