Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 27 - 28 November, 1928

DEPRESSION IN AGRICULTURE—MOTION OF CENSURE.

Dr. RYAN: I move:

“That it is the opinion of the Dáil that the Executive Council is deserving of censure for its failure to take effective steps to deal with the depression in Agriculture and the serious economic situation arising therefrom.”

In moving this motion, a Cheann Chomhairle, one would imagine that it would not be necessary for me to prove that there is depression in the agricultural industry. But on account of statements that have been made by the President in Cork, and in an interview with a representative of the “Daily Mail,” I am afraid it is really necessary to prove that there is depression in the agricultural industry in this country. I think the President spoke, when addressing his constituents in Cork some time ago, about our having turned the corner, and he told the “Daily Mail” representative a few days ago that we had definitely turned the corner. I [840] would be very glad, personally, to know if such were the case, but I am somewhat sceptical about it. After reading that report of the President's speech in Cork I happened to be down in my own constituency in Wexford, and I thought that I would try and find out definitely if there was really any improvement in the agricultural industry. I asked some farmers what they thought of the President's statement, and they told me that there was not a word of truth in it. I got the same reply from a number of farmers, but as the farmers generally have the reputation of putting the worst complexion upon the story, I thought I would go further. I asked some traders who were in the habit of doing business with farmers what their opinion was. I got an unanimous reply from them that this year was worse than last year—the worst year they knew for the farmers in the country, and therefore the worst within living memory. If we examine the figures of what the farmer is getting for his produce and what the farmer is paying for what he has to buy, I think it will be fairly evident to anyone not engaged in agriculture that the agricultural industry is in a very bad way. When we find from the figures published in the “Irish Trade Journal,” and elsewhere, that the farmer's average income from his produce is only 30 per cent. over what it was in 1913, I think anybody will admit that the farmer is practically up against an impossibility. His income is 30 per cent. more, and the cost of living figure, as we all know, averaged for the last six months about 73 per cent. more.

The cost of living figure, if we examine it more closely, reveals that the items which make up food are not so high as the other items. As a matter of fact, they are somewhat about 64 per cent. increased. That shows us two things. First of all, it makes the case worse for the farmer than the figure at first appears to indicate, because the farmer is the producer of a good lot of his own food, and, therefore, his cost of living is gone up by more than 73 per cent., as he has to buy a big proportion of other things apart from food. It shows also that [841] there is a very obvious profiteering going on amongst the traders who come in between the farmer and the consumer. If the people who buy the farmers' produce, and the wholesalers and retailers who pass on that produce to the consumer were all satisfied with a 30 per cent. increase over pre-war prices, then the price of food to the consumer should be only 30 per cent. over pre-war prices. But it is more than 30 per cent., and, therefore, we must conclude straightaway that the traders, the middlemen who come between the farmer and the consumer, are getting bigger profits than they are entitled to.

I maintain we are not giving the farmer the benefit of the argument. The farmer's cost of living has gone up by 73 per cent., whereas his receipts have only gone up by 30 per cent. We can quite well bring our minds back to 1911 and 1913, and we know the position farmers were in at that time. He would be a very brave Deputy who would go to his constituency and say to any farmer there that he was too well off in 1913, and that he could well afford to sacrifice 25 per cent. of his income at that time, because that is, in fact, what he is asked to do now. If he wants to keep up his stock, keep his work going, and keep out of debt, he must live on 25 per cent. less income than in 1913.

Let us examine different classes of the community and find out how they compare with the farmer at the present time. Every single class in the community has been compensated in some way for the increased cost of living. Traders, middlemen, wholesalers and retailers, all those who handle farm produce and through whom it passes to the consumer, are getting more than they are entitled to get out of their dealings with that produce. We see also that traders, wholesalers and retailers who handle other commodities are making, if it is distributed equally between them, anything up to 73 per cent. over pre-war profits. We come to other classes and we find, for instance, that civil servants—all Government servants—are protected by a bonus to cover the cost of living. If we examine the professions, we find [842] that solicitors are entitled to charge bigger fees than pre-war, and other professional men, not bound by any legal fee, have also increased their charges. Even labourers, where they are lucky enough to have work, are paid a higher wage than in pre-war times. The farmer alone, of all classes of the community, has to live far and away below the cost-of-living figure. He has only £130 with which to buy £173 worth of goods.

How are the farmers carrying on in the circumstances? They can only do it by encroaching on their capital. Those of them who saved money during the war have been drawing on their savings and they have been able to keep their land stocked. Those who had not money were obliged to draw on their capital in other ways. Many farmers have not got money, but if they have their land well stocked they consider they have capital. The tillage farmer, if he has implements and horses and so on, thinks he has capital. The dairy farmer, if he has cows, considers them his capital. It is only by drawing on that capital that the farmers are able to exist at all. If we examine the statistics which were issued in June last we shall find that the dairy farmer— and we have been assured that the dairy industry is the biggest and the most important in the country—is reducing the number of his cows, and dairy farmers as a whole are, therefore, doing away with their capital. The number of cows has gone down by over 3,000. That amounts to only 3 per cent., but still the fact that they have been reduced at all is important. On the other hand, the number of in-calf heifers which would be necessary to replenish our stock of cows has been reduced by over 13,000, or 14 per cent. I think this is a very significant figure.

We have been assured by the Minister for Agriculture and by speakers from the Government side that dairying is going to be one of the principal industries of this country in the future. How are we to build up our dairying industry if the farmer is to be compelled, through whatever means, to get rid of his cows, or is compelled to keep less heifers for the purpose of replacing those cows? The reason why farmers [843] have got rid of their cows is, I suppose, to keep the sheriff away, to enable them to pay rents or rates or other debts that could not otherwise be paid.

We have been told by the President on a few occasions lately that we have turned the corner, and we have heard the same sort of sentiment expressed by others from Cumann na nGaedheal platforms. They evidently believe that by keeping on telling the people they are better off eventually the people will begin to believe that they are better off, and then the next step will be that they are better off. Since the present Government came into power six or seven years ago things have not improved. We have drawn attention here again and again to figures telling us of the state of the country. We have pointed out again and again that the population has been decreased by over 100,000. That would not be so bad if there was an improvement now, but there is no improvement. If we look at the emigration figures for the first eight months of this year we do not find any improvement. We find that in 1924, 19,000 emigrated; in 1925, 30,000; in 1926, 30,000, and in 1927, 27,000. We thought there was going to be an improvement, but we find that for the first eight months of 1928 19,095 emigrated. Let us compare those figures with the first eight months of last year and we find that 16,912 emigrated then. During the first eight months of this year there has been the worst emigration since this Government came into power.

If we examine the figures in regard to livestock for the same period we find the number of cattle has been reduced by 327,000. If we go into figures for tillage, the number of acres under tillage has been decreased by 225,000. As I have already mentioned, the farmers can only live by drawing on their savings and we find on looking at bank deposits that these deposits have been decreased by £30,000,000. We can only conclude that the people have been living on their savings and they must come to the end of those savings some time.

We have been assured by the Minister for Agriculture, and I suppose he [844] speaks for the Executive Council in this matter, that the policy is to develop the lines that are suitable to this country, not to pay any attention to what we are importing and to export more in order to pay for the imports. I think the Minister for Agriculture said something to this effect: Why should we try to stop the £7,000,000 worth of wheat we are importing? Would it not be better to produce £7,000,000 worth of butter, eggs and other things and pay for the wheat in that way? The policy of this Government is an export policy, but, if we examine the export figures, what do we find? We would expect to find that since this Government came into power the exports have at least improved, but such is not the case. The first year that has been quoted for the Free State is 1924. Compare 1924 with 1927. We find that in 1924 we exported £17,000,000 worth, odd, of cattle and in 1927 we exported £11,868,000 worth. In 1924 we exported, in sheep, £1,698,000 worth and in 1927, £1,325,000 worth. As regards pigs and bacon, in 1924 we exported £4,316,000 worth and in 1927 £4,582,000 worth, a slight improvement.

Mr. GOREY: What were the differences in prices?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE: The Deputy is quoting pounds sterling?

Dr. RYAN: Yes. That is why I do not understand the Deputy's interruption.

Mr. GOREY: I mean what were the average prices of cattle and pigs then and now?

Dr. RYAN: I will give the volume later. Eggs in shell, £3,079,000 in 1924, and £3,039,000 in 1927; barley, in 1924 £17,000, in 1927 £142,000. There is a big improvement in the export of barley, very well set off by a big increase in the import of malt. Apart from barley the only increase is a slight one in the case of pigs and bacon, but if the pigs and bacon are taken separately [845] we find that there is a big increase in the export of pigs in 1927 over 1924, but a big decrease in the figure for bacon; in other words, more live pigs are going out now but less bacon is going out, and therefore less employment is being given in the country. From a table in the Trade and Shipping statistics figures are given for volumes, which are the figures in which I think Deputy Gorey is interested. Taking 100 to represent exports for the years 1911-1913, the total volume of export of agricultural produce from the Free State for the year 1922 would be 106.5, for 1924 104.7, for 1925 87, for 1926 86.7, and for 1927 99.3, so that the volume has also gone down.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan): What was the figure for 1927?

Dr. RYAN: 99.3.

Mr. HOGAN: And for 1926?

Dr. RYAN: 86.7.

Mr. HOGAN: Not bad, you know. We are turning the corner.

