Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1952

Vol. 135 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed).

I was somewhat surprised yesterday when this Supplementary Estimate was under discussion by the views expressed by a section of the House, led in the main by Deputy Dillon. I should perhaps say that it was a pleasant surprise to find Deputy Dillon adopting the rôle of socialist in this debate, because that is exactly what he was doing. I gathered from the Minister's speech that he intends—and, in fact, it is the Government's proposal—to intensify and extend this land rehabilitation scheme, land project or whatever else it is called, and that in actual fact the project is being pushed forward with much more determination by the present Minister than it had been by his predecessor.

Expressing the view that more satisfactory work could be done by leaving the machinery to private enterprise, the Minister announced that he proposed to sell or dispose of the machinery that had been accumulated by the Department of Agriculture under this project. Apparently a sum of approximately £300,000 was paid for this machinery. Deputy Dillon, in the course of the debate, referred to it as something like £2,500,000. I think Deputy Dillon was proceeding on the old propaganda scheme that if you have a lie to tell, make it a big one. He was followed by every other Deputy of what I might term the "Molly Maguire" section of the Fine Gael Party with this £2,500,000. Deputy Dillon, however, for the purposes of this debate and for the purposes of using his exaggerated language in regard to the Minister, adopted the rôle of socialist, a rôle that he is not very well fitted for, and stated that this scheme should be run by the Government as a Government scheme. I would certainly welcome Deputy Dillon's conversion to socialism if it were a genuine conversion but it is not; it is a conversion for the purposes of the moment, for the purpose of striking out at his successor and for no other purpose.

I can well imagine how the people right down the country, the solid old conservative element that has always been the backbone of and the mainstay of Fine Gael, must react to this attitude of Deputy Dillon and what I term his "Molly Maguire" supporters in the Fine Gael Party. I am sure when they read the papers to-day they must be amazed and astonished at that attitude. We had a perfect example of it in Deputy Giles's speech. Deputy Giles started off by saying that he did not give two hoots how it was done so long as it was done.

Is Deputy Giles a "Molly Maguire?"

Apparently he is getting into that category.

His history would not lead you to believe that.

I will deal with Deputy Giles's speech; he may be contaminated at the moment. Deputy Giles said he did not give two hoots who did it so long as it was done, and with that everyone would agree; and then he stated how important it was that it should be done by private enterprise for which he had the highest regard. At that stage Deputy Dillon came into the House and Deputy Giles veered around until he finished up with an appeal to the Minister to maintain the machinery and run it as a Government concern because the project was too big, The Party that acts like that is running around in circles and has no fixed line on anything; and Deputy O'Sullivan is quite right; Deputy O'Sullivan knows that we have what I might call this "Molly Maguire" line being taken at the moment.

I do not know anything of the kind.

It is very difficult to imagine Deputy Giles in it but he wobbled himself into it here yesterday.

Mr. O'Higgins

He has not wobbled himself into the serious condition the Deputy is in.

If Deputy Giles wants to adopt socialism that is very welcome.

He did not sport a red tie.

If the other members of the Fine Gael Party want to adopt the socialist line, certainly that is something to be admired in them. I wonder what Deputy Donnellan will think of this line; it is completely in conflict with his recent pronouncement in Limerick.

However, these matters can be straightened out, I am sure, in due course. I only intervened, as I say, for the purpose of drawing attention to the illogical attitude adopted by Deputy Dillon and his supporters on the Fine Gael benches. If this land project or land reclamation scheme is the great scheme that it is supposed to be—and undoubtedly it has magnificient possibilities and potentialities—I think we should be concerned, as Deputy Giles so well said, about getting the work done. Where the Minister comes in and says he is prepared to spend more money than Deputy Dillon spent, he ought to be congratulated on doing that. Instead of the Minister being congratulated, Deputy Dillon has to find some argument with which to disagree with the Minister. He wanted some peg to hang his particular cap on for the moment and he adopted the one to which I am referring. Deputy Giles also said something in the course of his speech with which every Deputy will agree: where it is a question of doing good to the farmer, of rendering some constructive service to him, every Deputy interested in the welfare of the farmer should look at the matter not from the point of view of politics but from the point of view of sane, sound common sense.

The question arises here, is the land project to be continued? Is the land rehabilitation scheme to be pursued? Is the land that is good to be made better and the land that is bad to be improved and made good land? That is the vital question and obviously whoever happens to be Minister for Agriculture must be invested with some discretion in relation to the policy of his Department.

The main question is, is the work being done? Is it being done better than it was being done before? I know very little about the machinery involved in this project. I do not know what the life of that machinery is. I do not know whether it has a useful life of five, ten or 20 years. I think there are very few Deputies who have that detailed knowledge of the life of the machinery involved in this project. If we spent £300,000 on machinery a few years ago that machinery cannot be worth that much to-day. I think that is an elementary axiom particularly in regard to machinery of this type. Obviously one cannot hope to get £300,000 for that machinery if it is put on the market to-morrow. I do not think anyone will make the case that we could.

Several questions have been addressed to the Minister. How does he propose to deal with this machinery? Will he auction it? Will it be sold to one individual? Will it be sold in lots? Obviously again its disposal is governed by common sense and if an individual is fit to be Minister for Agriculture he ought to be fit to take a decision in relation to such a matter.

Mr. O'Higgins

Agreed.

There is no doubt whatever about that.

Mr. O'Higgins

No doubt whatever.

There ought, therefore, to be less of this petty harping and carping about what the Minister will do with the machinery or how he will dispose of it. I would myself much prefer to see this land project developed as a State scheme under the control of the Minister with all the machinery owned by the State and all the men employed directly under the control of the State.

And all the land owned by the State.

That is what I would like to see—the machinery under the control of the Minister and the people working the machinery under his control also. At the moment part of the scheme is under the control of the Minister and part is under the control of private contractors. There is an element here which takes the line that it is better to have freedom under what they term "private enterprise" and from that point of view I can see the reasonableness of the Minister's decision that this machinery should now be sold to private contractors. Deputy Dillon took this excursion into socialism yesterday evening like the proverbial bear with the sore head. He took it because he is peeved and annoyed and for no other reason. I would prefer to support a socialist project when it is put forward by people who believe in the principles of socialism and not when it is put forward because of peevishness, jealousy or something of that kind.

Just before the adjournment last night Deputy Cowan waxed quite angry because Deputies on the Opposition Benches were speaking at such length on this Supplementary Estimate. He has now spent, or perhaps wasted, a quarter of an hour contributing something which is of no help to the Minister in the matter under review. It is simply criticism of the Fine Gael Party.

I said the Molly Maguire section of it.

I think Deputy Cowan should be the last to criticise any Party. He speaks about people going around in circles. He has gone round himself in political circles. He has tried every Party, even the socialist Party. I do not know where the Deputy will finish up but we can have a pretty shrewd idea; on the next occasion he will not be required by any Party. So far as the Fine Gael Party is concerned we will take no dictation from him or from anybody else. We hold we have the right to stand up here at any time and present the views of our constituents in the manner in which we feel they would wish us to speak on their behalf.

When the land project was first inaugurated it was meant to be more or less complementary, or supplementary, to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. If the schemes are to be properly carried out the two should work side by side. It was the purpose of the Act to drain rivers and streams, to make way for the water that would eventually come from the fields and off the land. Unfortunately the Government that introduced these two schemes was not sufficiently long in office to ensure their being carried out to such an extent that they would be made safe. Both schemes passed through this House despite the vehement opposition of the coalition that now occupies the Government Benches. It is the object of that coalition to spike the work done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. In the last financial year in which the inter-Party Government was in office there was allocated to my county, Kerry, under that Act a sum of £82,000. In the first year after Fianna Fáil returned to office, with the aid of their so-called Independent supporters, the amount was reduced to £25,000, a reduction which nullified the whole scheme. This year for Kerry there is only £24,000 odd and the sanction came too late to do any work at all.

That is the way in which they are destroying the Local Authorities (Works) Act. They are destroying it merely because they do not like it. They think it is too good. Here they come again now to destroy the land project. We were very glad when this Estimate was introduced that more money was going to be voted so that that project could be carried out with a greater degree of progress. We were quite happy until the Minister reached the point where he informed the House that he proposed to sell the machinery. I believe that is the real object of introducing this Supplementary Estimate. Was it to improve the scheme or was it merely to provide an excuse for the sale of the machinery and render the whole scheme impossible of fruition?

It is rather peculiar that the two exponents of the Minister's new scheme should be two Deputies from Dublin City. Of course, I realise that they should take an interest in anything that will improve the condition of the land because otherwise they would not get the food or the production which this country requires. Surely it is the duty of a Government to take every step possible to improve the condition of the land. That can be done, in the first instance, only by proper drainage. Full provision was made for the drainage of the land under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and under the land project — both of which schemes were inaugurated by the inter-Party Government. So far as South Kerry is concerned I can say that very little progress has been made in the way of drainage under this scheme. I do not know why Kerry has been neglected so much. Thousands of applications have been sent to the Department in this connection. I do not blame the officials: at all times they have been most careful and most helpful in regard to any applications or representations that were made not only in connection with drainage but also in connection with the type of machinery that might be required to carry out the various schemes.

Judging by the list which was read out, it is rather peculiar that of all the units of machinery in the various counties in connection with this scheme, there is not one unit in Kerry. Why were some of the Kilkenny units not sent down to Kerry? Why were they all required in Kilkenny? If anything, this scheme was meant more for the type of land to be found in Kerry and along the western seaboard than for some other types of land. That is the land we want to bring into production. I fail to see why farmers in the Midlands and the eastern counties should require such help in connection with the drainage of their land or the bringing of their land into production. They are big farmers. They have good land. I think they should carry out that work themselves.

