When I moved to report progress last night, I was dealing with the price of wheat and the attitude of the Government to wheat-growing generally. As I stated then, when we came into office in 1951 we increased the price of wheat by 5/- a barrel and after the harvest, in order to induce our farmers to produce more in 1952-53, we again increased the price by 7/6 a barrel. There had been no change in the price of wheat from 1947. It has been suggested here that the Coalition Government were in favour of wheat production, but the attitude of the then Minister in the Coalition was that he did not want wheat growing. It must have been so, because for the past 20 years, since it became the policy of Fianna Fáil to extend wheat-growing, on every possible occasion Deputy Dillon tried to kill that scheme—and when he became Minister he helped in killing it. You can kill an industry, you can prevent people from producing an article, not by direct prohibition but by making it uneconomic for them to do so. That was the policy adopted by the Coalition from 1948 until we came into office in 1951. As I stated on many other occasions in this House the price of 62/6 was fixed in October, 1947, and there was no change from that until the graded system came in in April, 1951, and, of course, we changed that graded system when we were giving the increase in July of that year.

Why was there that opposition to wheat growing? Do Deputy Dillon and the people who support him not realise that it is of vital importance to this country to produce wheat? Deputy Palmer stated yesterday that this country was not suitable for the production of wheat. I say that it is eminently suitable.

I beg your pardon. I did not state that this country was not suitable for growing wheat. I stated that the cry of the Fianna Fáil Party was "Wheat, wheat, wheat," whereas they never considered that in very many areas in the west we could grow no wheat.

I can tell the Deputy that we in this country can produce wheat 60 per cent. higher than any other country in Europe. That figure is taken from the F.A.O. reports.

How 60 per cent. higher?

60 per cent. higher yields are to be had in this country than you find in any other country in Europe. That is from the statistics of F.A.O. We must realise that, for the sake of our people and for the sake of our tillage farmers it behoves us to produce as much wheat as possible simply because of the necessity for providing farmers with a cash crop, an unlimited market and for ensuring that our people will have a sufficiency of bread if and when the necessity arises for us to make provision against an emergency. On these grounds alone, it is necessary for us to expand and develop the production of wheat as much as we possibly can.

It was argued here that because of the Government's view on the production of wheat and because of their anxiety to have more wheat produced that, last year, the Government depressed or helped to depress the price of barley. There is nothing further from the truth than that assertion. The difference is this: in the case of wheat, as I have stated, there is a practically unlimited market but, in the case of malting barley, there is a very limited market. The total acreage of barley required for industrial purposes in this country can be covered with 130,000 or 140,000 acres. That is a very small percentage of our total acreage under cereals. 130,000 acres or 140,000 acres give a sufficiency of malting barley. If you exceed that acreage, what is to become of the barley outside the requirements of commercial industry? It has to be sold in the feeding market and the price that is available for feeding barley must be governed by the prices that you get for bacon, poultry, eggs, beef and milk. It must be dependent on the prices that you get for these commodities. There is no other use that it can be put to. We must realise that.

I have heard Deputy Sweetman and many other Deputies talking here about depression of barley prices, but did they ever advert to the circumstances, that the market for malting barley is limited here; that once the requirements are filled for commercial or industrial purposes, the only other market available is the feeding market, and that you have to depend on the prices that you get for your other commodities?

Why was barley controlled during the emergency?

The emergency was a very different period.

Why was it controlled then?

Was it not necessary, and do Deputies not see that it was necessary? What was the first consideration of the Government of the time? Was it not to feed our people? Was it not to ensure that we were independent of outside sources for our supply of bread? Why should a Government help to depress or why should it depress the price of barley? At that period, I think there was a good reason for it. Was there not good reason for supplying bread and flour to our people?

The very same reason to-day.

No reason whatsoever. The price of barley was decontrolled in 1947 when the emergency had ceased. Then it was left to a free market. It was left to the growers to make the best bargain they possibly could, as they did in 1947.

In 1947? Do you believe that?

I have had a connection with the barley question over a much longer period than either Deputy Dillon or Deputy Hughes. I was on the first deputation that Messrs. Guinness received in this country to fix a price for barley, in 1936.

What about the barley Messrs. Guinness imported?

I will come to that shortly. I know the history of all that period.

I know all about it too.

I know that it was very difficult for us in 1936 to get Messrs. Guinness to take more than 500,000 barrels here. I have stated that, in 1947, the price of barley was decontrolled.

Do you believe that?

I am certain of it. I know it.

You are daft.

Before Deputy Dillon came into office there was a price fixed in 1947.

You are daft.

In 1948 the price was fixed, and we got a higher price from Messrs. Guinness when the price was fixed. There was no depression of price. It was left there. We were far behind the British market at the time.

It should have been the same this year.

Is the Minister saying that his predecessor decontrolled the price in 1947 and that I reimposed control in 1948?

No. I say it was decontrolled in 1947.

You are quite wrong.

I am not quite wrong. It was decontrolled before you came into office.

You are rambling. That is all I can tell you.

If the Deputy will keep quiet for a couple of minutes, I will try to help him out.

You will want to root very deep in those papers before you find that.

If it takes me until to-morrow, I will root.

Root away.

In this week, the Corn Trade News of the 21st July, 1952, gives the price for the coming year.

Has the Minister stopped rooting for the information?

He has found it.

Give it out. When was the decontrol?

