Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Oct 1943

Vol. 91 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Agriculture.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £452,844 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, 1944, 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.

The principal volume of Estimates shows that this Vote covers a very wide field and a great variety of matters affecting the economic life of the country. It might be more satisfactory, therefore, if I were to give, briefly in rather broad outline a statement of some of the main activities of my Department which are covered by this Vote, and then go on to deal more in detaíl with the various subheads. In the forefront of our pre-occupations at the moment stands the problem of increased food production. That continues to be one of our main concerns, and is likely to continue so for a considerable time to come.

It might help us to see this question in proper perspective if we throw our minds back for a few years, back as far as, say, 1938, which was the last complete year before the war commenced. In that year, the total area under tillage crops of all kinds was 1,568,000 acres, as compared with an area, in 1943, of 2,444,000 acres, that is to say, an increase of almost 900,000 acres. It must be remembered, however, that, in 1938, we imported a very considerable amount of food and feeding stuffs. It has been put down as approximately 400,000 tons of wheat and 500,000 tons of other feeding stuffs. We have not made up this deficit in our increased acreage under crops, and the shortage has shown itself in particular in feeding stuffs. That shortage has caused a falling off in the number of pigs and poultry, and, at times, in even a deficiency in the amount of milk and milk products.

In 1942, our tillage had increased to 2,414,000 acres, and this year there was a slight increase in tillage all round of 30,000 acres, but although the figures show an increase in respect of oats and barley, they show, on the other hand, a decrease in the area under wheat and potatoes. The wheat shortage is particularly disquieting as our reduced shipping capacity and the other uncertainties of the general situation make the importation of wheat from abroad precarious. We cannot count on a continuance of our ability to bring in substantial quantities of food from abroad. The difficulty may arise of an even bigger decrease in our shipping capacity and we have found that, as time goes on, more and more articles are added to the list of goods which cannot be bought abroad, even though shipping is available, and so we must keep in mind, when discussing the problem of food requirements for the coming year, 1944-45, the difficulty of importing what we may require.

As announced on the radio and in the newspapers, it has been decided to guarantee a price of 55/- per barrel for wheat of the 1944 crop, that is, of course, for first-quality wheat, and to increase the tillage quota from the previously announced percentage of 33? to 37½, or, in fractions, from one-third of the arable acreage to three-eighths of the arable acreage. It has also been announced that every farmer will be required to put a certain percentage of his arable land under wheat. The wheat requirements will not be uniform throughout the country. A higher fraction of the arable area, namely, one-tenth, will be required in the counties which are better suited to the growing of wheat. In the counties least favourable in that respect, the fraction will be one-twenty-fifth or 4 per cent., and in the intermediate counties, one-sixteenth. These provisions will be embodied in the annual Tillage Order which will be issued shortly, and in that Tillage Order the other provisions with regard to penalties, returns to be made, and so on, will remain as they were.

I can anticipate some of the objections to the proposed Order because Deputies will, I am sure, realise that in considering an Order of this kind, the objections are likely to be put forward if they do not occur to the person considering the Order. I know very well that there are poor pockets of land in the Leinster counties. I know that individual farms differ, and that you often have side-by-side two farms, in respect of one of which it would be quite reasonable to demand a high percentage of wheat, whereas in respect of the other it would be very much more difficult for the individual to comply with that percentage; but it must be remembered by Deputies that the wheat acreage will be based on the amount of arable land in the holding. Whereas an inspector, up to this, in inspecting a farm and giving his decision as to the amount of arable land in the holding, had in mind whatever were the requirements since 1939, that is, that a certain percentage of that land should be tilled, the farmer himself having complete discretion with regard to the crop, the inspector, in the new conditions, will have in mind that the farmer must, in addition to tilling a higher percentage of his land, put a certain percentage of the arable land under wheat.

I know that the proposal will be made—it was considered by me very carefully—that there should he some sort of appeal tribunal. All I can say is that it is not practicable. It is absolutely impracticable to have an appeal tribunal because the number of cases that would be brought before any tribunal, even if we had a tribunal for every county, would probably be fairly substantial, and the tribunal would necessarily take time to consider the applications. In the meantime, the owner of the land would have a very good reason for not going ahead with the sowing of his wheat, and, if a decision were given against him rather late in the season, he would have a very good defence before any court that he was not informed in time of what his quota was.

After all, the paramount consideration is to get food for the people, and if we seriously intend to get that food grown we must make an Order which will be effective and workable, and we must deal with hard cases, as they are called, as best we can through the inspectorial staff we have at present at our disposal. I prefer, as I am sure many Deputies prefer, price inducement to compulsion. We discussed this matter very fully with members of the Agricultural Consultative Council and no member of the council was prepared, and I am sure that no Deputy is prepared, to guarantee that, if we give such and such a price for wheat, we are absolutely certain to get all the wheat we require. We cannot take the risk any longer of relying entirely on price inducement. I think it is up to us to make reasonably certain, anyhow, that we should get the amount of wheat we need by requiring every farmer to put a certain part of his land under wheat.

Sub-head O (10) of the Estimate provides for a number of tillage supervisors who are assisting our tillage inspectors, all of whom are officers on loan to my Department from the Land Commission. Some Deputies may not know that when officers are loaned from one Department to another, they do not appear on the Estimate of the Department to which they are loaned but on that of the Department from-which they come, so that in this Estimate the salaries and expenses of officers, other than those who came from the Land Commission, are set down. With the more intensive inspection which will be necessary for the enforcement of the compulsory wheat-growing provision of the 1944 Tillage Order, this staff will have to be considerably increased and hence the amount set out in sub-head O (10).

It is not, however, on the penal provisions of the compulsory Tillage Order that I place the main reliance for the purpose of securing our food requirements. Our achievements up to now have been mainly due to the willing co-operation of the farming community in general, and it is on a continuance of such co-operation that we must chiefly rely in order to secure the further advances in food production which are now needed.

Mr. Cosgrave

The sum in sub-head O (10) is not very considerable.

Perhaps we may have to ask for a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is only £370.

I will come back to that. For the purpose of keeping the interest of farmers and others centred on our present needs, we propose to continue this season as last season, a series of advertisements in the public Press and also to publicise our requirements by means of radio addresses, fihn exhibitions, and other means. The cost of this advertising and publicity is provided for under sub-head M (1).

With the increase in the area under tillage, questions affecting the supply of implements and machines; fertilisers, seeds, fuel oil, and so on, have naturally been engaging the attention of my Department. Circumstances have made it increasingly difficult to obtain the necessary supplies of farm machinery from abroad. We were fortunate in arranging for the import of a limited quantity of power machinery during the last 12 months. We did succeed in getting in 100 tractors, 100 reapers and binders, and, I think. 22 threshing sets. I cannot say at this moment what are the prospects of getting similar machinery in for the coming year. I can only say that I hope we may be able to import at least as much during the year. The supply of horse-drawn machines and implements, as well as spare parts, has been on the whole satisfactorily maintained.

The shortage of fertilisers has been acutely felt. Prior to the emergency, we used annually in this country about 250,000 tons of all classes of fertilisers. With the shipping difficulties from early in the war and the huge increase in freights, coupled with the difficulty of getting raw phosphates from the old source of supply and the impossibility of getting potash from any source, it was impossible to carry on the manufacture and sale of fertilisers on the ordinary commercial basis, and hence a very large amount had to be provided for subsidy so that at least some fertilisers could be supplied for agriculture. Between imported phosphates and Clare phosphates, last year we were able to distribute about 30,000 tons of superphosphate for general farm use. That was distributed on the basis of the amount purchased by each farmer two years previously. We were able last year, in addition to that, to reserve a certain quantity for sugar-beet growers who got four cwts. of compound manure for every acre grown; also for those who were producing certified seed potatoes and for those who were growing root and vegetable seeds. A certain quantity was also provided for the unemployed allotment holders. After these had been all supplied, we were able to allocate a small quantity for the ordinary potato crop in the congested districts in the West. The total quantity of all classes supplied under all these heads was 52,000 tons. In the coming season the quantity will, of course, depend on the amount of raw phosphates that we can import and there is a provision in the Estimate again this year of £634,000 as a subsidy to enable whatever supplies will be available to be sold at an economic price to the farmer—about the same price as last year. I am doubtful, however, if the supply position will be as good as last year. As regards binder twine, arrangements were made with the British Ministry of Supply for the importation of 2,000 tons of binder twine, half in the form of manufactured twine and the other half in the form of sisal to manufacture twine at home. This twine was distributed by the Department of Industry and Commerce to traders on the basis of the amount passing through the hands of these traders during the two years 1940-1941.

Another matter of serious concern to farmers is the lack of horseshoes, shoeing iron, and nails. A small distribution of mild steel which is used for the purpose has been made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to farriers, but unfortunately it cannot be regarded as sufficient in any sense, and on that account farriers will be still dependent on scrap-iron for their purposes, and will be dependent on the imported supply of horse-shoe nails which normally came from Sweden. The difficulties of importation from that country will be obvious to everybody. A supply of nails and shoes was obtained from Great Britain during last year, and that helped us to get over the very acute position in which we found ourselves at the time.

The scarcity of fuel oil supplies gives rise to continuing anxiety. So far, we have been able to weather the storm, but we are dependent upon the safe arrival of tankers and so on. Every Deputy knows the perils to which these tankers are subject. The arrangement made by the Department of Supplies for the distribution of fuel oil to tractor owners and agricultural interests generally, I think everybody will admit, worked very smoothly on the whole. Undoubtedly supplies were short, but such supplies as we had were distributed as equitably as could be expected.

During the 1942-43 threshing season, it was arranged that the maximum amount of coal allowable might be increased in certain cases. A maximum quantity of ten tons per threshing machine had been fixed by the Department of Supplies. This was to be utilised only for moving the engine from haggard to haggard, and it was never intended that supplies should be issued for the actual threshing operations. As the season extended very much longer than previously had been the case, additional supplies were given late in the year.

Another question, which has been raised to-day already, is that of seeds. With the continuance of the emergency conditions, it has been found very much more difficult year after year to obtain-root and vegetable seeds from abroad, and a number of nurserymen in this country undertook the production of these seeds under ordinary commercial conditions. The only fear that these men had was that, if they went to the extent of making contracts with growers, contracting to pay a certain price for the seeds grown, for some reason or other imported seeds might be allowed in to compete against them. On that account, the undertaking was given to these men that if seeds were to be imported, they would handle the imported seeds in proportion to the amount of seed which they succeeded in getting grown here at home.

We were fortunate in many respects about seed wheat, in that we had a considerable acreage here before the war commenced. We had 255,000 acres in 1939. From that time, we were largely thrown on our own resources, and we were able to supply seed for subsequent years, when the acreage went on increasing up to 575,000 in 1942. Steps were taken by the Department from the beginning of the emergency to ensure that there would be reasonable supplies of seed wheat of good quality, and especially of spring varieties, to meet our expanding needs. We formulated a scheme under which the assemblers were guaranteed against loss in the assembly bf sufficient stocks. Assemblers of spring varieties must clean that wheat after taking it in; they must dry it in many cases, and they must store it for the winter. The price which is fixed for seed wheat is a paying price, of course, but if they did not succeed in selling the greater part of the wheat that is kept over, they would meet with very serious loss. I was afraid, on that account, that the assemblers would not store sufficient wheat to meet our requirements. An agreement was then made with the seedsmen who undertook to work this scheme, that in respect of whatever seed they might have left over in the spring after the growers had got their requirements, the Department would give them the difference between the value of the wheat at that particular time and the price that they would get from the miller for the wheat left over.

There was, however, one limit to that: they could not claim this subsidy on more than 25 per cent. of the wheat which they undertook to store. This scheme proved of special value and provided stocks of good spring seed every year. As a matter of fact, every year there was a certain amount left over; so that it cannot be contended seriously that there was a shortage of good seed available in any year since the emergency commenced. We propose to maintain this scheme in operation for the coming year.

I have already mentioned here to-day that, with a view to improving the strain, we have commenced the pure line breeding of the types of Spring wheat that are becoming popular in the country—the three varieties being, Atle, Diamante and Red Marvel. These will be released from the agricultural colleges in small quantities for sowing and the first crop by the growers who get these small quantities will be willingly taken up by seed merchants for further distribution.

With the new provision in the Tillage Order in which first year grass will count as tillage, supplies of grass seed will become of more importance. So far, we have had enough grass seed to meet all requirements and I have no fear but that we shall have enough also for the coming spring. The expansion of tillage has led to a considerable increase in the testing of seeds for purity and germination and there has been a very large increase in the number of samples submitted by both growers and traders throughout the country with the result that the seed testing station here at headquarters was overtaxed. In agreement with the Minister for Education, the local Vocational schools undertook to test seeds for farmers in the vicinity. As far as reports have reached me, these facilities are being availed of very satisfactorily and farmers and others are very pleased with the results they are getting.

A valuable aid towards facilitating increased production and adding to the area of arable land in the country is the Farm Improvements Scheme, which is referred to in sub-head M. (9). The main cost, however, is borne under Special Emergency Schemes, Vote 67. This scheme was designed to assist farmers to carry out necessary improvements on their holdings and, incidentally, to prevent unemployment in the slack season in the country. The most important kind of improvements undertaken is land reclamation and drainage, and such works constitute the major part of the scheme. Other important works were added, however, including the construction of farm roadways, the improvement of farmyards and the construction of fences; and recently we have added further classes of works. These are the construction of water tanks, liquid manure tanks, farm silos and the laying down of concrete floors in out-offices. The scheme was started in 1940-41 and is now in its fourth year. This year the sum of £350,000 is provided in Estimate 67. It is expected that this will allow of over 40,000 cases being dealt with for improvements to holdings under the scheme. There is no doubt that the scheme is popular, if we judge from the number of applications; and that the benefits it confers have been generally recognised is borne out by the continuing applications that we are receiving. Up to the 31st March last, the area of land reclaimed under this scheme was approximately 48,000 acres. A considerably greater acreage was improved as a result of drainage works undertaken under the scheme. Various estimates might be made of the capital improvement of land as a result of the scheme.

An important contribution to the food supply, particularly in cities and towns, is that made by the cultivation of allotments. Generally, the local authorities acquire the land for allotment and it is then parcelled out to allottees, both employed and unemployed. In the case of the unemployed, the rent is nominal, and free seeds, manures and implements are supplied. This is the part of the scheme which comes under my Department. The scheme was operated last year by 85 out of 87 local authorities. In addition, there were 45 associations which provided allotments in towns which do not possess municipal government. At sub-head O (6), Deputies will see that there is a substantial increase in the amount asked from the Dáil this year to pay for seeds and manures, spraying materials, and so on. Last year, there were over 20,000 allotments cultivated by unemployed. As a matter of fact, this was a decrease of 3,297 on the previous year. We have not yet got full information with regard to the number of allotments cultivated by employed persons but the number is higher than it was last year, and the total number of allotments cultivated both by employed and unemployed will be about 35,500 for the year.

I mentioned already, in connection with our increased tillage, the matter of the General Agricultural Consultative Council. In general, these councils have been particularly helpful in finding solutions for the many problems in agriculture. There are some half-dozen of these councils, dealing with various aspects of agriculture such as cattle breeding, horse breeding, poultry and eggs, butter production, and so on. After the emergency had started, we set up a General Agricultural Consultative Council, which consisted of representatives of the committees of agriculture and of various farming organisations in the country. I intend, as a matter of fact, reconstituting this council so as to make it almost entirely ex-officio, and in that way I hope, if possible, that it may become a permanent institution. The county committees of agriculture play a very important part in agricultural administration, and these committees employ, as everybody here knows, expert instructors who are always at the service of the farmers and are a very important influence in the promotion of sound agricultural practice and opinion in their several localities.

