Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Jul 1948

Vol. 112 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Agriculture (Resumed).

Mr. Smith

When I was speaking on Friday afternoon I was dealing with milk prices. I was anxious to deal with them for a number of reasons, one being, as I then explained, that milk prices are vitally important not only to milk producers but to our agricultural economy generally. In addition to that very important reason I was tempted to deal with milk prices because I saw before me, supporting the present inter-Party Government, a number of persons who, during my period as Minister for Agriculture, were not then Deputies, but who took a very keen interest in milk prices. On a number of occasions, after I had made what I regarded as my contribution, for the time being, to the milk producers of this country, those individuals expressed dissatisfaction with what I had achieved. Now let me be fair to those who took up that attitude. They are now Deputies of this House. I am quite prepared to admit that, even though I thought that as Minister for Agriculture I had behaved fairly to them, there was the possibility that my achievement on their behalf was not everything that it might have been, and the price that I had secured them was not, in fact, a just price; but surely I am entitled, while conceding to those individuals the legitimacy of the stand which they then took up, and the case which they made to me, to ask them—they are now Deputies of this House supporting this inter-Party Government—what are you doing now about milk prices? I know I am an old-timer in this House. I know that it is customary for young Deputies when they come in here to make speeches. I know that it is the practice for them to do so, especially if there is an atmosphere of uncertainty around, and the possibility that they may have to face the electorate quickly. In that atmosphere, they naturally like to make speeches and to get them into the local papers so as to convey to their constituents the idea that they are active, energetic and useful Deputies.

Now, that is the practice. As to what value it may have. I do not know much about that, but there are some people who follow it, and they seem to think that it yields rewards. I am saying that to those Deputies on behalf of those producers who supply milk to the creameries and supply milk to the towns. I am dealing at the moment with these two classes of suppliers. There is a third class with which I shall deal later. I am saying to those Deputies who expressed disagreement and disapproval, and who, as a matter of fact, said to me, if not in these words: "Oh, here is a dictator; here is a man who is supported by a Party which can make its will effective and who will not listen to the pleas of the farmers; here is a man who is going to grind us down and compel us to take this uneconomic price for our milk." The people who said that are in this House now; they are here now at a time when they have a case to make. They have a case to make inasmuch as since I fixed those prices costs have gone up, labour costs have gone up, rates have gone up, feeding-stuff prices have gone up.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

And prices for calves have gone up, too.

Mr. Smith

The Minister should not have thrown in that interjection because on one occasion in this House he tried to be insulting to me. He was not then a Minister. He referred to me as a calf jobber's son.

Mr. Dillon

I never referred to you as any such thing.

Mr. Smith

You did, because I waited outside the House to check the account with you, but, thank God, I did not happen to meet you. The Minister talks about prices for calves having gone up. I can talk as a man who knows all about that matter——

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith

——and who was not then ashamed and is not now ashamed of the ground from which he sprung.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith

But I am not going to be switched off the case that I am going to make. I have deliberately made up my mind, after four or five months listening to this sort of ballyhoo that has come from the Minister for Agriculture, that I am going to make a close analysis of these important matters. I want to know the attitude of those Deputies who have come to this House and who, when they were private citizens and I was Minister, pestered me—I will use that word although it is perhaps not a proper one—over milk prices. Do they accept the present position as being just and proper to the milk producers? Do they accept the argument that has been put forward by the Minister that sufficient compensation has been received by them as a result of whatever increase has taken place in the price of drop calves? Is this just in order to meet the increased cost to which I referred? If they think so, they should go out and tell the farmers. There may be some Deputies in this House and people throughout the country who will say about this case which I am making that I am trying to drive a wedge between those of you who support this Government. I want to assure you that there is no such thought whatever in my mind.

Mr. Davin

You are wasting your time.

Mr. Smith

Support that Government as long as you like. I would suggest that the Labour people—of course I cannot make them—should just leave the floor to me. Support this Administration as long as you like. I say to the members of what claims to be the farmers' Party, support this Government as long as you like on political grounds, but I ask you——

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

On a point of order, is the Deputy going to proceed on the basis that the ordinary rules of order do not apply to him? If he is going to address various sections of the House in the direct form which he habitually employs, then other Deputies must have the same privilege, but if other Deputies must submit to the rules of order that the Chair must be addressed, then I respectfully suggest that the Deputy submit to them also.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not heard Deputy Smith address any member in the direct form except one who interrupted him. Addressing Parties is a different thing from addressing Deputies.

Mr. Dillon

I take it then that Deputies need no longer address the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies must address the Chair.

Mr. Boland

It is interesting to hear the Minister interested in order. It is a great change.

Mr. Smith

I was making my point to certain sections in this House for the simple reason that it concerns those Deputies and those people in the country for whom they claim to speak. I admit the right of a young Deputy to make a speech for the sake of publicity. I admit the value of that publicity in the event of a further election. I admit everything that can be claimed for him in so far as he is entitled to keep his name and himself before the public, but remember you are not now in opposition.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must address the Chair.

Mr. Smith

These Deputies are not now in opposition. The Deputies, to whom I am referring and who claim to represent the farmers, are here supporting the Government. They are here in the capacity of Deputies who hold the balance of power which farmers have been claiming and for which they have been pleading for years. Have I not listened to their speeches? Have I not read their propaganda? Have I not seen and heard them pleading for unity among farmers, so that they could send into the legislative Assembly a group of Deputies who would hold the balance of power in favour of the farming community, so as to ensure that the interests of that most important of our industries would be properly protected? I want these Deputies now—not in the sense that I want to smash your unity —but I want you to play your part as the leaders of Labour are playing their part in this Government. I want you to ask yourselves what has been secured by the Minister for Social Welfare in relation to the workers employed by the State of whose organisation before becoming Minister he was secretary.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is the Estimate for Agriculture not for Social Welfare.

Mr. Smith

The point I am making —and I put it to you that it is a legitimate point—is that concessions have been secured by other classes in the community as a result of the combination of Parties we have here, but that one section has been left out and ignored. I am a farmer speaking for farmers. I am pleading with those Deputies who represent some section at least of farming interests in this Government and I am showing them what has been achieved by representatives of other classes in this Government. You can make speeches, but let us not have speeches only. Give us some action. Give us some achievement. Give us some results. That is a fair plea to direct to those who have asked for, pleaded for, begged for the balance of power which they now have, and which, apparently, they have not the competence to use. In addition, those farmer Deputies, those Deputies who claim to represent the farmers, happen to be in the position now—it is the only way I can describe them— of being Independent Deputies of this House. Surely they must admit that the present Minister for Agriculture has been selected from the Independent Deputies and that they have a special claim on the occupant of that office. Whether by their wish or their will or however it came about, he found himself selected for this most important Department and it was from their ranks he came and that is a reason why he should at least be kind to you in this legitimate matter of the price of milk to the town suppliers and the creamery suppliers.

I should have said, perhaps, that the milk of half our 1,250,000 cows is sent to the creameries. In years gone by, much of the skimmed milk went back to the farmer to feed his calves, poultry, pigs and all the rest, but in creamery districts now there is a new development—perhaps it is not new, but it is a development that is extending—whereby the skimmed milk is used for other purposes. When the Minister speaks enthusiastically about the possibilities and prospects of increasing the number of cattle in this country, his attitude, the policy of his Department, the attitude of the Dairy Disposals Company and of a number of other concerns in relation to this matter, will have an enormous bearing on the distance we are likely to get in this direction about which he has on this and on a number of occasions expressed concern, and about which I, as Minister, felt a good deal of concern also. In reply to a Parliamentary question, addressed from my Parliamentary colleague, the Minister for Agriculture told Deputy P. O'Reilly—I am reading from the Irish Independent of May 5th—in relation to milk prices: that the cost to the Exchequer of maintaining the present prices of milk for the farmer and of butter for the consumer was over £2,250,000 annually. Any increase in the price of milk delivered to creameries would add very substantially to that charge on public funds and could not in present circumstances be justified, but as improved methods of grassland management made the realisation of their aim to produce butter from growing grass more proximate the consequent reduction in the costs of production should materially increase the dairy farmers' profit and that was what mattered. We are told in that reply that, irrespective of whether the farmer who produces the milk is being treated fairly or not, simply because the present cost is £2,250,000 the farmer is not going to get any more. All I can say to those who claim to speak for the farmers is that if they regard that as a satisfactory answer, I certainly do not.

I would remind the Minister and the Deputy to whom that reply was given that when the bakers went out on strike some weeks ago we heard no talk of what it would cost the taxpayer and the consumer when a settlement of that strike was being effected. When those Deputies who claim to speak for sections of the farming community saw the announcement that the Civil Service were going to get the arbitration they were not told, or they did not apparently ask, what that was going to cost. They did not think either, I am sure, of what the contribution that was being made to the postal workers was going to cost. All I am asking those Deputies who are now in a favourable position, in the position for which, according to themselves, they have striven for years, who have now pushed on one side those whom they called the dictatorial Ministers who would not listen to the pleas of what were called the organised farmers, is to say to the Government: "You gave to the bakers this concession; you gave to the Civil Service that concession; you gave to the post office workers another concession. We are a class who are the most important of all and who are groaning under the ill-treatment of a previous Government (according to your own statements) and you have done nothing for us".

Mr. McAuliffe

On a point of order. Will the Deputy state what the Government gave to the bakers?

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not arise.

Mr. Smith

According to your own statements, they are groaning under the treatment meted out to them by a former Government and they have secured no redress or no concession. Do Deputies who claim to speak for sections of the agricultural community agree that the legitimate demands of the farmers for increased milk prices can be postponed until such time as the policy which we are told is going to make all the difference and to make grass grow is carried out? Do you think the farmers will be satisfied with that assurance with regard to some policy about which we know very little so far? Do you think you are going to get the farmers to produce milk at an uneconomic price while treating them unfairly in relation to other sections of the community until such time as some means is devised of producing an abundance of grass in March, April, October, November and early December? I do not believe that our farmers will be satisfied.

I admit that these farmer Deputies are dealing with a Government which could not possibly have sympathy with or understanding of the farmers' position. They are dealing with a Government which is composed largely of professional men. I am not saying that they are out to destroy or to ruin the agricultural industry. They have not, however, the same appreciation or understanding, although they live on these people, of the farmers' needs. From my experience on local bodies and in this legislative Assembly, I have always found that, much as business and professional men might know about agriculture, when the die was cast as between the agricultural community and the professional and business interests, they could always see the point of view of the organised classes much more easily than that of the farming community. The present Government is composed of 13 Ministers, 11 of whom are professional men and two of whom have just a remote acquaintance with rural Ireland. I plead with the farmer Deputies who hold the balance of power in this House, not to disrupt if you do not want to disrupt, not to break away if you do not want to break away, but to go to the Minister, who is stated to be the Minister of your own choice, the choice at least of the Independent Deputies, and say: "Your Government has given concessions to all these other classes. We do not object to your giving these concessions to other classes." I do not object to that. I do not object to raising the level or standard of any class. But I ask those Deputies opposite, who claim to speak for the farmers, during this temporary period which this makeshift Government is in existence, to play their part and to see that we in rural Ireland are not let down.

I have a resolution here from a very important co-operative concern in my constituency with regard to this particular matter about which I am speaking. It was passed at the annual general meeting of the Killeshandra Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society on March 11th, and is as follows:—

"That we, the members of the Killeshandra Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Ltd., representing approximately 4,000 milk suppliers in Cavan, Leitrim and Longford, earnestly request the Minister for Agriculture to give a substantial increase in the price of milk delivered to creameries. Since the price of milk, an uneconomic one, was fixed last year, production costs have further advanced both on the farms and in the creamery due to increases in wages and feeding stuffs and of other expenses. We would suggest that the price of milk should be so arranged that dairying would be more remunerative than dry stock farming because dairy farming is far more troublesome and laborious and demands constant attention during the seven days of the week."

I certainly agree 100 per cent. with that resolution and especially with the concluding portion of it. The policy which is being pursued by the present Minister—and which is apparently approved of by Deputies who should know otherwise—is driving the farmers into dry stock. We are driving the farmers, who see the advantages because of the price factor, from the mating of heifers. As a result of keeping the price of milk at this low level we are undoubtedly going to decrease the cattle population further. Take the cattle prices for the last six, seven, eight or nine months, say, for a three-year-old in-calf heifer in any of the fairs of the country. The strange thing about it is that if a farmer got £40 to £45 for a three-year or three and a half year-old in-calf heifer it would be the talk of the country. Yet, there were dozens of farmers getting £40 and £45 or more for dry heifers of the same age. It should be obvious to us that to feed a dry heifer is much more inexpensive than to feed an in-calf heifer over the winter time. The feeding that is required to keep a dry heifer in good shape over the winter period will not keep an in-calf heifer in the condition in which she should be. Any man who has had some experience, as I have had, must know that for a considerable time past the dice has been loaded, as far as price is concerned, in favour of dry stock for the simple reason that the price that is being paid for milk is a bad price. Therefore, our farmers will undoubtedly try to get out of milk production to the greatest possible extent.

Mr. Davin

Who fixed that price?

Mr. Smith

I fixed it. Circumstances however have changed since I did.

Mr. Davin

You have changed, too.

Mr. Smith

The labourers have got an increase in their wages and I would say that it was due to them. Rates have gone up. Prices of feeding stuffs have gone up. That cannot be denied. I say here in the most deliberate fashion that I, with the approval of the Government at the time, fixed the prices that are now payable to creamery suppliers. I say, in the most positive sense, that if I had the responsibility now—since the factors have changed; since the costs have gone up—I certainly would fight tooth and nail for a better price, because of the reasons that I have given. I am not pleading with you now simply because I want to score one over you. I am pleading with you because I know that this is a deserving case and that the people who are in milk production are entitled to it.

Mr. Dillon

When did you start fighting, Deputy? You were not fighting last March.

Mr. Smith

When did the agricultural wages go up? It was I who called the Agricultural Wages Board together although they did not give their decision until after I left office. Therefore, I could not use the increase in agricultural wages as one of the arguments in favour of an increase in prices in this instance.

Mr. Dillon

I see.

Mr. Smith

I am not as easily caught out as all that—calf jobber's son and all as I am.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Are you satisfied with the prices yourself?

Mr. Smith

I am telling the Deputy, through the Chair, that I got at that time for the farmers, having regard to all the circumstances, what I regarded as a very good price. I am saying to Deputy P.D. Lehane, through the Chair, that no Minister could expect the farmers to fall at his feet—once he had secured a new prices arrangement for them—and say: "You are a grand fellow. You have done everything for us." You would not expect farmers to adopt that sort of attitude because it is not consistent with their training. However, having regard to, might I say, the secret expressions of opinion given to me by people in the industry with whom I spoke before that price was fixed I was entitled to regard it as a fairly reasonable price although they did not say: "You gave us everything we wanted"—and I would not have expected them to do so. Having regard to all the circumstances I believe that it was not too bad at all.

Mr. Davin

Was it an economic price?

Mr. Smith

If it was not an economic price then, it certainly is not an economic price now.

Mr. Davin

That is not an answer.

Mr. Aiken

What is Deputy Davin going to do about it?

Mr. Davin

Keep quiet.

Mr. Aiken

The Deputy had better talk up.

Mr. Davin

I am not able to understand the Deputy very well since he came back from Australia.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Smith.

Mr. Smith

I am the most orderly Deputy in this House. Money cannot be found for this purpose. £2,250,000 is being spent and, therefore, no more money can be found for the dairy farmer whether the present price is equitable or not. We had a wonderful flourish of trumpets by the present Government for the past four months because they removed the taxes imposed in the Supplementary Budget on cigarettes and tobacco. The cigarettes and the tobacco are now flying across the Border at such a rate that you cannot even get your eye on a cigarette, except an English one at 2/9 or 2/10 for 20. We were told that the agricultural workers were going to get this new concession of cheap cigarettes and so forth from the Government. The smuggling of tobacco and cigarettes was facilitated by the removal of the tax on them. That tax would give Deputy P. O'Reilly and Deputy Cogan and the other Independent Deputies who, I claim, should be agitating for an increased price for the dairy farmers, a very nice increase, indeed, without doing an injustice to anyone except to those who are engaged in the type of business to which I have been referring, namely, the black market. However much the suppliers of milk to the towns may be dissatisfied with the manner in which their demands have been met by the Minister, it can be said that he has at least admitted that certain increases were due to them. I say that those increases are not sufficient, but they are increases. The factors that justified the Minister and his Department in increasing the price, so far as producers of milk for the towns are concerned, must have been in existence—if not to the full extent, at least to some extent—in regard to creamery milk suppliers. I do not think that that contention can be disputed.

Of the 1,250,000 cows in the country the milk of roughly half that number is sent to the creameries. The milk from the other half is churned at home for consumption on the farms or for sale in one way or another. Let us see what has been done in the last four months for the owners of these 600,000 cows. When I became Minister for Agriculture I regarded their position as an important position. I regarded those farmers as deserving of better treatment. We hear a good deal spoken by the present occupant of the post of Minister for Agriculture as to the importance of the store cattle trade to this country. That is all right. I have no dispute with him on that head. But of all the sections of the dairying industry the one on which the store cattle trade depends to the greatest extent is that of the farmers who own these 600,000 cows the milk of which is handled on their own premises. Believing, as I did, that they were being unfairly treated I sought assistance for them. I do not want to contend that the scheme that was devised by the officials of the Department on my instructions was everything that one could desire. The protest I want to make to the Minister and to those who allowed him to abandon that scheme is to ask him why he should have suddenly come to the decision that the scheme was incapable of being amended? What I was mainly interested in was to ensure that those people who had no creamery available to them would get somewhere around the same price and the same treatment as those who had.

Mr. Dillon

So they are.

Mr. Smith

I will not describe that as nonsense, but that is what it is.

Mr. Dillon

Indeed, it is not.

Mr. Smith

Nonsense, utter and complete.

Mr. Dillon

You are, as usual, quite wrong.

Mr. Smith

Do not all of us know that even in creamery districts there are farmers who, because of their geographical situation, are unable to get their milk to the side of the road where it can be picked up by the collector and where the amount of human labour involved in taking the milk to the side of the road in the morning and bringing the empty cans back in the evening militates against the farmers taking advantage of a creamery situated within five or six miles of them? I know hundreds of such farmers. I admit they are not large farmers. They are farmers who depend upon that particular form of production and it was because of their importance that I, as Minister for Agriculture, brought in a scheme designed to help them. I prefaced my remarks here by giving the House an assurance that there might be difficulties in that scheme. Why was not an effort made to tighten it up? Why was not an effort made to improve upon it? Why was not an effort made to do something other than what has been done now?

Mr. Dillon

By taking the price control off farmers' butter.

Mr. Smith

Taking the price control off farmers' butter? At a meeting of the Longford County Committee of Agriculture recently a letter came up for consideration by that body in connection with the granting of weekly half-holidays and a week's annual holiday with pay to agricultural labourers. Is it not wonderful how generous the Minister can be at the other person's expense? He had this brilliant idea that if he could transfer this baby of the half-holiday to the agricultural committees it would be a good thing. The matter came up at the last meeting of the Longford County Committee of Agriculture. I do not think there are any creameries in Longford. I have here a report of the discussion that took place at the meeting. This is what they think of the Minister's effort to assist the farmers who are home-producers of butter. At that meeting Mr. Quinn said it would be very inconvenient to have such holidays in July, August and September during hay-making and harvesting. Mr. Belton said if a wet day followed a half-holiday it would make the matter worse. He said: "I would refer it back to the Minister. He did not consult us when he took the subsidy from the farmers' butter and it was at our expense he did it." That is exactly my complaint. When the present occupant of the post of Minister for Agriculture has some decision to make from which the farmers might be likely to derive some benefit there is no consultation. There is no letter going out to the county committees of agriculture just as no letter went out asking them what they thought of the removal of the subsidy and the abandonment of the control of farmers' butter. No consultative council was set up when that matter was being decided during a couple of minutes. Of course when one wants to create the impression that one is taking the farmers into one's arms and telling them what great fellows they are and saying that nothing will be done without asking for their opinion one writes then and asks them what do they think of a weekly half-holiday and a week's holiday with pay. It was the farmer who was going to pay for that. The discussion at the meeting of the Longford County Committee of Agriculture is indicative of the general feeling. I maintain that when the subsidy was removed and when the control was removed, that was done in the full knowledge that it would bring down the price of farmers' butter, and it did.

Mr. Dillon

That is quite untrue.

Mr. Smith

It did.

Mr. Dillon

That is quite untrue.

Mr. Smith

It is not untrue because I could take you to 50 places where the farmers are canvassing the traders of the town to get a customer for butter at prices that are from 1/- to 1/2 a lb. less than the price they got last year.

Mr. Dillon

They must be daft. They could sell it all over Dublin.

Mr. Aiken

Do not call the farmers daft.

Mr. Dillon

I am calling the Deputy's friends, who are selling butter at less than they could get last year daft and they are as daft as can be.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy Davin and his friends put in a daft Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

It is wrong for the Deputy to let the farmers sell their butter in that way because he is allowing them to be robbed.

Mr. Smith

It is the Minister who is allowing them to be robbed.

Mr. Dillon

If the Deputy will report any such cases to me I shall be very glad to deal with them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Now that the argument has finished, Deputy Smith will continue.

Mr. Smith

As I have established, in relation to the prices paid for milk in creameries and towns, that these prices will affect live stock in the way I have described, so too will the attitude of the Minister towards the producers of home-made butter have even a more disastrous effect on our cow population. I have met farmers who, because of the position in which they live in relation to the creamery, or who may not have a creamery in their area, were well satisfied that they could produce butter and get 2/11 per lb. for it. When they saw those controls removed those men, who might go to a fair to replace a cow or buy an in-calf heifer, said: "There is no certainty in this business any more; we will not lay our money out that way; we will go into dry stock instead."

Mr. Dillon

I did not get much assistance when I tried to sell the thousands of cwts. of butter left in cold store after you. We had to get gas masks to deal with it.

Mr. Smith

When the Minister had to make his decision he had a suspicion there would be a furore about it. He came to Deputy Lehane and, of course, a Parliamentary question was put down so that the Minister would have an opportunity of putting over on the public the idea that there was something so far wrong with the scheme that the butter went so bad that it could not be used for any purpose. There was that type of forerunner to satisfy the public that the Minister would not do something that would injure the farmers. The Minister will not get away with that sort of plea. Even if there was anything in the allegation, so long as the scheme was a desirable one it was the duty of the Minister to try to tighten it up for this year, so that the farmers would get the protection and assistance they previously obtained.

We are told by the Minister that the subsidisation of butter was costing the taxpayers £2,250,000. That was being paid so that the farmer supplying to creameries would get as his price for milk the equivalent of 2/11 or 3/- per lb. for butter. In order to sell that butter to professional people, trade unionists and men who got concessions in the matter of advancing their wages, the £2,250,000 was being used so as to sell the butter at 2/8. The farmers who own the cows from which the home-made butter is manufactured are paying their share in taxation in order to make it possible to sell butter costing 3/- at 2/8. In addition, they were thereby helping to determine a rate lower than that at which their own produce would be sold. Let Deputies who speak here for the farmers try to meet, if they can, that reasoned argument I have advanced for the more just treatment of these very important classes.

In the production of milk there are three important factors, price, breeding and feeding. I have already dealt with price, and I shall now deal briefly with breeding. It is all very well for the experts to say you have to feed a cow in order to get milk out of her. Of course you have, and the better you feed her the more she will give you. The same result will follow if you feed a goat. If you starve a goat the response will be poor; if you feed the goat fairly the response will be better, and if you feed her very well the response will be very good. I admit that much can be done in the matter of feeding. The technical men, excellent as they may be, have been engaged for 25 years here putting across on our farmers a breeding policy that, from the point of view of milk production, is the laughing stock of the world. I admit these men are honest, conscientious, knowledgeable men, but I warn the Minister deliberately that it is only human nature that they will be so engrossed in their subject, full of something they have been preaching for 25 years, that they cannot get it out of their system.

When I went into that Department I took them nicely. I argued this matter over with them and I saw their prejudices. I was prepared to make allowance for their prejudices because I know a fair share about human beings. I was determined I would search this breeding matter, not just for the purpose of throwing their point of view overboard, but to give the community a chance. It is the community that should matter. When the farmers see a policy in operation they very soon can make up their minds whether there is anything in it of advantage to them. I had my mind made up that I would stand by the dairy farmers. This process is a slow one. It took 25 years to show that their policy was hopeless and I realised it would take a long time to get back to a reasonable road again. I was determined to strike for that road. I have not a doubt that some future Minister for Agriculture will come back to the point where I left off. He may not agree exactly with all I was proposing to do, but he will find it necessary to review the reversal of my decision by the present occupant of the Ministry and he will find it necessary to see what he will substitute for it. It is not fair of those technical men, excellent and all as they are, I admit, to proceed to lay emphasis on feeding, because, important and all as feeding is, I think it is very stupid and a very unwise thing to ask them to try to feed an animal that is not designed for milk.

Mr. Madden

Why did you permit them to continue that?

Mr. Smith

I did not permit them.

Mr. Madden

Why did you alter the system if you now say it is wrong?

Mr. Smith

I did nothing of the kind. It is unfair of them. It is just like the request to the county committees on the matter of the grant of a weekly half-holiday. We are in a wonderful mood to give the farmers every freedom until we are up against something that is vital concerning them. Just as in the case of the question of the half-holidays, here we have a further demonstration that the farmer in all matters that are vital to him will not be allowed to have his way. When we get an assurance from the Minister that he is about to spend public money on the purchase of the best dairy bulls in England or wherever he can get them, I say that assurance is not worth two hoots because when these animals and their progeny are presented at Ballsbridge and other shows they will be found to be long-legged and lanky. Then they will go to England and Scotland to get beef bulls to cross them with these other animals and the whole scheme will be thrown into the melting pot again. That is presented as a wise and a fair policy to the farmers who have to make their living out of this industry.

