Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Mar 1949

Vol. 114 No. 6

Private Deputies' Business. - Agricultural Costings—Motion.

Mr. Cogan

I move :—

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, in order to ascertain costs of production in agriculture with a view to ensuring that the efficient farmer will get his cost of production and a reasonable profit, one or more medium-sized farms should be acquired by the Department of Agriculture in each county, and under the direction of the county agricultural officer should be run entirely by hired labour employed at the minimum rate of wages fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board. —(Patrick Cogan, Patrick O'Reilly.)

I should like to express my regret that I do not see the Minister for Agriculture present. I am not sufficiently optimistic to assert that anything I might say might influence him very much, but his presence at any rate would have a stimulating effect on the discussion.

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins)

Might I inform the Deputy that the Minister for Agriculture is at an agricultural meeting this evening, but the face of the clock indicates that he will have ample time to be here before this motion terminates.

Mr. Cogan

I am quite sure the Minister would be present if it were possible. This motion is very similar to one which was tabled by me some years ago, I think it was away back in 1945, when we had a different Dáil, constituted on different lines. It is just a repetition of an idea which has been expressed in many forms by farmers all over the country. Farmers naturally say: "Here is the Department of Agriculture setting out to teach us how to farm. Why do they not, instead of telling us what to do, take a farm and show us how well they can do it themselves?" That is one aspect of the problem. But another and more important one is that there is nothing more urgently needed at present than that the costs of production in agriculture should be accurately ascertained. There is only one way to ascertain them accurately and that is by running a farm under the auspices of the State and seeing how much profit or loss can be made out of it.

The need for such an investigation of costings is very apparent to anybody engaged in agriculture or even mildly interested in it. In every portion of this city and amongst every section of the community outside the agricultural population we hear people talking about the enormous profits farmers are making out of the land. We hear people talking about the extraordinary prosperity of agriculture at the present time and when farmers seek to dispute those assertions they are just told that they are not serious, that they are trying to put their finger in somebody's eye. The farmer, however, has no redress. He may produce figures; he may spread them over days or years and he may work them out as accurately as possible; the rest of the community will not accept them but simply say that the farmer is trying to make a case for himself and trying to deceive the rest of the community. But if the State, that impartial body, that body which is representative of all sections of the community, that body which is supposed to govern in the interests of all sections, were to undertake the running of a farm, then the figures would at least bear evidence of not being prejudiced in one way or the other.

There are, of course, two established methods by which costs of production may be ascertained. One is to adopt the method which was adopted in this country during the first world war and for a year or two afterwards and which has been adopted in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, that is to take a number of farms and record the accounts of those farms as accurately as possible. That is one method and I am not saying anything against it. I feel, however, that a better method would be for the State to run a farm. I should like to see the two methods adopted. I should like to see this survey carried out here as in Northern Ireland. Some years ago we got a promise that such an investigation would be carried out by the Department of Agriculture but, for some reason or other, the then Minister ran away from it and the present Minister has not made up his mind to adopt it.

Great credit is due to the Irish Sugar Company for undertaking a costings survey in regard to the production of sugar beet. That progressive company, which is under very able direction, did decide a few years ago to meet representatives of the Beet Growers' Association and in conjunction with them set up a costings investigation. I believe that that investigation is giving good results. In addition, some time ago we had in Cork an investigation into milk production costings carried out by Professor Murphy. More recently we had an investigation into general farming costings in Roscommon carried out by Mr. O'Connor. All these surveys are desirable and a step in the right direction. I think, however, the investigation which this motion envisages would go further and would be more definite, more concise and clearer than anything carried out up to the present.

When, practically four years ago, our motion for a demonstration farm to investigate costings was before the House it was extraordinary the peculiar ideas which were expressed by various Deputies in regard to the matter. I hope there will be no misunderstanding in regard to this motion. I hope nobody will say that he does not understand it. I hope nobody will say that it is proposing that the State should waste the taxpayers' money running farms because, if agriculture is reasonably prosperous, there is no need to waste one shilling upon these farms. These farms, if acquired, must pay if agriculture is prospering, if they are typical of the average farm, and if they are run with reasonable efficiency.

I should like to explain the idea which Deputy O'Reilly and I had with regard to this proposal. What we suggest is that the county committees of agriculture, under the direction of the Department of Agriculture, should acquire one or two farms in each county. They would be put under the control of a manager who would employ workers and pay them the standard rate of wages. They would keep accounts of all items of income and of outlay, and the farm, in addition would act as a demonstration farm and be open to inspection by the general farming community.

This is one of the ways in which the ideas of the Department could be very effectively put across to the general farming community. These would be places which farmers would visit on Sundays and Holidays, or during their spare time, to see how things were being done. They would study the accounts which would be publicly displayed and be published in the local papers. Thus we would have in every county an agricultural centre. We would have the Department of Agriculture put on its mettle to prove what it can do. Unless prices were so low as to make farming an entirely uneconomic proposition there is no doubt whatever but that this farm should pay.

I know some of the arguments that will be used against such a proposition. One is that it might not be fairly conducted, that the Department in its anxiety to prove that farming was profitable would cheat, as it possibly could cheat, unless it were carefully watched. For example, it could go in for some specialised branch of farming that would not be available to every farmer. The first condition, in order to make it fair and equitable, is that it should be an ordinary commercial farm, run on the lines of the ordinary farm in the county. That is to say the Departmental farm would not engage in any line which would not be open to every farmer in the county to engage in. Again of course the figures in regard to income and outlay would be carefully recorded and would be available for inspection at any time of the year.

