Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 May 1955

Vol. 150 No. 9

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration—(Deputy Walsh).

Mr. Corry

Before the Adjournment last night I was dealing with the position in regard to T.B. tested cattle and I am now suggesting to the Minister that under the present system what is happening is that a few cute people are quietly getting out. The number of T.B. cattle in this country is not decreasing by any manner of means. What I mean is that there is an exchange of T.B. reactors from one farm to another. That is what has been going on all over the country as far as I can learn from others whom I consulted in this matter.

Under this system a farmer can get his cattle tested free of charge: he brings in the veterinary surgeon, tests his cattle and so many of his cattle are reactors. There is nothing to prevent that man doing whatever he wishes with those reactors; he can do what he likes with them and naturally if a cow within a month or two of calving is found to be a reactor, the farmer waits until she is springing and he goes to the fair, sells the beast and somebody else is left holding the baby. The same applies in respect of heifers and of practically every other beast that is there and I suggest to the Minister that in my opinion the proper thing to do would be to bring in one scheme, not for a county but for the whole country at large.

If one is exporting cattle to-day the first thing asked about those heifers is if they have been T.B. heifers. That, of course, applies to heifers which the purchaser wants to keep as cows. But as I have said you have that kind of thing going on in this country and the Minister should make every effort to try and get rid of it. Under the Minister's present wheat policy what will become of the farmers that have mechanised their holdings, and what is going to happen to the machinery on those farms? In that respect the present Minister for Agriculture, on the 2nd April, 1952, when an increased tax was imposed on petrol, was very fluent on the matter and here was his statement as reported at column 1182, Volume 130 of the Official Report:

"How in the name of common sense can a Parliament, in one afternoon, declare that the economic survival of our people depends on reducing the cost of production and increasing the volume of production, and, in the case of production, declaring that, before the best farmer in Ireland will be allowed to catch up on the state in which he at present is, he must begin by contributing an additional 4d. per gallon on the fuel he uses in the only system of power and traction he now employs? He cannot draw back from his mechanisation because his capital investment is too substantial and is irrevocable."

That was the position then and it was ruining the farmers then according to the present Minister for Agriculture. We all know that for the one tractor in 1952 there are ten there now and that for the one combine there was in 1952 there are now 50. And now the Minister comes along here and says: "Oh, yes, you will get 2/6 a barrel extra if you hold your wheat until after November". In my part of the country at any rate we would consider that we were fairly late if we have not our harvest practically finished before the middle of August, and even when it is cut with the binder, drawn in and threshed, we would consider we were very late if we had not the threshing done by the first week in September.

But now the Minister proposes to ask the farmers to hold that wheat from September when they thresh it until the end of November in order to get an extra 2/6 per barrel and he advises the farmer that the proper way to do that is to cut it with the binder, stook it, rick it, and then thresh it. I think it is a very foolish thing even to dream of doing the job with the combine. I have heard various estimates given on this matter and I have heard that the difference in the returns between the combine and the reaper binder would be between one and a half and two barrels per acre. I do not think I am very far out in that: the man who combines his grain has from one and a half to two barrels per acre more than if he cuts with the binder, stooks it, stacks it and then threshes it. The estimate is that there is at least that much wastage. I should like that the Minister would consider that point in connection with his offer of an extra 2/6 a barrel. The farmer will get at least 75/- more per acre for his grain if he harvests it with the combine and sells it straight away than if he holds it until the end of November and does it with the ordinary thresher. What I cannot understand is the whole attitude of the Minister towards the tillage policy of the country.

What is the idea of endeavouring to wipe out by a penal tariff or a penal tax all the grain crops of this country? The only thing that has escaped up to the present is oats. There is £4 a ton on feeding barley; 12/6 a barrel on wheat. Yet, the Minister is very well aware that in his Department there are guarantees from farmers for the repayment of loans that were obtained for the purchase of farm machinery. What use has the farmer, who is put out of tillage by this penal tax, for a combine or for the reclamation machinery that he has bought for thousands of pounds and for which, in many cases, the whole future of the farmer and his farm is pledged? What will become of it? These are the things that I would like the Minister to consider.

I noticed that Deputy Donegan was kind enough here the other night to thank the Minister for, as he said, introducing the contract system. Deputy Donegan is very well acquainted with the firm of Arthur Guinness & Son.

Mr. Donegan

Not a bad firm to be in with.

Mr. Corry

I suggest to Deputy Donegan that if the Minister's contract system this year for the 20,000 tons of oats that are to be used by the flakemeal millers, is to be taken as the introduction by the Minister of a contract system, it is about ten years late. If we go back on our records, in 1942 and 1943, proposals were first submitted to Messrs. Arthur Guinness in regard to contracts for malting barley. When they accepted those proposals for contract in the autumn of 1948 they then admitted that they had lost a couple of million pounds by not entering into those contracts when first requested to do so by the Beet Growers' Association because, if they had done so, they would have had their contracts for barley during the emergency years which would have supplied them with plenty of barley to work their brewing industry here to the full instead of having to buy barley at what might be described as controlled prices and in many cases they did not get it at all.

Definite contracts were entered into between the Beet Growers' Association, representing the malting barley growers of this country, and Messrs. Arthur Guinness away back in about August of 1948, at a period when the Minister came in here and announced a price of 50/- a barrel for malting barley. The morning after that announcement was made, we met Messrs. Arthur Guinness and entered into a contract for the following year's barley at 57/6, 7/6 over the fixed price announced by the Minister the day before.

As a matter of fact, we went further than that. We inserted a clause in the contract ensuring that the farmer would get 2/6 per barrel more for barley than the average price Messrs. Arthur Guinness would pay in England for the barley they purchased there.

When I hear Deputy Donegan thanking the Minister, in 1955, for introducing the contract system, I say it is just about as true as his introduction of the ground limestone. One is as certain as the other.

That is the way one finds little things shoved on, one bit to-day and another bit to-morrow. One hears "Deputy James Dillon, our Minister for Agriculture, is responsible for introducing something for you—a contract system under which you will get all your grain contracted for before you start to grow it." I am very anxious that that condition of affairs should exist. It would be a great help to us. It is rather a pity that we have not succeeded in securing that position in the case of feeding barley this year. The attitude of the Minister as regards the price of feeding barley is largely responsible for the fact that we did not get contracts for feeding barley this year.

The Minister described the tax of 4d. a gallon on petrol in 1952 in these terms:

"...reduce your cost of production, while the Government slaps 4d. a gallon on the fuel you must use. I think this is a most loathsome performance."

That was the Minister's statement on the 2nd April, 1952. The same Minister comes along and imposes a 15 per cent. reduction on the grain the farmer produces. I suppose that is not a loathsome performance. The same Minister taxes the farmers of this country to the extent of £3,600,000 on grain alone and on the product of that grain. He puts that load on the farmer's back and expects that the farmer will feel quite happy and will keep on tilling.

Taking Messrs. Gouldings as the nearest step to the farmers, taking the people who we were informed in this House are responsible for the fact that the artificial manures the farmer must use are £6 higher here than they are across the Border, if they were told to-morrow that the price of their manure would have to be cut by 15 per cent. in order to give the farmer an opportunity of tilling, I wonder how they would feel. I wonder also what quantity of artificial manures they would produce next year. We all know that the stipulation in regard to the period was put in by the Minister for the purpose of getting the farmers to hold the grain.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the present rate collecting system in this country under which the first moiety of the rates must be collected before the 1st of October. That is usually paid out of the farmer's harvest, but because the farmer will have to sell his grain in order to pay his rates, I wonder will the Minister issue a general direction now to the rate collectors not to close the first moiety of their warrant until after the 1st December so as to enable the farmer to get the extra half dollar.

Mr. J.J. Burke

The Minister cannot do that. Once the warrant is issued the rate collector can collect any time he likes.

Mr. Corry

If the Deputy would learn a little about agriculture he would be able to make a speech later on. I do suggest to the Minister, if he is going to ask the farmers to hold their grain, to consider that point. We all know that practically 50 per cent. of the wheat of this country is cut by combines. In my County of Cork very little, if any, wheat is now cut with reaper and binder. You could travel the whole side of the country and you would not see a stack in a field. The reason is that, number one, the farmer gets more grain and, number two, he has less labour and less difficulty. That is the position as regards wheat and I am wondering at this attempt by our Minister for Agriculture to prevent us from mechanising and at his attempt to put back the clock. What is wrong with the Minister for Agriculture is that he believes in forcing the farmers back to the old method that was so aptly described by him some time ago when he told us the farmer was farming with a broom tied to a jennet's tail.

General MacEoin

That is what was known as self-sufficiency at home in 1932. It was a very sound method.

Mr. Corry

I do not know where the self-sufficiency came in. It might be the Minister's idea of self-sufficiency. Anyone who casts his mind back to 1947 will remember the bad harvest we had in that year when we had a great many people in the community endeavouring to save it. There was not the acreage of grain that harvest that there was last harvest.

General MacEoin

If there was not compulsory tillage——

Mr. Corry

If the Minister will look at the figures he will find that there was not the same acreage then as there was last harvest.

Mr. Coogan

What would the inspectors do?

Mr. Corry

If the Deputy had been out of his swaddling clothes and had been over here, he would be one of the people complaining because the inspectors were sent in. I have looked at a few of the cases of these wheat ranchers we hear all the noise about. These very men were defended from these benches. The owners of these lands were defended here against the then Minister and a protest made because the Minister was endeavouring to compel them to plough that land and grow wheat in it when this nation wanted wheat and the Minister for Agriculture was the very person who stood up here and protested against the prosecution of those people in an endeavour to compel them to till their land. They are useful at this period because they can be alluded to as wheat ranchers and used as an implement to bludgeon the unfortunate farmers just because the Minister does not like wheat.

