Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Apr 1956

Vol. 156 No. 8

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Walsh).

Mr. Hilliard

I would impress on the Minister that he should do everything he can to encourage the bloodstock industry, not alone for the employment it gives, but because both the bloodstock industry and hunting are valuable assets to the country. The industry not only brings in a large income from the sales of horses abroad but also in the attraction that it offers to tourists coming here. The name of this country is very high amongst the bloodstock breeders throughout the world and it would be, I think, a very retrograde step if any action were taken by the Minister which would interfere in any way with this valuable industry.

Much has been said in regard to the parish plan. The objects of that plan are to encourage the people of the various parishes to come together, increase the productivity of the land and, according to the pamphlet I have here, to improve the material, cultural and social welfare of the people. With that idea everybody is in agreement. That is a work to which we should bend our energies, but there is a division of opinion as to how the plan should be operated. No activity should remain static. All countries and all peoples are progressive and we must progress with them. We have a system of county committees of agriculture which has been in existence over a long number of years. I am sure that if we are to solve the difficulties that now face the people those responsible for the inauguration and prosecution of the parish plan now in operation in 18 parishes in 15 counties, according to this document, will have to see that the work is carried out.

There is at the moment a certain degree of friction between the officers of the local committees of agriculture and the parish agent and a divergence of opinion in these matters. I wonder what steps are being taken to secure information in regard to increased production within the area in which the parish agent is operating? What steps, if any, is he taking, or is he taking any steps, to measure up that increase in production in the area in which he is working? If that could be worked out in some detail, I feel it would be a good guide. Possibly the officials of the Department may be in a position to supply the answer to that question. The parish agent should know before he starts operations what the volume of production is, so that he can compare that with whatever increased volume may be procured under his guidance.

The appointment of a parish agent does not necesarily connote the successful operation of the parish plan. The men who own the land will have to co-operate with the officials assigned to this work. The farmers will have to be in a position to assimilate the advice given and put it to good purpose. In order to do that, our farmers will have to be capitalised to a considerable extent. It is admitted by most thinking people that our agriculture is very much under-capitalised at the moment. I do not want anyone to take the impression now that I am advocating that money should be made available to the farmers for this, that and the other. That is not exactly what I mean. I mean the land must be capitalised in order to increase the volume of production. Our farmers should be put in a position where they can obtain the necessary plant, erect the necessary storage and provide themselves with all the other requirements which go ultimately towards increased fertility in the land.

All that will have to be done on an organised basis. Possibly, if we had more highly organised farmer organisations, the farmers might be able to do the job for themselves, in the same way as farmers elsewhere have met the problem of under-production in agriculture and successfully solved it by their own banking system. It might be unfair to ask the State to intervene or to give very considerable assistance. Nevertheless, if we are to attain the objective adumbrated in the parish plan, we shall have to ensure that in those areas which we represent, every encouragement will be given to our farmers to co-operate fully and to avail to the greatest possible extent of the knowledge and facilities placed at their disposal to do the job they have been asked to do and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

I think the Minister should seriously consider this lack of capital in agriculture at the present time. I cannot offer any rough-and-ready solution to the problem. I wish I could. If I could, I would make a contribution along those lines here. We all know that if you put money on the market to allow people to purchase something, they straight away purchase in competition with one another. That is not what is needed. What is needed is capital to increase production and to get from every acre of land the further unit so essential at the moment in order to balance our economy.

The parish plan will, of course, be related to all the available advisory services, to the research service and to the proposed institute of agriculture. As a Party, we have expressed our opinion on that institute of agriculture and in that opinion I fully concur. I am one of those who are all in favour of increased educational facilities for farmers and for the rural communities in general, even if they are not farmers because they can all contribute in their own way to the national wellbeing. I believe that the differences which may exist at the moment in relation to this institute of agriculture will, in time, be solved as have other differences in the past. It is only natural that innovations should give rise to controversy. When the institute is established, we will then be in a position to see exactly how it works and any alterations necessary can then be made.

I am in favour of research. I think the Minister and his Department should do everything to enable research to be carried out here. It is true that in recent years veterinary surgeons have been doing a tremendous job of work and we have now reached the happy position in which we need have no great fear of any serious inroads by disease into our cattle population. Calf mortality has been practically wiped out. That will add considerably to the number of cattle. Naturally such diseases as foot and mouth and anthrax have to be dealt with in a different way. The possibility is that they may create a certain amount of difficulty in the future, but they can be dealt with.

I come then to the county committees of agriculture. I do not think it would be fair to by-pass the committees. They have done very useful work over the years with the limited facilities at their disposal. There may have been occasions when members of these committees indulged in activities that did not come quite within the province of such committees. These things happen everywhere and it is nothing new in Irish life to have debates on one subject or another at such committees. All in all, these committees have done very useful work. There might perhaps be a case made for a change in the method of election, but I do not want to go into that matter now. I know I am not entitled to advocate legislation on the Estimate and apparently such a change would necessitate legislation. I shall leave it at that.

Let us deal now with this question of milk and the price of milk. The price of milk was, apparently, fixed in 1947 by the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, and it has not changed since. I am subject to correction on that. It was in 1951. It is true that the cost of production to farmers has increased since then, and there are people engaged in the business, no matter what their political affiliations are, complaining that it is not a paying proposition at the moment. I have no method of knowing whether it is or not, but I meet these people in business. We will have to wait until we hear the report of the Milk Costings Commission, whenever we are going to get it. I think this matter should be considered, and considered now, so that the people engaged in this business will know exactly what to expect in the matter of prices over the coming year and whether or not they are going to get an increase or a reduction in the price of milk.

