Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 13 Jun 1947

Vol. 106 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Agriculture.

Votes 29 and 30 might be discussed together but moved separately.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £1,017,942 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1948, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, and of certain Services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

This is an Estimate for a net total of £1,525,942 for the financial year 1947-48, as compared with £993,700, including Supplementary Estimates, for the previous year, an increase of £532,242. Many of the sub-heads in the Estimate deal with the normal working of my Department, and there is little change in them compared with the previous year except that in a number of cases there are increases, which are accounted for by the adjustments arising from the consolidation of basic pay and emergency bonus in the Civil Service. There are, however, a few to which I would like to refer as they involve new work, or the amount required for them is substantially different from that of last year.

There is a substantial decrease in the amount under sub-head E (2) for Veterinary Research. This is mainly due to the fact that the amount voted in 1946-47 included £22,000 to meet the cost of purchasing lands for a veterinary research institute at Brownsbarn, Clondalkin. It will be some time before the necessary buildings can be planned and erected to provide a veterinary research institute on these lands, which in the meantime will be used mainly, in conjunction with the laboratory at Thorndale, for the accommodation of experimental animals as well as for ordinary farming operations.

Under sub-head E (3) there is a provision of £20,252 for subscriptions to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, of which this country became a member on 3rd September, 1946. The objects of the organisation are: (1) to raise levels of nutrition and standards of living; (2) to secure improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products; and (3) to better the conditions of rural populations, thus contributing towards an expanding world economy.

It proposes to concern itself with the improvement of the processing, marketing and distribution of food, the adoption of policies for the provision of adequate agricultural credit (national and international), the adoption of international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements, and to furnish, particularly in undeveloped countries, such technical assistance as Governments may require.

Amongst many other functions, it also proposes to collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information relating to nutrition, food and agriculture. In this connection, it absorbed, in 1946, the International Institute of Agriculture, Rome, which had functioned without a break since its institution in 1905. This country's contributions to the international institute were paid up to the end of 1945, but a question arose as to whether former members of the institute should not pay their contributions to the date of its dissolution in 1946. This matter has not yet been finally decided, and consequntly it is necessary to make a token provision of £5 in the current year's Estimates.

The amount of this country's annual contribution to the Food and Agriculture Organisation has been fixed provisionally at 53,000 United States dollars. It was decided at a recent conference of the organisation held at Copenhagen to alter the contribution year to correspond with the calendar year instead of the year commencing 1st July. Provision has, therefore, been made in this Estimate for a contribution in respect of a year and a half, being the half year, 1st July to 31st December, 1947, and the calendar year 1948. The Estimate also includes a sum of £500 to provide for the expenses involved in sending a delegation to any conference of the organisation which may be held during the financial year.

The University Education (Agriculture and Dairy Science) Act, 1926, provides for payment of a grant not exceeding £24,984 per annum for the Faculty of General Agriculture, University College, Dublin, and a grant not exceeding £13,000 per annum for the Faculty of Dairy Science, University College, Cork. These grants are provided for under the sub-heads F (5) and (6) respectively. The Government has approved of a 50 per cent. addition to these sums as from the 1st September, 1946, and the additional amounts, namely, £12,492 for the Faculty of General Agriculture, and £6,500 for the Faculty of Dairy Science, are included under sub-head F (7).

There is a substantial increase under sub-head G (3) in respect of fertiliser subsidies. Provision is made for the payment of £198,750 for fertiliser manufacturers to enable 30 per cent. superphosphate, 35 per cent. superphosphate and compound fertiliser to be sold at retail prices of £10, £11 and £13 per ton, respectively, for the season 1946-47, the rate of subsidy being 10/- per ton, 15/- per ton and £3 10s. per ton, respectively, for these three fertilisers. In the period ended 31st May last, some 84,000 tons of 30 per cent. superphosphate, 14,000 tons of 35 per cent. superphosphate and 26,000 tons of compound fertiliser were distributed by the Irish fertiliser manufacturers, as well as 12,000 tons of Semsol, 3,500 tons of ground phosphate, and 4,500 tons of 15½ per cent. nitrate of ammonia. This made a total of about 144,000 tons, as compared with 102,000 tons in the corresponding period of the previous season. In addition, some 25,000 tons of various fertilisers were also imported, including muriate of potash, sulphate of potash, nitrate of soda, basic slag and superphosphate.

It is unlikely that the total quantity of artificial fertilisers which will be distributed by the fertiliser manufacturers in the coming season will be greatly in excess of what was done this season, as the figures that I have mentioned represent almost the maximum outputs of their plants and any increase in supplies which may be hoped for must depend on the extent to which it will be possible to import fertilisers from abroad. It is expected, however, that all the superphosphate manufactured in the coming season will be 35 per cent.

The distribution of fertilisers in the past season included nearly 10,000 tons of potato fertiliser to the western seaboard area, 5,000 tons for the seed potato crop, and over 200 tons for allotments for the unemployed. Supplies of potash and nitrate of soda were imported specially for the sugar beet crop. A small quantity of muriate of potash was also supplied to flax growers. Apart from these special allocations, the whole of the fertilisers distributed in 1946-47 was made available for general distribution.

Sub-head K (2) provides for an increase of £3,000 in the contribution to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. This includes a fixed grant of £8,000, which was the amount of the total grants in the previous year, together with a contribution of £1 for every £1 in excess of £4,000 received by the society by way of affiliation fees and special subscriptions and a contribution of 10/- for every £1 received by way of individual subscriptions. The additional Grant-in-Aid will enable the necessary adjustments to be made in the salaries of the staff of the society. The question of any further increase in the grants, with a view to the expansion of the society's activities, is a matter which will require discussion between my Department and the society.

The provision of the sum of £39,030 under sub-head M (4) includes an increase of £4,000 for the purchase of agricultural implements and machinery, of a value not exceeding £100 in any one case. Supplies of such implements and machinery have increased and it is expected that farmers will take full advantage of the scheme.

There is an increase of £1,085 in sub-head N (4) for the cost of operating the Live Stock Breeding Act, 1925. There have recently been some criticisms of the work of this Act on the grounds that insufficient consideration is given to bulls of the dairy type at the licensing inspections. The Act was not designed to indicate any line of breeding policy, but merely to ensure that no bull would be used without being licensed, so as to eliminate the "scrub" bull of whatever breed. I have already expressed my own personal opinion as to the manner in which this Act has been operated, but I propose to seek advice and guidance from a representative consultative council as to the general policy that should be pursued in future. This council will include representatives of committees of agriculture in each of the principal dairying counties, of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and of creameries specially interested in live-stock breeding; the Royal Dublin Society, the Munster Agricultural Society, the Irish Bacon Curers' Association, each of the Irish cattle-breeding societies and the National Executive of the Irish Live-Stock Trade will also be included. I am anxious that the council should be composed of people selected by the interests concerned rather than by my Department.

The largest increase in any one sub-head is that of £296,521 in sub-head O (5), relating to the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, etc. A provision of £300,000 is made to this year for the issue of vouchers in exchange for the fertiliser credit dockets to the number of over 100,000 issued in respect of the wheat crop of 1943 amounting to 2,500,000 barrels sold by growers to millers. It will not be practicable to commence the actual issue of these vouchers until early in the autumn. They will enable growers to obtain a rebate when purchasing fertilisers equivalent to 2/6 for each barrel of wheat sold. The intention is that the dockets will be returned to this Department following an announcement being made in the public Press and that vouchers which will be issued in exchange will be presented by the growers concerned to their local merchants as part payment of the fertiliser being purchased by them. Cash payment in respect of the vouchers will be made to the merchants on return of the vouchers to my Department.

There is an increase of £2,133 in the provision for 1946-47 under sub-head O (10) in respect of the Emergency Powers Tillage Order for the current year. This Order requires tillage to the same extent as in, 1946 and its provisions generally are identical with those for last year. While bad weather during the winter and spring have retarded farming operations generally, I am hoping that the great efforts made by farmers during the past couple of months will be found, when the statistics are available, to have counteracted the effects of the bad season.

Owing to the extremely bad weather conditions during the past winter and spring, to which I have referred, serious and most exceptional losses of live stock were incurred by farmers in various parts of the country, and I have thought it advisable to provide a scheme of loans to assist those who suffered such losses to re-stock their lands. Particulars of this scheme were announced in the Press and 31st May was fixed as the latest date for applying for a loan. As, however, many farmers were not in a position to assess their losses, or the extent to which they could replace them, by that date, the period for application has now been extended to 30th June. It was estimated that about 2,300 applications for loans would be received under the scheme, and a Supplementary Estimate amounting to £182,400 is now being introduced. The number of applications received to date, however, exceeds 3,300, and it will be necessary to introduce a further Supplementary Estimate as soon as the full commitments under the scheme can be determined.

The provision of £975,000 made for agricultural produce subsidies will be insufficient to meet commitments as a result of the recently increased values of milk delivered to creameries, and it will be necessary to provide an additional sum of £1,000,000 approximately. A Supplementary Estimate for £1,000,000 in this connection will be introduced at a later date. The cost of implementing the guaranteed prices for milk will be approximately £2,000,000.

I have recently been taken to task by the Irish Livestock Exporters' and Traders' Association who attempted, by the use of certain figures, to establish that our cattle export trade had been reduced to a sorry plight. Their spokesmen stated that in 1930, the number of cattle exported was 857,878 while, in 1946, the number was down by nearly half, to 461,876. That would be a very serious position certainly if it were other than a half-truth, and I wonder was it really to help the Cattle Traders' Association or the farmers in general that this particular year of 1930 was selected. I find that it was a year in which the exports were 136,000 above the average of the eight years from 1925 to 1932. 1930 was not, therefore, a representative year, but the association apparently were not in the mood on that occasion to search the records for such. They were just experts whose advice had not been accepted by a non-expert and they were telling the world about it.

I propose to give some figures without any distortion whatever which will clearly establish that the cattle trade is not in the parlous condition that the association for some reason best known to themselves would have us believe. The output of cattle and calves in each year from 1938 to 1945 was as follows:—1938-39, 937,000; 1939-40, 974,000; 1940-41, 716,000; 1941-42, 937,000; 1942-43, 874,000; 1943-44, 803,000; 1944-45, 875,000; and in the calendar year 1945, 940,000. The association gave the correct figure for cattle exported alive in 1946, but they did not trouble themselves to establish the number of cattle exported in the form of canned meat, dressed beef and other forms. Maybe it is that the association are not interested in cattle which are sent out of the country in this form. If that is their attitude, based on their expert knowledge, I cannot find it in my heart to express my regret for having refused to take the advice which they tendered. The home consumption figure is also interesting for these years, having increased from 183,000 in 1938-39, to 327,000 in 1945, but of course no notice was taken of these figures by the members of the association.

In my conversations with representatives of the association in the past and in the future I was, and will be, fully conscious of their expert knowledge in so far as it refers to their own business. I would be the last to blame this association or any other association for making the case as they would naturally be expected to make it in their own interests, but the interests of an association, of whatever composition, do not always fit in with the public welfare. I prefer to rely on my own judgment in determining how best the public interest is to be served, rather than on advice tendered from such sources. While, therefore, there has been a variation in the export of cattle during the years 1938-39 to 1945-46, the cattle output for the calendar year 1945 was the highest for the last eight years, except one, 1939-40, when the figure was 974,000.