Dr. RYAN: Yes, we are turning the corner there all right, but I was about to give a comparison. Denmark is one of our principal competitors in the British market. Taking Denmark's exports to Great Britain for 1911-13 as represented by the figure 100, in 1922 they had 100, in 1924 139.3, in 1925 132.3, in 1926 138.7, and in 1927 164.5, compared with our 99.3. Denmark has got round the corner before us.

Mr. HOGAN: Where are these figures?

Dr. RYAN: I got them from the Trade and Shipping statistics. I will now take individual commodities for 1927 as compared with 1911-13. Again taking 100 to represent 1911-13, we find that the volume of sheep and lambs was 94.8, cattle 96.4, butter 90.1, pigs 118.1, bacon 60.7, poultry 68.0, eggs 122.4, horses 46.3, hides 107.7, and wool 113.4. You will notice in those figures that there are only four increases—pigs, eggs, hides, and wool—and the only satisfactory increase is in the case of eggs, because while the export of pigs has increased by 18 per cent., the export [846] of the bacon, on the other hand, has decreased by 40 per cent. Hides and wool have both increased, but we must certainly regard both of these items as raw materials. We have at present leather and woollen goods coming into the country, and as long as that continues I think that we cannot look on the export of these items as satisfactory.

As I said, Cumann na nGaedheal speakers have tried to persuade us that we were not badly off. I think that we might get on better if we were to assume for the moment that we are not too well off, until we find out what that condition is due to. It is explained by some people who admit that we are badly off as being due to post-war depression. Then there are speakers who do not take the world view of the situation, and they put it all down to the Civil War, and there are others who say that the farmer's standard of living is too high, that he is now living up to a standard that he did not dare to live up to before the war, that he smokes cigarettes, goes to the pictures, and does other things that are only good for his betters to do. There are other explanations of this depression, and there are explanations that the members of the Government are quite well aware of. I know quite well that there is a similar depression in many other countries, but —I do not know if it would be any consolation—I have not seen it proved that the depression in other countries has been the same in extent as it has been here. For instance, I do not believe that in other countries they have the same decline in population, in live stock, in tillage, or in bank deposits as in the case of this country, and I am quite certain that they have not had the same decline in exports—not that I would put too much credit on the exports, because it is quite evident to anybody who goes through the streets of Dublin at present that if the people were getting enough to eat we would not be exporting so much.

I believe that the first cause of this great depression in agriculture is the cost of government; and I think that there can be very little doubt about that. As I have pointed out, the farmer gets 30 per cent. more now than he got [847] in 1911-13; but, if we take the revenue derived from the Twenty-six Counties, the average yearly revenue for these three years was £10,975,000, or £2 9s. 5d. per head of the population; whereas the revenue for 1927-8 was £23,900,000, or £6 9s. 2d. per head, so that the farmer, who gets 30 per cent. more for his produce, has to pay 160 per cent. more in taxation. I know that it may be disputed by the President, or by somebody else, that the farmer pays taxes at all, but somebody pays them; the producers, according to the Minister for Finance, pay these taxes in the end, and the Minister for Agriculture, I think, says that the small farmers pay them. Somebody is paying them; and whereas the producers are getting 30 per cent. more now, they have to pay 160 per cent. more for the cost of government. I know that I could be told that the cost of government has gone up in other countries. So it has; but if we make a comparison with the farmer in Great Britain, for instance, I think we shall find that our cost of government has gone up far more than it should. When Article V. of the Treaty was being discussed, the British delegates suggested that the taxable capacity of the Free State was 1.5 per cent. of that of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The revenue for Great Britain last year was £805,000,000, and if we were to pay only 1.5 per cent. of that our revenue should have been £12,075,000, while in fact it was £25,060,000, or over 100 per cent. of what it should be if we were on an equal footing with the British farmer in order to compete in the British market. In addition to that 100 per cent. over-taxation for central taxation the Irish farmer is also compelled to pay about 130 per cent. more for local taxation than in the years 1911-13, and against that we have been informed that the British farmer is going to be relieved of those rates in toto. There is another charge which I want to mention but do not want to go into, and that is the £3,000,000 for land annuities. A motion will be coming up with regard to that. But at any rate we may put it down as a bill against the Irish [848] farmer. In addition to that £3,000,000 there is the other £2,000,000 that went in the same financial agreement. That is with regard to taxation. Whoever pays these taxes, I suppose in the end they come as a burden on production. Therefore we may put it down as a charge on the Irish farmer, who is our principal producer. Now we come to another point. In order to produce his cattle, pigs, butter and other things the Irish farmer has sometimes to buy feeding stuffs. According to Professor Whelehan, in his report on the application for a tariff on flour, we find that Denmark gets her offals from England at 5/11 per cwt., while Ireland pays 8/8.

Mr. HOGAN: That is for bran?

Dr. RYAN: For wheat offals. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Danish farmer can successfully compete with the Irish farmer in the British market with his butter or bacon or anything else, because not only does he get his offals cheaper, but in the case of butter he gets a better price in the British market? For instance, taking these prices for offals, if we take the ordinary ration which would be recommended by the Department of Agriculture here for the feeding of pigs, we find that the Danish farmer has an advantage over the Irish farmer of 10/- per head for every fat pig that he turns out, in the price of offals alone as given here. In the case of butter it is true that these offals do not enter very much into the feeding of cows, but perhaps they have an influence on the prices of other feeding stuffs in Denmark, and consequently the Danish farmer is in a position to feed his cows at a cheaper cost than the Irish farmer. But in addition to that the Danish farmer is getting a much better price for his butter in the London market than the Irish farmer gets. I mentioned earlier that the volume of butter exported from this country was only 90 per cent. last year of what it was in 1913. Therefore all the legislation that has been passed here to improve our dairying industries has not so far had much effect.

One would expect also that there should be some improvement from year [849] to year. It would, of course, be very hard to say whether we should get a better price this year on the London market than last year, but we should, at least, expect that we would go nearer to the Danish price this year than last year. Such, however, is not the case. In August, 1927, there was a difference of 6/- between the price of Danish and that of Irish butter. In August, 1928, the difference was 11/5; in September, 1927, it was 10/7; in September, 1928, it was 16/3; in October, 1927, it was 13/5; and in October, 1928, it was 18/1. Thus, not only is it not true that we are catching up on Denmark, but, on the contrary, we seem to be going further behind the Danish price in the British market.

In addition to referring to those feeding stuffs, pollard and bran, and to quoting the difference between the price of Danish and Irish butter, I could go back and give the different prices of feeding stuffs in 1913 as compared with the present year and see whether the farmer is within 30 per cent. of the difference. We find that the prices of the three principal feeding stuffs, pollard, bran and maize, to the wholesale merchants have increased by 46 per cent. When I was getting these figures from the wholesaler who gave them to me, I asked him what was his percentage of profit in 1913 and what was it to-day, and he told me that it was a little higher now than it was then. I said, “You send that on to the retailer and his profit is a little higher also than in 1913.” He said, “Yes, he has a little higher profit also.” So that to the farmer not only is it 46 per cent. dearer, but there is a little profit added on. The farmer who is selling his stuff for 30 per cent. over pre-war price is paying almost 60 per cent. higher for his feeding stuff. I have mentioned already that the farmers are the only people who have not got something in the way of a cost of living bonus, or an increased fee, or something else to cover the difference in prices as between now and 1913. We find that farmers, who are supposed to be somewhere about 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the producers of this country, according to the Census, those engaged in agriculture [850] number 672,000, and that that number are maintaining and supporting 80 per cent. of the people of Ireland, or 2,300,000 people, because there is very little production otherwise to maintain that population. We think that that is a state of affairs that should be remedied.

Mr. HOGAN: There are only 672,000 farmers, but what about their wives and children?

Dr. RYAN: And labourers and their wives and children engaged in agriculture in this country.

Mr. HOGAN: There are 400,000 farms.

Dr. RYAN: Then several men must have three or four farms.

Mr. HOGAN: No.

Dr. RYAN: Well, the Census must be wrong. I suppose it is time to suggest a remedy for this state of affairs. We maintain that the cost of Government is too high. Therefore, I suppose, our first remedy would be a reduction in the cost of Government. I suggested this on a former occasion. I think it was during a discussion on one of the Appropriation Bills, and the Minister for Agriculture told me that even if I were Minister for Finance I could not reduce expenditure in this country, at least to the extent I advocated. There are certain countries in Europe that have done away with armies—agricultural countries just like ourselves. We have a large police force, and the agricultural community in this country, who are the principal taxpayers, see very little use for that police force, and see no reason why it should not be cut down by half.

Mr. DAVIN: A lot of their own sons are in the police force.

Dr. RYAN: Because they cannot get anything else to do. The agricultural community have very little interest in paying pensions to the old R.I.C., who were associated in their minds with the levelling of their farms during the Land War, and with the completion of the conquest, so far as they could do it, during the Black-and-Tan war. They see very little reason why judges and [851] others should be pensioned by this country for doing Britain's work while Britain was in direct control of this country. I think you can hardly blame the farmers if they fail to understand why a Minister, civil servant, or anybody else could not live on £1,000 a year. They think that the Free State Government might, at least, have been as diligent on their behalf as the Northern Government were in keeping land annuities here to relieve taxation. There are certain farmers who happen to have brothers in high positions earning £1,600, £1,800 or £2,000 a year, and these farmers consider themselves perhaps quite as good in every way as a man who is lucky enough to have a big job. The farmer, however, must go on toiling, as he has no hope of a pension, no hope of a bonus, no hope of promotion, no hope even of an annual holiday. This question of pensions, not only to the R.I.C. and people who are pensioned off after the Treaty, but future pensions, is an intolerable burden on the farmer.