"An agreement is announced between the Brewers' Society and the National Farmers' Union on the prices to be paid for barley for the 1952 crops to be used in brewing. For the 1952 harvest the minimum and maximum prices will be 120/-and 150/- per 448 lbs." Where is the £5 5s. per barrel that we heard Deputies talking of yesterday and other days? These are the prices that have been agreed to between the brewers and the National Farmers' Union of England. Last year when the agreement was made it was on the basis that the Irish barley grower got 2/6 over and above the price paid by Messrs. Guinness to the British farmer. It did not follow that Messrs. Guinness paid the highest price for barley. Actually in Britain that company would not pay the highest price for this crop. The brewers of light ales were paying a much higher price. They were looking for top quality barley which Messrs. Guinness did not require. Farmers like Deputy Corry are doing much better this year than if they had made the same agreement as the beet growers made with Messrs. Guinness in past years. This year farmers are getting a firm price of 75/-per barrel. However, I am not concerned with this question of barley. The price of barley is decontrolled now and we always wanted it decontrolled. I am glad it is decontrolled, because I want to have a right to make my own price. I feel it would be much better for this country if we had a little less bureaucracy and a little more independence and enterprise.

An untruth has been bandied around, outside and inside this House, which I would like to nail by saying that neither I nor any member of the Government had hand, act or part in depressing the price of barley this year. I met a deputation from the Beet Growers' Association, I think, it was on a Wednesday or a Thursday, and they discussed with me the increased price for wheat. As I mentioned to Deputy Sweetman last night, the new price fixed with Messrs. Guinness for barley would be the last thing they would mention to me.

Was the Minister not aware of the new price?

No. If I had, I would have used it as an argument against them when they came to me looking for a higher price. They could make a good case if the price had been 84/-a barrel, but at 75/- a barrel they could not have made a good case. Is it not obvious to anybody that they would have hidden the new price from me? Whether members believe me or not, the fact is, the first intimation I got of the new price was when I read it in the Evening Herald on the evening of the Gresham Hotel conference. At that conference the question was raised by Senator McGee and by Mr. P.J. Birmingham from Offaly. At the time, I did not know what the reference was except that a price had been arranged between Messrs. Guinness and the Beet Growers' Association. I had no knowledge whatsoever of the price that had been fixed. As I have said already, 130,000 acres or 140,000 acres was a mere bagatelle, and would not interfere in the slightest with wheat growing. It is my policy that malting barley, feeding barley and oats should be grown. It would be a good thing if Deputies tried to forget the idea they have that I depressed the price of barley.

When was the price of barley decontrolled?

In 1947.

You are searching for the document.

I am not searching for the document. I know it.

Have you got the document?

The price was decontrolled in 1947. Another question was raised by Deputy Dillon in regard to the subsidisation of fertilisers.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I appeal to you for guidance on a point of order. What am I to do when the Minister for Agriculture says I decontrolled the price of barley in 1947 when he knows I did not?

I did not say the Deputy decontrolled the price of barley. What I said was that the price was decontrolled in 1947, not by Deputy Dillon.

No, or by any other living creature.

Deputy Smith decontrolled the price and fixed one in October, 1947.

Then I fought a bloody battle in 1948 about nothing at all.

Deputy Sweetman said last night that the price of barley was fixed by Deputy Smith. The Deputy can confirm that by consulting his colleague.

One of us is daft, and I do not think it is I.

There is great doubt about that.

I would like to relieve the Deputy's mind so—

Are you coming over to me?

No. I am going to get the Official Report.

I hope it keeps fine for you while you are rooting it out.

You had better be finished before he gets back.

Deputy Dillon said that during the war period Fianna Fáil allocated a certain sum of money each year for the subsidisation of fertilisers. He told the House that this money was put into the Estimates for the purpose of hoodwinking farmers. It is quite true that there was no hope of getting fertilisers in the early years of the war, but, yet, if they became available provision had been made in the Estimates to subsidise them. Most of us have a distinct recollection of the situation that existed during the early war years. We know how difficult it was to get fertilisers, coal or any other commodities from outside. We realise that it was nearly impossible to procure the very necessaries of life and that our shipping was taxed to the utmost capacity to feed our people. The argument is being used that provision was made in the Estimates for the subsidisation of fertilisers and that this was done for the purpose of hoodwinking people. Vouchers were issued to cover whatever money was provided in the Estimates, so that the lands that had been deprived of fertilisers during the emergency period would be refertilised when that period came to an end. Even to-day some of those vouchers are being sent in and credit notes are being issued for them.

Why is the Minister not subsidising fertilisers now?

At the present time?

That was the argument here last night.

The argument made here last night by Deputy Dillon was that Fianna Fáil hoodwinked people during the emergency period by providing money in the Estimates for the subsidisation of fertilisers and then telling the House that out of £1,000 only £50 was spent, or something in that ratio.

I think there was an appeal to the Minister to subsidise fertilisers now.

At meetings with various county committees of agriculture, my argument on all occasions has been that I would not feel justified in even recommending subsidisation of fertilisers; we were importing a big quantity of fertilisers and even if we were able to get them in here at a pretty normal rate the first year and we put forward a subsidy, in the following year we would have to go back to those people and buy a quantity of fertilisers from them again. There was nothing we could do to prevent those people from bringing up the price because they would say we could charge this price for it, that it did not matter to the Irish farmer if the price was too high as the Government would come to his aid by giving him a subsidy. That is an attitude that could be and would be adopted by an outside firm, people from whom we purchase these manures. It would be a different matter, if we produced all our fertilisers at home, to talk about subsidising; but when you are dependent upon outside sources for your supplies in my opinion it would be bad policy even though at some time or other it might be necessary to do it in order to encourage people to use more fertilisers.

