Deputy Curran was hopeful that we might profit by our experience. I think we should be able to profit by the experience we have had of this outbreak over the last eight or nine months. As a matter of fact I intend, as I said when speaking last night, to put certain proposals before the Dáil to amend the Diseases of Animals Act. These amendments, of course, will be based on the experience we have gained during this outbreak. Deputy Curran also asked why it was that we could deal so successfully with outbreaks in places such as Kerry and Limerick as well as in Clare and Wicklow—there were only two cases in each of these areas—if we adopted the same measures as we had adopted in, say, Dublin and Kilkenny. Well, of course, the same measures were adopted. We were more fortunate in confining the disease in areas like Limerick, Clare and Kerry. That may be very difficult to understand since the conditions were not very different in some of those areas where it was cleared up very quickly from the areas where it took a long time to clear it up. Deputy Curran also gave instances of what he thought was evidence of indecision or bungling on the part of the Department. The Department issued an order to certain trainers forbidding them to send their horses to some race meeting, whether it was at the Curragh or some other place I cannot recall at the moment. Deputy Curran said this order was withdrawn, and that the horses were allowed to go. What happened in that case was this: that, at least, one of the trainers who got notice forbidding him to send his horses to this particular race meeting telephoned the Department to say that the horse was on his way. We were coming to the point where we would probably, in any case, have relaxed the restrictions in that particular area in another few days. When this telephone message arrived at the Department we thought that it was hardly worth while to put the trainer to the inconvenience of bringing back the horse in order to have this particular order obeyed, and we thought that, on the whole, it was as well to rescind that particular order and allow this trainer and, of course, other trainers similarly situated, to send their horses to the meeting. That, of course, would not have been done were it not for the fact that we were on the point, in any case, of relaxing the restrictions in that particular area.
Vote 30—Agriculture (resumed).
Then the first order should never have been made.
That does not follow at all. Any Deputy must see that, if he has a little bit of common sense and does not want to blame us. As I have said, we were going to relax the restrictions on a certain day. It does not make a big difference whether you do that a day after or a day before. I think any Deputy will admit that. If we find that we are going to put one particular person to great inconvenience, well naturally we can advance a day and say: "All right; it does not make a great lot of difference; we will relax the restrictions to-day instead of to-morrow." I am quite sure that if we did the other thing and withdrew the restrictions two days later, we would have Deputies getting up and saying: "Why did you put the man to the inconvenience of bringing back his horse when you intended to relax the restrictions a few days afterwards?" There might be some ground for criticism if we had done that.
Does not the Minister realise the feeling it created in men's minds of the Department making an order and then withdrawing it?
I admit that, but the matter was explained. It was explained to the Deputy by letter. When it is explained, I think any reasonable person will say that there was not very much in it one way or another. Deputy McGovern made the point that I was responsible for any regulations or penalties that were made and not the veterinary staff. It is true that I have to take responsibility for any regulations that were made, and I did. I do not know what I may have said that drew that remark from Deputy McGovern. I may have said, and I think I probably did say it here on more than one occasion, that anything the veterinary staff asked me to do in the way of making restrictions, I did it. I have never at any time advised or reasoned with the veterinary staff to relax restrictions one day sooner than they were inclined to do it themselves. In fact, any action that I did take was the other way—to suggest at times that perhaps we should be a bit more cautious before withdrawing restrictions than they were inclined to be.
Deputy O'Reilly advocated a more general dissemination of knowledge of diseases of all kinds occurring in animals as well as foot-and-mouth. I quite agree with that. As far as we can, we are trying to do that. We have, I think, always tried to do that by the use of the radio, advertisements, and in every other way. I think I mentioned in the Dáil on a few occasions that some years ago there was a special veterinary officer who did practically nothing else except to go around and give lectures to groups of farmers on diseases that were prevalent amongst animals and that were causing much worry to farmers. We intend to revive that system in the near future. We intend to make a lecturer of that kind available again. His duty will be to go to country areas and lecture in the local halls to farmers on the various diseases arising amongst animals. Deputy MacEoin gave us a lecture on public morality which, I suppose, we can afford to laugh at. There is no necessity to refer further to it. Deputy Maguire following up that speech rightly said, I think, that if the discussion was going to develop into that sort of a debate, with a person on the other side of the House lecturing us on morality, we should first of all put our own house in order before we could expect the farmers to do their duty, and added that a debate of that kind was not going to do much good, because naturally it was going to develop into a political debate. So far as publicity in connection with the foot-and-mouth outbreak is concerned, we made statements in every available way and through every available medium. We used the radio quite a lot. Night after night, I think, there was a long statement over the radio. The newspapers were used a great deal and, in some areas, we sent circulars to the parish priests, who were very helpful in speaking to the congregations on Sundays and appealing to them to co-operate, so far as possible, with the officers of the Department.
Deputy Fagan and Deputy Belton spoke of the unnecessary loss sustained by farmers who sold cattle as beef cattle during the foot-and-mouth period. There was a good deal of criticism in the beginning, but it gradually died away—it is, evidently, being revived now—of the buyers appointed to supply Dublin City with beef. It is not true that these men made a lot of money.
Nonsense. They need never do another stroke of work in their lives.
When Deputy Dillon has no argument he says "nonsense". The fact is, they did not make a lot of money.
They need never do another stroke of work.
For the first few weeks, they were working in the ordinary way as buyers, with their own money, selling and making a profit. Their dealings during those weeks were audited and the amount of profit for that particular phase of their activities was shown in the balance sheet. From that time until the Dublin market opened, they were working on salary. On the day the Dublin market opened I intimated that I did not require their services further and I told the butchers of Dublin that they could go to the Dublin market and buy cattle as they had done in the past, but that they would have to get these cattle slaughtered in the abattoir. The butchers themselves met and agreed to keep these buyers on as their agents.
Why?
I do not know.
Well you know. They could not get their animals slaughtered in the abattoir.
I misunderstood the Deputy. The butchers gave as the reason for their action that, if they were all to go out and buy cattle individually in the market, there would be hopeless confusion if they tried to get them slaughtered in the abattoir. They said that the only way they could possibly carry on was to have one buying agency and they kept on the former buyers.