So far as milk production is concerned in the Dublin sales area, we know that, by the fixation of prices, there is a floor put into the market for the people engaged in that business. They have not to depend on the fluctuation of prices in a foreign market for the sale of their milk. These men are engaged, most of them, in the production of milk on small farms and they are concerned with the supply, on a contract basis, to the firms that purchase the milk. They buy their cows and feed them and they do not, in many cases, milk them a second year. The cows are sold off these farms either as fat cows or half-fat cows. They go to the beef market, anyway.

There is, in that, a wastage from the cow population that could be arrested to some considerable extent. Many of those cows are first class cows, with high milk yields, and are capable of carrying calves for many years. Owing to the circumstances in which these producers of milk find themselves in regard to the area of land they own, they cannot operate on any other class of policy and they are bound by contract to supply milk at all times of the year.

These cows are sold for whatever they will fetch in the open market. Any of them that are put in calf, their calves are sold at birth, so that there is no question of these farmers making use of the services provided to increase their herds from calves reared on their own farms from high milk yield cows.

It has been stated here by Deputy Rooney that farmers are bedevilled by sharp fluctuations in prices. I do not know whether Deputy Rooney, in making that statement, was bearing in mind the sharp fluctuations inprice dealt out to the farmers for their wheat by the present Minister for Agriculture when he slashed the price by 12/6 a barrel. Depute Rooney sought to convey also that there was a steady increase in prices for farmers from the date the present Minister became Minister for Agriculture in the first Coalition. There was no increase in the price of wheat fixed by Deputy Smith, when Minister for Agriculture in 1947, until the Fianna Fáil Government increased the price by 5/- a barrel in July, 1951. That is a fact shown by the record and Deputies like Deputy Rooney ought to think twice before they make statements such as he made in that regard.

It is true that farmers want to have a long-term policy in regard to prices, but the only place in which the Government in this country can give a long-term price for farmers' produce is at home in Ireland. It has been the policy of this Party, since 1932, to do that in so far as we possibly could. It is the policy of this Party, now, to have the prices of all our cereals, including oats, related to the prices obtainable for the animals to which they are fed.

In so far as the tinned meat and dead meat trade is concerned, some of the Deputies opposite do not seem to think much of that business as a trade. I feel that it has a useful function in this country. It was unfortunate that the business commenced operations here at a time of boom when meat was making fabulous prices on the American market for a short time. Many people rushed in to establish factories and take advantage of the good times that were going. Many of those people have learned that that business was not as lucrative as they hoped it would be and they are feeling the pinch of the times now, in loss of business and loss of capital.

I feel it would be unsound to allow businesses such as these to go out of existence. I know it is difficult for a Government to deal with an individual business and to do anything for it when it is not paying. In normal times, when meat is not as dear as it has been over recent years, there could be a useful business developed from our tinned meat factories or plants in this country.

The trouble here is that, when it comes to certain times in the year, we are not in a position to maintain the surplus live stock, and in the fall of the year when the grass season ends, it is normal for our people to have heavy selling of live stock. In the year that has gone, that did not happen because the animals were not needed on the far side, and we were left with a carryover. I think there is an opening for the development of this dead meat trade, and as far as tinned meat is concerned, it would provide a means of holding over supplies from the glut period to a time when meat would be needed. Along with that, it would be a method of giving useful employment within the country. It has always been the aim of nationally-minded people to do everything possible to process all goods as far as possible before they left the country. I think some action should be taken by the Government to implement that policy. I cannot advocate any particular action. I know it is a difficult matter and something that needs to be carefully investigated and considered. I am just making a plea, for what it is worth, that this matter be looked into.

In County Meath, there are several items of agricultural production that merit attention. While constituting only a small part of the national output, to the individuals concerned they may mean a lot. Reference was made to this, I think, by Deputy Tully when he spoke on the Estimate and it was also referred to by Deputy Giles and others. That item of production is fruit, soft fruit, hard fruit, apples, damsons and all the rest of the fruit that is produced within the country. The Minister seems satisfied—as the previous Minister seemed satisfied— that everything necessary has been done when the necessary restrictive Orders have been made to prevent the importation of fruit juices or fruit pulp, but something more needs to be done.

I know the Minister can readily answer by saying: "Why do not these people do what was done in Dungarvan?" In Dungarvan, they set up a co-operative processing plant and the Minister quite properly makes a contribution from the State to that undertaking, and it is provided for in this Estimate to the extent of some thousands of the pounds. If our fruit-growers in County Meath could be induced to go into that line of business, so much the better; but it is very difficult to get them to do this, because such a small amount of fruit is grown per head and the amount of land they have for this business is small. It is very unfortunate to find, at times of glut, or when there is an increased volume of production from these small holdings, due to hard work by a hardworking class of people, that they have the goods but cannot get the prices. If the officials of the Department were to see some of these people and endeavour to get them to organise themselves into a co-operative society to deal with their own produce, it would be a very good thing.

