Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Mar 1945

Vol. 29 No. 19

Agricultural Industry: Wages and Guaranteed Economic Prices for Produce—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the amendment to the following motion by Senators Tunney and Smyth:—

Recognising the importance to the community of the agricultural industry and the necessity for maintaining in that industry the maximum number of persons gainfully employed, this House deplores the inadequacy of the measures taken up to the present for ensuring to the farmer an adequate remuneration for his services and the low level of wages provided for the agricultural worker; calls attention to the unsatisfactory character of the machinery set up by statute to fix and regulate agricultural wages and requests the Government to—

(a) provide by legislation for the payment of a guaranteed economic price for all agricultural produce including live stock and live-stock products, and

(b) reconstitute the Agricultural Wages Board in such a manner as to afford to agricultural workers direct representation on the board; and to take such action as may be necessary to ensure that agricultural workers will be paid a living wage adequate to the needs of the worker and his family.

Amendment:—

In sub-paragraph (a) to delete all words after the word "legislation" to the end of the sub-paragraph and substitute therefor the words "for the stabilisation of rates on agricultural land at the rates prevailing in the local financial year 1914-15";

and to delete all words after the word "paid" in the second last line and substitute instead the words "the highest wage which the agricultural industry in the different areas can afford to pay".—(Senator Counihan.)

Mr. Duffy

This motion has been a considerable time on the Order Paper. It has been under discussion on two occasions already. It should be remembered that it was first introduced by Senator Tunney on 7th December. I should like, first of all, to draw attention to what actually is proposed in the motion, because I had a feeling that when Senator Counihan moved his amendment he was not quite clear as to what was proposed. You will observe that, at the outset, emphasis is laid on the importance to the community of the agricultural industry and that, then, the motion goes on to claim that the economic interests of the country demand that the maximum number of persons should be gainfully employed; and that, in order to do that, it is proposed to assure to the farmer an adequate remuneration, and to the agricultural worker a reasonable standard of living. Now, that is what is proposed, and I doubt whether anybody who thinks seriously about the position is going to argue that these proposals are not desirable. I do not think it will be argued, even, that they are not practicable. I think they are.

Senator Counihan offered two objections to the motion. He said that, so far as stock was concerned, the Minister or the Government would not accept it. Now, that is a most extraordinary contention, coming from Senator Counihan. I have often heard the epithet "Yes-men" being applied to certain people, but I did not know until Senator Counihan moved his amendment, that he was a "Yes-man" to the Minister for Agriculture. His second objection was that the cattle trade does not like this. That is not an overwhelming or overpowering objection, however, because I think that the cattle trade would not represent more than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of those engaged in agriculture or in the cultivation of the soil of this country. As against the views of those people, I should like to consider the position of the small farmers, or even the big farmers, and the agricultural workers, who must derive their livelihood from the soil of this country. The small farmers and their relatives, working holdings under 30 acres, along with the agricultural labourers, total 376,000, or almost 60 per cent. of all the people engaged in agriculture, and I suggest that their interests are bound up very closely with the policy set out in this motion.

It is an important consideration to bear in mind that five out of every eight men gainfully employed in this country are engaged in agriculture or in the industries ancillary to agriculture. Those are the considerations that must be uppermost in our minds when we come to consider whether it is good national policy to accept the suggestions put forward in this motion.

One of the first considerations we must have regard to is the fact that agriculture is in a very precarious condition. If the situation in the next two or three years were to develop on the same lines as after the war in 1918, the agricultural economy of the country might very well collapse. As a matter of fact, while Senator Counihan was speaking here on the 7th December, he drew attention to a published statement appearing in a newspaper two or three days old, showing the fall there had been in the price of cattle. I think there has been a recovery since then, but the fact that that fall in price took place at a time when there is need for more and more cattle and cattle products in what is spoken of as our external market, should be a warning to us that the situation is anything but rosy and that we have got to guard against another collapse in agriculture. I need hardly remind members of the House of the serious effect which agricultural depression has had on the country as a whole. It is not merely a question affecting the people of rural Ireland or the people in urban Ireland. It is a question which affects the whole population of the country. The population has been drifting away from the country for a century, very largely because conditions in rural Ireland were such that people were unwilling to tolerate them indefinitely. As was often said, the flower of the manhood and the womanhood of this country drifted away and found a living elsewhere which was denied to them at home.

Reference is frequently made to the considerable increase which has taken place in the volume of agricultural output during the last five or six years, but the figures which are quoted in that connection are fallacious. I think it is said that the figures for agricultural production in 1944 were somewhere in the neighbourhood of £95,000,000, but that figure is based on prices which have increased somewhere about 90 per cent. over those ruling in 1938. I have endeavoured to calculate from the different statistics issued by the Government the pre-war value of present-day production in agriculture. If the output of agriculture were valued at the 1929-30 prices these are the figures which would result. In 1939-40 the figure would be £62.1 million, for 1940-41, £58 million; for 1941-42, £60.2 million; for 1942-43, £58.5 million and for 1943-44, £54.2 million.

There has, therefore, been a drop of £8,000,000 in the output of agriculture between 1939-40 and 1943-44. I do not think Senator Counihan or any member of this House can be complacent in face of these figures. It seems to me as obvious as daylight that something has got to be done if, in the first place, we are even to maintain the stability of the agricultural production of the country—and to do that merely should not be our aim. It should certainly be our aim to double it. In my opinion the value of agricultural output in this country should be three times that at which it stood in 1940.

I wonder is it possible even in the conditions of emergency to increase the volume of agricultural output? I think it is. It has been done elsewhere in emergency conditions. I take this calculation from the Economist of the 21st October, 1944:—

"Despite a fall of 38 per cent. in the area under permanent grass, there was actually more cattle than before the war in Great Britain and the arable acreage of Great Britain increased by one-half since 1939."

