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 38 - 28 May, 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Agriculture (Resumed).

Dr. Ryan: Proceeding to another sub-head—N. 2—there is a sum of £6,500 this year as compared with £5,500 last year under the Bovine Tuberculosis Order, 1926, etc. I am aware that the question of clean milk does not come within the province of the Minister for Agriculture, but if the Minister could change the policy somewhat under the existing regulations with regard to this Bovine Tuberculosis Order, not only could something be done for the health of the people, but we could also reap certain economic advantages. Last year, in speaking on this Vote, I referred to this question, and pointed out that a certain scheme had been put into operation in Canada which eventually had for its object the complete stamping out of tuberculosis amongst cattle. That has been done in Canada and it could be done here. I am advocating it here for two reasons: (1) for the sake of the health of the people; (2) for the economic advantages which might be derived. As this is not the time to stress the point with regard to the improvement of the health of our people, we may pass it over by saying that we at least agree it would be a very desirable object to achieve. Taking this subject from the point of view of agriculture, I think that we can even make a good case for the stamping out of tuberculosis in cattle from the agricultural point of view alone. We export a very considerable number of cattle from this country every year. As a matter of fact, it is the one item in agriculture, or in any other branch of industry in this country, where the exports considerably exceed the home consumption. If we have a very large [2019] export of cattle it would be a great advantage to the industry if we could guarantee that the cattle exported were completely free from tuberculosis.

In addition to that, milk is used in the rearing of stock and if we had a clean supply of new milk from tuberculin-free cows we could rear our young cattle free from tuberculosis, and that would be a big economic advantage. A bigger advantage still would be if we could have clean skim milk for the feeding of pigs. The Minister has at his disposal figures to show that the prevalence of tuberculosis amongst pigs is much higher in the creamery districts than in other districts. There could be no better proof that tuberculosis in pigs is always due to the milk fed to those pigs. The bacon industry is a very important one and considerable loss is suffered by the rejection of pigs either wholly or in part on account of tuberculosis. If we could eradicate the disease in pigs, we would achieve something very substantial for Irish agriculture.

Under the present orders there is a certain amount of inspection of meat for export and a certain amount of inspection beyond that. At times people are compelled to get rid of cattle because they have been pronounced to have tuberculosis by some veterinary surgeon. I believe that under the existing regulations the owners of these animals are paid about half their value. I think that that is not a sensible procedure, because if people believe that they are only to get half the value of the animals destroyed they are certainly not going to help the authorities by pointing out that some of their cattle are affected. If we want really to stamp out tuberculosis in cattle it would be better for the Department to offer a higher compensation than that. If they were to give 75 per cent. of the value of the animals destroyed I am sure they would get more help from the owners of stock. A Commission was set up on this subject some years ago and they went to a great deal of trouble to draw up a report. It is a very valuable report for anybody interested in this subject. There are Deputies [2020] in the House who sat on that Commission and I am sure that they have not changed the opinions they held when the report was written.

Any scheme that we may adopt to eradicate tuberculosis from our cattle would take many years to achieve its object. I believe, if we want to avoid very big State expenditure, that we will have to take such a scheme in stages. It will, perhaps, take 20 or 30 years before we eradicate tuberculosis completely. As it is going to take so long, that is if we do not want to spend a great deal of money immediately in stamping it out, I think that the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Local Government, and the Executive Council ought to consider doing something about this in the near future. I mentioned here last year the scheme adopted in Canada and it seems to me a scheme that could be adopted here in this country without any great expense to the State, and still with the hope of success within a period of from fifteen to twenty years. That is about the most we can hope for. The only expense the State undertook in Canada in the beginning was that they supplied free veterinary inspection, free vaccine and any stock-owner who wished to avail of these facilities had only to notify the proper authority whoever it might be. He then had a visit from the veterinary inspector and had his herd inspected and he knew where he was. That was the first step and a very important step. I know from my own personal experience, and from what I heard from others, that it is an expensive item in this country even to get one's cows tested as to whether they were tubercular or not. I believe there are many farmers who would like to know, if nothing else, which cows were free from tuberculosis so that they might keep them and breed from them and get rid of the others. They went a step further in Canada and prepared regulations under which certain municipalities adopted a tuberculin-free milk scheme. When these municipalities adopted the scheme they compelled the milk suppliers around the particular [2021] town or city to have their herds tested for tuberculosis. That meant that a certain number of cows in these herds were rejected and had to be replaced by tuberculin-free cows which meant in turn that the stock-owners of the country who had tuberculin-free cattle met with a ready sale and so certain municipalities were able to adopt this scheme without any great disturbance to the milk supply or to the general economy of the country.

They went further than that in Canada, and made an order that in any district where two-thirds of the stock in the district were tuberculin-free, and certified by the Government veterinary surgeon as being free, then the other one-third were compelled to adopt the scheme also. So that they got districts in Canada entirely free from tuberculosis. These districts began to merge into larger districts and zones, and after some years' working Canada found that it had large districts completely free from tuberculosis in cattle. I merely mentioned the outlines of that scheme as a scheme that could be adopted in this country without any great expense to the State. It will involve some expense certainly, but it is a scheme that would fit into our economic conditions here, and under which we could hope, in the course of fifteen or twenty years, to have achieved the object of having herds completely free from tuberculosis, and the milk supply in our towns and cities completely free from tuberculosis.

But for the present I want to repeat what I said in the beginning, that if we want to make this scheme in any way a success, and to get rid of tuberculosis in our cattle, we should see that the owners of stock are paid a higher amount of compensation than at present. I do not believe you can get co-operation from the owners of stock if they only get 50 per cent. of the value. They should at least get 75 per cent. before we could expect proper co-operation from them.

Taking the exports of cattle for the first three months of this year and comparing them with the first three [2022] months of last year, Deputies will remember that in the beginning of last year there was a very large export of cattle from this country. It was pointed out by the optimists that that was a sign that we had at last turned the corner in our economic life. But there was a danger evidenced in the export of cattle last year, and that was that the number of cows and calves exported showed that it was a thing that could not continue indefinitely, because if we were to deplete the stock of cows we had in the country, or send young calves out of the country, we could not expect to keep up the number of cattle we had in previous years. When it came to the census of June, 1930, that view was proved to be correct. The number of cattle in the country in June, 1930, was found to be less than in June, 1929. As a further proof that the view was correct, that we were exporting cattle on a wrong basis last year, and that it was not a sign of prosperity in the country that cattle were going out at that rate, it was found that people wanted money and that that was the reason that they were selling their cattle.

If we take the first three months of 1931 as compared with 1930 we find that the number of cattle going out has gone down by 6,000, so that we have not as many cattle for export this year as we had last year. The number of store cattle going out has gone down by 12,000 in the same three months. We have not the stock in the country this year that we had last year for export. The number of milch cows exported has, however, gone up by 2,000 which is a very serious thing. The causes for that may be many. The slump in the price of butter, the poor prospects in the milk and butter industry and in the creamery districts in particular may account for the fact that stock owners are prepared to sell off a certain number of their cows and have them exported. That may account for the fact that 14,000 cows were exported in the first three months of this year as compared with 12,000 in the first three months of last year. Extreme necessity may also have obliged people to [2023] sell their milch cows. People may have been compelled to sell off whatever cattle they had that were saleable in order to pay their rates and taxes and meet other expenses. That may be the reason why they had to sell off a number of their cows.

We have also an increase in the number of calves exported. The number this year is greater than last year though last year showed an increase over the previous year. In the first three months of this year we exported 14,000 calves as against 12,000 in the first three months of last year. I believe that is a very bad sign because anybody travelling through this country, even people travelling in a motor car, can see that we have plenty of grass for cattle. We could do very well with those calves if we could afford to keep them at home. If our farmers and graziers had the money to buy calves they would have kept them here on the land. The position must be that our farmers are not able to buy those calves, and hence they are exported.

