Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture. – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Tuesday, 9 Dec 1952

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Walsh)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,505,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.

The Supplementary Estimate is for a sum of £1,505,000 and is made up as follows:—

			£
Sub-head	G.5—Repayable advances for Impor- tation of Superphosphate		555,000
,,	M.9—Land Rehabilitation Project and Water Supplies		500,000
,,	M.10—Ground Limestone Subsidy		150,000
			1,205,000
Add:—
Sub-head	Q.—Appropriations-in-Aid: Deficiency in Receipts		300,000
Sub-head	G.5—£555,000	TOTAL	£1,505,000
,,	Q (Item 8) £300,000 (Deficiency)

The bank agreed to permit an overdraft of up to £1,100,000 on the account of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann to finance importations of superphosphate by the company on behalf of the Department of Agriculture provided that 40 per cent. of the overdraft was repaid not later than 30th June, 1952, and the balance not later than 31st December, 1952.

It was anticipated that there would be a carry over of unsold stocks at 30th June, 1952, and that these would not be disposed of until the latter half of the year. Accordingly provision was made in the original Estimates for the financial year 1952-53 (sub-head G (5)) for the payment of £400,000 to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann to meet the proportion of the bank overdraft due on 30th June, 1952. Provision was also made in the Appropriation-in-Aid (sub-head Q) for the repayment of a like sum by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann from sales of superphosphate.

Payment of the requisite proportion (£355,000) of the overdraft was made to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann in June, 1952. Due, however, to a considerable falling off in the demand for fertilisers the anticipated sales of the stocks imported on behalf of the Department of Agriculture did not materialise, and it is estimated that the balance of the bank overdraft at 31st December next will be £600,000.

Repayments for sales of superphosphate by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have been similarly affected and it is now estimated that the amount received by way of Appropriations-in-Aid will not exceed £100,000 in the financial year ending 31st March, 1953.

Consequently it is now necessary to increase the provision under sub-head G (5) from £400,000 to £955,000 and to reduce the Appropriations-in-Aid under sub-head Q from £400,000 to £100,000.

Stocks of superphosphate on hands at present total approximately 55,500 tons of which 17,500 tons were imported under the 1950-51 contract and the balance under the 1951-52 contract.

As regards sub-head M (9)—Land Rehabilitation Project and Water Supplies—£500,000—it was estimated that the provision in the original Estimates of £2,033,906 for the land rehabilitation project and water supplies scheme in 1952-53 would be sufficient. Early in the financial year, however, it became apparent that expenditure on direct action work being carried out by the Department, and by contractors working for the Department, would be much greater than was originally anticipated. This was due to the fact that the demand by farmers for the facilities afforded under Section B of the land project became increasingly great and the volume of work carried out by the Department and by contractors was, therefore, greater than was anticipated when the Estimate was framed.

The additional sum of £500,000 now required relates almost wholly to the direct action work being carried out by the Department and by contractors working for the Department.

It was originally estimated that a sum of £180,000 would be required to meet the cost of labour recruited for the direct action work being carried out by the Department. In fact, the sum required for this service is now estimated at £350,000, i.e., an additional sum of £170,000.

In the case of the provision for payments to contractors, the original estimate was for a sum of £270,000. Expenditure for this service is now estimated at £510,000, i.e., an additional sum of £240,000. The third major item of expenditure on direct action work is in respect of the purchase of materials for drains, fencing, etc. The provision under this heading was originally estimated at £240,000. Revised expenditure is estimated at £320,000, i.e., an additional sum of £80,000.

The three additional amounts set out total £490,000 out of the gross additional sum required of £500,000. The balance of £10,000 represents an additional sum required for the purchase of lime and fertilisers.

This notable expansion in the work under Section B of the land project suggests that the time has arrived when it will be advisable to review the terms of the land project in so far as the benefits available to farmers under Sections A and B, respectively, can be compared. The fact that the project has been in operation for a period of about three and a half years also suggests the desirability of a general review of its progress.

Accordingly, a close examination of the relative merits of the two sections of the project is being made. Section A refers to that part whereby farmers carry out reclamation work on their holdings, in consideration of which they receive a grant calculated at the rate of two-thirds of the estimated cost of the work subject to a maximum of £20 per statute acre. Section B provides that farmers may request the Department of Agriculture to carry out reclamation work on their holdings, in consideration of which they are required to contribute towards the cost at the rate of two-fifths of the estimated cost, subject to a maximum of £12 per statute acre.

Experience has shown that the terms of Section B of the project offer much greater advantage to the farmers than do those of Section A, where the expensive types of drainage and reclamation works are involved. This does not apply in cases of minor and relatively unimportant types of work. The situation, therefore, has been created that the grant facilities of the project are being availed of only in respect of the minor and relatively unimportant reclamation works, while the Department of Agriculture is being requested to undertake all the expensive type of work. Naturally, with the limited machinery available to the Department and to contractors, progress has been slow. It is apparent, therefore, that some inducement will have to be offered to farmers to persuade them to undertake major reclamation works on their holdings, whether by employment of contractors on their own behalf or by employment of gang labour.

With this purpose, I have decided to recommend to the Government that the terms of the land project should be adjusted in order to equate the benefits available under both sections. I propose to recommend that the grant available under Section A of the project will be raised to a level which will ensure that the farmer who undertakes reclamation work on his holding on a grant basis will receive equal financial assistance. I hope to be able to announce shortly the increased grant payable under the project, and my intention is that the benefits will be available as from the date of the announcement, and will apply not only to applications received subsequent to the date of announcement, but also to existing claims which have not been certified as complete and eligible for payment of the grant already approved.

I hope that this increased financial assistance will induce many farmers to undertake reclamation work on an extensive scale on their holdings on a grant basis, thus affording some relief of the volume of work falling on the Department of Agriculture. This applies particularly to those farmers who prefer to see their land brought into full production without creating a debt on their holdings. More important still is the fact that larger areas of unproductive land will be brought into production more rapidly because farmers can have the work done more quickly by gang labour and by creating such a demand for land reclamation contractors as will bring more of these into existence.

The examination of the progress of the project generally discloses one other important fact. Contractors are able to carry out reclamation work more rapidly than can the Department through the operation of its own machinery. This is readily understandable when it is considered that contractors can work for longer hours, can be more selective in their employment of skilled labour, can retain such skilled labour irrespective of the areas where they undertake work and, generally, are not subject to the restrictions applicable in the case of machinery operated by a State Department.

With the object of having reclamation work speeded up, the Government has also decided that the machinery at present employed by the Department for the purposes of Section B of the land project shall be disposed of to private contractors.

Briefly, therefore, it can be stated that a sum of £500,000 is required in order that the programme of the land project in the current year may be carried through. With the amendments in the terms of the project which have been set out, it is hoped that the reclamation of land may be proceeded with and that greater areas of land will be brought into full production more rapidly.

As regards sub-head M (10)—Ground Limestone Subsidy—£150,000—in March, 1951, the Government approved of the expenditure of £1,750,000 from Grant Counterpart Funds for a five-year scheme to subsidise the delivery of ground limestone from the quarry to the farmer's premises. This amount was allocated over the five-year period as follows: 1st year, £250,000; 2nd year, £300,000; 3rd year, £350,000; 4th year, £400,000; 5th year, £450,000.

The scheme came into operation on the 12th March, 1951, and the total amount of subsidy paid in the financial year ended 31st March, 1952, was £198,000 approximately. This amount covered the delivery of some £238,000 tons of ground limestone in the period 12th March, 1951, to 28th February, 1952.

The increase in the demand for ground limestone has been much greater than anticipated and it is estimated that deliveries for the 12 months ending 28th February, 1953, will be approximately 550,000 tons and that the subsidy payable in the financial year 1952-53 will be £450,000, as against £300,000 provided in the Estimates.

The present average cost of delivery is approximately 16/- per ton. Any reduction which might be expected as a result of additional grinding plants coming into operation will probably be more than offset by the increase in the road tax on motor vehicles which comes into operation on the 1st January, 1953.

When the subsidy scheme came into operation in March, 1951, 16 plants were in production. Twenty plants are now working and it is expected that an additional two plants will be in production before the end of December.

The maximum output of the present plants is approximately 850,000 tons per annum.

Plans for the greater production and use of ground limestone are under consideration.

Mr. Dillon

It is a humiliating thing to see a man reduced to the depths of degradation to which the Minister for Agriculture has allowed himself to be reduced to-day. He has been dispatched in here by his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to announce the initial steps in winding up the land project. Why has he not the courage to say so? Why does he ask this House to do so and seek to hide the hand that he is ashamed to show? He announced to-day that the machinery we borrowed money from the United States to buy, the machinery which started the land project in this country and was the guarantee of its successful prosecution, is to be sold to contractors—and that in the cause, if you please, of expediting land rehabilitation in Ireland.

Mr. Cogan

Let him roar away; he is only making a fool of himself.

Mr. Dillon

Fianna Fáil and its satellites have a short time in which to exercise their venom and their hatred. Let them pack into the short time they have all the damage they are fit to do. It is a consoling thought at this time that there is an alternative to take their place, and it does not matter what damage they do; it will be undone. Tear down the project and we will rebuild it; reduce our people on the land to the level of destitution to which you did reduce them twice before, and we will retrieve the damage you do. As certainly as Fianna Fáil are sitting on the Government Benches to-day, so certainly our people in rural Ireland will do to them, when they get the chance, what the people of NorthWest Dublin did to them when they showed themselves before an urban population. Look at them! One of the Deputies opposite is unique in that he is the last Fianna Fáil Deputy who will ever be elected at a by-election in this country.

Whether they like to try it or not, they will be made try it very soon because I see them going home and I see their long faces. I see them disappearing behind closed doors as quickly as they can get the hasp on the door when they get home. I do not blame them. There are no queues now waiting to get favours from them. There are queues waiting to catch them. God be with the days when they used to be looking for constituents to meet them. You cannot see them now when they get home for the dust of the road as they fly in the back door and clap it closed and send messages out through the front door——

An Ceann Comhairle

This does not arise on the Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

——that they are resting over the week-end and are not to be disturbed. It is this kind of work that has made them seek their rest cures instead of the publicity of the chapel gate. God be with the days when you could not keep them off the wall outside the chapel. It is this kind of work that is sending them in through the sacristy door for fear the people would meet them coming in or going out. To me it would be unrelieved tragedy if this unhappy man, the Minister for Agriculture, had come in here at the dictate of the Minister for Finance to announce this blow at the people for whom he professes to be responsible in the House unless I had the assurance that he will not last long.

I said recently that I regarded the Minister for Agriculture as, next to the Taoiseach, the most important Minister of State. I never envisaged it as possible that any person holding the Office which the present Minister now holds would degrade himself by coming into this House at the behest of the Minister for Finance on the shameful mission on which he is here.

The rest of this Supplementary Estimate is eye-wash. It is simply being brought in in an effort to cover what the real purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is, which is to announce the preliminary steps in destroying the land rehabilitation project at the instance of the Minister for Finance. I do not want to conceal the fact, Sir, that the project is dear to my heart because it was something which I knew to be an effective instrument for undoing much damage that had been done not only during recent years, but during centuries when our people were denied the opportunity of making the land of this country what they were able to make it were they but given the chance.

I saw, as other Deputies in this House saw, in rural Ireland land drainage carried up to the domain wall of the landlords' old domain, done by our people for a penny a day, which was what the landlords paid them to do it. I thought it was a proud achievement for us in our generation to make available to the sons and grandsons of the men who, for one penny a day, had to rehabilitate the land of their landlords a century ago, their own amenities in our time so that what was left undone by their oppressors would be done on the land they fought to make their own by this generation of their grandchildren who lived on. Is it not an astonishing thing that an Irish Government whose policy by declaration is that our people eat too much and live too well, and that they are to be beaten down into eating less and living lower, are now to add to that glorious programme the proposition that machinery of this kind is not suited to the service of the people who live on the land of Ireland, and that if they want to get the work done they should employ contractors or do it by manual labour? The slogan is: "Get back into the ditches. Get out the shovel and the loy."

Mr. Davern

Bob-a-gallon merchant.

Mr. Dillon

Listen to the voice of Deputy Davern from Timahoe calling upon all of you to shout for the Republic.

Mr. Davern

Yes. We established the Republic and the Deputy is trying to sell it.

Mr. Dillon

Remember Deputy Davern is a member of the Timahoe Fianna Fáil Cumann. He has that kind of brazen voice which makes him so successful in the Timahoe Fianna Fáil Cumann and he thinks it makes him successful here, but it only makes him look silly. It is the spirit underlying that aggressive desire to walk upon everybody else which imbues Fianna Fáil at the present time to tell the people this is what the Government proposes and they must like it. I do not think our people will like it. Whatever havoc Fianna Fáil may wreak on our people now we will undo it. Whatever suspension of activity results from the curse of Fianna Fáil in this county we will put it right. It is as clear as crystal to me now that there is only one way of controlling the folly, amounting to madness, which constitutes Fianna Fáil policy at the present time, and that is to clear them out.

Let any Deputy in this House, on whatever side he may sit, go to any constituency in Ireland and ask the people if they are in favour of the Government disposing of this machinery which was purchased for the service of our people. Will they get a verdict from them? I put it to Deputies on every side of this House to go to the country and ask the people whether they approve of the winding-up of something which has given employment to our people on their own land to the tune of £180,000 in the first part of the year and £350,000 during the whole year on improving the land. Ask them if they approve of the Minister's proposal to sack them all. Tell them to go look for work if they can get it.

Suppose they cannot get it what does the Minister suggest they should do? What reason has the Minister to expect that the crawler-tractor drivers whom I brought home from North Africa, Egypt and other parts of the world whence they came to get work in their own country will get work now when he dismisses them? The Minister must know of the immense difficulty which was experienced in the early stages of this project in building up skilled personnel to operate this class of machinery. He knows that some of this machinery we designed here and got made for the special conditions obtaining in this country. Do the Deputies merely think that all this should be thrown away? I do not. My Party does not but it is a criminal thing for that Party which now occupies the Government Benches to throw away £2,500,000 worth of machinery. That is bad but to throw away the whole trained staff which it took us three years to build up and train and to put on us the obligation, when we come back into office, of starting from the bottom to build up and train these men——

Mr. Walsh

What a hope you have.

Mr. Dillon

It is not a hope. It is a fact.

Would you look at what is interrupting me?

They are selling the machinery and they hope to cover their tracks and they hope their satellites will help them to cover their tracks but the country will not believe them and I am telling this House and the country now that what they are really trying to do is to destroy the project that they had not the courage to think of themselves because they hated it.

Mr. Walsh

Time will tell.

Mr. Dillon

They tried to prevent the people availing of it. They tried to persuade people not to avail of it. There is not a Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches who did not spread the story that those who availed of the project would have their rates increased.

There is no ring.

Mr. Hickey

What about Imperial Chemicals?

Mr. Walsh

They did not sell superphosphate.

Mr. Dunne

Is the Minister sure of that?

Mr. Dillon

We are building up a pretty picture of the Minister for Agriculture. "There is no ring," he says.

Mr. Walsh

You tried to form one in your imagination.