These are results achieved in Great Britain during the period of the war. Bear in mind, the yield of our land, so far as it is cultivated, is not less than the yield of British soil.

The wheat yield in Britain in 1939, was 18.6 cwts. to the acre. It was increased in 1944, to 19.4 cwts. Or, take the figures for all grain crops. The figure for Great Britain in 1939 was 17.4 cwts. for the acre, and in 1944, 17.7 cwts., a slight increase over the war period in respect of the yield of all grain crops. But our figures in certain cases for output per acre are higher in respect of crops than those of Great Britain. This brings me to a point which is of material importance.

Where the productivity is low in this country is in respect of land under grass. The yield is desperately low in the country as a whole, and as it is a reasonably good average for the tilled land, it is obvious that the depression applies to about 8,000,000 acres of land which are under grass. Some time ago, I think it was in 1943, Doctor Henry Kennedy, in a lecture which he delivered at Cork, and which is published by his office with the title, "Agricultural Prosperity and Urban Employment", made this point as a comparison between our country and Denmark. He said:—

"The most striking fact of our agriculture is that production has remained almost stationary for the last 40 years. In contrast with the relative stagnation in this country, progress in Denmark is very striking. The agricultural acreage of that country is approximately two-thirds of the agricultural acreage of Eire, and the population is approximately 3,500,000. Since 1903, milch cows have increased by 65 per cent., total cattle by 70 per cent., the number of pigs has more than trebled, and the number of poultry more than doubled. The export of butter in 1937, was 2½ times the export in 1900, the export of bacon almost three times, and the export of pigs almost three times the figure for 1900. In 1937, the exports were: Butter, approximately, eight times; bacon, seven times; and eggs, five times the quantities from here. In 1925, the net value of the agricultural exports from Denmark was three times the value of the net exports from Eire."

That is a statement by Dr. Henry Kennedy. Bear in mind that the area of Denmark is only three-fifths of that of Eire, and that the population is roughly half a million more than ours.

To calculate the value of the agricultural output, I think the best way to approach it is to consider the value of the output per acre, and, if possible, to make a comparison between the figures for this country and those of other countries similarly situated. In 1929-30 the total value of the output per acre was £5; in 1943-44, it was roughly £8. If the production of 1943-44 were valued at 1929 prices the figure would be lower than it is. In 1938 the value of output per acre in Switzerland was £21, and in Denmark it was £15, as against our £5. If we could obtain the Danish figure of production—I am speaking as it will be understood of pre-war figures, the year 1938—our pre-war output would have been not £62,000,000 but £172,000,000.

Let me put these contrasts in another way. The Irish farmer feeds a family and a half in addition to his own. I would respectfully suggest that very many of these families are fed at a low level of subsistence. But the French and German farmer feeds 3½ families in addition to his own, while the Dutch and Danish farmer feeds four families in addition to his own. I think these contrasts are striking, and the point is that if we can establish our agricultural industry on progressive scientific lines, with ample finance for the farmer to procure technical equipment for his work, there is no reason I can see why we cannot multiply, by two at least, the present productivity of agriculture.

I gathered from Senator Counihan when he was speaking that he has an impression that the low output of agriculture is due largely to small farms. He talked enthusiastically about large farms of 700 and 800 acres, but the experiences of other countries do not confirm the view that large farms can give a bigger output, or indeed that they can be more profitable or useful economically to the country.

Mr. Counihan

The British Minister for Agriculture does not think that.

Mr. Duffy

I would prefer to take the records that are available, to test the statement, rather than to take the view of any British Minister.

Mr. Counihan

What about Senator Tunney's statement on the position of the Tourmakeady farmer?

Mr. Duffy

I want to put a few figures to support what I have been saying for the consideration of Senator Counihan, and these are very interesting. In Switzerland, the value of the output—I am speaking again of a period before the war and giving the average figure for five years, 1934-39— was £15 10s. per acre on farms up to above 75 acres. On farms of 25 to 37 acres, the output was £20 per acre.

On the small holdings of seven to 12½ acres the output was £27 per acre. Not alone that, but the value of the produce sold from farms increased as the size of these farms became smaller. I am giving now the value of the output sold per acre. The figure for the holding above 75 acres was £12 10s. per acre, for the holding of 25 acres to 75 acres it was £16 10s.; and for the holding seven to 12½ acres it was £18 10s., so that the small farms ranging from seven to 12½ acres, sold 50 per cent. more per acre than the larger farms of 75 acres and over. I want to stress that, because I should like the Minister to look into these figures in view of a statement which he made at University College, Cork. The Minister for Agriculture said: "We can only reach the New Zealand output per person by undoing the work of the Land Commission over the last 20 or 30 years; that is to clear the small holdings and recreate the large ranches. It is not possible to do this, and from the social point of view it is not desirable. We cannot improve the climate and we dare not enlarge our farms."

I think there is nothing wrong with the climate, and I do not think that it is desirable any more than it is necessary to enlarge the farms in order to get a better standard of life. From the figures which I have given in respect of Switzerland, and I can give similar figures for a number of other countries, it will be seen that best results from the point of view of the producers and the nation's economy are got not from the large holdings but from the small holdings. Perhaps while speaking of small holdings I might be allowed to quote one extract from the address broadcast by His Holiness the Sovereign Pontiff on September 1st, 1944. This is the statement:—

"Similarly, small and medium holdings, agriculture, the arts and crafts, trade and industry must be guaranteed and protected. Through co-operation they can acquire the same advantages as the large undertakings. Where large-scale undertakings are found to be most productive, means of harmonising the contract of employment with the contract of production must be sought."

