Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Tuesday, 14 Jul 1953

Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

Mr. Desmond

When speaking on this Estimate the last evening I had come to the point of dealing more specifically with some of the important matters in connection with the overall policy on agriculture. I emphasised the importance of one particular crop, namely, the potato crop. While we all appreciate the wisdom of wheat growing, there are parts of the country,particularly around West Cork and in other areas, where it might not be so suitable for the farmers to adopt a policy of wheat growing. I would expect the farming community to realise the importance of wheat growing but not to the detriment of other essential crops.

If we take the report submitted by the Minister in his opening statement, we will find that comparing the years 1939 and 1952, the total acreage under potatoes alone has gone down. That also applies to other important items. Whatever may be said by the Minister and his Government about the inter-Party system of government, the figures as submitted here show clearly a reduction in the potato crop in the year 1952 as against any of the three years of the inter-Party Government. The point I am trying to make is that there is more than wheat growing involved in the general picture of agriculture. For instance, the figures submitted show a reduction in total corn crops for the year 1952. In the case of root and green crops if we compare 1952 as against 1949 and 1950 the same applies.

I could go on with many such comparisons, but I assure the Minister and the House that it is not my intention to praise one system and condemn another. We have been listening to a very important member of the Government, none other than the Minister for External Affairs, who did nothing but try to draw a Deputy of the Labour Party into stating a preference for one policy as against another. What we are interested in in the Labour Party as regards agriculture is not alone pursuing a progressive policy but being-prepared to say without fear of contradiction or without hesitation that agricultural policy is not solely for the benefit of the agricultural community or of the consumers. It must be based on an honest approach and an endeavour to help all sides.

Again taking these figures submitted by the Minister, in the case of milch cows in 1950 as against 1952, a reduction is evident. Even after two years of the operation of the Government's policy, agriculture has not shown the wonderful or complete change-over to a new era of prosperity about whichwe had been told by some members of the Government.

Another point I wish to deal with and in relation to which much has been spoken inside and outside this House for a long time past is the question of milk supplies and prices. In this regard, we must be prepared to fix a price, not for a few months, but over a longer period. That, to my mind, is the kernel of the situation in regard to milk supplies. The producer must know where he stands. We must also consider the problem of the consumer in the City of Dublin, in Cork City and in the various towns and villages. It is quite evident from information in various parts of our constituency that owing to the price of milk many families with a large number of young children find it absolutely impossible to supply sufficient milk for those children.

The members of the House have been speaking on a very important item up to a few minutes ago but the Government and all the members here must study agricultural problems in a more determined fashion. It is not sufficient for any member or Party to take the side of the agricultural community in an endeavour to get their support. We have a responsibility, a responsibility which, perhaps, the Minister for External Affairs when speaking on this Estimate, was trying deride. However, until we are prepared to mend our system of agriculture, particularly in relation to milk supplies, we are failing in that duty.

In the Minister's absence. I mentioned that it is totally unfair that it is not made feasible for farmers to go in for any particular breeds of cows they wish to select. There is victimisation at the present time as there has been over the past 20 or 30 years. The farming community are at a disadvantage by this victimisation in regard to certain breeds as against others. The people in the towns and cities are also victimised because they must pay the penny or 2d. in the gallon which may be given to farmers at any particular time. As well as being a problem for the farmer it is a problem for the consumer. That problem, in my opinion,can be eased greatly if we are prepared to extend facilities to farmers in relation to certain breeds, such as Friesians, or any of the other strains.

Hanging on to the dual policy which at present operates, may be all right if we follow a beef policy, but the problem of the consumer also must be considered. I believe that the price of milk is undoubtedly connected with the low yield which is so noticeable at present.

Apart from the reference to the half-holiday, no mention was made in the Minister's opening statement to agricultural workers. People bemoan the fact that they cannot get agricultural workers. Very many of them, when they were able to get them, expected them to work for almost slave wages. They failed to realise their responsibility to these workers. Certainly, that did not apply in all cases. It strikes me very forcibly that it is the large Iand-owners in particular areas that I know who are guilty of abuses in dealing with workers. If agricultural workers are not available in many areas it is because wages and conditions have not been anything like they should have been.

Very often a particular Deputy, whose name I will not mention as he is not here at the moment, emphasises that agricultural workers should receive £6 a week. It is quite simple to use such catch cries. It is not a matter of what farm workers should get; it is what they are getting that is important.

While the Agricultural Wages Board have done their work in their own limited way, in many ways it would be much more beneficial for the agricultural worker and the agricultural community, particularly those who are farseeing and wise enough to accept present-day policy as between labour and employers, to have a system on the lines of the Labour Court. The Minister may refuse, as his predecessor did when we asked that the proceedings at the meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board be published. I see no reason for that refusal. I fail to understand why the right is denied to the Press to publish these meetings. If some ofthe things that happen at these meetings were reported, it would certainly be more humane. If important meetings between employers and workers can be reported I cannot see why meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board should not be published, particularly having regard to the fact that there is State money involved in calling meetings of the board.

Having regard to the amount of work to be done, tribute should be paid to the inspectors of the Agricultural Wages Board. There is not a sufficient number of inspectors employed. If the benefits of the weekly half-holiday, annual holidays and proper wages are to be afforded to all agricultural workers, the whole system of the Agricultural Wages Board should be investigated and, if necessary, altered to suit present conditions.

I would particularly draw the Minister's attention to the fact that when Irish-bred horses are successful in races in other countries, it seems to be a general policy of the people in England to claim that the horses had been bred in England. Whether the horse wins in England or on the Continent or in America, we are put in the background. I would be anxious that through the Minister's Department such false information should be flatly contradicted every time it is published. Credit should be given to this country when it is entitled to credit.

