Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 22 Oct 1943

Vol. 91 No. 8

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

Mr. Larkin

I desire to draw the Minister's attention to what occurred in the City of Dublin a few years ago when the cattle trade might have been destroyed. We all remember when the foot-and-mouth disease attacked this country. It was a member of my union, an ordinary semi-illiterate workman, who discovered the particular beast that was suffering from the disease. The cattle had been going up and down the quays five days, and the experts and veterinary officers never noticed that this animal was suffering from the disease. When the outbreak of the disease was notified, immediately everybody turned in to grapple with this fearful crisis that threatened the entire cattle trade. I and the members of my union practically lived in the abattoir where the cattle had to be slaughtered.

This is where I suggest the Minister failed on the administrative side. He appointed five of the biggest men in the cattle trade to handle all the cattle, but there was almost a revolution, by the people who owned the cattle, against control. Those five men brought the cattle to the abattoir. That was all they did. They had a very large sum of money at their disposal. They were given unlimited credit. The Minister knows that I and the men I represent lived in the abattoir. We were there for 24 hours of the day on seven days a week. When we approached these five men with a view to being paid a reasonable wage, as well as overtime rates for Sunday work and St. Patrick's Day, we were told by them that they had lost money and were losing money. These working-class men responded as patriots to the appeal made to them and decided to work the overtime as well as on Sundays and on St. Patrick's Day without anything extra. What did we find the other day? That the five gentlemen who held up that money handed back a surplus of £5,000 to the Minister. I suggest to the Minister that he has a duty to perform to the men who were engaged on that work, and should pay to them out of that £5,000 the money that is lawfully due to them.

We had an alleged potato shortage in the City of Dublin last year. One gentleman said that there were no queues for potatoes in this city. What are you to think of an intelligent human being wlio would come into a city and tell a deliberate lie reflecting on the honesty of the people? We know that there were queues composed of 100 persons in poor areas of the city standing there waiting to get even half a stone of potatoes. How did the Minister for Agriculture deal with that problem? He appointed a number of men to exercise control, one of them being a gentleman who had only been in the potato racket for less than 18 months. He had never been known in the potato market before. They were given power to control potatoes from the sources of supply. How did they do it? The early market gardeners in North County Dublin stripped the vines, took up the tubers and for these early potatoes they were enabled to get from £1 to 30/- a cwt.

I saw them in some shops charging 5/- a stone for potatoes. After a time, they found out that these gentlemen said there were no potatoes, while, in the City of Dublin, the 1942 crop was still lying in certain stores. Potatoes which are normally sold at 10d. to 1/- a stone were lying available, but these gentlemen could not put their hands on them. They went and got the potatoes which are generally shipped, and why they should be shipped at all when people want food I do not know.

One Deputy said that nothing less than £25 a ton would pay the growers of early potatoes. I wonder do Deputies ever work out figures for themselves? I grew potatoes in North County Dublin, in the area of Deputy P.J. Fogarty, who is now engaged in another occupation and reaping profits from the unsuspecting and susceptible, and I sold them at 5d. a stone, making a profit. I grew them from Tipperary bog seed, working a plot of 50 Irish acres myself and I made a profit. That cannot be challenged. While you have the system of dealing with food which we have in Dublin, when food is grown and brought into Dublin by low-paid labour, which works sometimes 20 hours in the 24, sold on the stall and while you are looking at it the price increases 400 per cent.—you bring in cabbages and sell them at 15/- a 1,000 and before you move away, they are being sold at £5—so long as you permit that kind of graft to be carried on all over the country there is no way for the farmer to get a fair return for his labour nor for the labourer to get payment for the hours he works. It is going on all over the country in the cattle trade, the corn trade and the potato trade.

I remember the Minister for Industry and Commerce being attacked here for buying potatoes for the alcohol factory near Dundalk at £2 per ton. It was said that he was giving a fair price and Deputies heard him saying that. Anybody who knows that area knows that it was a scheduled area at that time, but the potato grown in that area was the finest potato I ever ate, and yet it was sold at only £2 per ton. I remember these potatoes being shipped to England at £2 and £2 10s. 0d. per ton, but here we have a gentleman who gets £9 subsidy, plus £16 cash on the market, and now when we balance the books and find that he incurred a loss on shipping these early potatoes, we are going to make it good. Is there any man in the country or outside it who can get £25 a ton for potatoes who would not turn his activities solely to growing potatoes?

A Deputy made a very interesting speech here yesterday—what one could hear of it—and said that he would be satisfied in Westmeath with £10 per ton. I do not know whether he meant a subsidy of £10 plus the market price, but supposing he got £20 per ton or 2/6 per stone, would that pay him to grow potatoes? He would be a millionaire in a short time if he had sufficient acreage.

We have the same position with regard to bacon. A few weeks ago, before the Minister corrected his mistake and removed the grip which the Bacon Board had on the trade, I went to some of my colleagues and told them we could not get any bacon or any pork in Dublin. Yet the stuff was available. I asked: "Why do you not have the sense to lift this fixed price restriction? If it is to be a free market, let it be a free market for everybody and not one in which one crowd is at liberty to charge what they like, while the man who produces is limited to a particular price." The price was 125/- per cwt., while, in the same market, the black market gang were paying up to 160/-, before the inspector himself. While the Department's inspectors stood there, they were paying 160/- and 165/- and taking the pigs away from the fair, while the other gentlemen who wanted to pay were not allowed to do so. The Government removed the fixed price restriction and what did the price rise to? It rose to 180/- in one week. I wonder are pig producers making any money at 180/- per cwt?

It is said that there is no food for the pigs, but I suggest to the Minister that we could get any amount of feeding provided in and around Dublin. The Minister was astounded—and he will have to admit that he did not know that the information was available in statistics published by his own Department—when I told him the statistics regarding the swine population. I told him there were only 41,000 breeding sows in the country last year. I told him how many registered boars there were. It was information which he did not know and I have witnesses in the House who can prove it. Four years ago, we had 100,000 breeding sows and now we have 41,000. But, of course, we who have nothing to do with agriculture know nothing about these things.

Think of a country like Ireland with only 41,000 breeding sows and no feeding for them, when all around the City of Dublin you cannot find an exit because of the golf links. I will feed the pig population of the whole of Ireland on the barley I will produce in and around the City of Dublin. I understand that one of my colleagues suggested that we ought to have a municipal golf course. Some other gentleman told him how much it would cost and said that if he had the money, had paid his subscription and got his bag and clubs, he would possibly be blackballed. I would blackball everybody who has land lying idle in and about a city such as Dublin, which was held up to the point of starvation and in which little children were going without food last winter, when women had to stand with very little clothing in bitterly cold weather, to beg a half-stone of potatoes. But, of course, the Minister and his colleagues with their salaries, and I enjoying a similarly well-paid job—what do we care?

Hundreds of children died last winter, in my opinion, because of lack of proper food. It was not merely a matter of the potatoes; the same applied to milk. We could not get milk for children in the schools. One eminent amateur theologian told us that if we gave children a hot meal, we would endanger their immortal souls but his children were well-fed and he was well-fed, while the poor children in the schools developed all kinds of skin diseases—scrofula, dermatitis and scabies—because of lack of food and nutriment last winter, due to the greed and rapacity of these gentlemen who held us up charging all kinds of prices for milk, when it could be got. We were told there was a fixed price but you could get milk in the black market and not in any other. You could get all the potatoes you wanted, or at least the bourgeoisie of Ballsbridge could get all the potatoes they wanted. There was no difficulty about it. There was no difficulty. It was only in the working class districts that they had to queue for potatoes.

There was another astonishing thing in regard to the killing of pigs. I told the Minister of it and I said: "Why do not you carry out the law?" There is a number of men interned in the Curragh for thinking, never mind acting. But in the City of Dublin there was a man killing pigs in a tenement house. We gave the Minister the case of a gentleman—he has since been prosecuted—who actually killed 25 pigs in his own house in Dun Laoghaire in one week, while we have adequate slaughter houses and pork establishments. We had an abattoir lacking supplies of pigs, while these gentlemen were killing them in the cellars. There was a prosecution a year ago against one man, which failed on a technical point. That man was charging what he liked for the bacon. There is another feature of the case. Deputies who know how to make even country bacon know that there is not a more dangerous thing in the world than diseased pork It is a fearful thing. Badly cured pork that has been a day or two in hot weather would destroy a nation. I understand that the Minister admits that what we said to him is proof that even the best hotels had bacon that was not fit for human consumption.

The Minister has many sins to answer for in addition to those to which he has confessed. I believe he will get forgiveness because we realise his many difficulties but I would suggest that he should turn his attention to the things he has not done. I would suggest to him that when he gets men who know something about the subject, it would be well to take them into counsel. Deputies referred yesterday to advisory committees and consultative committees. I wonder do these Deputies know that an advisory committee is totally different from a consultative committee. There is no use consulting people if you do not take some advice from them. If their advice seems to be in the interests of the country, it should be taken no matter what their politics are and no matter what report is sent up from some little group alleged to be an organisation of Fianna Fáil or of the Labour Party or of Fine Gael. Do not mind that kind of thing. Half the letters written in the Dublin papers are either written in the office or by interested persons. When you are dealing with men who are engaged in day-to-day problems, try to appreciate them, whether they come from one Party or another. If we take that approach and try to get a common denominator, we can solve many of our difficulties. It is possible to work together, even in a stupid way, making, mistakes and correcting mistakes. Nobody ever lived who did not make mistakes. Even I do at times. Deputy Dillon does not make mistakes but, of course, he is an exceptional person. Even Deputy Dillon at times has a deep sense of responsibility, and I have heard him contributing some very useful information to this House. There are other men who have done the same.

Outside the House there are men who are deeply interested in this country. I never thought I would hear it said in this House that people do not work for patriotism in this country, that it is purely a business matter. There is a great deal of truth in that, but no people ever proved their patriotism as did the men and women of this country. Even during the past four years men have stood in the first line trenches in this country and have carried on the work against all kinds of moral suasions, financial stress, and every pressure that could be brought to bear upon them. Do you think the 160,000 men who have joined the British, armed forces did that for love of the British Empire? The men who left their homes to seek work in England did not do it for a joke, but because they were driven out by hard brutal hunger and the denial of a right to live in their own country. The 110,000 men and women who left this country to work for £4 a week in Birmingham, or Coventry, Norwich or any other town did not do that for a joke. The 60,000 merchant seamen of the Twenty-Six Counties who are going overseas and carrying the necessary foods and ammunition to keep the Empire safe and secure did not do that for a joke.

What attempt have we made to give them a chance to live at home? Examine your conscience. I would suggest that the Minister for Agriculture is the one man in the Government who could do most to prevent that loss of the vital blood of this nation. I suggest he ought to consult anybody who can give him ideas that will help to close the ports against that flow of the best blood of the nation. It is going on and it will continue to go on. I was in Norfolk a few weeks ago and men who have been working in the fields there for less than a week have now £21. I wonder how long a man would be in Carlow or the adjacent counties before he would have £21? Would he have it in a month or three months? Yet, surely they work just as hard in Carlow, Kilkenny, or any other county as they do in Norfolk. Do you think a man would be satisfied with a wage of 35/- or with a wage of 41/- in the County of Dublin? The fanners are very generous in Dublin. They are the most generous souls in the world. Paddy Belton is one of them. He gives away money. He even gives away his ideas. When we ask for sound boots for them we are told that it is not possible to get boots of the kind they require. They have to buy boots out of 35/- a week and feed a woman and five children.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce took some action in that respect. He allowed his friend, Woolfson, to import 215,000 pairs of discarded boots of the British Army. Disease is transmitted by the use of second-hand boots which have been worn by people suffering, possibly, from all sorts of disease. Any person or any Government that allows people to use second-hand boots is committing an offence against ordinary decency and humanity and is bringing disease, possibly, into this country. Remember, disease is coming into this country. There are 30,000 cases of scabies in the City of Dublin at the present time. If that is allowed to continue we, a clean-skin nation, will be destroyed. However, that is not the particular province of the Minister for Agriculture.

Is it fair that the Minister for Agriculture should allow this racket in the bacon and pork trade to continue? I can tell the House what the wages of these men are. It is a fixed wage in the bacon trade and a fixed wage in the pork trade. Does the Minister want to drive these skilled men out of the country? A man who can cure bacon is a man worthy of being retained. He is worth his wages. Do not drive them out. Within the last year 35 highly-skilled pork butchers have left Dublin alone. I would draw attention to the ineptitude of the Minister in enforcing the law. During the crisis created by the foot-and-mouth disease, we were killing 1,400 cattle a week in the abattoir. I hope that some day in Dublin, with the help of the Government, we will have a proper abattoir. The bulk of these cattle were for the canning trade. I do not want to go into the question of the canning trade now. In my time at school in England when we came out into the street there would be a sang outside who would shout: "Hit up these Irish." They would be waiting in hundreds to beat us up before we could get home. Incidentally I might mention that I saw a woman and her daughter stripped naked outside that school in Liverpool and their furniture burned in the street. There was a great deal of hatred throughout England for the Irish. Those who had to travel in England and Wales organising in connection with the trade union movement know that what they had principally to contend with was their Irish faces. They do not hate us any more in England. There is no more of that fanatical hatred of the Irish people, but there is what is even worse, contempt for them.

You could not get anybody to discuss anything in connection with these problems now. They do not bother with you any more. They look upon you as something outside the ordinary pale of humanity. That is the position we have brought ourselves into because we have not the ability to bargain. We give them the best food we can produce at their price, under their dictation. They treat you the same as they treated the plenipotentiaries who went over to meet Lloyd George and Bertie Smith and the rest of the gang who caused the fratricidal strife to start in this country. In the same way as you met them then and cowered before them you are cowering before them to-day. You have no need to be frightened of them. When you go into the ordinary market you have something to sell and to bargain with and you ought to insist on being treated with respect. The dago from the Argentine can get his price, or the individual from any other country. Surely we have men of ability in this country who know their subject who could go over and ask our friends across the water to give us a quid pro quo for what we provide them with.

To return to the abattoir business, as I say, 1,400 cattle per week were being killed for the canning trade. Do Deputies know that the bone matter in an ordinary old cow would weigh 3 or 4 or 5 cwts., and in a heavy bull it would run up to 8 or 9 cwts.? That bone matter will give the best fatty matter you could produce. That bone matter is cast aside and allowed to lie about until it rots. Then it is carted away to the manure merchant and the rats have three or four weeks' nibbling at the flesh on it before it is put into the bone mill to make bone manure. The Minister for Local Government on two occasions was approached by me on that matter and there were deputations of women interested in the poor who asked him to insist upon these bones being taken away and rendered down in order to get fatty matter from them. But the Minister did nothing. He would not allow these bones to be rendered down in order to get fatty matter which the people of Dublin wanted badly. Dripping in Dublin is 2/- a lb., when it can be got. Yet that is allowed to go on still. If any Deputy comes with me to the abattoir I can show him hundreds of lbs. of bone matter which is allowed to rot before it is taken away to the manure manufacturers.

The Minister for Agriculture has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Larkin

He has full power——

The Minister is not responsible for that. The Deputy can raise the matter on the Vote for the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Larkin

I suggest that the Department that deals with the food supplies coming from the abattoir is the Department of Agriculture. The Minister knows he has full power to deal with that matter. Although that is going on still, we are told that more butter is being used now than formerly because the people cannot get fatty matters. They are bound to use more butter if they cannot get fatty matters. The confectionery trade and the ordinary housekeeper would prefer to have dripping rather than butter for certain things. What about the hungry children in Dublin? These bones would make the best of broth for them.

I have already told the Deputy that the Minister for Agriculture is not responsible for that matter and that he can raise it on another occasion.

Mr. Larkin

These matters of administration are under the direction of the responsible Minister and, if he fails in his duty, then undoubtedly everybody in the community will suffer. There are other matters I should like to call attention to, but there is an immediate problem affecting nearly one-third of the population of the Twenty-Six Counties. After all, there are nearly 500,000 people in the City and County of Dublin who are worthy of consideration. I do not think that we are giving them any attention, but that we are lacking in respect, if we do not provide the means of living. We have not done so during the past three winters and a heavy burden has fallen on the citizens of Dublin. I suggest that the Minister—or the incoming Minister, as may arise soon—should turn his attention to this matter. The present Minister has never at any time lacked courtesy, he is one of the most courteous Ministers in the Government; but courtesy does not get you anywhere—action is what we want.

I see that one of the commitments here is the advancement of money under M (1), £24,000, which it is suggested might be borrowed. I wonder if the Minister has the audacity to insult the intelligence of the people by suggesting that the farmers who are borrowing money are going to be charged 4½ per cent. for it. Is there any farmer who is fool enough to pay 4½ per cent. when Great Britain is borrowing millions every day at 2 and 2½ per cent.? They can borrow all the money they want for the purpose of the destruction of life, with collaterals that are not sound, and where the sterling value is falling down in intrinsic value every day. It is a great gesture to give the farmer that, if he applies in a certain way for advances and shows what collateral he has to offer—and there is no better than the land, the soundest one man can offer to another—he has to pay 4½ per cent. I suggest the Minister look at what happened in Limerick when the loan was oversubscribed in 20 minutes. I suggest that the £108,000,000 of idle money in the banks of Ireland, earning nothing at all, and that the £300,000,000 frozen in Great Britain should be good enough to reduce the charges on these advances to 3 per cent. I believe that, if the Government put a loan of £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 on the market to-morrow for the purpose of getting a surplus fund to lend to farmers who need it for seed or plants, that loan would be subscribed within an hour. That is my last recommendation to the House, which I thank for having listened with attention.

There is very little left for me to say on this question. I am sure the, Minister has learned a lot from the debate during the past few days. I would like information, firstly, on the question of machinery. I have made representations to the Minister on several occasions for machinery that is urgently required in various parts of my own constituency, and I find that the machinery has been allocated already. I would like to know how he gives out that machinery, who qualifies for the permits for the purchase of it, or where it has gone. It has not gone to Roscommon, and it has not gone to Leix-Offaly. I would like to know where the 100 tractors, the 100 reapers and binders, and the 22 threshing mills have gone, if they were here at all.

Furthermore, I would like to state that I am in full agreement with the Government's compulsory wheat-growing policy. I know very well that the small farmer does not need compulsory-orders to grow wheat, he is growing it already and in various parts of the country more than the quota is being grown. But there are the big farmers who do not want to grow. Those men should be made grow it and I am glad to see that the Minister for Agriculture is making them grow it. In parts of Offaly, in Clareen near Birr, as I understand the Minister is already aware, there are certain landowners who will not till their quota. I would like to know if proceedings will be instituted against such farmers. Is the Minister aware that ten or 12 small cottiers living quite convenient to those lands last year could not get the grazing of their cattle or land to produce potatoes for themselves and their families for the present year?

There are many large farms throughout the country which could be put into production. The people are well prepared to work the land and produce food and those in the constituency I represent have played a noble part in the past in doing so and are prepared to do it again. There are fine big farms in some parts and if the Minister for Lands would divide them—now is the real time for land division—we could grow more food while the demand is there.

Deputy Killilea raised a point this morning in connection with the farm improvements scheme. It is the best scheme this Government ever put into operation. I know thousands of acres which were not arable and which are now producing the best crops. The Minister should consider giving 75 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. of the grant for those improvements, as it is one of the best schemes the Government has sponsored. Deputies like myself from rural Ireland realise the benefit this scheme has been to the farmers there.

In regard to lime kilns, Deputy Gorry, who is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and who is from the same parish as myself, knows that we have a fine lime kiln near the town of Mountmellick which is not in operation and is not producing any lime, although there is a large demand for lime in the district. It would be very wise of the Government to have some national scheme for the development of all lime kilns. The county committees of agriculture have not enough power, although I learn that in my own county the committee formulated a scheme for repairing kilns. The Minister should take up seriously the question of the repair of all kilns.

Deputy O'Donovan made a statement this morning in which he suggested that the women should go out on the land. Why have we let thousands of the best agricultural workers leave the country, and now that they are gone we want to get the women behind the ploughs and till the beet? The Deputy ought to be ashamed of himself, to expect women to work in the fields ploughing, when their place is at home. I know that the women have played a noble part in producing the food, and that there are women who work as hard as any man. I would not like to see this Government sponsor a system under which women would have to work the same as men. They could not be expected to do that. What is required is to put a stop to emigration immediately, even though it is too late now. Deputy Larkin made the only speech on agriculture that impressed me. We have seen the cream of Irish manhood being forced to emigrate and denied the right to live at home on their own land which was created by God for man's use and benefit. That is how they are being treated, not alone by the present Government but by the two native Governments. Deputy Dillon said yesterday that the Minister deserves all the criticism that he gets. I know the Minister deserves quite a lot of it, but we must remember that there is no use in talking about the past. The past is gone: what we want is a plan for the future. I could criticise the Minister for the next two hours, but it would not lead me anywhere. I am not concerned about what happened before I came into this House. I heard Deputy Cogan speak yesterday and also Deputy O'Donovan; and five years ago when sitting in the public gallery here, I heard the very same speeches. I hope the Minister will look on this question of agriculture very seriously as agriculture is the mother of the nation's wealth and all good comes from the land. Out of the land all our economic ills, including unemployment and emigration, can be solved.

The Agricultural Credit Corporation gives loans to farmers, but before doing so they try to find out the number of stock the farmer has and if he has any money in the bank which he could give as security. If the farmer had money in the bank and had the big stock that the Agricultural Credit Corporation requires, why should he be looking for a loan? There is no sense in asking farmers to pay such a high rate of interest when money can be produced at very low rates to be spent on the destruction of mankind and God's gifts to man.

Just before the war there was no money at all to satisfy the hunger of the thousands outside Hyde Park with labels on their breasts saying: "We want food" and "We want work". Where did the money come from in three weeks to finance the war? There is an important question which Deputies should think over: no money for peace, no finance to produce food, but plenty for war and the destruction of mankind. The farmers cannot produce unless they have money. I happened to interrupt Deputy Dillon yesterday and said that the farmers would have very little left if they paid their debts. I know that the farmer has very little from the time he puts his seed into the ground; he is watching and waiting until the crop is in the haggard to be threshed, and he is not satisfied until he gets his cheque and then it just comes in one door, passes the farmer's wife by and goes out the other door, and two or three months afterwards he is as poor as before. This happens year after year, and I think it should be completely changed. I would be very glad if the Minister would give consideration to the question of financing farmers—we all know that unless the farmers have capital they cannot produce—and the question of the high rate of interest they are paying at present.

In regard to the recent sugar strike, I have always favoured strikes and the men's demands for a just and rightful wage in accordance with the teachings of Pope Leo XIII. However, these men who went on strike in Mallow and other centres were getting £6, £7 and £8 per week, while there was nothing at all said about the poor agricultural labourer.

I suggest to the Deputy that that is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and not for the Minister for Agriculture.

I am just coming to the point of the wages of the agricultural workers. They are of no great importance at all in the eyes of the Government, while these men on strike at Mallow are the men to be satisfied. They may have had grievances, but the men who handle the beet are the farmer and his agricultural labourers, and they are the men who should have received the real consideration, if any.

The Minister told us yesterday in the House that he had no control over the Agricultural Wages Board, but he appointed these people and, I presume, he can dismiss them. At least, I understood that that was what the Minister said, but is not the Minister responsible for establishing that body, and is it not true that he can put that body out of existence? Therefore, I take it that the Minister can compel them to pay an adequate rate of wages to the agricultural labourers. Why, therefore, does he not go to the board and tell them to pay adequate wages, and also tell them if they refuse to do so he will dismiss the board? The Minister should take the necessary steps to see the workers get adequate wages with the least possible delay, whether it be £3 per week or whatever may be decided upon.

I am sorry that I have delayed the House on this particular question, as I had not expected to speak on this matter, but there is one question on which I am very keen, and that is the question of the supply of machinery, and I hope that the Minister will tell us where that machinery went, and how he gave it out. Another question that was raised by Deputy Larkin was the question of credit facilities for farmers. I think that the farmers are the principal people that should be given such facilities, and I hope that the Minister will do all he can to facilitate the farmers in this respect.

Listening to the speeches that were delivered here during the past couple of days, I formed the opinion that this business of blaming the land and the Minister for Agriculture for the present critical position is not correct. I live in an area where tillage is fairly extensive in one part of the county and where, in other parts of the county, there is not so much tillage; but still, in a considerable part of the county—the northern part—there was very little tillage in former years, and the land there was all in pasture. I must say, however, that everywhere I go, through most parts of the country, I find that there are good farmers and bad farmers, whether it be a matter of those who have knowledge of tillage or not. You will find good farmers and bad farmers in every area, and it is my experience that, whether the weather is bad or good, the good farmer will manage to save his harvest and will have fairly good yields from his crops, and his corn will go to the mills or merchants in good condition.

It is also remarkable, in every part of the country, that where you find a bad farmer he is always late, and, no matter what spell of fine weather may occur, his corn will be in a bad condition. If you ask any of the mill-owners who travel through the country about this, they will tell you that certain farmers always send in their corn in good condition to the mills, but that there are certain other farmers who will always send in the corn in bad condition.

Now, that condition of affairs always prevailed, and I do not know what the Minister for Agriculture can do about that. Of course, I realise that, with the increased amount of tillage that is now demanded of us, it is hard on certain farmers who had no previous experience of tillage, or perhaps no wish for it, and who are only carrying out the tillage policy because they are compelled to do so, but in the case of the bad farmer I do not know what the Minister for Agriculture or what any Government Department or Government policy can do to make that man better. We have heard suggestions here about the setting up of advisory agricultural committees in different areas, to advise the farmers as to what they have to do when there are bad yields of wheat. Well, that is a very hard thing to advise about. I know of one farmer who, within the last few years, had a yield of 20 barrels of wheat to the acre, and each of these barrels bushelled about 20 stone. Such farmers as the man I have mentioned have been growing good wheat and getting good yields every year, but their neighbours suggest that their own land is not suitable for the growing of wheat. I hold that that is not the fault of the land but of the farmers themselves, because land in one part of a county or district cannot be so very much different from land in another part of the same county or district. If one yield differs from another on a farm, I hold that that is not so much the fault of the land as of the farmer concerned. You will have one good crop in one year and, perhaps, a bad crop in another year, but that is a matter for the farmer himself.

In my opinion, the greatest wastage occurs on the large farms that have been set or let to people who were not proper farmers originally, or to speculators who take large areas of land, plough it up, put in wheat, and then use tractors over a considerable amount of land, in order to take what corn or wheat they can get out of the land, without bothering about conserving the fertility of the soil.

Again, when it comes to the time of harvesting, even if the crop has been successful, that man has not sufficient labour to enable him to save it. I have known of cases where the yield was only four or five barrels of wheat to the acre, and possibly less; and then that land gets the reputation of not being suitable for wheat, but I hold that that is due, not to the land, but to the farmers themselves. Deputy Fagan said here last night that the land in Westmeath is not suitable for the growing of wheat or corn at all, and that the Government should provide a subsidy to enable them to grow potatoes on that land. I do not agree with that at all. I say that the land there is not getting the attention that it should get. It is just ploughed up, and then the corn is put in, and very probably the failure in that case is due to the fact that the seed-bed was not properly prepared. In the last few years, I have seen large areas of similar land, which were not producing good crops, and I attribute that to the want of proper ploughing and the preparing of a proper seed-bed, as well as neglecting the land after the crop was sown. Land for wheat wants to be rolled and made very firm. In that connection, we hear a lot of talk about tractors, ploughs, and so on, but there is one farm implement which is of very great importance, in addition to the binder, the tractor and the plough, and that is the roller. We should not have to import these rollers, because we can produce them here at home. We have plenty of cement in the country and I would suggest to the Minister that he should ask his Department to provide a sufficient number of heavy concrete rollers, distribute them in the areas where this fresh land is being broken up, and advise the land owners to use the roller at the proper time in April and May, when the crop requires that attention.

I agree with those speakers who suggested that the agricultural worker or the small farmer has not the standard of living to which he is entitled. I have heard it stated frequently that agriculture is our most important industry but I always maintain that the agricultural worker and the small-working farmer—they are both agricultural workers and their interests I suppose are identical— have not a sufficiently high standard of living. As a result these people are inclined to get away from the land.

I am afraid that the raising of agricultural wages will not solve the problem because I notice that, whenever the agricultural worker gets an increase of wages in this country, all other classes of workers immediately adduce that as an argument to increase their wages. No matter what increase you give the agricultural worker, if a proportionate advance is immediately given to industrial and other workers, the position of the agricultural worker is in no way improved.

Pay them the same wages as the other men.

They should be paid the same as other men but the fact of the matter is that immediately the agricultural worker receives an advance in wages, other workers demand a proportionate increase with the result that the standard of living of the agricultural worker is still much below that of other workers. As a result the agricultural worker is inclined to leave the land. I think that there should be more men permanently employed on the land. I do not know exactly how it could be done but some inducement should be held out to these workers to remain on the land because there is more work on the land than merely driving a tractor, ploughing, and waiting for the harvest to be reaped. There is plenty of other work at which greater numbers could be permanently employed. We hear a lot of talk about the necessity for artificial manures and the difficulties which confront farmers due to the shortage of artificial manures. I quite realise the advantage of artificial manures and the handicap imposed on farmers in not having an adequate supply of them, but the Minister or the Government cannot be blamed for that now. They are not there, and we have got to get on without them. Thirty years ago I remember we had no relief schemes, no doles, no unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit for anybody and, when the harvest was over, every man had to look out for himself. The working man considered himself very fortunate if he could secure employment with the land-owner at cleaning field drains during the winter months. This work was mostly carried out on a contract basis. That was the way the rural workers carried themselves through that difficult period in the past.

Through the farm improvement schemes it is impossible for the farmers to get back to that position of affairs again. If these schemes were availed of to a greater extent and if men could be induced to work on them—it is very difficult to get them now; they are not available—manure could be accumulated from these drains. The droppings of cattle have been accumulating in them for the last 50 years and if these were put into a compost heap, with a mixture of lime, there would be an accumulation of stuff which would contribute greatly to maintain the fertility of the land.