During the earlier part of the war, when sulphate of ammonia was making £45 or £50 per ton, there were farmers who were prepared to pay that price. Even by paying that price they would be able to make a profit. Is there anybody in this House who can assess the value of fertilisers and tell us when we have reached the maximum price for them, a price which from then on will provide you with no profit? It is all right for people this year. They may be dear but even so the application of fertilisers at any price is going to give you trouble. That brings me back to another matter which is of vital importance and that is the application of ground limestone.

The Minister referred to credit vouchers. A number of farmers have mislaid them and unfortunately they cannot benefit at the present time. Would the Minister be satisfied to take a statement from the millers to whom the farmers supplied their wheat and give the farmers the benefit of their credit vouchers?

Certainly. If any people who have sold wheat to mills and who have lost their vouchers give us a letter from the millers who purchased that wheat we will recognise their vouchers.

That is what I wanted cleared up.

I was speaking about lime. I say it is of vital importance to the country at the present time that more lime and more fertilisers be used. A survey is being carried out, and it is estimated that in order to correct soil acidity we would need to apply 12,000,000 tons of lime to the land in this country. Early in 1947, the Government of the day decided to develop the production of ground limestone. At first, it was thought that this should be done by a State company. The elections of 1948 intervened before arrangements had been made and it was decided by the then Government that it be left to private enterprise. To-day, we have 18 firms producing ground limestone in the country. They produced 75,000 tons in 1950. Up to 31st March, 1952, we produced 280,000 tons of lime and for the three months, from 1st April, 1952, to 7th June we have produced 100,000 tons.

At this stage, I might say that arrangements are being made to have plant erected at Scariff, County Clare. Deputy Murphy raised that question last night, and for his benefit I would like to state now that arrangements are being made to go ahead in Clare.

Who is going ahead in Clare?

Mr. Treacy. With the 18 firms working to full capacity, it is possible that we may be able to get 750,000 tons of limestone per annum. However, we will have to develop that. There is room for development. A greater amount of lime must be applied to our land if we are going to get the production we hope. The same thing applies so far as fertilisers are concerned.

By using more fertilisers we will have better crops, better grass, and our cattle will be better fed during the winter-time, with the result that, in the spring-time, we can avail of the higher prices that are paid at home and abroad for our live stock. It is dependent now on a greater use of limestone in the country and a greater use of fertilisers. Pre-war in this country two-thirds of the fertilisers were used in the beet-growing and tillage areas. Very little fertiliser was used outside of those areas. We want our people to use them. We want them particularly to use lime on most of our grasslands in the dairying areas.

Hear, hear!

Did the Deputy find out about the price of barley?

On the 10th October, 1947, the Minister fixed the price of barley at 45/- per barrel.

I told you so. I told you the price was fixed in 1947.

You said decontrolled.

Yes, decontrolled.

The Minister fixed the price on the 10th October. I said the Minister was helping the brewers to rob the country. I fixed the price at 50/-, then at 55/-, and then took the control off and the price then went up to 84/-.

Deputy Dillon is going two or three years in advance.

In 1947, the Minister fixed the price at 45/-. In 1948, we increased the price to 50/-. Furthermore, the price was payable ex-farm. Subsequently, the price was increased to 55/- per barrel. When the control was taken off, the price went up to 84/-. Then we had the astonishing bargain whereby the Beet Growers' Association agreed to take 75/-instead of 102/-.

I have heard a lot of talk—

Is not that a fact?

The Deputy is perfectly right.

If the Minister had said that before he would have saved me a long journey.

We heard a lot of talk about oats. It might be of interest to Deputies on the opposite side to know that only about 10 per cent. of the oats produced in the country come into the market. This year I was informed that there is a certain quantity of oats held in stores. It would amount to quite a considerable sum. I wonder what is the reason for that, because usually at this time of the year oats are running out and generally getting scarce. I was just wondering if it was because Deputy Dillon permitted some of our wholemeal millers and oats factors to import 16,000 tons of oats in 1951, some of it arriving in this country before the harvest of 1951, choking our stores, and I would say having a detrimental effect on the sale of oats during the year.

In August, 1952!

It was one of the babies the Deputy left me.

Have sense.

The Deputy does not realise, I suppose, that 16,000 tons of oats came in from April to July of 1951. Deputy Murphy asked me why I permitted the import of barley in 1952 and I had better give him the answer. In January, 1952, Messrs. Guinness, even though they had paid £4 4s. for barley from September until January, found that owing to the new regulations regarding the gravity of stout in November, 1951 it would be necessary for them to get more barley. Messrs. Guinness paid the highest price in 1951 and yet after trying to get more malting barley at that period they were unable to get it. If they were able to get it, I am sure they would have purchased it at £4 4s. per barrel rather than pay £5 5s. per barrel in Poland. It has been asked, "Why did you permit them to do so?" We permitted them to do so because they were unable to get it at home. If they were able to get it at home, they would have saved 21/- per barrel which they had to pay extra for barley from outside.

How does the Minister explain the farmers selling barley to Beamish and Murphys at 70/-a barrel?

Deputy Murphy should allow the Minister to proceed.