I would like also to call the attention of the House to a statement made by the Minister here last week. It was bad enough to have the Minister stand up here and announce solemnly that the farmer would get 40/- for his barley and that it would be taken from him at that, but the Minister came and told us quietly that it would not be taken in the harvest time. The farmer was to keep the barley until the Minister wanted it and then it would be taken from him at 40/-. It is rather a pity that the Minister did not make that statement when he was announcing the price.

Any of us who knows the position of the ordinary small farmer to-day can very well wonder where that farmer is going to find storage for the feeding barley that is to be grown now at £4 per ton less than was guaranteed last year by the then Minister for Agriculture. I do not see how he can grow that barley now at £4 a ton less and hold it until the Minister finds some place to put it after the harvest is over or until the Minister requires it. There is no proposal that there will be any increase in the price of feeding barley if the farmer holds it until 1st December. That is something we would like to hear a little more about. Is it intended to hold the feeding barley or to pay the farmer something extra for the storage of that barley?

We have heard a good deal in this debate about dairy cows and milk yields and all the rest of it. I do not intend to go very far into that matter except to say that I pointed out to the Minister last night that under the policy that is carried out by his Department no premium is allowed to be paid by any county committee of agriculture for Friesian bulls. That has been the policy of the Department right down the years, irrespective of what Government or what Minister was or is in office. It is something we have never yet succeeded in breaking down. The country would gain far more out of a premium Friesian bull than it will gain out of a premium Hereford bull or a premium Pol Angus bull. What becomes of the progeny of the Pol Angus or the Friesian bull? The bull calf becomes a bullock, is fattened and sold off the farm. Is there any lasting benefit? Is there anything conferred on the cattle through the use of either a Pol Angus or a Hereford bull? There is not.

On the other hand, with the dairy Shorthorn, as we have it, and with any of the milk breeds, the farmer will have the benefit of the heifers that will come from the bull. For the life of me I cannot understand the mentality of a Department of Agriculture or a Minister who continues the present policy year after year. What is gained by it? Is there any lasting benefit to be shown out of the premium Hereford bull or the premium Pol Angus bull in any district? The farmer is not allowed to keep the bulls from him because he is not allowed to license them; they are only mongrels. Now these premium bulls are generally mated to Shorthorn cows; and you cannot keep the heifer because you get no milk from her. What good are they?

We have a Department of Agriculture and we have thousands of pounds voted here each year for premiums for Hereford bulls and Pol Angus bulls. I pointed out last night the difference between the average milk yields here and the average milk yields in countries where the Friesian is kept as the general purpose cow. I wonder would it be possible to break down this Department of Agriculture of ours to the point of allowing a few herds of Friesians to be imported direct from Holland or Denmark. Let us have a fair trial. If one wants a good red store, and I must say that my experience has proved this to be correct, one gets that store out of mating a Friesian cow with a Hereford bull; one gets both the bone and the meat. If, on the other hand, the idea is to increase the milk yield then let us import cattle from those countries where the average milk yield is somewhere between 800 and 1,000 gallons per cow.

It took us 25 to 30 years to breed down the old 500 gallon Shorthorn to the 350 gallon Shorthorn cow under the best policy that could be implemented by the Department of Agriculture. It will take us another 20 years to get back to even the 500 gallon cow if we do not take steps to remedy the position. If we import high milk yielding herds that will shorten the period. I tried to get the Department of Agriculture to do something a few years ago and I must say the answer I got was not very hopeful, though I was prepared to subject myself to any quarantine regulations considered necessary.

I think it is foolishness on our part not to adopt a different policy. Now, it would be worth the Minister's while to have a check up on dairy heifers. He has a very simple way of carrying out a rough check up through the artificial insemination stations. The results will amaze him. He will be amazed at the number of beef bulls that have been mated with our herds as compared with either the Shorthorn or the Friesian. I suggest we are rapidly approaching the time when we will have a very grave shortage of dairy heifers. The temptation is there; the price is there and you cannot blame the farmer for endeavouring to make up for his losses on wheat by getting something out of meat. That is what he is doing. Those are briefly some of the matters I would like to bring to the Minister's attention.

There is another—a small—matter but it has a very serious effect on dairy farmers generally and that is the absolute disappearance from the markets of this country this year of Marston kale. Kale seed cannot be got from any merchant in this country to-day or it is practically impossible to get it. I have seen very small quantities of it black-marketed in my county at anything from 12/- to 15/-per lb. I called the Minister's attention to that some months ago but apparently he was unable to do anything about it. But it is a serious matter for many who are keeping large dairy herds and who are very largely dependent on kale and have to look after the feeding of those cattle for the winter months. I wonder would the Minister be able to inform us whether there is any hope even yet of any of that kale seed being imported?

It is not my intention, as I said, to go back over the statements that were made here on mincemeat and other things. All I can do is to deprecate the tendency. I have the utmost sympathy for the Minister in the awkward position in which he finds himself. I know the Minister, if he could avoid it, would not come along and scarify the tillage farmers to the extent to which they have been scarified. I know he would not. I know very well he has, after all, some soft corner in his heart for the old farmer——

Mr. Dillon

Wait until we hear the sting in the tail of this one.

Mr. Corry

No. I would love to listen-in at one of those conferences at which the Minister was compelled to cut the price of the farmer's wheat, of the farmer's barley and on the other hand——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Fianna Fáil people wanted to bring down prices.

Mr. Corry

We know the child over there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Murphy should not interrupt.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I was merely helping out Deputy Corry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry needs no help whatsoever.

Mr. Corry

I would love to have heard what case the Minister put up to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for instance, as to why he should not be allowed to increase the price of offals by £4 10s. a ton as stated by him here in his opening statement on his Vote for the flour millers to the detriment of the pig-feeders for whom I know the heart of the Minister for Agriculture was bleeding when we met him here last harvest on the price of barley. But why allow the pollard that those unfortunate men need to be increased in price and why allow the Minister for Industry and Commerce to come along and extract out of that pollard practically £500,000? I had hoped we would see it exhibited with the £1,900,000 that has been extracted from wheat.

The hearts of the speakers opposite were bleeding so much regarding the bread subsidy the other day that I thought they were going to give that back. However, I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with that particular aspect of the matter to-morrow. Why should any Minister of this State who is responsible to the farmers of this country for looking after their interests allow himself to be jockeyed by his comrades on the Executive Council into the position of scarifying the unfortunate people whom he is supposed to protect? That is my complaint.

The Minister made an honest confession here in his opening statement when he said that we were priced out of the egg market, out of the milk market and out of the bacon market, and the cure that has been suggested for the farmers in order to get back those markets is to increase the price of the feeding stuffs by £4 10s. a ton in order to bolster up the butchers! I suggest to the Minister that he should again seriously consider the opening statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce on his own Estimate. He will see there how so much was obtained by the reduction in the price of wheat and that it was expected to get more by allowing the price of offals to be increased. That is the position. What was the Minister doing while that situation was being created? Where was our Minister for Agriculture, this protector of the farmers, on the evening that the Minister for Industry and Commerce decided to increase the prices of pollard and of offals? These are matters on which I would like to hear from the Minister, and which are responsible very largely for the fact that we are being priced out of the egg market, out of the butter market and the bacon market. As the Minister said, the unfortunate small farmer in the West of Ireland with ten acres of land and a wife and six children feeds pigs—do you want me to increase the price of feeding stuffs on him?

I have a certain amount of sympathy for the unfortunate Minister when he scarified us down to 40/- a barrel and had to come along and pay 60/- a barrel for Iraq barley. I could have a certain amount of sympathy for him in that that was responsible, I suppose, for the increase of £4 10s. in feeding stuffs since he came into office but what I cannot understand is why by deliberate action of this Government——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy said that before.

Mr. Corry

——the price was to be forced up on offals.

I would be very anxious to hear from the Minister his reasons for his actions. I would be very anxious to hear whether he put up to the Minister for Industry and Commerce the fact that the price for artificial manures in this country was so high that it was interfering with our production.

Mr. Dillon

And that Fianna Fáil had put a tariff of 20 per cent. on it.

Mr. Corry

The Minister is in office long enough now to rectify these things himself. That is what the Minister is there for. The Minister has come in here as a free trade Minister to tell us farmers: "Look, I can get my wheat in from abroad at a cheaper price than you are charging me here for it. Therefore, I am scarifying your price." The Minister comes in here and says: "Look, even though I have to pay the Iraquian £10 a ton more for his barley —or his muck—than I pay you, it is good enough for you, old farmer. You take £10 a ton less here." That is the policy that comes from the Minister— and then we are to have more production. The prosperity of the country depends on more production by the farmer.

Those are the conditions under which the farmer is to produce more. Those are the conditions under which we are going to stop the flight from the land. Those are the conditions under which the empty Labour Benches are going to find more employment for agricultural labour on the land. Those are the conditions under which they are going to find all those things—by scarifying the tillage policy of this country and by a vendetta against the man who dares to use a plough. That, undoubtedly, is the definite policy under which the Minister is starting his campaign in this country.

I am sorry to hold up the time of the House but I have endeavoured to be as brief as I could and to put the case as I see it. I deprecate the attitude of the Minister. As I have said, I might have some sympathy with him if I knew what kind of an argument he used with his colleagues. I hope that the next time he is going to have an argument with them he will come over to me first for a few tips and I will help him out.

As I said here at the start, the whole agricultural situation has changed. Some years ago, that Minister stood up here and pointed his finger across at the Labour Party and said: "You Labour, you have to keep as mute as a mouse." Now, Deputy Norton, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, says: "You Dillon, you have to keep as mute as a mouse while I scarify and wreck the agricultural community in this country."

