I have considerable sympathy with Deputy Murphy who spoke earlier this afternoon in his attempt to discuss on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture problems associated with the Department of Lands. In my opinion we can never have a realistic debate on agriculture unless we are permitted to discuss, side by side with it, the dual problems associated with the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture. However, rules of procedure adopted in the past operate in such a way as to prevent Deputies elaborating on many matters of importance in the agricultural sphere because the root of these problems lies in the Department of Lands.
It is a sad commentary on our agricultural policy problem that, in spite of the lip service paid to it as the most important aspect of our economy, in spite of the fact that it is agreed by all politicians that it is the most important industry we have, yet when we come to deal with that most important industry, we find that priority is given here and outside to secondary industries. At the same time, we find that these secondary industries, to a great extent, go outside this country for their raw materials and the raw materials purchased outside have to be paid for by the produce of the land.
In all our papers over the last six months, day after day and week after week, all the emphasis has been on exports of secondary products and the aim of our representatives who go abroad, whether they be members of Córas Tráchtála or self-appointed, is to push secondary industries. They do not specify the importance of agricultural products. They concentrate on trying to sell petty little products produced under a sheltered system over the last 25 or 30 years.
Considering the lip service paid to agriculture, one must conclude that it is the most important industry we have, and it should be treated as such. Deputy Giles put his finger clearly on the problem when he said that there is no policy and no plan as far as agriculture is concerned. The cause of many of our economic ills to-day with regard to marketing and with regard to production stems from the fact that there has been no agricultural plan in operation here over the years. Indeed, the keystone of our economic fabric has been subjected to the competition of Party politicians and the small farmer, described as the backbone of the nation, has been flogged to death with the propaganda of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael competing for his support on the basis of: "We will give you a better deal than the other fellow." Despite years of loyalty, the small farmer at long last is beginning to wake up to the fact that he has been used for political purposes. That is quite obvious to-day when one realises that the last person thought of, when it comes to devising Government policy in relation to agriculture, is the small farmer.
To-day it is the small farmer who helps to subsidise the wheat rancher. Although it is most desirable that we should produce our entire requirements of wheat, nothing but a haphazard policy has been pursued in that matter. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to-day agree as to the desirability of having as much of our requirements of wheat grown in Ireland as is physically possible. It is an established fact that less than 4 per cent. of the arable land would be needed to achieve that object. Would any normal man not think that it is not such a great problem to devise a reasonable plan to grow wheat to meet all our requirements?
A number of Deputies pointed out that speculators, company directors, non-nationals and various types of people, with no association with land, have reaped the greatest profits from wheat growing. The tragedy is that the small farmer who has loyally grown wheat over the years is now likely to suffer for his loyalty as a result of the activities of these speculators who simply moved into this line of production for the immediate profits they could make.
This is not a matter that arose under Fianna Fáil or under Fine Gael in particular. This is a problem for which both of them must carry responsibility. I remember not very long ago, when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, he castigated and dealt severely with wheat ranchers. He gave figures which were the result of investigations made by his officers and by the officers of other Departments which showed that, in one period alone, 140,000 acres in the Midlands had been taken by speculators and mined in growing wheat. The statement made by Deputy Dillon at that time opened what was a closed book in this House for years, namely, the question as to how the Midlands should be utilised. According to the figures that Deputy Dillon then gave, 140,000 acres had been taken, much of it in conacre, and used for wheat growing, to a great extent by people who had no association with land, who could be described in no other terms than as telephone farmers, who took up the receiver and telephoned to their agents to purchase 300 acres as they intended to get into wheat. That is how it was done. These people have spoiled the position for the small and medium sized farmer.
Let us remember that, before the Midlands were used for wheat, they were protected for the purpose of finishing store cattle from the West of Ireland. It would have been regarded as almost a crime for a Deputy to suggest to the farmers in the Midlands that they should till their land. The Minister for Agriculture knows well that many of these people got expert advice to suggest that it would be a crime to plough the Midlands, that the land was ideal solely for finishing stock and was not suitable for other agricultural purposes.