The present Government—by the attitude which they are now adopting and which, I suppose, they have adopted for some time past—have made provision only for the big farmers. That is how it will really work.

It is very strange that the 55,000 tons of fertilisers are still lying about here and there. Why were these fertilisers not given, even for nothing, to farmers who require them? Why were they not given out in some proportion or at least for a certain reduced price? The Department is holding on to these fertilisers and paying for their storage, re-bagging and so forth. They are trying to make a profit on them. Nobody can blame the farmers of this country for not buying them because of the excessive price. Why does the Government not subsidise the fertilisers? Any money spent on the improvement of the land by way of drainage and fertilisation to make it fit for production is money well spent. Such action would receive the wholehearted support not only of the farming community but of the people of the country in general.

It is regrettable that in areas where private enterprise has failed to produce ground limestone and where, at the same time, vast quantitiese of limestone exist the Government does not take it upon itself to set up a company and supply the necessary machinery for the production of ground limestone. It would save money eventually. Imagine the plight of people in South Kerry who require ground limestone. They have to get it from Buttevant which is more than 100 miles away while there are vast quantities of the finest limestone available in the Kenmare-Kilgar-van area. Owing to lack of capital and because private enterprise cannot be induced to produce the ground lime-ston, the limestone in the area is not worked even though the farmers are crying out for lime and fertilisers of all kinds.

When applications are made for the drainage of land and when the local officer of the Department decides to inspect it and to make a survey of it, I think it would be a good idea if the Department sent a note to the applicant advising him beforehand that his land will be inspected on a certain specified day. Frequently it happens that when the local officer calls the farmer is absent at a fair, a market or somewhere else. If the Department issued instructions to their agricultural overseers to send a note to the farmer advising him of their intention to inspect his land it would ensure his presence and would make it easier for the official and for the farmer.

I notice that the ground limestone subsidy has been increased by £150,000 because of the increased cost of delivery. That increased cost will come, eventually, as a result of the increased motor taxation. Any time taxation is increased, either directly or indirectly, it will work in the same way. In this case the increase must be borne by the taxpayer. The Irish taxpayer must also bear any losses incurred on the sale of the Government machinery. It is very strange that, when making his statement concerning the sale, the Minister did not tell us the method by which the machinery will be sold. Will it all be collected together at some place and then auctioned? Is it possible that a number of people could combine and buy the whole lot and form one company and thus create a monopoly? It is quite possible that all this machinery may be bought by individuals in one part of the country. In that event, what is the rest of the country to do? What will happen Kerry? One can understand that a contractor will not buy the machinery in order to help the Department of Agriculture or for the benefit of the Irish farmer. He will buy the machinery to make a profit for himself. Can the Minister prevent the purchase of the machinery by a person or persons in one particular area, to the neglect of the rest of the Twenty-Six Counties?

Furthermore, when this machinery is purchased and when the Government will no longer have any control over it, do you think that the Minister will order a contractor that he is to do work in a certain place or that he need obey, if he is so ordered? He certainly need not or he will not. Once the Department of Agriculture disposes of this machinery and gives it into the hands of contractors, all its control over the land project is gone. Nobody objected to a local person or to a number of local persons combining to purchase the necessary machinery to carry out this work at a profit to themselves and for the benefit of farmers but, knowing that the Department had also machinery and had control of the necessary machinery to carry out such work, these people had always to be careful and knew that they could not demand an exorbitant price to carry out any drainage entrusted to them. Now when such contractors have a free field, they will probably eventually create a ring and the Minister must come along later and try to smash that ring. There is no way by which he can smash it except to get machinery again under the control of the Department to carry out work in competition with these contractors.

When the machinery at present in the hands of the Department is sold completely and when the contractors who purchase it require replacements or new parts for the machinery, where will they get them? Who is to import them? Is it the Minister or must they do it themselves? You can imagine all the delays that will be caused when an individual or a company has to approach the Department to obtain a licence to import that machinery. You can imagine all the red tape that will be involved.

It is regrettable that men who were trained to use this machinery, who had acquired all the necessary technical knowledge and felt that they had had a safe and secure livelihood for years to come, must now leave that work and go back to join the ranks of the unemployed. Did the Minister think of that when he agreed to sell the machinery because this decision to sell the machinery must have been a Government decision? I cannot believe that the experts of the Departmnt, good as they are, would recommend the sale of this machinery to the Minister. The farmers of the country were perfectly satisfied with this scheme; the only complaint they had was that the work was too slow. Owing to the shortage of labour which exists in many areas farmers could not find sufficient labour for the large schemes which they were anxious to undertake. Their only hope was that at some time in the near future the Government would send along their machinery and their men to carry out the work. You can imagine what will happen when the contractors will have purchased the machinery, if anybody will purchase it—and I hope they do not. You can imagine what will happen if contractors are asked by a small farmer to come along to drain an acre or two of land and somewhere in the neighbourhood, in the same county or in an adjoining county, there is a big farmer who wants to drain 20 acres of land. Where will the contractor go? For his own benefit he will go to the large farmer.

What is going to become then of the small mountain farmers down in Kerry and along the western seaboard? Has the Government any feeling at all for those people? They passed the Undeveloped Areas Bill to fool the people and they left it there. It is not working nor can it be worked. If they want to improve the conditions of the people living in the undeveloped Gaeltacht areas along the western seaboard, the best way to achieve that is to afford them facilities to enable them to bring the type of land they have into full production by drainage and fertilisation. The move of the present Minister is to put all that aside. So far as I can see, there are now no hopes that anything will be done for the districts to which I refer. Mind you, it has been said already and it will be said again, that to anybody who knows the past attitude of Fianna Fáil there is something sinister in this whole scheme. I can imagine certain interests coming together to purchase this machinery. If you like I shall name them—Fianna Fáil clubs. They interfere in everything, be it only the division of land or the appointment of a ganger. Not only will they get control of this machinery but they will go around and certainly help their own first. God help anyone in opposition to them. I want to say that and I do not mind where I say it. Past experience tells us that. It is therefore too bad that this scheme for which we had such great hopes should be interfered with in the way it has been by the Minister.

I have the feeling that the Fianna Fáil Party hated it. By the way, it is regrettable that Deputy Cowan, who hailed it here with such enthusiasm when it was first introduced and who shouted across the floor of the House: "We shall fight a general election on that scheme", should now support this proposal. Look where he is to-day. Such is the way of all weathercock politicians, especially when they must watch and mind their own skins. We on this side have perfectly independent minds about all these matters. We want nothing for ourselves. We do not take up the attitude of speaking in a particular way on any matter in order to gain a few votes here and there because, as I have often said, we believe in honesty in public as well as in private life. On behalf of my constituents I certainly say that any increased Vote introduced by the Minister to enable further progress to be made under the land project will be welcomed by us. I hold that the Minister has no right to get rid of this machinery which belongs to the people. It was bought by the taxpayers' money. Certainly, a Minister in the Government which is kept in office by the votes of a few irresponsible Deputies who were really elected under false pretences, has no right to do that.

It is seldom in this House, when a Minister for Agriculture comes forward with a Supplementary Estimate to increase his Vote, passed last April, by an additional sum of £1,500,000 for the purpose of improving agriculture and of making grants to farmers that we have had such an exhibition as we had all day yesterday and from 6 o'clock this evening from the chief Opposition Party. I began to rub my eyes when I heard some of the Deputies opposite oppose the Minister's proposal to provide an extra £1,500,000 for the purpose of providing lime and fertilisers, for paying direct labour, for the purchase of material for drains and fences as well as for the payment of contractors under the land rehabilitation scheme. As I say, I rubbed my eyes and wondered where we were.

The chief complaint seems to be that the Minister proposes not to organise machinery for the carrying out of this work in future. It is not long since I heard two farmers discuss ways and means of getting increased tillage, of getting more wheat and beet grown. The suggestion was that the Minister for Agriculture should organise ploughing teams, that he should go in and plough up land and grow more wheat, potatoes and other crops. I suppose those two men got that idea from this scheme that the Minister and his predecessor had in operation of providing machinery for the draining of land.

I think the Minister is taking a wise step at this early stage in the life of that scheme in not proposing to continue to organise machinery at a cost to the community that, in my opinion, would be at least double what it would be if the machinery were in the hands of private individuals. I have not the least doubt that, with the machinery in the hands of farmers' sons, the cost of the work done will be at least 50 per cent. less than it would be if done by any organisation which the Minister could provide. I am surprised that the Deputies opposite did not welcome the Minister's proposal to increase the grants to farmers who carry out their own drainage.

Mr. O'Higgins

We do not like to sell out.

I am very surprised at the Deputy talking about sells out. He was associated with more sells out in this country——

The Deputy will please keep to the Estimate.

I intend to keep to the Estimate if I am not interrupted by disorderly remarks.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Deputy will be glad to know that he got a smile from the Minister for Agriculture for that one.

Deputy O'Higgins should not interrupt. The Deputy will have an opportunity of expressing his views in his own way.

If Deputy O'Higgins wants to know about sells out, I could enumerate a great number of them with which the Fine Gael Party was associated.

That is better.