Deputies have received recently a circular letter from the Irish Bacon Curers' Association on which we had an adjournment discussion a few nights ago. This document in a number of respects is entirely misleading. Since 1943, the only controls to which the trade has been subjected were in the form of fixed wholesale and retail prices for bacon and a minimum price for pigs. This minimum price is 125/- per cwt., leaving the curers to decide for themselves what price they could afford to pay for pigs, having regard to these wholesale and retail prices. A fixed price for pigs did exist up to October, 1943, but even at that time the curers were paying substantially in excess of this figure. The fixed price then became the minimum price, and the bacon curers were perfectly free, as they are now, to offer to the producer the prices they considered they could pay. Their attitude in 1943 was in severe contrast with their attitude in previous years when we were up against the difficulty, which in many cases proved to be an impossibility, of compelling them to pay the fixed price then ruling. Now the association is making wonderful hustling to induce or intimidate me into taking action to prevent them paying to the producers prices which they claim are excessive. They are very keen now on the central purchasing of pigs, but there was a time when there was a much greater need for it but no suggestion that it should be adopted came from the curers' association.

In paragraph 5 of the circular, two reasons are given for the shortage of bacon in the shops—illegal curing and the export of large quantities of bacon to the Continent. There is undoubtedly a certain amount of illegal curing, but it is not by any means as formidable as the association would have us believe. So far as the second reason is concerned, it may be a very useful kind of anti-Government catch-cry, but there is no body of people in this country who know better than the members of the association how little the quantity exported to the Continent represents in relation to the substantially reduced output of pigs and pig products. The quantity of bacon exported to the Continent between November, 1945, and March, 1947, amounted to 2,142 tons which represents less than one month's normal supply for this country, or about two months' supply at the present rate of distribution over a period of two years. I am indeed surprised that the members of this association should attempt, as they have attempted in this circular, to mix their politics with this very important subject of bacon.

In paragraph 6 of their circular, they talk of the price which pork butchers are offering for pigs, owing to the scarcity of beef and mutton, and the cost of these, but many of these pork butchers obtain their supplies of pigs through the bacon curers, and, of course, there is no law to compel them to dispose of their pigs in this way rather than by converting them into bacon. It is childish to talk, as they do in paragraph 9, of compensation of some kind for the increased cost of their raw materials. These raw materials are in short supply, and, being in short supply, are naturally in keen demand. That is why the attempt made recently by their associations to control the price to the producer at 160/- did not succeed and, of course, cannot succeed while the supply position remains as it is.

We are reminded in this document of legislation promised by the Government for the reorganisation of the industry. I cannot see the advantage of legislation at this stage. It would not, to my mind, add a single pig to the present pig population. This important industry can only be put on the road to restoration on food becoming available in sufficient quantity. There are two ways in which we can provide this—raise it ourselves or import it. In recent years we have been tilling 37½ per cent. of our arable land. Our farmers have been doing this in spite of many difficulties—shortage of machinery and all kinds of implements, shortage of artificial manures, with weather and labour difficulties thrown in. Is it suggested that in order to produce more food we should compel them to increase the present quota to 45 per cent. or 50 per cent.? Every sensible person knows, of course, that no such percentage could possibly be accomplished. Since there is nothing further that can be done in present circumstances in the home production of food, we have to look to the second and only alternative—import it. Have we not been securing the world with a view to securing our needs for man and beast? It has been a matter of "get it at any price" and yet the result, because of world conditions and world shortages, has been disappointing. This industry will again reach its former greatness, but only when the food and fuel difficulties at present being experienced are permanently eased.

A Government White Paper has been issued indicating the broad outlines of future legislative proposals. I have given what time I could since I came into office to a study of these proposals and to studying also the recommendations of the many tribunals and organisations that have been set up in the past and have reported as to the best ways and means of helping this important industry. I have not yet clearly made up my own mind as to the course that I should ultimately recommend to the Government, if and when legislative proposals are being undertaken. As I have stated, this is an important industry. No legislation introduced now can have the slightest effect in improving the supply and, because of that, I think I am completely justified, if I may use the expression, in holding my horses, or taking more time in order to ensure that whatever proposals I ultimately introduce into this House with the approval of the Government will prove to be helpful to this industry as a whole.

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. Economic conditions are developing around us in such a manner, particularly with regard to our trade, that one would expect the Minister and the Government and, possibly, Parliament, to face up to the responsibility of making vital decisions fundamental to the future of our national economy, decisions that must determine the future pattern of our primary industry, and the policy that must be pursued in the best economic interests of the country. I do not think I can congratulate the Minister on his realism in that respect. I expected that the Minister would deal with the matter at length.

We set up a committee to examine into and report on post-war agricultural policy. The House has waited patiently to give the Minister and the Department an opportunity of digesting that and reporting back to Parliament. Neither Parliament nor the country has got any indication from the Minister as to what he intends to do, whether that report is to be pigeon-holed and left in the cobwebs, or to what extent we will implement the recommendations of that committee. As a matter of fact, we have had no indication as to what pattern our agricultural economy is likely to take. In the changing circumstances of the world and the fluid condition of world trade, we must be realistic in reshaping our new policy as to where our economy will fit in and what is the best policy in the new circumstances for this country.

What is our present position with regard to trade and our ability to pay for our imports, and what contribution does the Minister expect the agricultural industry to make to that problem? Imports for last year amounted to £71,834,000; our exports amounted to £38,756,000; we had an adverse trade balance of over £33,000,000; our invisible assets amounted to £29,000,000, leaving an adverse trade balance of £4,000,000. This country has been in the habit of balancing its payments and an adverse trade balance of that magnitude is not a healthy sign. We have an excess of imports over exports unparalleled in any country in the world, with the exception possibly of Great Britain, which is operating on a loan. Worse than that, we have, relatively speaking at all events, the highest emigration rate in the world. Internally we have a drift of agricultural labourers into the towns and cities of this country. I merely want to stress that because the House and the Minister will appreciate that you cannot have production without man-power. If rural Ireland is being stripped of man-power, we cannot possibly hope to expand production.

It has been pointed out by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that, because of lack of capital formation during the whole of the emergency, lack of capital goods, the impossibility of securing our requirements in capital goods, and the low level of our stocks at present, our import requirements will be substantially higher than this figure. I think, therefore, it is an urgent matter to examine into the problem as to how we are to pay for these imports. That means, even if present conditions continue, if the facilities for payments which are there continue, and if our exports are incapable of showing a substantial increase, that we may anticipate a very steep increase in our adverse trade balance and in the balance of payments. If there is any curtailment of the use of our sterling balances, then our predicament will surely be an acute one.

During the emergency we got facilities from the dollar pool, facilities that were to our advantage. We contributed something like £6,000,000 to that pool and we took out of it over £90,000,000 during the emergency. That is coming to an end and the Washington Loan Agreement will come into operation. According to the terms of the Washington Loan Agreement, Great Britain will be bound to convert sterling for us arising out of current trade. But that Washington loan will come to an end in a very short time and then we will be forced to face the problem of how we are to get hard currency and to what extent we can get our sterling converted.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, facing up in a realistic way to this problem, told the House we would have to accept a lower standard or increase our production; that we would have to deny ourselves things that we consider are essential to our life in order to provide exports for purchasing power abroad or else we would have to increase production. In other words, as he put it, we would have to export or perish. Where are we to look for increased production, what can we produce, and where are we to sell? The Minister for Industry and Commerce addressed the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and he suggested that the difficulties and debilities that we suffered from in the past through bilateral trade with one country were something that he would not tolerate in the future, that he stood for multilateral trade, that he would bring in foreign trade resulting from such sales and that he would export industrial goods and agricultural produce. The Minister for Industry and Commerce can certainly draw on his imagination, and when he does so he can paint a magnificent picture. The industrial goods in which this country specialised in the past included Guinness's stout.

Which has nothing to do with this Estimate.

I am merely dealing with it in passing; I will not deal with it in detail. I must refer to it in order to point out the conclusion at which I have arrived.

Perhaps the Deputy will relate it to agricultural exports.

A couple of bottles of Guinness would not be any harm in this weather.

I would not be interested in it, but there are people outside the country who are. Guinness's stout, which is a by-product of agriculture, Jacob's biscuits, the specialised articles from the Gaeltacht industries for which we have developed a name and goods of that sort can be exported and sold in competition in outside markets, but beyond that the Minister did not attempt to suggest that there are any new goods that we might be in a position to export. If we are to be realistic about this we are forced to come to the conclusion that the only commodity we can look to, to provide us with foreign exchange, must come from our primary industry, agriculture. We had a very substantial export trade in the past, but that has in a large measure disappeared. I believe it can be restored, and not only restored but increased.

To sterling countries?

We will come to that, and I hope we will have the Deputy's views on it.

I should like to hear you tell us how we will get the hard currency first.

We will also come to that. In the past we had a very big export trade in a variety of agricultural commodities. We pursued a diversified policy here. Now, when the spectre of famine stalks the earth, as a food-producing country we have an export trade of which we cannot be proud. How was the export trade carried out in the past? We concentrated on the production of protective foods, foods of high value and essential to good health and, above all, foods that were suitable for the circumstances of our small farms. I believe animals and animal products will be scarce and dear for many years to come.

How are we to expand our production? Do we farm our lands efficiently and economically and is the Minister satisfied that the policy we are pursuing is a sound one for the country? Is he satisfied that the work that is being done is in the best interests of the country? Did the political policy that was forced on the small farming community make for economy and efficiency? Are we still going to pursue that policy, or will we adopt a policy more suited to our conditions? Have we any intention of applying the modern ideas and the technical knowledge that have produced an economy in other countries that has stepped up very substantially the production of those protective foods?

I do not agree with the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he suggests that we should scatter the small quantity of our exports in markets all over the world. I believe if we scatter our exports we will have no bargaining power and we shall get a very poor price for those goods. I believe it is good business to keep whatever exports we have in bulk. We can bargain on the basis of bulk supplies and on that basis we ought to be in a position to secure long-term trade deals, and those are most essential in order to stimulate production. The producer to-day wants stability and security. He wants long-term security if he is to be induced to go into production and if he is to be expected to put capital into that production. We are selling to-day in a sellers' market and now is the time most favourable for long-term deals.

The Minister has given us figures with regard to cattle exports. A number of countries bought our cattle in recent years and because of the conditions in Europe they were delighted to get the opportunity of buying our stock. I asked the Minister did any of the representatives of these countries indicate to him that they were interested in long-term trade so far as our cattle are concerned and I got no satisfactory answer. Apparently no representatives of European countries indicated to our Government that they were interested in a long-term cattle trade. That eliminates Europe so far as any long-term plan is concerned.