And the British buyers were given a monopoly of the Dublin market.
Had these buyers not the right to buy outside in the restricted area and had they not a monopoly there?
They had not a monopoly.
Why does not the Minister tell the whole story when he tells anything? Why omit that part of it?
The Deputy wants to make out that I am holding something back.
I want the truth and nothing but the truth.
I am telling the truth, and if the Deputy thinks they are doing better in England, as he suggested yesterday, then, let him say so. I say that these men did not make big profits. They made a fair amount of money, I suppose, but not the thousands of which Deputy Dillon spoke. The amount could not possibly have raised the price of cattle by 3d. a head on the number they bought.
The Minister knows that that figure of 3d. per head is nonsense.
Will the Deputy use some argument instead of using the word "nonsense" on every occasion?
Does the Minister imagine that the excess profit did not amount to more than 3d. per head?
Perhaps that was an exaggeration. It would not amount to 6d. per head.
Think that over and you may find that it is an under-estimate. You have moved up 100 per cent. already.
The Minister must be given opportunity now both to think and speak. Running interruptions do not make for order in debate.
They make for veracity.
For the first period, the accounts were audited and they must come before the Dáil. I thought they would have been before the House by now. For the first period, these men were buying cattle with their own money and selling in the ordinary way to the butchers of Dublin.
How much was shown on these accounts for luckpenny?
I do not know.
And nobody else knows.
Deputy Belton could, of course, tell us what should have been done in that case.
Was luckpenny mentioned in the accounts?
No. The five men concerned had nothing to do with luckpenny. They did very little of the buying themselves.
They did no buying. They sent out agents and stayed at home themselves and drew the money.
The luckpenny would not affect them. The accounts were audited and the amount involved was not big —a couple of thousands. At any rate, it ran into only four figures—not five. For the next period, they worked on salary and, when the Dublin market opened, they were employed by the butchers as their agents. I do not know what the terms were in that case because it is not my concern.
Why was it not your concern?
Just before the foot-and-mouth order that committee had some thousands to spare, and they sold meat to the Dublin butchers at so much less per pound to do away with that fund.
That may be true. Deputy Fagan was on a committee which met every week——
It was after the period of that committee that this happened.
The Deputy knows that there was a consultative body which met every week to regulate the price to be paid to the producers and the price for sale to the trader.
I am referring to the period after that.
If there was money on hands, they might decide that they would give a little more for lambs or sell to the butchers outside at less from week to week.
That was done.
By the butchers themselves?
Yes.
I do not know about that point. Deputy Belton says that this arrangement left the exporter a monopoly on the Dublin market. What monopoly was there more than there is now or ever was, in a way? Any man in this country was free to go in to the Dublin market and buy for export. There was no monopoly. The cattle were consigned to the salesmasters. The salesmasters sold these cattle and anybody could go in, buy them and export them. There could not be a monopoly when you had exporters competing against one another.
Was a fixed price to be paid to the producer?
Yes, all the time.
What was it?
If you ask me what it was on a particular date, I shall look it up.
We want to know it now.
I did not know that this question was coming up in such detail. The price was published all the time in the papers.
The producer was to get a fixed price?
Yes, and it was published.
That was during the time that the consultative body was in being.
Is the Minister aware that it did not operate?
It did operate.
What I wanted to know was, if the dead meat men were not allowed to have a monopoly of the trade in the country? The men buying for the factories had a monopoly of the trade in the country. There was nobody to compete with them.
That matter is outside this Vote.
Except that it more or less neutralises Deputy Hughes's point. He said that these men bought outside, and in a restricted market, and that they had a monopoly, while Deputy Fagan says that the fresh meat men had a monopoly. The two parties could not have a monopoly.
The "big five" were working in a restricted area.
That is true. They were kept below the canal line.
Does not the Minister know that they were not able to deal with all the cattle that were available?
There were too many cattle. As far as possible prices were regulated, at least in the Dublin market, and were published.
Does the Minister believe that the producers got those prices?
I think so. There may have been exceptions.
The Minister is the only man in Ireland who believes that.
No.
Did not a deputation wait on the Minister and point out that the groups operating in the restricted area were paying much below what was paid elsewhere? I was on the deputation that went to Government Buildings.
That may be.
As a result of the monopoly they were paying lower prices.
Deputies would be terribly surprised if they knew what deputations put before me. For instance, a deputation came to me a few days ago and wanted to get back to the system of restricting the Dublin market, because they said they did not know who could ship. The shipping companies have control and the deputation wanted the Department to go back to the old system of licensing cattle to salesmasters. God knows what might be put forward by a deputation. Deputy Dillon says I am the only one who believes the published prices were paid. I am not the only one. I know owners who sold cattle and who believe they got the published prices.
What were they?
I do not remember. They were published every week. They were the same as the export price. That is how they were regulated.
My information is that these cattle were bought by hand and that they went to people who were glad to get rid of them at any price. The farmers had to sell them to anybody who would buy them.
It is very hard to convince some people. Prices were fixed. Deputy Fagan will remember that we tried very hard in the committee to regulate matters and to arrange for sale by weight, but that was impossible.
Why impossible?
It was done in Dublin and in other centres where weighing could be done.
I think it was stated that it was done until the 4th July.
At the beginning we could not do it.
Did you use the markets all over the country where pigs are sold?
Sellers of cattle down the country had the option and I do not think anybody exercised it. There was the option to consign the cattle to Dublin and to be paid on the deadweight basis but they preferred to sell by hand.
When the Pigs and Bacon Board was operating pigs were weighed under the supervision of a semi-Government Department. I never heard of the offer to which the Minister refers in respect of cattle. It would be a different proposition if men were asked to send cattle to the big five. What should have been done was that farmers should have been told that if they wished they could send cattle to Dublin, and if accepted, they would be paid on the basis of a Government weigh docket.
As Deputy Fagan pointed out, as time went on we tried to provide all these facilities. Before I come to speak about the compensation in some of the later cases, I am having a point that Deputy Hughes raised examined. I do not know if there is anything in the point that in earlier cases the compensation was higher, because the cattle were, I suppose, dearer, and that these men when restocking had a falling market.