Another argument that might be used against this demonstration farm is that the Department in running it would be at a disadvantage as compared to the average farm. I do not accept that argument. The Department would, of course, be running it with paid workers. We know, of course, that very many of our farms are run with family labour. That might be regarded as one disadvantage, but against that you have a number of advantages. First you have the selection of the manager. He, of course, would be the most efficient man that could be found. That is an advantage it would have over the ordinary farm which in course of time, goes to a farmer's son or a relative. They have not the power of selection which the Department would have in this case. The Department would also have the advantage that the manager, in all probability, would be a young man in the full vigour of his health. That would be an advantage over the ordinary farm in the country which may be run by old people or a widow and in some cases by invalids who might not have the physical strength to work a farm with the highest possible efficiency. Thus the Department would start off with the initial advantage of having a man of youth, vigour, experience and efficiency in charge of the farm.

From the farmer's point of view the argument might be put up that the Department would have one tremendous advantage over the average farmer in that it would have unlimited advantages at its disposal. I do not think that should be so because I think the Departmental farm should be financed in the same way as the average farm is. If credit facilities and capital are readily available to the ordinary farmer they should also be readily available to the demonstration farm. Thus the Department farm in each county would start on an equal footing with the ordinary farm. If they are able to make profit on this farm then there is no reason why every farmer should not make a profit. If they are unable to make a profit, then there is an established case for a revision of agricultural prices. Of course that is the keynote of the entire experiment.

I think we are all agreed that the farmer who runs his farm efficiently is entitled to a fair price for his produce, one that will leave a reasonable margin of profit. This experiment carried out in each county will enable the Department and the Government accurately to ascertain what is a fair price, and on that basis the prices of such commodities as are fixed by the State can be ascertained. There is a controversy going on in the country at present in regard to the price of milk supplied to creameries and to the cities and towns to consumers. Cows will, of course, be kept on this farm. The cost of producing each gallon of milk will be ascertained. In the same way, we have had controversies in this House as to what constitutes a fair price for bacon pigs. On this demonstration farm pigs would be kept and fattened, and so we would be able to ascertain what constitutes a fair price, based on these accurately ascertained costings. Everything depends, of course, upon the experiment being carried out with absolute fairness. If there was any attempt to cheat in one way or another the experiment would be of no use, but if carried out with honesty, accuracy and absolute impartiality this demonstration farm would, I think, become of immense advantage to progressive agriculture: it would become a spear point in each county and would be followed by the entire farming community in that county.

I want to make it clear that this farm would be a demonstration farm in addition to carrying out ascertained costings. It would not be an experimental farm, because as such it could not be used as a means to ascertain costings. For example, if the Department were to try out new varieties of seeds on that farm and they failed, of course that would completely invalidate the entire investigation. On the other hand, if it were to produce on the farm some variety of seed of superior quality, not available to the ordinary farmer, then it would make the test unfair and unsatisfactory. If it were carried out on the lines which Deputy O'Reilly and I suggest in this motion, it would be of immense value. It would deprive critics of the Department of the argument that the Department are preaching what they are afraid to practice. An ounce of practice is worth a ton of precept. It would drive home any progressive theory that the Department would have with double force if they could show that theory put into practice and if it proved profitable.

It may be said that various demonstrations are carried out on farms throughout the country, that is to say, plots of land are manured in a special way that is recommended by the Department or seeded in a special way that is recommended by the Department, but such demonstrations do not show the all-in crop produced on an entire farm. They are simply piecemeal demonstrations. On a farm run by the Department on the lines suggested in this motion there could be a complete and comprehensive demonstration which could be followed by any farmer.

A question might arise as to the size of the demonstration farm. My view is that the farm should be typical of the farms in the county or, if it was not possible to decide on a farm which would be typical of the farms of the county, there could be two farms of varying size, say, one of 30 acres and another of 60 to 80 acres. I recommend the motion to the House and trust that it will be accepted.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I beg formally to second the motion. I reserve my remarks to a later stage of the debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is so entitled.

Dr. O'Higgins

I have already apologised to the Deputy for the absence of the Minister for Agriculture. He asked me to convey his apology as the particular occasion when this motion came on happened to coincide with the date and hour that he had already committed himself to meet other agricultural interests and to express on his behalf the hope that this debate would not terminate this evening and that he would not miss the benefit of any of the remarks passed by the mover of this motion but, rather, that he would get greater value from them by reading them at his leisure.

As a person intervening in the debate, I find it difficult to understand exactly why the urge is so strong from agricultural representatives for a detailed system of costing. As a person on the ditch, I am prepared to say very emphatically that the system of fixing prices for any commodity without a very detailed knowledge of costing is crude and fallacious but that, once you do fix prices based on a knowledge of costing, in fact what you are compelled to do is to limit profits, and that is a two-way sword that, if I were depending on farming, I would not be too anxious to put into the hands of any Administration. The principle of price fixing is in fact dependent on the principle of ensuring reasonable profit, limiting those profits in the good years and ensuring or guaranteeing those profits in the lean years. I do not know that, all round, farmers would be too enthusiastic to have a two-way sword of that nature wielded up and down the country. I agree with Deputy Cogan that it is more or less a slander to refer to the farmers as people that are making gross profits, growing enormously wealthy. It is equally fallacious, unsound and misleading to refer to farmers as a body of the community that are, as it were wallowing in destitution. Farmers have their good years; farmers have their bad years and, unfortunately for the country as a whole, there are far more bad years than good years.