Mr. Hughes

I am sure the Minister would be very wise to go for advice on bluff to Deputy Corry. Each year since 1948 Deputy Corry has come into this House and repeated the same story about malting barley. He talks about what the Grain Growers' Association did in 1948 and of how they got us a price of 57/6 a barrel for malting barley from Messrs. Guinness. However, Deputy Corry always omits to say that from 1940 to 1947 the price of malting barley was £2 a barrel—and Deputy Corry's Party was in office during those years.

If Deputy Corry was so concerned about the grain growers of this country it is a wonder that, during the term of office of the Fianna Fáil Party—down through all those years—he did not do anything when the price of barley was deliberately kept down by his Government. Messrs. Guinness were paying over £3 a barrel for imported malting barley at a time when the barley growers of this country had to grow barley at £2 a barrel—just to force the farmers at the time to grow wheat.

Deputy Corry referred quite a lot to the additional scale price on wheat from the 1st November to December and again from January until the end of July. He makes the case that this policy is against mechanisation. It is not. I believe the Minister had no idea, in settling that scale, that the man with a combine harvester would make use of it at all. He could not, because the man using the combine for his corn must get rid of his corn immediately. The inducement to keep the grain over the winter was for the purpose of spreading it out on the market, and to help the man who was not using the combine—and there are quite a number of those in some districts.

I am delighted to see that, in the grain growing districts, the bulk of grain to-day is being harvested by the combine: the combine harvester is being extensively used. That is a great advance and help to the country. However, in quite a large part of the country the old method of the binder and the threshing machine is still in operation. In some of those districts the grain is not threshed until into November and those people will get the benefit. That is the meaning of it all.

The mechanised farmer in the grain growing districts handles a large amount of grain. He could not store it. Very few of the farmers have the facilities to store it. They would have to dry the grain and, if they dried it, they would not be compensated at all. Therefore, Deputy Corry is, as usual, trying to misrepresent the whole arrangement.

As was to be expected in this debate, the price of wheat has been very much to the forefront. Of course, all the political capital possible has been made by the Opposition on the matter. As a grower of wheat, I should naturally be delighted to see a price of £4 but we ought to face the situation as it is. I have not yet heard one Deputy from the Opposition Benches put up a case for what could be done. We had over-production of wheat in this country: we had more wheat than we required. Our maximum acreage of wheat here cannot exceed 400,000 acres. Our requirements are in the neighbourhood of 350,000 acres and we must have a percentage of foreign wheat. That has been accepted, even by Fianna Fáil. An additional 50,000 acres would be required for seed. However, 400,000 acres are the maximum we could have. Last year, we had 490,000 acres.

What was to be done? Would some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, who seem to be so sincere about this, tell us the solution in regard to this excess of 90,000 acres? Are we to subsidise it at the old price? The subsidy will amount to 30/- a barrel. Are we to subsidise wheat at 30/- a barrel to feed animals? One must remember that you must be very serious when you think of feeding wheat to animals; you must be very, very careful. I think the people of the country realise all this; that they realise this was bound to happen about wheat. Last year even supporters of Fianna Fáil who were wheat growers were saying that it was the last good year of good wheat growing and that actually there had been a cash in on wheat growing.

If we go back on the history of wheat growing we will realise that Fianna Fáil introduced it. Yes, I will give Fianna Fáil that much. But under what conditions did they originally encourage growing wheat? It was after they had tried to kill the cattle trade and after they had gone around the country saying: "Thanks be to God the British market is gone". The farmers at that time were forced to grow wheat because they had no other market. At the beginning they grew it at a very low figure but as it continued it became the main plank of the Fianna Fáil policy. They used to think that if we grew all our requirements of wheat we did not want anything else: we had no need to raise live stock. What happened then was that mechanisation began to develop in the grain growing areas and it became a very simple matter for farmers to grow large areas of wheat. In 1947 or 1948, when the tractor made its appearance after the war, in the grain growing districts, farmers were making enough to get machines and to introduce the combine which brought up the yields by about five or six barrels to the acre. That is a fact, and that made the problem of growing wheat a very simple and a very profitable one.

Fianna Fáil were not disposed to watch this development and advanced the price of wheat. This made wheat growing so attractive that everyone jumped into it. There were denials from the other side of the House about this ranching having taken place. I know it has taken place. I know some large farmers in my constituency all of whose lands have been ploughed up for years and I do not think Deputy Moher would disagree with me.

Mr. Moher

Carry on now and do not draw me over there. The Deputy is doing all right.

Mr. Hughes

I do not think Deputy Moher would agree that that is good farming. I know a farm not far from this city on the main road which has been growing wheat for the fourth time in succession. Is that good farming? Is that the type of farming we want? It had to be stopped. The price of wheat should never have been £4 a barrel. I say that as a wheat grower. It has made immense difficulties for the Minister in his efforts to bring back wheat to its present position. There has been a lot of talk about this thing and I should like to make one more point on it; can any Deputy tell me what means of disposal we would have for the surplus wheat because we were facing that situation? We would have been facing it this year were it not for the fact that a great deal of wheat never got to the mills because of the bad harvest. We had 90,000 acres of wheat and we did not know what to do with it. Our whole tillage programme had gone lopsided. Naturally, I would be in favour of retaining the £4 per barrel, but that could not be continued as any honest Deputy from the opposite side will not deny.

Mr. Egan

It continued in other countries. It continued in 15 other European countries.

Mr. Hughes

And had they surplus wheat?

Mr. Egan

Some of them.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Why did the last Government decide to limit the acreage?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Hughes on the Estimate.

Mr. Hughes

There had to be a reduction in the price of wheat. It had to come. There are, apart from that, some matters of detail about wheat into which the Minister should look. One of them is the variation in bushel weight. At the moment you have the same scale from 57 to 60 and again from 60 to 63. I think that should be changed so that you would have a system under which the price would be fixed at a rate of 60 and then scaled down for each point reduction in the bushelling weight. The jump from 57 to 60 is too great because you will find people whose corn bushels 59½ getting the same price for a much better and a much more valuable crop as the man whose corn bushels 57. The man whose wheat had bushelled 59½ has corn which is much better for the mill and much more valuable. There should be a change there.

I should like to compliment the Minister on what he did last year about the adjustment in the moisture clause because the harvest was so bad and because farmers could not keep the moisture content at the standard to which they had been accustomed. The Minister, because of these difficulties, had the moisture clause modified. That was a very reasonable attitude and in an exceptional year like last year it should always be done. In any year when, through no fault of the farmer, the moisture content of his corn is unduly high, the moisture regulation should be modified. I hope we shall never have the ill luck to experience another such harvest as last year but if we do I think the same attitude should be adopted with regard to the moisture content of corn.

I want to refer now to the land Project. I think it has reacted very favourably and very considerably in the last year or two. We see the results in the increased acreage of land under the plough; a great deal of this land was absolutely valueless. That land has been reclaimed now and in most cases has been ploughed up in order that it might be brought into proper shape. Some of it has been put under grass. That is going to reflect considerably on our production. In my constituency a great deal of work has been done and in practically every case the farmer has ploughed up the land immediately the drainage work had been completed. This land is growing back into wonderful shape and, as I have said, in nearly all cases it was land which was practically valueless.

However, there are one or two problems concerning it facing the people who are operating the scheme. One of the worst difficulties they have to face is that they are meeting old drains. The average drain being put in under the project is 2½ feet deep and some of the old drains which they are meeting are down as far as 4½ feet. The people do not know that these old drains have been in existence, they put down the new drains at the new depth and when the work is done they can see the effect of the old drains leaving spots in the fields.

That is a serious problem and something I should like to see examined and remedied if possible. One solution I would suggest is that the chief drains along the fences which carry the main run of water from a field should be done first and the other work left over for a period. Eventually the old drains will show up in the field in spots. By doing it in that way there is a possibility of surmounting the problem of the wet spots. They will know they exist and they will tackle them. It is an awful job to have to go back after 12 months and rip up where they have put in a complete drainage system. That has been happening. I do not know whether it is generally the case in the country, but in my area these problems have arisen and it is not easy to solve them.

Various views have been expressed by Deputies on the policy of the Department in regard to the live-stock industry. I believe that all the Deputies who have spoken have been sincere in their views. They are very valuable views. We are inclined to compare this country with Denmark and Holland in the matter of milk production. Of course, this country cannot compare at all. One point is missed, that is, that the people in these other countries are not interested in beef production. They are not interested in the British market for beef. That makes all the difference in the world. The two economies can hardly be compared. In Denmark and Holland they are all out for milk and want nothing but milk. They set no value at all on beef production whereas we are in exactly the opposite position.

Mr. Moher

The Dutch do.

Mr. Hughes

Our position is that we are trying to hold our footing on the British market. At the present time our position as far as beef is concerned is serving the country very well. It has been suggested that the Department should give premiums to Friesian bulls and milk breeds. I hold my own view on this. It may not be worth very much. I think the Department has been wise as far as it has gone in that respect. If we went in completely for dairy herds we could not produce beef. There would be so many Friesians in the country that it would be at the cost of our live-stock industry. There is no question about that. The beef cattle, the Aberdeen Angus and the Hereford, are to-day making top prices on the British market. That is how we are holding our position there. There is no other country able to compete against us. What we want is to go further in that direction. With the high price of live stock to-day, our problem is to maintain the numbers and to increase the numbers.

It has been said that if we are unable to maintain our cow population we will not be able to renew our stock. There is a way out of that difficulty. By allowing a number of our heifers to produce one calf and to rear that calf and then fattening off the heifer as a young cow heifer, the numbers will be increased. That has been done in some parts of the country very successfully. The difference in value is very slight. That is one way in which we can tackle the problem. It is a big problem. If the position of the British market remains as it is, as it appears it will, it is very important to increase the numbers of young stock in this country. If we can do that, our position will be secure.