I noticed that the Minister for Agriculture, when speaking on the motion in regard to pensions for widows and orphans which was introduced by Deputy T. Murphy, stated that the hard-working man received no pension and did not want it. If that were to apply to civil servants and others this would be a different country. I have already made reference to feeding stuffs. I know that for some time in the recent past the Minister for Agriculture has been advocating that people who have barley and oats should feed them to their stock. That is certainly very good advice. There is certainly at present no profit whatever in growing oats for market, and there is very little profit in barley or wheat. I read in the “Daily Mail” a few days ago that President Cosgrave said that we have had a succession of bad seasons, but that this year's harvest, generally speaking, is good. The President, speaking in October, 1927, said a very wise thing and it is a pity that he did not keep it in mind. He said: “I would say offhand that the farmer knows more about his business than any member of this House who is not engaged [852] in farming.” I believe that he will find it hard to convince the farmers that this is a good harvest. I do not know what readers of the “Daily Mail” will think, but it certainly will be very bad for the President and for the Government if the “Daily Mail” gets into the hands of the farmers. As to prices, there is possibly a very slight profit in barley, but I think it is only a possibility. There is also a profit on wheat.

Mr. HOGAN: How much a barrel?

Dr. RYAN: About 24/- a barrel.

Mr. HOGAN: What profit per acre?

Dr. RYAN: About £3 18/- an acre. The price for barley this year is 15/6. The price in 1911-12 was 16/7½, in 1912-13 it was 17/10, and in 1913-14 15/4. A bottle of stout was 2d. pre-war and now it is 6d. That would, of course, imply that a farmer should get three times for his barley compared with 1913. The brewer is not altogether to blame, as he has to pay about 700 per cent. more duty than in 1913. There again the Government comes in and takes the profit from the farmer. I do not know if he takes it from the brewer, but the brewer can look after himself. I saw a sample of barley the other day, and it certainly had an interesting history. It was sold in Carlow by a farmer for 12/6. The retailer sold it for 16/- to a buyer in Dublin. The transit companies got 1/6. The buyer in Dublin had it for 17/6. He was grinding it into barley meal and he expected to be able to sell it again for 19/-. If that barley goes back to the retailer in Carlow he will have it for 20/6, and, if it goes back to the farmer, he will pay 22/- for barley which he sold for 12/6. If we were to substitute home-grown grain for imported feeding stuffs there might be some hope for tillage in this country, but so long as the farmers are tilling in order to sell their grain on the market there can be no hope for tillage. That is quite evident. If the farmers were to grow grain for feeding stock there would be a profit both in tillage and stock, but every farmer is not in the position to do that. We find from a series of experiments that were carried out by county instructors in agriculture [853] all over the country that home-grown oats was as good as maize for feeding up to 50 per cent. rations to pigs. Barley meal was as good as maize for pigs in all cases, and oats was as good as maize when fed to calves. In fact they pronounced it better.

For fattening cattle it was proved that a mixture of oats, barley and wheat was as good as maize and cotton-cake. If we find from live animal experiments, which I suppose would be more conclusive as a proof to us than any chemical analysis or anything else, that they are as good, surely some attempt should be made to see that the production of home grain is increased in order to replace the feeding stuffs that are being imported.

If the real value of oats and barley, therefore, were put down to be the same as Indian meal and other feeding stuffs coming into the country, we should have quite a different story. We should find that tillage was quite a profitable proposition. I suppose the difficulty is to regulate this matter. About twelve months ago, when talking on this subject of the replacing of feeding stuffs coming into the country by home-grown grain, the Minister for Agriculture asked me would there be any room in the country for grass. It is not going to take the whole country to produce the grain. As a matter of fact, about three and a half million acres would be sufficient, taking the average yield of these crops over the last few years.

I may be told that it is not the business of the Government to interfere, that the farmers should do it for themselves. I have already pointed out that the farmers, some of them at any rate, have no capital. Many farmers have approached me during the last year to get loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation in order to buy horses or machinery to do some tillage. There are many farmers who are quite willing to do tillage, even under present conditions, but they have not got the capital or the horses or implements, and some of them could not even afford to buy the seed. Then there are those who are producing grain, and who have cattle and pigs and yet do not keep that grain. Why do they not keep it? For [854] want of capital. These men are waiting for the grain to be threshed in order to pay their rent or rates or other pressing bills, and they cannot afford to keep the grain. They must sell it for whatever price they can get. There are other farmers who are, perhaps, a little better off and could afford to keep the grain for a little while, but they have not got the storage. So that there is difficulty in this matter. It is a matter that requires organisation and Government help if the farmers are to be enabled to keep the grain in order to feed it to their own stock, or to sell it to their neighbour or somebody else in this country.

I do not believe this question can be got over by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. We were told some time ago that that Corporation would make everything right. I do not believe it will. I believe that there are many farmers at present who could not avail of help from the Corporation, because they could not afford to pay the interest on the loan in addition to their other charges. There are many men who believe that credit would put them on their feet. Many of them helped to put the present Government into power last September, believing that the Agricultural Credit Corporation was going to make them right. We were told by prominent speakers on the Government side during that election that if they were returned to power every worthy man would get a loan. That is fourteen months ago, and many have not got loans—in fact very few of them. Apart from the question of credit something should be done to encourage tillage. It has been proved by the agricultural instructors, whose experiments were controlled by the Department, that oats, barley and wheat, according to the animal they are to be fed to, are just as good as maize.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan): Does it not depend on the age of the animal?

Dr. RYAN: Not at all. I have mentioned already oats for calves and a mixture of oats, barley and wheat for big cattle. At present farmers who are buying imported feeding stuffs for calves or pigs are paying up to 13/- [855] per cwt. for maize. The tillage farmer here does not want anything like 13/- per cwt. for oats, barley or anything else. There is quite a good margin there to pay for any expenses that might be incurred by the Government or any agency set up by the Government to make regulations in the matter. For the last two years oats were sold from 10/6 to 13/6 per barrel. Last spring, oats were bought back again for seed or feeding, as the case may be, at 22/- per barrel. There is surely something wrong there. The farmer spends his year at it, pays his rent and rates, pays labour and everything else to get the oats sown, and when he has it all done he gets from 10/6 to 13/6 per barrel, while the man who buys it from him and puts it in a store for six months gets as much again for keeping it for that time. There is necessity for Government action, and nothing can make the matter right except Government action.

There have been certain suggestions made. One suggestion made by the County Wexford Committee of Agriculture, which did not get very much sympathy from the Minister, was that vacant stores throughout the country should be taken over by the Government, and that the grain should be taken from the farmers at a reasonable figure. Afterwards when the grain was disposed of, the farmers could get whatever was left over after paying all the expenses.

Mr. HOGAN: Supposing there was nothing left over?

Dr. RYAN: Then they would not get anything.

Mr. DAVIN: Their credit is worth more.

Dr. RYAN: If maize is worth 13/6 to the farmer, and if the Government were to do this and were to give 10/- for oats and barley to the farmers, as they have been proved equal to maize as a feeding stuff, they can be sold to anybody that wants feeding stuffs for something under 13/- per cwt. There is a margin there of 1/6 or 2/- per cwt. for management expenses. Even a Government Department should do it for 1/6 per cwt.

[856] Mr. HOGAN: I should not like to be depending on the profits of that sale.

Dr. RYAN: The Minister for Agriculture is very much averse to doles or subsidies. There are no doles or subsidies in that scheme. If he is going to sell oats for 13/- per cwt. after buying at 10/-, and he could not manage it with 3/- per cwt., then I say buy for 9/6. That would be a better price than the present price, which is only about 8/- per cwt. I know there would be certain difficulties. You would have to make regulations. Some people have a preference for Indian meal or maize meal as against barley meal or oatmeal, and that prejudice has to be got over. The only way you can get over that prejudice, as far as I can see, is by not giving them imported feeding stuffs as long as you have home-grown food in the country. The Government must, of course, find a certain amount of money, because they must pay a certain amount of cash down to the farmer and they must wait to get the cash back from the purchasers, but we have been assured again and again by the Government that there is no difficulty about getting money, that the credit of the Government is good. Surely they should be able to get money for a thing like this that is going to benefit the whole of the people. They cannot object to it on that score. Then they must be prepared for the dumping of foreign feeding stuffs against the home-grown feeding stuffs, but they can deal with that too. They can deal with it as they failed to deal with it in the case of flour, for instance.

The next difficulty is the balanced ration. We are told that we do not produce sufficient albumenoids in this country. It is necessary to give animals a balanced ration, and that depends on what the animal is and what its age is. It would be very bad, for instance, to feed pigs entirely on oats. Therefore the ration must be balanced. Some animals do not want them, but most animals require albumenoids. You do not want any to fatten ducks, but most animals must have albumenoids. We are told that we do not produce albumenoids in this country, and I do not see why we do not, because they come principally from meat and fish. [857] There is as good a supply of fish and meat in this country as in any other, if only the thing was organised. There have been meat factories here for some time, and there are others starting. There are fish-curing stations also in the country and plenty of fish to be got. The only thing that is required is organisation. There are also certain vegetables, such as peas and beans, which contain a very high percentage of albumenoids, but which are not grown very much here. I do not know why that is, because they were grown more extensively heretofore. I see from the tillage returns that they are grown much more extensively in the Six Counties than they are here, and I suppose they find some use for them. If this thing were regulated, if we could only produce our own fish and meat meal, produce our own beans and peas, we could very quickly do away with the feeding stuffs which are imported for the sake of the albumenoids which they contain.