In connection with our exports I would like to refer to the position with regard to eggs. In the first three months of this year there was an increase of 156,000 great hundreds as compared with last year. I refer to this because it is an industry that was stressed in the report of the De-rating Commission. Deputies will remember that in the report of the De-rating Commission 13 points were given as to how farming could be made pay. One of the points was that the people of this country should go more into the egg trade. Whether they had anticipated the report of the De-rating Commission or not, or whatever the reason, the farmers of this country had already done that. The position at any rate is that we have an increase in exports for the first three months of the year as compared with the first three months of last year. But if we had an increase in our exports we had the usual experience in the case of eggs as in that of all our exports. The price received this year was lower than the [2024] price paid last year. It was lower by 1/1½d. a great hundred. That represents a very big difference to the people producing eggs here. It means a difference of 1/6d. per hen per year when examined in the light of the statistics that are supplied to us. It represents a very important difference when one remembers that people trying to make a living out of the egg industry consider that they have a fair profit if they can make between 2/- and 3/- per hen per year. If the profit these people were making last year is to be cut by 1/6d., then what they are going to get this year will be very thin indeed. It is questionable whether poultry breeders will be able to remain in business much longer.

I have dealt with the exports of butter, bacon, cattle and eggs. I find in regard to the exports of live-stock and live-stock products that for 1930, as compared with 1929, they have been reduced by £2,000,000 the comparative figures being: 1929, £34,000,000 and 1930, £32,000,000. A reduction of that magnitude shows the necessity there is that something should be done to relieve the depression that exists in the agricultural industry. The position created certainly requires serious consideration from the Minister, the Government and the Dáil.

The Estimate for this Department, according to the figures given by the Minister, works out at something like £480,000. If anyone goes through the Estimates they will be struck by the importance given to live stock as compared with tillage. The greater portion of the Vote is spent on live stock, if one divides up the various sub-heads as between live-stock and tillage. A small amount is given for investigation and research in certain crops. Under sub-head E.4, for instance, there is a salary of £500, with bonus, making a total of £684 for an expert in tobacco and sugar beet. I often heard it said that there is no such thing as an expert. I think that is true, because no matter how much a person may know about a subject there is surely a little more to be known, and expert denotes the superlative. To be told in the Estimate that a man can be an expert [2025] in tobacco growing and sugar beet is rather extraordinary. Even if the man is an expert in both these subjects why should the House be asked to vote this sum of £684 for him? Half of it, I suppose, will go to the sugar beet and the other half to tobacco growing. Why should this House agree to vote £342 for his expert knowledge of tobacco when we consider the views held by the Minister and his Party on the growing of tobacco?

We have been told here and it has been proved by votes in the House that, as far as the Minister and his Party are concerned, there is going to be no place given to tobacco growing in this country. Yet the Minister has an expert in tobacco growing and proposes to pay him £342 a year. As regards the other half of it for beet growing, I suppose I had better reserve what I intend to say on that until the sugar beet Estimate comes before the House. It might have been better for the country if an expert on the drawing up of agreements with the sugar company had been employed and paid this £342 rather than in paying an expert to teach people how to grow beet when they cannot get a price for it. Under sub-head G.1—Improvement of flax growing—there is provision made for the expenditure of £1,174. I would like to know what is the return for that money. Where is the flax being grown? What use is being made of it, and are the Government seriously considering going in earnest into this matter of flax growing, trying to produce the flax that we require for our own requirements in the Free State so that we may be saved the cost of importing linen from other countries?

If that is the intention of the Government, if they have a hope of getting flax grown here extensively, and if we can meet the requirements of our own market, then I think, as far as this Party is concerned, it would agree to money being spent on the proposition. The Vote for the Department of Agriculture is strongly biased in favour of the development of live-stock. I would like the [2026] House to realise the total requirements of the home market and the foreign market, as far as farmers are concerned, in live-stock products as opposed to crops. We were told in The Agricultural Output of Saorstát Eireann for 1926, a publication issued by the Statistics Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce, that the output of live-stock and live-stock products was £50,000,000. In the same publication we find that the value of the total amount of crops produced during the same year amounted to £45,000,000, which is not a very big difference. For live-stock and live-stock products the figures were £50,000,000 as against £45,000,000 for crops, not including grass. In the same year there were exports of live-stock and live-stock products amounting to £25,000,000.

Mr. Hogan: What year?

Dr. Ryan: In 1926. It is the last year for which we have complete returns of the output. The net exports came to £25,000,000.

Mr. Hogan: What was the gross amount?

Dr. Ryan: About £30,000,000 I suppose.

Mr. Hogan: It must be more. There were £32,000,000 the year after, and prices were then higher.

Dr. Ryan: There is a page in this publication showing the net exports and the net imports of all the items. The figure given for the export of live-stock and live-stock products is £25,191,000. That means that the home requirements for live-stock and live-stock products for that year represented £25,000,000. If we take cereals and so on we produced £45,000,000, and the net imports were value for £10,000,000, so that home requirements were valued for £55,000,000, not including certain fruit and vegetables which we can produce, such as potatoes, apples, and things of that sort. We produced sugar to the value of £1,500,000, and tobacco—which we are paying an expert to produce—represents £500,000. Taking common cereals and common crops, our home requirements [2027] for the year 1926 were value for £55,000,000, and our home requirements in live-stock and live-stock products were worth £25,000,000.

It is rather strange that we should have a Department of Agriculture which is concentrating on the development of live-stock and spending most of the money that goes in grants and most of its energy in the development of live-stock, considering that the requirements of our home market are worth £25,000,000 compared with £55,000,000 for crops. Such is the case. Of course I know it will be stated that our net exports of live-stock and live-stock products amount to £25,000,000. It appears to me that talk about the requirements of tillage, and of its advantages, is falling on deaf ears. I believe that if the figures for 1930 were taken they would be much more marked than the figures I have given for 1926. The acreage under wheat in 1930, compared with 1926, has gone down by 2,000 acres; barley from 141,000 acres to 116,000 acres; oats from 647,000 to 644,000 acres; and potatoes from 375,000 to 347,000 acres, so that if the output of agriculture was taken in 1930 we would find that the output under crops and cereals would be much lower than in 1926, even if prices were the same.

Another question that arises is that the acreage under beet in 1930 was 14,000 acres while as far as one can find out it will be down by 10,000 acres this year. People who had land ready in which to sow beet had to fall back on some other crop, and if possible they had to depend on some cash crop. We would like to know whether any provision has been made to get these people over their difficulty. I do not know what prospect they have now or what crop they have sown. As a matter of fact I heard from various sources that these people found considerable difficulty even in getting seed oats. The season was so late when it was finally decided that the price of beet would not be increased they felt that the only crop they could sow was oats and they [2028] found it was almost impossible to get seed to sow.

Mr. Gorey: Why?

Dr. Ryan: They found it impossible to get seed oats.

Mr. Gorey: Because it was not good enough to sow.

Dr. Ryan: A few years ago an application was made here by an organisation known as the Grain Growers' Association, and the Minister in his usual way set up a Commission which was to report in a few months. December, 1929, passed and December, 1930, passed, and now the Commission is almost forgotten, but it has made no return. We were told at the time that there was no case to be met, and that the imports of grain, oats and barley were negligible. There was talk at that time about German and Russian oats, and we were told that the imports did not amount to anything. If we look at the return of imports for the first three months of this year as compared with the first three months of last year, we find that the imports of barley and malt have gone up from 105,000 cwts. to 293,000 cwts., and the imports of oats had gone up from 24,000 cwts. to 79,000 cwts.

The import of maize has gone up from 1,392,000 to 2,292,000. There has been a very marked increase in the imports of grain coming into this country in the first three months of this year as compared with last year. Exports have gone down. It is true that they are small, but they have gone down. Barley has gone down by half, and the export of oats has gone down from 122,000 to 67,000. The export of malt has also gone down, so that the grain-growers who spoke on this subject a couple of years ago would appear to have had a better case than the Minister realised. We would like to know at any rate what the result of their application is, and whether the findings of the Commission are going to be published or not, so that we may know that they will, at least, meet with the courtesy of a reply from the Commission. We here, on these benches, on a few occasions, [2029] also advocated the growing of wheat, and we have been told on a few occasions lately that we have dropped our wheat policy because it was preposterous under present conditions. As a matter of fact what is the position?

First of all, I would remind the Minister and Deputy Heffernan and some other protagonists against wheat growing that some of the objections that were made against wheat growing impressed me at the time but they impress me no longer. I remember that in the majority report in regard to wheat growing it was stated that wheat could not be grown on lea land unless of one year's standing. That means that if lea land has not gone out of tillage more than one year wheat could not be grown successfully upon it. I questioned that at the time and was told by members of the Farmers' Party and others that it was quite true. I took the risk this year, however, of growing some wheat on lea land which had not been ploughed within the memory of anyone in the district. I would like if some members of the Farmers' Party or anyone else who has any doubt would come down and see whether it is a good crop. I may, of course, be a better farmer than any member of the Farmers' Party. It was also said that wheat could not be utilised as a nurse crop. If any member of the Farmers' Party comes down—I may say that I am doing these experiments at my own expense and they have turned out very well—I can show them a field containing first and second crop meadow in which there are seven patches—two were under wheat, two were under barley and three under oats. I defy any member of the Farmers' Party to show where the wheat was when the grass seed was sown or where the barley or the oats was.