Mr. Dillon

The Lord protect us! What has become of the Grant Counterpart Fund out of which the money was to come from the limestone subsidy? Has the Government got that money? If they have, why are they appropriating money now from the Exchequer? There was £1,000,000 set aside out of the Grant Counterpart Fund wherewith to subsidise the distribution of ground limestone. When will that money be brought in? When will it be brought into account to offset the revised Estimate for £450,000 here set out?

When we initiated the ground limestone scheme we did it on the basis of a transport subsidy and the important thing at the time was to get limestone out. That was demonstrated in a general policy to transport limestone whencesoever it was ground to whither so ever the demand summoned it. It was clearly envisaged that as soon as there was a fair coverage of the country as a whole with limestone plants some measures would be taken to restrict the distance over which crushed lime would be carried. I would be glad to know now from the Minister for Agriculture as to whether the unduly long hauls associated with the initial stages of this limestone scheme are still going on or whether we have succeeded in limiting the distance over which limestone may be hauled on a subsidised basis from any limestone grinding plant in the country?

But suppose it does not. Suppose it is not bought. Suppose there are not contractors forthcoming. Is this not what will happen and is this not what the Department of Finance want to happen? The project will go forward at just half the pace until—it is hoped—as contractors drop off, the project will stop. If there is no machinery in the hands of the Department of Agriculture and no contractors willing to continue, the work will not be done at all. Remember, so long as we had the machinery nobody could stop us. The moment the machinery goes—and the trained personnel—the future of this project depends on the willingness of contractors to carry on——

Mr. Walsh

The Deputy knows that it will be far more popular than the old scheme.

Mr. Dillon

——and there is no reason on God's earth why to-morrow an irreconcilable conflict of opinion should not arise between the contractors and the Department of Finance and, in that hour, the whole project under Part B comes to a stop and we have abandoned the means of carrying on. The cost of the machinery was £2,500,000. What contractor would ever have brought that into the country if we had not done so? What contractor in the future will bring into the country £2,500,000 worth of machinery? I find it hard to believe that any body of public men would cynically destroy something so precious to our people. I find myself, in my own despite, arguing and trying to sway their minds. Then, as I speak, I suddenly realise that I am not talking to men susceptible to reason. They know the facts as well as I know them but they just want to destroy the project because they hate it.

It is a pitiable thing that public men in this country should so far degrade themselves and it is a humiliating thing to see the Minister for Agriculture in an Irish Government coming to an Irish Parliament with a mission such as the present Minister has accepted from the Minister for Finance. People would have remembered him with respect if he had refused to come in and do this dirty work. People will remember him with contempt because he came in to do it and, what is worse, I suspect he came in to do it gladly for the basest possible motive—to injure his neighbours in the hope of achieving political Party advantage.

It is true, too true, that those whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad. Fianna Fáil ought to know now, having exhausted their blandishments on our people, that they have failed to seduce them from the land rehabilitation project. They cannot fool our people now into believing that the sale of the machinery and the dispersal of the trained staff are designed to expedite rehabilitation of the land. The Minister for Finance declared here a week ago that he warned his colleagues that they would either cut down the outlay on capital expenditure or he, the Minister for Finance, would resign, that they reluctantly came round to his point of view and they unanimously authorised him to come into this House and to proclaim that policy as the joint policy of all of them, and that if they tried to throw him overboard now he would bring down the whole rotten structure round their ears. Deputies heard him tell that to the House. This is the contribution to that unholy bargain which the Minister for Agriculture is now called on to make. Is it not a shame? If I were in his position I should like to think that no power, however great, would send me into the Dáil to do the dirty work to which he has put his hand to-day.

Mr. Cogan

I must apologise for the fact that I once described Deputy Dillon as an abominable showman. I think he has shown to-day that he is an excellent showman. The Supplementary Estimate that has been introduced here to-day has exposed to the House and the nation the abominable misrepresentation and falsehood in which Deputy Dillon has been engaged for the past 18 months. He and his colleagues have told the people in every constituency that the land rehabilitation programme was being slowed down, that it was being wound up. Yet, we have here to-day an Estimate introduced to provide £500,000 more for the land project for the present year. During every year that Deputy Dillon was in office only a small fraction of the money voted for the land project was utilised, but this year the Minister for Agriculture has come into the House to ask for £500,000 more by way of Supplementary Estimate in order to carry on and finance the expansion of the programme that has occurred during the past year. Deputy Dillon knows that as well as any Deputy in the House but he seeks to cover up this exposure by an exhibition of violent hatred, of anger, indignation and falsehood. I do not think I have ever listened in this House to a more dishonest display than that which has been given by Deputy Dillon to-day. He knows perfectly well that every charge he made against the Government was false. He knows perfectly well that the land project under these two sections will continue as it continued before, and will continue at an ever expanding rate.

Deputy Dillon sought to represent that the sale of departmental machinery to contractors would mean the winding up of the B section of the scheme. What it does mean is a speeding up of this section. Under the B section a farmer who wishes to have his land drained and rehabilitated, can apply to the Department and they can do the work with their machinery or through contractors. Deputy Dillon said that he got his land drained by the Department. The Minister also said that he got his land drained directly by the Department. I, myself, had my land drained by the Department but not with the Department's machinery. It was done by a contractor and done very efficiently. I can tell the House that some of the best and most efficient work in the country has been done by contractors working for the Department. If any Deputy likes to go down into the Leinster counties—Carlow or parts of Wicklow—he will find that is so, particularly in Carlow. You have contractors working there doing excellent work. That work will continue and it is going to be speeded up. Instead of the Department doing the work by direct labour with their own machinery, the work will be done by contractors working for the Department.

I do not see how any Deputy, particularly any Deputy of the Fine Gael Party, which claims to stand for private enterprise, can object to that. If Fine Gael were a Socialist Party they might advocate that all work should be done directly by the Department and that all the machinery employed should be owned by the Department but a Party that claims to stand for private enterprise and private initiative surely can have no objection to having contractors, in the main, farmers' sons, working their own machinery and assisted by Government grants doing this work—owning their own machinery and working for the Department or for individual farmers who will employ them. We have had Deputy Dillon for an hour, raging, blowing and belching as if something terrible was going to happen. After indulging in that exhibition, he fled from the House because he knew he was going to be exposed. He knew that the campaign of falsehood in which he had engaged during the past 18 months was being shown up to be a complete falsehood and complete misrepresentation. He told the world even, when he and Deputy Flanagan were sent down to Midleton by the Party bosses, the falsehood that the land project was being slowed up. Now, we find that it is being speeded up, and that more and more money is being demanded for it.

I think that, when the Minister's proposals in regard to Section A of the scheme are implemented, the programme will expand even more rapidly. We all know what the position is. We know that the scheme is divided into two sections. There is the A scheme, under which the farmer does the work himself, and receives a grant-in-aid for so doing it. That farmer, no matter how much it may cost him to drain an acre of land, cannot, under the existing scheme, receive more than £20 per statute acre. The work may cost him £40 or £50, but £20 is the most that he can possibly obtain. If he opts to have the work done under the B scheme, and if the work costs £50 the Department will have to put up the greater portion of that. It will have to put up £38, and the farmer will have to put up only £12. That is the difference between the A scheme and the B scheme.

General MacEoin

That is the fairly hefty difference.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister has told us that he is going to improve the A scheme so as to give the people who opt under it an advantage. In the meantime, the B scheme will continue.

Mr. Rooney

No.

General MacEoin

The machinery is gone.

Mr. Cogan

We see now how Deputy Dillon has succeeded in deluding the poor stupid members of the Fine Gael Party.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Dillon jumped into the breach and put over the falsehood that the B scheme was being dropped. He succeeded in putting that over on the poor bewildered, befuddled members of the Fine Gael Party. The B scheme is not being wound up. It is being extended and will continue. Under the B scheme the farmer opts to have the work done by the Department which, to a great extent, employs contractors to do the work for it. I have seen contractors do this work for the Department. They will continue to do the work with the added machinery which they will now receive. They will carry out the work at least as efficiently as the Department itself would, and will probably be able to do it more rapidly and more speedily.

I do not want anything I say to be taken as a reflection on the Department in the carrying out of this work by direct labour. A Department cannot, in the main, do work as efficiently as a private individual. We have seen that in the case of Córas Iompair Éireann and of a number of big schemes. This drainage work requires individual attention. It is work that requires to be done by the man who owns the machinery and who is on the spot to watch the machinery being used. That is the system which the Department employs. It employs contractors who do the work economically and efficiently.

I think we should congratulate ourselves, particularly those of us who are real farmers and live on and out of the land, on the fact that the scheme is being extended and is going forward. We should congratulate ourselves on this, that there is no deception in regard to this scheme—in voting big sums of money and not spending them. The money that was voted at the beginning of this year was found to be insufficient. It is now to be increased by £500,000. That shows that the work is going forward rapidly. I myself would like to see it go forward even more rapidly. I have on my list scores of farmers who have applied to have their land drained under the B scheme and are still waiting. The Department has found it impossible to reach on them all. I hope that, when it lets out more machinery to contractors, these men will be able to get through the work more expeditiously, and so will be able to reach all the people who have put in applications. That is all to the good.

I asked a question some time ago in regard to the A scheme. I was anxious that the grants should be increased, because I think it is desirable that as many as possible of our farmers should be encouraged to do this work themselves. They probably would be able to do it a little better and probably a little cheaper in view of the fact that they would be working on their own land. That would not mean a saving to the State, but it would mean a saving anyhow. That would be all to the good of the general community.

I think that the Minister's decision to improve the A scheme by giving those who opted under it an additional grant is a courageous one. I believe it will be rewarded by increased activity in regard to drainage. I hope that any false impressions which the junior members of the Fine Gael Party may have received from Deputy Dillon's outburst have now been dispelled. They can rest assured that the land project is going forward and will continue to go forward. I see that they are all in a huddle now trying to think out some plan to mend the mess that Deputy Dillon made of their case.

Captain Giles

You did not hear much of it anyhow.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Giles was not here for the whole of the Minister's or Deputy Dillon's speech. The position is that any farmer who wants to avail of the A scheme by doing the work himself can go ahead with it. He has the assurance that he is going to get an increased grant. Any farmer who wants to opt for the B scheme can also go ahead, and the Department will do the work for him through its contractors. Where there are units of machinery in a county, it is desirable that contractors who purchase machinery should undertake to work it in that county either for the Department under the scheme or for individual farmers.

I think there is nothing in Deputy Dillon's suggestion that the transfer of machinery from the Department to private contractors will reduce the volume of work or the number of workers employed. The contractors, like the Department itself, must employ a good deal of manual labour in the running of the machinery. Deputies who know anything about the scheme must know that any contractor working a drainage unit in a county must employ, permanently, a number of workers to drive the machinery and do the manual work ancillary to the carrying out of the drainage scheme. There will be no question of reducing the amount of employment given. As a matter of fact, the expansion of the scheme will lead to increased employment. As I have said, the machinery will be used to the best advantage, and that is what we all earnestly desire.

There was nothing more absurd than Deputy Dillon's suggestion that the transfer of this machinery to contractors means driving our workers back, as he said, to the shovel and the loy. Surely if machinery continues to be used for drainage there will be no need to depend on the shovel and the loy. The shovel, the spade and the loy will be required to supplement the machinery, but there is no question whatever of any attempt being made to supplant the machinery. I think that the former Government did try that on a much wider scale than any Government in the past. I remember when the Local Authorities (Works) Act was put into operation seeing a man with a shovel in four feet of water——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must not discuss that on this Estimate.

Mr. Cogan

——at this time of the year endeavouring to do drainage work. I do not think that was a sensible arrangement under any Government. Under this particular proposal we will still have machinery working for the Department and perhaps also for firms. We will also have the manual workers assisting in carrying out the work in addition to the machinery and that is all to be desired. I think no one except Deputy Dillon would object, and I do not think Deputy Dillon really objected to it at all. What he sought was, by raising a storm, to cloud the issue and disguise the fact that all his propaganda for the last 18 months has been proved false, that all his misrepresentation about this scheme being slowed down had been proved to be absolutely malicious misrepresentation. We know that the work is going forward and will continue to go forward at an increasing rate. Any inefficiency that there has been in the operation of the various sections of the scheme over the last two or three years was no reflection on those who initiated the scheme. It is inevitable in every scheme that certain errors will be made. The whole basis of human progress is to correct errors as they are discovered in the light of experience and that is what the Minister proposes to do in an efficient way. Of course we had to have this storm introduced to cloud the issue.

I am glad that it is proposed to expand and to extend the ground limestone scheme. That is one of the most urgent needs of the present moment. As we know there are still millions of acres of land which are utterly unproductive through lack of lime. In anything that the Minister can do to expedite the production and distribution of ground limestone he will have the wholehearted approval of the House. Any money required for the purpose will be voted freely by this House. As we know, that scheme was initiated by a very able friend of this country, not by one of ourselves but by the E.C.A. representative who came here and directed that we should put that scheme into operation. He directed that it should be put into operation in defiance almost of the protests of the then Minister for Agriculture, but he got his way and the scheme has justified itself.

There again, there may be certain little faults that may arise. It may be that limestone is being transported too great distances and perhaps because the transportation is subsidised and paid for by the State, there may be cases in which the limestone is unnecessarily transported long distances. If that is so, that is something that must be eliminated as quickly as possible. The limestone must be got as near as possible to the place where it is required and it must be applied to the land that is as convenient as possible to where it is produced. The distance between the source of production and the land upon which it is required must be shortened to the minimum so that we will not have any waste of public money by unecessary transportation.

The fact that we require 12,000,000 tons of ground limestone to rectify the acidity of our soil and that, in addition to that 12,000,000, we require at least 2,000,000 tons per year to maintain the lime content in the soil is something upon which we must reflect when we consider, as the Minister said, that our output at the present time will not exceed for the coming year, 800,000 tons. That is an industry which is waiting to be extended by Irish labour and Irish brains. It is an industry which will give a hundredfold return if it is put into operation as speedily as possible. I hope that whatever obstacles may prevent the rapid expansion of the limestone production industry will be tackled by the Minister in the most resolute way and that he will overcome them.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The last speaker was not quite correct in mentioning the word "inefficiency" in relation to that section of the Dillon scheme with which we are more concerned this evening namely, Section B. The Minister actually stated that it was perfect and I think Deputy Cogan was in the House at the time and heard him say so. Surely the most cogent reasons that he could put forward to the House for changing the scheme would be to point out where the inefficiency exists, where the lack of economy was, the reasons which prompted him to take this drastic step, to create an upheaval in a scheme which was settling in so well and which actually could not cope with the extraordinary increase in the number of applicants who sought to have work done under the scheme. The fault that we have to find with it is that there was not sufficient machinery put into the work under the Department, that there were not sufficient teams of men throughout the country doing the work which the farmers wanted them to do.

In the list which was read out to-day I was surprised to note that the County of Cork, one of the constituencies of which I represent, has the same quantity of machinery under the land project as the County Kilkenny, which the Minister represents. Surely a county of the vastness of County Cork would require at least three times as much machinery in order to cope with the work to be done in that county. There would seem to be an unequal distribution of machinery at the moment. But we do not feel that any reasons have been put forward by the Minister why this reversion should be made, this doing away with the system which obtains at the moment and employing contractors to do the whole job.