It appears to me that we have now reached the stage when speakers from this Party who call upon farmers to produce more will not be charged by anybody with making statements leading on the farmers and forcing the farmers to work harder to produce food for people who do nothing except draw public assistance. We want to get away from that attitude of mind entirely and create among our people a different attitude in regard to this question of farm production. We want to get away from the idea that has been impregnated into the minds of the people in certain parts of the country, where the small farmers sell their produce to the larger farmers, that the larger farmers are waxing fat and battening on them. We should aim to get it into the minds of those people who live off the land—whether in the large cities or the towns in good or middling occupations—that it is to our lasting welfare that the farmers who produce the food should be paid above the cost of production and that they should get a fair and honest price for it.

The determination of that price is the problem that is hard to solve. I admit that, but if we could get that attitude of mind of which I speak, it would be possible, I think, within the next three or four years to secure from our land the increased production necessary for us as a nation to survive, and which would bring to our own people the benefits that hard work and industry bring to any people.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Donnellan)

I think this is the third week of this Estimate. Many good things have been said about it and there has been quite a lot of criticism. I think the best thing about it is that it is not an Estimate introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister. If we take the previous three years, we had the self-same Minister as we have at present and we had the Government during those years instilling confidence into the farmers—and there is no section of the community that needs confidence more than they do. Under the present Minister and the present Government, as for three years previously under the inter-Party Government, the farmers acquired that confidence and they have it to-day.

I must agree with Deputy Hilliard when he said we must make the farmers appreciate and let them know that they are not ground down or compelled to do this, that or the other. Is that not how they were treated during the years 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947 while Deputy Hilliard sat idly there as a back bencher and was not allowed to open his mouth, and while the Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture compelled the farmers in every possible way to do what Fianna Fáil wanted them to do? Is it not a big change when one hears Deputy Hilliard sitting on the opposite side now saying that we should establish confidence in the farmers and that we do not want to batten them down?

Let me take his mind back to the year 1947. He sat behind the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith —the very man Deputy Hilliard was listening to, the very man Deputy Corry was listening to—who told them how he would break into their fields and fill them with inspectors, how the clods and the "cods," as he put it himself, would be treated if they did not do what he told them. Then you have Deputy Hilliard and the people of the Fianna Fáil Party saying they always stood for greater production in tillage crops. You see the way they stood for it—to compel the farmers to do it.

When I hear Fianna Fáil talk of milk costings, I wonder if they remember the time they put the dairy farmers into Mountjoy Jail. They are on the Opposition Benches to-day and they are as mute as mice. I am glad they are turning over to the policy of encouraging the farmer and of helping him in every way possible because when I look back to the 6th May, 1953 —a famous day—I remember the Budget that Deputy MacEntee, the then Minister for Finance, introduced. What did he say in that Budget? He said that taxation presses lightly on the land. What did that mean? It meant that if, by any trick in the bag, they could remain in office for a few years longer, the farmers would be taxed out of existence. However, when they are on the Opposition Benches, Fianna Fáil are the most generous people in the world. When they are on the Government Benches —never again—they do everything they can to injure the farmer.

When we hear Deputy Hilliard and Deputy Corry talk about the cattle trade and about meat production it is very difficult not to think of Fianna Fáil's policy in 1932. Will Deputies throw their minds back to the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government in 1932? Do you remember the free meat scheme?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is going back very far.

Mr. Donnellan

They went back that far and you allowed them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Now!

Mr. Donnellan

They went back to 1932, when they should be ashamed to go back that far. Do they remember what happened the cattle producers then? Do they remember anything about calves? Do they know what happened the tens of thousands of calves in those days and do they realise the loss those calves were to us in later years? They are the people who keep this debate going for three weeks. I suppose it will go into the fourth week and I should not be a bit surprised if it went into the fifth week. They have nothing to say: they just keep talking.

I have some quotations here. They are not a few wild statements by Deputy MacEntee when he was a Minister and they are not a wild statement by Deputy Smith when he happened to be Minister for Agriculture. Let me refer to a shrewd speaker whom we once had in this House—one of the three who stepped on the band wagon at one time. I remember sitting on the Opposition Benches when ex-Deputy Noel Browne stated from the Fianna Fáil benches when Fianna Fáil were in office that it was the job of the Government of which he was a member or of some Government to ensure that people on the land who were not using it properly would either do so or else the Government would take the land from them and give it to people who would be willing to work it. That was the policy of Fianna Fáil right along the line. That was not a wild statement by one of them: it was handed down the line to each of them. The policy was to batten on the farmer and to belittle him everywhere in the world. I do no blame Deputy Hilliard or Deputy Corry who, in those days, sat and listened to that statement by ex-Deputy Dr. Noel Browne. They had to do it. They had to sit nice and mild and listen. I suppose they are glad to-day when they hear about the things which this Government are doing to help the farmer to increase production. I believe they are glad of it.

I want to refer now to a statement which was made in the Seanad, a House in which less politics are talked than here. A very important Fianna Fáil representative in the Seanad said that cattle should be taxed in this country. There is the attitude—right along the line. I put it to the House, through the Chair, that, since I first came here in 1943, in every way they could, Fianna Fáil tried to belittle, injure and take from the man on the land. They talk about the big farmer and the small farmer. We in the West fully realise the advantage the larger farmer is to us. Without him we cannot live. In the West we rear the young stock for him. They are very welcome at Tuam Fair and at other fairs where we sell our stock. They produce the finished article. The more they get for it, the better. They are producing now regardless of the wild statements in the Irish Press. At the cattle market, yesterday, beasts fetched not less than £6 a cwt. It is a bad day the Irish Press would bedevil the farmers and the producers of this country with their scare headings. It is all built up for one purpose, namely, to injure the farmer in every way they can.