Leaving those objections aside we were told that even if there were no objections to the growing of wheat it could not be grown from a financial point of view. We were told by the Minister for Agriculture that we could not get wheat grown at 30s. a barrel and that the only way to do it would be through the gun. The only thing he [2030] had in mind was that people were doing better out of beef, eggs and butter than they could possibly do out of wheat. That argument, however, does not stand. If farmers were offered now 30s. a barrel for wheat they would be much inclined to drop dairying and butter and egg production.

Mr. Heffernan: How much would it cost?

Dr. Ryan: I am coming to that. Deputy Heffernan said on one occasion that it would cost millions. On the following Sunday I was in his constituency in Templemore and I said that I would challenge him to meet me in his constituency, in any hall or at any cross-roads, and I would prove to him on last year's figures that it would cost only half-a-million. That statement was published in the local papers and in the “Irish Independent,” and though Deputy Heffernan probably saw it he did not take it up, but the challenge still holds.

Mr. Heffernan: Do it now.

Dr. Ryan: I will.

An Ceann Comhairle: What is the Deputy going to show now?

Dr. Ryan: That the growing of wheat would not cost too much financially.

Mr. Hogan: To whom?

Dr. Ryan: To the State—would not be a big burden on the State.

An Ceann Comhairle: Would it not require legislation to put a financial burden on the State?

Dr. Ryan: Theoretically speaking.

An Ceann Comhairle: Practically.

Dr. Ryan: The stand taken by the Minister for Agriculture and his Party and by Deputy Heffernan and his Party is that we must not increase the price of bread. There is, of course, a lot to be said for that, and we must keep the position of the consumer in view always. It is a very serious matter to increase the price of a necessary article such as bread, sugar, or anything else, but we find, when [2031] we come to examine the price of bread and see what it was last year, that if our proposition had been adopted, namely 30/- a barrel guaranteed to farmers for wheat, and if by any chance last year we could have got sufficient wheat grown in this country to supply our requirements, namely 860,000 acres, and if the price of flour was in the same proportion to the price of wheat, as it was in the year in which the Food Prices Tribunal reported, and, further, following that, if the price of bread had been the proper price, as laid down by that Tribunal, the subsidy necessary would not have been more than half a million pounds.

Mr. Heffernan: Take the figures of the Economic Committee and leave the Food Prices Tribunal out of it.

Dr. Ryan: Yes. The minority report of the Economic Committee shows that in the flour scheme laid down there is a provision that the board to be set up must regulate the price of flour and the price of bread as well as the price of wheat. I said that if these three conditions had been followed out——

Mr. Heffernan: What is the connection?

Dr. Ryan: There is a connection between bread and wheat, and if the Deputy does not see it I cannot go any further. If he has any further doubts about it I will give him the figures right through, from the price paid for the wheat, the price paid by the miller for his flour, and the price that would be properly charged by the baker for his loaf, and they will show that the subsidy would be only about half a million. If the Deputy has any further doubts let him go to the Minister for Agriculture and get from him the arguments put up at the London Conference in reference to the growing of wheat, where the matter was put up to him in detail.

Mr. Hogan: No arguments were put up to me. I was not at the Conference.

Dr. Ryan: The Minister for Education [2032] said that it would be a callous thing to consider the growing of wheat here having regard to the position of the wheat-growing countries on the continent and in South America. We are not very much concerned whether we are callous against the Balkans or the Americans if it suits ourselves but apart from that we are not going to interfere with these people on the export market. We propose to grow only the wheat that is required for our own needs and we do not enter into the export market at all. There is another matter which I would like to bring to the Minister's notice, that is the question of agricultural credit.

Mr. Hogan: Before the Deputy leaves the other question, what is his guaranteed price for wheat—30s.?

Dr. Ryan: I say that was suggested at the Committee. I have all the time said that it is a matter for the Board but the calculation we made was at 30s. a barrel.

Mr. Hogan: What are the total requirements of wheat for this country?

Dr. Ryan: Four million, four hundred thousand barrels or 11,000,000 cwts.

Mr. Hogan: Will the Deputy admit that the present price of the very best wheat is 18s. per barrel?

Dr. Ryan: I do not think it matters what the price of the best wheat is.

Mr. Hogan: I do not want to be at cross purposes with the Deputy later on. We will say that the present price of best wheat is 18s. The difference between 18s. and 30s. is 12s.—say 10s. for the purposes of this calculation. On 4,000,000 barrels that would mean £2,000,000.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Dr. Ryan: The point I want to make is this. If the Minister will look the matter up he will find that there is a gazette in the library which corresponds to our “Irish Trade Journal.” He will see there retail prices, and he will see that the price of bread in England for the last three months was 1½d. less [2033] per loaf than here—8½d. here and 7d. in England. I am only giving that as an instance. Go back then to our own Food Prices Tribunal, and if you correlate the price of wheat, the price of flour and the price of bread, if you leave the price at what it was last year, then half a million should do.

Mr. Heffernan: You are leaving bread too high.

Dr. Ryan: That is the way the Government left it last year.

Mr. Aiken: Leaving it in the way you are leaving it.

Dr. Ryan: Speaking about the Government and Deputy Heffernan's anxiety for the consumer and of the price of bread being too high, I would advise the Deputy to look up these two gazettes, the Board of Trade Gazette and our Trade Journal here. He will find that there is a difference of 1½d. in the price of the loaf between here and England—8½d. here and 7d. in England. There is a great deal of talk here about putting up the price of bread if we are to do anything. There is a difference of 12/- per sack in flour. I believe that if we wanted to do it, we could do a lot with that 12/-.

Mr. Heffernan: Why do you not reduce the price of bread?

Mr. Aiken: Why do you not do it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Ryan should be allowed to make his own speech.

Dr. Ryan: If the Deputy allows me, I will discuss it over the wireless. I desire to refer to the question of agricultural credit. At the time the Agricultural Credit Bill was passed the price of money was much dearer than now. Seeing that money can be borrowed now much more cheaply——

Mr. Hogan: I do not think that arises on this Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Would that not come under the Department of Finance?

Dr. Ryan: Anything concerning agriculture?

[2034] An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Anything concerning agriculture for which the Minister is responsible.

Mr. Hogan: It clearly does not come within this Estimate, but I have no objection to its being raised.

Dr. Ryan: I just wish to say that the Government hold the majority of the shares in the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and I suppose the Minister for Agriculture would be more concerned than any other member of the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Let us be clear on this matter. We are now supposed to be engaged on a discussion of the administration of the Department of Agriculture for the last twelve months.

Mr. Aiken: Do we not discuss policy?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The policy of the Minister in relation to his own Department.

Dr. Ryan: There is a sub-head M.4— loans for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Hogan: Made direct by us? I have no objection to its being raised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is not a question of the Minister's objection.

Mr. Hogan: It cannot come under this Vote.

Dr. Ryan: I just wish to appeal to the Minister to see if something could not be done to cheapen credit through the Corporation. The thing which matters in this country is really the markets. It will be admitted, I think, that the farmers are able to look after their business, and are able to turn out their goods fairly well. What they want is a good market. According to the agricultural output census of 1926, which I quoted before, we find that every person living in a town in the Free State is worth £10 as a customer to the Free State farmer, while every person working in a town in England is worth only 13/-. When I mentioned that to Deputy Heffernan here before he answered me with a reference to the Chinaman's shirt, that if an inch [2035] of cotton were put on to the Chinaman's shirt it would change the whole position. That is all right, but the way we must look at the matter is this: if we are going to buy a certain manufactured article, whether it is machinery, boots, or clothes, it would be more to the advantage of the farmers, I hold, considering those figures, to buy it from our own townspeople rather than from people in Great Britain, because every person whom we put to work in a town in the Free State is worth £10 as a customer for agricultural produce, whereas a man in Lancashire or elsewhere is worth only 13/-. That is how the argument holds. It does not matter whether our population is lower here than in Great Britain. The point is, that if we put a man into work here in a town in the Free State, he is much more valuable as a buyer of agricultural produce than a man in Great Britain.