I think the farmers and the people of the country generally must be got to realise that if we are to produce enough food, to make the country safe for the people and for our animal population, they must work and that they must get down to it themselves. I think the majority of the farmers realise that. There is no man looking for an easy time and if we are to succeed, every one must work to his full capacity. I know the majority of the farmers are not as pessimistic or as depressed as the speeches here would lead one to believe. They are cheerful, hard working, resourceful people, at least in my constituency. They have come up against difficulties and surmounted them and I do not think there is any room to blame the Minister or to blame Government policy for any hardships that may have arisen. We hear a lot of talk to the effect that the Minister made mistakes in the past but if the agricultural policy in operation in this country, which it was very difficult to operate during the last ten years owing to the opposition, were not so advanced as it had been, at the outbreak of war, our position would be very much worse to-day.

At the outset, I feel bound to congratulate Deputy Larkin on his very excellent speech and on the manner in which he brought many important points before the House. I think he is an advocate of the nationalisation of land or collective farming but before adopting such a system in this country, I think it would be well to give the farmer as a private individual a trial, to give him the necessary financial help to enable him to produce food. Food production being a paramount necessity in time of war, it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of agriculture. Farming is the life blood of this part of Eire and surrounded by war, in war or out of war, the farmer is the backbone of this nation. That being so, it would be well, no matter what Government is in power, that the farmer should be assisted in such a way as to enable him to maintain production 100 per cent. In what way are we going to assist the farmer to increase production? That is a question which the House is entitled to put me and the answer I give is that there is only one way it can be done, the proper way. That is by encouragement, certainly not by compulsion, or red tape.

The House is entitled to know what can be suggested in the place of compulsion. There is only one alternative, and that is by offering the farmer a price for his produce commensurate with his labour. This is a very important matter and Deputy Larkin emphasised this point—the exploitation of the farm labourers. They are slaves in every sense of the word in this country. There is no other suitable word that could be applied to the farm labourers. If the Government are prepared to give the necessary finance to enable the farmers to produce food, they should take immediate steps to see that the farmers give a reasonable wage to their labourers so that those labourers will have an equal chance to purchase some of the comforts of life side by side with their brothers in the industrial sphere. How can you otherwise expect labourers to work long hours on the land, even on Sundays? Some farmers have no hesitation in demanding the employment of their workers on Sundays. I doubt if some of them would even give their workers the privilege of attending their religious duties, if they could possibly prevent them doing so. I mean the big farmers with 100, 200 and 1,000 acres of land—farmers who have no respect for the ordinary human being. Until the Government enforce such conditions as I have referred to. it is fruitless to be talking about increasing food production.

It may be argued that if the farmer is given the necessary finance and assistance, such as machinery and fertilisers and stable or bag manure or whatever is required, he will not respond without some compulsion. To prove my argument, let me compare last year's beet crop with this year's. The farmers got an increase in the price of beet and a little encouragement by being given a certain allowance of sugar. What was the result? You have an increase of 50.4 per cent. in the beet crop. Could not similar conditions be applied to wheat, potatoes, and all the other crops necessary to provide food for the people? What is the position of wheat? There is a decrease of 11.8 per cent. How are we placed with regard to potatoes? There is a decrease of 4.8 per cent., notwithstanding the fact that we had a shortage of potatoes last year. How do we stand with regard to turnips? There was a decrease of 3.8 per cent. How do we stand with regard to poultry? There is a decrease there, too.

In regard to those very important items affecting the agricultural industry there has been a decline because there was no assistance given. The whole crux of the position is the lack of finance. Take that very important industry, the pig industry. The pig population declined by 16.9 per cent., and sows by 15.8 per cent. Surely the Minister cannot pride himself on that? Is it any wonder that we have to criticise or that the farmers are dissatisfied? It is no wonder that Labour Deputies are annoyed. They represent Dublin and the great industrial towns outside Dublin and they are worried as to whether the workers will have an adequate amount of food during the winter and until the next season's crop comes in. According to the returns so far available, I think the position will be even worse than last year. Some people may argue that the bigger the farm the more food we will have, and they talk of modern machinery and modern mechanism. I hold that a farm that is too large for one man to work is not equal, from the point of view of production, to the farm that a man on his own is capable of working. Let me take as an example a holding of 30 acres of arable land. A man with his family would be quite capable of looking after that type of holding. On the other hand, the man with 500 or 1,000 acres has to employ labour and to bring in tractors and other necessary implements and the whole farm, in fact, becomes a machine.

As I travelled up from Mayo to Dublin I could see large areas of land and there were more flowers than blades of corn. I think it was Deputy Killilea who said that the big farmer does not take the same interest in land cultivation as the small farmer. That must be admitted. I think the bullock is still in the big farmer's brain and it cannot be knocked out of it. If there is one thing the Government deserve credit for it is their insistence on tillage, and that should be the position, whether in peace or in war, because it is absolutely essential in this country. Never mind what Deputy Dillon may say about its being all a cod and sheer lunacy. We must have tillage irrespective of what Deputies on that side of the House may say.

There are Deputies and others who tell us that wheat production is going to destroy the fertility of the soil. That is pure humbug. Men of that type would prefer to mount a pony in the morning after breakfast and ride around to see how many sheep and cattle they have rather than go out to see how the land is cultivated. Now they have to do that, because if they do not cultivate the land they will starve side by side with the workers.

If the Government would only give the necessary finance, I feel sure that the farmers will do their share. If the farmer fails in his duty, that farmer, no matter who he may be, should be deprived of the right of ownership no matter what his standard of life may be, he should be deprived of it if he does not carry out his duty to the State. If the Government give him the financial assistance he requires, and he is not prepared to do his duty, he should be penalised. There are Deputies on the opposite benches who think it well to laugh. They imagine they are clever, and they tell us they know all about farming. If one goes back to the speeches made here some years ago, one can readily realise what those Deputies tried to preach. The fact of the matter is that if the Government had listened to them then, we would not have much food in the country to-day; we would not have any grain to start the wheat crop when the war broke out. Deputy Dillon knows as well as I do the position of small farmers in that part of Mayo.

I do, and all their antecedents.

There is need for the division of a large farm in my constituency, as in that way more arable land would be available for cultivation with wheat, beet and corn. At present small farmers have to pay from £6 to £10 for suitable arable land. I ask the Minister how he could expect small farmers to increase production if they have to pay that price for suitable land. I wrote to the Minister for Lands on several occasions concerning the division of land in Mayo, and I received the usual reply, that such work could not take place during the emergency. Yet the country needs food. I think it was Deputy O'Donovan who referred to the question of getting women to work on the land. Does the Deputy want the women to undertake slave work similar to that performed by agricultural labourers? My advice to the women is to keep away from such work.

The women did a great deal to save the harvest this year.

Thousands of women have to emigrate owing to economic necessity. No Deputy should have the audacity to suggest that women should be asked to undertake agricultural production. Anyone who makes such a suggestion should be ashamed of doing so while thousands of men are idle. Those who are emigrating should be kept at home and should be given a reasonable living wage, in accordance with the cost-of-living figures. We would then have everything we need, not only for human consumption but for animal consumption. I notice that there has been an allocation of £1,400 in the area I represent under the farm improvement scheme. As there are thousands of acres of land to be reclaimed that amount should be increased, and the Government should make blasting powder available for the removal of rocks. The day is gone when farmers are prepared to use spades on reclamation work. The Government deserve praise for introducing the farm improvement scheme, and I ask the Minister to make it permanent, so that it would continue after the emergency. I know farms of five or six acres that have been enlarged to 11 or 12 acres by being improved, and that are now producing potatoes, corn and beet. When enforcing the compulsory tillage Order I wonder if the Minister could see his way to have wheat grown in counties where the land and the climate are suitable, and where there is greater degree of sunshine than in the West. On the Atlantic seaboard there is much rain. The land there is not suitable for wheat, but is suitable for corn and potatoes.

I thought the Deputy told us that wheat could be grown there.

By farmers who have suitable land.

Of course your land is not suitable.

No. I am not suggesting that those who have suitable land should not be forced to grow the crop. If they refuse to do so no penalty would be too severe. While we can all find fault with the Government, perhaps if we were in the Minister's position we would make greater blunders. Perhaps if Deputy Dillon were in the Minister's position he would make greater blunders. The Government and the Minister may deserve some criticism for their policy.

I remind the Minister that farmers are not satisfied with the way things have been handled. The pig industry is a very important one. Farmers feel that some assistance should be given to them to secure an increased number of sows. Many farmers had to get rid of sows owing to lack of feeding-stuffs. Now that certain restrictions have been removed, and that the price of pigs has increased, farmers would be prepared to make sacrifices if they got assistance to secure sows at say half or quarter their value. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney referred to a disease that has appeared in corn in Mayo. The Minister should take immediate steps to provide a remedy. I think there will be a shortage of seed oats because a good deal of corn was destroyed by bad weather. That was not due to failure on the part of the farmers to do their work. They are an industrious class and they depend very much on tillage, but weather conditions were against them. As the Minister is aware, small tenant farmers are poor, and he might be able to make some arrangement with the county committee of agriculture whereby seed wheat would be provided for them. Farmers who want to avail of such a scheme should be able to get suitable seed. The corn is not fit for anything but crushing up and giving to pigs or cattle. It is not fit for seeds or oatmeal. The weather kept it down to the ground for weeks. We expect that the Minister will do his best for the farmers.

I am not an agricultural worker, but I have been in touch with matters connected with agriculture as a flour-mill worker, coming. from the constituency the Minister represents. We have heard a lot from the farmers on all sides of the House. I should like to learn from the Minister why we, in rural areas and provincial towns, have to pay 3/10 for flour while in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford and in Dun Laoghaire the price is only 3/6 per stone.

The question of the price of flour does not arise.

It is a very important question.

Many important questions would be irrelevant to this Vote.

I asked the Minister in the County Hall, Wexford, some months ago about stuff lying in the flour mills. We have heard a great deal about pig feeding. I told him of thousands of cwts, of offals from the flour mills which were waiting for a licence. They included meat meal. Before the general election, there were being put through a machine 2,000 cwts. of pig fattening meat belonging to the Waterford City Mill so as to send back the bags because there was a charge of 5/- a bag on them. Taking 10 per cent. of the pollard from the flour, this would mean one cwt. per hour for the 24 hours and, if that were given to the flour millers, we should not have Deputies saying that whole wheat was being fed to pigs. The Minister should consider these matters. In a certain place in County Wexford, a licence was given to a "co-op" while people in the industry for 30 years were denied a licence. I cannot understand why we, in provincial towns and rural areas, should have to pay more for our flour than is paid in the cities, while the wages are higher in the city mills. I live in one of the best agricultural counties in Ireland—Wexford. As representing the working classes, I can tell the farmers that there are many agricultural labourers at my house on Saturday night and Sunday inquiring for the address of the wages inspector. The agricultural workers are not getting the specified wages and some of them are afraid to complain lest they be victimised. It is all very well for the Minister to fix wages, but how many farm labourers are getting the wages? I should like to see machinery put into operation whereby farm workers would be assured of receiving their 36/- a week.

We have heard a good deal about tractors. Perhaps the people who talk about tractors would go to the villages and country areas and see the houses without light because of the paraffin oil which is given to tractors. Let the farmers get back to the horses and they will get better prices for their oats. The people who are growing oats are bringing in tractors to do away with labour. There are plenty of horses and ploughmen available. Agricultural workers are going to the home assistance officers and are being deprived of the dole during certain periods. I have called to the relieving officer on behalf of some people so as to get them a docket for a miserable 8/6 a week. The best of agricultural labourers cannot get a job because the farmers will not pay the minimum rate of wages.

Were it not for their trade unions, the industrial workers would not get paid the recognised rate of wages either. The agricultural wage is fixed by the Department but it is not carried out in practice. I do not say that all farmers are at fault or that they are all in a position to pay. Some small farmers are, like workmen, merely struggling, but others who could do so are not paying the appropriate rate of wages. A man who is living in his employer's house and who has five or six children is afraid to demand the proper rate of wages. His employer would, probably, tell him to get out and he would get no other job in the district because the farmers would think they would have to pay him the regulated rate of wages.

The Minister is a county man of my own and he knows as well as I do that many of the farmers are not paying the minimum rate of wages. Seeing that the farmers had a guaranteed price of 50/- for their wheat this year and will receive 55/- next year, I think the Minister should secure that the farm workers receive a harvest bonus. There will be great discontent if the farmer receives 55/- for his wheat and the labourer's wages remain unaltered. We have in Enniscorthy a factory opened by the Minister. What has happened there? The men are on a three-day week while pigs are being carried on petrol-driven vehicles past the factory to other firms. The employees of Buttle's Barley-Fed Bacon Factory are on a three-day week, while pigs are being carried 14 miles to another factory. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the position of the workers in our towns and rural areas and not leave them completely unprotected. Since I entered the House in July last I have heard Deputies speak about the price of oatmeal. We cannot afford, on our present wages, to buy oatmeal at 4/- a stone.

You will not get it at that price.

Some Deputy suggested that we should give porridge to our children, but how are we to do it when oatmeal is at that price? In my area on a Thursday or a Friday you will see some of the finest men in Ireland lined up waiting to get a miserable 14/- a week from the home assistance officer. How can they keep a family on that, and out of it pay a rent of 4/- a week to the urban council, or, if they are living in the country, a rent of 2/6. Thousands of workers have been appealing to me to get them passports to go to the other side. I have been to the offices in Merrion Square on several occasions, but, because they are agricultural workers, the passports will not be issued to them. In spite of what we hear about the seas, we have been getting into the flour mills of this country Manitoba wheat during the war.

One million barrels per annum.

That foreign wheat has been coming into our flour mills since the war began.

If we were not getting it, you would be grousing about it.

On the question of milk, the people in the rural areas who are on home assistance, cannot get milk because it does not come from a registered dairy. The farmers grew the beet last year because they were given four stone of sugar. I say to the Minister, give a 10 per cent. reduction in flour and you will get more wheat. Why should the farming community be favoured with four stone of sugar because they grew beet? I think that if they were given white flour they would grow more wheat. There is a lot of talk to-day about the emergency. As a representative of the workers in the County Wexford, I can say that they are in the emergency all right as regards the difficulty they have in securing the necessaries of life. The people I represent are starving. Because there is no control, the shopkeepers and traders are reaping the benefits of prevailing prices at the expense of the working class people. I appeal to the Minister, who is a County Wexford man, to see that those living in the rural areas and in provincial towns are put in a position to get flour as cheaply as those living in the big cities where wages are higher than they are in the country. Six months ago I asked him to do that in the County Hall in Wexford. I hope he will see his way to give effect to the suggestions I have made to him.

I have listened with great interest to this debate. I think it may very well be described as a debate of conversions, because I think I have never heard of so many conversions to the Fianna Fáil policy since I entered the House. Even Deputy Dillon has become a partial convert. Deputy O'Donovan told us that we should have had compulsory wheat-growing for years past, while Deputy Cafferky told the Minister that if he was in his job he would probably make more mistakes himself. I welcome these overtures. I think it is a very good sign for the farming community that Deputy O'Donovan should now realise that wheat can be grown here. We remember when the Deputy and his Party sat in solemn conclave and decided to oust wheat with bell, book and candle, saying that it was impossible to grow it here. Now the Deputy has seen the light, and agrees that wheat-growing will be an essential part of modern agricultural production here.

I also welcome the increased tillage Order. The Minister might have gone a bit further, because I think the wheat acreage should be increased progressively in accordance with the size of a farm. I do not say that for the reasons given by my colleague Deputy Beegan of Galway. There is something in the point that perhaps the land in Mayo and in the west may not be able to produce as much as the land in other areas. It is absurd, however, to suggest that we are only able to produce two barrels to the acre. About seven years ago, in Mayo, various tests on demonstration plots were carried out under the auspices of the county committee of agriculture. Speaking from memory, the lowest yield we got was 14 cwts. to the acre, whereas on my own farm I got over 20 cwts. per acre. I still think, of course, that there are certain parts of the country more suitable for wheat production than our land in the west. I am of opinion that the Minister should go a bit further and make the people in the midlands and in the south, who have excellent land, produce more wheat and, if necessary, more of other crops. As far as wheat growing is concerned I would be inclined to increase progressively the production of wheat in accordance with the size of the farm. There is another matter that the Minister may not have taken into consideration, and it is the question of the rotation of crops. The small farmer has much less room to rotate his crops and plan for succeeding years than the large farmer has.

Production in agriculture has been increased progressively over the last 150 years all over Europe as well as here. When I hear people here talk about the flight from the land they seem to me to fail to take into consideration the fact that one man in agricultural production to-day can, with modern machinery and modern methods, produce as much as 20 men could 50 years ago. I think our people are inclined to lose sight of that fact. It has been proved that there has been a progressive decline in the rural population of the whole of Europe over the last 150 years.

On that basis, I think it is absurd for our people to expect that, so far as agricultural production is concerned, one man will be able to keep nine or ten children on a farm of £5 valuation and keep them in comfort. I think we should realise that a minimum standard for our people, so far as the amount of land they have is concerned, is necessary to keep themselves and their families in comfort. On that point also I urge the Minister, particularly in relation to the postwar period, to endeavour to see that we have some machinery available so that we may increase agricultural production and be in a position to compete with any other country in Europe in the European market. We all know that one of the greatest difficulties our people suffer from is lack of machinery for increasing production. The other agricultural countries we have to compete with have much more machinery, even though some of them are about on a level with us in respect of small farms.

On the question of the large farm versus the small farm, I am a believer in the small farm. I believe that by having the land broken up and by having small farmers with economic holdings, you will achieve more agricultural production than you will through the large collective farm as advocated by Deputy Larkin and some other Deputies. I think there should be some way, particularly in the post-war period, whereby our farmers will have some means of getting machinery on hire or otherwise, and if the Minister made available through county committees of agriculture a certain amount of agricultural machinery which could be hired out to the local farmers to help them to increase production and to maintain their crops, it would be a step in the right direction.

I listened to some Deputy advocating that we should give a bounty of 5/- on bonhams and another Deputy urging a subsidy of some kind or other on sows. No later than three weeks ago, I purchased a pair of bonhams in Castlebar market at £10 10s., and a fortnight ago I noticed that the prevailing price in the market in Ballyhaunis was £12 per pair. Where could you get a greater inducement to people to go into pig production and to produce bonhams than that price? I do not think the farming community in Mayo are short of cash, and I do not think it necessary to make any finance available for them.

I am convinced that if these are the prevailing prices, the farmer who is not prepared to produce young pigs does not know what he wants, because so long and so far as I know farming, it is as good a price as we ever got for young pigs, and I cannot see how any case can be made for a subsidy on bonhams and sows. The market is there. The chief difficulty is, and has been for quite a long period now, the scarcity of feeding stuffs for the pig population. The question of feeding stuffs for the pig population and for other animals clashed with that of providing foodstuffs for our people, and that is the sum total of the explanation of the reduction in the pig population. We simply had not got enough stuff, but with the prices going now, I think the pig population will increase. I do not believe, however, that it will increase to a very great extent until our people produce more.

The Pigs Marketing Board has come in for quite a lot of criticism. There are a number of things about the board with which I never agreed, but I ask the Minister to keep in existence some nucleus of an organisation on the lines of that board for our people after the war, because if we are to go into competition with other people after the war, we must have something in the nature of that board. Post-war planning is one of the most difficult tasks imaginable, and I do not think the Minister can plan post-war, except in relation to the home market, in the matter of agriculture.

On a point of order. Is it permissible for Deputies to put their feet on the benches in front of them?

There is no rule against it.

When you are here a little longer, you will know how to behave yourself.

So far as post-war planning is concerned, I would say that the home market is the only real thing we have to plan for. It is the only real thing the Minister or the House can plan for, because planning for post-war agriculture in the matter of exports will depend on what the rest of the world is going to do and on what quotas we may be able to get on any outside market, and if we have to do in the post-war period as the Danes had to do some years ago, that is, reduce their pig population by some millions inside one year, and at the same time produce a specific type of bacon popular on a certain market, we must have the machinery to do it. The only way in which we can have that machinery is by having something in the nature of the Pigs Marketing Board, so that the type of bacon for which there is a demand on any of these foreign markets will be produced.

In connection with this matter of post-war planning, the question of transport is an aspect which I urge the Minister to consider. It is one thing which we in this country can plan for, and when we look around and see the possibilities of other countries in relation to transport in the post-war period—transport which will play a vital part in agriculture and the marketing of agricultural produce—we must realise that it is a matter which should be borne well in mind. All the countries which were our competitors on the British and other markets before the war—possibly they do not like it, but the fact remains—have aerodromes all along their coasts. The air arm has been developed, from a military point of view perhaps, and these airfields will undoubtedly be used for the development of a modern air force for the transportation of fresh agricultural produce to the nearest markets after the war. The time of the air force has come, and it will possibly develop to a greater extent in the immediate post-war period than any of us can see now.

The Minister should bear in mind that if we have to compete on foreign markets with whatever exportable surplus of any article we may have, and if we want to get that produce to the market in fresh condition in a very short time, we shall have to make some arrangements here in order to be in a position to jump into that market. Unless some steps are taken now, or in the very near future, towards the acquiring of certain airports in this country, it may well be impossible to get them after the war, because throughout the country the acquisition of land is going on at the moment and the Minister should take steps to see that, where there are airports in the country, they will be preserved and will be ready for use when we go into this modern market that I think will develop. I think there should be a centre in Connacht, a centre in the south and a centre in the north from which the total production of that particular section of the country could be distributed so that, in the post-war days of rapid transport and increased efficiency, we will be able to compete with the countries that, of necessity, during this war, have ready-made airports which can be converted into stations for the transportation of agricultural produce.

What foreign market has the Deputy in mind?

I had the Deputy's foreign market in mind. I have no doubt the Deputy will be there to receive us when the war is over.

What foreign market has the Deputy in mind?

I had one foreign market in mind—the British market—at the moment.

I thought you were thanking God that it was gone for ever.

Of course, in view of the stand the Deputy has taken in this business, the Deputy will be Minister for Foreign Affairs in England and may not allow our produce in. I have noticed this season in my constituency the seeds sprouting in the stocks. I believe there is grave danger so far as seed is concerned for the coming season. I would, therefore, urge that the best means should be taken, even to make it compulsory, if necessary. to have seed wheat, particularly, tested for the coming season. Otherwise I believe there will be a big amount of seed that will not be fertile. That is due, of course, to the terrible weather we have had and the conditions under which the crops had to be taken. I believe there is great danger in that respect. It is a matter that the Minister's Department should bear in mind.

I have heard it urged here that in order to increase production the lands in the hands of the Land Commission should be taken over, and I understand that Deputy Dillon, as he usually does, attacked the policy and brought up all those points of fixity of tenure and the shame of interfering with the large farms in this country.

He attacked grabbers and emergency men, of whose descendants we have a plethora in this country.

The Deputy's attack does not go back to the confiscations. I wonder does the Deputy attack those who originally grabbed the land. At all events, it is my opinion that it would increase agricultural production if more of the arable land of the country were taken over and divided amongst the tenant farmers in this country. I have no doubt that those people who have studied the progress of the colonies that were migrated from congested districts to the midlands—studied it, not through the eyes of the Irish Times, but impartially—are surprised to see how agricultural production can be increased and how well these people who came from mountainous districts have done. I can understand Deputy Dillon's attitude in opposing the resumption of any lands for the relief of congestion. I can understand his attitude in mocking the idea of those people going in to these small farms. But I cannot understand people in the Farmers' Party making the point that is made in a document that I have before me setting out their election programme.

Party literature of the election campaign might well be left out of this discussion. The election should be taken as definitely ended.

Very good, Sir, and quite a good thing, too, but I do respectfully suggest that it has been stated here by a Deputy of the Farmers' Party that they want the land in the hands of the Land Commission and other lands taken over, and that I am entitled, with respect, to comment on that. I say that one of the points in the Farmer Party's programme is that we must have fixity of tenure.

A very sound point.

Whether that point is sound or otherwise, as far as agricultural production is concerned, I do say it is absurd for the Farmers' Party, and for Deputy Cafferky in particular, coming from Mayo, to say that you must have fixity of tenure in order to increase agricultural production. I do say it is absurd for anybody to suggest on the one hand that you have to make the rancher so firm in his own ground that you are going to build a legal wall around him so that we cannot take his lands over and, on the other hand, that there must be fixity of tenure in order to increase agricultural production.

I referred to the tenant farmer.

A man may be tenant of 500 acres of land and be a tenant farmer.

That is the Deputy's interpretation.

That is the Deputy's definition in his own printed programme. If the people of the West of Ireland are going to see an end to their being up to their eyes in the bog holes of £30 valuation, if they are ever to get out to the country from which the people that Deputy Dillon now praises banished them, if they are ever to get back to their own, the sooner the Farmers' Party or any progressive Party in this country wipes out fixity of tenure, the better.

That is glorious doctrine —"wipe out fixity of tenure".

There is no hope of increasing agricultural production by the migration of tenant farmers from the West unless we kill and bury fixity of tenure.

The question of fixity of tenure arises on the Land Commission Vote; only incidentally here.

That is a most interesting pronouncement from Fianna Fáil.

The Deputy had a very fair innings in this debate.

As far as the division of land is concerned there was a comment made here by Deputy Cafferky. I am very glad that Deputy Cafferky has been converted to Fianna Fáil policy, and that all the things that were said about the "rotten Minister for Agriculture", and the "rotten farming policy" are now withdrawn. But, I do think that, before the Deputy mentioned the Brooklawn farm, he should have acquainted himself with the facts, because the Brooklawn farm has been actually taken over and there is actually a scheme in force for the division of that farm.

It only started the other day.

If the Deputy made inquiries before he referred to these things he would know what was happening.

I know they paid £5 per acre this year for it.

As far as the question of financing farmers is concerned, I have not noticed any demand from the western farming community for finance. As a matter of fact, I would say here, as I have said elsewhere, that the farmer who, for the last few years has been producing crops and getting the current prices, does not need financing. There are very few farmers that I know in my constituency who to-day require any State assistance as far as pig production or any other agricultural production is concerned. I do not see any great suffering through lack of subsidies in these matters. The Deputy who urges subsidies should know that the first man to benefit by any subsidies is not the small farmer that he is thinking about or that we represent here, but the large farmer or rancher, and that the small farmer will pay. The Deputy should know that quite well. I say that any small farmer in my constituency who is worth his salt does not need any subsidy for the production of bonhams which, to-day, are selling from 10 guineas to £12 per pair. As representing a community of small farmers I would strongly oppose——

I did not advocate a subsidy for bonhams, but for sows.

If the Deputy for Hyde Park would keep quiet——

The Deputy for Mayo.

I cannot continue while the Deputy is interrupting.

You should not refer to me in that way.

Mayo farmers who are worth their salt do not want State assistance for the production of bonhams or for sows at present prices. It may be that at a later stage we may have to consider whether we shall have to run farming as a subsidised industry or whether we should treat farmers as being in competition in ordinary business with the rest of the country. So far as farming is concerned, we all know that after the war the British will not pay £3 or £4 per acre for agricultural production. We all know that after the war other countries will not make the same sacrifice so far as payment to the farming community is concerned which they are prepared to make when they are up against it in time of war. We, in this House, will have to direct our energies to seeing that, in the post-war period, we shall have some type of planned agricultural production; that we shall endeavour to keep the maximum number of people on the land, at the same time remembering that the land will only support a certain number of people in comfort and that their standards of living will have to be reasonable standards. The Minister should have those things in view in considering the post-war agricultural policy.

I should, however, like to point out to the Minister that I am not at all satisfied that the inspectors who are dealing with the question of compulsory tillage are doing their job. I know that they have not been doing their job in my county. I know that in my county people are getting away with it and I believe that that is happening elsewhere also. I suggest that there should be somebody put in charge of these inspectors in each county who would see that these people do their job. Most of the tillage inspectors are drawn from the Land Commission and I would say: "Lord preserve us from the Congested Districts Board type of official who is out on this work at present." I say that he is still mildewed with the rust of the British Civil Service and that he is a bad type to have on the job. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he should have some check on these people, that there should be some way by which the people of the country will see that their neighbours do the job as well as they do it themselves.

I know that that happened in Mayo, and it may be happening in other places. I know that in my constituency we are not getting that work done fairly. If you have one man getting away with it, he is a bad example to his neighbours who will say that he is getting away with it owing to lack of inspection or for other reasons. There should be somebody put over these people to whom conscientious farmers could go with a genuine complaint so that every man would be made to till in accordance with the amount of arable land he had.

After three days' debate I am afraid the miracle has not yet happened. I waited on Wednesday and Thursday and for the best part of to-day to hear what the Minister and the House would be told as to what the solution of our agricultural problems really was. I was hoping that we would get some solution. I listened with the greatest interest to the leader and the deputy-leader of Clann na Talmhan and to Deputy O'Mahony, Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Cafferky. With the claims that they made at the opening of their speeches and their criticisms of other speakers from both sides of the House, whom they did not regard either as being farmers or interested in farming, I expected that from them at any rate we would get some indication of a plan for agriculture, some indication of what ought to be done for agriculture or some indication at least of the lines they would suggest the Minister should work upon. What did we get from them? From one after the other of them we got nothing but the same demand. If it were not a subsidy for potatoes, it was a subsidy for something else. If it were not an increased price for beet it was an increased price for something else. It is the simplest thing in the world for anyone in this House, representing any section of the community, representing labourers or farmers or professional men or shopkeepers, to make a popular speech appealing to the mentality of the section whom he claims to represent by saying that they should be paid more for their work, that they should get more for what they are producing, or more for the professional work they do.

What particular solution did Deputy O'Donnell or anybody else offer? Deputy O'Donnell said he would not consider it worth his while growing beet unless he gets £5 per ton. There is nothing in the world to prevent the Government giving £5 or £10 per ton for beet. So far as the effect ultimately on the community is concerned, you might as well make it £20 or even £50 and get shut of it. Deputies on the opposite benches say that they sympathise with the agricultural labourers. They say that they stand side by side with them. Deputy O'Donnell said they played football and hurling together. How much would Deputy Cogan pass on, of his £10 an acre subsidy for potatoes, to his agricultural labourer? Would he give him half of it? How much would Deputy O'Donnell pass on, of the extra £1 per ton for beet? This thing has gone beyond a joke. The people on those benches know as well as I do, and as well as any other honest member in this House, that there is not a demand from the working farmers for one-tenth of the things that are asked for here.