And a restricted market.
And when the compensation was lower the others would have to restock in a rising market. I am having that point examined. Deputy Belton raised a few specific points. I do not think there is much in them. One case concerned cattle at Gavin Low's. The Deputy stated that I said here that these cattle had been slaughtered when in fact they were not. The Deputy may be right, because at that time I was getting reports from all parts, and I have a recollection of a report that these cattle had all been cleaned out on a certain date, but that that did not take place for some days afterwards. When they were in contact with others we could not send them down the country and we could not keep them in the yard. They were not affected in any way. The only thing was to have them slaughtered and used as canning meat. They were store cattle. Possibly I made a mistake in saying that the cattle were slaughtered that day. If I did say that it made no difference.
I accept that explanation and I do not want to press that point at all.
They were healthy cattle.
Does the Minister not think that compensation should be given to those cattle salesmen who got stuck with cattle? By reason of the order that was made they had to keep these cattle. No compensation was given to them. Would the Minister consider that matter if a case is made to him?
I will look into it.
All I ask is that the Minister should deal with the case on the merits.
Deputy Belton made the case that there would be less manure this year, although we had more cattle, because there would be less fodder for cattle.
And less in-feeding.
I want to go back to 1934 and 1935 and to suggest to the Deputy that he should withdraw a statement he made then. At that time he said we had so few cattle after all the slaughter, that there would not be sufficient manure to carry on tillage. The argument cannot work both ways. After all if we have fewer cattle we must have more meadows and more manure. It appears now, according to the Deputy, whether we have too few or too many cattle, we cannot have manure.
Bosh!
The Deputy changes his mind to suit the occasion.
The Deputy never changes his mind.
Coming to the point as to whether a committee should be set up, I do not think it should. I do not see what a committee could do. If a committee is going to investigate some of the charges made in this debate it is only going to do a great deal of harm. I suppose it would not do me very much harm or Deputy Belton or Deputy Hughes but it would do very great harm if we brought the officials of the Department into it. I do not want to bring them in. At least, leave them out. Do not let us bring them into these political matters. I do not wish to have officials brought in to answer charges as to whether I lost a night's sleep or not—that was one of the charges—in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease.
Do not be talking rubbish.
That is what Deputy Hughes said.
It is only a figure of speech.
Or whether the farmers at College Green stopped the foot-and-mouth disease or not.
It had a great effect.
No.
How did it blow out in the night?
It must blow out some time. Or whether Deputy MacEoin is right or not, that we lack public morality on this side of the House. However, I do not see that we will gain much by a public inquiry at this stage, as it would mean inquiring into a lot of irrelevant matters. I think there is a better way to deal with it. I have said that I intend to put before the Dáil proposals for amending the Diseases of Animals Act. If a committee were to sit and make recommendations, the recommendations would mean in the end, I presume, amendments of the Diseases of Animals Act. That is what would be done in the end. The best thing to do would be that the officials in my Department who have had experience of this outbreak and saw the flaws in the Act-it must be remembered that we had to change the Act by Emergency Powers Order: we may not have emergency powers the next time an outbreak occurs—should put before me the proposals they think necessary and I would eventually bring them before the Dáil. It is better that the proposals should come from the Department first and then Deputies can do whatever they think best about them.
Deputies may say to me in reply that there is no opportunity there for proper investigation. We can get over that by having a special committee or a select committee, as the case may be, if that is found necessary when the time comes. I would be quite agreeable to that, and in that way, when I put what I believe to be proper proposals before the Dáil on a Second Reading debate, Deputies can come along to a committee of that kind and investigate the matter as far as they wish. I believe the matter would be best dealt with in that way.
When the facts have been forgotten.
When would the Minister propose to introduce such a Bill?
After Christmas, I hope.
Not before?
I am afraid not. There are still about 20 veterinary surgeons engaged in clearing up the foot-and-mouth disease and at the same time we are back to full export so that we have a big staff on export work. We have to find extra staff for this foot-and-mouth disease until it is cleared up and we would not have the time to deal with the drafting of Bill until the position improves.
Would the Minister say if any special steps were taken in connection with the disease in Carlow when it finished, such as the employment of the military or something like that? Would he say if any extra care or attention was shown in Carlow which would mean the stamping out of the disease when the outbreak finished there?
That was a point that Deputy Curran raised.
Yes, I was anxious to know.
No extra steps were taken, but it was felt—and Deputies here expressed it—that if we could get it out of the County Kilkenny—out of the creamery areas—there would be a chance of clearing it up. There is no doubt that the two big dangers were places like the City of Dublin, where yards were communicating with one another, and the creamery areas, the worst places where the disease could take a hold. We felt that if we could get it out of the creamery areas in County Kilkenny, then, even if it did go to Carlow, we could get around it there and stop it.
Generally speaking, Deputies will admit that it is a much more difficult matter to deal with the foot-and-mouth disease in this country than in England or Scotland, as in this country we have a lot of small farmers, and also the farmers here co-operate with one another; they are good neighbours and go back and forward to one another getting the loan of things. The same thing does not hold in England or Scotland and there is not the same amount of traffic between farm and farm.
Would the Minister give the House any light on the way the disease spread after being eradicated in Dublin and district? Was the Department able to trace the causes of the spread down south?
The Department has suspicions in some cases and does not know in other cases. For instance, we do not know at all about Limerick, we do not know at all how it came to Laoighise in the beginning; we have suspicions about how it spread in Clare and how it went to Callan in the beginning.
Would that information be of any use in preventing the spread if a future outbreak arose?
I do not know whether it would be useful to us.
Would the Minister not consider that the committee he is thinking of should be set up before the time he suggests? They could have a rough draft of the proposals he intends to embody in a Bill and they could examine those proposals and give their opinions to the technical staff of the Department of Agriculture.
I ask the Deputy to remember what I have just said—that we really could not spare the veterinary staff to go before a committee at present, until this is absolutely finished off. We are doing a full export trade, and all the ports are manned by veterinary surgeons and extra men are necessary for clearing off the disease.
Then the Minister's undertaking amounts to this: as soon as he has wound up the aftermath of the disease he intends to apply the staff at once to this matter?
