I regard the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture as the principal one that takes place in this House. Everybody admits that agriculture is the basis of our national wealth, and that in the final analysis all wealth comes from the land. For that reason, it is only proper that we should devote the greatest possible attention to the Vote for this Department, and give the Minister every possible help in its administration. Two White Papers have been issued, the principal object of which is to indicate that the Minister proposes to introduce a permanent system of compulsion for tillage. Let me say at the outset that this Party wants tillage but that we will not stand for compulsion. The Minister advanced many arguments in favour of increased tillage, thereby presumably giving himself authority to impose compulsion. In my opinion there is an argument against compulsion in paragraph 22 of one White Paper. It reads:—
"Many occupiers who had not been in the habit of tilling before the emergency and who have since provided themselves with tillage equipment and have come to appreciate the advantages of tillage, will now find it no hardship to maintain a reasonable proportion of their land under cultivation."
If the emergency has done that, it should bring home to some farmers the advantages gained from a policy of mixed farming. While farmers did not object to compulsion during the emergency, even if the quota was higher than 37½ per cent., there would not be any outcry as long as they understood that that policy was absolutely necessary. In my opinion farmers have done a very good job in producing food and fodder as well as a great quantity of fuel. They did more to preserve our neutrality than any other section, as neutrality could not have been observed if we had not sufficient food and firing. Otherwise the tune would have been altogether different.
The aim of the Government seems to be towards more and more regimentation, more and more compulsion. I assure the Minister that compulsion in the case of tillage will defeat its own end. The average farmer tills even more than the Minister proposes to impose on him by compulsion. The trouble with most of my neighbours in the West of Ireland, where they till about 50 per cent. of their holdings, is that they have not enough land for that purpose. As a race our people will not take kindly to compulsion unless they know that some grave national emergency calls for it. The Minister has deliberately gone against the Majority Report, and against one of the Minority Reports of the Committee of Inquiry on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy. Neither of these reports advocated compulsion. I think Dr. Kennedy put the position well in paragraph 133 where he said:—
"Agriculture in this country is based on individual ownership of farms. It can be made efficient only by the joint efforts of farmers and technical advisers. So long as that system of ownership is maintained efficiency cannot be achieved by legislative enactments. Compulsory tillage is justifiable only in times of great emergency. In peace time it does not necessarily lead to higher or more economical output per acre."
The whole question is summed up in that paragraph. I suggest to the Minister that as far as compulsion is concerned we are definitely at crossroads. One road is pointing towards the protection of private ownership, and allowing farmers to develop their own industry, while the other is leading to collectivism and to communism. We had a recent example of that in a Land Bill that was before this House. The Minister stated that the purpose of that Bill was to deal with certain people who got a gift of land from the State, which they were expected to work but had not done so.
It is strange that in connection with agriculture we have two Ministers, directly concerned with farming and each of them steering more and more towards regimentation and compulsion. I can tell the Government straight that we will not have it. I go further and defy the Minister to put such a policy into operation. In his statement the Minister did not mention the few prosecutions that have taken place against farmers who refused to till their quota during the emergency. The number was astonishingly small. Amongst the farming community, as amongst other sections, there are people who will not pull their weight. There are people who will not do their part, either through laziness or through a spirit of prevarication. It is necessary to have law for such cases. That was all right during the emergency.
There is now no need to trouble about tillage if farmers are paid reasonable prices for their produce; prices that will give them the cost of production and a small margin of profit. That would also enable them to pay their workers a decent wage, which they are unable to do at present. There will then be no need for compulsion. The average farmer from Cork, Mayo, Donegal or Dublin is anxious to make most of his land. He is anxious and to get down to his work. I am not referring to slackers or to lazy fellows whose holdings are a disgrace. There are occasionally a few of these in every county. If the Minister thinks that he will force compulsion on this country in peace time I am afraid he has a lesson to learn. The fact is that in regard to compulsion in tillage we are at crossroads. We have to respect the rights of private owners, or otherwise to go a step further towards the Russian model. As far as I can see, that is where the Government is going. The Minister for lands went a step along that road and the Minister for Agriculture proposes to follow him. I can assure both Ministers that farmers will not follow along that road.
I should like if the Minister could give the total numbers of prosecutions for non-compliance with tillage Orders during the emergency. The information will be an indication that farmers were sufficiently public spirited to comply with the regulations when it was pointed out to them that our neutrality was at stake. I think the Minister's statement was poor recompense for the most important section of our people, who, after Providence, preserved our neutrality. It is poor recompense to come along now and propose to make permanent Emergency Powers Orders which he found it necessary to impose during the emergency. The emergency has gone and emergency conditions will go bit by bit.