The Minister for Finance some few months ago, speaking at a dinner of the Accountants, said that the only hope for his country was a revival of British industry and we hear the same thing over and over again from other speakers who talk about the advantages of the British market. But there is no market in Britain or anywhere else that could be as important to us as our own market. That is why I say that at first sight we should do our utmost, looking at it from the agricultural point of view alone, to get work for our people in the towns. As has been pointed out here on various occasions, taking the number of registered unemployed in the towns and putting along with them the number who are not registered, it is estimated that the number who are not working in the towns would not be far short of 50,000. If we could get those 50,000 people back to work they would be a great advantage to the farming industry as consumers of agricultural products.

Another matter arises to-day. Under the present system in this country Irish agriculture is producing 70 per cent. of our total production. The whole thing is very lop-sided. The result is that [2036] when our agriculturists have sold as much as they can to our own townspeople, they have to go outside the country to look for a market for the surplus. If we had all our people working in the towns we could not change that completely. We would still have a surplus for export. It would be necessary to have that surplus for export because we would still have to import some things. But a great deal of the surplus of our agricultural products could be absorbed by the home market. Agriculture is producing 70 per cent. and industry 30 per cent. of our national wealth. I think it will be agreed that whoever are the producers in this State are practically the people who are carrying the country on their backs. They are the people who must pay all the rates and taxes. If not, then we must be living on our capital and going bankrupt. It is clear to us that agriculture must have to pay 70 per cent. of the taxes and rates. Now, if we were able to increase industrial production by 100 per cent. it is quite possible easily to see the result.

At the present time about £25,000,000 is the total output of Irish industry. If we were to increase that by 100 per cent. then we would have the position where the townspeople would be producing 45 per cent. of the national wealth instead of at present 30 per cent. of the total production, and in turn the townspeople would be able to pay 45 per cent. of the rates and taxes and the other expenses of the country. That would be an enormous relief to the agricultural producers, the small farmers and the agricultural labourers, and to everybody else who is engaged in agriculture. It must be quite plain to anybody if they take a simple example. If the people are put to work in the towns much more than at present, if they are able to buy more cigarettes, if they are able to buy more beer and to bet more, no matter what they do, they pay taxes on these things, and these taxes go into the revenue. In turn when the Minister for Finance comes back here next year he will be able to give relief in taxation, and any relief or remedy [2037] he gives in taxation will go to the advantage of agriculture that wants it so much.

Apart from these things there are direct charges for unemployment in this country in the towns. There is the unemployment insurance for 1930, which cost £228,000; the relief grant for unemployment was £300,000. There was paid in home assistance £548,000. Not only that but if we consider the old age pensions we all know from our own experience of the country and the present depressed condition of the country, that there are numbers of people getting the full old age pension who would not require it if conditions were better and if their children were employed, and so on. It is the same with the National Health Insurance. It would not require to be paid on the same scale as at present. There would be a direct saving in unemployment benefit.

We would be able to effect a saving of one and a half million pounds each year in rates and taxes if, instead of giving a subsidy to unemployment, we gave a subsidy to employment. But we are told that people will have to pay more for their goods if tariffs are put on. Perhaps they will, but that has not been proved either. But supposing that the people did pay more for their goods if more tariffs were on they would be getting back the one and a half millions that they are paying at present in the way of subsidising unemployment through relief from rates and taxes. The people would then be in a position to pay more for the goods they would buy under the tariffs.

If we follow logically the arguments of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the Dublin Mercantile Association, and the various other people who passed resolutions against tariffs, and if we follow logically the arguments of the Minister for Agriculture, where would we come to? We are producing under tariffs in the towns of the Saorstát something about ten million pounds worth of goods. If we dropped our tariffs what would become of this production? For our own comfort and for the comfort of our people we would require to import that ten million [2038] pounds' worth of goods. There would be boots and apparel, cigarettes, rosary beads and quilts, and all these things would have to be imported. They would have to be imported from another country, because we could not produce them here without a tariff. We would have to pay for these imports in the only way in which we could, and that would be by exports. Where would we get a market for another two million cwts. of butter, or where would we get the butter to send to that market? How long would it take us to put five cows where we have now only two cows? When we had the butter, where would we sell it? Where would we find a market for three and a half million cwts. of bacon or for three million pounds' worth of eggs to pay for that £10,000,000 worth of goods which we would then be importing but which we are now producing under tariffs? That is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the speeches that I have mentioned. If we dropped those tariffs we would have to let those people go unemployed and import all the stuff that they are now producing and pay for it by agricultural exports. Instead of the agricultural community having to pay 70 per cent. of the rates and taxes they would have to pay 85 per cent., because they would be producing everything and would practically have to carry the whole country on their backs. They would have to support the 15,000 people employed in the tariffed industries, as we have to support the unemployed at the present moment. Further, we would have to find a market for the goods they are buying at the present moment. That is the bright prospect that would confront the farming community, if we dropped the tariffs.

With regard to the export market, our experience is that we cannot compete. We are trying to compete, it is true, but our experience is that we have been driven out in regard to one article after another. Not alone that, but we are being driven out of the home market as well. The output of agriculture in 1926 was £64,500,000, and that was at a time when the index of agricultural prices was 140. In 1930 it was 124 and the output of agriculture [2039] was probably much lower. The output per worker was £96 in 1926, and the output was lower in 1930. In 1926 the output here was lower than in countries with which we could make any favourable comparison. It was lower than in the North of Ireland, in Scotland, Wales, England or Denmark. In the year 1929 to 1930 there was a decrease of 10 per cent. in agricultural prices. In connection with the price of agricultural products during the same year there was a decrease of only 7 per cent. in England and Wales. That is a thing one finds it very hard to understand. We have been told here on various occasions that we are pioneers in many things in the agricultural world. We are told we have the best livestock breeding and the standard of our cattle has been raised, and the result is that we are meeting with a ready sale in England, Scotland and Wales. We look down upon the people of Scotland and England with scorn because they have scrub bulls. With all that the price of our agricultural produce went down by 10 per cent. last year, while it was down only 7 per cent. in England and Wales.

Mr. Heffernan: I want to correct one point made by Deputy Ryan. The Deputy, in his cheap, schoolboy way, goes back to the wheat policy which he and Deputy de Valera propounded. If I happened to be the father of that policy, as I believe Deputy Ryan is, I would never mention it here again or, for that matter, on any platform in Tipperary or anywhere else. I believe I did see some challenge made to me to discuss this matter with the Deputy. I would be——

Mr. Blaney: Afraid.

Mr. Heffernan:—ashamed to appear on any platform and seriously discuss this so-called wheat policy. I would have more respect for the intelligence of the audience. I will not make any reference to the report of the Economic Committee because I think it is quite unnecessary. The figures are very evident. I think the Deputy agrees that the wheat requirements of this country are 11,000,000 cwts. That [2040] means that 4,400,000 barrels of wheat are required in this country. The proposal of Deputies de Valera and Ryan was to the effect that the farmer should be subsidised to the extent of the difference between the world market price of imported wheat and the price at which farmers could grow it economically in this country. It was agreed that farmers might possibly be induced to grow wheat if they were guaranteed a price of 30/- a barrel. Considerable doubt was expressed as to whether or not they would grow wheat with that guarantee. The world price of wheat is not more than 16/- per barrel. The difference would, in that case, be 14/- per barrel.

Dr. Ryan: It came down 2/-.

Mr. Hogan: I quoted the price at which I bought the best wheat over a month ago. I believe it has fallen since.

Mr. Heffernan: The Deputy wants to be like a smart schoolboy in a serious debate. That is really all he is. Let us take the price of wheat at the present day at 16/- a barrel; that is the world price. It does not matter whether the difference is 14/-, 16/- or 18/-. I will not take into account the difference that has to be considered in regard to moisture content. I think the difference from the point of view of moisture content would be something like 3/6 a barrel. Taking into account the difference between the price of imported wheat and the price you will have to guarantee the farmers, it works out at 14/- a barrel. That, applied to a total of 4,400,000 barrels— the total amount required in this country—would amount to £3,520,000. In all seriousness I ask the House to take into account that that is the subsidy which Deputies de Valera and Ryan are asking the taxpayer to carry in order to develop their policy in regard to wheat. Deputy Ryan is the usual cheap, childish, amateur farmer; he is amateur in everything. The Deputy really wants to confuse the issue.

Dr. Ryan: I am not a postman anyway.

[2041] Mr. MacEntee: What about the professional postman?

