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.)

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan)

When I reported progress, I was referring to the effect that the land project had in bringing to the farming community a new outlook in relation to improving their lot. I would like to add that it is my feeling that the employment of heavy machinery is considerably overdue in clearing away wasteful banks of earth and scrub. In recent months we saw a vast amount of work being performed by heavy machinery, work which seven or eight years ago it would not have been thought possible to do economically. The number of people engaged in contract work in clearing scrub and removing banks is very gratifying and the grants that are being paid to make this possible, I contend, is money very well spent. It will bring into productivity much land that was lying derelict up to now and which will be capable of producing more in a very short time.

I think it regrettable that the heavy machinery that was engaged on road works over the last few years was not engaged inside the fences on the land. If that had been done, possibly our production would be higher to-day and we might then be in a position to engage that machinery on road works. First things should come first. Even now it is very satisfactory to see the amount of work which has been done in such a short time.

Many Deputies have referred to the need for improving the advisory services available to farmers. It is unfortunate that some controversy has developed in connection with the advisory services that operated so well for some time past through the county committees of agriculture and that the parish agent has not been received as he should have been received—with just a little bit of understanding and common sense and a realisation that he was coming to add to the services that were already being provided by the committees of agriculture.

It is natural with the growth of farm organisations, Young Farmers, Macra na Feirme, Muintir na Tíre, and other rural organisations, that there should be a greater demand for advisory services. It is, of course, true that, even though the excellent officers that were attached to the committees of agriculture were doing good work, they could not give the specific attention to particular places that might be desired by the people of those localities. Under the parish plan that is being provided for. We know of one or two instances where co-operative societies have thought it worth while to contribute in whole or in part towards the expenses of maintaining an officer to assist in a particular area.

The extension of the parish plan, to my mind, will have a snowball effect like rural electrification. When it was introduced many people refused a supply, but when they saw its advantages, after their neighbours had got it, they became clamorous in looking for it. I think when people see the parish plan working effectively, and live side by side with it, that they will increase their demand for similar services and that even if the committee of agriculture officers are relieved of some duties in the area where the parish plan is operating, there will be a much greater demand for their services in adjoining areas to which the plan has not yet been extended. I think some of the opposition to it has been rather too extreme. It is only when it has been tried for a while that the real effect of it will be realised.

Another great improvement effected in recent years and over the past 12 months is the improvement in farm buildings. It is surely necessary, before we can look to the increased numbers of live stock which we now aim at and which are so vital to increased production, to see that the necessary accommodation is there to house these animals. It will also be reflected in the improved health and improved condition of the animals when they are offered for sale.

Increased storage space, to my mind, will also lead to more tillage because many people have to estimate how much grain they can store before they proceed to sow in the springtime. I am not referring now to areas where grain is sown as a catch crop, but where the grain is converted on the farm itself, thus providing the means to maintain an increased number of animals. The improved land as a result of reclamation and the increased accommodation for farm buildings will work together towards bringing about the improvement we need in production. In relation to grain storage I think tribute is due to those co-operative societies that are at the moment expending quite considerable amounts in the erection of silos. The earlier siting of storage facilities at the ports did not indicate a very optimistic attitude in relation to grain growing.

The use of feeding barley, of course, has revolutionised production. The increased output per acre, mechanisation, the introduction of varieties of grain that are capable of being profitably produced on almost any soil here, the production of ground limestone and the more intelligent appreciation of the value of fertilisers will mean that people can look forward to producing what they require to market and enable them to maintain the remainder of their live stock in better condition than they thought possible half a dozen years ago.

I do not think I have much more to add to what has already been said on both sides of the House. The debate has been very constructive. I would just like to mention that a tribute is due to those people who, while not owing land, have given all their lives to working on it. In the agricultural labourers, we have people who are vital in this aim to increase production.

Some of them work a lifetime with the one farmer or with a family. These men and women make very valuable contributions. As they advance in old age, we should do something more for them and give some recognition to those who have given that service. Organisations like the R.D.S., in a little way, do their part in giving them some little recognition. If we could facilitate them in the matter of housing or to a better degree so far as social welfare is concerned or by some means attract them to a life on the land rather than to look for employment under very different conditions across the water, we would do a very good day's work.

I want to conclude on the note on which I started. I want to refer again to those people, non-agriculturists, who lecture and talk down to the agricultural community for not working harder and producing more. They are not being fair to the agricultural community. If somebody took the time to evaluate the capital, endeavour, working hours and efforts which have been put into the reclamation of land, the erection of out-offices, the reconstruction of farm buildings and all the work that is going on now and that is directed towards the elimination of bovine T.B., it would be seen that the farming community deserve great praise. When we bear in mind all the work which they are doing, and when we realise the disrupting effect which the bovine T.B. scheme has on the work of the farm, it must certainly be agreed that our agricultural community deserve great praise.