Before I leave that subject, I want to say that wheat is an all-important factor and will remain so. In that respect, I think the findings of the Commission whose report I have here sum up the situation neatly. Let us by no means lose the knowledge and technique we have gained during the emergency in regard to wheat-growing. If necessary, I would impose compulsion in respect of a small area of wheat to keep up the necessary knowledge and technique because many farmers who were not familiar with wheat-growing, or had not land suitable for wheat-growing, were not able to grow wheat with the same success as that with which they grew oats, barley or any other crops they were accustomed to producing. The farmer's trade or profession—whatever you like to call it—requires a very long apprenticeship. I can personally vouch for this, that it requires an apprenticeship of 20 years, at the very least, and, even after that period, the farmer has a lot to learn. In case we should have to face another emergency, I think we should grow a certain amount of wheat, so that we would always have a stock of seed to meet that emergency. We got over the last emergency safely enough, but we do not know what the next three, four or perhaps ten years may hold for us.
A great deal of the land on the average holding has been gone over in tillage and we have had to change from one field to another, with the result that, in many cases, through lack of fertilisers and proper equipment, we have plundered the land of its fertility. The result is that a good deal of land is not in the state of fertility in which we should like to see it. That is a very serious situation in case we have to meet an emergency such as that through which we have passed. The Minister and the Government should see to it that every inducement is held out to farmers to restock the land with the fertility of which it was robbed in order to provide the food necessary during the emergency. That is the next big step.
It was wonderful that we had it there to call upon for the growing of wheat, of potatoes and of the other necessaries of life. We surrendered that fertility and converted it into food cheerfully, but the big task in front of many of us now is to bring back the land to its original state of fertility and production, so that, first, the land of the country will go into full production as soon as possible and, secondly, to provide that, if there is any need to call on the reserve of fertility, that reserve will be there. We want fertilisers made available as soon as possible and at the lowest possible price to all farmers. During the war, we had to struggle along as best we could with a scarcity of farmyard manure and other handicaps. Now that things are coming back slowly. We should have fertilisers in abundance and at cheap price, because the fertilisers is the first step towards restoring fertility and bringing the land back again into full production.
Lime is also a very important factor in the farmer's economy. It would appear that, over 100 years ago, more lime was used than was judicious, with the result that the land became depleted of fertility. What happened in certain districts—and I am sure it was pretty widespread—was that farmers, through not being educated properly in the use of lime, came to regard it as a very dangerous article to handle and so we find in every farm old lime kilns which have been out of use for many years. This has resulted in the pendulum swinging to the other extreme, to acidity, about which Deputy Hughes spoke. It is doing great damage in many parts of the country. It is definitely lowering the quality of grass and is reducing and has reduced the production of wheat in many cases. It has done damage to many other crops and I suggest that, in addition to the present output of lime from lime kilns, steps should be taken to provide, on a pretty large scale, machinery for turning out ground limestone at fairly reasonable prices and to make that available to the farmers on the terms suggested in the report of the Commission on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy.
They recommended, with regard to fertilisers, a subsidy of 25 per cent. of the cost of phosphatic fertilisers and in the case of lime, a subsidy of one-third of the cost of ground or burned limestone, delivered to the nearest railway station, to be payable only in respect of land certified as likely to benefit by an application of lime. The latter part of that, I am afraid, will be very difficult to work. That is the big problem before us if we are to face up to our responsibilities. The Minister has not taken account of the recommendations of this commission in many instances. In the case of tillage, he has deliberately opposed the recommendations of the Majority Report and one Minority Report, and he does not propose to accept their recommendations in respect of fertilisers.
The farm improvement scheme is definitely a good scheme. It is a scheme which has produced wonderful results and which is fully availed of in practically every part of the country. The trouble in that respect is that enough money is not voted each year for it, and I am sure that large numbers of applications have to be turned down annually because there is not money to meet them. We have done very good work in land reclamation, the improvement of houses, buildings and so on I think Deputy Hughes said that he was opposed to giving farm improvement grants for the erection of out-offices. Out offices are a very important part of farm management, and, in every farm I know, there are not sufficient out-offices. The blame for that cannot be laid on the Department—it is a direct result of an old system handed down from the British days whereby out-offices are rated the moment they are built. If there is a loan or grant made in respect of them, there is freedom from rates for seven years, but eventually they are rated, and this has frightened farmers and has compelled them to refrain from adding to their responsibilities by putting up further out-offices.
In some cases, farmers, in order to reduce their rates, have had to pull down valuable buildings, unroofing them and selling the roof. I know of one case—I think, in Kerry—where a man unroofed a shed 45 feet long by 20 feet wide which he needed for stock and farm implements. There should be a complete overhaul of the whole matter of farm buildings. The annual loss of farm equipment alone: tools, tractors, ploughs, machinery of all kinds, horse carts and so on, must come to a very tidy figure by reason of farmers' inability to house them, and the loss through lack of sufficient buildings to house stock and thereby have an increased output of farmyard manure must stand at a very high figure also. We intend to take that matter up with the Minister for Finance at a later stage in regard to the rating question on the ground that it is deliberately upsetting farming economy and deliberately holding back the farmers. Apart from loss in crops because of the insufficiency of farmyard manure, the loss in tools and equipment, which are part and parcel of the farm economy, is very great.