The average farmer who is working hard is not thinking, like Deputy Cogan, in terms of £10 per acre subsidy for potatoes. He is doing his job and will do it, and the worst day's work done for him is to preach in this House the policy of despair. Anyone from any other part of the world who listened to the representations of Clann na Talmhan would say that no one but a lunatic would be a farmer in Ireland if they are being robbed, at that price for wheat and beet, and if they must get £10 an acre subsidy for potatoes and everything else. Those Deputies are preaching a policy of despair, by telling the farmers that, during the war or during the post-war periods, agriculture cannot be carried on unless everything from milk to beet, wheat and potatoes must be subsidised. That is the policy of the Party that claims solely to represent the farmers. Is it their policy that agriculture cannot carry on unless milk, bacon, potatoes, beet and wheat are subsidised? If that is their policy, the quicker the people know it the better.

Much as I dislike Dr. Ryan and his policy, I have yet to learn that, in his wildest days, he ever preached such a policy of arrant despair. Does anyone seriously believe for a moment that subsidies to agriculture, on the lines suggested by Deputy Cogan and others, would be of the slightest benefit to the people or to the farmers themselves? The Deputies on those benches are the first to grumble when there is any question of inflation or when the price of an article of wearing apparel goes up. We heard a lot about that yesterday. Do they ever imagine that, when that spiral of inflation starts—no matter whether it starts from agricultural produce or anywhere else—it will ultimately react on themselves?

The Deputy has no cause to attack the other side.

I am not going around to say who my grandfather was, or whether he was 80 years of age. I am not interested in who played football and do not give a hoot whether the Tipperary farmers or the Cork farmers are the better, and it does not make the slightest difference here— though Deputy O'Donnell manfully admitted it—that though we may not be better farmers we are better hurlers. I listened to Deputy O'Donnell for 20 minutes. The only case he made was the case made by every other member of that Party who spoke, a case of despair, a case that food production would be increased out of all knowledge if the farmers were offered, say, £5 per ton for beet. Do they represent that as the mentality of the farmers? Do they honestly believe that the average working farmer is not doing his best to produce all he can? Do they honestly believe that there are so many farmers disloyal to their nationality and disloyal to the people? There are so many of them, apparently, that they are behind the ranks of the Farmers' Party. Are there so many that an increased price for any particular article will give an increased jump in production immediately? I doubt it very much, and I am quite satisfied that most of the members of this House doubt it as well. I doubt if there is any great number of farmers who are so lax in their duty to this State that they are not doing their best to give all the production possible and that they are looking for another sop every week on a different article in order to increase production.

The greatest slur that can be thrown on the agricultural community is that thrown from those benches by Deputy Cogan and others, that we will get more wheat and beet if the price is put up another bit. I am amazed that anyone who claims to represent any portion of the agricultural community would suggest that there are so many farmers not doing their duty that, if the price of any particular article were increased, the extra amount of production would make a big difference to our supplies at the moment. Deputy after Deputy has talked about the danger of starvation. Everyone admits that, in an emergency period such as this, there is always the danger of a tightening up that never would exist in normal times.

Deputy Donnellan, as reported in the Press, has said here that he warned the Minister that unless something was done the country was going to be short of many thousand tons of potatoes and that the situation would be worse than last year. Did he go to the trouble of listening to the figures given, as to the proportionate amount of potatoes produced here that goes for human consumption? Is it not perfectly obvious that, even if there were a greater drop than there happens to be at the particular moment, with any kind of proper arrangement for deliveries, the drop would not have the slightest effect on the supply of potatoes for human consumption? This year the exact statistical figures show that they are five times as many potatoes in tne country as are needed for human consumption. The Minister's job is to take good care that this year the potatoes will not be below in West Cork, where they are not wanted, but that they will be in Dublin, Cork, Wexford and other towns and cities where they are required. The Minister's job is, not to wait until the spring comes and potatoes are scarce, but to see that a survey is made to enable him to say, all through the season, that there are sufficient potatoes in such-and-such a district which can be sent to market in such-and-such a place.

What happened last year was due to a complete lack of planning and nothing else. There were large areas where you could give potatoes away for nothing, while people were short here in the City of Dublin. Those are horrible things to happen at any time and they are particularly bad during an emergency, as a panic may be caused, and the effect on the morale of the people is much worse then than in normal times. There is sufficient oatmeal and potatoes to supply our needs for the whole of the year and it is the Minister's duty to see that it is distributed to areas where it is needed. Deputy O'Leary mentioned that he could not get oatmeal at 4/- a stone. I do not think it has been at that price for a long time: 6/- is the price fixed for it. It is quite possible that it will be 10/-. The Minister took the ceiling off oats, and I have no doubt that the patriots who represent the farmers will, if the price of oats soars, switch next year from wheat to oats. They will come back to the Minister this time two years and say, "If you paid so much more for wheat, we would not have gone in for outs in 1944; it paid us better, and who can blame us?" Deputy O'Leary and the people he is speaking about, who are trying to live on 8/- a week home assistance, will probably be asked for 10/- for their oatmeal, rather than 6/-. It is not a question at all of the farmer getting a decent price for his produce. That is not the real kernel of the situation. No matter what Government may be in power in this country, nobody would object in the slightest to paying the farmer an adequate price for his produce, but there must be a limit to these things. In my business capacity, for instance, it would pay me if the farmers were to get £5 a ton for beet or £4 a barrel for wheat, or £4 a ton for oats, because the more the farmer would get, the more would come back to me, but there is one gap that everybody in this House, and even in this country, seems to overlook, and that is that when everybody looks for increased prices for produce and increased wages, something will have to be done to close the gap between the price given to the producer and that which is paid by the consumer.

I have heard a lot of talk here about the agricultural labourer, and I quite agree that he is a badly paid man, but may I point out this—and I am sure that quite a number of the farmer Deputies here will agree with me on this—that the agricultural labourer, possibly, is not the worst paid of the workers or labourers in this country?

Who, then, is?

I am only pointing out that there is another class of labourers who are in a much worse position than the agricultural labourers. Take, for instance, the case of people who are employed by local authorities, whose wages are fixed, and who are prevented by an Emergency Powers. Order from making an application for a cost-of-living bonus. Some of these people are only getting about 32/- a week. For instance, I think that I heard, in reply to a question asked by Deputy Spring yesterday, that some of the workers employed by the Kerry County Council were being paid at the rate of 5/4 a day. Now, many of these people may have to pay for a house. They may have to support a wife and a large family, but they have to exist on that wage, whereas the agricultural labourer may be housed free on the farm on which he is working, and also be in a position to get a ridge of potatoes, a quart or so of milk, or a bit of firewood, and so on, at a reasonable price.

Not all of them.

I know that, of course, but I want to compare the position of the man who has a fixed wage—a wage which cannot be raised, as a result of the present Emergency Orders—and who has to pay all these increased prices for every kind of produce with that of the agricultural labourer.

That man is on the dole.

He is not on the dole. He is an employee of the local authority, and everybody here in this House knows that. I am sure that Deputy O'Leary himself will have to admit that. In the case of county council workers, how are they to be paid?

Who opposed the proposition for an increase in wages for County Cork County Council labourers?

I shall give the Deputy an answer as to that. The Cork County Council last year passed a resolution, and, as far as I recollect, it was passed unanimously and supported by all Parties, suggesting an increase of, I think, 5/- a week for the road workers in the district, but they had no power to enforce that.

They could vote for it.

Yes, and, as I said, they did vote for it, and it was passed unanimously, but it was turned down with a bang by the Department of Local Government. I want the people who are making a poor mouth always, to realise the position of a man, with a wife and four or five children, who has to pay, perhaps, 6d. for a head of cabbage, 3/- a stone for potatoes, possibly, and several shillings for a couple of sods of turf, as compared with the agricultural labourer who, in addition to his wages and his housing accommodation, has also certain perquisites, in many cases, such as a ridge of potatoes, a supply of milk, vegetables, and so on.

Is it not the farmer who is paying for that?

Order, please. The Deputy must be allowed to continue his speech.

If Deputy O'Leary would shut up for about five minutes, I might be able to develop my argument. Apparently, the Deputy has not yet wakened up to the fact that he was trying to make a case a short while ago and that he was not able to make it.

The farmers have all they want.

The Deputy is not in order in making these continuous interruptions.

Perhaps I might be allowed to say that, so far as the Cork County Council was concerned, both the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil members voted against an increase in wages.

Do not bring the Cork County Council up here.

What I want to say is that both Parties voted against an increase in wages.

The Deputy should keep order.

It would not surprise me at all if that were so. My point is——

I think there is too much of Cork introduced here.

I think the Deputy is a Wexford man.

I never saw any difference.

All I want to point out is that that very mentality which, I am afraid, is the mentality into which even this Party is drifting, of opposing everything unless more money is going to be provided, will be disastrous for this country. If there is anything in this world which is going to make people opposed to applications for increases in wages or for increases in the prices of produce, it will be this business of people demanding 50/- now, and then, when they have got that 50/-, demanding £3 and, when they have got that, demanding £4 or £5. That is the sort of thing that the people concerned with local authorities have to deal with.

Mr. O'Leary rose.

Will Deputy O'Leary allow me to finish my speech?

Deputy O'Leary will have to cease interrupting. I have warned the Deputy twice already, and I will not do it again.

The point I wanted to make is that when you are relating the position of any particular person in the country at the moment to that of other sections of the community, it will have to be admitted by everybody that, outside of what one might term the upper middle classes, the general workers of this country, such as the small farmers the small shopkeepers in small country towns, and the workers in the cities, are far harder hit, as a result in the rise in the cost of living, than are the members of the agricultural community. Such people have not the same opportunity as the farm labourers of getting certain things, such as milk, potatoes, and so on, at a cheap rate, and I think that every Deputy in this House, representing every constituency in this country —whether he be a Labour Deputy or a Farmer Deputy, a Fine Gael Deputy or a Fianna Fáil Deputy—ought to look at these things from the national point of view, instead of looking for higher prices or higher wages, just because the people behind them are demanding higher prices or wages. I am quite satisfied that there are men in the Farmers' Party who, during this emergency, do not want to look for more than is absolutely necessary, and I am also quite sure that people on the Labour Benches, represented by such Deputies as Deputy O'Leary, do not want that either, but I suggest that if we are to go on with this kind of thing in this country, the result will be a war of class against class: one class looking for higher prices one day, and then demanding more on the next day, and then, when that demand is granted, asking for more. The result of all that kind of thing will be that the taxpayer will have to subsidise the production of these articles and the payment of higher prices and wages in order that such commodities can be sold to the consuming public at the prices which they can afford to pay for them. For instance, we are told that certain people want £5 a ton for beet. Now, I do not believe that there is an honest farmer in this country who is looking for £5 a ton for beet, and the first thing that these people would complain about would be the price of sugar. The people who are looking for £5 a ton for beet would complain about the corresponding increase in the price of sugar, and the next thing would be a demand for subsidising that article so that the ordinary consumers in the country would be able to pay for their sugar.

If we are to start this vicious circle of eternally asking for higher prices and higher wages, and for bonuses, bounties and so on, it means that we will be losing something that we had here before this country achieved its freedom, and that is that people in former times here were independent, were able to keep their heads high, and not beg from anybody; but if this nation is now to become a people —whether they be distributors, workers or farmers—who can only exist by being given subsidies, bounties or doles, during this emergency, then what can you expect from this country when the emergency is over?

What effort can you expect from the people who would be prepared to double production if they got a higher price, when there is no emergency? What will they do when the war is over? What help will they be to this country to get back into the markets of which we formerly had a big share? Will they be asking when the emergency is over for doles and for subsidies again? If they do, it will merely mean that the people of this country have been directed along a road which the people would never have travelled of their own accord. I am quite satisfied that 90 per cent. of the agricultural community are prepared to do their duty and that they are fairly satisfied—no one can be fully satisfied in this world—that they are not being badly treated at the moment. I do not believe that there is 1 per cent. who would look for £10 an acre subsidy for potatoes. Deputy Cogan in his speech referred to that matter and said that farmers in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland got £10 an acre subsidy and that they got a fixed price. He said a lot about agricultural labourers but he omitted one very significant fact worth mentioning. Did he tell the House what the minimum rate of agricultural wages was in Great Britain when he was looking for £10 an acre subsidy? Did be suggest that the minimum wage here should be £3, which I think is the lowest minimum regional figure in England? I asked Deputy Cogan if they got £10 an acre of a subsidy would they be prepared to pay the agricultural wage in operation in England at present?

Certainly.

£3 per week.

Now we are getting somewhere.

That was our intention in asking for it.

I am very glad to get that admission. I hope if the Minister for Agriculture ever thinks of giving a subsidy of £10 an acre for potatoes that he will make it a condition that Deputy Cogan and the people he represents will carry out that undertaking and that what Deputy Cogan says now may be later used in evidence against him.

Did I not say that the Government should take drastic action?

Deputy Cafferky said that the Government should take drastic action. I hold no brief for the Government, but every member of that Party, including Deputy Cafferky, said that the Government must take drastic action, that the country would starve if something were not done. His leader, Deputy Donnellan, said if something is not done we will be short of potatoes. Deputy Cafferky agreed that the farmers should be compelled to grow a certain acreage of wheat. Those Deputies remind me of the old lady who watched a squad of soldiers passing by and who remarked that every one of them was out of step except her Johnny. Every Deputy who favoured the compulsory growing of wheat said that his own constituency was not fit to grow wheat and that it should not be subjected to compulsion. Deputy Cafferky is very anxious to compel the people to grow wheat, but he thought that not alone Mayo, but the whole province of Connaught, should be exempt from that compulsion. A number of other Deputies who were very strong advocates of the compulsory growing of wheat think that the position of the country can only be safeguarded if other people are compelled to do something which their own constituents should not be compelled to do. That is typical of the mentality of Deputies opposite. "The country will be ruined if something is not done; the people will starve." What are they going to do? These are the people who came in here to tell us that we knew nothing about rural Ireland, that we had not the faintest conception of the problem of the people in rural Ireland or the faintest idea of how the people lived there. We want their leader, their deputy leader, Deputy O'Donnell, Deputy Cafferky and Deputy Mahony to tell us what they are going to do. So far they have merely said that something drastic must be done. I have been listening to this debate for three days, and I give you the answer that I would make to the points raised by these Deputies, that the less interference most of the farmers receive from people like you, who are putting silly notions into their heads, such as that they must get a subsidy of £10 an acre for potatoes, the better. Most of them do not want it and do not care a hoot about your ideas.

Deputy O'Donnell's speech was most interesting. With the exception of one other Deputy whose name I shall not mention, though most people can guess it, he was the most entertaining speaker we have had in this House for a long time. Very few Deputies commanded the attention of the House to the extent that he did. I do not want to criticise a new speaker unduly on one of his first speeches, but I say it was rather the manner of his speech than the substance that held the House. I do not make the claim that some people put forward, that I am the sole representative of the farmers. I know little or nothing at all about the subject, but I am waiting for the experts to tell me something about it. I have been here for three days and the experts have told me nothing. Listening to them an extraordinary thought flashed across my mind, that the people they criticised on the Labour Benches and on these benches, knew more about farming than I realised because whether their ideas or theories were right or wrong, the people who spoke from these benches and one or two Labour speakers said something at any rate. They did not just turn and say to the Government: "If you do not do something we shall all be destroyed." That is what the Clann is telling them. I imagined, after the bursts of oratory to which we were treated during the general election and from the attitude these people took up then, that now on the Agricultural Estimate, we would get from a body of people who claim to represent the agricultural industry, some plan, some solution for our ills. If our ills are as bad as they say they are, I imagined that they would have something to suggest to the Minister, that if they did not want to wipe out the Minister altogether, they would put him on the right road. As I say, after three days' debate we have got no suggestion from the Party as to the planning of our agricultural work during tlie emergency or in the post war period. We have got nothing from tlie Party except the suggestion of Deputy Cogan that a subsidy of £10 per acre should be paid.

Deputy Fagan in his speech mentioned that there were a number of prosecutions in Westmeath under the Noxious Weeds Act. There is one matter I want to bring to the Minister's notice in that connection. The greatest offender in that regard is the State itself and the people who should be prosecuted first of all are the county councils. They should be compelled to clean these weeds—ragwort, docks and thistles—from the sides of the road. There is very little use in a farmer cleaning his field if there is a ten-foot grass margin on each side of the road, on which weeds are allowed to flourish year after year. The county councils should be compelled, when they have men working on the roads, to clean these grass margins at the proper time. I am sure if the Minister suggested that to the county councils through the county committees of agriculture, it would be accepted as a very good idea and it could be done very simply.

The Minister for Local Government has charge of the roads.

But the Minister for Agriculture has charge of the weeds.

Only the weeds on the land.

That represents Deputy Linehan's constructive policy for agriculture.

Deputy Cogan need not be afraid—I am not quarter-way through yet.

We are waiting to hear the Deputy's constructive policy.

I quite agree that these notices are sent out; they are in the post offices and are pasted on the dead walls. But the point is that you want to get people to observe them. The first thing to do is to give the people a good example, and the local authorities ought to be the first to clear away the weeds.

I wish to raise an important point with reference to prosecutions. Sooner or later the Minister for Agriculture will have to wake up to the facts. I know his Department have been and we dealing with the situation. I say that it is utterly ridiculous to prosecute the farmers who are selling their milk to the creameries because of a slight deficiency in butter fats. The farmers are being paid for what they sell to the creameries and it is ridiculous to have these people brought into the District Courts. They are prosecuted under the Food and Drugs Act for selling an article to the prejudice of the purchaser. One could suggest that the creameries were only paying for what they were getting in butter fats. Actually the position is that hundreds of farmers are being prosecuted every year for supplying a certain article to the creameries. They are charged with selling it to the prejudice of the purchaser whereas there is no prejudice to the purchaser because the creamery only pays for what it gets.

A shortage of foodstuffs has had quite an effect on milk production—I am sure that is pretty obvious—and I think the Minister ought to notify the local authorities, who are the people who appoint food and drugs inspectors, that prosecutions ought not to be instituted against farmers for deficiencies in butter fat when supplying milk to creameries as distinct from supplying it to other places unless there is a question of adulteration, adding water. It is ridiculous to bring these people to court. The justices generally dismiss the cases under the Probation of Offenders Act, but the farmers have to pay expenses, amounting perhaps to 15/- or 16/-. I think that during the emergency these prosecutions should be dropped.

Deputy Cogan is anxious to know my constructive policy. I could, answer that very easily by saying that if the man who claims that his business, his manner of livelihood is agriculture, has not produced any constructive policy, not one iota of constructive policy, surely he will not blame an innocent man like me who does not claim to know everything about agriculture or solely to represent the agricultural community and who is trying to earn his living in his own way. If Deputy Cogan were in my position, I doubt if he would be a very constructive professional man if his attitude to my business was the same as is his attitude towards farming. The Deputy's attitude would probably be that unless his fees were increased by 33? per cent. he would not work. That seems to be his policy. I do not believe that most of the workers would take up that attitude. I am quite satisfied that they would not.

The Deputy wants to know my constructive policy for farming. Is it not obvious that the farmers have their own constructive policy; that during the emergency they are doing everything they can, in spite of the attempts of Deputies on the Farmers' Benches to convince them that they are being robbed? Is it not obvious that in the post-war period the farmers, having some little reserve behind them, will be quite capable of taking into their own hands the management of agricultural affairs? All they will expect from the Government is to see that it will deal with other Governments on an equal footing so that the Irish farmers will be allowed to compete on equal terms in any market. You will not get a market by telling people that the Irish farmer is ruined and that he cannot produce anything unless he gets this, that or the other type of assistance.

Is it the policy of those people opposite to convince the Irish farmer that during the emergency, when prices are substantially higher, he is being robbed unless he gets these subsidies? What policy do they hope to offer the farmers in the post-war period when inflation has passed and when the seven seas will again be open, when the farmer will not have the same demands at the same price for his produce? How do they hope to convince the agricultural community, facing that situation, that they can carry on?

Pigs at 21/- a cwt.

Deputy O'Donnell said something about pigs at 21/- a cwt. I do not want to criticise anyone unduly, but I will say that if everyone in this country, since pigs were 21/- a cwt., made the same type of speech as Deputy O'Donnell made last night, it would not add l/- to the price of the pig, but it might have wiped out the pig population altogether. The position is bad enough as it is. I do not agree with Deputy Harris that if we did not go into the wheat policy in 1932 this country would now be starving. Has anyone observed how quickly this country changed over to wheat production in the last war? It did not take 10 years to do that. People seem inclined to forget that.

The Minister has received a number of compliments. Everyone who spoke about pigs complimented him on wiping out the board and there were some interesting stories told, including one about a man who was able to buy yearling horses at a show and when he heard that the board was being abolished he declared that he would soon have to retire from racing. The Minister is possibly learning by his mistakes, and that is not a bad thing. I will give him this much credit, that he can change his mind as fast as any man I know. As regards sugar, when the first demand was made for four stones of sugar for the beet growers, the Minister said that he would not give it under any circumstances and that it would be a most unfair thing to do.

I am still against it.

And yet you are giving it?

The Government gave it.

Then I wronged the Minister entirely. I assumed the Minister had changed his mind, but I now see it was the Government changed his mind.

He should not give away Government secrets—that is not allowed.

I quite agree with Deputy Cogan about one thing and that is that he does not like the Minister's idea of having the new consultative council composed of the chairmen of the various county committees of agriculture. If the Minister had any sense he would not be bothered with a lot of them and I will tell him why. This will show how quickly some of these people can change their minds —almost as fast as the Minister has had his changed. The Minister will recollect that for ten years there was a county committee of agriculture in Cork. That committee met on Saturdays and every Sunday when one opened the Sunday Independent one could observe the headline: “Cork County Committee of Agriculture— Minister for Agriculture Attacked.” The attack might have reference to pigs, poultry, eggs or something of that sort. For ten years the members of the Cork County Committee, some of whom the Minister knows, were out for his blood and it seemed that if ever they got a hold of him they would practically lynch him. What happened? After a long time they succeeded in inducing the Minister to go down to Cork to discuss the agricultural problems of Cork County with the committee. What happened when he went there? They did not say a word to the decent man. They spent the whole day proposing votes of thanks to him. Will anyone tell me that that type of person is going to be a valuable member of a consultative council? I leave that to you.

I should like to impress on the Minister the importance of protecting the dairying industry when enforcing the compulsory tillage Order. The loss of one cow would be a loss not only to the owner but to the public health of the community. Apart from the effect on imports and exports there would be the loss of skim milk, which would go into the production of bacon, and farmyard manure, which is now very much needed to increase the fertility of the soil. It is the well-manured ground that produces the greatest quantity and the best quality crops. For these reasons when enforcing the new tillage Order, due consideration should be given to the importance of the dairying industry, because it is the bedrock of our agricultural economy. A question that affects farmers, and that has not been sufficiently stressed, is the importance of seed germination. From my experience as a farmer and a threshing machine owner, taking into consideration the very bad weather that prevailed during the harvest, the wheat crop generally was good. It was exceptionally good for milling purposes. I admit that during the threshing season I came across a few exceptionally bad lots, in haggards, that were not fit for milling. There was certainly a very great mixture of different varieties. As there is a danger that there may be a shortage of seed next season it would be well if the Minister took steps now to see that the different varieties are secured. Inspectors from the Department could control distribution if they went to the different merchants to see that every care was taken of the seed for next spring sowing. I suggest that the Minister and Deputies should advise farmers who are in a position to procure seeds to do so as early as possible as in that way valuable space would be available for stocks that could be held by the seedsmen and seed could be tested for its germinating qualities. The general opinion last year was that the germination was about 80 per cent. When we take into consideration that 700,000 acres of wheat are to be grown next year, the loss of, say, 100,000 barrels of wheat, owing to low germination, means that less food would be available. The Minister for Agriculture is not responsible for the weather or for the low germination of seed, and I suggest accordingly that inspectors should proceed immediately to see that proper precautions are taken by seedsmen.

I asked the Minister yesterday whether any seeds would be imported this season. If we could exchange a cargo of milling wheat with people across the Channel who have seeds with high germinating qualities, it would be an advantage. If two or three cargoes of such seeds could be secured, they should be allocated to certain areas. Land that has been growing crops for a number of years will not give as good return as manured land. If seed is imported it should be under the control of the agricultural instructor in whatever county it is own. A certain amount of damage is done to seed wheat, even under the best conditions, during the threshing season. It is a common practice for farmers to handle the crop just before it is ripe, to rush it into haggards, and to chase around the country to have it threshed. Under such conditions, when corn is rushed into haggards, the machines must be set to a certain position in order to extract the wheat from the straw, and a certain amount of damage results. It is better to hold over wheat in the straw for a period, as that increases the germination of the seed. If seed under the control of agricultural instructors is kept in haggards, an advance might be given to farmers to enable them to carry on until it is threshed. In that way seed of good germinating quality would be made available. Steps should be taken now to ensure that seed that stood a high germination test will be available for the coming season.

It was alleged by some speakers that the farm workers were slaves to the bigger farmers. I am a fairly big farmer myself, if a farm of 140 or 150 acres can be accounted big. I have always paid my labourers well, and treated them well. I sported with them when occasion arose, and I cannot see how the labourer is a slave to the big farmer. I admit that the labourer is badly paid. From all over the country there are words of praise for the farm labourer, but that is not sufficient compensation. As Deputy Norton said yesterday, the farm labourers stood in the front-line trenches. So did the farmers, and by their work, which did not exclude Sunday or holiday, they saved the food of the people. Rural workers should get some consideration. I did not hear any specific sum mentioned, but I think that their wages should be brought up to £2 5/-, plus a bonus. A bonus is, without doubt, a great encouragement to the rural worker. If the worker received decent wages, plus a bonus, there would be co-operation between farmers, workers and the Government, and I have no doubt that we, farmers, would produce the wheat necessary to save the nation, as we did before.

Mr. Byrne

I wish to bring the House back to the days of our bread queues in the City of Dublin and, later, to our potato queues and, in a lesser degree, the queues looking for flake meal that could not be got. Those are three essentials so far as our people are concerned and, if there is a scarcity of any one of them, grave hardship is bound to be inflicted. There is a class of person in Dublin City who does not know the taste of meat from Sunday to Sunday. They live on bread and tea from week-end to week-end, unless potatoes are available very cheaply. Deputies can well imagine how well watered the allowance of tea they get must be. When that tea is taken with bread, without fats. Deputies can readily understand how there is a considerable outbreak of rickets and scabies in the city amongst the people suffering these deprivations. The medical authorities attest to that. I implore the Minister to make certain that there will be no scarcity of potatoes. It is true that there is rationing of butter. The people for whom I speak are not able to buy butter at the present price. At the sky-high price at which meat is to-day, they are not able to buy meat. I ask the Minister to recommend to his colleague that a plentiful supply of rice be made available.

That does not arise.

Mr. Byrne

When there was a scarcity of potatoes, it was fortunate that some business people had secured a substantial supply of rice. Rice was used for over a week at the penny-dinner service and at free dinners as a substitute for the potatoes which were not available. That is why I ask the Minister, in the event of a scarcity of potatoes, to see that his colleague will give shipping space to bring in rice.

The Deputy must confine his remarks to the administration of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Byrne

I shall not deal further with that point. Flakemeal is scarce and dear. Bread is fairly plentiful but the fats necessary to the health of the people are not available. If the Minister can do anything in that direction, we shall be grateful. The reason I emphasise this point is that on the 12th March, 1941, the Minister was asked if he would have an intensive drive for the growing of potatoes. He said he would, that every possible step was being taken and would continue to be taken.

Since he made that promise and since there is a danger of scarcity now, it will do no harm to emphasise these points and ask him to see that there will be an intensive drive for the growing of potatoes, and that we shall not be in the unhappy position of seeing queues of from 100 to 300 persons for foodstuffs as we saw in Summerhill early this year. In March, we saw queues waiting for potatoes. When a sack or two arrived, the shopkeeper went down the queue and handed out three or four potatoes to each person. Then, he came back and started at the top again, until his supply was exhausted.

As I have said, there is a great scarcity of fats which has resulted in a serious outbreak of rickets in the city. We have read in the paper that barley is to find its way into our bread. I wonder if it would not be possible to ask another country to give us wheat in exchange for the barley which may go into other products and be exported. Britain gave us wheat before in exchange for the barley that went into Guinness's brewery. That helped to keep Guinness's men reasonably employed. If there was closer contact with the Food Controller in Britain and if our Minister met that gentleman more regularly—if he has met him at all—I think that some agreement would be arrived at for the exchange of certain types of foodstuffs and that that agreement might result in a better supply for ourselves. Dublin's poverty at present is very grave indeed. The price of all kinds of vegetables—cabbage, cauliflower, and potatoes—is beyond the means of a certain type of Dublin poor, living on doles, poor law relief and widows' pensions. The poor law authorities, with their eye on the larger interests, are not inclined to increase the relief which the poor receive in order to meet the rapid increase in the price of foodstuffs which they should be getting but are not getting.

There are families in Dublin City who never have meat for a meal. They have to live on bread and tea from week's end to week's end. The result is that the children are suffering from rickets, scabies and tuberculosis. I hope that unhappy condition of things will be removed, and also that we will have no more queues for potatoes and flake meal. Some Deputies made a reference to boots and the scarcity of leather for farm work. They properly made the claim that farm workers should be well clothed and shod. In the City of Dublin we have people living in conditions of extreme poverty and their children suffering from the diseases I have mentioned. In the slum areas you see children almost naked.

That does not arise now.

Mr. Byrne

I simply want to put in the claim that, if they cannot get clothes or boots, it will be the duty of the Government to see that the children of the lowly-paid will be properly fed, and that a bigger effort will be made to secure for them their fair share of whatever is available. During the recent scarcity of potatoes we were told that transport was at fault. It was said that plenty of potatoes were available in the County of Kildare and in other parts of the country within 50 miles of Dublin. While that was so, you had people queueing up for potatoes. Many wondered why the Army lorries were not employed to a greater extent to bring potatoes to the City of Dublin so that there would be no week-end scarcity for the poor people. I am also told that there is a butter scarcity. Milk prices have gone sky-high, while meat at present prices is unpurchasable in the working class areas. Dripping is not available either. Ships are needed to bring in rice, but could not something be done to exchange barley for wheat with our neighbours across the water—it was done before—instead of putting it into the wheat? I hope earnestly that the Minister will see that the scarcities I have referred to will be averted in the future. If the parish councils were given more power than they have it might be possible for them to make more ample provision for the people in their areas, and thereby avoid any danger of a scarcity in supplies in the future.