The Minister's proposal, as announced yesterday, is to increase the grants to be given to farmers who organise the drainage of their own land themselves and carry it out by their own organised labour, the workers to be paid by the farmers themselves. Do the Fine Gael Party object to that? Do they object to the farmers getting grants equal to those given to farmers who get the work done by the Department of Agriculture? We had a Deputy speaking here this evening about the small farmers of Kerry and along the western seaboard. I am quite sure they will be very pleased indeed when they learn that they are going to get substantially increased grants from the Department of Agriculture for the improvement and drainage of their own land. The Minister, as I have said, has taken a wise step by giving the opportunity to small and medium sized farmers, and indeed to every type of farmer, to organise labour themselves for this work, to employ their own sons on it, or to engage workers to carry out this drainage work on their farms. Surely, there is nothing wrong about that. In addition, they are going to get substantially increased grants for doing it. In spite of that, we have had nothing in the nature of intelligent criticism from the Opposition of the Minister's proposal. Indeed, their opposition is based on deliberate prejudice and hate. There can be no question about that.

This sum of £1,500,000 extra is for the drainage of land, the provision of ground limestone and for other work connected with the land. The farmers are going to benefit by that proposal. The Minister has indicated that, in future, he will not organise teams of machinery. I agree with that, and I think it is about time that farmers' sons and other people were encouraged to do this work themselves. I should like to emphasise this point, that under this Supplementary Estimate, £500,000 will have been paid out by the Department of Agriculture to contractors before one wheel in the machinery that there is so much talk about here has been sold. That sum of money will have been paid to them for using their own machinery on the work.

Do the Deputies object to contractors buying and owning machinery to do this work? Do they object to private enterprise? Do they object to any group or to any individual in this country owning private property, whether it be machinery for this rehabilitation scheme or for anything else? That is what one would gather from the Opposition — that they do. We hear a lot of talk sometimes from the Opposition about the trends of socialism in this country. Well, if some of them were pink socialists in the past, they have become blood red socialists in the last few days—that is, judging by the line they have taken on this matter. It is high time that they fully appreciated the line they are taking. If the Minister for Agriculture goes on organising these plants in all the counties which need them, in time he will find himself with an organisation that would be colossal and the cost of running and maintaining these expensive machines in the hands of State servants would be very great. In my opinion that is most undesirable. We have heard a lot of whining during the last two days about the selling of these few machines. There are far fewer machines in the hands of the Department of Agriculture than in the hands of private individuals at present.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister does not say so.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister will tell you when replying.

Mr. O'Higgins

He answered a parliamentary question to-day.

A large number of people were prepared to buy this machinery but for the fact that the Department's machines were operating in certain areas and would injure their chance of getting employment if they had these machines. Many persons were prepared to put their capital into machinery and operate it. Is that what the Opposition are objecting to? It would look as if they do not want more private persons to own property in this country and earn their own livelihood instead of earning it in State employment. In my opinion, what is wrong in this country is that there are too many people in State employment. This will be a breath of fresh air blowing in the right direction. The Minister has decided to get rid of some of the organisation which his predecessor set up.

Mr. O'Higgins

They are to be sacked.

As was pointed out, much more land will be drained owing to the improved grants to be given to the farmers for carrying out their own drainage under this proposal. The Minister mentioned yesterday that he proposed to equate the grant to the farmers in future with that paid to persons for whom the Department will carry out the work. I suggest to the Minister that, while there is a limit to what the farmer will pay for an acre of land being drained by the Department, he should take into consideration the additional cost to the Department of the rehabilitation scheme up to now for the drainage of land. There is no doubt that it would cost the Department 50 to 100 per cent. more than it would cost the farmer to get his own work done.

Where did you get these figures?

That is well known in connection with the type of public works carried out in this country.

Who is the famous Wexford man who said: "Sack the lot"?

In equating these grants for persons who propose to carry out the work themselves the Minister should take into consideration the amount per acre which it has cost the Department up to now to drain land. It was stated that doing away with this machinery will be to the disadvantage of small farmers. The burden of the complaints which I have heard since the scheme came into operation was that the small farmers were not getting any service from these machines, that it was on the larger farms that the work was being done. Numbers of farmers have come complaining to me that because they had a small job to be done or had only medium-sized farms they had no hope of getting the Department's plant.

Mr. O'Higgins

Because the Department had not enough machinery.

Because the tendency of the Department was to do work on the larger farms where the bigger job was to be done; that they probably found it more economic to do a substantial job. That is the only explanation I can give.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister gave us as a reason that they had not enough machinery.

If during the last three years the farmers had been getting the grant which it is now proposed to give them, there would have been more drainage work done, because it cost the individual farmer far less to get it done by the Department's machinery than the farmer who organised the doing of the work himself.

You are saying something now.

That will be altered from this day onwards by the proposal of the Minister.

You have put your finger on it.

The present Minister carried on the scheme as he found it on the basis of the same grants. But, in the working out of it, it was found to be to the disadvantage of the small farmers.

How will this help the small farmers?

I suggest that if the small farmers and the medium-sized farmers get a grant to enable themselves and their families and workmen to carry out the work it will be much more to their advantage than if the Department were carrying it out. They will be able to earn money to supplement their small incomes. I think this is quite a good scheme. There will be less friction in connection with it, and it will be to the advantage of the community in the long run.

How about the small farmer who must get machinery?

Any number of small farmers' or middle-sized farmers' sons could organise and buy machinery. Thousands of them in the country are tillage contractors and working for hire doing tillage work. Thousands of them will add to their machinery and provide drainage machines of the type needed.

Where will they get the money?

Loans and grants are available from the Department for the buying of machinery. If any enterprising young farmer's son is interested, he will get a good lot of information if he will communicate with the Minister.

The Minister can only give a grant of £750, and that is useless to buy the machines we are talking about, which cost up to £5,000.

The question of drain pipes was mentioned. In reply to a question to-day, the Minister stated that it was necessary to import about 5,000,000 drain pipes a year. I suggest to the Minister that if he indicated to the present manufacturers of these burnt-clay drain pipes that, in the foreseeable future, there would be a market for all the pipes they could produce, they would increase their output and other plants would come into production. It is a pity that it is necessary to import 5,000,000 drain pipes a year when we have ideal material for making them in this country. The only cost would be for digging it out of the ground. Something should be done in that direction by the Minister. He should encourage in every way possible new people to set up plants for the production of these pipes and the present plants could double their production. If some of them had an assurance from the Minister that, for some years to come, say five or ten years, all the drain pipes they could turn out will be needed in the country, I have reason to know that they would provide the extra capital and produce the necessary pipes.

I noticed in the Minister's statement yesterday that he was estimating that something like £450,000 would be necessary to pay the carriage on ground limestone next year, that is, on an output of about 550,000 tons, representing almost £1 a ton. I would like to ask the Minister what steps are being taken to organise further lime-grinding plants in this country so as to obviate wasteful transport charges on ground limestone at the present time. To my knowledge, ground limestone has been drawn 100 miles at least.

Are they Great Northern Railway lorries?

Lime has been drawn 100 to 130 miles from the border of Louth to south County Wexford. I want further to ask the Minister has the Great Northern Railway been given the monopoly of drawing lime to County Wexford from north County Dublin. Córas Iompair Éireann have some lorries on the route but the Great Northern Railway, to my surprise—I do not know for what reason—seem to have become part of the Córas Iompair Éireann transport system.

They have not.

They are drawing lime down to south County Wexford from north County Dublin for the last six or nine months. I understand also that lime is being drawn from County Cavan and Monaghan into Donegal. At least, that is what I am told; I do not know if it is true. I want to suggest to the Minister that it is time some move was made to encourage people to put up grinding plants in the immediate vicinity of where the lime is required and thereby avoid this wasteful expenditure on drawing limestone where the man who produces and grinds it is paid about 16/- a ton while it costs nearly £1 a ton for its transport. That is very uneconomic considering how badly the land needs the lime. I suggest to the Minister that it is uneconomic to pay £4 10s.—it is the State and ultimately the community who pay for it—for the transport of a lorry load of lime only costing the same amount.

Are you aware there is a maximum collection and delivery figure of 16/- a ton?

There is no such thing. I am not aware of it. I do not think it is so.

The Great Northern Railway has nothing to do with Córas Iompair Éireann.

Deputy Davin has certain influence with Córas Iompair Éireann. He may have had something to do with this matter; I know he is concerned with the railways section; he hates the roads part of it.

When he is so concerned with Córas Iompair Éireann he might suggest to somebody that the Great Northern Railway should not be subsidised for drawing lime down to south Leinster.

I would like to get you on the rails.

I am keeping very close to the rails. There is another matter I mentioned before in this House and it is no harm to mention it now. Persons who are grinding their own lime, who own lime grinding plants and who have a transport system of their own when these subsidies came into operation, are not allowed under a regulation, I understand, made by Córas Iompair Éireann to replace those lorries. It is an extraordinary thing in this year 1952, that if a man owns a lorry for the purpose of drawing lime that he has ground himself he is not allowed by Córas Iompair Éireann to replace that lorry. There are some of those lorries on the roads drawing lime which are almost worn out, and which are not fit to be on the roads and are a danger to the community. The Minister should by now have that matter examined and not have Córas Iompair Éireann set up a dictatorship to pay the subsidy to whomever they think well of. I have heard recently of a gentleman—I have no objection to him personally—being asked to draw lime in County Dublin who never drew a ton of lime in his life, although the owners of lorries and lime grinding plants will not be allowed to replace their lorries by Córas Iompair Éireann. These men are warned that if they do no subsidy will be paid to them.

Is the Deputy sure of that?

I am quite certain. There is no question or doubt about it. I am quite certain of any statement I make here.

That is a new one.

There is nothing more I want to say on this except that I was never more surprised than when I heard and saw the line that was taken by the Opposition in this House in regard to this increased subsidy, to the selling of the machinery by the Minister, and to giving private individuals an opportunity of doing this work.

