Owing to having been unable to study the Minister's introductory statement on this Estimate I intend confining myself to just a few items. Perhaps the Minister will be glad of that because it is only natural that he would be anxious to dispose of this Estimate. First of all, may I just refer to what Deputy Allen said a while ago on the importation of cheap maize? From the statement he made in this connection it would seem that he is opposed to such a policy. I am not saying that I am in favour of it, but there is this difficulty in our approach to agriculture: it is a wellknown fact that the farmers in parts of the west and in the south-west areas are trying to work on very bad land and have not the facilities for grain growing, and so forth, as have farmers in the east, the midlands or the south. The policy which these small-holders would favour would be a policy whereby they could get imported maize at a cheap rate. Therefore, when we have such views expressed by various interests on a broad subject of such importance as agriculture is to us, we must realise that while each member who speaks here on the subject, may express a different view which he believes to be correct, and while there may be a certain amount of correctness in each statement, our difficulty seems to be that we are never prepared to weld together the various views or take from the various views expressed the good points and see is it possible to discover where the weakness has come in in the agricultural policy of this country for years back.
As Deputy Allen stated, according to the statistics published each year, there has been little or no improvement in agricultural output for the last 50 years. We know the figures vary, but, nevertheless, they vary only at a small rate and it is deplorable that with self-government in 26 counties of our country we have as yet, not alone not come by a policy which will give us increased production on a big scale but we have not yet come to solve the weaknesses which are preventing us from adopting a system which will give us that increase in production which is desirable if we are to have satisfactory results in the policy of agriculture.
One of the points mentioned here by Deputy Corry the other night, and a matter on which I also wish to speak is the policy of the cattle breeds which has been adopted here and which has been in operation for many years past. Again, even in trying to approach this subject we have different angles. We have the view of the farmer in the west or in the south. We have the view, then, of the farmer in the midlands. It is no advantage either to the man from the midlands who believes in a certain policy or to the man from the south who, perhaps, believes in another policy, to stand up here and express his views as being the correct views.
While it is most advantageous for us, being noted for the export of beef, to adopt a policy whereby we will increase substantially our exports of cattle, we still admit our main worry is the question of milk supplies in various areas. Even in Dublin City, in Cork City and other centres this problem has arisen time and again. I am not going to go into the matter here now as regards the price of milk. I am solely discussing the question of supplies. Neither do I intend to say that the present policy is the copyright policy of the present Minister when it comes to the various cattle breeds because I believe that this policy has been the policy of each Government in this State for a number of years back. As Deputy Corry said when he was not crosstalking with members in opposition, we are not getting satisfactory results simply and solely because we are not prepared to admit the weakness in our present policy. Be it what we may call the beef breed or the dual purpose—it is immaterial which we call it—when it comes to milk yields and to the fact that even in county committees of agriculture premiums cannot be allowed to certain breeds even though these breeds, year in and year out, are giving valuable returns in the way of milk yields, the question must be posed as to why the same favoured treatment is not being given to cattle owners who are inclined to go in for these breeds as is given for other types. Take the Friesian breed as an example. It is undoubtedly giving an excellent milk yield and if we are concerned with the volume of milk that can be placed on the home market we must take the necessary steps. We cannot allow ourselves the weakness of admitting that our sole object in improving agriculture is for the export market.
We must be equally prepared to realise the importance of the home market. If, therefore, as has been proved, some of the breeds are not giving adequate returns which are urgently required, then it is essential for the Minister to approach the subject by admitting that if a weakness exists the remedy must be sought for, and the sooner the Minister and his advisers realise that the present policy is not producing beneficial results in relation to the milk yield, and the sooner he and his advisers strike out on the formulation and implementation of a new policy to improve the milk yielding strains, the sooner we will go one step forward in improving that particular branch of the agricultural industry, and the less talk there will be on the part of people outside this House demanding increased milk prices. By improving the breeding strains and the milk yield we will eliminate the uneconomic cow giving roughly 250 to 300 gallons per year, and replace her with an animal capable of giving 700 to 900 gallons per year. When we reach that stage we will go a long way towards solving one of our agricultural problems and making the production of milk a paying proposition for our farmers.
South-west and West Cork has been noted for years past for its flax growing. The small farmers in that area depend to a large extent on the money they make out of the sale of flax. According to the memorandum issued to us here there will not be a guaranteed price for a considerable proportion of the flax coming on the market this year. Prospects are not very good for the flax growers from that point of view. I am not interested in quoting what any Minister for Agriculture may have said in the past, but I think that Deputy Dillon has been proved right in his approach towards the hard bargaining of the gentlemen from across the Border when dealing with the flax producers of the Twenty-Six Counties.