The next big question is dairy produce. Dairying remains, as it has been for many generations, the keystone of our agricultural industry. It is the mainstay of the cattle trade, and a very important factor in the bacon, poultry and egg industries. About 90,000 households are dependent, to a greater or lesser extent, on the production of creamery butter. When to these are added the large numbers engaged in the manufacture of farm butter, it will be seen how vital dairying in itself, apart from its influence on other branches of agricultural production, is to the welfare of the rural population. After the last war, the world price of dairy produce remained remunerative up to 1929. Around about that year the agricultural depression set in, and agricultural values crashed everywhere.

In most countries exceptional measures were found necessary to meet the situation. In this country the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act was passed in 1932, the object being to keep the price of butter on the home market as close as possible to the cost of production; in other words not to allow the value of butter on the home market to fall to the very low levels obtaining on the outside markets Later, it was seen that this scheme was not by itself sufficient to sustain the dairy industry, and direct financial assistance by the Exchequer was called for.

The outbreak of the war in 1939 created a new set of problems for the industry and the Government. At the beginning of the emergency, and for some time after, we still had an exportable surplus of butter. As the war progressed imported fats used for cooking, confectionery-making, and the manufacture of margarine ceased to be available, and we were thrown back on our own production of fats The first result of this was that instead of having an exportable surplus of butter we reached the point when our production was barely sufficient to meet our own requirements; and now we have reached the stage where the amount of butter available must be rationed amongst the consumers.

Government policy in relation to the dairying industry since the start of the emergency has been to hold the balance as fairly as possible between the consumer and the dairy farmer, so that the consumer would obtain supplies at a reasonable price. As circumstances became more difficult, owing to rising costs of production and scarcity of animal feeding stuffs, it became necessary to increase the price of milk supplied to creameries. In 1939, at the commencement of the war, that value was 5.4d. per gallon—admittedly, an inadequate figure, but one which, having regard to the circumstances of the time, was the highest which could be made available. In April, 1942, the price was increased to 7d., and in September, 1942, to 9d. per gallon. These prices, however, did not succeed in arresting the decline in butter production, and substantially improved rates as from the 1st December next, have been guaranteed to the dairy farmer. For the winter months— December to March of 1943-44 and 1944-45—the creamery supplier is guaranteed 1/- a gallon, and for the period from the 1st April to the 30th November, 1944, he is guaranteed 10½d. per gallon. It is hoped that this arrangement will enable the dairy-farmer to plan for an increase in his herd and for the better maintenance of his cows. The guarantee, of course, will result in a substantial increase in the cost of producing butter. It is not intended that the increase should be passed on in its entirety to the consumer, and the Government will continue to make a substantial contribution from the Exchequer towards meeting it.

The production of creamery butter during the 12 months ended the 31st March, 1943, amounted to 611,000 cwts., being a drop of 47,000 cwts. on the output of 658,000 cwts. in each of the two preceding years. Concurrently with this decline of 7 per cent. in production, there was a greatly increased demand, as I have already mentioned, for butter, owing to the shortage or absence of other foodstuffs, such as imported fats, and so on, and also because butter was being used as a substitute for such foods as bacon and so on. Measures became necessary, therefore, to ensure that the available butter supplies would be as evenly distributed as possible throughout the country. The steps taken included the following: In June, 1942, the use of creamery butter for other than household purposes was prohibited; in September, 1942, rationing at the rate of ¾lb per head per week was introduced in Dublin City, Dublin County and Bray Urban District.

At the same time creameries were instructed to restrict sales generally to two-thirds of normal, and to deal only with their regular customers. On a further review of the supply position the ration in the Dublin area was reduced to ½ lb. per head per week in November, 1942. In January, 1943, creameries were directed to reduce their sales to one-half of normal. These restrictions remained in force until the end of April. During the month, of May, creameries were permitted to sell to the customers outside the Dublin ration area 90 per cent. of the quantity of butter sold to these customers in May, 1942. In June, consumer rationing was extended by the Department of Supplies to the whole country. My Department operated a scheme under which 164,000 cwts. of creamery butter were placed in cold store during the summer months of 1942 to meet winter requirements.

These measures relate almost entirely to creamery butter which can be controlled from the point of manufacture. The equitable distribution of non-creamery butter presents a problem which cannot be solved along the usual rationing lines. It is made or produced on thousands of farms, and a great deal of it is used on the farms or sold in the immediate neighbourhood. Very little of it finds its way on to the wholesale markets where it could be controlled, and the utmost that could be done, therefore, to bring farm butter into the rationing scheme was to prevent people from being registered for the supply of creamery butter as long as they were using farm butter.

The arrangements in respect of creamery butter for the present year have been designed to fit in with the requirements of the general rationing scheme. Creameries may store butter of their own manufacture for their winter trade, after making provision for current needs. The surplus is being purchased by the Butter Marketing Committee for current use and for storage for the winter.

To meet the rising cost of manufacture, which I have mentioned already, the retail price of butter has had to be increased from time to time, from 1/7 to 1/9 per lb. in April, 1942, and to 2/- per lb. in September, 1942. These increases were not sufficient to provide the guaranteed price for milk supplied to creameries, and the part of the increased cost not covered by the increase in the price of butter was borne out of State funds. This subsidy is mentioned in Vote No. 68. Deputies will have seen that the amount is increased from £500,000 in 1942 to £700,000 in 1943. Now this money not only bridges the gap between the price at which the creameries can afford to sell butter, and the price which the consumer is asked to pay, but it also pays the expenses of storing butter for the winter. In the year 1938 we stored 97,700 cwts. of butter for the winter; in 1942, 164,500 cwts., and this year we hope to store 182,000 cwts. The amount in store at the end of September was 173,000 cwts. It will be seen that the quantity stored has been enormously increased since 1938, and yet, even though we had plenty of butter without any rationing in 1938, we do not seem to have enough now, although we have doubled the amount in storage. The production of creamery butter for the first period of the year, from the 1st April to the 30th September, was 7,000 cwts. greater than the production for the corresponding period of last year. This is the first year we have had an increase for many years, and we perhaps can look upon it as a good augury for the future. The slight increase, however, may not be maintained, and the production for the full year is expected to be about the same, or somewhat less, than last year.

Exports of hen eggs during 1942 were 2,262,000 great hundreds, as against 2,584,000 great hundreds in 1941, and 3,017,000 great hundreds in 1940. There has been a downward trend there, and it has continued in 1943. The total stocks of hens and chickens were 16,448,000 in 1940, 14,399,000 in 1941, and 14,484,000 in 1942.

It will be observed that there was a very slight increase in the number of hens in 1942 as compared with 1941, and it is not to be assumed, therefore, that the drop in exports was entirely due to a fall in production. We have no precise information on the subject, but it would appear that shortages in other foodstuffs, principally bacon, have led to an increased use of eggs, not only in producers' households but by consumers generally. About 65 per cent. of the total egg production takes place in the spring and summer months.

In the autumn production is only 22 per cent., and in winter 13 per cent., of the yearly output. In the winter months there is usually a period, fortunately of only a few weeks, when production is barely adequate for home needs. Any pronounced fall in home production might leave us at the scarcest period of the year with insufficient supplies. This is a contingency which can be avoided only by increasing poultry stocks, and this is no easy matter in view of the scarcity and cost of feeding stuffs. As long as there is a substantial surplus for export, as there is a surplus during the greater part of the year, the price paid for our exports will regulate prices generally. The prices paid for eggs on the market to producers during the early part of the year averaged from 1/7 to 1/8 per dozen. Since the middle of July the price has been 2/7 to 2/8 per dozen. The export of dead poultry remained fairly constant in 1941 and 1942, something over 200,000 cwts. The amount realised has been slightly increased; it was under £2,000,000 in 1941 and slightly over £2,000,000 in 1942. The export of live poultry has practically ceased owing to restrictions placed on imports by the British authorities.

The export of rabbits declined by about 35 per cent. in 1942 as compared with 1941. I welcome this decline, because I think it shows that the heavy killings of rabbits in 1941 has brought about a decline in the number in the country, and this is in the interests of farmers generally whose crops would be injured by these rabbits. The amount received for rabbits exported was £2,218,000 in 1941 and £860,000 in 1942.

On the question of milk supplies, we have better returns as regards milk supplies in the City of Dublin than elsewhere because the figures must go through the Dublin District Milk Board. A slight decline was shown in the production of milk by farmers supplying this district in 1942 as compared with 1941. There was a shortage of milk in Dublin for about seven weeks during January and February of this year. When the scarcity became apparent steps were taken by my Department and the Dublin District Milk Board, in co-operation with the Department of Local Government and Public Health, to obtain extra supplies for the city. All creameries believed to have milk available were asked to send this milk along. The Milk Board purchased this milk from creameries who were not usually supplying it, and they redistributed it through the ordinary trade channels. The Milk Board in that case paid special attention to the wants of the Dublin Corporation for their school meals scheme, food allowance and similar schemes and to public institutions.

As far as the supply permitted, they tried to direct as much milk as the could into the retail shops in the poorer districts. It was not easy to estimate what the precise shortage was. It was probably in the region of 2,000 gallons a day. At that time the daily consumption of milk in the Dublin area was about 40,500 gallons. The board expects to be in a position to effect a more equitable distribution of milk during the coming winter if supplies are inadequate for any period as they were last year. To give an idea of the average consumption of milk, if we take Dublin district where, as I have already said, we have reliable figures, the average daily consumption in 1938 was 38,711 gallons, in 1942 40,500 gallons, and in 1943 up to the 31st August, it was 43,150 gallons. There has, therefore, been a substantial increase in the amount of milk consumed in Dublin in recent years.

There is one warning that I should like to issue here. It is possible that as the years go on the inspection will become better—I mean the inspection of the amount of milk used by the retailers. The inspection is becoming better and, therefore, the returns are more accurate. In that way the amount consumed may be to some extent more apparent than real, but it is only to some extent, because only a small quantity could be accounted for under the better inspection I have mentioned.

Now, to come to pigs and bacon, towards the end of the summer of 1941, when the decline in pig stocks became apparent, efforts were taken to conserve supplies for home consumption. These steps took the form of stopping all exports of bacon after the 30th September, 1941, followed by the prohibition of the export of live pigs and, later, by the prohibition of the export of pork. In September, 1941, also, the Pigs and Bacon Commission was empowered to prescribe production periods and quotas in relation to carcases of pigs dealt with at licensed curers' premises, so as to ensure an equitable distribution of pigs amongst the various bacon factories.

The Pigs and Bacon Commission was empowered in September, 1942, to prescribe sales periods and quotas for licensed curers, and in the same month production and sales quotas were applied to pork dealers who were at the same time restricted as to the prices which they might pay for pigs and carcases, these being the appointed prices fixed by the commission in the case of licensed curers. They were compelled to pay the appointed prices which had been fixed for curers. Later, price restrictions and production quotas were applied to manufacturers of pork by-products. Other measures taken to deal with the position in the pig and bacon industries empowered the commission to provide for an equitable distribution of available bacon and provided for the imposition of heavy penalties for the illegal curing of bacon.

Despite the measures taken, and although the appointed prices for class I factory-purchased pigs had increased from 73/- per cwt. in September, 1939, to 125/- per cwt. in September, 1943, pig stocks continued to decline, and it became impossible to secure observance of the fixed prices for pigs owing to competition for such supplies as were available. It was, therefore, decided, as from 1st October, 1943, to substitute minimum for fixed prices for pigs and to abolish production and sales quotas, leaving the bacon curers and pork dealers to adjust their prices between the minimum prices which they had to pay for pigs and the maximum prices which they were permitted by the Minister for Supplies to charge for bacon and pork.

The decline in pigs is due to the shortage of feeding stuffs. Every effort has been made, so far as the Government are concerned, to induce farmers to grow extra food for pig feeding in the form of extra potatoes, barley and oats, but the success in this direction was very limited. Now that fixed prices for pigs have been abolished, pig producers may be tempted to go in for more pig production, and it has been put to me as an objection to the withdrawal of all these controls that the pig feeders may be tempted to feed wheat to their pigs. This is, of course, prohibited by law, because our total production of wheat is required for human consumption and it would be a bad policy, indeed it would be impossible, to permit the diversion of wheat for pig feeding in existing conditions. It is also illegal to purchase barley for pig feeding. A grower of barley can feed barley to his own pigs, but it is not permitted to purchase barley for that purpose. The total number of pigs on the 1st June in each of the years 1939 to 1943 was:—1939, 930,907; 1940, 1,049,089; 1941, 763,692; 1942, 518,700, and 1943, 436,200.

The prices payable by the British Ministry of Food for fat cattle and sheep imported from this country in the period from 28th June, 1943, to the 2nd July, 1944, are the same as those that obtained in the corresponding period 1942-43. Representations have been made on many occasions, but without success, to have the prices for fat cattle increased and brought more into line with those paid for British home-bred cattle. Prices for dressed beef, veal, mutton and lamb are related to those payable for fat cattle and sheep by the British Ministry of Food. Owing to the unattractiveness of these prices, and the high prices being paid for meat for home consumption, the export of dressed meat is not an economic proposition. In existing conditions there appears to be little prospect of an early revival of this trade.

Following the outbreak of the present war, there was a considerable development in the export of canned meat to Great Britain. Up to the end of June, 1941, many varieties of canned meat preparations were exported from this country, but at that time certain prohibitions were instituted by the British authorities against the importation of certain varieties of this meat, and we are now practically confined to the meat which is canned under very strict inspection. During 1942 approximately 11,500 tons of canned "stewed steak" and 3,200 tons of canned "ready meals"—that contain meat and vegetables—were exported to the British Ministry of Food.

I think, as regards the remaining sub-heads, that a few words of explanation will suffice. As regards sub-head A, dealing with salaries, wages and allowances, the cost-of-living bonus increases granted since last year to the lower paid grades added approximately £6,100 to the Estimate. In sub-head B, dealing with travelling expenses, all rates of subsistence allowances have been increased by 1/6 a night since 1st January last. In sub-head E (2)—Veterinary Research Laboratory—the only new item in the Estimate is the provision inserted for the salary of the Director and Veterinary Consultant, who was formerly the Chief Veterinary Officer and Director of the Department. As regards sub-head E (3), covering subscriptions, etc., to international and other research organisations, I may mention that many of these organisations cannot be contacted at present.

Under sub-head E (4)—Miscellaneous Investigations—the sum of £175 is required fur experiments in grass ensilage and potato ensilage; trials in storage of onions and trials in production of rape seed, flax seed, etc. Sub-head F (1) deals with agricultural schools and farms. The Estimate for salaries, wages and allowances is £2,595 more than last year. The increase of wages granted to farm workers under the Agricultural Wages Board's Orders of April, 1942, and February, 1943, and the additional amount of farm labour required for increased tillage operations on the farms, account for most of the extra expense. Grants to private agricultural schools are covered in sub-head F (2). The number of capitation places at Copsewood and Warrenstown Agricultural Colleges has been increased from 52 to 92. The number of capitation places at Claremorris Rural Domestic Economy School has been increased from 17 to 36.

Sub-head F (3) refers to the Veterinary College. Two veterinary officers have been appointed for the examination of canned meat for export. Sub-head F (4) covers scholarships in agriculture, horticulture and dairy science that are granted annually by the Department. The scholarships are tenable for one year, renewable annually, so that the scholar may cover the four years' course leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Agricultural Science or Bachelor of Dairy Science. The scholarships in agriculture and horticulture are tenable at University College, Dublin, and the scholarships in dairy science at University College, Cork. There are usually 20 scholars undergoing instruction in each year. They receive free tuition, a maintenance allowance of £64 3s. 4d. per session, and rail fare from home to college at the beginning of the session and back again at the end of the session.