To sum up my remarks on the Estimate on the 24th June and this evening, I believe that the overall policy on agriculture should be embodied in a three-in-one policy. The three things that must be considered are the producer, the consumer and exports. If we are solely concerned with one particular branch, we are bound to fail. If we restrict our efforts to helping the producers at the expense of the consumers we will not have efficient agriculture. We cannot completely line up with the consumers in the home market to the detriment of the producers. One must be coupled with the other. I dealt with exports on the last occasion. I tried to stress the importance of adopting and improving a system amongst farmers of co-operative selling. From the time the produce leaves the farm until it reaches the shop to be boughtby the consumer there are too many side shows, as it were, on the road. It could be that because of the operation of all these middlemen the price is not suitable to the farmer himself and the agricultural community as a whole. Then they complain when they hear of the price charged in retail shops, and also the consumer is bound to complain when he hears of the cost of production in some cases as against the price charged in the shops. Here you have the two ends of the scale, but the difficulty is that between the two of them there are undoubtedly too many profiteers stepping in to the detriment of the producer and the consumer.

If we are trying either to formulate or to support a policy on agriculture I believe it is important for us to be honest in our approach to it and to be sincere, either in our criticism or otherwise. On the 2nd July, in column 488, an Independent Deputy in this House, in the course of his remarks, mentioned that the Labour Party apparently speaking on agriculture wanted the agriculturists to get artificially depressed prices for their produce. According to the Official Report of 24th June, 1953, in column 1937, a Labour Deputy in this House— I happen to have been this Deputy— was speaking, and then this Independent Deputy found it suitable apparently to take completely out of their context words spoken on agriculture here. His line quite evidently is: "Of course, export all we can and let the home market look out for itself". The speaker on that occasion has more reason to be connected perhaps with agriculture than I as a member of the Labour Party have, but he must know as I know that if we are to adopt a system of complete exports without protecting the home market, in some years to come if, please God, peace will continue, the result will be a danger of a fall in prices on the export market owing to competition from other countries; and are we going to leave our agricultural community here in such a position that, while they may reap good rewards for a couple of years, after that, owing to world-wide depressed prices, they must fall with all the other people who will fallsimply because they are dealing in the export market?

I will not repeat what I said on that occasion, but I believe that for the farmers co-operative efforts are essential in trying to do the utmost we can for all concerned. The one way we can help to protect the home market is by being prepared in a co-operative system to give a fair and just price to the producer. Although some members may not be in favour of it, if it is possible and suitable for us to export even under State services and gain thereby, I fail to see why we cannot, by subsidisation of the prices of butter and milk on the home market, help the home consumer and, in particular, to help the farmer. There should be a situation whereby the farmers will have one market that will always be at their doorsteps, and that is the home market.

I finish on that point, saying what the policy of the Labour Party is irrespective of how any particular Independent Deputy may wish to twist it—a fair, just and sensible price for the farming community, but at the same time protection for the consumers who undoubtedly are entitled to fair consideration in the home market as well as anyone else.

Dr. Esmonde

We have been told by statesmen in many parts of the country that there is a market for all the food I that the world can produce in the foreseeable future in view of the fact that the world population is rising and that agricultural production is not going up. One rather peculiar feature has arisen as one reads in the Press over the last few weeks—that America finds itself in a position of having so much wheat on hands that they have to store it in their spare ships in the docks and other places, and this before they have even reached this year's harvest. The Minister must be in a position to know the position in the world with regard to wheat markets, and able to make a definite, clear statement on that point.

In this country a lot of farmers were forced to grow wheat in the emergency to the detriment of their land, and to a large extent they turned against it. The situation has alteredsomewhat now by virtue of these concentrated fertilisers which have enabled us to get better yields over the last few years than we were getting heretofore. I may say that in the war period we had no fertilisers and could not get a good yield. In my eon-stituency, which is perhaps one of the premier if not the premier tillage constituency in the country, a lot of farmers are very anxious. As the Minister knows, when you are arranging your farming system you do not arrange it for one or two years ahead, you like to arrange it spread over a long-term policy; and they would like to know what the position is in regard to wheat because of the rather disquieting fact that we see these enormous quantities of grain are in excess apparently to the requirements of the people of the United States. When the Minister is replying to the debate perhaps he will deal with that point.

I think we will all agree that the necessary thing to do in this country is to increase agricultural production, but it is no use telling the farmers to increase agricultural production—you have got to make it possible for them to do so. In my opinion the whole secret and source of the trouble behind the lack of production here is credit, to put it in a nutshell—proper placement of credit throughout the country here would enable us to increase our production. The Land Commission, which, of course, I know the Minister is not responsible for, when it is apportioning land to farmers very often builds houses, gives them land and sets them up, but they have not got the credit to lay in the necessary ingredients such as seeds and stocks and manures and so forth to get into productive capacity immediately. If a farmer wants to get credit the only avenue for credit in the State at the moment is the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I know that the Agricultural Credit Corporation are doing their best, but they are bound like every other corporation by rules and regulations and they are held to them perhaps by higher authorities, and they make no advances without security. In other words you have a position that the farmers in thiscountry who are looking for credit are those who have no money, and they have no chance of getting any credit out of the Agricultural Credit Corporation unless they already have money. We have this principle that the Agricultural Credit Corporation will not lend money to a farmer unless he pledges the security of his land, and even then it is very difficult for them to lend more than half the valuation of the farm. You have a position of affairs obtaining in the country, and it is not improving very much as time goes on, with practically all the small farmers starved for want of credit, and there is really no policy to deal with that.