Now, I come to the question of the crops themselves. All hay and corn crops should be under the roof in every homestead. It is all very well to say that the careful farmer will house his crops. It is quite true that the careful farmer will, but there are many farmers who, through inability and because of their not having sufficient help on the farm, cannot thatch, and the loss in crops because of that is enormous. I speak from experience here because I myself spent many years on the roads on threshing sets and I know what happens in most farms. Grain is damaged and destroyed. All during the war years valuable grain was damaged; rats may damage it; and, even where you had thatched haggards, the rain came in and losses ensued there. Some attempt should be made to rectify that situation.
The next important item is the insufficiency of farmyard manure. Very few farms have sufficient out-office accommodation to house enough stock to supply adequately the land with farmyard manure; that was particularly true during the emergency years. If we had had a sufficiency of farmyard manure we would not have had the same urgent necessity for fertilisers. The result was that we were trying to carry a huge tillage policy with a totally inadequate supply of farmyard manure because of insufficiency of housing accommodation. Unlike the last speaker, I do want to see the farm buildings brought in under the farm improvements scheme; if that is not done then I want to see a definite section set up in the Department of Agriculture with an adequate supply of capital at its disposal to enable the farmers to build out-offices, repair and enlarge their existing dwellings, and provide suitable shelter for storing grain, etc.
I come then to the question of pigs. In regard to pigs we find that there is still a further effort going to be made now to do something about the pig trade. In the past what do we find? We find in the agricultural statistics that the pig population has fallen from 1931 to 1940. In 1931 it was 1¼ million approximately; in 1935 it had fallen to 1,087,000; in 1936 it was 1,000,000; the year after it was 134,000, 958,000, 930,000 and then up again to 1,049,000. I shall not speak of the drop during the emergency years, but according to the latest available statistics which we have—that is for 1945—we find the pig population is down to 380,000. In the past we have had a Pigs and Bacon Board in operation. They reminded me of the fable in Irish history of Balor of the Evil Eye who withered everything he looked upon; everything they touched they blighted it. They have done that with the pigs and pig trade in this country. There is too much regimentation and too much interference and they have proved definitely detrimental in this particular aspect of agriculture.
Commissions and boards have been set up and not in one single instance have I ever heard of producers—the people who should be there to cooperate and give their advice and pull their weight on such boards—being invited to do so. Once again, they are not going to be requested to help. In Northern Ireland the pig trade went through pretty much the same phases and with the same ups and downs; finally, they were forced there to go back to the point where they set up boards on which the producers were given a voice. Until the producers here have their say and give the benefit of their experience to such a board or council we cannot expect the best results. You cannot get results from a board constituted purely of civil servants. They probably mean well and do the best they can, but they lack the practical experience which the man on the farm has. Day by day we are moving closer to a situation where the farmers and producers are being deliberately cold-shouldered and we see the results of that policy. The present policy is leading us nowhere.
We would all like to see the time when this country will have every farmer and every holding producing to full capacity. We are not going anywhere near that at the present time. In the most recent statistics we get some astonishing figures in regard to land. The total number of land-holders is round about 384,000; of that number we find 305,000 living on holdings of under 50 acres and 79,000 on holdings of over 50 acres. We find the total amount of land held in this country under 30 acres is only 2,600,000 while that held by those over 30 acres is 1,200,000. In effect that means that roughly 18 per cent. of the holdings are under 30 acres; 72 per cent. of the land holders have only 18 per cent. of the land between them. The fact is that the land problem is really the root cause of all our troubles. Too many people are living on wretchedly small holdings and there is not a fair or equitable distribution of land.
To sum up then, we must have cheap and abundant fertilisers. We must have some scheme for a complete overhaul and rebuilding of out-offices all over the country in order to provide accommodation for crops principally, and also for the housing of stock with a view to the production of farmyard manure, and the housing of farm implements, the losses on which must run into a very considerable figure each year. We will not have compulsion in regard to tillage; we will not have regimentation. We have the tillage and we will stick to it. If the Government and the Minister will give the farmer a reasonable price for his crops and a price which will leave him the cost of production plus a small margin of profit and which will enable him to pay a decent wage to his workers then till age will be continued. The wage of the agricultural worker is low but despite that fact the farmer in many instances is unable to pay that wage. That is a state of affairs which should not obtain in this country. We want then a foundation stock of wheat in order to retain the experience and technique for the successful and efficient production of this crop and also in order to ensure that in any future emergency we shall have our own stock of seed and shall not be put to the necessity of hunting all over the world for seed at a time when shipping will be engaged in warlike occupations.