I suggest, Sir, that we must plan on a long-term basis if we are going to have security and stability. We have got to eliminate all this "cod" talk about the many markets open to this country and that simply boils down to saying that we have only one market left. We were informed by the Press recently that two representatives from the British Ministry of Food were sent over here by Mr. Strachey. Why were they sent here? Is it not extraordinary that the Minister did not think it worth while making any references to any representations that have been made on trade? I suggested to the Minister on another occasion here before that he should try for a long-term trade arrangement with Great Britain. His response to me was that my idea seemed to be that he should tip the other fellow on the shoulder and call him back, and he said that was not a satisfactory way of effecting a trade deal. However, I disagree with him, because I think there is such a thing as good salesmanship and the good salesman is always in the position to push his goods. Surely the Minister admits that he now has the advantage that he felt he must have when people are coming to him? Why are they coming here? Does Mr. Strachey think that he is going to get anything here at present? The Ministry of Food knows as well as the Minister for Agriculture and the members of this House that we have no surplus at the present time beyond what we are exporting to Britain. There is no hope for an immediate stepping-up in supplies from this country. I want to suggest—and I address my remarks to Deputy Allen particularly on this— that what the representatives were here for was to find out what the potentialities are for the future and how far we are prepared to co-operate with Great Britain in that respect.

I feel, Sir, that the British Ministry are concerned about what is going to happen when the Washington loan is exhausted. Great Britain to-day is buying capital goods and consumer goods out of that loan. When that loan is exhausted there will be deficiencies that they must make good; there will be a hiatus that must be bridged. I believe they are not prepared to go back to Washington for a further loan. The conditions attached to the last loan were too onerous. They are prepared to do anything rather than go back to the United States for further facilities. I believe the policy of Britain is to try to buy their essential foods in the sterling area. That is a sound policy as far as they are concerned, and because of that I think a golden opportunity is presented to this country. At the present time Great Britain has a meagre ration of 1/3 worth of meat in the week. When you remember the capacity of the average Britisher to consume beef, it seems extraordinary that they have been so quiet about it, that there has not been a revolution and that they have been content to exist on that meagre ration so long. Even on that meagre ration they are buying approximately 30 per cent. of their meat supplies in the Argentine. They have to find hard currency for that.

I am aware of the fact that the Minister of Food has been informed by the Treasury that he is using too many dollars in that respect and that the expenditure of dollars has to be cut down. I believe, Sir, that is a major concern of our neighbours at the present time, and I am realistic enough to appreciate that that is an opportunity for this country that has got to be grasped. Dr. Frazer pointed out recently that one of the reasons for such a low production in Britain, especially in the mines is the lack of meat supplies. Meat produces a tremendous amount of energy. When we talk about milk we must remember that while milk is a food par excellence so far as children are concerned, the adult, especially the man engaged in hard manual labour, must have meat if he is going to expend a lot of energy. I feel myself that the Britisher is going to be short of meat rations for many years to come. Because of that there is a magnificent opportunity for this country to develop our economy to meet the circumstances that exist. We have 10,000,000 acres of arable land in this country. It has been computed by experts that 1.6 acres of land will provide a high nutrition diet per individual if the land is properly worked. That shows that we have a substantial area of land from which we should draw a big surplus if our land is properly worked. We have got to intensify our live-stock economy.

I read a leading article in the Irish Press recently, replying to an article written by Professor Cole in the Statesman. I am afraid the man who wrote the article has no appreciation of what the issues are or of the soundness, in my opinion, of what Professor Cole had written. So far as the huge surplus of food referred to in that article that may be poured again into England in a few years is concerned, I do not believe that is going to happen. I believe the increase in the populations of India, Russia and the United States—India with its 400,000,000, Russia with its 300,000,000, and the United States with its 200,000,000—and the policy of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations to raise nutritional standards, are not going to make for a situation where food will be bought cheaply in future. I believe the old policy of Great Britain of producing manufactured goods to be exchanged for food from abroad is not likely to operate to any great extent in the future. Because they are realistic about that, they are developing their own agriculture, particularly in one respect—in the production of meat and protective foods, animals and animal products.

I think that because of changes in world economy, our economy and Britain's are inexorably becoming more integrated. I submit that the pattern of our agriculture for the future must conform to those circumstances. If we are to adopt the recommendations of the post-war planning committee—as a matter of fact, I think the recommendations of all three reports stress the particular aspect of the problem with which I am dealing—it means that we are going to change the pattern of our agriculture to suit that. If there are political significances, that may create difficulties as far as the Minister and the Government are concerned. I want to say to the Minister, in the grave circumstances, let not his hand be stayed in applying himself to the work.

In a recent article on this matter a figure of 20 per cent. was given as the number of Irish cattle on British farms. I do not know whether that figure is correct or not—it appears to me that it is rather high—but I do believe that there should be a unified live-stock policy for this country and Great Britain, properly integrated, that we should have a clear understanding of each other's aims and objects. That is in operation to some extent at present but it ought to be intensified. We ought to have greater interchange of information on the matter. They should have some appreciation of our capacity to expand live stock. We ought to have some information as to their seasonal requirements and the type of animal in which they are interested. The Minister has thought it well to revert to the cattle trade. The British people are interested in stock raising. Here we have a monopoly interest. When we talk about butter production we must bear in mind that in that connection we will be in competition with highly developed countries, like New Zealand, countries that have developed for over 20 years in an intensified way, that have expanded production enormously in that period, that have magnificent weather conditions for that particular industry, that have bigger farm units which are more suitable for mechanised milking, and that kind of thing. But, in relation to the dry live-stock trade, this is the only country in the world in a position to supply Great Britain with dry stock and Great Britain is keenly interested to-day in the expansion of live stock.

The Minister was presented with a grand opportunity when two representatives from the British Ministry of Food called on his Department in the present week. I only hope that the Minister will make full use of the opportunity that has been presented to him. We on this side of the House have been pressing for that for some time past and we have been urging the advantages to the agricultural community in stability and security on a long-term basis. There should be a long-term objective. We can clear this industry from political issues. There should not be political issues in this matter. We ought to pursue an economic, not a political, policy. We should develop the production of cattle, mutton, eggs, bacon and butter—commodities that this countrry, with its climatic conditions and high rainfall and small farming community, is ideally suitable to produce. When we talk about wheat production and when we consider the particular article that I refer to, the leading article in the Irish Press, we must remember that no small farming community can compete against the big agriculturists in cereal production. Where the small farmer can use his family labour to the best advantage is in the care of animals. Animals require personal attention. The cow has to be milked, the calf fed, the eggs collected, the hens fed, and so on. If our small farming community was properly equipped, it is in that direction we could utilise our families in rural Ireland and keep them at home instead of emigrating them.

The same applies to eggs. The Minister's predecessor coming home last year from Copenhagen made an egg deal on a three years' basis in London. I think it was a favourable deal and I think he is to be congratulated on it. What have we done about it since? Nothing, except the Minister writing a letter to P.E.P. That is not enough. The P.E.P. will not do everything. We have to put our backs into the job. The Minister's Department must help in every possible way, in providing technical instruction and equipment for the small farmers and, as far as is possible, in providing the feeding stuffs that are necessary. Great Britain, even to-day, is importing £3,500,000 worth of dried eggs from the hard currency areas. What is going to happen when the Washington loan goes? Where are they going to turn for eggs? Are they going to come to this country? What encouragement did the Minister give the people who called on his Department last week so far as the future of the egg trade is concerned? Will they be forced to go elsewhere? If we are interested in trade, are we prepared to grasp the opportunities that exist, to consolidate our position, to secure the future?

When this paper tells about the market being flooded in a few years time I want to say that of course there must be conditions attached to any trade, conditions that will safeguard the future. The British farming community are as keenly interested in that as we are. They do not want to be flooded out. If the British Government are prepared to put into the agricultural industry substantial capital sums, it does not appear to me that they are going to allow that industry to be swamped out again. A trade pact of that sort would deal with convertibility so far as hard currency is concerned. They will still have available facilities for conversion and, in the last analysis, when the Washington loan is finished, we will have to look to Great Britain for that convertibility that is so essential for buying the goods that we require from the hard currency countries and for facilities for the purchase of capital goods and capital equipment for agriculture, for modern machinery, for raw material from the cereal producing countries, big supplies of maize—at least £1,000,000 worth in my opinion, if we are to develop intensively on a long-term basis.

I hope, when the Minister is replying to this debate, he will deal with those aspects of our national problem. We have got to make a contribution from the primary industry to supply the essential requirements of this country. As a matter of fact, I believe we must look almost 100 per cent. to the main industry of the country to perform that duty. The industrial and other sections of the community should appreciate what they owe to the primary industry, not merely in feeding our people, but in providing purchasing power for essential imports. That duty was performed by the primary industry in the past. It can be done again. The Minister can go a long way to establish it on a sound foundation by entering into proper long-term trade arrangements now that the opportunities offer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

An export trade of 700,000 cases of eggs is envisaged in the agreement. I want to say that I do not think we shall reach that figure. If we fail to reach the target set it means that another branch of Irish agriculture-turkeys-will have to subsidise eggs. That is not fair. I am amazed that the Minister got up here in this House and made no reference to that important branch of Irish agriculture, which is worth £12,000,000 or £13,000,000, and gave no views on what is going to happen our exports. How does he hope to fill the contract and, if we are not going to fill the contract, why have we failed? As a matter of fact, if there was no hope of filling the contract why did we enter into it at all? In reply to a Parliamentary question put by myself in connection with the trade agreement on the 13th November last, the Minister's predecessor gave me particulars as follows:—

"The purchase, as a minimum, in 1949 of a quantity equal to the average of exports in 1947 and 1948 at a price not less than 20/- per gt. hhd. for specials and standards (2/6 per gt. hhd. less for lower grades); the price for 1949 to be open to discussion at the request of my Department at any time between September, 1947, and September, 1948; failing agreement on price, my Department to have the option of accepting the price mentioned or of refraining from any commitments as to supplies in 1949.

Should the quantity delivered in 1947 fall short of 2,062,500 gt. hhds. the Ministry to be released from its engagements regarding purchase in the two subsequent years."

"The Ministry" refers to the Ministry of Food on the other side. Although it is a three years' deal, if we fail to fill the contract this year the other people are not committed. However, I believe that, in the circumstances in which they find themselves, that matter can quite easily be adjusted. The Minister, in reply to the cattle traders, gave a set of figures here. If the Minister will permit me to offer him some advice I think he should not allow himself to be annoyed by the cattle traders and that he should not abuse them. He has, also, abused the curers. I consider that that is not in his own interest. It is not good, especially when it comes from a man occupying the position he occupies. He should not attempt to get these people's backs up. It is not the right way to treat them.

So long as they are allowed to get his back up!

The Minister has referred to exports. I want to point out, in this connection, that there is a substantial drop in our exports of cattle. As a matter of fact, there is a substantial drop in our exports generally. The Minister knows that our aggregate production here during the emergency has fallen by 10 per cent. Britain's went up by 70 per cent. That is the problem. Scientific development should have helped us to expand substantially our production over that of 15 or 16 years ago. Compared with New Zealand, Denmark, the Scandinavian countries generally, and, in fact, the world generally, we can feel nothing but shame for the stagnation which exists in our primary industry. The Minister will have to readjust his ideas. The cattle traders are concerned about the slaughter of calves. If we continue to slaughter calves or if the slaughter increases— I am afraid that, unfortunately, it will be increased—our exports of cattle will in 1951 be much lower than they are to-day. By that time the market in Great Britain will, if anything, be better because of the disappearance of the Washington loan. I would like to suggest to the Minister, as he is the man who controls the economy of the industry, that it is bad policy to offer to the agricultural community 3d. for skim milk, to have the skim milk retained by the creameries and sent to the Dairy Disposals Company and to Mitchelstown for processing into condensed milk, cheese, etc. The farmers ought to be encouraged to take their milk back at a nominal price of 1d. a gallon.