It is the anxiety of every Deputy that production in every sphere should be increased. One of our big problems is the number of small farmers in the country. The larger farmers have kept pace with the times. They have mechanised. They have a certain amount of capital. They have a fair amount of up-to-date knowledge and are making full use of their lands. Twenty years ago, the large farmer was in no better position than the small farmer as far as the production of crops or live stock was concerned. To-day that position has changed. The smaller farmer has not the capital to buy equipment. He is not in a position to fertilise his land properly and, therefore, is not getting the same return. We have so many small farmers that this is a very big problem. I have not a solution for it but a solution must be found. The smaller farmer must be put in a position to produce more and must be put on the same footing as the larger farmer. The smaller farmer will have to get equipment by some means and be put in a position to obtain modern machinery and scientific knowledge of how to fertilise the land and get it up to the mark.

One direction in which tremendous headway must be made is in pastures. As far as tillage is concerned, we can compare favourably with most countries; we are getting fair yields and fair returns, we are as good, or nearly as good, as most countries and better than some. In our grasslands we have made no progress. Driving through the country, one can see the extent of poor pastures. It is at this time of the year that they shine out. Fields are starting to produce grass now when they should have been producing it two months ago. That is due to the condition of the land, to the lack of fertility and the type of grasses produced. Most of this land must be ploughed up and put through rotation and put down in proper grasses. If that is done, the land will carry double the stock that it is carrying at the present time. That is one direction in which we should face.

The Opposition will say, if we talk in that way, that we are all out for grass. We need not be all out for grass. Tillage has come to stay here. Fianna Fáil or the present Government or anyone else is not responsible for the fact that there is a big acreage under the plough at any time. That is the result of the development of mechanisation. The more mechanisation there is, the more tillage there will be, because tillage will become a simpler job to the farmer and, if it pays, he will put his land under the plough.

There is a policy advocated in England of taking the plough around the farm. I believe that is an excellent policy, that there should be no old pastures. Possibly in the very good land in Meath it is not necessary to put down new grasses for a considerable time but the average land in the country requires to be looked after and to be ploughed up and put through rotation, fertilised properly and new grass seeds put down. In that way you can increase production. There is a tremendous field for development there. We can do quite a lot in that direction. It will not be a big job. I hope the Department and the Minister will consider that and see what can be done.

There is another matter which has not been publicised sufficiently, that is, the activities of the Department in various fields of development. The information obtained is not passed on to the people to the extent that it should be. Quite a lot of things are done by the Department from time to time and the average man in the country does not know of them. Of course, with the increase in the number of agricultural instructors, the position can be rectified but more publicity should be given in the Press to what is being done so that the farmers can be educated in that way. With the introduction of the parish plan that the Minister is launching at the present time, assistance will also be given in passing on the information. There are many farmers in the country who want this information. It is a big problem to double the agricultural output of a country but I hope that farms here are heading in that direction, and that it will not be very long until we see that situation brought about.

Mr. Maguire

This Vote on Agriculture is one which occupies the attention of a great number of Deputies in the House. That is as it should be seeing that it is of such great importance to the country. Years ago the Minister was responsible for introducing the land rehabilitation scheme. In that regard he showed courage, enterprise and a belief in agriculture generally. While it cost the country a great deal of money I have no doubt that it was one of the soundest propositions on which money could be expended by the State. That scheme has had difficulties, disappointments and occasional setbacks but that is only in accordance with the ordinary expenditure of human effort. It is a sound investment which will pay dividends and bring about national prosperity.

All of us have not the same outlook in regard to the resources of this country. Opinions are divided over many years as to the best lines to follow. A strong viewpoint prevailed that industrial development was the solution for our economic problems. Others clung hard to the idea that agriculture was the soundest basis on which to build our economy. It is true that those who placed their faith in industrial projects and who were prepared to mortgage the country by subsidising new ventures have found from experience that those new ventures were not justified to the extent that the public were led to believe. Again, accordingly, mistakes were made.

Looking into all this in retrospect, we must assume that somewhere in between lies the key to our prosperity. We must not underestimate the importance of agriculture. No scientist has yet introduced any alternative for the fruits that are produced from the land. Therefore, I do not think there is any danger in the present or in generations of the near future that the product of the land will become a secondary thing in the ordinary course of living. As I say, somewhere in between must lie the solution to our problem, but it is on the thing we know best that we must expend the greatest amount of our resources, and that is on agriculture. I have paid the Minister the compliment that his scheme was a bold and generour one, and even those who may have been doubtful as to whether it was based on sound lines need have no fear as to the wonderful results it will achieve for us.

On the question of tillage, a lot of discussion has taken place this evening and on previous occasions, but I am afraid that on this question I must strike a discordant note. I am not at all in agreement with those people who speak here very strongly on the inefficient price paid for wheat, barley and beet. Deputy Hughes has referred to a section of the community, the small farmer. He believes that the problem in this respect could be solved by the provision of facilities from the Government to enable the small farmer to mechanise his farm, to have modern machinery, modern manures so as to enable him generally to step up his production. I speak for a section of the small farmers. The solution that Deputy Hughes finds suitable for his small farmers would be of no avail to mine. You can do what you like as regards providing our small farmers with modern machinery and manures, but you will not alter the natural condition of the soil, and that soil is quite unsuitable for wheat, beet and barley.

Mr. Hughes

What about grass?

Mr. Maguire

I am coming to that. There is a great deal of what the Deputy said with which I am in agreement. Particularly in the West of Ireland where the moisture is very extreme, the quantity of grass that can be grown there is very great, much larger probably than on other, better soils. However, the quality of the grass, completely neglected as it has been over the years, is poor. Suggestions have been made to the Minister to improve conditions in that respect by taking advantage of the natural proliferation of the grass. That cannot be done on poor land that is unsuitable for tillage. It can be done by the application of artificial manures. I will couple myself with Deputy Hughes in the suggestion he made. The Government should assist in developing the grasslands in the West of Ireland that will not yield to the plough and in the sowing of suitable grass because the soil in a lot of cases cannot be ploughed.

Mr. Hughes

It can.

Mr. Maguire

It cannot. If you have soil of merely two or three inches in depth and then a bad sub-soil, and you expose that sub-soil in the course of ploughing, you poison that land and turn it into a worse condition.

Mr. Hughes

You can rotivate it. Do not plough the top at all, just turn it over.

Mr. Maguire

That is all right then. We are in agreement there. I ask the Minister to give us some system whereby we can improve the grass that grows naturally. By improving the grass we will improve the output on the farm and benefit the farmer who owns it. I know that every Deputy advocates those improvements he considers to be the best. Asking the Government to subsidise this, that and the other must in the long run become nauseating even to those who support the principle of subsidy. The time has come when we must make practical suggestions which will give practical results and improve the prosperity of the country generally. It is not right that the entire country should live on one section of the community.

Over the years repeated requests have been made for increased prices for wheat, best, barley and so on. Now all these prices are subsidised by the State because all these prices are guaranteed. What is the result of each new application for an increased price? The result is that those farmers who are fortunate in having land suitable for the growing of these crops benefit to a considerable extent while the unfortunate farmer less happily placed on unsuitable land reaps no benefit of any kind and has to pay an increased price for the product of the beet, the wheat and the barley grown by his luckier brethren in order to maintain himself and his stock.

Deputies come in here and complain that the price of wheat is not economic. On whom are the farmers who grow wheat leaning? Who pays the extra money so essential, according to most speakers, to keep those farmers in production? Is it the Minister for Agriculture? Is it the Minister for Finance? It is nothing of the kind. The people who are paying that increased price are the poor of Dublin City and the poor farmers in the West of Ireland who are compelled to buy these products.

It is time that there was a proper understanding of agriculture and other aspects of our economy essential to the well-being of the State. It is time there was more solid thinking and a more solid grouping of ideas rather than mere criticism of the other man's actions. I remember when the present Minister for Agriculture waxed eloquent in his denunciation of wheat. To-day he is an advocate of wheat. That is no condemnation of the Minister; he was wrong then; he is right now. Do not all of us welcome the convert?

I remember a time when I was a strong advocate of all sorts of reforms. I believed that industrialisation would be the solution to emigration. I wanted protective tariffs on everything. I now realise from experience that that policy has an adverse effect on those who are not fortunate in living in an industrial area or who have no industries in proximity to them. In the West of Ireland we are wrongly placed geographically speaking. No industries come down to the West of Ireland but we have to pay the additional cost of protecting industries centred in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere along the SouthEast coast. We reap none of the benefits of industrialisation. Those who have industries available to them have some form of employment. At whose expense? Is it at the expense of the Minister for Finance who gives the protection? Is it he who pays? Not at all. It is the poor children of the West of Ireland who have to wait until they are 17 years of age before they can emigrate to find a livelihood elsewhere.

For many years past industrialisation and protection has been regarded as sound national policy. I do not blame this or any other Government for that. It was thought that the solution lay there. The idea was that if we had our freedom and complete autonomy we would in time be able to build up industries which would absorb our young people and offer opportunities of employment to them. Experience has taught us that that has not been the result.

The only sound industry on which we can build economically is the agricultural industry. We will have to put more into it in the future. Remember, that every time a price is fixed for barley or anything else the West of Ireland is becoming more and more disorganised because the land is unsuitable for growing those crops necessary for the production of stock, of pigs, of hens, of cattle and so on without some subvention of some kind.

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Deputy's colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party will bear those words in mind.

Mr. Maguire

My colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party, or anywhere else, will bear me out because they understand the needs of the locality for which I speak. The West of Ireland has been forgotten. What has been done to improve conditions in the West? The Congested Districts Board disappeared in 1923 as an entity. The people for whom it catered are fast disappearing because they are compelled to emigrate and the forestry inspector to-day is marking out for trees the land where human footsteps trod a few years ago. That is the result of 20 years of native Government.

