In all the debate on this Estimate, there has not been one word of appreciation of the excellent work which, I hold, was rendered by the Committee of Inquiry into Post-War Agriculture. Any references made to it were in criticism of the personnel of that committee. It was alleged that they did not go to any great rounds in making out their reports, that they did not call witnesses to hear evidence of any kind, that they worked partly on their own. There is a background to that committee of inquiry. It started away back in 1938 when the Commission on Agriculture was set up, in response to many appeals to the Minister, to examine the whole question of agricultural policy.
That commission sat for a considerable time and heard a large volume of evidence. Every agricultural interest in the country—agricultural committees, farmers' associations, and so on —was, in the main, heard by that commission. They were given any amount of time to prepare their memoranda for submission to that commission on which varied interests were represented and which examined these witnesses at length and in great detail.
When the war broke out in 1939, the work of that commission had to cease, because it was a well-known fact that in the circumstances which had arisen, they could not prepare any report which would be a true indication of what future agricultural policy should be. As the war proceeded, I remember hearing appeals made to the Minister in this House and criticisms of the Minister for not setting about the preparation of a policy for the post-war period and for not being quick off the mark in that respect. The Minister, in view of these appeals, decided to set up this committee of inquiry. I am sure that that committee went into all the worthwhile evidence tendered by the representatives of the different interests before making out their report. It is true that they did not come to a unanimous decision, but, from my experience on the Commission on Agriculture, I am quite sure that, if it had been composed entirely of members of the agricultural community, they would not have come to a unanimous finding, either; that there would be majority and minority reports. No matter what we think about the majority or minority reports in this case and no matter whether we agree or disagree with them, I hold that the people who acted on that committee gave very good service to the country and deserve the gratitude of the agricultural community.
They reached agreement on many matters as set out in the reports and in the White Paper circulated by the Minister. They reached agreement on such matters as soil fertility—a very important matter, because everybody knows that, as the volume of evidence which came before the Commission on Agriculture showed, a great deal of the land was starved of fertilisers—the necessity for efficient production and the bringing of production up to a high standard of efficiency. They also agreed —and it was borne out by the evidence which came before us on the Commission on Agriculture—on the great necessity for the better feeding of live stock in winter. They also fairly well agreed on the reservation of the home market for home produce. There are small points of difference regarding the export market. The No. 1 minority report gives a warning and urges caution to ensure that there will not be over-production to the extent that placing it on the foreign market in competition with world goods will impose too great a burden on the taxpaying community here who are using the same commodity.
I was here yesterday evening and I heard Deputy Hughes, Deputy Blowick, and some other Deputies protesting against the suggestions made in the White Paper regarding the continuance of compulsory tillage. I do not like compulsion of any kind. I do not like compulsory tillage either. But we here have to throw our minds back to the years 1939 and 1940 when it was found necessary to bring in compulsion for the first time and when, in fact, we were very nearly late; at that time we were in a position whereby we might have found ourselves—were it not for what had been previously achieved—in a position where we would be short in the one really essential commodity, namely, bread. Since 1914 the world has been rapidly changing and rapidly moving. It might not take another war to place us in a very awkward position. There are other factors which might dominate the future as far as our food supplies are concerned. All over the world you have unions of various kinds whose claims are being resisted; you have periods of stagnation and stoppages in the food producing countries of the world. Consequently, it is vitally important that we here should continue some form of tillage. I think the best form of compulsion, if compulsion is really necessary, is that in cases where people fail to till their land, or refuse to till their proper quota, the Land Commission should direct its attention immediately to them and that land should be given over to those people who do not require compulsion to make them till the amount laid down. After all, the amount outlined in the No. 1 minority report is a very small percentage of the whole; it is something in the region of three-twenty-sixths of the arable land in a holding —that is, three acres out of every 20. There are a vast number of farmers who require no compulsion in this direction. There are others, unfortunately, who do require compulsion and it will need compulsion to make them till any land at all. There are some farmers in the country who would not even till a garden plot. Had not circumstances driven them to tillage I doubt if even to-day they would till a cabbage plot. Prior to the war they were going into the market and buying cabbage in competition with the townspeople. Is it right that those people should be allowed to continue to hold land and set that bad example? In my opinion there is no farm operation so simple as grass management.
