Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 Jul 1949

Vol. 117 No. 9

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

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

When the House reported progress on Friday, I was explaining the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate for £1,000,000, which we asked to meet the cost of the project during the remaining part of this financial year. As the House is aware, under the general powers of the Minister for Agriculture, one part of the project has been embarked upon in eight counties and today 72,000 acres are in hands. But we anticipate that there will be a very rapid expansion in that acreage so soon as we have power to proceed on the second part of the project, which will permit the Department to undertake work for those who are not in a position to do it for themselves.

When I was speaking here on Friday, in explaining the various sub-heads of the Estimate and in referring to the sub-head which makes provision for salaries, wages, etc., I informed the House that, with the exception of the director and deputy director, the bulk of the administrative staff will be in the country and not sequestered in Upper Merrion Street. In my desire to emphasise that to the House I may have left the House under the impression that that sum relates only to the administrative staff. Of course, it does not. It relates in large measure to the anticipated outlay on the employment of men engaged in the work, including those doing manual labour, mechanics, the operators of machinery and others actually employed. I think the House will be gratified to know that in the category of mechanics and machine operatives, we are already recruiting men who have been working in Great Britain for the last three or four years and who, in the course of their work in Great Britain, have become familiar with machinery of this character and who have not unnaturally constantly desired to return to work in their own country. That opportunity is now available. One has already joined our staff and the applications of others are being considered.

While that is true, I would like the House to understand this: I have often dwelt on the fact that people who work on the land in this country have hitherto been expected to accept, as in the nature of things generally, that wages earned on the land should be on a lower scale than those normally paid in industrial pursuits. I have always believed that that arose from the thoroughly bad practice of employing upon the land relatively antediluvian methods and, inasmuch as men were asked on the land to use implements and equipment similar to that in use in their grandfather's day, their output did not permit of a wage commensurate with their skill. Therefore, although we intend gladly to welcome home skilled workers who had emigrated in the past and who now desire to return home, it is our very clear purpose to train as many as we can of the fellows who come to work at ordinary labour so that, furnished with the competence to use machinery and with the machinery to use, those of them who are working in the rehabilitation of our land will be enabled to earn a wage which bears a fairer relation to the wages normally paid in industrial pursuits than has hitherto been possible for agricultural workers.

There is provision for the purchase of lime and fertilisers. Deputies will remember that in both divisions of the scheme provision is made not only for the delivery of these fertilisers upon the land reclaimed but also for the actual spreading of them. It is intended in every case that the fertilisers will be mechanically spread so that the farmer whose land is being dealt with need not employ his own labour or the labour of his own men in the very arduous and troublesome work of spreading finely ground fertilisers by hand.

Mr. Smith

This item only covers the actual spreading of the lime and fertilisers.

Mr. Dillon

No. Lime and fertilisers, £180,000—that sum makes provision for the treatment in this financial year of 36,000 acres by the spreading of fertilisers. The Deputy will realise that that envisages the rehabilitation of 36,000 acres and the completion of the work on that 36,000 acres.

Mr. Smith

It means that, while you are providing here for purchase and payment, you will deduct from the grants payable to those who are carrying out the operations themselves on their own lands, the cost of the lime and fertilisers.

Mr. Dillon

The plan is, as I think I explained when the Bill was before the House, that when the time comes to make the payment of the grant, in the example quoted in the pamphlet, there is a sum of £140 mentioned; where lime and phosphate are required the grant of £140 will be paid to the farmer as to £95 in cash and £45 in the form of lime and phosphate spread upon his land. Part of it will be paid in cash, part of it in kind.

In the second part of the scheme, the Estimate for completing the work will include a provision for lime and fertiliser on the same basis. The calculation of the farmer's liability, which will ultimately be charged upon his land, will be based on the rehabilitation plus such fertilisation as his circumstances may require. The sum of £260,000 under sub-head F is for the payment of grants to farmers who have done the work themselves.

Under sub-head G, advertising and publicity, a sum of £50,000 is provided. The only piece of advertising we have ventured to commit to print to date is the pamphlet which, I think, has been circulated in proof to Deputies and the announcement in the public Press. I do not doubt that in the initial stages of this project a good deal of work will be readily forthcoming, but when that first surge of applications has been attended to I do not doubt that there will be a good many people who are still naturally sceptical. As I cannot subscribe to the view that any part of my function is to compel my employers to do what I think is good for them, I am asking the House to provide me with funds to permit of showing them, through the medium of films, the medium of illustration and the medium of suitable publications, the results of the work which we have done and are doing with a view to encouraging them to do similar work on their own holdings or invite us to do it for them. I suppose it might be possible to save some of that money if I sought, and the House granted me, powers to burst into any man's holding and do whatever I thought on his land; but I consider that a modest appropriation to finance the persuading of our neighbours procures good value for the community as a whole and preserves what I consider to be a very important characteristic of the public servant: to become a citizen soldier only when the citizen asks him, and we claim no right to come unbidden, no matter how excellent the intention may be.

Sub-head H provides for accommodation that may be required in a district. Deputies, I think, will agree with me that one of the most provoking things for country people is not to know where to find a representative of the Department when they go to look for him. If he is an active and energetic man he will not spend the greater part of every day sitting on his sash in a country town. However, if there is an office and they cannot find the representative of the Department visiting the town, they can always leave a message for him at the office. Heretofore, not a few of the officers of local authorities and the Department engaged on advising farmers have found this difficulty, that when they take residential accommodation in a country town they are not there very long before the landlady tells them their room is wanted, because the woman is worn out going to the door answering calls. He has been a cause of legitimate embarrassment to the Department and a cause of legitimate complaint. I suppose, in the busy housewife's life. So I think there is everything to be said, if people are to have comfortable lodgings in the centre where they work, for providing them with an office which can be accessible without asking the landlady to answer the door every time somebody wants to ask where the Department man is, was or probably will be.

Sub-head I is that blessed provision that Dáil Éireann sometimes, in its generosity, makes for Departments, a sum for miscellaneous expenses which recognises that no one, however omniscient, can claim the gift of prophecy in matters mundane. When we are launching a project of this scope, quite frankly, I anticipate that circumstances may arise for which we have not made provision. We hope, so careful has our preparation been, that such anticipated contingencies will not call for a larger expenditure than £10,000. If they should, then we must come back, but I hope we shall not have to. Need I add that if I have overlooked some matter on which Deputies wish to have further information I am unreservedly at their disposal, bearing in mind the pious hope of us all, to do the nation's business with that expedition and promptitude of which we, in the Department of Agriculture, hope to give example in the execution of the land rehabilitation project.

Mr. Cogan

Might I ask if it has been decided to take my amendment? I want to submit that it would be appropriate to do so. If this motion is carried, as it may be, in the course of a few months, it might lead to a certain amount of confusion if my amendment is not accepted at the very outset.

Mr. Dillon

I take it that Deputy Cogan is referring to his amendment for free fertiliser and that lime should be generally distributed throughout the country. So far as I am aware, no provision has been made for the discussion of that motion or, at least, I have not so been advised.

Mr. Cogan

I think the Minister is completely misinformed in regard to the purport of this motion. I am afraid he has not even read it. On raising this matter last week the Taoiseach said he would consider having this brought in in conjunction with this Estimate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Evidently it is not being taken.

Mr. Smith

The first thing that strikes a Deputy and has struck most Deputies on seeing this Supplementary Estimate is that the sum being asked for is a considerable one. The natural thing to do when presented with a demand such as this is to look down, as the Minister has attempted to do in the course of his remarks, at the items. The striking thing about this Supplementary Estimate is that while it is one for £1,000,000, a little more than a quarter of that sum will go to the farmers. During our discussions here on the Land Reclamation Bill—and they were not protracted discussions— there were two or three questions which I directed to the Minister, not from the point of view of endeavouring to embarrass him or the Government but from points of view that occurred to my mind on which I should like to get an adequate explanation. The Minister may feel that an explanation has been given. I must confess that so far I have not got what I would regard as an adequate explanation and I shall cite these points again.

We are told that this is not an employment scheme. The Minister has assured us that it is not a relief scheme and that while employment will result from the operation of this scheme, that is not what is in his mind and the minds of those who have devised it. The object, we were told, was the rehabilitation of our land so as to increase its productivity. Here is the first instalment, £1,000,000 which the Dáil is asked to vote, out of borrowed money, money that will have to be repaid. Surely I am entitled to ask, and the House and the country are entitled to expect, a suitable explanation as to where we are proposing to spend that money that is being borrowed and that must be repaid? Are we spending it in the way in which we are likely to secure the only end that the Minister seems to have in mind—to increase the productivity of our soil? I have heard, as we all heard only a couple of minutes ago, the Minister describe the farmer down the country who wanted to be assisted in the purchase of lime or fertilisers as a man who wanted to sit on his sash and let somebody else do the job for him. Surely that is not an adequate explanation of the point made by myself and many other Deputies. If this is not an employment scheme or a relief scheme, if it is a scheme designed solely to increase the productivity of our soil, then we are entitled to ask ourselves if we are going about that task in the right fashion. If that is the single purpose of the scheme, I am completely unconvinced as to the way in which we are going about it.