Yes, the Bill will be prepared; it will not take very long.
Will the Minister explain the necessity to have any restrictions in force at present? The last outbreak was on the 22nd September.
There are two dangers that occur to me—two things we must remember always. As Deputies know, there were concealed cases, and there may have been a concealed case two or three weeks after the last outbreak. In that case, we need to be careful. The second thing is that, although it is almost completely free as far as land goes and houses are disinfected, the danger remains, I think, in rubbish heaps and especially in waste meat.
There is one comparison we can make on this matter of the Minister's objection. I do not know if he is aware of the fact that the rule in England is that a man can restock when his farm is free. In fact, the farm can be restocked in a month from the date of final disinfection, or in six weeks from the date of confirmation, whichever is the shorter period.
Six weeks is the period.
It has proved a success in England. The last outbreak here was on the 22nd September and this is the 13th November. A county that has suffered more than any other is the County Carlow. They are still restricted and have been denied any market for nearly 12 months. I do not think there is any necessity for that at the present time.
The Deputy must remember that the restocking sometimes takes place before the restrictions have been withdrawn in the area.
It is not the restocking; it is the outlet for stock there.
The Minister must be careful, all the same.
Tá
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Curran, Richard.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Mcaney, Cornelius.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
I understand that some Deputies desire to raise points on items occurring after sub-head N (1) before the question is put on the main Estimate.
I just want to refer to sub-head O (14). The Minister made a very short reference to it in his original statement.
It would be better if we were to take items in the sub-heads seriatim. I suggest that sub-head O (6) should be taken first.
What about M (1)?
That has been disposed of.
It was disposed of yesterday?
Yes.
On sub-head O (6), Sir. Yesterday the Minister mentioned the price allowance for seed wheat as being from 12/6 to 15/-. How does he justify an allowance of from 12/6 to 15/- a barrel of wheat? I suggest that 10/- should be ample to cover the storage and cleaning of wheat, particularly as he mentions that he is guaranteeing a price of 50/-.
Of course, it is a maximum price, not a fixed price.
But does not the Minister think that the maximum price will be charged?
I would not think so, not in all cases, at any rate.
I am afraid it will. Why would you leave a margin?
The maximum price is 62/6, and it is presumed there that the seed merchants will buy that wheat for about 45/-, as spring variety wheat, and there will be a certain amount of cleaning and so on to be done.
Is not the price for spring wheat about 52/-?
Yes.
And for winter wheat?
That is about 62/-.
Does not the Minister presume that the winter wheat will be bought at about 42/6?
No, I do not think so. This, however, provides for seed merchants who do a first-class business in a first-class manner, that is, a merchant who takes in the wheat, cleans it, distributes it, and so on, and in that way there is a certain amount of loss.
Well, the Minister must understand that anything screened out is sent to the mill to be milled afterwards.
That is what is usually done.
I would not suggest that the price should be so narrowed down or curtailed as to have the effect that the seed might be improperly handled. I agree that a reasonable margin, should be left there, but I think that 10/- should be ample to cover all the operations necessary to deal with seed grown and stored properly, and, although the Minister suggests that the amount he mentions is a maximum amount, I am afraid that it will be fully availed of, and that the farmers will be compelled to pay the maximum amount.
I think it may be availed of by the really big seed merchants, but the ordinary trader down the country would sell at less than the maximum price.
Taking the price of wheat at £2, does this not appear to be too big?
Well, it is nearer to it than last year.
But still it is too big?
Well, it may be.
More especially since the seed merchant is guaranteed against any loss by the Minister's guaranteeing him 50/-.
Well, after all, if it is too high, there is no reason why there should not be a certain amount of competition, and if any seed merchant sees a big profit in it, he will probably sell at a few shillings less in order to get trade or business.
Why leave any possibility there at all? Why not fix the amount you think is fair and reasonable, and not leave any margin?
I understand that the Deputy says he would not like to see a price fixed which might prevent a merchant from doing his business properly?
Yes.
Well, all these costings were put before me and my Department, and we went into them fully. Of course, I may say that the seed merchants asked a good deal more than this, but in the Department we thought that it would be well to bring down the costs as much as we could in the case of a high-class seed merchant who is going to do proper cleaning and so on.
Would I be in order, Sir, in asking the Minister this: Will barley and oats be released for milling?
It would not be in order to raise that matter now. It is a separate question.
I thought, perhaps, that the Minister would answer me.
I have no objection to the Minister's answering the Deputy, but other Deputies might be tempted to ask similar irrelevant questions.
On that point, I think I can give the Minister information where many merchants handled it last year at about 8/- profit, and where they did their job well and were not attempting to profiteer. I think it would be enough for the Minister to say that this should be done under the 10/- margin. From what I know, 10/- ought to be enough to cover this.
For winter wheat?
For winter and spring wheat. Well, let us agree, for winter wheat, because I think you allow 15/- for spring wheat and 12/6 for winter wheat.
Yes.
I suggest that it should be 10/- and 12/6.
I saw an offer to-day of winter wheat from a Dublin seedman at 50/- a barrel, and I know of that wheat being bought from the farmer at 42/6 a barrel.
Why not bring it down so that it will be operated within a margin of 10/- and 12/6? I think that would be enough and that it would be ample to cover all. Will the Minister consider it?
I cannot say any more than I have said, except that I saw the table of costings and thought it a reasonable figure. As I have said, a good deal more was asked for in the beginning.
I think the Minister ought to consider it.
The next item is sub-head O (10)—Flax Act, 1936.
In connection with the Flax Act, I think there is a very important matter that has arisen which ought to be dealt with. In the old days, before the flax industry in this country dwindled away as it had before this war emergency arose, the practice was that the farmer brought his flax to the mill and had it scutched there, and when he got it back from the mill he got, in addition to the flax, the proper quantity of tow, and when he went into the market he would find buyers for flax and also buyers for the tow. He would have the advantage of cashing both parts of the crop with the appropriate buyers. For some years before the war, for a reason that I do not fully understand, the market for tow dwindled away, and the farmers found, if they brought tow to the market, that there was nobody there to buy it. In that situation a great many farmers simply stopped taking tow from the miller, and left it on the miller's hands, because it was valueless as far as they were concerned, the market for it having apparently disappeared. Certainly the buyers had stopped coming to the local markets, and the small farmers had no means of sending it to the centre of consumption.