I wish the Minister would turn his eloquence to describing conditions in the West of Ireland. People are living there on land that is not fit to maintain the snipe or the vole. By their energy, their enthusiasm, their courage and their determination they have succeeded in wresting a living from the soil and they have built up a grand population of intelligent people who year after year have made a name for themselves in other lands. I wish the Minister would bend his mind to the problems that exist there and evolve some scheme to save that grand community from extermination. The problem has nearly solved itself through emigration but there may be a few years left in which something can be done. Every day the trains leaving Leitrim carry whole families or members of families away to foreign lands. The Minister can sit there with his arms folded.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Deputy want me to do? Stand on my head?

Mr. Maguire

It is your job to do something for that area from the point of view of improving agricultural production. There are subsidies for many things. Will you give us a subsidy for grass?

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy use the third person, please.

Mr. Maguire

I am telling the Minister what he can do to develop and improve conditions in the West of Ireland. He can improve the quality of the grass. That is the only thing he can improve. The soil is poor; the climate is harsh. By improving the grass, an important step forward will be taken in the right direction. The Minister knows quite well how dependent the small farmer down there is on mixed farming—so much milk, so many calves, so many pigs, so much poultry, and so on.

It is known that the price of eggs, which was the main income of a number of small farmers all over the country for generations, went bang last year and that meant a reduction in the means of living to a large number of our small, mixed farmers. The price of feeding stuffs was not reduced, the bad harvest inflicted further penalties on our people and the result was the almost complete elimination of eggs and poultry. I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that as regards the average small holder of £10 valuation and under—and they represent a very big section of the whole of my area—their incomes, from that source represented not less than 25 to 30 per cent. of their total income. That part of their incomes was cut off. The people had to go without it, adding further to the depopulation problem.

What would happen if the wheat growers or the beet growers were subjected to a cut like that or to a reduction in the price of their goods to that extent? They would raise a storm here and all over the country; they would get newspaper reports and big headlines to show how their interest in the community was being victimised and to insist that something should be done to save the country from disaster. Suppose that a similar cut was made in the profits of the shopkeepers or in wages or in official salaries, what an outcry would take place! Yet in the Minister's own section of the community, the section for which he is responsible, he saw these things happen last year, perhaps not through his interference, but I think he was entitled to seek some protection for these people for whom it represented the loss of a quarter or one-third of their ordinary means of living. They should be protected against such a happening. An inquiry should be held and an effort made to provide for them since the land they own cannot provide the necessary foodstuffs for the production of eggs and poultry. The land should be subsidised to the extent that it would leave their production economic.

I say that that is due to us because we have to pay for the protection which is being given to beet growers, barley growers and wheat growers over the years. We are also paying increased prices for industrial products because of the protection they are given and we must buy these products if we are to live. Surely there should be similar protection—even if it would be on a much smaller scale—for people who have been robbed and driven out of production through no fault of theirs. It is only right that the Government should come to their aid and keep them in production because it is not through laziness or lack of effort that they are out of production, but through circumstances outside their control, some of those circumstances intiated by the Government of this country.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Deputy allow me to ask a question?

Mr. Maguire

Certainly, I will.

Mr. Dillon

If we were to subsidise grass, wheat, oats, beet, eggs, milk, cattle and pigs—who is going to pay the subsidy?

Mr. Maguire

That question beggars itself.

Mr. Dillon

It beggars me.

Mr. Maguire

It need not necessarily beggar the Minister. This section of the farming community for whom I speak has in the past subsidised the other sections of the community and has subsidised industries producing industrial goods, but in our part of the country we are never able to get any benefit from any of them. We cannot get a return for any of the things we have given in the past. We ask for justice and if the Minister wants to have a reputation in the days to come he should have courage enough—and I believe he has—to stand out and say that as a large area of Ireland has suffered in the past, let us now give them fair play.

The Minister asks us who is to pay. I have asked that question in my argument this evening. I say I only know we have been paying for the beet grower, the barley grower, the wheat grower and for industrial protection. There was a period when we did pay for the beet grower. We paid more for our sugar. There is no question about it, it is clear as daylight for anybody who wants to look on it in an impartial way. The congested areas are entitled to relief. After all, Balfour thought conditions were so bad there compared with the areas in the country which were then very bad also, that he introduced a certain Bill and set up a board known as the Congested Districts Board to deal with them. He also subsidised it.

Is it not an extraordinary thing to record that that subsidy still continues to be paid in but not for the congested areas of Ireland for which it was intended and which were mentioned in the Bill that was passed through the British House of Commons? It does not go to them but into the general revenue of this State by Order of an Irish Government many years back It is still being drawn in and utilised towards the general revenue to subsidise other sections in this country. It is being stolen from the poor citizens in the areas where conditions were so depressed that even a British Prime Minister found it necessary to give them a subsidy. The Government is in possession of that money——

Mr. Dillon

To what is the Deputy referring?

Mr. Maguire

The congested districts grant for £46,000 first paid by the British Prime Minister and it is still payable and is drawn into the funds of this State. That is a fact. It is like robbing a poor man or a widow. It is an outrageous piece of conduct. It shows the injustice and it shows the amount of interest that is taken by the different Ministers in the most necessitous people living in this country. Is it any wonder that part of the country is being cleared out week after week? Is it any wonder they are losing their affection for the Motherland and are turning their minds to foreign countries? You can talk as much as you like about your schemes but if you drive the people out of the country all your schemes will be of no avail.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy sometime look at sub-head (1) of the Vote for Agriculture so that his mind may be relieved of the illusion that the Congested Districts Board grant is stolen from the congested areas? I thought the Deputy was under the impression that the Congested Districts Board Grant was stolen from the congested areas?

Mr. Maguire

Undoubtedly.

Mr. Dillon

I invite the Deputy to look at sub-head (1) of the Vote for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Maguire

What does sub-head (1) say?

Mr. Dillon

It provides for the expenditure of £250,000 on these services, though the grant is £46,000.

Mr. Maguire

I am tired of listening to all this twisting of words and figures. Will the Minister tell me how much additional money may be spent now in respect of the Congested Districts Board? Will the Minister further tell me how many millions of an increase in respect of agriculture generally has there been since that grant was made available? There has been no increase for the improvement of agriculture in the areas I have in mind. The Minister can be very quick in his remarks. He can also use words to favour his own line of argument. What he has said would imply that there is some twist in my statement. This country has been committed for a considerable time past to the giving of grants for the agricultural industry. I now ask the Minister to examine what proportion of these grants, if any, has been given to the congested districts that I have been talking of and to the other areas in my constituency.

I come now to the subject of dairying. From time to time the complaint is made that the price of milk is not economic. To my own knowledge, the price of milk is indeed uneconomic. If a farmer keeps 12 or 20 cows and if he can afford milking machinery then, no doubt, he can make some profit.

However, the average farmer who has maybe three or five cows, or as many as ten or 12, cannot install the mechanised plant and the cows will have to be milked by hand. A cow has to be milked twice a day on seven days of the week and every day of the year. The cow has to be milked on Saturdays and Sundays, in addition to the ordinary working days, and she has to be milked on holydays and on Christmas Day. If one thinks of the amount of labour involved in all that milking of cows, day in and day out, one must come to wonder about the value of that labour. In addition to milking, cows require care and stallfeeding for six or eight months of the year. To ask people to attend to these cows and give them the necessary care and then to offer one shilling or 1/6 a gallon for the milk produced just represents dark slavery. That type of farming is going out. The children on those farms are no longer prepared to accept such conditions. They realise that that system has been built up and developed on slave conditions.

Milk production in this country is declining according as people in the dairying areas remove themselves from such slave conditions—and it will continue to decline unless we take action immediately. The Minister may be able to find some solution to that problem, but he must bear in mind the importance of preserving the small producer. These small producers have the idea now that they can take up alternative employment, with better conditions all round, and live a less slavish existence then they lived in the past.

I suggest the Minister and his Department should consider the question of suitable animals for the breeding of different types of cattle in this country. In my view, the Minister and his Department could do no better than consult the average experienced farmer as to the best type of bull that would be suitable in different localities. I fear that people who lack experience decide theoretically the best type of animals that can be produced. There are certain parts of the country where such inexperienced persons insist on putting in maybe a Shorthorn bull or a whitehead, and so forth, and refuse to put in the Polled Angus bull which may have been requested by people living there.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is mistaken. Every Polled Angus bull the Department was able to buy for money this year was purchased and located in the congested areas.

Mr. Maguire

By whom was it bought?

Mr. Dillon

By the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Maguire

Were the number of Polled Angus bulls available sufficient to cater for the number of applications and, if not, what was that due to?

Mr. Dillon

The shortage of bulls.

Mr. Maguire

It was due to the inheritance, over a long period of years, of a bad policy by the Department of Agriculture which prevented the circulation of those animals.

Mr. Dillon

Not at all.

Mr. Maguire

Do not tell me that what I am saying is not true. I am much older in my knowledge of the needs of the areas concerned than the Minister is.

Mr. Dillon

You cannot grow bulls on bushes.

Mr. Maguire

The Minister is an eloquent man and he need not use his eloquence now in an endeavour to make what I say seem incorrect. For years past, the Department of Agriculture have turned their back on the various applications by the poorer type of man for Polled Angus bulls. They have turned their back on the provision of Polled Angus bulls in areas where they are very suitable. I invite the Minister to consult the records in his Department and get an idea of the number of applications from such poorer families in certain parts of the country for these bulls. Now, to-day, the Minister's Department are realising that there is something to be said for the Polled Angus bull. Now we can see the ill-effects of theoretical planning by the Department of Agriculture which, instead of helping our farmers, almost ruined them and put them out of business.