Let us take some of the land that will probably be dealt with under the scheme and let us ask ourselves what that land is like now. Let us picture for ourselves the work that will have to be undertaken in order to bring it into reasonable condition. Let us think of the time that must elapse before the owner of the land will be likely to get any reward from the expenditure of money and effort to improve it. What is the reaction of the farmer, to whom the hope of increased production is held out, to all that? It may be a wrong reaction, if you like, but there is no use in our telling him that. He says: "Prices are fairly good now; now is the time when it is most important to increase production when the sellers' market is still in existence". He will further say: "You are borrowing money and you are throwing it into the reclamation of land that is marshy, wet, heavy and hard to maintain. Some years will elapse even after you have spent these considerable sums of money before the owner of the land will get any reward from that expenditure. If you were to give me a quarter of what you are proposing to spend on my marshy, wet, heavy land, in the subsidisation of fertilisers to apply to land that is not just so bad and derelict, within six, eight, nine or ten months or surely within a year, I would begin to reap the reward". The Minister, of course, will say: "The farmer has his land, his stock and his farming operations are paying him. He has evidence there in abundance that by buying fertilisers and lime and applying it to the land it will give him the necessary reward and that should serve as a sufficient encouragement without any assistance from the State". But are we aiming at spending this money in order to increase the productivity of our land? If we are aiming at spending this money in order to achieve that end, why should the individual farmer be singled out and be told that he should not require any assistance to achieve that purpose from any Department or the Government? We all know that fertilisers, basic slag, North African phosphate and all the manures the farmer might desire to purchase have been so far very expensive. Look at it as farmers will——

Mr. Dillon

Will the Deputy quote prices?

Mr. Smith

I do not buy much of it myself, but I buy some. I am in a different position from most farmers in the sense that I am a public man and a former Minister. I could take chances and risks that the ordinary farmer could not take, and I could get credit that the ordinary farmer could not get, so there is no use in my flapping my wings or talking about what I could do myself or the profits that accrued as a result of my treating my land in any particular fashion. That is no use to the farmer who by his own single solid effort has to make a living for himself and his family out of his land. He will not be impressed by my giving lectures. Take 15 or 20 farmers from the part of the country I know best and exclude all questions of politics. Say to them: "There is £1,000,000 that we are going to borrow. We are going to borrow a much larger sum than that, not in your name only but in the name of the community. How would you have it spent in order to achieve the purpose announced by the Minister, increasing the productivity of the soil and the income of those who work it as owners or employees?" From whatever section of the community I draft that 15, 20 or 100 farmers. I have no hesitation in saying that their decision by a very clear majority would be that this sum of money should be spent in a different fashion from that which has been outlined here. As I think we have made clear already in the course of the discussion here on the Bill which is now before the Seanad, I do not wish to convey that this is not a very desirable kind of work in which to engage. Far from it. But I have some personal experience of doing work like this over a period of years and I know as a result of that experience that when you spend money on this type of land it is terribly expensive land to maintain and keep in proper condition.

Mr. Dillon

Oh.

Mr. Smith

It certainly is.

Mr. Dillon

Oh.

Mr. Smith

I maintain that when you have spent a great deal of money on the reclamation of land that is subject to water logging and requires a substantial amount of drainage, that land requires almost constant attention if its new condition is to be maintained. As wages are going up and there are labour difficulties of one kind or another it is not the sort of land from which farmers are likely to reap the reward in the future that will enable them to live. I would encourage the sort of work that is envisaged under this scheme, but at the same time if I had surplus money to spend on my own land I would not spend my money on the four, five, six, seven or ten derelict acres—or even if they are not derelict, acres that could be improved by drainage—while I could spend it on another portion of my land from which I could get a much richer reward by treating it in the way to which I have referred.

Mr. Dillon

So the Deputy thinks that this scheme had better not be proceeded with at all.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy thinks nothing of the kind. We had schemes not, as the Minister has told me, so comprehensive, but schemes that were not paid for out of borrowed money. The schemes that were in operation down the years were paid for out of taxation. It is all right for people to talk about comprehensive schemes, but the Minister himself would have a fair idea of the type of individual who if he could borrow money freely—I am not referring to any particular class in the community—could put before you the most magnificent ideas. I often saw that same individual, however, when it came to repaying the loan and he would not be so full of ideas or enthusiasm nor would he have the same respect for punctuality as he would at an earlier stage have given the impression of having.

While the Minister may meet this criticism by saying, I suppose legitimately, that the organisation is being built up and you want staffs, offices, machinery and equipment, the lurking feeling is undoubtedly in the minds of the people of the country—and Deputies on all sides of the House know it —that we are preparing to spend borrowed money lavishly, to a great extent on the purchase of machinery from outside. They feel that, having borrowed this money and purchased this machinery, we are putting it to work on land which is not likely to give a return for many years while at the same time neglecting land from which we could get a far more immediate return if we were to use some of the funds we are asked for here for another purpose. I do not want to prolong this discussion in any way, but I have some sympathy with the point of view which has been expressed by Deputies who are not members of this Party. It is my own point of view. I have no notion that we should use these funds for the purpose of giving farmers artificial fertilisers or ground limestone free upon their land. I would not be associated with any such proposition, but I will say here—and I am saying it honestly—that if the Government has now arranged to commit us to the extent of £40,000,000 and if that £40,000,000 is going to be spent in the manner described so far by the Minister for Agriculture in this House and outside, then I say that we are proceeding along the wrong lines. With such a vast sum of money at our disposal we could go ahead with the work envisaged here and at the same time give substantial subsidies——

Mr. Dillon

A substantial reduction in price.

Mr. Smith

The Minister asked me on a previous occasion what I had in mind with regard to subsidies. It all depends on what the prevailing price is. If the price of basic slag was £12 a ton last year I would make the subsidy much larger than if it were available for £6. There is no use in quibbling about what a Deputy has in his mind about the extent of a subsidy. I might say that if North African phosphate was available at about £8 a ton last year——

Mr. Dillon

It was much less last year.

Mr. Smith

£7 something. I remember when North African phosphates could be bought for 49/- or 50/-. I bought it myself in small quantities at that figure.

Mr. Dillon

Calves were then worth £1.

Mr. Smith

They were worth more.

Mr. Dillon

And cattle £6.

Mr. Smith

This was long before the war and times were different from what they are now, I admit, but if I were to sit down with a number of people, I would not have any difficulty in agreeing with them on what the extent of the subsidy should be, without unduly taxing the Government. A subsidy of £1 or £2, in circumstances where that subsidy would be paid out of taxation, would look a very formidable matter, but where we have the Minister and the Government talking in terms of borrowing £40,000,000, it conveys to the man outside the impression that money can be lashed around without any difficulty. No matter how you may lecture him or preach at him, he says: "I have 50 acres of land, none of which needs any drainage, but it does need lime and phosphates. I am not to get any assistance at all. The Minister talks of spending £40,000,000 to increase the productivity of the soil and the national income, so far as agriculture is concerned, and I am not to get a `bob' by way of encouragement or inducement to proceed along a certain line." That is a line of reasoning, especially in the atmosphere associated with this scheme, that any man can understand.

Mr. Dillon

But not approve? You might understand it, but not approve of it.

Mr. Smith

I understand it and I approve of it. I do not know if I have made this statement, but if I were here with the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and if the Government of which I was a member arranged to borrow £40,000,000 for the purpose of increasing the productivity of the soil and the income of our farmers and of the nation, I would not be associated with or take responsibility for spending that money unless I were given some freedom to spend at least some of it in the fashion I have described. I would insist upon earmarking some portion of the money for immediate spending in that direction, so that we might not have to wait five, seven or ten years for this increased production about which we hear so much but could see no evidence of in ten or 12 months' time.

Mr. Dillon

And that without regard to how low you had succeeded in bringing the price of fertilisers.

Mr. Smith

I do not mind how low it is.

Mr. Dillon

You would still subsidise it.

Mr. Smith

If a sum of money of this size is to be flung around loosely and to be spent in the fashion described here, I say that a very substantial portion of it should be used as I suggest. We cannot do more than express our opinions upon these matters, but I say that the opinions I have expressed are opinions which, if political considerations can be excluded, will be found to be held in the ranks of members of all Parties who have any associations with rural Ireland, and especially when they find on examining this Supplementary Estimate for £1,000,000 of borrowed money that £250,000 of it— one-quarter of it—will go to land reclamation and the remaining threequarters on general expenses.

Mr. Cogan

I was amazed by the Minister's decision not to take my motion in conjunction with this Estimate. While I was amazed, I am prepared to excuse the Minister for his action, but I cannot excuse him for his attempt to misrepresent and distort the terms of my motion. There is no question whatever in the motion tabled by Deputy O'Reilly and me of supplying free lime or free fertilisers to anyone, and the Minister knows that. The motion definitely states that the scheme should be extended to provide for the improvement of land by assisting the owner of such land to apply fertilisers or lime where a soil analysis shows a serious deficiency.

Mr. Dillon

What does "assist" mean?

Mr. Smith

Subsidies.

Mr. Cogan

There is no question in the motion of supplying subsidised fertilisers to all farmers, but there is a very definite question of supplying subsidised fertilisers to farmers whose land, on a soil analysis, shows itself seriously deficient. The Minister can understand that. He asks what is meant by assistance. I mean that the same assistance should be provided for the supplying of lime and fertilisers as is provided already in the scheme for drainage and the clearing of rock and furze off land, that is to say, the State would contribute portion of the cost and, under the legislation going through, would provide credit facilities, if such credit facilities were found necessary or desirable.