In September and October of that year many barley growers, particularly those growing under contract, sold barley as low as 70/- a barrel. Even at that time there may have been others who sold barley at 70/- a barrel, but any growers who grew under contract for Messrs. Guinness got £4 4s. a barrel. I do not think that needs any rehash from me. The Deputy must be well aware of what happened in Cork in 1951.

I know that some farmers got less than 70/- a barrel.

As regards potatoes, they are sold under three headings. You have seed potatoes, you have early potatoes and you have ware potatoes. As regards seed potatoes, there is a potato marketing committee set up in this country. Its members are unpaid and it is not a statutory body. It tries to find markets for potato seed growers outside this country in any country where seed potatoes are saleable. There is no stone left unturned in trying to find markets. I should like to remind the House, however, that the seed potato market is becoming a most competitive market. Last year, for instance, even though it sold a very large quantity to another country early on in the year, it was discovered that as a result of improved yields in that country that its purchase of potatoes was reduced by practically one-half. This is a very highly competitive market; it is a buyer's market.

As regards early potatoes, the same thing applies; it depends to a very great extent on the weather. As regards were potatoes, we are in the unfortunate position that when we have a heavy crop of potatoes in this country there is also a heavy crop across the water, so that there is no possibility of finding an export market in Britain for our potatoes.

The Minister would not think of sending out for Deputy Blaney?

Deputy Dillon tried that some years ago and he knows to his cost and to the country's cost that it is not possible to find a market in Britain.

Are you blaming me for selling the potatoes when you cannot sell them? I sold the potatoes and you cannot sell them. The farmers got £8 a ton for them.

You had the experience of it. I can assure Deputies that every effort is being made to find markets for seed potatoes in many countries.

No stone has been left unturned and no path has been left unexplored.

That is quite true. As I am dealing with tillage I might as well deal with beet. The Beet Growers' Association have been in existence since 1926 and every year since 1930 they have negotiated the price for beet. During all that time it was a question of the beet growers negotiating their own price. For one reason or another, this year the question of a flat rate was revived. That question goes as far back as 1933. I was then on the council of the Beet Growers' Association when this question came up. Some were in favour of it and others were not. But the farmers supplying beet to the Carlow factory at that time who were outside a 20-mile radius wanted a flat rate while the others wanted the rate continued which was fixed by the transport companies whether it was by lorry or by rail the beet was being delivered.

That was continued down through the years until this year when a change was made introducing the flat rate. That is what has caused most of the trouble, plus the question of pulp. I am sure it seems peculiar to many Deputies that during all these years there was very little use made of pulp in any of the areas outside Mallow and Carlow. I would say that there were many farmers in the Carlow area who, during the years, possibly up to the 40's, got very cheap pulp. Again, it was a way out for people in Tuam and other places who are anxious to dispose of pulp. The fact remains that pulp remained the cheapest animal footstuff on the market up to last year. It was costing £7 15/- per ton. An analysis of pulp shows that it has the same feeding value as oats. If you compare the prices of both you will see that pulp was the cheapest animal foodstuff available.

The Sugar Company, in its wisdom, increased the price. Possibly they were justified for this reason, that there were many growers purchasing pulp in the factory at £7 15/- per ton, plus carriage, and who were disposing of it in Dublin and elsewhere at £17, £18, and up to £20 per ton.

Even the Beet Growers' Association might have done a little of that.

The Deputy is wrong. The Beet Growers' Association did not enter into it. They transacted the business between the factory and the individual growers who were purchasing the pulp and they got the munificent sum of 2/6 per ton for doing that. That is the only interest they had in it.

I know damn well that they made a big haul.

In this country, if we are to survive, we must put more of our land in tillage. In 1951 we imported into this country £9,127,719 worth of wheat; £459,763 worth of oats; £5,899,589 worth of maize: £576,168 worth of tomatoes; £152,807 worth of peas; £191,060 worth of onions; and £3,383,989 worth of sugar.

What did we export?

We imported £19,791,095 worth of agricultural commodities that could have been produced here in this country of ours. There is one thing that I could never conceive and I have tried to do so. It is how Deputy Dillon and the Fine Gael members in this House got the support of the Labour Party to put this policy into operation.

A policy that gave us exports worth £45,000,000.

I could never conceive it. If we lost from 1948 until 1951, 500,000 acres of tillage and drove off the land during that period, according to Deputy Dunne, 38,000 agricultural workers——

Have you increased tillage this year?

We have increased tillage. At the moment I could not give you the statistics but you can rest assured that the acreage under tillage has gone up.

I am very doubtful of it.

It is like the price of barley.

We lost 500,000 acres of tillage, and I am going to accuse the Coalition of being responsible for the situation that has arisen. My reasons are these. As I said before, you can kill a crop by not giving an adequate price or an economic price to the person who is producing that crop. That is what the Coalition set out to do, so far as wheat production in this country was concerned. We heard a lot of talk about Marshall Aid and of its being invested in capital projects, but was not the growing of wheat a capital project in this way in order to secure the independence of our people in a time of emergency or during a war? It was as desirable an object of capital expenditure as any of these projects of capital expenditure about which we heard so much. Maybe the Deputy felt that he could not make as many grandiloquent speeches or display his flamboyancy.

Flamboyancy, that is the word.

That is the word.

He would not be found dead in a wheat field.