What happened? When the price of cattle went down and when wheat became a very attractive proposition, these lands were immediately taken over by speculators for wheat growing. That brings us back to the point that has been made for years that the time is long overdue when the huge acreage that is set in conacre, that in many instances has been sold to nonnationals, should be utilised to create economic holdings out of which there will be secured the agricultural production which is so badly needed. I do not know whether this Government are prepared to make any move in that direction or not. Judging by their activities over the last number of years, I am afraid there is little hope of getting a dynamic policy into operation in that regard in the near future.
I have heard it said by Deputies on both sides of the House that agricultural output has increased. I want to give a blunt denial to that suggestion. Were it not for the export of store cattle on the hoof, we would be in dire economic circumstances. That is about the only item in respect of which increased production took place for export and that increased production took place without any help from either the inter-Party Government or the Fianna Fáil Government. That increase took place because the British housewife wanted Irish beef. We all know that the release from austerity in Britain after the war created a demand amongst the working people for the normal luxuries of life and that the activities of a Labour Government in Britain raised the standard of living of the whole community to such an extent that more people were in a position to purchase agricultural produce. We reaped the benefit of the improvement in living conditions that took place in Britain by the extra sale of store cattle. That is about the only way in which we have benefited so far. Lack of planning has been noticeable all through the years. We can thank no Government for the fact that store cattle helped to secure equilibrium in our balance of payments this year.
I would be repeating what has been said by experts a thousand times on the question of the sale of store cattle if I were to say that it is sending out 3d. worth of goods wrapped in a shilling's worth of paper. We export the raw materials of industry when we export cattle on the hoof and we retain here none of the material thatwould if processed give first class employment in industries based on agriculture. There is no other country in the world which has pursued such a lunatic system for so long.
Over the years I pointed out that there has been no plan or continuity and no security for the small farmer in respect of agricultural production. Admitedly the guarantee has been there for wheat, and regrettably the people who took advantage of that guarantee were the wrong element. In general, with regard to the small farmer there has been no guarantee for his output over the years. The result has been that in many areas the small farmer is beginning to pack up and get out of the country. Once upon a time, not so many years ago, it was the sons and daughters who left and they provided very useful money through remittances that helped to keep the household going here. What is happening now is that the parents are going with the children and that will have a double effect. Apart from the reduction in the population, we shall no longer have those remittances coming back from the emigrants because there will be none of the relations left here to whom to send the money; consequently we shall suffer again in regard to our balance of payments.
It is time that the present Government, with such a large majority, got down to brass tacks on this matter. Let us take the pig industry, one of the stand-bys of the small farmer. What security has the small farmer with regard to pig rearing? We have this question of an alleged guarantee for Grade A and Grade B bacon, but the next moment we find that the bacon curers are able to exploit the producer any time they choose. The bacon curers of this country have not shown any national outlook whatever. Deputy Dillon, who spoke earlier in his debate, castigated the bacon curers in his speech. He castigated them a number of times when he was Minister and I think members of the present Fianna Fáil Party, when allowed to, also uttered criticism of the bacon curers. But no action has been taken to deal with them. No Government action of any description has been taken, apart from pleas and exhortations. The result has been that one year pig production goes up; the following year there is a low price and the bottom falls out of the market. In between, you can rest assured of one thing—that the bacon curers will have a profit, whatever about the producers.
The small farmer must get help in this connection. It is essential that he be given security, continuity and guarantees with regard to his output as far as price, and so forth, is concerned. If the present system has been proved inefficient and incapable of giving him that security for his output, then we must change the system. If necessary the pig industry must be put on the same basis as, say, the Sugar Company and made a semiState concern. There is no end to the wealth that can come into this country if that industry alone is in hands in which its expansion is properly planned and where the farmer is guaranteed a reasonable price for his output.