Sub-head F (8)—Training of Instructors in Horticulture. This course of training takes four years. It is intended to qualify young men for employment as instructors in horticulture under committees of agriculture or for analogous posts. Four men complete their training each year and are replaced as a result of competitive examination held annually by the Department in conjunction with University College, Dublin. Sub-head G (1)—Improvement of Milk Production. There are nearly 200 cow testing associations and the members own about 50,000 cows. The income of each association includes the following: (a) A fee of 2/- for each member in respect of each cow of his under test; (b) grant of 4/- from the Department in respect of each cow under test; (c) a grant of £26 10s. 0d. from the Department to supplement the salaries paid by the association to its supervisor, plus 1/- for each cow under test in excess of 250. Committees of agriculture make allocations of funds for the purchase of the requisite initial milk-testing and tattooing apparatus and materials for the use of cow testing associations. Sub-head G (4)—Improvement of Racing. The grant for 1943-44 is £2,600 less than the grant provided in the Estimate for 1942-43. That is because there are less fixtures. Sub-head H—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture. The normal grant of £105,000 is the equivalent of the agricultural rate raised on the rateable poor law valuation of all the counties in Eire exclusive of urban districts. It is £ for £. The special temporary grant is, for distribution amongst such committees as are in urgent need of financial assistance. A special temporary grant has been provided each year since 1932-33. The Estimate of the amount required this year, £4,000, is less than last year's Estimate of £5,500.

The special grant to provide lime for agricultural purposes has been provided each year for the purpose of subsidising the sale of lime to farmers at reduced rates. The scheme is administered by the county committees of agriculture, who invite quotations for the supply of lime required in the different districts. The farmers get the lime at a price below the approved quotation and the difference is paid as a subsidy to the kiln owners. Sub-head I (1)—Special Agricultural Schemes in Congested Districts. The increase in the Estimate over last year is due to the increases in cost-of-living bonus granted to the staff of agricultural overseers, assistant agricultural overseers, to the increased cost of bulls and rams, and to the provision made for the erection and repair of lime kilns. Sub-head M (4)—Loans and Grants for Agricultural Purposes. Under this sub-head the rate of interest chargeable on loans has been reduced from 5 per cent. to 4½ per cent. as from 1st June, 1943. Loans for the purchase of stallions. —The stallions are purchased by the Department and resold at reduced prices to selected applicants in districts where there is need for the services of good class sires. Under the scheme the purchaser pays in cash one-third of the approved sale price and he receives a loan in respect of the remaining two-thirds. The loan is repayable in five equal annual instalments. Loans for the purchase of premium bulls.—These loans are issued to persons selected by the county committees of agriculture to keep bulls for premium purposes. The bulls purchased must be passed beforehand by the Department's inspectors. Under the scheme the purchaser pays in cash one-third of the approved sale price and he receives a loan of the remaining two-thirds. The loan is repayable in two equal annual instalments. It is expected that 280 loans at an average of £50 each will be issued in 1943-44.

Loans for the purchase of hand-sprayers are repayable in two equal annual instalments. Loans for the purchase of other agricultural implements are limited to the purchase of implements costing less than £40. Loans for the purchase of implements costing from £40 to £100 are issued by the Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited. Under the Department's scheme the purchaser pays one-fourth of the price of the implements in cash and he receives a loan in respect of the remaining three-fourths. The loan is repayable in three equal annual instalments. In view of the limited supply of implements available a reduction in the number of these loans is anticipated. Loans for the improvement of flax scutch mills provide for the issue of loans amounting to three-fourths of the cost of the necessary equipment and repairs. Under other headings there are loans for the purchase and erection of poultry houses, poultry equipment, corn mills and silos. Under this heading we do not anticipate to do much business and this is mainly a token amount.

Sub-head N (1), Diseases of Animals Acts: Under this sub-head provision is made for salaries, expenses and equipment of inspectors under the Acts and for compensation for animals slaughtered on account of certain scheduled diseases. Sub-head N (2): Under this sub-head provision is made for part recoupment to local authorities of compensation for animals slaughtered by their inspectors under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order, 1926, and for certain contributions to the General Cattle Diseases Fund for the benefit of local authorities. Sub-head N (3): Horse Breeding Act, 1934. Under this sub-head provision is made for the salary and travelling expenses of the veterinary inspector and fees and expenses of referees employed to adjudicate in cases of appeals against the Minister's refusal to licence stallions. Sub-head N (4), Livestock Breeding Act, 1925: Provision is made under this sub-head for the employment of temporary inspectors and referees in connection with inspection and licensing of bulls and boars. As regards Appropriations-in-Aid, I do not think any account is necessary. If any farther information is required on any sub-head, I shall be only too happy to try to supply it.

The Supplementary Estimate is for a sum of £24,500, to meet expenditure arising out of the arrangements made to overcome the shortage of potatoes in the Dublin area during the months of May and June, 1943. There was a scarcity of potatoes in Dublin, commencing about the end of May, and before the early crop came in, and prices were going fairly high. The Dublin and District Potato Committee, a body representative of Dublin wholesale potato merchants, was vested with practically sole powers of purchasing the 1942 crop potatoes, during the period 11th May to 15th June, 1943, for sale in the Dublin area. The committee was authorised to pay up to £12 a ton, ex-rail Dublin, for 1942 crop potatoes. The potatoes were sold by the committee at a fixed price of £9 10/- a ton to wholesalers, who in turn sold them at a controlled price to retailers. The maximum retail price in the Dublin area was fixed at 1/10 a stone. The subsidy represents the difference between the cost of the potatoes to the committee, which purchased them at prices up to £12 a ton, and the proceeds of sales of the potatoes by the committee at the fixed price of £9 10/- a ton.

The arrangement enabled the potatoes to be sold at a reasonable price and enabled the committee to collect potatoes from the country by paying a higher price than they had been offering up to that. The total amount payable to the committee will not exceed £3,000 including, approximately, £250, representing the audited expenses of the committee. The amount of potatoes handled by the committee under this head was 1,100 tons.

The second part of this Estimate deals with a subsidy on early potatoes of the 1943 crop supplied to Dublin. These potatoes came in in the ordinary way. They did not come through the committee to which I have already referred. They came direct to wholesalers and retailers. New potatoes were encouraged to come on the Dublin market by this subsidy scheme because old potatoes were impossible to procure. At the same time, it was unreasonable to expect Dublin consumers to pay what they would have had to pay if the new potatoes came in on the ordinary commercial basis.

What was the price?

I shall come to that. Adequate quantities of potatoes were procured by a limitation on the amount to be exported. Growers would, of course, have received, if they had exported their potatoes, the price quoted by the Minister of Food on the other side, but they were compelled to supply potatoes to the Dublin wholesaler or retailer, as the case might be, at £l6 a ton. It was, therefore, considered only fair to pay a subsidy to the growers of the difference between that £16 and the price they would have received if the potatoes had been permitted to be exported at the price offered by the Minister of Food in Great Britain, which was the same as it had been the previous year.

What was that price?

I think that it commenced at £24 a ton.

At what period?

The first half of June. In the case of growers of early potatoes in County Dublin, the subsidy is payable direct to them, subject to the furnishing of adequate proofs of the quantities of potatoes marketed by them in Dublin and the dates on which such, potatoes were disposed of. Early potatoes supplied by County Dublin growers to the Dublin area during the period in question were inspected and sealed by the Department's potato inspectors, who kept an account of all consignments; the inspectors' returns served as a check on the claims made by the growers. Apart from the merits of the scheme in checking the returns for the Exchequer, it worked very successfully in securing that retailers and others got first-class potatoes and full weight. The cost of the subsidy payable to the Dublin growers will not exceed £10,000 in respect of, approximately 1,950 tons. Potatoes marketed in Dublin in the week ended 14th June received a subsidy of £9 a ton. That was the difference between £25 and £16. The following week the subsidy was £6 a ton and, for the week ending 28th June, it was £2 a ton. After that, there was no further interference with the marketing of potatoes in Dublin. In the case of potatoes sent to Dublin from early potato-growing areas outside County Dublin—not enough potatoes were produced in County Dublin to supply the full needs of Dublin and potatoes had to be brought in from other counties, notably Wexford and Waterford—the subsidy is payable to the growers through local potato merchants registered under the Agricultural Produce (Potatoes) Act, 1931.

Were tenders invited?

In the areas where potatoes were available, every registered person was given an opportunity and a quota. The subsidy is payable at the same rates as in the case of County Dublin growers, with an allowance to cover the cost of transport to Dublin. The total amount payable through the merchants in these cases is approximately £4,000 in respect of approximately 500 tons of potatoes, so that the total quantity of new potatoes that came into Dublin during those three weeks under this scheme was 2,400 tons.

A further item of expenditure also arises. It was necessary to restrict exports to a very low figure to ensure that there would be enough potatoes for home consumption during the month of June. The old potatoes had run out and we purposely overstepped the limit in these restrictions on exports, with the result that some new potatoes were left on the growers' hands in the recognised early potato-growing areas outside County Dublin —Wexford, Waterford, Cork and Sligo. It was not found possible to dispose of more than a limited quantity of these potatoes locally.

Growers were encouraged to dispose of their new potatoes locally as well as to send them to Dublin during that period. It was difficult to dispose of the new potatoes locally because, in most of the local markets, potatoes of the 1942 crop were still available and the new potatoes were too great a luxury. At all events, those growers who kept those potatoes as a reserve suffered a loss by having them on hands at the end of the early potato-growing season. Arrangements were, accordingly, made for the payment of compensation to such growers, based on the undug acreage of early potatoes of the varieties "Epicure" and "Aran Pilot" on their holdings at the beginning of July. The rate of compensation was £25 an acre. This rate was calculated by reference to the prices which the growers would have obtained had export been permitted freely and the value to them of their surplus stocks at the beginning of July. Deputies will realise that these early potatoes were very little used at that period except for stock-feeding. "Epicures" become rather unpopular when "British Queens" are available and "Aran Pilots" cannot be sold at all on the home market. We had that experience, that nobody would buy "Aran Pilots" at that period. They are grown for export. The consumer in England will accept them because, there, they use them in a different way. They do not put them on the table in their jackets, as is done here. A survey of the holdings of all the growers concerned was made by the Department's potato inspectors with a view to ensuring that each case admitted for compensation was genuine. Payment, in respect of acreage compensation will amount approximately to £7,500, representing about 300 statute acres.

The Minister is fortunate in that this Supplementary Estimate is being taken in conjunction with the main Estimate. It would deserve a separate discussion.

There is nothing to prevent the Deputy making a long speech.

I move the motion standing in the name of Deputy Bennett and myself: that this Estimate be referred back for reconsideration and revision. The House will remember that before the adjournment we had a very exhaustive debate covering the whole field of agricultural activity. I do not propose to follow the Minister again over that field. I do not think I can compliment him on the manner in which he has presented this Estimate. We feel, however, that there are aspects of Government policy that demand the very serious attention and deliberation of the House and for that reason we have put down this motion.

The grave situation concerning the food supply of the country as represented by the Taoiseach at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis and by the Minister for Supplies at a recent meeting in south city, when compared with our potential as calculated by expert agricultural economists, casts a very sad reflection on our capacity to organise the maintenance and expansion of food production in this country. It is true that we are experiencing a very serious food problem. It seems an extraordinary anomaly, in a country such as ours, a country with our resources in arable land and our small population, and bearing in mind our capacity in the past, that we are now, experiencing a serious shortage in essential food commodities. That seems extraordinary in view of the fact that, in the past, we were able to provide not only our own requirements but very considerable quantities for export. Those exports have now disappeared.

The Taoiseach, at the Ard-Fheis, disowned any responsibility for the conditions here, and true to form, he found a scapegoat—the farmers: the farmers are responsible for the shortages that have occurred in this country, and the Government disowns any responsibility. His Minister for Supplies followed that up in the course of a few days and placed further responsibilities on the backs of the farmers for our food-supply position. A Deputy who was present at that meeting—he represents Dublin City in this House—said that the agricultural community did not play the game by the city people and the industrial worker: that we owed a duty to the industrial worker. If any people in this country owe a duty, it is the city and the townspeople, and they owe it to the agricultural people for providing them with food. So far as the position of the industrial worker is concerned, the medium to purchase the raw material for industry comes from agriculture. He ought always bear in mind that the market for the manufactured goods produced here is found in rural Ireland, and that his food must be supplied by the rural community. Therefore, I have no doubt that very few city people, or Deputies, are in agreement with Deputy McCann's attitude on this matter. I hope it is not the intention of the Deputy to try to provoke dissension and discord between different classes in the country.

I say emphatically that the present position is due to the ignominious failure of the Government to plan and organise production in a systematic, constructive way—in the business-like way that has been completely absent daring the whole period of the emergency. I listened in vain for a plan from the Minister even at this eleventh hour, and there was no plan whatever. I want to say that no Government in any country in the world has got results merely by passing a compulsory order, by disowning any further responsibility and throwing back full responsibility on individuals in the State. You cannot expect to expand production in this country without in tensified organisation and without that attention to detail that is necessary.

It is true that Great Britain has expanded her production, since the start of the war, by no less than 70 per cent., while our production has substantially fallen off. In regard to the expansion that has taken place in England, we must bear in mind that the amount of arable land available for the purpose was very substantially reduced, due to the amount of it taken up for military organisations, for aerodromes, and the ten-mile defence belt on the south and east coast. The people there had to shoulder responsibility for expanding food production in the teeth of the threat of starvation, when their food lines were being hampered, threatened, and destroyed to a great extent. But they faced up to that in a businesslike way by providing the necessary organisation.

The Minister here has no excuse. It was suggested to him in the past that an organisation of some sort was necessary, that we had to face up to the conditions that were there, that we had to face up to the shortages, to the difficulties of certain farmers in certain areas and in certain counties where there had been no tradition of tillage, where there was no equipment, and where it was almost impossible by individual effort to get results. In certain areas there was a lack of technical knowledge, and no provision was made to provide that knowledge. The only effort that was made was to pass a compulsory tillage Order under threat of prosecution, and to send down unsympathetic inspectors to kick the farmers into their job. I suppose it is good enough for the farmers.

Even as regards the food that was produced, what did the Government do to get sufficient food produced for human consumption? The Minister for Supplies gave aggregate figures of our requirements as follows: 400,000 tons of wheat to feed our people; 40,000 tons of oats; 30,000 tons of creamery butter; 600,000 tons of potatoes; 100,000 tons of sugar beet—obviously that is our requirement in sugar; 100,000,000 gallons of milk; 6,000,000 great hundreds of eggs. Let us take oats. Deputies in the City of Dublin realise how difficult it was to obtain oatmeal. Even in rural Ireland, in the towns and the villages, it was difficult to procure oatmeal. According to the Irish Trade Journal for March, 1943. our total production of oats was 768,000 tons. We require 40,000 tons of that for human consumption as oatmeal. That represents 5.2 per cent. of our total production in oats. The Government, in their wisdom, was not able to produce the machinery necessary to secure that that amount was available for human consumption.

The farmer was blamed because he utilised his oats for a purpose which he felt paid him better. It is all right to appeal to the patriotism of the farmer, but the farmer is in the mundane position that he has to meet his weekly wages bill on a Saturday night and meet his traders' bills for seeds. manures, machinery and all the other things necessary on his farm, and he must be influenced in his decisions as to the use he will make of his production by how it will affect his budget. There is no damn use in talking about patriotism in this connection. The stuff was there and we wanted only 5.2 per cent. of it for oatmeal purposes and the Government were not able to make provision for it.

Take the case of potatoes. We heard to-day a rigmarole from the Minister about subsidies in respect of potatoes, and the House is asked to vote a sum of £24,000 for the subsidising of potatoes. What is the position? The Minister for Supplies told his Comhairle ceanntar a few nights ago that our national requirements for human consumption amounted to 600,000 tons. According to the March issue of the Irish Trade Journal, our total production last year was 3,120,000 tons. I have gone to the trouble of calculating the figure in this case again, and I find that 19.2 per cent. of our total production of potatoes is the amount required for human consumption. If it were only possible to get in touch with the farmers by telephone, one would expect that it would have been possible to ensure that that amount was reserved for human consumption. What machinery was provided to ensure that either the 5.2 per cent. of our oat crop or 19.2 per cent. of our potato crop was so reserved for human consumption? Ministers and the Taoiseach have the temerity to blame the agricultural community for failing in a period of grave emergency to do their national duty. I know that every farmer and every worker is doing his best in that respect, and, in justice to the Minister, I must say that he did not to-day attempt to blame the farmers, but he did not feel it necessary to pay any tribute to their achievements. I do not think we can boast about our achievements. We cannot, but that is not the fault or the responsibility of the agricultural community. It is due to the fact that we have not been organised to produce.