The very day that ex-Deputy Dr. Noel Browne told this House that the Government of which he was a member or some Government would have to take away the land from people if they would not work it, and give it to other people who would, we heard another Fianna Fáil Deputy, Deputy Seán Flanagan of Mayo, say that he considered it a privilege to speak after ex-Deputy Dr. Noel Browne's valuable contribution to the debate and that he agreed with every word Dr. Browne said. Just think of a prominent Deputy from Mayo agreeing that the land should be taken from the people if they did not use it properly and given to other people who would use it. I wonder who are the people who would use it? Are they the people of Dublin City? What do they know about it? Farming is an honourable profession and it is handed down from generation to generation. I do not intend to delay the House. I just wanted to point out the fallacy and the codology in the arguments of the people across the House, in their expressions of sympathy for the farmers and in their talk of what they have done and would do for them.

Since I first became a member of this House in 1943, I have listened to Fianna Fáil and watched their actions. The difference to-day is very great compared with the position some years ago. It is not merely a question of what the Minister for Agriculture has done. The important thing is that he has instilled such confidence into the mind of the man with a bit of land, whether it be five acres or 500 acres, that neither Brownes will take the land nor Smiths will fill it with inspectors nor MacEntees will put taxation on it. The farmer has that confidence to-day in our present Minister for Agriculture and in this Government. He knows what this Minister stands for and he is not impressed by the codology we hear from the Opposition Benches to-day.

Mr. J. Brennan

While listening to the Deputy who has just spoken, and who professes to be a spokesman in the present Government for the farming community, one might be tempted to follow with a speech of a similar type in reply to the one he made, but I do not propose to allow myself to be tempted to follow that line. I did, however, listen patiently to what he said and I ask the House did he, from start to finish, make one solitary statement of a constructive nature in relation to farming?

If we are to discuss farming as it should be discussed in this important debate—a debate to which every member of this House should contribute— we have to ask ourselves certain questions regarding the position of our whole economy. There are certain tests which must be applied and if the reactions to them are negative, then we have got to bring about a complete reorientation of agriculture in Ireland. I do not see much point in either a Deputy or a Minister trying to give himself credit for some little improvement that took place in the whole sphere of agriculture, or to denounce somebody on the opposite side of the House for something that went wrong. It is very easy to pick out points on either side to suit a debate here. Let us ask ourselves a few important questions with regard to what is agreed by all to be the most important industry in this country.

I would ask myself these questions: Has production improved? Is there increased production from the land? Is the number of persons employed in the land increasing or declining? Is the standard of living for those on the land improving? The answer to all these important questions in this year, 1956, is in the negative and while it is so I defy any Minister or any Government to say we have done anything worth while for the industry which we profess to praise on every occasion as the leading industry of this country.

What has been done to prevent the flight from the land? Why is it, with all the mechanisation we have in this country, that production is decreasing? Why is it that the actual social standing of a farmer is lower than that of any profession in this country? Anybody who gets up to argue the contrary is deluding himself.

There are farmers and farmers. When this Estimate is discussed each year, we are all bent on hearing from the person in charge of the Department what progress was made and what the future may hold with regard to agriculture. I listened very carefully to the Minister's opening statement, and, while he referred to occasional improvements, innovations or efforts in different fields of endeavour here and there, he has nothing really constructive to say about the future of agriculture. In fact, if there is one thing to be inferred from the statement he makes, it is that the emphasis is put on grass production and cattle sales, to the detriment of tillage. When anybody gets up on the Fianna Fáil side of the House to talk about tillage, he is misrepresented by somebody on the other side as denouncing cattle production. We hear those old slogans about the British market being gone forever. Even some people still refer to the slaughter of calves and the issue of free beef. I wonder where these statements are getting anybody now?

One does not need to be a great economist to be able to see that if we were to concentrate on cattle production and export of cattle, particularly cattle on the hoof, this country would support a very small population indeed. One of the acid tests of progress in any country is an increasing population, with an improved standard of living, and if our economy is not tending towards that end, then we are not, in so far as it is our job, carrying out our duty towards the people of this State. If our population is declining, if there is a flight from the land and if actual distaste for remaining on the land becomes psychological, then if that is not killed or completely changed, it is very difficult to say what is going to be the outlook for agriculture generally.

There are a number of things that could be done. The land project is held up as a very useful scheme. Like many other things done for the farmers of this country, it is very useful, but while some of the things to which I have referred remain as they are, anything such as the land project is merely like putting a new slate on a very bad roof. We have got to try to bring about a complete reorientation of the whole agricultural outlook. If anybody goes through rural Ireland to-day to the homes where large families were brought up in decency and honesty in the past and sees the number of derelict holdings in each townland, can he truthfully say the farming industry is a desirable one, while so many holdings remain vacant? They cannot in many cases even be given away.

Mr. Fagan

After 19 years of Fianna Fáil policy?