I am speaking on this subject now in a more outspoken fashion than I have ever spoken before, not because I have not felt for years as I feel now but because I came to the conclusion that this thing was entitled to a fair test. It had got it with a vengeance by the time I reached that Department and I came to the conclusion that a new course was necessary. I was setting my sails for that but the course has now been interrupted. I realise the foolishness of a man in public life making any prophecy, but I say now for the purpose of having it placed on the records of this House that some man will occupy the post of Minister some time in the near or distant future when that whole decision will be reviewed.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy has not spoken for three hours only to tell us that.

Mr. Smith

I did consider the matter for the last three or four months and I showed wonderful patience. When I saw all these cuttings and read them, lying back in my bed in the mornings, just following the Minister in imagination round the country, reading and having a fairly nice time—the nicest time I have had for years because the Department of Agriculture is a tough old spot——

Mr. Dillon

True for you.

Mr. Smith

I was having a fairly good time lying back resting myself for the last four months, reading all the papers I could get, but I was breaking my heart that I was not at all these dinners. I thought I went out at a very unlucky period because there appeared to be far more dinners in the last four months than during my time and, as the man said, "I am a whipper at the dinners."

Mr. Fagan

So far you have not made much of an impression here.

Mr. Smith

I am not doing too badly. Do not be too eager to interrupt me. Perhaps I should not say that because I have no doubt that some Deputies may remind me by their interruptions of a number of aspects of agriculture on which I might not have intended to speak, and so by their interjections they may assist me to extend the field of my remarks. Like the Dublin jarvey, when asked what his fare was, "I will leave it to yourself."

I was invited here on Friday to deal with the bacon industry and I could not resist the temptation to do so. Here is one further case in which the Minister for a while, because our present Minister is a Minister of spasms——

A Deputy

Spasms or spavins?

Mr. Smith

I have not examined the Minister from the point of view of spavins and so I will not express any opinion on it. He went into hysterics just as he did when introducing his Estimate when dealing with the butchers. When a Deputy of this Party saw fit to raise this matter in the House, the Minister commented on the fact that this matter was not raised by his predecessor. "Oh, no, my predecessor is not here.""The Minister for Industry and Commerce is not here." He proceeded to lay it on, as it were. When I went into the Department of Agriculture as Minister, one of the matters to which I gave an enormous amount of time and consideration was this very matter. My mind is as clear as amber as to the difficulties of the present position, and as clear as amber as to the difficulties of the position in regard to that industry for a great many years now. When the Minister, replying to that discussion on the Adjournment, on the matter raised by Deputy MacEntee, proceeded to give the House this statement, he was, I would say, though perhaps not deliberately, certainly misleading the House as to my attitude. Referring to Deputies Lemass and Smith, Deputy Davin said: "They have gone", and then there followed at column 763 of the Official Debates of 9th June:—

"Mr. Dillon: You can bet they did not raise it, and I am going to tell the House why. What led up to the situation I have had to grapple with was that the bacon curers were summoned by the Department of Industry and Commerce and there told by the Minister responsible at the time—Deputy Lemass—that they must adhere to the maximum price fixed by him for bacon. Within the same week they were summoned by the Minister for Agriculture—Deputy Smith—and they were told that they must continue to cure pigs or lose their licences."

I never summoned them on that particular occasion.

Mr. Dillon

On what particular occasion?

Mr. Smith

The occasion to which you were referring.

Mr. Dillon

They came, in any case.

Mr. Smith

That is a different matter. I never made any such statement to a bacon curer or bacon curers in any shape or form. I say in the most deliberate fashion that I never sent for the bacon curers to discuss that matter with them and that on any occasion on which they visited my office, as they did on a number of occasions, they were always received—I never said to them that they would lose their licences if they failed to cure pigs—and treated as men should be treated. When these bacon curers came to my office, whether I liked or disliked them, whether I had friends among them or had not, whether there were or were not individuals amongst them whom I knew, no member of that association had to approach a member of this House to make a complaint to the Taoiseach as to the manner in which they were received when they came there legitimately to discuss their business, as has been done in the case of my successor. I am not in the position in which the present Minister found himself when he met these people where he could announce that he knew all about bacon from the point of view of its production and its sale, wholesale and retail, and from the point of view of his being a consumer.

Mr. Dillon

And a pig breeder and producer.

Mr. Smith

I have mentioned that fact. I knew something about this business and I knew, because of the difficulties of that situation, that any Minister with any sense of proportion would not behave, as he himself described it, when he came into that office, as a bull in a china shop, but that he should have shown some care, should have exercised some patience and should not be so mad for publicity as to call in the Press and get all the flare headlines about his attempts to stamp out the black market and to requisition the special correspondents to write articles on the matter which were entirely misleading.

Mr. Dillon

We stamped out the black market, though, did we not?

Mr. Smith

You did in my hat, as you would say yourself.

Mr. Dillon

If the Deputy knows them, I hope he will tell me who the black marketeers are.

Mr. Smith

I will come to that if I am given time. There was never a man in this House who, in his time as a member of the Opposition, conducted such a violent campaign against controls of all kinds as the Minister. Bacon boards, bacon commissions, quota systems, controlling of prices, meddling in business and speculative transactions—we heard all that sort of thing denounced, right, left and centre, here every day in the week when the Dáil sat and when it was within the rules of order to discuss such matters, and sometimes when it was not. I was looking forward not to a publicity campaign, but to hearing some concrete evidence produced, concrete evidence which could only be produced on the basis of decisions dealing with this matter, decisions which would represent the mind to which the then Deputy Dillon gave expression, and, as a matter of fact, I understand that this Minister whom I have accused, whom I think I am entitled to accuse, and can prove that I am entitled to accuse, as being completely irresponsible, even on this occasion, intended to keep his word and behave in accordance with his announced policy when in Opposition. The bacon curers were having a meeting. One of their number was sent for —he is now a member of the other House—and asked to convey to the curers that all control was going to be abandoned. That, of course, was no surprise, in view of the Minister's background and attitude when in Opposition.

Mr. Dillon

There is no truth whatever in that statement.

Mr. Smith

But apparently this information which a member of the association was asked to convey to his colleagues——

Mr. Dillon

There is no truth, good, bad or indifferent, in that statement.

Mr. Smith

——did not meet with the approval of his colleagues in the Government and a special article was written in the following day's paper giving all the reasons why the Minister could not abolish all these controls.

Mr. Dillon

There is not a scintilla of truth in that statement.

Mr. Smith

The curers, and they are the people who ought to know, claim——

Mr. Dillon

There is not a scintilla of truth in that statement.

Mr. Smith

——that that is the message they got from the Minister and that that was the decision they thought he was about to make.

Mr. Dillon

I do not believe that.

Mr. Smith

Apparently following further discussion, when the Minister realised that he had not got the authority to remove these controls without the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister had to pipe down and step back, as he has stepped back on a number of occasions, and as all those who make hasty decisions and who want to go about their work in a flourishing style have to retreat. They will retreat every day in the week from their decisions, and here is my prophecy——

Mr. Dillon

That is pure invention.

Mr. Smith

So far as the present occupant of the position of Minister for Agriculture is concerned, you cannot teach him anything. He knows everything. Do Deputies think that he will learn from making a mistake? If I thought it would bring about a change in him in that regard, I would talk for a month, but I know in my heart that he will continue as before, that he will handle the bacon trade as a toy for about a month, will get the headlines, and will then come back and say: "It is all right now and I will restore the licences." He will then have a fling at the butchers, and when he is at the butchers for a couple of weeks he will find reason to say that they are all right now, that the situation is in hand, and he will have a go at someone else.

S. O Diolúin

Tá an ceart agat agus beid síos fósta.

Mr. Smith

Here is the challenge I make to the Minister, Sir. When did a Minister of this State have conferred on him the right to say to a trade what they shall pay for the raw materials of their trade? I challenge the present occupant of this post, I challenge any Minister of this Government, I challenge any Deputy, to say in relation to an industry whose raw materials are in a free market for sale that any Minister of this or any other Government has a right to say to that trade: "You will not pay, or you should not pay, more for that pig than 190/- per cwt." What right has the Minister to place himself in the position before a number of responsible curers that he would instruct them, as he has been instructing the butchers, that they should pay only a certain amount for pigs?

Mr. Dillon

You have let the cat out of the bag now.

Mr. Smith

What right has the Minister——

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Lemass versus Deputy Smith.

Mr. Smith

What right has the Minister to say to the curers that they should pay only 190/- per cwt. for pigs, pigs being the raw material of their business, in order that they will be able to sell at the controlled price fixed by his colleague in the Department of Industry and Commerce?

Mr. Dillon

You have let the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Smith

Is not it a fact that when these controls were in existence——

Mr. Dillon

It will take a long time to get the cat into the bag again.

Mr. Smith

——when these controls were in existence, when the price of pigs was fixed by the Bacon Board, when, as a result of shortage of materials, pigs got scarce, when the curers looked to have that fixed price converted into a minimum price in order that they would be allowed to compete amongst each other for the pigs on the market——

Mr. Dillon

You will never get it back.

Mr. Smith

——that when that concession was given to them and when that free market was introduced, they were allowed to pay whatever price they thought they could afford to pay within the limits of wholesale and retail price fixed by the Department of Industry and Commerce? Surely it is not for me or my successor to say to these gentlemen how they should buy that raw material so as to live and to sell and to exist inside that price limit. As a matter of fact, I will go further, even. The Minister thinks I have gone up a wrong avenue.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, no.

Mr. Smith

I will go further and say this, that, while I was in that office, when an attempt was made by the curers to band themselves together so as to peg down the prices of the producer I saw to it that that ring was broken.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Smith

I openly and absolutely and completely admit it, and I say that, under the circumstances, I would allow no ring of businessmen, if I could stop it, to determine the price that was payable to the producers.

Mr. Dillon

You did not break the ring in Kildare Street.

Mr. Smith

Conduct yourself.

Mr. Dillon

You did not break the ring in Kildare Street. When you were so bold, why did not you break the ring in Kildare Street?

Mr. Smith

The Minister's interruptions have no effect upon me but he should have manners.

Mr. Dillon

Reply to them.

Mr. Smith

I say that pig numbers had fallen here. They had fallen because of a number of factors—shortage of feeding stuffs, and all the rest of it —but they had fallen to a level that was at least indicative of their not paying the farmers too well. Is it not common knowledge that the Deputies sitting behind the Minister now have forced his hand, as public opinion has forced his hand in a number of other matters, to abandon all this display and all this publicity campaign as to what he was doing? They have forced his hand because of the farmers who were producing pigs, which he directed the curers to pay for at the rate of 190/-per cwt. only. There was behind them that public pressure that compelled the Minister to bring in the representatives of the Press and give the usual Press interview as to the success that had attended his efforts and the fact that seven pork butchers had lost their licences and that these were being restored. But did the Minister succeed in bringing down the price, to which he referred here, which was then being paid by the curers for pigs that they had to sell as bacon at the figures quoted here? He did not, of course, because, again, they are climbing. Pig prices are climbing up again because the Minister realised, as a result of the pressure that was put upon him from outside, that he had his hand in the fire.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, no.

Mr. Smith

That he had his hand in the fire.

Mr. Dillon

I want 190/- now.

Mr. Smith

And, of course, he had to beat this retreat.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, no. 190/- is the price I advocate now.

Mr. Smith

Look at the figures. Look at the alleged success. Look at the number of pigs that were taken into the curing factories last week. That is the test. Go down the country and ask those who read the campaign that was conducted in the Irish Times, the Evening Herald, the Evening Mail, the Irish Independent, and so on, and the flash headlines about nice juicy sausages and lovely brown fat bacon, and so on, that were appearing in the shops, that had been stored away in the bacon factories, when the people who wrote these articles must have known that no bacon could be stored by any curer without permission from the Bacon Commission that functions under the Minister for Agriculture. These men were being held up by those Press articles and that Press campaign in that fashion.

Mr. Dillon

And you let them store the bacon. I made them cough it up.

Mr. Smith

Despite all these prophecies and these promises that we were going to have all this bacon, of course, you know we are not going to have it.

Mr. Dillon

Wait and see.

Mr. Smith

Of course we are not going to have it—if he does not know it now he will know it later. If there had been the consideration that should be given to this difficult problem, in all its aspects, the Minister would have taken a different course.

Mr. Davin

Pity the poor bacon curers.

Mr. Smith

Never mind, now. The Deputy might have as much interest in these people as I have.

Mr. Davin

I have no pity for them anyway.

Mr. Dillon

Has the Deputy been looking at the figures for bacon coming into the factories?

Mr. Smith

Yes. It is wonderful the concern that our Minister has shown in abolishing the black market, in bacon especially. It is wonderful the enthusiasm behind his efforts to ensure that the farmers will get just 190/- and no more, even though, because of the competitive nature of the market, they could get more. Bacon is an important item of diet, but why not show the same concern for black marketing activities in other directions? We had in our time black marketing in bread; we had traders from all parts of the country prosecuted before the courts for overcharging for bread. Bread is a vital food. Black marketing in other ways is going on at this very moment and we have the Border being polluted at present, with people cadging in thousands and millions of cigarettes and vast quantities of tobacco, in order to collect the difference between the price there and the price here. But when it is a matter of black marketing where the farmer stands to benefit by a market that is under-supplied and stands to reap an advantage by it, there is a campaign and we become puritans then. We not only call upon the inspectors and bring in the Guards, but we call upon the law officers and have to intimidate in some form or other the judges in order to get them to impose the penalties that will bring our farmers under control.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy should say the judges were intimidated in their decisions.

Mr. Aiken

He did say "in some form or other".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I know what the Deputy said as well as Deputy Aiken does and he need not tell me. I heard him.

Mr. Smith

I will say that they were influenced by public pronouncements.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not know that we could let that go, either. Judges should not be influenced in their rulings by public opinion and should not be influenced by any influence outside their judgment on the evidence submitted to them.

Mr. Smith

The attempt was made, by a publicity campaign, to weigh their minds in favour of giving certain decisions. The puritans now desire to pull down black marketing. I wonder what efforts were made all over the West and South of Ireland to investigate the premises of traders, to see whether or not black marketing was going on. It is well that our attention should be drawn to the tendency in the present Minister's decision. The Minister was faced with removing the control on farmers' butter. He removed the subsidy, as he calculated apparently that the price would fall then.

Mr. Dillon

It did not.

Mr. Smith

The price did fall.

Mr. Dillon

It did not.

Mr. Smith

The price remains from 1/- to 1/4 less than it was last year.

Mr. Dillon

It is not.

Mr. Smith

We have no means of determining that, but the farmers will read my words and the Minister's denial and will ask themselves whether or not they are able to get, at any corner of the road, 2/11 a lb. for their butter.

Mr. Dillon

They can get more for good butter.

Mr. Smith

When it came to be a matter of making a decision where the farmers were going to lose, the controls went, while you would be snapping your fingers. When it comes to a question of removing the controls in a case where the farmer would be unable to take advantage of the removal, such as in the case of bacon, were they removed? No. The campaign was launched so as to represent the farmer to the rest of the community as a person who would take advantage of scarcity, of the privations of the other classes, and so on. He was held up as an undesirable person and the inspectors were let loose upon him and the Gardaí were called upon and the detectives, too, and the campaign went on full blast for a month, and it ended in the Minister catching seven pork butchers and suspending their licences. Because of public pressure and because the farmers were standing with their carts in the markets and were not prepared to take the new prices that were being determined by the new Minister, who was going to regulate the affairs of bacon curers and tell them where they would get the raw materials, who was going to tell the pork butchers that if pork butchering did not pay they could go into hardware, who was prepared to sit in his chair in Merrion Street and give general instructions to all the trades and callings, who knew everything about everything and who was going to run everybody's business but could not run his own, the price will not be forced down. Farmers could not produce pigs at the price mentioned, having regard to the cost of feeding stuffs. These prices will not be forced down their necks.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy would favour increasing the price of bacon?

Mr. Smith

I challenge the Minister now to attempt that policy, to attempt to continue along those lines; and the farmers, because of the injustice of it, will resist and will beat and defeat the Minister and will force the Minister's hand, as they have done on a previous occasion. As far as my voice and my co-operation, my assistance and leadership is concerned, they will get it 100 per cent. in order to ensure that they will not be treated as they have been in these two instances I have cited, when bounties, subsidies and controls are withdrawn where they are going to lose by it and are retained where they would stand to gain. The funny thing about it is that every time I got on my feet the present Minister for Agriculture seems to have a particular set on me. I know he is very fond of me and that he likes me as an individual, but every time I got on my feet there was that strutting kind of attitude on his part, strutting for a rap and trying to be intimidatory. I waited and listened. I have done that for five months or so. I have taken a fairly long time to give this survey of his activities and of the activities of his Department, of some of the things that he did and some of the things that he should not have done. When I do that, I do not think I am transgressing in any way.

Mr. Dillon

I am 15 years a member of the House and this is the longest speech that I have ever listened to.

Mr. Smith

Is that not powerful?

Mr. Aiken

The Minister's misdeeds were the worst ever and it takes a good while to deal with them.

Mr. Dillon

If the wandering boy gets up to talk we are finished altogether.

Mr. Smith

When introducing his Estimate, the Minister saw fit to deal, to some extent, with certain matters relating to the numbers of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and so on. In a general way he tried to give the impression—I will not say wilfully but he certainly gave it to me—that his remarks on these matters were designed to be uncomplimentary to the efforts made by our farmers during the last six, seven or eight very difficult years. I am not going to deal with these particular matters at any great length. I have before me a report that was prepared in the Department during the time that I was Minister. It contains an analysis, prepared by my officials and now the officials of the Minister, of the efforts of our farmers in the Twenty-Six Counties during the very difficult years that I have referred to. In that analysis we have a comparison made between the efforts of our farmers and the efforts of British farmers, of Welsh farmers and of the farmers in the Six Counties. I want to point out that there is nothing in that analysis that in any way brings even the slightest suspicion of discredit on the success which our farmers secured in maintaining the numbers of our cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and so on, having regard to the difficult times through which we were passing, and the disadvantages which our farmers here had to endure as compared say with the farmers in the Six Counties or the farmers in England or the farmers in Wales, all of whom had at their disposal at all times substantial quantities of artificial manures and machinery—all the help and assistance that is necessary to enable farmers to engage on that sort of policy so vital for themselves and so vital for the whole community during the difficult period to which I have referred.

Let us take this analysis and compare the efforts of our farmers with those of others in the case of tillage. Between the years 1939 and 1945 we increased our tillage area by 66 per cent. In England, where they had so many advantages, the increase was 61 per cent. In the Six Counties they increased it by 67 per cent. I do not think it was the intention of the Minister to create the feeling that the effort or the contribution of our farmers was not fair and reasonable. I would say that it was a magnificent effort when compared to the efforts of those others to whom I have referred. I would say, however, that it was unjust if that is what was at the back of the Minister's mind.

Take the principal crops—wheat, bats, barley, potatoes and beet—and compare the figures relating to our farmers with those of the English farmers or of the farmers in the Six Counties. The area under wheat here in 1939 was 255,000 acres. By 1945 that was increased by 160 per cent.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Deputy give the comparative yields?

Mr. Smith

In England the increase was 30 per cent. Of course, the large increase in our case was due to our circumstances. Wheat production here was, of course, a matter of public policy. That policy was necessary for the preservation of our people. I lay special emphasis on the production of wheat because that increase of 160 per cent. was brought about by the fact to which I have referred as against the 30 per cent. increase in England, and the 40 per cent. increase in the case of the Six-County farmers. Take the case of oats, the increase in our case was 66 per cent. In England it was 70 per cent., and in the Six Counties 54 per cent.

Mr. Dillon

Are you not going to talk about barley at all?

Mr. Smith

I do not want to go over the whole list, but, taking that analysis, you will find that our farmers' production, irrespective of the Minister's effort to prove to the contrary, was as good as that of the farmers in any other country. I do not want to exaggerate, but I can go so far as to say that when account is taken of the limited resources at their disposal during that very difficult period, their effort was better than that of the farmers in any other country.

In the case of the maintenance of live-stock numbers, we had not a bad record either during those difficult years. I do not want to discuss this unduly, but I do want to correct the impression that might be created in the minds of some as a result of the Minister's remarks, that our farmers fell down on their job.

Mr. Dillon

No, but you fell down on your job. They did not fall down on their job.

Mr. Smith

I never fell down on any job that I took up.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

And the farmers do not think so either.

Mr. Smith

When the Minister came in here as a Deputy he used to be very talkative. He has been that as long as I have known him, but apparently he never got the spanking that I have given him in the last three or four hours. He did not get it in time, but it is better late than never. When he came in here he addressed himself to what he used to call the codology of wheat production. I will make allowances for all the Minister's prejudices if you like——

Mr. Dillon

I have made allowances for yours.

Mr. Smith

——but in spite of the world situation around us, the Minister has had to seize upon his coming into office in order to vindicate something which he had been foolishly, irresponsibly and, I would say, stupidly talking about when he was in opposition so as to put himself in a good light with the public and to convey to the public that a Minister, as Minister, could be as good as his word as a Deputy. He had to do a bit of "gallivanting" and swashbuckling on the matter of the production of wheat. If world conditions had been such that he could have safely engaged in that sort of campaign you would not mind, but you must think of the trouble, the difficulties and the effort of our farmers to safeguard our people. A number of land owners who were obliged to till but who did not, perhaps, like the policy of tillage, be it wheat or not, would fall upon such an invitation and fall upon the neck of the person who happened to be Minister and extended that loose invitation: "Go ahead with the production of wheat this year, but I do not believe in it." You could not get results in that way nor an appreciation on the part of such land owners of the difficulties, the dangers and the trying times through which we were passing.

Mr. Dillon

We will get more wheat this year than last year. Wait till you see, a ghradh.

Mr. Smith

For God's sake, I am tired listening to you. He could not let it alone. He could not go on as any normal human being would have done and allow the farmers to do the job on which they have been engaged and in which they had done so magnificently during all these years. On this occasion he had to be as good as his word, although on other occasions in regard to the producers of farmers' butter or the producers of pigs, he was not so free to live as Minister in line with his performances and pronouncements as a Deputy.

He is going to make the grass grow, and we have heard so much talk about that grass policy that you would think that nobody, other than the Minister, had ever thought of the idea of trying to induce our farmers to concentrate on the production of better, richer grasses. It was I who extended the winter price over the months of April and November when the milk prices were fixed, in order to give farmers a monetary inducement to have early grass in April and late grass in November. It is not by talking, by publicity or by doing the showman that we get our farmers, conservative as they are, to train themselves to new methods; it is by giving some tangible inducement such as I gave them. The price of milk was fixed prior to my time on the basis of a winter of four months and a summer of eight months. I reversed that for a very simple, effective and logical reason. I saw no reason at all for giving a winter price to creamery suppliers except that it gave me an opportunity by means of a price inducement to get our farmers to have an early supply of milk for the creameries and to continue into the early winter. That is the approach that will induce our farmers to adopt new methods and set about a policy—a desirable policy—of grassland development, but he will not induce them by mere talk alone. You will have to say to the farmers that the price will come to their rescue and assistance and that they are going to get the wherewithal to enable them to carry out this policy. If we are to get from the farmers the co-operation, the understanding and the sympathy we need, we will have to ensure that the Minister who presides over all will not sail through the country insulting all and sundry.

Mr. Dillon

You dare to say that?

Mr. Smith

Insulting inspectors and leaving them in a position when an aggressive farmer—there are dozens and hundreds of thousands of inspectors——

Mr. Dillon

Hundreds of thousands!

Mr. Smith

There are thousands of inspectors of all classes operating under the Department and under the county committees of agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

I must take a census.

Mr. Smith

We know how some farmers will behave towards these men, especially when they get any encouragement from the top. These men are in a condition of fear and trembling as a result of the stupid, irresponsible and outrageous statements of the Minister:—

"They will not go inside a farmer's fence until they are invited."

I have a further objection to that kind of talk. One thing which I found to be wrong with our system, a thing which I intended to tackle if I had been there longer, was this reluctance on the part of officials employed by the county committees of agriculture really to go out among the farmers themselves. They gave lectures at set places, it is true, but I noticed—and I spent some time as a member of a county committee of agriculture—that the instructors had a set number of farmers in every district and they went to those particular farmers. Very often the farmer to whom they went was the man who did not need their services at all. Very often he would be amongst the more advanced. There never seemed to develop, however, co-operation between the farmers and these technical people who are placed at their disposal by county committees and, in some cases, directly by the Department.

I was anxious to encourage a situation whereby these people, even if they were not welcomed in some cases, would go into a farmer's place and talk to him about the kind of seed he was using and the wisdom of using it. In some cases they would be rebuked or suffer a rebuff as the result of what might be regarded as the intrusion of an official. But who will deny that that sort of development would be a desirable thing? Who will deny that the Minister, in speaking as he has spoken, has made an enormous contribution to building up still further in the minds of a certain section of our farmers prejudice against that sort of effort? As a result dozens of officials are just apologetically going around wondering whether or not they have the right to be alive, because the Minister cannot control his tongue when he gets to his feet, especially in a certain atmosphere.

When I look around this new House which has been elected recently, I can see some Deputies who for the last seven or eight years down the country were charging us with neglect of our public duty because we left at large such a person as the present Minister for Agriculture after the views he had expressed; and who charged us with failing in our duty to the State for not confining this dangerous man from the point of view of the safety of the community. These individuals are now members of this House and they charged us with failure of duty because we did not put the present occupant of the post of Minister for Agriculture under lock and key. We knew then that he could do no harm. We knew that he was just in one of those thundering Churchillian moods. We knew that he had no backing and that therefore we could let him carry on with his antics.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has no relation to the Vote.