If the Deputy has a question to put to the Minister he should do so briefly since the matter is not relevant.
The money is required for the importation of flax seed by a co-operative society. Who wants to bring in flax seed if the people are not going to get the produce of their labour?
On a Vote for horse-shoe nails would it be logical to discuss horse flesh?
There is a closer connection between flax and tow than there is between horse nails and horse flesh. If we are to sow a flax crop, we should ensure that the man who labours and sweats to pull it will get full value for his labour.
I will allow the Deputy to put a question, but this item is limited to a guarantee to a co-operative society for the importation of flax seed.
And I want to talk about guaranteeing that the people will get full value for their labour.
The Deputy would not be in order in so doing. A debate on flax production is not permissible.
And why not?
Because this is only a Supplementary Estimate. This is a Vote for a guarantee to a co-operative society for the importation of flax seed.
Surely I am entitled to discuss——
The question is whether £700 should be given to guarantee a co-operative society for the importation of flax seed.
Yes, and I want to argue that if you are going to subsidise the importation of flax seed you ought to see that the flax seed is to be used to the best advantage, and the way to get the best advantage is to secure that the person who sows the flax will get the full return. Owing to a practice which has grown up in the country, the tow which will be produced from this flax seed for which we are providing £700 will be withheld from the farmers who sow this flax seed and who pull the flax that grows out of this flax. I want to ensure that the Minister will say to this co-operative society: "When this flax seed has been imported, and this flax seed has been grown, and the crop grown from this flax seed has been pulled, and those who sowed this flax seed and pulled the crop grown from this flax seed bring it to the scutch mill provided by you for the scutching of the flax grown from this flax seed, they will get back the tow and scutched flax." I want the Minister to say: "I will guarantee the farmer who sows this flax not only a market for the scutched flax"—he has done that by making an agreement with the British Government for the purchase of flax at a given price—"but I will arrange that there will be a market for tow on the same basis." I advocate that because I know that since the beginning of the war the market for tow has recovered. I want the Minister to say to the farmers that he will facilitate them in the same way in regard to tow as in the matter of the flax, so that the farmer can recover the tow from the scutch miller, sell it as he used to sell it, and get the additional cash return which he ought to get. The system which grew up when tow was worthless has resulted in the flax miller not only getting paid for doing his job of scutching the flax, but he can also cash the by-product of tow, which in my submission belongs to the farmer and not to the scutch miller.
The second point I want to make in regard to this scheme of guaranteeing the co-operative society on the importation of flax seed for the growth of flax is that, while the Minister may do that with a clear conscience seeing that he has secured a guaranteed market for flax, he cannot urge the co-operative society to encourage their members to grow flax unless he is satisfied that the farmers will get a fair price for the flax, and that that price will leave to the farmer who grew the flax a fair margin of profit. He cannot satisfy himself in that regard unless he satisfies himself that the charges for scutching are fair and just.
The Deputy must realise that the Chair has been very patient. On a Supplementary Estimate not all matters may be raised as on a main Estimate. The practice since the Dáil was founded has been that only the actual item and the actual purpose for which money is required may be discussed. What price the farmer is to get, whether he should get both tow and flax do not arise now. If the line which the Deputy is following were permitted other Deputies might wish to discuss manures for flax, the pulling of flax, the cost or the price, and all matters which are irrelevant.
All I put to the Minister is that if we are to vote £700 for the importation of flax seed by a co-operative society, to guarantee them against loss and the payment of commission, that is part of a scheme for the promotion of flax growing in that particular area. It does not seem to me to be commonsense to waste that £700 on a subsidy unless we take ancillary measures to ensure the success of the scheme. There are two dangers to the success of flax growing, especially in the part of the country which this sub-head of this Estimate is designed to help, and I should be glad if the Minister would give us an assurance that the matter of tow and scutching costs will be looked into, and substantial justice done to those persons for whose benefit this Supplementary Estimate has been introduced.
I do not know what the remote history of this question is, but I believe that for some years past the general practice has been to leave the tow with the scutch millers. Whether or not it would be very easy to change that now I do not know. The whole question of tow is being considered by another Department as well as mine, with a view to seeing if it can be used in this country. If we get a good use for it, the question as to how the tow should be marketed would naturally arise.
Might I put it to the Minister that it is not necessary to alter the practice of leaving the handling of the tow to the miller if the Minister will fix the price and say: "It is worth so much"? The scutching costs would then be reduced by the value of the tow which the miller retains.
I will have that matter examined.
The next item is sub-head O (13).
What exactly is the purpose of the Cereals Distribution Committee? Is it seed distribution?
Oh, no; it is looking after any barley and oats that are marketed.
This is the new committee?
Yes.
Does this relate to the distribution and use of barley and oats?
It relates to the committee looking after that.
Deputy Curran has mentioned a matter in regard to which I put down Parliamentary Questions, and on which I want to say a word now. I take it that the purpose of this expenditure is to regulate and facilitate the equitable distribution of such oats and barley as are available?
That is right.
A situation obtains at present in which oats are being purchased by the licensed buyers appointed by the Minister. So far as I know, any reputable person with facilities can get himself appointed a licensed oats buyer, but the Minister will not permit the transfer of those oats from the licensed oats buyer to the oatmeal miller, with the result that in a country where, by God's providence, we have an abundant crop of oats, you cannot get a stone of oatmeal from one end of the land to the other. This situation has matured at a time when there is an acute shortage of flour, and anyone with a knowledge of rural Ireland will confirm me when I say that if you have, for a period, a shortage of flour, the attendant inconvenience can be greatly mitigated if you have a supplementary quantity of oatmeal to distribute, but if you have coincidentally a shortage of oatmeal and flour, a very acute problem has to be faced and it is a problem which bears most heavily on the poor of the community. For the last month or so, I have seen women going into a shop in the country saying that they are mothers of seven and eight children, that they have neither flour nor oatmeal in the house and imploring the shopkeeper to give them something to keep the pot boiling, impressing on the merchant that although they may have potatoes, you cannot feed young children on potatoes and milk alone.