I feel that, in his introduction of the Estimate, the Minister reviewed the whole position in a very fair way and most of the Deputies who have spoken in the debate have been very constructive in the contributions they had to offer.

Mr. Hilliard

Deputies have been facilitated, as is usual, with a document issued by the Department of Agriculture setting out in cold print and in very prosaic language, under a large number of headings, some of the activities of the Department during the past year and for some time previous to that. This is a very useful document. It gives a fair idea to any Deputy of the activities of the Department over a wide range. It also gives a good idea of the items of agricultural production and of the extent of agricultural production in the country in recent times.

The Minister for Agriculture stated that there has been a 24 per cent. increase in agricultural production. He does not say over what period of time this alleged increase has taken place. It appears to me that the Minister for Agriculture wishes to be regarded by the public as a person whose mission in this country is to do for farming something that was not done previously. When the Minister makes political pronouncements on the agricultural situation like his outburst here, when introducing this Estimate, on reports on cattle prices in the Irish Press, I am reminded very much of pantomime.

It seems to me that the Minister wishes to be regarded as the "Prince Charming" of Irish agriculture. Every time any crux occurs or any situation of an adverse nature arises, he wishes to place upon other shoulders the responsibility for those matters. He tries to convince the public that the job of continuing to do for our farmers the work that is necessary to permit them to increase production on their holdings is retarded and prevented by the forces of evil such as we see portrayed in pantomime. On some occasions these forces of evil are the leaders of the creamery milk suppliers of this country. Of course, before these people become the forces of evil, the Minister will take good care to tell the public that they have been brain-washed or indoctrinated by Fianna Fáil propaganda. On another occasion they may be self-styled economists who write and contribute to newspapers. On other occasions these forces of evil may be the cartels and the rings that, over the years, have been strangling production on Irish farms. On other occasions it may be the cattle traders —the "tanglers" and the Fianna Fáil people who try to depress the cattle trade and who try to get the farmers to sell cattle at ridiculously low prices. On this occasion it happens to be the Irish Press. Above all, a great organisation is standing in his way of doing something big for Irish farming and, of course, it is the Fianna Fáil organisation.

If the Minister is going to sit down and wait for the fairy queen to come along and dispel what he considers to be forces of evil, he will be waiting a long time. It is true that the present Minister for Agriculture took over this country after a long period of Fianna Fáil administration. It is admitted by practically everybody—including the Minister, I am sure—that conditions generally, and especially in Irish agricuture, have improved immensely since we became a self-governing State. If it is a fact—which it is— that considerable improvement has taken place in farmers' housing, in farmers' outbuildings, in land improvement before ever the land project was initiated, in cattle breeding and in other similar activities on farms, it is attributable in a large measure to the policy pursued by the Fianna Fáil Party down through the years. Consider the statement by the Minister in regard to the prices of Irish cattle as they were featured in the Irish Press during the months of January and February. Every Coalition Deputy must think the public are very innocent, if they are going to believe that the British Government negotiators with the farmers' organisations—in their negotiations in regard to the fixing of agricultural prices for the ensuing year—had to wait until they read the Irish Press that cattle prices in Ireland were depressed, and that they did not know in advance of any publications in the Irish Press that such was taking place.

It seems strange to me that the British Government, with a long history behind it, noted, as it is, for being well-informed on matters of foreign interest and with a diplomatic background, should have to wait, until the Irish Press appeared, to read that cattle were making bad prices at Irish fairs during the months of January and February. The Irish cattle traders engaged in the business of sending cattle to the market knew that the price of cattle had fallen in England. They knew, when they received the returns for what they were sending across to England during January and February, that they were not getting what they were paying the Irish farmers for them. They kept in business as long as they could and then they sat at home and said: “We cannot continue in this business until prices return to a normal trade figure so that we can know what prospects there are in Britain of getting our own back for the cattle we purchase at Irish fairs and send to Britain”.

They knew immediately that there was a fall in the price of cattle. Farmers in England who purchased cattle here last October and November knew what they were getting for their fat cattle. When the farmers put them on the market in January and February, they knew they were losing what it cost to feed these cattle along with some of the money they paid for the cattle. British farmers were probably losing £20 or £30 on every beast they sent to the British market and sold as beef during February.