Mr. Dillon

Credit facilities are amply available.

Mr. Cogan

Credit facilities, as the Minister knows perfectly well and as I have told him on a thousand different occasions and in a thousand different places, are not readily available. I have seen working farmers turned back again and again by merchants when they asked for more than the usual allowance of fertilisers required for their land. The average farmer, if he has not got the money, goes into the shop and asks for a quantity of fertiliser. The merchant usually gives him what he thinks the farmer will be able to repay in the course of the year, and how much credit he will give is left to the decision of the merchant.

Mr. Dillon

What about the fertiliser credit scheme under the county councils?

Mr. Cogan

No farmers, or very few farmers, avail of that.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is quite mistaken.

Mr. Cogan

Because they realise that they have to repay within 12 months, and 12 months' credit for the fertilising of the type of land I refer to would be absolutely worthless.

Mr. Dillon

They do not have to repay punctually in 12 months.

Mr. Cogan

They do.

Mr. Dillon

They have all paid honestly under that scheme, which has worked very well.

Mr. Cogan

It has, but the terms are repayment at the end of 12 months. My purpose in speaking is again to urge the Minister to apply this scheme to the land which most urgently needs reclamation. Remember that reclamation of land includes the improvement of impoverished soils which are deficient in lime and phosphates, and there are millions of acres of such land. If the Minister travels the country roads he will see land producing meadows only a few inches high, meadows which are hardly worth cutting, and he will see pastures carrying only one or two sheep per acre. That is not all land in elevated positions.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Deputy talking about hill-grazing?

Mr. Cogan

I am including hill-grazing.

Mr. Dillon

Hill-grazing will be dealt with. There is a provision in the scheme for it.

Mr. Cogan

I am including it, but if the proposal of the Minister now is to provide assistance in regard to lime and phosphates for what he calls hill-grazing and to provide credit facilities for that type of land, he must bear in mind that there may be poor land on the plains which requires similar assistance. Surely the test should be not whether the land is of a certain altitude but whether, on a soil analysis—I think it is a surer test—it shows a deficiency of lime and phosphates. Until the Minister is prepared to accept the condition that if land is below a certain standard of fertility he will assist the owner to bring that land up to the standard necessary to produce adequate crops, the scheme will not be adequate. In the meantime, my motion is before the House.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy oblige me by defining "assistance"? It would be a great help.

Mr. Cogan

I have already done so and I shall do so again. Let us assume that—the Minister is not listening——

Mr. Dillon

I am listening, Deputy, very closely.

Mr. Cogan

If the farmer makes application for assistance under this scheme an inspector or inspectors will duly visit his land. Soil tests will be taken of the land which requires to be improved. On those soil tests the Minister's Department estimates that a certain amount of lime and a certain amount of phosphates will be required to bring the land in question up to a reasonably normal state of productivity. Just as in the case of the scheme for the removal of surplus water so, in the case of the scheme for the application of lime and phosphates, the State will contribute portion of the cost of supplying lime and phosphates and, if necessary, the farmer can have his portion of the cost spread over a number of years as in the case of drainage and other reclamation work. That is my explanation of the position and I think the Minister must realise that it is reasonable. I do not think it is realised——

Mr. Dillon

How much of the £5 per acre does the Deputy suggest should be by way of free grant and how much by way of loan over a period of 60 years?

Mr. Cogan

If the Minister thinks £5 per acre will bring the most deficient land in the country up to a reasonable state of productivity, let the scheme be financed in exactly the same way as the drainage scheme— the State to contribute two-thirds and the farmer one-third of the cost.

Mr. Dillon

To manure his own land?

Mr. Cogan

This is a question of bringing derelict land up to a reasonable state of productivity—just the same as the State assists the farmer to drain his land. In the past, before the State ever assisted farmers by way of the farm improvements scheme and other schemes, there were farmers who drained their own land and who paid 100 per cent. of the cost. But the majority of the farmers were unable to do that. Hence, the State had to come to their assistance. In the same way, the State should come to the assistance of the farmer whose land is reasonably deficient in lime and phosphates. That is my proposition. I hope the Minister will seriously consider it and not brush it aside by distorting or misrepresenting it, as he did to-day and as he did before.

Mr. Dillon

Let us get this point clear. Two-thirds of the cost by way of free grant and one-third by way of loan, repayable over 60 years.

Mr. Cogan

Yes, if necessary. The necessity for this scheme will be recognised when we consider the amount of fertiliser that is applied to the land of this country. It is generally recognised that agricultural land requires about a quarter ton of fertilisers per acre and most land deficient in lime requires up to one ton of burned lime and two tons of ground limestone. If we were able to apply one quarter ton of fertiliser to every acre of this country 3,000,000 tons of fertilisers would be required annually in respect of the entire agricultural land of this country. How much fertiliser was applied to the land of this country over the past 20 years? I think the answer is somewhere in the region of 250,000 tons.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not appalling?

Mr. Cogan

It is an appalling condition and it is due to no other reason than lack of capital. The Minister must realise that. If he cannot see what is plain to the eye of everybody else in this country, somebody must open his eyes in regard to the matter. It is not a question of the farmer not recognising the value of fertilisers. I live and I have lived amongst farmers and I know that every farmer recognises the value of fertilisers. The trouble is that the farmer has not the capital to put into his land each year—capital which, so spent, would give a good return. Therefore, assistance must be given. To bear out what I suggest, let me say that I was one of a deputation of farmers who met the American representative in respect of Marshall Aid in this country, Mr. Carrigan. We found him a perfect gentleman and he was ready to meet us and consider the question.

Mr. Dillon

I beg the Deputy's pardon.

Mr. Cogan

We found him a perfect gentleman.

Mr. Dillon

I hope Mr. Carrigan will be gratified by that rather exotic tribute.

Mr. Cogan

What is the Minister's objection?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us now discuss the Estimate.

Mr. Cogan

When I mentioned the need for fertilisers to Mr. Carrigan he said that he was all out for supplying additional fertilisers—and free, if necessary—where the land urgently required it. I am not asking for free fertilisers. I do not believe in giving anything free to anybody.

Mr. Dillon

Did Mr. Carrigan authorise the Deputy to quote him?

Mr. Cogan

I do not think he would have any objection in the least.

Mr. Dillon

It might have been wiser to have consulted him in advance.

Mr. Cogan

Apart from the failure to extend the scheme to the type of land that most urgently needs it, the first thing that strikes one and rather terrifies one in considering this scheme is the enormous percentage of the money voted that will be spent on administrative expenses. I do not quite agree with Deputy Smith when he says that only £260,000 will go to the farmer. As far as I can calculate, only £440,000 will go to the farmer —the balance will be eaten up by salaries, travelling expenses, machinery, offices and publicity.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy has overlooked the item of wages.

Mr. Cogan

Yes, but even allowing for them——

Mr. S. Collins

Surely machinery is a capital investment that will benefit the farmer.

Mr. Cogan

Yes. Nevertheless, the cost of administration appears to be very substantial.

Mr. Dillon

Of administration?

Mr. Cogan

And of expenses generally.

Mr. Dillon

Where does the Deputy discern the cost of administration?

Mr. Cogan

If the Minister has included the wages of men actually working on the scheme — if he has added those to the salaries of his inspectors—it is not possible for a Deputy to distinguish between the two.

Mr. Dillon

I told the Deputy what the distinction was—£120,000 was the estimate for labour.

Mr. Cogan

Which would leave nearly £90,000 for salaries. That is a substantial amount. Then we have £20,000 in respect of travelling expenses. We also have £50,000 for advertising and publicity which appears to be an excessively high percentage. Then there are offices and so forth. If the Minister wishes to cut down on expenses in connection with this scheme I think he might give attention to the following case. A farmer from County Wicklow applied for help under this scheme and within a week three young inspectors arrived at his premises. They inspected his land and gave a favourable report. They gave an estimate of the cost of draining his land and what the State's contribution would be. They went away leaving the farmer perfectly satisfied—these three young, sprightly, optimistic inspectors. But a week later three older, more sober-spoken, more conservative inspectors arrived on the same farm and they told the farmer that the work of reclamation on his farm could not be undertaken until the bed of the adjoining river was lowered—a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest—and they also suggested that this farmer should get in touch with the three T.D.s for his constituency and get representations made to the Office of Public Works to have the bed of the river lowered.

Mr. Dillon

Somebody is going to lose his job.

Mr. Cogan

The first question one has got to ask is: is it necessary to send the inspectors of the Department round in triplicate?

Mr. Dillon

Certainly not in sextuplicate. The Deputy may depend upon it that inquiries will be made at once.

Mr. Cogan

There were two batches in triplicate.

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Deputy's version is correct, as most exhaustive inquiries will be instituted to-morrow morning.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister can inquire into it to the fullest extent and I shall give him all the particulars at my disposal. I hold that that is not a proper way to carry out the scheme economically. The fact of the matter is that the particular river which was referred to is part of the county council's drainage scheme already and work on this river will, I hope, be undertaken in the very near future. There was no need to call in the three T.D.s for the constituency.