In America and other countries as well they have a system of credit, short-term credits, what is known as chattel credit. They give credit on the produce of the ground and on the stocks that the farmer buys in at a certain period which are going to reach their maturity and be ultimately disposed of. That seems to me to be the solution which would be very helpful in this country in increasing our production. The average small farmer has to go every year to the merchant for credit for his seeds, for his manures and for any of his requirements.

In the majority of instances he is bound to go to the one merchant. He owes that merchant a certain amount of money and he deals with him. He buys his requirements in the spring and endeavours to pay when he harvests the crops in the autumn. The merchant has to give a vast amount of credit. The merchant has to borrow the money from the banks at a high rate of interest and he is virtually lending money to the small farmer on very limited security in the majority of instances. It is not very difficult to see that, as a result, the cost and the percentage of charge for seeds and manure to people who are short of ready cash is considerable. In some cases it has been stated to have been as high as 20 per cent. Therefore, the argument would appear to be that if the Department of Agriculture—in the case of newly parcelled out farms, in conjunction with the Land Commission —could give short-term credits toenable people to have those farms stocked, seeded and manured so that they could go into production immediately, it would increase production. Those who have land already should be put into a position to go to somebody to get credit, without having to spend weeks pledging the farm. If they are without any chance of getting credit unless they have money already, some short credit term should be instituted, if we are to increase agricultural production.

The next avenue to the increase in agricultural production is the land reclamation scheme. Many things have been said about that scheme—many hard things and many soft things. It is a very fine scheme. I would like to give the Minister the position in my constituency, as I have it from innumerable constituents—and they are not going to waste their time in telling me a pack of nonsense. Anyone who applies in County Wexford under section B of the scheme goes on to the waiting list. To my certain knowledge, that waiting list is growing week by week and month by month. I took the trouble to investigate the matter and to check up on it with a good many people and from every angle. As I know the scheme at present, it is divided into sections A and B. Under A, the farmer does it himself; it is the old method of the spade and shovel, which may be slow and not a very good one. Under B, the job is done for him by a contractor, under the grant scheme of the Department of Agriculture. A farmer wants to have his land reclaimed, fertilised or drained. He applies to the Department and an official comes out and inspects the farm. The official gives his estimate as to what it is going to cost per acre. That is the information I have at present; the Minister can refute it afterwards if I am wrong. I am further informed—and I have this from officials themselves, from farmers and from the contractor—that the average cost of reclaiming land in County Wexford is £52 an acre. I have been told it costs that much because there is a lot of wet marginal land there that requires draining, and by the time the drainage pipes and so on are put in there is no reasonable profit left to the contractor.

If a man applies to have his land drained under section B, the Minister's official comes out and inspects the land. The report is sent back to the Department—it has to be approved there—and the query is asked whether that land is to be drained or not. I submit that when an estimate for £52 is sent in, it is turned down and the job is not done, and the particular farmer is put back to section A. In my opinion, that is wrong. The Minister may answer that argument by saying that the machinery was put up for sale. We did not approve of the machinery being put up for sale, and we did not hesitate to say so. The Minister may say the machinery has been sold and that that is proof that there are plenty of people ready to drain the land. I would like to point out that when the machinery was sold —I have this from several sources as well—it was not stipulated that the machinery could be used solely for the purpose of draining land. The people who got it were quite free to utilise it for other purposes. It might be economic for them to buy the machinery and use it for purposes other than land drainage. It might not be economic— and I maintain that in the County Wexford it would not be economic—to buy the machinery and drain the land, at the ceiling price allowed by the Department at present.

On the question of butter, we have always had difficulty in selling butter in Wexford. I do not think the difficulty is confined to Wexford. Our problem this year is no easier than in any other year; in fact, it is more difficult at present for farmers to dispose of their high-grade butter at an economic price. Creamery butter is selling at 4/2 a lb. but everyone knows that it is quite impossible for farmers to get anything like that for highest-grade butter in County Wexford. It is not difficult to see the reason. The market for butter from a rural constituency must always be found, in times of plentiful supply, outside its own area. The Minister knows that regulations exist at present prohibiting the sale of Irish creamery butter in the Dublin and Bray areas. That means that Irish creamery butter iscompeting with farmers' butter in other areas. The answer may be that farmers are not making as good a butter as the creameries. Remember this, the creameries are specialised butter makers, that is their job; why should a farmer have to compete in his own area with specialists? The farmer has to do many other things besides make butter; he has plenty of stock to look after and plenty of other work to do.

I will give the Minister a further reason why it is difficult to sell farmers' butter. He can check on this if he likes. Any shopkeeper will tell the Minister that more margarine has been bought for human consumption in the last two years than there has been for a great many years in Ireland. That is the reason why farmers' butter is not marketable—because the Irish people, to the ultimate detriment of their health, are eating more margarine at 1/7 a lb., as they cannot afford to-buy butter. I do not know that the Minister can really make a market for butter, but I think a statement on the-subject would be welcomed. The removal of the Orders that apply to Dublin and Bray would make a considerable difference and would ease the situation.