In Great Britain, the county committees—what are called county war agricultural committees, which correspond to our county committees of agriculture—have been given statutory powers and have been given the necessary staffs, technical advisers and inspectors to ensure that maximum production is obtained in the various counties, and they secured the desired results. One of the greatest problems which agriculture has to face, and is facing at the moment, that is, the labour problem, was not referred to at all by the Minister in his long rambling statement. There is any amount of corn standing in stocks and green at the top, due to shortage of labour in the non-tillage counties, the grass counties, where there was not labour in the past and where no attempt has been made to provide or to import labour at present. No reference was made to that problem by the Minister. The county committees in Great Britain provide mobile gangs on bicycles, and if I as a farmer propose to do a week's or a fortnight's threshing, I send into the local county committee office and tell them I want so many men for a week or a fortnight and I have not got to bother any further about it. A gang of men is sent out on bicycles; I do my threshing; and payment is made by the local county committee.

What are the rates?

I am not worrying about that point.

Tell us the whole story.

I will leave a little for Deputy Davin. The rates here are quite good.

Do they do this work free?

They are being paid 12/- a day and, in some cases, 15/- a day, for threshing. I do not know what the rates are in Great Britain. I am dealing with organisation, and from the point of view of organisation, the labour is provided there and they are paid by the local committee. When the farmer gets his cheque, he settles up with the county committee.

You do not know how much the farmer gives them? It is extraordinary that the Deputy did not work that out.

I am sure the Deputy knows all about it and will tell the House later on.

If I did, I would not ask the Deputy.

The Deputy will probably make some inquiries. The information we got from the Minister regarding artificial manures was most disappointing. The position in that regard represents a serious handicap so far as the tillage areas are concerned. With regard to the question of the reduction in the area of land under wheat this year, approximating some 70,000 acres, an explanation is given in the September issue of the Irish Trade Journal with which I do not agree. It says:

"Investigation into a large number of returns made in recent years since compulsory tillage was introduced has demonstrated that the figures given to the enumerators were exaggerated to an extent which it has not been possible to determine precisely. As a step towards remedying this defect, the Statistics (Agricultural Returns) Order, 1943, S.R.O. No. 179 of 1943, was made before the collection of the statistics in the present season, making it a punishable offence under the Statistics Act, 1926, to give inaccurate or misleading information. In consequence, it is probable that while last year's figures were exaggerated, those for the current year are more nearly correct. The increase in tillage generally may therefore be assumed to be greater and the decrease less than that shown by the figures."

That is not the position and that is not correct. I suppose that one farmer in a thousand knew anything about that Order that the giving of a false return was punishable. It did not affect the general statistical information collected this year. There is another reason: the fact that a compulsory tillage Order has been in operation for four years, and that some land has been tilled and put under a wheat crop for four years, with the result that it is almost exhausted in its power to produce and the farmer had to switch over to some other cereal crop, such as oats or barley. I think the farmers listening to me will agree with me that that is the explanation of the fall. That, too, is a very serious matter.

The whole position in regard to saving the harvest compares very unfavourably with what is happening across the water. Take even the matter of meteorological reports. No attempt has been made to give any information to the farmer, so far as weather forecasts are concerned. I know the argument of the country's security from the military point of view will be put forward, that it is unwise to give any weather reports. That is a lot of bunkum in my opinion, and it would be very desirable if the agricultural community got some information during such a year as we have experienced when we had a downpour during the most vital period, so far as the saving of the harvest is concerned. There was no expression of sympathy whatever by any Minister and no Minister showed any concern during that period. There was no appeal for any voluntary help or assistance of any sort in the saving of the harvest. In Great Britain, the willingness of responsible Ministers to avail of the services of voluntary workers from the towns and villages in saving the national food supply for the coming year showed how deeply they were concerned to ensure that the food supplies were secured.

It was saved by Irish labour.

It is the most extraordinary anomaly that we can provide Irish labour to save the British harvest but we have not enough workers to save our own.

The farmers will not pay them at home.

The farmers are quite satisfied to pay them if the wherewithal is given to the farmers. I am in absolute sympathy with the view that the agricultural labourer ought not to be the lowest paid worker in this country.

He should be the best paid worker. All over the country, you have to bring the farmer into court to make him pay a miserable 30/- a week.

You have not to bring him into court and it is unfair to many districts where there was no such thing as a prosecution to say that that is the case all over the country.

If the Deputy ignored interruptions, they would cease.

They are intelligent questions, I hope.

Some of them demand an answer, such as those from Deputies like Deputy Davin.

Tell us where the scarcity of labour is—in what county?

I will accept your advice, Sir. I do not think I can continue with these interruptions. I may have to ask for your protection.

There will be no necessity for the Chair to interfere.

Another extraordinary feature of the labour problem is that in Carlow, Kildare, Kilkenny and Wexford, the L.D.F. went on their holidays to Tramore and Courtown just when the harvesting operations should begin. Did that show any concern for the food supply as between one Department and another? I am not condemning the fact that men got an opportunity they never had before.

They were not on holidays; they were training.

It comes to the same thing. It is true that farmers adjacent to military camps, like the Curragh, did get useful help from the military. Farmers in the Kildare area told me that they got very good lads who did very useful work for them. They appreciated that. But that was not general; it was the exceptional case. There was no general attempt to meet the problem of labour shortage.

Another extraordinary feature—and I do not think the Minister will tolerate it—is the attitude of millers in the administration of the regulations governing the purchase of wheat. I grant that it is individual millers who are concerned. The minimum standard of wheat for full price of 50/- is 57 per cent. I know one particular miller who cuts the price if in any parcel of wheat there are a few bags under the 57 per cent. although the remainder may be over 57 per cent. I spoke to him personally and pointed out that in a difficult season like this he should deal more sympathetically with the producer. He asked me why should he be sympathetic with the producer. The miller like everyone else in the country is absolutely dependent on the farmer to provide him with food. I know there are certain Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party who have tried their damnedest to exclude agents from the purchase of wheat at the present time and to leave the monopoly with the millers. God forbid that the day should arrive when the farming community of this country would be at the mercy of a milling monopoly so far as the sale of their wheat is concerned. Deputies must realise that in any parcel of, say, 100 sacks of wheat, 50 sacks may bushel 58, 40 sacks may bushel 57 and 10 sacks may bushel 56, and if they are thrown into a heap, mixed up and a sample taken, the sample will bushel over 57. That is the agent's approach to the problem—that the average of the parcel of wheat is worth the full price. The miller's approach is quite different —that for every individual bag of wheat under 57 the farmer must be cut in the price he receives. That sort of treatment by individual millers will effectively kill wheat production. I hope the Minister will not give ear to those people who are making representations that the millers should enjoy a monopoly in the purchase of wheat because many of them have no sympathy or business contacts with the farming community.

The Minister, very wisely from his point of view, made no reference whatever to the difficulties of farmers in the grass counties owing to lack of equipment. In many cases they are big farmers who did not till in the past and who had no equipment for tillage. You may blame them for that if you like, but the fact remains that we must face up to the conditions that exist. Many of them had no equipment when the emergency started and have not had an opportunity since to procure equipment. In large areas in this country there are big farmers with a large amount of land under cultivation who, during the sowing and harvesting seasons, have to wait for some man with a tractor for hire to do the work. Very often corn is permitted to shell before it is harvested simply because there is no machinery. That is a problem that has been very lightly treated, the Minister merely saying that they have tried to secure some equipment and got 100 tractors this year. The Minister did not tell the House that those tractors were allocated under licence or how they were allocated. He did not tell us the type of men who got them or what assurance those men gave his Department that the tractors would be available at all times for hire. He was very vague so far as any future supplies of that sort were concerned. He did not even tell us whether it was a barter arrangement or not. That is a Government secret, I suppose, that we are not entitled to know.

We have felt, and Deputies of other Parties have felt, that the Government have not tried to make use of the bargaining weapons that we have. I have pointed out often that we are supplying basic stock for dairy purposes in Great Britain. That bargaining power has never been properly used. We are supplying very essential flax fibre to Great Britain at the present time. It is true that we have got sisal for the manufacture of binder twine.

I again appeal to the Minister to try to get further supplies of very essential agricultural machinery if we are to carry out this big programme of tillage in the coming year. So far as the failure of individual farmers to grow wheat is concerned, it must be remembered that no farmer was informed as to what proportion of wheat he should produce. It is unfair to blame individual farmers when they were not so informed. In other countries it was considered worth while to inform the farmers of the amount they were expected to produce. That has not been done here. The farmer was simply bound, according to the Tillage Order, to till a certain amount of his land and put in crops. He was not committed to growing any particular acreage of each crop.

The Minister anticipated some trouble so far as certain pockets of land here and there are concerned other than in those areas to which he referred. I have thought over the problem a good deal, and there is no doubt that there are such pockets of land, very big areas of them in some counties; in County Wicklow, for example, along the Blackstairs in the Minister's native county, and on the other side in the county of Carlow. I think there will be quite a lot of areas of land outside the areas he specified above the 600 line contour. I would be sceptical as to the results you will get from these lands. They are mainly highly acid lands. Because of the fact that we have little or no phosphates and because of their high altitude, there is a danger of the wheat not ripening. Certainly I am confident that you will get more food units if you put in some other cereals on these lands. I think the Minister ought to give some attention to that aspect of the matter—land of high altitude where acidity is very high, which will undoubtedly seriously depress the wheat yield.

The Minister referred to the valuable services rendered by and the advice he has got from the Consultative Council. I would hate to be a member of that council because, so far as I can see, it is not a consultative council at all. The Minister puts his proposals before that council. They are a fait accompli—he is not prepared to alter one iota of them. That council is merely a publicity committee and nothing more, the majority of the members being “yes-men” of the Fianna Fáil Party. Is it fair to the agricultural community that their advice is not sought, that they are not properly consulted? You merely have a few men who are prepared to come up in that capacity and accept the situation of being told what the plans are. They are allowed to talk about them for a while, but they have no power. The Minister is not prepared to alter his plans in any shape or form. They are fully prepared and are merely announced to that council. So far as the fixation of prices and the whole administration are concerned, there is a lot of bureaucratic interference. In fact, it is branded right through from start to finish with the stamp of bureaucracy and the Civil Service mentality is behind the whole of it. Does the House think, or does the Minister think, that along these lines is the way to get co-operation and support from the agricultural community—to treat them in a contemptible way like that? That is the position at the present time.

I agree with Deputy Morrissey with regard to the conditions which obtained during the harvest. There was a regular downpour during the most critical period of the harvest which left a large quantity of the wheat in a sodden condition so that it will be very difficult to get decent samples of wheat. The Minister does not agree with that. He does not appear to have had any report from any of his inspectorial staff. I think he is thinking in terms of County Dublin, where the people were lucky, because it is an airy district and they had the harvest saved before the downpour came. I feel alarmed about the seed position. It will be very hard to secure the necessary supplies of wheat up to the standard set out in the regulations.

What of the future? Now that we are to conscript farmers under the new Tillage Order, what does the Minister propose to do by way of help in producing our requirements for the coming year? The price of wheat has been fixed at 55/-. I do not want to hold a pistol to the heads of the Government, but I think it was unwise that the Minister did not make the price £3, when you take into consideration the costs of production. I think we may definitely anticipate that agricultural wages will be increased by the Wages Board early in the spring, because that is due to the agricultural labourers. In any case, casual labour generally is tending to rise owing to the scarcity of labour. Fuel for tractors is costing nearly four times what it cost before the war and it is tending to go higher and higher. Apart altogether from the problem of scarcity, the cost of lubricating oil is almost prohibitive. Implements and tools of all sorts are costing much more. A hay-fork to-day costs 12/- and when you use it the grain may fly out of it. Then you have to spend another 12/-. That is the type of fork the Minister for Industry and Commerce is supplying at present to the agricultural community. Even the handles are not good. Although we have plenty of good ash in this country and ought to be able to select decent timber for the handles, they do not think it worth while to select decent timber. You can snap off the handle easily and that costs 12/- every time it happens.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. So far as the profit to the farmer arising out of this harvest is concerned, with the extra handling it is very easy to double or treble the cost of handling the grain in a wet season, and the profit can be very easily counted. You cannot overlook the fact that the farmer has not got much profit, and I think the Minister ought to go further so far as the price is concerned and make the price £3. The Minister, in reply, will probably tell the House that from his experience he is satisfied that there is a fair margin of profit for the farmer. The Minister told the House before, when fixing the price at 41/-, that from his experience it was sufficient. He went up and down the country saying that 41/- was enough, but he had to change his tune and make the price 50/-. If he had changed it earlier that year, he would have been wise and would have got more wheat; and if he is wise this year he will fix an attractive price in good time.

I now come back to the matter I have referred to before and to which the Minister has also referred, that is, those pockets of land here and there where you could not expect marginal production of wheat. If the Minister is not prepared to make a detailed inspection, he should consider, from the point of view of altitude, excluding any land over a certain contour level. There is no mention of County Wicklow. It is a county that, except in the north and a bit along the coast here and there, has very little land suitable for wheat production, in my opinion. It is a very serious matter and you can hardly expect farmers—or consider it morally right or just for any Government to compel farmers—to grow an uneconomic crop. Will the Minister and the House realise that, while it might be economic for a great many farmers with suitable land and a fair degree of fertility, to grow wheat it may not be possible for other farmers to make it a paying proposition at any price? Even in my own county—in North Carlow in the Hacketstown area—where there is poor land of marginal quality, I think there is very little land suitable for growing wheat.

I wish to say a few words on a very important matter, to which I have referred before. I have given some consideration to it since that time and have done some experimental work, and I want to draw the Minister's attention to it again. It is the question of a soil survey for this country. I am convinced there is a very big proportion of the soil in a highly acid condition. There is a big calcium deficiency there and it is seriously affecting and retarding the yield of our crops. The Minister has not paid any attention to that in the past. I asked the Carlow County Committee to put a man specially on soil survey in the county. He has been on the job for some six months and he has covered a considerable part of the north of the county. He has gone on to every farm and has taken a sample in every field and so tested the soil in the whole of the area that he has covered. Naturally, one man can cover only a very small amount in six months. We live in a small county and the amount he has covered is considerable. All the land he has covered is in a fairly high acid condition.

It is true that the lack of artificial manures is a very serious handicap in this country, but I am convinced that the condition of our soil is a mure important consideration even than the provision of artificial manures, and on fertile lands that is so, too. People often wonder that farmers on the lands of County Meath and North Kildare can grow what appears to be a fine crop of wheat, but it is a big straw crop with a most disappointing yield. I am quite satisfied that the yield there is due altogether to the fact that there is a high degree of acidity in the soil, which is bound to depress yields. We have that acid condition all over the country under granite. The Minister ought to know something about it in his native county, on the Blackstairs, and the whole of County Wicklow is under granite. We have surface acid due to the fact that we have been depriving the surface of artificial salt for many years and exporting it in the shape of young animals. It is not peculiar to these islands, but so far as these islands are concerned here, we have a lot of acid soil and, in my opinion, it is higher here than in any other part of the British Isles. That is due to the fact that we have gone in intensively for rearing young stock and for the bones of this young stock there is a heavy demand for calcium and phosphates. In those areas where we were using phosphates more intensively, we have been adding to that problem, because we are adding an acid to our highly acid soil.