Mr. Dillon

I quite agree.

Mr. Cogan

We have to be very careful in a scheme of this kind not to allow the whole of the £1,000,000 that is voted to be eaten up in a considerable amount of overlapping and fumbling. It must be carried out efficiently. There is still a certain amount of confusion in people's minds regarding the scope of the scheme, particularly with regard to the reference the Minister made to-day to the improvement of hill lands. Farmers generally are not aware of what the Minister proposes to do for hill lands. I think it is not explained in the Minister's circular and it is not explained in the Bill, nor was it explained very fully in any discussion that took place on the Bill here. I assumed that the improvement of hill grazing meant that, where hill land was overgrown with furze or where it was impossible to cultivate by reason of rocks or stones, the land would be cleared and the cost would be provided for in the scheme just the same as for drainage.

Mr. Dillon

It means much more.

Mr. Cogan

That is why I would be very anxious to find out the full terms of the scheme regarding mountain land. With regard to ordinary land which does not come into the rather vague category of hill land and which does not come into the category of water-logged wet land, will the Minister now consider doing something about it? Surely, there are millions of acres of such land in the Country? I have travelled over it in County Wicklow—land which is not giving the grass it should give, the crops it should give, and which could be brought easily into full production. It would cost some money to do that. A merchant with whom I discussed this matter—and merchants really are the only people who have ample cash to invest in the improvement of land—and who had purchased some of this land, told me that, after experiment, he found it cost him about £12 an acre to bring it into a reasonable state of production.

Mr. Dillon

Would I not be well employed bringing that merchant's purchase into reasonable production?

Mr. Cogan

There is no need to do that. Arrangements could be made to meet a difficulty of this kind. The Minister knows that there is very little of the type of land to which I refer in the hands of merchants. Most of the land is owned by farmers. The Minister must recognise that. Most of the farmers are not well-to-do men and have not surplus cash to invest as capital. Just as in the case of drainage, that land, if we are to get the full benefit from it in the interests of the nation, requires to be improved. I think no reasonable case can be made or will be made by the Minister against providing assistance for the improvement of such land.

A small matter which has caused some confusion in farmers' minds is the case of the farmer who hands over the work to the Department to do. He is directed to pay £12 per acre, regardless of the amount of work that requires to be done per acre.

Mr. Dillon

No, no.

Mr. Cogan

That is a matter upon which a full explanation would be desirable. I know certain land where there is a quantity of rock and stone that needs to be removed.

Mr. Dillon

Two-fifths of the cost, with an overriding maximum of £12.

Mr. Cogan

That is satisfactory, but it would be well if it were explained. I hope the Minister now will meet the suggestion in regard to lime and fertilisers in a reasonable way.

Mr. Derrig

I have a few questions to ask. The item, salaries, wages and allowances, the Minister has explained, covers presumably wages of those employed by the Department on the scheme. I would like him to give the House some further information as to how the Department expect to proceed when they are doing the work themselves. Is it proposed to have contractors employed full-time?

In connection with the applications under grants for machinery, I presume there will be a limit to the number of persons who will, in the Department's view, be qualified to receive these grants, and I would suggest that those who already have some experience in the business should get preference.

I cannot see why the Minister resents so much that Deputy Cogan should press for more provision for lime and fertilisers. As Deputy Smith has said, if such large sums of money are being provided in connection with the E.C.A. plan, we must assume that the primary object of the expenditure of that money upon agricultural production here is to secure the largest output of food in the shortest possible space of time. If the Minister for Finance is satisfied, having regard to the repayment obligations he must meet, that the money will be well expended and will afford such increased production as to justify him in expecting that repayment of the advances can be met out of such increase, and if it is considered that from the economic and financial point of view the measures the Minister for Agriculture has outlined are satisfactory, I cannot see why other measures which might be equally desirable from the point of view of increasing agricultural production in a large way and in a comparatively short space of time should not be worthy of consideration.

The Minister for Agriculture has repeatedly stated that this is a long-term project. I notice that in a recent speech he referred to the question of arterial drainage and the outflow of rivers and expressed the view that arterial drainage and ancillary problems are closely connected with the whole project of land rehabilitation. If it is good business to rehabilitate marginal land which, as everyone knows, may furnish a profit only during a limited period when food is scarce in the world, as it is at present, and when prices are comparatively high, I fail to understand why it should be considered heresy to suggest that a proportion of these funds might be made available in whatever way is considered suitable to enable farmers who cannot take advantage of the reclamation scheme to put capital into their land.

This is a country of small farmers. We have not been carrying on farming on the Danish system. An education official from this country visited the folk schools in Denmark and was reminded by the principals at Elsinore that the Danes-had a peasant proprietorship long before we achieved it, and that during the whole period when we were busily occupied with political and agrarian issues of a rather active character and political agitation, the Danes had been concentrating on economic questions. We know that they got into the milk business on a fairly big scale as far back as the '70's. We know also that it is part of their system to mortgage their farms to a very large extent to raise capital and that the big feature of Danish agriculture before the war was the very heavy capital expenditure on feeding stuffs, farm equipment and the modernisation of buildings. That has not been the case here. Our farmers are a rather conservative class and, as Deputy Cogan pointed out, their resources are limited. There has grown up in Denmark a co-operative organisation which is very like the joint stock organisation in other countries and which is a very efficient distributing and selling organisation, whereas we have been in a large degree carrying on what would be described as subsistence farming, which, perhaps, is inevitable when the great bulk of the farms are as small as they are here. It seems to me that if we are going to utilise the very large sums of money that the Minister has mentioned for the rehabilitation of land the distinction the Minister makes between land which is suitable for reclamation and land which is of a marginal character, not having been arable up to the present, is rather arbitrary, if the general policy is to increase agricultural production over the entire country and greatly to increase the volume of exports.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy flatters his colleagues. Subsistence farming is general after 16 years of his colleagues' exertions.

Mr. Derrig

I shall not be put off by these phrases of the Minister. The important fact is that we are to expend, according to the Minister, £40,000,000. We are responsible for the repayment of the sums and it is absolutely childish and petty of the Minister to take up the attitude that we are not entitled to discuss this matter. I think it is absolutely ridiculous for the Minister to take up the attitude that somebody is obstructing. Are we just to sit silent in out places and ask no questions as to how this money is to be spent? If the Minister tries to get away with that policy we will meet him anywhere he likes in this country.

Mr. S. Collins

Shout a bit louder. We cannot hear you.

Mr. Derrig

We will see then what the Irish people think about it. I certainly will shout as loud as anybody else.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! It is a free country.

Mr. S. Collins

I would not shout about the economic war, if I were the Deputy.

Mr. Derrig

We will go over the economic war or any other war, if the Deputy wishes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us get to the Estimate.

Mr. Derrig

Cannot the Deputy keep quiet?

Mr. S. Collins

I love to annoy you.

Mr. Derrig

There was a commission set up here by the last Government to report on the question of agriculture. That commission was composed of the best experts it was possible to obtain. We had not to go to New Zealand for them. We were able to get them in Ireland.

Mr. S. Collins

They were Fianna Fáil experts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Collins should allow Deputy Derrig to proceed without interruptions. That is surely commonplace in the Dáil.

Mr. Derrig

That commission, in their majority report, recommended that a subsidy should be granted over a ten-year period of 25 per cent. of the cost of fertilisers and phosphates and 33? per cent. of the cost of ground limestone. These gentlemen had a good knowledge of Irish agriculture. Some of them were brought up on the farms of this country and those who were not, if there were any, certainly were in very close touch with Irish agricultural conditions. That was a recommendation made to the Government before there was any Marshall Plan, that the Government, out of money provided by the taxpayer, should grant a subsidy, seeing that the prices of fertilisers obviously would be out of all proportion to what the small farmers had been accustomed to, so as to encourage them to use the very large quantities of fertilisers that were necessary to bring the land back to its natural condition of fertility. It was pointed out in the report that even in pre-war years—and the New Zealand expert has repeated the observation— the consumption of fertilisers was very low compared with the consumption in countries like Denmark and other competitors in the British market.

With regard to the question of the method in which the scheme will operate, perhaps the Minister would say how exactly farmers who wish to have land cleaned of rocks are to proceed. What procedure does he envisage when a farmer wants that to be done?

Mr. Dillon

Does the Deputy mean how he would proceed to make his application?

Mr. Derrig

Yes, what would be the procedure. I can see that in the beginning, while the scheme is getting into operation, there will be a good deal of overlapping perhaps. But I think that our experience of the farm improvements staff in the past is that they have shown that they understand intimately the farmers' conditions. As I stated in this House before, if they have not already established themselves in the confidence of all the farming community, they have done it in many cases. It is only a matter of time, I think, if they proceed on the same lines and the same understanding, until they receive the general support, confidence and co-operation of the farmers, which are necessary.