The peak period for butter is now passing. As the Minister himself, being a country Deputy the same as I am, knows perfectly well, the peak butter period in rural Ireland is the end of April, May and June; and with the advance, of the gad and so forth the butter is not as plentiful as before. People cannot sell the butter and it is not economic for them. As a result, there is less and less homemade butter. Some people argue that the time will come when we will have to import butter from across the world. I am not inclined to agree, but there are two schools of thought on the subject. The time may come when we may not be able to import from across the world. Does that mean that the Irish nation, an agricultural nation, will have to eat margarine as the poor are eating it at present because they cannot afford to buy butter? The situation may obtain in which you will not have a manufacture of butter and all sections of the community, rich and poor, will beeating margarine, because there is no butter to be eaten. Of course the Minister is not entirely responsible for that. He is only responsible as a member of the Government for the fact that the poorer sections of the people have to eat margarine.

Mr. Walsh

Is the price of milk too high?

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

What about the subsidies?

Mr. Walsh

You want to put it on the taxpayers, then?

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

It would be better expended than on new Government buildings or on the Bray road.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Esmonde should be allowed to proceed.

Dr. Esmonde

As I said, we know how to till in Wexford and we grow barley. We are facing considerable difficulties again down there owing to the policy of the Minister and the Government. I do not think anybody will deny that the brewers and the maltsters have cut their contracts for barley by 50 per cent. and in some cases by more than that. We have in Wexford this year perhaps the best and the most promising crops of barley we have had for a great many years. The Minister knows that with the cutting down of the contracts by the brewers and maltsters a lot of barley which heretofore was sold as malting barley and marketed at a remunerative price will come on the market as feeding barley. Last year the Minister rather belatedly brought in a scheme. Unfortunately, many people in Wexford were "stung" and sold their barley before the scheme came in.

Mr. Walsh

But they got the 48/- a barrel.

Dr. Esmonde

Rather belatedly, last year the Minister introduced a scheme for the payment of 48/- a barrel for barley. A lot of people in South Wexford had disposed of their barley before that, not knowing that the Minister was to introduce the scheme. At present, the fields in Wexford are full of barley. We have possibly the best crops we have seen for a goodmany years. Is the Minister going to introduce such a scheme again or will the farmers of Wexford be left to grow barley at an uneconomic price? Now is the time for the Minister to say that. The harvest is approaching. As a farmer, the Minister knows that every farmer has to make his arrangements. I have asked the Minister a parliamentary question about that and he has told me that he is not importing maize. That does not get away from the fact that a large number of small farmers grow barley in excess of their own requirements. In Wexford, not only do we grow barley for our own requirements—and we can claim that we feed just as much of it to live stock as people in any other county—but we supply barley to other parts of Ireland.

Fianna Fáil speakers never cease talking about the necessity for increased tillage. Wexford is the best tillage county in Ireland. It has a higher tillage ratio than any other county. We are now in the month of July and in some places the barley is ripening, but we have had no indication whether we will have a fixed economic price for barley. I have been asked about that and I said I would bring it up on this Estimate. I ask the Minister, when replying, to make a statement with regard to the price of barley. The matter does not affect County Wexford alone. It affects a great many other parts of Ireland, but it will hit Wexford harder than anywhere else if the Minister does not do something about it. Furthermore, I should like to point out that the price of 48/- fixed last year should be increased this year in order to make it economic for the farmers to produce barley. As the Minister is aware, the cost of production has gone up considerably in the last 12 months.

Perhaps we had better leave it for the Minister to explain clearly how the fixed subsidy of £1 on a lamb is paid. I agree that it made no difference to the farmer because the farmer did not get the £1.

Mr. Walsh

He would not have got it anyway.

Dr. Esmonde

I am speaking for the farmer who tells me that he did not get the £1. Perhaps the Minister will tell us who got the £1. That is the mystery. Deputy Cunningham mentioned oats. In regard to oats, it is a matter of providing accommodation for the farmers. The oats crop is peculiar in that sometimes oats are in short supply here and sometimes there is an excess supply. When oats are in short supply here, they are in short supply in Great Britain and Western Europe as well. It is in excess supply here and it is in excess supply there. That is the difficulty which any Minister for Agriculture has to meet with regard to oats. If he has to fix a price for it, it would probably help, but it is very difficult to fix a price definitely on oats because it is a rather fluctuating product and supplies vary a great deal. But it seems to me that the solution would be something on the lines of what was done when DeputyDillon was Minister for Agriculture. One year when there was an excess of oats, the Government bought in a certain amount of oats at a certain price. They bought in white oats, and that to a certain extent stabilised the price. But a better solution would be if the farmers were put in a position to co-operate in different centres for the purpose of storing oats so that we would not have a situation arising that when we are short of oats we will have to import them. But any system you run must, in my opinion, be run to some extent under central Government control, because until you have central Government control in some form, in which the Department of Agriculture is prepared to step in and buy some of the oats so as to stabilise the market, you are going to have the situation of small farmers being forced to put their oats on the market and there being no market. It is natural—human nature being what it is—that the merchants will buy it for what they can get it for, and they get the profit and the farmers who do the work and employ the labour and have to struggle against the elements to produce the crop will not get the price.