I think Deputy Dillon's attitude when he was Minister for Agriculture has been justified. These buyers from Northern Ireland suit themselves. We hope to be in a position to establish a factory near Cork City in order to make the flax growers independent of these buyers from across the Border who offer a price that is wholly uneconomic. The sooner we protect our small farmers in that way the sooner we will improve another important branch of the agricultural industry.
Deputy Allen pointed out that the volume of output has varied very little over the past 50 years. I do not wish to adopt an attitude which might be detrimental to agricultural policy or to agriculturists themselves. Year after year, for the last few years, we have had moral and lay theologians very ready to use their pens and avail of all the opportunities offered them through the medium of the Press condemning what they regard as increased State expenditure usually termed by them "State welfare". They find in that policy a grave danger of the State, as it were, becoming either the parent or foster-parent of the individual. Some of these individuals, with their so-called generosity, state that we are going, day by day, nearer to a policy in which the individual would have no say whatsoever and would be simply a number in the records of State activity. These people have never put in print their views on the question of grants to the agricultural community. They have never openly pronounced any opinions as to whether or not these grants are beneficial to the agricultural community.
When one considers the total amount of money given directly by way of grants, agriculture is certainly getting a fair share of the expenditure. The position in relation to these grants is somewhat anomalous as between the large landowner and the small landowner. Consider, for instance, grants given for the erection of pillars for gates, hay barns, water troughs, and so on. The large landowner may decide to erect a number of gates on his farm.
He may decide to erect a very large hay barn. Because of the number of stock he carries he will find a use for that building. He can decide to avail of many schemes through the medium of the grants offered by the State. The small farmer will generally be quite satisfied with one or two gates and he will stick a bush in any other gaps on his place. He will not go in for elaborate farm buildings. The well-to-do farmer gets more benefit out of the grants provided by the State than the small farmer does.
It must be admitted therefore that there can be no comparison made between the benefits derived by the large farmer as against those derived by the small farmer. There are other schemes in which it can justifiably be claimed that the benefits derived, though the small farmer will get his share if he makes his application, are not proportionate. I am not discussing agriculture now simply for the purpose of contrasting one Party's policy against another. Under the present system of giving grants, the small farmer is not getting the advantages he undoubtedly should get, because it must be admitted that in most cases he is struggling for a livelihood whereas the larger landowner cannot be said to be in the same position. If we admit that the volume of output has not increased, has not justified the hopes of the Government, are we not then coming to the time when this policy with regard to grants must be considered in the light of that weakness? Instead of giving grants, instead of each Party saying to the farming community: "We are going to give you something the other crowd never gave you," we should approach it from a different angle.
The biggest weakness in our present system of agriculture is the fact that agriculture, that is, the farmers down the country, are under-capitalised. If the farmers are given adequate credit at a rate which will not fleece them, at a rate no higher than the cost of obtaining the money to give loans it will be in itself a greater help towards encouraging advances in agriculture on the medium-sized and smaller farms than the present system.
I have on many occasions heard farmers expressing their views on these matters and they put up the case that, while in one year their returns in respect of cattle and crops may be good, the next year these may fall, by reason, perhaps, of adverse weather conditions. Their difficulty is that, through being under-capitalised, they are never in a position to stand the bad year as against the good year, and their argument is that if they were in a position to stock their farms adequately and improve the quality of their land in their own way, it would be much more beneficial than the system of grants for certain items on the farm. This is perhaps a matter more for the Government than for the Minister, and I do not wish to dwell on it further than to say that when we are prepared to adopt a policy in relation to agriculture designed to provide these loans on a basis different from the present basis, which involves all forms of confession very often before the loan is made available, we will be moving in the direction of making agriculture more successful than it is.
On page seven of the document issued to us, there is mention of dairy exports and the amount of butter being exported is given as amounting to £76,673 worth. I presume there is a reason for it, and I am not drawing attention to this as some hidden stunt by either the Minister or the Department; but it strikes me as somewhat strange that, while, on the one hand, we are importing a large amount of butter at great cost to the State, butter which Deputy Corry and others have on many occasions condemned, there is, on the other hand, the fact, according to these figures, that £76,000 worth, involving 4,510 cwt., was exported. That looks lopsided—that we must import so much butter, while, at the same time, we export so much.