I can see certain difficulties arising out of the contract system. I agree that the contractors at present engaged in the work are doing a very good job, but I am also aware that in the course of the past 12 months men who applied to the Department for grants for the purchase of machinery were denied them. They were informed that such grants were no longer in existence, grants which obtained when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture. How can you relate that to the glowing accounts we had this evening of more efficient administration of this work by the contract system? I am afraid that a contractor when asked to do this work on a particular farm will be attracted to the farmer with the most means, the farmer whom he is sure will be in a position to pay him off the reel.

I regret that this has occurred just now, because the farmers who had faith in this scheme—and we have no indication that any lack of faith exists in any part of the country in relation to this project—felt that the Minister was wise in allowing it to continue and not to take any drastic steps which would create an upheaval in the good work which was being performed under the scheme.

In relation to Section A the increase which it is proposed to give is long overdue. It is overdue since conditions were changed to the extent that the cost of living increased to such an amount that the farm labourer has to get a higher wage and that the farmer's son and the small farmer doing this work for himself now requires a larger amount if he is to meet the cost of the present moment. In many of these instances the stones which are utilised principally by the small farmers are not available to them on the spot. They have to employ transport to bring them, in many cases, quite some distance and to get other suitable material. Now it is proposed that in the ensuing year the cost of this transport shall be increased. Definitely every penny that it is proposed to give by way of increase under Section A is needed to meet the increased costs which everybody engaged in this work must meet.

Coming back again to Section B, I think it would not be superfluous on the part of the Minister introducing this if he paid some tribute to his officers who are engaged on this work and the skilled men who are carrying it out. Not since this State was founded have we utilised our skilled labour in so productive a job as in the administration of this scheme. I regret this proposal because already the scheme had suffered and took a rebuff in the abolition of or at least in the considerable reduction of work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, because the land rehabilitation project in many instances followed directly upon work under that scheme. Many farmers in my constituency could not do the work in low-lying lands because work on streams and rivers which would have been freed from obstruction and would have proved to be a good outfall for the water from these lands had to be abandoned when work ceased under the Local Authorities (Works) Acts.

I cannot see where the contractors in this country will find the capital to purchase this huge machinery from the Department. I regret the step that is being taken, when we have not the check on the location of the machinery which we have at the moment. We cannot make representations to ensure that it will be brought to particular parts of the country. Many of us have been approached recently on successive occasions to know: "When will the unit come into our area?" I am sure that the matter which the Minister has announced this afternoon will cause grave concern to the agricultural community.

In regard to the announcement relating to fertilisers, the Minister went back to the old excuse of the storage difficulties in connection with the fertilisers which were left over by the previous Government. I would say to the Minister that if they were offered to the farmers of this country at a price even somewhat in excess of what they cost, that is, at a reasonable increase, the farmers would store them very quickly and they would find some use for them so that they would not deteriorate. Certainly if that had been done, the deterioration we are now told about would not have occurred. The Government will have some difficulty in explaining to the people of this country how they could charge such an increased amount for fertilisers bought, as the Minister stated this afternoon, for £9 8s. and which are now costing £13 10s.

In relation to ground limestone some hopes were entertained by farmers that, with the rapid expansion of this scheme, there would be a natural reduction in production costs in consequence of that expansion, but the increased tax on the vehicles from the 1st of the New Year would absorb any reduction in costs in consequence of the expansion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot discuss increased tax on vehicles on this.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The Minister in introducing this Supplementary Estimate had referred to that. It will be found in the report. He stated this afternoon that the increased tax on the vehicles in the distribution of the ground limestone would absorb any reduction which the farmers expected as a result of the expansion of that scheme. That is why I referred to it. In conclusion I would say that this proposal will be received with quite some concern in the country because it is felt that the Dillon scheme was the most advantageous scheme ever introduced for the rehabilitation of the land in this country and that it was already bearing fruit in the increased number of cattle which farmers could carry on their lands, in the increased acreage which would be available for tillage and that in the years to come as the people went still further into this scheme the results would be extremely beneficial to the economy of the whole country. I feel that this proposal in regard to the administration of it will not be to the advantage of the scheme as a whole.

Mr. Corry

I expected that this Vote would be received by the representatives of the rural community here with joy instead of the manner in which it has been received. When I heard Deputy Dillon this afternoon I was pretty well amused. Therefore, let us take the history of this scheme from the time that Deputy Dillon translated it or converted it from the farm improvements scheme of Fianna Fáil into this glorified project and see where it carries us. This was introduced with a great flourish of trumpets. A sum of £1,000,000 was voted in the first year and of that £200,000 was spent. In 1950-51 we came along and voted £3,000,000 for this scheme and of that sum £600,000 was spent. In 1951-52, in other hands, £2,500,000 was voted and £1,600,000 was spent. Coming along then to the present year, 1952-53, we find ourselves in the position that the total amount voted has been spent already and that we require a further £500,000 to carry on with it.

This is apparently what Deputy Dillon complains of. He and Deputy O'Sullivan say the scheme has been killed. What has killed it? For the first time, however, the full amount voted has been expended and the Minister has to come here to look for another £500,000. He has to look for, in a Supplementary Estimate this year, as much as was spent altogether when Deputy Dillon came in and looked for £3,000,000 for his scheme and spent only £600,000. The money was voted to him in a grand way —"we are giving the farmers £3,000,000"—but when you came to the end of the year you found that between the farmers and the officials only £600,000 was spent. Of that, I might suggest that the officials got the most; I think that in 1950-51 the agricultural community was rather lucky if it got £200,000 while £400,000 went to the officials.

We all know that in the working of any scheme weak links will be found which must be changed or strengthened. Therefore, I cannot see why there is complaint about this change. The scheme has proved to be successful in the able manner in which the present Minister is handling it— more successful even than was expected when the Estimate was introduced.

With regard to the ground limestone subsidy, I am not so enamoured of the position at all. I would suggest to the Minister that it is high time he took the palsied hand of Córas Iompair Éireann off that project. I know the difficulty we had to face when Deputy Dillon was in office, the hold-up for months owing to the refusal by the Government then to pay the subsidy to the Irish Sugar Company who were spreading the limestone on the land.

I have got complaints here and there about it, that according as the present transport machinery is wearing out there is a refusal to have it renewed, putting the onus on the owners to renew it, in an endeavour to shift into the hands of a body of incompetent, inefficient people the getting out of the ground limestone and the spreading of it. If there is to be a subsidy of £450,000, we want to see it spent efficiently. We do not want to see the lime dumped a mile and a half from the farm on the side of the road, leaving it to the farmer to shovel it into a cart, take it to his farm and spread it.

The Irish Sugar Company and some other ground limestone people in County Cork got official spreaders for this work. They could take out the lime and spread it on the farm, which is what the farmer required, instead of having to cart it himself some miles in from the main road and spread it afterwards. Any of us who handled ground limestone or even lime in the old days know the difficulties and if we got spreaders in we would never go back to the old system. Yet we have Córas Iompair Éireann adopting the most outrageous tactics. In one portion of West Cork recently, the Córas Iompair Éireann spy reported that one of these lime kiln lorries was travelling at over ten miles an hour—the maximum speed at a time when a man with a red flag used to walk in front. Those dirty tactics are being carried on to prevent the farmer getting what he is entitled to get.

This money is voted to subsidise the scheme. It is the duty of the Department and the Minister to see that it is utilised to the best advantage. Dumping the lime on a side road is not using the subsidy to the best advantage. The amount of extra labour entailed on the farmer and the inefficient manner in which that lime is spread afterwards is sufficient to justify the Minister in insisting that spreaders be used and that no manoeuvre be allowed to interfere with the ordinary process by which the lime is brought direct from the plant into the field and spread there for him. I spent nearly two months here attacking Deputy Dillon about that before he left office— two months in which Córas Iompair Éireann successfully prevented the biggest plant in Munster getting the subsidy. It was not until the last night that Deputy Dillon sat there as Minister that I succeeded in extracting from him the subsidy that was due to those people. If the complaints I have got are correct, namely, that the people who started this plant and put in transport machinery are not being allowed to replace those lorries when they get worn out and that they are to be replaced by the incompetent, inefficient body known as Córas Iompair Éireann, for which the taxpayers are paying through the nose it is time that that ended. I should like to know whether the Minister has had any complaints of that description.

We have heard complaints from Deputy Dillon with regard to imports of artificial manures. I should like some Deputies who are any way near my constituency to pay a visit to Cobh and have a look at the superphosphate which is lying in the Córas Iompair Éireann sheds there. Let them make up what it would cost them to take it out, put it into bags and sell it. I saw that superphosphate immediately after it went in. It was in paper bags and the bottoms had disappeared from three-quarters of the bags and I should imagine that it would be necessary now to go in there with a pickaxe and hack it out. The expenditure involved in getting that artificial manure out now must be pretty heavy and it is not a job that I would be in love with. There is not a bag there that can be handled and the whole thing has become one hard heap.

I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that the public authorities should lead the way, so far as the land reclamation project is concerned. I have seen the way the scheme has been worked all over my constituency. Streams were being silted up and trees growing along river banks meant that the land inside them was completely waterlogged. I know inspectors of the Department, and even inspectors under this scheme, who were asked to examine the land and whose verdict was that nothing could be done unless the river bed was lowered. There are a few rivers for which I was instrumental in getting money put through and I am happy to say that the schemes were very successful.

I cannot understand the attitude adopted to-day on this Estimate. I can see no reason for complaint in it, but I can see reason for approval. When I see an Estimate which is going to benefit the agricultural community and when I see, as I have been accustomed to see for the past few years, half or three-quarters of the money finding its way back to the Department of Finance I feel in better humour when the full amount is spent and the Minister has the pluck to come in here to look for more. I know that there are delays. I have to write to the Department regularly with regard to people who have been seeking to have drainage schemes carried out for a considerable time and who have been held up and I urge the Minister to expedite the consideration of applications for grants for this machinery. Farmers plan their operations for the year and a farmer may decide that he will tackle a particular field the following September, when the land is dry and may then find that he is closed out until the September of the next year. A scheme which is being worked on that basis is not a good scheme and will not give satisfaction.

I also urge the Minister, in connection with the lime subsidy scheme, to extend the area. I have in mind people in Deputy Collins' constituency who now that they are deprived of the sea-sand subsidy——

All Parties here are anxious that in the shortest time possible the acid lands of our country should be treated with lime. Why then allow any Government-subsidised company to step in and slow down the wheels of progress? That is what is happening in this connection. I know a man who got his land done under this scheme and who applied for lime. He was informed that, because it was done under the land rehabilitation scheme, the lime would be dumped and not spread. I want to know the reason for that. Is it because the Department refused to pay for the spreading? If it is, let us know the reason why. Labour is practically impossible to get on the land at present. We cannot afford to have a man go to the trouble and expense of having his land drained and prepared and then being deprived of getting out the ground limestone. Those are the matters which, I think, we should have investigated and dealt with. Having regard to the attitude of the Minister towards the agricultural community, I know those complaints will be dealt with quickly. Knowing that, I think this is the time and place to raise those complaints with a view to having them rectified.

Mr. S. Collins

In dealing with this Supplementary Estimate I shall endeavour to be objective on the merits of the scheme. I think Deputy Corry himself was, most unwittingly, unreasonable and unfair in general to the officials. It may well be true that in the initial stages an optimum Vote may not have been spent and that in the subsequent year it was not possible either to spend the money in the Vote asked for in this House.

I think we are being a bit unreasonable and unfair to the officials by adopting that attitude, as a good deal of technical research or staff administrative organisation had to be completed before the scheme could, in fact, be put into any kind of reasonable working shape.

Mr. Corry

They got £3,000,000 and spent only £500,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry has already spoken.

Mr. S. Collins

I do not intend to retract in any way the suggestion that I think Deputy Corry—I am not going to impute deliberate effort to Deputy Corry in his suggestion—unwittingly cast some reflection on those officials. I feel it my duty to this House and to the agricultural community that I represent to indicate that, as far as I am concerned, approaching this Supplementary Estimate in an objective and reasonable way, I can find plenty of grounds upon which to justify the non-spending of money in the initial stages of the scheme.

I think that Deputy Corry is under a misapprehension. He seems to anticipate some opposition to this Vote. I do not think that is so but I do feel that, doing our duty in a realistic way, we are entitled to make comments to the Minister and ask him to make certain types of inquiries where we find there may be a danger of a departure that might not be in the best interests of the scheme itself.

My approach to this problem will not be on the basis of violent recrimination of any organisation that may be responsible for the ground limestone scheme, for example. Neither will it be on the basis of the blunt and, in many ways, unjustifiable attacks on the general organisation of Córas Iompair Éireann. This Supplementary Estimate will certainly be approved of and accepted by my Party. We are, however, aware of certain changes suggested by the Minister that may lead to certain difficulties. We, therefore, in a responsible way make our inquiries.

The first serious departure by the Minister from the pattern of the original scheme consists of his proposal to dispose of a considerable amount of machinery which was acquired by the Department. I am not anxious to make hyperbolic statements nor do I wish to beat the air in regard to this particular problem. I would like to inquire from the Minister what were the cogent reasons that drove him and his Department—I presume he is acting on the advice of his Department—to take this step? In what manner does the Minister intend to dispose of the machinery and in what way does he intend to ensure that in the future there will be a reasonable distribution of this machinery all over the country? In addition, I should like to know whether the Minister intends to retain in his Department any control, by way of direction or otherwise, that will ensure that what could easily become a real danger to the small or medium-sized farmer does not become a reality so that we will not finish up with huge combines and wealthy companies doing all the contractual work with the result that we might find the small or the medium-sized farmer in respect of whom the Minister must be a guardian angel in jeopardy as to the priority he might get for his work.

I am not asking those questions with any intention of creating difficulties for the Minister. I am asking them in a genuine spirit of inquiry. I want to know whether certain facets of what this change might create have occurred to the Minister. In regard to this particular Estimate we are trying to give a constructive kind of help to the Minister particularly in regard to the significant feature of a change. I can envisage this change being disastrous unless three conditions are fulfilled. There should be a method of sale of the machinery which would ensure that it would be distributed in a general way all over the country. Positive action should be taken by the Department to prevent the creation of monopoly combines that will be able virtually to dictate the general working of the scheme. Lastly, I think that the Minister must carefully consider retaining some type of control over this scheme which will ensure that the smaller jobs that may not present themselves as a valuable remuneration to these companies will also be carried out.

If that is not done I think there would be no one no more ready to concede than the Minister himself that the very purpose and object of this scheme would be defeated in the main. I can see the scheme in its present form as being fundamentally designed for the improvement of the heart value and the quality of the land itself. As, in the main, our agricultural effort and productivity are bound up with the small farmers or the medium-sized farmers either working for themselves or working for labour, the scheme must inevitably be designed to help them first. If that particular part of the scheme is defeated we will have lost the primary object.

Approaching the matter in that belief, I will put certain questions and propositions to the Minister. Much was said and Deputy Corry painted a picture in regard to phosphates and other artificial manures which are apparently in store. He almost indulged in mining operations. If there is any reality in the matter mentioned by Deputy Corry, it occurs to me that it would have been far more economic for the Department to have suffered a substantial loss in the giving of these manures at reduced cost to the farmers than allow them deteriorate, as suggested, in store. I have some knowledge from personal experience of the difficulty of storing and of what storage charges can run into over a period of years in connection with this type of materials. As storage is a continuing charge it might be better for the Minister to consider disposing of the fertilisers in store at what might be a sacrifice price rather than allow them to deteriorate further while storage charges are mounting.