In this House yesterday we had a considerable amount of criticism on lea farming. I do not profess to know very much about it, but I do not think that it was clearly defined by anybody as to whether it was to be a long-term or a short-term policy. If I remember correctly, I think that the Minister was criticised on a number of occasions for not carrying out experiments in connection with lea farming. Experiments have now been carried out. If those experiments are a failure then the matter should be dropped. But it is rather disconcerting for the farmers to have these experts advising them in a certain way and then to discover that the advice will not achieve the desired results.
As regards wheat, the Minister indicated a figure of 250,000 acres. I think that is on the short side myself. I think it should be extended by another 50,000 acres. To be really safe we would want an acreage of 300,000 acres. I presume the idea is to get the 250,000 acres by giving the farmers a price which will induce them to grow wheat.
The question of beet was mentioned and I think the Minister indicated that we would need 40,000 acres to keep the factories going. He did not actually limit it to 40,000 acres. Now, in the factory areas I would like to see those people who kept and maintained the factories during all these years—both when the price was low and when it was fairly reasonable— favourably treated, particularly in relation to the cost of freight. I think with all the experience we have had in beet growing over the past 20 years the people themselves will not be inclined to go out of production unless production is made worthless to them. One of the most profitable parts of beet growing is, in my opinion, the by-product—that is, the beet pulp. It is particularly useful in the feeding of cattle with an admixture of crushed oats, and it is an excellent form of feeding for cows.
With regard to fertilisers, everybody is looking forward to the day when they can purchase plenty of them. I hope that when fertilisers do become plentiful the people will have the same keen desire to avail of them. There was a time when fertilisers were pretty plentiful here and not too costly, but the people in many parts of the country did not avail of them to the extent which they would lead you to believe they would now if they were available in any large quantity.
Regardless of a subsidy or anything else, I believe that fertilisers should cost the same all over the country. I understand that at the present moment if I were buying manure from a Dublin firm it would be cheaper for me to allow that manure to go down to the City of Galway, be taken off the wagon there, reloaded and sent back to Woodlawn, or Ballinasloe, rather than that I should take it off the train on the way down at either Ballinasloe, or Woodlawn, station. I think there is something radically wrong in that. Possibly it is not the fault of the Minister or the manufactures, but some adjustment should be made by the railway company.
The question of lime and ground limestone was dealt with at some length and the relative merits of both were discussed, not merely here but in other places, by Deputy Hughes. Whether one is as good as the other or better than the other, in the parts of the country where it is impossible to get limestone locally, lime should be available just as cheaply as it is available to the people beside the lime-kiln. There is one matter to which I wish to refer in regard to lime, and I am sure Deputy Killilea or any of the other Galway Deputies will mention it on this Estimate, that is, the lime from the Tuam Sugar Factory. Galway Committee of Agriculture made application to the Department of Agriculture for permission to give a subsidy on that lime, the same as is given on burnt lime. That was refused—for what reason it is difficult to understand, in view of the fact that we were permitted to make a subsidy available on coral sand on the western seaboard. The value of factory lime is well known now to the farmers of County Galway, particularly to those farmers who use it. In my opinion, the farmers who are prepared to use that product, who are in the main beet growers, wheat growers and potato growers, are as much entitled to a subsidy on it as are the people who take away that lime and use it on pasture land—as has happened in some cases.
The question of machinery is very important. Lack of machinery was a great handicap during the emergency. That is one of the things that must be taken into consideration when the question of allowing in imports is under consideration. I do not think it is altogether a proper basis to take production during the emergency as an indication of what the farmers of this country are capable of doing in the way of tillage. There were many very serious handicaps to increased production and the provision of foodstuffs for the people of this country comparable with those normally obtainable by imports. Lack of machinery was one very serious drawback. In areas where there are large and very large holdings it is perhaps easier for individual farmers to procure machinery but, in the western counties, where tillage is as plentiful and, in my opinion, more intensive, some of the farm machinery and agricultural equipment that is now required is beyond the reach of any individual. I may be told then that two or three or four people should combine to purchase machinery or else form a co-operative society. I should like to emphasise to this House and to the Minister for Agriculture that for very good reasons the idea of co-operation or the establishment of co-operative societies in the west of Ireland is almost impossible of attainment. The reason for that is that the co-operative movement was not directed on proper lines or placed on a proper foundation when it was inaugurated in that area in the years 1918-1920. Co-operative societies were formed and organisers went all over the country telling us of the great advantages to be achieved through co-operation but they were not at all careful enough, in my opinion, in seeing how the co-operative society would be founded. Perhaps that was not the organisers' duty but the people at headquarters should have shown greater care than they did exercise. The co-operative society was formed. A secretary or manager had to be appointed. We know how that was done. It was the man that had the greatest pull, naturally enough, either through relatives or some other form of influence, who was appointed. His business capacity or training was not taken into consideration at all, with the result that people who were quite incapable of carrying on that work and keeping the society on proper lines were in many instances appointed. That would not have been so harmful if it had not been allowed to continue, if there had been a check, if there had been an audit of the accounts within the first three months of the formation of the society.