Like the last speaker, I am naturally interested in the question of food supplies for this city. During the course of the debate disquieting remarks were made on the question of our wheat and potato supplies. It is known, of course, that the acreage under both crops has fallen. Added to that was the statement that harvest prospects, so far as wheat is concerned, and in a lesser degree potatoes, were not bright. Serious mention was made of what was likely to happen next year in regard to inferior wheat on the one hand and an inadequate supply of it on the other. The lot of the poor, as indicated by the last speaker, is at all times an unenviable one. I suggest that they should not be harassed further with anxiety, as a result of this debate over the past three days, which would lead them to think that bread and potato supplies are likely to fall short during the coming winter months.

I put it to the Minister that there is an urgent necessity for him to make a clear and definite statement, which will satiafy feeling outside this House, indicating that the supplies of these two foodstuffs will be adequate to meet the situation. If the potato supply is likely to fall short of requirements, I hope he will indicate the measures he proposes to take between now and April-May to see that there is a fair division of the available supply at a controlled price.

I do not like to exaggerate the position that occurred in this city in April-May this year, and that was repeated in August-September. I am sure the Minister does not want a repetition of it. It is because none of us want a repetition of it that I implore him to indicate now the steps that he is prepared to take over the coming few months. He will have to agree, I think, that the general opinion outside this House was that the Department responsible fell down on its job in April of last year. I remember that when the Dublin Corporation was discussing the question, the shortage came as a "bolt from the blue". We then had the unpleasant spectacle of potato queues over a prolonged period. I hope, with the Minister, that such a thing will not occur again. It can be avoided if he will now indicate the steps that he proposes to take.

I am not an agriculturist, nor would I presume to represent the views of that industry beyond what I know are the needs of the people so far as agriculture is concerned. It is a strange commentary that after more thah 20 years of the setting up of our own Parliament it should be necessary to carry on a debate over three days on the conditions that have been described by the various speakers. It certainly carries its own commentary. It is elementary, or it is not, that the soil of this country is capable of giving sufficient food to all our people. We are credibly informed that it is, and the extent, therefore, that it falls short of giving that necesary standard of life to our people I suggest is the measure of the failure of the national authorities for the past 20 years to avoid a position of that kind.

I suggest that the position of agriculture is closely related to the position in our cities and towns. In the ordinary way, up to about two years ago, a subject of this character would arouse merely academic interest, so far as our people in the cities are concerned; but we have had a very sharp reminder of the extent to which we are dependent on the farmer during the past two years.

We all regard agriculture as our primary industry, and I would say to our farmer friends that there would be no greater or more enthusiantic advocates of ensuring that the fanner gets a square deal than the people in this city and the large towns. We would also like to see that everybody associated with agriculture gets the fruits of his labour, and not the least of these is the farm labourer. The farm labourer has been the cinderella of the agricultural movement down the years, and, even now, when the Minister is quite rightly bringing into operation a compulsory tillage Order, the cry goes up: "What about the shortage of labour?" How can any sane man expect to have an abundant ,or sufficient supply of labour on a 36/- a week basis? He cannot have it.

Is there any Deputy who would be prepared to rear a family, even with the perquisites that are supposed to go to the farm labourer, on a basis of 36/- a week? Is it any wonder that the country has been denuded of thousands if its very best workers over the past 10 or 15 years? I have said that the two positions are closely inter-related, and when it is recognised that our workers in the cities and towns have a purchasing power placed in their hands, on the basis of production, and are in a position to buy the farmers' products, paying them a decent price for what they produce, then and not until then will agriculture be put on the footing on which we should all like to see it.

A question was put here yesterday by a member of the Government Party on what may appear to be a rather minor matter and the Minister responsible answered it in that rather cold and matter of fact way which has impressed me, since I came into the House as a new member, as indicating a complete absence in the entire Front Bench of sympathy with or understanding of the other members of the House. Although it may be outside the scope of the debate, I suggest that when members put down questions, they put them down with the real intent of getting useful information, and Ministers should not be satisfied to answer in the form which was usual in the House across the water in the old days, that the reply was in the affirmative or in the negative.

A Deputy yesterday put down a question regarding the Allotments Acquisition Act, 1934, in which he made the rather useful suggestion that there should be an extension of the facilities which were intended to be provided in that Act, an extension of the 1926 Act. There are certain restrictions in operation at the moment. The Act is confined to recipients of unemployment insurance and home assistance, and the idea was that it should be extended to people in receipt of national health insurance and old age pensions. To my mind, the extension might usefully cover people in receipt of small wages above the figure now allowed of £1 per week. The Minister in his reply indicated simply that it could not be done and that the Act was introduced in other circumstances. That was perfectly true. The Act, when introduced, was intended to create useful employment for people who were employable but who could not find employment in the ordinary employment market, to keep them fit, and, at the same time, serve the object of providing them with food.

That was the purpose of the 1926 Act, which was amended in 1934, but to-day the Minister is appealing, and quite properly appealing, for more food. I suggest that no irritating restrictions should be placed on the operation of a useful Act, an Act which has been appreciated by no fewer than 6,000 of our people in this city in the Allotment Holders' Association. This association, of which I am a member, has made a valuable contribution to the food supply of this city and I earnestly appeal to the Minister, because portion of the responsibility lies with him, as he has to give the final certificate when the application comes through from the Department of Local Government, to extend that Act, so far as it is possible to do so, to the classes I have indicated. I should like again to stress the urgent necessity of his giving a clear and definite statement on what the position of the bread and the potato supply in particular will be during the coming months in this city and in the other cities and large towns.

I do not intend to intrude unduly long on this debate, but there are a few matters in regard to the agricultural position to which it appears to me to be necessary to refer. Otherwise I would not intervene at this hour. Compulsory tillage has been accepted as a necessary condition, having regard to the circumstances prevailing. It has been generally approved from every side of the House. Its application is essential for the reason that, without compulsion, there is no question that we would not get the necessary amount of tillage and consequently the food supplies which the country requires. Whatever the reasons for that set of conditions may be, it is not necessary to go into them; but there is, to my mind, a danger that this rough-and-ready scheme of fixing a certain area of tillage, with the condition that a proportion of that area must contain wheat, may injure the purpose for which the Minister is putting that scheme into operation.

He has indicated in his Order that certain counties shall grow a certain area of wheat, and three different zones are set out. How the percentage was arrived at I do not know, but I do not assume that the Minister had at his disposal in making that arrangement anything like a detailed survey of the farms suitable for the growing of wheat. I had in mind my own constituency of Leitrim-Sligo, where the compulsory tillage Order affects comparatively few people. A very small percentage of the farmers in Leitrim-Sligo will till an extra acre as the result of the increased tillage regulations this year, for the reason that they always do it. Being small farmers, they always have had to till practically the amount that is made compulsory this year, which is a big increase on any year for which we have records. These people, accustomed to tillage, having of necessity to do it, have also taken a very keen interest in the possibility of including wheat in their crops within the last ten years and the general consensus of opinion there—which is borne out by the agricultural inspectors with whom I have spoken over those years—is that it is a mistake for farmers of this area to waste their land in growing wheat. Wheat is a useful crop where it succeeds but it is by no means successful as a generally grown crop in Leitrim and parts of Sligo. There are other counties to which the same thing applies—I know they have their own spokesmen—Donegal, many parts of Sligo, parts of Cavan and, I suppose, parts of Longford.

I think it is an entirely mistaken idea to include a crop which has been proved over a number of years to be an unsuitable crop to grow in the area. I would like the Minister, in consultation with his officials, particularly those resident in the constituency I am speaking for, to arrange that the increased area should be put under potatoes, which are an excellent crop in that part of the country, or rye, which is also suitable in many parts of the country. It is merely wasting good land to grow wheat where it has been found over a number of years that it cannot be grown successfully. It is wasting energy and results in the production of less food. I do not at all blame the Minister for the compulsorily increased tillage. I do not ask for the reduction by one point of the area he has defined, but I do say that in districts where it has been proved over a number of years that wheat is not a successful crop, crops that have proved successful in those areas should be substituted.

Under the farm improvement schemes very useful work has been done in these areas, but the operation of these schemes is sometimes not satisfactory, as the officials I have spoken to have borne out and as the farmers very well know, to their bitter sorrow. The reclamation scheme has been very favourably received in the country generally. The effects accruing from it are great and the keen interest taken by the small farmers generally in the scheme is, I think, abnormal. But, it is sad to find that the scheme is a failure in some cases because some other Department failed to do its duty or did not co-operate sufficiently to ensure that the best results were achieved. Drainage of fields is a very useful work but anybody, even the city man uninitiated in agriculture, will understand that, unless there is an outflow from the drain that is running through the field, the purpose of the drain is nullified. We come across many schemes where drains were made which were useless after the first year because the main drain into which the field drains flowed was not cleared. It may be a townland boundary drain or a drain operating over a number of townlands and it is not the duty of any one farmer to clear that main drain. Since these men cannot be got to do it and since the Government has given grants for the clearing or draining of particular fields, why not drain the main drain to provide an outflow? Results would then accrue.

The officials of the Department of Agriculture will say it is beyond their sphere, that it is a matter for the Board of Works. The Board of Works will examine the drain, but if there is not a certain number of unemployed registered in the area during the season it is not in their power to carry out the work. Consequently it is left undone. I would impress upon the Minister the necessity of taking the necessary powers to carry out the complete scheme of drainage, whether he is spending £1, 1s. or 1d. of public money, if he cannot co-operate with the Board of Works. The Board of Works is tied up in a watertight compartment. They can only spend money on this work if there is a certain number of unemployed registered in the area. This scheme is a great one, bringing into production comparatively great areas of land. Half a rood is a big extension to a small farmer who is industrious and prepared to work it. I appeal to the Minister to take such powers as will ensure the best results from the labour and money so expended, and not to allow the fact that Departments are in water-tight compartments to result in water-logged lands and wastage of labour and of money.

I have listened to the speeches of two Deputies from Dublin, Deputies Byrne and O'Sullivan. I heard their remarks about the scarcity of commodities in Dublin, and the price of vegetables and other things. I have been impressed by the prices marked on vegetables displayed in shop windows. If these prices were available to the farmers in my part of the country, however small their farms are, they could make a rich living, and I am sure they would devote their energies to the production of vegetables. I suppose there is many a snag between the growing of vegetables and the placing of them in the consumer's basket, but it might be worth while, in addition to the survey of the land of this country, for the Minister to consult other Ministers with a view to ensuring that in the marketing of essential food supplies less middlemen would be allowed to operate, that a more direct channel would be provided to bring goods from the producer to the consumer, which would result in cheaper goods to the consumer and larger profits to those engaged in production.

I wish to deal with this Estimate under various heads: land owners, wages, facilities granted to producers of food and manure. I also wish to discuss it in relation to the emergency powers. I would suggest that the best contribution to this debate was made by Deputy Dillon. Not alone was it the best contribution, but it was most encouraging to the Minister. The Deputy pointed to the Farmers' Benches and said to them that the only danger he could foresee was that the farmers were going to make too much money. He told them definitely that the farmers were doing well and that the only danger was that they were going to make too much money. These remarks of his will be recorded in the Official Report. I do not know if the Minister took particular notice of them. The Deputy may have made other statements in the Dáil, such as the one about the Galway hats, to which we may not have paid much attention. But on this occasion the statement made by Deputy Dillon from the Opposition benches as regards agriculture should be taken as a great encouragement to the Department of Agriculture. He said that the farmers were making money.

I represent the constituency of Co. Dublin, which surrounds the capital city of Ireland, with a population of half a million. The people of Dublin must be fed; food and milk must be produced for them and fuel also must be produced for them. At the moment Co. Dublin is the best tillage county in Ireland. There is a matter, however, which I want the Minister to consider very seriously and that is that a big number of farmers in Co. Dublin with very big farms running into thousands of acres have evaded the tillage regulations. When complaints were made that these people had not tilled their land to produce food for the people, the reply of the Department was that they had other land down the country which they were tilling. But this land was not as good as the rich land in Co. Dublin; in many cases it was only bog land. Yet, when they scattered seeds over that land, they were supposed to have complied with the tillage regulations. As I say, some of these people who own some of the rich land in North Co. Dublin, running into thousands of acres, are evading the tillage laws simply because they have other land in other parts of Ireland. They are tilling that land, which is not good land, so that they may not have to till the good land they have in Co. Dublin on which they are fattening cattle, because it suits them better. I ask the Minister to take particular notice of that and not to allow these people to evade the tillage regulations.

It is very essential, of course, that we should raise cattle, but why should these farmers, who have no interest in the people of the country, be allowed to evade the tillage regulations simply because they have other land in Offaly or Laoighis or some other part of the country which is not good for cattle and is very little good for tillage either? They just turn up that land and scatter seeds on it and in that way comply with the tillage regulations. The Minister when he gets a complaint about one of these people sends a reply that So-and-so has land somewhere else and that so far as he knows he has complied with the tillage regulations. That man does not want to interfere with the good land bordering on the City of Dublin on which he is fattening cattle. I appeal to the Minister to stop this evasion of the regulations by people who have land spread all over the country.

Speaking on behalf of the best tillage county in Ireland, as I have said, I would also ask the Minister to give some attention to the question of machinery. At the last election we had farmer candidates and Clann na Talmhan candidates in County Dublin, but none of them was returned. In fact, every one of them lost his deposit, because the farmers in County Dublin realised that this Government were doing their best in the interests of the farming community. This Government got the support of the farming community in County Dublin, and on the farming community and on the farm labourers in County Dublin rests the main responsibility for the feeding of the people in the City of Dublin, for providing them with vegetables, meat and milk. It is to the credit of this Government anyway that at the last election the majority of the votes of these people went to the Government. I heard one Clann na Talmhan Deputy speaking as to whom I can say that I have more land that he has, because he has none. Deputy Cafferky, who made a great case on behalf of the farmers, has not an acre of land.

We have heard criticism from the Labour Benches of the policy of the Government about tillage and the wages being paid. I know one member of the Labour Party who lives beside me, who has 50 or 60 acres and has not an acre in conacre, but all with grass and cattle, and who has not a man employed. He is living in a labourer's cottage. That is Deputy Tunney. The criticism from the Opposition, from Clann na Talmhan and the Labour Party and Independent Benches, is just made in order to have an opportunity to criticise the Government on this, that and the other.

I live in a county where there is intensive tillage and I wish to appeal to the Minister for Agriculture to cooperate with the Minister for Supplies and facilitate those farmers in County Dublin who want to carry out the tillage operations, who have 400 or 200 acres under corn and whose only worry is to get guarantees from the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Department of Supplies, that they will get sufficient kerosene, not alone to put in the crops in the spring but to harvest them next year, and sufficient petrol to drive their crops of wheat, oats, barley and potatoes to the Dublin market. They will increase their tillage this year. I would ask the Minister to consider this matter in his reply and help those tillage farmers and the general farming community in County Dublin, who met this Government wholeheartedly when the emergency started and put land into tillage and complied in every way with the regulations of the Government. They have not been bargaining in connection with the price of wheat and increased wages.

The Labour Party sang dumb during the last week or ten days, because they knew the people were going to revolt and that the Party would be in a very bad state on account of the threat of the women and people of the country when the sugar cooks sat down. I have heard Deputy Liam Cosgrave referring to 36/- a week for labourers. It shows that he has very little knowledge of the agricultural wages paid to labourers in County Dublin. I would like to see the agritural labourer get more than he is getting. Does the Deputy know that the present rate of wages for threshing in Dublin is £1 or 22/6 a day? The minimum agricultural wage in County Dublin is 43/- a week.

I certainly would agree if it were possible, that the Minister should put farm labourers—whose work is very skilled—on a par with the builder's labourer. The farm labourer has a tough job, he loads at three or four in the morning, comes back in the evening and has to load up again for the market the following morning. We have heard a lot of sympathy here for the agricultural labourer, but the only Government that endeavoured to do anything for him was that of the Fianna Fáil Party. They set a minimum wage, not a maximum wage, but the Labour Party did nothing. There is nothing to prevent any farmer paying his labourer more than that wage, but he cannot pay less.

I heard Deputy O'Leary on the Labour Benches saying to-day that they had to bring the farmers to court in order to force the minimum wages prescribed by the Government. Then why all this sympathy from the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party? For years Fine Gael was in power and did nothing to help the agricultural labourer. They are trying to make political capital from the fact that a big number of people had to leave this country. There was only one alternative to that. Those workers could be kept here if Fine Gael and the Labour Party, by a majority in this House, could carry a resolution that we should declare war on some of the belligerents, and then you would have bombs dropping on the women and children.

It used to be "Hell or Connaught," now it is "Hell or England." The Deputy's Party and the Labour Party demonstrated that we are out for neutrality.

That does not arise.

But it is no harm to stop the hypocrisy of those on the opposite benches. There has been some talk with reference to the Supplementary Estimate for the production of new potatoes. I think I heard Deputy O'Donovan state here that his area was the pioneer in that. In my constituency there is a little area called Rush, where the average land held by a farmer is not more than two acres. Some of them have a couple of roods, some an acre, some an acre and a half. They produce potatoes, and have produced them for years, for export. Deputy O'Donovan was surprised at the idea of £26 a ton being paid for early potatoes. I can tell him that £112 a ton is paid to Rush men for early potatoes. A shortage occurred in the City of Dublin last year and, as a result, it would be well that the Minister should take notice. No export of potatoes was allowed, and the Department decided to subsidise the production of early potatoes. They were put on the market at £16 a ton, subsidised to the extent of £9 a ton.

I wish some of those who are talking about agriculture would go down to Rush and see these little holdings, where they work hard to produce food for the people of the capital city. Let that be to their credit. We hear a considerable amount of talk about convoys to bring foodstuffs to Britain and other countries. Does this House realise that the first example of convoys we had in this country before the war was from Rush, when an effort was made to starve the people of Dublin? When an effort was made some years ago to get the people of the City and County of Dublin to undermine the authority of the present Government, and when we had something like a Blueshirt movement started, we had a farmers' strike, and the Rush farmers came into the City of Dublin in convoy. and when they came into the City of Dublin they were lined up. These small farmers did not come into the city singly; they came in in tens and twenties, with the only weapons they had. I do not know whether you would call them lethal weapons or not, but some of them carried pitchforks.

What has this got to do with the Vote for the Department of Agriculture?

I am only making a case for the Rush farmers, but what I should like to have from the Minister is a guarantee that in the case of the sandy soil of Rush, Skerries, and that neighbourhood, some subsidy should be given to these farmers to encourage them to grow the same amount of early potatoes next year. At the moment, there appears to be a danger of a shortage of potatoes, and I think that the Department of Agriculture would be well advised to have more inspectors appointed with regard to taking a census of production.

You will have more inspectors than farmers then!

Who said that?

I said it.

Well, I was going to reply to that, but when it comes from a man who can turn out money through a machine, I suppose that that is all right. However, I think that the Government, through the Department of Agriculture, would be well advised to take account of the amount of potatoes in this country at the present time and where they are situated. There is no doubt—and Deputies of this House must realise it—that there has been a huge influx of visitors into this city since the war started, and I feel that there is going to be even a more tremendous influx of people into the city. Accordingly, I believe that some steps should be taken by the Government to safeguard the rights of the consuming public here. This city has been flooded, and particularly in holiday times, by people coming over from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt that these people come here, not alone for a holiday, but because they can get a good deal of food here which they cannot get at home. The result is that hotels, restaurants, and even fish-and-chip shops in Dublin have been laying in big supplies of potatoes, with which to supply these visitors, which means that our own people are left short. Now, what is going to happen as a result of all this? According to what I hear, what may happen is that there may be a shortage of potatoes here, and I think that the Minister should take steps at the present time to control the potato supply, so as to ensure that, next spring, there will be enough potatoes with which to supply our own people, at the very least. That, perhaps, does not affect the people in the City of Dublin so much as those in the adjoining areas, because I think there are about 150,000 people in the county who would be affected by this.

I think the Deputy's mathematics are going wrong.

Well, whatever about that, I think it is necessary for the Minister or his Department to take control of the potato supply at the present time: to find out what amount of potatoes we have on hands, and to see that nobody will be without potatoes next year. I think it is necessary for the Minister and his Department to see that the whole supply of potatoes should not be allowed to be bought up by restaurants, hotels, fish-and-chip shops, and so on, before February and March of next year, with a view to making sure that there will be an equitable distribution and a regular supply of potatoes for the ordinary middle-class and working-class people of the city.

I should like to make a point with regard to this question of tillage, and particularly with regard to the County Dublin. I am speaking particularly on behalf of farmers, who have not 20 acres under tillage. There are some farmers who have 300 or 400 acres under tillage, and who are given certain facilities in the matter of oil, and so on, but I hold that these other people should have the same guarantee from the Minister that they will be supplied with sufficient Diesel oil, petrol and so on, to enable them to harvest their crops and bring the crops to the Dublin market. I realise that that is a very big question. One of the biggest questions last year, for instance, was that of providing binder twine, and it seems that the Department got over that very well, but there has been a considerable amount of feeling with regard to the supply of kerosene, Diesel oil, petrol, and so on, and also with regard to the matter of machinery. I understand that during the past 12 months a number of tractors as well as binders and reapers were imported here, and that the Minister allocated these at cost price to various farmers—to four individuals in each county. I am speaking subject to correction here, but I understand that there were something around 100 tractors available, and I should like to impress on the Minister that, no matter what negotiations may take place in that regard, the important thing to produce in this country is bread, butter and potatoes, for the feeding of the people of this country, and that, therefore, any imports of agricultural machinery should be free of duty, and that when it comes to a question of allocating that machinery to the farmers, whether they be small or big farmers, it should be allocated to farmers who will utilise that machinery to till all the land available and to reap and harvest the crops.

Why cannot the manufacturers here supply the machinery?

I am interested only in the farmer who is anxious in spite of all the present difficulties to do his utmost to meet the requirements of the country, and to produce food for the people. I am anxious to give him all the encouragement that is possible. I, therefore, want to appeal to the Minister that such people should be given a preference in allocating this machinery. I think that Deputy Dillon should be helpful in this matter. I give him the credit that the best speech made in the House in this debate, the best speech to encourage the Minister, was made by Deputy Dillon but I look back on other years listening to Deputy Dillon, as I had to, when he spoke about wheat being all "cod". I think it might have been in his own interest and he might have got more votes in Monaghan if he remained out of the House on these occasions. Although this is a debate on agriculture, I might also remind him of the time that he referred to the Galway hats, another bogey of his.

I am only anxious to get the machinery.

The Deputy is forgetting about the hats and the wheat. I would repeat to the Minister to make an effort to control supplies of agricultural produce as far as the City and County of Dublin are concerned. Of course, I know the Labour Party will kick up a terrible hullabaloo if queueing has to take place.

What about queueing up for the betting shops?

What about queueing up to pay a tanner for admission to the Workers' Union of Ireland? The Deputy should not make these remarks and he will not get these retorts. Deputy Larkin and myself will always be friends, but if the Deputy makes these remarks I am entitled to reply in kind. I am trying to put before the Minister the needs of my constituency as regards agricultural machinery. It is the best constituency in Ireland so far as food production is concerned. If the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Supplies, can guarantee petrol and kerosene for the agricultural machinery in County Dublin, we shall produce the food. The farmers in County Dublin are as loyal and as patriotic to-day as they were in the days of old and they will do everything in their power to feed the people of the city. I would appeal to the Minister to take immediate steps to control potato supplies. It is very essential that that should be done. I listened to the Leader of the Labour Party talking about famine and queues for potatoes and bread. He forgot all about the slogan he had during the last election, that everyone should receive £3 a week. That did not work and I am sure he realises now that it was only a bogey. In the course of the next few weeks we shall have a Bill dealing with family allowances and we shall be told that the allowances are not sufficient.

The House will be discussing that matter on another day.

I am sure, nevertheless, it will be a very popular Bill. In conclusion, I want to make one other appeal to the Minister in connection with the provision of manures and fertilisers. In County Dublin, we have a very big coastline and there is some very valuable manure in the form of seaweed to be found all along that coastline. I would suggest to the Minister that he should consider making an emergency powers Order to enable farmers along or near the seaboard to draw seaweed for use as manure. They have been prevented from doing so. You have a gentleman in Malahide who is known as Admiral of the Seas round Malahide, Lord Talbot. You have another gentleman in Skerries called Lord Holmpatrick, who is Admiral of the Seas round Skerries.

What are their real names?

I do not know their real names and I am not interested in their real names. All I am interested in is the fact that these fellows should not be allowed to prevent farmers getting seaweed to manure their land. The Deputy can have his little bit of fun later. I do not know their real names.

You should find out because I would not be surprised if they are Jews.

I do not know whether they are Jews. I do not think they are but even if they were Jews, are you surprised at my making this effort ?

I am delighted you are making it.

I suggest to the Minister that he should make an order enabling farmers in that area to draw seaweed to be used as manure. There are certain rights of way over different shores and there are certain laws which prevent people taking seaweed or sand. I think the Minister for Agriculture should consider the matter and make an emergency powers Order which would enable these farmers along the seaboard or living within five or six miles of it to draw seaweed. Before sitting down, I should like to say that as far as I am concerned I do not agree with the speaker who suggested that there should not be fixity of tenure. I say there should be fixity of tenure for all the farmers of Ireland.

Why did you take it away from them?

If the farmer utilises his land properly he should have fixity of tenure.

The Minister for Agriculture is not responsible for that.

The question was allowed to be discussed earlier in the debate.

A member of the Deputy's Party suggested it should be abolished.

I think fixity of tenure is essential for every farmer. If he utilises his land properly he is entitled to fixity of tenure.

I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed further in that matter. It is sufficient to get bogged in the seaweed.

I think I have already made a sufficient impression in the matters with which I have dealt.

I am sure that the Labour Party intend to support the Government in granting this bonus. After all, they cannot carry on without money—that is the first essential. Listening to the debates, there is one conclusion I have arrived at. I will, as a matter of fact, congratulate the proposer of the amendment in as much as it has brought from every side of the House general agreement on one question and that is that the farm labourers of this country are practically starving. If the amendment did not bring forward anything more than that, it has done a lot of good. Every Deputy who spoke this evening has agreed that the farm labourers of this nation have not an adequate wage. There have been disagreements on other points, but on this matter there is no disagreement and the first thing the Minister should do is to see that the unanimous wish of the House is fulfilled and that the farm labourer is raised to a standard above his present standard, which is practically at starvation level.

Did you not vote for the 32/- a week?

I did, and every act I have done since I came to the use of reason, I stand over. I never did a thing that I could be ashamed of. I heard the previous Deputy say that I am the owner of land in County Dublin. I have not as much land in County Dublin as would make my grave. At the age of 16 years I took part in the Land War in County Mayo and I was arrested by people with whom Deputy Fogarty was closely associated. From that day I have been an advocate of the policy which holds that the land of Ireland should be for the people of Ireland.

How many cattle have you?

I did not interrupt the Deputy and I hope he will have some manners.

How many cattle have you?

I have not as many as would go into your "bookie" shop. The Deputy stated that there is no hunger among the farm labourers. I have here a letter which I received this morning. It is from an agricultural labourer, man who worked during the year in County Dublin.

The Minister has stated that he is not responsible for the Agricultural Wages Board.

It was stated by the last speaker that there are no people hungry in County Dublin, people engaged in agriculture. I can cite the case of a County Dublin family, where the breadwinner was engaged in agriculture. They can get no assistance from any source. This is a case in which the humane society is interested. The family is composed of the husband, the wife, and five children, and they live in 69 Ballinteer Cottages, Dundrum. Anyone who may be interested in this case will find those people there. The humane society is trying to do something for them. Is there not hunger in County Dublin? This letter is dated 20th October. I have another letter from a man living at Santry, and the position is practically the same. In this case the man cannot find employment, and he is trying to leave the country, but he has not enough money to take him out of it. This particular farm labourer finished his work a couple of months ago, and he has nothing to live on now. He and his family are starving. I will take Deputy Fogarty to places in County Dublin where the people are starving. I will take him to 69 Ballinteer Cottages, Dundrum, to Michael Byrne—that is the man's name.

It is generally agreed that the farm labourer should have an adequate wage. I do not make an apology to anyone for suggesting that anything less than £3 a week is not a living wage. It is a miracle how families of six and seven exist on less than £3 a week. We have been told by one of the Farmer Deputies that a pair of boots costs £3 10s. 0d. How can a farm labourer ever save that amount? The farm labourer can never have a holiday. There is no arrangement made for sickness, and the man has very little out of life. He has no opportunity of giving his children a secondary education. We should be ashamed to allow a position of that sort to exist. What about the people in sheltered positions, the people with huge salaries, who can sit down to their breakfast, dinner and supper, and who eat the food produced under slave conditions? Those people draw big salaries and are paid during periods of sickness, and they can have a month's holiday each year. They eat the food produced by people living under slave conditions.

When they go to their offices, to find a fire prepared in advance at which to warm their backs, do they ever consider the lot of the small farmer and the farm labourer, the men who have to be out at 7 o'clock trying to produce food, the men who never saw a four-course meal in their lives? There are people in the City of Dublin, we have been told, who do not eat fresh meat. What about the people who rear the live stock, who feed them morning, noon and night and who have never had fresh meat in their lives? There are such people. They used to have a little bacon, but that has gone off the market. I do not blame the Minister for Agriculture. I will go so far as to say that one thing the Fianna Fáil Party can stand over is their advocacy of more tillage. I am prepared to give credit where it is due. There is no question about it, the Fianna Fáil Party took their stand on increased tillage, and it is about the best thing they have done. The fault is that they have not gone far enough. The issue now is, do we approve of compulsory tillage? I do, and I am satisfied that my colleagues do. That is what we have been advocating, that the Government have been too weak on this point all along. They encouraged the growing of wheat on land capable of growing it; that is the first solid step the Government took, and I compliment them on it.