With regard to fixing prices, it is very difficult. The price of oats which is largely used for feeding here apart from a small quantity for the distilleries, must always be dependent on the demand, and that is where the Government may come in to produce that demand by buying some of it, by taking a certain amount out of the pool, and it will stabilise itself. Oats stabilises itself every year but it does so too late, and to the detriment of the farmers. The farmers are the people who do all the work and do not get the profit. Until such time as we give to the farmer all the profit and eliminate the middleman, you are not going to keep the people on the land and stop the flight from the country. We are dependent in the final analysis for everything on the land; we are dependent for the things we import on what our agricultural section can produce.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

It is pretty well accepted now that the country ishappy in the knowledge that we have in agriculture an extremely valuable constituent of our economy. In view of the cattle prices that are now obtaining, it is indeed a matter for congratulation that in the period 1948-51 the cattle population in this country rose by 172,000 in number, and in value, to the amount of £10,284,000. We claim that that can be traced, number one, to the closing down of cattle slaughtering which persisted up to the formation of the inter-Party Government. In 1947 we slaughtered an extraordinary number of young cattle in this country. That slaughter was indiscriminate. One of these slaughterhouses was adjacent to my home and I know of what I speak. There were no questions asked as to the breed of the calf or as to its condition, or anything else. They all went the one road and were it not for the action of Deputy Dillon when he became Minister for Agriculture in closing down that concern and many others like it, we would not have had that increase in the cattle population—and that notwithstanding the fact that at the time their farms were cluttered up with uneconomic cattle for which there was no price. In view of the many other developments in the years since, we now have a steady market for the disposal of these cattle that were uneconomic for milk and consequently were a load on the farmer and the disposal of them makes way for his opportunity to keep more economic cattle on his farm.

It is noteworthy that the number of young cattle has risen by 2.9 per cent. during those three years. Consequently, we can say—we are often charged with having left numerous headaches to this Government but I think they will appreciate that they had a very worthy asset there—even though the Minister for Finance in this Government was very slow to recognise the fact when he had to deal with the problem of external trade, that the cattle have provided us with a very large proportion of our exports in years gone by. Indications are that in the foreseeable future very lucrative markets will be available for all we have to dispose of in that respect.

Side by side with the increase ofthe number of live stock in the country it is also a matter for congratulation to appreciate that there has been an increase in the output per acre in the way of crops which proves that in this country where mixed farming is the order of the day, when the farmer is doing well in one part of his concern that he can plough back into the land fertilisers and manures necessary to keep it in good heart. In that respect, it is also on record that in the last year of the inter-Party Government the farmers purchased £5,000,000 worth of artificial manures. Surely that fact must be recognised, in so far as it has meant that we have put back into the land much that was taken from it in the years when we had, to a certain extent, to ravish that land.

Consequent on the development of the land project, it is surely a matter of pride that we on this side of the House can say that during these years considerable progress was made under that scheme. It is a pity that when it was introduced it did not meet with a better reception. There were extravagant, wild statements made as to the average cost of doing an acre under that scheme, but in figures furnished by the Department of Agriculture I note that in County Cork 32,369 acres were reclaimed for £216,830 in grants, which I make out to be an average of about £7 per acre. If, to improve the land of this country, the average cost is like that we could not spend money in a better way.

To-day, there are disconcerting facts relating to this project. The first blow was that struck by the Minister for Agriculture. It is the Minister's intention to dispose of the land project machinery. That we claimed was a bad thing. These machines should be left under the direct control of the Department because anywhere a private contractor takes on this work he naturally tends to look for the work in bigger farms where there are bigger fields and where the farmers are able to pay cash down the moment the job is done. Naturally where men spend money in purchasing this machinery they go to the bigger man for the work knowing they will be paid immediately. I want to put on record here, and I think itshould be a matter for concern, that some of the skilled men whom we brought back from abroad are now. working as navvies on the Lee scheme, in the hope that if ever a vacancy arises they will get a job as a lorry or a tractor driver. I found that out when I visited the scheme and tried to secure employment for an ex-lorry driver who lost his job through trucks being put off the road. The man in charge told me that there were men there working with picks and shovels who were competent to drive these big machines and yet who had to take up that work. Many other such men had left the country again. I think that is a tremendous loss to us. It will be very hard to restore their confidence and get them back to work in this country.

I know it is not permissible to refer in any detail in this debate to the closing down of work under the Local Authorities (Works) Acts, but I think I can justify short reference to it by claiming that the many people who have applied for schemes under the land project find they cannot carry out that work until many rivers and streams are cleared for them. They have not got a sufficient outfall for the drainage thew contemplate.

I think it is a great pity that work was not continued under the Act to the same extent as some years ago. If it had been, man more acres might be added to the land reclaimed under the land project. Some people claim that these schemes were in operation many years before Deputy Dillon introduced them, but there was never a scheme before, I think, under which fertilisers and ground limestone were spread on the land to such an extent in connection with land reclamation. To-day when we look at the marginal land of this country we see that much of the land reclaimed in the days of our forefathers under slave conditions has reverted to its original state and is growing heather again, because these men had not the wherewithal or the scientific assistance that we have to-day. Consequently, it is a matter of importance that we should give the people living in these barren areas every opportunity of improving their holdings.It apparently is the opinion of this Government, as expressed by the Taoiseach, that we should direct activities under the land project to land which in the ordinary sense would be considered medium quality land. I think the man on the hillsides, the man with the bad holding, deserves first consideration. No doubt it is a more pleasant matter for the Department to deal with fairish land and make good land of it. We must remember, how ever, that unless the people on very bad land are given assistance it becomes impossible for them and their families to eke out a livelihood on such land.

In the course of the past year the farmers of this country have had to contend with serious difficulties in relation to production costs. In that sphere, it is very hard to refer to these difficulties without referring to general Government policy. Any Minister for Agriculture in this country must be prepared to take a strong hand in impressing on his colleagues in the Government that no matter what development is mooted in other Departments, it will not be carried out at the expense of agriculture.