The question of artificial fertilisers has been prominent in the political forum. If we have in stock considerable quantities of various types of artificial manures that cannot be disposed of at the price now offered, the Department will have to review the price and perhaps cut its losses. If fertilisers in store deteriorate to the extent that has been suggested, they will be a total loss. Therefore, I would urge the Minister, instead of allowing these stores to become a total loss, to consider the practicability of having these fertilisers spread on the land in their present form. In that way they can be of substantial benefit to the land. From an economic point of view, it would be better that they should be distributed free in order that they might benefit the land, than that they should be allowed to deteriorate and become a total loss.

The most important feature of the Minister's approach to this problem is the proposed change under Section A. The Minister is to bring payments under A on to a basis that will leave them reasonably at par with the benefits that can be obtained under Section B. As Deputy O'Sullivan suggested, that is an improvement that is long overdue. Again we come back to the inevitable problem that was touched upon by Deputy Corry, the problem of labour, particularly where the farmer requiring the benefits of the scheme is a small working farmer and has not the labour to carry out the work. In developing the scheme in the more outlying areas it was inevitable that the Department should be asked to do more and more of the work.

I hope the improvements suggested by the Minister with regard to Section A will mean that farmers, particularly farmers whose holdings are small and who have any help at home, will undertake a good deal of the work. That would lead to remunerative employment for the farmer and his help and would give a much needed impetus to earning capacity in rural Ireland where the effects of the curtailment of work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and the curtailment of various provisions under other schemes are being felt.

In general, we have to be critical of the suggestion by the Minister to throw all the machinery that the Department has purchased on to the market for sale. In that way we may lose a great deal more than the £2,000,000 cost of the machinery. I am sure the Department has built up an excellent administrative and technical personnel to deal with these machines. I want an assurance from the Minister that the sale of this machinery will not mean dislocation of employment, particularly of men who are highly skilled in the use of this machinery and who may have returned to this country from jobs elsewhere for the purpose of taking up this work at home and who may now be in the service of the Department of Agriculture. There is more than the mere disposal of machinery to be considered. I want the Minister to indicate in his reply what guarantee or assurance is available to the highly-trained personnel that have been operating this machinery.

It is a question of principle as to whether this type of work can be done better under the aegis of the Department than by outside contractors. The Minister may be very well advised to review the question of the disposal of all this machinery. Take, for instance, areas of the type that I have the honour to represent—the irregular, peninsular, wild and inaccessible areas in West Cork. If the Department have not got machinery and if there is no way by which the farmer can get the assistance of the Department, it will be doomsday before any contractor can be got to do the work in those areas. We must consider our responsibility to those living on the western and southwestern seaboard or in places where schemes of rehabilitation are sketchy and small and where the work is necessarily very difficult. The work may involve blasting of rocks and excavation. If the Department disposes of all this machinery, can the Minister assure the House that he will be able to retain sufficient control and direction over contractors to ensure that small isolated farmers in Connemara or in parts of Donegal, represented by Deputy Brennan, or parts of South Kerry, represented by Deputy Palmer, or parts of West Cork, will not be put at the tailend of the list and their benefit under this scheme postponed until all other work under the scheme has been completed? That is a very practical problem. I cannot recommend an easy solution of that problem but if this machinery is completely disposed of by the Department the problem becomes even more difficult of solution.

It is a very pleasant commentary on the general political situation that this scheme, which has proved to be of certain value to the country, is being worked with a will by the present Government. I welcome the effort that is being made to give a greater impetus to the work done under this scheme. If I throw doubts on certain actions contemplated by the Government I do so more in a spirit of objective inquiry rather than in a desire to make political capital or create political difficulty for the Minister.

Most of us who are interested in the development of Irish agriculture are anxious to have the level of production of every acre increased one hundredfold. We know that the general level of production is capable of being stepped up not only 100 per cent. but in most cases as much as 200 and 300 per cent. above the present level. In order to increase production there must be the fullest possible State aid, an abundance of artificial manure and ground limestone to improve, first and foremost, the actual basic quality of the land itself. That is one reason why I am so pleased with the development of this scheme. I am hoping to see the day when the scheme will be able to absorb all the money we contemplate spending on it. I am hoping to see the day when this House, realising the value of the fundamental net capital of every acre of ground to the country, will be prepared to ensure that, from the financial point of view, there will be no deterrent to that forward effort.

In offering certain comments and in probing certain aspects of this decision by the Government I am motivated solely by a desire to ensure the future of the scheme. It would be a catastrophe if any action of ours, no matter how well-intentioned, ultimately resulted in hardship on that section of our people which merits our first consideration in relation to this particular scheme, namely, the small or medium-sized working farmer whose land has by his own effort and by his own anxiety to do his job been rehabilitated.

Another welcome feature of this Supplementary Estimate is ground limestone. Deputy Corry tried to do for me a job that I am quite capable of doing myself, namely, making some suggestion in relation to the position of the people in West Cork. It is true that we have suffered as a result of certain cohesive efforts by members of the Cork County Council representing different areas to bring about the discontinuation of the sea-sand subsidy in the coming year. In view of that situation and in view of the fact that, willy-nilly, a certain contribution running into £7,000 per annum by way of subsidy to the farmers to encourage them to use sea-sand for the improvement of their land will now disappear I want to know whether the Minister contemplates substituting an adequate service in ground limestone to compensate the farmers in that area? I know that presents many difficulties. The sea-sand used in the area had a very high lime content. The quality of the lime was good and it was very effective in keeping open a soil that is normally inclined to be thick or loamy. With the withdrawal of this sea-sand the farming community in West Cork, particularly in the isolated peninsulas around Dunmanus Bay, Bantry and Beara will need a ready alternative service of ground limestone. It is not easy to say what form this substitute scheme to replace the sea-sand subsidy should take but I would like the Minister to indicate whether he will take special action now to ensure that the land in West Cork will not suffer because of the withdrawal of the sea-sand subsidy.

I would like to see a progressive appreciation by farmers of the value of ground limestone. I would like to see the farmers make more and more use of it. I am aware of the need that exists for it particularly in the case of land that suffered from exhaustive tillage during the emergency. It is not the efficiency or otherwise of Córas Iompair Eireann that we should discuss on this question of ground limestone. Deputy Corry expatiated on what the Minister is handing over to Córas Iompair Eireann. We could have an interesting debate on Córas Iompair Eireann and the question as to whether, since it has become virtually a Government Department, it should not in its capacity as a transport section of a Government Department be able to administer and distribute certain goods that another Department wants to distribute but the problem in connection with ground limestone goes a little deeper than distribution. It is tied up in technicalities relating to distance, range, speed and everything else.

There is a wide avenue for exploration open to the Department with the object of getting over these difficulties. The spreading of ground limestone depends on conditions to which Deputy Corry made no reference at all. We are well aware that vast quantities of ground limestone are distributed by means of the ordinary tipper lorry. We know that it is at times impossible to bring that lorry in on the land for the simple reason that it is physically impossible to bring it in and out without causing damage. I do not accept Deputy Corry's suggestion that ground limestone is dumped a mile and a half from the field into which it is supposed to go. I recollect seeing the company to which Deputy Corry referred distributing ground limestone. There are times when the very nature of the weather and the condition of the fields into which the lime is to go render it impossible for the company to bring the lorry into the field. I do not think it is fair to impute inefficiency because of conditions over which the company has no control. I have been present at discussions between the farmer and the person driving the truck.

In all the cases that I came across, I never found the ground limestone dumped any farther away from the farmer's land than the roadside immediately adjoining the field on which he wanted to spread it. I cannot conceive any roadway being one and a half miles away from the field to which the farmer wants to apply the ground limestone.

I am glad to see this expansionist impetus with regard to ground limestone. It may well be that it is possible to get a more efficient and more effective means of distribution and spreading. There again, however, you come back to the question of the immense capital expenditure involved in this particular type of equipment. If any concern is able to carry that large impost of capital expenditure, surely no Department will stand in the way of its so doing. I think it is unfair and a little irrational to criticise Córas Iompair Éireann as grossly inefficient in relation to ground limestone. If there is anywhere in which they have been able to create some standard of efficiency it has been in the distribution of ground limestone. I find that in recent months—with the augmenting of their tipper fleet and their personnel in connection with its distribution, with the development of more plants and with the development of better methods of loading and distribution— they have been able to improve considerably on the quantities of ground limestone that they are distributing. I wonder if Deputy Corry has any idea of the overall output per day of Córas Iompair Éireann in respect of this material. It runs into a tonnage that would stagger him. If there is an isolated case where difficulty has arisen I am sure that factors were responsible for it which have not been disclosed to us.

I feel that the time has come for the Department to give us the cogent reasons that drove them to the suggestion of getting rid of their machinery to contractors or else to expand on whatever technical or administrative difficulty has arisen that presses them to dispose of or discharge this responsibility. I want to know what line of action the Minister will retain to himself to ensure that this scheme will be continued in a way that will give all farmers, irrespective of the size of their farm, a right to get their reclamation done within a reasonable period.

I want the Minister to face the problem of artificial manures. We have had bandied around this House the fact that they were bought at £9 8s. a ton. They have been in store, we will say, from 18 months to two years. Even at a storage rate of 6d. per ton per week, that represents a wastage rate which could be used to better advantage by way of subsidy to the farmer. To put it at a very low rate of storage, if each ton in store costs from 4d. to 6d. per week, you will have an excess useless charge rising on your phosphates of from 15/-to 26/- per ton per year.

Mr. Cogan

There is also the matter of the deterioration of sacks, and so forth.

Mr. S. Collins

I am quite aware of that. Deputy Cogan may rest assured of one thing: I do not need his guidance or his assistance on this particular point. If Deputy Cogan had waited a little longer he would have heard me say that not only must the matter of the deterioration of sacks be taken into consideration but also housing and unhousing. You have the position of that dead-weight charge by way of normal storage charge, handling charges in the store, housing and unhousing charges and—in deference to anybody who may not know it—you have also the matter of sack deterioration. Many of these sacks in which this material has been stored are on a hireage basis. You have a rising incidence all the time of a minimum of 27/- per ton of phosphates per year. I should far rather see the Department give that money by way of subsidy to the farmer—by way of reduced price—than to any warehousing concern, for example, for storage. That problem needs a firm solution.

As I said at the outset, the Minister must equate between a possible total loss of the fertiliser by deterioration in store and what would be a practicable price at which to cut that loss. It would be better, even if it were distributed to the farmers, to put it on the land than to allow it to go to waste or to lose its potency or real quality merely in a store.

With regard to the Supplementary Estimate generally, I want to dispel the false atmosphere created by Deputy Corry. There is no opposition to the Supplementary Estimate. No effort is going to be made by anybody in this House to stop the Minister from getting money that will be used for the furtherance of this scheme. The time has come for the House to realise that—irrespective of who was the conceiver or the originator of this scheme—it is a scheme which, with practical exploitation and normal development, can be of real benefit to the Irish agricultural community, and, as such, is worthy of the united effort of this House to keep it going at the highest pace possible.

We say—not in a spirit of political criticism and not in a spirit of inquiry for inquiry's sake—that there are certain dangers latent in the suggestions that have been made by the Minister. I ask him if certain facets of the matters have been fully investigated by him. If they have, I think he should be more frank with the House in giving us the background of the decision he has taken about the disposal of the machinery. I think we are entitled to ask for an assurance that any person who has come to believe that he has permanent skilled employment under the Department of Agriculture by virtue of his technical ability with the machines will not suffer any consequences of a serious nature by reason of the Department's disposing of this machinery and that the Minister will make it a condition precedent when disposing of this machinery that whatever contractor may buy it in the ultimate future will absorb the technically-skilled man who would otherwise be thrown on the employment exchange. These are facets that readily occur to me. I make the inquiry in a spirit of trying to be constructive in this particular and difficult situation.

I will conclude on the note that I should like the Minister to indicate not only in relation to West Cork but in relation also to other areas where the sea-sand subsidy has been operative, what alternative arrangements the Department are making by way of increased grant, increased subsidy or special arrangements for the distribution of ground limestone in those areas to substitute for the sea-sand.

Mr. J. Brennan

I desire to make a few brief remarks on this Supplementary Estimate and to emphasise particularly the importance of that portion of the land rehabilitation scheme known as the farm improvements scheme for small holdings along the western seaboard. To my mind that is the most important part of the land rehabilitation scheme. The fullest advantage has been taken of that portion of the scheme in areas which consist of comparatively small holdings. I should like the Minister to increase the amount of money available for these schemes in order further to encourage people to participate in that section of the land project. Small holdings in the congested areas do not lend themselves to large schemes under the land rehabilitation scheme and farm improvement schemes are admirably suited to these types of holdings. Too great stress cannot be laid on the importance of making more money available by way of increased grants for these important schemes. I take this opportunity of appealing to the Minister to consider seriously the question of increasing the grants for the congested areas and areas along the western seaboard which are mainly made up of small holdings.

Another matter which I think it appropriate to mention on this Estimate is the type of pipe being used for land drainage under the land rehabilitation scheme. Some time ago the use of concrete pipes was encouraged but it was later found that they did not stand up to the acid in certain soils, particularly peaty soils, with the result that crockery pipes are now used in 75 per cent. of these schemes. These pipes are imported but I believe it would be quite possible to have them manufactured at home.

I should like to know if any effort is being made towards that end or whether the production of those pipes has already started here. A great part of the money available under the scheme has been expended in the importation of crockery pipes. I believe that with a little encouragement the full quantity of pipes necessary for these schemes could be produced at home. I should like to have the Minister's views on that question.

I wonder if at this stage it would be possible to urge on the Department that something should be done in connection with the Campion machines which were imported to make concrete pipes. At an early stage of this scheme a deputation was sent to America to carry out investigations into the most suitable type of machine for the making of concerete pipes and, as a result of their investigations, it was decided that the Campion machine was the best for that purpose. As a result, many of these machines were imported and people were encouraged or practically asked to purchase them. Then they suddenly discovered that, as a result of the unsuitability of concrete pipes in acid or peaty soils, concrete pipes were condemned. These machines are now in many cases lying idle. I think the people who were induced to purchase then have a claim against the Department. They certainly have a moral claim and possibly a legal claim in that they were encouraged to bring them in and they now find that they cannot use them. I think that they should be facilitated in disposing of them by some scheme for the sale of these machines or to re-export them to some country where they might be required. Some scheme of that kind should be instituted to enable these people to recover the money expended on the purchase of these machines. That is a matter to which I should like the Minister to give some attention in connection with this Vote.