I understood from an answer the Minister gave me last week that there was some difficulty in his mind about allowing an oatmeal miller in one part of the country to start milling until the Minister was satisfied that every miller in the country had sufficient oats to go into production. I could understand a delay of a few days or a week but, if it has failed the Minister so far to secure an even distribution of oats all over the country, I urge on him that the time is past for considering the convenience of individual millers. The requirements of the people are so urgent that steps should be taken to release oats in the shape of oatmeal, for human consumption at least. I give the Minister the name of one firm I know which has oats in its granary purchased, dried and ready for milling. That is the firm of Mr. George MacFarlane, of Carrigans, in the County Donegal. I mentioned this matter to the Minister a week ago and I understood then that a licence had been issued to go ahead. I was informed yesterday, however, that the firm still has got no licence to convert oats into oatmeal.
Now we come to the question of the barley distribution. The Minister says that he does not foresee that any barley meal will be made available because barley will have to be held in case it may be wanted for human consumption as an admixture in flour at the latter stage of the year. Has the Minister adverted to this thought: that the present price which he has directed the committee to pay for barley, if no barley meal can be obtained on the market, may mean that he will get no barley at all? If barley is not going to be issued as a compound meal at 15/6 per cwt. as was anticipated when prices were fixed for oats and barley, the people will have no meal to buy from the shops at all except a mixture of pollard and such other constituents, which is at present being sold at prices ranging from 20/- to 23/- per cwt. What reasonable farmer would use meal consisting of 60 per cent. pollard costing 22/6 per cwt. in preference to his barley, for which, if he were to sell it to the Minister's committee to be held for human food, he would only get 28/- a barrel? I remember the last day before the adjournment several of us on this side of the House pointed out to the Minister that you must face facts and I am now pointing out one fact that the Minister must face. Remember that the price for barley and oats is a fixed price while the price for wheat is a minimum price. A fixed price, for barley particularly, will not bring the barley out to the committee unless feeding stuffs are available to the farmer and unless it is made advantageous to the farmer to buy other feeding stuffs. I see no sane farmer coming to that conclusion in the present circumstances. I think that is a problem that the Minister must face and face at once if he does not want to create a situation of very grave embarrassment for the farmers of the country at a later date.
There is a last matter to which I wish to refer. I take it that all this business about the distribution of barley and oats is covered under this sub-head?
Distribution only arises.
This is a question of distribution. The committee assembles all the barley and oats and distributes it. I think it is the only channel for trading in barley and oats, except as between farmer and farmer. My impression is that there is a great deal of confusion in the public mind in rural Ireland at the present time as to what are the farmers' rights as between one another. Everyone knows that there is a fixed price for oats and barley if you sell them to a merchant or if the merchant wants to resell to a retail customer. What is the situation when oats and barley are sold as between farmer and farmer? May they charge any price they can get?
No, the fixed price applies.
That is, if you stand in Ballaghaderreen market with a bag of oats you cannot ask more for it than the fixed price?
That is so.
Is that not a change from the original intention?
No.
I understood under the scheme as adumbrated here, in respect to transactions between farmer and farmer, that you could sell at whatever price the oats or the barley would fetch.
When the matter was discussed here, Deputies advocated that there should be free movement as between farmer and farmer but the price applied all the time.
Does the Minister seriously believe that the fixed price is operating in any market in Ireland?
I hope it is.
Well, it is not. No farmer can stand in the market and sell to his neighbour at the fixed price.
Does the Deputy propose to raise the whole question of prices?
No, Sir, but this is a matter which does arise I think. Barley is going to be held off the market as a reserve for flour to the end of the year. I mean the Government are seeking to buy barley and lay it on one side lest it should be required later on for the composite flour which may become necessary next spring and summer. If that has to be, it has to be, but it is going to create a very awkward situation for pig feeders in this country, inasmuch as there is no Indian corn to be had.
Has the Government taken cognisance of the fact that, as from an early date, American ships will be free to call at European ports and will they at once open negotiations with American sources of supply and determine whether adequate supplies of wheat can be got over the year, thus enabling the Government to release the barley at an earlier date than they otherwise might, in order to save the pig and fowl industries of the country? It would be a tragedy if we destroyed either pig-rearing or fowl-raising owing to the shortage of barley meal and then discovered in spring that we were able after all to get sufficient wheat and that we need not have kept the barley in reserve. That is a matter to which, I suggest to the Minister, the earliest possible attention should be given and courageous action taken in regard to it.
There is one point I want to put to the Minister. I happened to call recently on a merchant who buys oats and he told me that, although his customers were looking for oatmeal owing to the shortage of flour, he was not allowed to have the oats milled for human consumption. I had read the Minister's reply to Deputy Dillon a fortnight ago and I told this man that he was wrong, that the Minister for Agriculture said that oats was released. The man told me that was not so, that only the day before two inspectors told him that he could not send oats to get it milled into oatmeal. He told me further that, when the farmer from whom he purchased the oats and who lived a good way out, came to town, he could not sell that farmer a feed for his horse. Something should be done about releasing oats to be milled into oatmeal for human consumption. I think it would be reasonable that that should be done, whatever may be said about the releasing of barley or anything else. I put that to the Minister, as this case came under my notice within the last few days.
What I said to Deputy Dillon on the last occasion is the position. Oats was released to oatmeal millers who were milling oats for human consumption, according to a list that was supplied to us by the Department of Supplies. Of course, I do not know whether the person mentioned by Deputy Curran was on that list or not.
He is a merchant, in the strict sense, who would send the oats to the miller to be milled.
It is only released to those who are recognised as oatmeal millers. In addition to that, I hope in the very near future, in fact it may be within the next few days, that oats will be released also to grist millers for animal feeding. That may make some difference in the situation and may relieve some of the difficulties that Deputy Dillon mentioned. Barley cannot be released.
Will the Minister allow a merchant to send oats to an oatmeal miller to be converted into oatmeal?
That is for the merchant to get it milled on his account and sold?
For a merchant, say, to send ten bags of oats to the local miller and let it come back to his shop to be sold to the people?
No, we will have to deal with the local miller in that case.