I think it will be admitted that the purpose of our agriculture, and, as a matter of fact, agriculture anywhere, is to provide food for the community. That is what we demand of agriculture—that it should provide means of life for the people who live in this country. I would like to consider how far our agriculture has satisfied that demand. Take the figure given by Sir John B. Orr. I take his figure for Great Britain to measure the standard of life for the average citizen. Again it is a pre-war figure. He calculated that the standard diet in Great Britain in 1938 would cost 10/- per head for food alone. I do not want to make any point that our costs were considerably higher than those in Great Britain. I am satisfied to take a figure of 10/- per head to provide food for the community. On that basis we would need to spend £77,000,000 on food, but we produce only £60,000,000 worth of food, so that if we consumed all the food produced by the Irish farmers we would have shown a deficiency of £17,000,000 of our requirements in 1938. The very fact that butter is rationed to six ounces per head is an indication that production is totally inadequate to meet our needs. The Minister mentioned some time ago at a conference in Limerick that there was a considerable decrease in the volume of butter available for consumption since the war commenced. That decrease is noticeable now, but while we were exporting butter six, seven or ten years ago many of our people were going short, and many families were consuming margarine instead of butter. I want to put this to Senator Counihan: here is a country with approximately 11,500,000 acres available to produce food for 3,000,000 people, and it has failed, when imports were cut out, to satisfy the demands of its population. Take the quantities of milk which are consumed. It is calculated that the consumption of milk in this country is approximately half a pint per head. If the average consumption is half a pint, we can feel perfectly certain that large sections consume very much more than half a pint, which means that other large sections consume little or none. Even if it is half a pint, that is only three and a half pints per week, and the quantity allowed per child in the Dublin Union is 13½ pints.

I mention these contrasts merely to indicate how great is the deficiency of our agricultural production, and how necessary it is that something should be done, not merely in the interest of the farmer but in the interest of the Irish community to put agriculture into a position where it can produce what the nation requires without embarrassing farmers. There is no use in asking the farmer to produce at a loss. He must receive for his produce a price that will give him a reasonable remuneration for his own services, and I respectfully suggest a reasonable remuneration for the capital which he invested in the business. The Prices Commission, I think, makes calculation as to what return industries should get on their invested capital. But the farmer is entitled, just as much as any of the industrialists, to recognition of the fact that he too has invested a considerable amount of capital in his enterprise. He is entitled to a return on that capital. From the point of view of the urban dwellers, that is to say those who are engaged in industry, in commerce, in buying and selling, and in the professions, it is essential that agriculture should be prosperous. The agricultural community, if it is prosperous, represents a very substantial market. The small farmer who is struggling to maintain his family on the small income which, at any rate before the war, he derived from his enterprise is not much of a buyer from the industrial concerns which are producing boots and shoes and clothing, radios, motor cars, and so on. Had the farmer been prosperous, he could have bought probably double the quantity that he has bought in the past. It is also, of course, important from the farmers' point of view that the people in the urban areas should be prosperous, so the thing is really interacting. Poverty in the country means poverty in the towns; prosperity in the country means prosperity in the towns. I hope it will not be said that I am making a case for one section of the community at the expense of another. I am not. I think it is perfectly clear that there is no possibility of securing a prosperous urban population if you have a depressed rural population, and that, on the other hand, if you have a prosperous rural population you will have a prosperous urban population.

The question arises: what can be done to improve the position in agriculture? One thing that can be done and, in my submission, must be done, is to spend a considerable sum of money on farm improvements. If, as I have suggested the output per acre is as low as £5, it is because in most cases the farmer has not the capital with which either to improve the technique of his farming operations, to drain his land, to use fertilisers or to procure the best quality cattle. I think Senator Counihan will agree with me that we are notorious for having perhaps the lowest milk yield in Europe. There is no firm figure I think, but it is generally assumed that the average yield is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 380 gallons per cow. The yield in Denmark is 720 gallons per cow. The yield in New Zealand is 750 gallons per cow, so that when the New Zealand Government guarantees the dairy farmer 1/3 per lb. for his butter it is the equivalent of guaranteeing the Irish farmer 2/6 per lb. for his butter. He has double the yield that we have. Prosperous farmers can go and seek the best kind of cattle. They can build up exclusive dairy herds. But that does not apply to the vast majority of people engaged in agriculture here. I remember seeing farmers who had four or five cows being brought to the brink of destitution by the fact that two or three died in a couple of years. Many people in this House must be aware of similar instances. I remember the case of one farmer who had four cows. One of them died. He was able to replace her from his own stock of young cattle. In the next year two died. He replaced one; he did not replace the other. In the next year, a cow broke her leg and was killed; two others died. Then, in order to keep the home fires burning, he started to manufacture potheen. These are facts, and there are many people who must know them as well as I do.

These are the problems with which we are confronted. We are confronted with the fact that more than half our farmers are living from hand to mouth. They are living on holdings which are not properly cultivated because they have not the machinery nor the means to buy it. It may be argued that on many of those small holdings you cannot usefully employ machinery. Yes; you can. If you could encourage the farmers to work co-operatively, if you could encourage the small holders in the West of Ireland and on the Atlantic seaboard generally to combine—as they do, for instance, in butter production in the creameries—to own reapers and binders and tractors and the other machinery and implements which are available on big farms, you would immediately put them on a new basis as producers. But you must provide from State funds, or by loans or grants, the money which they need for that purpose; you must assist them to drain and fence their lands, and to get rid of the rushes and the sedge which in many cases cover half those small holdings.

Another aspect of this technical inefficiency to which I have been referring is the manner in which we dispose of our live stock. Probably Senator Counihan would argue that there is only one way in which the Irish farmer can dispose of his live stock, and that is to export it on the hoof. I think that is an insane policy. It is indefensible. My view is that the Government should take whatever steps are possible to ensure that any surplus cattle we have for export will be slaughtered in this country, and the carcases sold abroad. I was reading some time ago a statement made, strangely enough, by a British agricultural expert, Mr. William Adare, who discussed this matter in London. The subject of his discourse is reported in the Irish Times London Letter of the 22nd January of this year. The London correspondent of the Irish Times said:—

"Mr. Adare believes that the attempt made after the last war to export only dressed carcases failed because there were no compulsory powers available to prevent the export of live animals."