The question of the supervision of farm improvements schemes is another matter to which I should like to refer. I can visualise that we are likely to have some delay in that respect as a result of the change in the status of agricultural officers as parish agents. As a result of that change a much larger field will have to be covered by these men in future. I think I can say that we, in Donegal, have already had experience of the inconvenience likely to be caused to farmers in that respect. The areas have been enlarged with the result that one man is now expected to cover a very large territory, in fact several parishes. I have already had experience of cases in which farmers had improvement jobs ready for inspection, and no person was available to come along to carry out that inspection. That is not very satisfactory because it is very important that these schemes should be inspected as soon as possible after they are completed as where there are cattle round the farm or traffic with horses or tractors, a job very quickly deteriorates and takes on a worn-out appearance. The result is that when an inspector comes along a month or two later than he should, the scheme does not present the appearance it possessed when it was completed. In some cases the farmer has to go over the job again. That would be unnecessary if the scheme had been inspected in time. In a number of cases the farmer has refused to go over the work again, with the result that he is held up in getting the grant. That position has worsened as a result of the changes recently made.

I do not know whether other counties have experienced the same difficulty but certainly in Donegal, as a result of enlarging the areas under the new plan, farmers cannot expect to get the same attention as they got in the past. I should like to urge on the Minister that he should seriously consider the question of having more officers appointed in order to ensure that the greatest possible benefit be derived out of the schemes in question. That can only be done by having more departmental inspection and more easily accessible advice from the Department's officers. It is not fair to expect a man who is living 25 miles away to call to a particular townland every day or every week. The result is that schemes which he is administering will not be carried out in the same manner as they would if an officer were more easily available for farmers. That is a serious mistake which calls for remedy as soon as possible.

The question of ground limestone was discussed by Deputy Corry. Deputy Collins did not seem to think that Deputy Corry was correct as regards some of the things which he alleged were done by the people in charge of transport. I think Deputy Corry was quite correct when he said that very often they dumped a load of stuff as far away as a mile and a half from the farm for which it was intended. We had experience of that in a good many cases in Donegal. That may have been due to the fact that those in charge of the lorries did not feel that the by-roads on which the people lived who were to receive the limestone were capable of carrying heavy transport, and without making any inquiries they dumped the stuff on the county road. In some cases in Donegal that meant that the limestone had to be carted two miles from where it had been dumped. That certainly was not satisfactory.

The only way I think in which a recurrence of that can be obviated is by using a smaller type of lorry for the delivery of ground limestone. I am not saying that, in all cases, the blame for what occurred rests on the people in charge of transport. It may have been due to the fear that by going off a county road to a by-road the latter would not be capable of supporting this heavy traffic. I am afraid that, in a good many cases, they did not go to the trouble of finding out whether that was so or not and just contented themselves by dumping the stuff on the county road. The fact remains, however, that what Deputy Corry said is substantially true so far as Donega concerned.

That is all I have to say on the Estimate except to emphasise again that the farm improvement section of the land rehabilitation scheme is the one important thing so far as the small congested farming areas in Donegal are concerned. The statistics show that it is the one section of the scheme which is most availed of in those areas. I think that the amount of money made available for the scheme should be considerably increased. If that were done it would be more in keeping with the cost of labour at the present time, and would help to overcome the difficulty of getting the materials necessary for the execution of these schemes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Sweetman is seeking permission to move an amendment at this stage.

Mr. Sweetman

I wish to submit to you, Sir, that at the end of the Minister's speech, without any notice on the face of the Supplementary Estimate, the Minister indicated that he is making a decision on it responsible for approval by him to dispose of all the machinery held by the Department. This machinery was purchased by the Department for the land project. In view of the fact that there was no notice given of that, either on the face of the Supplementary Estimate or to be implied from the terms of it, I, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, am now asking the leave of the Chair to move this amendment: "That sub-head M (9) be reduced by the sum of £10."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair must always deprecate ad hoc amendments of this kind. The Chair always expects that an amendment will be moved as early as possible in a discussion. I do not know what knowledge Deputy Sweetman had of the Minister's statement at the time, but inasmuch as the time for giving notice was very limited, I am accepting the amendment at the present time.

Mr. Sweetman

I take it, therefore, that I may now move my amendment:

That sub-head M (9) be reduced by the sum of £10.

The Minister, in introducing the Supplementary Estimate to the House, dealt all the way down, to the last few moments of his speech, with the heading of it as set out. We wish it to be quite clear that, so far as we are concerned, we are glad to vote any additional moneys required for the purpose of improving the land by the land project or otherwise, and for the purpose of the ground limestone subsidy. At the end, however, of the Minister's speech he made it quite clear that there was to be an entire reversal in governmental policy in respect of that part of Section B of the land project scheme which has heretofore been operated by the Department of Agriculture.

The Minister made it quite clear, I think, that this was not merely his decision but also a decision which had been made by the Government. He did not indicate the time at which this was to be done, but so far as one could understand his speech one gathered that he intends to do it at once, and that all the machinery which has been gathered together by the Minister and by his predecessor—ordered and, in some cases, delivered while the previous Minister was in office—is now to be sold to contractors. The Minister did not give us any details whatever of the terms under which it is proposed to dispose of this machinery. The manner in which the Minister introduced this in his speech makes it quite clear that if we were to accept this Supplementary Estimate, as it stands, without any qualification, we would be endorsing the policy which the Minister has adumbrated.

As regards the policy of selling and disposing of this machinery, we wish to make it perfectly clear beyond question, that we do not accept that policy. We do not think it is a wise policy, and so I have asked your permission, Sir, to move this amendment. I thank you for having given me leave to do so. I appreciate fully the qualification which you, Sir, mentioned, that it is desirable, if possible, to have notice of these things. That would be desirable, but, unfortunately, the Minister did not give the House any indication on the face of the Supplementary Estimate, or one that could be implied from it, that he was going to come into the House and ask for approval for such a radical change of policy as the disposal of all this machinery connotes.

Mr. Walsh

I did not need to ask for approval.

Mr. Sweetman

This is a grand Government——

Mr. Davin

Mr. Sweetman

That is an extraordinarily illuminating remark but it is all that anybody could expect from an ignorant person like the Minister. The shocking thing is that a person of that ignorance, who descends to that type of debate, should be sitting in the ministerial front bench. It is a sad commentary on the depths to which the Fianna Fáil Party have come when that is the only thing they can get from their Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Fanning

You seem to have it very bad to-night.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the people who are in the jitters in this House do not sit on this side.

Mr. Walsh

I am afraid——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Sweetman is entitled to speak without interruption. He must be allowed to continue.

There was a fair amount of discussion on this, reported in Volume 128, No. 3, for the 5th December, 1951. There were questions referred to, in respect of a previous report, Volume 127, No. 9, also quoted in this Volume 128, No. 3, at column 436. I think it was a matter raised on the Adjournment to the Minister's colleague, Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Walsh

I thought the Deputy was giving us Deputy Smith's statement on 5th December.

Mr. Sweetman

We will come to that in due course. The Minister will forgive me—the exact figure mentioned by Deputy Smith was 23,035 tons, not 27,000 tons, on the 4th December, 1951, at column 149.

Mr. Walsh

Might I ask what the question was?

Mr. Sweetman

It was:—

"What quantity of superphosphate was bought in Holland by him or on his behalf, during the financial years 1950-51 and 1951-52 to date, the price paid for the superphosphate and the manner in which it was disposed of; and what quantity remained in his or Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann's control on 1st June, 1951."

Deputy Smith replied then that the quantity at the 1st June, 1951 was 23,035 tons. If the Minister wishes to correct me when I said 27,000, I make him a present of it. We have now proceeded some 18 months from 1st June 1951, yet I understand the Minister to say to-day that he still has on hands 17,500 out of the 23,000 of the 1951 contract. It seems extraordinary that only 5,500 tons of that superphosphate, which was imported at a comparatively cheap price, should have been sold. It seems on the face of it that there is something in the difference between those two figures—that given by the Minister to-day and that given by Deputy Smith on 4th December 1951 —that requires some explanation. We are told to-day that the stocks in hands now are to be sold at the current price of £13.

Mr. Walsh

I would like to remind the Deputy that that was imported in 1950-51. It was 43/44 super. That is in order to enlighten the Deputy as to why it is there. He might know the reason for that.

Mr. Sweetman

I know the reason. The reason why it is there is that the Minister tried to make a profit on it. He would not sell it at the price at which it was imported and at which it could be sold. He tried to make an unreasonable profit. That is why it is there. That is what we were trying to get the Government to do, in December 1951. If the Minister would refer to the following day's debate, he will see that at some length the case was put from this side of the House, that what was required then for the agricultural community was that the superphosphate, the fertiliser that was there on 1st June 1951, that had been purchased before the rise in price, would be sold to the community at the purchase price plus a reasonable margin of profit and that the Minister would not try, either directly himself or through his agents, the company, to make an unreasonable profit. If that had been done, if the Minister had then sold this fertiliser at a price comparative with that of import, there would have been no difficulty and he would not be telling us now that out of 23,000 tons he still has 17,500 in hands.

Apart from that, the Minister said to-day, so far as I could follow him, that he bought during the month of July, when it was not possible for him to estimate the likely market by way of sale.

I thought the Minister was referring to spreading machinery. How does he propose to expand his output? Is he going to make available, directly through his own Department or by way of trade loan guarantees through the Department of Industry and Commerce, funds for people who are desirous of putting up new machinery to increase output, because the Minister will agree that, on the figures he has given, the existing plant could not cope with the output which he has set as the target? If that is correct, does he propose to introduce any scheme or to see that the resources of a Department of Industry and Commerce are made available for schemes and for people who are proposing to set up plants of the nature required? The Minister will agree without question that the installation of such a plant is a very expensive matter, and clearly one which would require financing of some sort, either through an issuing house, such as the Industrial Credit Corporation, or backed by the Trade Loans Guarantee Acts or some similar type of backing, such as there was in regard to the purchase of machinery for the land project. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication of his views in that respect when he is concluding.

Deputy Brennan mentioned a matter about which I am rather loth to speak, having some personal interest. The Minister knows that I am associated with a factory which makes concrete pipes. Deputy Brennan mentioned the position in his area apparently in respect of pipes. I do not consider that it is proper for me, since I have a personal interest in the matter, to go into the question but I want to put on record that I think that some of the trouble experienced by the Department in regard to the user of concrete pipes in the earlier stages of this project was that the pipes were not up to the standard that was subsequently laid down by the Bureau of Standards.

I do not think that that was in any way the fault of the contractors who were then making those pipes. I think that some of them were fobbed off by machinery which was brought from America and which was not entirely suitable at all for the type of pipe that was required here. Nobody would wish that in any governmental or any other scheme pipes or material of any sort would not be up to the standard. It would certainly be desirable that material which is up to the standard— the rigid and proper standard laid down by the Bureau of Standards— should be utilised so far as it is suitable for use in this country rather than that imported material should be made available. The Minister will no doubt have an opportunity to-morrow of giving certain figures regarding the user of home-produced material and imported material because I saw one of my colleagues putting down a question in this regard. In view of the fact that I have an interest in that line, I do not think, perhaps, it is correct for me to pursue the matter. I do not know what the etiquette of the matter is. I do not know whether it might be correct for me to develop the question of the pipes to be used although I could, perhaps, give the Minister some little information on that subject.

Every Deputy will be afforded an opportunity to speak. No Deputy from your benches has offered, to my knowledge.

Mr. Davin

Yes, this is my third time.

Mr. Cunningham

I have listened to three or four speeches from the opposite side. Evidently, the tone that the speeches were to take was dictated by the newcomers to Fine Gael. Fears are being voiced by the Opposition in regard to the carrying out of drainage and reclamation work by private contractors. There is no sound reason for those fears.

The sum total of drainage machinery in the country has not diminished. We will have as much drainage machinery in January next as we had last January, possibly more. The Minister is looking for a Supplementary Estimate in order to keep drainage schemes going. There is no ground for fear. It would be a different matter if the Department had sold the machinery to some other country. Then it could be said that there would be less drainage because there would be less machinery to carry out the drainage. That is not the position.

Not one machine that has been in the ownership of the Department is leaving the country. Every machine will be put into service. Over and above the machinery suitable for drainage work that has been held by the Department, there are machines in private ownership complementary to the machines held by the Department which can be put into use.

If the Department had machinery to do the job, naturally, outsiders might not go into competition with them. Now, the machinery will be in the hands of private contractors. In addition, there is machinery held by private individuals which will also be thrown into the drainage drive. Private individuals who have small tractors and other such implements will be able to carry out small works for which the bigger machines owned by the Department were not suitable.

I take it that applications under the scheme will continue to be sent to the Department of Agriculture. I take it that they will be considered in order and on merit and that sanction will be given. I can see no reason for the fear that the private contractor will pick and choose his clients. If the Department have a say in deciding what work will be done in any particular season or in any particular month then the contractor must carry out that work and cannot undertake work for somebody who may be a big farmer but who has not applied or whose application has not been sanctioned.

I have considered the points raised by members of the Opposition but can see no foundation for them. Personally, I favour the A section of the scheme, under which the farmer does the work and receives a grant. That suits small farmers much better than having the work done by the Department with this machinery. It enables him to carry out the work in slack periods and, if he has sons who may have to find alternative employment in slack periods, it helps to employ them usefully on the father's farm. That is my experience of the scheme. I grant that in certain areas the farmers may have a leaning towards the B section of the scheme.

I did like Deputy Cogan's point that private contractors in competition with one another will make a better job of drainage than will a Department of State or any large concern. That is being proved every day of the week. Where there is competition, personal supervision and personal pride in doing a job and doing it well, the results will be much better than if that job is left to the officials of a Department of State or some other large concern.

The two most important essentials in the agricultural industry are lime and fertilisers. Now the farmer is very conservative and, even though he may make a profit of £500 or £600 in the year, he will not plough back a percentage of that into the land. If he does plough some of it back he takes very good care that the percentage is very small. The idea is that every penny earned on the farm must be locked up and saved against the rainy day. That is bad farming. That is bad policy even in relation to industry and the businessman, if he wishes to expand and make bigger and better profits, must plough back some of his profits into his business. It is not easy to wean the farmer from his thrift, and the Minister should make every effort to entice the farmer to spend more on lime and fertilisers because that expenditure will produce better results for the same labour and from the same land.

The ground limestone scheme is a good one but I am afraid we shall never have a sufficient output of ground limestone for a long number of years. Money is being wasted on this scheme at the moment inasmuch as it is waste of money to pay for the transport of ground limestone from Roscommon to Malin Head. If that money was put into the development of plants in County Donegal by way of grant the results would be much more desirable. It is all very well to ask why private enterprise does not start such plants. Even a fairly small plant requires a capital expenditure of at least £7,000 and that is a heavy commitment for any individual. Indeed, it is prohibitive in most cases. If the Government made it clear that this scheme has come to stay and that it is a long-term policy people might be induced to invest money in the production of ground limestone.

I am glad to see this Supplementary Estimate because it gives the lie to the arguments propounded on the Opposition Benches and it also shows up the methods adopted during the period in office of the inter-Party Government whereby large sums were voted for this particular purpose but never spent; in one instance £3,000,000 was voted and only £600,000 was spent. Last year all the money voted was spent and now the Minister is, asking for more to carry on the good work. That is as it should be and I cannot understand the arguments adduced by the Opposition.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy who has just sat down has given far more information on this matter, if it is reliable, than the Minister gave when introducing the Supplementary Estimate especially in so far as it affects the sensational proposal to sell the machinery bought at such a high price by his predecessor. In supporting this motion to reduce the proposed Supplementary Estimate I am compelled to protest in the strongest possible manner against this wholly unexpected and sensational change of policy.