I believe that the Minister is doing good work in getting the young farmers' clubs interested in this matter. Both the majority and minority reports of the agricultural commission stated that education was the foundation for progress in agriculture as well as in every other respect. I have pointed out what the British laid before themselves as their aim, that increased technical efficiency is a very important consideration. When the Minister has got that land reclaimed and brought up to a pitch that it can be used to produce food with profit to the nation and to the owners, there will be the problem of getting the young farming population to keep up that position and improve it in the years to come. I would not go so far as to agree with Deputy Cogan, but I think he may have been right when he recommended that there should have been a number of demonstration farms. I certainly would go so far as to say that nothing could be more valuable than that farmers could be brought to a number of places, shown this machinery in operation, shown what can be done in the way of removal of scrub and rocks and whatever other cleaning operations are in question.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy consider the use of film shows for that purpose?

Mr. Derrig

I believe more in practical work. As the young farmers themselves have stated, farmers are rather shy of going to technical schools. We know that they are not too accustomed to dealing with machinery in this country, although the younger men may have some knowledge of it. One of the things mentioned in the report on economic co-operation issued by the Government is that the number of tractors in use is relatively low in this country compared with Great Britain, for example. However that may be, I simply want to say that, in spite of the admirable work which is being done in many respects, young farmers, any more than old farmers, have not that knowledge of these mechanical operations that they have in other countries. Not alone would we be giving them that knowledge, but we would also be showing them how these reclamation schemes work in practice and the value of them.

Farmers are very often shy in coming forward and explaining their difficulties. They are rather daunted if they feel that the officials they have to deal with are altogether more expert in these matters than they are. I believe strongly that the more demonstrations on their own lands that you can have to encourage farmers to take advantage of the scheme the better. I believe that the Minister should re-examine the question, if it is not possible to make any adjustment in the scheme which he has put before the House, whether it would not be worth while to reconsider the plea which has been made so that farmers who are not in a position to take advantage of reclamation and who wistfully say to one down the country: "I am afraid it is going to be no use to me because I have not land of that character; it does not happen that the scheme will suit me", could be brought into it and have the feeling that it was benefiting them.

Mr. Beegan

So far as the scheme is concerned, I think the idea behind it is a good one. I take it that it is much on the lines of the field drainage scheme carried out in Galway and Mayo last year. Judging by the outline which the Minister has furnished to each of us, it is, apparently, on the lines of the field drainage scheme to a very large extent.

Mr. Dillon

That was all done by manual labour.

Mr. Beegan

I know that it was done by manual labour. At the same time, the outline so far as the outfall, the main drain, the box drain and the minor drains are concerned is much on the same lines. There are a great many places in the country where perhaps a great deal of it will have to be done by manual labour. I understood the Minister to say once or twice that farmers are to get up to a maximum of £20 per statute acre if they carry out the scheme. In this it is stated that for nine acres the free grant will amount to £140. That would be something short of the £20 per statute acre which the Minister mentioned at first. I imagine it would be almost £5 per statute acre short of what he mentioned in his opening statement in the House.

Mr. Dillon

Honestly, I do not know what the Deputy is referring to when he speaks of £20.

Mr. Beegan

I am only quoting from memory—I may be incorrect. I believe that the Minister did say more than once that the maximum grant per acre would be £20. In this it is stated that for nine acres it will be £140.

Mr. Dillon

Two-thirds of the estimated cost—that is the maximum grant.

Mr. Beegan

That was elicited in the course of the debate on the Second Reading and I think on the Committee Stage by Deputies on this side of the House and also by Deputy Lehane. I think he brought out that point fairly clearly. Nevertheless, there is a difference, but I am not making any point of that. There is one item in this Supplementary Estimate which I question—I do not question the amount being included in the Estimate, but the purpose for which it is to be used—and which was mentioned by Deputy Derrig at the end of his speech—that is the £50,000 for advertising. That is at the rate of almost £2,000 per county. I think the proper way to advertise a scheme of this kind is by not confining it at the outset to eight counties. Perhaps the Minister can give good reasons for that. At the same time, I think that every county should be taken into consideration and that the best way to advertise it is to have the scheme carried out in every one of the Twenty-Six Counties. That would be a better form of advertising than any publicity given in newspapers or by way of films or anything of that kind, because that is a real demonstration of the type of work that is being carried out. I would ask the Minister to consider that, because I believe he would get, at least, five schemes carried out in every county to demonstrate the work for even less than the £50,000 that is set out here for advertising.

I think everyone, no matter on what side of the House he sits, will be in agreement with the point that was raised by Deputy Smith—I fail to understand why the Minister should not agree with it—namely, that it is unfair that people whose land is of fairly high quality at the moment cannot avail of, or derive any advantage from the scheme. I think that if even one-eighth of the £40,000,000 which it is proposed to spend, were set aside for those people it would be a great incentive, a great help to them if given by way of a subsidy for the purchase of fertilisers and lime.

Mr. Dillon

For high quality land.

Mr. Beegan

Of course, this scheme and this legislation follow much the same lines as every other type of legislation that I have known to be passed through this House since this State was founded. I suppose the position is much the same in every other country, namely, that thrifty people in many instances are to be penalised, and that thriftless people are to be compensated. To a large extent, it logically boils down to that. I do not want the Minister to hand over all the money to the people I speak of, but I believe that those who care their land and who put their labour and sweat into it in the past, and in many instances brought it to a high standard of fertility, should not be excluded from a scheme of this kind. If you take land at the present time, and go by Griffith's valuation of 100 years ago, you will find that a great deal of the land to which this scheme will apply was the most highly valued land in the country at that time, while on the other hand you will find that the land, which is now in a high state of fertility, was at that time land with a very low valuation. That shows that there was a lot of labour put into that land to bring it to its present high state of fertility. That is the reason why the Minister can afford, although I do not think he should do so, to by-pass those people who have land of that kind and who, by their labour, brought it to a good state of fertility. I think they are entitled to come within the provisions of this scheme.

Mr. Dillon

And get a hand out?

Mr. Beegan

They should be brought within the scheme.

Mr. Smith

Does not three-fourths of our land require lime?

Mr. Beegan

It may require lime and fertilisers. If the owners have that land analysed it may appear to be very fine grass land, or it may be very good land for growing certain crops, but not so good for the growing of other crops. If an analysis is made of the soil it may be found that certain elements are deficient in it. I hold that the owners of such land are entitled to equal consideration with the people who are being provided for under this scheme. I think the Minister should take that into account. If land of the kind I speak of is included under the scheme it will give a quicker and a speedier return for the money that is expended on it.

I want to impress on the Minister that the field drainage scheme carried out in the Counties of Galway and Mayo was an excellent one in 80 per cent. of the cases as far as the beneficiaries are concerned. I want to make this point, however, that there were a number of cases where drainage was carried out to such an extent that the land on which the work was undertaken is not much better now, because as a result it is now too dry.

Mr. Dillon

I am greatly flattered.

Mr. Beegan

I made that point last year, and I can tell the Minister that a number of his officials were not pleased that I did so. There is land that requires drains nine yards apart or, perhaps, seven yards apart, but you also have land that would do with drains 20 yards apart, land which in three years would be dried out sufficiently. As regards some of the land on which drainage work was carried out last year, it is already too dry.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Deputy apprehend the appearance of the Sahara desert?

Mr. Beegan

I know very well that it will not be arable land and that it will not produce crops. In fact, the grass and the crops on it are even worse than if drainage work had never been carried out on it. A good deal of care has to be taken in the carrying out of these schemes. I want to say again that I disagree with the spending of £50,000 on advertising, whether it be by means of films or through the newspapers. I believe that the proper type of advertising for a scheme of this kind is by having practical demonstrations carried out in all the counties as nearly as possible at the same time.

Mr. Coburn

I would like to say a few words on this Supplementary Estimate. After all, this matter was very fully discussed when the Minister introduced his Bill. The Deputies opposite have devoted a great deal of time and attention to the question as to why the Minister was not applying this scheme to farmers who are in the happy position of having their land in a good state of fertility. The reason, of course, is that here the Minister is dealing with a land reclamation measure. If at any time the Minister finds it necessary to introduce a Bill to supply lime and fertilisers to all farmers he will do so, but the two things are not to be mixed up. One would imagine, listening to the Deputies opposite, that lime and fertilisers had never been given to the farmers, and that the latter were so poor that they could not afford to get fertilisers for their land, or, again, that farmers are so jealous-minded that, because they happen to be in the happy position of having been blessed by nature with good land, they resent the fact that the Minister is doing something to improve the land of less fortunate neighbours whose land is not of good quality.

That reminds me of the man who has enjoyed such good health during his lifetime that he has always been able to draw his full week's wages, and feels that he has a grievance when he reaches the age of 70 because he never drew national health insurance benefit, instead of being thankful that during his working life he enjoyed such good health he was able to draw a full week's wages. He was so jealous-minded that he would seem to prefer taking a few pounds out of the insurance fund during the years he was working. That is a very small way to approach the very worthy object which the Minister has in view. His object is to restore to good condition land which at the moment is in a low state of fertility and is not producing all that it could produce. The Minister is going to reclaim land to the extent of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 acres. The estimated cost is £40,000,000 which is to be spread over a period of ten years. The Minister cannot spend £40,000,000 overnight. It will take time and patience to do that. I suggest to Deputies opposite that they would be doing much better work for their constituents and the farming community in general if they allow this measure to get on its way. After a few months, when officials and farmers get accustomed to its operation, things will work smoothly and there will not be the terrible difficulties visualised by Deputies on the opposite benches.