Therefore, we could get over practically the whole difficulty of imported feeding stuffs. I quoted here before Professor Whelehan on the application for a tariff on flour and I stated that he showed us how offals were selling much more cheaply in Denmark than they are here. He also gives us figures showing the amount of offals that go to Denmark and that come here from England. He says that although we imported 65 per cent. of the total exports of flour from Great Britain in 1926, still we only got 27 per cent. of the offals that they exported, whereas Denmark, which imported only 3 per cent. of their flour, got 45 per cent. of their offals. If we had got the amount of offals that would properly go with the amount of flour that we imported, the price of offals in this country would have been cheaper. We would have had a sufficiency of offals, but as it was there was a scarcity and the price went up.

Mr. HOGAN: Would the Deputy deal with one point which is apropos: supposing you produce as much grain as you require, will it not be necessary for you, in order to keep your rotation right, to have too much roots? Is not that the whole problem?

[858] Dr. RYAN: The amount of the root crop in 1928 was 700,000 acres. The amount under corn was 814,000 acres, so that there is obviously an attempt to evade the growing of corn. The usual thing in any farm is to have first corn, then root crop, and then corn again. You should have at least twice as much corn as root crop, so that you could increase the grain crop twice as much before you would have any disturbance. You could go further than that. In the part of the country where I was reared the custom was to sow three years grain, one year root crop, and one year grain. In that way you would get four times as much grain as root crop. It would be much easier to put that system into operation now than it was to carry it on at that time. At that time, artificial manures were very little used, and it was rather a tax on the land to grow grain three years in succession. Now, when artificial manures have been introduced, it should be possible to do that easily.

Mr. HOGAN: To grow grain three years in succession?

Dr. RYAN: I have seen it done. I do not know whether it is good farming or not. By cutting out imported feeding stuffs we could save £5,000,000 a year to the adverse trade balance. There is, however, a much bigger item. The importation of wheat and flour amounts to £7,000,000. Why do we not do something to examine this question of wheat growing? It appears to me that there is an absolute prejudice in the Government against the growing of wheat. If we only look at some of the statements that were made about the growing of wheat we will be convinced of that. I mentioned here on a previous occasion that last year the yield of wheat in this country was twice as good as the yield in Canada and Russia. The Minister for Agriculture in replying said, if the official records are right, that he had been in Canada and that he had seen quite as good a yield in Canada as here.

Mr. HOGAN: No. I agreed with you, in fact.

Dr. RYAN: That is all right. One of the objections they have to our [859] growing wheat here is that we do not produce strong wheat. We have, in fact, grown strong wheat. It may not be a profitable crop. Some farmers say that they do not get much profit from it. But what is the objection to weak wheat as compared with strong wheat? The real difference between strong wheat and weak wheat, as far as I can find out, is that strong wheat absorbs more water when milled and being made into bread. It takes more water than the weak wheat. There is very little difference otherwise. The miller seems to favour strong wheat, because he can sell more water to the public than in weak wheat. The weak wheat, on the other hand, is bought generally by the people of the country who make their own bread. When this Government were considering the introduction of the beet-growing system, I wonder they did not consider the growing of wheat rather than of beet. There was standing out there in our imports an item of £7,000,000 every year for wheat and flour as against the figure of about £3,000,000 for sugar. You had farmers all over the country who were acquainted with the growing of wheat, but who had never seen beet grown. You had mills all over the country with Irish capital, while you had to go outside the country for capital to start a beet factory. The sum of £280,000 would certainly not be required for wheat-growing, as was required in the case of beet, because I believe that farmers will grow wheat if they are granted thirty shillings per barrel. The price this year was twenty-four shillings. Therefore, if the difference had been made up this year, for the amount of wheat raised in the country the sum would only come to about £60,000, and if we had gone on increasing the acreage under wheat instead of paying this £280,000 for beet-growing, we would find that we would have £1,500,000 cut off that £7,000,000. I wonder have the sugar imports been reduced by £1,500,000. In addition, you would have had the benefit given to every county in the State. There is no county in Ireland that could not grow wheat, while there are only three or four counties around the [860] sugar beet factory in Carlow which get any benefit from the sugar-beet project. We know perfectly well that the offals from wheat—bran and pollard— are very useful as feeding stuff. We are only carrying out experiments to ascertain if the offals from beet are of any use or not. We might also say that bread is a more important article than sugar at any time.

It has been suggested that this question of wheat could be dealt with in many ways, but there is probably only one way in which it could be dealt with. It has been proposed, for instance, that a subsidy should be given per acre. That would hardly be fair. The beet system is a much fairer system than that. If a farmer goes to the trouble of tilling his land properly and having a good crop, he is certainly entitled to a greater reward than the man who does not till his land properly. I think, therefore, that a subsidy per acre is not a fair system. It has been suggested also—I do not know if it was suggested seriously—that it was part of our policy to put on a tax. That is not a very good idea, and it certainly is not a part of our policy. It is also suggested that the flour of every Irish miller should contain a certain proportion of Irish-grown wheat flour. That might be a good plan all right. It would certainly make it very difficult for the foreign millers to dump flour into this country. It would have that advantage, but it would seem to be a difficult thing to work. It would be very hard to regulate matters so that you would have a certain definite percentage of Irish flour in the flour consumed. It would be practically impossible for any Government Department, or any agency that it might appoint, to deal with this matter, to carry out the system fairly. If we take, in rough outline, the system that has been in existence in countries like Switzerland and Norway—the system of central purchase—there would not seem to be many difficulties in connection with it. If the Government themselves, or an agency appointed by them, were to take the entire wheat business into their own hands, if they were to say that for the next five years every barrel of first-class wheat grown by a farmer in this [861] country would be worth thirty shillings, it might meet the position. I do not know whether the farmers would be satisfied with that figure or not, but that could be found out. In addition, if they were to have the buying of foreign wheat in their hands, surely the problem could be dealt with properly.

Suppose the scheme had started last year. The amount of wheat grown this year by farmers they would have bought at thirty shillings per barrel. They would have bought the remaining wheat wanted for the country from somewhere else. They would get to-day Manitoba wheat, which every miller is supposed to use—but which the facts do not prove—at thirty shillings, or Pacific at 28/6 per barrel. They would know in June roughly the amount of wheat grown, when they get the return from the Civic Guards as to the number of acres, and in November or December they would know for certain how much wheat the Irish farmers were willing to dispose of. They would then purchase the foreign wheat. If a miller, say, from Waterford or Dublin, wanted 500 barrels of wheat, and if the proportion of Irish wheat required was 5 per cent., then this central agency would write to their agents for foreign wheat wherever they might be and tell them to supply this man with 475 barrels of foreign wheat, and they would write, say, to some co-operative society and tell them to supply this man with 25 barrels of Irish wheat.

I do not say that we should absolutely maintain the percentage in every case, because it makes it impossible, but in or about the percentage should be maintained. That is, a miller would be compelled, on giving his order, to take anywhere between 2 per cent. to 10 per cent. of Irish wheat as part of his order. As it happens, the price of Irish wheat would be somewhat about the same as imported wheat. This year we may have to pay more for Irish wheat. But if the price was spread over the whole lot it could be put down at a certain amount. You surely could have a saving if an agent were to buy all the foreign wheat for the country. Surely it could be bought at a somewhat lower price than the millers are buying it for on their own. Apart from [862] that, the whole cost of the thing could be levelled and the miller charged a certain amount for his wheat. We will probably have to face the problem whether it is going to increase the price of flour or not. I do not know how we can face that. It appears it does not make a lot of difference what price wheat is when you come to the price of flour. For instance, the price of Manitoba wheat in 1925 was 41/-, and the price of flour was 44/-. In 1928 the price of wheat was 30/-, and the price of flour was 36/6. That is, the price of wheat during those three years has come down 11/- per barrel, and the price of flour has come down 7/6 per barrel. If there was any reason for that it would be all right, but as a matter of fact the reasons are the other way round. Manitoba wheat is supposed to give red bran and red pollard. The price of red bran in 1925 was £5; this year it was £8 16/-. Red pollard in 1925 was £8; this year it is £9 6/-. Although the price of wheat came down 11/-, the price of flour only came down 7/6, and the price of offals went up 50 per cent. So that if by the central purchasing of wheat it could be proved that we are going to increase the price of wheat by 2/- per barrel, it is no argument that flour should go up, because flour should be down now, not to 36/6, but somewhere below 33/-, because offals are better now than they were. The millers would give one the impression—at least the bakers are more responsible for it— that our imported flour is all strong flour. They do not use anything else. This is Manitoba wheat, of course. You can only get red offals from Manitoba wheat. If the offals are white then it is not Manitoba wheat. But if any farmer goes into the premises of a provision merchant to buy feeding stuffs he will see just as much white pollard as red pollard and as much white bran as red bran. Where does it come from? We are supposed to get our bread from strong flour, and the white offals must come from somewhere. In addition to the two and a half million acres that would be required to produce all our own feeding stuffs, it would take about half a million acres to grow our own wheat. It may take years to get all the [863] land back into tillage, but, at any rate, as we set ourselves the task of producing our own feeding stuffs and our own wheat, we would be on the road towards making farming a profitable industry, towards giving employment to all the agricultural population, and towards the reduction of our adverse trade balance by £12,000,000 a year. If that would not be a direct advantage to the farmer, it would certainly be an indirect advantage.