Take one by-product of pig production, namely, ham. I do not like to quote in this House the achievements of other countries, but I should like to refer briefly to what the Danes did in this connection. In 1949 the Danes went into the ham business and they exported in that year something like £100,000 worth of ham to America. For the next two years the success of the project was in doubt due to the question of taste, but the Danes stubbornly persisted until they got the correct flavour in the ham to suit the American taste. The position to-day is that the export of ham has risen from £100,000 worth in 1949 to around £18,000,000 worth last year, that is, on one by-product of the pig industry alone. What are our exports of ham to America? I do not think we even know what they are or whether the Americans even know that we produce ham. Yet we have people drawing large sums for travelling expenses and salaries flying back and forth between here and America asking the people there to buy our products. I do not wish to go into this in detail because I might say too much on that aspect.
Reference was made here to the poultry trade. I shall not elaborate on that but again may I say there has been no plan. In a surge of enthusiasm, due to the words of a certain Minister here, quite a large number of people in rural Ireland, especially the small holders, went into the poultry and egg business. They got their fingers burned inside 12 months. The result was that they went out of the production of eggs. It seems to be an established fact that when we achieve a certain degree of production prices fall. Of course they will fall when there is no planned way of looking after the business, when the whole question of sales is left in the hands of private individuals.
If the Government says to the public: "Go into the poultry business", it is the duty of the Government, having so asked the public, to make sure that the market is there afterwards, and not wash their hands out of it and say: "We are not responsible." That is precisely what is happening, and that attitude has created disillusionment amongst the small farming class. There is no end to the export possibilities available in the City of London alone for our poultry, whether it is quick frozen or any other kind. If we went into it in a big way in the next two years, I do not think we would be in a position even to satisfy the requirements of one major city in Britain, but again we have no plan.
We have a guaranteed price for wheat. Last year we had too much wheat and we had an increase in the acreage of barley, including feeding barley, but the acreage of oats went down. It seems that if the acreage of one commodity goes up another goes down. It is a mere switch in the crops and there is no plan there. Deputy Murphy was quite right when he pointed out that the whole question of zoning must be taken into consideration with regard to agriculture. I shall not deal with that in detail for the simple reason that I do not believe there is any man in this country who is capable of putting forward a proper policy for agriculture. It needs the brains of a group. The best brains in the agricultural sphere must be brought together because the various aspects are so wide that it would need the services of many experts in order to formulate a proper plan.
The whole question of agriculture has been left by one Minister to another in a higgledy-piggledy fashion. There has been no systematic exploration of foreign markets. In fact, we have not the slightest idea how to go about selling agricultural produce or, if I may say so, any produce. When it came to the question of selling store cattle was there anything set up by way of a good marketing system? Is it not a fact that the British buyers come over and attend our fairs? Is it not a fact that the British companies and agents control shipping for Irish cattle, and that if that shipping were taken off to-morrow morning we could not send out a half-dozen eggs? We did not make any marketing arrangements; they were made for us and we accepted them. Yet some of us have the audacity to clap ourselves on the back and suggests that we have done marvellous work in increasing our agricultural exports of store cattle. All we did was to have the cattle present at the markets, have them purchased by the agents and taken out of the country by foreign transport. We have no say in it, and yet it is one of the fundamental things. It was a fundamental thing 30 years ago to have provided a proper shipping concern in this country to take our agricultural produce outside. We are minus that shipping service to-day.
On the question of the lip-service given to agriculture, one would think, hearing Deputies say: "Oh yes, agriculture is the most important aspect of our economy" that every effort would be made and no money spared to secure foreign markets. What is the position? On the 7th November, 1956, I asked the then Minister for External Affairs if he would state, in respect of the Embassies in London and Paris, the number of officials engaged solely on work connected with the expansion of our agricultural export trade. The reply to that question by the Minister was to the effect that technical officers of the Department of Agriculture concerned with the export of agricultural produce to Britain "may from time to time be assigned to the staff of the Embassy in London as a matter of administrative experience. At present there is one such officer serving in Britain."
This matter is the keystone of our economy and yet in the entire Embassy we had only one agricultural expert employed, seconded from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of External Affairs to deal with, and be responsible for, the export of our agricultural produce. There are at least 29 other people employed in the London Embassy. I have no doubt that, so far as they are personally concerned, they are excellent men but their line is not agricultural produce. Again, we are failing to deal with fundamentals. We prefer to have people deal with alleged culture and cultural activities in London.