Let me remind Deputies that this is a Land Reclamation Bill and there is no purpose served by trying to confuse the issue so far as the supply of lime and fertilisers is concerned. I know that Fianna Fáil Deputies would be the first to resent it if it were suggested, by innuendo or implication, during the 16 years when their Party formed the Government, that the farmers were not able to buy lime or fertilisers. I have heard Fianna Fáil Deputies often saying that the farmers were rolling in wealth. It is there in black and white. I do not think Deputy Cogan is complimenting Irish farmers when he suggests that there is no farmer able to buy lime or to fertilise his own land. With all respect to Deputy Cogan, I do not believe that, and I know as many farmers as the next. When I speak of farmers I mean good, honest hardworking farmers. I never knew a good industrious farmer who was at any time refused credit when he asked for it. That is my answer to Deputy Cogan and to any other Deputies who have tried to hold up farmers as a set of paupers, as men who have no initiative and who cannot get a "bob" on their word. So far as I am aware, any industrious farmer will get all he wants. Since this is really a Land Reclamation Bill, Deputies should not confuse it by references to supplies of lime and fertilisers.

Mr. Allen

I rise to add my voice to what has been suggested by my colleagues here and by Deputies on other sides of the House—that the Minister should reconsider his attitude as regards the provision of some of the money at his disposal. I think he should consider providing some of it for the purpose of cheapening the price of ground limestone and artificial manure. This is a matter of considerable importance. The Minister has given no explanation to satisfy any member of the House why he could not do that.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Deputy suggest?

Mr. Allen

I suggest that the Minister should bring down, by way of subsidy—there is no other way of doing it—the price of artificial manure and lime, and bring it down considerably. I stand over that. The Minister, if he is a wise man, will use a good portion of this money in doing that, and he will serve the interests of the farmers better than in the way he is proposing in this Estimate. I make that suggestion in all seriousness. It has been said frequently by the Minister that all land does not need to be drained or improved. I would like to point out that there are millions of acres of poor, light land that have given crops from year to year and have done so for the last century, and I suggest that that land needs both lime and superphosphate, and a considerable amount of both. The owners of that land are not wealthy people; they are poor, struggling farmers, as Deputy Cogan said, who, with their families, barely exist. The Minister will not be called upon, under this scheme, to do anything on these farms, on these millions of acres of poor land.

This scheme will apply to fewer farmers than the farm improvements scheme that has been in operation for a good number of years. If a farmer does not need to have any land drained, to have hilly land cleaned or fences taken down, this scheme will not apply to him on the outline the Minister has given. The Minister may jeer or smile at what I am saying. He can tell the farmer that he is sitting on his sash, or say that 95 per cent. of the farmers do not understand or cannot pronounce the word rehabilitation.

The fact remains, however, that this scheme will apply only to a small number of farmers. That number will not be very great out of the total number of landholders. There will still be millions of acres than can do with much more lime and much more phosphate than the landowners will be able to provide. That is something the Minister should keep seriously in mind. If he has at his disposal a pool of £40,000,000, and if he will spend £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 in giving cheaper lime and artificial manure to all farmers, the return to the nation will be ten times greater than if he spent the whole £40,000,000 on the bogs and the hills.

Deputy Beegan mentioned the £50,000 for advertising. There is no need for the Minister to spend any money on advertising. If it is a good scheme, this scheme will advertise itself and the Minister can save the £50,000 for use in some other way. Demonstrations by the Minister's machinery through his officers in the country will advertise this scheme. It does not require one "bob" on advertising. Some weeks ago the Minister met representatives of the provincial Press. I wonder if this is as a result of that meeting? I am sorry the Minister thinks it is necessary to spend £50,000 on advertising. There will be little use in having a film showing a man how to use a spade and shovel. That will not make a man use a spade or shovel. All the films the Minister could show will not make a lazy man work—if there is such in the country. When the work is proceeding and when the farmers observe that it is going ahead, they will take advantage of the scheme if they think it will be for their benefit. In these circumstances it is absolutely unnecessary to spend money on advertising.

There is another item here providing £15,000 for district offices and stores. Recently I heard a story about these offices where the Minister's satellites down the country wanted offices in a particular provincial town and they thought well of going to a landlord in that town, who had offices already let, and offering him 120 per cent. of an increase in the rent if that landlord would evict the existing tenants and give them the offices. That is not good enough.

Mr. Dillon

Would you tell us the town?

Mr. Allen

I will tell you nothing more. I make the statement with full knowledge of the facts.

Mr. Dillon

How can I check on that if the Deputy will not give me the information?

Mr. Allen

I am making the statement now.

Mr. Dillon

Where did it happen?

Mr. Allen

And you can just warn your officers that it did happen.

Mr. Dillon

Where did it happen?

Mr. Allen

The name of the town does not make any difference.

Mr. McAuliffe

It certainly does if the Minister wants the information.

Mr. Allen

If my word is taken in this House as a responsible Deputy——

Mr. Dillon

It is not. On a point of order. I want to submit that if reflections are cast upon members of the public service, surely an opportunity ought to be given of identifying the action complained of in order to investigate it and to clear the officer if he has not done what is alleged against him, or demand an explanation, if he has. It is not fair, in my submission, to make an allegation and then deny me, as the responsible Minister, an opportunity of investigating it.

Mr. Allen

Any statement I make in the House——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no opportunity of checking up on the statement of any Deputy. Charges in general against the officers of a Department should not be indulged in in this House.

Mr. Allen

I did not make any charge against officers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not interrupt the Chair when the Chair is speaking. The Deputy ought to know that well enough by now. If a charge is made against a particular individual, the Chair will ensure that the charge is withdrawn. Operating in my mind at the moment is the fact that if a town is mentioned it may, perhaps, more clearly indicate a particular officer and that would possibly make it a charge in this House against a particular officer.

Mr. Dillon

The allegation is made against an officer of my Department that on a specific occasion known to the Deputy that officer engaged in conduct which is open to the gravest criticism. The Deputy knows where, when and in what circumstances that was done. Is it in order to refuse any information to the responsible Minister, either during the debate or after the debate, so that the matter can be examined with a view to determining whether the Deputy's public complaint is well founded or has been founded on error?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no control over the matter— none whatever.

Mr. Allen

I will pass from that.

Mr. Dillon

If you are not ashamed of your life to pass on, yes.

Mr. Allen

I am not ashamed of anything in the world.

Mr. Dillon

Then you ought to be.

Mr. Allen

I am holding the Minister responsible for the spending of this money. He is responsible to this House. I am making a statement. That is all.

Mr. S. Collins

An irresponsible statement.

Mr. Allen

And I ask the Minister to ensure that it will not happen in future. That is all. I will pass from that.

Mr. Dillon

That is a malicious and scandalous statement.

Mr. Allen

I would like the Minister to tell us what his estimate of the wages is under sub-head A. There is £210,000 provided for salaries, wages and allowances. Is provision made under this for wages paid for the actual doing of the work? What is the estimate as to the number of manhours or days, or the number of men who may be engaged on the work and paid out of this £210,000 during the period over which it will be spent? There will probably be salaries for inspectors and so on. What proportion will be paid in wages to the ordinary workmen? The House would like to have that figure.

There is provision for travelling expenses at the rate of £10,000. I suppose the people will not be able to get around without travelling. Machinery and implements are estimated to cost £200,000. I had not the advantage of being here when the Minister made his opening statement on that. Has any of that machinery been purchased? Will it be purchased in the dollar area or the sterling area? The House should have that information.

There is one thing certain in relation to this Estimate and that is that the farmers will get the smallest amount of that £1,000,000. Is there any possibility that this machinery will have to be replaced? The Minister must bear in mind that depreciation of such machinery can be as high as 30 per cent. The life of such machinery is very short and that £200,000, I suppose, will have to be respent in a very short time. This machinery will not last very long. Both sides of the House hope that this scheme will be a success.

Mr. Dillon

I wonder that does not choke him.

Mr. Allen

Both sides hope that it will reach the success the Minister hopes and serve the country's needs to the extent the Minister has in mind. Everyone hopes that. This £40,000,000 must be provided out of Marshall Aid by the Minister for Finance or in some other way. In order to get a better and quicker return for the expenditure of a portion of that money the Minister should seriously reconsider providing subsidies for ground limestone. He may tell us that this is spread on the farmers' land at 35/- a ton. A farmer who has 50 acres of land will need 100 tons and that will cost him almost £200. The farmer may not have that £200. In addition, he will need a substantial amount of superphosphate. That will be another £150. That is more capital than any farmer would have to spend.

Mr. Dillon

How much land has this farmer about whom the Deputy is talking?

Mr. Allen

I said he might have 50 acres. Take any acreage you like. He may have 50 acres of poor, light, tillage land that needs no rehabilitation of any kind. It may need ground lime and superphosphate and there are many farmers who would not have the capital to so rehabilitate their land in the shortest possible time. These farmers are not lazy farmers. They are hardworking farmers. They produce a large part of the wealth of the country in tillage, milk, cattle and everything else. They will not benefit in any way under this scheme. If they had ground limestone at £1 a ton, instead of 35/- a ton spread, it would be better. I hope the Minister will give consideration to the views of those people who understand the difficulties. There is no use in the Minister telling me that the manure ring is putting up the price of artificial manures. There will be no objection if the Minister seeks to take over the whole lot.