Mr. Heffernan: Deputies should not endeavour to draw a red herring across the trail, and the red herring in this instance relates to the Food Prices Tribunal. Reference was made to the price of bread, and I believe it is costing more than in England, but, if it is costing too much, and if the Deputy and his Party can see any way of reducing the price of bread, that is their job. If they get into power it is their job to do that. The reduction of the price of bread will then be purely a matter for them. If we can put the findings of the Food Prices Tribunal into operation and reduce the price of the 4-lb. loaf by one penny an advantage would accrue to the consumer; but there is no connection between that and wheat growing. It will not be necessary for me to meet the Deputy on any platform in Tipperary or anywhere else. To carry out the Deputy's policy would cost the taxpayer no less than £3,520,000. If I were a shadow Minister for Agriculture I certainly would not have put forward that scheme in all seriousness.

Mr. Derrig: Deputy Heffernan has taken it upon himself to administer a blow to the wheat proposals put forward by Deputy Ryan. He says they are not worthy of consideration. We all know that policies for placing the country on a proper basis cannot bear fruit in one, two or three years. There are policies that have to be carried into execution over a long period of time before they show good results. The policy that this Party stands for is the policy of reverting, as far as possible, to the type of economy that we enjoyed before the abolition of the Corn Laws. The fact that at the present time the world is in a state where low prices are the rule, and you have intensive development in agriculture in a great many States, does not mean that whether we find a particular policy applicable at a particular moment or not we are going to give up that policy for ever and agree with Deputy Heffernan that the policy is totally unfitted to be carried out.

[2042] The ultimate object of agriculture must be to maintain the food supply and the population of the country. When Deputy Heffernan or anybody else finds fault with the wheat subsidy we can point from this side of the House to the beet subsidy and ask whether the country is, in fact, getting value for the enormous amount of money that is being spent on that particular method of developing tillage. Whether you develop beet or mangels or wheat you are, at any rate, trying to put the largest number of people on the soil by so doing. You are trying to produce the maximum amount of food, and you are, in any case, safeguarding your country in one important particular. You are trying to do what ought to be the ultimate aim of all statesmanship, and that is to maintain and to conserve the population in your own country, and to improve their standing. So long as you are absolutely dependent, as you are at present, on fluctuations in foreign markets, on conditions and circumstances arranged by financiers in Wall Street, or some other place, you cannot believe that the economy of your State is in a sound or flourishing condition. That is our position. We do not believe that the present state of affairs, therefore, is satisfactory. We are trying to get out of it and to effect a better economy. It may take time. But when Deputy Heffernan calls attention to the question of wheat no doubt he may find an argument in his favour in the matter of wheat, but he conveniently forgets all the other points in the Fianna Fáil programme, which not alone Deputy Heffernan's own Party, if they had the courage to say what they think, but a large number of members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party believe in; that is to say, a tariff on bacon, a tariff on butter—we have had that already—and the keeping out of all classes of agricultural produce that can be produced in this country; keeping them out particularly when it is proved that they are being produced in a foreign country below the cost of production that prevails here, and that they are being dumped here at a price with which we cannot possibly compete.

[2043] Deputy Ryan has very rightly expressed the necessity for increasing and extending our industries in the towns so that we would not be completely dependent on the agricultural industry, which seems to be in for a period of continued depression. Therefore we want protection for our industries, and we want the further development of industries in the towns. My own belief is that since that process may take a long time, we ought, in the meantime, while we are doing that, to do everything possible to give security to the tillers of the soil by every legislative weapon that we have at our disposal. We ought to try to give security to the man on the land to enable him to give employment, and to face the future with more confidence than he is doing at present. This Vote is of particular importance because there is hardly a single aspect of agricultural work in the Free State that does not seem to be covered by the vast multitude of inspectors and of officials that the Minister has provided for the farmers, to enable them to walk in the way they should go.

Before reviewing some of the items that strike me in this Estimate, I should like to ask the Minister whether he seriously believes that the superficial explanation that he advanced yesterday in reply to Deputy Ryan, who found fault with the wiping off of £168,000 in respect of creameries, can be accepted as an explanation— that that £168,000 in fact represents redundant creameries, and therefore that completes the matter. I do not think that the Minister can expect the House to allow it to rest at that. The fact is that the Minister carried through a very big commercial transaction in the purchase of these creameries. He staked his reputation on the organisation of the dairying industry. He invested a sum of £677,000 of the taxpayers' money in that enterprise, and this year the Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement, announced that these assets had been written down by £168,000. It does not matter to us [2044] whether the £168,000 represents redundant creameries that have, in fact, been closed down, or represents creameries that are being transferred, or have, in fact, been transferred to the Societies. The fact is that an asset which should have represented a certain amount of money to this State, now represents £168,000 less than the Minister originally calculated it was value for. Therefore, the Minister, on the admission of the Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement, paid an excess price of £168,000 to the creameries.

I have often asked the question in this House, when and how the Minister for Agriculture expects to get back from the dairying industry the money that he has invested. Anybody who knows the conditions down the country and the amount of trouble that has arisen in regard to this whole matter of redundant creameries must be very doubtful as to whether the State may not, in fact, be at a much greater loss than £168,000 which we have lost this year. We may be at a loss of fifty per cent., or we may be at a loss of the whole amount that we have spent on this very uncommercial transaction. The Minister for Agriculture has constantly preached to the farmers the necessity for thrift, hard work, early rising, attending to their business and improving themselves. He has told them that the one big thing necessary was to reduce overhead expenditure. Deputy Gorey gets up and says that the local authorities ought to be wiped out because they are not effecting economies as they should; that they are not giving the ratepayers value for their money. I commend to Deputy Gorey's attention this Estimate for £434,964 and I ask him how long would he be attending county council meetings in Kilkenny before he would have such an opportunity for a pruning knife or a guillotine as he has in this Estimate? A considerable amount of the money seems to be spent on research work and on educational facilities. If we do not reap immediate benefit from them we must at least hope that the country [2045] will ultimately benefit from them. But, leaving these out of consideration, there are a number of items it seems to me demand explanation. In the first place this Department is peculiar in the sense that although we have a regular standing staff at headquarters which costs the taxpayers something like £117,000 in salaries, wages and allowances, we are in the unfortunate position that every new development that the Minister for Agriculture seeks to bring about, every statute that passes through this House in connection with agriculture, seems to demand a fresh staff of inspectors and officials to carry it into operation. It seems to me that there must be a considerable amount of overlapping in connection with that matter.

Mr. Gorey: Where does it come in?

Mr. Derrig: We have, for example, the expenditure on the improvement of flax growing. It is a small item, but nevertheless it would be interesting to know whether we are, in fact, getting value for the money we are spending upon it, or what is the amount of flax-growing going on in the Free State at the present time. We are spending £1,174 on that. Then we come on to the question of the improvement of milk production, and in that matter we have the taxpayer paying the sum of £27,000. It seems to me that the Minister ought to have very good grounds for asking the taxpayer to foot a bill of this kind. I notice the amount that is recouped from those who benefit from this expenditure is only £1,775, so that the State is at a loss in respect of this matter of £25,000.

I shall be told, of course, that all this eventually is for the benefit of the farmer. I shall be told, as we were told in the appendices to the De-rating Commission Report, that all the money spent upon this Department must be counted as money going back into the farmers' pockets. My own impression from talking on this matter with farmers throughout the country is that they would rather have no inspectors at all and no officials, with the idea of [2046] saving at the present juncture, rather than have expenditure of this kind if there is not an absolute certainty that a return is being got for it.

You come on then to the improvement of live stock, and you see there also a very heavy expenditure. A great many farmers, no doubt, benefit by that expenditure, but in this as in other matters you will have complaints from the small farmers that a great many of these schemes, even if they can be proved worthy and profitable to the country, are, in the long run, for the benefit of a particular class, and that the ordinary small farmer is getting no advantage out of them at all.

Mr. Gorey: To what scheme does that apply?

Mr. Derrig: The improvement of live stock, for example. We come now to the county committees of agriculture. A very considerable amount of money is being spent on grants to these county committees, but I notice that a very large proportion of this is eaten up in salaries and bonuses to instructors. The Minister for Agriculture, in his opening statement, indicated that the sum of £84,000 was going out in grants to those local committees. I notice that out of the total of £37,000 which was allotted in special grants something like £24,000 goes in salaries and bonuses to officials.

