I think it would be somewhat difficult to teach manners to Deputy Keane. It is essential that the largest acreage of potatoes should be grown. I am satisfied that a scheme such as that advocated by Dr. Henry Kennedy, combining the production of potatoes and feeding barley for the pig producing industry with the skim milk by-product of the dairy industry, would provide the soundest means of expanding the agricultural industry generally and would be a source of increased wealth to the farmers who produce potatoes. It must be remembered that potatoes can be grown effectively and successfully on land which is not of very high quality.
I do not consider that the Minister has a great deal to boast about in regard to the development of the poultry industry. When he took office, eggs were being sold at a minimum price of 3/- per dozen. There was at the time a general tendency toward wide expansion in the industry. The farmers generally were concerned as to how far they should go in further expanding that industry, putting more money into it and keeping the industry going. They appealed to the Minister for guidance in the matter and the Minister promptly guaranteed them that the price of 3/- per dozen would continue. I do not know what grounds the Minister had for giving that guarantee but, in my opinion, it was a guarantee which should not have been given by a responsible Minister. I am sure he could not have sufficient facts to guide him in regard to that pledge. Here is the pledge which was given by the Minister in May, 1948:—
"It used to be the rule that when egg supplies increased the price went down. That is no longer true. We have made an agreement with the British Minister of Food that the more eggs we send to the British market the more they will pay for our eggs."
That pledge was given in a poultry periodical over the signature of the Minister and, in addition to the rather rambling signature, we have the portrait of the Minister which Deputies can see.
I think it was irresponsible on the part of the Minister to have given that pledge to ordinary people of small means, thereby encouraging them to go in for increased expenditure in the provision of additional houses and additional equipment for the poultry industry. The equipment and housing of poultry do involve considerable expense. The poultry industry is one which is conducted mainly by farmers' wives and farmers' daughters. They are not people of unlimited means. They are not people who can afford to suffer losses and, because of that, the Minister should have been a little bit more careful about giving definite pledges that the price would remain unaltered for a long period of time— to say, in fact, that the more production increased, the more prices would go up. Instead of that, we find that within less than a year after the Minister had made that promise, or before the end of the year in which he made it the price was "increased" from 3/- to 2/6. It has now been further "increased" for the coming year to 2/-. If the price goes on "increasing" at that rate, the poultry producer will be called upon to give away an egg along with every spoonful of salt.
I know the Minister cannot control the price of exported eggs, but I have the feeling that he has been very, very unsuccessful in conducting negotiations in regard to this particular item of agricultural produce. I do not think the Minister was wise, when he went over to England to negotiate on this particular question, to start shouting to the British people: "We will drown you with eggs." The net result of that rather juvenile cry was to arouse the interest, and perhaps the opposition, of all who were engaged in poultry production in Britain. The consequence was that pressure was brought to bear upon Mr. Strachey, the then Minister of Food, to reduce the price offered to Irish producers in order to discourage imports. It must be remembered that the price paid to Irish producers did not affect the price paid to British producers. British producers are guaranteed a certain minimum price. It is interesting to note that the price paid to producers in Britain for eggs at the present time is a minimum of 3/9 as against 2/6 here.
The Minister has the habit of saying that the British are a reasonable people. I do not agree with the Minister. I do not think they are reasonable people. It is not reasonable to say to the producer: "Two shillings is good enough for you but we are prepared to pay a minimum of 3/9, or an average of 4/1, to our producers in Britain and in the Six Counties." That is not the action of reasonable men. I think the Minister is only making himself look foolish to describe people who offer him that price as reasonable men. Our costs of production are as high. if not higher, than the costs of production in the Six Counties and across in Britain. Nevertheless, the Minister says that the British are reasonable people when they give us approximately half the price they are giving to their own producers. This is an industry in which, as I say, the women of rural Ireland are mainly interested. The Minister, I am afraid, has betrayed the interests of those people. He has failed to safeguard them adequately. He has, in his anxiety to catch the headlines in the British newspapers, aroused opposition to the import of eggs into Britain. To-day, instead of being prepared to take more and more eggs and to give a higher and higher price, I believe their entire policy now is to discourage the sending of any eggs at all except during what is known as the off-season, the latter part of the year. I feel that on this question, as in regard to the oats, the Minister has let down and betrayed his own people, the ordinary working farmers and their wives and daughters—the farmers who grew the oats and their wives and daughters who reared the poultry and brought about an increase in the production of eggs. Those people have been badly treated. If the oat growers had been better treated in the first year of the Minister's administration, there would be more and better feeding available for the poultry keepers at the present time.