It is not as much as 3d.

It is too much. It is bad national policy. I think the Minister will agree with me and I would ask him to look into the matter.

I am glad that the Minister, in connection with dairying, is setting up a commission to investigate the whole matter of breeding. There is a biological problem involved. There are two conflicting interests involved. It is quite all right for some people to point to other countries such as New Zealand, Denmark and so on which have a single interest and which can go in successfully for dairying and dairy stock but we have an important export trade in dry cattle. That is where the conflict of interests arises. I want to say that while, on the one hand, we are going to go into competition against those countries as far as dairying is concerned, we have, on the other hand, a monopoly in the British market so far as supplies of store cattle are concerned. I would like, with your permission, Sir, to refer the House to what was said on this matter by the late Mr. Patrick Hogan. In volume 44, column 991, of the 3rd November, 1932, speaking on agriculture, Mr. Hogan said:—

"If I might mention one detail in connection with their administration it is this. I believe that the Live Stock Breeding Act improved the quality of the cattle in this country, generally, very much indeed, and by live stock I mean not only the cattle, but pigs. I believe that our cattle were approaching something like perfection and our pigs very near it. The pigs are very good indeed in this country. Just before I left office, however, I was coming to the conclusion, and my experience since then has strengthened that conclusion, that the Live Stock Breeding Act, as it is operating, is operating against the dairy cow and in favour of the beef animal. I think, if it is operated as it is being operated at present, without making some attempt to encourage milk as against beef, that in a comparatively short time you may find yourself with magnificent looking cows, very fine cattle and pigs, but that it will be extremely hard to get a good milking dairy cow in this country. The Act is operated in this way: there are licensing shows in practically every parish twice a year in spring and in autumn. The animals are inspected there entirely on view. That is to say, pedigree or other qualities are not taken into account, and they are inspected as they would be on their appearance or, in other words, on beef. That is bound to give an advantage to the animal that is bred from beef animals, and it is undoubtedly working out in that way. While the quality of our cattle and live stock, generally, is being improved from the point of view of beef and bacon, there is no doubt about it that we are gradually breeding out milk. That is a very serious problem for the Department of Agriculture ... "

That passage proves that the late Mr. Hogan appreciated the problem that existed in 1932 and, in a very serious and sincere way, he advised his successor, the then Minister for Agriculture, that the matter was urgent and that it should be attended to immediately. That advice was ignored and it has been ignored until now. I am glad to say that the present Minister is taking a keen interest in the matter. Because of the time lost and also because the change-over is a slow process—getting the people interested in selecting animals on milk records rather than on conformation — the matter is extremely urgent. The single dairy bull that did a lot of harm in this country gave the impression to a lot of people that he was a dairy animal. It is a pity he did not remain single all the time. That is the trouble. Anyway, he is eliminated so far as the Department is concerned, and an investigation now on the lines indicated by the Minister is a step in the right direction.

I want to say that the Department is doing absolutely nothing to introduce into this country new ideas with regard to grass production. It seems extraordinary that, with our soil and climatic conditions, we have not attempted to operate the ideas that have been operated for some years in New Zealand. We see what Great Britain and Northern Ireland are doing in that respect. Professor Murphy indicated recently in the course of an investigation that he carried out among dairy farmers in North Cork, that they had a very low income, and that the dairy farmer was getting a very low output of food units, of calories, from grass. We should compare that with the experiments that were carried out for the Northern Ireland Government by Mr. McGuckin. He was able to get on land not in very good condition, in good heart, 3,500 calories per acre. It seems extraordinary that the matter has been so neglected. It is true that the Department has carried out some experiments at its experimental stations at Clonakilty, Athenry and Ballyhaise, but strange to say the results do not coincide with the results in other countries to the advantage of young leas. I wonder whether any further investigation has been made as to why those results did not correspond with the results achieved in other countries. I have often felt myself that the digestive organs of the animals fed on those plots were so upset that they caused a lot of scour, and that it was a question of management. In the production and use of grasses, management is very much stressed in the interests of plant life, as well as management from the point of view of the animal.

I want to say to the Minister that the scheme for agricultural lime is showing no indication of any increase in the use of it. The figure fell last year by 20,000 tons. Last year we used 64,000 tons of lime, and in the previous year we used 84,000 tons. We have a huge acid problem here, and the question of supplying a cheap corrective is an urgent matter. There is, furthermore, the question of operating a direct subsidy to meet the problem. Subsidies are applied in other countries regardless of the magnitude of the problem. As a matter of fact, in countries where you have very little or no acidity, the subsidies are as high as they are here where you have a huge acid problem. Judging by that, the Department does not appear to be interested in the matter.

On the question of bacon, the Minister referred to the curers. I made it clear the other night that I am not concerned about the curers' interests, but I am concerned about this, and the Minister ought to be concerned about it, that if there is to be an adjustment in prices there ought not to be a collapse in prices overnight from 190/- to 160/-. Does not the Minister know what the reaction to that will be? It ought not to be tolerated. We all know what happened in the case of the millers— how they came together and made an agreement about the price of wheat, but before they reached home they had broken the agreement. We all know that an agreement about 160/- would not hold, and that they would break it before they got home. The fact is that they did do so. When the price was announced over the week-end you got a bad reaction. The Minister says that is their affair. I say it is his affair as well, and the Minister must see that there is stability for the primary producer if he is to be encouraged, and that these shocks will be avoided.

I want to say one final word on that. What are you going to do for the future? There have been two interests in the pig and bacon industry in this country. The margin of wealth accruing to the industry was never very great, but whatever wealth accrued the curers got the major portion of it. I submit to the Minister that there is not room for two interests in the industry, and that the second interest has to be eliminated. We ought to have the producers curing their own bacon on a co-operative basis. That is the solution. If they were running their own co-operative bacon factories at the present time, and if adjustments had to be made, then the adjustments would be made by themselves, and there would be no problem there at all.

What about the co-operative concern that is operating? Was it not in the ring?

Well, they are in a fix about it.

There you are. Is it not a co-operative concern?

Yes, one co-operative concern among a whole lot of private concerns.

It is a very big business, and still the small private concerns remained outside the ring.

So far as the financial interests are concerned I believe the other interest ought not to be there at all, and that if the Minister is preparing legislation for the future he ought to prepare it along those lines.

With regard to loans free of interest for the losses of stock on the basis of valuation referred to by the Minister, I was going to deal with that question of valuation, but as I understand it is fairly flexible I do not intend to do so. In my opinion something more than a loan is necessary. There should be a rehabilitation grant. The Minister should look at what has been done in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the people who suffered similar losses.

What are they doing?

They are providing grants for them.

Where are the grants coming from?

Some of the money is subscribed by the agricultural community and some of it comes from the State.

What is the total?

I do not know, but they are providing grants at all events. The total would give me no information because it would have to be related to the problem.

That is right.

We should provide a rehabilitation grant for our people who have lost nearly all their stock. Even if they are provided with an interest-free loan, and if they have to go out and buy stock, then they will have to do so at peak prices. It will be very hard for them to repay the loan, notwithstanding the fact that it is interest free. I want to suggest to the Minister that some contribution ought to be made by way of grant to those unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, suffered losses and shocks. These losses were suffered through an act of God, and it is in the national interest that they should be rehabilitated. The burden of a loan now, when they have to go into a dear market, will impose a severe test on them over the years of repayment. I think some assistance should be provided for them by way of a State contribution—a rehabilitation grant.

On the question of fertilisers, we were told by the Minister's predecessor that the vouchers would be in operation, and that, generally speaking, the agricultural community would get the opportunity of cashing their vouchers in the season. "This season" means after the manures are purchased and paid for and that the scheme will come into operation for next year and not for this year. I do not believe the people have been treated fairly there.

I submit that since some of the agricultural prices were fixed, particularly for tillage crops, there has been a substantial increase in wages. I think the increased wages are necessary on account of the high cost of living, but there should have been some adjustment in agricultural prices. The White Paper on National Income and Expenditure on page 43, table 15, shows the trend of prices for 1944. Taking 1938 at 100 as the basis, the cost of living increased to 170 by 1944; wholesale prices went from 100 in 1938 to 198 in 1944; import prices went to 219; export prices went to 212; and agricultural prices went to 187. Agricultural prices up to 1944 showed the lowest increase of those set out in the table, with the exception of the cost of living. The wholesale prices and export and import prices were all higher increases.

Table 19 shows the trend of wages and, again taking 1938 as the basis at 100, in transportable goods the rate of wages increased to 124.3 in 1944, earnings increased to 127.1, other industry (building, etc.) to 115.2, transport went from 100 in 1938 to 131.8 and agriculture went to 147.7. Agricultural wages up to 1944 had shown the greatest increase. Substantial increases have been added since 1944 and, with the exception of milk, I think there has been no favourable adjustment in prices to the agricultural community. Although the Minister has been asked Parliamentary questions on this matter, he should look into it again. While he has praised the agricultural community for the hard work they have performed this spring, the best way he can show his appreciation for their work is by a favourable adjustment in the price that they get for their produce.

There is one other matter, and I think I spoke to him before about it. It is not his direct responsibility, but as he is charged with the interests of this industry he should look into it. In the selection of tenants for houses in rural Ireland, the men doing agricultural work should have a prior claim over anyone else, if we are to maintain our people in rural Ireland. The first essential to production is manpower and, if we give a preference to other people, for houses that are properly placed for agricultural workers, we cannot hope to increase production. The Minister will appreciate that that is very important and should be considered. He is taking over responsibility at a very important time in the life of the industry. The matters I have referred to are big national problems that must be faced and solved. He is getting opportunities of which he should take advantage at this stage, if he is to promote the best interests of the industry.

I was rather taken aback by the very short review the Minister gave us. He gave us no indication of what the future, or even the coming year is going to be like. He proposes changes and many of them are very necessary. This is the Minister's first time moving a Vote for his Department and I thought that the change in the Ministry would bring a complete change in agricultural policy. There are indications of a few such changes and there are very welcome. I was glad to read the statement the Minister made some time ago in the South of Ireland, that there was to be a complete change of outlook on the breeding of dairy cattle. I think his words were that there was "no such thing as the dual-purpose bull". I am glad that at least in one regard he has realised there must be a complete change and overhaul in that section. We are only too painfully aware that milk production has fallen so much that the country is practically without butter. Four ounces per head of the population are a very big change from the days when we could supply our own needs and also export an appreciable quantity each year, apart from other milk products.

The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dr. Ryan, certainly sowed his wild oats as regards agricultural policy. All attempts to bring home to him the error of his ways failed. The oats grew and it appears that now we are faced with a shortage of practically every commodity with the exception of mutton and beef—I might even cut it down to beef alone, of which we are not short; but that is the only commodity in the country at the moment which is not in short supply. It has taken an accumulation of all these facts to bring home to the Government that their agricultural policy is altogether wrong. The Minister for Agriculture is now asked to step in and reap the harvest of wild oats sown by his predecessor, to colour it and serve it up to the people as perfectly sound oats. I have sympathy with this Minister who has to try to undo the effects of 15 or more years of the worst of bad management in the Department. It struck me and many people in the country that Fianna Fáil seemed to be out to crush the farmer for some inexplicable reason. We hear statements from public platforms and so on that the agricultural community are the backbone of the country, but it is a strange thing that nothing was done. There seemed to be a policy of victimisation, or, I should say, of penalisation, all down through the years, and I have every sympathy with this Minister who has to change the whole thing. If he is man enough to change it, he will get the credit for doing so.