I think this is a sound policy because the land of this country is held by private individuals, and we all hope that will always be the case. The so-called farmers who sit in offices in towns or in the city, and who hire the Department of Agriculture to do their drainage work on the farms, are not farmers to my mind. They should be made to go out and organise men in the district, and pay them to drain their land. I believe that all the drainage of land should be done by the farmers themselves. Of course, it should be supervised and laid out by the Department officers, but the work itself should be carried out by the farmers in every respect. I have no hesitation in advocating that, and I think it will be found to be the soundest policy in the long run. It is the policy that suits this country, containing such a large number of small and medium-sized farms. I believe this work can be carried out better by these people than by any Department. In my opinion, the small drainage works can be organised far better and on sounder lines and carried out more economically by these people than they can be carried out by any Department of State.

I propose to be brief in my remarks on this Supplementary Estimate. I notice in this House that the rôle of the Independent Deputy becomes harder each day when he rises to speak on any particular matter or Estimate that is under discussion. It seems to me that the general impression amongst the people in the House is that you have to be an Independent tied on to the tail of some political Party or another. It is not my job to defend the attitude or the outlook of any other Independent in this House, but I do say this, that it is very unfair for members of political Parties to criticise Independent Deputies for taking a line which they believe to be the correct one inside this House or outside it. It is all very fine for some political Parties to suggest that the line that such and such an Independent takes is all right because the line happens to agree with their own particular views. We found very recently that an Independent candidate in Dublin became very popular just because he represented the views of certain political Parties in this House.

To what particular item in the Supplementary Estimate does all this refer?

I hope to make it relevant in a moment. The remarks I have to make are not dictated by any political Party. We had Deputy Allen just now at great pains to impress upon the Minister the absolute necessity of getting rid of this machinery and allowing private enterprise full rein in carrying out the most desirable, essential and necessary work of land improvement. In the same speech he criticised quite rightly, in my opinion, the attitude of the Fine Gael Party in suggesting that the Minister should keep this machinery although we all know beyond any shadow of doubt that there is no greater champion of private enterprise than the Fine Gael Party.

Deputy Allen criticised that attitude in relation to the machinery. Five minutes later he discussed the question of the production of ground limestone and he bewailed the fact that ground limestone has to be carried from the north of Ireland down to Wexford. He more or less suggested that help should be given — I presume financial help— to interests in Wexford or in the south to enable them to set up their own lime crushing plants. In my view he was there making a plea for State interference in connection with the production of ground limestone.

On the one hand, we have him asking the House to agree to a proposition that machinery should be put at the disposal of private enterprise and taken completely out of the control of the State and, on the other hand, we have him asking the State to help private enterprise to establish lime crushing plants. I do not know what he wants or where he stands. Neither do I know where the people on my left stand when they say that the machinery at present in the hands of the Department of Agriculture should be kept there.

It is all most disconcerting to a Deputy in my position who, since my election to the House in 1948, has taken what I consider to be an outlook approaching very closely to that of the Labour Party's policy for many years. Since becoming a member of this Assembly I have not seen eye to eye with either the present Government or the inter-Party Government on the question of agriculture. I make no apology for saying that I have on repeated occasions criticised the policy outlined and pursued by Deputy Dillon while he was Minister for Agriculture. That does not mean, however, that I criticise him on every aspect of his policy and there was one aspect with which I was in complete and thorough agreement. That was the policy of land reclamation. I have the greatest admiration for Deputy Dillon for having introduced the land rehabilitation project. That was a new departure in the development of Irish agriculture though there were some who maintained that it was merely an enlargement of the farm improvements scheme in operation under the previous Government.

It was a much bigger scheme than that. There was more vision behind it, and it encompassed a much wider area. Although that scheme has now been welcomed and is now in operation under the present Administration, we had Deputy Dillon coming in here yesterday like some small boy and crying, because the present Government was taking a particular action of which he did not approve. The Minister has stated clearly that it is the intention of the Government to carry out the land project and to increase work done under that scheme. It was quite evident when the scheme was introduced that changes in administration and improvements of one kind or another would take place as the scheme progressed. I believe the Minister is sincere in believing that the change he proposes to make is an improvement on the scheme, and we should, if we are serious about the scheme, welcome it as such.

All through yesterday I listened very attentively to the various speakers. I was impressed by the manner in which Deputy S. Collins treated this subject. His contribution was non-Party, and it is very rare to get such a contribution here. He dealt with the land project on its merits. He was worried about certain aspects of the Minister's plan. He was worried as to whether or not the sale of this machinery might be detrimental to certain interests. He was worried as to whether there was a likelihood or a danger that the interests of the smaller farmers would not be safeguarded. He pleaded with the Minister to ensure that, whatever action he took, steps would be taken at the same time to safeguard the interests of the small farmer. He also stated that there would be no opposition, and I presume he was speaking on behalf of his Party, to this Estimate from Fine Gael.

He did not say that.

Mr. O'Higgins

That was never said. The Deputy has been reading the wrong newspaper.

Mr. Walsh

It was said.

I was here during the debate and I hope it will not be suggested that I am misquoting Deputy S. Collins or any other Deputy. Deputy Collins had no sooner concluded than Deputy Sweetman came in and produced a motion somewhat contradictory of the statement made by Deputy Collins. Listening to Deputy Sweetman it became apparent to me that it was his intention to oppose this Supplementary Estimate. I listened carefully to the reasons he put forward for the viewpoint being adopted by the Fine Gael Party. For a while he impressed me as a complete socialist but, knowing Deputy Sweetman, I felt that the cloak of a progressive did not fit comfortably on his shoulders, and I began to ask myself was he really serious about this land project or was he more concerned with scoring a petty political point at the expense of the Minister. Let me say that I do not agree with the present Minister on many aspects of the policy he pursues. I have said elsewhere, outside this House — and this debate convinced me, if anything were needed to convince me — that Dáil Éireann is only a talking shop as far as the Irish farmer is concerned. We heard the present Government say that they would put plenty of machinery into the hands of small contractors in order to carry out land reclamation.

The Minister did not say "small contractors."

Is Deputy Davin talking for Fine Gael or Labour?

I am merely remarking on what I heard.

On the Opposition side of the House the Fine Gael Party — I do not know what Party Deputy Davin belongs to — suggest that this Government should hold on to all this machinery, that the State should be the responsible body — in competition, I presume, with private enterprise— for carrying out the land project. I do not want to repeat myself but, for the life of me, I cannot understand the mentality of an organisation or a Party which one day advocates private enterprise — a "free for all,""let every man take his chance,""no State control" attitude — and the following day bemoans the fact that the Government in office are taking steps to remove State control and to put into the hands of private enterprise the carrying out of the land project.

In my own way, I have advocated the absolute necessity of State interference in many aspects of our life and with particular reference to the development of the West. I am very much afraid that, by handing over completely to private enterprise the machinery that is available, the small farmer will not get the attention and the help that he deserves and needs. Deputy Allen stated in this House that it was found that work which was carried out by the Department could have been carried out far cheaper if that work had been left to private enterprise. His impression of the working of this scheme up to the present was — and I hope I am not misquoting him — that the Department favoured doing drainage work on the larger holdings and bigger areas because they found it more economical to do the larger unit. I think that that argument holds to a greater extent when we come down to the private contractors. No private contractor to-day is a philanthropist. No private contractor will do the work for the small farmer if he finds that he will get equal remuneration from the larger farmer and that he will not have the same amount of trouble in the way of removing the machinery from field to field. That is the difficulty which I fear. I should be glad to see, all through this, a quantity of machinery being kept in the hands of the Department so that where the private contractor fails to carry out his work the Department can step in and fill in the gap in the particular area concerned.

Any farmer down the country who took the trouble to read the report in to-day's paper of the discussion which took place in this House on the Supplementary Estimate will take one side or the other. The majority of our farmers take a very active interest in politics. If Deputy Dillon says that black is white there are certain farmers down the country who will agree with him, and if the present Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Walsh, says that black is white there are other farmers down the country who will agree with him.

How will you change them?

That is the trouble.

How many farmers?

I presume they are divided on a 50-50 basis.

Are you speaking on behalf of Roscommon farmers?

I am speaking on behalf of farmers, labourers, workers in the towns, and so forth. I have the honour to have been returned by them all, and to be supported by all sections in my constituency.

With very good help from the Fine Gael organisation.

That does not arise.

If I were depending on that help, or on the help of any organisation, I should be far from this House to-day. Do not draw me on the question of Fine Gael, Clann na Talmhan or any other Party.

The Deputy should not mind the interruptions but should keep to the Estimate.

To my mind the farmers of this country are equally divided in their political leanings. If a Fianna Fáil High Priest advocates a certain line of action or policy it will be supported by a certain element in the farming community and if a High Priest of the Fine Gael Party outlines or advocates a certain policy it will be supported by a number of farmers. My point is that over the past 30 years both Parties had an opportunity of putting a sound and progressive agricultural policy into operation but that they have failed to do so. We have seen agriculture stagnant in the past 30 years irrespective of what Government was in power. We have seen the youth leave the land during the Fianna Fáil régime, during the period of office of the inter-Party Government and again during the Fianna Fáil régime.

The Deputy cannot discuss the whole subject of agriculture on a Supplementary Estimate.

I hope I can relate all this to the statements made in this House yesterday by members of the various Parties who discussed this particular Supplementary Estimate. On that, I think one of the reasons the land project was brought into operation was to increase the productivity of the land. With your permission, I propose to speak of the necessity of increasing the productivity of the land.

The general policy of the Department is not under review. Only what is contained in the Supplementary Estimate may be discussed.