Then, he goes on to deal with what we have heard of before—the attempt to export cattle in a dressed state from Drogheda. Mr. Adare says:—

"The big Drogheda Abattoir Company published its prospectus, but later, the project not having the compulsory powers necessary, went the same way as the Scottish milk pool. Those vested interests attached to the cross-Channel trade in Irish animals would have a quite effective means of securing that the plan would not prosper. The moral of the story is that beef and mutton producers here (Great Britain) must see that, in their post-war plans, they invoke all the powers of the Agricultural Marketing Acts. The Drogheda plan was sound if it had been built on a sure foundation and that foundation was compulsion on all producers to market their fat cattle and sheep through that export outlet."

I suggest that the position has changed very considerably since the period referred to in that statement. The British Government were not anxious that we should slaughter cattle and export carcases from this country. We are not in that position now. There is a Government here, elected by the people to protect the people and promote their economic interests, and I suggest to the Minister that he ought to give careful thought to the suggestion that compulsion be applied to ensure that the surplus cattle leaving this country are not sent out on hoof.

I come now to the point which Senator Counihan challenged most vehemently—the question of guaranteed prices. Is it practicable to guarantee prices for agricultural produce? If it can be shown that it is practicable, I think that Senator Counihan's argument goes by the board. He did not object to it on financial, national or ethical grounds. His objection was to its impracticability. Other countries have succeeded in guaranteeing prices. Even Great Britain has undertaken to guarantee prices for farmers' produce over a period of four years. Here is how the Economist, a British economic journal, described it on the 9th December last:

"Guaranteed prices please the farmer, since they promise him stability; and they please the consumer, since they are a method by which assistance can be given to the home producer without gratuitously making imported supplies more expensive than they need be."

The British guarantee covers live stock, dairy produce and crops. I think that something similar was done in America. In New Zealand, the guarantee does not apply to live stock, because live stock with them is not an important consideration. They produce enough beef for the home market and no more. Their exports in meat consist of mutton and lamb. Writing on the same subject—the proposals of the British Government—the News Review said on 1st February, 1945:

"The principal development so far has been Agriculture Minister Bob Hudson's four-year plan to guarantee markets for the whole output of milk, fat cattle, calves, sheep and lambs at prices fixed on the basis of an annual review of farming costs."

Therefore, the proposal made in the motion before the House is not a departure from what has been achieved elsewhere. If it is practicable in Great Britain, it is practicable here, and I strongly urge the Minister not to turn the proposal down, as he seemed to do in the case of a similar suggestion in the Dáil a few weeks ago. Unless something is done on a big scale, backed by all the authority of the State, the conditions in agriculture in the next five or six years will cause many people headaches. The time to avoid that is now. If the headaches come, we shall all suffer.

I do not know whether or not I need say much on the subject of Senator Counihan's proposal regarding derating. He proposes a certain measure of derating. He wants to get back to the 1913 position. That is a great slogan, but how far are we to go on that road? Does the Senator suggest that we should go back to the 1913 prices for live stock, oats, wheat, barley and milk? If not, I cannot see the logic of asking us to fix rates permanently on the 1913 basis. I doubt that the Senator will succeed in bringing agricultural wages back to where they were in 1913. He said that they were then 10/- a week. If you cannot secure that the whole of your economy will be based on the 1913 experience, it seems to be utterly impracticable and, indeed, foolish to attempt to shift one section of that economy back to where it was about 30 years ago. I wonder if the farmers were prosperous in 1913 and whether these low rates, of which Senator Counihan spoke, were highly appreciated by them. I do not think that they were.

Lastly, there is the question of the Agricultural Wages Board and of the machinery by which the wages of agricultural workers are determined, and I should like to say on that point that it is a kind of machinery that is utterly indefensible. The chairman is the board, to all intents and purposes. In other words, unless the farmers, as employers, and the agricultural workers, as workers, sitting on the board, agree in regard to the fixation of wages, the chairman himself fixes the rate of wages. I cannot imagine any case in which the farmers and the farm workers, sitting either on committees or on the board, are likely to agree on a rate of wages which will please both so as to oust the authority of the chairman.

The result, of course, is that in this country, notwithstanding the substantial increase in the rates of agricultural wages, the agricultural worker is still a badly-paid worker—a worker, indeed, who is shamefully underpaid in most parts of the country and, I think, in all parts of the country. It is admitted that the agricultural worker had a low standard of wage in 1939, but to-day, notwithstanding all he is producing by increased efforts following on the emergency, his purchasing power is only 85 per cent. of what it was in 1939. That is to say, that, if you consider the increase in the cost of commodities and relate that to the increase in wages given to the agricultural worker, he can only buy 85 per cent. of the commodities that he could have bought at that time; and that was at a period when, admittedly, his wages were too low. I had thought of presenting some figures showing the cost of maintaining the family of an agricultural worker, but I think it is sufficient to mention to the House the simple fact that I have mentioned: that his purchasing power is now merely 85 per cent. of what it was in 1939.

Mr. Counihan

The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that it was 35 per cent.