We have profiteering. The report of the Tribunal on Food Prices stated that the retail price of beef and mutton is between 1½d. and 2d. per lb. higher than it should be; that is to say, the farmer who rears up a beast, from the time it is a calf until it is ready to go to the butcher, gets at present prices for a 9 cwt. beast £17 10s., but the butcher who buys that beast and disposes of it in 3 or 4 days gets £4 more than he should get, according to the Food Prices Tribunal. If this were regulated, I do not say that the farmer would get £21 instead of £17, but, at any rate, it would bring down the cost-of-living figure, and in that way the cost of Government would come down, and the farmer would have his advantage like everyone else. In the same way the price of milk was pronounced to be far too high; also bread and other articles.

There is another matter. The farmer here sells his beef. I think this week the price is 39/- per cwt. A beast sold at that price is sent across to England, and it is sold at about 60/- per cwt. A beast that is sold here for £16 is sold in England for £24. The £8 difference must be going somewhere. I do not know what the Government have done to remedy this matter. Surely it is just as important a question to the farmers of the country in general as the improvement——

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan): I want to understand that. Does the Deputy mean that the beast bought here for £16 is sold for £24 at Birkenhead?

Dr. RYAN: That is as far as I understand it. The price quoted there is 60/-.

[864] Mr. HOGAN: We will both go into dealing at once and make a fortune.

Dr. RYAN: I think it would be more the Minister's business to go in against the dealers in this case. Another matter that the farmers have to complain of is that their land is still unpurchased, that in spite of promises at two general elections in 1927, numbers of them have not yet got their land vested, and they are paying more than they should be paying for it if it was vested. In connection with that, too, we find that labourers' cottages are not being built now as they were in the old times. The Government may be congratulated perhaps on their regulations—although I find they have not had the desired effect, they at least have done their best—with regard to the export of butter and eggs. This export, it must be remembered, so far, at any rate, is for one market, and it is certainly not good policy to be depending on one market. Of course, the Minister agrees with that, as I gathered from his speech at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce. We are told by some people that the British market is the best market. It is good, I suppose; otherwise certain people would not deal in it. But it must not be absolutely the best market, because Denmark, which gets the highest price for butter in the British market, only sells two-thirds of its butter there; it sells one-third elsewhere. If the British market was by far the best or the best, Denmark would naturally sell all her butter there. The same thing applies to New Zealand. New Zealand gets a better price than we do in the British market. Yet she does not sell all her butter there. An effort should be made to develop the home market. It is certainly the surest market, and it will be always there whatever may happen. Whatever there is in the home market we, at least, ought to keep for ourselves. For instance, although it may seem good policy to export £4,000,000 worth of bacon and buy back another £3,000,000 worth, it seems to me it would be better if we supplied our own market first and then exported the surplus. The same applies to butter. We do import a certain quantity of butter. It is not much. But it would [865] be better if we supplied our own market first. We cannot, of course, have a home market unless our people are working.

When I am coming up here from Wexford I see in Wexford foundries that are capable of turning out agricultural machinery for the whole of this country, and yet the people in Wexford are idle and foreign machinery is coming in. There is a cement factory closed down and cement is coming in. Passing Enniscorthy, I see a bacon factory closed, while bacon is coming into the country and pigs are going out of it. At Ferns, I see an old tool factory closed down. Coming to Arklow, I see a large factory closed down. I cannot very well advocate the opening of it, for it is for munitions. But there are fishermen idle there. In Rathdrum flour mills are closed down, and then in Rathnew there is a brick factory closed. Every one of these places should be opened and working. There is a demand for the articles that these factories could produce in the country, but they are closed and people are idle. That is what passes for an industrial policy with the Government, the policy of free competition and of not interfering. But it is very hard to expect any industrial policy from a Minister for Industry and Commerce whose pronouncement on November the 3rd, 1927, was:

“We were told that if we could reduce our imports in certain ways we would, in fact, help to reduce the adverse trade balance, and we are to reduce these imports by producing certain things at home. To make out that that would help to reduce the adverse trade balance would be like the doctor who smashed the thermometer in order to show that the patient was well. If the trade balance means anything in the way of danger, it surely means this, that we buy articles at a greater rate than we can afford, and if we simply transfer the selling of these articles to somebody inside the country we make very little difference—some difference, but very little—as far as reducing the trade balance is concerned.”

I hold that the Minister who has, as [866] that statement shows, such a small grasp of the situation is not going to bring the industrial position back to what it should be.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE: Is the Deputy going to lead us into a debate on tariffs? I suggest, speaking from experience, if he does it will smother the debate on agriculture.

Dr. RYAN: I do not think I will be very long more now.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE: I am not objecting to the length of the Deputy's speech. I am objecting to the introduction of general tariffs.

Dr. RYAN: There is no Deputy from any part of the country who has not a similar story to tell about the towns he passes through on his way to Dublin. Even city Deputies cannot come to this House without seeing factories closed. If a policy had been adopted to keep these works open I hold that the home market would be there for farm produce.

You cannot have a home market unless the people are working, and unless the people who are working have a decent wage they cannot buy such things as butter, bacon and milk, the farmer's principal produce. They can buy white bread and tea, but it is of very little consequence to the farmer as a producer whether they do or not. If he wants to sell his produce on the home market it must be to people who have a decent wage. If the Government had the interests of the agricultural community at heart, leaving out other interests altogether, they would, in order to create a home market, see that everybody was working and was being paid a decent wage for the work. I know the farmers are paying a poor wage. There are many agricultural labourers idle, and many who are working are getting a very poor wage. I believe the farmers cannot afford to employ any more under present conditions. If things were made right, as they should be, the farmer would employ more men and pay better wages, and if he did not. I say the Government would be entitled to compel him to do so.

[867] That is the position of the farmers. They are in a hopeless position. Small things have been done to help them, but big things have been done to keep them back. We could, perhaps, ask the farmers to bear with it if there was some sort of a fight or agitation on which would eventually result in an improvement of the national status, or something else. But the farmer has nothing to look forward to. As far as I can see, the Government have given no indication that they will do anything to deal with tillage questions, do anything which would promote work or solve the big questions which affect the farmers. They do not even try to keep the farmer's hope up, if they cannot do anything else. They do not even try to do that by holding out inducements to the farmer to put up with his difficulties until we get some sort of an improved national status. We are not moving in that direction.

I ask the Dáil, in conclusion, to support this motion of censure on the Executive Council. I propose this vote of censure because the Government have failed to reduce the cost of government, and have failed to do anything with regard to local taxation which they certainly should have done, considering the amount of money going into the Exchequer. They should be censured, because they have failed to do anything with regard to land annuities which the farmers are paying, or with regard to the other amounts going out of the country every year; because they have failed to bring in any scheme or any policy for the improvement of tillage and the production of feeding stuffs; because of the prejudice of the Government against the production of wheat; for the non-fulfilment of their promises with regard to credit and land purchase; for their reluctance or refusal to deal with the profiteering question, and, finally, for persistent reliance on what passes as an industrial policy.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

Mr. M. O'REILLY: I rise in order formally to second the vote of censure proposed by Deputy Ryan. At the same time I take it that does not debar [868] me from taking part in the debate at a later stage.

Mr. RODDY: I listened with a great deal of care and attention to the speech of Deputy Ryan. It was more in the nature of a lecture addressed to a body of agricultural experts than to an Assembly such as this. I propose, first of all, to deal with one of the last points the Deputy made. That was the point in connection with delay in the acquisition of land, and particularly delay in the vesting of land. This subject was debated at very great length in April of this year. I think I indicated then, county by county, the progress that had been made in the distribution of land since the passing of the Land Act, 1923, or to be more accurate, since the Land Commission was transferred to the Free State Government from the 1st April, 1923. I showed then quite clearly that land was being distributed to-day three times faster than during the former regime. I showed also that vesting was proceeding at a considerably faster rate than it proceeded at any period during the former regime. Practically all the old estates—and I mean by the old estates the estates that were being dealt with by the C.D. Board and some small balance lying over under the 1903 Act—have been disposed of, and there only remains the vesting of estates acquired under the 1923 Act. The vesting of these estates is proceeding rapidly, much more rapidly than the vesting of estates proceeded at any period under the former regime. We hope, as time goes on, to proceed still more quickly and to reduce substantially the number of estates on hands.

Deputy Ryan in the course of his speech covered a great many points. He started off by making the rather bald statement that agriculture is in a bad way. That statement has been repeated on many different occasions during the last three or four years. Deputy Ryan did not proceed to indicate in exactly what way agriculture is in a bad way. We realise perfectly well that at the present moment there is undoubtedly rather a slump in certain agricultural prices. But that slump is not peculiar to this country. You have the same slump in prices in [869] most European countries, and, by a curious coincidence, the degree of the decrease in prices in those countries corresponds almost to the degree of the slump of prices in this country. That has been the case during the past few months. In fact, in many other countries the degree in the decrease is higher than in this country.