I presume that the amount of money in this Supplementary Estimate for the land project is for the purpose of increasing the productivity of the land. I suggest that I am entitled to argue that the production which we should all like to see has not taken place and that I am entitled to put forward alternative ways by which that increased production can be achieved. I have suggested that the trouble at the moment is that the farmer is bewildered by a variety of statements from different politicians and that he is not in a position to judge for himself whether or not the land project is as good as we believe it to be. A report was issued in the past few weeks of a survey which was carried out by experts under the E.C.A. Technical Assistance Programme. The report stated:—

"It is obvious that the tempo of over-all accomplishment towards dynamic improvement will be severely handicapped so long as the agricultural segment remains static in real production terms."

Then it points out:—

"It is clearly important to the over-all economic progress of Ireland that effective steps be taken to lift the physical volume of agricultural output."

I understand that the land project scheme is there for that purpose. The report further states:—

"Upon the basis of present world outlook, agriculture should be able to find an export market for an expansion of its production of almost any dimension that was conceivable."

As I have already pointed out, little or no progress is being made in regard to the value of the output.

The Deputy is beginning to stray from the Supplementary Estimate. Nothing may be discussed but the purposes for which the money is asked.

Perhaps I was drawn into this by the interruptions of one or two Deputies.

On a point of order. Surely as this Supplementry Estimate, in fact, covers artificial manures and ground limestone, the two ingredients essentially bound up with increased productivity, it is relevant to discuss the productivity of land under the Estimate?

It is not relevant to discuss the whole administration and the whole agricultural policy on a Supplementary Vote.

Again may I submit that Deputy McQuillan is discussing the question of increased productivity of land, and where the Deputy on the Supplementary Estimate refers to the ingredients necessary for that increased productivity, it must be relevant? This Supplementary Estimate specifically refers to fertilisers and ground limestone.

The Supplementary Estimate refers to three points and the Deputy can relate his remarks to these three items.

I do not propose to argue the point with the Chair although I feel inclined to do so, from this point of view. I cannot for a moment understand why this extra money is being made available or why the land project is in operation, if it is not to increase the productivity of the land. If it is to increase the productivity of the land, I am entitled to discuss whether or not the productivity which we all desire to see achieved, is being in fact achieved. I should like to put it this way, that even on the two or three points to which reference has been made in the debate, it is quite evident that we have not agreement in the House with regard to the lines that should be pursued. We are dealing with what is the most important aspect of our whole economy, agriculture.

I am trying to show that if we have not got that concrete policy which is most essential to our economy then the productivity which we all desire to see achieved, we can never hope to see achieved. What I should like to see, although I have no hope of seeing it in the near future, is a nonpartisan examination of our agricultural economy in order to plan a long-term policy on up-to-date lines for agriculture. I shall not pursue that point any further.

I should like to refer, in conclusion, to the question of the production of burned clay pipes for the land rehabilitation scheme. I understand that, at the present time, we are importing a considerable quantity of these pipes. From information given to me, I am positive that the clay deposits in various parts of the country are ideally suited for the production of these pipes. Seeing that we have no hope of the State going into the business itself, either under a Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil Government, if we had a guarantee that private enterprise would be helped in order to expand the production of these pipes, I think we would be enriching our economy as a whole. I have not the exact figures, but I understand that a large amount is spent annually on the purchase of these pipes from abroad. I wonder would there be a possibility of helping, under the Undeveloped Areas Bill, any group of individuals who might be anxious to embark on the production of these pipes? That is all I have to say on this Supplementary Estimate. So far as my position is concerned, I have no desire to see myself tied to the tail of Fine Gael or to the tail of Fianna Fáil on any agricultural Estimate. I only hope and trust that we shall see the day before long when both of them will forget Party politics and sit down and plan out a sound agricultural policy for the whole country.

The Minister probably finds himself in a dilemma. I think the situation in which he finds himself regarding the land project is that there is a vast number of applications from small farmers, and that for some reason or other he is not able to meet them. He finds that the amount of machinery at the disposal of the land project authorities cannot cope with the number of applications received. In these circumstances he makes up his mind to sell the machinery. I want to tell the Minister that he is making the blunder of his life in disposing of the machinery. I hope now to make a few useful suggestions to him which have occurred to me over many months past. These suggestions, I trust, will explain where I think the Department and the Minister have failed to cope with the situation that has arisen. I am not going to tell the Minister that the land project was the finest scheme ever introduced in this country. That is unnecessary because it is undoubtedly the finest scheme introduced here for many a long day. I think we are all proud of it, and I think the desire of everybody is to see the scheme going ahead. The work that has been done, so far as I have seen it, is excellent work, and I am speaking now as a farmer myself. I hope that every effort will be made to speed it up.

The suggestion I would make to the Minister is, first, that he should hold the machinery he has and continue the work he is doing with it. I go further and say that he should increase the amount of machinery he has. The second suggestion I would make to him is that he should make more liberal grants or loans available for farmers' sons to purchase similar machinery, and to set up as private contractors to help out the Department in their work. I think that, perhaps, a lighter type of machinery would meet the situation better in the case of these farmers' sons who set up as contractors. I repeat that the Minister should hold the machinery he has, that he should increase it, if possible, and make grants and loans available to farmers' sons or others who are willing to purchase machinery and to engage in this land reclamation work.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions. The first is what guarantee has he, if he sells this machinery, that those who buy it will use it for land reclamation work? From his speech yesterday, when he produced this bombshell in the House, one would imagine that the machinery after he sells it is going to be used by the purchasers for land reclamation work. It may not be used for any such purpose. Some of it might be used for totally different work. Once it is out of the Minister's control, the Minister will have no power to direct the use to which that machinery will be put, unless he wants to assume extraordinary powers. The real trouble is that the grant has not, apparently, been sufficient to induce the ordinary farmer to undertake more land reclamation himself. That is a thing which we should all like to see, so far as drainage is concerned. Let nobody think for an instant that while many farmers may have drainage problems, their land rehabilitation would consist only of drainage and perhaps a dressing of ground limestone.

A great many small farmers require land reclamation to be done on their farms which necessitates the employment of heavy machinery. The low output of work is frequently due to the fact that there is not sufficient machinery to go round. I am making these suggestions to the Minister, based on my own observation and of a good many intelligent farmers who have spoken to me on the subject. Some of them are men who want work done on their own farms. They made application a long time ago but have not succeeded yet in getting the work done. Others of them are interested in the job but had not any reclamation work to be done on their own land. In my opinion it is a pity that there is not more machinery in the hands of the Department as well as more privately owned machinery which a farmer could employ himself.

The Minister is taking a step in the right direction when he proposes to give grants to induce farmers to undertake light drainage work themselves, such as the clearing of light scrub, which can be done by hand. I hope he will not be niggardly about these grants, and will make them sufficiently remunerative to induce many more farmers to undertake this work themselves.

I want to put this to the Minister: Suppose a group of farmers in a particular townland or area have between them a fairly big area to be reclaimed, or to be drained, will the Minister consider some scheme of making portion of the grant payable in advance to them so that they can employ a number of men with a ganger to do the work? I am thinking now of a job where the magnitude of it would be beyond the capacity of ordinary farmers and their families to undertake it themselves. In Connaught, it is usual to get a valley of 40 or 50 acres, all of which would be in need of reclamation. It might belong to five or ten farmers. If the job is to be done properly it must be taken as one piece of work. There would be no use in one man doing his particular part. I suggest to the Minister that, if necessary, he should revise his scheme so that, where a job like that is done under a ganger, the grant should be made payable in advance to those farmers. I think my suggestion is worthy of the Minister's consideration, and that if adopted by him it would go a long way to eliminate many of the complaints we hear. Deputies from the rural areas are aware that when farmers see a good job of work done a few miles away from where they live, it whets their appetite to get a job done on their own land.

I want to repeat that the work done has been excellent. You will, of course, find a few grumblers here and there, the people who think they know how every Government Department should be run. The work done, as I say, has been excellent. Every acre that has been stolen from the growing of rushes, heather, briars, blackthorns and scrub and returned to production is an acre up for the country. It is a magnificent help towards that increased agricultural output about which we so often speak here. The selling of the machinery, however, will not help things. I can see plainly that some of that machinery will pass into the hands of people who will not use it for the purpose of land reclamation. Perhaps the Minister has some scheme in mind of lending or leasing this plant to private contractors under a repayable loan system. If that is so the Minister can direct what type of work these machines will be employed on. But if the Minister is simply going to put these machines up for public auction——

Mr. O'Higgins

That is what he stated.

If that is so, then half the machines will, I believe, be used for a purpose other than land reclamation. I say that because the type of people the Minister would like to see buying the machines will not have the capital to do so. I imagine that these machines would cost anything from £5,000 to £12,000. Where is a man down the country going to get the capital or the credit to purchase one of them? I think that the selling of this machinery is a disastrous step for the Department to take. I wonder what my successor in the Department of Lands is going to do about similar machinery which I left in the Forestry Department. Are they going to be sold, and is the forestry programme going to be jeopardised by having to depend on private contractors?

That does not arise on this Vote.

It is a thought that flashed across my mind and one that disturbs me. A number of Deputies have complained about the transport cost of ground limestone. If it is true that lorries are carrying the limestone distances of 120 miles by road, then I suggest there is great wastage, and that the question is a very serious one. There are some counties in which, admittedly, limestone is scarce. Where there is good limestone it should be developed by the Department. The Department rightly demands a very high calcium content in the lime sold to farmers — I think something like 98 per cent.

90 per cent.