What is the position in Paris, in France? At the time the question was asked we had no official with agricultural training engaged in the search for markets for France. Since then, of course, a number of enterprising farmers, particularly some of those in the National Farmers' Association, secured some markets in Paris for our mutton but there again a snag arose and it still exists—the matter of transport.
So far as shipping is concerned, we are completely dependent on outside interests. I do not propose to elaborate on the fact that we can spend £500,000 on the purchase of two luxurious places like the Paris and London Embassies and cannot afford to have properly trained marketing experts in these cities, people who will seek out markets for our produce. We have no imagination; all we can see is store cattle, beef, beef, beef. We cannot see, as Deputy Captain Giles said, the tremendous advantages that would accrue from an intensive campaign for horticulture. That is completely neglected; it is left to a few people who came in from abroad and men of their calibre are to be welcomed more than the type of people who come to purchase 300 or 500 acres of land as a sort of rest-centre for themselves instead of living abroad where they should.
The store cattle trade is of very limited importance to the small farmer, the man with the valuation of from £3 to £14 in the West of Ireland. He has only three or four beasts for sale in the year. Even if the price of store cattle goes sky high to-morrow, the sale of that number of animals would not provide a livelihood for the small farmer. Consequently we must get down to the question of producing a policy that will not leave the small farmer depending, as he is, on cattle. Outside this House I suppose my words will be misrepresented by a lot of ignoramuses who will put the question of Party politics far ahead of the gain that can be given to small farmers if intelligent co-operation is made a feature of agricultural policy. We shall survive the misrepresentation.
Córas Tráchtála has been set up to sell the products of our secondary industries. There is no scarcity of money when it comes to inducing the hot-house industrialists to get out into the open and to prevent them catching cold in international trade. They get every protection, every encouragement. What happens to agriculture? The sum of £250,000 has been lying in this Department for the past 12 months. It was to be spent on a proper marketing system for the export of agricultural produce but again preference is given to the minor industries and the major one, agriculture, is pushed into the background. We get a pious statement from the Minister that he hopes the group considering the question of agricultural marketing will produce a plan for him in the near future. If that plan appears to hurt any little section of the industrial community, even though it may be of major importance and benefit all round, we shall find that plan will be shelved as many another important plan was shelved in the past.
The question of the security of the future of small farmers has been stressed by people on both sides of the House. I am glad to say there is an appreciation amongst Deputies that the trend in recent years has been away from the medium and small farm. The trend has been to get into the ranching business, to break down the dykes, knock down the fences and increase the size of holdings already too large. The excuse is put forward by certain elements outside this House that you cannot have an economic return from production unless you have it on a vast scale. That is the alleged economic argument as to why the small farmer element should be eliminated by degrees. That is the plan of these people who seem to rule the roost as far as agriculture is concerned.
In regard to wheat, the argument is that it is uneconomic unless wheat is grown on holdings of 150 acres up, that it is ridiculous to suggest that a group of farmers should grow five or ten acres of wheat in a townland, that that would be wrong and uneconomic. That is the argument put forward by these pseudo-experts outside the House. They do not take into consideration the most vital aspect, namely, the people. The more families we displace from economic units here by allowing these units to be purchased and built into larger estates, the sooner we shall reach the bottom as far as our security here is concerned.
I am sure many Deputies visited the show at Ballsbridge recently. It horrified me to see the volume of imported machinery there, huge, mammoth machines used mainly by the wheat ranchers. All those machines cost a great deal of money. They are all imported. They help to bring disequilibrium into our balance of payments and help to displace Irish workers. If this policy is allowed to be pursued it will mean that the land of this country will be in the hands of a limited group of people and the majority of the Irish people will be once more serfs at the disposal of these big business combines and interests getting the land. Many people are perturbed about the situation and it behoves the Government to take the necessary action in a proper and reasonable fashion. Vested interests will, of course, make their presence felt and the strength of these vested interests is apparent in the political Parties at the moment. Surely the feelings, welfare and security of the majority of our people should come before the interests of these groups?