In the ultimate, when we speak of increased costs, they all work back to the initial producer in the country— the farmer. The Minister for Local Government is assisting his colleague the Minister for Finance in procuring more revenue by increased taxation on transport. I feel that agriculture has been seriously affected in the past 12 months by increased transport charges. In the last general election, the Taoiseach, speaking in County Clare, referred to hidden taxation and its bearing on the economy of the country. As reported in the Sunday Pressof May 25th, 1951, speaking at Kilmihill, in County Clare, he said that the previous Government were raising revenue by hidden taxation and that they conveniently forgot that a tax on petrol was a tax on everything transported by lorry. Most of our agricultural produce is transported by lorry and any increase in petrol or in vehicle duties of any kind reacts in reducing the margin of profit to the farmer. In the dairying areas—and the constituency I represent is predominantly a dairyingarea—motor trucks are employed for the transport of milk to the creameries. The creameries, in turn, employ trucks to transport milk to the chocolate factories and to the central creameries, and their costs of production are seriously affected by these increased charges. The farmer who, a few years ago, purchased, by stinting himself, perhaps, in other ways, a little truck to bring him back quicker to the work on his farm or to transport his produce to market, is now faced with increased costs. At the same time he is affected by the increased prices he has to pay for every single article he has to buy in the shop.

Furthermore, he has to meet difficulties referred to by Deputy Esmonde in regard to the credit restrictions experienced in this country in the last few years. The shopkeeper in the town is depending on the local bank to afford him credit and he cannot give the farmer what he always gave the farmer in the past—credit until such time as the farmer fattened his stock or harvested his stock as he did in the past, because he himself cannot now obtain credit. We think all this is detrimental to the increased production which we desire to see in this country.

Why not indicate to them, before bringing them over here, that the opening was not there and why leave the local people under the impression that this concern was in the offing for their constituency? I think that it was neglect on the part of the Minister that was responsible for not giving that indication earlier.

Mr. Gallagher

Surely no Minister in any Government would deliberately prevent the setting up of a factory that would employ 100 people.

Mr. Rooney

They were stopped in Balbriggan.

Mr. Gallagher

No Minister in his sane senses would do it.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

I am citing an instance. We cannot bring into remote rural areas the types of industrial concerns that the Deputy can bring into Dublin City. We are restricted in the type of industry in-as much as it must be based on agriculture. This industry would have to rely on the locality for its raw material and it was prepared to give very good employment and very good representation in relation to management, and so forth, to Irish nationals. It was a distinct loss to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and that is the reason why I have raised this matter on this Estimate.

I want to refer again, as other Deputies have, to the difficulties which farmers are meeting in relation to reduced barley contracts. I consider that this is inimical to the whole of the agricultural industry. About one-third of my constituency is affected by the reduction. My worry is that these farmers who formerly secured lucrative incomes from the sale of barley under contract will now have to compete with other farmers in producing crops that may be difficult to market.It is regrettable that the Minister for Agriculture in this Government did not impress on the other members of the Cabinet, before they finally embarked on the policy to reduce the consumption of spirits, that such a policy would react unfavourably on the agricultural industry. Unless there is a great change in regard to that aspect of the agricultural industry, then all I can say is that the industry is in for a very lean time indeed.

I want to register a protest on behalf of small farmers, their wives and families, for the let-down which they got last Christmas in regard to turkey prices. Undoubtedly, those people who go in for the rearing and fattening of turkeys deserve every penny they can get for the birds at Christmas time. Many of them depend on the moneys which they expect to receive at that time from the sale of the birds. Last Christmas, the fall in the price of turkeys was very seriously felt by many small farmers' and cottiers' wives throughout my constituency. I feel that this Government has failed in particular by allowing the costs of production to increase to the extent to which, they have increased, with the result that the farmer is now faced with a considerably reduced profit.

Mr. Allen

The point which I wish to mention is a hardy annual: I refer to storage for grain in the harvest. Is the Manister satisfied that there is sufficient storage in the event of a wet harvest? With the advent of the combined harvester, much more storage and drying facilities are required than formerly. A serious problem could arise in the matter of storage if we have not the fine weather this year which we had last year. In the case of wheat and barley especially, farmers must get rid of these crops to the stores immediately, and that situation will be much more urgent in a wet harvest, unless the people who handle this grain have made provision for it. The harvest comes in within three weeks and it is all dumped into the merchants and the millers in that period. The big burk of the grain this year will come from combine harvesters and unless some arrangements have been made,even though they are emergency arrangements, to handle that grain within a short time, the problem may be serious. I suggest that the Minister might appeal to some of the farmers who still harvest by the traditional method of the reaper and binder to hold over their corn, or a portion of it, for a few weeks or so. That might relieve the situation. Otherwise, the position could be serious, especially in a wet year. I am sure the Minister has made a survey and that provision has been made for that eventuality, because otherwise a lot of grain could be lost within a week. If the grain is unfit to remain in the sacks, it deteriorates very rapidly and serious damage may be done. I feel sure that the Minister will be able to assure the House and the country that there is sufficient storage, no matter what weather we have, and that the millers and grain merchants will be capable of handling it and drying it immediately.

We had much discussion about land rehabilitation and about sections A and B of that scheme. In that connection, would-be contractors or existing contractors plead, as a reason for their inability to take contracts in future, that the amount allowed will not is sufficient to reimburse them and give them a livelihbod in using these machines. Although the Minister did refer to it, I think he should explain clearly to the House if there are any new conditions attaching to the operation of Section B and whether it is a fact that, in future, it will be his policy to encourage people to drain the better quality land which needs drainage rather than land which is scarcely worth draining. There was a big lot of money spent on a certain amount of land over the past few years and it is doubtful if its expenditure was economic. If it were the policy of the Minister in the future to spend money, in the first instance, on the better-class land which needs drainage and which could be improved, the peopte would be satisfied. It will not cost as much to drain such land as it would to drain the more boggy type of land. With regard to section A, the scheme under Which the farmer proposes to do the work himself, that is a scheme which will give general satisfaction.The majority of the farmers are small and medium-sized farmers and it will be found that if they carry a number of men over the winter, as many of them do, they will find time to carry out minor drainage under section A and improve their land in many ways. I think that will eventually be the most popular part of the scheme. Side by side with that land, there will be land which will need heavier machinery for carrying out drainage operations.