This idea of some costing system is a generally accepted principle in the modern State. Up to a couple of dozen European nations have adopted different systems of costing and if we are, as we appear to be, either in the middle of or approaching a phase of price-fixing all round, it is obvious then that some system of costing must be adopted sooner or later. But, accepting the principle that we should have some system of costing, it is quite a big step from that to say that we must have a definite system of costing and that we must base that costing system on a plan that is as unlike the average farm in the country as it would be possible to devise. If any value is to be derived from a costings system, it can only be because the system adopted approaches as nearly as possible the average conditions under which the average farm is worked. I do not think that anybody, be he the most militant or enthusiastic farmer, would challenge the soundness of that. To say that costings must be based on a special farm in a special area where there must be no labour whatever but hired labour and where the farm is run by a part-time overseer who has other duties for which he has specialised training and other calls on him is to paint a picture as unlike the average farm conditions in the country as it would be possible to conceive.

Mr. Cogan

I suggested that such a farm would be run by a whole-time manager supervised by a part-time official.

Dr. O'Higgins

That is getting further away from the average picture. On this farm there is to be no labour except hired labour at the minimum rate of wages, a whole-time and, presumably, highly-paid permanent manager and the part-time supervision of an agricultural instructor for the area. This man must be compelled to engage in unusual administration which is never asked for in any holding. Every egg broken or unbroken will have to be accounted for in the most thoroughly modern Civil Service manner. We are to take the results of that particular scheme and apply it as though it were average.

That is not an argument against costings, but it is certainly an argument against the particular system of costings, advocated here. I do not know —I am open to correction—of any one of the 12 to 20 countries that have adopted a costings system for the benefit of farmers and for the guidance and information of the State that has adopted a system on the lines advocated in this particular motion. As far as I understand and as far as I have any information of the systems adopted, they fall into three crude classifications. One which may be referred to as the financial system, is based on a simple profit and loss system of accountancy over a very considerable range of farms. It has the advantages of simplicity and that an unlimited range of farms can be covered and that it does not give any particular headache or worry to the farmer, but what can be said against it is that it is merely a rough-and-ready kind of indication. It may give you a reasonable picture of the prosperity or otherwise of the industry in an over-all degree, but it is of no assistance whatsoever in dealing with the particular matters that interest Deputy O'Reilly and Deputy Cogan and which have been thrown around between themselves and the Minister for Agriculture such as the costing of one particular branch of the industry, dairying, wheat or beet, or so on. It is merely a rough indication of the health of the industry as a whole and beyond that it is of no particular value.

Another system is the analytical system based on a very close analysis of every little phase of activity on a particular group of farms with a rigid system of bookkeeping, stocktaking and accountancy, where everything is costed down to the man hour, the child hour, the horse hour, etc., etc. That does undoubtedly give valuable results and gives them in detail, but it is liable to the fallacy indicated, I think, by Deputy Cogan that it is so very detailed and comprehensive that without an immense staff it would only be applicable to a very small number of farms. In this country farming conditions are so very varied that no matter what particular small group of farms you took it would be open to anyone to say that it was not a fair illustration of the farming industry generally.

The trend in most countries recently is towards indulging in what is called the survey system. Under the survey system you can cover a very considerable number of similar or dissimilar farms. It is based on a questionnaire which can be sent out generally, a questionnaire of a simple kind but of a practical kind. It is usual for somebody like the chief of the agricultural committee to be there to advise or assist the individual farmers to whom the questionnaire has been sent in the compilation of the answers. Valuable information can, of course, be secured from a number of those questionnaires sent out over a great number of holdings.

A Minister for Agriculture who is desirous of having a costings system from his own angle will have to select the costings system which is best for his own country. It is one of those things where we should learn from others, learn through the mistakes of others and let others do the spending while we get the benefits. This whole matter and the various designs have been under consideration by different Ministers for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture since price fixing became a feature in our agricultural economy. Various tentative steps have been taken over a small geographical range of country and over small fields of the industry. Deputy Cogan referred to some of them which took place in Cork last year. Very valuable surveys of one kind or another have been carried on with the assistance of University College, Cork, mainly by Professor Murphy. Many of those returns are available but some of them have not yet been published. I think that it would be a mistake, by way of challenge or by way of motion, to rush the Department or to rush the State at this particular moment into any particular plan that happens to appeal to any particular Deputy or any particular group of Deputies. When Deputy Smith was over here he took up the office of Minister for Agriculture with enthusiasm and with certain ideas on this point. Six or eight or ten months later he came to this House and stated candidly that as a result of closer study of the question he had changed his mind on that particular point. It is possible that if Deputy Cogan were here he would change his mind and that he would not be so wedded to sample farms of an artificial kind with a whole-time supervisor and so forth. The Deputy is just as experienced in world affairs as any of the rest of us. Let us be honest with one another. Suppose you had State-owned farms, that is, farms owned by the State and financed by the taxpayer. Suppose you had State-owned farms where the man running the same sized farm across the road would have three labouring men and perhaps two part-time. How many do you think they would have on an estate farm— with the Minister and the Government subject to political pressure all their lives? Why, you would have a score of them no matter what Government might be in power. Everyone of us knows that, and none of us knows it better than Deputy Cogan. The result of running farms on that line would be that you would wonder if the people who were living and working on them were the ghosts of the farmers who should have died of starvation— because every farm would be running at an appalling loss. That would not help the Deputy. It would merely be a joke. It would not help the Government and it would not help the State because it would be crazy and unreal.