The Minister will not allow the shopkeeper to mill it?
No, because he will have to buy it from the miller. We will not deal with the merchant; we will deal with the miller, and let the miller sell the oatmeal as he always did.
He can sell it to the merchants?
Yes.
In a great many cases the millers do not buy stocks of oats at all—at least, in my district.
You mean commission millers?
Yes.
They are different. With regard to barley, I am afraid that we cannot yet, at any rate, release any barley for animal feeding, because there is the possibility that we may not get sufficient wheat for human consumption. We are, of course, keeping in mind what Deputy Dillon mentioned, namely, getting as much imported wheat as we can to make up the deficiency. If we see that we are safe between the home-grown and imported wheat, we can release barley also, but I am afraid we will not know that for another month or so, and we will hardly be able to release it before then. As to the question of one farmer buying from another farmer, one farmer can buy oats from another farmer, subject to the fixed price. He is not, however, entitled, under the order, to buy barley from another farmer for feeding.
Has the Minister any idea of the average yield of wheat this year?
I answered that question recently. I am afraid we will not have the figures until about Christmas.
As to sub-head O (14), in connection with the land taken from tillage defaulters, it would appear that the expenditure was £2,276 and the Appropriations-in-Aid from the sale of crops £1,900. I expect some Deputies will be surprised to hear that there was a loss of £300 but, personally, I am not at all surprised that there would be a loss when anybody tackles the business of farming, particularly a Government Department. What I am interested in is this. The Minister gave us no idea as to how the crops were disposed of. I know of one or two cases where they were sold as growing crops. I should like to know if in any case they carried the experiment to its logical conclusion until the crops were threshed and if the House could have a full explanation of the profits and losses. The Department had an admirable opportunity, when they took over these lands, of giving a headline to the community as to the proper methods of cultivating wheat, oats, etc., and eventually disposing of these crops. They could have given a headline to the country as to the expense and trouble of growing crops and the eventual profit. I should have liked the Department, when they got this opportunity, to proceed as an ordinary farmer would until the crops were disposed of and let the House and the country know what profit could be made out of a crop of wheat, oats or barley. But it appears that this venture of taking over lands which farmers would not till has resulted in a loss of £300. I am not surprised at that, because I am sure that if I took over these lands I, also, would lose £300. If this is the glorious proposition for farmers that it is supposed to be, there was a grand chance for the Government to make a thorough experiment and to prove to the House and the country generally that there was a golden opportunity for any man who would plough up land and put in the golden grain.
I should like to see Deputy Bennett's proposal pursued to a proper conclusion, namely, that instead of waiting until March or April to find out whether those gentlemen are going to till their lands, the lands should be taken over in November. I saw the Department taking over land in the month of May last year and ploughing it and expecting to get a crop of cereals. I am surprised that the loss was so small. I suggest to the Minister that he should see now whether the people are going to till their land and, if not, he should take it over now. If he does take it over, he should hold it for the duration of the war and use it.
The Minister will recollect that I asked him a Parliamentary Question in connection with the taking over of land in County Tipperary. I have had letters to the effect that in one case the Department took over more land than they were entitled to take under the Act; that they took 50 per cent. of the arable land. I am not inclined to believe that the Minister would authorise the taking over of anything exceeding the statutory amount in the case of any farmer. I put that point to the Minister in reference to this particular individual and I would like the Minister to say if his Department has caused more than the statutory amount required by the Act to be ploughed.
I wonder could the Minister give particulars of the number of holdings and the number of acres taken over and worked under these orders? Deputy Bennett has referred to the loss. The actual loss as shown on the working of these lands is £354. That does not represent the real loss because I take it these lands were held rent, rate and tax free. Am I right in that? If that is so, the real loss would be very much more than that sum of £354. I think it would be worth while to investigate how that works out with regard to the number of holdings and also with regard to the number of acres, to see whether it is worth while pursuing, at expense to the taxpayer, this course of procedure. I notice one item which seems very hard to reconcile with the tillage operations on land—the sum of £322 for travelling expenses. That is altogether apart from the item of £100 for miscellaneous expenses. Between miscellaneous expenses and travelling expenses over one-fifth of the total Estimate is used up.
In regard to compulsory tillage, I am sure all Deputies are agreed that once a law is made it should be observed by everybody. Nevertheless, it has to be borne in mind that there are special circumstances obtaining in certain places which make compliance with the law peculiarly difficult for certain individuals. The plain fact is that those individuals must get over their difficulties in a time like this and even though they find the requirements of the law very arduous they have got to accept the rough with the smooth the same as everybody else has to do in these times. That is from the individual citizen's point of view. But from the other point of view there is this to be said— that a bureaucracy may sometimes err on the side of tactlessness and, where a little patience and forbearance would secure conformity with the law, an abruptness is employed amounting almost to an ultimatum which gets men's backs up and forces them into follies that they would never have contemplated if they were approached in the right way. All of us have our peculiarities and I myself have knowledge of cases where, on the merits, I think the men ought to have carried out the terms of the order, and if they were reasonable, level-headed men they would have done so, but being somewhat temperamental they got their horns locked with the Department and it ended by the Department bursting in on their lands, ploughing their fields and creating boundless ill-will and bad blood that I feel a more tactful and patient approach would have avoided.
My experience of the officers administering this extremely difficult order has been, so far as I have come in contact with them, uniformly favourable. I recognise the difficulties with which they were confronted and my experience has been that those with whom I have had dealings felt how delicate this whole business was, how distasteful it was to burst into any other man's holding and more or less expropriate him. But, at the same time, I would press upon the Minister the necessity of urging that this order be enforced with firmness, yet with tact and forbearance, and a full realisation of the fact that it is a difficult order to enforce and that it can, in certain cases, give very bitter offence, more especially when it is not clear to the mind of the person against whom the proceedings are instituted that he is in the wrong. I remember a case of a man who was required to till a certain amount of land. He did till the land and he sowed oats in it, and instead of mowing the oats, he grazed them: he used them as a fodder crop, instead of allowing them to come to maturity. I think that fellow was partially actuated by mischievousness—partially —but I think the proper course would have been in that case to say to this man: "We do not want to humiliate you before all your neighbours and you have complied with what was, possibly, your conception of the law in the matter for this year. We warn you that that will not serve in the future. When you are required to till land and plant a crop in it the implication of the order is that you plant a crop designed to come to maturity and then to reap it and make it available for consumption by the community in the form of the crop and not as a fodder." What actually happened was, I think, that they went in and ploughed the land to make up the area which he had put under this fodder crop of oats. That is the kind of thing I have in mind. I believe that whole business might have been more satisfactorily settled by cautioning that man that in future years the interpretation he put upon the Act would not be accepted by the Department and I think the whole difficulty could have been overcome.