Deputy Hughes quoted the Minister for Agriculture in a previous Government, Mr. Paddy Hogan, and I must say that I for one was not aware that, as far back as 1932, the late Mr. Paddy Hogan advocated a complete change in the breeding of dairy cattle. What Deputy Hughes quoted is glaringly true to-day, with this unfortunate difference that, at that period, there was time to step in, to stop the damage and undo some of the harm done, but it has taken a nation-wide shortage of butter, milk, and the various products of milk production to bring home to us that something is wrong. I attended some shows this year and I noticed a very strange thing in the selection of dairy bulls for premiums. I noticed that bulls, the milk capacity of whose dams was between 600 and 700 gallons, were awarded premiums, and I saw bulls whose dam and grand-dam, on both the male and female side, were 1,000 gallon cows which were rejected, showing clearly that the dairy bull was being chosen merely on his appearance, merely on his capacity to put up beef on his back instead of on his pedigree.

Years before there was a Dairy Shorthorn Breeders' Association, farmers bred cattle on the basis of their proved milk strain. They did not mind if an animal looked leggy or was bony and was perhaps an ugly animal according to our present standard of what a nice bull should look like. They retained and bred the very best and earmarked the calves as they came along, purely on the strength of the mother's milk production and the milk production of the dam of the bull. We have to get back to that if we are to get back a plentiful supply of butter —a supply ample to provide enough for ourselves and also the exportable surplus which we want. I want to condemn and to bring to the Minister's notice the fact that bulls are being chosen more or less for their beefy appearance, rather than for their milk producing pedigree, which is the first thing which should be considered in relation to the double dairy bull. If we want to breed beef cattle, the Hereford, the beef shorthorn type or any other type, disregard the milk production capacity of their ancestors, but if we are setting out to put the dairying industry, the principal branch of the entire agricultural industry, on its feet, the only way in which to do it is by taking into account the milk pedigree of the animals' ancestors.

Much of the talk during this debate each year centres around the suggestion that we should do this, that and the other about the foreign market. I think we are definitely putting the cart before the horse in that respect. We have no business talking about getting a market for our exportable agricultural surplus until we have something to export, and, if things go on as they are, in a very short time we will not need to bother about an outside market for our exportable surplus, because we will have no surplus to export.

Sell it before you produce it.

The first step is to produce it, to bring up production to full capacity, if possible, and then, when we have something to sell, let us talk about it.

And let them buy it at their own price. I would fix the price first.

Lack of production is the cause of a great many of our ills. We have a shortage of food in this food-producing country. Every item of food produced at home is rationed, with the exception of beef. Mutton is rapidly going scarce and bacon is a thing of the past. We have some eggs, some poultry and some cattle to export, but, in comparison with our imports, we have absolutely nothing or next to nothing to sell, when we should be well able to balance our trade each year.

Another facet of this problem is the fact that, instead of exporting agricultural produce, we are exporting our youth. We have two very serious movements in this country at present— one, a general movement from the rural areas into the town and city areas, and the other, a national movement out of the country, particularly to England, and, if restrictions were removed, to the United States. Our principal emigration drain is from the rural areas because there is nothing to induce our young people to stay at home, no recompense for their labour, and no Minister or Government can expect young people to stay in rural districts or in towns if they are to be asked to waste the best years of their lives, the years which every youngster worthy of being called an Irish man or woman should devote to building up some kind of future for himself or herself and to put something by against the rainy day.

That is what is wrong, and during the short time I have been in this House it has been repeatedly urged on the Government that something must be done to right that state of affairs. There is one way, and only one way in which to do so, that is, to give the farmer a price for his produce that will repay the cost of production and give a small margin of profit. That is a very reasonable demand. The farmers do not ask for a black market profit or extraordinarily high prices. In many cases, a household consisting of a farmer, his wife and perhaps a couple of sons and a daughter is a comfortable household, but why is it a comfortable household? Because there is an enormous amount of unpaid labour working on the land and producing, and perhaps also working outside the farm on public works or whatever local jobs are going, but, if we examine the small amount put in the bank by such a household at the end of a number of years, we will find that it would not represent 1/- per week per head of the household.

The kernel of the whole question, I urge on the Minister, is increased production, if it is at all possible, and there are a few aids towards that end. I urged before on the Minister's predecessor that fertilisers must be made available in plentiful quantity at a very cheap rate to bring back the land to the condition it was in before the emergency.

Was there not an Act passed a few weeks ago to put 2/6 per cwt. on sulphate of ammonia?

There are fertilisers other than sulphate of ammonia.

That is only the beginning.

I hold that fertilisers should be made available at a very cheap rate to give farmers a chance to restore the fertility of the land and to increase production. If we have a factory that will sell sulphate of ammonia at 2/6 per cwt. higher than we can import it, there are two sides to that, in my opinion. I did not oppose that Bill when it was going through the House, and neither did my Party, because another emergency period may come in ten or 20 years' time when the people will have to get sulphate of ammonia at any price.

They will be unable to manufacture it, because that requires coal.

There will be alternative sources of power then. If Deputy Dillon is afraid of racketeering in sulphate of ammonia by the factory established here, I have sufficient faith in the Irish people to believe that that racketeering will not continue for ever. The Fianna Fáil Government will not be in office for ever.

If we remain as we are, they will be there until kingdom come.

Settle that outside.

That is the people's job. I impress on the Minister that he should make fertilisers available at a very cheap cost, no matter where they come from. We are asked to grow wheat in this country. My experience during the last few years is that the biggest difficulty in connection with the successful growing of wheat is soil acidity due to lack of lime. The last speaker astonished me when he quoted figures that revealed that we used 20,000 tons less of lime last year. As a farmer who has been up against this problem since I left the national school, I do not think it is necessary to impress on the Minister the absolute necessity for encouraging the use of more lime if we are to grow successful, healthy crops. Soil acidity generally leads to a bad crop of wheat. You cannot grow a successful crop of wheat on sour land. We do grow good crops of oats on land which would be improved by the application of lime, but you cannot grow a successful crop of wheat on such a land. The acidity of land has caused a good many farmers to turn away from wheat growing, because they cannot do it successfully. I should like to see the technique of wheat growing retained, to see a sufficient acreage of wheat always grown, so as to keep a reserve of seed in this country against any emergency. We can alter our policy from time to time to suit changing conditions in between. In order to do that, it is absolutely essential to impress upon the people that lime and wheat sowing go hand in hand on a great proportion of our arable land. I therefore ask the Minister to encourage the use of lime and to go further than he has done in making more lime available and at a cheaper rate.

A higher level of production is the keynote to our whole agricultural economy. It will help, if not to eradicate, at least to alleviate many of our evils. One of these is the low rate of wages paid to farm workers. As the Minister knows, farmers are not in a position to pay the statutory rate with profit to themselves. If they pay the statutory wage, they pay it at a loss. We should put it in the farmer's power to pay a decent wage and I am sure the workers will give a good return for it. You cannot expect the best from any agricultural labourer or any other person in employment if he is underpaid. On the other hand, a man will put his heart and soul into the job if he gets a satisfactory wage.

On the question of interest-free loans for the purchase of stock, the Minister may say that when we get an inch we want a yard. That may be so, but I should like to bring to the Minister's notice that while for well-to-do farmers or fairly comfortable farmers who may have lost a beast or two out of six or ten the interest-free loan is a great help, in the case of a farmer in a mountainous district, or in a district where there is very poor land, who has lost 50 or 60 or 70 per cent. of his total stock, a State grant should be given to put him on his feet. It is all very well giving a loan, but the paying back of that loan, even without interest, will be beyond the capacity of such people. I am speaking of people whose families are so young that they are not able to assist on the land or earn money outside. In many cases a loan will not be sought by these people, because it would be only putting a further burden on them. Even if they did get a loan, they will have to buy stock now at the present high prices. We do not know what the future may hold with regard to prices. These people may be compelled to sell that stock in three, six or 12 months at the same price as they bought it at, or even at a lower price, and their condition in a year's time will be just as bad as, if not worse than, when they got the loan. In such cases I think some grant should be made available along with the loan.

Pig production has fallen very considerably. Various attempts have been made to bring about an improvement by legislation. I am glad that the Minister now realises that he must put his foot down firmly. We can legislate as much as we like, and we can issue White Papers, but all these things will not feed one more pig. The Minister says he is scouring the world for foodstuffs. In my opinion, that is the only way to meet the situation. Pigs were the small farmer's chief stock-in-trade; they were his chief standby for an emergency. He cannot rely on cattle, as the larger farmers are doing to-day. The fact that he cannot keep pigs now is a great blow to the small farmer, because on most of the small farms, especially in the West, pigs and poultry were the principal sources of income. The usual thing was to sell three or four sets of pigs each year. That is now completely done away with. If the Minister can get maize or any other suitable food for the feeding of pigs from outside this country, he will be doing a good day's work for the industry.

Poultry disease at times ravages particular districts, as I am sure the veterinary section of his Department can tell the Minister. I understand that there is a pathological and veterinary research department in Ballsbridge under the Department of Agriculture where a few men are in a position to make examinations of birds which die from disease. If we take into account that the hen population is 12,000,000, not to speak of other branches of poultry, such as geese, turkeys and ducks, it will be seen at a glance that one man, with, perhaps, a small staff, is absolutely inadequate to deal with that matter. The vast majority of poultry owners are absolutely unaware that they can get dead, diseased birds tested and a report sent back.

There should be, in every group of at least three, four or five counties, an efficient person, properly equipped with suitable laboratory instruments, to carry out tests on any diseased birds that are sent to him. Centralising the whole thing in Ballsbridge is absolutely useless. If there was one laboratory for Connacht, one for Munster and let Ballsbridge deal with Leinster, that would be a step in the right direction. At least one person with a properly equipped laboratory should be established in each group of three or four counties; that fact should be advertised in the papers, and people should be invited to send diseased poultry to be tested. Disease is ravaging whole districts.

I wish the Minister would give us an outline of what the farm improvements scheme will be like. It was referred to on the Department of Finance Estimate by the Parliamentary Secretary. Many useful improvements have been carried out under that scheme. Many places are certainly being changed through taking advantage of it, where there are young men with the necessary skill to do cement work and the time to do it. I have advocated that it should be extended so as to include farm buildings. Most farmsteads have not sufficient out-offices. Some of the out-offices have been in existence for 80 or 100 years and they are nothing more than shacks. We should endeavour to improve out-offices on every farm. They should be properly located and built. It may mean an increase of staff, and that staff will have to be highly efficient. The present staff of agricultural instructors would not be able to meet the situation, because they were not trained in this particular work. It would be well worth the trouble to get extra staff to improve the out-offices in practically every homestead.