There is an indication of an upward tendency in the prices of our main agricultural products. During the past few weeks there has been a substantial increase in some areas in the prices of bacon. There is an indication that there will be an increase in cattle prices. Every man who has followed conditions relating to the cattle trade, during the last twelve months particularly, will admit candidly that there is bound to be a considerable increase in cattle prices during the course of the next two months. That is inevitable because of certain world-wide causes— a world-wide shortage in cattle, certain abnormal demands for leather, and other reasons which Deputy Ryan is well aware of.

The Deputy referred to the question of profiteering. Some eighteen months or two years ago a tribunal was established by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in response to a public demand to investigate certain charges that were made in the Press and from public platforms as to the profiteering going on in this country. A Commission was established of which two Deputies of this Dáil were members— Deputy Major Cooper and myself. Numbers of sittings were held all over the country. Sittings were held, I think, in about eight different centres in various parts of the country. Invitations were given to members of the public to attend and give evidence in support of the profiteering that was alleged to be taking place. Notwithstanding the invitations that were issued, not alone in the daily but in the local Press as well, not a single witness came forward to give evidence in support of the alleged charges of profiteering. It was difficult for a Commission of that kind, with their terms of reference and their limited powers of inquiring in certain directions, to investigate absolutely the charges that were [870] publicly made as to profiteering in certain matters.

If there is profiteering going on in certain essentials of the farmer's industry, the remedy is perfectly obvious. The farmer can easily overcome that difficulty by organisation and by co-operation. In many districts, particularly in the West of Ireland, the farmers, through their co-operative societies, are to-day buying very many of the raw materials they require for their industry and, as a consequence, they have made a very substantial reduction in their production costs. After all, you must face up to this position, that if production costs are going to be reduced, if the farmers' overhead charges are going to be substantially reduced, there is only one possible way of bringing about that reduction, and that is for the farmers themselves to co-operate and, through their co-operative organisations, to buy as much and as many as possible of the raw materials of their industry. That is what is being done in other progressive agricultural countries to-day, and until the farmers here are prepared to learn a lesson from the progressive farmers of other countries I fail to see what hope there is for them. Government subsidies and Government doles are not going to help the farmers here.

Recently I had the privilege of visiting Canada with some colleagues of mine in the Dáil. So far as my limited opportunities allowed me I investigated the conditions under which agriculture was carried on in that country. I made investigations, particularly in those districts and provinces where mixed farming is carried on. I find that farmers in Canada are gradually building up organisations to deal with every single product of their industry. Not only have they selling organisations for the purpose of dealing with those products, but they have purchasing organisations as well for the purpose of procuring the raw materials of their industry.

The need of co-operation amongst the agricultural community has been preached for twenty years. It has met with some limited success in certain directions, but until co-operation is put into general effect here, until the Irish farmer is as much interested in co-operation [871] as progressive farmers in Denmark, Australia and New Zealand, where co-operation has made tremendous strides in the last two years, the farmers in this country are not going to reduce very substantially the margin between production and selling costs that exists to-day. After all, the products of the agricultural industry are determined largely by prices and, if we examine the prices of agricultural products over a number of years, you will find that the farmers, in the main, are concentrating on the production of those products that have given them the best yield over quite a number of years.

So far as the balance of prices over a long period of years is concerned, the farmers are undoubtedly producing the commodities that have consistently paid them best over a number of years, and while Deputy Ryan and many of his colleagues have advocated the growing of wheat in this country much more extensively—I agree that for food it would be advisable for the farmers to grow wheat much more extensively—to grow wheat in the sense of competing with countries like Canada, the Argentine or the United States of America for the purpose of producing flour is sheer nonsense. After all, you must remember that in countries like Canada, the Argentine and the United States of America you have wonderfully rich land. I was told by farmers in Alberta that wheat was grown on their lands for a period of forty years without any fertilisation whatever, and in one case I was told—though the farmer concerned was not prepared to verify it—that wheat had been grown for sixty years without any fertilisation. That was wheat grown in the western provinces of Canada. The same thing applies to many of the western States of America, although there I admit that fertilisation has been more generally resorted to, and to a great extent the same is true of the Argentine. You have in these countries a set of conditions that we have not here, and in face of the competition of these countries, in face of the natural advantages they enjoy, advantages of soil and climate, you could not possibly [872] grow wheat here and make it an economic proposition.

In quoting statistics, the Deputy carefully refrained from quoting statistics that have been published for the first nine months of this year and that show quite clearly that there has been a considerable increase in the values of our main agricultural products. There has been a very substantial increase in cattle prices. I need not quote the figure, because I am sure the Deputy has got it. There has been an increase in the exports of sheep, pigs, bacon, and other things. The Deputy has carefully refrained from quoting these figures. After all, it is ridiculous, in my opinion, at all events, to try to establish a comparison between the year 1913, when conditions were absolutely normal, and the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925. The Deputy, as a farmer, must know that the policy of this country was completely revolutionised by the European War. The Deputy must further realise that the farmers went in extensively—almost exclusively —for grazing during those years, and, as a matter of fact, we are still, to a certain extent, suffering from the effects of the policy which was embarked on then. The farmers in many counties have held on to the grazing policy, even though they have, in fact, been losing money, or have only succeeded in making ends meet, during the last three, four and five years. But a comparison between the year 1913, when conditions were absolutely normal, when, as a matter of fact, agricultural conditions in Europe and in the world were more in our favour than at any period prior to that, and recent years, is absolutely ridiculous and does not lead us anywhere in the discussion of an important subject like this.

Farmers here have undoubtedly come to realise that if they are going to make good, if they are going to reduce the margin between the prices they get for the commodities they produce and the prices that they have to pay for the commodities that they require, there is only one way to do it, and that is to increase production, and go in more exensively for mixed farming, particularly for dairying. Farmers are coming to realise that. But it is a question that; [873] after all, cannot be unduly forced. You must allow the change to develop normally and gradually. The State can undoubtedly do a certain amount to encourage a development of that kind by education and by other methods, but such a development can only be brought about in time, and it will take some time to bring it about. That is the only reasonable way to set about the establishment of a proper agricultural economy in this country.

Mr. M. O'REILLY: In examining such an important question as agriculture in this country, I think it would be only fair to the farmers to start off by admitting this one fact, that farmers in this country, as well as farmers in other countries, have at all times done the best possible thing in the circumstances with which they were faced. It would hardly be fair to compare this country with Canada; neither would it be fair to compare this country with the Argentine. There is no possible comparison. In a country like Canada you have mass production in a rather weak state. I may tell you that I have no great reverence for Canada. Canada would be a rich country if it got an opportunity; it has not got it and it will not get it. Canada will remain more or less as it is. The Argentine is a different country—a country that has made its opportunities. It organised itself; it changed from being a huge cattle and sheep-raising country into an intensely agricultural country in a few years. Part of the Province of Buenos Aires produces as much wheat as all Canada, so that there is no comparison between those two countries. Neither is there a comparison between this country and the Argentine.

At the same time I do not think it would be fair to go into this question of agriculture without examining its past history, without finding out more or less if in the last hundred years we have improved, or if we have continued to go downwards. I fear if an examination is made that the statistics and the returns of the different years will point distinctly to one continual downfall in that industry. Different things took place, none of them of any advantage to agriculture. When the Act of [874] Union was passed Ireland lost her market by the destruction of her industries. The great famine came along and completely disorganised production. Taxes were immediately substituted for what was once a protected industry. The Government of that day, perhaps feeling rather troubled in its conscience, started to subsidise, and I find that these very subsidies that were given were the cause of the complete demoralisation of the whole system. Free trade came in. It was of great benefit to England but a disaster to this country. It compelled the people of this country to pay more in produce for the necessaries of life. Income taxes were then substituted in England for what had been raised through tariffs on foreign materials. The English people benefited, perhaps to the tune of £12,000,000 or £14,000,000, but what took place here? We were compelled, through the loss of markets, through the collapse of industry, to cease production. We had to buy in the English market. We bought materials in that market for which we had to pay perhaps two or three times as much in produce for inferior articles.

Thus the history of agriculture carried on. Emigration started and took away our best. Not alone did it take away producers, but it took away consumers as well, with the result that the agricultural industry practically collapsed. Other subsidies and other schemes were tried, always with the same result. Since 1921 several schemes have been adopted here, and although we may not have had time to see the results, and it is perhaps unreasonable to make the statement, still I do not see any good results from any of these schemes. The same desolation, the same misery, continues. Emigration, which is the real way of judging the prosperity of any country, continues at the same rate. I take it, therefore, that we have not discovered what is wrong, and I take it, therefore, that no matter what schemes we propose, no matter what money we may the farmers' pockets, we cannot be successful. There is, undoubtedly something else wrong with . There is no necessity in [875] a country of this description to have such a thing as they have in Canada— mass production. Small countries, with traditions like ours, should have no necessity for such a thing. Canada, a country that has no tradition, can adopt any means. But we are in quite a different position from that of Canada. We have been left here, through the introduction of free trade, constantly faced with higher and higher costs of production. For that reason the farmers have endeavoured to change their system.

If we look up the statistics for the last hundred years we find that we have been gradually leaving tillage out of the question and turning to the rearing of cattle. There is a reason for that also, and that is that the cost of production, the cost of tillage, became so high, through emigration and other reasons, that farmers were forced to reduce it, and therefore they adopted the feeding of cattle, which did not entail any labour. One result of that was that we were confined to a single market.