Mr. Dillon

Do you mean that?

Mr. Allen

I do. He will get no opposition from this side of the House.

Mr. Dillon

Good.

Mr. Allen

None in the world. Take them over, give them fair compensation, and if you are able to produce superphosphates cheaper than now, well and good. No matter how cheaply you can produce it, with increases in costs of labour, costs of transport and costs of raw materials, it is still too dear for the ordinary farmer. Limestone is still too dear.

Mr. Dillon

The lowest price in Europe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has advocated subsidising limestone at least three times.

Mr. Allen

It may be out of order. I am going on to a new project which I have not mentioned to the Minister before. The provision of all these necessities for the land is all-important to the national production of this country. Their provision, by way of subsidy and at the lowest possible cost to the farmers, would be worth five-fold to the nation.

Mr. Dillon

As I grow older I compliment myself that my urbanity grows. As Deputy Allen grows older he is getting to be a cross old man and he is no longer able to conceal all his malice. Every vicious, mischievous representation than he can indulge in in this House, he busies himself about it. Deputy Cogan may take a point of view with which I myself profoundly differ, but if Deputy Allen hopes at this hour and day that he can delude Deputy Cogan into the belief that Deputy Allen has suddenly become a convert he is a greater fool than I take him to be. I know that Deputy Allen is committed to the proposition that he will do everything in his power to hinder any work undertaken by my Department for the advantage of the farmers in this country.

Mr. Allen

Nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

He is welcome to do everything he is capable of doing—I do not give a fiddle-de-dee—but for the sake of public decency he ought to cover the prematurely senile viciousness of his conduct with some rag of respectability. I am not going to follow Deputy Allen. I do not believe he spoke a word to-day in good faith. He came in here like a toothless old crotchet to make mischief and if someone would give him a ball of wool or a soft toy to occupy his mind they would do a public service.

Mr. Allen

Very smart.

Mr. Dillon

It is disgusting and degrading. The only thing I must refer to I do with distaste. What is more contemptible than the man who is willing to wound but afraid to strike? What is more contemptible than the man who gets up in public and says: "So-and-so has done wrong and you are responsible for him, but I will not tell you who he is; I will not tell you where the wrong was done; I will not tell you who was injured, because I do not want to give you the chance of repairing what was wrong. I want to have it to talk about in fairs and markets. I want to have it to say that it could not be contradicted, but I will not add that I was too cowardly to give it form, so that it could effectively be challenged". Shame on the creature who strikes from behind and runs. He should be proud of his valiant assassination of some public servant's character. He can boast of it when he gets back to County Wexford. None can daunt him. He is prepared to face the doughtiest challenge, always provided that he does it in the dark.

Deputy Cogan spoke of three officers calling on a farmer who made an application. I thought he was going to say that it took at least a year, but to my gratification they called promptly; they gave an estimate. I was beginning to glow with satisfaction until the second trio entered. Up to that point all might be well but when the second trio began to tell the farmer he ought to approach the county T.D.s I confess my optimistic hopes began to flag. It is not impossible at this early stage, when we are training staff and trying to establish procedure, that you might have three junior men going just to learn their job and three responsible officers following in their footsteps to ensure that they are giving full satisfaction. We are only a fortnight at it and we are trying to bind ourselves to see that the least experienced member of our staff will not be a reproach to anybody. There is no other way we can do it, except by sending chaps out with an experienced man and, for superior precaution, going round in a selected number of places and asking farmers, "Did the fellows who called on you give you every satisfaction and look after everything?" I do not think I have any apology to make. On the contrary, that is what I wish them to do because I wish all officers in this project to train in their obligation to have as their primary objective the satisfying of the farmers' requirements.

That explanation I think is possible, but the Deputy may rest assured that the matter will be closely examined. If that is the explanation, I want to make it clear that far from censuring any officers in connection with this incident I shall commend them, as they have done admirably what I would have them do. The Deputy is no doubt aware that the matter is one of such a highly specialised character that the Otto Cahn Endowment made large sums available to carry out extensive experiments in the Welsh mountains, which are similar to our Wicklow mountains. The objection to raising the level of fertility in certain circumstances is that it becomes uneconomic. A variety of factors enter into the matter which render the problem a complicated one, and it must be dealt with in that spirit. Any attempt to do it absolutely may result in a waste of money and a failure to achieve one's purpose. The danger is that if you attempt to raise the level of fertility higher than the elevation will permit and attempt to raise stock on it which require a higher degree of fertility to keep them in health, a farmer may incur heavy losses in trying to raise valuable stock under these circumstances.

Let us get this clear. The object of this project is not confined, as Deputy Derrig seems to think, to marginal land in the accepted sense of the term. We are not seeking to bring back into marginal production, land the operation of which would become uneconomic the moment normal trading returns. What we want to do is to go in on land which we can make arable by carrying out certain mechanical operations, the effective performance of which requires capital equipment that we can never reasonably hope the average individual farmer will be in a position to command. Unless we do that, we must reconcile ourselves to an unending future in which that land may be regarded as forever derelict. A strong economic argument can be put for the proposition that large areas of the land of this country are not economic, that we can evacuate the population and leave it to the seagulls. There are men who accept the Manchester School of Economics who would argue that very strongly. I reject that school of economics quite categorically and I say that we are not going to leave the land to the seagulls, economics or no economics. The Land War was not fought for economics and this project is not being prosecuted for economics. The Land War was fought to make the lives of our people on their own holdings happy.

The purpose of this project is to make the lives of our people on their own holdings happy. What we feel is that if you put land in a state of arability which will result in the man who works on his own holding getting a fair living, he may never expect to get rich or to accumulate great wealth on the land of Ireland, but he will be able to raise a decent family decently. That is a modest objective. I think it is worth £40,000,000 to enable my neighbours in my own country, if they work hard on their own holdings, to raise a decent family decently. If this House does not think it is worth £40,000,000, then the House should not pass this Estimate. That is the plain fact. I think we are purchasing something infinitely more precious than the Manchester School of Economists ever conceived. If anyone differs with me in that, he should challenge a division on this Estimate and put up a proposal that we evacuate large parts of this country and install seagulls. We can vote on one side for the people and on the other side for the seagulls.

As Deputy Cogan himself perceived, Deputy Allen is rushing in and Deputy Derrig is passionately stirred about giving everybody fertilisers for nothing. That is a great hobby-horse. When I asked Deputy Cogan what he had in mind, Deputy Cogan replied that the rate of the subsidy must depend on the price of the fertiliser. I want to assure Deputy Cogan that, in practice, what happens is that the price of the fertiliser depends on the rate of the subsidy. If I announced that there is going to be £1 per ton subsidy on "super", up will go the price of "super". If I make it £2, up again will go the price of "super". You would imagine that Fianna Fáil, for whom Deputy Allen and Deputy Derrig speak, subsidised fertilisers regularly. If Deputies will turn to column 1710 of Volume 115, No. 12, they will see that I showed the House that, year after year, Fianna Fáil went through all the motions of appropriating large sums to subsidise fertilisers and when the year was done they had not spent the money—not a penny. In one year they had to take back from the fertiliser manufacturers a large sum of money which they said they charged in excess. Did they give that money to the farmers who paid the excess prices? They did not—not a penny of it. It went into the Exchequer. Now, I welcome Deputy Allen's declaration on behalf of his Party and I endorse it. But I do not believe in paying the fertiliser manufacturers to bring down the price of fertilisers, not a bit of it. I welcome the assurance of Deputy Allen that I have the support of the Fianna Fáil Party in saying to the fertiliser manufacturers that they are going to bring prices down or we shall bring them down for them, and not by changing or chopping costings, etc., but by putting a factory down beside them. That is the way to bring down the price of fertilisers.

I am told that I should provide a subsidy for ground limestone. Seventyfive thousand pounds a year we have been shovelling out to subsidise burnt lime, but we have not spent one penny piece in subsidising ground limestone. Yet the smallest farmer can buy ground limestone in Ireland cheaper than he can buy it anywhere in Great Britain, and in Great Britain it carries a subsidy of a varying amount according to the transport associated with the delivery. Why should our people pay subsidies to any ring or monopoly in order to get the fertilisers which the land requires at the lowest possible price? So long as I am Minister for Agriculture we are not going to do it, but we are going to insist on getting such supplies of phosphates, potash, nitrogen and lime as our people may from time to time require at the lowest possible price. If the cartel will not supply it we will find another means, and I welcome the knowledge that Deputy Allen and his colleagues accept that so that we may be unanimous about it.

Deputy Smith says: "No matter how low the price of fertilisers is, still I would subsidise it because money is being lashed around." Why is it if a Minister for Agriculture in this country persuades the Government to make some money available for the farmers of the land it is being "lashed around," but if you buy a Constellation aircraft, that is not lashing money around, or if you plan to build a hotel in Glengarriff to cost £1,000,000 that is not lashing money around?

Mr. Derrig

The first I heard of it.

Mr. Dillon

But, do you see, a good deal was going on behind your back that you did not know about.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with land reclamation.