The Minister mentioned a new scheme for the distribution of lime and we should like some more information with regard to when it will come into operation and if he is satisfied that the existing plants which are producing lime will give an output equal to the demand. In the spring of last year, through no fault of the suppliers—a big number of farmers all wanted the ground limestone within the short few weeks of the sowing season—some farmers found they had to do without it. All the encouragement possible, through Press and other propaganda, as the Department is doing at present, should he given to farmers to take the lime into stock at the slack time of the year and the agricultural instructors should advise them how to keep it from getting wet and having it in proper condition for sowing. If the lime gets very wet, it becomes mucky and unsuitable for sowing in many types of spreaders, but if it can be kept dry it will not deteriorate in any way.

We are glad to see that, far land rehabilitation, there has been an increase in the amount of money made available each year since the Minister took over, and in the amount of work being done. There is an increase of £150,000 in relation to the subsidy on ground limestone and the transport of ground limestone in this year's Estimates as compared with last year which shows that the farmers are fully appreciative of the value of ground limestone. In my own county of Wexford, we are unfortunate in not having any supply of lime at all. No lime whatever is being quarried or prepared in the county and there is scarcely any supply available which a worth looking after. I hope that underthe new scheme, when the country is being zoned, it will not be forgotten that there are areas in County Wexford that are a long distance from any source of supply. I am sure the Minister and his Department will keep that in mind.

The amount of money provided this year for sub-head M (11)—Prevention of Contagious Abortion and other Diseases in Cattle—is the same as last year and we should like to hear from the Minister whether there has been much progress made and if the scheme has been fully availed of. I have been told that in the early years, due to publicity, it was availed of much more extensively than last year. I think the Minister should press forward with that scheme of inoculating cattle against contagious abortion because it is a scheme of immense advantage to the country.

A token Vote of £10 is provided at sub-head M (5)—Loans for the Purchase of Cattle and Sheep, Agricultural Implements and Milking Machines. We have no information as to the number of animals purchased under that sub-head. I take it that it is the Agricultural Credit Corporation that finances it and that the Department merely provide a token Vote, There were complaints by people who felt they were fully qualified to get a loan under that scheme that it is just as difficult to get a loan now from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, even under that section, as it was in the past to get a loan directly from the corporation. I suggest that the Minister should do something to get the Agricultural Credit Corporation—I am not sure whether they come under this Vote or not—to loosen up and to be more liberal in the matter of loans to farmers who need to purchase live stock and implements. The implements part of the scheme seems to be working better than the stocking of the land with cattle and sheep and live stock generally. That has been my experience throughout the country.

We had Deputy D.J. O'Sullivan and Deputy Desmond suggesting by innuendo that because the farmers are at the moment getting a certain pricefor milk the Government is responsible for increasing the price of butter to the consumer. It would be interesting to hear the official policy of both Fine Gael and Labour in relation to butter and milk. They cannot have it both ways. They either believe the farmer is getting a fair price for his milk or that he is getting too much. I do not believe the farmer is getting too much; he is entitled to a fair price for his produce. On the other hand, the farmer should, of course, do all in his power to feed his cows and to get the best possible yield from them. The farmer has a duty to the community, to the consumer and to himself to increase milk supplies in so far as he can. Having performed that duty, he is then entitled to a fair price for his produce. The Opposition seems to be talking with its tongue in its cheek. When speaking in an urban constituency Opposition Deputies bewail the price of butter to the consumer and they are full of sympathy for the townspeople.

If any Deputy on the Opposition Benches has any formula whereby we can pay the farmers ?per gallon for milk and produce butter at less than 4/2 per lb., the House and the country would be glad to have it. I will have far more respect for Deputy Rooney in future than I have at the moment if he can give us such a formula. Opposition policy seems to be in abeyance at the moment. We are waiting for some pronouncements of policy in relation to the price of butter and milk. Is the Opposition satisfied to give the farmers an economic price? Is it prepared to tell the consumers that there is no way out?

The only way in which the price of butter could be reduced is by increased milk production. The margin allowed to the creameries manufacturing butter and the margin allowed to the retailer is cut to the very bone. We would all like to have cheap butter. There seems to be no way of achieving that except through better management of dairy herds, if that is possible. If farmers are already doing their best and breeding the best type of animal we can only continue to pay the present price for butter and no formula by either Fine Gael or Labour will solve the problem.

I hope the Minister will endeavour to get a greater acreage of potatoes grown next year because that seems to me to be the solution to our poultry-feeding problem and increased pig production. The cost of ensiling is pretty high. There is a scheme in operation in some counties whereby steamers are-made available to farmers for the purpose of ensiling potatoes. Contractors should be encouraged in every parish. If the acreage under potatoes is increased there would be a considerable addition to the food pool and the farmers would have cheaper feeding stuffs for both poultry and pigs. Ensilage should be encouraged because the old method of cooking from day to day is no longer possible or economic.