If we are to have a system of costings let us have a system of costings that will stand up to any normal test. Let us have a system of costings that approaches as nearly as possible to the average farming economic unit in this country and when you get that system of costings let it be maintained if you like by the State, let it be run by the State, but let it be helped by the industry as a whole. I believe you would then be getting somewhere in the way of price fixing, in the way of profits fixing, in the direction of ensuring that the farmer on whom the whole life of the nation depends would, directly or indirectly, not only find it possible to live fairly well in good years but would have a certain shield, a certain protection, against the blizzard of bad years. In that way prices would then be fixed firmly and soundly according to the reasonable cost in the good year and in the bad year. But such a system, in order to stand up to time and tide and criticism, would have, as nearly as possible, to approach the conditions existing on the average farm and certainly should not be as far as possible removed from the conditions that exist on the average farm.

Mr. T. Walsh

The Minister for Defence has asked why there is an urge for experimental farms. The urge is very apparent at the present time because a system which has been in operation for the past ten or 15 years seems to be going out of existence, namely, price fixing of agricultural produce. I should like to know on what basis present prices are fixed or how the income of a farmer is assessed. In what way do those civil servants, who recommend to the Minister the assessment of a farmer's value and the assessment of an acre of land, arrive at their figure? It is for reasons such as these that it is necessary to put forward a motion such as this motion which Deputy Cogan has put forward. The farmers of this country have been, as we know, from time immemorial the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. The same applies to agricultural labourers. Who has assessed the value of the professional gentleman? Who is the person, and who has had the right to say, for instance, that a doctor's salary should be £700 a year? Who decided that a solicitor should have a fee of 6/8 or maybe 10/- nowadays for writing a letter? What right has any body of men—even if it was an organisation composed of those men themselves that decided their own fees—to say, that their services are worth a particular figure? The farmer has this right, anyway. He is entitled to live in the same comfort as any one of those professional men.

I contend that even though he may not be known as a professional gentleman it takes him a greater number of years to qualify for his profession than it takes a man to qualify as a doctor, as a solicitor or as a barrister. A farmer can be working on his land for 20 years and still be learning. It is not so with the professions. With them, a certain course is specified. When it is completed, after passing the final examination, a man is fully qualified. But that is not the case with the farmer or the agricultural labourer. He learns something new every day. Consequently, a farm, such as has been suggested by Deputy Cogan, would not be the slightest bit of harm in every county. It would prove to our civil servants, if for no other reason, that their system of assessment and valuation may be all wrong. We know that if we are growing a particular crop, say beet, it is costing a certain amount of money. But our trouble is to convince those people who are responsible for the fixing of the price of that product—and who do not grow it themselves—that our figures are right. Why deny us the right of having costings of our production costs? We are not afraid to face costings. We are not afraid to let anybody examine our costings.

The same remarks apply in regard to the production of milk, wheat and, in fact, all agricultural products. Give us the right to decide what should be the fixed price for these products. Further, why not give to that section of the community the right to live in the same comfort as that enjoyed by our professional gentlemen? Is a farm of 100 acres, for instance, worth a good solicitor's practice? I submit that it is and worth more and that it should be worth more. Was any farmer in this country, during the past 15 to 20 years, after starting in his farm and living on it for five years, able to drive around in a high-powered motor-car? He was not. How often has it happened, in the case of a small farmer with a number of sons that, having apprenticed one or two of them in the town to the drapery, hardware or grocery trade, to serve their time they came back to the farm after three or four years and asked the father to help them to buy a shop for them? How often has it happened, in such a case, that after two or three years the son could afford to drive around in his motor car? Is there not something wrong—because the brothers who were left at home to work on the farm are still struggling? Very often they have to wait until they are 35 or 40 years of age before they have sufficient money to get married. In many cases they are never able to buy a farm. That is one of the reasons why we have depopulation of the rural areas. We hear a lot of talk about late marriages, and so forth, but the fundamental reason is that a man who is being brought up as a farmer's son has not sufficient capital to go into farming himself. Because he has not, he will not get married, for the reason that if he did so, he would have to come down to a lower standard than that on which he was reared.

That is why the farmer wants a proper assessment in respect of the crops he produces. Why should anybody deny him that right? He is entitled to know what it is costing him to produce the commodities he produced, and, once you have discovered what that cost is, the farmer should get a fair margin of profit to enable him to live in the same conditions as the professional gentleman. The argument may be put forward by the professional gentleman that it has cost more to educate him, but his education is a one-track education. I defy any of these professional gentlemen to tell me that he knows as much as the ordinary agricultural labourer in the country. He does not.

These experimental farms should be run on a system whereby the whole countryside would know what they were costing and there is no necessity for the Minister for Defence to say that, if the State were running them, they would be regarded as State concerns. It is not necessary, for instance, to have a qualified man to run one of these farms—any good steward in the county can be selected to run it. Let him run it on the same conditions as the ordinary farmer living next door runs his farm. There will then be only this difference between the farms, that a strict account will be kept of every penny spent on production on that farm during the year and every penny derived from that farm. Then, we will know whether it is necessary to have a fixed price for our produce or not.