It is clearly demonstrated in the document issued by the Minister that the prices of beef cattle in Britain are now on a trader-to-trader basis. The law of supply and demand in the British market will govern the price at which beef cattle will be sold to the British market in the future and the British farmer, as well as the Irish farmer, is faced now with competition in the beef trade from the Argentine.

Our job, as far as I can see it, is to produce beef cattle in which we will have the least competition so far as Argentine meat is concerned. We have a method of doing that, I think. The Minister is responsible in my opinion for providing the basis of the method through the I.A. stations. If we can induce our farmers to produce a type of animal in Ireland from Hereford and Aberdeen-Angus crosses and good Shorthorns which will mature early; if we can endeavour to induce our farmers to produce a finished beast at two year old or less, it means, of course, proper breeding at the outset. It means breeding to secure a finished beast at a certain light weight. It means feeding the calf from birth and it also means the cultivation of grass as a crop. That is my candid opinion on this matter. The Minister shakes his head and says the Deputy here agrees with him.

There was a time in Ireland when we engaged in the cattle business even in competition with other countries. We did it with a type of beast not now wanted. That was prior to the 1914-1918 war. We had cattle that were of a tremendous weight. We had them a long number of years on the one farm and men could afford to wait for their return. The British people wanted to get large joints of meat and they ate meat in greater quantities than they are eating it now.

There was not much activity at that time with regard to the provision of continuous work for the people who did not own property in this country. By reason of the fact that the outgoings on actual wages and costs were very low, the landowners could indulge in that class of business but the 1914-1918 war brought a change in Britain and it brought a change here. Conditions were so depressed in agriculture after the 1914-1918 war that many men were almost forced out of business here. It is hardly worth while referring at length to the situation which developed here then but the shape of the Irish cattle trade changed a bit between then and 1939.

The emphasis for a long number of years during that period was on the Aberdeen-Angus and Hereford cross cattle, as I pointed out previously. With smaller joints, more meant to the bone and a greater percentage of meat per carcase required, a different type of meat was needed by the English housewives and we developed what was known as a Polly trade.

We started sending in large numbers this class of cattle mainly to Scotland and the North of England for a period, three, four or five months as the case might be, according to the finish of the animal exported. Many farmers during that period failed to realise that the day of these older, stronger and rougher type of cattle had passed away and they did not take the necessary steps to recondition their land in the grazing areas to feed to maturity a younger beast.

When the 1939-1945 war came and when both Britain and this island were virtually blockaded, meat became scarce and fertilisers could not be procured. Meat and fat were at a premium and were needed both here and in England. The weight-for-space animal came back to its own. They wanted meat in England and the bigger the beasts, the more weight in meat was carried by ship to Britain.

Since the war, that situation has ceased and we are now faced with this competition from the Argentine and so is the British farmer. I want to impress on the Minister the utmost necessity of inducing our farmers to produce the type of cattle that I ask for here. We have to take active steps to make certain that we go in for that type of beef product. That is what we must do if we are going to keep in this business. The difficulty I see is that, when there is a depression in prices, our farmers are inclined to go out of production of the particular produce concerned. The Minister, his Government, this Party and all of us who have the long term interests of this country in the forefront of our minds wish to see a substantial increase in the number of cows kept in this country, and in the number of cattle. It would be very shortsighted of our people if, because of the present lowering of the price of live stock in England, they ceased to produce in that direction.

In an endeavour to meet the situation that has come upon us in regard to the balance of payments position, the Minister's Department has been called upon to secure an immediate increase in the production from our land. That increase will mainly come, and the Minister wishes it mainly to come, from live stock, from cattle. He speaks of a five-year plan and he does not give any details as to how this plan will operate. He speaks in a general way of an increase in the number of milch cows up to 2,000,000. That would be an increase of 715,000 cows on our present figure. By what method does he intend to attain that increase? Will the N.F.A., Muintir na Tíre or the young farmers' clubs, those rural organisations, be asked to help in this matter? He will have to make certain that the increase is uniform throughout the country. However, I am sure you will not get a large increase in any particular area, but that it will have to be spread over every parish. Will the parish agent or the local instructor under the agricultural committees be asked to see that the farmers in the areas they are serving will be asked specially to have an extra heifer this year brought in calf so as to enable this increase in the cow population and the necessary increase in the number of cattle to take place?

The same remarks apply to the other types of agricultural production and the increases that are needed. The Minister has not given us any details as to how he proposes to get the increases, the number of acres of tillage necessary or the increased numbers of any other type of agricultural production necessary, except in the case of pigs. He has, of course, announced a method of endeavouring to secure an increase in the number of pigs by guaranteeing a fixed price on the foreign market for a grade A pig.