The commission on post-war agricultural policy suggested that it would take something like £50,000,000 if we were to get our out-offices into proper order. That would be beyond our capacity, but at the same time I think some forward move could be made by allocating annually a decent sum for the improvement of farm buildings and the erection of new ones. There is no doubt there is a considerable loss on every holding in the country through the lack of suitable accommodation in the way of out-buildings. Many a time the harvest—I am speaking principally of hay and corn—has been adversely affected because it could not be properly housed. It is necessary to have hay-shed accommodation. In addition to that, more stock should be housed, first, from the point of view of ordinary economy and labour saving and, secondly, for the production of more farmyard manure that our land so badly needs. We often see horse carts, mowing machines, tractors and binders. and valuable farm tools left out in all sorts of weather simply because there is not sufficient out-office accommodation.

There is one serious drawback. Many farmers do not like building out-offices although they need them and although the erection of such would be a distinct asset to their farms. This does not come within the Minister's ambit, but there is a fear that any new building will be immediately assessed and there will be an increased poor rate. This is a matter more for the Minister for Finance, but I think the Minister for Agriculture is well aware of the truth of what I am saying. It is a matter that should be taken up by the Government and the Minister should urge on the Minister for Finance to do away with that relic of the landlord days when, if a man improved his holding, the reward was an increase in his rent, in some cases to such an extent as to cause him to relinquish his place without any trouble of eviction. Putting an additional valuation on a new building deters many people from improving their holdings. It is a deterrent to industry and thrift. It leads to a loss of crops and farm machinery and to losses occasioned by farmers not being able to house more stock during the winter months.

I was glad to notice in the Budget speech that a certain sum is being laid aside, a small sum, for the erection of glasshouses in the Gaeltacht areas. These will be erected under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture. If we are to face problems of emigration and congestion and the evils that arise from farmers being asked to live on inadequate holdings, we must help them in some way like this while we are awaiting the slow movements of other Government Departments to come to their rescue. We have over 23,000 people under a £10 valuation in Mayo. We cannot, with one wave of a magic wand, set that right in a year or even in five years, but we should come to their rescue with some schemes like this where, even though their holdings are very small, the people are go ahead enough and intelligent enough to make a profit out of them. It will be a valuable supplement to their small earnings and it may help in preventing the deplorable flight from the land that nothing seems to be able to stop.

The previous Government and this Government claim they have done everything within their power to stop emigration, but yet it is as bad if not worse than when we were under British rule. The Minister for Finance says that 120,000 people have left the country and that is due to the fact that we are not facing our rural problems as we should. Increased production on the land is one of the things that must be achieved. Then there should be employment in reproductive schemes for our young men. The erection of glasshouses in the Gaeltacht areas will certainly help, if it is not tied up too much with red tape and if the scheme is organised in such a way that the people can take full advantage of it.

One of the first things I would ask the Minister to do is to extend the loan schemes until the 1st August next. It may surprise the Minister to learn that many people have never heard of the loan scheme. I met some farmers during the week who did not know of the existence of a loan scheme for replacing stock that were lost. There are, thank God, a number of people who do not bother their heads about newspapers and in country districts there were many people who did not know of this scheme and had not the details of it. I would suggest, too, that the Minister should have the details of the scheme published in provincial papers so that people who were really badly hit by the loss of stock in the more remote country districts would be in a position to re-stock their farms as a result of the scheme.

The question of the breeding of cattle has been raised here. I think one of the first essentials—I am just giving my own view—is that the Minister will have to set about achieving a good foundation stock. There is a great danger of the correct type of stock fading out in this country. The country people, as a whole, particularly the people in my county, are going all out for all kinds of beef breeds. When it comes round to the time for allocating premiums at our committee of agriculture, we find that for one applicant for the dairy shorthorn types we have about 20 or 30 applicants for the different types of beef breeds — for Aberdeen-Angus bulls, Hereford bulls and in some cases beef shorthorn bulls. Of course the reason why people are concentrating on these particular types is fairly obvious. They feel that with these breeds they can turn out their stock for sale much earlier. It is quite true that a cross between one of the beef breeds and the double dairy shorthorn will turn out a better type of animal, one that will come to hand much more quickly than the dairy breed, but with all this concentration on beef breeds you have the people very much inclined to forget what the result will be in the long run. They have been concentrating on these breeds and letting their foundation stock, the dairy stock, fade out.

I would suggest to the Minister, if it can be done—I do not know whether it can—that he should ask the county committees of agriculture to cut out the subsidisation to a certain degree of beef breeds, particularly in western counties. I know there is a regulation of the Department that a certain proportion must be observed between beef breeds and dairy breeds, but the committees of agriculture find it increasingly difficult to carry out the Department's regulations, because the people will simply not have dairy shorthorn breeds in these areas. They will insist on getting, by hook or crook, beef bulls. As a means towards maintaining a balance between beef strains and dairying strains and towards preserving a good foundation stock, I would suggest that the subsidisation of beef breeds in these counties should be discontinued. If there is, as I know there is, a demand for beef animals in these areas, the people will still keep a certain number of beef bulls, because it will pay them to have them. I think the committees of agriculture might also consider increasing the subsidisation of double dairying bulls in these areas.

I am not sure yet to what extent counties like Mayo will benefit from the announcement of the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement in connection with making grants available for the erection of tomato houses. As I said on a previous occasion, I think it is a step in the right direction. The Minister might also consider the possibility of concentrating seed production in the congested areas. The congested areas are well suited to specialised production of that kind and if the people got assistance to enable them to engage in the production of commodities such as tomatoes and seeds, a form of production for which they are well suited and of which they have some experience, it would be a great boon to them. In fact I think that in a very large degree, production of this kind should be confined to those areas because the people there are not in a position to earn a livelihood from the more common methods of farming, owing to the smallness of their holdings. If the production of these commodities were concentrated in the congested areas and the people got the necessary encouragement and help from the Department, it would go a long way towards off-setting the economic difficulties of the inhabitants of these areas.

Turning to the Minister's references to the bacon industry, I should like to approach it in a reasonable way and to get the Minister to understand the difficulties of the two sides in the bacon industry at the present time. In the first place, I think it is untrue to suggest that the bacon curers and the pig producers are sworn enemies. I think the contrary is the fact. Any bacon curer will admit that one of his main considerations is to have a continual and steady flow of the raw material for his factory. It is in the interests of the bacon curer to ensure that his factory will have that steady flow and it is, therefore, in his interests to see that the people who are producing pigs will get a reasonable price, so that the raw material will be flowing steadily into him over a number of years. In that way the interests of pig producers and curers are complementary. The Minister's statement that there was a price fixed for pigs and that the curers were exceeding that price is, of course, true but they were exceeding that price because they could afford to exceed it. The price fixed was really too low. All the curers ask, as I understand their case, is that they will be given an opportunity, even with the limited supply of pigs we have, to compete with the black-marketeers of bacon.

The Minister states that he has not made up his mind on the White Paper. The curers were led by the Minister's predecessor to believe that legislation was going to be introduced and that it was going to be introduced immediately. I was present at a meeting of, I think it is, the agricultural council advising the Minister, at which was discussed the whole matter with the Minister's predecessor. Various proposals and suggestions were made by all sections, including producers, curers, the retail trade, pork butchers, and all the other interests, and we were informed that the various suggestions would be considered and that legislation would be introduced forthwith. I do not blame the Minister for reexamining the position and, possibly, changing his mind on the proposals if he so thinks fit, but the fact is that the industry as a whole was left under the impression that legislative proposals giving effect in the main to the principles enshrined in the White Paper were to be introduced at a very early date. I, for one, have a very open mind on the matter. Possibly, in other circumstances, I might suggest that the industry would be left alone, but we have had interference with the bacon industry over quite a long time and we have more or less come to expect that what has been done elsewhere possibly will be done here and some of the proposals in the White Paper obviously follow, to a certain extent at all events, the legislation in the North of Ireland and elsewhere as regards central buying, and so forth. If we are going to have legislation, I presume one of the reasons for it would be to cater for the post-war period and possibly we would be legislating for a position where we would have an enormous supply of pigs and an exportable surplus of pigs and one of the functions of the new body would be to direct us as to the marketing of bacon abroad and how to produce the type of bacon that would command the highest price and would be most acceptable outside this country.

If we are going to have legislation at all, I do think it will be the wrong time to introduced it when we return to the position of having a normal supply of pigs. In other words, if we are going to concentrate on the export of bacon in future, if the bacon trade is interfered with at all, before we are in a position to export, we should have some machinery to direct the industry, the producers and the country, as to the type of bacon we must concentrate on and as to the market we will have to concentrate on and as to the type of finished product that will command the greatest price in that market.

However, if the Minister feels that no legislation should be introduced and if he is keeping an open mind on the matter, well and good, but if that is going to be the position, I do think that something should be done in order to ensure that whatever limited supplies of bacon we have in this country will be made available at the fixed price over the shop counters to the consuming public.

The Minister suggests that the figures given for illegal curing are exaggerated. I do not believe that they are exaggerated and I have gone into this question very carefully. If the Minister makes a study of sow services and the figures for pigs handled by the curers at the present time, I think he will see that there is something radically wrong, even without going into any of the hotels, for instance, in this city and seeing the bacon that is dished up. There is a very direct ratio between sow services and bacon production and if a study is made of the sow services over a number of years the Minister will find that you can to a very accurate degree anticipate the production of bacon in the coming year by the number of sow services in the previous year. The Minister will see that the figures for sow services in the last period would indicate that for every pig killed legally in the factories there is at least one, if not one and a half, that is unaccounted for by the factories, and if the Minister has eaten bacon during the last few months in most of the hotels or restaurants of this city and if he knows something about the bacon that is cured in the factories he will realise that the bacon being sold here certainly is not bacon that has been cured in any factory.

What I do not understand and cannot understand is that the Minister will not give the legal curers a chance of competing with the illegal curers. The profits allowed under the present fixed prices to the retail bacon trade are exorbitant and the Minister will satisfy himself of that, I think, if he examines the figures. Take an average Wiltshire side, as a matter of fact, the lighter type of Wiltshire side that would weigh, say, 61 lbs. Divide that into the various cuts at the various controlled prices that exist to-day. You find that the gammon, approximately 14 lbs., at 2/3½d. per lb. comes to £1 12s. 1d.; the back 18½ lbs., at 3/-per lb., £2 15s. 6d.; the collar, 8 lbs. at 2/4, 18/8; the flank, 2¼ lbs. at 1/2, 2/7½d.; thin, 1½ lbs. at 2/6, 3/9; thick, 2¼ lbs. at 2/10, 6/6½d.; breast, 1½ lbs. at 3/2, 4/9; outside cut, 8½ lbs. at 1/5, 11/4; ribs, say, approximately 2 lbs. at 1/2, 2/4. That, on a 61 lb. average Wiltshire side, works out at £7 2s. 9½d., leaving a profit of £1 13s. 10½d. to the gentleman who sells that 61 lbs. of Wiltshire side to the public. That is at the controlled price for each cut but everyone in this country knows that these cuts are not being sold at the controlled prices and that, instead of taking, for instance, 18½ lbs. out of that side, of back rashers, say, at 3/-, you would be getting much closer to the facts of the bacon trade at the present time if you took it that 25 or 30 lbs. of that 61 lbs. side will be sold at 3/-per lb.