Mr. Smith

It has relation in this way, that those who held that view are now in this House making that man responsible for the most important industry in the country to which he can bring rack and ruin, and to which he will bring rack and ruin, making him responsible for public policy so far as agriculture is concerned. Maybe it was because the majority of the farmers of the country refused to support the Parties who now form the Government that the present Minister was appointed with the idea in their minds that they would punish us for that offence. If it was a matter of punishment they had in mind when they decided to select the present Minister, I want to assure them and the Minister that we can take it. There is, of course, a rumour that the present Minister was not intended for this post—that there was a swop made between the present Minister and the Minister for Justice (Deputy MacEoin). There are all kinds of rumours as to how this came about.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy relate the rumours to the Vote before the House?

Mr. Smith

It might not be so easy.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think it is possible.

Mr. Smith

It is terribly interesting all the same.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is now in his fifth hour at it.

Mr. Smith

I am not concerned about those rumours which are going round.

An Ceann Comhairle

They have nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. Smith

All I can say is that the Minister who is now responsible for this Department can never learn. Mistakes will not mean anything to him. He will go on from one blunder to another. So long as he is given an opportunity to do the showman, everything is all right. If talk and talk and talk can bring prosperity to agriculture, then prosperity will undoubtedly come. The Minister's method of talking and the irresponsibility of the things he says can result in nothing so far as the farmers are concerned. He is just what I have described him to be. When making this long speech I was wondering if I would be creating a problem for the director of broadcasting in his effort to edit it. This is supposed to be a country in which every man will get a fair crack of the whip, and in which no man will be victimised. As a matter of fact, we have had the assurance of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Justice, who are now occupying the Government Front Bench, that no man in this country, irrespective of his political views, will be victimised.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Agriculture is not responsible for the broadcasting service.

Mr. Smith

He has a sort of joint responsibility for it.

An Ceann Comhairle

He has no responsibility for it.

Mr. Smith

In this sense: that I was afraid that if I continued much longer I might be creating an impossible problem for the editor.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy wants to continue, he had better continue in order.

Mr. Aiken

Everybody knows that the Minister for Agriculture got everything in the broadcast on Friday.

Mr. MacEntee

Everybody knows about the broadcast last Friday.

Mr. Smith

I should not like to give the impression that in mentioning this matter as a sort of aside I was being petty, because I have not the slightest desire to appear that way or to get my name sent over the air.

An Ceann Comhairle

Has the Deputy not been told that it is not relevant?

Mr. Smith

I am not dealing with that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am wondering what the Deputy was dealing with.

Mr. Smith

I was dealing with a statement made by the Minister to the effect that the opponents of the Government were not going to be victimised in any way; that they were going to be given an opportunity of free and open discussion and of having their views, with the views of the Government, put over on a service that is paid for by the public. I was contending that in so far as the present policy of this statement is concerned, in so far as we can see, it is being run on a purely political basis.

Mr. Dillon

That is impudent defiance of the Chair.

Mr. Smith

It is a pity of me. I am being deserted by the local Press, by the Director of Broadcasting and so forth. Still I will have to live and this Party will, in fact, survive.

Mr. Davin

And the Irish Press.

Mr. Smith

I repeat that, from the point of view of an Opposition Party, the present Minister for Agriculture was the most splendid choice you could have made.

A Deputy

What are you blathering about, then?

Mr. Smith

From the point of view of the farming community of this country there never was a greater disaster. Time will show that the present Minister for Agriculture, in so far as it is possible for any one individual to do so, will wreck that and everything with which he comes in contact.

Mr. Sweetman

When I was a small boy growing up one of the things that used to be dinned into me on many occasions was an old saying that vanities and personalities hid an empty head. I hope that when I sit down nobody will be able to say that about me, though it might be said in another respect about a speech to which we have listened.

Deputy Dillon has been Minister for Agriculture since the month of February. During that period he has done many material things. He has taken specific decisions of which we are aware in this House. I venture to say that nothing that he has done has had the same effect as the way in which he has raised the morale of the farmers in the country. Prior to the time that Deputy Dillon took over the Department of Agriculture the farmers had come to believe that it was to be their lot to be bullied and to be pushed about by whatever Government was in power; to be given orders at any time at the behest of the Minister, and to receive from the Minister and from the Department no assistance whatever in the carrying out of these orders. One of the things to which we have become accustomed in recent years, particularly in the last few years of the previous Government, was that they were prone to make orders, prone to make decisions and prone to issue instructions without caring or heeding in the very least whether the people to whom the orders were being given and to whom the instructions were being issued had the ways or means of carrying out the decisions that had been made. We saw, too, during that period the Department of Agriculture year by year going more and more under the thumb of the Department of Industry and Commerce. If Deputy Dillon, since he became Minister for Agriculture, had done nothing except assert that those who worked on the land, whether they were farmers or agricultural workers, were the people to whom the prime consideration of the State should be given, then indeed he has done something on which the new Government can pride itself. It will go down on record in the history of our agricultural administration as a delayed and belated turn that should have been done years ago.

I hope that, when the new Minister is relating himself to the problems that are going to arise in the years that lie before him, he will relate himself to a speech which was made in March, 1946, by Deputy Dr. Ryan when he was Minister for Agriculture. In it the then Minister set down the policy of his Department—and the policy that was continued during the last 12 months. In it, also, the view was expressed that the flight from the land was a natural thing; he did not see anything against it and did not see any possibility whatever of checking it. One of the things that must be done, no matter what happens, in the years that lie ahead is that we must devise some method or plan to stop the drain of our young people from the rural areas to the cities and to make rural Ireland prosperous, healthy and attractive to them.

To come to the more material things with which this Estimate deals, the tone in which the Minister introduced it is significant. When he was opening, he referred to the fact that our agricultural production has declined, as, of course, it has declined. The last few years, particularly, under the previous Administration, showed that decline accelerating every year. I have not got before me the exact figures for 1947, but I remember that in 1946 the volume of agricultural production, when compared to that of 1930, was only about 91.8 per cent. That drop of almost 10 per cent., in figures, was a very much more serious drop in actual output, because what actually happened was that the volume of turf which was produced was added in to bolster up what are called agricultural figures in the ordinary way. Anyone who comes from Kildare, as I do, knows that the people there were suffering from this depression in agricultural production. There is, in the middle of the County Kildare, as every Deputy knows, the Curragh. In the last few years the situation has invariably been that the letting for sheep on the Curragh has not been filled. Claims to graze sheep on the Curragh had no price at all. It was difficult to find a bidder, and no price would be offered for these claims, because there were not sufficient sheep in the country to meet that demand.

I thought that during the course of the long speech which was made by Deputy Smith he would have dealt with the production of barley. I thought he would have dealt with the challenge issued to him by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to the price of barley. Deputy Smith, while he was Minister for Agriculture—as also his predecessor, Deputy Dr. Ryan—deliberately depressed by Government Order the price that was to be paid to the farmers of this country for barley. It is common knowledge that the brewers and the maltsters throughout the country were anxious and ready to pay a greater price for barley than the price the then Minister permitted them to pay. As the present Minister for Agriculture said, the only effect that had was that Messrs. Guinness were able to make additional profits at the expense of the Irish farmer and that the profits were taken off Messrs. Guinness by the British Exchequer. Therefore, all that happened in the long run was that over the war years as a result of the decisions that were taken by the Fianna Fáil Government—as a result of the manner in which the Department of Agriculture was managed during those years, and managed last year—the farmers had a forced levy upon their backs by the British Government to the tune of about £2,225,000. I hope the Minister is going to see that next year—he has not had an opportunity this year because the contracts and so forth were made for this year—he will break the price ring which was fixed by the Fianna Fáil Government. To be quite candid I had hoped, when the Minister first took office, that he would have been able to do something about it. However, whatever about this year and the question of whether there was time available or not, I hope that next year the Minister will make certain that there will not be a repetition of the stupidity that existed when he took over the reins of office.

Deputy Smith also referred at one stage of his speech to the question of a ring. It was a pity that the Deputy did not continue on that subject of rings. During the past 12 months and at the present time, too, we have in operation here two rings in regard to agricultural production without which we would be much better off; one is the ring in regard to the production of grass seeds and other seeds and the second is the ring in regard to the production of artificial manures. The farmers would be much better off if the controls were removed off these. If the controls were removed in regard to the production of seeds the farmers would have a much better chance of getting good seed at a more reasonable price. I have not got the exact figures before me at the moment, but I have a recollection that the price charged for mangold seeds this year was 400/- per cwt. and I have equally a recollection that the seed was on offer, if the ring had not been in operation, at a price of 196/- or thereabouts. Farmers were, in fact, paying double the price for the privilege of the control that was set up by the previous Minister for Agriculture. We had also a situation, as a result of the method in which the Department of Agriculture was operated during the past year, under which artificial manures were controlled in a particular way. Because of that control a farmer who had business in Dublin bringing up potatoes from Kildare was not allowed by that ring to take back manure to his own farm but had to take it at some rail head or by Córas Iompair Éireann lorry. He had to bring it by rail and Córas Iompair Éireann lorry because that suited the particular ring controlling the issue of artificial manures. I trust that the Minister, by removing these undesirable controls, will ensure that that will not obtain again during the next year.

I would like to deal with many other aspects of production and prices. I do not deal with them as a farmer because I do not pose as a farmer. I only pose as a person who is intensely interested in the cultivation of our land and intensely interested that those who are producing fruits from the land should get the maximum benefit from those fruits and be enabled to produce them in as much abundance as possible. understand, however, that it is not germane on this Estimate to discuss the question of cattle prices and the effect of the recent agreement on those prices.

Deputy Smith singled me out for special mention in his reference to the farm improvements scheme because of a question I tabled. Of course I am fully aware that the method that was adopted by the previous Government in regard to the Department of Agriculture, as well as in regard to other Departments, was to issue advertisements irrespective of whether or not the Department was able to cope with the applications that would come in. Their method was to issue orders without adverting in the slightest degree to the question as to whether or not the persons to whom the orders were directed had the means at their disposal of carrying out such orders. So it was with the Department of Agriculture. It did not matter to the former Administration whether or not by reason of putting an advertisement in the newspapers the administration of the Department was going to be blocked in such a way that the people could not get anything out of the farm improvements scheme. What did matter was that by the mere fact of putting in the advertisement they were "codding" the people down the country once more. Advertisements were put in for farm building schemes but when the farmers concerned applied to the Department of Industry and Commerce for the necessary cement the cement was not forthcoming. Many of them in my constituency sent me the refusal notices issued to them by the Department of Industry and Commerce when they applied for the necessary cement. You had, therefore, a situation in which one Department said: "Carry on," and another Department simultaneously said: "Hold back." That was the type of confusion to which we were accustomed prior to last February.

Even more than that, I would have thought that Deputy Smith, when dealing with the farm improvements scheme, would have dealt with another part of it—a part with which I hope the new Minister will deal during the current year. I refer to the fact that the value assessed for labour under the farm improvments scheme is assessed on the basis of what labour would have cost in 1939. In effect the farm improvements scheme was held out to be a scheme by virtue of which the farmers would get half the cost of the labour involved; and analysis of the situation shows that the farmers in effect only get a quarter because it is lased on a 35/- a week wage instead of on the current agricultural wage.

During the year that lies ahead I trust that we shall see the Department of Agriculture pay much more serious attention to the question of research. No important research work has been carried out in regard to live stock during those years in which Fianna Fáil were in power. Deputy Smith spoke at length about milk production. For nearly 50 years past there has been only one certain method of ascertaining whether a bull can pass on to his progeny certain milking potentialities. That method is to test the heifer progeny when they come into milk. That means that a bull would have to be kept for about five years; but there has been no scheme by virtue of which the Department would keep such bulls for five years in order to ascertain at the end of that time whether they were able to produce the desired effect.

Mr. Dillon

There is a scheme on foot now.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not as up to date as the Minister is. I did not know the Minister had recently introduced a scheme in that regard. I am very glad to hear it. Recently I was reading an article in regard to agriculture in Sweden. It was stated in that article that in Scandinavia it has been proved that the best method of carrying out tests in connection with milking strains is to carry out such tests with sets of identical twins. In Sweden, therefore, there is a scheme in existence by virtue of which their Department of Agriculture has a standing instruction to pay three times the ordinary commercial value for sets of identical twins in order that those twins may be available for testing purposes later on. They have found that that method produces far more satisfactory results than any other method hitherto adopted. I would like the Minister to give consideration to that and to see whether there is any possibility of putting such a scheme into effect here or any worth in implementing it in this country. I do not take the view that everything done everywhere else is automatically right but I do think that we should consider these methods of research in order to find out whether they can be of benefit to us.

I remember some years ago an official of the Minister's Department speaking to the Agricultural Society in University College, Dublin. I am sure that he was not then speaking as an individual but that he was giving vent at that time to the established policy of the Government. He deliberately threw cold water on any suggestion in regard to soil research or soil survey. He quite deliberately went out of his way to damp down and to compel the audience to damp down the vigour and enthusiasm with which the late Deputy Hughes advocated soil research at that time. Whether we agreed or disagreed with the view of Deputy Hughes, I think it is only right to say that he was the first person in this country who quite deliberately advocated soil research. During the next 12 months I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the views put forward for many years by Deputy Hughes, and I hope that he will give those views concrete effect in his Department in regard to soil research.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Sweetman

I do not want to keep the House too long and I certainly have no intention of speaking for four hours, but I do want to draw attention to one particular matter. In referring to this matter I want it to be crystal clear that I make no attack upon any individual or any civil servant. I am merely attacking a system, not individuals.

I think that, particularly over recent years, the control of the Department of Agriculture has switched from a technical to a clerical control. The technical inspectors are being more and more relegated to an advisory capacity and are being given less and less opportunity of implementing decisions and of advising the Minister about actual decisions. The reason for that, perhaps, is that there has been in the Department a primacy of the clerical staff in the way it has been recruited and a subservience following from the technical inspectors.

The clerical staff—and I want it to be quite clear that I am talking about a system and not about individuals— are drawn increasingly more and more from city and urban areas and they cannot be expected to understand the rural viewpoint. Some 25 years ago the backbone of the clerical Civil Service was the second division and entrance to that was usually direct from the national school. We all know that not more than 5 per cent. of the farmers sent their sons to more than the national school and, therefore, that meant that the second division of the Civil Service was largely the product of farmers' sons. Now, the situation is that that grade of the Civil Service is being more and more recruited from secondary schools and, in consequence, the farmers' sons are not getting the same chance to get into the clerical grades of the Civil Service as they used to. Because of that, and in consequence of the increased supremacy in the Department of the clerical grades, we are having even the Department of Agriculture more coloured by urban control than was the case previously, and that colouration was accentuated very largely during the Fianna Fáil régime.

I hope the Minister will try to ensure, during his period of office, that that tendency is changed, that we will be able to make certain that technical progress will be the first consideration of his Department, and that no question of clerical stringency will be allowed to detract from the benefit of any scheme that may be put before the Department from time to time.

I heard Deputy Smith saying that he would not allow any Minister to restrict progress. In that case it was unfortunate that the attempt made by the agricultural instructor in, I think, Offaly, to conduct further research into aphosphorosis, was not given some encouragement. The Minister referred to that. I know I am correct in saying that the instructor did carry out certain research and experiments into aphosphorosis which went some distance towards appreciating the problem, but only a very small distance, and when that instructor wanted the Department under the régime of the previous Minister——

Mr. Dillon

I hope so.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not quite clear whether it was in the régime of Deputy Smith or Deputy Dr. Ryan, but when the instructor wanted the Department to give him facilities for extending that experiment, they were refused. Equally, I think it has been standing form in the Department for the past few years for the seeds germinating testing section to complain that they must have additional staff. Anybody who had anything to do with them in the seed trade was quite satisfied there was shortage of staff and that was the reason things were not being dealt with in sufficient time. I do not think there was any effort made by the previous Administration to rectify that nor, I think, was there any effort made to extend the agricultural schools, which are grossly understaffed, for the purpose of giving up-to-date and practical instruction in agriculture. The house masters, as the instructors are called, are on a temporary, non-pensionable basis. They do not stay long; they have far too much to do. There is not sufficient staff in the colleges. The pupils have to do the work that the staff should do, and they are too tired to carry on their duties.

I trust the Minister will—as I feel quite certain he will—during the coming year give these matters his consideration and that he will continue, as he has been doing up to the present, making the farmers feel that they are the primary producers, that it is their work that is going to be the basis for all our prosperity, whether in the city, the town or the country village. What is important from their point of view is not merely the question of price but really the question of marginal profit.

In one respect to which Deputy Smith referred, I trust he will take steps to ensure quickly that there will be some advance. The Dublin Milk Tribunal urged that immedidate steps should be taken to set up some research into mastitis. That tribunal was satisfied that mastitis, though not interfering with the human consumption of milk to any appreciable degree, was one of the very serious factors which affected the cost of production, and they urged one and a half years ago that immediate steps should be taken towards research in that regard. I have not heard of any steps being taken by the Department up to last February, with the exception of buying a farm, on which farm to date no research work, so far as I can ascertain, has been carried out.

Finally, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has approached his problems, and particularly on the way in which he did the job he set out to do, namely to clean up the black market in bacon. For that he deserves the thanks of the House, and for that he receives the thanks of the whole community. Everyone knew it was there, but the previous Minister had not the courage to face it; our present Minister for Agriculture had.

Mr. Cogan

Just 12 months ago we were welcoming a new Minister in the Department of Agriculture. We were damning him with faint praise or, as the Minister for Lands expressed it, praising him with faint damns. To-day we are called upon to welcome a new Minister, and I can say without hesitation that we regard, and I think the people regard the present Minister as a man of outstanding ability, energy and enterprise, a man who will bring to his Department great power of concentration upon the things that are most important. As an Independent Deputy I am not here to express praise or to throw bouquets at the Minister. Like the Minister, I was not elected to this House by any organised political Party. As a matter of fact, I came here in spite of all organised political Parties. Therefore, I am not under any obligation to throw bouquets at the Minister, but in the course of my speech to-day I will be absolutely fain to him. I will give him credit for what he has done right and I will give him credit for what he proposes to do right, but I will not hesitate to blame him for anything I consider to be wrong. I do not intend to go over the ground that was ploughed by the Minister in introducing the Estimate, and harrowed—I think "harrowed" is the right word—by his predecessor. I intend to break new ground. I intend to put up my own marking poles and to plough my own ground.

The marking poles which I would put up in discussing agricultural policy are to consider, first of all, what are the duties of a Minister for Agriculture, because we cannot decide whether the Minister is doing right or wrong unless we know in our own hearts, or have some standard in our minds, what is right or what is wrong. The marking poles I intend to put up in dealing with agricultural policy to-day are the principles which should guide the Minister for Agriculture. I consider that there are five outstanding principles which should guide the Minister in formulating his policy for the country. The first is to see that the farmer has security of ownership in his holding and that he is not disturbed or interfered with in any way by the State in that ownership; the second is to see that the farmer gets a fair margin of profit on production; the third is to see that adequate credit facilities are available for agriculture; the fourth is to see that every possible inducement is given to the farmer to work his land, not only in his own best interests but in the best interest of the nation, because it does happen occasionally that what the farmer may consider his own interest may not be the best interest of the nation, and the Minister has to see that effort is directed into the best channels. Lastly, the Minister has to see that all engaged in agriculture get a fair chance of receiving that education, that scientific knowledge and training, that practical training that is essential in order that farmers may work their land to the best advantage both for themselves and for the community.

The farmer owes a certain duty to the people. Property, we are told, has its duties as well as its rights, its rights as well as its duties. It is the farmer's duty—no farmer will deny it—to get the last ounce of productivity out of the soil while preserving and extending its fertility as far as possible. In return for that duty to the community, the farmer is entitled to own and hold his land, to have security to develop his land, to know that no State Department, whether it be Agriculture or any other, will interfere with him in the possession of his holding. The farmer is an independent individual. He does not want doles or alms from the State. He does not want to be put in the position of being spoon-fed or of being dependent on any Government Department for his existence. He wants to be allowed to carry on his work on his farm and he wants to know that, when the course of life for him is finished, he can pass the results of his labour on to his children. That is essential.

I sometimes hear it said, when we farmers put up demands to the Government, that we are looking for something for nothing. The farmer knows in his heart and every representative of the farming community knows in his heart that you cannot get anything for nothing, either in this world or in the next, and if there is one person who cannot hope to get anything for nothing it is the farmer, because he produces the wherewithal out of which the entire community lives. Therefore, all that the farmer asks is justice, security in his home, security in his holding. I think it would not be wrong, since we have Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture, to quote the words of his late father when he said: "There must be finality in regard to land ownership". I hope that the Minister for Lands will bear that fact in mind.

Mr. Blowick

He will, indeed.

Mr. Cogan

The next is security of ownership.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has a Bill on that, and it is not a matter for the Department of Agriculture. The Deputy may not discuss the Bill which he is introducing to-morrow.

Mr. Cogan

I have no such intention but, of course, apart from the question of land ownership there is also the question of security from interference. A man can be deprived of his living in many ways and of his sense of ownership in many ways. He can be deprived of it by being compelled to be absolutely dependent on the State for various concessions and by being dependent on various officials. That is one of the things I mean by security of ownership and it is one of the things that fall within the control of the Department of Agriculture. I want to make it clear that the farmer asks for nothing but his rights and his right is to be assured of a fair margin of profit on the efficient working of his farm.

There are people who say that a farmer has no right to expect the Government to see that he gets a fair profit on the working of his farm, that he has no right to expect that from the Minister for Agriculture, that the function of the Minister is simply to provide advice and instruction on the carrying on of the farming industry and that the farmer must depend for his existence upon such prices as are governed by the ordinary laws of supply and demand. We want to remember the fact that, if the laws of supply and demand had been in operation for the past seven years, the farmer would be getting an income about twice as high as he is getting to-day. The law of supply and demand was suspended from operation during the past five or six years. Is it not right and proper that the farmer should demand that, since he is precluded during a time of food scarcity from getting the full price that the law of supply and demand would provide, that he also has a right in times when there is a surplus of food, when there is a world-wide glut of food——

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

Mr. Cogan

During the 'thirties, when farmers complained about the inadequate prices being paid for their produce, they were told there was a world-wide surplus of food and that nothing could be done to improve their condition—as a matter of fact, some things were done to make their condition much worse by the present Government's predecessors—but when, during the war, there was a shortage of food, the farmer was not allowed to take advantage of that shortage. Controls were imposed upon most of the essential products of the farm to keep prices down, and I suppose that was necessary in order to safeguard the interests of the consumer, but, having kept farm prices down during the emergency, it is our duty to see that, during the years of peace, and we hope that, in spite of all the signs and indications, there will be many years of peace, it is the duty of the Government to see that the farmer gets a fair return.

The Minister, in opening this debate, made a statement which will be very firmly imprinted on the minds of the farmers and farm workers in the country. He said, as reported in the Irish Independent, he would like the success or failure of his five years in the Department of Agriculture to be judged by whether the agricultural worker had been raised to the level of the industrial worker. In making that statement, the Minister has set for himself a very high standard. It is an aim which it will be difficult to achieve and I applaud here and now the courage of the Minister in setting for himself that high and difficult standard, because we know that the standard of income in agriculture has never, at any time during the past 25 years, been more than half the average standard of income of those outside the agricultural industry.

Professor Duncan, in one of the reports of the Post-Emergency Agricultural Planning Commission, referred to this matter. He said that the national income in 1926 was £154,000,000, that the income of agriculture was £49,000,000 and that of the non-agricultural section of the community £104,000,000, and that, in 1939, the income of the agricultural section of the community was £51,000,000, while the income of the non-agricultural section was £118,000,000 making a total of £169,000,000. He must remember that there is approximately the same number of people gainfully employed on the land as are gainfully employed at other activities, and we see, therefore, that the average income of the agricultural producer, whether farmer or agricultural worker, has always been, during the past 25 years, less than half the average income of the rest of the community. It will be a splendid achievement if the Minister, during his five years of office, is able to reverse that tendency which has existed over so many years. If he is able to raise the income of the average person engaged in work upon the land to the level of that of the average person engaged in non-agricultural activity, he will go down in history as the greatest Minister for Agriculture this country has ever had or could have.

In many ways, the prospects for agriculture are bright. This may be due to the fact that I am speaking as a farmer and farmers are perhaps incurable optimists, but, so far as one can judge and taking all world circumstances into account, there are good prospects facing the agricultural industry. A trade agreement between this country and Great Britain has been entered into, the result of which will be to tie our prices to the level of prices prevailing in Great Britain. There would not be anything very hopeful in that fact, if we did not know that it is now the settled policy of all parties in Great Britain to see that the agricultural producer in that country gets a fair return for his work and that the agricultural industry is kept in a fairly good state of prosperity. There is, therefore, an immense advantage in having secured a reasonable measure of parity with British prices.

In pre-war days, it was the settled policy of the British Government to keep agricultural prices down so as to provide cheap food for the industrial population. That policy has now been definitely reversed and in that fact I can see hope for the agricultural industry and hope that it will not be so difficult to ensure that fair prices are paid to all producers here. While I do not agree entirely that we are absolutely dependent upon the standard of prices prevailing on the other side, I believe it is possible for a proagricultural Government to raise our prices here higher than those on the other side, but I admit it would be difficult to do so, to maintain a higher level of agricultural prices in this country than that prevailing in Great Britain, so far as some of the cheap products of the agricultural industry are concerned.

But, as I said at the outset, farmers are not so much concerned about prices as about the margin of profit which they will get in their industry, and, when we come to this matter of the margin of profit, we have to bear this fact in mind, that, while we have achieved certain parity with regard to prices with the British farmers and the farmers of Northern Ireland, we have not secured that parity with regard to costs. Here we have to pay almost 100 per cent. more for the essentials of the agricultural industry, and particularly for our fertilisers, than the British farmer has to pay.

