Nobody can question the wisdom of the money spent under sub-head M (10). As a matter of fact, this Vote in the past was considerably more, and it is unfortunate that the amount expended under this heading was not maintained, because it is undoubtedly work of an improvement character that will eventually result in greater production from land in this country. There are considerable areas of water-logged land which is deteriorating rapidly as a result of the failure to get the water away, and to open up channels for the conveyance of that water off the land, which is reasonably good grazing land. It is certainly very useful work, which would be productive of good results. It is unfortunate that we allowed a great many of our people to seek work across the Channel while that type of work was waiting to be done. There is agreement in every quarter that this type of work is very useful, and very essential, and that more money should be spent on it.
With regard to sub-head N (1), last year in a Vote under this heading for the defraying of expenses in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, I asked the Minister to investigate, and the Minister undertook to investigate cases that occurred towards the end of the outbreak where people had to restock when the market was open and when the price of restocking was considerably higher than that assessed by the valuer for their stock which had to be slaughtered. I feel that had the valuer known at the time he was fixing the valuation that it was approaching the end of the outbreak, his valuation would have been higher, particularly for dairying stock, because the moment the ports were opened the price of dairying stock jumped up. I drew the Minister's attention to that at the time, and the Minister undertook to review a number of cases that occurred in the last two or three weeks of the epidemic. I am aware that a considerable number of applications were sent in, and I am sure they were reviewed, but unfortunately nothing resulted. I am afraid that the Minister and the Department were influenced by the consideration that if any extra compensation were paid in any case it might result in a large number of applications for compensation. To guard against that possibility the Minister probably decided on turning down all the applicants. I think that was very unfortunate and most unjust, because from a number of cases I investigated I was convinced that a good case was made for additional compensation.
There was one case in particular to which the leader of this Party drew the Minister's attention on more than one occasion, and nothing as yet has been done about it. That is the case of the late Mr. Flood, of Newhall, who pleaded at the time in court that his state of health did not permit him to give personal attention to his stock, and that he relied on his steward to look after his stock. The responsibility for failure to do so could hardly be charged against a man who was sick in bed, and who has since died. His widow has suffered financial loss as a result of the Minister's action, and I think the Minister even still might reconsider cases of that sort. Where there is any possibility of an injustice being done to an individual, I think it is the Minister's responsibility to ensure that no injustice is done, because the loss of £300 or £500, or even £200 to some of these people means a very considerable hardship.
Under sub-head O (5) the Minister told us about the guarantee that was given to people who assembled spring wheat. That sum amounts to £2,691. I do not know that there is any justification for that guarantee. There is a very considerable margin fixed for people assembling seeds, a margin of approximately 15/- per barrel. That is a very tidy profit. I agree that a certain amount of grain must be taken out and a certain amount of work must be done if they are to produce a decent sample. I agree that the margin should not be too narrow, because that might result in an inferior sample, that it is good policy to leave a fair margin; but I think the margin left would certainly cover any risk of this sort. After all, during the present season any premium paid to farmers, over and above the fixed price, for grain suitable for seed purposes was not in any case more than 2/-, so that the loss incurred would be only approximately 2/- per barrel if there was a surplus left in the hands of any individual. From what I know of the attitude of people generally in the seed trade I think they would be satisfied to take any risk in that respect. I think the margin that has been left of 15/- per barrel profit for people in the seed trade is quite sufficient without any further guarantee.
Under sub-head O (7) the Minister told us about the number of firms now licensed to export canned meat: I hope the Minister is satisfying himself that the condition and quality of that meat is good. We know what occurred a year or two ago in the case of cooked meat and I am anxious to ensure that the good name of Irish products is preserved and that there is no danger of canned meat of an inferior quality being exported, possibly under a good name and a guarantee. There is a peculiar anomaly about the situation, namely, that old cows in this country are worth more than similar cows in Great Britain, that they are commanding a better price here for canning purposes than old cows on the other side. That suggests to me that there may be an admixture of inferior meat in this canned meat which may not be justified in the circumstances, and that people on the other side are under the impression that they are buying first quality canned meat which they are not getting. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that, in face of the experience we have had in the case of cooked meat a couple of years ago, when the export of cooked meat was prohibited altogether by British action, the Minister ought to ensure that this job is properly done. He has a staff of inspectors on the job and let us hope they are doing their work.
With regard to sub-head O (12)— Emergency Powers (Tillage) Orders— the Minister has told us that he has 54 permanent inspectors, and that he now proposes to put on 51 temporary inspectors. I hope that these proposed temporary inspectors will be men of sufficient experience to know whether or not a particular piece of land is suitable for tillage purposes, because I am very doubtful as to the experience of such people. I consider that it might lead to a serious national loss if land that is not fit for the purposes of tillage should be tilled, merely on the statement of an inspector. It might mean that the nation would suffer a serious loss from the point of view of live-stock production. I hold that it is very important that these inspectors would be men of experience who would know the difference between arable land and non-arable land. I understood the Minister to say that more attention was going to be paid to the actual amount of arable land in this country. I should like him to say, definitely, whether that is so or not, because if we are to have a number of inspectors assessing the amount of land that is available for tillage, for the purposes of the present emergency, I suggest that it would be a good opportunity for getting statistical information as to the actual amount of land in this country that is suitable for tillage. I think the Minister should avail of the opportunity. It would not mean very much extra work, if the thing is being properly done by competent people.