Mr. Duffy

Well, that may be so, but at any rate I am standing by my own figure. Now, it will be observed that, in the motion, a demand is made that the Agricultural Wages Board be reconstituted in such a manner as to afford to agricultural workers direct representation on the board. To-day, they have no such representation. The Minister, or his Department, selects the people who are to serve on the board, whether as employers' representatives or as workers' representatives, and the allegation is made, here and there, that he has got them mixed up and that, in fact, he has selected employers to represent workers, and workers to represent employers. At any rate, the allegation is made that some of the workers' representatives could be more properly regarded as employers' representatives. In that connection, when the list of representatives on the board for 1945 was published I took the opportunity to communicate with a number of people in the different localities in order to find out what was the status of the representatives selected. I shall not weary the House by reading many of the replies I received, but I shall quote one or two of them. In Mayo, for instance, I got this answer in regard to a representative:—

"He works with his father who is a small farmer. He never was a farm labourer."

And also in connection with this particular appointment:

"By no stretch of the imagination could he be described as a farm worker. He owns an extensive area of mountain grazing, and deals in hundreds of sheep. He has much better qualifications as a farmers' than as a workers' representative."

Then, with regard to Carlow, I was told:

"This man is not a farm labourer. He is a most unsuitable choice for this position."

In regard to the Cork representative I was told:

"He does not represent farm workers, and would not do so even if he were appointed by them."

I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter of serious import to the agricultural community, and especially the agricultural workers, and that it is his duty to ensure that the representatives of the agricultural workers are, in fact, truly representative of their views. I am sorry that I have occupied so much time. Some people do not occupy so much time—they destroy it—but I feel that the subject is very wide, and that it is necessary to cover it at some length at this stage. That must be my apology for having occupied the time of the Seanad at such length in dealing with this motion.

Mr. McCabe

First of all, I should like to compliment Senator Duffy on coming over to the ranks of the farmers, because I have not heard a better speech made by any representative of the farmers during the past six years than the speech that has been made by Senator Duffy this evening. It is not so long ago—the Senator was not in the House then, and therefore he is not to blame—when a motion was moved in this House, the object of which was to secure an increased price for agricultural produce. It was debated here, and the members who took part in the debate considered that there was a good case for it, but when it came to a vote, I am sorry to say, Senators did not support it.

The Senator referred to the case of a 30-acre farm of land. Now, I have gone to some trouble in making out figures on the basis of a 30-acre farm of land, with regard to the outlay and expenses incurred in running such a farm, and the profits, if any, to be made out of it. I shall take, for instance, the question of wages—and this, remember, is only the case of one, agricultural worker. The wages of that boy would be £70, and his support would be £20. The rent of the holding would be £12, and the rates £9. The ploughing of five acres would come to £8, and the cost of seeds would amount to £12. Threshing would come to £3, and the cost of spraying, and so on, would amount to another £3—a total of £137. That would be the outlay on that 30—acre farm. I shall now take the income to the farmer on such a farm. The produce from five cows— that is, from milk sent to the creamery, butter, and so on—would be approximately £50, and, assuming that there were five calves and that he sold the five calves, they would realise at present market rates—whatever the price may have been formerly—about £35. The sale of seeds, at nine barrels to the acre—assuming that he was lucky enough to have such a yield—would amount to £27. The profit from fowl would come to about £20, and that from pigs would amount to about £30 —all making a total of £162. In other words, there is a total income of £162 as against a total outlay of £137. That would give him £35 gross profit, and I think it is quite clear that, allowing for depreciation, that man has no profit on that piece of land. I have taken these figures from a farm I know of 30 acres, and I challenge anybody in this House, or outside, to check them over and see if they are correct. If you double the area, and take a 60 acre farm you will find that the farmer has to employ another man, and his profits would not be more than £50.

So far as the agricultural labourer is concerned, he is fairly well off at the moment. He is well satisfied with the pay he is getting and the maintenance he receives from the farmer. But I agree with the Senator that he does feel somewhat aggrieved in regard to the cost of living—and the worst item in the cost of living in his case is drapery goods. It is no doubt hard for a boy or a young married man after getting his week's wages on a Saturday night to go into a draper's shop and to find that he is asked 18/-, 19/-, or £1 for a shirt, and to be charged for other items of underclothing accordingly. It would take him four or five weeks to earn that amount.

The labourers do not complain so much in regard to foodstuffs as they get the same fare as the farmer himself, but in the case of boots and underclothing I admit that they suffer a good deal more than the farmer. I fear that no matter what we may say here or no matter what the Senator may put forward, many farmers and labourers have got such an opinion of us—and I give them great credit for it—that they do not trust members of the Dáil or Seanad to speak for them. They have no faith in us. They say, and rightly so, in many cases: "They have not only good salaries but they have several positions. They do not care a jot about us only so far as they can use us for propaganda purposes. If we have to depend on them we are quite content to remain as we are." That may not all be true but certainly there is a good deal in it all the same.

In justice to the Government I must say that for the last three years they made an honest effort to increase the price of agricultural produce. I have a fairly good idea of that myself in so far as it refers to the creamery industry. We appealed to the Government on several occasions to increase the price of butter to at least 3/- per lb. The Minister for Agriculture, who is present this evening, objected to that because, he said, it would throw a heavy burden on the consumer. We admit, of course, the consumer would suffer if the farmer were to gain, and I am sure that Senator Duffy and his colleagues would be the very first to rebel if they thought that the cost of a commodity would be increased to such an extent that the consumer would suffer.

Liam O Buachalla

I feel very much like commencing in the manner usual on certain occasions when somebody gives a lecture, by proposing that Senator Duffy be accorded our best thanks for the paper he has read. I suggest that in future, when the agenda is being issued and we are to be treated to a paper extending over an hour, that the agenda should contain some reference to the fact that a paper will be read in the Seanad.

Mr. Duffy

On a point of explanation, I read no paper—none whatever. I do not want to be misrepresented.

Liam O Buachalla

I was not present at the opening part of the lecture so I cannot say whether I would agree or disagree with him on the points made, but I agree with the Senator when he expresses the hope that we may some day soon see production raised all round to the levels obtaining in certain branches of agriculture in Denmark. The Senator, of course, did not trouble to tell us how that might be done. He expressed the wish that it should come about and left it at that.