One of the first duties of the Minister should be to see that phosphates and other chemical manures and lime are brought to the farm at the lowest possible cost. I believe there is profiteering in every stage of the transport and distribution of artificial fertilisers. Therefore, it is essential that there should be the freest competition with a view to bringing down the price. If necessary, direct action should be taken to ensure that such vital commodities as rock phosphate are brought to the country by the cheapest possible routes and distributed in the cheapest possible manner. Even if it is necessary to infringe on some vested interest, that must be done because the fertility of the soil must be restored at any price. I may be wrong but I believe that one of the most essential things is to get phosphates and lime on the land in the largest possible quantities and as cheaply and as speedily as possible. That is one way in which we could bring about the expansion in agricultural production for which the Minister has dared to hope.

The costs of every kind of seed should be brought down to the lowest possible level. In addition, the farmers should have access to the best quality seeds available in the world. While there may be in this country interests that may be served by the promotion of home production of seeds it is essential, when regard is had to the importance of good seed, that all the resources of civilisation, so to speak, should be at the service of the farmer.

I now come to one of the weakest points in the Minister's speech in introducing the Estimate. He said he had guaranteed a price for wheat for five years in order to satisfy the whims of certain foolish people who believe in wheat. I do not think a Minister should embark on such a far-reaching measure, which costs the taxpayer a very considerable amount of money, merely to satisfy the whims of foolish people who do not know what is best for themselves or the country. There is only one justification for a guaranteed price for wheat over five years, and that is that it is in the national interest to have a certain amount of wheat grown. The Minister did not make that case. Therefore, I say he made no case. However, the Minister has been wise, whatever his motives may have been, to guarantee a price for wheat. Last week I was speaking to a very progressive farmer. He said to me: "Do you know, I think this man Dillon will be a great success." Heaven forgive me, I did not accept the suggestion without question. I asked him "why?" and the answer was: "He is going to do me a good turn by guaranteeing the price of wheat for five years." This is a farmer whose land is exceptionally fertile and he believes that he can grow wheat at a very substantial profit over the next five years and that if he requires oats or barley for feeding he can purchase them at a reasonable rate. His land is not suited to barley or oats because it is too fertile.

I am sure the Minister will not be flattered to hear it suggested that he will go down in history as the Minister for wheat, the Minister who put wheat in a firm position in the rotation of farm crops. Whatever the Minister's motives or intentions, he will achieve a useful purpose by putting wheat in that position and, unquestionably, that is what will be achieved by his five-year guarantee. We must remember that the guaranteed price for wheat means a subsidy to the wheat grower. The general community pay that subsidy and, in particular, farmers in areas which cannot grow wheat contribute to that subsidy.

I was a member of a deputation that waited on the Minister for Agriculture last week on behalf of the sheep raisers on the mountain. I put the case to the Minister that the sheep owners in the hill areas should be given a subsidy similar to that which is given to the sheep owners in the hill areas in Great Britain. Nothing is more dangerous from a national point of view than the serious reduction in the population of sheep and cattle. So far as sheep are concerned, the price is reasonably good, as we know, and the Minister was able to assure the deputation, as far as one could foresee, that the price of sheep would be good for the next four or five years. There is a certain guarantee in the trade agreement in regard to the price of sheep. Nevertheless, we have the position in which sheep breeding, particularly in the hill areas, has declined to an alarming degree and, unless very drastic action is taken, that decline will continue notwithstanding the fact that there is a fair price for sheep. It would have been good policy to encourage sheep owners to continue to breed ewes and to raise lambs and thus increase sheep stocks on the hills. It is the hill sheep which are the foundation stock. The Minister did not advert to the serious situation facing agriculture, not only in regard to sheep but in regard to cattle. There is a decline in the number of calves and, this year, in the number of in-calf heifers and heifers kept for breeding. This is only natural, as a store heifer will fetch a much higher price than an in-calf heifer. Why should a farmer be a benefactor for the rest of the community, losing £20 or £30 per head by keeping heifers for breeding? We know what a well finished heifer will make in the market, if fat, and what she will make, if in calf.

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

Mr. Cogan

Sometimes, I think it might be well if the House adjourned for half an hour for tea, to avoid these demands for a quorum, which are becoming a daily tea-time occurrence. It is a welcome thing that the Minister has set out to ensure that the farmers will get a reasonable reward for their work, but he must be very careful if they are not to be cheated. In many branches of agriculture, there has been no increase in prices on last year and in some cases there has been a reduction; but there has been a substantial increase in costs, in wages and in rates on land. These things taken from the farmer's margin of profit. Unless there is vigilance, the farmer will lose. I am sure, however, they will be active in seeing that they get their rights and their representatives will be vigilant. We expect the Minister to be equally active.

Again and again, we farmers are told that we are making unjust demands, that we are making a big profit out of our farms and disguising it, trying to fool the people that we are not making a good average profit. We are prepared to take up that challenge. We have asked the Minister to take over a farm in each of the Twenty-Six Counties and work it to the best of the ability of his Department and see what profit he can make out of it. If that test is carried out fairly, we shall have an authoritative figure of costings which cannot be disputed. Until that is done, there will be an air of insincerity and humbug. I raised this matter with the Minister some months ago and he pointed out the difficulties of arriving at a fair system of costings and also the difficulty of the Department running a demonstration farm in each county. I am sure he is not the type of man who could be intimidated by ordinary difficulties of detail. There is no insurmountable difficulty in taking over a reasonably sized farm and keeping accurate accounts, so as to see what the profits are. I will continue to assert that demand until eventually it is granted.

There are people who challenge the independent farmers here to vote against the Government on this and that issue, so as to put the present Government out of office. But we independent farmers have a certain amount of commonsense and we are not going to throw the present Government out until we see something better to take their place—and we do not see anything better at the present time. We have had to put up with the Fianna Fáil Party for 16 long years and we would not welcome them back immediately. The ex-Minister for Agriculture concluded his long speech on a strange and cynical note. He said that the present Minister is a splendid choice from the Fianna Fáil point of view, but a disaster from the farmers' point of view. Therefore, it seems that Fianna Fáil welcome what is disastrous for the agricultural community. That is their love for the farmer and their interest in him. Their aim is to get control of the farming community again, as they did in the past.

There are several tests by which we could guide our deliberations, in deciding as to whether the Minister is a good one or not, and in deciding his policy.

I pointed out that one of the things he should seek, in regard to agriculture, is to ensure that adequate credit facilities are available to the agricultural community. We all know that there is no industry so hopelessly under-capitalised or so hopelessly under-financed as the agricultural industry. I was talking to a farmer the other day who has a crop of potatoes, and I observed to him that there were a few drills that were exceptionally good. He said that he had put on them a potato artificial manure mixture. I said that they showed signs of it. His reply was that this potato manure was great stuff if the farmer could afford it. I think there is a tragedy in that remark: that a farmer knows that a certain thing is good, but he has not the capital to afford it. It is impossible for business people, or for others not making a living out of agriculture, to realise how far that operates in a reduction or lowering of agricultural output—the fact that the farmer has to try and work inside a very limited amount of capital. He has a certain number of pounds to sow his crop and he cannot get any more. He has to work within a very narrow limit. His experience and his own intelligence may tell him that it would be desirable to purchase three or four tons of artificial manures or perhaps five or six tons of lime, but he has not the means to do it. The shopkeepers may give him credit, but I think they are getting tired of it. When we talk about farming or profits from the land we are often reminded of the huge deposits which farmers have in the banks. These deposits are compared with loans outstanding from the banks, but nobody ever talks about the volume of credit that is given to the agricultural industry by the trading community. If that were taken into account we would see the extent to which the agricultural industry is sunk in debt at all times, not in the present year or during the past year. The average farmer is as deeply sunk in debt at the present time as it is possible for him to be.

Now, I am wondering whether it would be possible to link our desire to increase the fertility of the soil with a better credit system. I think if there is one thing that it is desirable to give to the farmer on credit it is the artificial manures that his land requires. We know that the progressive and prosperous farmer uses these manures extensively, but it is the large number of farmers on the poorer land of the country who want the artificial manures more urgently since they cannot afford to get a sufficient quantity of them and have never been able to do so. I am sure that if tests were taken of the soil it would be found that on a large number of our farms the land is in great need of both phosphates and lime and other chemical ingredients which are so absolutely essential for the growing of both crops and grass. I suppose it is also important to consider, though not quite so important, the desirability of credit for the improvement of the farmer's equipment on his farm. The Minister used strong words in connection with the utilisation of the antediluvian horse on the farm. He expressed the desire that, if he were a person who believed in coercion, he would have the use of the horse prohibited on the farm, but he did not say whether he would like to prohibit the use of this antediluvian animal on the racecourse. Perhaps he would do that also. We all know what it would cost to provide complete mechanisation on a number of small farms. The cost would be enormous. I suppose that a complete tractor outfit, comprising all the implements necessary, would cost over £1,000. I do not think there are many farmers who could face that. However, I suppose the Minister will look into that, because whether he likes it or not a number of farmers will be availing of some of the credit facilities which are provided in this country to finance mechanisation. Some of them are very expensive. The hire-purchase system of credit is very expensive. Perhaps the Minister will be able to devise something cheaper and perhaps more beneficial.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Deputy think of the hopes of co-operative societies financing it?

Mr. Cogan

There is a good deal to be said for co-operation in this matter. I believe that a certain measure of co-operation would be desirable. It is just a question as to how it might operate. I suggest to the Minister that it might operate better by a number of farmers agreeing together to avail of the services of one contractor in their area. I have a great belief in private and in individual enterprise. I know that, outside what are known as the creamery areas, co-operation has not been as successful as one would hope for, while on the other hand the agricultural contractor has proved beneficial in his area. I do not see any reason why, in a district where you have a number of comparatively small farmers—and that would apply to most districts—a young farmer there should not have a complete equipment for mechanised farming operations working for hire. In that connection a certain measure of co-operation would be called for. You would need to have some kind of agreement between this contractor and a number of farmers, so that he would not be running all over the country and giving what is called a kind of bad service. If the farmers in one or two townlands combined together to take the services of one contractor for all mechanised farming operations, and that he in return undertook to give them satisfactory service, which is the main thing, it might be quite a success. We know that the co-operative societies work in certain districts. A lot, of course, depends on the committee of management or on the manager in charge in regard to machinery that is to travel around from farm to farm. Co-operation of that kind is much more difficult than in regard to plant which is stationary.

I come back to what I shall call my fourth point on agricultural policy— that is that every inducement should be given to the farmer to utilise his land not only in his own best interest but in what is the best interests of the nation. I would point out that what is in the farmer's interest may not always be in the best interests of the nation. Perhaps I should remind the Minister of what I said when he was not in the House. I took the case of the farmer who has cows and heifers. Let us suppose that a farmer has a number of good heifers at the present time. It may pay him better to fatten off those heifers and dispose of them as beef, whereas it might be better in the national interest, and I think it would be if the heifers are of very good quality, to keep them for breeding purposes. A very difficult problem which the Minister must attend to is that in matters like this it falls to the Department of Agriculture to provide inducements to the farming community to do what is perhaps not the most paying or profitable thing for themselves, but what is in the best interests of the nation. I want to take up the challenge which has been so frequently flung down by the Minister for Agriculture. When farmers advocate assistance of this kind they are not asking for doles or alms. You might as well say that the live-stock breeding scheme to provide premiums for bulls or subsidies for blood stock mares is a dole. You might look at it in that light, but I look at it as an inducement to individual farmers to do something in the best interests of the entire agricultural community and of the community as a whole.

The Minister has said that he would keep inspectors outside the farmer's fence and I welcome that.

Mr. Dillon

Until they are invited in.

Mr. Cogan

That raises a very interesting point. What about a man whose land is overgrown with thistles or with noxious weeds of various kinds? Will he write to the Minister: "Dear James, please send down an inspector to look at my noxious weeds" or "please send down a man to look at my stud bull." I am just wondering will he get those invitations.

Mr. Dillon

Farmers have neighbours, you know, Deputy.

Mr. Cogan

That is a very delicate point. Is the Minister to go in on a farmer's land at the request of the farmer's perhaps spiteful neighbours? I think that the Minister's intentions are good, however, and that you will achieve more by inducement and encouragement than by coercion and force. I have in mind one branch of the Minister's Department operating in my own constituency in which force is used and not to anybody's advantage—the compulsory dipping of sheep. A Wicklow mountain farmer may be making hay when he gets a notice from the Department to go up to the mountains, round up his sheep, drive them three or four miles to the dipping place, have them dipped with hundreds of other sheep and drive them back. On a hot day, many of the sheep may die as a result of being driven those three or four miles and being driven back again. The first 300 or 400 sheep are dipped in sheep dip, but the next 300 or 400 are dipped in mud. I do not think it is necessary for sheep-farmers——

Mr. Dillon

We do not get any scab, do we?

Mr. Cogan

I have been told—I am not going to swear to its absolute proof, but I believe it—that some farmers had no scab on their sheep until they brought them to a through and then they found them to be infected. I do not think it will retain its value after being used for a long period and being diluted, perhaps again and again, with water and with mud. I think it is a matter that requires reconsideration. A sheep farmer said to me: "The sheep farmer who will not dip his sheep is not fit to have sheep," and I think there is a good deal of truth in it. He will take steps to prevent disease and you will do that more effectively by seeing whether sheep exposed for sale are infected with scab and dealing with it then, than by sending down an inspector to stand, watch in hand, watching the farmers dip their sheep. That is a humiliating position for independent farmers, and I think that we are all out to have our farmers as independent as possible. It is humiliating for a man to get an order to bring in his sheep and to have an inspector standing over them to see that they are being dipped effectively while often they are not dipped effectively, but as long as they go through the process that is sufficient.

I do not think that the Minister is wise to postpone the farm improvements scheme from March to June. I think that it should have been advertised in March. That is my opinion, but I am willing to hear what the Minister has to say. I am certainly not convinced that there is any wisdom in postponing that scheme. I think that March is the best time to have the work advertised, so that drainage and the clearing of water courses can be undertaken during the summer months.

I would like also to ask the Minister what his intention is regarding compulsory tillage next year. I think it would be no harm if a statement were made on that position.

Would it not be desirable for the Minister to announce some improvement in the farm improvement scheme? I mentioned that matter when we were on a deputation to the Minister. In Northern Ireland they have a scheme for the reclamation of hill lands which is more far-reaching than our farm improvements scheme inasmuch as it provides, I understand, a grant of 75 per cent. of the total cost, rather than of the labour cost which is the grant available in this country.

By the trade agreement we are put on equal footing with regard to prices with the farmers of Great Britain and that is a very desirable thing because the farmers of Great Britain are, I think, reasonably assured by all Parties that agricultural prices will not be allowed to decline for a long period. By securing parity with them, we have secured a great advantage, but it is very important that we should have parity with regard to costs, because the farmer and his workers must exist on the margin between the costs and the prices which they receive. We know that various helps are given to farmers, such as tillage subsidies and rate exemptions, all of which reduce the costs, but the thing which I would like the Minister to concentrate on is reduction in the cost of artificial manures. We must get them into the country at the cheapest possible rate, even, if it is necessary because of vested interests or trade interests, if the Minister should have to import rock phosphates and manures himself. They must be brought to the farmer at the cheapest rate, and the same applies to lime.

Mr. Dillon

That is being done at this moment.

Mr. Cogan

I was very glad to hear the undertaking which the Minister gave when introducing the Estimate. He gave the most far-reaching undertaking ever given by any Minister of Agriculture in this country so far, and that is that he will seek to put the farmer and the farm worker on an equal footing with the people employed in industry. In making that promise the Minister has set himself a very high standard and if he is able to achieve it he will be an undoubted success. There is one other matter to which it is necessary to refer and that is agricultural education. We all know that one of the reasons why Denmark stepped out ahead of the agricultural countries in Europe was that the people were inspired by a wave of enthusiasm to adopt a system of intensive agricultural education. The time has passed when we should regard the farmer and the farm worker as a lower class than any other section of the community. Simply because their faces and their necks are red after a hard day's work in the fields and because their clothes may be a little rougher than those worn by the people in the city, they have no right to be despised. One of the functions of a good agricultural education is to make good farmers hold up their heads or break their necks in the attempt. The rural vocational schools could be extended to cover a larger area. Many of them which are to a certain extent white elephants and are not fulfilling their purpose properly should be converted into real agricultural schools catering for a very wide area. If necessary some system of transport should be provided to bring the young men into the schools in order to get the education which they require.

I agree with the Minister that it is a welcome thing to have such organisations in this country as Muintir na Tíre and the young farmers' clubs. Those organisations seek to raise the morale of the farming community. I have to smile sometimes, however, at the eagerness with which Ministers, professional politicians and other professional people are inclined to be benevolent to and encourage non-political farmers' organisations. So long as a farmers' association lays it down very definitely that it is not going to put forward candidates for Parliamentary or local elections, then it has the blessing of all people in authority. But if a farmers' organisation decides to put up candidates for county council or Dáil Éireann elections, it is immediately denounced as a dirty conspiracy to take the crust out of the mouths of professional politicians and extract the teeth of these same politicians.

I believe that one of the real reasons why we have made no progress in agriculture during the past 25 years is because we have allowed agriculture and agricultural policy in this House and throughout the country to be dominated by people who are not farmers and who have no direct interest in farming, because you cannot understand the farmer's mentality or the farmer's viewpoint unless you have had the experience of trying to live on a farm, of feeling that if you do not get a fair price for a few cattle or a few pigs which you may have to sell you will find it impossible to make ends meet.

You have to experience the anxiety which the farmer feels when he goes to a fair and meets somebody who tells him that the price of cattle is down, to have the actual experience of what it feels like to look out on a crop of corn and see it flattened to the ground after a night's rain, a crop which you might be depending upon to meet some urgent pressing demand, such as rates or annuities. It is only those who have that experience who can really get under the farmer's skin and really know what the farmer is thinking. For that reason, while it is well to support and approve of non-political farmers' organisations, the farmers' organisation that goes out to obtain direct representation in this House and on other public bodies is the most beneficial organisation that you can have in this or any other country.

Major de Valera

This debate is usually largely concerned with the problems of the farmer. I should like, however, to bring an aspect of the problem of agriculture generally to the Minister's attention which might perhaps not be touched upon otherwise. The functions of the Minister, I take it, are something wider than simply providing for a certain class of people in the community; that he is responsible for agriculture generally and for the repercussions of agriculture and agricultural policy on the community as a whole. Therefore, it is quite within his province to ask what is the effect of present trends in our agricultural policy and in our agricultural life on other sections of the community and, in particular, on the towns.

If anybody cares to survey what has been happening in the City of Dublin within the past few years he will find a disturbing trend. It has been gradually coming on, but now it has reached the stage when it may actually have an effect on the standard of nutrition in the city. During the past few years the prices of vegetables, meat, and certain other foodstuffs have so increased that, when taken in conjunction with the other demands made on the incomes of a large number of city dwellers, you will find the result is the cutting down of the consumption of such articles of food. That suggests the question whether ultimately the cutting down will not bring that class within the limits of being underfed. To be more explicit, people on the smaller salaries, for instance, the socalled white collar workers, the civil servant in the lower-paid grades and people of that kind for whom on more than one occasion I have tried to plead here, have during the past few years taken their full share of the burden imposed by the emergency and the postwar period. They have had increases in rent, even though controlled, but nevertheless the increases in rates are passed on to them. They have had other difficulties also, the general cost of living having gone up. It is just that particular class who find that the price of eggs, for instance, is so high as to make the adequate provision of that commodity for the family a very serious financial burden in such a household.

Then there is the question of fats. The butter ration has been the best that can be managed but it has caused the people to fall back on margarine. Now margarine is tending to increase in price also. Vegetables have increased in price. If you ask any of the wives of such people about the cost of living you will immediately hear about the price of certain vegetables, particularly at certain times. I know that that is only one aspect of a general problem but when it gets to the stage which it has reached now we should examine it from the point of view of seeing whether any relief can be given to that particular class.

A good example of what I am talking about and of the type of problem that can arise for a Minister in that connection is the question of meat. The price of meat has increased to such an extent in the city that many families now have meatless days where in former days families on a comparable income would have considered meat every day—at least for one meal —an ordinary item in the bill of living. It has had its repercussions on the butchers' trade. If you ask any butcher about the price of meat and the problem that he has at the moment in regard to procuring meat he will tell you that an increase in the price of meat itself is not the solution that he really wants. He has his own particular problem. I am not going into that.

The Minister and his colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce, will have the possibility of getting for themselves information from which they can accurately assess the claim made by the butchers as to the economics of their particular problem when considered as a business problem. But there is this about it. If you ask any butcher about the price of meat he will tell you he does not want the price of meat to go up unless it is absolutely necessary for him to make ends meet. That is not the solution he wants. It would be better for him and for his trade if he could sell at a lower price. More meat would then be consumed and his profit and living would be the better for it. I think that is more generally his attitude. If, however, he is compelled to pay a certain price for meat and if he cannot overcome that particular difficulty then, of course, in order to balance his budget he claims that he has to pass on the increase to the consumer. I do not want to go into the details of the case at that stage. The point I want to make is this. Here we have a problem where our farmers can get a good price for the meat elsewhere. That is an advantage, not only to themselves but to the whole country. Because of that particular advantageous set of circumstances, however, there is a section of the community, in the city particularly, who are now suffering to the extent of not being able to have the meat which is produced in their own country. They are sliding on to an austerity basis and now it would seem that even what meat they will get will be meat of secondrate quality. Obviously that is a problem that calls for adjustment.

As a Deputy representing a city constituency all that I am concerned with is that the Minister, as the Minister responsible for agriculture and agricultural produce, will do what he can to ensure that the poorer sections of the community in the towns and cities will have an adequate supply of the healthy foods that are produced in their own country and that the export of these foods—necessary and desirable as it is for the welfare of the country as a whole—will not take place altogether at their expense. Let us get the best price we can get abroad and let us export as much as we can. That is necessary in the interests of trade. However, it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to design a scheme whereby we can ensure that the people in the towns will get an adequate supply of meat at a price reasonable with regard to all other circumstances; that an adequate supply of fats and vegetables will be available and that in the present trend where prices tend to rise, particularly in regard to essentials, an effort will be made to prevent their rising in these particular regards if necessary by letting them rise in others. It is on that point that I feel like joining issue very definitely with the Minister's Government. I have no hesitation in saying —although it may not be popular and it may not catch the ear of the multitude, especially if the multitude can be lulled into not thinking for the moment—that there is very little justification for removing taxes on things which are not necessary and allowing the expense in regard to such necessaries as essential foods and similar things to the poorer classes to increase.

Mr. Dillon

That is exactly what we are trying to stop.

Major de Valera

I am afraid I cannot at this stage congratulate the Minister on his success. The position in regard to some parts of the city may even become serious. If, for instance, you find meatless days, a fall in the consumption of vegetables, and the tendency instead to rely on bread, I would say that that is a dangerous indication. When the Minister said that he aimed to put the agricultural workers on an equivalent basis with the industrial worker he was taken up on it. His remarks were referred to in this debate a number of times from the point of view that the agricultural worker is so much worse off than the industrial worker. That may be so in one sense but there is another side to that story. The industrial worker, and particularly the white-collared worker of whom I spoke, may have a certain amount of cash in his pocket but he has to-live under more expensive conditions and the immediate demands on that cash from week to week are very often greater. There is, however, this vital difference that the agricultural worker will normally not be at a loss for an adequate supply of balanced food.

There is a danger in the case of the town dweller, who has to rely upon purchases for his supplies, that he may go short. While sympathising with every effort the Minister may make to improve the lot of the agricultural worker and while realising the importance of such an aim, having regard to the fact that in modern times there is a tendency to drift into industry and into the town—a tendency which it is desirable at all times to check—having regard to all these facts and making due allowance for them, nevertheless I would urge upon the Minister that, so far as the white-collared workers and the poorer classes in the towns are concerned, an adequate ration of eggs, vegetables, fats and meats should be available to them at a just price. It is very little use saying vegetables are available ad libitum if the price is such that these prospective consumers cannot afford to buy them. Two things are necessary—an adequate supply and a proper price. In other words, steps must be taken to ensure that these people will be encouraged to consume the articles in question. It is not merely a matter of justice, right or principle; it is a matter of the health of the community.

Having regard to the fact that such a proportion of our population is now centred in the big cities, the health of these people is a matter of vital importance to the nation as a whole. The Minister stressed the co-operation desirable between the various Departments. I take it that the Government will ensure that the necessary co-operation exists with the Department of Health in the matter of the production and provision of adequate supplies of vegetables, fats and meats for the class to which I have referred. I trust that that will have as much attention as the securing of a suitable price.

Mr. Dillon

And, I suppose, the Deputy would include milk.

Major de Valera

I do include milk, of course. I understand that the free milk scheme has been functioning satisfactorily because I made some inquiries with regard to it. I do not think I could yet bring that within the province of the commodities which have become more difficult of supply except from the point of view of the administration which has to finance the scheme.

I come now to the question of agricultural policy generally. I do not want to go into the question of tillage as against the production of live stock. But, if information is correct, there is likely to be for a considerable time a food shortage in the world. It will be a different food shortage from that to which we have been accustomed in the past. I suppose one could always say there was a certain food shortage in the world during the last century; but that food shortage was noticeable only in particular areas in Asia and it did not make itself felt in Europe generally. We are warned now that there is likely to be a serious world shortage of food likely to affect Europe. We have only to read our papers to appreciate that the world is in a very unsettled state—as unsettled a state as it possibly could be in without actual physical rupture. Probably it is only the proximity of the last war that prevents the actual outbreak of hostilities at the moment. In that situation one has to ponder on our situation with regard to potential food resources. It is tempting to go in for cattle and to take advantage of the price offered for cattle by countries abroad. It is tempting to rely on external sources, such as America, for wheat. As against that possible easy method of getting relatively easy money we must take into account the competition for grain in the world market. We must take into account that if any breakdown occurs we shall be thrown back again on our own resources. I think every prudent man must have regard to that situation.