Did Deputy Moran ever cut up a side of bacon?

Deputy Moran is correct in that.

If Deputy Moran is allowed to continue, we will get on a lot quicker. I further suggest to the Minister that what I have stated on the question of back rashers and the portion that is being sold at the highest price by the retail bacon trade to-day applies to the whole line, all the way down, that the lower-priced cuts are being sold at the next highest or second next highest price, with the result that the profit on bacon to-day as sold by the retail bacon trade is absolutely colossal and out of all proportion. That should not be allowed.

The Minister's answer to that may be that he is not the price-fixing tribunal in this, but I do think that when the curers are compelled to sell at 200/-per cwt. to the trade and when the trade, owing to the prices they can get, are in a position to pay up to 2/6 a lb. to the illegal curers for bacon, something should be done about the matter. Of course, everybody knows that if you went into a shop to-day and asked, for instance, for any part of a pig at 1/2 or 1/5 the shopkeeper would simply laugh at you. He would tell you he never heard of these prices. I do not believe that if any housewife in the City of Dublin, if she went into any of her suppliers and asked for a cut, the fixed price of which is 1/2 or, indeed 1/5, the shopkeeper would know what she was talking about, for the simple reason that for what he is supposed to sell at 1/2 he is probably getting 2/3 or 2/4 a lb.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

For hocks?

For flanks.

Musha, have sense man!

He is cleaning up on all these goods. This is what should be done. If the present fixed prices to the consumer are retained and the prices curers are compelled to pay are wiped out the curers will then be in a position to compete with their present rivals, the black-marketeers to the trade, and, even on the limited supply of pigs that are available, prices would find their own level in a very short time. I think the Minister will accept the fact that curers, before they reduced the price, could not afford to pay 190/- a cwt. for pigs and sell bacon at 200/- per cwt. It is pretty obvious that if curers pay 160/- they will not get the pigs. The effect of that will be to drive any bacon there is going from the curers right into the black market. It is bound to have that effect. The Minister may say that the curers are cutting their own throats. Possibly they are, but they are certainly cutting their throats if they are compelled to pay, in competition with their rivals in the black market, 190/- a cwt. for bacon and sell it at 200/- a cwt. Anybody will appreciate that they cannot afford to do that. From these figures I think it is obvious that there is something radically wrong with the prices fixed for the retail bacon trade. I think there is a margin there that cannot be justified. I think that is a reason why both pork butchers—some of whom, of course, are illegally curing—and the black-marketeers in general can afford to pay these prices. They can do so simply because the bacon trade can make it worth their while to pay these prices. I appreciate the fact that control, in this connection, would be virtually impossible because one would almost have to stamp every rasher sold by the retail bacon trade to ensure that the prices were kept to or that the cuts were kept to. If, as I say, the present prices to the consumer were retained and if the fixed prices at which bacon curers are compelled to sell were removed matters would find their own level. I believe, of course, that some attempt was made to deal with illegal curers' black-marketing of bacon. However, the Minister certainly will not convince me that the attempted steps taken by the Pigs and Bacon Commission to deal with this problem have been effective. I think it completely absurd to send an inspector down the country on receipt of a complaint from someone or other. He is codded nine times out of ten. I know of a report which was made in a particular case. An inspector arrived in a town in the West of Ireland one morning at 11 o'clock. He knocked at the door of the house mentioned in the report. The door was not opened but somebody in a room upstairs opened the window and told him that the person he was looking for would not be back until after lunch. The inspector came back after lunch but by that time all the bacon was gone. The board, for some reason which I do not understand, are extraordinarily slow in dealing with prosecutions.

I suggested to the Minister in a Parliamentary question on this matter that the whole thing should be turned over to the Garda Síochána. The Gardaí dealt very effectively with the black marketing of other products during the emergency throughout the country and if the enforcement of these regulations was turned over to them the position would not be as it is to-day. They know the country. They are trained in the detection of these offences, and we would have results and prosecutions from them without undue delay. I think it is absurd to make regulations if they are not going to be enforced. That will get us nowhere. If it is the intention to deal in an effective way with illegal bacon curing in this country the quicker all these offences are handed over to the Garda Síochána the quicker we will get results.

Suggestions were made to the Minister that legislative effect would be given to part, at least, of the proposals in the White Paper straight away; that is, that we would have central buying which might deal with the problem. That suggestion, I should say, naturally came from the curers because they understood we were going to have this Bill. They considered that suggestion the quickest way of dealing with the present problem, that it would give them a breathing space, and that it would deal with the difficulties which are arising. The Minister stated that the position would right itself when the supply of feeding stuffs became available. Everybody realises that. It was stated at some of the meetings with the Minister's predecessor and recognised on all sides that if we had the normal pre-war supply of pigs in the country we would not have such problems. It is equally true to state— at least it is my opinion—that to attempt to get an export market for bacon would be absurd unless we were able to import maize——

Hear, hear!

——at a reasonable price.

Hear, hear!

I cannot see how we could do so. Certainly I would not believe in any subsidy in connection with the pig industry, if we were to export bacon for the benefit of other people. I think that, if we are able to get fairly good supplies of maize at a price that will make it economical for us to produce and export bacon, it is a good proposition.

Hear, hear!

Unless we are able to import maize or other feeding stuffs, there will be a certain amount of difficulty for the trade. That is recognised by most people in the trade. I know that the Minister is trying to get maize. Any that we can get for the production of pigs and poultry will be very welcome. If we cannot get it, then we shall have to carry on as best we can and try to produce and make available all the bacon that we can for our people. There is also the question of the employment of the people in the industry. We must try to keep them going. I do not know that the suggestion that came from the bacon curers about the Minister stepping in and having all pigs bought by the Pigs and Bacon Commission would have been made at all if it were not for what the trade was led to expect from the White Paper. To meet the situation two things need to be dealt with: the question of price and illegal curing. This latter must be dealt with effectively. The amount of it that is going on at the moment is enormous, and all because there is a profit in it. Unless it is dealt with in an effective way, it will increase.

I have not the figures for egg production, and shall be glad to hear from the Minister how the new arrangement is working out. Any improvement in egg production will, in my opinion, depend on the prices available, and provided, of course, that we can get sufficient feeding stuffs. We produce the oats ourselves. I suggested to the Minister on a former occasion that, if possible, some method should be found of giving individually to the producers of eggs the benefit of any increases in price in accordance with the amount of eggs they produced. My point is that if a woman in the country sold, say, 20 score of eggs in 1946 and 40 score in 1947 she should get some kind of a bonus as a reward for her increased production. It may be said that that would be impracticable. We must not forget that we are a nation of individualists. Notwithstanding what the Minister may say about a better price being available for those who produce more, I am of opinion that if my suggestion were adopted it would have a good effect in increasing egg production. Suggestions of this kind have from time to time been put before the Minister and his Department. It may be said that the administration of such a scheme would be difficult. I again recommend it to the Minister, and hope that he will examine it. Let us suppose that, in some country village, Mrs. Brown got at the end of the year a bonus of a few shillings more for her eggs, in accordance with the increased number she produced, than her neighbour, Mrs. Jones, that, I think, would encourage egg production. I am satisfied that next year Mrs. Jones would do her utmost to emulate what had been done by Mrs. Brown. I would ask the Minister to consider that, because egg production in my part of the country is a very important matter in the economy of the small farmer. The ordinary running expenses of most houses in the country, such, for example, as the grocer's bill, come out of the production of eggs.

One hears a number of complaints from time to time in connection with the inspection of egg exporters' premises. I do not know how true some of these complaints are. While I admit that some of the regulations made by the Minister's Department were very necessary, I think that in many cases they seem to be rather harshly administered. Some of our exporters and of our egg collectors find it difficult to comply with all the regulations. I think they make a genuine effort to comply with the Department's requirements. I think, too, that, in many cases, the officials in the Department might give some warnings before they institute prosecutions, particularly with reference to the docketing of the number of eggs received from different producers. Technical offences are committed by reason of the fact that records may not be available for the inspectors of the Department. Some of the people engaged in this trade are labouring under great difficulties. It takes them some time to get accustomed to all the forms and regulations. I know, of course, that these regulations are necessary to ensure that fresh eggs are made available for the export market. At the same time, I suggest to the Minister that he should give those engaged in the trade the opportunity of familiarising themselves with all the regulations, and that a warning be given to them before they are dragged into court. That should be avoided where possible. Their co-operation should be enlisted by gentle handling. I think if that attitude were adopted the aim which the Minister wants to achieve would be reached more quickly.

In my opinion the approach that should be made to this whole problem of agriculture is to put more money into it. There should be more money set aside so as to enable the man in agriculture to increase his production.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies not being present,

More money should be put into agriculture in order to increase the output per man and in order that the increased financial assistance may be applied to greater production in the ways which will be outlined by many Deputies during the course of this debate. A sound long-term policy must be put forward by the Government, in order to encourage the youth to stay in the country and remain on the land.

One of the main problems is the production of milk, the feasibility of producing the right type of animal to ensure that the production of milk is at least equal to the demand made on it by the people at home. The main problem affecting farmers and milk producers to-day is that of price. I have figures here from cow-testing associations and from creameries engaged in the production and handling of milk and milk products and it is the general opinion that even the increased price offered for milk at the present time is not sufficient to increase the production of butter. It may be sufficient to induce those already in production to continue therein, more particularly in the case of farmers who have their own families and who are known as the slave labour engaged in agriculture here for years past. While admitting that the Minister has gone a reasonable way to meet the demand, I say he has not gone far enough in this increase in price to encourage the would-be dairy farmer to go into production.

How far should he go?

With the increase in price, labour and foodstuffs to-day, the price of milk to the creamery should be, in my opinion, 1/5. The present price, taking everything into consideration, is not one that will induce those who went out of production this year to go back again. If you take up any of the daily papers, say, the Cork Examiner in the south, you find that an amazing number of dairy herds are being sold out. That paper caters for the agricultural community in the South of Ireland and it is there for anybody to see in the Library of this House. Deputies can see there every Saturday the auctions that are advertised.

Paying 1/5 for milk would mean 4/- a lb. for butter.

What about the subsidy? I am not advocating that butter should be sold at 4/- a lb. Why not subsidise the production, just like other things? That argument would not hold water if the people were without it, or if there were not sufficient milk. If the price is not sufficient to induce people to go back into dairying, we will find milk so scarce that masses of the people in towns and cities will have to seek some other source in order to get a substitute for milk.

I am not talking for political or propaganda purposes. I am advocating the case for people whom I know, for my next-door neighbours. The difficulties the farmers have to encounter to produce milk are well known. The labour problem is one of the most trying on them to-day and unless farmers have their own help in industry they cannot produce. Whether the State will have to subsidise it or not, the price must be increased if they are to stay in production. I have some facts here from creameries which were a long time engaged in the production of dairy produce. I have been communicated with by the Piltown Co-operative Society. They say that the number of cows sold within the last eight years in that area is 1,000. After all, 1,000 cows supplying milk at an average of three gallons each would be 3,000 gallons a day, which would be sufficient for one creamery. That is a big loss to one area and a big loss to the State, when you take into consideration the produce from 1,000 cows over the whole year in milk and butter. These are the things which must be considered very carefully.