Deputy Davin might be allowed to continue.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Cunningham gave more information to the House in support of this Supplementary Estimate than the Minister himself gave when he was introducing it. Is it suggested by any responsible Deputy sitting behind the Minister, in the absence of the Minister—is it suggested by any Deputy of the intelligence and courage of Deputy Cunningham—that the decision to change the policy in this drastic way and to sell this valuable machinery which is the property of the people of this country—the poorest as well as the richest—was taken without knowing to whom the machinery would be sold? Surely the decision has not been taken in the dark and on the assumption that contractors would be able to get the necessary capital to purchase this big and valuable machinery.

Will Deputy Davern say that the lucky contractors are already known to him and, if they are, where, in these days of credit restriction, these gentlemen will get the big money to pay for this valuable machinery which is the property of all our citizens? If we had a few more speakers on the Government side of the House like Deputy Cunningham who, in his honesty and sincerity, let the cat out of the bag, we might get some more information. I hope that Deputy Davern will add to what Deputy Cunningham has said and that if the Minister does not know the answers to the questions which I have asked that Deputy Davern will supply the information.

Mr. Davern

Deputy Davern talks common sense.

Mr. Davin

I suggest in all seriousness that the change-over in policy from the direct labour system, if you like to call it that, of carrying out this land project will have serious results. As far as my area is concerned, the scheme has been carried out without any complaints to me even since the present Minister came into office. I suggest that the change-over will mean disorganisation and delay for a very long period. Am I wrong in assuming —let Deputy Cunningham or someone else answer me afterwards—that the decision to dispose of this valuable machinery has been taken without reference to any of the considerations which I have put forward? Deputy Briscoe has just come in. I bow to him as a financial expert. He is an able businessman. He would not buy machinery—and this machinery had to be bought in the past for very big sums of money—to sell to someone else unless he knew he had a purchaser for it——

Mr. Briscoe

What about the Inchicore works——

Mr. Davin

——and unless he had someone to pay for it.

Mr. Briscoe

——or Aer Línte. Did the Deputy ever hear of them?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Davin

Another very important aspect of the matter comes to mind. What will be the fate and the future of the men—supervisors, workers and mechanics—who have been employed under the direct supervision of the Department in carrying on this scheme so successfully since it was inaugurated? Are they to go with the wind or will the lucky contractors— who, probably, are already selected— be obliged, as a condition of the contract, to take over the men who, otherwise, will lose their jobs when the present policy ceases to operate? That is a serious question and I hope Deputy Briscoe will agree with me that it is serious. I hope he will support me in my effort to get that information from the Minister when he is replying to-night.

Mr. Davern

It will not be like the chassis factory in Inchicore.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Davin

I did not get up to speak in any provocative way in this discussion. I simply say that when I heard the Minister make the announcement this evening I was astounded. The only conclusion that any Deputy on this side of the House can arrive at is that the Minister for Agriculture is intent on reversing the policy carried out by his predecessor without any knowledge of what is likely to be the consequence of that.

Dr. Esmonde

I support the amendment. It is not that we on this side disapprove of, or wish to impede in any way, the land rehabilitation scheme, the ground limestone scheme or anything that will help to make fertilisers available to the farmers of this country. I think that the Minister must accept that what he has done this afternoon in presenting us, more or less as a fait accompli, with a decision that all the machinery that is held by the Department is to be sold is rather unexpected.

It seems to me, anyway, that the land rehabilitation scheme is a very fine scheme. It is possibly one of the best, if not the best, that was ever introduced for the benefit of this country. It was not built up overnight; it is a big scheme entailing a lot of preparation and organisation. By the Minister's decision to dispose in toto of this machinery, surely he is going to disorganise all the reconstructive effort that has taken place in the last three years in the form of draining, manuring, liming and fertilising land?

Let us study this land scheme. It starts in a district and Deputies know, just as I do, that it entails a good deal of work to get machinery there and a good deal of organisation to get people who are to work on the scheme. I am sure that every Deputy has been approached in the same way as I have been by people who are seeking employment. People have been employed on these schemes which have been started in different parts of the country. What is suggested now? As I read the Estimate introduced by the Minister, the Department of Agriculture are going to take no further part in this scheme and it is to be handed over to private contract. It must be obvious to Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party, and to the Deputies who unflinchingly support the Party, that there is going to be a lot of disorganis ation and a big number of people unemployed, unexpectedly unemployed, if I might say so.

Further, Deputy Davin has raised a very good point; who is going to buy this machinery? Will it be possible suddenly to put a lot of machinery like this on the market, particularly with the condition of affairs that obtains to-day with regard to credit, and dispose of it overnight? Will there not be an interim period before this machinery is turned over to people who can purchase it? I am sure every Deputy will have had the same experience as myself, or at any rate those Deputies who come from country constituencies, of people coming to them, day in and day out, trying to get the benefits of the land rehabilitation scheme applied to their farms.

I had a man yesterday evening from Deputy Cogan's constituency. He told me that he applied to have six acres of his land drained a few years ago. The Department official was sent there but he has never heard a word about it since. I just cite this because Deputy Cogan painted a rather rosy picture with regard to land rehabilitation. I asked if he knew anybody who had land drained in Wicklow, and he said he knew of one case up near Blessington. He believed it was done by private contract but he was not sure.

Has the land rehabilitation scheme been going ahead at the speed that all of us would like to see it going? In my opinion it has not. I get people coming to me every day telling me that they have had their names down for two or three years. One farmer came to me the other day from a district called Ballycanew in North Wexford. He had been making representations on his own to a land reclamation official and he was told that he might have a chance of the work being done in three years. He asked the reason why he should have to wait such a long period and was told that they had not enough machinery at their disposal. Surely that has been the trouble all along? I agree—let us be fair and reasonable about it—it is not very easy to get machinery, more particularly heavy machinery. It does not seem to me to make sense, after this organisation has been built up and when you are short of machinery to turn around, recast the whole thing and say: "We are not going to keep this machinery; we are going to turn over the work to private contract." That will lead to further disorganisation and delay. It is hard to get machinery, but it seems to me that the position in the world to-day is that there is an assured market—that has been stated time and again by statesmen in every part of the world—for all the agricultural produce that we can put on the market. To produce more, we must get every acre of land into a fertile condition at the quickest possible rate. That was the policy pursued by the late Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Briscoe

Not the late Minister, the ex-Minister. He is not dead yet.

Captain Giles

He is very much alive.

Dr. Esmonde

That was his policy stated time and again, and we agreed with him on these benches. We have not sufficient land to provide everybody in Ireland with a farm. Therefore our aim and object was to make one acre produce what it took two acres to produce before. That is the accepted policy, even of the Government at the present moment. Whether they are going the right way about it is another matter. The world is short of food and we want to produce more food. The big nations such as Britain are looking for food. No one can deny that Britain is short of food. She is not able to feed herself properly at the moment. Surely it is in her interests to provide us with this machinery? Now that this scheme has been brought fully into effect, I see no reason in the world why the Minister for Agriculture, or if you like the Tánaiste, or other Ministers, should not meet British Ministers at ministerial level and endeavour to get machinery for the purpose of improving our land.

I see from a report which appears in the Evening Herald that a question was asked in the British House of Commons to-day by a Labour member suggesting that a joint survey of the potentialities of Irish agriculture should be made, and that the British Treasury should be asked to give a grant for the purpose. We do not want the British Treasury to tell us what to do in our country.

Mr. Cogan

We do not want any survey either.

Dr. Esmonde

No. What we want from the British Government is machinery. If they want to get more agricultural produce from this country let them give us the machinery. There is no use in Fianna Fail Ministers going around the country reiterating time and again that we must have increased agricultural production unless they do something about it. Why cannot they go over and ask British Ministers to give us this machinery? Are we not entitled to claim machinery from Britain? Surely, we have enough money there to pay for it. It was stated here the other night that we have £55,000,000 on deposit there. If we could get enough machinery, there would be no need for the Department to close down on this scheme because we could supply the machinery to private contractors.

In my constituency we had two Government units. I believe we had one private contractor. I have often inquired why we had not more contractors. One explanation given to me was that we could not get machinery. I have already dealt with that. The other reason given, which seemed to me quite reasonable, was that the Department were not paying sufficient to the contractors to make it worth while for private people to estimate for this work.

I think that this land reclamation scheme is a difficult thing to handle. While I say that, I do not feel that the Government have really gone ahead with it as they should have. They took it over when it was started and well established. My opinion is that they could have pushed ahead with it much faster than they have. The secret of success here is to get all we can out of the land and to get more land reclaimed.

That fact is now accepted by all Parties, though I am afraid at one time it was not. I have heard this land rehabilitation scheme criticised by some of the Deputies opposite in the past. I am glad that they have now come to realise that it is necessary for us to have it.

After the land rehabilitation scheme, an equally good scheme was the lime subsidy scheme. The greater part of Irish land is acid. Anyone conversant with farming conditions knows that it is impossible to get the full benefit from the use of fertilisers if the land is acid. In the past, for that reason, a great deal of the fertilisers used on our soil produced poor results. In the part of the country in which I live and, indeed, in any part of Ireland I have visited, we find that since we began to distribute lime in a major way the yields from wheat, beet and barley, to name a few crops, have increased immeasurably. I should like the Minister to clarify the position with regard to this lime subsidy scheme. Will he tell me whether it is to go on indefinitely into the foreseeable future, anyway? I gather that the ex-Minister for Agriculture, as Deputy Briscoe prefers to say—by the way, I do not think he will be the ex-Minister for Agriculture very much longer—had arranged for this scheme to continue for another five years.

Captain Cowan

I think Deputy Donnellan will ensure that.

Dr. Esmonde

I should like to know from the present Minister whether the scheme is to be extended for a further period of five years. I think it is necessary that it should because, speaking for my own county and particularly in respect of land that has been reclaimed, I do not think we are likely to get the full agricultural return which it is possible for this country to give, over and above a great many other countries, unless the land is fully and completely limed.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I deplore the decision of the Minister to sell the machinery which has been used by his Department in connection with the land project. I am concerned with a few aspects of the scheme which, I think, have not been mentioned so far. We all agree, and I do not think there is any necessity to say it again, that the land project is one of the best schemes that has ever been introduced here. The farmers have derived a lot of benefit from it. My main concern in speaking to-night is to deal with the position of the men who are working at the present time for the Department of Agriculture on the land project: Compared with other workers on the land, and with other workers in the Minister's Department, these men are, relatively speaking, well paid. I give an example from my own constituency where the minimum wage for agricultural workers is £3 12s. 6d. The wages paid to agricultural workers on the Department's farm there is £3 17s. 6d., and the wages paid to the men who are working on the land project is £4 2s. 6d.

My main concern is to know whether or not the Minister can give a guarantee or can ensure that these workers will receive something that will be a near approach to a living wage. I do not want to enter into an argument now as to whether or not the £4. 2s. 6d. is an adequate wage, but I shudder to think what will happen to wages as soon as the land project is operated by the contractors to whom the Minister proposes to sell this machinery. If the Minister could satisfy my mind on that, I would not look at this proposal in as strong a way as I do at present. It would not convince me by any manner of means that it is a wise move to sell this machinery. As far as I am concerned as a Labour representative, what I have just said is my first interest as far as the decision announced by the Minister for Agriculture goes.

There are a few things which I would like the Minister to place before the House with regard to this land rehabilitation scheme. It would seem to me as if the Minister, by his action, is proposing to throw from himself all responsibility, so to speak, so far as these workers on the land project scheme are concerned, and that they are to be left to the mercy of the contractors. When I say left at the mercy of contractors, I do not mean all contractors in any business, industry or public work. There is the very slight possibility that these contractors will employ the men at even bigger wages than the Minister would. But I will be generous to the Minister in thinking that the wage which he would be prepared to give would be slightly more than a contractor would give or what contractors are in the habit of paying to workers of a similar kind.

I had intended to ask the Minister this week or next week a parliamentary question as to what were the prospects of providing shelters for these workers, who, if my information is correct, are not very well protected from the weather, are not given as the road workers are, protective clothing. They are required to be out in all kinds of weather and, as far as is reported to me, there is no shelter or protection for them. I do not advocate the building of elaborate shelters or even the erection of any permanent structure, but I would ask the Minister to provide some type of tarpaulin covering to which they could go in inclement weather and in which they might cook their meals, especially their midday meal, because, like quarry workers, they are in the habit of having their midday meal at the place where they are working.

These are things I want to ask the Minister, but, in view of his decision, and I do not believe he will change that decision and it seems as if it will be carried by a majority, it may be futile for me to ask these questions now. It may be much more futile in the future, inasmuch as the Minister will tell me that he has no responsibility in the matter of the wages paid to these workers under the land reclamation scheme and no responsibility so far as their conditions of employment are concerned. It may be that I have "missed up" on something, but if I have I would be pleased if the Minister would let me know and tell me what steps he can take and what steps he will take to see that, in future, workers on this scheme may be protected as far as wages and conditions are concerned.

So far as the actual working of the scheme is concerned, I was not present when the Minister spoke, but from my queries to Deputies who did hear the Minister make his introductory speech it seems as if he were very vague, or, shall I say, very uninformative as far as the details of this transfer of the machinery are concerned. I can visualise a situation in my county or in other counties where there would not be persons who would contract for work in the reclamation or drainage of land. At present I or any of my colleagues representing the County Wexford can query the Minister or cajole him into sending down one, two or three units to meet the requirements of farmers in County Wexford. I visualise a situation in the next few weeks where I may express my concern at the lack of facilities for farmers in County Wexford to engage in the reclamation of land and be told by the Minister that I should advise the farmers to get in touch with some contractor.

Suppose the contractor lives in the County Carlow, County Wicklow or County Waterford, the three adjoining counties, and he says it would not be profitable for him to come to Rosslare, Kilmore or Curracloe in the south of the county, what is the farmer to do? At present there is a unit in the south of the county and a unit in the north of the county. What is to be the position of a farmer with 20 or 30 acres of land? How is he to induce a contractor to do the work for him under the scheme? At present the Minister can consider favourably such an application by a 20 acre farmer and say that the work must be done for him and may turn down a farmer with 500 acres. I submit that the farmer with 500 acres will be in a much better position to induce a contractor to work for him than the farmer with 20 or 30 acres. I am questioning the Minister on these things in the hope that he will replay to them in concluding the debate. I cannot claim any intimate knowledge of farming, but these are questions that occur to me following the announcement of the change by the Minister.

I should also like to know—perhaps the Minister referred to this—what arrangements are being made or will be made for the payment by the farmer of the money for the work done. If my information is correct, at present the farmer may pay the whole thing in bulk, but there is an arrangement whereby he replays the amount to the Department of Agriculture over a period of years in his land annuity. Is there any such arrangement now? Does it mean that the contractor will not work for him unless he can pay on the dot or within a stipulated time, or has the Minister made any arrangements whereby the money will be paid to the contractor and the farmer will repay the money to the Department over a period of years? These are all questions to which I am sure Deputies would like replies to be given.