Under the present Compulsory Tillage Order, the Minister takes power to compel an individual farmer to till any portion of his land that the Minister desires to have tilled. I think that that is a very dangerous power to place in the hands of any individual. I agree, of course, that some people have tried to evade the tillage Orders by tilling land that was inferior or unsuitable for tillage, but the Minister should remember that when he delegates to a temporary inspector to designate what particular field or portion of a field a farmer must till, the farmer concerned may be antagonised the moment that inspector enters his farm. Possibly, he may resent altogether the entrance of the inspector on his premises, and a lot of bad feeling may be created at the very outset. The inspector may then use his power and authority to bend that farmer to his will, and I think that the individual should be protected against anything of that sort occurring.
The Minister should realise that different conditions exist on different holdings. For instance, a man might want to keep a certain piece of land for grass. It might be that the field in question would give an early bite of grass and would be good for fattening purposes and, from a national point of view, it might be a very good thing to keep that particular piece of land for that purpose, but the temporary inspector may not be the right person to judge as to that, and yet he will have the power to compel the farmer concerned to break up that piece of land. I suggest that in such a case the farmer should be entitled to appeal to some tribunal, such as the chairman or secretary of the county committee of agriculture, or somebody nominated by the chairman of the county committee of agriculture. I think it is only right that there should be an appeal provided for in such cases. A temporary inspector may be sent down to the country from Dublin, who is entirely out of sympathy with the particular problems in the country, and I think that the Minister should keep in mind the fact that the rights and privileges of individuals ought to be preserved and their interests safeguarded. Severe penalties have been inflicted during the last few months on people who failed to comply with the Compulsory Tillage Order.
I have referred to that matter already, but I should like to say, in that connection, that the Minister made no attempt to provide the necessary equipment to enable these people to till. Some counties were completely lacking in the necessary equipment. If the Minister felt that it was his duty to make Compulsory Tillage Orders— and I agree that the present emergency demanded it—I submit that it was also his duty to provide farmers with the required equipment, particularly in view of the work that is being done by our neighbours across the water in connection with the tremendous advance in tillage there. In Great Britain, farmers were provided with all the equipment that was necessary to provide food for the people of Great Britain, and I think it was unfair of the Government in this country to kick people into doing work when they had not the necessary equipment with which to do it. They could not buy it at the time, and some effort should have been made to provide tractors, ploughs, and so on, through the county committees of agriculture or through some other means, to enable the people to carry out the tillage Order. The administering of the Order should have been given to the local committees, and in areas where there was not sufficient equipment it could have been supplied through the local committees. No attempt, however, was made to meet that situation, with the result that unfortunate individuals have been sent to prison because they failed to comply with the Order. No matter how willing these people were to comply with the Order, they could not do so because they had not the necessary equipment. I really think that the Minister and his Department were at fault in not making some provision to deal with a situation of that kind.
With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid, I notice that provision was made in connection with the matter of licences to deal in wheat and barley. As I pointed out to the Minister's Department last summer, the effect of that was to reduce considerably the number of traders who had been dealing in wheat and barley, and that numbers of people who had been engaged in that trade for many years were denied a licence. I think that, in the interest of the community generally, there should be the minimum amount of interference with the trade. Instead of that, however, there has been the maximum amount of interference, as a result of which a number of old and well-established traders have been put out of business. I suggest that, as a result of that, there has been a very serious loss to the community in general.
The farmers who were unable to buy seeds had to look to these people for credit. When you reduce the number of people seeking credit facilities, and when you create monopolies, the result is a tightening up of credit. It is a short-sighted policy on the part of the Minister to put out of this business a number of people who have made their living out of it, and who have employed people to handle the grain, simply because it was more convenient for his Department to control a lesser number of people who were in the grain trade. Without hesitation, a number of reputable firms, that have always done their business honestly and well, are pushed out of business without regard to the reaction that that will have on their financial position or the future position of these firms or of their employees, or the reaction it will have on credit facilities for agriculture all over the country.
I think it was a stupid and shortsighted policy to take measures of that sort. I do not think people who are conversant with the real problems were consulted in the matter. That is the type of legislation by Government Order that our people are experiencing during this emergency. The sooner the Minister makes up his mind to consult men with practical experience in these matters, the better.
There are other aspects of the tillage Order—prices, and that sort of thing—that, I suppose, are outside the scope of this debate, but I would like to refer to beet prices. I may say in passing that I think the Minister and the Government are unfortunate in making a cheese-paring decision with regard to beet prices this year. From contacts I have had personally with the Sugar Beet Board, I feel satisfied that a higher price was recommended by these people.