In connection with the congested districts, where there are special schemes, there is a considerable increase this year in the number of officials, and the only thing that has saved these schemes up to the present, it seems to me, is that the overseers and assistants in these areas are not paid by the local committees, who might find that they were not getting value for their money, and have been complaining of that, but that they are paid directly by the Government. This year the Minister for Agriculture has increased the number on these special schemes from 69 to 86. The amount that is recovered is very small in comparison with the total expenditure. The schemes there are not economic, because they are not even able to pay the expenses.

[2047] There are a large number of agricultural schools and farms under the control of the Minister for Agriculture, and it seems to me that these farms are not being run on a basis which enables them to pay their expenses. I must admit that a very considerable income is shown from some of them. For instance, in Athenry the income is £5,500, but the total expenditure, however, is £7,600. Some of the other stations show more unfavourably than that and the amount recovered is a much smaller percentage. I would like to know why a great effort could not be made to make these agricultural farms and stations, which cost something like £32,000, self-supporting. With regard to the costing officer to whom the Minister for Agriculture has referred, I think anybody interested in the question of Irish agriculture must welcome the effort to put this important matter of farm accounts on a somewhat better basis than it has been in the past. There are many countries in Europe which publish annual statements showing the average return or income from the farms of different valuations and different conditions—I think Denmark is one of these countries—so that the public and the legislature and the Government and everybody concerned can always have first-hand information of a reliable character as to the actual position in the industry.

I congratulate the Minister on taking steps to try and provide the country with expert opinion, as far as he can do it, in the matter of farm accounts, so that the public will not be in the position they are in at present when a very important crisis, as for example the beet crisis, is before it. At present the only notice they take of it in a great many cases is to say: “Oh, the farmers are constantly grumbling; they are really well-off but they have got into the habit of believing that they are badly off, and no one can shake them in that belief,” and therefore a great many people in the country do not take the interest in the future of agriculture that they should. Besides, it is extremely difficult to discuss [2048] important questions relating to agricultural policy if we have not this information.

There is a definite allocation in this Estimate of £60,000 for the purchase of creameries. I do not know whether the policy of repayment of State expenditure is in full operation throughout the societies, but as far as I know the amount that has been repaid up to the present is comparatively small. Before the Dáil grants a further sum of £60,000 this year I think we are entitled to know what exactly the Minister is doing to get the societies to carry out their guarantees and their contracts for the repayment of the sums already advanced. As I have said, there is hardly any branch of agricultural work in which we have not a staff of inspectors to deal with. In the case of practically every Bill that the Minister for Agriculture has brought in it has been found necessary to set up a special staff to administer it. I do not wish to weary the House by going over the whole Estimate, but I maintain that the work that is being done should be done in large measure by the headquarters staff of the Department. That staff seems to be largely occupied, not in doing any particular work themselves in direct communication with the farmer, but simply in supervising the work of other officials who are, in fact, carrying out the different schemes through the country.

I maintain that there is a considerable amount of overlapping in that respect, that the Department is overstaffed and is over-expensive, and that the country is not getting value for the money that is being spent. It is quite true that demands are often made here that particular things ought to be attended to and that the Minister for Agriculture will be able to say: “Every time you demand anything for the betterment of the farming industry you must remember that it is going to cost the State money; it is going to mean the employment of further officials,” and so on. But in matters relating to the improvement of milk production, of live stock, and to the Gaeltacht areas I think the system of [2049] working through associations of farmers, such as cow-testing and stock-breeding associations, which are already in existence, instead of working through officials, would result in great economy, and would probably mean that the work would be done twice as well in the long run.

Mr. Gorey: The last speech to which we have listened was delivered by a man who evidently does not know anything about the conditions of agriculture nor the working of this Department. I have not enough personal knowledge to make well-informed comments as to whether or not the Department is overstaffed. I do not know whether Deputy Derrig's contention in that respect is right or wrong. It is a matter that can be dealt with by the Minister. The Deputy, in the course of his speech, made some extraordinary statements. He said that the small farmer derives no benefit from the operation of the live-stock schemes. I can say that if there is anyone in the State who derives benefit from these schemes it is the small farmer. He is not in a position to purchase out of his own resources the class of animal that will improve not only his own live-stock but the live-stock of the country. Someone in the district must buy high-class animals. The small farmer is not in a position to do that. In my own district bulls were bought without a premium at 30 and 35 guineas. The service fee charged for them by the owners was about 10s. each. Under the Department's scheme bulls costing 110 gns., 115 gns., or 120 gns. were purchased. The small farmers were able to have the service of these animals for their cattle at a fee of half-a-crown. Most of these small farmers were entitled to get three services for their cattle for a total sum of 7s. 6d. I have never met the small farmer who was under the impression that he is deriving no benefit from the operations of these live-stock schemes.

I think that Deputy Derrig was mistaken in making the statement that he did. He has not the intimate knowledge that would enable him to speak with authority, and I do not blame him for that. His statement, however, was [2050] not correct. There was another point that he dealt with. He stated definitely that it was the policy of his Party to revert to the position that prevailed before the repeal of the Corn Laws. That is their policy, despite the wonderful changes that have taken place since the Corn Laws were abolished. I really think that the Deputy's speech on that does not call for any further comment. His thinking in that direction seems to me to be hopeless.

Deputy Ryan, in the course of his speech last night and in the continuation of it that we had to-day, prefaced practically everything he said by the word “if.” I am sure he used the word at least 75 times. But to my mind none of his “ifs” was practical. He said if we did this, that, and the other thing. I think it would be impossible to bring into effect any of the things that he suggested. He said that neither the egg exporter nor the butter producer sees any improvement in the prices that he is getting for his exports. As compared with two years ago they may not see any improvement in prices, but do they see any improvement in prices as compared with world price for the commodities that they export?

Dr. Ryan: No, they are worse.

Mr. Gorey: Then what about all the tributes that we have got from the English wholesalers and from English consumers as to their confidence in Irish produce?

Mr. MacEntee: Ask the publicity agent of the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Gorey: I am not speaking about the Minister's agent, but of what I have been told by people that I have come in contact with personally.

Mr. MacEntee: Personal contacts of Deputy Gorey are not always happy ones.

Mr. Hogan: What does the Deputy know about it?

Mr. Gorey: The Deputy knows nothing about it, but he wants to show us how infinitely little he is. In every way our production of eggs has been [2051] up to the standard in quality and freshness, and to-day the English consumer has absolute confidence in Irish produce.

Mr. Davin: What about prices?

Mr. Hogan: The relative prices have changed for the better. Prices are lower, but they have changed consistently for the better.

Mr. MacEntee: Of course if rock bottom is touched you cannot sink much lower.

Mr. Gorey: What the Department should do would be to go over and force the English consumers to buy more, and they should bring Deputy MacEntee, the fighting man, with them.

Mr. MacEntee: If Deputy Gorey would leave Deputy MacEntee out of it I would be happy.

Mr. Gorey: Whatever price we are getting the position of Irish eggs on the English market to-day is different to what it was four years ago. There is no question about that, except amongst a lot of cackling fools. Dealing with the selection of bulls, Deputy Ryan said that more discretion should be exercised by the inspectors when making selections. I think that cry had some volume in Limerick last spring and the previous spring. I happen to know something about the cattle trade, and from my observation I would be inclined to say that instead of being too severe the examination has been too lax. I have seen bulls coming from Limerick aged two and a half years, and I was surprised that many of them were licensed.

Mr. Allen: They do not till any there to feed the bulls.

Mr. Gorey: Perhaps that is their fault. Tell them to till more and they will have better quality.

Mr. Allen: Let the Deputy tell them.

Mr. Gorey: Certainly it was not the fault of the inspectors, but bulls should not be licensed that are not up to the [2052] standard. If one goes to the Dublin market or to any fair, bulls will be seen for sale after two or three years' service, which are no credit to the owners or to those who bred them. Perhaps the standard has been raised a little every year, and the test made severe, but I say that it is not too severe. I think it should be more severe, and I say that deliberately in view of the fact that this year and last year high-class bulls without premiums were sold at the Dublin Show at small prices. I saw speculators in Munster buying three, four, and five bulls at the Show, and after taking them home getting up to 75 per cent. profit on the transaction.

Mr. Allen: Why did not the Deputy buy them up?

Mr. Gorey: I wonder is Deputy Allen interjecting seriously in this debate.

Mr. Allen: Just as serious as the Deputy is.