Mr. Duffy

Would the Senator read the motion?

Liam O Buachalla

The first part of the motion states that the House deplores the inadequacy of the measures taken up to the present to ensure the farmer an adequate remuneration for his services. The Senator might have gone on to give us some indication as to what measures he would suggest and how these measures might be implemented. The Senator might have referred to the various schemes that have been proposed and have been brought before the farming community to enable them to improve their industry. It would take a long time to go through these schemes in detail, but he might have referred to one very excellent scheme brought into force by the present Government, the scheme that we now call the reservation of the Irish market. Why he should have by-passed matters of that kind surpasses me. The farmers, he says, are in a terrible position but, so far as I could make out, judging by his calculations, he would like us to believe that he is something in the nature of a human slide rule. He seems to revel in figures and it is very difficult to follow his arguments. He might at some time investigate the farmers' indebtedness to the banks and the banks' indebtedness to the farmers. He might inquire what type of farmer particularly is indebted to the banks, and then he might explain why the banks should be indebted to the farmers.

It is true, as he says, that the farmers on occasion lose cattle. It is true that farmers on occasion get into difficulties. I am well aware of these cases, but it is unfair to quote extraordinary cases as being typical of the whole industry. If the Senator's contention were true, not alone would things be in a bad way in this country but the country would be absolutely and hopelessly bankrupt. I am not satisfied, and I am sure there is no man in this country less satisfied than the Minister for Agriculture, with the condition of things. There is no man more idealistic, no man who has higher standards for production targets than the Minister for Agriculture. Ministers work very hard, and they are entitled to our thanks for what they are doing in very difficult circumstances, but few men, I should say, work harder than the Minister for Agriculture.

But we have to ask if things are not better than they are in regard to these standards of production, are there any reasons for it? To me there are among others grave historical reasons why things are not better than they are, and because they are historical reasons, they give me sufficient hope for the future. Our farmers went through a terrible time fighting the land war. They had to concentrate their attention on winning their land back, but our farmers were not selfish, and no effort could turn them away from their allegiance to the nation. Having won the land for themselves, then, like good Irishmen, they turned their attention to the national cause, and when they might have been doing things for themselves they went out to serve the national cause.

When national freedom had been won, instead of being free to concentrate on the work of their own land, they were swept into an economic blizzard uncontrollable by any Minister for Agriculture, and uncontrollable by any country in the world, not even by the great and powerful United States of America. That economic blizzard had scarcely subsided when they and we were thrown into the unfortunate situation in which we and the world find ourselves. These, to me, are the main reasons why standards of production are not as high in this country as one would like them to be, but because there are historical reasons they are enough for me to believe that in time, and I do not think it is too far away, one will see a very different approach to the industry of agriculture, and one will see very different results.

The Senator referred to co-operation. I agree that something more might be done in regard to co-operation, and I would like to see the institution which is subsidised by the State, and which is expressly responsible for organising matters of co-operation, take a livelier interest in these matters. I would like to see more in the way of propaganda being carried out, and something more in the way of experiments by that particular institution to indicate to farmers what should be done, rather than that it should try to throw the blame for, perhaps, what are some of its own faults on shoulders which should not be asked to bear it.

This motion talks about the low level of wages provided for agricultural workers, but that Senator Duffy should say that a low level obtains does not mean that it is true. I heard Senator Tunney refer to the poverty of the agricultural worker in his opening speech in this debate. There again, I am sure there are cases of real poverty in rural Ireland. I have no doubt whatever about it, but it is hardly fair of the Senator to use these cases and to imply they are typical of the conditions throughout rural Ireland. I attend Mass more often in the year in a rural area than I do in an urban area, and I can certainly say without hesitation that I think the claim that people attending Mass in rural areas are badly clothed, badly booted and, generally speaking, not looking comfortable, is not in accordance with the facts. It is quite in order to say that there are cases of poverty, but again, I think it is an insult to the people concerned to describe their conditions as the Senator has described them, or to suggest that any considerable number do not attend Mass for lack of clothing.

I think that Senator Tunney was far and away too pessimistic in his opening speech. Wages, relatively, in the rural areas are not anything as bad as has been described. They are not high enough for me. I do not believe in pulling down—I believe in pulling up. I want to see the agricultural worker as well as the urban worker having his wages level raised up as high as we possibly can raise it. I do not believe in pulling down, but taking it by and large, I think there is very little to complain of with regard to the level of agricultural wages. I think we ought to consider, when discussing this question of wages, that there is what we call a nominal wage and a real wage, and it is only when we come to examine the real wages of the agricultural worker that we will visualise what its true level is. If that is done, I think it will be agreed, on comparison, that it is anything but unsatisfactory.

There is just one question on which one would wish to see some improvement. That is in regard to the opportunities for education that exist in rural areas. But, there again, if in rural areas a farmer's son or an agricultural worker's children have not the same opportunities for secondary education, it is true that over large areas of the country he has an opportunity of giving his children a suitable education, one that will fit them for life, an education fitting them for the opportunities that are there, and one that will enable them to create their own opportunities later on. If the opportunity for secondary education is lacking, then if one examines it objectively, one will have to agree that the opportunity for suitable education exists, and one would wish that that opportunity was more availed of than it is.

The question has been raised—I am trying to keep to the motion—of the constitution of the wages board. I do not think that any Senator will pay even the slightest attention to these quotations that Senator Duffy has given us from the letters he has received from various parts of the country. I do not think any Senator would expect anything else to come from these letters——

Mr. Duffy

Does the Senator know from whom the letters were received? It is a slur on people of whom he knows nothing.