We come up from the country on deputations to the Minister, who is advised by his experts, and we ask for an increase in the price of milk. We are told that the price of milk is sufficiently high. The Minister is not looking at the problem from the point of view of the farmer's production costs but from the consumer's point of view. The consumers will always have a greater number of votes than the producers and he is perfectly right in looking at it from that point of view, if, by increasing the price of milk, he is going to lose a few votes. That is what he will do and what his civil servants will advise him to do. The same applies to the price of beet—the price of sugar must be considered. The ultimate consideration is the price at which the sugar can be sold to the consumer and there is no regard whatever for the farmer who grows the beet. The same applies to all the other commodities produced on the farm.

These experimental farms can be tried for a few months under the direction of a manager who is not one of the experts. We do not want theoretical experts at all. We want practical men to run these farms, as the farms beside them are being run, who will see that proper accounts are kept, so that when we ask for reasonable returns for our work, we will be able to put up sound arguments in favour of a reasonable price, so that the farmer may have a reasonable profit from which to pay a reasonable wage to his worker and to enjoy life as he is entitled to enjoy it.

Captain Giles

While I have every sympathy with the movers and supporters of the motion, I am not one of those who would support it, because I am satisfied that it would be nothing but a waste of money, and the farmers have seen enough waste of public money in the past 15 or 20 years. To my mind, there is no need for such farms as these because, in all our counties, we have scores of well-run and well-balanced farms which are an example to this House and to the country, farms which are run by men who mind their business and get proper returns from work well done. These farms are more important than the farms which the motion seeks to have established. How are farms of this type to be set up? What size farm would you set up and what type of farm is it to be? What capital would you set aside for it and what economy would be carried on there? We must realise that there are 101 types of farmers, 101 types of farms and 101 types of economy. There are no two farms run alike and no two farmers with the same type of mind. The whole thing is preposterous—simply nonsense. I regard the proposal as being a bit sloppy coming from men who, I believe, are themselves balanced farmers.

What this country needs is a lead and it never got a lead. We were running from Billy to Jack for the past 25 years—bringing out farmers to the right on one occasion, to the left on another occasion, and shoving them into the ground the next time. They never got a chance, because they never got a fixed plan which they could follow. Happily, at present, there is some hope, in that there is a five-year term ahead of them whereby they know where they stand. They can base their economy on that five-year plan with a reasonable chance of a fixed market and fair prices. That is what the farmers want and not the type of farms suggested here which would merely bring poor results.

Under the guidance of our county committees of agriculture, there are at the moment good schemes by which various plots are laid down in different areas on which a farmer can see where a crop should be sown, how it should be sown and the returns it should give. These are there in every county for every farmer to see and there are demonstrations month after month for our farmers to attend. Whether horticultural or agricultural work, they are all there, and they are costing a vast amount of money. Now we are asked to start a new type of farm, but I cannot see what type these new farms will be. I should like those who urge this proposal to realise that one man and his family can live comfortably and well on a ten-acre farm, while another farmer with the same family and in the same conditions would not live in comfort on 100 acres—he would go burst. The whole thing depends on the type of man in charge of the farm.

I come from a county in which there is a vast amount of farming of different types. We have the balanced farms, the uneconomic farms, and the rancher farms. I am one of those who was born on a middle-class farm, and, in the area from which I come there is nothing but labourers and middle-class farmers of from 30 to 70 acres. For the past 300 or 400 years scarcely one of these farms has gone out of the possession of these families. There was always a fair-sized family coming on, and, though the sons and daughters went away, one was left behind to carry on the old tradition of thrift, good management and hard work from morning till night, while, at the same time, getting a fairly good living and a fairly good measure of comfort out of the farm. He was always able to meet bad and good times as they came along. That is what I stand for. Let us get rid of a lot of this nonsense. We are whining and crying for 25 years about the poor farmers being down and out. I never heard anything but that—"the farmers are down and out." The farmer is never down and out. I never knew a farmer who was not in a good way of living if he had five or 50 acres. He was never down and out. A man can be broken and down to the bottom and he will rise again if he has the spirit. This whining and crying and cringing about the terrible times the farmer is going through is all wrong. Many farmers are going through bad times and many farmers were going through bad times in the best of times, in many cases because they are no damn good. Many farmers were living well in the worst of times, because they took off their coats and ploughed through their work and took everything as it came.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should tell us something about costings, on which the motion is centred.

Captain Giles

I am quite satisfied, as far as costings are concerned, that there is no hope from this type of farmer, for giving any costings that would be of any use whatsoever, because I do not see how you can get costings from smaller middle class farms of the type. You have a type of farmer who has got a family and you cannot tie him down to costings, because there are a hundred and one ways of spending the money. There may be two or three sons on the farm and one son would live for the whole week on 5/-, while another son wants £2 and another wants £3. One of the sons would wear a pair of pants out in a month, while another would take six months. One son would wear a pair of boots out in a month, while another would make them last 12 months. You could not get balanced costings on such a basis. You can send one son to the fair with the father's cattle and it won't cost 10/- and he could send another son and he would spend £5. How can you make up costings on that? Another son will want to go to a dance and not alone will he bring one "mot" with him but he will bring three or four. He will hire a car to take them and before he gets there he will call into two or three publichouses and have a right royal time; and in the morning he will be looking in every pocket to find the £5 note he had in his pocket the night before and it will be gone. The father can only shake his head, because he knows well that if he says anything to Johnny, he will skip away.