Mr. Dillon

A minimum price, not a fixed price.

Mr. Hilliard

That is what I meant; a minimum price. If we are to continue in agricultural production, we will have to cater for the foreign market and we will have to take our place in that foreign market at competitive prices. Therefore, we must change our whole attitude of mind in regard to this question of price, a higher price per head, a higher price per unit, and endeavour to secure from our farmers the admission that it is necessary for them to take advantage of the facilities that are placed at their disposal to enable them to get at a cheaper rate per unit an increased production from their land.

Before I pass from the subject of cattle, I wish to refer to the ear-marking of artificial insemination heifer calves which is mentioned in this document. I mentioned that in the first debate in which this artificial insemination station was mooted. I am pleased to see that steps were taken in this connection. It takes a practised eye and wide experience for an individual to recognise the Shorthorn heifer suitable for breeding purposes and to distinguish such a heifer from beef Shorthorn, but here we have a method by which a farmer can have a very reasonable chance of knowing that if a particular heifer is put to milk he has a beast that, with reasonable management and feeding, will give the quantity of milk necessary for economic production. That is a very good method of getting our farmers to increase their cow population from the best foundation stock.

I also noticed from this document that the Department is engaged in a campaign for the eradication of T.B. in our cattle. This has been in operation for some short number of years now and there are apparently three areas in the country being worked intensively. There is here in this document a note on the matter which should be widely publicised, that is, the fact that we have in the western and northern areas especially many herds that have been found on the initial test to be T.B. free. In County Sligo the percentage of herds that are found free from T.B. stands at 55 per cent. and the same applies in just a slightly lesser degree in Clare, in the northern areas and in the whole West of Ireland, west of the Shannon. If the Minister by any detailed plan or method proposes to induce our farmers to increase the numbers of cows, he should concentrate on having a higher number of cows kept in those areas than in other areas that show a higher percentage of T.B. in the cattle population.

I wish to give every encouragement to the Minister in his efforts to complete the job of making the country T.B. free and T.B. tested. With regard to our live cattle trade with Britain, we will not be able to keep in business at all, unless we are in a position to send our live stock for feeding to Britain under T.T. certification. Britain has come a long way, has almost completed testing of the entire country. It is generally known in the cattle business that farmers on attested farms in Britain cannot purchase cattle from us that are not T.B. tested.

There was a time when Ireland did a considerable business with Britain in milch cows and in-calf heifers. If we were in that business now, it would help us to increase our cow population. Unfortunately, we lost that trade in years gone by and are now exporting virtually no milch cattle to Britain, or very few. British farmers undertook T.B. testing of their dairy herds. They also changed their herds from crossbred Shorthorns to pure breeds. We in this country allowed that trade to disappear and did not do much about it. At the time, of course, men in this House and others outside the House, when referring to that trade, advised all and sundry that we were exporting the entire dairy cattle population of this country to Britain and that we were exporting the dairy and cattle potential of this country.

Farmers, like everybody else, follow the money. The punters on a racecourse follow the money. Farmers in Ireland follow the line of production that pays them. When beef cattle are making high prices as against milch cattle, and when beef is more profitable to them than milk, the cattle that they rear, whether they are heifers or bullocks, beef cattle or dairy cattle, in the main, get into the beef market and are fed to meat. In recent years, we have been putting our dairy potential down the drain in beef production.

That has been happening. There must be an intensive propaganda or educative campaign carried out, either directly by the Department or through farmers' organisations, or by some other method, to instruct the farmers that they should make certain that the maximum number of heifer calves of Shorthorn breed that it is possible for them to maintain and rear on their own farms should be brought to milk and put to breeding purposes.

I do not wish to adopt the rôle of adviser or lecturer to farmers. Far be it from me. I know, of course, that the organisations I have named have, over a number of years, taken it upon themselves to study methods of production and to acquaint themselves with new techniques and modern ideas, so that they may be able to do the job that is expected of them and to keep themselves in business. If we could get such an educative campaign as I have suggested carried out through these organisations, so much the better. The pity is that, so far, we have not got farmers' organisations at a higher pitch and better and more extensively organised than they are at present. We hope that that may come about in the near future.