Liam O Buachalla

I do not want to come to section (a) of the motion. It hardly calls for comment, because I think the matter was fully and adequately dealt with in the Dáil, and there is hardly any need for members of the Seanad to go into it now; but, on this question of reconstituting the Agricultural Wages Board, I do not like what is implied in Section (b) at all. I would like to say this, that I am in favour of the idea of a round-table conference of representatives of the workers and representatives of the employers meeting, and endeavouring to agree. I would rather see the matter approached in that way than by the antiquated method of the strike. Again, if farmers' and employers' representatives cannot agree, I see nothing whatever wrong in the chairman having the power to decide as between them.

If I were to differ from that, I would have to differ from the whole system of settling disputes which democracy acknowledges. The implication here is that the representatives of the workers should be appointed only from a union. I cannot read anything else into it. I believe in trades unions. When circumstances called for it, I was a member of a trade union, paying my subscriptions regularly the same as everybody else. Trade unions are all right in their proper place. If, however, there were more intercourse between employers and workers, I do not think there would be very much need for trade unions in our day. Communities are far more enlightened to-day than they were, and Governments are far more enlightened in regard to these matters than they have been in the past. In the agricultural industry a closer intimacy exists all the time between employee and employer. If workers think that that intimacy is broken or weakened, and that there is need for a union, then by all means there ought to be one, and they would be wise to insist on having one. While the agricultural industry remains as it is, and while there is that close intercourse between the employer and the employee, I would not like the State to take the initiative in forcing men into a union or saying that it should be formed in order that the workers' representatives should be selected by it.

Mr. Duffy

On that point, would the Senator agree that where men are in a union and nominate a representative to the board, that representative should be ignored and somebody else selected instead, having regard to the fact that there is an existing union?

Liam O Buachalla

There seems to be a tendency, one that I do not like, that when one is trying to express one's views, to subject one to all kinds of interruptions and broadsides.

Mr. Duffy

Surely, that is unfair.

Liam O Buachalla

I have no intention of delaying the House any longer than I intended by discussing such points as some Senators may wish me to discuss. There are certain points that are relevant to the matter before the House, and these points only I am going to discuss. I have come to the last point, and it will not occupy me very long. It is the amendment by Senator Counihan. To my mind the proposal is senseless. As Senator Duffy has asked—what does Senator Counihan mean by suggesting that we should go back to the 1914-15 standard? What about the value of money? What about the social services? What really does he mean? The thing is too ridiculous to be discussed at all. I do not like the motion. As it is I do not think I could agree with it.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

It is rather strange that, up to the present, the representatives of the farming community seem to be opposed to this motion, and it is left to Senator Duffy to support it. While I am not a farmer in a large way, and am not dependent on farming, I happen to have about ten acres of land. I would be inclined to support the spirit, though not necessarily the letter, of this motion. I have collected a certain amount of information from various sources, and following the example set by Senator Duffy, with the permission of the House, I should like to quote some of it.

Before I come to the main point of the argument, I would like to say, with reference to the figures quoted by Senator McCabe, that a farmer told me that, as far back as he could trace his family history, very considerable sums of money had been lost annually, and that it was a mystery to him, having added up the total, how any portion of the farm remained. That would suggest that there was something wrong with the statistics. Senator Duffy also quoted a lot of figures. There is an old saying: "Would that my enemy would write a book," and we might add: "Would that my enemy would quote statistics." They are supposed by many to be the superlative of lies, and can be made to mean anything.

This motion is very simple, looking at it on the surface, but it involves very grave issues and its full consideration involves the consideration of issues that do not appear to have any relevancy to the motion as it appears on the Order Paper. The amendment tabled by Senator Counihan also involves big issues. I think it will appear that the motion of Senator Counihan lower down on the Order Paper could well be considered with this motion, that is, the motion in which Senator Counihan suggests an arbitration tribunal.

Let us analyse the motion moved by Senator Tunney. Its first objective is to secure that as many persons as possible are gainfully employed in agriculture. As regards that particular form of words, I would like to see it changed. The suggestion here is that, if necessary, there should be more employed than is actually required for the efficient conduct of agriculture. Then the motion seeks a verdict from the House to the effect that the present arrangements fail to secure for the farmer adequate remuneration for his services, a verdict to the effect that the present wages for the agricultural labourer are low, a verdict to the effect that the machinery set up by statute to fix and regulate agricultural wages is unsatisfactory. It also seeks to secure guaranteed economic prices for the farmer.

There is then the amendment by Senator Counihan, who suggests the stabilisation of rates on agricultural land at the 1914-15 level. When speaking in favour of stabilisation of rates, Senator Counihan complained that guaranteed prices involved a subsidy. I should say that the carrying into effect of Senator Counihan's amendment would also involve a subsidy. Senator Tunney's motion also seeks for the labourer a living wage adequate to the needs of the worker and his family, while Senator Counihan suggests that the worker be paid "the highest wage which the agricultural industry in the different areas can afford to pay". We may read into Senator Counihan's amendment that if, in a particular area, the industry cannot afford to pay a living wage, then such a living wage should not be expected; so that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the amendment. From another direction, it may be said that Senator Counihan is seeking a higher wage than the one demanded by Senator Tunney.