That is all to the good. In some areas it is not easy to get limestone with a high calcium content. I can speak from experience of a limestone quarry near Castlebar. It supplies a huge area. I believe that the calcium content of the limestone there is below what the Department would like, but in a case like that, where there is no other limestone available, and where the cost of bringing in limestone with a higher calcium content from another area would be prohibitive, perhaps the Minister would consider the provision of a suitable scale of subsidies, so that people would be able to obtain supplies.

I do not know what the subsidy is, but let us assume it is 5/-. If a man has limestone which averages 95 per cent. calcium content, lower the subsidy accordingly, but do not deny the people of a huge area the chance of getting limestone even though it may be a shade lower than the particular calcium content demanded by the Department.

There must be about 4,000,000 acres at present to be reclaimed and put back into production. That can be done, and it is one of the best jobs that can be done. One aspect of it strikes me forcibly, and that is, that doing away with the work done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act is completely hampering land rehabilitation in many ways. Our object in introducing that Act was that it would facilitate land reclamation. In many areas farmers were told that until such a river is cleared or such a drain is deepened, there was no use trying to reclaim the land. The present Government have closed down on the operation of that Act. It would seem as if they took no interest in drainage. I want to tell the Minister what the officials of the land reclamation project must have told him and what he must know if he is a practical farmer, that the Local Authorities (Works) Act was working hand in hand with the rehabilitation project and the Arterial Drainage Act. These three schemes are interlocked and cannot be separated. That is plain common sense to anybody who knows the first thing about the matter. Land rehabilitation is a big job; arterial drainage is a huge job; so is the work that should be done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act which was introduced to facilitate the land reclamation scheme pending the coming into some areas of the arterial drainage scheme which is of necessity slow. In view of the fact that we have, I think, 107 major catchment areas, there is a very big job before the board of works when they come to tackle arterial drainage.

I compliment the Minister on the fact that, in spite of the vicious campaign carried out in this House and outside by the Party which is now in power against the land rehabilitation project, he is carrying on the work. A most insidious campaign was carried on that this was a dodge on the part of the inter-Party Government to increase farmers' valuations and Fianna Fáil supporters were exhorted secretly not to touch it. I hand Fianna Fáil the biscuit for the facility with which they can change face from one day to another. It is astonishing to think that one and a half years ago they were going around the West of Ireland telling the people, "Do not have anything to do with it; this is a dirty trick of the inter-Party Government to raise your valuations". With the exception of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, there is not a Deputy on the opposite side of the House who does not say that it was Fianna Fáil started the land reclamation scheme. I give full credit to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for admitting that it was Deputy Dillon's project.

The proposed selling of this machinery is a disastrous step. What the Department wants to complete the job is more machinery. I think that grants and loans for the buying of a small type of machinery should be made available to farmers' sons who want to buy such plant. If the Minister puts the machines up for public auction, once they are purchased by some firm outside, he knows that he cannot direct that these machines should be devoted to a certain type of work. Once they are sold they are out of his control and I say that as much as 50 per cent. of them will not be devoted to land reclamation. No matter how much the grants to farmers are increased for undertaking the work themselves, there is a certain type of reclamation which must be done by small farmers and nothing but heavy machinery can do that work. If the machinery is not there, that type of work cannot be done. I ask the Minister to bring the Local Authorities (Works) Act into full operation again.

The Minister for Agriculture is not responsible for the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

His colleague, the Minister for Local Government, is responsible, but the Minister for Agriculture, as a member of the Government, has collective responsibility and his work under the land rehabilitation project is being hampered. The Local Authorities (Works) Act was designed for and was working hand in hand with the land reclamation scheme, and one cannot go on very well without the other. I hope my contribution to the debate will be of some help and assistance to the Minister. I ask him not to sell this machinery but to hold on to it and increase it. If grants or loans were given for the purchase of machinery, that would induce young men to buy the machinery and help out the rehabilitation programme. I am glad that the Minister proposes to give increased grants to farmers to undertake this work themselves. As the scheme has only been a comparatively short time in operation, it has gone on very well. I am proud to see it going on, and I hope nothing will be done to check it for many years to come.

Mr. O'Higgins

I wish I could reecho the hope which Deputy Blowick has expressed that nothing will happen to the land project. It is because we feel that something has happened to it that we have raised in this debate the question of the sale of the land project machinery. First of all, I should like to clear up a doubt which appeared to be in Deputy Allen's mind. He sought to suggest that the Fine Gael Party were in some way doubtful about their attitude to this Estimate. That, of course, is nonsense. The Fine Gael Party and the Opposition generally welcome so much of this Supplementary Estimate as will be beneficial to the agricultural industry.

We do enter one caveat in relation to a matter not contained in the Estimate. I refer to the policy announced by the Minister in which he declared that he was going to sell by public auction the machinery which he holds as a trustee for the people of the State and which has up to this operated the land project. It was because of that statement of policy that we moved the amendment to this Estimate. It could not have been moved sooner, because the statement of policy is not contained in the Estimate itself and was only announced by the Minister when he spoke. Naturally, we agree that whatever sum is required for fertilisers, for the limestone scheme, or anything of that kind, must be given. But we do take issue with the Minister on the statement of policy to which I refer.

Before I speak on behalf of my constituents, certainly in relation to the sale of this land project machinery, I should like to make some reference to the portion of the Estimate dealing with fertilisers. It is true certainly of my constituency, and I am sure of the rest of the country, that tillage farmers find to-day that they are unable profitably to engage in tillage by reason of the high prices of superphosphate and fertiliser. That has, undoubtedly, over the last 18 months, considerably retarded the tillage drive. When the Minister for Agriculture comes into this House, as he did when moving this Estimate, and is compelled to admit that in a most unbusinesslike manner he purchased some 38,000 tons of fertilisers in the dearest market that it could be bought in, that his particular transaction has resulted in a loss to this country of £250,000, money that could have been available to subsidise superphosphate for every single tillage farmer in the country, it certainly is proper for us in the Opposition to express our dismay and surprise that that is the position. £250,000 has been lost by the Minister for Agriculture in the last 12 months. That money could have paid rich dividends in the production of wheat, barley and oats. It could have added substantially to the tillage drive of this country, but it has been lost, wasted, thrown away by some serious mismanagement in the Department of Agriculture.

Very often in this House, when dealing with millions of pounds, we are inclined to gloss over mismanagement in a Department occasioning loss to the people, and far too often we turn the "Nelson eye" on losses of this kind. I do not think we should do it, and I think it is proper that we should expect from the Minister for Agriculture, when he is concluding, a very full explanation of how he came to lose £250,000 in the purchase of fertilisers in the last 12 months when every single farmer in this country is facing the highest possible price for the purchase of artificial manure and fertiliser, and the Minister himself has refused in any way to subsidise the sale to tillage farmers of the fertilisers that they do require.

Having said that with regard to this serious item of loss which now has to be made good in this particular Estimate, I want to add my voice in protest with regard to this sale of land project machinery. In doing so I would like to assure Independent Deputies, or any other Deputy in this House, that no one here has the right to lecture our Party or Deputies who support the inter-Party Government with regard to their attitude to the land rehabilitation scheme, which represented the hub of the development policy of the inter-Party Government. It was carried through despite the doubts, despite the, at times, unfair propaganda of our opponents, and it represented for our people the assurance that an Irish Government was going to undo the neglect of centuries of foreign occupation and enable our people to produce more from the land. It is a bit invidious to us on this side of the House that we heard Independent Deputies who, in fact, are passing through this House, trying to lecture us here on this side of the House with regard to the land project. We do not need their lectures. The people understand well the land project represents something so big that it cannot be destroyed by Fianna Fáil or anyone else, and that it represents a very important legacy which the inter-Party Government left to the farmers of this country. But we do, as strongly as we possibly can, object to, and will oppose, any effort, concealed or otherwise, to wind up and liquidate that project. That is what we believe is happening at the moment in connection with the declaration of policy by the present Minister for Agriculture.

We recollect that when the present Government came into office their tied political organ, the Irish Press, sounded the note with regard to the land project, which presumably represented the view of the inner circles of Fianna Fáil, when in an editorial of the 21st October, 1951, the Irish Press condemned the land project as costing too much, and not being the worthwhile capital scheme that we had held it out to be. We knew the moment that editorial appeared that inside the ranks of Fianna Fáil some effort such as this would be made to whittle down, to strangle and slow down that land project. Now it has come to this that some auctioneer with his hammer will sell off as scrap the machinery purchased with Marshall Aid held by our people and handed over to the present Minister as a trustee for our people. We are expected to accept that without a murmur, without opposition. If we did so we would be letting down the majority of the people of this country whom we represent. I know it has been expressed by other Deputies also that the auctioning of the assets of the Irish people and the Irish farmer by the present Minister for Agriculture is just the beginning of the end. It is throwing the small farmer of this country out of any opportunity of getting land reclamation work done. At the moment under the scheme as it now is one defect has been — and of course with any scheme there are particular defects — that there are so many applicants seeking work by the Department itself, there is such a queue calling upon the assistance of the Department that the Department finds it has not sufficient machinery to deal with all claims, and delay occurs in relation to applicants seeking the assistance of the Department. The applicants in almost every case are the small working farmers who cannot afford to engage contractors to do the work for them. It is that particular type of applicant who will now be told by the Minister: “You need not come here any longer; we will not provide the service, the machinery and the staff given to your luckier neighbour”— most of them apparently in County Kilkenny —“who got this work done by the Department of Agriculture”. These applicants will in fact be left out of the scheme.

I do not believe the Minister really considered this at all in any detail because, had he done so, he would have made a better case and he would have shown a better face. He says that the sale of this machinery to contractors will result in the work being speeded up. I do not know what he means by that or how he hopes it will be achieved. Assuming that he will devise some scheme whereby existing contractors will be enabled to purchase this expensive machinery and assuming that he will prevent another serious loss to the Exchequer, what then will happen?