Deputy P. O'Reilly and myself tabled a motion some time ago asking that a better price be paid for bacon pigs. When that motion was tabled the price being paid for bacon pigs was as low as 180/-. The Minister had guaranteed that it would not be less than 190/-. As a result of that motion which we tabled and of its unanimous acceptance by the House the price of pigs has increased somewhat during the past few months. However, prior to that, considerable damage was done to the pig-producing industry. There is no doubt that there has been a general falling off in the number of people keeping sows for breeding purposes and that we were facing a grave danger of the industry declining again if something had not been done. I know that the whole position of the industry is unsatisfactory. The statement of the Minister, when introducing his Estimate, to the effect that two bacon factories may have to close down is one of grave importance. Nobody wants that to happen. It should be the duty of both the Government and this House to ensure that this industry is kept going. The price of feeding stuffs generally has increased very substantially during the past few months. The price of pigs has somewhat increased but the increase has not kept pace with the increase in the cost of producing pigs. It is rather tragic that there is not a little more security in this industry. It is tragic that the Minister has not been able to secure for whatever surplus we may have available a reasonable price from the reasonable people about whom he talks so much. I have often felt that the Minister should endeavour to approach the other suppliers of the British market with a view to securing their co-operation in obtaining a better price for our produce in that market. The reasonable people in Britain have played one supplier of their market off against another. They have played off the Irish against the Danes and they have played off the Danes and the Irish against the New Zealand farmers both in regard to butter and to bacon. The Minister referred in this House to-day to the Battle of Clontarf. I hope he does not hold any spite against the Danes because of a battle which was fought in the year 1014. He should meet those people and seek their co-operation in getting a decent price from the British Government for our surplus bacon, if we have any to spare.
I indicated at the outset that it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the Irish producer gets a decent price: that those who work hard on the farms are kept there through their industry being adequately rewarded. Because I hold that view and because my views have clashed with those of the Minister in that respect over a number of years, I have found it necessary to table this motion. The one particular aspect of ministerial policy which has interested me more than any other has been the attitude which the Minister has taken up during the present year towards those who are engaged in supplying the milk to our creameries. For a long time past there has been an insistence from all sides of the House that the price of milk supplied to the creameries is not adequate. I think that it was in 1946-47 that the price was last fixed. Since then there has been no increase whatever although since that time there have been substantial increases in production costs. So far from offering the producer any increase in price, the Minister, this very year, decided by a proclamation which he issued in Waterford that the price ought to be reduced. He presented to the whole dairying industry a sort of ultimatum which said, in effect: "I am offering you a reduced price of 1/- per gallon. If you do not accept this reduction you may fare worse next year." That was the nature of the ultimatum presented by the Minister to the dairy farmers. What motives prompted him to present that ultimatum it would be difficult to guess. Surely he must know that the dairying industry is the main basis of the agricultural industry. He stated in this House even last week that the dairying industry provides very substantial direct employment. In addition to that, it provides the basis of the live-stock industry and of the pig-producing industry and it is also supplementary to the poultry industry. All the other branches of the agricultural industry developed, in the main, around the dairy cows. Yet, the dairy cow is singled out by the Minister for attack.
The Minister claimed, I think, that it would be difficult to maintain the present price, but he did not advert to the fact that the farmer who keeps cows is subject to the Agricultural Wages Board and has to pay a fixed minimum wage to his workers. Why should the Minister single out the dairy farmers for a cut of 16 per cent.? One can imagine the answer he would have got if he had gone to the Federation of Rural Workers, for example, and asked them to accept a similar cut. He appears to be angry and offended because the dairy farmers have rejected unanimously his offer of a price reduced by 16 per cent. Does he seriously think he would have received a different answer from any trade union had he gone to them and asked them to accept a cut? He did not, under any circumstances, dream of asking any trade union to accept a reduced wage. He thought the simple, unorganised, farming community could be persuaded by his eloquence to regard a price of 1/- per gallon as being greater than the existing price of 1/2.