I am concerned to see that those engaged in agriculture have at least opportunities equal to those engaged in other occupations, who have not to toil half as hard, and where not nearly as much skill is needed. These unfortunate people are outcasts. They rear up families for the emigrant ship. That has been the tradition. I am sure that Deputies on the Farmers' Benches will agree with that. In this Christian country that is a sad state of affairs. We have the raw materials, the land, bogs and wool; yet our young people have to go to other countries to seek employment. Some of those who go away find employment in the making of implements intended to destroy life. Why cannot we give our young people employment at home, in making things that would be of some benefit to humanity? We had a question in this House yesterday about the amount of wool that is sent out of the country. Why not put our people to work here instead of having them going to Britain?

Has the Deputy not a son there?

Unfortunately I have.

He is only one of 200,000.

Thousands of our people's sons have been forced to go there for employment. I believe it was never intended that the wives of small farmers and labourers should rear families so that they would have to go away to build up other nations. The policy of Sinn Féin was that this was a self-supporting nation. Was that policy right? If that policy as preached was correct, that we are a self-supporting nation, now is the time to put it to the test. We have not the opportunity of bringing in food at present. If the policy of Sinn Féin was correct, as I believe it was, then I believe this country is capable of supporting three times its present population. The difficulties in the way of doing so are not very great. We are in a very fortunate position, as with the exception of artificial manures we have all the other essentials for producing food.

What about petrol?

While we have horse transport we need not have unemployment. I would prefer to see 47 men driving loads of hay into Dublin from Meath than to have it brought in by three lorries. It would be better to have the men working than to be paying them a miserable dole and have them standing at street corners. Linked up with the question of agriculture is that of youth employment. How many youths wish to become agricultural labourers to-day? To give the Minister one illustration. I know a farm labourer in Co. Dublin who reared 11 children, seven sons and four daughters. That man has now retired and is getting the old age pension. His youngest son refused to take his job. When I spoke to him about it he told me he was not going to follow the example of his father and mother, who had lived a life of slavery and poverty. The youth of to-day are not going to take up such work unless they get a fair standard of living. They are entitled to that. That is only one illustration of hundreds of similar cases.

Tell us of others ?

I was going to tell the Deputy what brought him to Dublin. I was going to mention the abolition of the R.I.C. I am sorry if I have to be personal. I wish the Deputy would not interrupt. If I was in his position I would not do so. I ask for a ruling from the Chair that the Deputy should not interrupt. I had at least the decency not to interrupt the Deputy, and I am surprised that any Deputy would be so ignorant as to do so. I will not say any more on that matter. We have in this country 12,000,000 acres of arable land. I have heard the slogan so often that I am wondering where the missing acres are, considering that we have only 3,000,000 of a population and that thousands of families are living on holdings of two acres. Out of the population of 3,000,000 we can exclude women and and children, old age pensioners and invalids, so that only a small percentage of able-bodied people is left. If 12,000,000 acres of arable land were divided there should be 40 acres available for every able-bodied person. I wish the Minister would deal with that position when he is replying.

The Minister for Agriculture is not responsible for the division of land.

The Minister is responsible for agriculture and I am sure he is aware of the amount of agricultural land available for division. If we have 12,000,000 acres of arable land some people must own huge ranches.

Did the Deputy apply for land?

Order! I will not speak to Deputy Fogarty again. If he interrupts again he will have to leatve the House.

I hold that the Minister need not expect any return from wheat from land in Connanght. The land there is not capable of growing wheat successfully. Is it not a crime to ask small farmers to grow wheat on land from which they will not get a return much larger than the amount of seed sown? The land there is not suitable for wheat but is suitable for oats. Wheat should be grown in County Dublin and the adjoining counties where the land is capable of bearing it. Farmers who have tilled more land than they are required to till, and who are giving good employment, should be given a special bonus. I am referring to the type of farmer who has 100 acres, who tills 92 acres, and pays high wages.

I hold that those farmers who are such an asset to the nation should get preference over the rancher who has hundreds of acres and barely tills the quantity he is required to till. Sometimes he tills it in such a way that it is no advantage to the nation. I saw a case during the last war in County Dublin in which one of those ranchers threw in an odd grain of oats amongst grass with the result that the cattle went in and it was never cut. That is not farming. A preference should be given to the man who utilises his land for the proper purpose. The compulsory tillage regulations are not being carried out in County Dublin. If you go from Finglas to Fairyhouse you will not see & single field of tillage. I have drawn the attention of inspectors to it on more than one occasion and nothing has been done about it. I am afraid that these people must have some loophole whereby they escape their obligations. I have no sympathy with black-marketeers but is it not hard to think that some shopkeepers will be sent to jail for a month—quite rightly—for charging ½d. more than they should charge, whereas those people who are denying the community food, which is a much bigger offence, escape? There should be no sympathy with those people. The labourer works all day, and at night you will see him in the Local Security or Defence Force ready to lay down his life for his country. But here is a farmer who is asked only to utilise the land for the purpose for which God created it and he will not do so. Those people should be punished severely because they are not doing their duty.

Loans should be made available for farmers at a reasonable rate of interest. The honest, industrious farmer who gets a certain amount of money will utilise it to the benefit of the nation. Therefore, he should get it at a reasonable charge. Deputy Hughes wisely said that the sending of youngs cattle out of the country was wrong. If cattle have to go out of the country we should send them over as stall-feds because if we are to continue this tillage scheme we must restore fertility to the soil or it will be exhausted. Some people say that wheat takes nothing out of the soil. Good land will produce crops for a few years but unless fertility is restored it will then become exhausted; the best way to do that is by the application of farmyard manure. As regards the improvement of land I have heard the Minister complimented about the improvement of small holdings in the West and South.

What about the hundreds of acres that are wasted under timber in County Dublin? I know of cases where people applied for permits to cut those trees and they would not get them. I know a man with 12 acres who can till only eight acres because the roots of big ash trees stretch so far. The Department should have no hesitation in giving permission to cut those trees, particularly in County Dublin. If there were no roots of trees on the holding to which I refer, it could be capable of producing 60 barrels of wheat. Some people say that that would take away the beauty of the country. Let us get food and that will be sufficient beauty. The farmers must be put in a position to pay wages. I am not one of those who will say that the farm labourer must get £3 a week if the farmer is not in a position to pay it. The first essential is to put the farmer into a position in which he will be able to pay a sufficient wage. The guaranteed prices have gone a certain way in that direction. But if the guaranteed prices are not sufficient, farmers should be subsidised so that farm labourers may get a living wage. Deputy Corry said we were growing too much oats. I never heard a more ridiculous statement. It is true that oats would grow practically on the roadsides and is it not a reflection on the Department that we have not sufficient oatmeal or flake meal? We heard about potato and milk queues but do not let us forget that there were demands for oatmeal which could not be procured. If the war were to last for ten years and we had sufficient oats, we would have sufficient feeding for our fowl and our live stock and, last but not least, for the population. Nobody will die of hunger if there is a sufficient supply of butter, eggs, and oatmeal bread. There is no excuse for the Government as regards the scarcity of oats in a country where we should be able to export oats. As a matter of fact, that is the one point on which I think the Department failed. In conclusion, I am glad that the debate has revealed that there is general agreement on this: that the farm labourer of this nation is underpaid, underfed and underclothed. I appeal to the Minister to take his courage in his hands and put our farm labourers in a position that we need not be ashamed of.

There is one very important branch of the agricultural industry which, so far, has not been referred to in this three days' debate, and that is, the egg industry. I would like the Minister to take notice of the position of that industry as it is at the moment. The poultry population has been considerably reduced chiefly because of the failure of the people to produce sufficient food to keep poultry stocks. The public do not appreciate the fact that, in order to keep poultry stocks they have to produce food, and that if you have not poultry stocks you cannot have the egg industry as prosperous as it should be. Now that it is at a very low ebb, I would like the Minister to do something about it with a view to the establishment of a proper type of poultry stock in the country. That might be done by some system of propaganda through the local newspapers. The attention of poultry keepers and housewives might be directed to a better system of poultry feeding and a better system of preparing their eggs for market.

Very often, hardworking people in the egg trade are prosecuted in court because of the failure of producers to have their eggs properly marketed. The way to remedy that is to give better instruction to the producer. If that were done it would help to bring about a better state of affairs in the egg industry. At the moment, I think there is too much interference by inspectors of the Department with people who are dealing in the egg industry. We are not catering for a foreign trade in eggs now. We are scarcely able to supply the home requirements. We should have an eye to the requirements of the people here, and see that they become more highly skilled in the marketing of eggs when we are in a position at a later stage to meet the requirements of the foreign market. At the moment there should be some relaxation so that something may be done to meet the demand for eggs in the home market, which we are scarcely able to supply.

The people should be encouraged to provide a better type of poultry house. The old custom was to have it in the farmyard, near the home. People should be encouraged to have the poultry houses outside the farmyard and not be keeping their stocks of eggs for market in the home, as they do at present. I think that if the Minister were to pay attention to these things it would be appreciated very much by the people who find that egg production brings a very fine income into their homes. The egg industry should be properly established and catered for. In the West of Ireland, it is even more important than the pig rearing industry. The Department should appreciate that and give every assistance.

Taking the debate in general, it was in my opinion the most barren debate that I have ever heard in this House on this important question of agriculture. In fact, I have never heard a worse debate. I deplore entirely the banshee-wail type of debate that we have had about the poor farmer and the poor agricultural labourer. I do not think that either class will at all appreciate the fact that they have been brought into this type of banshee-wail debate. They will not appreciate the crocodile tears of professional vote-catchers like Deputy Tunney and others who have been singing the praise of the party they expect to get votes from at a general election. If those Deputies appreciated the fact that there may not be a general election for a very long time they might have debated this subject in a better manner than they did. Even if they had tried to criticise the Minister, and he may have deserved criticism on some points, it might haye been helpful. I have sympathy with the Minister who has had to listen to this three days' debate during which there were not three practical suggestions made from any side of the House. There was not even severe criticism of the Minister. In conclusion, I join with Deputies from all sides of the House who have been singing the Minister's praises during the past three days, and particularly the Deputies of the Farmers' Party who at least appreciate what the Minister has done in tackling one of the most difficult jobs that could fall to any Minister—the provision of food and of other supplies during a most critical period.

There are a few items which particularly concern the area I come from that I desire to refer to. The first is pig production. In my county, and particularly in the part of it that I come from, which is a very big area, I am satisfied that we were able to compete with any other county in pig production and egg production. Both industries provided the chief means of existence for the people in that area. Unfortunately, the position to-day is that pig production has practically ceased, and egg production has disappeared. Who is at fault for the present position as regards the pig industry?

During the debate I heard some Deputy on the Government Benches recommend that some board such as the Pigs and Bacon Board should be put into operation to deal with it. I can say that neither producers nor consumers of bacon want another marketing board set up. The present board has killed production and everything connected with the pig industry. We have no bacon now. When the Pigs and Bacon Board was originally established, we on this side of the House did not oppose it. We decided to give it a chance. Later, when it came to be re-established, every member on this side voted solidly against the proposal.

About one-and-a-half years ago.

Every member of your Party voted for it in the beginning.

I agree because, as I have said, we decided to give it a chance, but later, when it was proposed to re-establish it, we voted solidly against the proposal. Deputy Dillon's speech on that proposal is on the records, and I remember that we were all against it for this reason: we saw that the regulation of the industry was going to kill production. The board was re-established and, as well as I recollect, it got full control. We asked at that time that the control should not be given to the board but should be put in the hands of the Minister or in this House. We did not succeed in that. The Minister, through that board, has killed the pig industry. The result is that we have no pigs in the country. In my opinion, it will be very hard to get people to go into pig production again. I am afraid that will be so in my part of the country. One reason is that young pigs were making from £5 to £6 each about five weeks ago, but now they have come down to £3 and £3 10s. 0d. each. As I have said, the people there are not, I think, going to go back into pig production. What the farmers there are doing now is this: they are buying two pigs, one to keep and feed and kill for themselves and the other one to sell, and it is questionable if that one is going to be sold to the factory. It may be sold to a neighbour who will cure it for his own use, with the result that pig production is killed, and the bacon factories will be practically closed down and there will be no bacon. However, the last Order which was made may help things. All restrictions and regulations are withdrawn, which may encourage pig production. My advice to the Government is to withdraw all the restrictions on the production of pigs and all the restrictions on prices, and leave it to the producers and the bacon curers. If the producers can get their price as they did heretofore, it is possible that after a short time they will come back into pig production.

Another reason the farmers had for getting out of pig production is to be found in what happened in previous years. I remember that from September to December of 1940 and 1941, we had pigs in the fairs and markets and in the houses of the people ready for sale, but there was no buyer to buy them. The factories were on quotas and were not allowed to take these pigs, with the result that pigs had to be brought home from the fairs unsold and held over for a fortnight, three weeks or a month, by which time they exceeded the weight at which they realised the top price. They had to be put into a second grade at a lower price, which all tended to kill pig production. The people got sick of it, sold their sows and went out of production. However, all these restrictions are now withdrawn, and I advise the Minister and the Department to leave it to the producers and the bacon curers. If the producers can get the production price for their pigs and bacon, they will come back into production. Otherwise, I see very little hope of it.

Deputy Ó Clélirigh has spoken about eggs and it is true that egg production is decreasing. Up to four years ago, we had a big export of eggs during the winter months. Last winter, we had practically nothing to export and barely enough for the City of Dublin. This year, I do not believe the position will be any better and it may be a little worse. Some people will tell you that it is the shortage of feeding which is responsible for the shortage of eggs. That, I suppose, is part of the trouble, but still, with the price of feeding, the price which eggs are making to-day, for home consumption or for export, does not pay the producer. What is the price? The price to the ordinary farmer for the last three years has been around 15/- per 120 eggs in the summer months, which goes up to 25/- or 26/- in the winter months. They cannot exceed that, because the price of export eggs has been fixed, and that export price controls the home market. On the basis of the price of oats, potatoes or any other feeding stuff, eggs cannot be produced at 15/- per 120 eggs during the summer months or at 25/- during the winter months.

In addition, I feel that the test at the port is rather severe. I wish to make it clear that I do not desire to be very extreme in the matter of the test because I am perfectly satisfied that there must be a reasonable test, so as to ensure that the quality of the Irish egg, when put on the British market, will be as good as, and, if possible, better than, the quality of the eggs in competition with it, when this war is over. Now, however, we are not up against that competition, and I believe the test could be slightly relaxed and still ensure a good quality egg. Every Deputy in the House may not be aware of the regulations governing the export of eggs by a licensed shipper, and it would be well that every Deputy should know that if a licensed shipper sends 20 cases of eggs to the port for shipment to England, and if one case is found to contain breakages, that case is not allowed to be exported and is forfeited by the shipper who gets nothing for it. You may have a certain number of trade eggs for various reasons, one of which would be the lack of the real feeding which would produce a good quality egg. A licensed shipper may put first-class eggs into a case on rail at a station 150 miles from Dublin Port. When they arrive in Dublin, they are two or three days old, and it may happen that a perfectly fresh egg may become a second quality egg, and if there is a certain number of second quality eggs in that case, the case is also forfeited. Taking a case of eggs at 26/- per 120, the loss is £3 18s., and when £3 18s. is taken out of one, two or three consignments, the licensed dealer is not going to break his heart trying to make a success of the industry.

I am perfectly satisfied that the inspectors do their duty, and do it fairly, but my view is that the test should be made a little easier. There is no reason why it should not be made a little easier because the competition is not there, while the quality is there. An egg which may have deteriorated inside two or three days has reached a stage at which it will go no further for the next week, and when it arrives at its destination in a week's time, it is a perfectly fresh egg. For these reasons, I say that the test should be more or less relaxed in order to keep the industry alive.

Another matter about which I have to complain in connection with egg production is that I have never heard, in my area or in any part of Ireland, of the Department making special arrangements to give instructions to the farmers' wives or young girls on the production of eggs. No effort is made to give instructions as to the class of eggs, the quality of eggs, or the condition of eggs when they are put on the market or brought into the wholesale or retail shipper. It has been left to them to bring them in as they wish, and the responsibility is placed on the exporter. It is a very important industry, and I think it is the duty of the Government to get the inspectors to call three or four meetings in each parish every year and give the necessary instructions. If you start in the parish, there will be very little trouble as far as the quality of eggs is concerned. It is not right to place the entire responsibility on the person who handles them 160 miles from where they were purchased. If that, or something like it, were done, egg production could be brought back to the condition in which it was four or five years ago when, I suppose, the exports value of our eggs was four times what it will be this year.

Deputy Corry said that oats are getting 22/6 a cwt. in Cork. The fixed price of wheat is 50/- a barrel, that is, 20/- a cwt. If oats are making 22/6 and wheat is only making 20/-, there is danger that, oats may take the place of wheat. I agree with Deputy Dillon and other Deputies that there should be at least a 10 per cent. reduction in wheat extraction, that it should be brought down to 90 per cent. I am firmly convinced that if it were brought down to 85 per cent., the 15 per cent. offal would go far to supply the deficiencies as far as pig and egg production are concerned, and there would be a 100 pe cent. return in bread. I have a very great connection with farmers and their wives. They bake their own bread, and use very little machine-made bread. They tell me that the present flour does not absorb as much milk as did the original flour. I believe 7 stone of flour of 85 per cent. extraction would yield as much homemade bread as 8 stone of flour of 100 per cent. extraction. I do not know how it affects the bakers in the city, because bakers' bread is not made with milk, but there are other ingredients added which are not added to the home-made bread. I am perfectly satisfied that it is necessary to take out 15 per cent., or, at least, 10 per cent., and I believe that with that extraction we would get the returns we are getting to-day. There is no doubt that there is waste in every shop, in every house, in every bakery. It is not through any fault on the part of those making the bread, but it arises out of the quality of the flour.

It is rumoured, whether correctly or not, that there is danger that we are going to be short of flour and that barley will be mixed with the wheat. If it is necessary to mix barley with the wheat in order to carry us over a period of shortage, I suggest that we should not wait till next May or June to start rationing flour. Now is the time to do so whilst there is some surplus in the country.

In June, 1941, when the quota system was, I think, 80 per cent. of the purchases in a certain year, I asked a question in connection with supplies and I was told there was no shortage, that everybody had plenty of flour although at that time we were only getting 80 per cent. of our purchases two years previous to that. That is my recollection. I speak subject to correction. I think the present basis of delivery is 110 per cent. That means that we are consuming to-day 30 per cent. more flour than we consumed in May or June, 1941. The question is, is the population of the country higher than it was in 1941? If there is going to be a shortage and if it will be necessary to mix barley with the wheat later on, now is the time to ration the flour so that it will carry us over until such time as we hope to get the new wheat. I am not an expert but I do not like the idea of mixing barley with wheat. I imagine those two cereals do not agree. The question is, if you mix them, will they be capable of being made into bread satisfactorily? The millers may know that.

It is suggested that the Minister is going to appoint an advisory committee to advise him on the production of oats, wheat, barley, etc. I think a great deal of that should be left to the inspectors. There was an advisory committee set up when the control of the price of oats was introduced. I do not know whether that committee is in existence now or not. At the time it was set up, a price was fixed for oats. I remember, in a motion before this House two years ago, we asked the Minister to fix a minimum price for oats but to fix no maximum price. We told him that if he were to fix a maximum price it would kill production, that the price control would break down. He would not agree. He fixed a minimum price and a maximum price. The fixed price did not last very long. I do not think a new committee could do very much to advise the Minister. I would prefer to leave it to the inspectors. In my opinion, the majority of them know their work and they are in a position to investigate and to report.

I hope the Minister will not do this coming season what he did last spring or the previous spring in the matter of seed oats and seed wheat. He fixed a price for seed wheat and seed oats, and the prices he fixed were actually being charged by the seed cleaners in the City of Dublin, in Wexford and Donegal. The shopkeepers and agents in every county who had to buy oats for seed for the people in their areas were not able to purchase the oats except at the fixed price.

My recollection is that the controlled price was 20/- for seed oats. The seed oats had to be bought in Dublin at 20/- and then transported perhaps 150 miles by rail and then perhaps 40 miles by lorry to remote parts of the country. That would entail a cost of between 2/- and 3/- a cwt. over the controlled price. The people wanted the oats but the shopkeepers who were in the habit of supplying them could not buy them because they could not sell them at the controlled price. When the seed was wanted, it was not in the areas and the farmers had to go to the market and buy any class of seed that was available. We have the results now in the complaints about the quality of seed wheat and oats in the country. I believe that is due to the quality of the seed put down.

A similar thing happened in regard to the price of manures three years ago. We had four different prices—one in November, one in September, one in January and another in February. I complained of that on the Vote for Agriculture two years ago. I said there should be only one price, that the Minister should makeup his mind as to what was to be the general flat rate price for the whole year, not to have a price for certain periods. A flat rate price for the whole year was fixed for manures and certainly worked out satisfactorily. As far as the price of oats, barley and wheat is concerned, I would ask the Minister to fix the price on the same lines as he fixed the price of manures. If the Minister fixed a wholesale price of 14/- and gave 1/- per cwt. to the retailer, allowing him, say, 1/6 per cwt. for freight from Dublin to Ballina and an additional shilling to cover the cost of distribution in cwts., seed would be available to the people. But if the matter is dealt with in the same fashion as it was dealt with last year, when a single price was put into operation by cleaners and wholesalers, without any margin for freight or for profit, there will be no seed for the people when they come in for it. They had to go out on the market last year and pay any price for any class of seed. Those who held up their seed and brought it to the market were free to charge any price they liked—even 10/- orl5/- over the controlled price—because it was being sold from one farmer to another. The really poor farmer who could not hold over his seed had to buy at 10/- per cwt. over the controlled price. I want the Minister to attend to that because it is necessary it should receive attention.

As regards the subsidy on potatoes, which was allowed in County Dublin, this was the first I heard about a subsidy on new potatoes. If there is a subsidy for Dublin, there should be a subsidy for all classes of producers. All producers are taking a great risk in the production of new potatoes. One night can clear them of all the potatoes they have grown. Take the case of Erris, where they turned out between £6,000 and £7,000 worth of potatoes last year. They would have done the same this year but for a single night in the middle of May which destroyed the whole crop. For £5,000 worth of potatoes, they, probably, did not receive £500. Many of these people, live by producing new potatoes. They have buyers to collect them and they, probably, produce potatoes as early as the Dublin producers. If there is to be a subsidy or bounty in respect of these potatoes, I think that subsidy should extend to all areas producing a similar article. In Erris, the people have to go across to England for seasonal work and, if there is a £9 subsidy in the Dublin area, there should be a £9 subsidy in the Erris area.

Flax was grown this year and a ration of manure was given for it. If there is a shortage of potatoes and wheat and if encouragement is given to the growing of flax in this way there may be a danger of shortage of flour and potatoes. Flax is a useful crop for people to grow and they certainly may get some return out of it.

In regard to the price of cattle, I am not satisfied that the people are being properly treated. The Department may have done its best: I am not going to blame anybody. There is a price control by the British on fat cattle. If, for argument's sake, that price starts in December at 9d. a lb. and goes up to 13½d. per lb. to the end of June, that is, in roughly eight months it is going up and in four months it comes back what it went up in eight. In other words, for every ½d. it went up, it came down ld. The result is that the small farmer, one of the hardest and most industrious workers, goes out to buy his young calf in May and pays 10d. a lb. for him. He has to buy him at the highest price for beef on the British market and has to sell that calf in November—because he has no land on which to keep him— at the lowest price for beef.

There seems to be a common report this year that young cattle were bought in June which, if sold this November, would not make the price they were bought at. The people should be told to be careful in buying and not left in the dark when they were going out to sell. If the price goes up from 9d. to 14d. per lb and goes down again to 9d., I do not see why this Government could not arrange with the British Government, instead of bringing it back to 9d., to keep it between 10d. and 1/-. Then the big fall and the big rise would not take place and certain sections of the people would not be working for nothing, buying and selling without profit. Britain seems to want the meat and there is no reason why the two Governments could not fix it up to suit both sides. If they do not, that is another question.

In regard to increased tillage, I am satisfied that we are all agreed that the food must be got and that, if the present acreage is not sufficient to supply the necessary food, there is no alternative but to increase the acreage. If the land is properly handled and we get a good spring and a good harvest with the increased acreage, I believe we are certain to have more than our own supply of wheat, barley, oats, beet, eggs, potatoes and cattle. Now is the time for the Party in power to make arrangements to provide a market for any surplus we may have, and not be having a surplus there and no market for it next June or September.

I remember, inside the last ten years, when people would not take oats from you for nothing and when potatoes were lying along the ditches and sold at 1/- a cwt. and you would have to pay a man to take away a cart of potatoes. There is no reason why that should occur. There should be a market for agricultural produce, so that farmers would have an opportunity to sell. They will always produce if they have that opportunity, but if they find that they cannot sell what they produce they will get sick of it. I have a big connection with farmers and I know that, if you give the farmer a chance and an open market, he will produce the stuff.

I wish to finish by asking the Minster to go specially this year into the question of seeds and seed prices and not be doing it at the last minute. There is no reason why the Department should not be able to make known the prices, the quality and the germination of the seed for oats, barley, wheat and turnips, as well as the price they are going to pay for oats, barley, etc. If that is done, they may rest assured that the farmers will do their part of it.

I will not detain the House very long, as I realise that this subject has been debated from every possible angle at great length, and as I realise also that a good deal of irrelevant matter has been introduced. I have attended many meetings of committees of farmers throughout the country since the emergency began and in no instance have I come across any body of farmers who were not 100 per cent. prepared to go all out to assist in the food production campaign.

It is very strange, therefore, to the general body of farmers to hear statements made by the officials in headquarters to the effect that the farmers are not doing their best in this campaign. It is very discouraging to find that they have been, as it were, misrepresented to the urban population in that respect by the suggestion that they have been trying to exploit the dwellers in the towns and cities. That attitude is very unfair and, on behalf of the farmers, I protest against it here. Farmers have many difficulties to encounter—bad weather, failure of seeds, diseases in their cattle—and, in all the circumstances, I am sure everyone will agree that they have done remarkably well. Consequently, it is encouragement they want and not adverse criticism.

I wish to summarise, as it were, the demands made by the farmers upon these benches. In connection with the price of wheat, I went to the trouble some time ago of getting costings for the production of an acre of wheat, in cases where the yield was six, seven and eight barrels to the acre.

Statute. This year, the average, to my mind, would be somewhere between six and seven. From the costings that have been supplied to me by practical farmers and agricultural experts, I find that nothing less than 60/- per barrel would be an economic price in the coming season. I would suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that the docket or document with which he supplements the price value at half-a-crown should be translated into cash, and that instead of giving the farmer a slip of paper, the farmer should get half-a-crown in cash. If the Minister will only add another half-crown to that, he will satisfy the farmers, and if the proper price per barrel of wheat is given to the farmers, they will be able to supply the wheat for a loaf of 65 per cent. flour extraction, which would enable the offals to be used for the feeding of our live stock.

Now, with regard to the price of milk, I am sure that many Deputies have read the report of the findings of Professor Murphy of Cork University. Professor Murphy has carried out investigations in connection with some 60 farms in West Cork, and also in connection with many farms along the West Cork and Limerick border. At the time that he carried out these investigations, he found that the cost of producing a gallon of milk on those farms was 8½d. a gallon, leaving aside any question of profit. On that basis, the present cost of producing milk on such farms would be 1/- a gallon, and I wish, on behalf of the farmers of the country, to make the demand that the farmers should be paid 1/- a gallon for milk all the year round, for supply to the creameries.

I think it will be admitted that the dairying industry is the foundation of our agricultural economy, and that that industry is in very serious danger at the present moment, for many reasons. Of course, the first of these reasons is the uneconomic price that is paid for milk; but there is another danger, and a very serious one, and that is the incidence of disease amongst our dairy cattle. Take, for instance, the disease of contagious abortion which, it will be admitted, I am sure, by all Deputies in this House, costs the dairy farmers of this country a very considerable sum every year. I have often wondered why it is that our Veterinary Research Department has not gone into that matter and suggested remedies to counteract the colossal losses that have been inflicted on our farmers, year after year, as a result of that disease. If documentary evidence can be relied upon, I understand that there is a remedy for this disease of contagious abortion in cattle. For instance, I understand that in the State of Wisconsin, in the United States of America, and, nearer home, in England and Scotland, calves have been inoculated against the disease at the age of six or eight months, and that the results of such inoculations have been most satisfactory. I have been wondering, accordingly, why our Department of Agriculture has not carried out such tests here. As a matter of fact, in my own district, I endeavoured to get serum through my veterinary doctor last March, but I was told that it could not be got, and I do not know why. Now, all these things are very important, and I cannot understand why our Department of Agriculture is not trying to deal with these matters. There is also the question of mammitis in cattle. Perhaps, such diseases are more likely to occur in the case of certain breeds of cattle than in others, but still I hold that it is a matter for investigation by the veterinary branch of our Department of Agriculture. Now, as regards pig production, the general belief in my part of the country is that it would be a good job for the pig industry if the Pigs and Bacon Board were entirely abolished.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is in connection with the restoration of the fertility of our soils. Lime, at the present time, is practically indispensable, and I should like the Minister to take steps to include in the farms improvement scheme a clause whereby old lime-kilns could be renovated and put into use again. I think that if that were done, and old lime-kilns renovated and put into use again, so that the limestone could be burned, it would serve a very useful purpose so far as our agricultural industry is concerned.

As regards cattle, as several Deputies here have pointed out, I believe that cattle are our greatest national asset and that the day is coming when we will have no other medium of exchange except our cattle. For that reason, I welcome the recent schemes put forward by the Department for the improvement of our dairy herds, and I hope that these schemes will have the desired effect. When I am on that matter, perhaps I might say that I understand that a committee has been set up to deal with the question of post-war economy. I myself, and some other Deputies here, gave evidence before that committee last March, with regard to the dairying industry and schemes for the improvement of cattle generally. Subsequently, the Minister for Agriculture told me that there had been an interim report and that the recommendations contained in that report would be carried out forthwith. Well I am still waiting for that report, and I am still hoping that the findings of that committee, for the improvement of our dairying industry and the improvement of our cattle industry, generally, will be put into effect, because that is the basic industry of this country.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, although I know that it has been thrashed out sufficiently already, and that is the question of the price of wheat and the price of milk. Certain suggestions have been made with regard to the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board, and if the Minister will agree to abolish that board, then I think we would all be in agreement with him; but if he does not do that, or re-constitutes the board on entirely different lines, then I am afraid that we, as representatives of the farmers, cannot see our way to approve of his policy and must vote for the proposal of Deputies on the other side of the House.