We will probably have a number of contractors with a complete monopoly of all the necessary reclamation machinery. That group of contractors will be charged with the execution of land reclamation. Their work will be sanctioned by the Department of Finance and grants will become available to them when the work is completed. They will start out to do the work at a particular figure, probably the figure now obtaining, and no difficulty will arise. But, in 12 months' time, we will have a land reclamation contractors' association. That association will meet and will, at their meeting, add a little to the existing charge for land reclamation work. That will go from the Minister's Department to the Department of Finance and the Department of Finance will say: "We will not sanction that; the figure we paid last year is good enough; we will not give any more." The land reclamation contractors' association will say: "Right. You do not pay us and we will not do the work."

There will be one of two results; either there will be no reclamation work or there will be reclamation work at a higher cost to the Exchequer. That is exactly the situation it was intended to avoid when Deputy Dillon devised the existing administrative machinery for the land project. It was intended that private enterprise, on the one hand, and the State, on the other, would together carry out the work of land reclamation, neither having a complete service or a monopoly, and both being in a position to compete against one another so that a first-class service at a low cost would be assured.

We now have the Minister coming along deliberately creating a monopoly and deliberately depriving his own Department of the power to ensure an efficient service at a low cost. I think that is inexcusable. I know that the Minister's announcement has caused a sensation in my constituency. Time and again during the last six months I have raised by means of parliamentary question the fact that hundreds of applicants, all of them small farmers, seeking to have work done under the land project in Offaly have been unable to get that work done because sufficient machinery, they were told, is not available to the Department of Agriculture. Those applicants will now have to wait till Tibb's Eve before they can get whatever contractor becomes the owner of the reclamation machinery in Offaly to do the work for them.

This proposal is designed to benefit the big, substantial farmer. Deputy Killilea laughs at that. Deputy Gilbride sniggers. I wonder would either of them, particularly Deputy Killilea, go back to his constituency in the West and defend there his statement of policy.

What was done on Senator Baxter's land by your people?

That does not arise.

We know who works for the big farmer.

Mr. O'Higgins

Deputy Killilea seldom opens his mouth in this House except to spew out dirt.

He would at least know what he is talking about.

Mr. O'Higgins

I wonder would Deputy Killilea go back to his constituency now and defend this proposal.

Certainly — to-morrow.

Mr. O'Higgins

He will have to do a queer lot of defending. The Minister will be all right in his own constituency because his proposal will appeal to the large farmer. It will appeal to the man who can afford to pay the contractor on the nail for the work he does and then wait for the grant to come along. He is the man who will get priority now. He is the man who will get service. The unfortunate poor farmer who used to vote for Deputy Killilea or Deputy Gilbride in Galway and Sligo respectively will get no service.

They will get the work now that they did not get in the last two years.

Mr. O'Higgins

They will get the works. That is the situation we are protesting against.

That is what is vexing you.

Order! Deputy O'Higgins is in possession.

We know what is vexing the Deputies on the Opposition Benches.

You did not hear what Deputy Allen admitted.

Mr. O'Higgins

Deputy Allen more or less let the cat out of the bag because he said everybody in Wexford was clamouring to have the work done by the Department because it was only the Department who did it well, efficiently and cheaply. But we all know that. The trouble has been that sufficient machinery has not been made available to the Department of Agriculture. That has been one of the drawbacks.

I see that even in the past 12 months almost £150,000 worth of new machinery was bought by the Minister for Agriculture and given over to the Department of Agriculture. This is not old and worn-out machinery. This is brand new machinery which has been bought by the Minister in the past 12 months — if one is to accept as accurate his reply to a parliamentary question of mine on the 27th November last. That machinery is no sooner taken over by the Minister as trustee for our people than he calls in the local bigwig auctioneer and says: "Look lad. Get out your hammer and sell this cheap."

Mr. Walsh

Who told you that I was having an auction?

Mr. O'Higgins

I am accepting the words used by the Minister——

Mr. Walsh

The Minister did not use those words. Is the Deputy not living on a lot of assumptions to-night?

Mr. O'Higgins

I have to assume a great deal if I am to expect any consistency from the Minister or any other member of the Government. The Minister referred here yesterday to the sale——

Constellations.

Mr. O'Higgins

We sold them and you will not buy them back.

They do not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. O'Higgins

They do not arise. We grounded them all.

The Deputy cannot make remarks like that to the Chair.

Let the millionaires pay the full fare across the Atlantic.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think that we have expressed our opposition very clearly to this proposal. I think it is a retrograde step. I think it is giving complete freedom in this matter to an association, body or group over whom we in the Dáil or the Minister as the Deputy in charge of the Department of Agriculture can exercise no effective control. We think that this statement of policy heralds the doom of the land project. It is at least consoling that it is being introduced by a member of a Government that will not be in office for very long. I think that, on examination, any Deputy in this House, and particularly any Deputy on the Government Benches, will regard this proposal as a mistake. Looking at the administrative machinery now available to the land project and seeing the fair division between free enterprise in the presence of the existing contractors and the departmental machinery held in reserve to ensure that there would be no cornering of the market or raising of the ante or anything of that kind, Deputies on every side of this House will recognise that that is the only scheme that will ensure fair service at a low cost to the people of this country. We have moved this amendment to this Estimate because the Minister seeks to change that system. By doing so, we hope to mark our complete disapproval of what is proposed and to express the opposition that will be felt throughout the country to this retograde proposal.

Deputy O'Higgins has tried to insinuate that the efforts we are making are on behalf of large farmers. I think I could challenge Deputy O'Higgins now to put down a question any day he likes in the near future——

It will not be answered.

I bet you it will be answered. I challenge Deputy O'Higgins to put down a question asking the Minister the valuation of the holdings that were dealt with by this scheme during the term of office of the last Government, the amount of State machinery employed, and so forth. He will discover that it is not the small farmer who was catered for in any one instance. In the same way, this scheme — working down to the present day — has not been catering for the small farmer. It is interesting to listen to Deputy O'Higgins, who knows nothing about a small farmer or a big farmer, or Deputy Davin——

Mr. O'Higgins

More small farmers and more big farmers voted for me than voted for either you or the Minister.

I am speaking here as a small farmer and as one of the first people in this country who applied to the Department while Deputy Dillon was Minister to have a reclamation scheme carried out on my land.

You look a big farmer.

I am a big man in many ways. I could not get that scheme carried out and a number of small farmers round about me are in the same boat. It is not a nice thing for a Galway man to say, but I think the greatest waste of money that I know of is the dumping of the machinery in Connemara. Of course, it was done by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture for the purpose of capturing the vote in Connemara. He did not capture the vote there and he never will. If he tries to encourage any further dumping of that kind in Connemara I believe Fine Gael will lose the one seat they have there at the moment — because there is no work there except in a small area.

Deputy Dillon came along with the baby and Fine Gael have tried to nurse it so that they would be able to say that there was something which they had tried to do during their three and a half years in office.

They are nursing himself now.

Can anybody find fault with the present Minister for Agriculture for trying to improve on the present position and to get more work done under the land reclamation scheme? Will anybody on the Opposition Benches find fault with him for that?

Mr. O'Higgins

The scheme is all right. Tell him to leave it alone.

Deputy Dillon in one of his maddest moments, formulated a scheme that was not nearly as useful as the farm improvements scheme. I have not the figures but I am satisfied that under the farm improvements scheme more land was cleared at a lesser cost, and without involving us in a dollar debt, than under the land reclamation scheme.

I welcome the change in the land reclamation scheme. I am not so terribly sure whether or not the Minister has found the best way out. I am of the opinion that, if we want to get this work done at a much faster rate, an improvement in the grant payable to the farmer — who would thereby be encouraged to undertake the work himself — might be a better way. Instead of giving £12 an acre I think that if we could give £20 an acre, and let the inspectors examine the land, each farmer who has land which requires reclamation would be encouraged to go ahead and do the work himself.

Much fault has been found with the Minister's proposals in the matter of handing over this machinery to other people who will work it. He is handing it over because he believes that it will have the effect of giving a much greater return. Those of us who have experience of local authorities or of any Government organisation can easily understand that the least return in labour is got from State subsidised schemes. Any contractor who comes along to-morrow morning will do much more work in much less time.

And more cheaply.

And more cheaply.

At the expense of the worker.

You have no interest in the worker only to bluff your way through, as you have always done.

You have!

I certainly have. I am a genuine worker, and I am not one of those people living on the worker at all. I belong to the workers. We want to get this work done at a faster rate than it is being done at the present moment. We want to find a system whereby it can be done more cheaply and more quickly. I am quite satisfied that the Minister's proposals constitute a step in that direction, and I therefore welcome his proposals. I should not like to see people in this house misled by Deputy Dillon waving his hands and saying: "Hit me now and the child in my arms". I do not intend to detain the House further than is necessary to express these few views. In the first place I want to kill the idea that this is an encouragement to the big farmer. The only person who has been catered for up to the present has been the big farmer. I would ask any Deputy to go down to see the thousands of farmers in my constituency who are anxiously waiting to see something done under this scheme. I meet these men every day in the week, and they want to know what progress can be made or how soon they can get the machinery down.

Does that apply to Kilkenny?

Much of that machinery is occupied at the present time in Connemara breaking the stones which Deputy Dillon at one time, when he was Minister, was going to throw into the sea and into the lakes so as to make some sort of road across the 3,000 miles of ocean to the nearest point in America. We must get away from the silly ideas underlying that sort of work, and the Minister's scheme provides us with a way of facing up to the problem which confronts us.