I am not a farmer but it seems to me that during the war we were never able to produce all the food we needed here. Even at the point of maximum production we were dependent on external supplies, which we were fortunately able to secure. The need for fertilisers, the provision of machinery and so forth for the working of the soil were then considered acute problems. The war ended before the drain was very noticeable, but we should approach the future by taking warning from the past. I want to impress upon the Minister now the urgent necessity for considering the possibility of producing the necessary fertilisers here. It is relatively simple to look at a hypothetical normal situation and to argue from that. In such a situation there may be much to be said for importing fertilisers cheaply, such as Florida rock or North African rock, and bolstering up that policy in favour of conserving one's own potentialities. But we are not dealing with that happy normal situation. We are dealing with a situation which is abnormal and which may become even more abnormal in the future. I would suggest, therefore, to the Minister the investigation of the possibility of producing an adequate supply of fertilisers here in case of emergency.

Mr. Dillon

Of phosphatic fertiliser?

Major de Valera

I shall come to that in a moment. I understand there are two separate problems involved. One is the provision of nitrate. That could only be satisfactorily solved by the provision of a nitrate generating plant. That means a big plant and a certain amount of power. I understand that the problem was examined before the war but had not progressed very far when war broke out. I cannot go into the possibility now of supplying nitrogen either as nitrate or as ammonium salt. I do not know in what form the soil requires it. Whether the direct production of either nitrate or nitrogen in the form of ammonium compounds is or is not a feasible proposition at the moment I do not know; but I do commend it to the Minister's attention. I would ask him to examine what was done in the preliminary stages in order to see whether anything could be done in the future. I would go so far as to say that even at the risk of an initial financial loss it would not be a bad idea to make provision for the production of such nitrogen bearing fertilisers as are required to bring back fertility to our soil.

On the other hand, if that is not found possible—and if I were in the Minister's position I would be tempted to go very far to try to make it possible —then it is high time that we considered the question of conserving the waste of nitrogenous compounds. When we got what we wanted from America and other countries we became very prodigal in the matter of nitrogenous waste. Hundreds of years ago that was not so. It might be worth our while, if only as a plan in reserve for an emergency, to work out some method by which the waste in nitrogen, into the sea, in sewage or in other ways, will be eliminated. I have no knowledge as to what return might be expected, or what may be the snags involved. We might use this as an insurance against future emergencies. The provision of nitrogenous fertilisers here by our own efforts should be investigated; even if it did involve some sacrifice, its possibilities should be inquired into.

Mr. Dillon

Growing clover is a very good nitrogen factor.

Major de Valera

So I understand. I do not want to be drawn into technicalities which, I frankly admit, I do not understand. I am not a farmer and I will not pretend that I know much about the problem. Coming to the question of phosphates, during the war I do not know whether any experiments were made with phosphate deposits from the point of view of manufacturing fertilisers. I had a good deal to do with the use of the ore from these deposits for the production of phosphorus for chemicals, in comparison with the African or Florida rock, which had its share of phosphate, so I think I am right in assuming that the particular rock there has the necessary content, though the deposits are severely limited.

Mr. Dillon

Did you heat it in your experiments to extract phosphates?

Major de Valera

Without making the Minister a rude answer I should say we did; we melted it.

Mr. Dillon

Three hundred and eighty degrees centigrade is an expensive process.

Major de Valera

We were extracting the element phosphorus from it.

Mr. Dillon

The same process is necessary to make the phosphate soluble.

Major de Valera

I tried to tempt the predecessor of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this matter but we did not get very far. A plant of that nature would have the dual advantage of being able to produce the phosphorus required for the match industry together with the fertiliser. In other words, there is the possibility for an industry in this country which would serve both agricultural production and the production of matches. It was the question of costs that was ultimately in the balance. Sometimes the actual price you pay per pound for your commodity may not be the only ruling factor. It may be more economic to pay a little more for the permanent advantage you have than to put yourself on the mercy of some outside sources by importing at the cheapest price.

The point with regard to phosphate fertiliser is this. Again, in the same way as the nitrogenous fertiliser, it would be a good idea to see how far the necessary provision for manufacturing it here could be met and, if not met, to provide for the provision of these things in case of emergency. In the case of this rock, if the deposits are limited and if it is felt not justifiable to exploit them but rather keep them in reserve, we should go to the stage of working them so as to have them immediately available without any time lag in turning out the rock from the particular beds where the deposits are available when they are required. What I am saying is, perhaps, directly across what other Deputies would advocate, namely, the immediate provision of cheap fertiliser for the farmer. But I am looking ahead and thinking that we should learn by the lessons of the last emergency and make adequate provision for any emergency in the future, because I think the time has not yet come when we can say we are out of the wood.

One comes back to the remark made early in the debate about technical and administrative staffs. I feel that in the Minister's Department the administrative staffs have been allowed to outweigh completely the technical advisers and the status of the technical men has not been properly adjusted vis-à-vis the administrative men, with the result that many useful schemes have been stifled at the outset. The result is that the chances, or the things that would be regarded as chances by the administrative men, which are necessary experiments in any technical development, will not be taken because the administrative mind will not permit it. That was happening not only here but in England and other countries before the war. The war has chased that Forms and returns and files are not the things that men live on and in these circumstances I would like to plead in the Minister's as well as other Departments for the adequate recognition of our engineers and technicians. They produce the results, given the opportunity.

Mr. Dillon

I assure the Deputy he is preaching to the converted.

Major de Valera

I had hopes that we might ultimately convert the Minister. We might yet get wheat grown in this country.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Deputy mentioned that he had cause to complain of my predecessors.

Major de Valera

The Deputy is not complaining of anybody at the moment and I hope the Deputy will not have more cause for complaint in the future. This question of technicians has often been referred to. It comes up, say, on the Vote for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, for the Department of Industry and Commerce and, indeed, on practically every Vote, and still nothing seems to be done about it. What happens? A crisis comes and then these people are asked to work miracles. I have personally seen what can happen when such problems arise but very often it is too late then to act. Let us be warned then by what we have learned, or what we should have learned from the past and make adequate provision for these things. In the Minister's Department it boils down to a question of the provision of such things as fertilisers, technique and machinery and adequate facilities for technical staff. On the provision of machinery, one could expand just as I have expanded on these other matters. However, in closing I have nothing more to add to this debate, but I would again urge on the Minister the urgency of the problem of the supply of the food items that I have mentioned to towns and to city dwellers in particular.

I have purposely avoided referring to two matters, but I reserve my right to deal with them on another occasion. What I have said has no relation to them whatever, namely, the question of the butchers' dispute and the trade agreement. These two things I have left aside and what I have said has been said on the basis of leaving them aside. There is a problem there for the provision of an adequate supply of these foods at a fair price for the city dweller. I commend it to the Minister's attention as a problem of extreme urgency now that the stage has come when these people are cutting down their consumption of these articles of food.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy might have spoken to Deputy Smith on that matter.

Mr. Madden

The last speaker told us he was not a farmer. I am glad to say that I have been farming for 45 years. Coming from one of the chief dairying counties, representing the interests of the agricultural community for over 20 years on an agricultural committee and having the right given me mainly by these people to sit here, I wish to interpose a few remarks exclusively in the interests of that very essential and important industry. I sat quietly here last Friday in the hope that the ex-Minister for Agriculture would give to the House a reasoned constructive criticism of the policy enunciated by the present Minister but I was very sadly disappointed. We were treated for nearly two hours to an exhibition of shadow-boxing and an outburst of vituperative invective against the Minister and the Government. In the remarks which he made to-day, his attitude was somewhat modified and somewhat more dignified. I propose to deal with a few of the points which he touched upon in the course of his speech.

I have no hesitation in saying here and now, and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so, that the condition of the dairying industry is most precarious. I was hoping that some provision would have been made to check the danger of its ultimate disappearance because of the uneconomic price that is being paid for milk. For the last 20 years the dairying industry has been barely at the subsistence level. Economic studies made in different parts of the dairying counties— West Cork, East Cork, South Limerick and mid-Limerick—show the condition under which the industry is trying to exist.

I must not be taken as wishing to introduce any element of politics. I eschew that as much as I can in public life but I have witnessed the tragedy associated with this industry for the last 20 years. First of all, we had six years of an economic war. There may have been good and sufficient national reasons for it, and I will pass from that with the statement that I have known farmers who have not been able since to rehabilitate their position or to extract themselves from the tragic consequences which it inflicted upon them. Then you had the slaughter of 500,000 calves, which created a tragic position, the evidence of which exists even to-day. The dairy farmers and their families for their work on these farms were not, and are not, able to extract therefrom the wages paid to ordinary workers on the land. In consequence, many of these dairy farms have turned to other forms of production. For the last seven or eight years every auctioneer in my county in the months of December and January has been engaged in selling off the stock of these farms. I myself, in my capacity as auctioneer, cleared 2,500 acres of land, on which the owners are now raising dry stock. They went out of milk production.

We, in the committee of agriculture, recognising the danger to that great industry and knowing that there are in the county 41 proprietary creameries operating what was formerly a skilled and prosperous industry, built up by the initiative and the money of the farmers, an industry which cost £500,000, asked these creameries to submit to us a statistical return for a number of years so that a comparison might be made as to the conditions obtaining in various farms and creameries. We got it from only 25, but one can make a relative comparison and see the diminution, the writing on the wall, as shown by the returns. The comparison, as between 1940 and 1938, was that, in respect of the 25 creameries, there was a reduction of 4,473,508 gallons and it is recognised now that the milk yield in my county over the past four or five years has gone down by nearly 20 per cent. In one of the chief, if not the most important, areas of milk production, Kilmallock, the milk supply declined from 2,670,742 gallons in 1929 to a little less than 1,500,000 in 1947 and this despite the fact that it absorbed a proprietary creamery during the past year. There is a barometer for the Minister in regard to one of the most essential industries, an industry which we are told time and again is the basis of our whole agricultural economy and the source of supply for the whole cattle industry.

In the electoral division in which this creamery is situated there are 79 holdings of between 15 and 200 acres, of which 45 are dairy or half-dairy holdings and 34 are ranch holdings, due, according to a report submitted to my committee, to the decline in the price of milk and the tendency all over the county to give up dairying and to go into dry stock production. Speaking quite honestly, I believe that, were it not for the increase given to the dairy farmers last year, the condition to-day would be catastrophic. Subsistence farming means deterioration in land productivity because there is no incentive to manure, to drain or even to improve outhouses and it has the same deleterious influence upon cattle. That is something for the Minister from whom I have heard on a few occasions that the purpose he hopes to achieve is the 600- or 800-gallon cow.

Mr. Dillon

No, sir—550 gallons for the commercial cow.

Mr. Madden

In this intensive dairying district, Kilmallock, the number of cows on test fell from 900 in 1929 to 200 or less in 1947, and, of the 500 suppliers, I have been told that only one has a premium bull. This apparent lack of interest is a reflection of the poor return and the uneconomic price being paid for milk and that was borne out by the ex-Minister to-day. Although we, on the committee of agriculture, for the past ten or 12 years, wore out our boots coming to Government Buildings to see the previous Ministers, Deputy Ryan and Deputy Smith, and to put before them the appalling danger to a great industry, we got very little help until last year when we got a price of 1/2, which stemmed the rush from dairying to other forms of agriculture. The position is worse now.

Labour which is so badly paid for the great technical, and almost scientific, work it carries out and the incidence of ever-increasing rates, which in our county show an increase of about 2/6 in the £, have made conditions worse this year for the dairy farmers of my county. What is the remedy suggested by the Minister? This is a matter of urgency, a matter which must be dealt with immediately, and he says: "We will grow more grass and keep the supply of grass a month or two longer." When may we hope to see that achieved?

Mr. Dillon

Next March.

Mr. Madden

The price of fertilisers is prohibitive for the bulk of the farmers and the quantity to be supplied negligible.

Mr. Dillon

Limitless.

Mr. Madden

The price, generally speaking, is outside the capacity of the great bulk of the farmers. I know, because I paid a big price for it last year, but I could not continue indefinitely paying that price because the economic results would not have justified my doing so. A land survey of eight square miles around Drum-collogher, a rich and fertile part of the County Limerick, carried out in 1944, showed only 40 or 50 acres of excellent grassland and it was discovered that four-fifths of the area needed lime and 50 per cent. needed drainage. The need for manures here is perfectly obvious, and, as would be expected, the data adequately show that dairying has been and is on a subsistence level and the consequent deterioration was logical. The impoverishment of the industry for so long was due absolutely to the inadequate prices being paid.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Deputy make any allowance for the increased price of calves?

Mr. Madden

Yes—the only redeeming feature. The disaster would have been intensified beyond imagination, were it not for that revolution which has been brought about, thanks to the policy enunciated by the Minister. All credit to him for that.

Mr. Dillon

It would represent about 3d. a gallon on milk.

Mr. Madden

Yes, about 3d. a gallon. Only for that there would be disaster written all over the whole place. The idea of my committee, which I respectfully submit to the House and the Minister, is that the industry should be put on a sound basis. The committee of which I am a member is a mixed grill in politics. Yet we sit there in the interests of the community and leave politics at the door. I have always tried to think of the people I serve and who have elected me and to leave the question of politics where it ought to be. It is the considered opinion of the committee, having given the matter calm consideration, having regard to the ever-increasing burden imposed by legislation upon the farming community, that the price of milk should be 1/6 a gallon in the summer months and 1/8 in the winter months.

It is our opinion that if the industry is once put on its feet those who have gone away from dairying will rush back and others who might be inclined to leave will be encouraged to remain. Some persons have come to me in the last couple of months and said they would wait another year before deciding to clear out, because the new Minister gives great hope and encouragement and a new inspiration to the agricultural community in his promise—which he will in time fulfil in the spirit and the letter—to put agriculture where it ought to be, and to put the labourer in a more happy and contented position, working in harmony with the farmer from whom he derives a living. We believe that the farmer should be put above the subsistence level. We believe that if the subsidies were reduced and money given directly to the farmer, there would be much more beneficial results and greater agricultural output than can be achieved by giving vouchers for manures, or by any other means.

About 65 per cent. of our population is rural but up to 95 per cent. of the whole community live out of agriculture. The Department of Industry and Commerce, catering for one-third of the people, receives a vote of £16,000,000 a year, which goes to benefit the urban section of the community. It includes food subsidies. Let us look at the position in regard to agriculture. The Department of Agriculture receives a Vote of £8,000,000, inclusive of butter subsidies, to cater for the two-thirds of the population that are engaged in agriculture.

I wonder if the disparity between these two allocations has been due to a lack of drive and push and demand? We saw enough drive and push and demand here this morning and on Friday evening on the part of the ex-Minister. I wonder did he exercise the same persuasion and pugilism as was displayed by him this morning, with the Minister for Finance and with the Executive Council in getting from them better terms and better consideration for the agricultural community when he was in office.

Mr. Dillon

They would choke him if he talked four hours to them.

Mr. Madden

Dairying will not be increased unless remuneration is adequate. At present it is much less attractive than dry-stock rearing. The dairying industry must be fostered now because improved freezing technique that is at present being introduced may seriously jeopardise the store-cattle trade in a few years hence. Revitalising of the industry now with an eye on further outlet for milk and milk products is sound national policy in view of the chaotic economic position of the world.

We have evidence of the depression in the dairying industry in grass lettings. We who are in the auctioneering business and who move among the farming people appreciate that there has been a sad depression in grass values due to the uneconomic price and the hardship involved in trying to make ends meet. Dairy farming involves a high cost of capital outlay and a high cost of replacement. It involves a great deal of labour. Therefore, there should be very preferential treatment for dairy farmers. They must get it and I trust the Minister will seriously consider fixing guaranteed remunerative prices so that the dairying industry, which is at present in a perilous position, may be made economic and secure.

Mr. Lemass

I have read with some care the speech which the Minister for Agriculture made on Friday in introducing his Estimate. I think the Minister will be honest enough to admit that a large part of that speech consisted of what our American cousins call "ballyhoo". My purpose in reading it was to sift from the masses of "ballyhoo" whatever of substance there may have been in it.

Mr. Dillon

I thought it was very factual.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister should read it again. I found the residue of substance very small. That leaves me in this position that I have to ask the Minister a number of questions relating to matters in which I am interested, matters concerning which I think the public should be told a great deal more than the Minister chose to tell them. The Minister invited the Dáil to ask questions and undertook to answer them. I am always happy to respond to an invitation of that kind.

When the Minister was in opposition, he relied to a very great extent in securing effect in debate upon elaborate exaggeration. That had its merits as a tactic for an Opposition Deputy but it becomes a source of danger when the same tactic is used by a Minister who, however he got there, is for the time being the spokesman of the country. A Minister introducing his Estimate in the House should avoid exaggeration but, particularly, a Minister speaking outside the House or speaking outside the country should be careful not to make statements which can be shown to be inaccurate or statements which may give to our people or people elsewhere a very false idea of the agricultural resources or potentialities of this country. I think the Minister has discovered already that when he spoke in England about filling Englishmen with beef or flooding them with eggs, he did damage. In his speech on Friday, he had to endeavour to correct whatever misapprehension was caused by his reference to flooding the English market with eggs, a statement which produced a very immediate reaction among the egg producers of Great Britain.

Mr. Dillon

A salutary and desirable reaction.

Mr. Keane

Had the Deputy a plan, I wonder? I remember a time when Deputy Lemass had a plan.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should wait for his chance—and even then he will not be let go back to 1925.

Mr. Keane

I did not intend to refer to that at all.

Mr. Lemass

I am in favour of setting targets, but they must be reasonable ones. There is no possibility of achieving in our life-time, by an increase in agricultural output here, the position of extraordinary significance in the English market which the Minister suggested. It is well that we should get the facts right. As set out in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Agricultural Policy, they show that, of the meat imported into England before the war, meat of all kinds and from all sources, the total supply from this country constituted 15 per cent.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Deputy trying to dissuade the British from signing the trade agreement?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Dillon

If he is, he might as well say so in the open. He has done enough damage already.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is not going to intimidate me. I know what damage I can do and what damage I cannot do. I am not going to do any damage to the interests of the country, but I have already warned a colleague of the Minister not to mix up the interests of the country with the interests of his Government. The British know these facts. I know that every speech which the Minister has made on agricultural policy is based upon a report prepared by two agricultural experts who came over here last year at the instance of the British Government.

Mr. Dillon

I have never read any such report.

Mr. Lemass

In that case, the coincidence is extraordinary. I take the Minister's word for it. There is no use trying to cod yourself into the idea that you can fool the British civil servant as to the facts of our agricultural production or its potentialities. They know as well as we do what we succeeded in supplying to Great Britain before the war, what we are supplying now and what we can conceivably supply in the next 20 years. They know that, of the total supply of meat imported into Great Britain, exclusive of British production, our pre-war proportion was 15 per cent.

Mr. Dillon

All they know is that they have signed the agreement.

Mr. Lemass

Of the eggs imported into Great Britain—and British egg requirements were met as to 50 per cent. by British egg producers—our supplies constituted 8 per cent.

Mr. Dillon

In what year?

Mr. Lemass

In the year 1934, which was taken as a typical pre-war year by this committee.

Mr. Keane

The British market was not open at that time.

Mr. Lemass

Our milk products represented 3 per cent. of their total imports. I am not going to disagree with the Minister that it is possible to increase our production and our exports substantially. I think we can, though I do not think it will be easy to do it. The remarkable fact about Irish agricultural statistics is the stability of the volume of agricultural production over a long period of years. In war and peace, in booms and slumps, the output never varied by much more than 5 per cent. We may be able now, in the rather abnormal circumstances existing in the world at present and likely to exist for some considerable time to come, given certain conditions and facilities, be able to increase production; but it is not going to be easy to get anything like the 25 per cent. increase to which the Minister refers. I do not think it is quite good enough for a Minister for Agriculture, introducing his Estimate, to talk about a 25 per cent. increase in the volume of production, without going further and indicating precisely what he thinks is possible in each branch of agricultural production, precisely what is required to secure it, and what he proposes to do about it.

Mr. Dillon

In fact, a Fianna Fáil plan, which would be forgotten as soon as it was put on the wall.

Mr. Lemass

The Fianna Fáil plan regarding agricultural production was published in the form of a report to the Committee on European Economic Co-operation last year. It set out for each of the next four years the volume of production which we believed we could achieve under various heads, on certain assumptions. We accompanied that production programme with a statement of our requirements of feeding stuffs, fertilisers and machinery. The American experts who revised the production programme of all the countries participating in that conference, wrote down our target figure under various headings by varying percentages on the basis that we had overestimated the likelihood of obtaining the supplies we required, particularly feeding stuffs. Nevertheless, the figures published are an indication of what we thought was possible and I would like the Minister to say, when replying, whether he has any observations to make on them. Does he think that these production figures represent a reasonable target to set our agriculturists? Does he think that we have set it too high in any particular respect, or does he think he can improve on them in other respects?

Mr. Dillon

The report has shown the havoc that Party has brought upon the country.

Mr. Lemass

If the Minister wants to take it that way, he can. I am trying to talk reasonably. The last Deputy who spoke asked for constructive criticism and I am giving it.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not true that the American report implied that?

Mr. Lemass

No. The Minister talked about the decline in the number of live stock during the war. He admits that to increase the number of live stock we must get fertilisers and feeding stuffs from abroad. Does he think it was possible to maintain or increase the number of live stock when we could not get feeding stuffs and fertilisers? He said that the number of cattle under one year was lower than in any previous period in our history. That is not true.

Mr. Dillon

It is.

Mr. Lemass

If the Minister would turn to page 18 of the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy, he will find set out there the number of cattle under one year old for the whole period back to 1854.

Mr. Dillon

I have it back only to 1924.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister did not go back far enough.

Mr. Dillon

It is far enough, indeed.

Mr. Lemass

It was the Minister who said that it was the lowest in our history. It is the Minister's old method of talking in an exaggerated fashion in order to get over his point. It was all right when he was over on these benches, but when he is over there it is nationally dangerous.

Mr. Dillon

I have not the statistics as to how many cattle were here when Brian Boru was killed in Clontarf.

Mr. Keane

Or in the year that Deputy Lemass made his plan.

Mr. Lemass

I find it hard to know which interrupter is the more intelligent. I think I would give Deputy Keane the prize. It is quite true that during the war the volume of production of live stock and live-stock products fell.

Mr. Dillon

That is quite untrue. It went up rather than down.

Mr. Lemass

The volume of production fell.

Mr. Dillon

Not of live stock.

Mr. Lemass

Of live stock and of live-stock products. It happened everywhere. A very large part of the abnormal demand for live stock on the Continent at the present time is due to the fact that the depletion of herds there was, of course, far more drastic than here. Here, the decline in production was due to two causes.

Mr. Dillon

The numbers went up during the war.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think the Minister was once interrupted when speaking.

Mr. Lemass

The decline in production was due to two causes—the difficulty in obtaining feeding stuffs and fertilisers and the reactions of the compulsory tillage policy which was necessary during the war period.

Mr. Dillon

The numbers actually went up.

Mr. Lemass

It was estimated last year, when the report was being prepared for the Committee on European Economic Co-operation, that between 1948 and 1951 we could hope to increase meat production by approximately 22 per cent., dairy produce production— that is milk and cheese—by approximately 60 per cent., and egg production by very nearly 100 per cent.—by 96 per cent. It was thought also that, during that period, assuming that supplies of feeding stuffs and fertilisers were available in adequate quantities, that pig production could be doubled, that sheep numbers could be increased by 25 per cent. and poultry numbers by approximately 37 per cent. Assuming that increase in output here, it was estimated that our exports of live animals could be expanded by 75 per cent., that the export of eggs could be increased by 50 per cent., but it was not thought likely that we would in that period reach the stage in which we would have any significant production for export of dairy products or pig products.

If we can get here some agreement that that is a reasonable programme, then I think we will have taken one step forward towards securing an agricultural policy which can be termed not the policy of a single Party but a national policy. It is, I think, generally agreed that we must aim at getting very considerable expansion in agricultural output, and it is quite obvious from the trade figures that we must secure a very considerable expansion in agricultural exports. Provided we can get agreement as to the targets to be aimed at, and as to the practicability of achieving those targets, then we can confine our discussions and debates here upon ways and means. It is mainly on ways and means that I want to talk.

I am not going to discuss the technical matters to which Deputies more familiar with agricultural problems than I am have referred, but there are a number of matters which arise in this connection and to which the Minister referred in this debate upon which I have, if not a claim to speak with authority, at least sufficient knowledge to prompt questions and sufficient knowledge to arouse the curiosity which I am anxious to satisfy. In order to get an increase in agricultural production we must get more fertilisers, more feeding stuffs and more machinery and it is under each of these three headings that I want to make some observations.

The Minister told me to-day, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that we have been allocated certain quantities of nitrogenous fertilisers for the 12-month period to the 1st July, 1949— 28,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia and 8,000 tons of nitrate of soda. For some reason which I do not quite understand, the Minister, when referring to nitrogenous fertilisers in the course of his speech introducing the Estimate, accompanied it by a typical Dillonesque attack on the International Emergency Food Council. I have nothing to say in defence of that organisation. Anything I had to say about it in the past I said it in the Dáil. I do not think it was always fair to this country in its allocations or was always competent in its handling of the problems which had been entrusted to it. I cannot quite understand why the Minister should choose the particular subject of nitrogenous fertilisers on which to launch his attack because it has now allocated to this country a supply which is not short of our pre-war usage of nitrogenous fertilisers. It is the first year that it has done so, and I want to give the Minister a certain background of knowledge as to why it has done so.