I remember talking to a farmer who lived in depressed conditions for a number of years. He told me of a conversation he had had with a man who was good at figures. The farmer wanted some extension of time to pay his annuity. The man told him that he could not be in any jeopardy. He asked him the price of the various stock he had on his farm and told the farmer that the position was excellent. The farmer said no, that the position was not excellent. Then the man spoke about pigs and mentioned the prevailing prices for them. The farmer then pointed out how much it costs to keep a sow and feed her, and later to rear the bonhams and rear the pigs. The farmer told me that to hear the man argue about the profitable basis of producing pigs made him feel completely disgusted and that when he saw this smart Alec showing a profit where he, as a pig producer, knew there was none, he could not restrain himself from saying: "Do you know, it is men like you who have this country in the condition in which it is —feeding pigs like pencils on paper."

It is the same everywhere. The farmer has it in his blood to do things in a practical way. He realises the futility, generally, of theoretical solutions as to the best types of animals to produce different strains. The average farmer knows the best type of animal to yield him a profit and until the Minister gets the advice of the average practical farmer, and considers that advice in conjunction with the theories advanced by his Department, we shall make no progress.

I urge the Minister to bear in mind the points I have made about the poorer parts of our country. I urge him to give us a subsidy to increase production from our land. I urge him to give us artificial manures at a price which we can afford to pay—manures which would improve the fertility of our soil by as much as 100 per cent. I urge that, where necessary, the Minister will make provision for drainage and for land rehabilitation so as to bring about increased production and prosperity in the poor and depressed areas of which I have been speaking.

Mr. Moylan

The Minister said he would like to hear from some of the critics what should be done. I shall try to reply to him as far as I can without any reference to past policy. I know it is hard on the Minister at this stage when he might have been hopeful, but I think the most important decision the Minister has got to make is in relation to the dairying industry. The dairy cow, it seems to me, is the centrepiece of our agricultural economy. Our success in every other sphere is promoted or adversely affected by the success or failure of the dairying industry. The Minister has said: "We have priced ourselves out of the dairy produce market". If such is the situation it denotes a very grievous error in policy. It seems to me that both the Minister and the general body of farmers have given up the idea of going into the dairy produce export market again. I think such an attitude is fatal not alone to our agriculture but to our national economy as a whole.

The Minister's first responsibility irrespective of any predilection he has or of opposition he may meet it to set the dairying industry on its feet by getting into the dairy produce export market again. It can be done and I am quite sure it should be attempted. I realise with the Minister that we cannot put all our eggs into one basket. Competition in the dairy produce market is keen and it may well become keener if we add our quota of deliveries to it. No market is inexhaustible, and while we should give premier place to the dairy cow we must consider it in relation to the whole scheme that makes up our agricultural economy.

The statement made by Dr. Haagedoorn in his work on animal breeding, to which the Minister's friend from Cambridge, Dr. John Hammond, has written a laudatory preface, says that the only head of superiority in domestic animals attaches to the conditions of agriculture into which the breed must fit. I have no technical knowledge that would enable me to decide which is the best breed of cow we should have. As far as any inquiry I have been able to make leads me, I have been able to gather that if we are concerned with milk production alone there is no question that the Jersey cow is superior. There is a conflict of opinion on this question and considerable controversy on the relative merits of the Friesian and the dairy Shorthorn.

Two former members of this House, Mr. Ted O'Sullivan and Mr. Tim Quill, who both represented Cork, have shown amazing results from their Friesian herds but I have met men equally progressive who claim that they have made just as much progress, and produced as much from their Shorthorn herds as the other two have from Friesians. I think, in relation to that argument, that the Minister should not strive to impose any restriction on any farmer in respect of the cow he wants to keep.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Moylan

His concern should be that the best cow should be kept by the farmer no matter what the breed.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Moylan

Consideration of all the factors of the problem indicates to me that the preponderance of the Shorthorn cow in the dairy herds of Ireland makes its reappearance as a highly productive dairy cow a much simpler matter than the introduction of a foreign breed. I believe that foot and mouth disease is endemic in the countries renowned for their dairy produce and unless we had some peculiar system of getting the cattle in, and I would not suggest over the Border, you cannot avoid the endemic of foot and mouth disease here.

Mr. Dillon

Or worse.

Mr. Moylan

Unfortunately most people praise the dual purpose cow and some do not realise that we have among our dairy cows a no-purpose cow which is good for neither beef nor milk. The Minister pointed out that we have two milking economies in this country. I am concerned with only one of those. It is on that economy that any dairy exports can be based. That is the economy of the area served by the creameries. We must assume I suppose, for the moment, that the Shorthorn, with all her alleged faults, is the animal on which we must depend. By a beter fed and a better sustained dairy Shorthorn we definitely can increase the amount of the milk produced.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Moylan

But if this increase is to be secured with profit it cannot be secured by the feeding of concentrates.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Moylan

I do hope that with all this progeny testing, all these valuable bulls that we are trying to nurse and the cows that gain valuable prizes in Ireland by being fed on concentrates are not included as the progenitors of the dairy herds we are going to produce. There is no use in getting 600 gallons of milk from a cow if you have to feed back the profits in concentrates.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! This is all gospel.

Mr. Moylan

Deputy Moher spoke about the influence of various breeds of cattle and I think his suggestion was very proper. I see people here with price cattle which give tremendous amounts of milk and I know how it was got. It could not be got in the ordinary farm in County Cork in that fashion. If the extra milk is to be at the cost of the purchase of concentrates, we had better let the problem alone. I do think that by proper grass, ensilage and properly made hay we can get the results. I was very glad to hear Deputy Hughes to-night coming over to the Fianna Fáil point of view in regard to grass.

Mr. Hughes

What point of view?

Mr. Moylan

The Deputy heard me. Deputy Donegan a few days ago made reference to a field of 11 acres which was of more value to the owner of an extensive farm than the rest of his land. There are very valuable fields in the country. I have seen them down in the South, deep soil, but even the fertility of those fields could be exhausted and, certainly, American farmers, to my knowledge, have exhausted such fields.

The reason I refer to Deputy Donegan's 11 acres is because I am tired of hearing about permanent pasture. Permanent pasture is very impermanent and I wonder if Deputy Donegan's farmer with the extensive holding would not realise that the other fields might produce an equally rich and valuable crop if they were properly treated. The land of County Meath, so highly praised by Deputy Donegan, is not carrying to one-third capacity and anyone familiar with grass going through County Meath will see that much of the grass there is fibrous, without any nutritive value. Deputies in County Meath, apparently, do not realise that under-grazing is just as damaging to grass as overgrazing.

The idea was prevalent on those benches over there a few years ago that land once ploughed recovered slowly and did not develop a proper mat of grass until about 20 years. I heard that statement from authoritative sources, and I can tell the Minister who they are.

Mr. Dillon

Who?

Mr. Moylan

I think the Minister would be serving the country well if he could disabuse the minds of those who have that idea.

Mr. Dillon

But who has that idea?

Mr. Moylan

I will tell the Minister in private. I do not like giving the game away on some people.

Mr. Hughes

Not over here.

Mr. Moher

You do not say that the intelligentsia of the House is over there?

Mr. Moylan

I will tell the Minister in private.

Mr. Dillon

I will be much obliged to the Deputy.

Mr. Moylan

We cannot have increased milk supply without better feeding, and it is not surprising that the 400-gallon cow is our average milk producer when most of them, again to my knowledge, have been starved on poor non-nutritious hay in the winter months. I have seen it happen time and again throughout the countryside.

We want to be clear on what a grass policy is so that the term "Minister for Grass" will not be a term of obloquy. I think it ought to be a term of honour if we really understood what the term meant.

Mr. Dillon

You have travelled a long way.

Mr. Moylan

I am informed by successful dairy farmers in my constituency that you cannot run a successful dairy farm except, to use the words of Deputy Hughes, you carry the plough around the farm. I believe that to be true. Successful dairying means tillage, not ranching, as some of the exponents of a grass policy seem to believe. The Minister should ask himselk if the slogan adopted: "One more cow, one more sow," and so on has not become a catch cry, completely unrelated to agricultural practice and policy.

Feeding is not the whole solution. If we are to help the dairy industry, some attention must be paid to breeding. I was in a part of the country where there is very barren land, nothing but rocks and ditches—not in my own constituency—and to my amazement I heard that the only thing that was wanted in that area for the betterment of the locality was a Polled Angus bull. I was surprised again to hear Deputy Maguire. I could not, from the time I started from a certain city until I got to this place 60 miles away, see anything that might co-habit with that bull that would be bigger than a goat.

The bull licensing scheme in England has been a complete failure. The bull licensing scheme here has been a complete failure—absolutely. What happens? Every Deputy in the House knows what happens when you have bull inspectors being selected. When Fine Gael have the authority the Fine Gael Deputy goes to the Minister and says: "There is a good poor devil in my constituency who ought to be appointed a bull inspector." When Fianna Fáil was in power the same thing happened, if there was any room.

Mr. T. Lynch

I would not doubt you.

Mr. Moylan

I do not believe that these people had any better information or knowledge about bulls than the average farmer. The Minister says he has complete confidence in the farmer. He said there was no desire on the part of anybody in this House to coerce the farmer. I think the Livestock Breeding Act as administered is pure coercion.

Mr. Moher

It is a Coercion Act, no doubt.

Mr. Moylan

Of course it is. Surely the farmer is a better judge of his own interest and what constitutes his interest than any individual who comes into an area judging bulls. That individual has no statistics, no information in regard to the productive qualities which the bull might transmit. I would suggest that the farmer himself is a far better judge of the type of bull he needs than any bull inspector. We all know the old story, which is not untrue, that one of these famous bull inspectors passed a bullock.