On this Supplementary Estimate, I want to protest against the decision of the Minister to dispose of the machinery now in the possession of the Department, and which was brought into this country by his predecessor, brought in at a time when it was necessary to give an example to the working people of this country of what could be achieved by a land reclamation scheme, properly organised and administered. I want to say that during my lifetime — and I have reached a fairly good age — a better scheme was never introduced into this country. In fact I think I can say that no scheme to equal the project launched by Deputy Dillon will ever be introduced into this country again no matter what experts are employed in the Department. It has been stated in the course of the debate that the main political Parties do not seem to be able to agree on a policy for agriculture and that as a result the people are making no progress. May I say in that regard, that the standard which has been reached by our people as compared with that which obtained prior to the winning of our legislative freedom, is a credit to any Irish Government?

Turning to the question of land reclamation, is it not a fact which nobody can deny that there is not sufficient land in the country to enable us to accommodate people who may have to be transferred from the poorer areas? When this scheme was initiated, it was specially intended to increase the area of arable land so that people from the poorer areas, people with holdings of valuations of £1, 30/- or £2, might be provided with economic holdings. We have a large number of such people along the seaboard in my constituency, people with rentals of from 15/- to 25/- and with holdings of from ten to 15 acres. They can till only one or two acres and therefore have not sufficient land to enable them to carry on a rotation of crops. I was proud, as a member of this House, to see that an opportunity was afforded to these people by this scheme to add to their small holdings by reclamation. Prior to the introduction of this scheme, much of their land was waterlogged, growing only rushes and shrubbery of every description. To-day as a result of this scheme you can walk into these holdings and put down any crop you wish to grow. That was not done inside the last six months, the last 12 months or the last 18 months. The work was commenced during the Minister's predecessor's time and it is showing fruit to-day.

I am perfectly satisfied that people with big farms in other parts of the country have already got a fair share of money out of national taxation to enable them to get their land reclaimed. I have no objection to big farmers in Meath, Westmeath, Waterford, Kilkenny and Cavan getting the benefit of this scheme but I do say that they should wait their turn and give the poor small farmers in Connaught the first opportunity of having a few acres of their land improved by this scheme. There are some big farmers also in my county but I know that many of them can afford to reclaim their land themselves. They are getting a decent profit out of it and they can take their time. I have no objection to any land eligible for the benefits of this scheme according to the regulations laid down, being reclaimed but I definitely say that first preference should be given to the poorer areas. So far as my area is concerned, any work done under the Government scheme was well done, cheaply done and properly supervised. The people who were in charge of the machinery in that area certainly deserve to be congratulated and I am sorry to see that they are now to be relieved of the responsibility for work of that type in future.

To come to another point, I understand that there is a scheme in my county whereby young men — and we have plenty of them — can combine and engage in this work as contractors. I was given to understand that if two farmers' sons joined together they can purchase an outfit say at £1,000 and on paying a deposit they can get a loan and a grant. I have seen such a scheme tried in my own area and it has been a great success. The work has been done cheaply and well.

Mr. Walsh

That is what I intend to do.

Wait until I have finished. That was in my area. The two sons in one house joined with two sons in another house and bought a small outfit which cost between £500 and £900. They joined in doing the spade and shovel work, in rooting up the shrubbery and the trees. The result for a small farmer in my area was that he was able to get his acre or two acres of land done.

Mr. Walsh

Now you are talking.

Without a cash wage?

The Minister is not prepared to tell us the value of the machinery that he is going to put up for auction or the return he expects to get for it. I suppose, if things go right, it may be possible to get a full outfit costing anything up to £10,000. There is no danger that it will ever be sent into my area or into the poorer areas of the country. It will go into the rich Counties of Kildare, Meath, Tipperary or Limerick where the owner of it will be able to get work reclaiming 20 or 30 acres of land.

And there will be no free labour the same as in your place.

I was not here yesterday and was surprised when I read the headings in this morning's newspapers: "Alteration in land project: machinery to be sold by contract." I asked myself — where is this fine scheme going to end? A measure that conferred great benefit on areas such as mine was the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It was part and parcel of the land project scheme. Without it, the land project scheme could be made available only to a very small percentage of areas, such as we have along the western seaboard.

I think that the amount of money spent under that Act by the inter-Party Government in my county was £80,000. There was a second and a third grant made available. Small rivers were opened up and cleaned, with the result that adjoining land could be drained. Land which, for years, had been water-logged, was cleared of water and the land itself was prepared for reclamation. Suppose I have four or five acres of land beside a river which is choked with green grass, and I ask to have the land reclaimed, I will be told, and rightly so, that it cannot be done because there is no means of taking off the water which is on my land. It was in such cases that the Local Authorities (Works) Act was of great benefit in the execution of drainage work. The people in the poorer areas are not prepared to go out and assist in making drains or in reclaiming land unless the Government give them a decent subsidy to encourage them to do so.

Complaints have been made about long delays in the delivery of limestone and of superphosphates. I do not see why there should be these delays. I think it is true to say that superphosphates can be obtained at any period of the year. In the case of lime, it may have to be brought a long distance to an area because limestone is not available in every area. In my part of the country there is the best of limestone which I suggest to the Minister should be developed. It would be better to have the young fellows in that area employed on that work than have them leaving the country.

I cannot understand why there has been so much delay in dealing with applications from farmers in County Mayo for the reclamation of their land. A huge number of such applications has been lodged. People are coming to me every other day asking if there is any hope of getting their land reclaimed. The fact that so much interest is being taken in this land project shows that the scheme has been a great success. It will take years to finish it. An Irish Government could spend money on no better work. This machinery is to be auctioned and sold and given to private individuals to operate. I am given to understand, and I speak subject to correction, that the smaller type of outfit can be bought for £1,000. The applicant pays a third of the cost, gets a grant of one-third and a loan of one-third. Such an outfit could be bought by two families. This machinery will now be distributed in a very big way. Will those people who buy this machinery get a grant similar to that given to those who purchase machinery in a small way?

Are not the small men whom you talk about contractors?

Yes, they bought everything necessary to do a certain proportion of the rough work. The balance of the work was done by themselves and by employed labour. It is surprising the amount of work these boys are doing and the satisfactory way they do it.

If they are prepared to buy much bigger machinery, would you be against that?

I want to ask this question. If this machinery is being sold in large quantities or parts to make up a unit, am I right in saying that it will cost £1,000 to buy any sort of decent parts to make up a unit?

Mr. Walsh

It depends on the class of unit.

The machinery that the Department has is all big machinery. None of it can be compared with the small machines I mentioned.

Mr. Walsh

We have small machines, or we will get the small ones if you want them.

Who will buy the big ones? I saw these machines working in my area. They were a complete outfit capable of doing 30 acres of land. I have the idea that very few young men can afford to buy such machinery without assistance from the Government. If this machinery is to cost £1,000, it is not the most deserving cases that will get the opportunity of buying it. If they had £1,000, they might prefer to put it into some other means of existence instead of machinery. Suppose they do buy £1,000 worth and they complete the whole outfit and 90 per cent. of it is second-hand machinery which has been working for the last three or four years, are the Government prepared to give it to them on the same terms as if they bought new machinery?

A Deputy

Of course.

I take it that we are going to reach a stage where the Department will agree to give the same subsidy for any class of machinery, whether second-hand or otherwise or whether for a land project or otherwise. I never knew that second-hand farming machinery was eligible for a grant. If a grant is to be allowed in connection with this machinery which is to be sold, if a man has a machine and wants one of a larger type and another man wants to buy the smaller machine, there is no reason why the second man should not be entitled to a grant.

The people in the poorer areas and the people living in the seaboard areas west of the Shannon played their part in supplying the people of the cities with eggs, butter, potatoes and bacon. They work the land and give the people these things. A scheme should be put into operation to give these people an additional acre of land to add to the two or three acres they have been working for years. That would be money well spent and would be doing a great service to these people. I hope the Minister will not forget these poorer areas. The people have to try to make a living out of the small amount of land they have. People in Tipperary, Kilkenny, Monaghan and other counties with 400 or 500 acres of land are getting £50 or £60 for a two-and-a-half-year-old bullock and £4 per barrel for wheat. In my county they have to sell their cattle before they are a year old. Money should be spent in these areas and give the people an opportunity to keep their cattle beyond that age and to grow wheat and beet. It is intended to grow beet there and I hope that there will be some beet grown there. By spending money in these areas you will be doing work which will give a good return. You will give the people an opportunity of living there without having to go to other parts of the country. I ask that the poorer areas should get the first chance of any money which is being made available.

On behalf of the people in my constituency. I welcome what is proposed in connection with the land project scheme. As far as the people of Kerry are concerned and the people I represent, I have no hesitation in saying that it is long overdue and that the small farmers will welcome it. Up to this the scheme was never effective in South Kerry. Our people looked upon it as a scheme for the larger farmers and the people in other parts of the country who have done well under the scheme. It was so designed that it was practically impossible to make it applicable to small farmers. Owing to technical administrative difficulties, the officials in my county made it absolutely impossible of application to the people there. They made it so difficult that the small farmers lost all hope in regard to it.

As can be seen from the returns for South Kerry in particular, the number of people who qualified under the scheme was very small indeed. I know of one scheme in County Limerick and another in County Meath where the reclamation of the land cost on an average £150 per acre. Contrast that with the amount allowed to the farmers who cannot get anything in excess of £20 per acre. The small farmers were left high and dry without any relief. I can say, so far as the officials in my county are concerned, that the system as it exists should be scrapped immediately.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Barr
Roinn