The less we have of this talk and the more common-sense the better. Tell our farmers exactly what should be told them—that they are the finest type of people in the country, that they have the finest living in the country and whether they have bad times or good times the job they have is almost a sacred one. I would not change my living in the country with the Aga Khan or the President in the Park, because their living is only a miserable one, while the life of a farmer out the country is a God-given life, with free fresh air and your own time. You can lie in bed all day long and no one will put you out of it or you can get up at six in the morning and work until ten at night and there is no one to stop you or say anything. That is what I call full and perfect freedom and that is what we have. Our farmers are proud of that and hold to that, and as long as we have that we are going to hold Ireland for the Irish people. I tell the movers of this motion to examine their conscience and see if they are bringing the farmers along the proper road, or trying to make proper fools of themselves and the farmers.

I know there is a vast amount of difference between Cavan, where Deputy O'Reilly comes from, and Meath. In Cavan you would live on five acres of land and have £1,000 in the bank, but I would not take a Cavan man's way of life for a Meath man's for £1,000 a day. The Cavan man's way of life is a hard one and the majority of them are toiling and dragging from morning till night to make money and the poor devils have to do it, because they have very little land. In Meath a man with 50 or 70 acres of land can have a good living; there is one thing about him, he hardly ever puts a shilling in the bank. He lives up to every penny and gets a good life.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not dealing with costings.

Captain Giles

I am sorry, but I have gone pretty well as far as I want to go, to give the proper idea in this House of what farming should be and could be. I want to hear Deputy O'Reilly and Deputy Cogan coming down to something proper and constructive here and not be always whining. I can whine morning and night myself and so can every Deputy in this House and cry about the woes of the farmer. I know the woes of the labourers and the woes of the poor little devils with a yard of a counter and an overdraft in the bank and very little doing in the shop.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not dealing with costings.

Captain Giles

I think what I am saying is really worth saying, as it is nearly as good as the costings. This thing about costings is proper rot and cod. You will never get proper costings. If you are going to put up a demonstration farm in a county, you must put up an uneconomic kind of farm. You must have the kind of farm like that of the Cavan men who have about 20 acres, you must put up the farm of 50 acres like the balanced farm, and you must have the 75 or 100 acres of the gentleman farmer; and take the costings of those three and see which is the best means of living. I do not know what farm you are going to get to evolve a system and see the results. What type of farm or what size of farm would you take? There are 101 types. There is one which would give you 25 barrels of wheat to the acre, which I get myself, while the man beside me can get only six barrels to the acre, no matter what he does, no matter what manure he uses and although he carries on with proper husbandry. How will you compare these farms? It cannot be done. I have said enough to put before most of the House my view. Let the farmers alone and leave them in the hands of the leader they have, Deputy James Dillon, and I am satisfied they will get their own economy and get a balance on it.

Mr. Moylan

The mover of the motion seems to have two sides to his character. In dealing with land prices and fixity of tenure he is exceptionally conservative, but he has a socialistic side to his nature, apparently, which we had displayed to-night. The idea of very meticulous costings on a farm of a special type savours something of a Five-Year Plan. If the idea proposed by Deputy Cogan were put into operation, it could not be anything but a complete failure. Costings, outgoings, incomings and profits on a farm are things in which there are many imponderables which cannot be accounted for. If we had the organisation of a farm on the basis proposed by Deputy Cogan, the control of it, apparently by an inspector of the Department of Agriculture, the employment of a number of men at the full agricultural rates, and if that were worked out to its full conclusion I think that, as a result, we would have an Agricultural Efficiency Act—of which the farmers might not be tremendously enamoured.

To my mind, a farm is something altogether different from a factory: it is also a homestead. I cannot see how the stag party that is proposed by Deputy Cogan is going to function on a farm of the type he proposes. In the farm, as I know it, and I have a good deal of experience of it, the woman of the house is the centre-piece and I would not like any old bachelors—not being in any way personal to anybody —in charge of a farm of that type. I did suggest to the Minister for Agriculture some time ago that there is a necessity for the ascertainment of costings and for the provision of a certain type of demonstration in each county or in each district that might encourage farmers to a more efficient type of production. Instead of purchasing a farm, putting an inspector from the Department of Agriculture in charge of it and hiring a number of men who would have no personal interest except in drawing their wages, if the inspector in each particular area concentrated completely on one farm and tried to select a farmer who was efficient, whatever the size of his farm, and who would concentrate a good deal on his work trying to make of his farm a demonstration farm and at the same time trying to ascertain the costings, you would have in every district a farm which would be a good example to all the local farmers. I suggested that during the debate on agriculture to the Minister and he agreed at that time that he would carry out such a proposal. I think that this experiment proposed by Deputy Cogan is altogether wrong and would not work. I think that the idea behind Deputy Cogan's proposal would be more successfully put into operation by adopting this scheme which I proposed to the Minister and which he said he would accept during the debate on agriculture.