I do desire to promote and develop the beef trade as far as possible. I realise its value. But I wonder if the operation of the Live Stock Act of 1926 has made it more valuable and I wonder if we did not have a very valuable beef trade before that Act came into operation. The latest statistics available to me says that in 1953 we exported 455,931 cattle of all kinds and in 1924 we exported 942,908 cattle. This does not indicate a wonderful improvement. I know that the Live Stock Act is not the only factor. Certainly, it must have some bearing on the numbers.

I believe that we cannot have a profitable beef trade if we have not an expanded dairy industry. You cannot get the raw material for the beef trade if you have not an expanded dairy industry, particularly at the present moment.

The farmer may be devoid of all scientific knowledge and he may be affected by prejudice but he has a sound knowledge of his job; he has long experience and knows his cows and a lot of that experience is very often set aside by the scientists as old wives' tales and the scientist very often lives and learns that there was a grain of truth beneath the old wives' tale. I think it would be far better for the Minister to allow the diary farmer to utilise his own knowledge and to select his own bulls.

One thing I was very glad to hear the Minister referring to, that was, the mongrelisation of cattle. The production of and from hybrids is a growing danger. I think it is going to damage our herds.

If we have priced ourselves out of the dairy produce export market, our problem is to devise methods whereby we can recover our share of that market. The report of the Milk Costings Commission is only of academic interest to me. When all the costs of production are computed, when all the difficulties associated with the dairy industry are assessed I am under no illusion that a higher price is needed. I do not say this to embarrass the Minister but because I believe it to be the truth. When the price of farm produce is too low and when only a very insubstantial profit is derived from it, farmers draw into their shells. They adopt a subsistence method of farming. I know that the dairy farmers down the country are afraid of increased production because they believe the profit that will be derived from any increased production will be entirely incommensurate with the risks and the money involved.

Our business is to attempt to recover our share of the dairy export market and I assert here that it can be done. We ought to try to teach how it can be accomplished and we ought to offer the incentive for doing so. It is very sound economics to sell your surpluses overseas at the best world price you can obtain for them and it is poor economics to say of the sale of such surpluses that you are supporting the foreigner at the expense of the nation.

We should try to produce a surplus and so adjust the price of the product as between what we use and what we export as to offer a proper incentive to production. Whatever opinion we may have about 1/- a gallon for milk I suggest that whatever the Minister offers should be over a five-year period. We have spent a good deal of money in foolish ways and a little help to the dairy industry—but only if the dairy industry is going to help itself—is very necessary at the present time. The Minister should, as he offered to do a few days ago, go into consultation with the dairy farmers to try to find some method whereby we can utilise this great potential we have. I have been listening to platitudes about the dairy industry for a long time and expressions of ministerial concern for all types therewith. If the Minister has real concern, as he must have, for the dairy industry, he will realise that investment is wise when it is put into a sound business and there is a better chance of making a sound business of dairying in this country than of anything else.

One essential piece of equipment on a dairy farm, indeed on any farm, is a water supply system. This equipment is just as essential on the farm as a milking machine, a plough or a tractor, and it should be regarded as equipment. But my information is that when a farmer takes advantage of the grant scheme for the installation of a water supply system, the rates go up and in a few years he has paid more than twice that.

Mr. Hughes

That is not true.

Mr. Moylan

If it is not, people in my constituency have been mulcted very much by the council. I think the Minister should make sure because the whole idea would be a failure if the rateable valuation is raised to a substantial extent. Let me say to the Minister that the general aim of the parish plan is to be applauded. However, I deprecate the introduction of new methods when the old methods have not been fully tried. The present scheme of things—county committee of agriculture— chief agricultural officer, and the agricultural advisers—is a very well designed scheme. While it has drawbacks I believe it can be brought a good deal closer to perfection than any other plan.

There is a story about the ancient spinster that the more she saw of men the more she liked dogs. I am like the ancient spinster: the more I see of cranks who come with their problems and their solutions for those problems to the Minister, the more I like politicians. I think the politicians on the county committees of agriculture are just as good Irishmen as any of the cranks that might come to a Minister and they have the seal of public approval on them, no matter how they got it. The present system is a good one provided that it is given what the Minister proposed to give to the parish plan, a sufficient supply of agricultural advisers. I would, however, create a system of inspection and direction attached to the Department of Agriculture. Vocational education committees in County Meath particularly are rather a nuisance to the Department of Education now and again; nevertheless, without their aid in the work they have been doing, vocational education, which I believe to be very valuable, would not have made the strides it has made, and if men who are elected county councillors can be so valuable as they are on a vocational education committee, I do not see why we cannot make use of the same men on the county committees of agriculture.

However, I would superimpose on the present system some form of inspection and direction in the hope of doing away with a good deal of the office work which agricultural advisers have now to undertake. The pen may be mightier than the sword but in the hands of an agricultural adviser it may become an awful nuisance and may become habit-forming. I do think a short and concise report of work done on a farm, of suggestions made ready for examination by an inspector on the farm would do away with a good deal of the unread reams, the writing of which takes up so much of the time of the agricultural adviser.

The success of any advisory system depends on the character and personality of the adviser. One bad adviser can do more damage by creating a lack of confidence than six good men can remedy. I would like to give these young men, when appointed, all the emoluments and privileges of permanency. I would include the initial three years for pension purposes, but I would make those three years, years of trial. I am very interested in getting good men because I know how much damage a bad man can do; and we will not be so poor in resources in the future that we will have to put up with bad men in this vitally important work. Now the land of Ireland is our only resource and its effective use is our greatest problem; we will not solve that problem by scoring debating points here on the question of agriculture, but I hope that between us we will find a solution.

Mr. Fanning

I have been listening to this debate for some time and I am amazed at the turn Deputy Hughes has taken. He changed his opinions when he went over to that side of the House. When he was talking about wheat he said it was only right that the price of wheat should be reduced. The present Taoiseach stated here that farmers were getting money for wheat to which they were not really entitled. That is an amazing statement coming from the head of the Government.

We are continually listening to the cry that we cannot keep the people on the land because the farmer cannot pay the same wages as the industrialist. Are we getting any help from the present Government towards increasing the workers wages on the land? It is hardly likely that we will seeing that the Minister is taking at least £10 or £12 per acre off the price of wheat. That would not seem to indicate that we will be able to keep more people on the land.

Deputy Maguire upbraided the tillage farmers to some extent because he said that they were being subsidised for wheat and beet and barley. As far as I know we are not subsidised for beet. But despite his complaint about subsidies, he nevertheless asked the Minister to subsidise grass for animal feeding. We are asking for subsidies to enable us to produce food to feed the people. There is a vast difference there.

It is only natural that every man should speak for his own area. I represent a tillage area. The farmers in my area were fairly badly hit in the last harvest but, if they were hard hit, the Minister hit them twice as hard. It is all very fine to talk about ranchers and chancers. I come from an area in which they are few ranchers and chancers. Farmers' sons in that area have gone out and taken conacre to make a living from the land of Ireland. Does the Minister call these ranchers? I have known instances where young fellows started with about ten acres and I am proud to be able to say to-night that they have since been able to purchase farms for themselves. Only for tillage they would have no hope of ever doing that because they could not afford to keep cattle.

It is astonishing to hear people say that the growing of wheat does not give employment. From my own experience I know that extra labour is required and must be kept on the land when wheat is grown. Bouquets are being thrown at the present Minister. I do not think any would be thrown at him in the county I come from. Only yesterday we had a meeting of the County Committee of Agriculture and I can tell him that his own supporters are very dissatisfied with the price of pigs and with the decline in the pig population. He cannot deny that during the last six or eight months he has allowed the price of offals to go up by £4 10s. per ton while pigs have gone down by 5/- or 10/- every week.

The time has come when bacon has almost to be rationed. The price is increasing day after day. During the last couple of months pigs were bought at round about £7 10s. to £7 15s. Now these pigs will be released from the factories as bacon and the consumers will have to pay an extra 2d. or 3d. per 1b. for their bacon. Both the producer and the consumer are being hit. Why not let the bacon now in storage in the factories be sold at the price at which it was purchased?

The Minister asks us to produce more. What encouragement will he give us? If we produce barley, dearer barley will be imported. I cannot see why that should be permitted. We were told we would have a surplus of wheat last year but the bad harvest saved the Government having to pay a subsidy. Why not have a whiter loaf with more offals for animal feeding and stop the imports of maize at a prohibitive price? Would not that solve the difficulty of the surplus wheat? It is all very fine to ask the farmers to keep the wheat for three or four months and they will get an extra 5/- or 10/- per barrel. In that way the Minister would inevitably cater for the ranchers and the men who could afford to hold on to the wheat for three or four months. Most of our farmers want to get rid of their wheat the day they thresh it. They are waiting to get paid by the millers and, when they are paid, there are ten pairs of hands waiting for their share. There is very little use in asking us to increase production when that increased production will entail a loss.

Every time cattle are mentioned in this House there is an immediate outcry about the slaughter of the calves. At that time I can remember two elections being fought in the one year; the economic war was at its worst and in the second election Fianna Fáil were returned to power in far greater numbers than in the first. There would have been a big decline in our cattle population had there not been a change of Government in 1951. What happened in the period 1948-1951? In-calf cows were going to the factories to be slaughtered because of the low price for milk. Would there be as many cows in the country to-day if farmers had accepted the then Minister's price for milk—1/- per gallon for five years? Would there not be a decline in our cow population and in our cattle population? I think that the price given for milk, the encouragement that the farmer got from Deputy Walsh when he was the Minister for Agriculture was the first uplift that the dairy farmers got and it encouraged all farmers to get into cows.

The licensing of bulls was another question which was debated here. We all know what happens at bull inspections. There is one breed, the Shorthorn, which to my mind is not getting fair play. One cannot show a Hereford bull by inspection unless one has a certificate from both sides whereas if you wish to show a Shorthorn if he is nicely made up and in good condition he will pass. You cannot have the right breed or class if that is happening at ordinary bull inspections. If one has just a nice calf at times, it is the feeding and condition that pass him.