Experts in other countries have been doing a lot of pioneer work in respect of this problem. Hall at Rockingstead and Stapleton at Aberystwith have done a lot about it, and much has been done in other countries, including New Zealand. They have all faced up to this problem of soil condition. It is a big thing, fundamental to our whole production. Soil production must be put right if we are to have maximum production. There is quite a lot of plant food lying dormant in the soil and not available as plant food, due to the physical surface condition of the soil. No effort has been made in that regard, so far as we are concerned. There is provision for lime of some £71,000 and £20,000 as well for congested districts. It is a mere flea-bite so far as the whole problem is concerned. We provided £58,000 last year for lime and we had 2,500,000 acres of land under cultivation. I have gone to the trouble of calculating the rate of subsidy provided per acre, and it works out at 8d. I am not saying that all that land would require lime, but I am satisfied from my experience that the greater part of that land would respond immediately to a lime dressing or an alkaline dressing.

Northern Ireland and Great Britain are providing ground limestone. It has several advantages over lime. Lime is highly soluble in water and we have a high rainfall, and that lime is going to be washed down deep into the soil very quickly. On the other hand, the limestone is not so soluble and its reaction can be spread over a longer period by grinding it into fine, medium and coarse grades. It is far easier to spread in a manure distributor. The caustic lime will burn the horse and burn the man handling it and, unless it is a very calm day, it is difficult to handle caustic ground lime. In fact, you cannot do it, as you seldom get a calm day.

This is a really big problem, which is fundamental to our whole production, and I want the Minister to pay a lot more attention to it than he has paid. There are other small deficiencies. If you take boron in the soil, it gives you a deficiency that produces crown rot in beet, and 20 Ibs. of borax to the acre corrects that deficiency. That is a very small amount of chemical to provide to correct a disease that is due to deficiency in the soil. There is no doubt that the alkaline deficiency is very seriously depressing yields, particularly wheat yields. The yield of oats does not appear to be affected by that acid condition. Potatoes rather like it and respond to an acid condition. There is a rather interesting article written by Mr. E. R. Colleston-Jones in the Journal of the British Ministry of Agriculture for September, 1943. He describes, under the heading of “Hill Farming,” an experiment that was carried out in Montgomeryshire, where they sowed a crop of potatoes on a hill that was over the 1,000 contour.

The first year they got a highly acid soil and a partial failure of crop, Then that field was dressed with ground limestone. It is generally admitted, as I have already said, that potatoes rather like an acid condition. If the field was dicssed with alkaline in the following year, and if potatoes were put in again, it would yield a bumper crop. Now, in the case of all crops, you want to have a balance, as near as you can have it—even in the case of wheat—but there is no doubt about the fact that so far as P.H. tests in this country are concerned, there are many acid soils, some of them down to 4 or 4½ per cent. acidity, which is far too low. For instance, I have noticed that in the counties of Meath and Kildare, even where you have limestone soils, you get a huge heap of straw, and I am convinced—and agricultural experts with whom I have discussed the matter agree with me—that that is due to the acid condition in the soil. There is also the question of decayed vegetable matter which is not inherent or natural in the soil, but which is in the granite. That deficiency, undoubtedly, is there, and is probably due to the fact that we have been mining minerals out of the soil instead of using them for the benefit of the soil.

I admit that it is not easy to deal with the problem. I admit that there is the question of the transport of lime, the question of getting the kilns into use again, for the burning of lime and so on, but those are all incidental to the question of getting better yields and better returns from our land, and if such conditions exist, I suggest that we shall have to correct them. Accordingly, I would ask the Minister to look into this matter. For instance, I should like to see that figure of 90,000, to which the Minister referred, looked into further. I, myself, am living in a county the land of which has a fairly high acid content. I have used a certain amount of lime in recent years and, as a result, have got fairly good results. There was a period in which I found it impossible to grow beet, owing to the disease known as "Black-leg", but as a result of the treatment of the soil with lime, I have largely got over it. There is still a lot of acidity in the soil, but I feel that I would get better results if I could get rid of the acid altogether. Then, again, there is the question of the more nutritious grasses. There is the question of fixing the soil by proper treatment so that, in a slightly acid soil, you may get a good crop one year, and possibly a better crop the next year; but we must consider also the question that if the land is not properly treated you may get a good crop one year and not so good a crop the next year.

I do not like to deal with technical matters of this kind, but I think that this is a really big problem. It is a problem that has been tackled in other countries, and these countries have been pouring out thousands and thousands of tons of lime for use on the soils of their countries. It has been done in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain and New Zealand, and these countries would not be doing that unless they had got results, and they have got amazing results. Why should we not do the same? It is one way in which we have been lagging behind.

I want, so far as I can, to suggest to the Minister's mind that I, as an agriculturist, am firmly convinced that this is a very big question so far as agriculture is concerned, and that it has to be tackled in a far bigger way than it has been up to the present. There are many other matters that I should like to touch upon, but I want to get this point standing out in the Minister's mind, so far as my contribution to this debate is concerned. I want the Minister to deal with this matter when he is replying, and to get an assurance from him that he will endeavour to get the best men to give their co-operation in dealing with this matter, and that he will also get the co-operation of the Department of Supplies so far as regards making available the necessary raw materials and the transport of these materials. Two years ago I approached the Minister with a view to making available fuel for the burning and distribution of lime, and I calculated that the effect of the burning and distribution of lime would mean a great deal in terms of food for the people of this country, but the Minister did not respond to my appeal. I hold that the last gallon of petrol or the last ton of coal or coke ought to be provided for this purpose with a view to providing food for our people, and if we can rig up any machinery for the grinding or burning of limestone, that machinery ought to be provided, and we should examine all possibilities in connection with that, because, if we can get any soft limestone quarries they ought to be availed of because, in the next few years, we will need many thousands of tons of ground limestone in order to correct the acidity of the soil. If there is any question of the raising of stock, we ought to correct the acidity of the soil. Chemists and scientists in laboratories all over the world are doing all they can to help in other countries, and let us, for God's sake, make use of the knowledge that these people have acquired.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of planning for the post-war period. I am aware of the fact that a committee of experts has been set up to deal with this matter, but it appears that no farmer is on that committee. Yet that committee is dealing with a programme for post-war agricultural economy here. From the point of view of exports alone, at the present time, our production is at a very low ebb, and if we are to have any regard for the findings at the Hot Springs Conference, I think it will be admitted that it was generally agreed there that the question of a post-war exchange of goods would be on a goods for goods basis, and different from the basis on which it was pre-war. If that principle is to be applied to this country, it seems to me that we will find ourselves in a most disastrous position. For instance, if any limitation is to be put to the use of our sterling assets, it will be very disastrous to this country. I feel that limitations will be put to that, and that we will have very large commitments, so far as the supply of raw materials as well as transport is concerned. We shall have to arrange for electrical equipment, road and rail equipment, and all the other things that will be necessary if we are going to have any expansion in the post-war period; and all that will require very heavy capital commitments. If, therefore, as has been suggested, there is to be an exchange of goods, we shall find ourselves in a very desperate position and may have to do as Russia has had to do, and that is to curtail the things necessary for our own people in order to secure the needs of our industrial requirements. I hope the Minister and the Taoiseach are not overlooking that part of the problem. Of course if we are lucky enough to be in a position in which no limitation will be placed upon the use of whatever sterling assets there are, we shall not be so badly off. If, on the other hand, a limit is placed on the amount which we shall be permitted to spend for a period of years, because of the financial position of Britain, it is going to be a very serious matter.

On the question of pig production, I am glad that the Minister saw fit to do what we proposed for a number of years he should do—simply fix a price to protect the bacon consumers' interests and let the normal system of supply and demand govern the rest. That is all we want as producers. The Minister, unfortunately, is allowing, or will, I suppose, ensure, that certain factories will get supplies through the Pigs and Bacon Commission. I hope when he does that that he will not allow them to form a monopoly and to fix a price to suit their end of the production, ignoring the producer's end.

There is one other matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. I do not wish to refer to it in detail because it is under consideration at the moment between the Beet Growers' Association and the Sugar Company. That is the question of the price of pulp. I do not think the beet growers are getting a fair crack of the whip in the proposals made by the company. The Minister knows how the system has been worked for many years. He knows that the beet growers have done a very good job in encouraging people to use pulp at home. It has gone back to tillage farmers mainly, men on whose farms winter feeding is essential if they are to have the necessary farmyard manure. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the attitude taken up by the beet growers and that he will see that they get justice in the matter.

In conclusion, I would say to the Minister that he needs to plan some organisation if he is going to put through this big tillage scheme. I do not know what amount of tillage land we have in the country. We are supposed to have 12,000,000 acres of arable land, but it has never been classified. The Minister has an inspectorial staff on tillage for some years, but I am still very doubtful whether his Department can give us that information. As far as I am concerned, I do not know what amount of arable land is on my farm. I have never had a visit from an inspector, and I am sure there are a great many farmers in the same circumstances. Every farmer should be in a position to know the portions of his farm that are regarded as arable and those that are not. There should be an early inspection made and the farmer should be informed what his responsibilities under the new Order are. I have referred to the labour problem and to the difficulties which people in the grass counties who have no tradition or experience of tillage have to face. I should like to direct the Minister's attention to the fact that farmers in the North and West of England are crying out for a reduction in the tillage areas because of the impossibility of saving the harvest this year although they had up-to-date modern equipment and appeared to have ample labour. They feel that they are not able to cope with the harvest in weather conditions such as they experienced this year. We live still further west and our rainfall is higher, and if we are going to have a bigger harvest next year, the Minister will need to have a very elaborate organisation. I issue that warning to him, that he should provide that necessary organisation if he expects to get results.

I formally second the motion, reserving the right to speak at a later stage.

I am anxious that we should have, first of all, one general basis for this debate and that is, that the first obligation of the soil is to provide food for our people. Let that be our starting point. We have heard some prophecies of disaster from Deputy Hughes. Deputy Hughes has read too many books. If he gave us more of his own experience and less of the British periodical journals, I think we would get along better.

What is wrong with his experience?

Deputy Hughes in the first place has a very definite objection to any Government interference. On the other hand, he wants an organisation something on the basis of the British organisation. I can tell Deputy Hughes frankly that if I am to judge by the British sub-committees and the way they are working, if Deputy Hughes attempted to practise in Britain for three months the policy which he has advocated for a number of years past in this House, he would be behind barbed wire. The sub-committees in Britain will see that each field is properly utilised. They will tell you the crop to pur into each field and they will make you put it there whether you like it or not. They will collect it and see that it is put to proper use afterwards. However, that will not get us the wheat and I think that is the main question we are troubled with to-night.

I am in favour of compulsory wheat growing. I think it is necessary and I think that the results of last year proved, that there is no getting behind it. It has got to be done and the question is how. I am not in favour of the Minister's way of doing it. I say that frankly. I think there is an easier way by which we could avoid, at least, 75 per cent. of the inspection and the costs of inspection on this job. We have grown in this country each year something like 750,000 acres of roots—potatoes, turnips, mangolds and beet. They are 99 per cent. a manured crop. Whatever manure the farmer has goes into them. I would have compulsory wheat after roots and in that manner I would get all the wheat required from the 750,000 acres.

On every farm?

No matter where it is?

There are lands that will not grow wheat, still in the wildest portions of West Cork I have seen fine crops of wheat sown afterwards—I have seen them out at Ballyvourney. That would be 750,000 acres for a start. I would then suggest that 20 per cent. of the arable land, where the farmers are not growing roots, should be put under wheat. If the Minister has a proper inspection carried out he will find that the slacking off this year was due in the main to the gentlemen who went around taking land on the conacre system. I do not mean the smallholders; the men I have in mind are the men who have two or three tractors and who take over 200, 300 and perhaps 500 acres and who put 95 per cent. of that land under oats and barley and not under wheat. I have heard them boast of that. I have seen that done. That is where the change is needed.

The price of wheat will have to be increased, because, in my opinion, 55/- is not good enough. I say that wheat would pay well at 55/-, but it will not give the farmer as good a return as oats at 22/6 per cwt., which is what oats fetch all over the country at present. I know what I am speaking about, because I bought oats at that price and I would buy more if I could get it. That is the position—£22 10s. a ton for oats as against £22 for wheat. I realise that we must have compulsory wheat-growing. I suggest that this is a far easier way of getting the desired wheat acreage, and I assure you there will be a better return from each acre under wheat. There can be no doubt that wheat after a manured crop will give a much better yield than if it is grown in lea. I suggest that in that way you will get a better return and the farmer will have less trouble with the inspectors.

I should like to refer now to the small seeds, such as turnips, mangolds, etc. I gave certain figures to the House last July. I went through merchants' bills since and I ascertained that what I told the House was absolutely correct. The turnip, mangold, cabbage and rape seeds that came into this country in 1938 cost £56,000, landed here, and they cost the farmer £190,000. That represents a profit of about £140,000. I suggest that this year there should be a fixed price for turnip and mangold seeds grown here, so that the two monopolists at present in charge of the small seeds will not be able to say: "We had to get in so much foreign seed, we balanced them, and we must charge so much for them." Let us have a fixed price for the Irish turnip and mangold seeds so that the ordinary farmer will know to what extent he is being fleeced, if he is being fleeced.

I telephoned the managing director of the sugar company this morning with reference to the beet seed, which is exactly similar to the mangold seed. Beet seed was grown last year at, roughly speaking, 100/- per cwt. by the farmer for the sugar company—that was the contract price. That beet seed was delivered in five, ten and 20 Ib. bags, free on rail, at the local railway stations, by the sugar company. They did everything that the Associated Seeds Company did, and the seed was delivered at 1/- per lb., or 112/- per cwt. We grew mangold seed last year for Associated Seeds, Limited, at 80/- per cwt., and that seed was resold to the farmer at 308/- per cwt. The farmer sold it at 10d. a lb., and had to pay 2/9 a lb. when he was buying it back. We want this situation straightened out. I am well aware that the Hogg and Robertsons are only waiting for the day when they can bring back British seeds here. As an Irish farmer, trained in Sinn Féin, I want the Irish market kept for our farmers when this war is over.

What was the beet seed last year?

It was handed back by the sugar company to the beet grower at 1/- a lb.

We are getting only £3 5/- this year for it.

The contract price this year was 100/-. It is sold back at 1/- a lb. Of course, that is for clean seed —and the mangold seed price was for clean seed. You are paying for the clean seed. I say there is no justification for those enormous margins, particularly when the Department of Agriculture have now fixed it so that only two bodies of people in this country are entitled to grow mangold or turnip seed for sale. If a farmer produces turnip seed this year he cannot sell it unless he is working under contract with those two firms.

Who is the cause of that?

Now is the time to straighten out those matters so that when the war is over this industry, which is worth something in the neighbourhood of £200,000, will be of some help to our farmers. I think the Minister should let us know what will be the fixed price of mangold and turnip seed during the coming year. If there is to be a fixed price for the Irish-grown seed, and another price for the foreign seed, we should be told about it. Let us not have the kind of juggling whereby a merchant will say, "I had to bring this seed from America and it cost me so much a lb., and I shall have to charge such-and-such a price."

I would like to make some suggestions with regard to the price of milk. I think the shilling a gallon should rule from the 1st October instead of from 1st December. I think that would be fairer. December is a period when a lot of our cattle, so far as the creamery farmers are concerned, are practically dry, and the farmers get very little advantage when the shilling comes into force on the 1st December.

I think far too much money has been spent, and spent unwisely, on the improvement of live stock. When bulls are brought to certain centres to be examined, it seems to me that it does not matter what sort the animals are, so long as they are good beef beasts. I will never forget what a former Minister for Agriculture, the late Deputy Hogan, said, when discussing the Live Stock Improvement Act, which had been working for some years. He stated that white we had fine-looking young cattle, it would be difficult to get a good milch cow. That policy has unfortunately been carried on, and it has now brought us to this position, that there are few decent milch cows. If good milch cows are wanted people may buy Friesians, and for beef Herefords, but they must keep clear of the mongrels, because there is no such thing as a dual purposes cow. It is impossible to get a cow for both milk and beef purposes. Unfortunately the Department has been carrying on that policy for years.

Fianna Fáil has been working it.