Another result was that we were opposed to the world, to the great ranching districts of the Argentine and other countries, which perhaps have mass production and had much better machinery at their disposal than we had. But the great thing was the cost of production. We were unable to produce cheaply enough, and we are still unable to produce cheaply enough. The reason for that must be quite obvious to anybody who reads the history of our country, and it is that all along the line since the years of the famine local taxation, indirect taxation, and perhaps direct taxation, have been constantly on the increase. We find as we examine the figures that as these charges went higher emigration increased and production decreased. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that there must be very near connection between the two. As I said here the other day, we have adopted a system of always collecting in taxation of one form or another more than we absolutely need, with the intention of throwing a sop to the agricultural industry by way of grants or schemes. [876] That is the system which we have pursued, and it is the system which, I take it, we are pursuing to this day. I tried to prove here last week that if some of that money were left in the pockets of the agricultural community it could be much better spent than when it is collected here to a centre from which we distribute it. The farmers are always faced with one particular difficulty in their business, namely, the impossibility of ever expanding. You see all through the country farmers who have settled their families generally getting it very hard to tide over their difficulties. You see farmers who have not done so, who remain together, and who are, perhaps, able to carry on, but there is no expansion in any sense. If you are absent from this country for ten or twelve years you see on your return no improvement in their farms, no improvement in their houses, and no improvement in the local towns. If, however, you are absent from other countries for three or four years you see a constant improvement and signs of prosperity, but here that has never been the case. I think our system of taxation should be changed, not, as Deputy Byrne suggested, by a complete abolition of taxation, which I do not advocate, but by remodelling a system under which it is impossible for the farming community to be successful.

This question of taxation is one that from the very beginning must have caused the complete disruption of the agricultural industry. It hit directly, especially indirect taxation, at the very poorest in our locality. You find that efforts were made to relieve the Gaeltacht. We had recently a long discussion on that topic. In previous years under the British Government a Congested Districts Board was organised to try and relieve these people. It succeeded to a certain extent but I think, as well as I can remember reading some of the evidence given before that Commission, that one gentleman proved conclusively that the question of indirect taxation was the question that most affected the people in that locality. You will find the same thing all over Ireland. So far as I remember, a sum of about 8/- per head was distributed among people in those areas but the sum taken from them in taxation, even [877] in the poorest cases, was something like £2 15s. per head. The statement was also made that that money was expended in drink. That is not so. A good part of it was probably expended on tobacco, a commodity which greatly affects the poor of the country. It does not, perhaps, to any great extent affect the wealthy or those people who are in secured or assured positions, but it certainly does in the poorer districts all over my constituency as well as every part of the South and West affect the very poorest there. It is the only little consolation left to them in life. There is no use in using the argument that that is a luxury. To these people it is not a luxury. In a dreary existence it is the only consolation they have. That to them is a very heavy and important item. It affects the workman who works on the farm. He demands and must get more wages. Therefore the farmer has to pay a greater wage and his cost of production is heavier. That is the result of the action of indirect taxation. In that case it is quite clear that the cost of production is directly attributable to indirect taxation.

There are other items that handicap the agricultural community even to a larger extent. You find in other countries, such as the Argentine, Brazil and France, that that one item is very low. You find that its cost is only trifling. Therefore, I hold that in that one thing some steps should be taken to relieve these people of that impost. We are told it is a luxury. If tea were taxed in France it would be a luxury. If tea were taxed here nobody could call it a luxury. The people in France are addicted to drinking coffee. We are accustomed to drinking tea and it can no longer be called a luxury. It is a necessity. These are points which I wish to mention to prove my argument that indirect taxation was one of the first causes of the destruction of the agricultural industry in this country. It is true that there were other causes, but that is the cause that ultimately killed it. I think I am correct in stating that if we look up statistics since 1863 we will find that at times, just as this year, there were small revivals. You will find periods of a few years in which [878] industry revived, flickered for a year or two, and again died. I believe that it would be well for this House to understand thoroughly that one year or two years, although affording small signs, are not indications to go on. It has happened before, and it will probably happen again if we do not take steps to relieve agriculturists in some way of the intolerable burden that they have to carry. The statement that there is a faint indication that the cattle trade is improving does not seem to stand the test. It is true that the price of beef is one shilling a hundredweight above what it was in 1914, and we are rather lucky that we are selling lighter cattle. That is the only advantage we have.

Mr. HOGAN: Heavier cattle are better.

Mr. O'REILLY: But at 1/- a cwt. you lose on the heavier ones. As regards the suggestions about the organisations that a farmer should support in this country, that we should organise to produce more and do all that sort of thing, I would like to ask how is it that a farmer is so stupid as not to see the advantages of all those things? Why does he hold aloof from such organisations? Why is it so difficult among the farming community to start credit organisations and so forth? The reason is that the farmer has had so many disappointments he cannot face any more, and refuses to identify himself with influences which he knows are not going to relieve the difficulties and diseases from which he suffers. Such a man, day after day, is faced with taxation of all descriptions. He has his rates to pay, his indirect taxation to pay, and, in a good many cases also, direct taxation. If, being unable to stock his land, he sets it, the most he will get will be £4 an acre before he can discharge the liability on it. That is a real indication of what is wrong, and in all probability in the greater part of the country——

Mr. HOGAN: What do you mean by saying that he must get £4 an acre to discharge his liability? Do you mean that his liability in the way of rent, etc., would be £4?

[879] Mr. O'REILLY: He has rent and rates to pay, and before he can get anything for himself he must get £4 an acre. That is a rough calculation which he makes, and you will find in most grazing districts that that is the case.

Mr. HOGAN: I merely wanted to be clear that it included more than rates and rent.

Mr. O'REILLY: In order to make the thing perfectly clear I should say that in most parts of my county and in a good many parts of Westmeath what is called untenanted land, land without any previous valuation except the Griffith poor law valuation, costs, in general, £2 a statute acre. After that the farmer has to pay his rates.

Mr. HOGAN: Another £2?

Mr. O'REILLY: Probably, or thirty shillings.

Mr. HOGAN: Per statute acre?

Mr. O'REILLY: In all probability. It depends where the land is situated.

Mr. HOGAN: Merrion Square.

Mr. O'REILLY: That is the general method. It is the general thing and it happens all over Meath and Westmeath. I do not speak for other counties but I take it that there is not much difference except that the price is a little cheaper for inferior land. We have heard all along the line for the last four or five years about how we are turning the corner. I believe, and every farmer in this House and in the country knows very well, that we have not turned the corner, nor have we got on the road at all. It may keep up the hearts of the people of Dublin or, perhaps, the members of the Chamber of Commerce, but it certainly has not much effect on the agricultural community throughout Ireland and I believe that the statement is really premature. We would be wiser to make that statement if we saw some definite signs and, although Deputies on the Government Benches are well aware of the reason, they still make these statements.

There is no Deputy who does not know really what is wrong. Still we continue this policy of telling the [880] people, “You have turned the corner and to-morrow or the next day you will reach the happy valley.” If we do not treat this question with seriousness and a good deal of consideration, in a few years' time the farmers will be compelled to organise and have it treated with proper consideration so as to bring about proper results. Every day they are witnessing the signs of prosperity in Dublin. Every day they are seeing new inventions come about for which they have to pay more or less indirectly. They find improvements along the line of motor buses and motor cars. These may brighten their dreary lot, but there is not one of these men that does not know that he has to put up the means of sustaining these luxuries. The majority of these men are not in a position to avail in the smallest way of such luxuries. But the thing goes on all the same.

Members of the Chamber of Commerce the other day enjoyed themselves immensely because they thought the agricultural industry was going ahead. Perhaps they smacked their lips and said that another portion is there to be extorted. I hope that that system will change. The farmers understand the position. Day by day they are finding themselves more and more in opposition to the system that has been adopted. I cannot blame the Government so much for this system—it is one they inherited. But I do blame them for sticking so closely to that system, because many of them know perfectly well that the system is wrong and will reach a wrong destination. All of them may not know it, but a good many do. I therefore support the vote of censure. I make one appeal and that is that this system, which has driven us in a hundred years to a state of complete misery and pauperism, should be changed.

Mr. GOREY: Two speeches have been made in support of this vote of censure. I agree with one sentence in one of the speeches. One Deputy referred to the luxuries and the comforts of the cities as compared with the country. The amusements, the comforts, the dresses, and all the rest, that we see about Dublin, show no sign of [881] national poverty. It is one of the best dressed cities in Europe. I admit that all that display must be irritating to the agricultural community. Deputy O'Reilly went back one hundred years to the Act of Union, and the economic changes that have come about since. It is a long time since the Act of Union, and many things have happened since then. One hundred years ago, and for many years after that, we were in the days of reaping hooks and slow-sailing vessels. We cannot go back to that. We have since got fast vessels crossing the seas in a few days, and we have got modern farming implements. The new conditions have brought the outside world—a world that was practically unknown to the people a hundred years ago—to our doors, and Deputy O'Reilly must trim his sails accordingly. One thing that he said should give us a little food for thought. He said the cost of tillage became so high through emigration that we had to change our system. Is that right? If we had not emigration, is the suggestion that we could have slave labour in this country and be able to till?

Mr. HOGAN: That is it.

Mr. GOREY: That we would give the fellows scarcely anything to eat, and practically no wages? What is the implication?

Mr. HOGAN: Poverty.

Mr. GOREY: The cost of tillage became so high through emigration that we had to change our system. He is one of the statesmen who stand up to attack the Government.