I suppose the Deputy could not display the same flamboyancy if he had to talk about wheat as one of the necessities of life. If the 500,000 acres of tillage that we have lost had been devoted to the production of oats, barley, potatoes, turnips, mangolds and straw, on the barley equivalent it would have given us 14,620,000 cwts. of animal foodstuffs, and that would have enabled us to produce 210,000 cwts. of beef, 53,000,000 gallons of milk, 3,000,00 head of poultry, 440,000 pigs, the value for beef being £1,050,000, for milk £3,500,000, for eggs £4,125,000 and for pigs £8,000,000, making in all £16,675,000. In addition we would have found employment for the 38,000 or the 48,000 men whom Deputy Dunne claimed had been driven off the land. That is the result of three years of the Coalition management of agriculture in this country.

No, the result of ballyhoo by the present Minister for Agriculture.

In regard to the question of milk prices, which was also raised here, I explained to the House that the Government on coming into office showed their anxiety for the wheat grower. So also in regard to the milk producer. One of the first actions of the Government in July or August, 1951, was to increase the price of milk. Deputy Dillon prior to the election of 1951—some time about April—discovered, after three years in office, that no change had taken place since the present Minister for Local Government fixed the price in May 1947. I suppose the Coalition believed that it was a golden opportunity to hoodwink the farmers, to cajole them and to bribe them into giving them the votes. Because of that the price of milk was increased in April, 1951. Remember there was an election pending in 1951. There was no election pending in 1950 when the then Minister for Agriculture went down to Waterford and asked the farmers of the country to produce milk at 1/- per gallon for five years.

I listened here yesterday to Deputy Madden with the eloquence of a Demosthenes, crying and bewailing over the Minister's attitude to the milk producers of the country at the present time. I have a recollection of the same Deputy Madden two years ago when he trooped gaily in behind Deputy Dillon to the division lobby, when Deputy Dillon refused to give an increased price to milk producers in this country. Fianna Fáil supported the demand then: Fianna Fáil believed then, and when they came into office, that the price of milk should be increased and to honour their promises and to show their genuineness and their honesty to the people who were producing milk that increase was given.

For years past it has been my experience that in negotiating prices for any agricultural commodity, the farmer is always at a disadvantage, whomsoever he was dealing with — let it be a Government, an individual or a business concern. He found himself at the disadvantage that when looking for a price he was unable to claim: "This is what it costs me to produce it; I must get a margin of profit". The Government has now placed a weapon in the hands of the farmer——

With which to cut his throat.

——because they have set up a Costings Commission, that will enable the farmer to discover for himself what it is costing him to produce a gallon of milk. When that is done, and when milk is costed, there is no reason why we should not cost wheat, barley and oats and place the farmer in the same category as the shoe factor, the clothier or the proprietor of any other industrial concern.

Who does not export a surplus at all and will never export a surplus.

He will be placed in the same position as these people.

He could not.

If he can state to a Government, to an individual or to a concern: "It costs me this to produce this article; I must get the cost of production plus a margin of profit"——

Who is going to pay it?

It must be paid.

Who is going to pay it?

The people of the country, the consumers, are going to pay it.

What about the surplus for export?

The surplus for export has not arisen.

Over £40,000,000 worth of produce was exported last year.

Of what? Of milk?

Of the derivatives of milk.

Is the Deputy speaking about the exports of butter?

No, but chocolate crumb and condensed milk.

If the Deputy wants to speak about the exports of butter, I will talk to him.

The Minister spoke about the costings of wheat, barley, oats, potatoes and other agricultural produce. These are the raw materials of the live stock industry. If the price is higher than the market is yielding, I am asking the Minister who is going to pay that higher price? He says the consumer, the same as the boot factory gets it from the consumer. But the boot factory does not export boots.

In exports in the form of beef and cattle on the hoof. Have we exported butter?

Eggs and butter. You will be this year.

Milk enters, perhaps, at a very low figure at the moment, into the production of eggs. The fact is we have made a beginning and we have established something. We do not talk grandiloquently about the way we do things. We put in hard work and we do not shout about it. When I was a boy I used to play games. There was one person that I always detested and that was the shaper, the gallery-man on the field. I always discovered that he never lasted very long. I have always regarded, and still regard, the fellow who put a good heart into his play as doing far better work on the field than the gallery-man. In this case, we do not shout about what we are doing. On other occasions, we have heard Ministers in the Coalition Government, and Deputies supporting the Coalition, shouting about this, that and the other thing. But where are the results? We have no results.

We have £45,000,000 worth of exports.

Does the Deputy claim that he has been responsible for any part of the £45,000,000 worth of exports? What has he done to give us the £45,000,000?

What are they?

What have you done? In what way have you developed a market for a new commodity?

The figure is the highest ever recorded.

We have the exports of cattle, sheep and mutton, but the export market for butter and for pigs is gone. Does the Deputy forget that we are getting increased prices?

Did I not get them for you?

Many changes have taken place since the Deputy went out and he must wake up. We cannot afford to have Rip Van Winkles here.

Are not the prices fixed under the 1948 agreements?

Does the Deputy know that we made a new agreement regarding eggs, and that we got an increase on his price of 9d. per dozen?

No, and I do not believe it.

It is a fact. You are very much behind altogether, and I am afraid you are still sleeping.

You got a small increase, and I hope you will get an even better price for eggs.

We know we have your good-will and we are satisfied with that.

We will support you.