I shall not delay the House any longer—I had not intended to speak as long as I have—but I hope that the Minister will see his way to accede to our request in this matter. If he does so, as I have said already, and speaking on behalf of the farmers of this country, I think I can assure him that he will have a surplus of wheat, butter, milk, and all the other commodities that the farmer can produce in this country. Remarks have been made here to the effect that the farmers are getting rich now. Well, perhaps, they are rich as compared with the days of the economic war, but it is time that the farmers should get some encouragement after the lean period through which they have had to go. In this connection, however, I should like to point out that there is a large section of the farming community who are not able to carry on at the present time, and these are the small farmers who are living on the hillsides of the country. They cannot grow beet or wheat. They have nothing to fall back upon but the drop of milk. The pig has gone, the poultry have practically gone and these people are in a very bad way. I say that, having personal experience of it, living as I do amongst them.

In passing, I should like to say that I join with other Deputies who have spoken of the desirability of giving every encouragement to agricultural labourers. The principal way I want to encourage them is to provide for them a decent system of housing. At the present time, we have so-called agricultural labourers' cottages but they are not agricultural labourers' cottages. Every section of the community seems to be using them. There should be some scheme whereby it will be possible for every farmer as in the old days to have a labourer's house on his land. Until such time as agricultural labourers see an opportunity of settling down on the land and making for themselves a home upon it, the flight from the land will continue. I think that is the root of the trouble— the difficulty of getting suitable homes. Whatever Department is concerned with that, I hope steps will be taken to investigate that problem and to provide a solution for it.

Mr. Cosgrave

Perhaps the Minister in the course of his reply would give us some further information regarding the extra percentage of land which it is expected will be put under tillage this year. If I took the figures correctly, the area devoted to tillage during the present year was 2,400,000 acres and next year it is hoped that there will be another 1,200,000 acres added to that.

Oh, no. The Deputy will understand that the percentage is being increased from 33? per cent. to 37½ per cent. Taking into account the allowance for first-crop grass, the increase of tillage would be about a net 4 or 5 per cent., or about 500,000 extra acres. That means that the total will be about 3,000,000 acres.

Mr. Cosgrave

It will mean an additional acreage under the plough in any event. I expect the Minister has taken into account the difficulties which the farmers had in dealing with the harvest this year and whether the labour content of the country will be sufficient to meet the demands during the coming harvest. A case has been made here for excluding from the compulsory tillage scheme, lands devoted to dairy herds and I think that that case has a fairly sound foundation. Assume for a moment that for the 40,000 gallons of milk which come in daily to Dublin, 20,000 cows are required. Probably another 20,000 would supply the needs of other cities and towns throughout the country. Allowing 3 acres for each cow that would absorb something like 120,000 acres. Even if we were to say 200,000 acres, the concession of 10 per cent. in that case alone represents only 20,000 acres. There are strong reasons why the House should agree to that. In the first place, the purchase of feeding-stuffs for cattle devoted to milk production is very expensive. It would be unfortunate if the better cows were sold from these herds and if the average milk production per animal were to be diminished. I think enough has been said on that point to impress the Minister with the importance of the suggestion.

Stud farms, too, deserve more than usual consideration just now. Those conducting stud farms have had four very lean years. They give a great deal of employment, and the animals require a considerable quantity of tillage products. It would be unfortunate if a man who had invested very considerable sums of money and who kept a considerable number of employees, had either to get rid of the animals or reduce the number in his employment. Having regard to the trend of events recently, it is possible that in the next couple of years thare may be some return for the investments that have been made in that way. In that case, too, the acreage to be excluded from the compulsory tillage scheme would not be very considerable.

A third point to be considered is the growing of wheat on land where its cultivation would not be a success. In no circumstances should any landholder, no matter in what part of the country he lives, be asked to grow wheat on land which will not yield a comparatively good crop. I think, too, some consideration should be given to the case made here, by Deputy Dillon, I think, for an examination of the waste occasioned by the 100 per cent. extraction. From information given to me by a member of the Minister's own profession, it appears that there is considerable waste, inasmuch as the bread becomes stale much more rapidly than if the lesser extraction were made. A good case can be made, therefore, for a 90 per cent. extraction rather than 100 per cent. extraction. Apart from that, the offals, pollard and bran, would be of considerable advantage for the feeding of animals.

One case that I expected would have been made by those who have close association with the land during the last ten years is that whatever shipping space is saved by reason of the extra production of wheat should be earmarked by the Minister for the importation of manures. Reference has been made in the course of the debate to the new departure in agricultural policy in the last ten or 11 years. It was urged that if it were not for the experience we had gained during that period and the advantage derived from the extra tillage policy, we would be in a bad position now. I do not think the people who made statements of that sort are aware of the facts. During the years in which we were supposed to be engaged in this intensive tillage policy, we imported a much smaller quantity of manures than in the years when there was not so much land tilled.

Perhaps the Minister would be able to tell us in the course of his reply what reliability we can place on the statistics we get both in regard to acreage and under the various headings of cereals. Assuming that they were correct for that time, is it not a joke to say that we had such an extension of tillage in the last 10 years? What does it amount to? Why, in the best year, it represented only 1 per cent. Assuming it were ten times what it was, is there not left in the country 90 per cent. of the land on which something else must be produced and on which we must get some return? It is on that aspect of this Vote that greater attention should be concentrated. If we take the coming year and say that 3,000,000 acres will be under tillage, we have left 6,000,000 or perhaps 7,000,000 of good arable land on which live stock will be raised. Now, is the 7,000,000 as important as the 3,000,000, or, alternatively, is the 3,000,000 as important as the 7,000,000?

It is a national duty on the part of the State to restore the fertility of the soil. The soil has been practically starved of manure for something like ten or 12 years—more starved, perhaps, during the last three or four years than in the preceding eight or ten. But the Minister has an unanswerable case to make to his colleagues. Shipping space has been spared by reason of not having to import wheat and, therefore, it is possible to get in manures and distribute them through the country. The proposal, if I understand it correctly, on the part of the Ministry, is that these manures are to be distributed according to whatever wheat is grown. I think that is a mistake. The approach should be in the direction of having the land, wherever it is or whoever has it, restored in fertility and so made useful for the State. It may be that an individual will benefit here and there, but ultimately the State must come in on whatever benefits accrue to the individual. It is the bounden duty of the Government to see that those who, during difficult years, drew upon the resources of the land, should have that land restored to its original fertile condition.

Reference has been made here to the hard life of those who are employed on the land, and particularly agricultural labourers. In one case a Deputy went so far as to suggest that the Government should fix the wage they ought to be paid. We are in this difficulty. What reliance can we place upon the figures given to us regarding, in the first place, the numbers engaged on the land and, in the second place, the value of the agricultural production in a particular year? Let us take the last year. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I think the amount made on the land was £73,000,000. Will the Minister accept that figure?

I think that is right.

Mr. Cosgrave

There are 630,000 persons engaged in the production of commodities from the land. It is an easy thing to divide one figure into the other and I think the quotient will give something like £115. That represents the annual value per person employed. How can we get £3 a week if the average earnings are £115 per head? We must remember that the £73,000,000 was made in what one might term a prosperous year. It was a year in which, as was stated here, the farmers were wealthy. The sum and substance of the situation is that there was not £2 5s. per week for each person engaged in the agricultural industry in that good year. Out of that sum they have to pay their rates and other liabilities. Although the annuities may be static, the rates have been going up. All that leads to this point: that if they are to get a higher wage—and apparently there is universal agreement that they should—we must increase in some form or other the value to be got out of the land. That is our main consideration here.

Taking the presentation of the case made by the Minister about his Department, I would say it was almost purely from the administrative aspect. It dismissed entirely any idea that you could have any change except for the worse in the agricultural policy. There was concentration on individual items, but the general policy in relation to agricultural output and value was ignored. There was a gradual reduction over the years in the value of agricultural output. How do we propose to remedy that? I say in that connection that practically every problem in relation to agriculture must be directed towards getting more out of it than what has been got—a greater development of output, an increase in output, and in the value of that output.

Some Deputy spoke of a reference in the Press and in the Parliament of another country regarding an improvement in agricultural output. He dismissed it and said it could not be true. It is true, and there is no doubt about it that agricultural output in a neighbouring country has advanced from 50 to 70 per cent. If we take the information furnished during the last ten or 15 years, it will be seen that the output per person employed here has been generally under that of our neighbours in the North or across the water. What is the remedy? We must increase the milk yield. The Minister may ask how is that to be done. I suggest it is a matter for his Department. I can only speak as a person with some experience. In my own experience the average output from cows is about 800 gallons and I believe it is possible for anybody else to have the same. There may be cases in excess of that.

What I am leaving towards is that if we examine this Estimate from that angle, I do not know whether it would be possible—the Minister may be able to say whether it would be—to increase the amount put down in the Estimate ior a better type of bull. The whole amount in the Estimate is almost negligible. We have £2,000 in the case of the non-dairy, and £2,000 for dairy stock and £12,000 or £14,000 by way of loans. I think those amounts, ought to be increased. I cannot say whether there is a market at the moment, but I am informed by a person with some experience of agriculture in another country that on a recent, occasion an animal that got first prize in a show across the water and which was purchased at a very high price, got only 3rd prize in South America.

My view In that connection is that no country in the world should have a higher standard of cattle than this country. It is true that in common with the herds of other countries our cattle have been subject to certain diseases. I believe they are relatively less affected than in other countries, but, however small it may be, that disease ought to be eradicated entirely. I do not agree with Deputy Halliden that it is a matter for veterinary experts. I rather think it is a bacteriological matter. It may require the assistance of the veterinary profession in getting a solution, but that a solution is possible, I am convinced, however long delayed it may be. I could verify what has been said with resard to the efforts made across the water to have animals inoculated in order to get rid of the disease. My information is that within the next few years it is likely that cattle in this country will not be exported unless a certificate has been supplied that they have been so inoculated. There is enormous loss in regard to that matter, and every effort must be made in this country, the same as in other countries, to eliminate that terrible waste. Similarly with regard to T.B. in cattle. It is probably less prevalent here than in any other country, but it should be eliminated. We should go so far as to exclude animals which react to it on examination, and in that case there would be none suffering from the disease.

With regard to seeds, soils and so on, I had the advantage of getting information directly from an extensive live-stock feeder who has given that up now and who is concerned with the system of lea farming. Probably the Minister has heard more about that than I did. In such cases we should have expert advice and the most scientific methods should be employed to improve the feeding qualities of our land. These are my suggestions regarding a scheme which would afford a better wage to those engaged in farming and to agricultural labourers. I suggest to the Minister for his serious consideration either to divide his Department into two separate compartments or to get a Parliamentary Secretary who would devote his attention exclusively to planning or arranging for an extension of agricultural output.

Reference was made by one of the Deputies for Mayo to eggs. I entirely disagree with him. They asked for concessions in connection with the marketing of eggs. I say that there should be none. The only aim in this country should be to get the highest quality in all brandies of our agricultural products. The standard should be nothing but the best. It may be that, by reason of that, for a time losses will be sustained, but if we arrive at the point where Irish agricultural products reach the highest price in competitive markets, we can sell our goods. If we arrange that only the highest quality goods get there we will surely have a people satisfied to make a living by marketing only the highest quality goods. There was a time when we had that position. We should not be in the least depressed by the new orientation which other countries have had before them in connection with agricultural development. Comparing the results of some ten years ago with the results of 90 years before that, I say that there is a marked improvement in our period in the production of cereals and in the numbers of cattle, pigs and poultry. I should say that the general expansion of production from the land in cereals and roots may be put down on the average as from 20 to 25 per cent.; that the numbers of cattle went up by about 50 per cent., and that that was the peak point in our production. It may be a difficult task now but it is a worthy one.

Agriculture, in my opinion, is a noble calling and every effort should be made to stimulate production and the volume to be got from it. It may be that in connection with such improvement in value there would be employment found for a greater number of people. I suggest that those who live in cities and towns, and who say that we spend too much time talking about agriculture, should remember that we have no secondary industrial exports, and that whatever market there is for industries in towns and cities will come from the purchasing power of the agricultural community. Until that is expanded, as it can be expanded, there will not be real prosperity in our towns and cities.

It is unfortunate that in the course of a debate such as this misconceptions have arisen as to what one Deputy who represents County Dublin said, which led a Deputy for Mayo to think that there was a subsidy for growing potatoes. There is no such thing. There is no subsidy for potatoes. There is a subsidy for people in Dublin who could not afford to pay the market price of potatoes owing to mismanagement in connection with the supply of potatoes. There was a plentiful supply of potatoes to meet, all requirements during the last 12 months, but by reason of a shortage at a particular time potatoes had to be bought, and, in order to do that, certain people had to get the market price. There was no subsidy for potato growers in Dublin and it is very wrong for any Deputy to try to lead his constituents to think that such a subsidy was given.

I hope that some good will come as a result of this debate. There seems to be variance between the views of farmers from different counties. I consider that as the farming community all earn their living in the same way, it is time that they had a common platform. If farmers are able to stand alone now that is no credit to the Government. They have no one to thank but themselves. When the Minister is replying I think he should repudiate a statement made in Dublin, that farmers had let the nation down. I thought that was a mean statement. The farmers did not let the nation down. It was lack of organisation and nothing else that was responsible for doing so. I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that if there was a better output in agriculture, better wages could be paid. The Minister has now made wheat growing compulsory, but I think he should have done so in 1940, and should have offered £3 a barrel. He will have to give that amount later on. If farmers are given a decent price they will provide the crops.

Meath is one of the counties to which the nation looks for an increased output of wheat. It is one county that contributes more than any other towards feeding the people. In my view the Minister has not given sufficient consideration to the claims of that county. It was known as a county of large ranches. It is time that the position there received special attention. Some men in that county are tilling 300 acres of wheat, but they find that they have sometimes to wait two or three months before securing a tractor, and at harvest time they have to wait months for machines to reap their crops.

It is my belief that sufficient attention has not been paid to that. I say without fear of contradiction that there is sufficient waste wheat lying on the ground in County Meath for rats and crows and pigeons to eat as would feed this country for a fortnight. That is a terrible statement to have to make but it is a fact, I walked over belts of wheat land where the wheat was lying rotten. To some extent that may have been due to the weather, but a lot of it was lost through pure neglect. I know of belts of wheat up to 60 or 70 acres which were overripe for five weeks because there was no machinery to be got to cut the wheat. I say that it was the duty of the Minister to see that such wheat was salvaged in some way or other, even if it were necessary to get some of the Army to save it. Most of that wheat was lost. The land was capable of producing 20 barrels to the acre, but instead of that only four or five barrels to the acre were got out of it. The owners, however, were quite satisfied because they were able to clear themselves. As long as the cattle paid them well, that paid for the wheat that was lost. The owners did not care if it was never reaped.

That is where the Minister made the mistake, because he did not get his Department interested in these large tracts of land in my county. I know that many ranchers there did good work, and did it well. But there are many tracts of land in my county the owners of which live 40 miles away, and hardly see the land once in 12 months. They have a herd and a couple of men employed, and it is left to them to deal with 30 or 40 acres of wheat. It is a colossal scandal that the Minister would not step in and take over these tracts of land in the interest of the people. We will now probably be short of one or two months' supply of wheat, and perhaps hunger may be staring some people in the face. Yet I know that wheat was left there rotting on the ground. The poor of Dublin will have reason to regret that. I blame the Department for that.

What is the use of sending inspectors to Connemara where they cannot produce two barrels of wheat to the acre? They should be sent to my county, where 20 barrels to the acre can be produced. That is where the Department should concentrate not alone its inspectors, but every bit of machinery they can get from Great Britain. That machinery should be concentrated in Kildare, Meath and Westmeath, where you can produce the crops. I say that any machinery that comes in from Great Britain should be the property of the Department until the war is over. I know that some machinery came into my county during the last few months, and I know the way it was distributed. The county committee of agriculture did their best to have it given to those best entitled to it, but other men, who were not entitled to the machinery, came up to the Department and pulled wires there and got the machinery, not in the interests of the nation, but to see how much they could make out of it. That is a disgrace. I ask the Minister to see that the State will own any machinery which comes in, and send it out to the large estates to sow and reap the crops, so as not to have thousands of barrels of wheat wasted which should be turned into human food. The Minister should give special consideration to that. I live in the district where these ranches are, and, although I see the waste, I can do nothing about it. It is for the Department to try to salvage these huge areas of wheat which are being wasted.

Many of these big farmers in my county are making every attempt to provide food and make it a paying proposition, but they cannot cope with the matter. What happens then is that tillage ranchers from Louth and Cavan come to Meath and take the land, not in the interests of the people, but to see what they can get out of it. They take 40 acres here and 50 acres in another place and 100 acres somewhere else. They are running about from one place to another. There is only one way of dealing with that, and that is that the Department should take over these ranches and parcel them out amongst the small farmers who are willing to take them in lots of four or five or six acres. They will do the work well. If that is done, I guarantee that there will not be one barrel of wheat lost. A small farmer with 25 or 30 acres is well able to cope with the tillage on his own farm as well as take part of a larger farm on conacre. In the days of the British Government every little farmer in County Meath was able to do well by taking conacre.

I ask the Minister to stop this practice of men coming from God knows where to make a profit out of the land in County Meath. As long as that is happening the country will be short of wheat. I ask the Minister to see that the small farmers in County Meath who can cope with the work should get a chance of taking such land on conacre. They have not the slightest chance at present of getting it. The "combine" men will always get it. The rancher will give the land to these "combine" men. Most of the ranchers hate to see a small farmer coming on to their land. They would rather give it to somebody else. I say that that is a disgrace and that it is time it was put a stop to, and that the men who can deal with this position should be allowed to deal with it.

As to county council workers who were released to give assistance during the harvest, I know many small farmers who wanted to save their harvest and who asked for the assistance of these men. While the ordinary agricultural worker was satisfied to work for 10/- a day, a good many of these warriors—not all of them—said that they would not work for less than 15/- a day. I do not know whether they combined together or not. The small farmer could not afford to pay that wage. These men were glad to hear that, because they did not want to work for the small farmer. The farmer with plenty of money, when he is told that the small farmers can only pay 10/- a day, will say that he will give 14/-, and the labourers of the country trot after him in order to get the 14/-. But the small farmer who was not able to pay 14/- had to do his work with a scythe. It is time that something was done with regard to that.

I agree with Deputy Beegan that there should be a definite fixed harvest wage—that the bigger men who can afford to pay should not be allowed to pay more than the poor man. There should be an honest harvest wage fixed for a three-months' period. These men who come from the county council work are not always the best type. The majority of them do not want to work on the land. A man who works on the road with a shovel does not want to work on the land. But the unfortunate agricultural worker, who is working from morning to night, is glad to get 9/- or 10/- per day. These other men want to get back to work on the roads or in the bogs. That is a matter which should be looked into. I am not saying that every man who is released from county council work is a bad worker. Some of them are good workers. There should, however, be a fair deal for everybody.

Another matter I am concerned about, as are also other people in County Meath with a national outlook, is that at present there is a complete "sell-out" in County Meath of large and middle-class farms. Public auctions of land are being held every day. I would not mind that if the land was going to farmers. I raised this question yesterday in order to bring it to the attention of the Minister. Jews and publicans from Dublin and others who have thousands to spend, such as the racketeers who made money during the economic war, are buying this land and giving a good price for it. In some cases they never see the land— they buy it by telephone. Within a few days some of these farms are sold to somebody else, but we never hear the name of the buyer. All that we see are herds of cattle from Tipperary or Dublin being put on the lands. With that situation, I think it is time for the Irish nationalist people to take stock.

Is not that a matter for the Minister for Lands?

I am raising it now because these farms are being bought by the type of people I have referred to. Some of the land is torn up for tillage by the man who owns it, but in a fortnight's time or so it is sold again and goes into the hands of somebody else. The tillage is left derelict and there is nothing but waste. It is time that an Irish Government should take stock of that position. You have the Jews and those who have fattened on the Irish people engaging in that sort of thing. If it is allowed to go on, it will again be a case of "To Hell or to Connaught" for the Irish farmer's son. That kind of thing is being done by people who have fattened on the sweat and blood of the Irish people.

I am not satisfied with the regulations the Minister has made for threshings. There was a regular racket last year in the case of these threshing mills. The charges which farmers had to pay were extortionate. The Minister should fix a definite charge per barrel. That would be fair to the farmer and to the millman, whether he was a man with a big mill or a small mill. To allow the threshing mills 12½ per cent. on what they charged last year is not the right way to do it at all, because very big prices were charged last year. If the Minister does what I suggest, of making the charge so much per hour or per barrel, there can be no quibbling about it, and the farmer will be satisfied.

I would ask the Minister to concentrate more on the County Meath. There is more waste there at present than would feed the Irish people for a fortnight. It is a public disgrace. Is it not a terrible waste to see these combines going in on 60 acres of land and 30 acres of the crop lying flat? The combine threshes out about four sacks to the acre, while three times that is left on land which has been sown with first-class seed.

We have the position, too, of men getting agricultural machinery who never stood behind a tractor or anything else, while good farmers cannot get one. These tractors and machines should be given to the men who are competent to make the best use of them. I heard of a man who was to get a reaper and binder, but another man who was at enmity with him and who probably had a pull with the Department, succeeded in getting it for himself. All these things should be looked into if we want to get honest, decent results from our tillage drive.

I want to touch on a few matters that concern the district I represent. West Cork is a very poor district and a big proportion of the holdings there are small. It is not a wheat-growing district. It is one in which potatoes and oats can be grown. The big problem there is the scarcity of farmyard manure. That was felt very much this year and will be felt during the coming season. The absence of it is principally due to the collapse of the pig-feeding industry, which was a very important industry in the district. Very little artificial manure is available. We have no lime kilns, but along the sea coast thousands of tons of sand are available. This is regarded as a great fertiliser in our part of the country. In fact, we prefer it to lime, but unfortunately we have no boats to deliver the sand as the farmer requires it. On at least two occasions within the last two years the Minister for Supplies refused to make oil available for two boats that were needed to land sea sand.

I would ask the Minister for Agriculture to use his influence with his colleague, the Minister for Supplies, to have oil made available for a few extra boats in our district. I want to assure him that the oil could not be put to a better use because the land is so poor that the sea sand is needed to act as a fertiliser.

There is a good deal of reclaimed moorland in the district. I am anxious to know from the Minister if his inspectors, when mapping out the area of land to be put under wheat, will include this moorland. My own opinion is that the sowing of wheat on reclaimed land is a waste of time and a waste of good seed. That land will grow potatoes all right but not wheat.

I have already brought to the notice of the Minister the anxiety of farmers in the district to get a change of seed. I hope that on that matter the position is not going to be worse this year than it was last year. I have here one letter signed by 25 farmers in a big district asking for a change of seed and requesting me to bring the matter to the notice of the responsible authority. The Minister, in his reply to me, said that the seed could be got through the usual channels. That may be so, but I would ask him to get his inspectors to visit the district where the change of seed is required. He should obtain a report from them. There may be some people in these districts who would not be able to pay for the seed, even if they were able to get it from the Minister. The people of West Cork are very industrious and at one time were very well-off. They are hard-working and industrious, but they have not recovered yet from the effects of the economic war. They are prepared to do their part. The crops failed with many of them this year, and if they are to fail again next year, owing to the lack of proper seed, it will be a very serious matter indeed for them.

The poultry industry at one time was a very important one in West Cork, but like the pig-feeding industry it has almost disappeared. The creameries as well as a number of people in the district went to great expense in putting up hatcheries and chicken houses. The price which is being paid for the dead chickens exported is not a remunerative one at all. I think the Minister should make recommendations to the British Government to pay at least a reasonable price for those chickens. It might be a small matter in the eyes of some but it is a very important industry.

A Deputy to-day made reference to the county committee of agriculture in Cork and to a visit paid to it by the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister went down to Cork at the invitation of the county committee, and the county committee were advised a week beforehand that the Minister was coming. A member of the committee was told off to put the case in respect of each branch of the agricultural industry before the Minister.

I should like to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there are less than 20 members in the House and that when a Clann na Talmhan Deputy is speaking, only three members of his Party are listening to him.

House counted; and 20 Deputies being present

The members of the county committee received the Minister, and, whether they agreed with him or not, gave him the honour due to him as a member of our Government. I do not think that many of us agreed with him, but surely the Deputy who spoke to-day did not want us, instead of putting our case before him, to give him a crack of a blackthorn. We put our case before him, and I think the Minister's views have been improved as a result.

I should like to ask the Minister if he is convinced that with the new scheme he proposes to put into operation for next year, he will get the necessary quantity of food for the people. That is a question which I have been putting to myself for the last week or two, and, listening to the debate, I have, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that a great many people in this country have over-estimated the country's resources, and regard the country as one vast empire with nothing to do but will that a thing be done to have it done forthwith. In view of the policy which the Government has pursued for the last eight or nine years, can the Minister say, once and for all, whether, irrespective of the price per barrel which he proposes to pay for wheat—whether 55/-, 65/- or 105/—we can produce sufficient wheat for our needs, because every year that passes we are short, for some reason or other, and then we are told we are self-supporting?

Irrespective of the price, we do not seem to be able to produce sufficient wheat, and at the same time put into operation all the other parts of our agricultural economy. In other words, will we be able, even at this late stage and notwithstanding all the boastings we have carried on for the last eight or nine years, to produce sufficient wheat, and at the same time keep our oats, barley, root crops in the form of turnips and mangels, beet crops, and the necessary acreage of grass to feed our cattle and all the other things ancillary to the successful working of an agricultural country?

That is an important question, and one which I should like the Minister to answer. There is no use in talking about producing wheat, if at the same time the Minister is in negotiation with some foreign country for the importation of wheat. I hope he will be successful in those efforts, but one of the points I put to him is that, notwithstanding the fact that we have paid out very large sums of money during the past eight or nine years, we are not self-supporting. This debate has convinced me of one thing: the utter failure of the policy of self-sufficiency, in spite of all that has been said and done during the past ten years.

I represent the smallest county in Ireland, but, I believe, one of the best tillage counties. We grow more wheat, oats and barley per head than any other county, and one of the things which are annoying the farmers in that county in regard to threshing is the fear of using turf and sticks, owing to the danger of fire. They are very much put out by reason of the fact that, having got permits for coal, they are not in a position to get coal of a quality which will give definite results, and I suggest to the Minister that, if it is at all possible, he should negotiate with the British Government with a view to getting in a few cargoes of coal at the right time, which could be distributed to farmers all over Ireland who are the owners of threshing sets, and so free the farmers from their fear of fire, and also encourage them to go on to greater things in the future.

The importation of coal is a matter for the Minister for Supplies.

I thought the Minister for Agriculture would have an interest in it, seeing that it plays such an important part in an operation, threshing, which is of real concern to the agricultural community. No matter how good the crops you have, if you have not got machinery to thresh them at the proper time, there is sure to be wastage. I think my suggestion would be one means of meeting the difficulties which confront a great many of the farmers in County Louth. I hope the Minister will consult the Minister for Supplies with a view to getting a few extra cargoes of coal and, in doing that, I do not think he will be running any risk, as Deputy Fogarty seems to think he would be, of plunging this country into war. We are an independent country and why should we be afraid to go across to England and negotiate there, as the Turkish statesmen are doing?

You could scarcely carry on an agricultural policy but for the assistance of Great Britain, and there is no use trying to deny that fact. Where would we be but for the imports of kerosene and petrol of which we have heard so much even from Deputy Fogarty during this debate? Everybody would, have to go out with a hook and scythe to save the crops, were it not for the imports of kerosene and petrol which we have got. There is no useful purpose served by this hypocritical talking about the dangers of war. There is no such danger. As Deputy Larkin says, why do we not stand erect as free men, the representatives of a free nation. and demand a quid pro quo from those on the far side for what they are undoubtedly getting here in the shape of cattle and other products from the farmers of this country.

With regard to tractors, it came to my notice last week that a man had to stop threshing operations because he could not get sufficient petrol. He was the owner of two steam threshers, but, owing to the poor quality of the coal he got, he could not use them. He was an honest man who stated that his steam threshers were in excellent condition but he could not use them because the coal was no good. He applied for petrol but there was a delay in giving it to him. I believe he will get it ultimately, but why the delay?

I would ask the Minister for Agriculture, who is primarily responsible, to consult with his colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce and have these matters attended to. Of course, I recognise that we are not the bosses here, that even the Minister for Agriculture is not the boss in this country. He has to consult with the people on the far side in these things. I know his difficulties. I am not trying to gloss over or to hide them. He must only do the best he can to see that there is equal distribution of whatever supplies are available and can be imported. I hope that we will be lucky enough to get more during the coming year.

Last week I heard that large numbers of old cows had been sold to the canning factories in this country to be killed and canned. I have it on reliable authority that large numbers of those cows were in calf. If that is a fact, it is a disgrace to this country. If that is allowed to happen, is it any wonder that we fear a shortage of cattle? It was bad enough when the Minister ordered the slaughter of the calves but to continue it by slaughtering the calves before they are born is a crime that possibly will call for vengeance in the very near future. I hope the Minister will see to it that that does not occur because, to say the least of it, I do not think it is a bit lucky.

I think it is up to everybody to assist in providing sufficient food next year for the people of this country. It may be said here that the farmers were taking advantage of the position in order to cash in. I do not think that is right. During the economic war there was very little sympathy with the farmers when they were cashing out and when they almost lost everything. It is well to issue the warning that we must all work together, that nobody is indispensable, that nobody is the boss and that we must all sink or swim together in the difficult years that lie ahead. It may be that this war may last another three or four years and we will be left absolutely on our own resources. If we are fortunate enough to be able to secure some small imports from our friends on the far side, so much the better, but I think in the main we will have to rely upon the work of our own people and on the productivity of our own soil. I repeat that it is extraordinary that in the year 1943, so far as I can see, the Minister is still not in a position to state whether this country will be able to grow sufficient wheat for next year, or not. When I say sufficient I mean a quantity of wheat that will support the people if we never import any foreign wheat. If we can get it in, it will be all the better. but, so far, that has not happened. We are told that it takes the produce of something like 750,000 acres, roughly, to produce 750,000 tons of wheat, which is the quantity we require. Between oats, barley and other cereals and root crops we have used only about 3½ million acres and we are supposed to have from 9 to 12 million acres of arable land. I cannot understand, therefore, why the Minister cannot say that we are in a position to produce sufficient wheat.