Mr. M. O'REILLY: On a point of explanation. The cost of tillage became so high through emigration— they were not able to sell anything; there was no home market, as the people had left the country.

Mr. GOREY: It was not in the home market they were selling; they were selling outside.

Mr. O'REILLY: There is a great difference between eight millions of people to consume stuff and three millions.

[882] Mr. HOGAN: Deputy O'Reilly surely did state that tillage operations became expensive because there was less labour as a result of emigration. In other words, he said, in fact, that in the old days in '48 the labourers were paid 6/- per week and that you could do tillage under these conditions, but unfortunately you had to pay more for labour now. That is what he said.

Mr. GOREY: I am taking it that Deputy O'Reilly had no meaning in what he says—that it was merely a phrase to fill up space. He said that we have not turned the corner yet. I am not saying that we have. The only thing suggested in the two speeches is that we have not turned the corner, and that the Government should get a winkers, put it round the Irish race, and pull them round the corner; they are not able to get around themselves.

Mr. ALLEN: And put Deputy Gorey on the reins.

Mr. GOREY: He is helping a little way. This vote of censure on the Minister is for failure to take effective steps to deal with the depression in agriculture. As far as I followed the case made, no alternative has been put up. None of the things that have been done for agriculture by the Government have been condemned. No new suggestions have been made as to what should have been done, except one only, and that stands out shoulder high, and that is compulsion—compulsion in every department of our national life, industrial, farming, and otherwise. One Deputy talked about profiteering. We know that there is profiteering, but what is the suggestion? That the State should step in and should be the shopkeeper, the industrialist, and the agriculturist. That the State should set up national receiving and distributing depots.

Mr. ALLEN: They did it in other countries.

Mr. GOREY: We should like to hear what countries have set up national receiving and distributing depots. The only way to get rid of profiteering, if you are going to do it by the State, is to set up a national institution. [883] The only alternative is co-operation amongst individuals, voluntary co-operation, with State help, and that is being given. Every encouragement is being given. Everything has been done short of compulsion. That is the only thing that has not been done, and that is the only thing that has been suggested—that we should have State compulsion.

I am not going into the question whether dairy farmers have reduced their cows, or whether we are short of in-calf heifers. I have not the figures. Those who are in a position to do so can deal with that. But I will deal with some other things. The Deputy said that what has been done has not had much effect. It may not have had all the effects we wished for, it may not have realised all the hopes we entertained. But what has been done opened the gap wider with regard to the trade balance. Has it improved the position, or has it been the reverse? Has our trade position been worsened by what has been done? Has our trade position been improved by what has been done? If it has been improved, the whole system stands vindicated. If we have gone back, then what has been done stands condemned. I want to hear that question treated here. Is it suggested that what has been done has been done wrongly, and, if so, where has it been wrong, and can it be done better, and how can it be done better? Anybody standing up here and talking about agriculture ought to be able to get beyond the experimental or groping stage.

I admit that Deputy Ryan is honest in this—that he wishes to get better results. I say with all due respect that he has been only groping. Any Deputy standing up to condemn the Minister or the Government for the agricultural policy adopted in this country ought to be able to get beyond the groping stage, and ought to be able to point out what has been done wrongly, and how it should have been done better; and if there was something that should be done, how it is to be done. That is due from any representative who claims to represent the public. He ought to be able to suggest a better way. Until [884] Deputies can suggest a better way there is no sense in their attack. It is too late now to use that vague expression “something should be done.” The people of the country demand something better than that vague phrase. They want to know what it is that should be done and how to do it. The time is ripe for a party of the size and self importance of the Fianna Fáil Party to suggest what should be done. What should be done is that, as a nation and as political parties and as individuals, we should start to do a little clear thinking, a little more honest thinking, and a little less political thinking. It is not one form of compulsion that must be adopted to meet Deputy Ryan's complaint. There must be compulsion on the farmer to use Irish-grown corn in his feeding stuffs. That the Deputy's speech was altogether aimed at. His idea was that advice, example and help have failed, and that there is nothing left but compulsion. Can it be denied that this Government has given advice, example and help with regard to the use of home-grown foodstuffs, the production of pigs, and so on? Can that be denied? What more could be done than has been done in that direction? That advice has failed, and that example has failed; State help has failed, and there is nothing left but compulsion.

The Deputy said that the only hope for tillage was to get the Irish farmer to use home-grown foodstuffs. That is a very sad commentary on the Irish farmer. It is a very sad comment to pass from one farmer to another. I admit there is a good deal of truth in it. The way to make that right, according to the speeches we have heard, is not by example, advice or help, but by compulsion. We are to compel the farmer to use Irish-grown foodstuffs. We are to compel the millers to mill Irish flour, and then we have to go and compel the Irish consumer to consume bread made of Irish flour. There is no use in compulsion in one direction only. You have to go down the whole gamut from producer to consumer if the Deputy's hopes are to be given effect. There has been a good deal of harping upon the fact [885] that millers have not got protection for flour milling in this country. And after that statement, the next statement of the Deputy was that the barley price in this country was bad. Barley was sold in this country as low as 12/- a barrel until the outside, or Scotch and English trade, opened for Irish barley. What was the Irish miller doing in the meantime? Had he been buying up any of it? The Scotch millers could buy in the Irish market, take the stuff across the sea, mill it in Scotland, and sell it as a Scotch feeder. How much did the Irish miller buy to sell in this way? The Irish barley could find a market across the Channel, but it could not find a market here. These are the people who come here lobbying and pulling strings for protection. What are the inevitable conclusions which are to be drawn from the case that has been made here? That we, as a race, are unfit to occupy a place in this busy world.

Deputy Ryan suggested that the Government should take up the corn of the country at a reasonable figure. What will they do with it, having taken it up “at a reasonable figure?” They will probably have to sell it at a reasonable figure, and they will have to obtain a reasonable price for the finished article—the pig, for instance. What did Dr. Ryan visualise when he talked about taking the crop up at a reasonable figure? How far did he want to go? He should not have stopped at the statement about paying a reasonable figure to the producer. He should have gone on the other two or three stages and carried out the logic of the statement. We had a lecture about growing peas and beans. Quite right. Beans particularly are one of the most valuable products we have for animal feeding, and I am sorry there are not more grown in the country. But what has been the advice of the Department of Agriculture in that connection—that peas and beans and oats and barley should be grown, mixed and used as a food crop for our stock. That advice and example have been given, and there is nothing needed only compulsion. This State had better make up its mind on a whole-hog policy of compulsion in every Department. [886] It will be compulsion at every turn—compulsion for the grower, compulsion for the miller, compulsion for the baker, and compulsion for the general public. That is a very complete list, but nothing short of that is of any use. There is no use in an assembly like this in talking of anything else.

Dr. RYAN: I would not compel you to thresh a catch-crop.

Mr. GOREY: I did not use the word “catch-crop.” I referred to a mixed crop grown for food. In addition to the compulsion to which I referred, you require compulsion in regard to the housewife. Our women folk in this country should be compelled to know how to make bread. That is Deputy Ryan's doctrine. Nothing less than that is any good. They should be compelled to turn out good bread, and impose a penalty upon them if they do not. That would be a very complete bill, but nothing less would be of any use. How much of the £7,000,000 is going to be eliminated when all this is done? Did Deputy Ryan say that we could do away with the whole of it?

Dr. RYAN: Some time.

Mr. GOREY: I should like to get figures. Is the game worth the candle? If we are going to get rid of £7,000,000 all the compulsion that has been mentioned would be worth it.

Dr. RYAN: I did not suggest that.

Mr. GOREY: The Deputy suggested that in every word of the speech he made. All that long list of compulsory measures would be cheap if we got £7,000,000. But if we are only going to get a paltry half-million, or a few hundred thousand pounds, I think it is not worth it. The Deputy talked about 39/- live weight, as against 60/- live weight in England, and suggested that that was the fault of the Department. Will the Deputy stand over those figures? Will the Deputy say that a beast which fetched 39/- in the Dublin market was worth 60/- on the other side, or that a beast worth £16 here was worth £24 on the other side? I think that argument is scarcely worth answering.

There was also some reference to an [887] alternative market. I have heard fools for the last ten or twelve years talking about this alternative market—this alternative market that no man in this country has ever been able to find, and that no other country has ever been able to find. All the countries with extra produce have the noses of their boats turned to Europe. With all their intelligence departments and all the money at their disposal, they have never been able to find an alternative market. And the men on the opposite benches, while strolling around with their hands in their pockets, discover something in some of the towns of Europe that nobody has ever been able to discover before. God knows it is time to give the Government of the country into their hands. They deserve it. New Zealand, Australia, Russia, when she had some produce to send, the Argentine, Canada and every other part of the world with intelligence departments, sent their goods where their intelligence departments told them to send them. And the best market they found was the one up against our door. We are asked to leave the market at our door and to chase about the country looking for an alternative market. It is a wonder these young men do not take this sort of stuff to their nurseries and try and amuse their “kids” with it. We were told that Denmark sells two-thirds of her produce in the market in which we operate. She does—a little more.

Dr. RYAN: Not a ton more.

Mr. GOREY: Perhaps you are right. We will not quarrel over a ton. Where does she find a market for the other one-third? She finds it just across her border. If it were not for what the war conditions brought about in Germany, she would not be able to find that market there. The Deputy said that the Government should see that every industry wa