Deputy Blowick said there was no security for the small farmer, that when he produced more pigs or poultry there was no market. I listened to him because what he said was true. I also expected to hear from him what his policy was. When he is on that side of the House in Opposition he can criticise the Government and ask why they do not do this. The very same thing applies to the members of Fianna Fáil when they are in Opposition. Why, in the name of goodness, do they not get down to producing in this House a long term plan for the saving of the agricultural industry? Let them produce it here for discussion if necessary. We never get it.
I do not think any individual Minister, no matter how capable or knowledgeable he may be, is in a position himself to prepare such a plan. What is needed is a land utilisation board somewhat on the lines of that suggested by the Commission on Emigration, a board that will examine carefully all the aspects of agricultural production as well as the type of agriculture that can be associated with the various sizes of holdings. Such a board should be allowed to carry out a long term agricultural plan, and such a policy as they produce should not be subjected to street corner political arguments. The work of other State companies that have operated successfully for years is not criticised by the various Parties. For instance the activities of Bord na Móna and the E.S.B. in general are not the subject of Party criticisms.
The overall plan we must have for agriculture must be prepared by experts and must be given the opportunity of being put into operation, supported by all the Parties here. I do not know whether that is likely to appear in the next few years. The tragedy is that while people talk here about various aspects of agricultural production, the number of people on the land and the number of small holdings are dwindling all the time. Certain aspects of congestion are thus being solved but in the long run we lose because we are losing consumers. We are losing the people who in the past have absorbed the major proportion of the limited agricultural production we had. Unless we take the active steps necessary to set up a proper marketing system, we shall be in a bad way in the next few years in the effort to get rid of any surpluses we have, even in the limited lines of production we have had over the past 35 years.
The problem of balance of payments has been there for years. I forecast it will be there again this coming year. It will be there with a number of European countries. As far as Germany, Denmark and others are concerned, have we made any real effort to sell any of the by-products of agriculture in these countries? Is it not a fact that no matter what the Germans do as far as agreements are concerned, we still are allowing their goods to come in here in spite of the fact they will not accept any of ours? Have we ever told these people straight out that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Could we not afford to do without a certain amount of imports if these countries are not prepared to take our goods on a reciprocal basis? Surely the Irish Government could explain to the people the reasons for cutting down on imports from certain countries?
Is it not a fact that the Irish people would give support to any Government when they knew the facts of the situation? If we are in the position that we import £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 worth of goods from a European country and succeed in selling that country only a small amount does it not leave us in a very serious position? If we had the goods to sell to them there is no reason why trade should not be on a £ for £ basis. I am afraid that, at times, our representatives are too soft-hearted in their dealings with the representatives of other countries. There is no reason for our people to get tough because we are a small country and many of them would not miss our trade. However, we have provided a lucrative market here for many of the products made by European countries and many of them would not like to lose that market. I think we have good bargaining ground there.
I should like the Minister to tell us when he expects to have the report of the body examining the question of markets. It is most important that the report of that committee, set up 12 months ago, should be made available as soon as possible. The question of our output from agriculture will be one of vital importance in the next few years. If this adverse trend takes place in the balance of payments over the next couple of years I have not the slightest doubt that this Government will take the same foolish, blind steps that they took before, namely, to put the burden on the people's backs, instead of taking the necessary steps to ensure that the balance of payments problem does not arise. When a problem of that nature arises it is not the people who are responsible but the Government, by its inability to face the fundamentals.
The trouble with agriculture is that we have failed to deal with the fundamentals and have, instead, devoted our energies and the people's money to the fostering of other insignificant industrial concerns. The tragedy of that type of approach over the years since the foundation of the State is very apparent and the time is overdue when a complete change in our approach to that problem must be found. I hope this Government, with the strength they have, are prepared immediately to take the necessary steps, particularly with regard to agriculture, to bring that revolutionary change about.