The fact is that we are doing things. There was another matter raised by some Deputy which I should have dealt with earlier. It is the question of cow-testing. I regard this as being one of the important matters in which our farmers should co-operate. I refer to the formation of cow-testing associations, particularly at the present time. when we know that there is a danger to our live stock, due to a multiplicity of causes. I may say that over the years there has been crossing and recrossing which, during all that time, did damage to our foundation stock. It behoves us now, if we want to raise our stock to the pre-eminence which it should occupy in the country, that our people should help in doing that. There is one way in which they can help and that is through cow-testing associations. At the moment, we are providing help for those associations in having artificial insemination centres. That help, with cow-testing, will, I believe, give us a satisfactory stock within a very short period. I believe that our farmers should make a voluntary effort in forming cow-testing associations. They are getting help from the Department. For every 10/- spent, the Department contributes 8/-. That represents the help they are getting from the Department. I believe that it is necessary for the farmers themselves to co-operate in building up these cow-testing associations.

Reference was made to the Bansha scheme. It was tried as an experiment. That experiment is being carried on for the coming year. There is one feature of the scheme that I am not satisfied with, and that is the non-co-operation, I might say, of some farmers within the area.

Deputy Dillon, when this scheme was introduced, made provision for the replacement of uneconomic cows. A number of heifers were purchased and placed on the Grange farm and on other farms, but when the replacement stage arrived a number of the Bansha farmers preferred to take cash rather than take a heifer. That might be good business from one point of view, but in my view it was, generally speaking, very bad business because when the replacement stage was reached they went out on the commercial market and purchased a heifer to replace an uneconomic cow. This heifer had not been tested. That meant that you had to go back on these farms to re-test the cows, and sometimes you found reactors there. For that reason I believe that the scheme is not getting the chance which it deserves. I believe also that there should be greater co-operation from the farmers in the Bansha area if the scheme is going to be made the success which everyone wishes it should be.

Is it not better to leave them freedom to replace the beasts themselves rather than force them to take the heifers?

The difficulty is that, if you do that and if you continue it, where will it get you? It will not get you anywhere. Are you not back in the same old position that you were in previously if a farmer can go to any fair and buy a heifer? He does not know whether she has been tested and she may be a reactor. That is the danger that I see.

On that question of the heifer scheme, there is one point that I must refer to. I am sorry that Deputy Giles is not here. I do not say that he made an accusation, but said that what he mentioned was a rumour. The rumour, according to him, was that I, accompanied by a colleague, brought an exporter—a cattle exporter, I presume—down to the Grange farm, and that we purchased 40 heifers at £45 each and exported them at £65 each. That was the charge that was made against me. I can say at this stage that it is utterly without foundation. I was at Grange farm on one occasion in the course of my duty as a Minister. I was accompanied by the chief inspector and the head of the veterinary section. As is customary with any Minister, I am sure, I went around from farm to farm. However, for the life of me, I cannot understand the reason for that rumour.

It was Deputy Giles' rumour.

Deputy Giles mentioned it in this House and said that it was a rumour. Whether there is foundation for his statement that it is a rumour, I do not know. The only thing I know is that these heifers were for sale on the Dublin market when the requirements of the Bansha people were satisfied. A number of heifers which were surplus to their requirements were sold on the Dublin market to the highest bidder. I think that Deputy Dillon purchased some of them.

I bought eight of them at £50 apiece—and excellent value they were.

It strikes me that this is a type of propaganda and defamation. It is similar to the slanderous statements which we have heard in this country over the years. Our opponents, just in order to gain some mean political advantage, disseminate rumours of this kind, make accusations and defame a person's character.

Deliberate lies.

These are deliberately disseminated throughout the country. I take this opportunity in this House of saying to Deputy Giles and to every other Deputy that I have never stooped — nor, please God, will I ever stoop — to the level to which my opponents allege I could stoop.

Many Deputies, including Deputy Murphy and Deputy Dr. Esmonde, raised the question of farmers' butter. The price of creamery butter has increased to 3/10 per lb. and good farmers' butter will make a reasonable price. However, the secondary quality butter will not make a good price simply because the market that was there for it has gone. There was very little difficulty during the war in selling that butter because of the scarcity of other fats. To-day you have available vegetable fats and a great supply of animal fats. Confectioners and all those other people who formerly purchased farmers' butter now purchase some other commodity in its stead. Consequently, it is impossible to find a market for it. As I told the House last week in reply to a question, the British Ministry of Food are prepared to take a sample——

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

As I was saying, we have made an arrangement that the British Ministry of Food will take a sample. We hope and we believe that we may be able to develop that market. Of course, the price is not a good one but it is the best possible price we can get. I have made provision for the supply of travelling creameries in some areas. I had a survey carried out in most parts of the country from which we received complaints.

To wit?

We had them from various parts of the country — some from Tipperary, some from Kerry, some from Cork and some from Wexford.

Did you have surveys carried out in each of these areas?

Yes, in every one of them, in order to find out their grounds for complaint.

In Kerry?

Actually in Kerry — no I am sorry, it is West Cork.

Tá sé níos fearr, anois.

We offered a travelling creamery to the people of South Wexford.

So did I.

It was refused. We went even further than that. We said to them: "It may be difficult for you to send your milk to the travelling creamery but we will take your cream." We said that because most of them were supplied with separators. After searching that area of County Wexford we discovered that all the cream available amounted only to four gallons.

I wonder if somebody would send out for Deputy Allen. It is a shame that he is not present to hear the Minister. He went out like a scalded cat a quarter of an hour ago.