If that had been done, things would have been fairly right in most cases. But that did not happen until everything had gone wrong. Then there was an audit, in a year or a year and a half, when it was very difficult for an auditor to examine the accounts at all. The result was that, not merely had the farmers to pay up their full share of the capital in many instances but three or four of them who acted as guarantors were sold out and some of them were left on the roadside. In view of all that, it would be very difficult to start co-operative societies in the west of Ireland again, even for the purchase of machinery. That being so, farmers in the west of Ireland and the small farmers should be given very special terms for the purchase of machinery that is essential and which will be not merely a labour-saving device but a hardship-saving device.
The farm improvements scheme was one of the best schemes ever initiated in any country in the world. The Minister for Agriculture has not been sufficiently complimented or thanked for that scheme. There was a time in this country when no farmer believed that for carrying out improvements to his own holding he would be recouped 50 per cent. of the work. It is an excellent scheme and I am glad to see that it is the intention to continue it. In respect of field drainage, the inspectors who are going about should be helpful to the people. They are helpful, of course, so far as figuring out an estimate is concerned, but not everybody knows how to make field drains properly and I think there should be some assistance given in that way. One will find field drains made at right angles to the river. That is not the best way. The drain should flow with the river and come into it in such a way that it will flow with the sweep of the river. There are many matters like that in which farm improvement inspectors could be very helpful when they are put on a permanent basis, as I hope they will be. They could be of very great assistance, not merely in regard to drainage, but in regard to the whole layout of the farm.
The question of farm buildings, I understand, has been considered by a committee. There are many farms and homesteads where there are not proper farm buildings, or sufficient of them. I have often wondered why the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture and others concerned would not combine to draft some uniform plan for farm buildings. There is another matter that is most essential to the farming community, if we are to relieve those who are carrying on the household duties of the drudgery of their work, which is greater than for any other section of the farming community, that is, the provision of properly planned kitchens. We have very few of them in this country. A few years ago I saw an advertisement in the newspapers requesting architects to submit plans and specifications for the new Department of Industry and Commerce building in Kildare Street, and a prize was offered for the best plan. I think in this matter it would be a good thing for the Department to offer a prize so that we could have some uniform plan. There is nothing wrong in having them all uniform. They can be increased in size according to the size of the dwellinghouse. If they are uniform they will fit in very well in the farmhouses all over the country. That, I think, would save a lot of money to farmers and be an incentive to them to get on with the work, instead of having to wait for an engineer to come out and prepare blue prints, etc. Very few of them will face an ordeal like that.
A lot has been said about the fixing and guaranteeing of prices for this, that and the other commodity. In the South of Ireland, of course, and in other parts of the country the butter and creamery industry is of very great importance. There are other industries of importance, but to a lesser extent. But we have one industry in the West which is of very great importance to the farmers, particularly in the Counties Galway, Roscommon and portion of Mayo. It was mentioned by Deputy Heskin last night when speaking on behalf of the mountainy farmers. I refer to the wool industry. I know that it is a difficult thing to deal with, but I think the Department of Industry and Commerce should take a hand in the matter to see that as much as possible of the home clip is reserved for the manufacture of home cloth. This whole question of the buying of wool is a gamble, with the result that the small farmer comes badly out of it nearly every season. At present a price of 1/6 per lb. is being paid for the best wool in the West. Of course last year, when the price was fixed, it was 2/6 per lb. I have backed up the Minister for Industry and Commerce in order to ensure that there would be no black market carried on in wool. Nevertheless, these men are as much entitled to their share as every other section of the community. There is no reason why something should not be done to stabilise the position.