There is only one other item of this Estimate to which I would like to refer, and that is the limestone scheme. I am interested in cottage tenants, some of whom have shown great industry and have contributed in their small way to the production of food, but it is not an inconsiderable amount when one remembers the big number of cottage tenants in the country. Deputy Dillon, when Minister for Agriculture, had an arrangement whereby five or six or seven cottage tenants could club together and get a consignment of limestone to distribute on their plots. That was very attractive to them. There have been cases, however, where two industrious cottage tenants were anxious to avail of the limestone scheme, but, because they could not get three or four or five other tenants in the area to join them, they were deprived of these facilities in getting limestone from the Department which is available to farmers. The Minister should try to devise a scheme whereby these cottage tenants would not be dependent on their neighbours to get limestone. It would be a tremendous advantage to these cottage tenants and would be a greater inducement to them to make their small contribution to the production drive which all of us hope and trust will be successful in the future.

Mr. Briscoe

I very reluctantly rise to intervene in this debate and would not have done so were it not for the very courteous invitation of the ex-selector of Ministers for Finance, Deputy Davin. He put a few questions to me and asked me deliberately what did I think of a Government that is going to sell £2,500,000 worth of machinery, and he implied, in doing so, that the machinery would be lost and that the employment which followed the machinery was in jeopardy.

There is a difference between selling machinery and selling machinery. When the late Government proceeded to sell machinery—and I use the term "late Government" advisedly because when a Government ceases to exist it is dead, but when a Minister of that Government is no longer a Minister he is an ex-Minister—they sold it abroad and they removed the chance of anybody in this country earning their livelihood as a result of that machinery being in existence.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

What is the difference between selling timber and selling timber?

Mr. Briscoe

I am answering the questions put to me. I will answer Deputy Corish after it if you like. This machinery is being sold from the ownership of Government into the hands of citizens of this country for them to engage in the continuance of this work. I understand from what I have heard of the debate the main burden of the opposition to this Estimate is the fact that the machinery is now being sold. Surely it must be admitted that it is not being sold to foreigners abroad. It is going to be utilised here and will continue to be the means of giving employment and of improving land. Some people call it land reclamation; others call it land improvement. I am not going to intervene to distinguish as between those two descriptions because I am not an expert on reclamation or on the improvement of land. However I have a certain amount of common sense and understanding. What is the position going to be? At the present moment the farmers of the country have two ways open to them to take advantage of the scheme. They can apply for a grant and do the work themselves or engage somebody else to do it for them, or they can apply to the Government or the Department of Agriculture to do the work for them. The main thing is that there is no change. Deputy Corish, who has left now and followed Deputy Davin, both of whom have the habit of asking questions and not waiting to hear the answers——

There is nothing to stop the development of this scheme in the normal way. There is no intention to stop contractors getting additional machinery and there is a considerable amount of this machinery now available. But there is this change, the same as has been effected by local authorities. In the City of Dublin, the local authority, Dublin Corporation, find it more convenient, more expeditious and more economic to give out contracts, for instance, for the laying of its streets, because under a direct labour scheme even the corporation could not deal with it in an adequate way.

Mr. O'Donnell

But rural Ireland has abandoned that.

Mr. Briscoe

I am saying that by way of illustration and I am sure Deputy O'Donnell will bear with me. We could not employ in Dublin City a sufficiency of equipment and men to deal with our requirements of road-making. We find it cheaper, more efficient and more speedy to give out this particular type of work to contractors who operate here and elsewhere and have a full-time chance of operating their machinery which the local authority has not because they can only operate it as and when it is needed from the point of view of repairing or renewal of roads and, secondly, when they have the funds to meet it.

In this particular case there is no suggestion that there should be a slowing down in the work. From my experience of local authorities in operations of this nature, this will speed it up. It will make it more widespread and it will prevent this House or the Department from cutting down the operations because of the danger of its being an overloaded Department as regards staff.

Deputy Corish spoke about the rates of wages and disemployment. I am convinced from what I have heard and from the policy I know exists that there will be no cutting down in employment. He questioned the rates of wages. I believe the Department will have a certain amount of responsibility to see that wages paid on the schemes will be within their knowledge, because, obviously, they will have to consider the wage content in the contract prices. They will pay for the jobs, and it will be quite open to any member of this House, if it is believed that contractors doing contract work for a Department of State are not paying reasonable wages commensurate with the work, to have it so raised and so debated that it will not arise again.

I can understand the approach that has been made by the Opposition in opposing this as if it were an end to land reclamation. It has had in its beginnings some repercussions on the situation. I remember, when this scheme began, a great deal of difficulties arose with the Department, as, in the first instance, the pipes that were made were found not to be suitable, because the acidity of the land dissolved the pipes and, in many cases, they had perished before they could do the job. A great deal of investigation was conducted and, in order not to stop the scheme, pipes suitable to withstand the acidity of the land were brought in from Sweden. I do not know to what extent the corrective measures have been taken in the development of the production of pipes at home that would be suitable for use in the land. There are difficulties one gets in the beginning of a scheme which have to be overcome, and it is only after years of experience that you can go on in a regularised way. Obviously, it has been considered and decided that, in order to make this land improvements scheme work more rapidly and more efficiently, so as to secure greater productivity on the land, this is the best way to do it.

In conclusion, I would say again, in answer to Deputy Davin, when he asks me, as a member of this Party representing the very area that suffered most from the sale of machinery, whether I approve it or not, I say: "Yes, I approve of this definitely, because the machinery is not going out of the country as scrap; it is being retained here for use and is not disemploying those who engaged on this particular activity—as were all the highly technical staffs and other workers disemployed when we sold from this country the Aer Línte machinery and the machinery of the chassis factory in Inchicore."

Mr. O'Donnell

Unlike the last two Government Deputies, I do not represent a Lagan Valley, a Golden Vale or a great agricultural constituency, as do Deputy Cunningham and Deputy Briscoe. I represent a constituency where we have a considerable area of land which requires reclamation and I have had reason to complain here on many occasions about the delay in carrying out these reclamation schemes on the uneconomic and mountainous holdings in West Donegal. On each and every occasion, the present Minister for Agriculture gave me the same reply—"lack of machinery prevents us from going on and putting into effect the land rehabilitation scheme in West Donegal." I hoped, and I was led to believe from the replies which I received from the Minister, that further machinery would be acquired by the Government and that it would eventually reach those mountainy districts.

I was amazed to-day when I was informed that one of the Minister's proposals was to dispose of that machinery. The first thing I said to myself was: "Here is a condemnation by the Minister of his own employees." Evidently they have been unable to work this machinery to the satisfaction of the Department and it is being handed over to somebody else. He has not even told the House what he proposes to do with those employees, whether they will be thrown on the labour market or whether he will insist upon these unknown contractors taking them over. I had hoped that the Minister would have mentioned some security for these men who have worked so hard for his predecessor and himself. Within the next few days this House will be asked to vote £250,000 for the unemployed. Surely some of those unemployed could be partially employed by the Minister in putting this scheme into effect and instead of handing over to contractors the money they are going to make it could have been distributed over the unemployed by direct labour schemes as envisaged by his predecessor.

I wonder what chance constituencies on the western seaboard—Kerry, Mayo, Donegal and Galway—have of enticing one of those contractors to come down there among the hills and dales with their machinery. I am afraid that, while there are applicants in the Midlands with hundreds of acres to be reclaimed, we will have little success in inviting those people to come down; and again we will be thrown back, until the ten years proposed by the Minister's predecessor have lapsed.

On many occasions I have told the Minister that we require no machinery in West Donegal, that all we require is the primitive spade to carry out schemes which would be beneficial to the small farmers. What chance have tenants in West Donegal, West Kerry, Cork, Galway and Mayo of obtaining contractors for their mountainy farms to use the primitive spade? The unfortunate widow with a farm which requires reclamation, may wait. The unfortunate migratory labourer, who must spend nine or ten months of the year in Great Britain, whose farm is unattended at home, who is anxious to take part in the Dillon scheme and reap its benefits, has no chance of deriving any benefits whatsoever from this new scheme. These contractors are not philanthropists; if they are going to contract, they are going to do it in order to make money. Surely by proper direction of the Minister's employees the profits going into the pockets of those contractors could have been distributed over the land.

In my opinion, this was one of the finest schemes ever introduced by a Minister for Agriculture. We had great hopes for it, but with the sale of this machinery we are turning it into a racket and nothing else. We are going to do what we have been endeavouring to prevent for some years, we are going to enhance the lands of the rancher— who will be able to offer better benefits to these contractors, better prices and longer periods of employment.

I would like to know something about the costings. Up to the present if an applicant wished to have his farm reclaimed he merely filled in an application form, a Department inspector came down, estimated what it would cost and informed the applicant the amount of the contribution he would have to make. Supposing for a second that that were to be done in the future and that the contractor disagreed with the Minister's inspector, who is going to pay the difference between the inspector's estimate and the contractor's tender? That is something of vital importance which we should consider.

General MacEoin

It will not be done then.

Mr. O'Donnell

It will not, exactly, and that is going to be one of the methods used by the contractors to evade doing work for small farmers. The ex-Minister, in introducing the scheme originally, said he hoped that in ten years' time all the unreclaimed land of Ireland would be attended to. With the entry of contractors now and all this wrangling and disputing between contractors, Government inspectors and tenants, I am afraid that not one fraction of the land of Ireland will be reclaimed within the ten years envisaged by the Minister's predecessor.

The Deputy ran away from it.

General MacEoin

I was endeavouring to get from the Minister what would be the result of this sale. Deputy Briscoe says that the machinery will not be sold out of the country. Of course it will not. If it was there certainly would be another story. It will be sold either in bulk to a new company, formed as a contractor, in connection with which Deputy Cowan might be the lawyer to draw up the terms of agreement. If he does, more power to his elbow, because it will be of some benefit. If it is not the big company and the big combine, then it must be the smaller unit which will start to conserve its machinery and will only go in on the farm which will pay them best. The person who would blame him for that would be a stepmother.

Deputy Corry, fighting for the farmer, says, "Why should he do anything that he is not paid for?" I agree. Why should the contractor do it, if he is not paid for it? When the contractor invests capital, if he can get it, in this machinery, he does it to make money. The Government will need to go to the banks and tell them that they are satisfied that the particular contractor concerned is a decent man; that they are going to sell him this machinery at a cheap rate and that, if he does not pay the overdraft or the bill, the Government will guarantee it.

The Minister has this machinery. He has a whole army for the work. He has the officer commanding and the troops in the field. He has every rank down the line. Why disband it? Why break it up? A high tribute has been paid to its work. It has done marvellous work. Land in Westmeath that was a waste grows clover of a very high quality. If every acre of land in Ireland were even half as good. I would be happy, because it would mean that you had succeeded in making, not two blades of grass grow where one was growing, but five or six blades of grass grow where one was growing and that of the very highest quality.

I do not know what the Minister or the Government mean by springing a surprise like this at this time. The Minister said to-day that he could sell this machinery without telling us at all. Of course he could.

Mr. Walsh

I could sell the machinery, yes.

General MacEoin

Of course you could, but would it be wise to do it without telling us? Would it be politic? The principle that governs the sale of land applies here. You cannot give a lease without putting it on the Table of the House.

Mr. Davin

It applies to all public property.

General MacEoin

Yes. The Minister was wise in telling us he was going to sell it. This House, if it approves of this Vote, gives him the right to sell, and as soon as he sells it and the contractors get the Department in the hollow of their hand, land rehabilitation will stop except at the contractors' terms. They talk about rings of building contractors. They talk about prices being high. Here is a system whereby one of the most valuable schemes that has ever been put into operation in this country will be handed over to contractors.

I appeal to the Minister. He knows the land. He may know a better type of land than his predecessor knows or that I know. The land on which I was born is as hungry as ever Deputy O'Donnell's land was. The Minister knows that anything that will hold up the land rehabilitation scheme is a bad thing for this country. He asserts, and I accept that he believes, that this will speed up the land scheme. I doubt it. It may speed up land rehabilitation on the bigger farms. I do not doubt that. It will leave the small man where he was. The small man is down, and this will keep him down. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the whole scheme. He will have as much power after this motion is passed not to sell as he had power to sell before mentioning it. Without coming back to the House he can change his mind and go on with the scheme as at present operated. If he does that, we will all cheer him. Deputy Corry and I will cheer him together for doing the right thing, and Deputy Cogan will hold the baton, conducting the duet that Deputy Corry and I will sing in unison. "He is a Jolly Good Fellow".

Mr. Rooney

It was not easy to follow the statement of the Minister to-day. We gathered that he proposes to sell the machinery at present owned by the Department which is used for the purpose of implementing the land rehabilitation programme. I regret that the Minister did not give us a chance to follow his speech because it has turned out to be of very great importance to the nation. The nation follows with interest the ten year land rehabilitation programme.

The decision of the Government to deal this very severe blow to the scheme emphasises the attitude they have adopted towards it in the past. Government speakers to-night pointed out that, this year, more money is being sought, that we did not budget enough for this scheme in the current year. They boasted that credit was due to them for that. We can point out that the scheme has now reached its maturity and full development and has gained an impetus which has given rise to the necessity to vote more money for it. We are glad that more money is required for the land project.

The Minister announced that he proposes to sell the machinery that has been used for this scheme. We are opposed to that. It is part of the financial war on this country that has been embarked on by the Minister for Finance. Obviously, the Minister for Finance has pointed out that, if the machinery is sold, as much money will not be required next year as is needed this year to implement the scheme; that there will be a smaller amount of work being done and therefore less money required to do it. In the long run, if that policy were pursued, it would mean that the scheme would not be completed within the ten year period.

The attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party towards the Dillon scheme is well known.

A few years ago there was a very ugly scence here when Deputy Dillon, then Minister for Agriculture, alleged that Fianna Fáil were opposed to the scheme in the course of a reply to a parliamentary question. It is obvious from what is being done now that Fianna Fáil were then, and still are, opposed to the scheme.

The Minister, in the course of his statement, and I barely heard it, said that if this proposal goes through the date from which the new plan will operate will be announced. Is to-day the date from which the financial adjustments will be made in operating the new arrangement? Is that the position? Is to-day the date of announcement or has the Minister some date in the future in mind? Many people will be interested in adjustments, possibly retrospective adjustments, and will be anxious to know the particular date from which the new method of finance will operate, particularly because the allowance to be made in respect of land reclamation under scheme A will be altered in relation to the amount payable under scheme B at the present time.

The Minister's speech sounded very innocent, particularly that portion of it indicating that he proposes to have a dispersal sale of the land reclamation gear. But that particular portion of his speech gives cause for serious alarm to those interested in the land project from the point of view of the nation as a whole. We know the tremendous benefits such a scheme will bring. I think it is second only to the Shannon electricity scheme and would abundantly prove itself if given a fair chance over the next ten years.

There is something like £500,000 worth of machinery involved in this proposed sale. Where will the people who might be interested in this machinery get £500,000? I am not aware of many contractors who with all their capital added together could make up £500,000. The Minister did not mention any scheme to enable contractors to secure the necessary finance to purchase the machinery.

In the past when contractors were being encouraged to take part in this project side by side with the Department, many of them found great difficulty in getting sufficient finance to purchase enough gear to enable them to carry out all the different kinds of work. It is not sufficient for the contractor to be able to buy one high-powered tractor. He has to buy different kinds of gear to do the different types of work in order to do a complete job of drainage. The Department has several full sets of gear. Some contractors, but not many, have full sets, but on occasions even they found it necessary to borrow for some particular job.