Subject to that word of warning I feel—and I am sure all Deputies will agree with me—that, whether we like this kind of legislation or whether we do not, once it is made by the proper authority, under authority delegated by this House, it is the duty of every citizen of the State to comply with it. If we do not like it, here is the place to alter it, and until it is altered then the rules of the law should run.
I would like to make one suggestion to the Minister on this subject. In cases where an individual has no tillage equipment and where hired plant is not available in certain areas in the country, his Department should offer to supply hired plant. Where the owner of land pleads inability to hire the necessary machinery and plant to do the work, sometimes the Minister's Department may be and ought to be in a position to provide the hired plant. Before compulsorily entering on the land, I suggest that the Minister's officers and inspectors should at least make the offer to provide hired plant.
From my experience I am rather inclined to complain that the Department are not enforcing the order strongly enough. I know of land that could produce wheat or barley that has not been touched upon at all. I am satisfied that it is the men with the small holdings, the middle-class farmers, who are supplying any large quantity of wheat for this country. I think the Minister should be very firm in seeing that the order of the Government is carried out in regard to the tillage of land. I have known places that carried 46 cows that have not produced two acres of wheat. I am quite satisfied that they will try to evade doing it this year also. I have travelled a good deal about the country in the last year and have noticed places where barley and wheat should be growing where these crops have not been sown. I am afraid there is no good in Deputy Dillon suggesting that the Department should be more tactful. I agree with being tactful at times, but I do not think this is a question requiring tactfulness but rather that the Department should exercise firm control, so as to provide food for the nation.
There is not much in the point about whether we lost money on this or not. We did not actually lose because the travelling expenses do not refer exactly to these lands which were taken over directly by the Department and tilled by the Department. They are connected to a great extent with the lands that were let by conacre. Perhaps I might explain the various steps. We first make an order. Every farmer this year will be expected to till 25 per cent. of his arable land. Where the inspector has any suspicion that this order is not being complied with, he calls to the particular farmer, and I think Deputy Dillon and other Deputies may rest assured that he does use a great deal of patience and forbearance, because every case of entering on land must come before me personally and my signature is necessary before the entry is made, so that I have good evidence of the visits paid by the inspector, and perhaps the letters written by him, on the file that comes up in each individual case. He calls and requests the man to carry out the order, and in most cases that is sufficient. The order is complied with, but he may call back again just to make sure. If, however, he comes to the conclusion that the order is not going to be complied with, he serves a notice on the farmer that the Minister will enter on the land and have direct operations carried out. Probably in three cases out of four, when that notice is served, the farmer tills. We give him a little time before we enter, and, if he does not till, after some little time, the entry takes place and an attempt is made to let the land by conacre. The greater number of the cases of entry are let by conacre, and it was only in districts where there was, if you like, no tradition of tillage and where conacre tenants could not be got on that account, that direct tillage by the Department had to be done. I think there were only something like 400 acres altogether involved.
In the Twenty-Six Counties?
Yes, about that acreage was tilled by direct operations last year. Deputy Curran said that he had been told that in some of these entry cases, we actually tilled more than the percentage. We did. As a matter of fact, when the Minister enters, he may till 100 per cent., if he likes, under the order.
The Minister knows that that is not good business.
I want the Deputy to remember that it may be very inconvenient to till the exact amount. We may have to go into a couple of big fields and till the whole lot, and in that way the percentage may be exceeded. We cannot possibly stick to the percentage, and it is much better that we should have latitude, if we enter at all, to till whatever acreage we think most convenient. These direct tillage lots were all sold, that is, the growing corn was sold in all cases. The amount realised was not very good. It was barely sufficient to cover the tillage operations.
Why was that? Were the crops bad?
All the crops were not good.
They were not necessarily bad.
First of all, we were late in going in, at the end of April or the beginning of May. We had no manures, but most farmers were in that position last year. The seed was got at the end of the season and was not the best, and the tillage operations were carried out hurriedly and not in the best way. In view of the fact that they were areas where it was not possible to get conacre tenants to come along, they were areas where there would not be great competition for corn on foot, and the crop did not get a very good price.
Why not thresh it?
There was no coal for threshing.
My interest was to try to clear expenses. Why should I thresh it? Deputy Bennett will realise that it is scarcely a fair test to say: "If the Department could not make it pay, how can we expect farmers to make crops pay?"
These lands which you entered were some of the best lands?
Yes, they were.
The Minister said that they were in districts where the people were not accustomed to tillage. It would have been a valuable headline if the Government had seized the opportunity to proceed with the whole operation from seeding to threshing, and had let the people see what results could be obtained.
It was done on a different basis altogether. Deputy Hughes suggested that we should provide equipment where none is available. I should not like to give an undertaking of that kind.
You could offer to provide it.
We certainly could not allow any person to give it as an excuse for not tilling. After all, we could get only the available equipment. We could not do any better than the people themselves. There is no equipment to spare in practically any part of the country at the moment, and, if there is a tractor in a particular area, the person concerned is just as likely to get it as we are. If we can help in any way, or if we can point to equipment which is available in another area, we should be only too glad to do so.
The reason I suggested that is that this may be the attitude of a man: "I have never tilled; I have no equipment and no tillage implements at all. I have tried to hire the necessary plant, tractor and plough; I have advertised for it in the local paper, and I cannot get anyone to answer. What am I to do about it?" If the Minister's inspector is in a position to say: "We will arrange for hired plant with which you can work," the man concerned——
But we are not in a position to do so.
You ought to try to see what can be done about it, because I think it would be very useful.
We shall certainly help, if we can.