I am anxious to hear from the Minister something further about his scheme under which he proposes to replace uneconomic cows, to buy in such animals and to replace them by in-calf heifers. I am anxious to know some of the details of the scheme. It is an immense undertaking and I am particularly anxious to know whether it will be possible to create priorities in dealing with this problem. I think that if it is possible to deal with it on a broad basis, we might be able to alleviate some of the distress that may be consequent, particularly, among small stockholders on any loss of stock that they may suffer at the moment owing to the difficult feed situation. I am anxious to know how it is proposed by the Department to acquire the vast stocks of good class heifers or good class young cows that will be necessary to put this full scheme into fruition. I am anxious to know the general technique to be used and the quality of beast to be sought for this purpose. It is a scheme which is immense in its vision and which gets to the root of one of our main problems. Too long and too often have we listened to the talk about uneconomic cows and it might well be that, fundamental to the problem of milk price, is the fact that many of the cows in dairy herds are not giving what one might term a reasonably economic lactation.
This scheme should surely commend itself to such alleged agricultural economic purists as Deputy Cogan and surely it would have been worthy of Deputy Cogan to have passed some word of commendation to the Minister for the vision and tremendous courage necessary for the undertaking of such a vast scheme. The ordinary person whom we Deputies from rural Ireland represent will appreciate in a very positive way the consequences which this will ultimately have on his economy. This is a tremendous advance towards agriculture as many of us would like to see it. I am a great believer in the theory that it takes as much to feed a good animal as a bad one and, in fact, it sometimes takes more to feed a bad animal. I am glad to see the Minister tackling the problem of the replacement of uneconomic cows where it must be properly tackled. We are in a favourable situation from the point of view of the disposal of these cows. The only apprehension I have—it is not an apprehension by way of criticism, I should like the Minister to know—is whether we will have available the type of stock he envisages for replacement in the foreseeable future.
The time has come for all Deputies to realise that, if there is to be a sound basis on which to build an agricultural economy, the sooner we approach it from the angle of a national consciousness of our duty to the main industry as distinct from a political angle, the better for us all. I have advocated in public before the removal, if possible, of this Department from the arena of politics altogether, because it is something which needs sound and systematic planning, something which must be built, in the main, on our own capacity to produce economically the wherewithal to balance our economy.
I have adverted already to the simple maxim of the late Paddy Hogan, go ndeanaidh Dia trocaire air, and perhaps we might analyse the full import of that maxim of one more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough. There will be found there the basis of the Minister's advocacy of his present policy. It is true that he is not going to browbeat, direct or bully the farmer into his way of thinking, but what is his way of thinking? Let us analyse it and see where criticism is merited. His theory is simply that the most economic and most beneficial way the farmer can approach the problem of live stock is to produce at home on the farm, or have available to him in his locality, as much as possible of the feeding stuffs he will require. On that basis, he advocates (1) more cereals, more oats and more barley; (2) the growing of fodder beet and the growing of potatoes; and (3) a new but highly developed technique of green grass ensilage. Every one of these commodities is capable of being grown in an economic way in this country. The ensilage of green grass, particularly green grass in its early growth stages, does not present the problem which some people conceive it to present. I am not an expert on ensilage, but, so far as I can judge, it is possible, if you have no other source available, to do it in ordinary deep pits, if it is properly insulated against the shock of weather.
Is there anybody here who will deny the sound economy of producing that type of feeding stuff to feed stock? It will remove you from the caprice of international prices; it will keep you from relying on imported feeding stuffs; and it will ensure that the economy you build at home is built on sound foundations. I have heard the Minister very deliberately warn the person who wants to buy bonhams or suckers to feed them on foreign feeding stuffs and then hope to make a profit when they are fat and ready for marketing. Let us be reasonable and let us ask ourselves in a cold way which is the sounder economy—the farmer breeding his own pigs, if he is in a position to do so, growing as much of the feed as he possibly can, or rearing them in an area in which it is available to him, bringing them to the fattened stage and selling them, or the type of economy in which people take a chance on the in-between stage? Is it not infinitely more sound from the national point of view that the primary producer be encouraged to bring the pig from the bonham stage to the fat stage to ensure the maximum amount of profit to himself?
That presents itself to me as something fundamentally sound, and, on the Minister's statement, which has not been controverted, it is possible to find a balanced diet to feed the pig from bonham stage to fattened stage on home-grown materials. What is wrong with that? What is there inherently bad in that scheme that it merits the vituperative criticism it gets here? Is there something wrong about trying to get fixed prices for a reasonable period, so as to allow the farmer to plan his economy in the circumstances of his holding as he knows them? There seems to be something to quarrel with in the Minister's looking for long-term agreements.