Any contractor who wishes to buy this machinery will have to have sufficient capital to buy a complete or nearly complete set of equipment. He may not have sufficient money to buy that complete set, and the Minister has not made any announcement of any proposals to aid contractors in any way. Under previous schemes the contractor was asked to put down only one-third of the money. In many instances this gear cost £12,000. If a contractor wishes to buy £10,000 worth of gear from the Department will he be offered any facilities? If he does not get facilities, where will he find the money?

Is it proposed to allow this machinery to be sold at scrap prices? The Minister has not indicated that there will be any reserve. Deputy MacEoin pointed out that machinery which cost originally approximately £500,000 might now be sold for £250,000. How much will the State lose on this transaction? If contractors cannot get facilities, will it not have to be sold at sacrifice prices?

I think the Minister rushed into this decision. I do not think he did it quite of his own accord and I believe he has been ill-advised. I hope that having had time to consider the points made he will withdraw this proposal and allow the scheme to be operated as it has been in the past in fairness to all those desiring to have their lands reclaimed.

This machinery is dollar machinery. It was purchased with hard currency. Are we now about to permit it to be sold to the highest bidder? Will it be sold by public auction? Will it be sold by inviting tenders? In what way will the machinery be disposed of? Apart from that, if the Department now absolves itself of control the Dillon scheme will get out of hand because the element of competition will disappear and then we will have the position where the contractor will be able to pick the land which suits him best, namely, the land which will give him the biggest profit. Contractors are not fools. They are business people and they will do the work that brings them the greatest measure of profit.

The point was made that more money is being spent now than was spent in the first year of the scheme.

Remember that in the figure of £600,000—and it has been pointed out in this House—is included something like £400,000 for administration costs. That £400,000 is still there: that is the administration end of the scheme. As a result of the work done by the administrators and by all the administration machinery involved, including the staffing of this scheme, the distribution of machinery all over the country and the administration of those centres—having got that position running satisfactorily—more money was required this year than was anticipated and budgeted for. We will have the same position next year if the scheme is not upset by the proposal put forward to the House to-night because the machine which was started under Deputy Dillon's régime is now running smoothly. Many farmers have made their plans. Farming is a long-term plan. A farmer cannot go out one morning and say: "I must drain that land." He probably has to say: "There is a crop in the land and I shall have to wait until next year or perhaps the year after in order to drain that particular piece of land." The result is that the farmers are making their plans. We have seen for the past couple of years that the acreage being drained is increasing. That is because the plans made by the farmers two or three years ago to have their land drained are beginning to materialise. Next year a bigger acreage than this year will certainly be drained if the scheme is not interfered with. The proposal to dispose of this machinery endangers the whole scheme. I appeal to the Minister to think again and, in his concluding speech to give an assurance that, on reconsideration, he will not implement the proposal because it would be a most foolish act on his part and a very harmful one so far as the nation is concerned.

In the course of his speech the Minister indicated that approximately £250,000 was lost on the fertilisers under the control of his Department. That was due to the mishandling of the large quantity of fertilisers in the possession of the Department when the Minister came into office. I am aware that these superphosphates were scattered all over the place in backyards. I do not know why they were in those places, or whether it was to ensure that they could not be found at a time when questions were being asked in this House regarding the quantity of superphosphates in hands. I am aware that a large quantity of these superphosphates were in a builder's yard. They were stored there under very bad conditions and allowed to become damp. The bagging and rebagging of these fertilisers has resulted in a very heavy loss to the taxpayers and to the State. The fertilisers should have been given the light of day. People wishing to use them should have been allowed to purchase them—instead of taking over a large quantity to be distributed through the Irish Sugar Company. I understand that last year these phosphates were selling at up to £16 a ton. I remember that phosphates were being made available in this country at £6 a ton some years ago—and at that time a considerable amount of criticism was being directed against Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture. At that time the price of the fertilisers was being ridiculed. Eventually he brought in a large quantity of these fertilisers at a cost of £9 10s. per ton.

That vast quantity of fertilisers should have been made available at a reasonable price to the farmers instead of extracting £16 a ton in a limited way from those who had the privilege of using the phosphates last year. They were spirited away by the Fianna Fáil Party. Nobody knows why they were taken away. An explanation has not been offered to this House as to why those fertilisers were taken away and taken out of the reach of the farmers for whom they were imported by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture.

I believe that there was considerable delay in carrying out many of the Government schemes in the past. I heard myself of farms in Wicklow where the scheme was carried on for months and months until it came within a stone's throw of Deputy Cogan's house. I heard one man cursing the scheme because the machines were bogged up for a considerable time on his land. Every shower that came the men engaged on the scheme went away and his whole farm was churned up so that he could scarcely make any use of it. That unfortunate man paid through the nose for any advantages which he derived from the scheme. I can quite understand that delays of this kind are more or less inevitable in the early stages of the scheme. It will take a few years to get it into its stride, but I think the time should now have arrived when it should be possible to work these machines efficiently. I agree that in some cases the money was badly spent because the scheme was rushed, perhaps too rushed. It requires a considerable amount of ability, patience and co-ordinated effort to get a scheme of the gigantic proportions of this scheme working.

I do not believe that our committees of agriculture and their executive officers are being employed as usefully as they might. I believe that the work of committees of agriculture, the land project, the farm improvements scheme and schemes operated by the Board of Works, should be dovetailed because all these schemes interlock.

There are scores of farmers anxious to avail of the land reclamation scheme but they are told by some official that unless the bed of a river or stream is lowered four, five or ten inches the scheme cannot be operated on their land. The farmer will then ask: "What can I do?", and he is told: "If you write to the Board of Works and get them to undertake a drainage scheme on your land we can go ahead." Of course the Board of Works are not now operating schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. They have closed down so far as that Act is concerned. That scheme, I maintain, should be in operation because there are a number of small rivers running from my end of Meath right up to the Liffey which are closing up, with the result that low-lying lands of Meath, Kildare and parts of Westmeath are being flooded. If the Board of Works drained these rivers the farmers occupaying the low-lying land in these counties could, to their immense advantage, avail of the land reclamation scheme. Unless the Board of Works embarks on these other schemes these men will be left as they are perhaps for the next 50 years.

I believe, as I have already said, that all these schemes—the Board of Works scheme, the land reclamation schemes, schemes operated by the committees of agriculture and the farm improvements scheme—should be dovetailed into one big scheme. As things stand at present we have scores of officers working the different schemes, passing one another on the road without any cohesion between them. Why not consolidate these schemes into one big scheme and have one man at the head who would be responsible for seeing that there was some cohesion in the carrying out of these schemes?

If that is done we can derive immense benefit from land reclamation. The committees of agriculture, as I know them, can be scrapped because under present circumstances there is a lot of waste in the administration of these schemes. They are not being administered as they should be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss committees of agriculture on this Estimate.

Captain Giles

This scheme is of immense importance, and it should override all other schemes. I believe there should be concentration on this scheme, and that farmers should be put in the position to avail to the full of the advantages of it, but until we have co-operation and cohesion, and a cutting out of the wasteful methods under which you have these various officials passing one another on the roads of the country without any effort being made to co-ordinate the schemes which they are administering, we shall never get anywhere.

I believe that, while enterprise is the healthiest thing in the world, in the case of a major scheme of this type the Government itself should give the lead because it is one that is calculated, if properly developed, to bring great prosperity to the nation. In fact, it should have been started 30 years ago. The fact that it was not has left us with vast areas of waterlogged and impoverished land, so that the people are fleeing from the country.

I urge on the Government to give a lead in the carrying out of this scheme so that our farmers and the men working on the land will be able to get a better living for themselves and their families. I do not think it would be wise for the Government to sell out all this machinery. There could be co-operation between the Government and private enterprise. That, I believe, is necessary to make a success of this scheme. If the Government and private enterprise. That, I believe, is necessary to make a success of this scheme. If the Government give a lead in this matter, I believe that the people will respond.

As regards the lime subsidy scheme, I believe there is not sufficient drive behind it. Our land requires more and more lime. The scheme is an important one and our agricultural officers should be directed to bost it by means of lectures in the schools and halls of the country, so that its benefits may be brought home to the people, and so that they may take advantage of it. In remote parts of the country, you have small farmers, living miles and miles from centres of population, who know little or nothing about it. Their only source of information is the weekly paper which many of them cannot read.

I am of opinion that a better type of scheme is required. At present we have big lorries dumping ten and 15 tons of lime in the ditches on the side of the road. You may have two or three days' rain after it is left there, so that when the farmers for whom it is intended come with their horses and cars to take it home, instead of being able to take delivery of lime which they can spread on the land, they find that there is nothing there but big lumps of putty. There is a good deal of waste in that way. My suggestion is that the lime should be delivered in paper bags in the same way as cement and manures are delivered. If that were done, the farmers could store it and then spread it in favourable weather. In that way, the scheme would produce 100 per cent. results.

It might be more costly than the present scheme, but I believe that the benefits obtained would far outweigh the extra cost. I know scores of farmers who are urgently in need of lime for their land, but at present it is delivered to them in such a condition that there is really a loss to them and to the land. If my suggestion were adopted, I am satisfied great benefit would result.

On every occasion when agriculture is discussed in this House, much the same ground is covered. In my opinion, what we need here more than anything else is greater co-operation between the farmer Deputies on all sides. It is a fine thing to see those Deputies on the Lobby outside going around arm in arm, talking of the poor farmer. Is it not a pity that we could not have more of that spirit in our debates on agriculture in this House? The unfortunate thing about these debates is that we start off on the wrong foot. The trouble, I believe, is that we have different ideologies. The Minister has an outlook of his own and the ex-Minister has a different outlook, and on top of all that we have our famous Deputy Cogan.

Mr. Cogan

Making peace.

Captain Giles

The Deputy is a wet blanket and spoils the whole day's programme. That is all done for the purpose of getting himself into his little paper in the County Wicklow. I suppose Lady Bobbett will say: "Good man, Cogan, you slated them all." I urge the Minister not to sell all this machinery. It is required to do the work that should be done by the Government and through private enterprise. In the part of the County Meath in which I live we have low-lying areas that have scarcely been touched yet so far as this scheme is concerned.

We have to consider, too, the position of the small uneconomic farmers. If we are not in a position to give them more land, let us, at any rate, give them the means of doubling their production. If that is done it will help to solve many of our ills. The County Meath has been neglected so far as this scheme is concerned. Of course, the large landholders there do not give two hoots as to whether this scheme works or not. They do not care, with their 300 acres of land, and some of them with 1,500 acres. They have so much land that most of it is going to waste growing rushes. It is hard on those of us who live beside those large estates to see that kind of thing happening. The point has been reached when we will not stand it much longer. We want to see all this land, which is derelict, and to a large extent covered with water, improved so that it may give a full return to the nation both as regards production and employment. If the owners are not prepared to co-operate. then the State should step in and give it to people who will use it productively. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to think twice before he sells this machinery.

Mr. Hughes

I think that Deputies on all sides of the House are in agreement that this land rehabilitation scheme is a most important one, and that work on it should be continued. I believe that the announcement made this evening by the Minister for Agriculture is going to do great harm, and will hinder the continuance of that very useful work. He has told us that he proposes to sell the machinery which is now in the hands of the Department.

It was necessary, at the beginning, that the Department should start this work. It had to purchase this machinery and show how the work was to be done. Those units are absolutely necessary if the work is to be continued, and in my opinion it would be a very wrong thing to get rid of this machinery as the Minister proposes to do. How is he going to dispose of it? Is there any possibility that he is going to have enough of interested contractors to purchase it? I have grave doubts about that myself. What I fear is that a great deal of this machinery may be left idle if this proposal is carried through.

It is an extraordinary thing that we should have this sudden change in policy proposed to the House. So far, those units have been operated very successfully by the Department itself. A very fine organisation has been built up behind them to service and repair them. As I have said, the Department has been working the scheme very successfully. Contractors were working side by side with those units. If this project is to be a success, I believe that we should still retain them. At any time you may have difficulty with the contractors who may say that they are not getting sufficient for their work. While there are units which can be worked by the Department you will not be up against that difficulty because you can always turn to these units to do the work.

The Minister referred to the fact that under section A farmers who were doing the job themselves did not meet with such success. One of the reasons for that was that no attempt was made to help them with machinery. The units used were of the bigger type and the owners were more inclined to go on the bigger job because it is very expensive to shift these units.

If the Department had asked contractors to use the small type of digger which does not cost a lot of money they could have helped the farmers to do this job. The small jobs are mostly done by hand labour. If small diggers were available to dig the trenches and drains they would have helped the farmers out. That is one of the things which should have been done and no attempt was made at any time to do it. At all times the Department were anxious that even the contractors should operate a complete unit. There should have been an inducement given to them to use the smaller type of machines.

There is also a problem with regard to watercourses. Quite an amount of drainage is being held up at the moment because there is no proper outlets. If this drainage work is to be continued there will have to be some scheme whereby watercourses will be got ready for the drainage. A good deal of the drainage which is most necessary is convenient to these watercourses. Owing to their condition some of these watercourses will not take any water. If there is drainage required convenient to those watercourses it is held up and as a result the Department or a contractor or no one else is willing to do the job and therefore it is left there. Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act some of this drainage was being done, but as that is now practically finished there is no attempt made to get these jobs done. It is very important that something should be done in that direction. Some scheme will have to be devised by which these watercourses will be cleared when drainage is required to be done, as without an outlet it cannot be done.

The loss on fertilisers referred to by the Minister is a very big one. The matter must have been mishandled if there is to be a loss of £250,000 on fertilisers. It would have been much better if the fertilisers had been offered to the farmers at a lower figure and had been put into the land instead of carrying this stock of fertilisers for over three years. Some of the fertilisers brought in when Deputy Dillon was Minister are still in storage. These fertilisers were brought in at £9 8s. per ton, and were offered to the farmers 18 months ago at £15 per ton. The Sugar Company offered super-phosphate at £15 per ton, which was part of the fertilisers brought in at £9 8s. per ton. That is all wrong. The fertilisers should have been offered to the farmers at what they could be sold for instead of looking for this big profit on them. The result is that there is a big carry over and a big loss. If this amount of money had been used as a subsidy it would have given the farmers fertilisers at a very low price.

There is also the problem with regard to the subsidy on ground limestone. There has been overlapping in regard to that. Possibly it could not have been avoided in the beginning, but there seems to have been no attempt made to rectify it. Limestone is being carried for long distances in some cases where it is available at a shorter distance. I know cases where limestone was carried 80 miles although it was available within 40 miles. The subsidy was available to these people and they took advantage of it.

The Minister stated that the freight was costing 16/- on an average. That seems very high. That is almost as much as the limestone itself is costing. An attempt should be made to get more plant going so as not to have such an amount of money being paid in freights. There has been no attempt made to deal with this matter.

The Minister is taking a very wrong step in selling this machinery and it will be very harmful to the project. If the project is to be continued it is absolutely necessary that the machinery should be in the hands of the Department. It has been found to be very useful since the project was started three years ago. While contractors are necessary and have been doing good work, it is still necessary that the Department should hold these units.

Mr. Hickey

Mr. McMenamin

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 10th December.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 9 Dec 1952