Mr. J. Brennan

That will never get the Deputy anywhere. Is there any attempt being made to change that situation? There is not. Until we reach the stage where the best son in the family will decide to remain on the holding, instead of doing the opposite, which is the case at the moment, we cannot say we have really put agriculture on the proper plane. The smallholder is the best known in West Donegal where, indeed, we have every type of farm from the large tillage farm and the mediocre type of farm to the small uneconomic holding but, generally speaking, it is the small farm which predominates. What is the outlook for the smallholders? What does the future hold for them and their families? Why do we find so many of these people selling their holdings and buying a single ticket to go across the Channel? They try to sell their holdings or let them. They give up their houses and clear out, because they know that if they remain, they must submit to a low standard of living, to a life of drudgery, to a fear of poverty, with no hope for their families. When some of these people become of school leaving age, immediately they can get away from the primary school, they emigrate, if they cannot find a job at home——

Mr. O'Sullivan

What becomes of these holdings? Who buys them?

Mr. J. Brennan

——and if they find a job at home, it is not on the land. In regard to the question asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, let me say that I raised in the House recently a parliamentary question to try to ascertain what is the number of such holdings in the country and the Minister pointed out that the information was not as his disposal, which I think is correct. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary or any other Deputy particularly those in touch with the Land Commission, is in a position to know something of the huge number of vacant holdings, derelict holdings, holdings let to neighbours, holdings for sale which cannot be sold on the western seaboard.

Mr. Donegan

Now, Deputy.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy does not agree.

Mr. Donegan

No. There is not enough land in Ireland for farming.

Mr. J. Brennan

The number of people who have left their holdings on the western seaboard in the past year is probably greater—and goodness knows it has been bad enough in the past—than it has been for a long time. I can say in my own capacity as a small country auctioneer that, no later than yesterday, we had the unpleasant task of selling out the goods and chattels of a smallholder to allow him to emigrate with his family. It is sad that anybody should stand up here and say that that position is not prevalent. There may be farmers in the Midlands who are wealthy. I am sure, if they are, it is the result of their hard work, but I do not think that a smallholder in West Donegal, if he went to a bank to-day, would, on the strength of his holding, be given credit for a £5 note. While that position remains, I do not see much hope for the future of a smallholder in this country.

Let us ask ourselves is there much that any Minister in charge of the Department can really do to bring about a change in that state of affairs; to what extent should the farmer be assisted or let alone in order that things may take their natural course and find their own level? There is a tremendous amount of money being directed or channelled into the pockets of the farmers by way of assistance under various schemes, but is it improving the overall situation with regard to our agricultural economy? Is it bringing about an increase in the number of persons employed on the land? Is it putting any kind of stop to the flight from the land or, above all, is it having any effect on the psychological distaste for remaining on the land?

It is very easy to find non-farmers telling the people about the grand times there are for the farmer on the land, but the obvious reply of the farmer at the hearthstone at night is: "Why did he not remain on the land?" That is one question I have never found properly answered. The farmer's job, and particularly the smallholder's job, is from sunrise to sundown, and long after it. His standard of living with regard to food, clothing, and so on, is not what he would like to be made public. When his son returns from England well dressed, with money in his pocket and talks of the time that he has outside the country, it is no wonder, that one, two, or, in some cases, three brothers return with him after his fortnight's vacation.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They may be bluffing it a bit, as so many of them are.

Mr. J. Brennan

Quite possibly, but the fact is that it is happening, and I am saying that it is part of the psychological distaste that has been created for remaining on the land.

Mr. Donegan

When was this created?

Mr. J. Brennan

There is much that could be done for the smallholder, if we are really to tackle in a serious way the whole position of improving his land, but, until capital is made available for the smallholder or any farmer, there is not much use in putting into effect any of the schemes which, while they are good in themselves, may not dovetail into the general scheme of things.

There are three things I should like to advocate and to advocate very strongly in so far as the smallholder is concerned. Number one is more readily available credit facilities. If farming is the great industry we say it is, why do we not trust the farmer with a little credit, if he goes to the bank or elsewhere to secure it? Any business or profession in the country will more easily get credit to-day—and goodness knows, it is not easy to get it at the moment—than will the farmer. Yet we are told that he is in the key position in this country, the man who must feed everybody. That is the first thing, that better credit facilities should be more readily available, especially to the smallholder, if he is to be given that confidence which is necessary if he is to take an active interest in remaining on his holding.

Number two is the fostering of a greater spirit of co-operation, especially amongst the smallholders. It is not always possible for a smallholder to have, for instance, all the machinery which he would like to possess. It might be possible, and it is certainly desirable, that a number of farmers in a district should possess between them the necessary machinery to carry out their work. That is only one phase of co-operation which, if properly established, would take a lot of the drudgery out of farming, would make it easy for the farmer to possess the most modern means of operating his farm with the greatest possible comfort and facility.

We all know what co-operation in farming means. We have seen it working in the past in ways that may now be regarded as antiquated or obsolete. We know how the local farmers, five, ten or 12 of them came together and made their stack of hay. They spent days with each other and probably the work would not have been accomplished otherwise. We know how the farmers come to the bog and cut their turf by means of the co-operative system. If the system of co-operation with regard to machinery and farm operations generally were officially sponsored and financially assisted by the Government, it would be one very important step towards creating a little more satisfaction, confidence and contentment among the smallholders on the western seaboard. Thirdly, I agree with all others who have spoken that a better standard of agricultural education should be made available to these people.