Mr. Dillon

A Chinn Chomhairle, I am told that to spend money on this scale on land is lashing money around by an ex-Minister of a Government responsible for the decision to spend millions on Constellation aircraft. It proposed to spend—for, by the mercy of God's Providence, it did not get time to do it —countless millions on new Parliament buildings——

An Ceann Comhairle

I would like to see this debate conducted in such a manner that it would conclude within a reasonable time.

Mr. Dillon

I would feel constrained to say that if an arrangement had been made to close within a reasonable time I would not want to be an Aunt Sally for 55 minutes with five minutes allotted to me to throw a tithe of the sludge back again. Let the House decide which is the better value, £40,000,000 on the land of Ireland or £1,000,000 on a hotel for toffs in Glengarriff. That is the proposal——

Mr. Derrig

No such proposal was ever made.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is quite mistaken.

Mr. Derrig

No such proposal was ever made.

Mr. Dillon

As what?

Mr. S. Collins

To rebuild Roche's Hotel in Glengarriff? Of course, there was.

Mr. Dillon

The plans are there. £16,000 was paid out and claims for £36,000 are outstanding. By the mercy of God, Deputy Derrig became Deputy Derrig before he became partially responsible for that when the poor man knew nothing about it.

Deputy Smith says that fertilisers were frightfully expensive. They certainly were. Who made them so? Was it not the ring? Who will get the subsidy if the subsidy is to be provided on the scale suggested by Deputy Smith? Is it not the ring? I hope that Deputy Smith endorses Deputy Allen's assurance that, if it becomes necessary to manufacture fertilisers ourselves in order to frustrate the attempt of the manure ring to exploit our people, the Fianna Fáil Party is 100 per cent. behind us in that enterprise. Or has he reservations? I am disappointed. I thought it was bad enough that Fianna Fáil should be split on foreign policy, but on economics it would be disastrous. I am sorry if it irritates Deputy Smith, but really the ruddy glow of bucolic conservatism that is gradually shrouding his person edifies me. He said to-day that he very strongly deprecated capital expenditure of this kind except from revenue. Mr. Goschen——

Mr. Smith

I said no such thing.

Mr. Dillon

——in his most conservative moments could not have said better than that.

Mr. Smith

A Chinn Chomhairle——

Mr. Dillon

Is it a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Minister gives way——

Mr. Smith

Am I not entitled to refute a statement attributed to me which I never made?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has stated that he did not make the statement.

Mr. Dillon

I understood Deputy Smith to say that he deprecated expenditure on the drainage of land in excess of the sum made available from revenue and he reverted to it again and again.

Mr. Smith

I made no such statement.

Mr. Dillon

Then I am not as edified as I was. But the shade of Mr. Goschen seemed to sit behind him. I felt he lacked an appropriate Lord Randolph to encourage him. Deputy Smith knows perfectly well that it is not true to say that only a quarter of this money goes to the farmers. He caused poor Deputy Allen to go into hysterics. Deputy Allen knew that it was not true, too, but he wove a cranky, cantankerous whinge around that for about a quarter of an hour. I think it is a discreditable proposition to say that if a man's land, by the exertions of his father and grandfather before him, is now in a state of high fertility, it is unjust that we should not give him a hand-out on the occasion of rehabilitating land which is in the hands of a poorer neighbour who never succeeded in bringing it up to the level of fertility which the well-off man enjoys. I do not know what experience Deputies have, but I do not think that our neighbours in the country are that kind of people. I do not think that is the kind of jealousy that characterises them. We have many faults, but I would not say the average person in the country is grudging. If he is opposed to you in politics he would go without his supper if he thought that you would have to go without your breakfast. If he thinks you were down on your luck, if a person does get run down and loses all his cattle in a year, who goes around with the hat to buy a couple of cows to put him on his feet again? Is it not the neighbours? I think it is a mistake to assume that the people in the country have that grudging, mean and jealous outlook. I am not a bit afraid of it in any case. It was Deputy Beegan who advanced that doctrine that it is a shame to be rehabilitating one man's land if we do not give a hand-out to his neighbour to console him because his land does not require rehabilitation. That is an ugly, pauperish approach to life and it is not the way of our people.

Deputy Derrig asked what should a farmer do who wants to get his land cleared of rocks. He should ask for a form, fill in his name and address, and say approximately how many acres of land require attention.

Mr. Derrig

Will that be done by the Department?

Mr. Dillon

An officer will then call on him and show him what, in our judgment, is necessary to be done to clear his land effectively. It may be that the farmer will elect to do it himself and take the grant, in which event probably he will do part with his own family and will possibly hire one of the local contractor chaps whom we speak of equipping with machinery on a loan and grant basis. Alternatively, if the problem appears to us to be quite beyond anything except what could be achieved by very heavy machinery, we might advise him to let us do it for him. But it would be a matter of discussion between us and the farmer when our man called on the farmer, and, in whatever he wished to do, we would try to meet him unless his proposal was obviously impossible of performance. It would be a very rare case in which we would say: "We cannot accept that because we know that, unless we do it, there is no equipment within your reach which could achieve your purpose."

I quite agree with Deputy Derrig that, when land has been rehabilitated, it is very important that it should not sink back again, but I do not take the gloomy view which many people take in that respect. I think that if our people have a chance, they will not let it slip back again. It was suggested to me that we should have set up demonstration farms. I do think that our farmers are inclined to look at a demonstration farm run by an officer of my Department and say: "Sure, he has money" and so forth. What I am hoping is that, under the scheme whereby we will have one agent for every three parishes, the agent will locate quickly four or five energetic and enterprising farmers, and that, with his help and guidance, these farmers' farms will become demonstration farms, and, as they improve under his guidance, his advice and counsel, he will be able to say to farmers whom he wants to bring with him: "Come down and look at So-and-so's place, which is run on exactly the same lines as those on which you are running yours. If you can do the same as he is doing, your land will pay" I think that is a much more effective way of having a demonstration farm than to set up one under an officer of my Department.

The Deputy spoke rather in deprecation of the films. I want advice on that matter. It did occur to me that, just for the very reason stated by Deputy Derrig, our people are unfamiliar with much of the modern types of machinery and their method of user. It is not always easy to get half a parish to come a distance, but I think that nothing impresses a man so much as seeing something in action. There is a recent development in film technique whereby you can erect a medium-sized screen in daylight in a public place—a market square or fair green—and, by projecting the film from behind, get a perfectly clearly visible moving picture in broad daylight. This could be displayed adjacent to the weekly market or fair green, or at any place where people habitually gather, and made the occasion of telling them: "If you wish to see what is portrayed here, it is to be seen at such-and-such a place on such-and-such a date". We are already doing that, within limits, at Johnstown, which, as the Deputy knows, is the experimental farm in Wexford. There are, in my opinion, very dramatic experiments proceeding there. I can only hope that the Deputy and some of his colleagues will honour the institution with a visit of inspection between now and the harvest, when I think he will have reason to be, as I am, proud of the extent and character of the work there proceeding.

Deputy Derrig was quite wrong in presuming that the object of the project was to get the largest possible return in the shortest possible time. I do not give a hoot for scarcity markets, and I think it is a terrible mistake to try to persuade our people that, to adopt some device that will snatch a profit on a scarcity market, they are justified in spending any amount of money to equip themselves to do that very thing. My aim is to equip them and to advise them so that they may become masters of a long-term market, yielding not a fortuitous profit now, with a prospect of collapse hereafter, but a steady profit for a protracted period.

It is pure eyewash to say that the failure to put out fertilisers is solely due to lack of capital. It is due to the fact that, in 1934 and 1935, our people threw their hats at it. The economic war knocked the heart out of them and they stopped buying basic slag and super and putting out fertilisers on grass lands. That meant that they stopped putting out fertilisers on 80 per cent. of the land of this country.

Mr. Smith

They were never very heavy users of it.

Mr. Dillon

Light and all as they used to be, they became practically a feather's weight in the economic war. I have tested a farm in the parish of Bansha within the last fortnight where cattle were ailing and could not be got in calf and the test revealed that the phosphate content of the soil was nil.

Mr. Smith

They were ailing where there was no lack of phosphate for the past two or three weeks.

Mr. Dillon

I assure the Deputy that a careful check made it quite clear that aphosphorosis was their complaint, but it is a very extraordinary thing to find anywhere a soil test in which the phosphate content is nil; so I want to tell Deputies, because we had better all face this, who believed that that condition was confined substantially to the part of the country across Ireland from Gort, through Portarlington, to the east coast, that any such belief is a foolish illusion. It is now quite manifest that all over the country there is a condition of phosphate deficiency which no one could have believed until our resources permitted the extensive soil testing which has been going on for the past 12 months. I have prepared a proper record of the incidence of aphosphorosis and soil deficiency in phosphate which falls below 4 per cent., which, I think, will astonish Deputies.

Mr. Smith

All the more reason for the approach that has been recommended to you regarding the expenditure of this money, if there is a deficiency.

Mr. Dillon

All the more reason for making the price of phosphate low. The Deputy need have no anxiety on that score. The price of phosphate is going to be as low or lower than it is available in any country in Europe; but the phosphate cartel or the Irish phosphate ring is not going to be paid to reduce prices.

Mr. Smith

There is always a nigger in your wood pile.

Mr. Dillon

That nigger is not in my wood pile nor will he ever get into it. Accordingly, I recommend this Estimate to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.