That has been the policy and it leaves us in the present position. I should like to have some statement as to the milk yield of cows now compared with 1925, when this scheme for the improvement of live, stock was started. I agree with the statement of Deputy Hughes with regard to lime. I suggest to the Minister that as he is now giving out vouchers for artificial manures, value for 2/6, for the growing of wheat, these vouchers should be made available for lime. Farmers know that these vouchers are not going to be honoured during the period of the war. Vouchers given with each barrel of wheat would go, halfway towards providing a barrel of lime, and in that way a great deal could be done towards having lime used on land. The proposals in regard to wheat should be very carefully gone into. We should make up our minds about wheat having first claim on the land in order to feed the people. While we have to see that that is done, I say definitely that if the wheat growing is made sufficiently attractive for farmers there will be no difficulty about having it produced. Particular attention should be paid to land taken by men whom I might describe as "tillage ranchers", who are putting in oats instead of wheat because they will get more money for it. They can sell oats at £22 a ton, while for wheat they get £20. Farmers cannot be blamed if they do what pays best. That is what any business man would do. The price should be made more attractive. If it is, the growing of wheat should be made compulsory. In that way farmers will get a better return on every acre of wheat they grow, and there will be less growling. There should be definite insistence on having wheat grown where a large acreage of land is taken for tillage purposes. In portions of County Dublin and County Kildare I saw fine wheat land under oats, which was lying down rotting. I suggest that the growing of wheat should be compulsory in such places. That would be the easiest way to deal with the position, because the real question is the provision of food for the people.

I have listened with interest to the debate and, in my opinion, the principal question—the increase of the tillage acreage from 25 per cent. to 37 per cent.—has not been debated as it should have been. I come from an area where the percentage question never arose, because we always have from 40 to 50 per cent. of the arable land tilled there. The exceptions are rancher farmers, whose lands in many cases have been taken over by the Land Commission. If these lands were distributed amongst tenant farmers in my constituency I can assure the House there would be a much larger tillage quota there. Taking the area about Williamstown, it may surprise Deputies to learn that there are over 1,000 families there, the average valuation of the holdings being £4. The Land Commission has a farm on hands containing over 300 acres. If that land had been given to the people Deputies can realise what the results would have been in the way of tillage. There should not be any criticism on this question. It is one on which all Parties in the House should come together in one drive, and in God's name let us call it a food drive. Let us have the greatest drive of all—a food drive. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the taking over of these thousands of acres of virgin soil which are in the hands of the Land Commission and are lying idle. They are like the Promised Land, but so many thousands of people have been promised holdings on these lands that they could not be given a grave each, not to talk about the giving of additional land. Let the Minister take over these lands, send down his tractors to those areas and have a food drive. In that way, we shall get the necessary food for the people. There is no use in saying that the farmers are responsible. They are doing their best, so far as they are permitted. I want to make plain that we are not allowed to do what is required of us. We have not the necessary facilities for carrying out the work. The credit has not been made available to us. The prices are in no way attractive. You are compelling us to grow wheat—and I do not blame you—but, if wheat is the staff of life, surely it should give us as good a return in price as we get for oats and barley? Such is not the case. Do you expect people to stay on the land by offering a price of 55/- a barrel? Do you expect our workers to remain on the land at 35/- a week? I speak as a farmer and an agricultural worker, and I can tell you that such a state of affairs is only slavery. I recommend to the Wages Tribunal the consideration of the question of granting an increase to agricultural workers. Of course, the farmer must be put in a position to pay that increase.

As regards compulsory wheat, I suggest that the Minister should divide the country up into what I call tillage belts. Take the county from which Deputy Hughes comes. There, they can produce from 12 to 14 barrels of wheat per acre. The same applies to the county from which Deputy Corry comes. Take the county from which I come. This year, we are producing, in many cases, only two barrels to the acre. I think that the Minister should turn his attention to the areas which can produce from 12 to 16 barrels of wheat to the acre and get the wheat produced in that area. Let us assume that you produce 12 barrels of wheat in Wexford and two barrels in Galway. In that way, two acres of our arable land are used to produce about 14 barrels of wheat. Why not take two acres in Wexford and produce 24 barrels of wheat in those two acres instead of 14 barrels from two acres in Galway and Wexford? In my county, we can produce oats; let us do that in that area. Deputies will notice that the higher the requirements of the Compulsory Tillage Order go, the lower the percentage of food which is obtained. There must be some reason for that.

Potatoes were not mentioned here at all to-day. No doubt, Deputies are aware of the big decrease in acreage which took place last year, and I am sure the Government have got reports as to the state of the crop at present. There was a potato famine last year. I do not need to be a prophet to prophesy something worse in the coming year unless something is done to prevent it. We shall be thousands of tons of potatoes shorter than we were last year. I also wish to point out that flour is being used in many cases for the feeding of animals throughout the country. Do not try to get away from that fact. It is being used and you cannot prevent it being so used. I have not the slightest doubt that it would help the flour situation if you gave an extraction of 80 per cent. and allowed the remaining 20 per cent. to be used for animal feeding. I offer these suggestions in all sincerity. Until the Land Commission hand over to our people the lands which should have been handed over 20 years ago, we, in Connacht, cannot help you in this food situation. I appeal to you to do these things. If you do, you will find that our food position will be much better next year. If you omit to do them, the responsibility will be yours and not that of the farmers or the people on the land, because the Government are the people who are hindering us from producing food.

I think that it is my duty briefly to review some of the points which have been put before us to-day by the Minister for Agriculture He pointed out, in introducing his Estimate, that we required to substitute feeding stuffs to the extent of the 1,000,000 tons which we formerly imported. Formerly, we imported 500,000 tons of wheat and 500,000 tons of feeding stuffs. I am afraid that the Minister for Agriculture never faced up to the magnitude of the problem which confronted this nation in producing amounts equal to these enormous imports of pre-war days. He seems to have taken a light-hearted view of the situation and to have thought that approximately the equivalent of one ton of these imported feeding stuffs and food could be produced, to each additional acre of Irish land under cultivation. That was one of his first fundamental errors. We have to remember that those 500,000 tons of imported wheat in pre-war days were more highly concentrated and dried to a greater extent than any we could produce in this country. By no stretch of the imagination could we be expected to produce the equivalent of one ton of imported wheat per additional Irish acre under wheat. If we take into consideration the amount of seed that would be required to substitute these 500,000 tons of imported wheat, and that most of our imported foodstuffs in pre-war days were more highly concentrated than any cereal we could produce here—I refer to cotton and oil cakes—it is clear we would have to go into areas which had not been cultivated in the past. The equipment was not there to do that, nor have we the necessary artificial manures to carry on the production of this additional food.

We needed from the outset of the emergency, over 3,000,000 acres of tillage to ensure that our livestock and human population would be adequately provided for. Yet, our unfortunate Minister for Agriculture continued to muddle along in the view that, somehow or other, our huge imports before the war could be made good without any real organised effort on the part of the Department of Agriculture or the Government. We have seen what this muddling has brought us to. Inadequate supplies of food for human consumption have forced us to purchase ships, to use the limited shipping space we have for importing food which we could have produced here. We have been compelled to use this shipping, so urgently required for other purposes such, for example, as importing essential raw materials for industry, for the purpose of importing ordinary essential foodstuffs.

Where did the Minister and the Department of Agriculture fail to the greatest extent? They failed, first of all, because they did not realise the magnitude of the task which they had to undertake: that in more than doubling the acreage under tillage they were imposing upon the agricultural community a huge burden of capital expenditure. The average farmer, in order to double his tillage acreage, would, of necessity, require almost to double his equipment. The ordinary agricultural equipment that we had in pre-war days was never more than sufficient to deal with 1,500,000 acres of tillage, and, therefore, could not be expected to deal with over 3,000,000 acres of tillage.

In the early stages of the emergency, there was no effort made to get in here the utmost amount of essential agricultural machinery of every kind. We have noticed that last year it was possible to import over 100 reapers and 22 threshing mills. It is, perhaps, typical of the Minister's methods that the reapers required for the reaping of this season's harvest arrived after the harvest had been completed. The mills urgently required for threshing operations are only arriving now. I think some of them have not arrived yet. If it was possible to obtain this additional supply of agricultural machinery and equipment this year, there is no reason why it should not have been possible to acquire even greater supplies the year before, or during the first year or two of the emergency. The Taoiseach smiles at that. Perhaps it is easy for Ministers and people in the Government to pretend that they know everything, and have sources of information from which other people are debarred. The Minister for Supplies on a number of occasions has told us about the great dangers for this country which have been averted by the Government, but nobody outside the Government has ever been able to get from Ministers a definition of what these particular dangers were. It was a matter of urgent importance that every conceivable item of equipment for agriculture should have been imported. We have seen a belated effort being made now to make good that deficiency. It is the strongest possible indictment that could be made against the Government that they did not make more strenuous efforts in the early stages to get that equipment. It was absolutely necessary that the farmer should have the means to provide himself with that equipment, as well as to employ the additional labour needed to carry out this colossal increase in tillage. No real effort, however, was made by the Minister for Agriculture or the Government to provide the necessary credit facilities for farmers to enable them to carry out this huge expansion of output. There are still tens of thousands of farmers whose efforts in the direction of increased tillage and of increased production are being paralysed by the failure of the State to provide them with the necessary credit facilities.

Farmers' organisations in the early stages of the emergency urgently impressed on the Taoiseach that credit facilities were absolutely necessary if he was to get an expansion of output, but a deaf ear was turned to every appeal. The farmer was expected to double his productive effort without any reasonable attempt being made to facilitate and equip him. If a factory owner was asked by the State to double his output of a particular commodity the State would come forward—and in the past has done so in this country—to provide the necessary capital for the expansion of his plant and equipment. The State has always come forward also to guarantee that man against loss for a long term. That, I believe, is being done in Great Britain where private firms are called upon to produce war material of various kinds, and there was no reason why it should not have been done when the farmer here was called upon to produce for the benefit of the nation increased supplies of necessary foodstuffs.

After credit, the farmer requires an assurance, not for one year or two years, but for a long term, that he will get a decent return for his labour and a decent price for his produce. Yet the history of wheat growing in this country has been a history of cheeseparing and of haggling with the farmer in regard to price. Even still we have this attitude of simply adding one shilling or two shillings or three shillings each year as costs go up, and keeping all the time well behind the cost of production, because there is no doubt whatever that agricultural costs must tend to rise as the deficiency of agricultural equipment, the deficiency of labour and even the deficiency of good land, become more apparent as the years go on. If 50/- was a good price last year it does not follow that 55/- is a good price this year. I do not admit that 50/- per barrel for wheat was a good price last year. As a matter of fact, I was one of those who in this House demanded a price of 60/- last year, and I am happy to say that, in putting forward that demand, I was supported by the Labour Party who, no doubt, were well aware of the needs of the working population, but who realised, as I realised, and as, I think, every farmer at least realised, that there is no use in trying to keep down the price to the producer in an effort to save money for the State, if the saving of that money results in a shortage of an essential foodstuff.

If it is not too late, and I hold that it is not yet too late, the Minister should reconsider the price he has offered for wheat. He is expecting a great deal from the farmers and I think he is entitled to expect a good deal from them. The farmers realise their duty to the community. They realise that one of the first obligations of the land and of the owners of the land is to secure the maximum yearly output of all essential foodstuffs, and I think there is no doubt whatever that the farmers, if given a fair chance, will produce the maximum output; but there is no use in Ministers getting up in city hotels and taunting the farmer with his failure, deriding him and seeking to make him the arch-criminal in the serious position which the country is facing. It is, I think, criminally wrong for Ministers to seek to put the farmer in a false position, when we consider the failure of the Government to provide the farmer with the necessary equipment.

To-day we have another huge demand being made upon the farming community in respect of the increased acreage under tillage. I have spoken to farmers in regard to that increased demand, and I have found that the general feeling is that if the State requires this percentage of tillage, the State is entitled to demand and to secure it. It is a strange thing that while farmers have the name of being adept in the art of grousing and grumbling, we have never heard any really serious complaint by farmers against two of the most vital interferences with the farmer's liberty, that is, the fixing of minimum wages for the farmer and the fixing of a minimum acreage of tillage. The farmer is a reasonable citizen. He has realised that these two things are necessary in the public interest, and he has accepted them as a good citizen. The farmer is entitled to expect from the Government the same reasonable sense of citizenship.

Is there any sense of justice or good citizenship shown in the plans which have been laid before us in regard to the operation of the compulsory wheat-growing Order? We have a number of counties placed in different categories. I am quite prepared to accept the view that it is right to demand the percentages of wheat which are demanded by the tillage Order—one-tenth, one sixteenth, and one-twenty-fifth, according to the quality of the land—but are county boundaries any indication of the quality of the land? Are there not in every county belts of an entirely different type of land which vary to an enormous extent? There never was any sense or reason in using the county boundaries as boundaries for the areas within which a varying demand in regard to the wheat acreage should be made upon the farmer. If we were to take the rivers, the mountains, or some other natural feature of the landscape as boundaries, there might be some justification for it, but to take what are just political boundaries, or boundaries arising from past history, as a basis of differentiation between the different counties, is absurd.

I am one of those who accepted the view from the very first that, sooner or later, compulsory wheat-growing would be essential, if we were to get the wheat we require, but I always qualified that view, whenever I expressed it, by suggesting that if we were to compel the farmer to grow a certain acreage of wheat, we should also at the same time provide a tribunal to which the farmer could appeal, if his land was unsuitable for wheat-growing to that extent. My personal view in regard to this wheat requirement is that every farmer in the country should be compelled to grow wheat, but, in the case of most inferior land, the requirement should not exceed the area of one-twenty-fifth mentioned by the Minister.

I am prepared to take the fractions which the Minister has laid down, namely, that every farmer should be expected to grow at least one twenty-fifth, that is, to ensure that every farmer, no matter how inferior his land may be, would grow enough to provide at least for his own family. Then, on better land, we would insist upon one-sixteenth and, on the superior land, one-tenth. But, the county boundaries should not be accepted in deciding who is to grow the larger amount and who is to be allowed off with the smaller quantity. There should have been set up in each county an impartial tribunal to decide what farmers were to grow one-tenth, what farmers were to grow one-sixteenth and what farmers were to grow one-twentyfifth. That was the only way to solve the problem. As it is, we have the absurd position that a farmer who happens to reside in a county which is rated as first class must grow one-tenth even though his land is inferior. Even in the best counties, in County Louth, which is an exceptionally good tillage county, Kildare and Wexford, there are farms that are very inferior. It should have been possible to set up a body that would decide what obligations were to be imposed upon the farmer. It is silly and ridiculous to suggest that he should be required to do the impossible.

Even if we are to accept the county boundaries as our guide in enforcing this regulation, can anyone defend the classification of Wicklow County as a first-class tillage county? Anybody who knows County Wicklow knows that it has been described as the Garden of Ireland, but it has never been a vegetable or potato garden; it has been a mountain or rock garden. Nobody should know that better than the Minister for Agriculture, who resides there. The classification of Wicklow as a first-class tillage county discloses want of careful consideration and forethought on the part of the Minister. Deputy Hughes appears to take a very fraternal interest in County Wicklow, which is rather extraordinary when we remember how that county treated his Party in the last election. He even went as far as to indicate my own parish as one demanding special consideration.

I do not think Deputy Hughes should worry too much about my parish or my constituency. I am quite prepared to look after their particular interests. Wicklow, being a county in which we have more mountains and possibly more bogs and forests than any other county, is not one which should be classified as a first grade wheat-growing area. We all know that wheat does not do exceptionally well in a deep valley where the mountains shut out the light of the sun and where mists lie continually. We all know that wheat does not grow or yield particularly well on the side of a high mountain such as Lugnaquilla or Cadeen or any of the Wicklow mountains.

The Deputy does not suggest that even a Government inspector would suggest that that was arable?

Deputy Morrissey is possibly displaying his colossal ignorance of Wicklow.