His whole approach to the problem was dishonest. He adopted the tactics of the professional cattle dealer who goes to the fair and makes an offer for a beast and who has around him a number of underlings—tanglers they are called in some places, blockers, in others. They go around and try to beat down the farmer, to break his morale. One approaches the farmer in a friendly way and says that this buyer is the best buyer in the fair and that, if his offer is not accepted, he never comes back. Another says that other fairs have been bad. They think the poor, simple gom from the country does not know the value of his cattle. Another will come along and bid a very low price. All these men are assisting the big buyer in his effort to beat down the farmer. In the same way, when the Minister made his offer in Waterford of a reduced price, many of his henchmen of various kinds wrote anonymously to various papers, boosting the Minister's scheme and hinting how unwise the dairy farmers would be if they rejected his generous offer of a guaranteed reduced price for five years.
There is another aspect of that offer, which to my mind, appears to be dishonest. The Minister said that he could not guarantee what would happen if the farmers rejected it, but that if they accepted it he could guarantee a price for five years. I maintain that if the Minister has power to guarantee a price for five years, he has power to guarantee the existing price. In guaranteeing 1/- per gallon, there is a number of hazards the Minister has to take. No one knows what the price of the exported surplus will be. No one knows to what extent production will increase. The Minister has to take all these risks in guaranteeing 1/- per gallon. There is no reason then why he should say that, if we reject his offer, he cannot guarantee the existing price.
Those tactics were adopted simply to browbeat and intimidate the creamery suppliers into accepting a lower price for their produce at a time when the suppliers' costs are stabilised. They have been increased over the past two or three years, and they are at least stabilised now to the extent that they cannot be reduced. As far as wages are concerned, at any rate, there is no likelihood or possibility that agricultural wages will decline. We must accept the view that, having put a floor under the agricultural wages—which was a desirable thing to do—there is an equally binding obligation upon the Minister to put a similar floor under the price of the farmer's produce. If the Minister cannot see his way and does not think it is possible to increase the price, at least, he should stabilise it for five years at its present figure with, if you like, an arrangement by which that standard price can be lowered or raised according as costs, accurately ascertained, are lowered or raised.
In this connection, I, as an Independent Deputy, and a number of farmer Deputies, have been agitating with the Minister over a long time to take steps to have costings accurately ascertained. He has flatly refused to meet that demand. Every time the question was raised he turned it down. He even went to my own constituency, Wicklow, to denounce any proposal for an investigation of costings. I regarded that as a declaration of war on me personally. I do not know how the Minister intended it.
At any rate, he went there and made a ridiculous statement that any investigation of farmers' costings would reveal that they were making more than they pretended. The Minister made that statement knowing perfectly well that his own statistics prove that the average income of each person engaged in the agricultural industry is less than £3 10s. Od. per week. We can never make headway in agricultural development unless we have honesty in those who are administering Government policy.
There is no use in getting up on platforms saying that the farmers are making plenty of money. It has to be proved. The Minister has been challenged to prove it on a number of occasions, but has always run away from it. I pointed out on another occasion, some months ago, that the average income of each person engaged in agriculture was £3 5s. Od. per week. The Minister said that that was ridiculous and that he would disprove the figure. When he came to reply, he did not mention it. He is very careful to ignore any point which he knows he cannot answer. He will deal at very great length with, perhaps, fictitious arguments which he may create himself simply for the purpose of destroying them. It is time that there was an honest, disinterested and impartial investigation of farmers' costings. It is time that the lie was nailed that farmers have been profiteering over the past few years.
The committee of agriculture of which I am a member sent to the Minister for Agriculture a proposal that that committee would be empowered to acquire a typical farm and to run it for the purpose, first, of investigating farm costings and, secondly, for the purpose of demonstrating modern and up-to-date methods of farming. The Minister, without giving any explanation or excuse, turned down that proposal.