Mr. Dillon

I hope you are not going to argue that it is giving us too much, because it is not giving us nearly enough.

Mr. Lemass

On the contrary, as the Minister well knows, in pre-war years the use of nitrogenous fertilisers in this country was very low. The committee to which I have referred reported that in the average pre-war years we used here about 8½ lbs. of nitrogenous fertilisers per acre of arable land while, for comparison purposes, in Belgium they used 48 lbs., and in Holland 73 lbs. It may be that conditions in Holland and Belgium required a larger use of nitrogenous fertilisers than would be wise here. It is quite clear, however, from the statistics that we could increase with advantage the use of nitrogenous fertilisers.

Mr. Dillon

We are pressing hard to get them.

Mr. Lemass

During the war years it took a considerable effort to get from the International Emergency Food Council any nitrogenous fertilisers at all. We did get a small allocation of 3,000 to 4,000 tons and, when we got it, Imperial Chemicals refused to supply it. I am not at all sure that the attitude of the International Emergency Food Council, in the matter of the allocation of nitrogenous fertilisers, was not inspired or influenced in some degree by Imperial Chemicals.

Mr. Dillon

I deeply deplore this.

Mr. Lemass

I am leading up to some remarks that were made a short time ago by Deputy Vivion de Valera as to the possibility or desirability of manufacturing nitrogenous fertilisers in this country. Last year, when we discussed this matter of the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers, Deputy Dillon was not very enthusiastic about the project, to put it at its lowest. Notwithstanding that, when I came to the Dáil and announced that we were setting up an organisation which would have the responsibility of preparing plans for the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia in this country, the whole atmosphere changed, and we got, for the first time, a reasonable allocation from the International Emergency Food Council and on the heels of that we had a delegation from Great Britain to assure us that whatever the International Emergency Food Council would allocate they would supply. My experience during the war years had been that it is foolish to leave ourselves in the position that, for this essential requirement in agricultural production, we should be dependent on one monopoly supplier.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense. Did the Deputy never hear of Chile?

Mr. Lemass

And to Chile we had to go for the 3,000 or 4,000 tons of nitrogenous fertilisers that had been allocated to us by the International Emergency Food Council. There was over-usage of nitrogenous fertilisers on British land during the war. Many agricultural experts who have written reviews said that there was not merely a surplus but that there was actually damage done to the land by using too much. This is an industry that can be established here, but it would take considerable time as it would require not merely an elaborate plant but a large supply of electricity which we could not undertake to make available now. We had planned to establish such an industry before the war but the outbreak of the war made the implementation of those plans impossible.

Mr. Dillon

That was due to Dr. Ryan and it was the only prudent thing he did during his term of office.

Mr. Lemass

I will not be drawn on that red herring. We have all the essential raw materials and once established the industry could be completely independent of all outside supplies. The basic material is gypsum and we have in this country probably the most valuable deposits of gypsum in Europe. The fuel is turf. With turf, gypsum, electricity, a plant and the know-how, we could manufacture nitrogenous fertilisers, at a price which would be determined by our own conditions. It is quite true that before the war there were people who argued against the wisdom of manufacturing sulphate of ammonia because it would cost £6 10s. per ton to produce while it could be imported at £6 per ton. We, in this country, got supplies of that by monopoly and when it was learned that we were contemplating the establishment of the industry we got a cut price and got it at a lower price than in Britain.

Mr. Dillon

There is no shadow of truth in that. The Deputy must have a short memory.

Mr. Lemass

There was an interdepartmental committee which went into the whole matter and a report of that committee is available. Instead of bandying words across the House the Minister would do better in reading that report, contacting the people who were on that committee and approaching those who considered the practicability of establishing an industry.

Mr. Dillon

I know the details of the whole matter, and there is no scintilla of truth in what you say.

Mr. Lemass

I put my word against yours. With regard to the establishment of the industry before the war, we had got to the stage of contracting with the Skoda works at Prague.

Mr. Dillon

By the mercy of God it was not established.

Mr. Lemass

We would have had nitrogenous fertilisers at a price far less——

Mr. Dillon

When you had not enough electricity to run the trams.

Mr. Keane

On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Keane

During the war nitrogenous fertilisers cost £25 here.

Mr. Lemass

They did, of course, and any we got were smuggled across the Border. If the Deputy wants to know the names of the people who smuggled them, some of the names were published, and they were not Fianna Fáil either.

Mr. Keane

I do not want to know the names of the people who smuggled them.

An Ceann Comhairle

I assume that the Deputy wants to hear more of the debate.

Mr. Lemass

On many occasions the Minister has said things in this House that I disagreed with. Often when he was orating here on these benches when I was Minister he may not have known from my countenance that I did not disagree with his forcibly-expressed views on our superphosphate ring. I do not think they are very competent, but I want the Minister not to allow any prejudice that may be in his mind against those who manufacture superphosphate in this country to induce him to take any course of action which would be detrimental to the development of the industry or to the employment of the workers engaged in it. I have often had in mind the desirability of making other arrangements for the direction of that industry here. I think that we can manufacture superphosphates in this country just as competently as anywhere else. We have not at the moment the enterprising and efficient organisation to do it, but we have a very large part of it and a very small change in the direction of the industry would give us all we require. Phosphate rock was decontrolled by the International Emergency Food Council a long time ago and we can now obtain unrestricted quantities, subject, of course, to currency difficulties. The Minister said that he had got authority from the Government to bring in all the superphosphates we can get. I have no objection to supplementing the output of the existing factories by the importation of some from abroad, as our pre-war usage was substantially less than what experts would have regarded as desirable. Our utilisation of superphosphates per acre was, roughly, half of what it was in such countries as Belgium or Holland.

Again I urge upon the Minister the desirability of keeping the industry going and not to allow his enthusiasm for the importation of superphosphates to prejudice the maintenance of our industry here or the employment of its workers. If there are—and I know there are—unsatisfactory features in the management of the industry, then eradicate them. I would not oppose any measures introduced by the Government to that end, but I would strongly advise it not to allow the industry to be adversely affected by imports or to rely too much on the possibility of getting supplies from elsewhere. Britain's manufacturing capacity is not adequate for Britain's own requirements. During the war when we could not import all the rock that our own factories could have used we had an arrangement with Britain whereby our factories manufactured superphosphates for them from rock which they supplied. We kept some for our own use while some went back to them, but we could not rely upon supplies of superphosphate from Great Britain and we would be very foolish to allow our capacity to manufacture it to be jeopardised.

Mr. Dillon

If the Deputy will allow me, I can assure him that nothing will be done in that direction which will interfere with the employment of a single operative.

Mr. Lemass

I am very glad to hear that. I do not know what arrangements the Minister is making this year with regard to potash. I think it is still subject to the International Emergency Food Council allocation, but that may not be correct because some change was introduced this year. Up to last year in any event it was subject to the International Emergency Food Council allocation and at one time the International Emergency Food Council had the brilliant idea of allocating to us some quantity of potash on condition that we got it from the Russian Zone of Germany. We could not manage it, however, there, and we did not get it, but last year we made an arrangement with Spain and in the trade agreement with Spain there was an arrangement whereby we could import potash from them. Even then, however, the Spanish arrangement with regard to potash was unsatisfactory as the Spanish manufacturers desired to supply the market in this country only through British merchants. We conveyed our dissatisfaction to the Spanish Government and to the organisation that produces potash, but although we would prefer to have our supplies of potash imported direct, because of trade arrangements or for some other reasons the sales were, up to the present time, credited to their agents in London. In any future arrangement in that regard we should establish the position that we in this country should buy potash, as everything else, on our own behalf.

Mr. Dillon

I would remind the Deputy that the Spanish cartels are very powerful.

Mr. Lemass

There are at present circumstances with regard to Spain in particular that should make it possible to establish a new practice.

Mr. Dillon

If so, we will exploit them.

Mr. Lemass

I am not quite clear about the Minister's references to ground limestone. The Minister talked about limestone plants being established by private enterprise. It is true that we had contemplated establishing a State company to erect these plants in a number of districts. The reason that we had considered the idea of a State company, or, alternatively, an arrangement with a single organisation in which there might be private interests, for the manufacture of ground limestone was because we were advised that the soil conditions of this country required that it should be utilised in enormous quantities every year and that it would not be possible to get farmers to use it in the desired quantities unless the price of it was substantially subsidised. I may say that the views which were conveyed to me as Minister for Industry and Commerce by the Department of Agriculture were, first, that the quantity they wished to have used every year varied between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 tons, and, secondly, that they could not see that quantity being purchased and used by farmers unless there was a very considerable subsidy. The subsidy at one time they thought might run as high as £1 per ton.

The Committee on Post-War Agricultural Policy also recommended that ground limestone should be made available and that the price should be subsidised to the extent of 33? per cent. by the Exchequer. I gather, however, that the Minister is contemplating its production by private firms, with its sale unsubsidised, and at a price which will leave a profit to these firms. While that course has the merit of avoiding certain difficulties, I think it is not likely to result in the utilisation of ground limestone to the extent to which I understand it is required.

Mr. Dillon

It should be ground limestone at the pit at about 15/- per ton.

Mr. Lemass

That is what was roughly estimated for the cost of production.

Mr. Dillon

How could you subsidise that to the extent of £1?

Mr. Lemass

Ground limestone at the mill at 15/- per ton we were assured could hardly be sold for less than 30/-. The big cost was the cost of transportation and distribution. It was thought impracticable to pack it in any type of container and, therefore, the plans contemplated its transportation in specially constructed lorries which would be equipped with apparatus to spray it upon the soil.

With regard to the supply of feeding stuffs upon which the whole programme for increasing poultry, eggs, pigs and, probably, milk production depends, I am anxious that the Minister should tell us whether the allocation of 70,000 tons of maize for animal feeding by the International Emergency Food Council for the present quarter is an indication of the quantity we are likely to get for the whole 12-months period. Will we get 70,000 tons per quarter? Is there any reason to think we can get that quantity, or is it possible that the allocation will be increased in the following quarters? This is, of course, the first year that the International Emergency Food Council have allocated maize for animal feeding. Last year at the Paris Conference which Deputy Smith and I attended, we fought very hard for a departure from what had hitherto been the unshakable rule of the International Emergency Food Council in regard to the allocation of maize for animal feeding. We succeeded in getting resolutions adopted which opened the way to the allocation of maize for animal feeding. As the Minister knows, however, the cereal harvest all over the world last year proved to be even much worse than was contemplated when the Paris Conference was called and, consequently, all cereals were held to be required for human food and allocation for animal feeding was not authorised. We succeeded, however, in getting a substantial quantity of maize which was unfit for human food and this is now being distributed. Last year we were able to allocate, roughly, 20,000 tons per month. The present allocation is 16,000 tons per month. On the basis of an allocation of 70,000 tons in three months some increase is possible.

Mr. Dillon

Provided we are able to get it.

Mr. Lemass

Assuming we can get it, an increase is possible, not enough I think to effect any significant increase in the output of agricultural products depending on that supply in the immediate future. Some increase will be practicable, but the total quantity we would require in order to realise the production programme which we conveyed to the Committee for European Economic Co-operation last year would be very much more than the present allocation.

Mr. Dillon

Half a million tons.

Mr. Lemass

About 500,000 tons. I was going to ask the Minister where he thought he could get supplies. It is true that, with the change in the attitude of the International Emergency Food Council as to the allocation of maize for animal feeding, there is some prospect of obtaining supplies in the United States. Last year that was impossible, because, however rigid the International Emergency Food Council were in the matter of allocating maize for animal feeding, the United States Department of Agriculture were even more rigid. It may be, with the good harvest reported and the changed attitude of the International Emergency Food Council, we may be able to get maize there. On the assumption that we cannot get it there, I take it that it will be necessary to get it in the Argentine.

Mr. Dillon

There is a small surplus in South Africa.

Mr. Lemass

That is true, but I think South African maize was always regarded as unsuitable here. Its keeping qualities were regarded as being such as to make it unsuitable.

Mr. Dillon

South African maize is grand.

Mr. Lemass

My difficulty in understanding the present position is this. I assume that the purchase of maize in the Argentine will have mainly to be financed by European Recovery Programme dollars.

Mr. Dillon

There again, we do not know. They did take sterling.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, they took sterling last year. I saw various announcements by the Argentine Government to the effect that they are prepared to relax the currency restrictions to some extent. I have not been able to read into them any intimation that they were prepared to sell maize for dollars. On the other hand, the European Recovery Administrator last week announced that he would not allow European Recovery Programme dollars to be used for purchases in the Argentine until the Argentine Government reduced the price to world level.

Mr. Dillon

We would not want to buy until they reduced the price.

Mr. Lemass

If the United States can force down the Argentine price level, we will be beneficially affected. But if a conflict should develop between the United States and the Argentine on this matter, it might be difficult for us to obtain a supply of maize for dollars and, presumably, some effort will have to be made to procure supplies for sterling or to search for alternative sources of supply. The position is a bit obscure, and, as plans made by farmers for increasing production where regular supplies of maize are involved depend upon some assurance of regularity, it would be desirable for the Minister to endeavour to clear up the position and issue some authoritative statement.

Mr. Dillon

I am hoping to do that at an early date.

Mr. Lemass

There is another matter in regard to which I am anxious to get some information. The present retail price of maize in the greater part of the country is 28/8 a cwt.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not scandalous?

Mr. Lemass

I think that price is dangerously near the price of wheat, with the result that there will be considerable inducement to farmers to feed their wheat to their animals instead of maize. I wish to bring the Minister's attention to the fact that last year, at the Paris Conference to which I have referred, we entered into an agreement—to which all the other nations represented at it concurred—so to regulate the price of wheat that there would not be any financial inducement to farmers to feed wheat to animals instead of maize. That situation developed in France last year in a fantastic manner. While we were, in fact, attending that conference the position there was that the French farmers were feeding their wheat to their pigs and poultry and were eating the maize themselves. The only bread procurable there was the hard yellow maize bread, which was practically inedible. As a result of pressure from the conference the French Government changed its policy and doubled the price which it was offering to buy wheat. It set out generally to rectify the position so that maize would be fed to animals instead of wheat. We are reaching the situation here where— because of the drive for increased production, and the prices offered for eggs, poultry and pigs and the high prices prevailing for maize—there is an inducement to feed wheat. That danger was always there. In order to check it during the war years we made various regulations.

It was made illegal for a farmer to feed wheat to animals. That regulation was made more as an indication of national policy to farmers than as an instrument that could be effectively enforced. In addition to that regulation, grain millers were prohibited from grinding or crushing wheat intended for animal feeding. That regulation was most drastically enforced. The present Minister and other Deputies will remember the many debates we had in this House concerning the withdrawal of licences from such millers for allowing their equipment to be used for the crushing of wheat for animal feeding. I want to know if these regulations are still in force.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, and because of the international situation they will be rigidly enforced.

Mr. Lemass

I am very glad to get that assurance. The situation is that there is a considerable danger that the proportion of the native wheat harvest which may go to the flour millers will this year be smaller than usual. It was always fairly small. We always had difficulty in reconciling the known acreage of wheat and the recorded average yield of wheat and the actual quantity delivered for milling.

Next to fertilisers and feeding stuffs we require machinery. The Committee for European Economic Co-operation estimated our requirements of agricultural machinery at about £2,000,000 worth a year. They did not attempt to tabulate our requirements in volume, but they said that, approximately, £2,000,000 worth of agricultural machinery yearly would be required, of which it was estimated that one-eighth would come from the United States and the balance from the United Kingdom. I do not want to discuss the trade agreement but I am anxious to know if the Minister, when entering into the negotiations for that agreement, considered that it was desirable to have included in it some obligation upon the British authorities to supply agricultural machinery or the necessary materials for the manufacture of certain types of agricultural machinery here. I think it was unwise, to put it mildly, when entering into a four-year agreement relating to agricultural products, to undertake to supply our agricultural exports to Great Britain at stated prices without getting from the British some assurance that they would do what was in their power to enable us to expand output—particularly in the matter of supplying machinery which we know they are producing and selling elsewhere.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Deputy will find pretty comprehensive undertakings of that type.

Mr. Lemass

In the agreement?

Mr. Dillon

I cannot remember now if they are actually incorporated in it but I am prepared to stake my reputation——

Mr. Lemass

My experience in dealing with these gentlemen is that it is better to have everything in black and white. Take for instance what happened in relation to Article I of the 1938 Agreement. They can get out of things on legal grounds when it suits them.

Mr. Dillon

That is where the Deputy makes the mistake. There are some people——

Mr. Lemass

I did not make the mistake.

Mr. Dillon

——whose word is better than their bond.

Mr. Lemass

Another matter which I wish to touch upon is the wheat position. Can the Minister give us some assurance that the present flour and bread ration will be continued for the next cereal year? I appreciate that the Minister may have some difficulty in giving that assurance but has there been an allocation of wheat by the European Food Council this year?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

What quantity?

Mr. Dillon

I gave that information to the Deputy a couple of days ago.

Mr. Lemass

I think not.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy may rest assured that the allocation was made.

Mr. Lemass

Will it be sufficient to maintain the present bread ration?

Mr. Dillon

My recollection is that for the first quarter, at any rate, there was an allocation of wheat made to us which, taken with our own prospective domestic crop, would leave us quite safe to April at least. We do not anticipate any difficulty whatever in getting appropriate allocations to cover the remainder of the cereal year —subject again, always, to this business of currency.

Mr. Lemass

I am glad to hear that. The difficult period has always been April to September. That is the thin period and it has always been so. There were periods during the war when we had less than a week's supply. One year we kept up the ration by borrowing a week's supply of wheat from the British.

Mr. Dillon

We plan to maintain 50,000 tons.

Mr. Lemass

I appreciate fully that circumstances may always arise which may make it impossible to procure all the wheat we may need. I estimate that on the basis of figures given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce we will come into the next cereal year with practically no stocks at all. I am assuming that the people of this country are eating as much bread as they did when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce. Our bread consumption increased very considerably during the war period as compared with pre-war consumption, and we require roughly about 10,000 tons per week to maintain the present ration. Allowing for minimum stocks without which distribution is impossible we would need in the course of a year approximately 550,000 tons of wheat. Perhaps the Minister would tell us what he estimates the Irish harvest this year is likely to be.

Mr. Dillon

About 200,000 tons, but that is a very rough estimate based on acreage and, after this month of July, God knows what we will have. The sun has not come out this month at all.

Mr. Lemass

I understand that fully. In that regard I should like to know what the attitude of the Minister is to the situation which has resulted from the decision of the British Government not to proceed with this international wheat agreement, as I had the temerity to forecast that the United States Senate would not ratify the agreement. Following their delay in ratifying it Great Britain has withdrawn from it so the agreement can now be regarded as dead. It is, however, not impossible that the price of wheat may fall to within the limits contemplated by that agreement. On the other hand, the absence of the agreement deprives us of the assurance of supply which the agreement appeared to give. We could get an allocation of wheat from the International Food Council but, having got the allocation, we have then to get the wheat. That has not always been easy particularly when some sources are not open to us. We cannot buy wheat in Canada because the British Government has bought the whole Canadian crop. We are not always in a position to buy wheat in the Argentine; and, in the case of Australia, while last year they had a very large crop and allocated a considerable quantity to us, there were very real difficulties of transport. They had their own transport difficulties in taking the wheat to their ports and we had considerable difficulty in arranging the shipment of that wheat so that it would arrive here in time to fill the ration during the cereal year.

Mr. Dillon

And its condition was very bad.

Mr. Lemass

I understand that some effort will now be made to bring together another conference with a view to the development of a new wheat agreement. I think we have everything to gain by the conclusion of an agreement of that kind. I know that others may argue that our position in this matter is the same as the British and that, if the British are backing out of the agreement, it is because they think that the price of wheat is going to fall and an agreement would be an undesirable commitment to enter into. Last year they were wrong in that regard. I think they are wrong again now. I think we, who contemplate a reduction in our wheat acreage, can enter into a commitment of that kind more easily and with far more gain by it than other countries whose wheat acreage may be increased.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy may assume that, if the United States revive it, we shall adhere to it.

Mr. Lemass

They are at the other side of the fence. They are the sellers. We are the buyers and our interests and those of the United States will not coincide.

Mr. Dillon

There is no use our joining, willing to buy, if the fellows who are willing to sell will not join.

Mr. Lemass

There is a problem there which the Government will have to face. It is a problem directly related to their own policy. I am talking now of the Government's policy. The Minister has no wheat policy.

Mr. Dillon

What is the problem if the United States comes in?

Mr. Lemass

The problem is that the world's population has gone up by 100,000,000 and there is not enough wheat.

Mr. Dillon

Malthus is dead.

Mr. Lemass

It is necessary for us to have wheat imports during the next four or five critical years, because we are not going to grow wheat ourselves and we do not know what we can buy abroad. We were alone in Europe in not having bread rationing during the whole war.

Mr. Dillon

What about Great Britain?

Mr. Lemass

They had bread rationing long before we had.

Mr. Dillon

Are you rambling?

Mr. Lemass

I am not rambling—not at all.

Mr. Dillon

It was brought in there after Mr. Winston Churchill's defeat.

Mr. Lemass

We brought it in here after this International Emergency Food Council, of which the Minister is so fond——

Mr. Dillon

You brought it in here because you could not let the flour flow across the Border; and you were perfectly right to bring it in.

Mr. Lemass

We can relate it to a production programme here to tide us over our wheat position during the next critical four or five years; whereas, if we have uncertainty as to our own policy and uncertainty as to external supplies, we may be in a difficulty. There may not be enough wheat to feed all the people but there is certainly enough for those who are willing to pay for it. We may be in the fortunate position of being able to pay and, if these international controls are withdrawn, we may be able to get supplies which other people will be unable to obtain.

Mr. Dillon

Malthus is dead.

Mr. Lemass

I want now to say a few words about the butchers. I want to say a few words in favour of them. As Minister for Industry and Commerce, I had to take a tough line with the butchers on occasions. Last year we felt that all the circumstances necessitated the introduction of this price control arrangement. That system of price control was inaugurated in the third quarter of 1947 at a time when the average price of cattle in the Dublin market was 85/6. Immediately after the controls were inaugurated I met the Dublin butchers and the association representative of the butchers all over the country. I listened to their case. I told them that so far as mutton was concerned I had fixed a price and that price was not going to be altered upward; there was nobody bidding for sheep in the market, except themselves; nothing was pushing up the price in the market except the competition between themselves.

Mr. Dillon

And Deputy Smith.

Mr. Lemass

They could make the price effective if they chose to do it. They accepted that and I think they eventually succeeded in making that position right for them. I could not say that to them, however, as far as beef was concerned because there were other competitors in the market besides themselves and the market price of cattle could not be controlled by them. The price might be influenced by them, but it could not be controlled by them. I gave them, therefore, this assurance; I told them that the price of beef would within limits be related to the price of prime cattle on the Dublin market.

We had some argument as to whether or not that would allow them a reasonable margin of profit. I thought it did. They thought it did not. We left it at that. Subsequently I met the representatives of the Cork butchers who sought to convince me that they had a case for the same price as the Dublin butchers. I thought they made a fairly good case but I never got the opportunity of going into it in detail. I also felt that perhaps some of the butchers in the provinces had a grievance in so far as the prices I fixed were related to a certain method of cutting the carcass which was not common to the country butchers. They might, therefore, have a case for a different price schedule related to their own particular practice. But, generally speaking, the maximum prices were fixed for mutton and beef. The butchers understood that no matter what happened in the market mutton would not go up and the price of beef would within certain limits be related to the price of prime cattle on the Dublin market. At the time I fixed the price of beef the Dublin market price was 85/6. Subsequently that price rose in the first quarter of the year to 90/3.

Mr. Dillon

May I interrupt on a point of order, which may present some difficulty? I abided by the Deputy's desire to deal with this matter but the fact is, as he well knows, that the control of the price of beef is a matter within the dominion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I am not responsible.

Mr. Lemass

Certainly, and I am not at the moment offering any criticism of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I am merely raising this——

Mr. Dillon

So that I shall not be able to answer.

Mr. Lemass

No. The facts I am giving now are those that were supplied to me by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in reply to a Parliamentary Question. I merely want to state them.

Mr. Dillon

But stating the facts can constitute a most eloquent argument, if the facts are stated in the right way. Now, if the Deputy is going to state facts as he knows them and sees them, then I am going to state the facts with equal emphasis and equal detail when I come to conclude the debate. Fair is fair.

Mr. Lemass

I will promise not to enter on any ground that is properly the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I am dealing with the statement made here by the Minister last week on this Estimate. I will state the facts so simply that the Minister will not be able to find an argument in them.

Mr. Dillon

This is a plain statement that has no argument in it.

Mr. Lemass

I fixed the price of beef when the market price of cattle was 85/6. When the price rose to 90/3 my successor, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, increased the maximum price of beef by slightly more than 1d. per lb. on the average.

Mr. Davin

They said you had promised that.

Mr. Lemass

I am not denying it. I promised that the price of beef would be related to the market price and I could not see any other equitable basis upon which control could be operated. At this stage I cannot remember all the basis of calculation by which this price was determined. I am merely stating the fact and, in fulfilment of my promise, I am trying to make the statement as simple as possible. In any case the market price went up from 85/6 to 90/3. The average controlled price of beef rose by slightly over 1d. per lb, and is now 1/10½ per lb. As I understand it, the Minister for Industry and Commerce told the butchers that he was not going to increase the price of beef beyond that figure and that if they wanted to sell beef at that price at a profit they would have to buy the cattle at lower than the present price. The present market price is higher than it was in the first quarter of the year. I have not got the figure.

Mr. Davin

What was the average price for two months?