I would say that public services must be financed from some source and, having regard to the great change in the value of money since 1914, I do not think Senator Counihan is altogether serious in suggesting that the rate should be stabilised at that level. The terms of the motion involve great complexities and would necessitate a social survey or a commission of inquiry, similar to the commission of inquiry into the cost of living. A comparison of the rates paid in rural areas with those paid in urban areas is of no real value, unless all the factors are taken into account. The agricultural labourer, for example, has a house and a plot. He has about an acre of land, and the rent charged is a purely nominal one. Factors of that kind have to be taken into consideration when comparing the two rates of wages. Everybody knows too that the cost of living generally in the towns is very much, greater than it is in the rural areas. For example rents are very much greater. An official survey would provide opportunities for comparing items of expenditure which go to make up the weekly budget of the rural and urban worker. The wages of the urban worker are very much higher than those of the agricultural worker, but neither class of worker appears to be much above subsistence level. That is a fact of which, perhaps, Senator Tunney might take note. There are many items such as drink, tobacco, "the pictures" and dances which go to make up the weekly budget of the worker in the towns, and it may be questioned as to whether they are really proper items in the weekly budget of the people who indulge in them. A medical officer told me at one time that one of the causes of the increase in tubercular diseases is the high proportion of the wages which are paid for amusements—dances, "the pictures", and so on. He suggested that, rather than forgo these items, people deprived themselves of necessary food. The rate of wages paid to the urban worker is certainly higher than that paid to the agricultural worker.

That is one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction of the agricultural worker, but, if he were to go into the towns and get some experience of the conditions there, he would probably find that he would not be very much better off in the towns even though the wages are nominally much higher. There are many factors which tend at present to create an unnatural condition of things in the towns. For example, there is a great deal of money in circulation in the towns at present, arising from the presence of the defence services, which was not there before. There are also the big sums of money which are coming from workers in England. Those things tend to increase the cost of living and to create difficulties.

With permission of the House, I want to quote a few items in favour of the theory which I hold with regard to this question of guaranteed prices for the farmer and the farm labourer. Everybody, I think, has heard of the proposals for an international clearing union, and the first quotation I want to give is this:

"The orderly control of production, distribution and price of primary products so as to protect both producers and consumers from the loss and risk for which the extraordinary fluctuations of market conditions have been responsible in recent times."

That is contained in a paper issued by the British Government after the matter had been examined by a board of experts. Here is another extract that has a bearing upon this question:

"The union might set up an account in favour of international bodies charged with the management of commodity control and might finance stocks of commodities held by such bodies allowing them overdraft facilities on their accounts up to an agreed maximum. By this means the financial problem ‘buffer stocks' and ‘ever normal granaries' could be attacked."

Here is another:

"There are various methods by which the clearing union could use its influence and its powers to maintain stability of prices and to control the trade cycle. If an international economic board is established this board and the clearing union might be expected to work in close collaboration to their mutual advantage. If an international investment or development corporation is also set up together with a scheme of commodity controls for the control of stocks of the staple primary products we might come to possess in these three institutions a powerful means of combating the evils of the trade cycle."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am endeavouring to follow the Senator's argument, but I cannot see the immediate relevancy of his quotations. They appear to me to have slight bearing on the motion before the House.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I think I will prove to the House that there is a very close relevance between the quotations I have given and the subject of the motion. I am coming back to the motion in a few minutes.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I hope so.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I think most Senators have heard of the Hot Springs Conference. Here is one extract:

"Having drawn attention to the fundamental importance in the approach to freedom from want of food, of policies to expand and quicken economic activity, the conference discussed the place and functions which might be given, within the framework of such policies, to international arrangements for the control of basic staple foodstuffs entering international trade."

Here is another:

"The two questions to which most attention was paid were:—

(a) the place which ‘Buffer Stocks' should occupy in these arrangements, and

(b) how far it would be necessary to achieve the desired objectives to include within the general arrangements agreements for the regulation of production".

I do not want to weary the House with too many quotations, but I have also studied the results of the Bretton Wood Conference, as well as Sir William Beveridge's book "Full Employment". In that book, Sir William Beveridge, in no less than 16 different paragraphs, points to the fact that for the success of his proposals for social security there must be stability in price levels. That is the first essential. He begins at the beginning, and he takes up the question of guaranteed prices for food and raw materials generally. It is fairly obvious that, unless the prices of these things can be stabilised in the first place, then the prices of any other things cannot be stabilised; therefore, he attaches first importance to the stabilisation of the prices of food and raw materials.

I hold then that the motion is sensible when it asks that some effort be made to stabilise for the farmer the price of his products, so that he will know at least for one or two years ahead what he may expect. If the prices of foodstuffs can be stabilised, the next thing should be an attempt to stabilise prices of other things, because a constant change in price levels is one of the things which disturb the equilibrium of social conditions. From that standpoint then I suggest that the proposal for guaranteed prices is reasonable and rational. I am approaching it not so much in the interests of the farmer as in the interests of the nation generally. I make no pretence whatever of being the farmers' one and only friend. I am considering this matter from the standpoint of the nation; the stabilisation of prices generally is of vital importance.

The next point concerns the Agricultural Wages Board. In that connection, a very important report on vocational organisation was issued quite recently and, in my opinion, when the recommendations of that report are implemented, there will be very little need for an Agricultural Wages Board. I hope that the time is not far distant when we shall have vocational bodies working in the interests of the farmers and farm labourers. so that, through the machinery afforded by those bodies, both parties will be brought together and questions of wages and conditions of employment settled in a reasonable way. I should like to refer to a number of other things but time does not permit of that.

I do not like the wording of the motion in some respects, though I am in full agreement with its spirit. I believe that it is in the interests not merely of the farmers and farm labourers but of the nation, generally, that effect should be given to the recommendations of the commission. If Senator Counihan were here, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment. Had I time, I should like to have quoted some extracts bearing upon wage questions because, in my opinion, there is an obligation on the representatives of labour to do their part in trying to settle this question. I support the motion but I would prefer that it should wind up, not so much as a record on the journals of the House, as an assurance from the Minister that he is in agreement with its spirit and that he would do everything possible to give it effect. I venture to suggest that the Minister is in agreement with the general spirit of the motion. I make that assumption because of his remarks on a similar motion in the other House. When the motion is considered in its widest aspects, we must all agree that its object is calculated to be not merely in the interests of the farmer but in the interest of the nation, generally.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th March, 1945.