If these three things are made available, they will bring about a complete reorientation of the whole farming economy of the country. We have various schemes which are all good in themselves, such as the farm-building scheme, the land project, the limestone scheme. I should like to see the subsidisation of fertilisers extended so that our farmers would have the same advantages as farmers in the North of Ireland with whom we must compete in outside markets. These are all only parts of a scheme which would tend towards the improvement of the national economy, but certainly, unless credit facilities are made available to the farmer and a better spirit of co-operation infused into agriculture, unless co-operatives of the type I have mentioned are established and improved facilities provided for agricultural education, I do not think it can be said that a really serious effort is being made to do anything of which any Minister can boast in this House.

In present circumstances, no Minister can adopt the rôle of Messiah of the farming industry in this country. Nothing sufficiently important has been done, if anything has been done, to merit that rôle being played by any Deputy or Minister here. In fact, if we were to add a fourth point to the points I have already made, it would be that the agricultural industry in its relationship to the Government should be lifted completely out of the field of Party politics.

The Deputy who has just spoken and who is a member of what is supposed to be the Farmers' Party in this House, devoted his entire speech to reminding the House of what Fianna Fáil did that was detrimental to farming and what they did not do that would have been good for farming. He was pleased to sit down after that contribution. I do not think that is the proper spirit. If the Minister takes the same view, that he must arrogate to himself things that have gone right and attribute to world conditions things that have gone wrong and must deride the actions of his predecessor, he is not making a serious effort to fill the responsible rôle of head of the most important Ministry in this country.

Agriculture affects the life and economy of every individual, irrespective of his calling, to such an extent that a Minister who embarks on any worthwhile scheme is bound at all times to have the backing and support of every member of the House in so far as that member is fit to see that a scheme is advantageous to a particular branch of farming.

One of the things to which most Deputies referred as one of the nightmares of the farmer is the instability of markets. The law of supply and demand enters into the whole life and planning of the farming community. It is really the great bogey against which the farmer has to work. The farmers are told at one stage that poultry is the most profitable industry and everybody goes into poultry. Supply improves; prices drop and everybody gets out of poultry. Next, the farmers are told that the bacon industry is the most prosperous branch of agriculture. The outlook is good; everybody goes into bacon production; the supply exceeds the demand; the price drops and people go out of production again. So on, with practically every commodity.

That is not an easy thing to overcome. An effort is being made at the moment to stabilise the bacon industry over a short period. Personally, I think the period should be longer. To be worth while, it should be a five year period instead of one year. Stabilisation over a period of five years of the price of anything produced on the land is essential to create an assured interest in the production of the particular commodity. It is not an easy thing to do. Nobody should pretend that it is. It is a very difficult thing but it is one aspect that should be seriously tackled. Where there is a will there is a way. Some solution certainly could be found, even subsidisation. Across the Border, from Donegal, there is subsidisation in every direction to encourage farm production. There are subsidies for heifer calves, subsidies for fattened cattle ready for the market, subsidies for practically everything, so that the beast has many punches in the ear by the time it is ready for market, each punch representing a subsidy. We wonder how we can compete against that. There is a great deal we can do and a great deal that we would need to do.

I do not think anything will be achieved by talking about what Fianna Fáil did during the economic war. I do not want to go into irrelevancies but I have a right to say, and I have said in this House and on public platforms, that when we were fighting an economic war there was a certain principle at stake and we had a right to do anything which we thought would bring about, to our success, the end of that campaign. All right-thinking people stood behind Fianna Fáil on that occasion, as was demonstrated in their return with overall majorities in each succeeding election. Some high dignitaries of the Church found it necessary to make public pronouncements in favour of the principle for which we stood at the time. If the slaughter of calves or the distribution of free meat was a part of a scheme of things which we had to adopt in order to fight that economic war, nobody has a right to get up in this House afterwards to deride the action that was taken.

Mr. Donegan

A scheme to get votes, Deputy.

Mr. J. Brennan

There was an alternative course open—pay the land annuities, get back to the old system, which all the eminent lawyers at the time told us was the right course.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot fight the economic war all over again on this Estimate.

Mr. J. Brennan

It has been dragged in irrelevantly, I admit, and I hope I have not trespassed too much on the indulgence of the Chair in replying to a few points which should be very deep in the hearts of all of us.

Captain Giles

Not the economic war.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

That was fought and won, and no thanks to you.

Mr. J. Brennan

We know where most of you people over there were, when there was fighting to be done. We are not ashamed of any action taken on that occasion.

Mr. Donnellan

You should be.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Fine Gael got their answer. Their attitude there will never be forgotten in the history of this country. Deputy Donnellan was a member of Fianna Fáil then.

Mr. J. Brennan

Coalition speakers frequently talk of spoon-feeding the farmers. There has been talk from those benches frequently about what should be done to get more money from the farming community. A member of the Labour Party recently questioned the Minister as to the feasibility of introducing a tax on tillage. Other members of the Coalition have put the same suggestion in more discreet terms. There is an urban outlook in the Government and very little sympathy for the rural dweller as such.

Those who have been talking about confidence in the farming community and about the stability of agriculture should remember one thing. We have had a serious upward trend in the cost of living recently. Every time the cost of living increased by a point or two, a certain section of the community went to their employers and demanded an increase in their wages. They were awarded increases, and rightly so, I suppose. A suggestion was made by the Parliamentary Secretary that Fianna Fáil had suggested a tax on farmers, as if the farmers were not paying sufficient taxes already. But let me not deviate from the point I was about to make. While every other section of employed workers could go to their employers and demand increases in their income to meet the increased cost of living, what can the smallholders do to-day to cushion themselves against increases in the cost of living which have brought them to ruin? All they can do is get out.