Mr. Lemass

The average price at which beef is allowed to be sold by a butcher in his shop is 1/10½.

Mr. Davin

What is the average price paid by them in the market?

Mr. Lemass

That is based upon the average market price for the first quarter of the year. The average price of cattle for the second quarter is higher, but the price of the beef was not raised.

Mr. Dillon

What do the butchers pay on the average in the market?

Mr. Lemass

I am assuming that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce said the average price was 90/3 he meant that was the price on the average which the butchers paid.

Mr. Dillon

That was a very large assumption.

Mr. Lemass

I do not quite gather what we are arguing about.

Mr. Davin

You know the figures.

Mr. Lemass

The Dublin butcher is required by Order made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to sell his beef retail over the counter at 1/10½ average price. He claims that because of the increase in cattle prices in the market he cannot sell it at that price at a profit. The Minister for Industry and Commerce says: "I am not going to allow an increase in price. If you want to continue in business you must buy at a lower price or lose on the transaction." The Minister for Agriculture has denounced butchers in the most unmeasured terms for attempting to buy at a price that will leave them a margin of profit.

Mr. Dillon

No, but for putting their finger in your eye and trying to put it into mine. They succeeded in putting their finger into yours, but they will not put their finger into mine.

Mr. Lemass

When I was controlling prices I have no doubt that there were some people who succeeded in deceiving me.

Mr. Dillon

And prominent among them were the Dublin butchers.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so. I went into the butchering business in Dublin on more than one occasion. We had a fairly protracted debate on meat prices in Dublin about January, 1947. Meat prices then were very much lower than now, but they were high enough to arouse all the eloquence of Deputy Dillon and many of his colleagues. Now the prices have gone higher and the Minister is saying: "We are not going to allow prices to go any higher, no matter what happens the price of cattle." What is Government policy in this matter? What are the butchers to do? Are they to do what the Minister for Industry and Commerce tells them, namely, to keep down the price of cattle so that they can sell meat at his controlled price, or are they to do what the Minister for Agriculture said, and that is to stop this attempt to act on the advice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or he will inflict on them all sorts of dire penalties? I do not want to see the price of meat going up; I want to see the price of meat coming down. I never told the public that the price of meat would be controlled on any basis except by relating it to the price of cattle on a free market. It was Deputies opposite who said the price of meat should come down and they promised to bring it down. The average price is 1/10½.

Mr. Dillon

And the butchers are driving about in Buick cars.

Mr. Lemass

They may be walking about in their bare feet—I do not know.

Mr. Davin

Are the butchers losing 4d. per lb.?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know.

Mr. Davin

Well, you should know.

Mr. Lemass

I know this, and I think it is a relevant fact, that the latest costing available for meat supplied to the Army abattoirs in Dublin and the Curragh was 1/10¾ for the month of May and I assume that the cost to the Dublin butchers is as high as the cost to the Army.

Mr. Dillon

That is a large assumption.

Mr. Lemass

I do not believe that the butcher can sell it at a profit. Why did the Minister for Agriculture denounce the butchers?

Mr. Dillon

Because they are making a good profit on the present price basis.

Mr. Lemass

Does he want them to let the price of cattle rise?

Mr. Dillon

I want them to sell meat at the present controlled price and they can get a damn good living on it; at the present price of cattle they can afford to do it.

Mr. Davin

The price is going up; they are competing against each other.

Mr. Lemass

If that is so, then I can understand the Minister for Industry and Commerce telling the butchers to stop competing against themselves. But as soon as the butchers attempt to do that we have this tirade against them by the Minister for Agriculture, this appalling series of threats about boiling in oil, clapping them in gaol, handcuffing them and parading them publicly. What is Government policy? Never forget this, that you did not promise merely to prevent the price going up by more than a penny over what I fixed it at last; you promised to bring it down. Nobody can quote against me any undertaking in relation to the price of meat other than to control its price in relation to the price of cattle in the market. Deputies opposite said they could bring down the price. The price has gone up and the price of cattle is still going up. What is going to happen the price of meat?

Mr. Dillon

The price of cattle is not going up and the butchers are not going to get a higher price.

Mr. Lemass

So far as the Dublin butchers are concerned, there is the refusal of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to meet them, even to explain his policy to them, on the ground that he is too busy.

Mr. Dillon

They will get away with no racket.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has found out a lot of things since he became Minister. Last year we were told that the absence of bacon from the market was due entirely to the mess which the Fianna Fáil Government had made of the pig-rearing industry. There was no reference by him to the desirability of obtaining supplies of maize, or how essential increased supplies of maize were to secure an increased production of pigs.

Mr. Dillon

You have forgotten barley.

Mr. Lemass

Now he has announced that he can increase the pig supply if he can get maize. In the first quarter of this year there was a 40 per cent. bacon quota. The Minister reduced that to 30 per cent. after all the publicity attending his efforts to control the black market in bacon—in which I wish him luck.

Mr. Dillon

It does not sound like it.

Mr. Lemass

He reduced the quota and when he was questioned he said the 40 per cent. quota was only notional and was not filled, but his 30 per cent. would be filled. Was it filled?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

I speak with the authority of representative bacon wholesalers. I asked them was the quota filled this month and they said it was not.

Mr. Dillon

You should send me their names.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister should ask information from the association and they will tell him. I approached them as a public representative and I asked people who claim to speak in a representative capacity for the trade.

Mr. Dillon

It is not the first time they put their finger in your eye.

Mr. Lemass

Were the wholesale and retail quotas filled?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, and the quota is raised this month to 35 per cent.

Mr. Lemass

Will the 35 per cent. be filled?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, I hope so.

Mr. Lemass

And when will we get back to the 40 per cent., which was the lowest quota that Fianna Fáil ever brought it to? I think that in regard to price my interest, and the interest of Deputies and the butchers' interest are the same, to keep the price down. The butchers do not want the price of meat to go up.

Mr. Davin

You said you were talking for the butchers.

Mr. Lemass

No, I said I was going to say a few words in their defence. Having been their public enemy No. 1 for so long I thought I might say a few words on their behalf.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Having promised an increase at some date after the election.

Mr. Lemass

I do not like betting with the Deputy but I shall undertake to pay any forfeit he may name if I cannot produce a Fianna Fáil advertisement published in the newspapers concerning price control in which specific undertakings were given in relation to foodstuffs of common consumption but which said in relation to meat prices nothing other than that meat would be controlled in relation to the price of cattle in the market and would fluctuate with that price. We did not attempt to deceive the people by telling them that prices would be reduced if there was a change in Government. Deputy O'Higgins and his colleagues did that.

May I right here and now release him and every member of the Government and every Deputy on that side from every promise I made? I am getting fed up at Ministers and Deputies on the opposite side trying to defend their policy by reference to what I said. They are exonerated from every promise I made. Let them stand over their own election promises to keep down the cost of living. The Minister for Health promised to reduce it by 30 per cent. That was no trouble at all. We were surprised at his moderation. It has gone up every week and every month since and it is still going up.

A Deputy

That is not true.

Mr. Davin

The butchers have one champion here at any rate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Dillon

May I submit that the whole of this discussion is out of order? I have nothing to do with the control of the price of meat. I raised this point before and Deputy Lemass said that he proposed to recite in a noncontroversial way a few simple facts without any argument on them. On that he was allowed to proceed. We are now having a long debate on the administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Lemass

Arguments were not introduced.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is too early for me yet to decide what the Deputy's argument is. I want to hear him a little further.

Mr. Lemass

If I were allowed to develop my statement——

Mr. Dillon

I suggest that the price of meat has nothing to do with my Department good, bad or indifferent. It is settled entirely without any reference to my Department.

Mr. Lemass

Debate is supposed to proceed by way of speech. Am I making the speech or am I not?

Mr. Dillon

I have no right to interfere in this matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I shall hear the Deputy to see where he is leading.

Mr. Lemass

If we are to go back on this, I shall quote the Minister. I would have been satisfied with what I have said were it not for Deputy Davin's unmannerly interruption.

Mr. Davin

The poor butchers!

Mr. Lemass

How long the Minister was about it! He said:—

"This Government does not want occasions to be tough. It is not its desire to address any section of the community in terms of command or threat, but because we abjure and detest that function, let no self-seeking, profiteering minority imagine for one moment that by bluff, slander or propaganda, they will force this Government into inaction——"

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Hear, hear!

Mr. Lemass

I am not sure how persons are forced into inaction. The Minister went on:—

"——when for the purpose of lining their own pockets, they seek to strike at the live-stock industry and the farmers of this country, upon whom all sections of the community depend. We may not like the task of challenging the racketeers but those who choose the road of racketeering do so at their own peril and when they learn the consequences and feel them let them blame no one but themselves. To the farmers I say, do not worry. Perhaps Dublin market was disrupted on Wednesday, it may be disrupted again, but take it from me it will not be long disrupted. That is all I want to say."

Mr. Davin

That is good stuff, is it not?

Mr. Lemass

What does it mean? Does it mean that the butchers are to pay more for cattle in the market, or not? What the butchers have said as I understand it is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has fixed a price based upon 90/3 per live cwt. That is the price which the Minister for Industry and Commerce says they are to pay and why should the Minister for Agriculture say they are racketeers if they keep to that price?

Mr. Dillon

Because they stuck their finger in your eye.

Mr. Lemass

Whose eye are they sticking it in now?

Mr. Dillon

In nobody's eye and, if they try to do it, they will get it in the neck.

Mr. Lemass

Let him talk until he puts his foot in it every time. I am very nearly finished and I would have finished an hour ago——

Mr. Dillon

Only for the butchers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must get a chance to make his statement.

Mr. Lemass

I rose to speak because the Minister invited questions on matters on which he had not touched in his speech. I felt that he had dealt with nothing of importance in that speech and so the questions I had to ask were numerous and covered the whole field of agricultural policy. On the question of the butchers, they are entitled to get from the Government a statement as to which Minister speaks for the Government and the public are entitled to get from the Government all necessary information as to what steps they are going to take to bring down the price of meat. The butchers want the price of meat brought down. The public want it brought down and most Deputies desire to see it come down.

Mr. Davin

Do you know what the butchers made?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! The Deputy must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Lemass

I know what will happen the Deputy if he approaches the market next Wednesday.

Mr. Davin

£3,500,000.

Mr. Lemass

On the matter of bacon, I want an assurance that the quotas fixed by the Minister will be filled. They have not been filled as he said they were, despite his information to the contrary. I want him to give some indication as to when we can expect the increase in production which had been contemplated this year owing to the increased allocation of maize and when that increase in production will be reflected in increased supplies to the public. I should also like to have a statement from the Minister on the sugar position and as to why sugar is still a rationed commodity when it is in plentiful supply all over the world?

Mr. Dillon

What in the name of goodness has this to do with my Department?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a matter that does not seem to come within the administration of the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

The ration of sugar depends on the production of sugar beet.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy could range over the whole field of Government administration in that way.

Mr. Lemass

At the moment I am practically finished. I had my speech nicely arranged but unfortunately I was diverted from my main purpose by the many interruptions which developed. I do not think there is any further point which I want to mention and as I said before I do not want to go back.

Mr. Fagan

I wish to say a few words in reference to the butchers. What I propose to say may be unpopular but my experience as a person visiting the Dublin market and listening to the Dublin butchers is that with the price of meat based on a live-weight purchasing price of 88/10, they are not getting a fair price for meat if the margin of profit has now to be related to a purchasing price of 99/-. In all fairness to the cattle producers, it should be pointed out to the Dublin butchers that the present fixed price is sufficient to enable them to buy cattle at 98/- a cwt.

Mr. Dillon

How am I to discuss the question of whether I should meet a body of butchers on a topic which is no part of the functions of my Department?

Mr. Aiken

Did you not say that you were going to execute them, if they did not pay more?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Minister raised the matter of the butchers himself.

Mr. Dillon

Is that matter going to be discussed on this Estimate? If so, I will discuss it with savour and delight. Do not be a bit uneasy.

Mr. Aiken

Did you not call them racketeers and many other things?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister did raise the matter of the butchers, but to what extent he did so it is impossible to say off-hand but, so far as Deputy Fagan has proceeded, he is not irrelevant.

Mr. Fagan

I do not want to discuss the fixing of prices. My point is that, as a salesmaster in the Dublin market, farmers sent heifers to me last week and the butchers were told to buy at 88/- and 90/-. They tried to do so, and, owing to the fact that there was no outside competition from Northern Ireland or English buyers, the stock was left on our hands. If the price fixed gives the butchers too great a profit, in all fairness to the producers that should be pointed out to the butchers by the Department. I do not want to see the price of meat raised to the consumer, but I do not want cattle left on my hands. If there are no Northern Ireland or English buyers, it means that people who may have to sell cattle will be unable to do so and the market will be again held up by reason of this strike of the butchers.

Whether the butchers are right or wrong, whether they are getting too much or too little profit, they should be brought into the Department and it should be pointed out to them that at the present price of 95/- to 100/- a cwt. which they will have to pay, they can buy and sell at the present fixed price. If that were done, it would clear the air. I want the thing settled once and for all, so that the Dublin market will not be held up every week. Certain people may want to sell cattle and one person whom I know was in that position last week. I phoned him and said that I could get 95/- a cwt., which was 12/- a cwt. less than I got the week before, but this man said he wanted the money and told me to sell.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Deputy inform the House that Dublin butchers buy nothing but prime bullocks and heifers on the Dublin market?

Mr. Fagan

A certain percentage of Dublin butchers buy nothing else.

Mr. Dillon

But the rest buy young cows and beasts down to 85/- and 86/-a cwt.

Mr. Lemass

That is all allowed for in the fixed price.

Mr. Dillon

Allowed for! They can pay 98/- and make a profit at the present price.

Mr. Fagan

That is what I want cleared up. Bring them in and show them that. Since I came into this House in 1933, I never heard a speech by a Minister for Agriculture which was so encouraging to the farmers as the speech of the Minister the other day. He said that we were now in the position that we had a four years' guaranteed price for all the cattle we produced and a four years' guaranteed price for all the eggs we produced. Let me tell Deputy Lemass that, since I was a small boy, I never saw anything like the huge increase in pullets and young hens in the country as is to be seen to-day. It is gratifying to go around the country and see in every second farmer's place hundreds of pullets and chickens, and it is a sad commentary on the policy of Fianna Fáil that the day had to come when the English Government had to subsidise our hens. We have a guaranteed price for everything we produce and one could almost finish one's speech as a farmer on that note. There are, however, a couple of other points I want to make.

Deputy Cogan and the Minister mentioned machinery and co-operation between farmers in the use of that machinery. Let me tell the Minister that machinery on the basis of co-operation between four or five farmers will not work. Take my own experience. I have one tractor and there are only so many days of sunshine in the year. I should like to have two tractors—one for gathering the hay and the other for the machines working the hay—but if I were co-operating with other farmers, one can imagine the row there would be about that one tractor. The sun shines only on a certain number of days in the spring and harvest time, and if we want to extend the use of machinery amongst farmers, as I should like to see being done, cheap machinery must be made available to every farmer. This co-operative system, however, will not work.

Deputy Smith spent four hours trying to convince himself that he had put down the speech of the Minister for Agriculture. If he spent 20 hours at it, he would never put down that statement that the farmers now have a guaranteed price for everything they produce. These great prices which we are to get make one think it a pity that the policy of the previous Government for the past 15 years should have operated. It grieves one to think back to the policy of killing calves and to the economic war. Usually, after a war, a Government rewards soldiers by giving gratuities, but the late Government did not give any such gratuities to the farmers who fought in that economic war. They broke them and left us in the position that we are now, short of butter, bacon and everything else. This represents the writing on the wall for Fianna Fáil policy.

Everyone knew in 1938 that a world war was coming and the best defence we could have had was to put the farmers on their feet at that time. If Deputies look back on the debates on the agreement then made, they will find that I warned the Government, but the farmers who won the economic war were left on the junk-heap and so we have the position to-day that we have no bacon or butter. It is a terrible pity that the farmers had to go through that war and it will take them some years to get back into production. It is a grand thing to think that the farmers will not be in the position that the ex-Minister for Agriculture threatened to put them in. He told them that if they did not till, he would go in on the farms with crowbars and would cross the ditches. It is a grand thing for the farmer to know that there will not be an inspector on his land unless he is invited. Farmers do not want compulsion. The farmers are loyal and if there is need for a crop they will produce it.

The farm improvement scheme is one of the best schemes ever started in this country. I was sorry to hear the Minister praising Deputy Dr. Ryan for that scheme. We must compliment Deputy Dr. Ryan for implementing the scheme but it was brought in as a result of pressure from the Opposition at the time.

Deputies

Not at all.

Mr. Fagan

I challenge Deputies to look up the records of the debates. For years before it was thought of in this House, that scheme was in practice in Northern Ireland. If Deputies care to look up my speeches for two years before the scheme was introduced, they will see that I had been advocating the scheme because I saw the value of it in Northern Ireland. It was not a brain-wave of Deputy Dr. Ryan. The scheme was introduced because of pressure from the Opposition and from the members of the Government that agreed with it. I hope the present Minister will continue the scheme. It is a good scheme.

The ex-Minister for Agriculture referred to the subsidy on farmers' butter. In my opinion, it was a good thing for the farmers to take the subsidy off farmers' butter. At least, in Westmeath, we were always a butter-producing county. We always separated our milk and sold our butter. When the subsidy and the control were put on we could not get 2/8 a lb. If we had bad butter we might sell at 1/11 a lb. We were not allowed to sell our good butter at 2/8. If we were caught going into Mullingar and getting 2/10 a lb. we were summoned. Now we can go into Mullingar and get 3/- a lb. and the demand exceeds the supply. Deputy Smith says it is not to be got. Let me tell him that if I brought up 500 lbs. of butter, they would swarm around me in the market and in the Dáil to get a lb.

Deputy Smith says there is an oversupply of butter in Arva. Let some enterprising person bring it to the city and he will get 3/- a lb. for it without any bother. But he would need to bring up good butter, not some of the butter that is produced. If they want a sample of good butter, let them stand in Mullingar market. The lovely butter there would make your teeth water. Now, we can stand in the market of Mullingar and sell our butter. We do not have to run behind the door for fear of being summoned if we are caught selling butter. That is the position.

We never got one penny of that subsidy. We never got one brass farthing of it in Westmeath. I do not know what happened in other counties. We always separated our milk and sold our butter and reared our calves. That is the type of farming we had.

I want to congratulate the present Minister for Agriculture. No matter what anybody says about him, he is one of the best Ministers we have had in this country since the Treaty. I will make one statement. When he has been five years in office, his name will go down in history as having been even better than the late Paddy Hogan as Minister for Agriculture in the opinion of the farmers of Ireland.

Mr. Corry

The first thing I would like to say in connection with Deputy Fagan's statement is that it is rather strange. His first accusation was that the Minister had reduced the price of all cattle in the Dublin market by 12/-a cwt. and then he went on to praise the Minister for doing that to the farmer, and he claimed to speak for the farmer.

Mr. Fagan

The Minister for Industry and Commerce fixed the price.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy is a salesmaster in the Dublin market and that pays him better than looking after the farmers. Those things are all right in their own way and in their own place. The Minister spoke here of the old maids and cranks in the country who keep Jerseys and Guernseys and Friesians, and he went on to abuse them for further orders and to attack any man who kept a herd of Friesians. The trouble about this Minister for Agriculture is that you never know where you have him for five minutes. On the 6th June, 1946, on the debate on the Estimate for Agriculture, the Minister said:

"If we want to go into the kind of dairying industry in which Denmark and New Zealand engage then we ought to go in for the Friesian cow. As a milk machine there is nothing to compare with her. Take them by and large, if you want to have cattle merely as a means of producing milk it is fantastic to compare any existing breed with the Friesian cow."

That is his statement on the 6th June, 1946.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the Deputy quoting from?

Mr. Corry

I am quoting from the Official Report for the 6th June, 1946, column 1528. That is the Minister that took advantage of his position in this House a few nights ago to attack people in this country who have Friesian herds and to describe them as old maids and cranks—"A lot of old maids and cranks who keep Jerseys and Guernseys and Friesians, and the rest of them." And then he went on to say they were nearly fed on rashers. He wound up by stating that at the Royal Dublin Society Show their milk was flooding the whole place and that it was 1.4 in butter fat. I went to the trouble of ringing up the secretary to the Royal Dublin Society this morning. He had no note of the 1.4 and he wanted to know what is the basis of that argument. I have here my returns from the creamery. I happen to keep a Friesian herd. On the 1st April my return was 1.65. For the month of May it was 3.65. For the month of June it was 3.74. My price for the month of April was 1/4 and my skimmed milk back. For the month of May it was roughly 1/3 and my skimmed milk back. The Minister has gone back now to the old policy that was carried on by the Department of Agriculture for the past 25 years, the policy that has brought our milch cows from being a 500-gallon cow to being a 250-gallon cow. We succeeded in getting a Minister for Agriculture here who reversed that policy and got this country back to the 500-gallon cow again. The first thing the new Minister did was to reverse that policy.

He stated here:—

"If the farmer wants my opinion on the best dairy cow he can keep in this country, I will tell him—the dual-purpose Shorthorn cow."

I do not know what he thinks of his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. Here is his opinion on this dual-purpose Shorthorn cow that is now going to flood the country with milk:—

"So far as dairying is concerned, I must say that I have come to the conclusion, after considerable experience of dairy cattle, that the dual-purpose animal is not satisfactory in practice, that the system on which the Department has worked for a long number of years since the introduction of the Livestock Breeding Act is, in theory, most satisfactory and, in theory, produces good results, but Deputy Bennett to-day and other Deputies have said that they find that this policy of trying to produce a dual-purpose animal does not give satisfactory results. My experience is that if you have a high-yielding, or even an average-yielding cow—but particularly a high-yielding cow—giving 1,000 or 1,100 gallons a year in the normal run, one expects the heifers from that cow to give 600 or 700 gallons and probably more.

Mr. Dillon: Without regard to the pedigree of the sire?

Mr. Cosgrave: That is what I am coming to. The situation is that for a long period the result of mating even cows of as high a yield as 1,200 gallons with beef bulls or single dairy Shorthorn bulls, in nine cases out of ten, is that the progeny will revert to beef.

Mr. Dillon: A goat."

So Mr. Dillon is now going to produce goats instead of cows for the people of this country. Goats, according to Deputy Cosgrave, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.

Deputy Cosgrave continued:—

"As Deputy Dillon says, a goat. You will have an animal of considerable beef potentialities but of little use so far as milk is concerned. The tendency, as the Department have found and as I have found after careful examination and after discussing it with farmers and Department inspectors, is for Shorthorn cattle always to revert to beef, with a very occasional tendency in the other direction. With high-yielding cows it is safe to say that two-thirds of the effect is produced by the bull, so far as milk is concerned, and unless you get a bull of proven dairy ancestry, that is, with a dam which has given about 1,000 gallons, in nine cases out of ten the progeny of the cow revert to beef. I think we shall have to abandon entirely this attempt to get dual purpose animals. It is satisfactory enough to produce a bull or heifer from a cow of 750 gallons, and so far as the individual breeder is concerned, he will get a remunerative price for the single dairy bull, but the result from the point of view of the country and particularly in view of the fact that these bulls are being distributed all over the country by the Department, is that the ordinary farmer who brings his cattle to them finds that he does not get dairy stock."

That is quoted from Volume 101, column 1505 of the Official Debates for the 6th June, 1946.

That is the new look on the part of the Minister for Agriculture. That, in the opinion of his colleague, is what the result will be. We know the Minister's extreme anxiety to have beef for Britain. If we reduce the milk yield to 300 or 200 gallons and carry on the policy of a Department that has tended that way, not alone in the opinion of the farmers but in the opinion of Deputy Cosgrave, where will we find ourselves? What will be the milk production? I have addressed other Ministers in my time in connection with that and have had to repeat the statements made here by the late Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, that,

"if the Livestock Breeding Act is carried out in this country as it has been carried out under my control during the last six years, we will have very fine-looking cattle but it will be impossible to get a decent milch cow."

That was the statement made from these benches by the late Minister for Agriculture, in the first year that Deputy Dr. James Ryan was over there as Minister for Agriculture. The Department has carried on the game since. The Department, under the late Minister, Deputy Smith, had to climb down; and now they have climbed up again. We had succeeded in changing the policy and succeeded in making a definite attempt to get back to milk and to the milch cow, and what do we find? The first job the new Minister does is abolish it and go back to the beef, because Britain wanted it and he wanted to give it to them cheaply.

Deputy Madden spoke to-night on the unsatisfactory price of milk at the creameries. I would like to speak of the far more unsatisfactory conditions regarding the supply of milk to the cities and towns. They are two entirely different jobs. The man supplying to the creameries is, in most cases, a five or six months' man. He is not, by any stretch of imagination, a heavy winter milk producer; but the man supplying milk to a city has to have his 40 gallons or 50 gallons on Christmas Day just as in the month of June.

We hear any amount of complaints as regards the kind of milk they get in the cities—sour milk—but what can one expect? I quoted in the House recently the costings figures as found by University College, Cork and the Cork Milk Producers' Association. The net cost of production of one gallon of winter milk, although the Minister insists he is not taking anything below the line, was found to be 42.70 pence. In that figure the price of hay was taken at £5 per ton, turnips and mangolds at £1 1s. 0d. per ton, and ensilage at £2 per ton. I do not think there is any farmer here who would tell me that he could produce a ton of turnips to-day at a guinea, or a ton of hay for a £5 note. These were the prices allowed for home-grown feeding stuffs and on them these costings were based. The Minister, in his reply to me on the adjournment some weeks ago, said he was not prepared to allow anything below the line.