Mr. Rooney

I have every sympathy with the farmers of this country in their efforts to meet the contingencies arising from various conditions which the industrialist does not have to calculate against. The farmer has to contend with climate for which he is not responsible: farms are on different types of soil; even next-door neighbours may be on a different type of soil and there are other circumstances where it is quite obvious that no two farms are alike. I cannot agree with the suggestion that the setting up of a farm under the direction of the county committee of agriculture would give us figures on which we could rely as a basis for agricultural prices throughout the length and breadth of the land. It does not even apply in respect of different areas. Certainly, so far as the running of a State farm is concerned for the purpose of ascertaining costs, I feel that the costings would be absolutely false. I would be far more prepared to accept figures put forward by an efficient farmer than by any State-run concern, such as a farm which would be under the direction of the county committee of agriculture concerned. The farmer is in a very different position from the professional classes and fees, such as legal fees, are usually attached to the personality concerned rather than the service given.

In the case of agriculture prices are affected, no matter what we may say, by the world market price. If barley is £3 a barrel in this country and £1 a barrel in Japan we will certainly feel the effect of it because those who mainly absorb the crop will travel great distances in order to cut down their costs and get the commodity at a cheaper price. The question of State versus private enterprise enters into the suggestion that we should set up State farms in counties. I believe that, for obvious reasons, private enterprise is always capable of producing greater efficiency and greater economy than organisations run by the State. There is a personal interest in the case of private enterprise where it does not exist in State concerns.

Again I want to say that if farmers ever find a certain branch of agriculture not paying there is nothing to prevent them going out of that branch and going into another. We can always rely on the farmers to be the best judges of their own business and we can expect that if they find that the dairy business, for instance, is not paying they will go into another branch of agriculture. However, the figures are very different and we find that, although there is a certain amount of agitation concerning the price of milk regardless of the enhanced price of calves during the past 12 months, the number of registered milk producers has increased since last year. The farmers are not fools. They are not going to go into the dairy business just to make a loss when they have the choice of going into some other branch of the industry. There again if you are choosing a State farm what are you going to choose? Are you going to choose a mixed farm, are you going to choose an all tillage farm or are you going to choose an all live stock farm? Suppose you choose any one of those, you will find that you will have a set of prices which will not apply to any one farming area let alone to any one normal farmer in the country. Therefore, I feel that, however desirable it is that we should be able to get costings which we could consider as being a guide for the country as a whole, that is not feasible. I will just give you an example. Look back over the years and you will see that when the farmers found that it was not good economy to produce pigs they went out of pigs. Until last year we nearly had to select a specimen for the museum. Then again the farmers went out of sheep and we saw also the cattle population being reduced to a considerable extent. However, if pigs, cattle or sheep at certain times were enjoying what the farmers regarded as an economic price having regard to the feeding stuffs available and the cost of production there is no doubt that the population of these classes of live stock would not have gone down.

Captain Giles rightly mentioned that we have committees of agriculture all over Ireland and they are at the service of our farmers. Any farmer can write a penny postcard to the county committee of agriculture and ask for advice on any particular subject. Whether it be fruit growing, cereals or root crops the service is there. The farmers have the advice of men who are regarded as being highly efficient and qualified to give the advice which they need. When we are considering the possibility of setting up a State farm the size of the farm definitely has an effect on the economies. There are holdings in Rush, not far from the City of Dublin, of not more than four or five acres and those people are enjoying a very good living. It is well known to the people of Dublin City because it is the garden of Dublin. A large quantity of fruit and vegetables which comes on the market here every day is produced from small holdings. I have no doubt that the families on those small holdings are far better off than other farmers in different areas living, perhaps, on 100, 200 or 300 acres and that their income is far higher. So that I believe that even if we try to select a sizable farm and pursue a certain economy we still will not get a reliable set of figures. In the case of a mixed farm it may not bear a similar relation to the remaining farms which exist in that county or in the surrounding areas.

I feel that the law of supply and demand will always regulate prices, whether they be agricultural prices or prices in relation to manufactured products. For that reason I feel that the farmers will be well able to judge, according to the volume of produce which comes on the market, which class of produce will pay them best and that they will not continue producing any particular commodity which will not pay them. There is, I believe, a rosy future for the people on the land. I believe there is a new spirit of enthusiasm and optimism among our people. They have a sympathetic Government in office, a Government which is calling out to them to produce more, to increase the volume of their output, to give us the goods, not alone for ourselves, but for export.

At the present time we realise that no matter what quantity of live stock could be produced during the next two or three years, there is a ready market for all classes of live stock, even horses, for meat in Britain and other parts of Europe. I am not suggesting that we ought to rear horses in order to sell them to people on the Continent for meat, but the fact remains that the demand is so great for every class of animal on four legs that we will get a ready market in Britain and in other parts of Europe during the coming couple of years. Naturally, it will take a considerable time to bring our livestock population up to what we could regard as a reasonable level. We cannot just increase those classes of live stock overnight. We did succeed in increasing our poultry, with the result that poultry and poultry products are being exported in large quantities to Britain, where there is a ready market. That does not apply to cattle, because it will take several years before our cattle population can be brought up to a desirable level.

I am prepared to be guided by the farmers, because I know how they have been carrying on for years and I know, too, that they are free to sell out if they find they are not making money. If they find that if they hold on to the farm they are clinging to a liability, they will not do that. They will adapt themselves to circumstances. I believe there is no branch of agriculture which the farmers cannot make pay. There are farmers on different farms who cannot make a certain branch of the industry pay, but, if that is so, they will not continue to interest themselves in that particular branch.