He would not sanction the acquiring by the committee of agriculture of a farm and the running of it by the officials in an efficient way, in order to ascertain, so far as it is possible to ascertain them, agricultural costings, and also as an educational factor. The former Minister, Deputy Smith, agreed to have a costings investigation introduced, but apparently, on consultation with his Department, later decided against it. The present Minister was pressed to reintroduce the proposal and he has declined to do so. He has, it is true, told us he has set up some kind of costings investigation within his Department, but I do not regard an investigation within the Department as being an independent, impartial and disinterested investigation. Any investigation of farm costings must be controlled by a joint committee representative of the farmers and of the Department, if you like.
In regard to the beet-growing industry, I must say that the Irish Sugar Company showed initiative and enterprise in agreeing to set up an impartial investigation into costings. They secured the appointment of a joint committee representative of the factory and the beet growers' association and I think that investigation served a very useful purpose. It showed how costs were built up in the production of a crop and it had the effect, also, of spot-lighting the most efficient method of production. I am quite confident and satisfied that an impartial investigation of costings which would be accepted by farmers and by the consuming public would have the effect of ascertaining accurately what it costs to produce the various commodities produced on the farm and what are the profits of the ordinary farmer. In the second place, it would have the effect of eliminating in efficiency by showing how costs could be reduced. A number of farms would be investigated and the various costs compared. The yields would be compared and the methods would be compared and in that way much real information could be collected which would be of immense value to the Department, in the first place, and to the farming industry, in the second place.
To a great extent, the whole approach of the Department over the past 50 years to agricultural problems has been unrealistic. I suppose it is inevitable that it should be, because they are, in the main, an advisory Department. We know that if a man is appointed to advise a businessman on how to run his business, he will scarcely ever be as practical a businessman as the man who has to make a living out of it. The same is true of a Department which sets out to advise farmers. I am not decrying the value of the information they can give, information ascertained by various scientific means and experiment. That is all of immense value, but it is time they got into closer touch with the realities of agriculture. I had the experience of being present—I quote this as an instance—at the filling of a silo. We all know how valuable ensilage is as a feeding stuff. It was filled under departmental inspection and I had the experience of seeing that silo emptied afterwards into the manure heap. Nothing will ever appear in any Department document or report in regard to that demonstration. It was not an experiment; it was a demonstration of how easy it is to make ensilage and how valuable it is as a feeding stuff.
There has been over all the years a good deal of window dressing in regard to the Department and a good deal of failure to disclose information which does not suit the Department and a tendency to boost information which suits the Department, and particularly information which suits whatever Minister happens to be head of the Department. In the same connection, I have since ascertained that the same type of silo, the circular concrete silo recommended by the Department for a long period of years, has been denounced now as being unsatisfactory, and that a simpler type, the older type of pit silo, has been recommended, thus showing how easy it is for the Department to make mistakes, even with all their technical knowledge behind them. On the other hand, we blame the farmer for not being more efficient and getting more production, when a Department, with all its resources, its resources of science, education and knowledge gathered from other countries, can make mistakes year after year and advocate things which are not advantageous and not in the best interests of the industry. Why then should there be so much blame placed on the average farmer if his crops sometimes fail or if there is sometimes minor mismanagement?
These are all questions which require consideration. I think, therefore, that the suggestion I have made of a realistic investigation of costings, controlled jointly by representatives of the farmers and representatives of the Department, would be the first real step towards putting agricultural policy on a realistic basis. Never again could anybody come in here, and, in a loose, general way, say that the farmers were rolling in wealth and that the banks were bursting with their money, and, on the other hand, never again would it be possible for farmers to exaggerate their position. There would be detailed and well-documented evidence of the costs and I am quite sure that, if such an investigation were carried out fairly and honestly, it would show that the people engaged in milk production, just as in other branches of the industry, ought not to be subjected to a reduced price this year or in future. If there is to be a guaranteed price for five years, it ought to be on the basis of maintaining the present price. If it is proved that costs increase, the standard price could then be increased and, if costs decrease, the standard price could be reduced. The proposal to impose a 16 per cent. reduction on those engaged in that very vital industry was an outrage and I am glad that it was not agreed to by the dairying industry, as such.