We are in a most peculiar and interesting economic stage. I dealt lightly with the problem of milk, but let us take that problem as the subject against which most criticism has been levelled. If we had not had an abnormal winter and if the production of milk had followed the pattern we saw last year, we might have been facing a very serious position in the milk trade, from the farmer's point of view. Violent criticism has been levelled, both inside and outside this House, at the 1d. a gallon increase and the five-year plan. I have no hesitation in saying that if the Minister's scheme comes to fruition, and if you have economic herds producing milk, the farmer will find that that five-year guarantee and his 1/3 a gallon for milk may turn out to be a bigger boon than he could ever have conceived it to be. Let us analyse our problem and put the two things side by side. The Department is trying to improve the quality and the yield of a herd. It has increased the price slightly and it has fixed it for five years. If these two things work side by side and if this scheme gets, as I feel it honestly will get, the complete backing of this House, watch the development of milk. The farmers may find that many of us who have been criticised for the fight we made for their increase in the price of milk have not been as duped and as fooled as some of the caterwauling from the benches opposite would try to suggest.
Take the problem of our whole agricultural economy in this country. In my opinion, it has always been based on expediency. We have been inclined to make a violent rush to get into something that showed an immediate and a quick return. I want to see, and please God I shall live to see, agriculture in this country develop on a different basis altogether. I want to see it built on a sound economy. I want the farmer to be able to plan his industry with all the assurances that people have in other industries. The sooner we appreciate that all the small farms and the big farms of this country are the real industry that is keeping the wheels of the nation turning, the better it will be for us. The sooner we appreciate that we have to educate the Irish people to the point of view that farming is the premier occupation in this country, and that the farm labourer and the farm worker is of such value to this country that no industrial worker can claim to be of the same primary necessity, the better it will be for ourselves. Too long have we allowed a certain class of people to describe the lads in the country as "cábógs", and so forth. The sooner we get down to the task of making the farming community of this country a respectable and self-respecting community the better it will be for us all. It is not doing that to come here and try to make out that the farmers are mendicants and beggars at anybody's mercy. They have never been that, but they have been a source, throughout the years, of national strength. They have paid their contribution, in every form of national effort, to the development of Ireland. The sooner we appreciate them for what they are worth, and make agriculture a really sound and properly balanced industry, the better it will be for us.
I hate to see in this House nothing but personal bitterness and spleen being vented on an individual, as distinet from getting down to the problem of improving the lot of our farmers and their workers throughout the length and breadth of this country. We should realise that agriculture is the primary industry of this country and that the whole basis of economy in this country is the farmer. I suggest to the Minister that he should get his hand to the task of the replacement of stock, if possible on the basis of trying to deal first with the people who may have felt the impact of loss in the recent difficult months. I firmly believe that, if the Opposition could get a ground for it, they would blame our present Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, for the bad weather. That is the extent of the spleen that exists in this House, in dealing with our main national problem. I want to see the Minister improve the standard, as he is doing, in rural Ireland. I want to see the farmer with as decent a house as, or better than, that of anybody in the city or the town. I want to see the farmer with electric light and with water inside and outside his house. I want to see the farmer with all the comforts a modern State can give him. Unless he gets these benefits we cannot make certain for posterity of a continuation of effort on the land.
I am not a bit afraid to say that, in order to keep the boys and girls in rural Ireland, our farming community should have all the amenities and all the benefits that a modern State can give them. I want to see the Minister progress in that line. I want to see the Minister getting bigger and better schemes to enable the farming community reap what has been denied to them for centuries, and denied to them under our own Governments, namely, the benefits of their heritage in Irish land.
It is time for us in this House to cut out half the nonsense that goes on when the Estimates are under discussion. We have a national duty. Our national duty is to try and make things better. I should love to see Fianna Fáil come forth with new improved schemes that might help the Government in its task of development. That is their duty. They have had a long period of responsibility in this country. I do not subscribe to the theory that they did not do some good. However, I feel that we are not getting in this House the fair modicum of opinion that the long experience of the Fianna Fáil Party should be able to throw into the forum of this House for the development of our own Government. The Government of this country is for all the people. The sooner we come to the realisation of our complete national duty the sooner we shall get down to the task of making agriculture something that is not going to be the hazard of an individual Minister's opinion or of an individual Government's approach. It is something that has within itself, fundamentally, the ingredients of a sound balanced indiistry. Let us put our hands to the task of finding that. We know perfectly well what we can produce in this country. We know perfectly well, much as we may deride it, that there is available to us an eager and a large market. We know perfectly well—I am not saying this in any spirit of criticism —what desperate suffering and hardship the economic war caused. We know perfectly well the irreparable damage that was done to agricultural economy by making agriculture a type of political plaything. We must tackle the task of re-establishing in the farmer himself a pride in his job and a confidence in his future because, unless there is confidence in the farmer's future, there is no future for the country.
I end my contribution to the debate on this note: Can we, as people of reasonable intelligence and reasonable consciousness of our responsibility, get down to the task of improving the lot of the farmers generally and providing bigger and better schemes to make his economy sound and stable rather than indulge in the bickering, vituperation, petty hate and spleen which were so much in evidence in this House on every day the Vote for Agriculture was taken?