I come now to the scheme which this country and this House has heard so much about and which has given opportunities to Deputy Dillon to display his eloquence from Donegal to Cork and from Dublin to Galway. I refer to what Deputy Dillon calls the land rehabilitation project.

Will the Minister indicate his policy as regards creamery suppliers in the congested districts? I referred to this matter in the course of this debate. The Minister has already said that he is aware of the many disadvantages under which these people labour.

The Deputy may not make a second speech.

Will the Deputy come to the point and ask me the question?

Has the Minister any encouragement to offer to those milk producers on their uneconomic holdings? We know very well that in the Midland counties and indeed, in County Galway, part of which Deputy Killilea represents, butter is not being produced and milk is not being supplied to the creameries.

That is where the Deputy is mistaken.

I take it that the Minister has no policy as far as those people are concerned?

Deputy Murphy is interrupting.

We would want a by-election to make the Government devise a policy for those areas.

Surely the Deputy does not want another by-election? Was Waterford not enough for him?

The Minister has no policy as far as those people are concerned.

I think you got a surfeit of by-elections in the past few months.

Do you think so?

I am certain of it.

If any of you boys would like to resign you are welcome to do so. That is a nice offer. How many will stand up?

Order! Deputy Murphy must cease inter-reputing.

Would Deputy Carter like to put his fortunes to the test?

Will the Minister say that he will be satisfied to extend travelling creamery facilities to the areas where they are not available at present? What is the Minister's policy in regard to that matter? I think that, on important questions such as this, the Minister should go into more detail and give the information which the people of the country require.

There is one announcement I wish to make, and it is in connection with farm buildings.

I thought you were going to deal with the land reclamation project?

Yes, I will come back to it. I like to lift a person up and then let him fall. I did state in my introductory speech that the grants for farm buildings were being increased. I believe it was very necessary, because one of the ways by which we can have increased milk production, for instance, is by having better housing. There are three things necessary — a better breed of cow, better housing and better feeding. In some cases I am increasing the grants from 25 per cent. up to 100 per cent. I would just like to make it clear that the houses that are involved in this are byres, piggeries, poultry-houses, hay-barns, store-houses for produce and store-houses for machinery.

Does the Minister mean to give us the figures now?

The byre is up by 50 per cent; poultry-houses by 25 per cent.

Could the Minister conveniently give us the actual figures?

The figure is £6 for the byre, £25 for poultry-houses of one type, £20 for another and £15 for another; for a piggery it is £30 for a double house and £15 for a single house; for a hay-barn £20 by £7 10s. up to a maximum of £75 according to capacity; for store-houses for produce the figure is £25 for 250 square feet and £12 10s. for 100 to 120 square feet; for a store-house for machinery of 400 square feet the figure is £25 and for 200 square feet, £12 10s.

Is that regardless of valuation?

Yes.

Is the Minister retaining the restrictive covenant that the scheme applies to people whose principal occupation is farming?

Yes.

I think it is a mistake. It would be better to make it available to anyone who improves a holding. It would make very little difference as regards money and yet the restriction prevents a valuable building being done. Would the Minister consider the desirability of removing that restriction because it excludes brothers and nuns, orphanages and institutions from availing of the farm building grants? It does not amount to very much money but it does prevent a great deal of desirable farm building being done.

To institutions?

I am asking the Minister to remove the restriction that the grant is available only to persons whose primary occupation is farming. I would not ask the Minister to say now——

Why should you include other people? Why should agriculture be asked to give grants to people who are not agriculturists?

If the Department is being asked to give grants——

I am responsible to the Treasury for the money I spend myself and I consider that a good day's work will be done if I give money to the people engaged in agriculture.

I am not criticising the Minister but my experience was that a good deal of valuable farm building was not done which would have been done if certain kinds of institutions were allowed grants. It is a very good way of getting a demonstration building or an industrial school set up.

I was going to refer to the reclamation of land here and I would like to remind the House that we have had land reclamation since 1930. It started then in the congested areas. In 1940 we had a development of the 1930 schemes and in 1949 we had a further development of land reclamation, a natural development. Because we had a shortage of labour, for one thing, we became more mechanicallyminded and as a result of the progress of time the reclamation work that was carried out in 1940 by manual labour was in 1949 carried out by mechanical means. We heard a lot of talk about this new scheme which was Deputy Dillon's pet scheme but it would surprise the House if they knew that under the old scheme of farm improvements more money was actually spent on the reclamation of land in any one year from 1940 to 1948, notwithstanding the fact that we had to produce more food for our people, we had to send more men into the Army and that there were other reasons why there was a shortage of labour. But taking all these things into consideration it is a surprising thing that during those years we spent as much money as was spent during the first or second year after the introduction of what was known by Deputy Dillon as the land rehabilitation project. From 1940 onwards land reclamation and field drainage amounted to £645,500.

And the acreage?

Construction and improvement of watercourses, £454,600; fencing, £240,100. The total area reclaimed during the period of operation of the scheme was 132,348 acres. That was the area that was reclaimed under the despised scheme of Fianna Fáil. What happened under the other scheme?

It is not the figures he is looking for but the right figures.

I have heard so much about this that I felt it was my duty to let the House know what was spent.

Root again now. Get the statistics. Finish the rooting. The statistics must be a honey they are so hard to find.