Mr. Gorey: If Deputy Allen stands up nobody will interrupt him if he is able to make a speech. I am sure that 200 bulls were sold at the Dublin sales this year without a premium, and could be bought at very reasonable prices. Instead of having too few good bulls we have too many in Ireland. There is no justification whatever for reducing the standard. Deputy Ryan also referred to the prevalence of abortion amongst dairy cattle, and said that was due to the fact that a great many people were not in a position to have their own bulls. I think it is a pretty well accepted fact that bulls have very little to do with the spread of abortion. That disease would be transmitted more by cattle getting into contact with each other when travelling over the same land. I think there can be no question that the general standard of our cattle has been raised. That is the opinion of everyone in the trade. I was astonished with what Deputy Ryan said about hunters. He talked about the heavy type of horse. What does the Deputy mean by that?

Mr. Hogan: The Clydesdale, I assume.

[2053] Mr. Gorey: Is it the Clydesdale and the 'Shire horse? I never knew that there was any favour for that type of horse in Wexford, and I know that that type of horse never made the reputation that the Wexford hunter and hack have. The Wexford hunter and hack were unrivalled and in no county was a better type of horse found. I was amazed at hearing anyone urging the use of a heavier type of horse. The Irish draught and the thoroughbred have had all the encouragement that it was possible for the Department to give them. If there are not sufficient Irish horses in Wexford to meet local requirements I am surprised, especially in view of the advertisements that are to be seen concerning these horses. There are still sufficient draught horses available to supply the demand, but I would be very sorry to see the heavier type of horse going to County Wexford except there was a demand to that effect. That is not the type of horse that made the reputation of the Wexford hunter or the Wexford hack.

With regard to the production of butter and bacon, it is true, as Deputy Ryan stated, that the world's production of these articles has increased almost to an alarming extent. I do not agree with Deputy Ryan in the conclusions he draws, especially in connection with butter. He said that we should encourage the policy of winter dairying and he instanced the increased Danish and New Zealand shipments. For the last three years New Zealand's shipments to England have been seasonal, arriving in the winter. The same is true of Australia. The facts are that they are selling at summer prices for the last three years. In face of the fact that butter is realising a lesser price in winter than in summer in the only market we have, why should we change? Would any man risk his reputation as an agriculturist by advising a national policy for encouraging winter production instead of summer production, when the produce has to be sold at a lesser price? If the percentage of the cost of winter production is compared with the cost of summer production it would work out at about 40 per cent. higher [2054] in the winter. Who would risk his reputation as a sane individual in favour of winter production instead of summer production in face of such facts? There is no sign of New Zealand or Australia ever becoming a big winter supplier on the London market.

I think that a man would not know what he was doing if he recommended winter production as against summer production. With regard to bacon, I agree with Deputy Dr. Ryan that the position is rather alarming. In regard to our bacon, the position is not the same as that in regard to butter. Bacon is produced by almost slave labour, either directly or indirectly, in foreign countries, and the corn used to produce it is grown either by conscripts or under slavish conditions. That is true of Russia. Deputy Dr. Ryan is quite right. You get Polish and Lithuanian bacon offered on the market as low as 35/- a cwt. Last week the price in Dublin for good class bacon was 42/- a cwt., but, as he said, the consumer is not gaining any benefit. The cheaper price at which it is bought does not reach the consumer at all. I happen to be connected with a certain bacon factory whose market cards have been made available to all our customers. We recently had a case in which one of our travellers saw with his own eyes in a shop in Dublin our market card on Polish bacon which was being sold as our product.

The question of bacon is of the utmost importance, especially in view of the necessity of maintaining our pig population, which has reached such a point, both in quality and quantity, that its diminution would be a very serious matter. Deputy Dr. Ryan mentioned that the Danes are getting better prices than we are for butter and bacon. That is true in the case of butter, but not in the case of bacon. It is true in the case of butter owing to the volume of their trade and the amount of stuff they are able to send to England and also because they are able to have the good will of wholesalers. Once you get that through your volume of trade you are bound to have an advantage over your competitors. I believe that the position in regard [2055] to bacon is more urgent now than was the position in regard to butter a few months ago. That fact should be realised, especially in view of the effect which an extraordinary fall in prices can have on our pig population. When the price of butter is reduced considerably people do not immediately sell out their stocks and dispose of their cows and young heifers. They maintain their stock. That, however, is not the case in regard to the pig population. If we are to compete openly in any market with bacon produced in Lithuania at 35/- or 42/- per cwt. and allow for certain overhead charges in curing, Irish farmers would only get from 30/- to 35/- for a 12-stone pig. Our consumers at home may still demand Irish bacon and those in England will continue to demand it. Indeed I know hundreds of cases in England where it has been proved that Englishmen are better Irishmen than ourselves in this respect. In regard to the question of wheat, which Deputy Ryan discussed, I was wondering why we did not hear anything about it recently. We did not hear much about it last harvest.

Mr. Allen: There was no by-election then.

Mr. Gorey: No, for good reasons. They hoped that people would forget the weather we had last year.

Mr. Allen: It is bad now.

Mr. Gorey: It is, and we have not heard much about the Minister for Grass recently.

Mr. MacEntee: I heard him referred to recently as the Minister for green grass and blue duck eggs.

Mr. Gorey: It is the only crop that is thriving. We cannot grow wheat unless the Opposition is prepared to put a glass roof over the country.

Mr. Aiken: The Deputy is decrying the credit of the State.

Mr. Gorey: I would like to know how much of last year's crop of Deputy Dr. Ryan's wheat found its way into bread.

Dr. Ryan: More than half.

[2056] Mr. Gorey: What was the content of flour? I am not talking of the moisture content.

Dr. Ryan: I grind it all.

Mr. Gorey: And eat it?

Dr. Ryan: Of course, and I am in good health.

Mr. Gorey: And so am I. We are not talking about Deputy Dr. Ryan, but about the consumer, who, according to the Deputy, is clamouring for Irish wheat.

Dr. Ryan: It is good for him.

Mr. Gorey: An order should be issued by the Government prescribing the class of bread we should eat, that there should be no white bread. There should be inspectors to visit every house.

Mr. MacEntee: And see that no Polish bacon comes in.

Mr. Gorey: Yes, and that no wheat comes in. Would Deputy Dr. Ryan tell me what is the flour content of his wheat?

Dr. Ryan: I could not say.

Mr. Gorey: You could not tell then the flour content throughout the country?

Dr. Ryan: No.

Mr. Gorey: You will admit that there was more bran than flour in it last year and it will likely be the same this year. Yet you want to embark on wheat production although it is impossible to produce it, even on the best land. I pity the tillage farmer who, of necessity, must be a tillage farmer. I have sympathy even with the mixed farmer who has to grow wheat. I especially pity the tillage farmer who must be a tillage farmer through circumstances or because of the peculiar nature of his land. That type of man is the only poor man, the only man who is on the rocks, in my constituency. I think that the comments which we heard yesterday and to-day concerning this Department are the most feeble which I have heard since I became a Deputy here. [2057] I think that the greatest tribute has been paid to the Department by reason of the feeble attack that has been made on it. I am sure, however, that Deputy Allen, who is recognised as an able speaker, will be able to put up a really strong case against the Department. With regard to young cattle leaving the country it seems to me that there are more cows in the country now, though I do not know the exact number.

The position has altogether altered from that of five or six years ago in regard to the demand for cattle. The demand is now altogether for young cattle, and unless you put up State restrictions prohibiting the sale of young cattle, calves and yearling heifers nothing else will stop it. I would like to see the Party which would stand up and issue an order prohibiting the free sale of any of our produce. This year the competition became more acute for the purchase of these animals. Last autumn it was a common thing to see dealers paying up to £9 for six-months-old heifers in Limerick, Tipperary, and in my own county. There was also a very considerable demand for white faces and black. Nothing short of an order prohibiting free sale in that class of young stores will stop it. The demand is there and more profit can be made out of that type of animal than out of older cattle. The English farmer found that out some time ago, and our own farmers are finding it out now. That means that the number of stores is going to be much smaller than it used to be, and to make up for that we must keep more cows. There is room for more cows, and people will have to breed their own stores.

I think there should be some regulation or some sort of a campaign in regard to the necessity of keeping a proper breed of animal, because going through the country one is struck by the number of cattle that are not full-bred at all. Poor people are forced by necessity to take in some sort of stock in order to replenish their herds. I know several counties throughout the midlands, and up to the North, where nearly half the cow population are black crosses. These people should be [2058] the buyers of our young calves. They should be the competitors of the English buyers at our Munster fairs. Any help that could be given by replacing the badly-bred stock by shorthorn heifers would be good business. There may be something in the suggestion that there should be some help given. Advice of itself would not be sufficient. You would have to do something more than that, but whether it would be advisable or not I do not know.