When the wheat policy started, great things were expected of it. Of course, it has to be grown now, whether we like it or not. There is no use in Deputies on the opposite benches saying that Deputy Dillon agrees with the policy because he stated in his speech that we have perforce to grow wheat. The Deputy on the far side forgot to say that Deputy Dillon said that after the war the wheat scheme would go into thin air. Any man of common sense must agree with that. When the war is over you will all get your eyes opened and it will not be a bit of harm. We have to move with the times. All things will change when the war is over. We have to try to get through these difficult years as best we can.

We have to plan now, not for postwar. We will be doing well if we get through the present years and I would advise the Minister to pay the least possible attention to this question of post-war planning. It is all moonshine and bunkum, just as town planning and everything else were found to be here. It is sufficient for us to try to get through a difficult time from day to day, week to week and year to year, letting the future fend for itself. One of the things we have to do now is to grow wheat. It does not follow that we will have to do it when the war is over.

I can assure the Minister, whatever criticism I have to offer, I do my little bit with the farmers of my county and I think he will agree that the results obtained in County Louth compare very favourably with those obtained in any other county in Éire. I would like to impress upon the Minister the two matters to which I have referred, namely the supply of coal and kerosene. If he could afford to give a little extra oil to the farmers who have to look after large numbers of stock during the winter months, it would be a great boon.

We have occupied a long time on this Estimate but it is a very important one and every member is supposed to say something. I did not wish to waste the time of the House, because most of the things I have mentioned have already been mentioned. But the time we have spent on this Estimate falls very far short of the time that used to be wasted by the members of the present Government when they were in Opposition. I remember their wasting a fortnight or three weeks on the smallest Estimate. I remember Deputies on the opposite benches wasting weeks and weeks in their eloquence telling the late Government how they could run this country and solve the unemployment problem. It never was as bad as it is to-day. The Taoiseach, in his innocence, when he was in Opposition, said that the land of this country could feed 9,000,000 people. Of course, he has learned sense since. He has solved the problem by sending the people to England and to America, if they could get to it. For the one who goes, ten would go if they had the facilities and would be glad to go.

I hope the Minister will consider the suggestions that have been made. For our part, it is our bounden duty to do what we can to assist him in seeing to it that sufficient wheat, oats, barley, potatoes and other crops will be grown during the coming year.

I have no desire to prolong this debate, but conscientiously I feel bound on behalf of my constituents in County Roscommon to put their views once again before the Minister, and to say that I am directed by them to protest against the bungling of the Minister for Agriculture and his Department, as well as the Cabinet who are responsible for putting up with such bungling, during the Minister's term of office. I think that every member of the Cabinet should be held accountable, and must bear his fair share of the responsibility for the bungling which has taken place. I entirely agree with the statement of Deputy Corry that we are not getting a fair return for the money spent in premiums and on special-term bulls. When I give some particulars as to what I am personally aware took place in my parish and county, I think there are few Deputies but will agree that it is little wonder that the production of milk and butter has decreased. I also feel sure that Deputies will be convinced that Deputy Corry was right in his statement.

Some four or five years ago the county committee of agriculture in Roscommon, working in conjunction with the Department and under the instructions of the Department, made an effort to increase the milk supply. They went around to bull-keepers in the area, including myself. I was asked if I would co-operate with them in this object. I thought the object a very worthy one, and I promised a very personal friend of mine on the county committee of agriculture, and a member of the Department's staff who accompanied him, that I would co-operate wholeheartedly. I put in for a premium and got it, but it was cancelled a week after I got it. I was not very worried about that, because, as I say, it was at the instance of the Department official and this particular member of the county committee that I applied at all. Later on they came and asked me to take a special-term bull, and I agreed. This special-term animal came along, and I was so anxious to do everything possible, in accordance with their wishes, to increase the supply of milk in my district and county that I got posters printed at my own expense. I also circularised people living in the area, and sent them the pedigree of the animal that I had received from the Department of Agriculture, all of which was printed at my own expense. This met with a very favourable response. Some 30 cows visited my place in a period of one month. To my amazement, one day when I was grooming the animal I looked at his earmark and found that it was not the animal I should have got at all. I reported the matter to the local inspector, who communicated with the Minister or his Department.

On a point of order. Is it permissible for a steward to report something that happened on his own farm in a debate on an Estimate? It appears that there is a dispute between this particular farmer— not the Deputy, because I am taking it that he is really speaking in the second person, though he spoke in the first person—and the Department. He has reported something that he should put down in black and white and which is not the concern of the House.

Has he not a perfect right to state his own case?

I am speaking with regard to a matter involving public funds and as a Deputy I claim——

The Deputy is accusing somebody in the Department who is not here to defend himself. He says that somebody brought him down an animal and that he examined its earmark, and he is now making a charge which the Minister must take notice of. But whoever sent him down that particular beast is not here to defend himself.

The bull came from the Department and the Minister is responsible.

Of course the Minister is responsible.

I can assure Deputy MacEoin that the Minister and the Department are already aware of the facts, and anything I say here or that I have said in regard to this matter I am prepared to stand over and prove. The Department's inspector visited the place and reported the matter to the Department and told me he would let me know the result in a few days. In a fortnight's time he came along and presented me with their record of the bull that was sent out to me and asked me to sign it. I pointed out to him that I had already humiliated myself by admitting to people, including no less a personage than his Lordship the Bishop of Achonry, that I had sent out a circular with regard to another animal, and that I had publicly to notify them and apologise to them. I told him that I would have nothing further to do with the animal, that I looked upon it as a trespasser, and that he should have it removed. The animal was removed and from that day to this I have never received a penny compensation for the upkeep of that animal during the period it was in my possession. There are other matters I could speak of with regard to that, but these are the mere facts. All I have to say is that it so disgusted me that it brought to an end a record of 90 years' bull-keeping on that farm, and that, irrespective of what I am to receive by way of premium, I would have nothing further to do with a premium or special-term animal, as the present Ministry or those responsible for doing that had not even the courtesy to apologise for what they had done.

But that is not all. In 1936, a neighbour of mine went to Carrick-on-Shannon show and sale which was held under the patronage of the Department of Agriculture and subsidised by the county committees of agriculture, including the Roscommon committee to the extent of £20. Two inspectors were present. The champion bull of the show and sale was awarded the championship. He was bought by my friend, but he was not awarded a premium and, when the Department was asked why, the reply was that he was suffering from genital defects. They were quite justified in rejecting him for a premium, but I say here that they had no right to pass him as a licensed bull.

We have also a case of another farmer in the district, who paid £130 for an animal which was boosted up on the papers and was sold in a very short time as baby-beef, as being unfruitful, for something like £15 or £16. I understand that the purchaser of that animal was not at a loss, due, probably, to the insurance company, but I would like to know what loss the district suffered. Under those circumstances, I think I am quite justified in my remarks, in saying and feeling as Deputy Corry has felt—that there is not a return for money spent in this direction.

Further bungling in regard to bulls has happened this year and I allege that even political bias has been in vogue in the matter. A friend of mine— not a relative—applied for a premium bull. He was granted the premium by the county committee, sanctioned by the Department and got his voucher to attend the show and sale. When he was 20 minutes or half an hour on the train, on his journey to Dublin, he got a wire from the Department that the premium was cancelled. He was allowed to spend one day travelling, the night in Dublin, and the next day going back. He got some expenses, but I think these are matters that require the very serious consideration of the Minister and that, before we vote public funds, we have a right to point out abuses, if they have taken place, and to ask the Minister that more care be exercised in future.

I do not agree with everything Deputy Dillon said yesterday, but I agree with a good deal of it. I agree with the committee that he suggests —a county food committee—provided that it is an impartial, non-political committee. I also suggest that such a committee, or even a national committee of the members of the Dáil, could be elected on such a basis. The people have voted quite recently in the general election and, if all of us who have been elected are really sincere, it should be our duty not to throw Party gibes but to accept the will of the people and work for the common welfare of the country during this emergency. I suggest that this national committee or Dáil committee be elected on proportional representation, on the basis of the strength of all the Parties in the Dáil, that nominees be extracted from each Party to co-operate and meet, if necessary, to oversee the reports of the county food committee.

The reason I do not like county committees or officials to be appointed is that, from information on those things, I am afraid that the Government would use the whip for political purposes. My reason for saying so is that, when six or seven tractors were allocated to County Roscommon recently, the chief executive officer of the Roscommon County Committee openly admitted that he was instructed to give no information, notwithstanding the fact that we were told by An Taoiseach a couple of years ago, in a public statement, that the county committees of agriculture were to discharge the administration of agricultural affairs in their counties.

We have an instance, I understand, of a merchant in Roscommon. No doubt, to be fair to the Minister for Agriculture, he has said that the Department did not interfere in any way but, however, the bald fact remains that people came from the end of the county to purchase the machines, or, at least, the tractors came through this one merchant. I am also informed that he received one himself; two ex-employees of his, I understand, got one; and I am also informed that a brother-in-law of his got one. Three of those tractors have been placed within a radius of about four miles, in a circle of at least six or seven miles——

They would be able to cut it all.

——whilst in another part of the country no tractor has been placed. All I have to say is that to my mind and to the minds of a good many people, the allocation of those tractors was disgraceful.

If I am not mistaken, I heard the Minister for Lands yesterday saying that 20,000 acres had been bought and allocated during the last 12 months. I would like to know the reason why two farms in Southpark, near Castlerea, purchased, I understand, five or six years, have not been allocated for the provision of food.

That is a matter for the Minister for Lands.

I just wanted to point out that, if they were given to the tenants around, it would help very much in the way of food production. We have also another case of a young man, anxious to co-operate in the food production scheme last year, notwithstanding the fact that a great many of the Fianna Fáil Party want to blacken our county as being bad farmers and not anxious to till or do their duty. I refer to a young man, with three acres of land, adjoining the Brooklawn farm. When he went to the Land Commission to ask for a half-acre of conacre, he was informed by the Department that a certain amount of the Brooklawn farm was set in conacre, but that if any other division was to be made, the local Fianna Fáil club would be aware of it. In other words, they told him politely, in effect, to go down and join the local Fianna Fáil club, and thus he would be able to get the letting of the conacre. I think that, in the case of Roscommon, at least, when it comes to such matters, we should draw lots, because I am sure the Government are aware that at the present time they cannot claim a majority in that county.

Well, they hope to get a majority there, and I suppose the end justifies the means.

We hear of farmers being in want of clothing and boots, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that when, three or four years ago, the Bishops of Ireland were asked to urge their people to make economies, the Bishop of Achonry endeavoured to do so, but his people failed to respond until his administrator called a public meeting in Ballaghaderreen to deal with these matters. The things that his Lordship the Bishop of Achonry asked to be put in force were: first, that a sufficient supply of milk should be provided for the poor generally, and, secondly, that second-hand clothing should be let in duty free to this country for the benefit of the poorer farmers.

That has nothing to do with this Estimate, Deputy.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but as the matter of clothing for agricultural workers was raised yesterday, I am only putting the suggestion to the Minister for Agriculture so that he might convey it to the proper quarter. There is one burning question in our county, and that is the question of the making of bog roads and of drainage, and I imagine that that would have a bearing on many other parts of the country also. Of course, I suppose I shall be told again that such matters do not exactly come under the Minister's Estimate.

They do not come in at all.

Well, Sir, if I do not mistake, I think that when the Minister was going through the various items in his Estimate he referred to rural relief schemes and said that a certain amount of money was being made available for them.

Not under this Estimate.

Not under this.

Well, may I point out to the Minister, in passing, that if these bog roads——

Deputies must accept the ruling of the Chair when they are informed that certain matters are not in order.

Very good, Sir, I bow to your ruling. Again, let us come to the question of bacon. According to my information, the highest price paid to farmers has been £8 a cwt. for the best pigs, and for sows £6 a cwt., and I see where the bacon curers have asked for higher prices. I should like to point out that, with rashers at 2/6 or 3/- a lb., that would amount to about £14 or £17 a cwt., plus the value of the offals, and since the bacon curers have amassed fortunes at the expense of the farmers and of the consumers in the past few years, I think that serious consideration should be given to this matter before their demands for increased prices are granted. The price to the farmer is £8 a cwt. for the best pigs and £6 a cwt. for sows, but we find, when we go into the shops or factories, that the bacon is not marked as sow bacon or otherwise, or that sow bacon is sold at a reduced price.

In my opinion nothing would give the farmers and the general public so much satisfaction as to know that the Bacon Board had been put out of action entirely, and all that the farmers and the consuming public wish to convey to the Minister is their sincere desire that that board will be put out of action immediately.

Hear, hear!

Deputy Dillon, I think, expressed some little sympathy with them, and suggested that they ought to get pensions. I think that it is jail they should get. I see that a fine of £500 is to be enforced in the case of illicit bacon curers who are caught. I think that it is the members of the Bacon Commission on whom that fine should he enforced, because they are the people who are responsible for the evil. Again, I disagree with Deputy Dillon when he talks about rich farmers. He may be talking about farmers in County Monaghan, for all I know, but so far as the farmers in my own county are concerned, most of them are hard-working and honest, and men who try to pay their bills to the best of their ability. I am sure that Deputy Dillon is aware that a great deal of that money comes from England. As a matter of fact, during the last fortnight or the last month, I should say that no fewer than 50 farmers have come to me asking me to recommend them for passports to enable them to emigrate to England. I am personally aware that, during the last week, two farmers from my own area, who had spent some years in America and who had come home and settled down and are now fathers of families, with children aged from five to ten, had to flee from this country because they could not make a living here, and yet we are told that we farmers are a lazy lot.

These are only a few examples of the conditions of the people around Ballaghaderreen and in the West of Ireland generally. These people have worked from dawn to dark in the springtime in order to produce food for our people. They have been the mainstay of the nation, and when they have their crops gathered, instead of being able to take a holiday at the seaside, they get their tickets to England to spend more of their sweat working over there in order to provide food for their own wives and children. I think it was a rather strange comment that the Minister made here about a year ago, to the effect that people going to work in England, and sending paper money over here to buy commodities that could not be replaced, were doing a great injury to the country. All I can say is that it is heartrending, when travelling through the West, to see fathers and mothers taking leave of their children. You can see that almost every day at Ballaghaderreen and all through County Mayo.

I do not intend to prolong the debate further than to say sincerely that if a fair and square deal is given to the farmers we shall do everything possible to produce the necessary foodstuffs. I think that everybody connected with the administration of this scheme should cease browbeating. Let the Minister for Agriculture, his officials and public servants generally, give effect to the boasted Christian Constitution that An Taoiseach is so proud of, which guarantees justice, fair play and equal treatment to every citizen. It is not too much to ask that officials and public servants should not be actuated by political bitterness in the discharge of their public duties. Let us take the advice of an impartial national food production committee and forget about coercion, because I think every Irishman will agree that coercion is very repugnant to the sons and daughters of the soil no matter whether it comes from a native or a foreign Government. I ask the Minister for Agriculture to use his influence with the Executive Council to have byroads constructed to farmers' places and to have the flooded lands drained so that they may be made capable of producing food. In short, if you give a square deal to the sons and daughters of the soil they will rise to even greater heights for the sake of God and country to feed and save the nation.

There is only just one other matter to which I wish to refer. When Deputy O'Driscoll was speaking, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney asked the Ceann Comhairle to take note of the fact that only two members of this Party were present. I would like, you, Sir, and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney to note that in less than five minutes afterwards, when his own colleague got up to speak, only two members of the Fine Gael Party remained to listen and that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney himself left immediately afterwards.

There are about three points that I wish to put to the Minister, but before doing so I should like to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that it is not customary in this House to attack a civil servant on a personal matter, and that if a Deputy has a charge to make against a civil servant of which the Attorney-General would take notice, he should make it before he comes into this House and not under the privilege of the House.

The Chair did not hear any attack on any civil servant, or would immediately have intervened.

Is it not perfectly in order for a Deputy of this House to draw the attention of the Minister to the general incompetence of his Department in any given particular?

Quite, but individual civil servants should not be singled out.

Or named. Certainly.

Or be so referred to as to be identifiable. A Deputy may refer to alleged maladministration, but must put the responsibility on the Minister.

When a Deputy names a case in which he is personally involved, and of which, therefore, he has first-hand knowledge, it is within his competence to give that information direct to the Minister or to inform the proper authorities at that particular time but he should not, in my opinion, make a charge in this House that he would not dare to make outside.

The charge was made on every platform in County Roscommon.

Deputy Dillon will allow me to make my point and he can make any protest he wishes on a point of order, afterwards.

As I am repeatedly doing.

I shall make my case to the Chair as I think it should be made.

Deputy MacEoin.

I would not have intervened in this particular manner were it not for the fact that part of my constituency is in County Roscommon and I have a certain responsibility for it. Deputy Meighan might argue that I was not discharging that responsibility as well as I should, but I think I shall be able to discharge my responsibility towards that part of the county just as well as he has done because I think he has not served a very useful purpose or served the interests of agriculture in that particular area by referring to this matter.

Speaking for the County Longford, portion of Westmeath and portion of Roscommon, I do not subscribe to the view that wheat can be grown upon all parts of every farm. I think that some discretion must be left, either to the agricultural instructor or the inspector of tillage, whoever he may be, to say exactly on what land wheat should be grown because on some land you could put in the best seed wheat available and you would not get even a return of the seed. That would represent a loss rather than a gain.

If you take County Leitrim or North Longford, for instance, there are patches of land there of which the statement made by Deputy Corry yesterday would not be true, namely, that if there was a root crop taken off it prior to its being sown with wheat you would have a chance of getting a good crop of wheat. That would not apply to every portion of land front which a root crop has been taken. The point I want to put to the Minister is that there should be some system of selectivity or some method of appeal and the matter is now one of urgency as the time is very short. There should be some discretion left to the inspector in charge of the area or to the agricultural instructor. A farmer who is in doubt may say to the instructor: "I cannot sow wheat there. I could get a good crop of oats from it but I will not get the seed wheat out of it if I put in winter wheat, and if I put in spring wheat I might have a very poor result." The inspector or the agricultural instructor will know whether that is true, or at least he should know because he is trained. I think a discretionary power should be left in their hands in dealing with what are known as the light soil areas, and I include in the light soil areas, portion of Roscommon, nearly all County Leitrim, most of North Longford and part of County Westmeath. If you attempt to sow wheat on every farm in these areas your efforts will be futile. I do not wish to put it any further than that but the Minister should take care that the objective he has in view will be attained. You could lose thousands of barrels of wheat in seed for which you would have no return, and that would be even a greater loss at this particular stage than the non-sowing of it.

The next point relates to machinery. There are people in the country, small firms—if you like, you might not call them firms—who have welding plants of one type or another and these are used for agricultural purposes. Where the Minister gives a certificate that these machines are used for the welding and the repair of machinery, he should insist that the Department of Supplies will make the necessary arrangements for transport, whether by petrol or paraffin or whatever method may be used. It is a very great hardship upon a farmer when he is ploughing if some part of the machine breaks. It may be a good day and if he has to go a distance to get the repairs carried out there is valuable time lost. The main object we all have in view is the production of more food and the safeguarding of our food supplies. Every little effort that helps in that direction must be made. The Minister and the Department of Supplies should accept whatever information can be sent to them by people upon whom they can rely.

It is a well-known fact that Fianna Fáil, at a certain point, said that the wheat acreage in this country had increased. Everybody knew there was some increase, but that it had not reached the point indicated by the Fianna Fáil propagandist. The next year the same thing was said. I think if there was a complete analysis made as to the efforts of the farmers this year, it would be found that there are not many acres of wheat loss sown and harvested this year than in other years. What has really happened is that the Fianna Fáil trick of "more wheat" has been found out. It was the simplest thing in the world lor a farmer to tell a Civic Guard he had nine acres of wheat this year, because Fianna Fáil wanted it. That report was duly sent in. It was only when the pressure came down and a report had to be made by the farmer that the exact acreage—and I do not know that it is too exact even yet—was found out. What happened was that the propagandist of Fianna Fáil was found out. The Party made a great success of it; the Fianna Fáil propaganda was the best. Deputy Dillon said that the Taoiseach was the astutest politician in Europe. He may be, but the Fianna Fáil propagandists are ten times more astute than ever he was.

I have travelled the country from Donegal to Cork and Dublin to Galway and I have seen the fields growing wheat and I believe there is more this year, but there is this danger, that although you have a slightly higher acreage and next year you are going to have a greater acreage, you may have a lower produce. That is the danger that must be guarded against. As you want wheat you must sow only wheat and sow it in the land able to produce it well. No farmer will sow wheat when he knows in his heart he is going to get only three or four barrels to the acre, or even five. He will not sow it when he knows that he can get 17, 18 or 20 barrels of oats to the acre. The man would be mad if he did that because he would be taking from this country the food he can produce.

I want to remind the House of two things. Oats has been a more staple food in this country than ever wheat was. Oats and oatmeal, and oatmeal bread have formed the staple food of the armies of 1641 and 1798. Men marched from Killala to Ballinamuck in 1798 on oatmeal and buttermilk, and in 1641 they used the same food. If there is a food crisis in this country, while wheat may be a grand food I suggest that you cannot beat the oatmeal and the drop of buttermilk. The best food in this country is to be had in good milk and good oats. If you have them you arc in a perfectly sound position, because you can fight on that diet for any distance.

I suggest to the Minister that in the Midlands and in the North and South, where danger is likely to arise, if there is a good supply of oats in these districts and a good supply of milk then when the emergency arises the people may not have, perhaps, a dainty wheaten cake, but they will have a good farley of brown bread that any man could live and fight on and, I suppose, we could die on it, too.

I cannot say that, in the course of this debate, I have been overburdened with suggestions. The debate has lasted for three days and, although I took notes of all the points that were made, I do not think I will have very many ideas to carry back with me to the Department. Some speakers suggested that when I was introducing my Estimate I did not refer to certain things. That may be, but that does not mean, as seemed to be inferred, that I was not interested in these matters or that I considered them of no great importance. When I was introducing this Estimate I spoke for almost 1½ hours and, if I were to cover every activity of the Department of Agriculture, the debate over the last three days will give some idea of how long it would take me. I had to omit some things and I may omit some things now, but, again, that does not mean that the things I omit are of no importance or that I am not interested in them.

There is one thing I think we may conclude from this debate and that is that every Party is united on the major policy during this emergency. Every speaker who referred to it said that he agreed with compulsory tillage. There may have been small differences of opinion as to whether it should be 25 per cent., 27½ per cent. or should remain at 33½ per cent. or go to 37½ per cent. These were only minor differences of opinion but they were raised as big objections. I was rather surprised to hear speakers from every Party agree that compulsory wheat-growing is necessary. In fact, the criticism from Fine Gael. Clann na Talmhan and from Labour was that it had come too late; that it should have been done in 1940 instead of this year. We had agreement on that. Every Party also agreed that we should have a guaranteed price on a remunerative basis for essential food. We had agreement on all big matters. There was also agreement that the Government should do everything possible to help farmers during these difficult times in the way of getting fertilisers, proper seeds, machinery, fuel oil, binder twine and so on, and as far as we could, to see that there was labour available. Although we agreed on the big principle, we took three days to talk about small things. We only differ on small details after all. There was a lot of talk about bacon and eggs and listening to some speakers from Clann na Talmhan, and from Fine Gael one would imagine that if the Pigs and Bacon Commission was not there, we would have 1,000,000 pigs now. I should have included Deputy Dillon, who has come into the House, with the others, but it was a case of out of sight out of mind.

The Minister should have said: "Talk of an angel and he will appear."

Some speakers drew attention to the fact that we could not get enough potatoes for human consumption last year. I think the figures were given by the Minister for Supplies some time ago. I take it that they were correct. I am sure he went to trouble to get them. It appears from the figures that we require 600,000 tons of potatoes for human consumption. Our production of potatoes last year was 3,000,000 tons. There was the shortage that we heard of in May. The total shortage was 4,000 tons out of 600,000 tons. There was a slight shortage of potatoes for human consumption. We also know that there was a slight shortage of oats for human consumption, yet we had speakers getting up in this House, people who are supposed to be responsible men, in the Fine Gael Party, in the Farmers' Party and on the Independent Benches, Deputy Dillon, for instance, and telling us that but for the Pigs and Bacon Commission we would have plenty of pigs. What would we feed them on? Were we to take more potatoes away from Dublin to feed them? Were we to take more oats from the oatmeal millers to feed them? What were we to feed them on? Every Deputy from these three Parties who spoke claimed to represent fanners, with the exception of Deputy Larkin. I am sure that no farmer would tell me that he had plenty of oats, barley, and potatoes at home, but that he had no pigs to give them to. Where then was the feeding for pigs to come from?

What is the use of blaming the Pigs and Bacon Commission for having no pigs when there is no foundation for doing so? The Pigs and Bacon Commission may have made mistakes, they may have done wrong things and may have made it difficult for farmers to market their pigs. I do not think they did. It may be held some day that they did, but for goodness sake, if we are to get things going, and if we are to have production on proper lines, let us try to get facts and not act on prejudices, as Deputy Dillon did when he said that the Pigs and Bacon Commission is responsible for everything that has occurred. Would members of Clann na Talmhan believe that when the framework of the Commission was going through, and when I was putting the Bill to set up the commission through the Dáil I had no greater supporter in this House than Deputy Dillon?

Deputies can read his speeches if they doubt my word. It is true that when the amending Bill came along, Deputies opposite wanted to get rid of a certain man on the board. That was all. As a matter of fact, the amendment they proposed was that I should take control instead of the commission, but that control should remain. Would these Deputies believe that the Party opposite, including Deputy Dillon, who was then in that Party, supported all that legislation for the control of pigs and bacon? One would imagine that they considered all along that that was wrong.

I often stated in this House that I never knew better prophets than Fine Gael when a thing is known. When the facts are known, post factum, they are the best prophets in this country. Deputy Dillon stated that the Government was always wrong, and that he was always right. Deputies do not know Deputy Dillon. The Deputy is sometimes amusing when he does not mean to be. When he is most emphatic, his case is weakest. Deputies will get to know that. I do not want to deal further with it now. Everybody must admit that we cannot have more pigs unless we grow more feeding. We cannot import feeding. We were importing 500,000 tons of feeding-stuffs before the war. Deputies should know what 500,000 tons of feeding-stuffs represent. To put it in round figures, it means probably 1,000,000 pigs. That 500,000 tons of feeding-stuffs are not coming in now. To some extent we have replaced that 500,000 tons by growing more oats, more barley, and more potatoes, but they are not by any means fully replaced, and pigs had to go because we had no food for them. We could have adopted a different policy at the beginning of the war if we thought bacon was essential. We could have then said to farmers: “Grow more oats and barley, but leave wheat as it is.” At the beginning of the war we made up our minds that we must get bread. We did not know the day imports might stop. We do not know now. As we did not know then, we said that the only sensible thing for the country to do was to grow more wheat as quickly as possible.

We were blamed by some speakers for always stressing wheat. Why? Because it means bread, which is the most essential food of all. We will always stress wheat until we get enough grown. But we did not stress it to the exclusion of everything else. I defy any Deputy to produce any speech I ever made before the county committees of agriculture while going around the country during the last three or four years, asking them to produce more food, in which I devoted myself exclusively to wheat. I always mentioned potatoes. I always stressed the fact that when farmers have given us the wheat we required, they should then look after the live stock by growing more oats, more barley and more potatoes, including, of course, more potatoes for human food. When we considered the matter at the beginning of the war we thought that a time might come in our history when we might have to make it illegal for pigs to be kept, if they were going to compete with human needs. The same applies to poultry. If we were to be up against the position of not being able to got wheat for the people, and not able to get bread, or if there was an inclination to feed pigs and poultry instead of human beings, what could the Government do except to cut out pigs and poultry so that the people would get enough bread ?

It is all very fine to make generalisations and for people to make attacks on the Government when it considers it necessary to get all the wheat it can for bread. It was necessary to stress the growing of wheat all the time. We had to do it. Anybody who considers the matter knows that we got a very good acreage of wheat, more perhaps than many people thought we could ever grow here. Many people thought we could never reach anything like 500,000 acres of wheat in this country.

It is very interesting to hear the people on the opposite side saying now that it is all right to grow wheat in war-time but that you should not grow it in peace-time. For amusement, I suggest the reading of their speeches away back in 1928 and 1930 when they said that wheat could not be grown because we had not the soil or the climate to grow it. They told us that the weeds would choke it and that the crows would take it. But there are no weeds now in war-time to choke it, and no crows to take it. Is the soil all right in war-time, and is the climate all right in war-time? These were the arguments they had against wheat-growing eight or ten years ago. We had to get over that prejudice and try to persuade the farmers of this country —in spite of what they were being told by Fine Gael when Fine Gael was the Government and when the farmers were looking to Fine Gael for a lead —that wheat could be grown. A lot of them did not believe us, and that is why a compulsory measure is necessary.

Let us at any rate get down to a proper basis and recognise the fact that we cannot have more pigs here unless we have feeding. We cannot have more poultry unless we have feeding. There is no further feeding, however, for them. It cannot be got unless we grow it. If we grow more oats, barley and more potatoes next year, in addition to the acreage under wheat that we expect, then we can have more pigs and more poultry.

What discouragement is there? I heard a Deputy this evening saying that the people would not produce pigs any more, and yet in the same speech he spoke of small pigs going to £5 and £6 apiece. Surely to goodness that is encouragement for any man to breed pigs. If a man can sell small pigs at £5 or £6 apiece that should be an encouragement to him to breed pigs if he can feed them. But there is the crux—can he feed them, and that is what is going to decide the number of pigs we can have in this country.

As regards the shortages that were referred to, as I told you we were short 4,000 tons of potatoes last May out of 600,000 tons in the country. There were bread queues referred to. The strange thing is this, that bread queues were there in the spring of 1942. There was no restriction in the same months of 1943. There was no restriction on the amount of flour that we released from the flour mills, and the flour mills actually released less in 1943 than they did in 1942 when the bread queues were there. That may give you some explanation of the fact why the Government—Deputy O'Sullivan put this point to me and rightly so, being Lord Mayor of Dublin—took no measures to prevent this potato shortage. If the Government had—I am quite sure of this—issued a warning two months previously, in February, that a potato shortage was likely, I am quite sure the potato shortage would have come much more quickly than it did. I have no experience of other countries, but I am quite sure that if we were to issue a warning that a shortage was likely in a certain commodity, the shortage would come very much quicker than it otherwise would, and you all know why: because the people who can afford it will begin to lay up stores, and the people who can afford to do so will, perhaps, hold on to stuff expecting a rise in price, so that a free exchange does not take place, as it will take place when people are under the impression that there is plenty of a commodity there.

