I was saying that Opposition Deputies from rural constituencies were demanding higher prices for agricultural produce. I think it is hardly fair to compare the prices that obtained during the emergency with the prices obtaining in normal times. Opposition Deputies who represent Dublin, Cork and other constituencies with towns which have a large number of inhabitants seem to have kept fairly quiet when the demands for an increase in these prices were made. Are they really satisfied with their fellow-Deputies who say that the people in the towns and villages must now, as they did during the emergency, pay up to 3/6 per 21 lbs. for potatoes? Must they pay, as they had to pay in South Cork at any rate, from 3d. to 4d. for a turnip? It is at least fair to ask these Deputies who are sheltering behind their fellow-Deputies to come out and say whether they stand for that. I presume they expect to vote on this Estimate. It is only right that they should admit openly that they have such demands. It is only natural that agriculture, as well as industry, must have a fair return over the capital outlay in order to survive. It is only fair to compare the various ways in which it is operated as against the ways in which industry is operated. Many Deputies are saying it is essential to subsidise. Deputy Larkin had a very interesting question down a few weeks ago. The answer which the Minister for Finance gave at that time was that between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000 was handed back directly year after year to the farmers.
Whatever may be the views of others, if it is a matter of not looking for a direct increase on various articles, but of subsidisation, it must yet be considered that, after all, the people are still paying for it. Therefore, if other industries are carried on in a more becoming manner than agriculture, I think a certain amount of responsibility must rest on themselves. In supporting the view of the small farmer, I believe that the greater amount of the £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 given back is of necessity given back not to the people most deserving of it, the small farmers, but to the people with economic holdings in so far as the demands from the small farmers as regards various improvements cannot be as great as the others. Therefore, I would suggest that if it is possible for any Minister for Agriculture to do so, a line should be drawn between the aid given to the small farmer on the uneconomic holdings and the large farmer. Farmers with anything up to 500 acres of ground should be considered in a different light.
I noticed that very few Deputies seemed to consider the question of the agricultural labourer. They may express their views solely from the viewpoint of the employer, but when we consider that anything from 130,000 to 150,000 are employed as agricultural labourers over various parts of the year, surely they must be given consideration. As I said at the start, I give praise only where it is due. One thing I will say for the present Minister is that he did not axe the farm worker as did the previous Minister for Agriculture. I am sorry Deputy Burke is not here. Deputy Burke, in his own patronising fashion, said that the Labour Deputies were not interested in farm workers. He maintained that if they were, they would not vote for the present policy. The Labour Deputies were and are interested in the farm workers. Deputy Smith, as Minister, refused point blank to give direct representation to the farm workers on the Agricultural Wages Board.
I give credit where credit is due. The present Minister has given direct representation to the workers. Furthermore, he has done what his predecessor did not do. He has given two increases in wages to them. Deputy Burke seems to forget that and in his innocence he would wish that we would forget it. We cannot forget so easily and we do not forget that even where the agricultural workers are concerned—after all it is becoming that any of us should speak our minds if we represent an area where there are quite a lot of agricultural workers employed—their place in society must be considered every bit as much as any other class. They are equally as important to this country as anyone else. We hear that during the emergency so much depended on agriculture and although much credit was given to the employers of agriculture, it is a strange fact that behind it all nothing was said about the men who worked hard and long hours for little pay. Agriculture could not succeed were it not for the market available in agricultural workers. Day after day the complaint throughout the country is that they cannot get farm workers, they cannot get men to milk cows on Sunday. It is true, unfortunately, that there are areas where the population is scarce in that respect. But it is also true to say that when they had them they gave them very little consideration in some areas. I make it clear that my remarks are directed totally and essentially to the areas where the small holdings are less than 50 or 60 acres. In such areas I maintain that the time has long gone when there should be such a differentiation between employer and employee and we ourselves have done much to try and bring both farmer and worker together to face the problem. Unfortunately that has not come about in our area. We are anxious to do it because we realise how essential it is. However, we can never hope to obtain that proper understanding unless the worker is treated as he should be.