Mr. Donnellan

What about the price of the calf?

Mr. J. Brennan

He cannot do anything to recover himself. He has got to pay his share of the taxes and he is paying them pretty well at the moment. Yet, somebody insinuated that he is tax free. A suggestion was made that Fianna Fáil had actually considered putting a tax on tillage. The small farmer is paying heavy taxes and all he can do is sit back and watch the vicious spiral, and he has no means of cushioning himself against the impact. The only thing he can do is tighten his belt, reduce his standard of living, or get out. That does not make for confidence or stability in agriculture. While we may say certain things with the object of placating somebody or of scoring a point, what really does the small farmer think? Does he think he is living in a paradise?

Mr. Donnellan

He is happy.

Mr. J. Brennan

Will the farmers who read the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks to-morrow say that he was perfectly right, that they are living in a paradise?

Mr. Donnellan

That really is what they do say.

Mr. J. Brennan

That is an amusing admission. If the people on the other side are serious, if they even pretend they believe that, they are completely out of touch with the farming community.

Mr. Donnellan

God forgive you.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Parliamentary Secretary may be referring to a few ranchers or large holders. The smallholder is being put to the pin of his collar. He is surviving only because he has tightened his belt and submitted himself to a lower standard of living. The people who get up and tell that man he is living in luxury, that he has confidence and stability may be believed. If that is so, well and good; if the position is like that nothing we say here will alter it. Somebody is living in a fool's paradise.

In conclusion I should like to say I have read through the Minister's opening statement and have come to the conclusion that there is no significant change or hope for the future contained in it.

Mr. Donegan

Because Fianna Fáil are not in power?

Mr. J. Brennan

The only object the Government have is to try to discredit Fianna Fáil and they are wasting their time because the public will soon talk in the style of the ballot box.

Mr. Donnellan

They have done so.

Mr. J. Brennan

You have got into power by the greatest bluff that was ever performed and it is being called now.

Mr. Donegan

What about the "burst flush"?

Mr. J. Brennan

Here is what the Minister said in his opening statement which I regard as significant:—

"A great many people over the last 17 years have become so accustomed to living in a sellers' market that they forget, or are prone to forget, the fundamental change that is introduced when we find ourselves in these times in a buyers' market. We are back once more in the atmosphere of petty, acute competition in the foreign markets in which we trade. Fortunately we have been able by a series of trade agreements, principally with Great Britain, substantially to mitigate the severity of the impact of that competitive atmosphere; but, more and more as it impacts on us, our success or failure to expand production here will depend on our ability to expand it on terms which will enable us to meet competition, and beat it, both as to quality and price in the markets where we trade."

Captain Giles

What is wrong with that?

Mr. J. Brennan

In other words, the farmer should produce more and should accept a lower price for his produce, in order to compete in a foreign market.

Mr. Donnellan

Thank God, we have that market.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Parliamentary Secretary said that previously when he threw up his hands and said that we could not live without the British market.

Mr. Donnellan

I proved it.

Mr. J. Brennan

Proved what?

Mr. Donnellan

That you cannot live without the British market.

Mr. J. Brennan

Now the Minister goes on to demonstrate how we should increase our cattle population and suggests in column 419 of that report that the future of industry in this country is dependent on an increase in the cattle population. Let me not give the impression that we should not increase our cattle population. For some reason or other, Fianna Fáil is very often represented as being against the export of cattle. But I say, and I defy contradiction, that the economist who says we should concentrate solely on the export of cattle on the hoof is either interested in some other country or does not understand what the economy of this country means to the people. You cannot have an increase in population on a decent standard of living, if you are to concentrate on the export of cattle alone. If we are not going to build up side by side with that an increase in tillage and home production of food and feeding stuffs for our people and our cattle, then I do not think we are tackling our agricultural industry in the proper manner.

Mr. Moylan

There was a well-known English politician of yesteryear who was reputed never to have read the newspapers, and I am in a somewhat similar position because I confine my perusal of the newspapers to the "Letters to the Editor". Most of them are intelligent; some of them are idiotic; but all are interesting. I find that the perusal of these letters keeps me as well abreast of current affairs as if I read the leading articles and the scare headlines. Since bearing my colleague, Deputy Hilliard, quote from the Independent to-day the words of the Tánaiste, I feel I am not missing much by confining myself to the letters. They never fail to be informed on current problems by those affected by them.

I did not discover the slump in cattle prices in the headlines of any newspaper. As the representative of a rural constituency, I could not fail to get the information about it from the farmers of my constituency. I did not blame the Minister one iota for the fall in the cattle prices. He had nothing to do with it—it was due entirely to external circumstances. However, despite the fact that a rise in cattle prices may also be due to outside circumstances, the Minister also invariably claims credit for that, and on that account he is always open to criticism. I think the Minister, with his broad cultural background, might remember the story of the old general in Greek mythology who, recounting his victories, always said: "In all this the gods had no part." Whatever gods or gremlins there may be in Merrion Street, the Minister might take care that they would give him a knock, too. He might remember that there can be no virtue without humility, and he appears to be entirely devoid of it. Anything that happens for good happens because the Minister wills it; anything that happens for evil happens probably because Fianna Fáil willed it.