However, there is not so great a necessity to dwell on that point as there is to dwell on some of the other items. There is a large amount of money involved in the export of chocolate crumb, condensed milk and dried milk. We hear on various occassions statements about the unsatisfactory milk yield in this country, and it would seem that, when a change of Government takes place, the cows know it and suddenly run dry.
The Minister may tell us that there is so much employment involved in these exports, but when we look at the amount of milk being used to make possible these exports of chocolate crumb and condensed milk as against the fact that we have to import so much butter ourselves, one feels that that position is contradictory of the fact that we are not in a position to supply ourselves with the necessary amount of butter for our people.
It must be admitted that the employment involved is of primary importance, but the health of our people must come first in our consideration. No matter what Government is in power or what policy is in operation, the provision of adequate butter supplies for our people, for children and for old people, should be our primary consideration rather than the export to other countries of chocolate crumb and dried and condensed milk. We realise the importance of exports, but, before we go into the export market on such a scale, we must ensure that the home market is provided for. The fact that we have to import butter from Denmark or New Zealand and can export dairy produce to a total value of £5,850,000—I admit that portion of that figure relates to cheese—which export means that so much milk has been used in the preparation of these products, goes to show that if we had concentrated more on the butter problem in relation to the home market rather than the export market, we might be better off. I know that the Minister may say, as his predecessor said, that cold storage is a problem. That problem may have existed, as I believe it did, but surely when problems are presented to us we should attempt to surmount them. If, because of the cold storage problem, our people must be satisfied with imported butter, then I say that that policy is no credit to the Government or to the country.
Deputy Allen gave very fair views on the problem of prices on the home market. Exorbitant prices have been paid by the public at times for some dairy products. It is admitted that in some instances the producer does not benefit by these prices; in many cases the middleman obtrudes himself on the path between the producer and the consumer, and while the producer does not come out too well, the consumer is practically robbed. Again, however, in other instances, the producer acts as retailer. When we consider that working people with small wages and large families must pay from 3/- to 3/6 for a 21 lb. measure of potatoes, and when we consider the amount of cost and labour which goes into the growing of potatoes, we must admit that that price is scandalous, and nothing short of robbery. These matters should be brought to the light of day. The farming community often do not get the benefit of the retail price, as that benefit goes to the middleman, but when they act as retailer they are often infected by the idea which seems to permeate our whole life at the present time: get rich quick. Young families depend very much on potatoes. Often the woman of the home finds it difficult to balance her weekly budget, and can do so only by providing a good midday meal of potatoes for her children, and when she must pay so much for such an important item in the staple diet the question should be looked into. I have a horror of inquiries and commissions. In this case the Minister should not merely set up a commission, which would probably take two, three or four years, by which time there might be a completely new policy. It is essential that agricultural prices should be investigated. Costings in general should be gone into. We do not need a costings commission to examine the matter deeply and elaborately, because any up-to-date farmer—and there are many all over the country—can say truly and without hesitation that some prices are undoubtedly totally unfair to the consumer.
So far as I am aware the Minister did not mention pasteurisation. A great deal has been said about the pasteurisation of milk in Cork City and suburbs. When Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture he played a man's part in trying to get the people who should be interested to move towards pasteurisation but great bodies move slowly and unfortunately, although he tried hard, he found that certain vested interests were definitely opposed to this policy. They took a narrow, restricted view and saw in that policy disadvantages to their own personal well-being, financial and otherwise. So far as I can recollect the present Minister stated last year that he was in favour of pasteurisation in the Cork area. This is a question which must be considered and decided as soon as possible because many people are affected. First, advantages would accrue to the consumer through an improved standard of milk. I know that many farmers deliver on the Cork market milk of an excellent quality, but there are others and to say the least of them their milk is not of that quality; I need not go any further than that. As a result of pasteurisation, people could be sure of the type of milk they would get. At present if people who get milk at 8.30 or 9 in the morning go at 10.30 or 11 for some milk for a cup of tea, they find it thick and sour. That may be a small individual problem, but a large number of individual problems combined make one mighty problem eventually. Of course, the weather can cause many of our problems.
As well as being of advantage to the consumer pasteurisation would also benefit the farm worker. Very often people in Dublin or Cork whose milk is delivered to them in the morning never realise the very early hour at which the farm workers has to start milking the cows.