The present Minister has gone one step forward to show his appreciation of those services notwithstanding what some Opposition Deputies have mentioned. They pretend, of course, that they would be delighted and anxious to see a farm worker getting, as Deputy Burke says in his benevolent way, £4, £5 or £6. Where these workers are concerned it is our duty and, at any rate, I maintain it is my responsibility as one member, to speak for them. They can never be done without and no matter what Government is in power in this country they will have to face up to the fact that whatever subsidies or increases are given in connection with agriculture, never can it be put in the back of the picture. The position of the farm workers will have to be in the forefront as well as the employer. They have got as much right as any other section to at least a living in their own country.
I am sorry to say that through the recent action of the Agricultural Wages Board things have been somewhat mixed up in connection with the 50 and 54-hour week. I know the Minister has his own view on it. He maintains that a 54-hour week is essential. I pointed out to the Minister 12 months ago that in my area under a so-called 54-hour guaranteed week under a yearly system of contract men are supposed to be paid in full. I have cases, and I gave cases then, of men who, unfortunately, had to attend such things as funerals and missed three hours' work and had their pay for the time deducted from them. The Minister says a 54-hour week guarantee is essential. That may be so, but our sad experience is that even that is not being complied with. It can be stated, of course, that farm workers cannot be made to go in on Sundays. Surely, as has been proved in our part of the country, the 50-hour week when in operation was being carried out satisfactorily. There was no objection to it. Now, of course, there is a general drift back to the 54 hours again. As long as we have the 54-hour week, as long as farm workers are expected to work the full week up to Saturday night, so will we have difficulty in getting these men to work on Sunday.
I should like information on another point in connection with the Agricultural Wages Board. I realise more important things have been mentioned and perhaps this may be passed over. Be that as it may, I should like to know why the meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board are not open to the Press. After all, these are meetings between farmers and their workers or the workers' representatives, and I am sure that nothing is said at them which would not be fit for publication. I think that if the meetings were open to the Press it might help to clear the minds of workers as well as of employers. The representatives on both sides, I suppose, try to do the best they can for the people they represent, and I should imagine that at times their debates reach a higher standard than do ours here. I am sure every Deputy will agree that there can be nothing wrong in asking that these meetings be open to the Press. If that were done, views on many matters relating to agriculture would be made known to the public, and that might be of benefit generally.
Members of the Opposition have been demanding that a Minister of State should make an effort to secure the same price for our agricultural produce on the British market as that which the British farmer receives. I suppose if one could imagine that the British had no common sense, it would be all right to put up that argument. Suppose, for a moment, it was suggested that our Government would not give a preference to Irish manufacturers on the Irish market for the goods they produce, and that English manufacturers were allowed to import their goods at the prevailing Irish price, naturally the members of the Opposition would raise a great clamour. Surely, we cannot expect that, while we carry out a programme to suit ourselves, the Government of another country will not do the same for its people. From the point of view of developing internal trade, I do not think that the argument put forward by the Opposition carries much weight.
I realise, of course, the necessity of increasing our export trade, but I believe that the main thing, as far as agriculture is concerned, is to produce for the home market. We have a large market at home for milk, eggs, butter and meat, and we should concentrate first of all on that. We should realise that our own people also need food. We may be rationed in regard to certain commodities—there is no ration, by the way, so far as the length of the debates here is concerned—but our first concern should be to develop agriculture to meet the needs of the home market. If we do that I think it will be found that our own people, our own workers and their families, are as good purchasers of what we produce as any foreign market. When we have satisfied their demands, then we should concentrate on the foreign market. In my opinion, it is our duty to consider first of all our own people. By doing so we will be building up a real asset for the country and there will be no necessity for us to be wasting time here considering ways and means of catering for outside markets.
In conclusion, I believe, no matter what quotations may be used about our farmers, that they are industrious and hardworking. I want to say, in all earnestness, that if our farmers and farm workers took things as easily as we take them in this House—if they were as slow in doing the spring's work as this House is in dealing with this Estimate—there would be no harvest to reap in the autumn.
Deputy Sweetman took the Chair.