The statement made by the Minister-in relation to the increase in tillage is very satisfactory. I think everybody is pleased that we are on the right road at last after four or five years of difficulty. That much leeway has to be made up. We have yet a long road to go before we have sufficient land under tillage in this country. We have the lowest acreage of tillage in Western Europe per 100 acres or per 1,000 acresof arable land. That is to our own disadvantage and it costs us almost £20,000,000 a year in regard to our agricultural products. There is an open market in addition to the present market and there is no reason whatever why farmers could not increase their live stock—cattle, sheep and pigs —and at the same time double the acreage under tillage. We must be 1,000,000 acres short of what we need to provide our full requirements both in regard to animal feeding stuffs and food for human consumption.

If we get a favourable harvest this year we will possibly have almost enough wheat. There is every appearance of there being a bumper crop provided that during the next month or six weeks we have reasonable weather. If the weather is reasonable our wheat requirements for the coming year will be reasonably safe. In regard to the matter of animal feeding stuffs, we are still a long way behind. Before the harvest comes in, I hope the Minister for Agriculture will indicate a fair price to the people growing feeding barley in the present year. I hope that the farmers growing feeding barley will get a price for it which will have some relation to what the feeding stuffs will be sold for in the future. That is all important. The price they can be given for the feeding barley will only be related to the price at which the finished product is sold. Still, the farmer who grows feeding barley is entitled to a fair price on the basis of what the feeding stuffs will be sold for in the future. The farmers will not be dissatisfied with the price unless they see the merchants and the millers afterwards making an undue profit on their exertions and efforts. I hope the Minister will ensure that the farmers will get a fair price. That is all important if we are to encourage an increase in feeding barley in the future. We are on the right road towards getting that increase which is very much to be desired.

I notice that there is not much money being provided for horse breeding at the present time. I mentioned this matter last year. I hope the Minister will keep his eye on it. Thiscountry is noted for its horses and its horse breeding. The horses we bred were of great advantage to the country. There should be no easing off in that connection. I am not satisfied that enough money is being provided for the purchase of sires. The market is fairly good at the moment, and the Department of Agriculture should encourage the bringing in of suitable sires as they did in the past, and they ahould provide sufficient money for that purpose. As a long-term policy that is something we cannot neglect. It is of great material advantage to the national economy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Rooney should be permitted to make his speech in his own way.

Mr. Rooney

Thank you, Sir. I will take up Deputy Allen on another matter. He blamed Fine Gael for criticising the price of butter because butter was 4/2 at the present time. Was there anybody more noisy than the Fianna Fáil Party when in 1951 the price of butter increased from 2/8 to 2/10 per lb? An increase of 2d. per lb. in the price of butter provided the noise for the windbags at the General Election of 1951. Now, instead of butter going up from 2/8 to 2/10 per lb., it has gone up from 2/10 to 4/2. Then you have Deputy Allen criticising Fine Gael because they dared say a word concerning the increased cost of butter—and New Zealand butter at that.

Mr. Walsh

There was a corresponding increase in the price of milk.

Mr. Rooney

Of 2d. The Minister, if he knows anything about his job, knows that the reason for the 2d. increase in the price of butter was that the price of milk was increased by 1d. I hope the Minister will concede me that much. It went up 1d. but it has gone up since nearly a couple of shillings. Enough said in that respect.

Let us look at the work during the past year under the stewardship of the Minister for Agriculture. We have seen a considerable measure of confusion in the sphere of agriculture amongst farmers, but it was nothing to equal the confusion that was caused in relation to barley prices and the sale of barley last year. That, of course, arose from the fact that a reduction in the price of barley was negotiated by the Beet Growers' Association. I had never before heard of a producers' organisation negotiating for a reduction in price, but in the case of barley the Beet Growers' Association negotiated for a reduction in the price of barley to 75/- per barrel, while at the same time the Minister threw overboard the prices that had existed for barley in the previous years.

When we came into office in 1948, we found that the farmer was not permitted to sell his malting barley at more than 35/- a barrel to the distillers, who then had to go to the ends of the earth to import malting barley, the price of which, when landed here, was 89/- per barrel. When Deputy Dillon became Minister he decided that the farmers who grew barley should be given the opportunity of negotiating their terms with the distillers. The result was that the price of malting barley eventually went up to 84/- per barrel, as compared to the 89/- per barrel which the distillers were paying in 1947 for the malting barley they were then importing.

This game of ducks and drakes with the farmers in relation to price is very confusing, and if that is the chopping and changing which Deputy Allen has referred to, then I agree with him that it has an upsetting effect on our agricultural economy.

The farmers have told the present Government—I presume it is a Fianna Fáil Government—that they approve of the Dillon policy and, in many respects, the Minister is attempting, in his own way, to operate the Dillon policy in regard to agriculture. In the recent by-elections, the farmers gave their verdict. In East Cork that verdict was given at the by-election mainly by farmers and farm workers; while in Wicklow, the sheep farmers and the farm workers, with the remainder of the community, gave their verdict clearly against the present Government. They gave a verdict that they were against the present Government, and that verdict must surely be in relation to agriculture because these are rural areas. If the verdict was against the present Government, it must have been in favour of Deputy Dillon, the previous Minister for Agriculture.

There is another point. Only two days before the by-election this Estimate for Agriculture and the Minister's statement were published throughout the country. On the basis of the facts put before them, the people in the rural areas, particularly the farmers and farm workers, were in a position to pass judgment and give a verdict at the by-election which took place two days later, on the 18th June. One can say that the Minister got an answer then on this particular Estimate and on his policy in relation to agriculture.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 14 Jul 1953