They never realise the unearthly hour at which these men have to be on the road. All that is taken for granted, so long as the milk is at the door. Outside Cork City some farm workers have to strike out early, to have the cows milked, the men on the road, and the milk delivered to the city, and it means that life is fairly hard on them. If by pasteurisation the number of hours worked and the early hours can be changed, it will be an advantage to the farm worker as well as to the consumer, and can give financial benefit to the producer, advantages which he may not be able to see at present. If we fail to take advantage of pasteurisation, other concerns will probably move in, as individuals will group together and take over the responsibility, provided they can see a satisfactory financial return. It will be regrettable if the day arrives in Cork City where other interests move in and make a success of pasteurisation, partly at the expense of the farmers. Therefore, the Minister must not lose sight of the fact that the attention of the farmers should be drawn to the advantages offered to them. They should be told that the day is getting late, that the hours are moving on, and that it is essential, because of modern trends and modern health demands, that they should combine and take up the advantages already offered them through pasteurisation.
I would finish on a point of greater importance than any I have mentioned so far, that of the farm worker. While I heard many speakers, I heard only one mention this problem—my colleague, Deputy Dunne. Speaker after speaker offered interesting contributions on agricultural problems, but the farm worker's name was never mentioned. The present Minister may have spoken outside about the wage he considers agricultural workers should get.
I am not going to waste time picking out one statement of his at present or when in opposition, as that would not get us very far; yet it is significant that in the present Government's policy, through the Minister, as shown through this White Paper circulated by the Minister, nothing has been said about the agricultural worker. During the emergency years, the agricultural worker was a slave to the land, he was denied the right to emigrate. We know, of course, that too many workers have emigrated, but the agricultural worker was not allowed to go. He was told his place was on the land, that he must stay there. That was the policy during the emergency. When we look back now on it as past history, it must be admitted that one section which played its part in helping this country at that time was that of the farm workers.
The Minister may say that he has nothing to do with the policy on wages and conditions of agricultural workers. He is correct up to a point, but that does not relieve either him or the Government of responsibility for trying to improve the general policy on agriculture. I say with full responsibility that the Agricultural Wages Board should be wiped out. Let us, if we wish, have a board on which both the agriculturist and the worker would be equally represented—somewhat like the Labour Court. People may say the Labour Court has disadvantages, but I suppose everything in this life will offer some disadvantage. An open court would be better than the present system. At the present national or regional meetings the Press are not allowed in. Why? I am not seeking to blame the present Minister. I asked the Minister before him and we were refused. Why refuse such an important thing as that? Why is it that the Press cannot be allowed enter the holy precincts where an important discussion is to take place on the conditions and wages of the agricultural worker? It is no wonder the Press are not allowed into some of those meetings.
On one famous occasion a farmer representative from an area where farmers are well known to be prosperous stood up and, on behalf of the community that sent him there, demanded and insisted that, out of the wages being given to the indoor farm worker, after deducting his keep, which was natural, there should also be deducted 2/- a week for washing the worker's shirt. That may seem a joke, but it is not a joke; it is on the records. Why cannot such an attitude be brought out into the broad daylight? We surely should be in a position to say that we have nothing to hide.
If the agricultural community have a case to put forward and are prepared to go into a room and show their disadvantages, their financial difficulties and so on, why not publish it? What is wrong in so doing? If we are prepared, as we always have been, to go in and fight the cause of the farm worker, why must that be hidden from the light of day? That policy, undoubtedly, which is putting the agricultural workers into the position of untouchables, is a policy which is giving poor returns. We have now come to the stage where it is being said freely and often that agricultural workers cannot be got for any money. When they were there, they were treated in many cases in a manner which was not to the credit of those who employed them. I have no intention of condemning all the employers, but what strikes me forcibly, from the records available to us, for the purpose of studying this matter, is that it is where the employers were financially not so well off that the workers were treated better, whereas in the many instances where the employers were well-to-do, the lot of the employees was anything but satisfactory.
In attempting to evolve a policy that will give us advantages in agriculture it must be realised that it will take a long time, perhaps, to weld the various viewpoints on the subject that exist in different parts of the country. We must be prepared to move fast if we are to improve agriculture in our lifetime and to achieve the increased production for which we are all so anxious. In connection with a policy for agriculture we must be prepared to consider not only the position of the farmer but the position of the farm worker, the man who gave all he had to the agricultural industry during the emergency, the man who got very little thanks and who, even to-day, gets very little pay.