Mr. Davin: The very high standard of living enjoyed by tens of thousands of commission agents who live on the produce of the land of this country, compared with the poverty of the hundreds of thousands of people in the rural parts of the country, must be attributed in the main to the lack of a proper or progressive agricultural policy. The members of this Party have at all times given their approval and support to all the measures introduced in this House by the Minister for Agriculture for the purpose of improving the standard of agricultural produce, but we think that the Minister, although he has done a considerable amount of good in that direction, has failed to take the necessary steps of making further and proper provision for the marketing of that produce both in the home and foreign markets, and particularly in the foreign markets. That depression exists amongst the rural community cannot be denied. The figures which have been recently supplied, showing 84,396 citizens of the State as being in receipt of home help during the last week of the financial year, prove it on the one hand. I understand that the average amount made available for people in receipt of home help would be in or about 6/- per week. The total cost for the provision of home help has increased from about £430,000 in 1929 to £527,000 for the year ending 31st March last. We have also, roughly, 30,000 unemployed in this State who are, if they are lucky enough, in receipt of the unemployment insurance benefit.

These are some of the things which go to show that there is a reduction in the purchasing power of the community, [2059] affecting, as it must affect, the price paid for our own produce in our own market. I take it the Minister agrees that the price is affected by supply and demand, and if you have not got the workers earning a decent wage, or not working at all, then they have not the money to pay for it. The same thing applies, even to a greater extent, to our principal export market in Great Britain. You have there, at the present time, roughly 2,600,000 prospective purchasers of Irish produce out of work. You have in Lancashire, which is one of the principal centres for the sale of Irish produce, 300,000 cotton workers unemployed at the present time. It affects us in our principal export market, and both at home and abroad this reduction in the purchasing power has mainly brought about the present very low prices paid for agricultural produce.

The Minister, however, in answer to some question addressed to him from the Fianna Fáil Benches, said that the prices for agricultural produce, butter, eggs and bacon, had relatively increased. By that I presume he means that they have increased as compared with the prices paid on the British markets for the produce from New Zealand, Denmark and other countries. Will the Minister, however, produce any figures here for the information of the agricultural community to show that the cost of the legislation which he has passed, and the cost of administering that legislation, has increased to any extent the price of the produce paid to the farmer? That is the real point. The Minister, of course, in blowing his own trumpet on platforms in the country sums up his policy by saying: “Leave the farmers alone.” He says that when he is speaking on political platforms in the country but he does not remind his hearers of how many measures he has introduced compelling them to do certain things and certain things only, so as to improve the standard of their own produce and to pay for the legislation for which he himself is responsible.

Mr. Hogan: I mean the other fellow should leave them alone.

[2060] Mr. Davin: The other fellow should leave them alone; why should you not leave them alone?

Mr. Hogan: Oh, no.

Mr. Davin: However, I see very little good in the result of the Minister's policy up to the present. The real reason for the failure to get better prices for produce as a result of the legislation already passed is the failure of the Minister to bring in legislation to provide a better market, if it can be found, for that produce, particularly for our export trade. I rise principally to try to ascertain from the Minister definitely where he stands in regard to the question of providing better marketing machinery for our butter. The Minister, of course, passed legislation for the improvement of our butter. That legislation was passed at a time when we had in existence some kind of an organised marketing machine. What is the position at the present time? The position is that we are drifting backwards when every other nation which is sending butter to the British market is perfecting its marketing machine, with the result that our exports, in regard to butter, are going down considerably, while there is an increase of exports from competing countries to the British market. I ask this question particularly for the information of the farmers who supply milk to the creameries which have been established in my own and adjoining constituencies during the past two or three years.

The Minister brought in what I call good, socialistic legislation, and he got the authority of the House to buy out the creameries and re-sell them to the dairy farmers on certain definite conditions. I agreed with him for the sole purpose of cutting out redundant creameries in certain areas. I am not so much concerned about the people who live in the areas where there are those redundant creameries, but the Minister should be concerned about the future position of people who went into the dairying industry within the last two or three years. I see no hope for the future of these people unless there is some well-organised marketing [2061] scheme established, if necessary, established by compulsory legislation.

Recommendation No. 5 in the Majority Report of the Derating Commission calls for an extension of improved marketing methods, particularly in the direction of grading, packing and, so far as possible, standardising products. Will the Minister tell us definitely what he intends to do with regard to that recommendation? Is he going to accept responsibility for a policy of drift which will drive the dairy farmers back to the position of supplying the market on the basis of individual creameries?

Mr. Hogan: What recommendation has the Deputy in mind?

Mr. Davin: Recommendation No. 5 made by the majority of the De-rating Commission. The demand for our butter in the British market comes, in the main, from big catering concerns such as Lyons of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. There is also a demand for it, whenever it can be got, from the huge concern known as the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Does the Minister think that such huge concerns are prepared to send hundreds of travellers here with lorries in order to go around the country to collect butter from individual creameries and, possibly, visit farmers' houses in order to collect whatever eggs they may require? They will not do that so long as they have the Danes there to supply them in an organised way. The Danes are able to supply eggs and butter to them all the year around.

Mr. Hogan: The Danish Government is not doing it.

Mr. Davin: The Danish Government is responsible for what is being done by the Danes.

Mr. Hogan: No.

Mr. Davin: The Danes realise the necessity for organisation; they realise the value of organisation.

Mr. Hogan: Is there any country in the world in which the Government is doing the marketing?

Mr. Davin: If you want me to say [2062] that the work is actually done by the Government, I am not prepared to say so.

Mr. Hogan: Do they pay for it?

Mr. Davin: The Minister should, in the interests of the dairy farmers, who are apparently not looking after their own interests, compel every creamery to go into a central marketing scheme, and let the people manage it through an executive committee set up by themselves.

Mr. Hogan: That is a definite proposal.

Mr. Davin: It is, whether it is good, bad or indifferent. The managing body might, if the Minister was willing to go far enough, include a representative of the Department of Agriculture. No doubt he would be in a position to give very valuable advice from the inside.

Mr. Hogan: What would he know about it?

Mr. Davin: If the representative of your Department knows nothing about it——

Mr. Hogan: About what?

Mr. Davin: I hope what the Minister is saying does not mean that he himself knows nothing at all about this business.

Mr. Hogan: As a civil servant, I would not know anything about the price of butter from day to day.

Mr. Davin: I see the joke now.

Mr. Hogan: It is no joke. If I were a civil servant and had all that information I would be making a fortune.

Mr. Davin: I was glad to hear Deputy Gorey speak. He is a practical man in this business. I believe he is a director of a bacon-curing factory. He stated truthfully the position in regard to bacon. Does the Minister agree that the bacon-curing industry is organised on proper lines? If he does not, what steps does he propose to take to reorganise the industry and see to it that bacon is sold in greater quantities provided the quality is [2063] right? Is he satisfied that the industry is properly organised, and what steps does he propose to take to give effect to the suggestions put forward by Deputy Gorey?

Mr. Hogan: What is your suggestion?

Mr. Davin: I made one suggestion myself, but I am prepared now to rely upon the suggestions of a man who knows more about the subject than I do. I certainly agree with Deputy Gorey that effective steps should be taken immediately to prevent foreign bacon being sold as Irish in this country. I heard the Minister on a former occasion giving his views upon the desirability of imposing a tariff on foreign bacon. I am not going to develop that suggestion at this stage.

Mr. Hogan: Give us your own views about that.

Mr. Davin: Deputy Ryan talked about the necessity for providing cheap money to develop agriculture. The provision of cheap money is at the foundation of the agricultural industry. Unless money can be provided more freely and at a lower rate of interest I fail to see how the land can be worked to the best possible advantage. We have farmers with their farms half stocked, and that is largely due to the failure of the banks, whether the Agricultural Corporation or the Joint Stock Banks, to advance money on the security of the land. A certain amount of nervousness may have been caused by the talk of some people about repudiating——

Mr. Hogan: Annuities.

Mr. Davin——our liabilities in certain directions. Those remarks have not eased the situation. I would not like to be associated with any policy which would have for its object the refusal to repay the people concerned the money which they lent for any national or agricultural development purposes. In the Majority Report of the De-rating