Deputy Rooney said, in regard to the production of grain in this country, for feeding, that, when the world price of grain was low, it was the policy of the Government to import grain for animal feeding. He implied that it was good business to do that. That is not the way in which I regard this matter and I do not think it is the way the Fianna Fáil Party would regard it. The Fianna Fáil Party, during all the years they were in office, endeavoured to secure greater production of grain within the country. When the Minister for Agriculture took office, he was looking forward to cheaper maize. He felt that we could import more maize and feed more pigs. Of course, since then, we have learned that maize is not the ideal feed for the production of Grade A bacon. I wonder how many more acres the Minister is setting up as the target for the farmers of this country in his five-year plan? I hope that when he is replying he will indicate to the farmers, under the various headings of grain production, the extent to which he wants them to increase their production in acres over the next five years.

It is true we have increased the area under barley considerably in recent years, but I feel we could increase it further. The same applies to oats, but we must organise a system by which the people who grow this extra grain can dispose of it. On many occasions, the Minister advised people who grow grain to feed it to animals on the land and walk them off. That is all right as far as it goes, but there are farms on which there will be a big surplus of this grain. There will be farms on which people will engage on grain production alone and for which it behoves us to organise a market or a business into which we can place this grain when it comes for sale. We must take steps to provide storage for the grain and facilities for selling it to the trade. This grain must be distributed throughout the country to the places where it is needed, just as we engaged over too long a number of years in the distribution of imported grain.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy will appreciate the appalling cost of storing grain.

Mr. Hilliard

I appreciate that, but, nevertheless, I feel sure the difficulties can be surmounted if they are properly looked into. Greater difficulties were surmounted in time in this country. It may be that the Minister or Deputy Rooney may have something at the backs of their minds, but I hope that, if foreign grain falls to a low price again, we will not engage in the wholesale purchase of it from the ends of the earth and thus let our own farmers go by the board. I do not believe in that policy at all. I believe we should take every means possible to keep our own people in production and to secure a home market for them.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O'Sullivan, seemed to be annoyed by statements from people who were not agriculturists in admonishing farmers for not producing more, that they were not sufficiently hard working and that they did not take off their coats. He referred to those people as having made statements publicly before meetings of chambers of commerce and other such organisations in this country. I wonder was he referring to a statement made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Norton, when he addressed the Dublin Society of Chartered Accountants? I wonder was the Parliamentary Secretary referring to this statement by the Tánaiste:—

"The plain fact had to be faced that in 1956 they found the all-over volume of agricultural production was substantially the same as it was 50 years ago."

The Minister for Agriculture says it has increased by 24 per cent. The Tánaiste goes on in this statement:—

"In other words, the farmer was endeavouring to enjoy a 1956 standard of living on a 1906 volume of production."

That statement was reported in the Irish Independent of 18th April, 1956; I am not quoting from Pravda of which the Minister speaks. There is an admonition in this to the Minister to get on with his job or get out. The Minister for Agriculture, when he was in opposition, was very fond of saying that the Department of Agriculture was dominated by Merrion Street and here we have Merrion Street now telling the Minister for Agriculture:—

"Nobody could pretend to be pleased with the results so far. They must give some special benediction to methods, processes, organisations and individuals that produced goods for the export market in stimulating a greater industrial and agricultural output."

I wonder what are the methods the Tánaiste has in mind? Has he methods not yet known to the Minister for Agriculture in his endeavour to secure a greater output from our farms? Is this statement of the Tánaiste addressed to the Minister for Agriculture a plain suggestion that unless he succeeds in increasing agricultural output he should get out of office? The Tánaiste also said that the biggest difficulty they had to face was the fall in agricultural production. He continued:—

"It was the export of our cattle and of agricultural production generally that enabled them to buy goods which they could not produce themselves."

The Tánaiste also says:—

"In this, the State will have to take a hand in dealing with the matter."

I do not know exactly what he means by that. Perhaps when the Minister for Agriculture is replying he will be able to tell us if he is satisfying the requirements of the Tánaiste when he made that statement before the Society of Chartered Accountants on April 17th, 1956.

I hope the Minister does not take the advice tendered to him by Deputy Giles in regard to the breeding of racehorses, greyhound breeding, racing and betting in this country. Deputy Giles said that increased income to farmers in this country was very badly used, that it went into horse-racing, racehorses and dogs. It is true, of course, that the bloodstock industry in this country is a useful addition to agricultural production and it is helpful in its own way to remedy the balance of payments position. It gives useful employment within the State in both racing and hunting, a business that has been regarded as the sport of kings. It also forms the pleasure of the ordinary individual and, in addition to that, it is a very useful adjunct to our production. I would not care to make any overstatement in regard to the value of our bloodstock to the country. It has an export value and it has also a tourist value. You cannot have a racing or a bloodstock industry without holding race meetings and you cannot have meetings without public attendances. Apart from that it is a business from which the Minister for Finance gets a considerable sum of money with which to meet current expenditure. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.