There is another thing I would like to refer to and that is the transfer of loans from the Department of Agriculture to the Credit Corporation. Everybody knows how hard it was to get the loans from the Credit Corporation whereas you had not half that trouble with the Department of Agriculture. There is not a Deputy in this House but who can be approached by applicants and get two of the best securities that can be found in the neighbourhood and still they are turned down. That will be the case now. It is only an easy way of saving at the expense of the unfortunate man that wants a loan.

Deputy Maguire referred to the small farmers. The small farmers in my area do not want a grass subsidy. With ten, 15 or 20 acres they must live on tillage and tillage alone. It is poor satisfaction for them to be told: "You are being subsidised for everything you grow."

It is very hard to understand the attitude of a farming Deputy like Deputy Hughes, who comes from a tillage area. I remember when he was on this side of the House he was demanding a higher price for the growing of beet when to my mind beet was fetching a good price at that time. He said that he himself had grown 20 acres but was down to one. Are we not entitled to look for a decent price at least? I think the biggest mistake the Minister for Agriculture ever made— of course as Deputy Corry said he may have been forced to do it—was the reduction of 12/6 per barrel for wheat because the price of manures, rates and all the rest is going up and at the same time the Minister was one of those who urged the farmers to mechanise their holdings and to use the combines. What encouragement is he giving them now? If they are to cut the wheat with combines how are they to keep it over? They will be at a complete loss.

There is not very much more that I have to say. Much has been said and there is no use in covering the same ground. They can say from the far side of the House that the present Minister is the best Minister that ever sat in the Department of Agriculture but what is said down my way is that if he is running agriculture he is ruining us. He could tell use here to grow oats in 1948 when he accused a Deputy from a certain area of telling the farmers to make sure and sell or otherwise they would be at a complete loss. But it is all very well to say: grow it and walk it off the land, but the farmers whom I represent are only waiting for a chance to walk the present Minister out of his position.

Mr. Egan

The Minister, in opening this debate, devoted a good deal of his speech to cattle, and he eulogised again the dual-purpose cow, the Shorthorn cow, as the foundation of our cattle industry. The Minister very often pays homage and respect to this animal and on one occasion since I came in here I heard the Minister say: "The Shorthorn cow and the Land League were the greatest benefactors of the Irish farmer." He would almost have us believe that the Shorthorn cow is An Druimfionn Donn Dílís herself, while on the other hand Deputy Moher would wrap the green flag reverently round the Dutch Friesian. I believe that the dual-purpose Shorthorn cow is the best cow for this country as the foundation for our stock. Nevertheless, I am not a doctrinaire Shorthorn man. I believe Deputy Moher has made a case for the Friesian which requires to be examined.

Mr. Dillon

For the Jersey?

Mr. Egan

I prefer to take his case for the Friesian. He quoted the results of experiments which seem to prove, so far as they went, the supremacy of the Friesian over other breeds tested under the same conditions. These conditions were good conditions and, perhaps, ideal conditions, and it remains to be proved whether the Friesian would beat the Shorthorn over a long period or over a reasonable period when subjected to all the varying conditions and hardships which the Shorthorn has stood up to here.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Egan

In any case, it is up to the Minister or whatever Minister is in charge of agriculture for the time being, and his Department to provide proper facilities and testing grounds to settle this question once and for all as to which is the best breed for this country. It is extraordinary that the Americans have come over here and have told us how to do almost everything. I grant they were generous with grants and that they were entitled to give us advice, anyway. The latest news we have is that they are lending us an Army man to advise us on drainage, but with all the progress that has been made in America and with all the experiments—and surely they have not been behind in experiments or in regard to the expense of experiments even with the hydrogen and the atom bombs—it is extraordinary that they have no Shorthorns.

Only the other day the Minister mentioned that fact, that there were practically no Shorthorns in America. If the Shorthorn is the breed we think it is, it is an extraordinary thing that the Americans have not discovered it, or perhaps climatic conditions may have something to do with it. I should like the Minister to tell us when he is replying—perhaps he has more information on the matter than I have— why the Shorthorn has been neglected almost entirely in America.

Mr. Dillon

Not in the Argentine.

Mr. Egan

The Argentinians do not presume to be as great experts in economy as the people of the U.S.A.

Mr. Dillon

They export more.

Mr. Egan

I should like to pay a tribute to the way in which Deputy Moher put forward every argument he made. Deputy Manley from the Government Benches paid a very generous tribute to him—a tribute which, of course, was deserved. Deputy Moher's speech was the type of speech which will set farmers, and agriculturalists generally, thinking—and that is one of the best things that could happen.

Deputy Allen made a suggestion about premiums. He suggested that the premiums for Hereford and Aberdeen Angus bulls should be stopped. I entirely agree with that suggestion and I am glad the Minister received it favourably. The Aberdeen Angus and Hereford bulls will be purchased irrespective of whether or not they carry a premium——

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Egan

——and they will get plenty of cows. On the other hand, it is 100 per cent. more difficult to get people to take the Shorthorn. I hope the Minister will receive my suggestion as favourably as he has received Deputy Allen's suggestion. It is that no Shorthorn bull be licensed unless it is pure bred and purchased at a recognised bull show or sale. Nothing has done more harm to the Shorthorn breed generally than the type of bull that has been passed at what we call the crossroads inspections or, as Deputy Moher puts it, the crossroads beauty contest.

Mr. Deering

And have the country full of speak-easy bulls then?

Mr. Egan

I know most of the fairs in Leinster and a few outside it. If a man goes to any fair in Leinster he will find there Shorthorn bullocks which are inferior in quality to the Shorthorn bullocks of 30 years ago. That is mainly if not entirely due to the "yokes" that have been passed at these crossroads inspections. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that he could not do anything better for the Shorthorn breed than insist that every Shorthorn bull which is licensed must be pure bred and that he should be bought at a recognised bull show or sale.

Mr. Dillon

How does it improve a bull to bring him to a bull show?

Mr. Egan

There would be an incentive to have a better bull, anyhow. How does it improve anything?

Mr. Killilea

There would be the record of his pedigree.

Mr. Moher

You would have the Old Moore's Almanac end of it.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Old Moore's Almanac end of it do? I ask that question in all honesty. How does it improve a bull to bring him from the crossroads to the local show?

Mr. Egan

The competition is there, and there will be the incentive to have a better beast. Surely it will improve the quality of bulls if they have to be displayed, say, at Ballsbridge, rather than if they are submitted at some crossroads. At Ballsbridge, a man will see that he will have better bulls.

Mr. Dillon

You would compliment some of them by calling them "yokes". Bringing some of them to Ballsbridge did not make them any better.

Mr. Egan

Then shows do not serve a useful purpose?

Mr. Dillon

I did not say that.

Mr. Egan

Is not the real object behind the work of the R.D.S. that of improving the quality of our stock, our bulls included? Surely that is the basic principle underlying the whole idea of a show? So far as the Shorthorn store bullock is concerned, he is worse now than the Shorthorn store bullock of 30 years ago, and I am sure any experienced man will tell the Minister that that is the position in all but a few areas.

Mr. Dillon

If that is true, how are they making from £8 to £9 a cwt. at the present time?

Mr. Egan

If you look at some of the "yokes" that can make £7 10s. you will have the answer to that question. I am glad to see that there is at least one Deputy on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Deering

I am very honoured to be on them. I should be very proud to be associated with Deputy Norton's Party.

Mr. Moher

Deputy Deering is a displaced person.

Mr. Egan

I was amazed when I heard Deputy Tully say here that there is no labour content in wheat.

Mr. Deering

He is quite right.

Mr. Egan

I am sorry the Minister for Social Welfare has left the House. He was sitting there beside the Minister for Agriculture for quite a time. I wonder if he will agree with Deputy Tully? I wonder if he would be prepared to go down to Pierce's of Wexford and meet the hundreds of employees coming out from their work and say to them that there is no labour content in wheat?

Mr. O'Carroll

He said the labour content is relatively small.

Mr. Egan

I wonder if the Minister for Social Welfare would say to the workers in Wexford that we do not want any more ploughs, any more harrows, any more rotavators or any of this high-class machinery that goes with tractors?

Mr. Dillon

There is less labour connected with wheat than there is for any other agricultural crop.

Mr. Egan

I wonder if the Minister for Social Welfare agrees with Deputy Tully on that matter? I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government be prepared to go down to Clara, which is in his constituency and mine, and meet the hundreds coming out of Goodbody's Jute Factory and say to them that we do not want any more sacks because there is no labour content in wheat? Not at all. What about all the agricultural labourers employed on the wheat farms who were adversely affected by this Government's decision to reduce the price of wheat, thus reducing the farmers' ability to give them the wages that Deputy Tully pretends he wants them to have?

Deputy Hayes made a sincere speech. His only trouble was that we had a surplus of wheat last year and he asked if any Deputy on the Opposition Benches could suggest any alternative action in that connection. I understood that the surplus was not the reason the Minister reduced the price of wheat. I understood he reduced the price to get rid of the racketeers. Which is the Minister putting forward as the real justification for reducing the wheat price—to get rid of the racketeers or to get rid of the surplus?

Mr. Dillon

Both.

Mr. O'Carroll

A little of both.

Mr. Egan

Deputy Hughes thinks it was to get rid of the surplus. What I am worrying about is this: is the Minister's proposal to cut the price of wheat prompted by a desire to get rid of a possible surplus? If that is so, the Minister could benefit by the experience of the lecturer down the country——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy will have to leave that to another day.

Mr. Egan

I move to report progress.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again.

Debate resumed on Wednesday, 18th May, 1955.