The number of applications received in 1949-50 was 35,750; in 1950-51, 19,925; in 1951-52, 19,740 and in the three months to June of this year, 3,884. The acreage involved since April was 28,000 and the acreage reclaimed over the period was over 29,000. The number of applications was, as I have stated, 35,750 and the acreage involved 363,000. The acreage reclaimed from 1st June, 1949, to 31st March, 1950, was 410 under Section A; under Section B. none. From 1st April, 1950, to 31st March, 1951, the acreage reclaimed under Section A was 20,562; under Section B none. From 1st April, 1951, to 31st March, 1952, the acreage reclaimed was 54,114 under Section A and 15,174 under Section B, 12 times as much as was done by the Coalition Government in the year before they left office. From 1st April, 1952, to 30th June, 1952, we have reclaimed 3,790 acres under Section B and 26,183 acres under Section A.

More power to your elbow.

As I stated, this is the natural development of land reclamation as we knew it. We are continuing the scheme.

You bet your boots you are.

It was a Fianna Fáil scheme.

It was not.

It was a natural development of a scheme that had been in existence since 1940.

Go and tell the farmers that.

I have already pointed out to the Deputy that from 1940 onwards more money was spent on land reclamation, notwithstanding a war, notwithstanding a greater quantity of food being required for our people and a greater shortage of labour, than was spent by Deputy Dillon on land reclamation in 1950-51. Let me add, we had no Marshall Aid.

What quantity of fertilisers were spread under the Fianna Fáil scheme?

Had I known the Deputy would ask for that I would have had the figures for it. I was left a legacy by Deputy Dillon, a legacy of land needing lime and fertilisers. I suppose neither the lime nor the fertilisers were purchased because of some other purpose. I had to lime and fertilise lands that should have been limed and fertilised six months earlier.

The same thing is happening now.

Provision is being made now for lime and fertilisers. If the farmers are prepared to take the fertilisers as soon as the machinery goes on their lands we will deliver them to them and they can store them themselves. So much for the vaunted scheme about which Deputy Dillon talked over the past three or four years.

A scheme which you are going to keep in operation.

We had it before. Reclaiming land is nothing new. Draining land is nothing new. We had to subsidise lime.

But you are going to keep the scheme in operation.

You will not change the name of the scheme, will you?

I think I will. I have a strong inclination to change it.

I bet you have, but the people will not let you change it.

It is a misnomer. We are not rehabilitating land and the Deputy knows that. The Deputy stole something from the American vocabulary. That is all he has done.

What did I steal from the American vocabulary?

The word "project." Everything in America is a project. If one only smokes a cigarette it is a project. It would not, of course, be good politics or good policy for Deputy Dillon to retain the word "reclamation" because that would be something like the tomato scheme and all the other schemes that were discontinued when the Coalition came into office in 1948. They knew land reclamation should continue and the Deputy had to find a new name for it and he went to America to get that name.

The Deputy stated that there was no quarrel between us. Other Deputies had said the same thing. I think it was Deputy Blowick who said that we were continuing the Fine Gael agricultural policy. I deny that that is so. The policy that the Coalition followed was the Fianna Fáil policy in so far as Deputy Dillon was satisfied that it would not do any injury to his prestige or to his vanity. I have already explained how he tried to kill one of the "exotic" crops here, namely wheat.

It was suggested that the Fine Gael policy was the policy of one more sow, one more cow, one more acre under the plough. We heard that policy talked about 25 and 26 years ago but I heard it years before that. That is the policy that has always obtained in my constituency, the policy of mixed farming. Twenty-five or 26 years ago a Minister used that phrase in this House. It is not a new policy even though Fine Gael claim it was their policy. Let us see how they put it into effect. If you have one more sow, one more cow and one more acre under the plough you will produce more milk, more cereals and more pigs.

What provision was made 25 and 26 years ago to provide markets for the produce of that extra acre? Many of us remember 1929-30 when there was no market for malting barley. I remember it. I come from a barley-growing district. Deputies from Wexford will remember it. Barley was dropping by 3d. and 6d. a barrel every week and in the end becoming unsaleable. I saw barley kept over from the harvest time until February and March and no market for it. That was the "one more acre under the plough". Because there was no other cash crop for the farmer at that time we did not produce wheat. What happened regarding the policy of one more cow, one more sow——

What year are we talking about?

I am talking about the policy you have talked so much about, and which other Deputies claim was the Fine Gael policy. I say that you did not put that policy into execution because you did not provide the markets.

In 1930?

1929 and 1930. It was the Cumann na nGaedheal policy of that time and there was no market for barley or for oats.

Are we discussing 1929 and 1930?

The Deputy is afraid— he is getting a little nervous now.

We are not discussing 1929 and 1930, but the Minister, I take it, is relating the policy of that time to the policy which obtains to-day.

Do you take that, Sir? I would not take it, but perhaps yours is a more prophetic ear than mine.

Deputies will understand that there was no market for barley and in fact the Government of the day permitted Russian oats to be dumped here in Dublin.

Tell us what we are going to do with our wheat?

Some Deputies do not like to hear this, but it is a good thing to remind them of their deeds in the past.

I hope you will deal with the economic war and the slaughter of the calves.

I will deal with that, too.

Come down to 1934 when you killed the people's calves.

We had no market for bacon, which was making 30/- a cwt. Foreign bacon was coming in here and Canadian hams were being imported.

And Chinese bacon.

Chinese bacon, as Deputy Dillon says.