This creamery also went carefully into the cost of producing milk. I went into the cost myself on some points where I differed with them, but I cannot just find my note of that at the moment. There were a few items where I thought they exaggerated the costing and there were others where I thought their costing was too low. The costings they figure out at the present time would be in the region of 1/0¾d. to produce milk. These figures are taken from producers who have gone to the trouble of having accurate records of their dairy herds taken—as regards cost of feeding, cost of milking, milk yield, value of milk, fat yield and so on—and their figure is 1/0¾d. per gallon.

What is the average milk yield?

About 500 gallons.

You will never make your fortune on the 500-gallon cow.

How many are trying to make their fortunes on a 300 and even a 200-gallon cow?

If they run the dairying industry on goats, they cannot hope to make a profit.

We are not running the dairying industry on goats. This figure proves that in this area, where the farmers know the facts of their dairying industry, the price of milk is not sufficient to cover the cost of production. I am quite satisfied, and I have gone into it with others in the cow-testing association in my area, that the price is not a price equivalent to the cost of production, and, while the Minister did go part of the way to meet the demand, he did not go sufficiently far to encourage the production of milk. Deputy Dillon considers that a cow of 500 gallons——

An average of 500 gallons—some would be 400 and others 600 gallons.

Five hundred gallons would be a fairly high average. The cow-testing associations in parts of Waterford are quite satisfied that, on an average of 500 to 600 gallons, they are doing pretty well, because the general average is somewhat less than 380 gallons per year. That bears out the fact that it is necessary for the dairy farmer to keep records of his cows, if he wishes to see whether a cow is economical or not. I believe that compulsory recording of milk yields is very important, both to the herdsman and to the nation. Many people laugh when you talk about records and tell you that the man used to his cows will know what a cow is yielding. That is not true. A man cannot know what his cows are yielding, unless and until he is prepared to take records. There is no use in a farmer or anybody else saying his cows are doing all right—he cannot know until he keeps records.

If you want to keep the farmers in production, the one and only hope is an increased price. Several creameries throughout the South of Ireland have advocated, and I believe that several county committees interested in the welfare of the dairying industry have advised the Government, that the price should be increased, because everyone must admit that the dairying industry is the bedrock of our economy. If you have not got the dairy cow, you will not have live stock, and if you have not got live stock, you cannot purchase the raw materials necessary to ensure that the mass of our people at home will be permanently employed in industry here.

I was very disappointed by a statement made by the Minister some time ago, when dealing with this all-important problem of milk. He said there was no such thing as a dual-purpose cow. I say the Minister is wrong, and I say that to him as farmer to farmer. If the Minister goes to a fair to purchase a cow, what are the qualifications he will look for in that cow? He will examine that cow, as any farmer will, and see whether she will give a good calf, and he will then examine the bag and see if she will fill the bucket of milk.

He will look at the bag first.

There is, was and always will be a dual-purpose cow. In spite of the Livestock Breeding Act or any other Act introduced by any Government, those are the qualifications of a dual-purpose cow, so that I say that there is, was, and always will be a dual-purpose cow.

There will always be a good and a bad cow.

Yes, but there will always be the dual-purpose cow. These dual-purpose cows were always there and that is what the dual-purpose cow meant to the old farmers who did not know very much—not that we are very well educated ourselves—but who knew their job.

The Livestock Breeding Act has not had the good effects it was expected to have. There may be a lot to be said for it, but I doubt if the Minister's Department have tried to make the Act as effective in relation to the breeding of cattle as it might have been. In my opinion, the importation of the beef-type bull has, to a great extent, reduced the yielding capacity of the cow, but that is a very delicate question. Many people will say that the main factor in their production of milk is feeding and I am not inclined to disagree with that to any great extent. I know that you cannot make a dairy cow out of a Hereford, but it is well known that some of these crossbreeds have proved to be good dairy cows in the hands of men who knew how to feed and handle them.

With regard to the Livestock Breeding Act and the effects it may have if breeding is to prove itself, as it ought to, on the lines suggested by the Department, take into consideration the type of animal presented by the ordinary farmer to the local centre for inspection. It is quite possible that the best of the bulls presented in a local centre would not be considered for a licence at one of the recognised shows. That is the type of animal which is left in the remote areas to try to improve live stock. You cannot improve live stock with a low-class bull.

I shall give you a case of feeding, breeding and recording where, in my opinion, the Department's inspectors failed badly this year. In my area, there was a cow the yield of which in 1944 was 857 gallons. In 1945, the yield was 937 gallons; and in 1946 the yield was 1,050 gallons. She was what I consider a consistent cow over those years, and one likely to produce useful progeny. Another breeder in that district had a high-class bull the purchase of which was assisted out of State funds. That was an imported bull and, in the opinion of the Department's inspectors, was likely to produce the right type of progeny. That bull was mated with that particular cow, and the progeny, a bull calf, was exhibited for sale this year. In that case, you had a cow which proved to be a good one and you had a bull which, in the opinion of the Department's inspectors, was suitable, from the point of view of improving the milk yield and of improving live stock. The progeny of these animals was put into the sale ring at Cork Show Grounds, holding a premium worth about £20 and was withdrawn from the sale at 33 guineas. That animal, the progeny of a consistent cow and a bull that was purchased, to some extent, anyway, out of the taxpayers' money, which was inspected in Scotland by inspectors of live stock and inspected by our own inspectors who went over to purchase it, was, as I say, withdrawn at 33 guineas by one of these inspectors. I know they are not doing their job. That bull, which carried a premium of £18 or £20, being withdrawn from the sale at 33 guineas meant that it was actually withdrawn at 15 guineas or 13 guineas. Why did the inspectors allow such a thing to happen?

What were the farmers doing who were there to buy bulls?

The farmers buy bulls. In the remote areas the scrub bulls were picked out last year. I do not know the exact figures but, in my opinion, 11 of them had a record of 18 or 20 scrub bulls to their credit after the inspection. If I had known this debate was on to-day I would have got the exact figures. I am not blaming the Minister for his inspectors who should have known their job because they are long enough at it. What do these inspectors cost per man, or what does it cost per bull to send these particular scrub bulls throughout the length and breadth of the country? I would say that it would be more than £11 per bull anyway. Every bull of the type that I have mentioned as being withdrawn at that show should be purchased by the Department's inspectors. A certain amount of money should be provided for that purpose and these bulls should be placed in remote areas where the people are not in a position to purchase the right type of bulls to improve their live stock. We are told by authorities on breeding, etc., that it is only through the heifers you can improve dairy stock.

That is news to me.

The position is that a farmer does not want to dispose of his good heifers. He keeps on weeding out until he gets the best he can, as far as his financial resources allow. In my opinion, it is only through the medium of the bull that these people can hope to have any opportunity of improving their dairy stock. To my mind, that is where the Department's inspectors have failed over a long period. I know that at that sale last year some of these bulls were purchased by butchers. The Minister asked what were the farmers doing who were at that sale? The poorer classes of farmers are not in a position to buy bulls at these sales or shows. As I say, a certain amount of money should be made available each year to purchase these surplus bulls in order to place them in remote areas where the people have no hope of improving their dairy stock except through assistance from the State.

You said scrub bulls.

I said no such thing. I said bulls exhibited at a show and holding a premium or having a licence. You will not get scrub bulls in a show ground. It costs quite an amount of money to build up a dairy stock. I know what it will cost a farmer if disease breaks out amongst his stock. That is why I say that over a period thousands of pounds may be involved. When disease occurs amongst such stock it means that the farmer has to build up his stock again. In spite of encountering such hardships, farmers have built up their stocks again without financial assistance from anybody. To my mind these people should be encouraged in every way. A man who puts money into agriculture or into the improvement of live stock is an asset to the small farmer who is not in a position to do so himself.

I was very glad to see recently that the Minister had come to the rescue of the home-produced butter trade. But, like the price of milk, I could hardly say that the price here, even with the subsidy, would be equal to the cost of production.

Where butter is produced at home, the separated milk is a very valuable asset to the farmer. Representations have been made to the Minister in connection with the slaughter of calves. To my mind, that is the effect that creamery milk has had on the young stock and in the production of home-made butter. The by-product, separated milk, establishes every farm in the country as a factory in itself. Not alone is it useful for the production of store cattle or the would-be dairy stock of to-morrow, but you also want that valuable by-product, separated milk, for the production of bacon, poultry and eggs. It is a very valuable asset in every country household.

We are thankful to the Minister for the manner in which he has brought butter generally into the pool. He has gone a step in the right direction in that way in meeting the wishes of so many people and catering for those who were depending on what they could get from the butter buyers and who had not an assured market for their goods. The producers of home-made butter will not be made the victims of the agents of butter-processing factories in so far as they will not be taking advantage of the warm weather to cut the producers in the price of the butter they produce. I do not say that it would be right that every kind of muck should be sent in, but the Minister should ensure that the producers will not be the victims of the butter-processing factories during the summer period.

Before I finish with the dairying industry and the production of milk, I would again like to impress on the Minister that, while I admit he has gone a long way to meet the wishes of the dairy farmers, he has not gone far enough to bring back the dairy herdsman who has gone out of production because the price he was obtaining was not equivalent to the cost of production. I hope the Minister will reconsider the position so that those people will go back into production and so that we may preserve one of the most important factors in our agricultural and industrial economy.

Earlier to-day I was listening to Deputy Hughes and I was glad to hear him refer to dairying by-products. I presume he meant separated milk. We know that some of the co-operative societies that have been established are, so to speak, a switch with which some of the farmers will beat themselves. We know that in Mitchelstown, and maybe in other creameries, where they go in for the production of bacon, they are using up raw material that should go back to the farmer's factory in order to increase production generally on the land. We know that separated milk is a valuable by-product and it ought to be the property of the producer in order to permit him to go into the production of bacon and poultry on his farm.

I believe that we need to market our commodities in a good, marketable condition. We could not with the facilities at our disposal at home do so in a manner adequate to meet the demands of buyers in the world markets to-day. That was one reason why those co-operative creameries were established. The Minister said quite recently that he hoped to see more of these co-operative societies. That would be all right if their activities are restricted to the interests of those people who put them there, as well as others in towns and villages. But we have seen them quite recently going into the production of bacon and they have actually been competitors against the farmers themselves. It might be true to say that the Big Five who are deriving a special benefit therefrom, do not mind whether they are or not, but the general opinion is that they are doing an injury to the small farmer in the matter of production.

Let us consider the production of bacon from a by-product that the farmer should have. We know that they are purchasing other commodities such as maize and different meals in the wholesale market. They get bonuses on their purchases. How can you expect the man who put them there to compete against them in such circumstances? They have their wholesale and retail profits and their bonuses, three decided advantages against the man with whom they are competing. In very many cases he is the man who is responsible for putting them there. They are also free of income-tax.

They have gone so far as to enter the open market in order to purchase land. Where they have purchased farms they are in open competition with farmers and farmers' sons. If they stood as security for a farmer or a farmer's son in connection with the purchase of a farm, they would be an asset. A group of farmers or an association in a particular locality ought to be in a position to secure farmers or farmers' sons in the purchase of land in their particular area. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again next Tuesday.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 17th June, 1947.
Barr
Roinn