A mountain is a mountain, whether it is in Wicklow or Tipperary.

We must remember that on the mountainsides of Wicklow there is land which is at a very high altitude but which is nevertheless arable. It may not always have been good tillage land, but may have been reclaimed in years gone by and converted into good tillage land. Any tillage inspector, if he is carrying out the law as it stands, must classify that land as arable land because it is capable of being tilled—I think that is the classification embodied in the tillage Order. Therefore, he must insist upon the owner of these lands putting one-tenth of his arable land under wheat. I think that ought to be clear to everyone, except Deputy Morrissev. Deputy Morrissey has been long enough in this House to know something about agriculture, but he does not seem to be capable of learning.

I shall certainly have much greater knowledge by the time the Deputy is finished.

He knows something about grain anyway.

It is very easy to know all about grain when you have not got to grow it, but merely take it in by the sack and reap the profit that can be secured on it. The unfortunate man who has to sow the grain, attend to it for seven or eight months and then reap it, is the only man who really knows all the facts about it, and he is not going to be dictated to by those who simply rean the profit.

I want to make it clear that it is not just or reasonable simply to try to drive the farmer by ill-considered compulsory Orders. The farmer will respond to prudent and wise leadership. We will not get all the essential foodstuffs from the land merely by imposing compulsory tillage Orders. To get our food requirements from the land it is essential that the farmer should be in a position to get the land into a proper state of fertility. No effort has been made to assist the farmer in that direction. The trend of Governmental policy and of prices has operated to drive the farmer out of winter feeding and the production of manure. Stall-feeding on farms has declined from year to year. The Minister must realise that if we are to keep the land in proper heart we must increase, not reduce, the amount of live stock fed on the farms during the winter months. If the Minister would consider providing for some definite increase in the price of cattle fed for the winter months or some inducement, whether in the nature of a bounty or a subsidy, to the stall-feeding of cattle, he would be doing more to secure a greater output from the land than by his ill-considered compulsory tillage Orders.

A belated effort has been made to assist, in another branch, the indoor feeding or house feeding of live stock; that is to say, to assist the dairying industry. The dairying industry and stall-feeding are very important in providing the necessary manure for the land. But, here again, we have evidence of the incompetency of the Minister and the unfairness of his methods of dealing with the different branches of the agricultural industry. We have a definite subsidy provided for the creamery areas, which is not in itself sufficient to make dairying an economic proposition even in these creamery areas. But we have the position at the same time that, while creamery butter is subsidised to that extent at any rate, the home-produced butter, which is almost as important as the creamery product, is being crushed out of existence by the restriction upon the price which the farmer can obtain for his produce. At present farmers are being prosecuted for endeavouring to secure an economic price for their butter. I quite agree that it is good policy and desirable to keep the cost of an essential foodstuff such as butter as low as possible. But, if you provide a subsidy for creamery butter, there is no reason why some means should not be adopted also to assist the home-producer of butter, because, if you drive him out of production, any increase that you may obtain in the production in the creamery areas will be counterbalanced by the decline in home-production. It is the failure of the Minister to look into the various aspects of the farming industry in the past which led him into the many calamities in which he has been involved.

The failure to realise the importance of the pig-rearing industry has resulted in a shortage of that essential foodstuff, bacon, in widespread unemployment in, the bacon-curing industry and in general disorganisation of this once valuable industry. For a number of years the Minister has been compelling, by rigid restrictions, the producers of pigs to work at a loss and the natural result of that has been to drive the producer out of production. There again, we have the result arising from that that we are not in a position to carry on cereal production and to keep up the output from our acreage under cereals, because we are not feeding the number of live stock on our farms which we should be feeding.

The mistake was made from the very outset of considering and regarding cereals as the only essential products which farmers were called upon to produce in the national interest. There has been a concentration upon cereals and a complete neglect of root crops and potatoes which are of equal importance and perhaps of greater importance in preserving the fertility of the land and freedom from weeds and also from diseases in cereal crops which are absolutely inevitable when you have not the correct rotation of crops on the land. I know that in many of the counties where old pastures, which had not been broken for years, have been broken up and where cereals have been concentrated on for a number of years, we have a position in which these lands are incapable of producing anything except weeds and thistles. I think the Minister certainly ought to be alarmed at the fact that on some of the most fertile lands in this country, which would probably still be fertile if they were put in proper condition, the farmers are afraid to sow a cereal crop because they will reap nothing but weeds and thistles. That is the direct result of growing cereal crops one year after another. A bigger effort should have been made to get down green crops of every possible kind. We know that rape has not been included in the tillage Orders. It certainly should have been included, because no crop is more important for preserving and improving land which had grown a cereal crop than a green crop such as rape, which is eaten down by animals on the land. That would have helped to clean the land and would have enabled the Minister to avoid some of the disasters in which he has involved himself and the country.

In Great Britain we know that there has been an expansion of the agricultural industry. I do not, however, entirely agree with those Deputies who accept as gospel everything they have heard in regard to this expansion. We know that people involved in war must of necessity seek to emphasise the amount of expansion they have secured in production. I know of people who have first-hand knowledge of conditions in Great Britain who have found many weaknesses in connection with the food situation and agricultural production over there. But in one thing at least they have been wise. They have concentrated to a very great extent on enlarging the acreage under potatoes and have been very successful in doing so. From the outset of the emergency they provided the farmer with a £10 per acre subsidy more or less to compel him by the attractiveness of the proposition to go in extensively for potato production, thereby producing an essential basic foodstuff for people and live stock and, at the same time, improving the condition of the land. I am told by people who have had experience of dealing with pastures that, if they had been as wise at the outset as they are now, they would have endeavoured to get down as much potatoes and green crops as possible on these lands when first broken up, instead of concentrating entirely upon cereals.

We have still no indication from the Minister that any real effort is being made to increase the acreage under potatoes. We had a very large decrease in the acreage last year and, at the same time, an alarming spread of disease in the crop. It should have the fullest attention of the Department in every county, so as to ensure that there will be disease-free seed for next year's crop on an enlarged scale as compared with this year. I have referred to the schemes in Britain and Northern Ireland to expand agricultural production.

There is a tendency in this country to compare the prices with those in Great Britain and to claim that we are getting as good a return as the British farmer. Most of the figures given in that connection are misleading. For example, we are told about the low price the British farmer gets for his wheat, but there is not the high percentage of wheat acreage required in Great Britain that is required here, and that is a very important consideration. A farmer, or a nation, can grow a small acreage of wheat at a comparatively lower price than they can a very large percentage, because when you try to get a large acreage you have to utilise land which is not of best quality. Where you are insisting upon a high proportion of land being put under wheat, you must get a higher price. Those who compare the prices never dwell on the fact that the farmer in Great Britain who grows wheat receives a subsidy of £3 per statute acre grown, and, if he sows on old lea, he receives £2 more, making £5 in all.

Also, the farmer in Great Britain may not get a big return for wheat. but he can make up for that in his barley acreage, as he gets almost double the price that the Irish farmer gets for barley. I think the price of barley is 56/- per barrel in Britain, as compared with 35/- here. If you balance the two crops, you find the British farmer at a great advantage. Then there is also the £10 subsidy for flax and various other forms of assistance which the British farmer receives, having regard to the fact that his milk and cattle and other produce command a much better price. In addition, the farmers of Great Britain are completely exempt from rates on agricultural land. Therefore, it is not right for the Minister to try to mislead the consuming public into the belief that the farmer is trying to hold them up to ransom and trying to obtain excessive prices for produce during this period of emergency.

We have only to consider the number of young farmers and farmers' sons who are endeavouring to get out of this country, under any and every pretext, to get across to Great Britain, to realise that there must be something essentially wrong in agriculture. If we had bolder planning in regard to agricultural expansion and development in the earlier stages of the war, if we had a Government prepared to put money into agricultural production as freely as Governments have been prepared to put money into war production in other countries, we would have no flight to Great Britain. The best of our young men would be here still producing food for our people, we would have ample supplies of bacon, butter and wheat, and also a surplus with which to bargain with other nations.

If we cannot use our external assets to import goods after the war, we must have a surplus in some particular branch of agriculture, and it must be a surplus which some other nation urgently requires. We cannot have that by following the present policy of grabbing from the land the last ounce of grain, without making a reasonable effort to maintain the live-stock population, without having the land properly fertilised and manured, and without having the proper rotation of crops so essential for the maximum production. A blind concentration upon cereals, without any real effort to develop the root crop and expand the area under potatoes and roots must inevitably lead to complete destruction of the live-stock industry generally. We see fields now absolutely barren, on which it is impossible to obtain any crop, as a result of the haphazard hand-to-mouth methods adopted from the very outset of the emergency.

The light-hearted, irresponsible attitude of Ministers, in disowning all responsibility and telling the public that farmers have failed and have let the country down, will do incalculable harm. There would not have been any shortage for human use of oats and potatoes, which were always grown mainly as live-stock foodstuffs, if there were any semblance of organisation of agriculture and distribution of supplies; but we have drifted from one blunder into another, and there is no intention to get away from that condition. The recent tillage Order is like something drafted at a few hours' notice, by someone rushing off to catch a train, or in too great a hurry to think out all the implications of that scheme. One typical suggestion was put forward by Deputy Corry, that we could put our entire acreage of manured land under wheat and make it compulsory to sow wheat on that entire acreage.

Now, it is not to be expected that farmers, particularly in the poorer districts, who have been growing potatoes and other root crops up to the present, should now sow that entire area under wheat. I believe that this problem cannot be solved by any of these slip-shod or cut-and-dried methods. It will have to be solved by proper methods, by keeping to voluntary aid, so far as is possible, by the setting up of local committees who will be aware of the potentialities of each particular county or district, and also by having an impartial tribunal to which the farmer can appeal with confidence. We cannot import artificial manures to any great extent; in fact, the Minister has forecast that we will have even less of these manures than we had last year. For that reason it is essential that we should make the fullest use of any fertilisers or stimulants for the land that we can provide in this country, and therefore lime should be developed to the fullest extent, and wherever limestone is available it should be burned in kilns or manufactured so that the lime would be available for the improvement of the land. I represent a constituency in which there is practically no limestone of any kind, and I want the Minister to direct his attention particularly to such large areas, because it is natural to expect that where there is no lime actually in the land you will not have limestone quarries or kilns to produce the lime. For that reason every facility should be given for the transport of lime to such areas.

We want to get from the land of this country the last ounce that the land is capable of producing, and you can only get that by offering the farmer a reasonable opportunity of producing. Even now, it is still possible for the Minister to amend the colossal mistakes that have been made in the past three or four years—to say nothing of the blunders that occurred during the pre-war years. It is still possible to provide increased finance for the farmer, if it were only for the purpose of enabling him to carry on his farm a larger number of stock, and especially to be in a position to grow a larger root crop next year, and thus be able to follow that, in later years, by a cereal crop. If the farmers now had within their reach decent credit facilities, they might be able to hold over stock on their farms and, thereby, utilise feeding-stuffs, such as grass, and so on, which they have on their farms, and be able to make some provision for the future. We must not labour under the impression, which the Minister seems to have laboured under from the very outset, that the present year is always the last year of the emergency. I think he should be rather inclined to the belief that the emergency is only beginning, and that there are seven, eight, nine or ten years of difficulty facing the agricultural industry in this country. He should be prepared for a long-term agricultural policy for all essential tillage products, and live-stock products also, so that the farmer could go forward with his planning and with an improvement of his methods of production, because when people condemn the farmer for his inefficiency they are indirectly condemning the Government, since no farmer could manage his farm efficiently so long as he is in the position that he does not know from year to year what price he is going to obtain for his produce in the following year, or even in the year after that. Agriculture is not a one-year occupation. It is not a short-term occupation. The farmer must plan five or six years in advance, and it ought not to be too much to ask the Department of Agriculture to plan in the same way. Of course, that is considered by the Minister to be too big a problem. Perhaps he feels that he has not got the necessary fixity of tenure in office to permit him to think further ahead than a month or two, but I feel that a long-term policy in regard to agriculture should be adopted.

Some other points were raised by the Minister which I should like to deal with. He referred to the fact that he intends to make the Agricultural Consultative Council a permanent institution: that he intends to alter its constitution in some way and make it a permanent institution; but I do not think that a consultative council, which is not really representative of all branches of agriculture, and to which those branches of agriculture do not elect representatives or have any control over them, is of any use to the Minister. A consultative council, which the Minister merely handpicks——

That is rather good, in view of the fact that I said that I was going to make it ex-officio.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would, the Minister explain that?

I pointed out that there would be representatives of each county committee of agriculture. Is that hand-picking?

Mr. Cosgrave

The chairman of each county committee?

Was the chairman of the county committee of agriculture in my part of the country invited to the meeting that you had a week ago?

No. I said that it was proposed to do so in future.

Of course, the Minister is aware that the chairmen of these committees are not elected: that they are merely hand-picked?

And the suggestion is that I should hand-pick them?

If you want to have a really good and representative body, it must be directly representative of the farmers.

Yes, and that is what I want to do, by selecting the chairmen and members of the county committees of agriculture.

Well, I differ from the Minister on that.

I know that very well. The Deputy differs from the Minister on most things.

In addition to that, I believe that the calling of that consultative council is not likely to give the Minister the necessary advice which he so urgently requires, unless such a body is directly representative of the farmers. I am quite sure that if this so-called consultative council were to advise the Minister for Agriculture to regard Wicklow as an entirely tillage county, classifying it as one of a number from which he expects to obtain 10 per cent. of the arable land under tillage, I think the sooner he gets rid of that advisory council the better. If he intends to set up another body on similar lines, it would be just as well to muddle along as he has been muddling along without them.

Would the Deputy suggest a council?

I suggest it should be directly elected by the farmers.

So it is.

The Minister does not seem to understand the meaning of "directly elected". The Minister thinks that a body is directly representative if it is picked at random from a number of organisations. Many of the organisations may possibly have a large membership but some of them have no membership at all. It is absolutely absurd to think that a body picked in that way is representative.

How would the Deputy do it?

I think in view of the fact that the Government is supposed to be setting up machinery for the election of a vocational Seanad that some of that machinery might be available for this purpose.

How would the Deputy have done it for the last four years?

The Minister said he was going to reform all this.

I had not the report of the commission then. How would I have done it in the last four years?

I did not say it was wrong four years ago.

Oh, yes, the Deputy said it was hand-picked.

I said that in setting up a permanent body it should not be hand-picked. I have explained to the Minister that a body which he wishes to have at his elbow to advise him should be elected by the people who are engaged in the industry, and the necessary machinery for that type of election can be easily provided, just as the nation in the Constitution has provided machinery for the election of this House.

Then every farmer should have a vote?

Certainly.

I see; I know now.

If we are going to have vocational councils, as we have been promised, then it is absolutely necessary that the people in the different vocations should be represented and that we should have registration of the different vocations. I want the Minister to realise where he made a fundamental error in the past. The fundamental error has been his failure to secure the necessary amount of production of food, not only for the human population but for live stock. His failure was due to the fact that in concentrating upon securing foodstuffs for the human population, he neglected to make the necessary provision for the live-stock population. The result was that by his neglect to provide foodstuffs for the live-stock population, he deprived himself of the power to provide the necessary foodstuffs for the human population. He killed the pig-raising industry. He forced down the live stock stall-feeding industry and in that way he deprived himself of a system of farming which would ensure the production of essential cereals.

Every farmer who carries on a farm successfully carries it on by a correct rotation of crops. The Minister blindly, foolishly and stupidly, broke that rotation and drove farmers into cereal production without giving them any encouragement or assistance to get into other branches of farming which are essential for cereal production. Thus we find it impossible to get from the land to-day the essential cereals which we so urgently require. Because of that failure, he has inflicted hardship on the farming community but even much greater hardship upon the consuming public. He has deprived them of very many essential foodstuffs, namely, the cereals which they require. The responsibility for all that rests upon his shoulders. He may have, perhaps, time to mend his policy, but we should like to see some indication that he is going to make some change in regard to his tillage policy. We should like to see him standing up and saying: "I propose to assist the production of root and green crops to the fullest extent." We should like to hear him say: "I am going to promote the production of potatoes in this country by ensuring that the necessary seed supplies will be available this year and by paying the farmer a subsidy of £10, or whatever subsidy may be necessary to get the crop increased." That would be some gesture in the direction of a sound agricultural policy.