Recently, the Cork Mental Hospital committee advertised for a farm steward—they have roughly about 100 acres of land—at £350 a year plus perquisites and all the rest of it. On the farms which were handed over for the purpose of taking these costings there is an average of 28 cows per farm, and the production for the 12 months was 563 gallons per cow. The costings body did not follow the advice of the Department of Agriculture. If we take the basis that is used for every other industry, except agriculture, the farmer will have to be allowed at least the salary of a farm steward. In the case of the Cork Mental Hospital, the salary which the committee offered for a farm steward was roughly £500 a year, or 8½d. a gallon on milk. If you are going to charge against the milk the full cost of the farm manager—I maintain that on these holdings which are purely dairy farms, the work of the farm manager was used to pull down the price of hay to £5 a ton, of turnips and mangolds to £1 1s. 0d. and of ensilage to £2 a ton, and that the farmer on one of these holdings was engaged in the production of cheap food to feed those cattle—you must add to your 22.70 pence, 8d. more for the farm manager. That brings you up to half a crown—to 30.70 pence, and in that figure I am not allowing as much as one penny for capital.

The capital invested in any one of those farms, including ordinary farm stock and machinery, is anywhere between £5,000 and £6,000. The Minister can relate that figure in whatever way he likes to the price that he has fixed for milk for those farmers for the coming winter—2/1 for three months, 2/3 for three months more and 2/- for the month of April. I am not aware that farmers were sent into this world to act the part of general benefactors, yet the Minister, with these figures before him, quite coolly fixes the prices mentioned. We had a speech from my friend from the ranches in Westmeath—that the Minister was a Godsend to the farmers of the country. He is a blister kept in office by the votes of the so-called representatives of the farmers in this Dáil. We had Deputy Hickey, Deputy Dockrell and other city representatives complaining of the quality of the milk they get in the winter months. Will Deputy Hickey tell me what is the farmer going to do if it costs him 2/8 to produce a gallon of milk on the farm while the Minister fixes the price at 2/1? If that farmer has been sending in 50 gallons every day for the summer, he is going to send in ten gallons for the winter and the rest is to be supplied from the creameries.

During the winter months some of the milk that is sent out from the creameries is milk that is produced on a Saturday and delivered to a creamery on a Monday morning. The milk on Saturday night, on Sunday morning, on Sunday night and on Monday morning is all shoved into the creamery together; "It is all right. Sure they pasteurise it there." That is the way it is in Deputy Hickey's constituency in Cork. Nobody is to be blamed for that; it is just a blessing that we have got from the farmers' representatives in the House.

Mr. Blowick

I suppose it did not happen until Mr. Dillon became Minister. I suppose it did not happen under the happy reign of Deputy Dr. Ryan.

Mr. Corry

I interrupted nobody. If this is a portion of the price the farmers have to pay for having Mr. Blowick down there, I have to say they are a long-suffering tribe, a long-suffering people. I have been here for the last 21 years and I have seen six different Farmers' Parties come and go. Each were sold out in turn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Farmers' Party does not arise.

Mr. Corry

If those people would keep quiet, we would be a lot better. I think Deputy Madden dealt with milk for the city, and I think Deputy Collins will tell us later about the milk for the creamery.

Another blessing to the farmers is the trade agreement. Deputy Fagan told us of the 12/- per cwt. the Minister succeeded in bringing beef down by in the Dublin market ... for the benefit of the farmers. The reply to a Parliamentary Question asked in this House by Deputy Brady, was that in 1947 we sent Britain 51,000 odd head of fat cattle at an average price of £32 13s. 0d. per head. We sent to Europe 58,000 odd at an average price of £42 7s. 0d. per head. That is only £10 difference between the continental buyer and the British buyer. The continental man is hunted off the market and all your beef is to go to Britain at £32 13s. 0d. per head. That is a loss of £10 a head in the price of fat cattle. That is one result of this famous agreement and any farmer here listening to me knows and knows very well what the lack of competition means at a fair or market. We have an old saying down around Midleton and the fairs I go to. When a farmer goes in with a springer in the morning and looks around, if he sees that the Horgans are not there, it is £5 off his beast. The continental buyer will not be there and we are to sell our cattle to one bunch of buyers. We all know what happened at the old pig fairs when the buyers got together at the beginning and divided out the cribs between them so that there would be no competition and the farmers would have to sell at their price. Deputy Fagan was talking about a reduction of 12/- a cwt. already. That is one blessing you got from the new Government.

This Minister for Agriculture—God save us—is going to improve everything and farmers are going to be as prosperous looking as the Minister for Lands.

Mr. Blowick

God knows, they would want to be a lot more prosperous than the speaker.

Mr. Corry

The farmers of the country are going to be swelled out, they are going to be so well off with the prices they are going to get.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy's appearance must be due to the Fianna Fáil régime.

Mr. Corry

The Minister can be complimented on his prosperity. The Farmers' Party should at least have been able to produce a man capable of taking over agriculture.

A Deputy

We got the best man.

Mr. Corry

A Minister who has twisted and turned and manoeuvred here until in the next six months he will have got everything in this country into chaos.

Mr. Halliden

Wait and see.

Mr. Corry

It is all very well for the individual who keeps three cows and has three bull calves every year with a premium for each. With all the cry for beef, you cannot have beef unless you have cows and you cannot have milk without calves. This is the policy and this is what it has led up to, step by step. To-day it is 12/- off the cattle in the Dublin market, and the following week it is £10 per head difference between the British price and the price of the same beast on the Continent, £10 a beast present to Britain.

The dairy farmer is a man who has to work from Sunday morning until Sunday morning again because we have not succeeded in producing a six-day cow or a five and a half day cow such as Deputy Larkin or Deputy Dunne would want. We still have cows that must be milked on Sunday and on Saturday night as well. Those farmers are receiving uneconomic prices for their milk, prices at which they cannot produce, and to help them out in their job and to see that they can produce at a profit, the Minister has again brought in the beef bull. That is the position we are faced with now. The Minister who reduces the price of beef and who reduces the price of milk states in this House that he is going to improve the lot of the agricultural labourer by giving the farmer less to pay him, by putting the farmer in such a position that instead of increasing wages he will have to reduce them.

Mr. Dunne

He will not do that.

Mr. Corry

Certainly not; he will not. He will do something else. He will walk out of production. I have always maintained that the agricultural worker, be he farmer, farmer's son, or hired man—and in my part of the country there is no distinction made between the three—is entitled at least to as good conditions and as decent a wage as his brother in the town or city. But look at what is happening. The industrialist comes up and gets 7 per cent. on his capital. His manager is paid. He has his shares; he is looked after; his profit is assured. But the farmer is in a different position altogether. There is a costings board or prices commission before which the industrialist can go. When there is an application for an extra 11/- per week by the workers, up goes the price. The agricultural industry is in a different position. The position of the greatest industry in this country is that the worker in it has only 50 per cent. of the wages paid to any unskilled labourer in any other industry. Yet the means suggested by the Minister for remedying that is reduced prices for the farmer. I shall now deal with another branch of the industry—beet growing. We have four beet factories giving employment, roughly, to about 3,000 people. Besides being a good industry for the farmer, it is a good industry for the country and for the giving of employment.

A Deputy

White elephants.

Mr. Corry

Somebody said "white elephants".

Mr. M. O'Higgins

Deputy MacEntee said it.

Mr. Corry

I shall read for you what your Minister for Agriculture thinks about them, the man to whom you are handing over an industry producing 75,000 acres of beet each year and giving employment to at least 3,000 people. This is his opinion:—

"Do Deputies realise what the beet sugar is costing this country? The present price of beet sugar consumed by the consumer in Ireland, without any Customs and Excise duty of any kind, is 5d. per lb. and that price is based on the present rate paid for beet. Does any Deputy anticipate that the price for beet is going to be materially reduced in future or does he not agree with me that, if the cultivation of the beet crop is to be maintained in this country the price must be raised, if not at least maintained at the present figure? Do I exaggerate when I say that, prior to the war, the price of cane sugar, refined, delivered free on quay, Dublin, was about 1½d. per lb. and that, post war, we may anticipate, when things have settled down, it will fluctuate around 2d. per lb. If that estimate is correct, the cost of the beet scheme in this country is 3d. per lb. of sugar; call it £30 per ton; £30 per ton on 100,000 tons is £3,000,000 of money per annum. Give me that money and to-morrow morning we can increase the family allowance going into every house from 2/6 to 7/- per child. Is there any Deputy who would argue with me that our community is getting better value in the maintenance of that daft scheme at a cost of £3,000,000 per annum than it would get if we were in a position to raise the family allowance in every poor house from 2/6 to 7/-?

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy say from what he is quoting?

Mr. Corry

From the Official Report of the 6th June, 1946, columns 1512 and 1513. That is the attitude of the Minister whom the representatives of the farmers and the representatives of Labour in this House have placed in charge of this industry. That is his opinion of it.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

It was his opinion.

Mr. Corry

What hope can either the man employed in one of the factories or the farmer who produces the beet have when facing that condition of affairs? The livelihood of the 3,000 families employed in the factories and the livelihood of all the farmers and farm labourers employed in the beet industry is at stake. What work can they have with a Minister in charge of that industry who has described it in this House as a "daft scheme". I consider that the placing of an irresponsible individual of that type in charge of the largest industry we have was a sin, a shame and an insult to the agricultural community of this country. That has been his opinion all the time. If you want to know why he made this prices agreement in regard to cattle with Great Britain I will tell you. Let me quote from the Official Report of the 18th June, 1947, column 2052. When speaking on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture the present Minister, who was then Deputy Dillon, said:—

"However, I want to say particularly to Deputies on the farmers' benches: ‘Do not become obsessed with price; price does not matter a row of pins.'

Mr. Donnellan: Oh, bedad, it does. Of all the misstatements you ever made, that is the biggest.

Mr. Dillon: Is it not funny that you cannot get that into the farmers' heads——

Mr. Donnellan: That is the limit. We will give them the stuff for nothing.

Mr. Dillon: Is it not humiliating to have a group who profess to represent the farmers of this country——

Mr. Donnellan: I wish they were listening to you."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might make a speech of his own now.

Mr. Corry

I am making my speech, and in doing so I consider that I am entitled to quote from former statements made in this House by a particular Minister. He asked if it was not humiliating to have a group who profess to represent the farmers of this country who could not see that and who had led them from one folly to another. I say that the biggest folly of all that they led them into was to make Deputy James Dillon Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Keane

Up the ranchers.

Mr. Corry

He stated in 1947 that the farmers' representatives led and were leading them from one folly into another. I suggest to the Clann na Talmhan Party in this House that the greatest folly of all he led them into was the folly of making him Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It led you over there.

Mr. Gilbride

It might lead him back again.

Mr. Keane

You tried to sink the agricultural labourers at last Saturday's meeting of the County Cork Committee of Agriculture.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Keane was told by the Chair not to be interrupting.

Mr. Corry

The next thing I want to deal with is the question of what Deputy Dillon is going to do about fertilisers. I will put the facts before you and you can consider from them how fairly and how easily we can compete with British farmers. I will give you the price of fertilisers to the Irish farmer and the price of the same fertilisers to the British farmer. The price of one ton of slag is £12 in this country; a ton of slag in Britain is £4 5s. 0d. The farmer who gave me these figures said he paid £24 for two tons of slag, while the English price is £8 10s. 0d. Therefore, for two tons of slag he paid £15 10s. 0d. more than the English farmer paid for the same fertiliser. Four tons of superphosphate cost him £44; the English price for the same quantity of fertiliser is £24. He paid £20 more than the English farmer in this instance. One ton of sulphate of ammonia cost him £17; the English price is £10 8s. 0d. He paid £6 12s. 0d. extra for that. One ton of manurial potash cost him £20, and the English price is £13 13s. 0d. He paid £6 7s. 0d. more for that. In all he paid for his eight tons of artificial manure £48 9s. 0d. here more than his comrade farmer in England pays. That is the market in which we are going to compete. Those are the conditions under which we are competing.

The Minister is very anxious to see all this artificial manure imported. He is anxious to have grass grown at Christmas and again in March. I should like to hear from the Minister what the prices to the Irish farmers of these artificial manures are going to be in the coming year and how the price that the Irish farmer will be charged for them is going to relate to the price that the British farmer pays for them. It is all in his own hands now. I think we are entitled to get our artificial manures at least at the same price as the British farmer since we are to compete in the British market and produce for the British market. I do not think it is unfair or unjust to expect that.

The Minister also made a statement here in connection with barley. He told us that the last Government took so many million pounds out of the farmers' pockets during the last few years. What will be the price of barley in the coming September? It was in the Minister's hands to fix the price in March when the barley was being sown. He has told us that we will get 55/- a barrel next year. What about this year?

Mr. Dillon

You fixed the price this year.

Mr. O'Leary

Two million.

Mr. Corry

The Minister has been in office since the 18th February. I think he could change the price just as quickly as he changed the breed of the bulls. If it was unjust that we had to sell barley for 35/- last year it will be equally unjust this year. Is the Minister going to allow that injustice to continue?

Mr. Dillon

That is not the only baby you left after you.

Mr. Corry

You adopted it. It is about time the Minister knuckled down to this problem of the price of barley. It is no good the Minister adopting the adage of "Live horse and you will get grass", and saying "For the barley you sow and harvest in 1949 you will get 55/- a barrel." I heard that recently from a colleague of the Minister's in an interview I had with him in connection with hospitals.

Mr. Keane

Are you giving a private conversation? I am asking the Deputy if he is giving a private conversation. It is very reprehensible in this House.

Mr. Corry

I am not giving any private conversation with anybody.

Mr. Keane

There were private conversations given that took place last Saturday.

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask Deputy Keane to withdraw from the House. The Deputy will not cease interrupting.

Deputy Keane withdrew.

Mr. Corry

It is all very well for the Minister to make soft promises when he knows quite well that he will not be in office when the bill is presented. It is all very well for the Minister to tell us what the price will be in 1949 when he knows very well that he will not be there in 1949 to give that price.

Mr. Flanagan

A prophet has come amongst us at midnight.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the prophet who has just come into the House a few moments ago.

Mr. Corry

If the Minister's statement is correct, I hold the farmers should get 55/- for this year's barley, and he should make no bones about it either. The Minister did not tempt all the representatives of the farmers in this country.

Mr. McAuliffe

There must be some black sheep in the fold.

Mr. Corry

They are mottled. That is the position as regards barley. Can the Minister give us any indication as to what the price of oats will be in the coming harvest? The crop promises to be a good one. I would like some guarantee of a good economic price to make up to the farmers for the £10 a head that he has taken off the bullocks, for the bad price of milk and something that will enable us to keep our agricultural labourers in the position in which they are now. The Minister gives airy flourishes of his hands and promises the most extraordinary things. He has told everybody in the country that we are going to be prosperous and happy. He seems to have a very funny way of bringing that position about. I am a farmer. When the Minister makes statements like that I would like to see him stand over them. Instead of that the Minister comes along here and insults practically every branch of the farming community. That is unfair. That is unjust. The Minister has grossly insulted those farmers who keep Friesian cows. He has likened them to old maids, cranks with Pekinese.

Twelve months previously in this House the Minister from these benches told us that the Friesian cow was the only cow for milk. I think we can pin the Minister down to nothing except irresponsibility. He is the most irresponsible individual with whom I have ever come in contact. We all know the position in regard to lime. We all know the urgent necessity there is for lime. The late Minister for Agriculture had a scheme. Under that scheme ten units under Government control would each produce 100,000 tons of ground limestone this year. That was a good scheme. We want to know from the present Minister what has happened to it. The Minister has challenged that and has gone back to what he calls private individuals to put up the plant and machinery themselves and produce it. Has he produced any of these private individuals yet?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, several of them.

Mr. Corry

I hope so. There is no one more anxious for the Minister's success along that line than I am. I am anxious that we should have the million tons of lime this year. I am anxious that he will go ahead and lime our land this year. Speaking here on the 4th June, 1946, column 1297, the present Minister asked the then Minister if he would fix a standard for the by-product of the hydrated lime industry and allow that to be used as agricultural lime and make it available for the lime subsidy. He said: "If the Minister would, speaking for one area I know particularly well, we could quadruple the use of lime in that area, because limitless supplies of that appear to be available, whereas the burned lime does not seem to be in sufficient supply." On that matter, the Cork County Committee of Agriculture communicated on several occasions with the Minister in connection with an extension of the subsidy to the dried lime from the beet factories.

Mr. Dillon

What is the beet factory charging for the dry lime?

Mr. Corry

One pound a ton.

Mr. Dillon

One would think that is cheap enough.

Mr. Corry

It is reasonable enough, but unfortunately the carriage is 30/- a ton.

Mr. McAuliffe

Will the Deputy state on how many occasions since February have representations been made to the present Minister?

An Ceann Comhairle

Cork Deputies must make separate speeches.

Mr. McAuliffe

I do not like to see Deputy Corry misrepresenting the Cork County Committee of Agriculture. This demand was made to Deputy Smith on different occasions, to my memory.

Mr. Corry

The Minister can say if he has received a resolution from the Cork County Committee on this matter. That is a very simple way of knowing where we are. I do not know what all this excitement is about. Surely, Deputy McAuliffe is as anxious to get that lime to Cork as I am?

Mr. McAuliffe

I am, but this Minister was approached only on one occasion. There were four communications to the last Minister.

Mr. Corry

I am sure the Minister will deal fairly and squarely by us. There are 500,000 tons of lime in the Tuam, Carlow and Thurles factories. We Cork farmers have used every pound of lime in the Mallow factory. The moment it comes out there it is gone because we know the value of it. The sugar company are prepared to put a special lime plant into both the Carlow and Thurles factories. They have it already in Tuam. They are prepared to do that and to help us out. Whilst we are waiting for the Minister to work out this ground lime scheme, why not let us carry on with the 500,000 tons that are there? Let us use that. It would be so much lime gone into the country, anyway. There are acres and acres of it heaped in Carlow and Thurles.

Mr. Dillon

Would it not be much better to use it in the districts surrounding the factories and not put any freight on it?

Mr. Corry

We are not worried about the people in Carlow or Thurles; if they do not want it, that is their own funeral. The Cork farmers know what they want, they know the value of it and are prepared to use it. As a matter of fact, I am paying carriage on it from Tuam and surely it would make very little difference to the Minister to let the subsidy apply to it. It would relieve some of our freight charges. I do not think we are asking for too much. It is a fairly important matter for us and I am anxious that the Minister would devote his attention to it.

The next matter I am concerned with is the farm buildings improvement scheme. That scheme was got under way by the last Government and it filled a long-felt want. I do not think there is any Deputy who does not know the benefit of that scheme, but apparently this famous axe will deprive the farmers of the couple of hundred thousand pounds that they would get this year under it.

Mr. Dillon

Not a single proposal under that scheme will be left undone.

Mr. Corry

The Minister stated here that there would be no construction done this year.

Mr. Dillon

Is ceart é sin.

Mr. Corry

All the pullets and hens that Deputy Fagan was talking about will have to roost in the trees. All the bacon we want will have to be produced by the ditch or in the halftumbled houses that lie around. We all know the necessity for the scheme. What is the meaning of the hold-up if it is not finance or if it is not an endeavour to extract something from the only section of the community that cannot hit back—the farmers—to keep from them the benefit that they would have got had not Deputy James Dillon become Minister for Agriculture? I want to know what has become of that scheme. I want to know the Minister's reasons, if any, why construction cannot be carried on under that scheme this year and I think I am entitled to know.

Mr. Dillon

I told you four times already and I shall tell you again.

Mr. Corry

I should like to hear it again. The Minister said he told us, but I have all his replies here.

Mr. Dillon

If you allow me to conclude the debate I shall tell you again now.

Mr. Corry

The Minister stated in this House on the 15th June, in reply to a question by Deputy P.D. Lehane:—

"The answer is that under the farm buildings improvement scheme it is unlikely that construction work will be done this year, because my predecessor left me with a bequest of 22,000 unopened applications under that scheme."

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy say what he is quoting from?

Mr. Corry

I am quoting from the Official Report of the Dáil, column 931, of the 15th June, 1948. He said that he was left a bequest of 22,000 unopened applications and that that was the reason that the scheme was not going on.

Mr. Dillon

Is that the whole quotation?

Mr. Corry

Perhaps I had better give the whole reply. Deputy Lemass asked:—

"Will any work be done under the farm improvements scheme this year?"

The Minister's answer was:—

"The answer is that under the farm buildings improvement scheme it is unlikely that construction work will be done this year because my predecessor left me with a bequest of 22,000 unopened applications under the scheme.

Mr. Lemass: 25,000.

Mr. Dillon: In regard to the farm improvements scheme, work is proceeding and the examination of schemes under the farm buildings improvement scheme will proceed with the utmost rapidity, and, as soon as they can be undertaken, will be undertaken.

Mr. Lemass: The question relates to the farm buildings improvement scheme. The Minister says that no work will be done under that this year.

Mr. Dillon: As to construction work, it is highly unlikely that anything will be done for the reason that I had 22,000 or more unopened applications under that scheme when I came into office.

Mr. Lemass: No work will be done?

Mr. Dillon: Plenty of work is being done."

I suppose the 22,000 letters were being opened?

Mr. Dillon

Sin é é. Tá an ceart agat. You will be astonished how I am catching up on them.

Mr. Corry

That was on the 15th of June. Then on the 6th July Deputy Smith asked the Minister for Agriculture:—

"If he will state (a) the number of applications received under the farm buildings scheme prior to the 18th February; (b) the number of these to which acknowledgments had been sent out at that date; (c) the number received since 18th February and the number of acknowledgments sent out to these cases; (d) the rate at which applications are at present being received, and (e) whether forms are still being issued to intending applicants on request?"

The reply was:—

"Between the 27th January and 18th February, 25,670 forms of application for grants under the farm buildings scheme were issued in response to requests from intending applicants and 8,481 completed forms were received by the latter date. Completed application forms have not been formally acknowledged but all letters relating to applications have been acknowledged to date. 19,591 additional application forms, which are still being issued on request, have been received up to 3rd July and they are at present being received at the rate of about 50 per day."

The Minister stated that there were 22,000 unopened applications when he took up office and that there were 25,670 received altogether, that in response to requests or applications for grants 25,000 forms were issued by the Department between the 27th January and the 18th February and that 8,000 completed forms were received by the latter date.

Mr. Dillon

Twenty-five thousand went out during the general election.

Mr. Corry

I am looking for the 22,000 unopened applications and I cannot find them. No Minister with any sense of responsibility would come along with that kind of tale. I tell the Minister that if ever I had the misfortune to become Minister for Agriculture and that I came upon 22,000 unopened letters of application, I would fire out the team that is there, the whole bunch of them and I would be right.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We fired them out.

Mr. Corry

Every official in that Department has his responsibility and the Minister knows that. I think it was unfair and unjust to make this attack upon them. I think the least the Minister might have done was to apologise to the ex-Minister whom he had wronged and the officials of the Department whom he had wronged also. That is not the reason these applications have not been dealt with. These 25,000 farmers plus the 19,000 who had applied up to the 3rd July and the 50 per day who are applying still, whether their applications are for grants for hen-houses, for piggeries or for dairies, can rest easy that they will get nothing from the new régime anyway.

I admit that it is a handy way of saving in the Minister's Department. There will be no grants paid for any construction work carried out. It is a very easy and very simple way of keeping a couple of hundred thousand pounds out of the farmers' pockets. It has been customary for Governments to accept responsibility for schemes and proposals and financial commitments undertaken by their predecessors and these 50,000 or 60,000 farmers, who, in response to public advertisement, looked for these grants, are entitled to get them.

Mr. Dillon

And they will.

Mr. Corry

And are entitled to get them this year.

Mr. Dillon

Sin rud eile.

Mr. Corry

I am sure that when a farmer realises their value and sees his neighbour putting them up, it will be an incentive to him to apply. That, however, is one of the things that does not bother the Minister at all and one of the things for which the Minister should have accepted responsibility. The applications were in, 25,000 of them, before the Minister took over and they were not left unopened or unanswered, according to the Minister's reply. What is the reason? We are told it was lack of material. I know the way farmers work down the country. I know how they put up these buildings and I know that lack of cement would not stop them from putting up a house.

There are still left in the country many good masons—you can meet an odd one in every parish—who will put up with lime and sand and good stone as good a house as ever was put up with cement, if not a better house. There is plenty second-hand corrugated iron, fairly good stuff, which can be picked up to roof these houses, so that there is no justification whatever for this delay or this refusal to implement the financial guarantee given by the Minister's predecessors. What is to become of the unfortunate pullets and how are the hens to lay if we are to have a position in which there will be no roof over them? What is to become of the hundreds of thousands of pullets which are mad to lay for the Minister all over the country, if the Minister is not going to put a roof over their heads after bringing them into the world?

The next matter I want to deal with is the Minister's pet subject, wheat. He has in his time done many foolish things. He made many very foolish statements which, now that he finds himself suddenly in a position of responsibility, he has to run away from, but we could forgive some of these foolish statements, making allowance for the responsibility of the small boy. I am wondering, however, what is to be our position in the matter of wheat and bread. I do not think we are completely out of the wood yet, so far as war is concerned. There are any amount of rumours of war around and I say without any exaggeration that the reports I have got from seed assemblers as to the quantities of seed wheat which they had to send into the mills for milling must mean, if they mean anything, an enormous reduction in our acreage of wheat this year.

Mr. Dillon

You are quite mistaken.

Mr. Aiken

What is the acreage estimated to be?

Mr. Dillon

I will deal with that when I am concluding the debate.

Mr. Aiken

It is an important figure. If the Minister is denying that there was a grave reduction, he must have some idea of the acreage.

Mr. Dillon

I will deal with that when concluding the date.

Mr. Aiken

If the Minister wants to be a secret society, well and good.

Mr. Corry

I hope the Minister is right, but I am speaking on the basis of the returns I have got from reliable merchants and seed assemblers in Cork County.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.