I have the utmost sympathy for the farming community, and I hope that some kind of standardised prices will be arrived at. I feel this could not be reached by the establishment of these State farms. Deputy Giles mentioned, quite rightly, that the mode of life existing among our farming community has a certain bearing on farming economy. One farm is asked to bear more in the way of cost than others, because the individuals live in a different way. Some people eat well and some people drink well, but whatever the position may be, we cannot regard two farmers as living exactly in the same way. Their methods of living may be very different. There is no such thing as a steorotyped farmer and for that reason I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by setting up the nearest thing to a steorotyped farm, which could be regarded as the type of farm suggested under the control of county committees of agriculture.

The best class of work that the larger farmer can perform is of a mixed nature, not wholly devoted to tillage and not wholly devoted to live stock. It is quite evident, and we have seen it especialy during the emergency years, that the farms depend on farmyard manure when it comes to the production of certain clases of crops, particularly wheat. We saw during the years where the farmers succeeded in getting only an average of five and even four barrels per acre—that is according to statistics. I feel it cannot be said that the farmer who got only four barrels an acre could say he would make a profit. He would have to engage in some other branch of farming in order to recover whatever loss he was at, so as to help him to pay his grocer and to meet his other liabilities.

I believe we must, on the larger type of farm, have mixed farming, because one thing depends on the other. Live stock thrive on cereals and roots, which can be produced more cheaply. There is no use in any farmer thinking that he can go to the market and buy roots and cereals and feed them to his live stock. That would be bad economy, because, naturally, he can grow these cereals and root crops more cheaply and efficiently on his own farm and are available to the live stock on the holding. On the other hand, the type of soil has an important bearing on the productivity of the land. In addition to the efforts made by the Minister for Agriculture towards placing that industry on a sound economic basis, the Minister has also set up an excellent soil-testing station which will enable farmers to find out what deficiencies exist in their soil, not only on the farm as a whole but in any particular corner of it. The farmer will be able to have his samples tested by qualified scientists who will be in a position to advise him. This must have the effect of ensuring that in time all the soil on his land will be productive. I think that is the best contribution that can be made towards improving farming economy at the present time. For years past we have been producing crops on hungry land. We have been producing crops on land that was incapable of growing the crops which stood upon it.

We had examples of that type of starved land in relation to the growing of wheat where, when the wheat had grown to a certain height, it fell down because there was not sufficient nourishment in the soil to feed the plant and keep it healthy or enable it to withstand the weather. I believe that this scheme of soil-testing will help considerably in improving our farming economy.

There is no reason why our farmers should be alarmed because they now have a sympathetic Minister for Agriculture. I think they have before them a very bright future, because there is a greater demand now for the products of the land than there has ever been in our history. No doubt there are certain commodities in which overproduction can take place. There are certain commodities which may be unmarketable at certain times; but, on balance, we can rest assured that the farmer will show a profit at the end of the year if he devotes his best efforts and energies towards making a success of his business.

In conclusion, I would ask Deputy Cogan and Deputy O'Reilly to reconsider their demand for the setting up of these farms all over the country in the light of the now known facts. I think such farms are absolutely unnecessary and I do not think that they would provide a true picture of our agricultural economy. I think the farmers are the best judges of their own business. I think they will continue in the future to do as they have done in the past, namely, to put their hearts and their minds into their work.

Mr. B. Maguire

Reading over the motion before the House I have no doubt at all as to what the mover and seconder of the motion have in mind. They have years of experience of farming and, in their knowledge of farming, they know that those who engage in agriculture are not rewarded for their labours commensurate with the efforts they put into their work. They are not rewarded on an equitable basis with those engaged in industry or manufacture in this country. I suggest, however, that we do not really require the setting up of experimental farms in this country to establish the fact that if agriculture were placed on a paying basis with proper rates of wages for those engaged in it, with all the assets under a particular control, the experiment would be an unqualified loss. Everyone in this country has survived because agriculture has survived. Farmers in this country have never sought a fair reward for their labours; they have never counted their hours of work per day. Agriculture at the moment is carried on even in this country under somewhat abnormal conditions. Those conditions are governed to a certain extent by world conditions. Prices have soared to abnormal heights. Those engaged in agriculture may find it profitable at the moment; but it will never be as profitable as industry or manufacture. Agriculture is carried on in this country mainly because it is done on a family basis. On the small farms all over the country you find children of eight to 18 and adults of 28 and 38 employed under slave labour conditions. There is no standard wage for them. They know little of the comforts of life. Their hours of work are not limited.

The man who at this stage tries to establish a standard rate of wages for every worker employed in agriculture will bring this country to bankruptcy within 12 months. It is the only industry in which we have an export. It is the only industry which permits us to take in the imports we require. That is possible because agriculture is carried on under slave labour conditions. Alter the present system What is the alternative? We can fix the price the consumer will pay for agricultural products. We cannot fix the price that will be paid by those who take our exports of agricultural produce. Who is to fix the price? If we cannot get an economic price what will become of our produce? We cannot store it as we would hardware or timber. We cannot keep it until the price is an economic one. We must sell it as soon as it is ready to market. But we have no means of controlling the price for our agricultural commodities except within the confines of our own country. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.