In addition, we should like to see the Minister pressing strongly for extended credit facilities for farmers to enable them to purchase the equipment they require and to retain their live stock, that is those of them who have got live stock, or to enable them to purchase live stock if they have not got them. There is no doubt that there are many farmers in the country who have been tilling extensively and who have no live stock whatever. I think one of the arguments used by the Minister in the past in regard to the question of providing additional finances was that if the farmer had not the necessary finances to carry on tillage he could let his land and could get a good price for it. We see the result of letting land practically in all counties. The land is completely exhausted. As I pointed out, as the result of growing cereal crops without any farmyard manure, the land is being run into a state of weeds and dirt of every description, which makes it useless for the production of cereals or other crops.

If the Minister were prepared to go some distance in that direction there might be some hope for agriculture, but, so long as he relies upon his compulsory powers to take the farmer by the neck, as it were, and tell him that he must grow so many acres of wheat, that he must till so many acres of his holding and if he does not he will be thrown into prison or otherwise penalised—so long as we have that attitude, I do not see any hope for agriculture, and the sooner the Minister makes up his mind either to change his agricultural policy or get out of his present position, the better for the country.

For a number of years I have been convinced that the Minister for Agriculture knew less about agriculture than any other person in this House. Having listened for the last hour to Deputy Cogan, I owe the Minister an apology. Deputy Cogan was terribly concerned about this advisory committee. So am I terribly concerned—concerned that the Minister might take the Deputy's advice. Can anybody here picture the future of agriculture with the present Minister still as Minister and Deputy Cogan as Chairman of the Advisory Committee? Deputy Cogan tilted at me about my ignorance of practical agriculture. I listened to the Deputy for almost an hour and I doubt very much if it would be more distressing, even in this bad weather, to indulge in the dirtiest work that can be performed on a farm, pulling beet—I certainly do not believe that a day's work in such an occupation would be anything more distressing than listening to the speech we have listened to.

The Deputy criticised suggestions made to the Minister by other Deputies; they were not practical; they would not work out. The Deputy made a few brilliant ones himself. One of his brilliant suggestions was that before the Minister, made his Order about the compulsory growing of wheat he should have set up in every county an impartial tribunal to decide which farm should grow wheat and which farm should not grow wheat. Coming from Deputy Cogan, that is what I would call a sensible suggestion, but the Deputy did not tell us what sort of tribunal would be considered an impartial tribunal. Just imagine every farmer from the valleys and the fertile hillsides of County Wicklow appealing against having to grow wheat. The Deputy told us that they could not grow wheat in the rich valleys of Wicklow because the hills prevented the sun from shining on the valleys; and you could not grow wheat on the arable land on the hillsides of Wicklow because, I presume, the sun shines too long on the hillsides. If it does not shine in the valleys, I am sure it must shine on the hills. If the Minister would ever—I doubt if he ever does—pay attention to anything I may say——

Not so far, but maybe I will now.

——may I make a special appeal to him? Whatever steps he may be devising to get around this advisory council, let me appeal to him not to leave any loophole which might enable Deputy Cogan to get there, if the Deputy's wisdom and knowledge of agriculture are to be judged by his contribution to-night.

The subject I rose principally to talk on is one about which I am seriously alarmed, and the Minister has not done anything to reassure me on it—that is, our position with regard to seed wheat for the coming year. The Minister has taken the first step. He has made an Order that 37½ per cent. of all arable land has to be tilled. He has also made an Order that affects the greater part of the country, that one-tenth of the total arable land has to be put under wheat. I take it that means that in those areas where the one-tenth applies, roughly one-quarter of the tillage quota in those areas will be under wheat.

I want the Minister to repeat the statement he made at question time, that he is perfectly satisfied that out of this year's crop of wheat there will be ample supplies of seed available for the coming year. If that is the Minister's opinion, I may tell him it is not the opinion of the people who are handling seed at the moment and who have been handling it since the beginning of the harvest. The position is quite different. In my opinion, and I am not depending on my own knowledge of only a portion of the country —I have made it my business to contact seed assemblers in various areas and they have the same story to tell —there is far less wheat, in some cases 50, 60 and 70 per cent. less wheat, in the stores to-day suitable for seed purposes than there was this time 12 months. The reason is quite obvious to anybody who lives in the country and who has seen the crops beaten to the ground by the rain; it is obvious to anybody who has been bushelling wheat. I say deliberately, and I am giving the Minister timely notice, that he will not get 50 per cent. of the wheat which will be required for the additional acreage next year, wheat that will come up to the standard of germination laid down by his Department.

I am leaving the question of purity out altogether. The Minister says he is quite satisfied that the position is all right. Will he tell the House upon what evidence is he satisfied? What inspections have been made? What contacts, if any, has he had with the seed assemblers and what reports has he got from them? Is the Minister aware that the amount of winter wheat fit for seed is far lower—70 to 80 per cent. lower—than it was this time 12 months? Is he aware that our main winter seed wheat, "Queen Wilhelmina," is, the vast bulk of it, totally unfit for seed because, as the Minister ought to know, the bad weather affected it, over a great part of the South of Ireland anyway, at a critical time when it could not be cut? Being in a soft condition, it held water, became swollen, and there was a second growth in a great deal of it. I am sure the Minister must be aware of that.

It is one thing to issue an Emergency Order directing the farmer to till 37½ per cent. of his arable land and directing him to put one-tenth of it under wheat. That can be and will be done, and the inspectors will see that it is done. But what is the use of tilling that land and putting into it seed that is not going to give a crop? I suggest that on this Estimate, which is a very important Estimate, of the many matters touched on by the Minister and other speakers there is none so urgent or important as the question of seed. One of the points made by Deputy Cogan and other speakers touched on the exhaustion of the soil as a result of continual cropping. If into soil that is exhausted, or partially exhausted, soil out of which a good deal of the fertility has been taken, you have to put inferior seed, what sort of crop will you have next year? What is the use of insisting on farmers cultivating another 300,000 acres of wheat if you have not suitable seed to put into that 300,000 acres?

I say emphatically, from my own knowledge, and from the knowledge of men who have spent a lifetime in this business, and who know what they are talking about, that unless some extraordinary measures are taken there is not enough seed, measuring up to the Department's standard, for the acreage we had this year, much less for the acreage that we must have next year. That is the position I want the Minister to deal with. It is not fair to the House or to anybody else for the Minister in his airy way to say: "I am satisfied that the seed position is all right."

Surely the Deputy will expect me to say what I think.

It is not what the Minister thinks on this matter counts. What I want the Minister to do is to make a statement on the all-important question of seed for next year. I want that statement to be backed by facts. I say that the facts are not being ascertained for the Minister, and could not have been ascertained in the manner in which they were sought. I do not want to labour the point, but I speak forcibly on it, because I have seen wheat this year that would hardly run out of the threshing machines. I saw wheat put into sacks that could not be put on rail. It had to be put on lorries and rushed off to dry immediately. That is not exaggeration.

It may be quite true.

Of course it is true. Let us remember this, that it is known to people living in the country districts that at one period there were only four days between us and starvation, by the loss of the whole wheat crop. Every practical farmer in the south knows that. There are certain parts of the country where the crop came in earlier than others, but I am talking of tillage and corn-growing areas. The question is vital, because if seed is not available there will not be a crop. It is a question on which we want to be absolutely definite and certain, that the seed is there. If it is not there we want to take whatever steps we can to see that it will be there and that it will be up to the standard required by the Department. Every farmer is entitled to know that. Farmers who go to the trouble of breaking up land and seeding it are entitled, as far as the Minister and the Department can do so, to get out of that seed a maximum return.

I should like to hear whether the Minister has any information to give, or if he has been able to get any information from his advisers concerning the extraordinary difference in the yields of wheat in different counties. I am told that there are counties where the yield was down as much as 50 per cent. since last year. I saw where that was stated in Cork. In other counties I am told the yield was down by 20 and 25 per cent. Speaking for the county from which I come, and with which I am in close contact, I am glad to be able to say that the yield this year, if not better, was as good as it was last year. As a matter of fact the opinion of tillage farmers in North Tipperary is that if the harvest weather had been favourable, it would have been a record year as far as corn is concerned. Speaking of what I know, having regard to the very unfavourable harvest, the crop of wheat as a whole, and also barley, was far better than might have been expected.

There is another matter which is also very important and on which I should like to hear the Minister. I refer to agricultural statistics. We have been told that there was a reduction of something like 67,000 acres of wheat compared with last year. I should like to know how these figures were arrived at, what they are based on, and by whom they were got together, because from what I know of the methods by which agricultural statistics, particularly tillage statistics are collected, I have very little faith in them. There is another point to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention which was brought to my notice by a number of people, and that is the effect the increased acreage under tillage will have on dairying, with particular reference to milk supplies to our principal cities and towns. I am told by many persons engaged in the milk business, who are supplying cities and towns, and for whom there is no exemption, that with compulsory tilling of 37½ per cent. of their land, they will have to get rid of, if not all, some of their cows. If that is so it is going to create a very big problem, to have fresh milk for the cities and towns. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that aspect has been considered and, if so, whether the Department is satisfied that the milk position is quite safe, and that it is not necessary to make any exemption as far as these people are concerned.

Finally, may I say a few words about the Supplementary Estimate that is being taken in conjunction with the main Estimate for the Department, providing £24,000 for potatoes for Dublin? Deputies will remember that there was a scarcity of potatoes in Dublin, and they will also remember that the Minister told us that the position was all right, and that there would be an abundance of early potatoes available in the city in the first week in May. When I expressed astonishment at the statement the Minister was surprised. He may even now be surprised, but if he refers to the Official Debates of the House he will see what happened. However, we were presented with his Estimate in three parts to-day. I must say that I never thought there was so much money in potatoes until I heard that people were getting £25 an acre for them.

Deputies

£25 a ton.

The Deputy does not know anything about potatoes.

Mr. Morrissey

I am always prepared to learn, even from Deputy Cogan. There was a time when farmers would not get £25 a ton for potatoes. Two years ago the farmers of this country, in response to the first national appeal to grow potatoes, grew so many and had such a return that they could not dispose of them at 3d. a stone. Potatoes rotted in the pits throughout the country. Probably Deputy Cogan would not know anything about that.

How often did I mention it in this House?

Did the farmers get £25 an acre for potatoes that year? Now we find that we got £25 a ton for them. The Minister goes on to supply us with a gem: we have to pay a subsidy to people who did not even dig their potatoes, and they did not dig them because the new potatoes could not compete with the old potatoes that were on the market. Prior to that, because there were no old potatoes on the market, we had to add a subsidy of £9 to the £16 per ton to induce people to send potatoes, either early or late, to Dublin.

It was a different market, you see. That is the point.

But the same potatoes.

Yes, the same potatoes but a different market.

The Minister could not get 1942 potatoes in April or May of 1943, but he could get 1942 potatoes in June and July of 1943.

On a different market.

It does not matter. The potatoes were in this country and we spent a long time last March and last April on various occasions in this House telling the Minister that there were potatoes in this country; that in certain districts of this country there was a surplus of potatoes and that it was only a matter of arranging transport.

That is right.

Mr. Morrissey

And, of course, the whole £24,000 and the whole muddle are due to the fact that the Government never knew whether there were enough potatoes in Dublin or not until a fortnight after the queues were lined up outside the greengrocers' shops in this city. For that there is £24,000. Somebody got it.

Deputy Morrissey mentioned seed wheat. That is a most important matter. This year I had a quantity of very good wheat which I thought very suitable for seed. I brought it to McKenzie's in Dublin and they said it bushelled all right but was not a suitable size for seed. That wheat went to the Galway mills and it bushelled 60 lbs. to the bushel and I got the 50/-. A Dublin merchant refused that wheat. I had 192 barrels of it. If that is done all over the country, it is a very serious matter. I think the Minister should take note of it and get his inspectors to report as to the general situation. You have had the opinion of Deputy Morrissey from Tipperary, and you have my experience in Westmeath. If that is general, the farmers will now be sowing a lot of winter wheat which will not produce any results. In my opinion that is the real cause of the shortage of wheat in the country at the present time, because I think the acreage was grown but the wheat did not come on. As I have heard some tillage inspector saying, there are certain lands that are thought suitable for growing wheat but which are in fact unsuitable.

The Minister should take the trouble to see the results on one of the best farms in Westmeath, which was taken over by the Department of Agriculture. It will show him the results of this "lazy way", as it is called, of saying that one county can grow wheat and that another county cannot. If the Government want wheat for the people, they should get their inspectors—they have enough of them—to report on the different townlands and districts in the various counties. County Longford is excluded from growing a certain amount of wheat. I know that in Longford there is some bad land but there is also some of the best land in Ireland in that county. That shows bad organisation. It shows that this new Order is a lazy way of getting wheat and food for the people. Our past experience of this tillage drive is that the Government took the lazy and easy way all along. They made an Order that the farmer should till so much of his land but they never went to the trouble of seeing how it could be done or what part of the land could grow particular crops. They had the means at their disposal. They had an inspector in every parish. But they did not do that. They took the lazy way, saying: "Put 25 per cent. of your land under tillage; it does not matter what you grow." I do not want to quote the English Government but that Government realised that their people must be fed. What is the chief food of a people if starvation is facing them? Is it not potatoes? What did our Government do about potatoes? The farmers had an abundance of them. The Government never helped them to get rid of them, with the result that the following year the farmers grew less potatoes and a shortage of potatoes ensued. Potatoes as I have said, are the chief food of a people near starvation. If you had an abundance of potatoes that could be brought into every town and sold there at 2d. a stone, the people would not go hungry. It is the Government's business, no matter what it cost, to give the farmer something to grow potatoes so that when they had produced them they would not be at a loss for doing so. But the Government took the easy way in all this tillage drive. This new Order is the easy way—"We want more wheat; we want more food; till 37½ per cent. of your land." There is no forethought. We have a bad harvest this year. We had the best possible harvest that we ever had up to the middle of August. We had the equipment and everything ready and if the weather had been right we would have got the harvest saved. The weather went against us. Deputy Corry mentioned that oats lay down because wheat should have been grown in the places where it lay down. I do not think he has experience of that. The real light oats lay down. If the Government were alive to the position, they should have risen to the occasion and sent the military to help the people. They did that when it was too late.

Last spring at our meeting of the Committee of Agriculture, the Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures attended. We knew that last year in Westmeath acres of crops were not saved on account of shortage of labour. There was one poor farmer, out in the fields with a scythe trying to save ten to fifteen acres and he could not get a man. This year several farmers waited for binders. We asked the Minister would the Government make available squads of soldiers so that they could be brought in to help the farmers if needed. The Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures simply told us that he was not going to help the lazy farmers. That is the answer we got. I said no more about it because I saw that even the Minister of the Government did not want to be helpful to the farmers. In the beginning of the harvest this year we saw a notice in the local papers that the county council were releasing workers for harvesting operations. That was done all right. We also saw where it was stated that military could be got out to help the farmers. The farmer, however, had to make contact with the soldier, and three or four weeks elapsed before he got the soldier out to work. He saw why the Government let out the military. The opinion of the people in Westmeath is that they were let out because the Government had a big wheat crop to save in a farmer's place. It was let at public auction at round about £9 per acre. It shows how little the Government thought of the man who took the contract. He was a man of straw and saw that he could not save the crop. The Government then had to harvest it, and in order to do that they had to pull out the military. The farmers were then told that they could have the military. It was that sort of thing, I believe, that led to the shortage of food. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Barr
Roinn