A feint attack is good tactics; it diverts attention from any dangers and it covers up any weakness, and I have been wondering if the Minister's attack on the Irish Press was something in the nature of chasing an alibi, and if he had a certain fear of the newspaper's exposures of his inconsistencies and of his failure in certain aspects of his policy. I would suggest, to go back again to his cultural background, that he remember the story of “Tarquin and the Tulips.” I would prefer to discover points of agreement with the Minister rather than disagreement and continual misunderstanding, and I agree wholly with him that the economic future of the country can only be safeguarded by greater agricultural production. I agree with him that, so far as cattle and dairy produce are concerned, the home market is entirely saturated. But every farmer knows that greater production means greater risks, harder work and the investment of more capital, and it is the Minister's responsibility to evolve a policy that will assure the farmers that the risks and efforts they undertake will be justified.

"One more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough." That has become a platitude, and a platitude is merely the expression of proven truth. But if the advice that is embodied in that expression is to be put into effect, there must be some encouragement given to those who adopt it. Waiting for the report of the Milk Price Commission is a drama of far greater interest than "Waiting for Godot". It has proved of such deep interest to the dairy farmers that one almost forgets that, when the report eventually comes, it will be probably of mere academic interest. If we are to induce the farmers to expand the number of cattle in the country, we do not need to wait for the report. The dairy cow is the centrepiece of our cattle trade and an advance in the price of milk is the method whereby encouragement may be given for an increase in the number of cattle in the country.

That advance is overdue, and that may be adduced from a fact which we all can regard as proven. If the price of milk, when it was fixed four or five years ago, was regarded by the Government as reasonable—and there was no suggestion from any part of the House that it was unreasonable—then we must remember that, since then, the costs of milk production have substantially increased. Wages have increased, and the costs of all the materials and equipment needed on farms have increased. If the price was reasonable four or five years ago, then an advance in the price of milk to-day seems to be quite justifiable. If we do not get that increase in the price of milk, we cannot have an increase in the number of cattle in the country. It would be very much easier to increase the numbers of pigs, but a violently erratic market prevents such expansion. It is not possible, and I think it is even not desirable, to attempt to maintain a dead level of prices, but the continuance of sharp booms and sharp depressions could surely be obviated by some action on the part of the Minister.

The Minister offers a fixed price for grade A pigs and I hope that the offer will not prove to be a penalty on those who are unable to produce grade A pigs. It is not by any means a simple matter to reach the grade A standard. Breeding is certainly a big factor in the production of grade A pigs and our progeny testing is as yet merely in its infancy. Feeding of pigs is also a very important matter and needs a great deal of special attention and personal supervision, if it is to achieve the desired results and if we are to produce a quality that will get anyway near grade A.

I do not think that much success from the personal or the national point of view can be achieved in pig production by a sort of running in and out of the business. Only those who keep pigs constantly and make a study of production can hope for a steady remuneration for their efforts. I believe it is the business of the Minister to create a market condition that will encourage farmers to undertake the work as a constant business rather than on a speculative basis.

Finally, in regard to tillage, I must say the record of the Minister is not very inspiring. Now with the impact of the adverse trade balance, perhaps he will come around to the view that a little extra remuneration for the farmer would be far better business than the continued export of Irish cattle.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to one evil—the stealing of cattle. It has become fairly widespread throughout the country. There appears to be something in the nature of gangsterism or hi-jacking going on in this country since the coming of the lorry. I believe that a remedy can be found for this evil which is doing a great deal of damage to the cattle trade. I should like the Minister to examine this matter. It may be not as bad as it has been reported to me, but I think, nevertheless, that it should be attended to.

I believe that our farmers generally are as good as those in any other country, but, because of our political and economic history, they are lacking in information of a certain type that has been provided so readily and is at the disposal of farmers in other countries. I want to say that the fullest use is not being made of education for the purpose of agricultural development. Strange as it may seem, there is an edict from the Department of Agriculture against the teaching of agriculture in vocational schools. All the publicists talk about the fact that the teaching of agriculture should be one of the duties of teachers in primary schools.

I think if the teachers in primary schools concern themselves with the three R's and do that thoroughly, they will be doing a great job for the country. There is, however, no reason in the world why certain aspects of agriculture should not even be the sole concern of the vocational schools in the country. As I say, the Department of Agriculture objects to any form of agriculture being taught in the vocational schools. I think that is completely unwise because we should make the fullest use of our educational resources.

I know little about the workings of the parish plan. The Minister's views on it seem to change very often and he has not been quite pinned down. The majority of our agricultural advisers are doing a good job, but some of them are not doing a good job. I should like to know what directions are given and what supervision there is over these young men going out through the country as agricultural advisers. Mind you, young men going out through the country, without a direction and without proper supervision, have a very difficult job. They must be most careful as to their duties, strong in character and they must have the initiative to work so that their job will not become dull and drab. If the young man does not possess those attributes, he will not take the same interest in his job. I remember, as a young man, being in the country in charge of other men. I found that I could direct and discipline these men under my command, but it suddenly struck me one day as to what I did to discipline myself. In order to try to develop some form of self-discipline, I decided to keep a diary of my activities and I found, as a result, after a month of keeping that diary of activities, that my production increased substantially. I wonder if these agricultural advisers keep a diary of their adventures and of what it consists? Are they deeply concerned with greater production among agricultural advisers, because, if they are not, then they will not get greater production from the farmers.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 1st May, 1956.