There was talk about a labour shortage, and suggestions were made, I think, that the Government should do everything possible to help farmers in this emergency. But we are being asked to do too much. Deputy Hughes and Deputy Fagan made the suggestion that there should be labour available at the other end of the 'phone. These were the words that both Deputies used. How can that be done? Deputy Hughes, I am quite sure, does not need labour on his farm.

I found it difficult for the first time this year.

Perhaps a little difficult. The reason why Deputy Hughes does not need labour on his farm is because he farms properly. He does mixed farming. He is not like the farmer that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney spoke of who sowed a crop of wheat and paid labour for the sowing of it. He then closed the gate and wanted no more labour until the harvest time. We do not want that class of farmer. We want the farmer who will do proper mixed farming, and the man who does that has work for his men the whole year round.

I know that in a bad harvest like this, when there are so many wet days, any farmer would be glad to get extra labour on a fine day, but we should not have to cater to such an extent that the 360,000 farmers in this country should have a pool of labour at the other end of the telephone when the fine day comes. Is it not obvious that it could not be done? If you have a wet week and the same fine day comes all over the country, how are you going to supply labour to one-tenth of those farmers—to 36,000 farmers? How could you do it unless you have 250,000 men at the other end of the telephone, and that cannot be done. The mixed farmer might possibly like to get them, but he can get on without them.

I agree with Deputy Harris that the good farmer, who is carrying on farming on the proper lines, succeeds in saving his crops whether the year is good or bad, and he will always save them because, if you like, he knows more about it than the other man. Perhaps we cannot blame the new tillage farmer too much if he does not know the game as well as he should, but we cannot guarantee the new tillage farmer even that the Army is at his disposal. It would be a very dangerous thing to do.

I ask any Deputy to imagine himself in my place. Would he take the risk, I wonder, of making an announcement now that the Army would be at the disposal of the farmers next year? Deputies must know well that we must put the onus on the farmers themselves to provide their own labour. We did, as a matter of fact, try to make it easy, in the vicinity of camps, to see that farmers could get help from the Army, but it cannot be done all over the country, and it cannot be promised even in the vicinity of these camps. We will do our best, but every farmer must naturally look after himself and see that he solves his own labour difficulty. It is not fair either for the farmer who is doing cereal tillage and not doing any roots and not employing men the whole year round: it is hardly fair for any farmer, or anybody else, to expect that he could have labour at his disposal when he wants it for six or eight weeks, and then let somebody else look after those men for the rest of the year. After all, he should make some attempt to see that men are kept the whole year round. That was one of the reasons why the Farm Improvements Scheme was brought in—to give farmers an opportunity of improving their land and maintaining their men during the winter months, if they found it hard to maintain them in other ways.

Why did you restrict it to small valuations?

We restricted it for a commencement but that is not the case now. There was a great deal of discussion hero about farm wages. Everybody agreed here that the farm labourer is hardly paid sufficient. We would all like to see him paid more but do not ask me to do anything about it. There is a perfect system there. I do not think anybody wants to change the system. It is all very well for Deputies on every side of the House to express their sympathy with the farm labourer. It may be a nice thing for farm labourers to read in the local Press. It may help them in time to come. That is all right. But, after all, there is no use in upsetting the whole arrangement of this country for a reason of that kind.

When the Agricultural Wages Bill was brought in, in 1936, nobody voted against it. It was an agreed measure in principle. There may have been some discussion on details, I am not sure if there was, but there is one thing I am certain of, that is, that nobody voted against the Second Reading. Members of the Labour Party have practically disowned it in their speeches here. I saw posters from them in the general election claiming that they were responsible for making me bring in the Agricultural Wages Bill. Now they repudiate it because Deputies from the Fine Gael Benches and these benches talked about the wages of the farm labourer, and, of course, naturally, the members of the Labour Party had to go a bit better. We do not want to repudiate the Agricultural Wages Bill. It is a perfect system. Everybody has to admit that. You have farmers' representatives and labourers' representatives meeting and discussing, on the one side what the farmer can afford to pay; on the other side, what the labourer can live on, and they do their best to fix a fair wage.

There is usually a fair amount of agreement on that board but, naturally, there will no be if we are going to talk about farm wages as we did here for the last two or three days, putting big ideas into their heads. Somebody mentioned £3 a week. It is only natural that representatives of the labourers on that board in arguing the point will quote the Dáil members as asking for £3 a week. Deputy Cosgrave dealt with that point very effectively when he indicated that all the males in this country engaged in agriculture had an average of £2 5s. a week last year, when our output was at its highest and, as he pointed out, the farmers have to pay rent and rates first and divide whatever is left between themselves and their labourers. That gives an indication of what they can afford to pay. We have a system for fixing farm wages. Why not leave it to that system? Why do Deputies from every side of the House appeal to me to step in and do something about it?

Deputy Cafferky made a speech, for instance, which he commenced by saying that the Minister for Agriculture should not coerce the farmers, that he should encourage and induce them. But, with an eye to the point about the farm workers, he said the Minister for Agriculture should compel the farmers to pay a better wage to their labourers. I was to allow the farmer to get whatever he wanted for wheat, oats, milk and so on. There was to be no compulsion there. That pleased the farmer. But there were others to be pleased. I was to compel the farmer to pay his agricultural labourer a good wage. That is all very nice. It may read nicely. It may sound very nice to the farmer electors and the agricultural labourers of South Mayo, but here, where we are trying to get some sort of national policy, we are not likely to succeed if we are to be tempted to appeal to every section of the community by over-bidding one another. That is what it amounts to.

From every side of the House we were asked to give higher prices for agricultural produce. I cannot understand Deputies saying that they are with the Government in this drive for food. Imagine a Deputy saying that he is with us and with the Army going out to fight the enemy and at the same time telling the soldier: "Before you go, I can tell you the Government is letting your wife starve at home." That soldier is not likely to go out with great morale. Deputies here say: "We are behind you in getting the wheat grown but we say to the farmers on the other hand that they are not getting enough for their wheat." That is not very good for the morale of the farmers. That came from the first speaker, Deputy Hughes. I am quite sure Deputy Hughes makes wheat-growing pay on his own farm. He is speaking for others. I happen to represent part of the County Carlow and I know that this year the price of conacre—on not very good land either—for the growing of wheat in South Carlow went as high as £18 an acre. The man who takes conacre to grow wheat expects to make a profit. I am not sure that he did make a profit at that price. I think it is a bit too high.

That does not prove anything, does it?

It proves that there are some foolish men in Carlow.

It proves that the farmer who is going to grow wheat on another man's land thinks he can pay £12 or £14 per acre and still make a profit. I do not know whether or not Deputy Hughes has first-hand knowledge of what I am saying, but I know that he says we should give the farmer 60/- a barrel. That was the price mentioned. I am very much inclined to think that if I had come before this House and said we were going to have compulsory wheat growing and that the price would remain at 50/-, Deputy Hughes and others would have asked us to make it 55/-, but, because I said the price would be 55/-, they said : "Make it 60/-."

And next year they will say 70/-. I told you that 12 months ago.

There is compulsory wheat-growing this year. I do not wish to appear to be harsh towards the farmers. I think the farmers are getting a decent price and, whatever Deputy Cogan may think about the immorality, if you like, of Ministers comparing prices with prices in England. I want to tell him that we are giving a very much better price wheat here than the English farmer is getting. The conacre price shows what a farmer is prepared to pay and what he himself thinks about wheat-growing in this country. We are going to pay 55/-. We are not going to increase that. I admit that we had to increase it one year, but in that year there was no compulsory wheat-growing; we were merely depending on price inducement. We believe, honestly, that we are giving a generous price for wheat this year in 55/- and an additional 2/6 for artificial manures, that is, if you like, 57/6. There is no use in saying that we should change that.

Let Parties do one thing or the other. Let us know where we stand. If Parties are going to support us in trying to get food for the nation, let them support us on the scheme we have outlined or not support us at all. Unless you are with us, you are against us. We do not want Deputies coming in here or to county committees of agriculture or going down the country, saying: "We support the Government in their food drive but we think they should give more for the wheat." I would prefer that they should say to us: "We do not support the food drive," or "We do support the food drive," and that is an end of it. When other Parties support a Government in a national matter of this kind, those Parties must be prepared to incur a certain amount of unpopularity, but that is the price they have to pay if they join a national campaign of this kind. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they support the Government in this national crisis and at the same time say to the farmers: "We think they should give you a little bit more." Either support us or do not support us.

A good many of your own supporters say the same thing.

It applies to them equally. If they want to support us, let them support us on the scheme we have laid down or let them say openly that they do not agree with the Government in their efforts to grow more food.

Deputy Cosgrave raised some points of detail with regard to this tillage Order. He says there will be more land under the plough, and asks have we considered the difficulties farmers have at present. Yes, very fully. We have considered the position that in many places farmers have gone practically to the limit that their machinery can do. They have gone in many places to the limit that the available labour will do. I know all that, but, after all, even though these farmers will have to work late at night, is not that essential if it is necessary to produce food? We must get enough food. We must do everything necessary to get enough food even if it does involve people working overtime, even if it does involve working the plough for ten to twelve hours instead of nine hours a day. It must be done. Were it not for that consideration I think we would have decided on a higher percentage of tillage, probably 40 per cent. There was another point I had in mind, which I mentioned before. Some Deputy said that we were working all the time on the assumption that the war would be over next year. We are not. We have to keep in mind that this war may last for many years. That is one of the reasons why we are keeping the tillage down to the necessary amount and nothing more because, if the war goes on for seven or eight years, with the difficulty of getting fertilisers, we must try to maintain the fertility of the land as best we can. We must not put all the land under tillage. We must keep some in reserve for the years to come.

Deputy Cosgrave also asked me if I had considered the point about excluding dairy farmers. We have. Deputy Cosgrave said the number of dairy farmers supplying milk to Dublin and all the other towns—he only pleaded for these men, not the creamery farmers—was small. Perhaps so, but Deputy Cosgrave has been in office long enough to know what administrative difficulties amount to and the administrative difficulty there would be enormous. I do not know how anybody would draw the line and decide what particular men or type of men supplying liquid milk for human consumption would be exempt and what men would not be exempt.

Are not they registered?

They are registered, I suppose, to a great extent. That is true. But then there are a good number supplying a small amount. There are what might be termed mixed farmers supplying milk to the City of Dublin, or some other town. There are, as you know, farmers living near villages who might be only supplying two or three pints a day. It is difficult to draw the line between all these people. In any case, as far as I can learn from reports, and so on, the hardship inflicted is not as much as at first sight would appear.

Deputy Cosgrave mentioned stud farms. Some stud farmers, as a matter of fact, are doing their tillage quota. Others are claiming exemption. Some exemption is granted. The fact that many of them are doing their tillage quota even though they are entitled to exemption shows again that if they were all as good as the best we would have no trouble with stud farms.

Deputy Cosgrave asked me did I consider that there might be bad farms not suitable for wheat-growing in the middle of the other areas. We did consider that but, again, inspection of every farm would be impossible, and the only effective way of getting the wheat we want is to say that every farmer must grow it. Admittedly, as some Deputies mentioned, there will be hardship in certain cases. We cannot help that. There are always hardships in a general rule of that kind. Where you have to require everybody to do a certain thing in the national interest, there will be some people who will suffer more hardships than others, but that cannot be helped.

Can you not set up a county appeal?

I think Deputy Dillon made the point that we should do it for next year, but not this year. This year it would be impossible.

I agree.

Our statistics are reliable.

Could you not consider excluding those above a certain contour, say a 600 or 700 line?

I will consider that, but there is one thing certain: unless the farmer knows himself from the day you make the announcement, whether he is excluded or not, it is going to be ineffective, because if he does not know on the day you make the announcement, he has a defence that he was waiting to find out whether he was inside or outside the line.

I think it is well worth considering.

Yes—there may be something in that. Deputy Cosgrave went on to speak of the output of agriculture here, which is the big point. The same point was touched upon by Deputy Dillon when he spoke of rationalisation and mechanisation of agriculture. It is a very big question. Deputy Dillon did not seek to come down on one side or the other.

I do not think I could come down on one side or the other either. It is a question of social values —of keeping small farms as they are, with the families as they are—or economic values—making big farms co-operative farms.

I came down on the side of social values, definitely.

I would be inclined to, too. However, whether or not we are going to holdout in this country for the years to come, I do not know. To return to Deputy Cosgrave's points, that we should try to increase output, that we should try to increase the values, and in that way try to increase the earnings of every person engaged in agriculture, that is quite right. I agree with all that. There is one point I want to make. When people talk about the flight from the land, they should remember that a certain flight from the land is necessary, and, in fact, if the output of agriculture is remaining even stationary, or increasing, a flight from the land is a good sign, because if we can have the same output from agriculture with a smaller population on the land, it means that every person engaged there is getting a better income.

Where do the social values come in then?

I say that, from the point of view of economic values, that is good, and Deputies who talk of the flight from the land are talking of the economic values, if they are flying away to get better wages and so on. Deputy Hughes mentioned a point, not a big point, to which I should like to refer. He mentioned as an indication of the want of sympathy of the Government with the farmers that the Minister for Defence ordered training for the L.D.F. during the harvest. That is not altogether correct.

I did not say that—I said training took place. I do not know who was responsible.

The training stopped on the 15th August and it stopped because the Minister for Defence was advised by my Department—we cannot order him—that we would like to have these men released for fanning operations at the very latest by the middle of August. He accepted that and arranged accordingly. It is very easy to be sarcastic—I do not say Deputy Hughes was sarcastic—about these men strutting around in uniform and so on while farmers were working hard. I do not say Deputy Hughes said that.

That was not my intention. Two farmers complained to me and I do not know anything more about it.

They were released on the 15th August anyway, which shows that the Minister for Defence was alive to the importance of allowing these men out. Another point which was made, and which has been made un the debate of this Estimate for three or four years past, was about the continuous cropping of wheat. Why do Deputies talk about this continuous cropping of wheat? I cannot understand it. We have only to grow one-tenth of the arable acreage. Any farmer who does not want to have a continuous cropping of wheat need only put the same field under wheat once in ten years. If a farmer chooses to grow wheat year after year he has no cause to complain about the continuous cropping of wheat and if the inspectors of my Department find he is doing that they will probably stop him from growing wheat year after year on the same land. We hear these stories of declining yields.

The point has been made by the Fine Gael Party that the fact that we did not grow very much wheat before 1939 enables us now to have fresh land for wheat that will give good yields. There is nothing in that. I have myself grown wheat on at least 15 per cent. of my arable land every year since 1933, and I had 11 barrels to the statute acre this year. There is nothing whatever in that. As a matter of fact, when they began to grow wheat in the Midlands they did not know a thing about it. It took them some years to know when they should cut the wheat. I do not know if they know even yet in some of these places how properly to sow and cultivate wheat; they are only learning. If it were not for the small amount of knowledge that was disseminated in these districts from 1933 to 1939 we could not have had the results we have had since 1939. There is no use in Deputies opposite trying to save themselves from what they deserve for their attitude on wheat growing before this war by making a defence of that kind. The question of soil survey was referred to by Deputy Hughes. I do not know exactly what the Deputy means. Does he mean a survey of every individual field?

I mean a soil classification.

That would mean going into every field and mapping it out, because I think the Deputy must admit that there is a variation from field to field. I know you can make a geological survey with less trouble, but it would not be of very much use to the ordinary farmer. What are we to find out? I suppose whether there is a deficiency of phosphates, potash or nitrogen, or whether the land is acid and wants lime.

There are other minor deficiencies.

I think we can take it for granted, without any survey, that in regard to 99 per cent. of the land more phosphates, more potash and more nitrogen would do it good. I do not want to belittle the importance of a survey. All I say is that the fact that we have not made a survey does not prevent us from going ahead with the proper methods of farming. I think a survey should be made and will be made. But as regards making a survey, we would have to map out every farm and on that map indicate on every field whether it is first-class, second-class, third-class and so on, and what are the deficiencies. Every field will have to get an individual place on the map and it will be a big job.

Has the Minister interested himself in the problem that where we have heavy straw crops and a low yield there must be a deficiency? Would it not be well to find out what it is?

To come to the point about lime, probably a great deal of the land wants lime. On the other hand, mistakes were made in the past by over-liming. I think Deputy Hughes said there was a considerable amount of crown rot disease in sugar beet in Carlow. That was probably due to too much lime. A mistake was made by putting on too much.

Not at all, lack of boron.

It does not occur, as a rule, unless there is too much lime.

There is a boron deficiency.

The crown rot, of course, is due to a deficiency of boron, but the blackleg——

The blackleg is due to an alkaline deficiency. It is too highly acid.

We have done everything we possibly could. We have not stinted the amount of money voted for lime.

Has the Minister consulted his experts on that problem?

I have consulted my own Department. We have not been niggardly about the amount of money voted, but in a fairly large number of counties they were not able to use the amount of money given, because they could not get the lime.

I admit that.

We are trying to get over it as best we can.

Has the Minister any scheme in mind for the repair of kilns?

We are doing the best we can. A number of Deputies referred to statements made by members of the Government, but the only one specifically mentioned was a statement made by the Taoiseach at the Ard-Fheis. Are we not becoming very thin-skinned? The farmers are not so thin-skinned: they are not going to object to what the Taoiseach said. I will quote from the Irish Independent, for fear Deputies may think I am being too kind to the Taoiseach. He said: “Now, what is going to be the result of the failure of the farmers?” Would any farmer in the country resent that? The spokesmen of the farmers resent it. If I try to convince Clann na Talmhan to vote with me on this issue and if I am told to-morrow “You failed to get Clann na Talmhan to go with you,” will I be offended? I will say that that is the fact. I failed; it was not my fault—I did my best. The Taoiseach did not say that the farmers were at fault. Let anyone read what he said. He said that it was owing to the failure of the farmers to give us the wheat. It is a simple statement of fact, and I am quite sure there is not a single farmer who saw any offence in it, though their spokesmen did.

It is the first time the Taoiseach did not say that the Independent had misrepresented him.

Not very much, anyhow.

Deputy Fagan talked about some muddling about the assembly of binders, and said some were three weeks in coming. The binders were assembled as they came, in three centres—Dublin, Athy and Cork—and no binder was held up for more than a few days.

How many did we get?

We got 100 altogether.

We did not do badly at all. From whom did we get them?

The International Harvester Company.

I thought the Minister would not have the courage to say "the base, bloody and brutal British Saxon".

We got them through the good offices of the British Government. We paid for them, of course.

Did you pay for them with any particular commodity?

We paid for them in cash and also in exchange—both ways. Deputy Fagan also mentioned—and other Deputies quoted Deputy Fagan, which shows how a bad story can spread—the case of cows going to be canned and a whole lot of them in calf. There was not a whole lot of them in calf: some of them were, but only a small percentage. Every cow is examined by inspectors of the Department, and we get a return of the number of cows in calf. There is nothing like a wholesale slaughter of in-calf cows for canning.

Regarding flour, Deputy Dillon advocated 85 per cent. extraction, and was supported in that by other Deputies. The Government is not against that on principle, but we must have enough bread, and that is the only test we must apply. If we thought we could get enough bread in this coming year by extracting 85 per cent., we would probably do it. I hope that, in the coming year, when we get this wheat under the new scheme, we may be able to extract some of the offals and have those offals available for farmers for feeding. As well as that— and I should put this first, as it is more important—we would have the semi-white flour available for feeding people, which, according to certain medical opinion, as quoted by Deputy Dillon, is more healthy than wholemeal.

And you could use a certain percentage of barley flour, as I advised the Taoiseach 18 months ago.

We might do that, too.

You will do it in time, when it sinks into your brain.

Deputy O'Donnell of Tipperary spoke of a resolution which he moved at the county committee of agriculture, and which I think would be a very praiseworthy scheme, if it could be adopted. I must say, personally—I am not speaking for the Government in this, as they have not considered it—that I hope, when we do get electric light into every house, and possibly before that, we might get the water in, too.

Would the electric light interfere with the water, if you put the electric light in first? There are £250,000,000 invested in foreign countries, and some of it has gone to Hong-Kong.

We do not mind the cost at all. Deputy Corish spoke of the export of dried milk and said my justification of this was that we were getting in exchange powdered milk for feeding to babies. I did say that, and I must say that Deputy Corish did me the honour and kindness of quoting me correctly in the House, because he quoted me during the general election as saying that I had introduced a scheme to kill all the babies in the country. Deputy Corish also doubted my figures about butter. There is one thing I am certain of: I do know exactly the amount of butter stored for the winter, because the person who stored butter, at any time during the last ten years, gets a subsidy of 10/- a cwt. to cover the storage cost.

Deputies may be sure that any trader who stored a cwt. of butter at any time during the past ten years claimed that 10/-; so we have very reliable figures. As I quoted, in introducing the Estimate, in fhe winter of 1938-39 we had 98,000 cwts. and last winter we had 164,000 cwts. I do not care how Deputy Corish doubts the consumption of butter in the country: those are the figures and nobody can deny them. We had plenty of butter, with no rationing, in the winter of 1938-39, and we had not enough to go round last winter, the only obvious explanation being that the people got more butter last winter than before the war. There is no doubt about it, there is no other explanation, and there is no use in Deputy Corish or anybody else saying that people are getting less butter.

We are getting less in the Dáil Restaurant at the moment.

We may be getting less.

People who can afford to buy butter are getting less than in 1938, but the people who could not afford to buy before the war are getting more now. The Deputy can inquire for himself, from any honest trader in the towns and cities, who will tell him, that he is selling more butter now to the working people than he used to sell three or four years ago.

I do not think that is true. I do not think any trader would tell you that.

Well, there is no doubt about my figure. It is even audited. No Deputy will tell me that a trader stored butter in 1938 and did not ask for the 10/- to which he was entitled. The accounts were audited and they show that 98,000 cwts. were stored in 1938-39 and 164,000 in 1942-43. There was no butter exported at all. We had the winter production each time as well, added to that, and that is the total consumption in this country during each winter.

Would it not be true to say that the people who were eating 2 lb. of margarine pre-war are eating only half a pound of butter now?

Yes, I have said that there was no margarine or even fats; but even then, cwt. for cwt., it would not amount to such a large quantity Deputy O'Donovan asked about the Flax Development Board and the bonus of 2/6 a stone supposed to go to the growers. I told the Deputy, in reply to a Question yesterday, that 1/6 a stone was paid direct to the growers by buyers on behalf of the British Minister of Supply. The other 1/- to which the Deputy refers was sent to the Flax Development Board and the board is financed in that way, because it is doing emergency work. It looks after the building of dams, the repairing of scutch mills, and so on, which are things that never would have been done by this Government, as it would not be necessary to have this extra acreage of flax.

So, large grants go to Northern Ireland firms for erecting scutch mills in Cork—large free grants.

Half the cost of erection.

I would like to compare the two schemes; they are probably very similar.

That seems to me to be very unfair. These fellows are not erecting the scutch mills for love of us, but because they make money out of it.

I would like to tell Deputy Linehan that there are prosecutions sometimes for deficiency of fats and solids in milk delivered to creameries. Now, it did not strike me at the time, but the Deputy mentioned that it is obvioubly an advantage to the farmer to put more water in his milk as a result of this.

That is the point I made. I was speaking of two particular cases, in connection with the Cork County Council, where the certificate said that there had been no added water. That is the point that I want to establish.

Yes, but I think the Deputy has said that the deficiency of fats is owing to the lack of feeding stuffs. I think it has been fairly well established that feeding stuffs have no effect on the fat content of the milk. I think it was Deputy Halliden who advocated a system by which farm labourers should own their own cottages on thir own land. That may be a very useful scheme, and I am considering it. Deputy Giles mentioned the matter of speculators in land. There was a good deal of talk about that, and about the buying up of land by speculators.

I think the reference was to men who merely speculate in the buying up of land in order to exploit it for the moment, and not to any question of sale between farmer and farmer or even landlord and landlord.

Yes, but such things would interfere with the price of the farm.

I think that I stopped Deputy Giles from dealing with that matter.

Yes, Sir. Deputy Meighan raised a number of points about bulls in Co. Roscommon. I cannot deal with these points now, because I have not the particulars at hand at the moment, but I have information with regard to a man, who was already on the train with his bull, when the premium was cancelled. If my recollection is correct, it was not made known to the Department of Agriculture that there was already a bull within three miles of the district, and when the Department found out that that was the case, they immediately wired to the man concerned that the premium was cancelled, but unfortunately the telegram only reached him when he was getting on the train.

Another point which I shall inquire into—and if Deputy Meighan is correct in this, he certainly deserves an apology—is the suggestion that in County Roscommon, tractors and so on were distributed unfairly. My Department informs me that the company concerned, Messrs. Henry Ford & Co., were to send these machines out to the various counties on the basis of the requirements of each county from the tillage point of view.

Might I ask by whom were the custodians of these tractors chosen?

We were asked how many tractors, and so on, should be allocated to each county, and we tried to machines to the new tillage counties than to counties that were used to tillage. A good deal of these machines went to counties such as Meath and Westmeath, and to Roscommon also, but the tillage counties did not do so well.

How many went to Wexford?

I think three tractors, two ploughs and three reaper and binder machines.

That was not bad at all.

No, it was not.

I should have liked to have them come to Leix-Offaly.

Having decided on that, the county inspectors were asked to give the names of those they would recommend as most suitable, and it was pointed out that they should decide on what farmers would make the most use of these machines and would also hire them out to other farmers. Of course, the result was that, when these returns came in, there were at least three times the number of names submitted than could be supplied with the tractors or binders available.

Were any conditions attached?

Yes. Of course, there had to be such conditions as that they would not sell the machines, and that they would make the best possible use of them. I know that it is very hard to enforce such regulations, of course.

I know it to be a fact that where a tractor was placed at the disposal of a certain farmer, that tractor was used for other purposes than those for which it was intended, as a result of which there was no work for the binders and reapers in that particular locality. Would the Minister say whether that was fair or unfair?

If that is so, it certainly was unfair.

That is a matter that should be reported to the Department.

Has the Minister anything further to say on this question of seed wheat?

Yes. I am sorry that I did not deal with the matter earlier, as I had promised to deal with it. I explained here before that we subsidised a scheme for seed wheat during the last two years: that is, we encouraged certain assemblers of seed wheat, who had drying and cleaning facilities, to overshoot the mark that we thought necessary, by giving them the difference between the selling price and the milling price. In other words, if there was a difference in the prices, we guaranteed 25 per cent. of the difference. We are doing the same this year, and I think I can reassure Deputies with regard to this matter that it will work out all right.

In many parts of the country they are getting quite good samples of seed and getting the seed itself, of course. The seed assemblers this year asked that provision might be made for 390,000 barrels. Our experience up to this year has been that 60 per cent. of the farmers have their own seed and the remaining 40 per cent. purchase seed through the merchants. 390,000 barrels are obviously too much to provide for on that basis, but in case the farmers' own seed may not be so good this year and that there may be more applications for seed, we are prepared to guarantee up to 390,000 barrels.

Some of the seed kept by farmers will not be in very good condition.

We are allowing for that. Up to last Saturday the assemblers had obtained 110,000 barrels of quite good seed, and that compares very favourably with the amount they had received this time last year. We have also asked the millers, where they get in what might be regarded as a good lot of wheat, to put it aside for a few months in case we would need more wheat for seed purposes than we shall have assembled. That is being done and I think we shall have quite good seed for the coming year.

The Minister mentioned that approximately the same amount of seed is in the hands of the assemblers as at this time 12 months.

A little more.

The Minister is not overlooking the fact, I hope, that we shall require considerably more seed next spring?

Sixty thousand barrels went back last spring beyond what was used.

Is the Minister doing anything to provide a margin between the retailers' price and the assemblers' price?

That is a matter which I shall have to ask the assemblers to consider.

When I was speaking, I suggested that £5 per ton might be paid for beet and some Deputies seemed to ridicule that idea. I just want to show the Minister how that might be done.

The Deputy may ask a question, but at this juncture it is not permissible to make a statement.

I merely want to show the Minister how a price of £5 per ton could be fixed for beet.

The Deputy may only ask a question.

If we were to pay 6¼d. per lb. for sugar, thaL would only mean an advance of 1½d. I would respectfully suggest——

The Deputy may only ask a question. There have been already over 40 speeches and the debate may not be reopened.

I am simply a 'prentice hand. I want to point out to the Minister that if we pay 6¼d. per lb. for sugar——

If the Deputy cannot make his point in the form of a question he must resume his seat.

The Minister is aware that we had a good deal of smut in barley and some other diseases last year and that we were very short of mercurial dressings. What is the position likely to be this year?

I think it will be good.

Has the Minister's attention been directed to the potato situation, or would he cause an inquiry to be made as to the nature of the black rot which, rumour has it, is widespread but which on inquiry may nob prove to be so serious? I have heard reports of it from Leix-Offaly, West Cork and Mayo.

We get very frequent reports on the potato crop, but unfortunately we have not got reports from all areas on the main crop as yet because it is only now coming in. On the whole, according to the reports so far received, we should have at least as good a crop as last year.

Is it the intention of the Minister to provide, financial assistance for farmers who may require such assistance?

If the Deputy were here when I was introducing the Estimate he would have heard of various schemes to assist the farmers.

I would ask the Minister to be good enough to do what lie can to see that land in the hands of the Land Commission is set at a reasonable rate.

Will the Minister encourage the dressing of oats and barley?

Question—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"— put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 63.

  • Beirne, John.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • Mughas, James.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Meighan, John J.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • O'Donnell, William F.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Alien, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Byrne, Christopher M.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Corbett, Eamon.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred H.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Daly, Francis J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fitzgerald, Séanius.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Healy, John B.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Séamus.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Larkin, James (Junior).
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • McCann, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Morriasey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Stapleton, Richard.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Hughes and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Kissane and O Briain.
Question declared negatived.
Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn