I may not have made myself very clear the last day and I would like to explain that I wish to withdraw my amendment in favour of Senator Counihan's motion.
Co-operative and Experimental Farms—Motions (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motions and amendment:—
"That in the opinion of Seanad Éireann the Government should encourage and facilitate the establishment of a small number of co-operative farms, or co-operative farm units as an experiment, with a view to the extension of either or both of these systems of farming if found to be satisfactory."
Amendment:
"To delete all words after the word ‘farms' and substitute the following words: ‘for experimental and demonstration purposes with a view to the improvement of agricultural methods in general'."
"That in the opinion of Seanad Éireann the Government should set up and operate a small number of experimental farms in different parts of the country for the information and guidance of persons engaged in the farming industry."—(Senator Counihan.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First of all, I should like to draw attention to the fact that we have not yet received copies of the Seanad Debates of the last day. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that it is rather a long period to let pass and it would be very useful, particularly in a debate of this kind which is carried on from the last day, if we could have copies of the debates before the next meeting of the Seanad.
With regard to the motion itself, I am rather sorry that Senator O'Dwyer has decided to withdraw his amendment because of the amendments on the agenda I felt more inclined to support Senator O'Dwyer's than either of the others. I still feel more or less favourably disposed towards Senator Counihan's motion. I would like to deal with this matter as a subject under debate and to find out what various people thought of the three amendments rather than support one amendment as against another. I have been taught since I was a child that it is not a good thing to interfere in family rows so I would not like to interfere between the two Senators O'Farrell. I also feel a little bit embarrassed to find myself at last in agreement with Senator J.T. O'Farrell with whom I generally disagree—particularly regarding the attitude of the Minister towards the debate. If this House is to serve any useful purpose it should be such a House that any member could raise any particular matter he desires to raise for the purpose of debate without being accused of being this, that or the other.
With regard to Senator Burke's motion—we call it that notwithstanding the fact that there are three other names to it—there is no reason in the world why a motion of this kind could not be discussed calmly without anybody losing his temper. When I first heard of Senator Burke I heard him described as Communist but I am quite satisfied that he is not a Communist. In fact I am pretty well satisfied that he is a capitalist. There is a difference between a Communist and a Christian and I think he is a perfectly good Christian. I was very much interested in his scheme which he outlined for us himself and I was satisfied that it was progressing well, but I was disappointed when I saw about a year and a half ago that there was a clearance sale of fowl-houses, etc., on the estate. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected, but that in itself indicated that the scheme was not working as satisfactorily as most people, including myself would hope. Notwithstanding that, I believe there was not much reason in the attitude of the Minister or the attack which he made on Senator Burke and particularly on Senator Counihan. Senator Counihan may differ from me in politics and he differs from a lot of us in opinion. He is rather an old man—I am sure he will not mind my saying so—and his opinions because of his age and experience, differ from ours and he is not so easily convinced.
He is not so much older than the Senator.
He is almost as old as Senator Baxter. I wish Senator Baxter was a little older, even if he is not as old as Senator Counihan, as he might get sense.
There is no necessity to get excited about the motion and there was no necessity whatever for the Minister for Agriculture to give us a lecture. Practically every time he stands up he gives us a lecture on such subjects as faith, morals, nationality and religion. Most of us know what the Minister's background is and the part his ancestors took in the national struggle. We also know that as well as a few leaders quite a few followers took part in that movement and while the Minister happens to be related to some of the leaders some of the rest of us happen to have had a good few relations among the followers. While many of the leaders were transported and some of them went of their own free will and came back, quite a large proportion of the followers found their way to the coffin ships, transportation and slavery. If we are to keep referring to that question somebody should put down a motion and we should have a full dress debate on the 1848 Rising. The House could demand the production of documents and stop the talk.
There is no necessity to refer to religion. We all have our own religion and differ in religion. Thanks be to God there are no bad friends here because of religious differences. We should confine ourselves to the subjects under debate and leave these things to other people.
I do not believe it is possible to start co-operative farms under the scheme as laid down by Senator Burke. I may be wrong, but I have always found that the Irish people, perhaps because of some particular quality in them, are not anxious to co-operate even in smaller matters than co-operative farming. We all know the difficulty there has been in the past.
Do they not co-operate in the creameries?
That is a different matter. When there is collective ownership of a mower or potato digger everybody wants to cut hay or dig potatoes on the same day and when it is a case of a reaper and binder they all want to cut their corn on the same day. Farmers are over-mechanised and over supplied with machinery to work the number of acres under cultivation but the trouble is that you cannot get people to agree to use the machines on separate days or separate parts of a day. If Senator Burke could prove to us—which I do not believe he has proved—that this thing has a reasonable hope of success in this country I would not mind supporting it, but I am afraid that Senator Burke's actual experience has all gone to prove that the thing is in fact practically impossible to work. If it is not impossible or has not proved impossible to put into effective operation, I would ask Senator Burke why he has not enlarged the scheme on his own land. All credit to the man who has tried something out and devoted a certain acreage of his land to a scheme of this kind which he believed in and which other people believed would not work. If it has been or is being worked successfully, I do not know why he has not enlarged upon it rather than dispose of some of the rest of his land in conacre lettings.
The amendment in the name of Senator O'Dwyer and the motion by Senator Counihan proceed along a different line, and, if I interpret Senator O'Dwyer's amendment correctly, it is that he wants established in the country, under Government auspices or with Government support, experimental farms. I know that several people on this and on the other side of the House do not interpret the amendment in that way, but that is what I believe he had in mind. The Minister has pointed out that we already have these experimental farms and some people on this side also hold that we already have them, in what are known as the agricultural colleges in Ballyhaise, Glasnevin and other places. They may be experimental farms in a certain sense, but they are not experimental farms from the point of view of carrying out experiments which would be likely to be taken up by the farmers. What I should like to see would be a farm of 50, 60 or as many acres as you like, being taken over under Government auspices and a qualified manager put in to run the place, which would be financed by the Government. The manager would have to employ labour, to compete for labour in the ordinary market and to provide for the payment of all the necessary machinery. The farm would be carried on in that way with a view to proving to the farmers that farming can be worked on the most modern lines.
Many people may not agree with me when I say that there seems to be a prejudice in the country against young farmers having training in these agricultural colleges. With the present Young Farmers' movement, I believe that prejudice may be overcome, but, in the recent past, it has been found that, where scholarships were made available, it was practically impossible to get young farmers to take them up. I believe that if a qualified man were brought from one of the agricultural colleges and put in charge of such a farm to work it on modern lines, it would be a definite headline for the farmers, if the farm could be made a paying proposition, as I believe it could be. The experiment has been tried out on a small scale by the Sugar Company. Last year, the Sugar Company decided to try out the growing of sugar beet on land which up to then had been deemed entirely unsuitable. They rented some 20 acres of this unsuitable type of land and treated it with lime and other things. They employed all the most expensive methods of production and had all contract ploughing, thinning and pulling, and it showed a tremendous profit. Perhaps I should not say a tremendous profit, but it showed a profit which would be regarded as good by any ordinary farmer. I am sorry that that scheme was not properly publicised and that the facts in connection with it were not made available as they should have been. Goodness knows, we blow enough about things that would not stand investigation at all, and if that scheme were successfully carried out, a pamphlet in connection with it should have been issued, pointing out to the farmers that, if land which has been regarded as unsuitable for the production of beet is treated in a certain way, it can be made useful land and that, even when it goes back to another crop, will give results which were never expected from such land in the past.
That is the sort of farming I should like to see tried out on an experimental basis, but to suggest that the agricultural colleges are experimental farms is an entirely wrong idea. The agricultural colleges, so far as I know, are dealing with land which either was good land to begin with, or, as a result of very careful treatment over a number of years, has reached the stage at which it is excellent land. You cannot carry out a real experiment on that type of land and then go back to the farmer on the bad, mountainy, swampy land and tell him: "So and the farmer on the bad, mountainy, so has been done in Glasnevin or Athenry and there is no reason why you could not do it." We should have farms here and there through the country under the supervision of the county committee or the officers of the county committee and in that way prove to people at their own doorsteps, so to speak, that that type of thing can be done and that, with the use of the most modern methods, land can be utilised in a way in which it was not utilised in the past. I should like to see that type of farm set up, not on a very big scale, but on the scale on which any medium-sized farm could be run.
The real proof of the good of the experiment would be the production of the books at the end of a year, three years or five years, showing that, notwithstanding the fact that a reasonable salary was paid to the manager, reasonable wages paid to the workers and reasonable overheads met, the farm was made to pay. Young farmers would be inclined then to go in for the development and improvement of their own land rather than to follow the policy of hopelessness which is often to be found, particularly in those districts where the land is not as good as it may be in other districts.
I do not usually talk on agricultural matters. Like Senator Douglas, I am a city man and do not know much about farming, but I do know a little about co-operation. Senator Burke has run the gauntlet of a lot of abuse and near abuse and I do not think he deserved much of it. The worst that can be said of him is that he is an idealist. Some people in this part of the country have never taken kindly to co-operation. The creameries apart, we have had various efforts to establish the co-operative system in this part of Ireland and they have all failed. I recollect when I was younger and when the Dublin shipyards were set up, many of the Scottish workers imported at that time to show the Irish people how to build ships set up co-operative societies in various parts of the city. They did not last long, however, and they were confined to the people who set them up. The public generally did not support them. Anybody who looks at the success of the Belfast Co-operative Society will realise how amazing co-operation can be. In Belfast, they bring you into the world by the co-operative system and send you out in a hearse by the same system.
The Irish farmer is independent and all through the ages has fought to maintain that independence. The city man sometimes says that the farmer is not so much independent as stubborn, but I think that independence is the word to be applied to farmers generally, and it is not peculiar to this country. We have seen the fight the farmers in Russia made for their individual holdings and we know that thousands were slaughtered there for maintaining their independence. I do not think the Irish farmer would willingly relinquish his independence.
There is one point that struck me as rather queer and as requiring some explanation in regard to Senator Burke's co-operative farm. He told us that, on 250 acres, there were seven employees. I assume that these seven employees were hired men, as opposed to the people working the 250 acres. If you divide 250 acres by seven, you get a hired man on every 35 acres, which, I suggest, does not make the idea very attractive. To say that you have to have 35 acres of land to ensure the employment of one man will not, I am afraid, make the proposition very attractive for farm labourers generally. The idea is sound but unworkable from the point of view of the farming community. There is nothing wrong in co-operation; as a matter of fact, there is much to be said for it. In other countries it has proved very successful, and in Belfast it has been a wonderful success—the success of the movement there has been phenomenal —but in the rest of this country we do not take kindly to it. If the working community took kindly to it, there might be some chance of getting the farmers to take it up, but while the present mentality exists among the urban population, a mentality which is opposed to co-operation generally, I am afraid we are a long way from getting the farmer to accept the idea.
Captain Orpen
Like some of the previous speakers, I am sorry this debate has taken the turn it has taken, because it seems to me that the whole tone of the debate started from an initial mistake brought about by the failure of some people to read the motion. The motion asks that facilities be given for the establishment of a small number of co-operative farms and co-operative farm units. Much of the debate seems to have forgotten that the essential feature of co-operation is that it is something willingly done by those who intend to participate in it. Therefore, why the debate should have taken the form it has taken—talking about collective farms imposed on the people by the State and references by the Minister to the shadow of the prison and the gallows— I do not know, because Senator Burke never asked for a collective farm. He asked for a co-operative farm. I am sorry the Minister is not here because I should like to correct him on that point, because he talked of something completely outside the scope of this debate.
Senator Burke naturally has an advantage over most of us in that he has seen the co-operative farm in being and at work and he is a member of that group of people who were willing to co-operate. In that farm, admittedly, individual ownership of land does not exist, but there is no reason at all why, in the matter of co-operation in agriculture and farming, you should eliminate private ownership of the land, of the animals or of the crops.
Perhaps I might digress for a moment and remind the House that, if you consider agriculture in the past, not just the last 200 or 400 years but agriculture over thousands of years, there was no private ownership, whether of animals, crops or land. In the case of the nomad, everything was owned by the community. In our own Celtic booley system over centuries in Ireland, crop, animal and land were not private property but belonged to the tribe. As time went on, it was seen that there was some advantage in private property and the animal came in first. Then the crop followed, and at long last, many centuries afterwards, you began to have ownership of the grazing. That was last in. It was only comparatively recently in this country—over the last few hundred years—that we have had this idea of exclusive ownership of animal, crop and land or grazing.
Having digressed to that extent, I do not see that there is any necessity to consider merely that co-operative farming must, of necessity, mean holding all the factors necessary for agriculture in common community. It may be desirable, it may be done, but it is not essential.
Several Senators have said that co-operative farming does not exist in this country, with the exception of Senator Burke's effort in County Galway. Well, I just simply say that they are wrong. In my immediate neighbourhood, there are three farms which are co-operating. They are not contiguous: one is over two miles from the other two. They co-operate amongst themselves in a very remarkable manner. Obviously, the easiest thing is the sharing of the more expensive tools—that is a feature which is quite common in other countries and it works in some cases quite well—but these three farms co-operate much more extensively than that. They pool labour when required—that is quite a common feature—and here we find that one man does all the buying and selling and the others are quite ready to fall in with that method. I might say they are comparatively small farmers and very successful. There you have a sort of co-operation which lessens the capital cost of their equipment, a pooling of available labour— which is quite common in this country for certain operations—and one person who is particularly well suited to buying and selling and who does it for the other two as well as for himself.
I suggest that you should look at co-operation in farming in two directions. One is the disposal of the produce. We have arrived at that already, with our creameries, and so on. They are looking after the produce, but you can have also co-operation in production. The obvious first step there is the provision of something in the nature of a machinery pool. We have never really attempted that in this country. One or two co-operative societies have tried it on a small scale and it has been done to some extent during the war in England. Curiously enough, France has expanded that to an astonishing degree: there are 13,000 co-operative machinery pools in France. You can have co-operation round the processing of your produce. At present, we have that in the creamery, but we have not done it to any great extent outside the creamery area. Then you might go further and group together for assemblage and ultimate marketing. But do observe this, when you consider any form of group marketing, an essential feature is that, at some period or other, the individual producer loses the complete control of his product. That is necessary. You must at some period bulk the stuff, credit him with various grades and then sell it in bulk. That is an essential thing that will come in with co-operation.
Why do some of us believe that co-operative farming or co-operative farms, or as I like to call them, economic farm units, are useful? I chose a new name when I wrote and spoke about them in the last ten years, so that no one may say: "Oh, it has failed; look at Vandeleur." I chose a completely new name because I did not want failures in the past to influence this new concept. I chose this word, different from anything else, for these co-operative farm units. Why do we try to envisage something new? What is the reason? I think the reason is very obvious. We have a very large number of small farms and only a few very large ones. Every man who gets up in this House or elsewhere is always saying: "It is very difficult for the small farmer to do this." The majority of our farms are small. Is it not the obvious thing to turn round and see if there is any way we can remove from the field of economic activity on the land the inherent disadvantages of the small farm and bring in some of the advantages of the large farm, without the disadvantages of the large farm?
Russia has done it.
Captain Orpen
Russia has not done it. Russia has not brought in any of the advantages of the larger farm. Supposing we divide this country into small farms and large farms, the small ones being those of less than £15 valuations and the larger ones being over £15. We can leave out those holdings under £2, as by no stretch of the imagination could they be called farms at all. With that division, we find 178,800 small farms and 126,600 large farms. The farm of £15 valuation and under is obviously so small in its possible productive output that it has to be denied some of the more expensive means of production. It cannot possess a range of implements that it would like. On the other hand, if you can get dozens of them to group together, there is no reason why they could not carry equipment that would enable them to get along as well as the large ones. The large farm has some advantages, but there are many advantages also inherent in small farms, for instance, you can get more intimate supervision by the owner on a small farm. On the large farm, the value of the output per acre is usually lower than on the small farm. That does not mean that the small farm is better, but that because of its smallness it has of necessity to confine its production programme to products suitable for small-scale production. The so-called "extensive products" are grown on the larger farms. Obviously, the small farm exploits the individual rearing of animals, whereas grain or extensive products are more likely to come from the large farm.
I think this debate on Senator Burke's motion, as I said at the start, rather got off on the wrong foot. Complaint has been made that, from the figures given by Senator Burke, the whole thing was a failure, that he ought to have been able to do very much better. That is a matter of opinion. The only comparable survey we have got is that in Mr. O'Connell's two surveys made of the mid-Roscommon farms in 1947-49. The value of the output in those farms is strictly comparable with that from Senator Burke's farm in Galway. If I recollect aright, the 1948-49 figures he gave at the Statistical Society meeting the other night for the 20-40-acre farm group, of which there were 11, gave nine out of those 11 as having failed to provide 2½ labour units. In other words, that gives you a scale of payment in terms of labour units. Now, that is not very far off Senator Burke's figures. He had—was it 250 acres—he had seven men or, say, 35 acres per man, and, they made a little over the statutory wage, something over. The earnings are comparable. I think many people living in the Midlands and Eastern counties have quite a false idea of the total earnings of farms in the West. They are much lower than they think. I think this motion of Senator Burke's has been valuable. Whether it will have any effect on future development is another thing. I do not think that we can always say to ourselves that individual ownership is the ideal thing for the land. I will draw the attention of the House, to the effect on the land that individual ownership has had in the United States. They destroyed more land in 50 years than anybody had done before. Rather the same thing is happening in South Africa. The one great thing that was always held up to individual ownership, and I think it is its great feature, is that it preserves the land. I feel it has preserved the land in this country, but it does not do so in every country. They have mined the land, just as far as they could in the United States, and have overgrazed in South Africa, even though they were individual owners. So, it does not always, in all countries, act as a preservative. I do not want to go into details of the Economic Farm Unit that I have published.
Most Senators are very familiar with what has been written on it, but I do say that it is not necessarily the only method of co-operation, that land, animals and crops are held in common. That is one way. There are lots of things you can co-operate about, without holding everything in common, and the way this co-operation of farm production has developed in other countries is that usually the sort of things that are held in common are certain liabilities, machinery, and advice. After all, that is the method, and one of the essential features in Denmark. They do not have the county instructor but they hire him themselves. They control him and pay his expenses. He is also paid by the State, but he is the servant of the farmer, and they hold him in common. That is co-operation. There are hundreds of other ways, I think, in which farmers could co-operate and it would be interesting if circumstances did arise in this country, where a group of people willing to co-operate, could be got together and placed on a farm to see how it works. Mind you, I think it is extraordinarily difficult because, unless the thing is on a completely voluntary basis, of course, it is bound to fail.
With regard to Senator O'Dwyer's amendment, I feel it raises something that needs to be done as well, something quite different, but I wish Senators would not confuse experimental farms, demonstration farms, and another one that I have always wanted, test farms. They are all different. Your experimental farm should carry out experiments in order to extend our knowledge and, having shown by experiment that something appears to be desirable, it should then be put in for a long test, possibly ten years. Having passed the test of being satisfactory, it then should go on to the demonstration farm on which the farmer can see it in operation and be convinced that it is a financially sound proposition for him to follow, provided his circumstances and conditions are the same as that of the demonstration farm. Experiment, test and demonstration are three totally different things and should never be confused. The experiment is to extend our knowledge. The test is to ensure that what we suggest is going to stand the test of varying seasons, varying conditions and anything unforeseen that turns up. Then, when you have satisfied yourself, put it on the demonstration farm, be prepared to stand over it, and hope that others will follow suit.
We want all those things. Senator O'Dwyer is quite right. We must have them. Our present agricultural colleges, with farms attached, have served a useful purpose in helping the student, but the amount of experimental work that is done on them is very small, with the exception of Johnstown. You can hardly call them experimental farms in the true sense of the word. There are trials being carried out, but they have not the equipment or the trained research workers to ascertain adequately all the factors that are necessary when you are carrying out experiments. I think we have got to make up our minds, if we are going to make progress in our knowledge of agricultural matters, we have to face the fact that our experimental work must be expanded very considerably, and that there is no use in carrying out half-baked experiments where we cannot ascertain all the factors involved. If you cannot measure everything you know about, your conclusion will probably be wrong, and your experiment will be misleading and harmful to the farmer. After all, the farmer is a very sceptical person, and rightly so. Most people are prepared to give advice and offer advice to the farmer. The advice given and offered is usually wrong and the farmer is blamed in consequence. It is a very difficult thing to advise when you do not know all the factors involved. Therefore, I think if we can expand our research work, and our experimental work, that ultimately it will be very helpful to all concerned.
I would like to say, at the outset, that one of the functions, if you like, of every member of this House and one of his rights is that of putting down a motion in relation to any matter that he considers is of consequence or interest and on which he wishes to have the views of the House expressed.
I am sure that many Senators feel with me that when a member of this House has put down a motion, the Minister who comes to speak on behalf of the Government on that motion should not indulge in abuse of the Senator. On every occasion that a motion was put down in this House in relation to agriculture and in connection with which it was the duty of the Minister to give the House the Government point of view, we have witnessed the Minister abusing the particular Senator. We should say that this should cease. This House cannot compel the Minister to attend but, if the Minister takes upon himself the obligation of coming and giving the Government point of view, he should do so without indulging in the abuse that he has indulged in one each and every occasion.
I feel, with many other Senators, that the House has wandered very far from the terms of the motion. Senator Burke has put forward as the principal argument for the motion the fact that he has operated a farm on particular lines. I do not know whether they are the lines on which he would wish the Government to operate the farms that he asks them to set up. Senator Burke has given the House valuable information in regard to the operation of this farm. He has told the House that he employs seven agricultural workers and that their weekly wage is something more than the average agricultural worker's wage. Many Senators were anxious to have more information as to the rights of the workers and as to the shares they held in this co-operative farm.
This is an entirely new approach. Senator Burke did not ask the Government to set up the particular system of farming that he now operates. In fact it is only over a small portion of his land that this particular system of farming is carried out.
May I say that there is a little misunderstanding there? Every bit of my land is devoted to this experiment. I have not one-tenth of an acre of land that is not devoted to it.
I am glad to hear that but that has not always been the case. It may have been the case brought about as a result of certain things that happened quite recently. I understand the Land Commission are now in possession of some 500 acres. So, the farm does not extend over that 500 acres, I presume.
That land has never belonged to me. I can explain it later. I only want to correct any misunderstanding.
Senator Burke did not ask the Government to establish this co-operative farm on his estate. He did it voluntarily. He has given the Seanad information but I would gather from the views expressed that he has not convinced any members here that it has been such a success. If it were such a great success, it would not be necessary for Senator Burke to put down this motion. Many groups would be anxiously inquiring as to how this success was brought about and would be prepared to enter into such an arrangement and to run a co-operative farm. They are not convinced and it is because they are not convinced that Senator Burke has put down the motion to ask the Government to do certain things.
Why should we always ask the Government to do something, to give a direction in regard to this, to take action in regard to that, to see that such and such a thing is done? If a project were worth undertaking, there are many organisations such as Young Farmers' Clubs, Muintir na Tire, parish councils, and others, who would be anxious to support it. No. The Government must do it!
What is the Senator asking the Government to do? He is asking the Government to encourage and to facilitate the establishment of a small number of co-operative farms. Let us say that the number will be small. If the motion is passed and if the Government accept it, the Government must undertake the establishment of co-operative farm units throughout the country. I am sure the Minister for Lands and the Land Commission are busy enough without putting another very serious obligation on them of acquiring land for the purpose, not of division amongst uneconomic holders, but of setting up small co-operative units. We will assume that the land is acquired by some Government Department. The next question is, how are the workers who will work the co-operative farm to be chosen? They will be, as it were, the shareholders. Will there be an advertisement saying that a number of people who believe in this system are invited to come into the movement as voluntary workers and that they will be given, at Government expense, a share-holding in a particular number of acres of land? If land is acquired for that purpose there will be agitation by those uneconomic holders who, for many years, have been anticipating the day when that particular land would be divided amongst them. They will see this new Department of State taking it over and depriving them of something which they, and probably their fathers before them, were expecting. The purpose of this, in Senator Burke's view, I am sure, is to use farms of this kind as a demonstration of what farms in general should be. We are spending a huge amount of money at present, both on the acquisition and distribution of land, agriculture in general and, particularly, on what one might term agricultural education. In each county we have a number of agricultural instructors employed under the county committees of agriculture. We have similar instructors employed by the Department of Agriculture and, if one asks oneself how far this organisation at the disposal of the farmer is availed of by him, how many farmers up and down the country seek the advice and services of the officers of the county committees of agriculture and how many farmers go to the trouble of studying a copy of the annual report of the county committees of agriculture, I am afraid that it must be admitted that the answer is "very few".
Surely, that is not right?
I am going to put forward again a suggestion I made in this House a few years ago, that if we are going to make any progress towards getting our farmers to appreciate new ideas and developments, we should start in the right place, and in my view that place is in the schools. We have a system of education and a schools programme now which is the same in the urban and the rural areas. If we are going to have demonstration plots and farms, I think they should be attached to our national schools so that our young people may be made familiar with the activities of our county instructors. In that way, they will appreciate the services available to them when they grow up, and they will be more likely to seek and take the advice of the instructors when that service is required.
Another important feature which could be developed is the parish hall. It would be much more effective than any benefits that might accrue from the adoption of the motion before the House if we had a parish hall in every parish, not for the purpose of moneymaking for any particular object, but a hall where our young people could come for amusement and where there would be a library available with copies of each pamphlet issued by the Department of Agriculture and where there could be more use made of the cinema projector. There is a very cheap outfit on the market now suitable for 16 mm. films and by an extensive use of it I think we could bring home to our farmers in general, both young and old, the proper system and methods of doing many of the things which are not now done in the best way. There is another consideration to which effect could be given—the extension of the school leaving age in rural schools. I do not mean that it should be extended over the whole year, but I believe that if we had a system whereby the farmers' sons and daughters could attend a continuation school of one kind or another, vocational or otherwise, in the winter months, they could continue their general education, devoting the greater part of the time to matters related to the life and activities they must pursue later on.
We are asking the Government to undertake what this motion requests if we pass it, and if we do, I am afraid that we will be taking a direction in which we will not get the people to follow us. What is more essential than the setting up of demonstration plots or farms of any kind, is that we should have a clear and definite agricultural policy for our farmers over a long period of years and that they should know in advance what they should be asked to do, and what they were going to get for their efforts, so that they would not be at the mercy of any Party or the whim of any Government. If we could arrive at that, I think it would be the best demonstration plot we could set up. An amendment to this motion has been tabled by Senator Martin O'Dwyer.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That amendment has been withdrawn, Senator.
Very well. There has been an amendment by my old friend, Senator Counihan, that the State should set up and operate a small number of experimental farms in different parts of the country for the information and guidance of persons engaged in the farming industry. We are not told how many—we are told it is a small number. When I come to consider the amendment, I remember that we have a small number at present. We have experimental farms all over the country. One is at Athenry, which I know well, and there is another at Ballyhaise, and these must be classified as experimental on the one side and as demonstrative on the other. But what does the amendment ask? Are we going to have more of them and if we are, what purpose is it proposed they would serve? Are we going to set them up throughout the country and whom are we going to put in charge of them? The natural answer would be that the person who would take charge of such a farm should be one who has a degree in agricultural science or who has had some particular recognised training in agriculture that the Department would think him a fit and proper person to run such a farm. Then the State resources must be put at his disposal and what effect is it going to have on the ordinary farmer? Let us say that the farmer in charge achieves a certain amount of success.
What will the other farmer say? He will say: "It is all very fine but the man in charge of that farm had a university education and I had not, and together with that, he had also Government money to spend while I have to spend my own hard-earned money, and I cannot do what he does because I cannot afford it." That is the approach of the ordinary farmer and I feel that Senator Burke has not, so far, made a case for his motion. Senator O'Dwyer has already withdrawn his amendment and Senator Counihan has not made a case for his amendment either.
I feel rather handicapped in taking part in this debate because I have not had the practical experience of the mover of the motion, Senator Burke, and unfortunately, I was not present when the debate was on here at the last meeting of the Seanad. However, having discussed the matter with Senator Burke—as a matter of fact I was asked to second the motion or to be associated with it— I felt that it contains something useful which should be discussed in the House, and possibly accepted and implemented by the Minister.
I come from one of the worst, most heavily planted districts in Ireland, where every townland has a farm of from 600 to 1,000 acres. These acres were not worked during the emergency; they were let by conacre, crop followed crop and they are not in a very strong or fertile condition to-day. To make matters worse, the emergency racketeers came along and bought up holdings at scrap prices and then recouped themselves by holding clearance sales. I could walk out of my own door and go across such farms for five or six miles. There is one farm of 700 acres which the racketeers did not succeed in demolishing. You have 1,000 acres of land derelict and I think that the motion gives the ideal solution for a problem of that sort. There is no hope of dividing these lands because the land adjoining is in economic or partly economic holdings and there is no hope of the lands being taken by the Land Commission and broken up. We have the ideal solution here. A number of farmers or farmers' sons could be given an opportunity of taking over 500 or 600 acres. I am not speaking of farms of 30 or 40 acres but of 600 to 1,000 acres, all good, arable tillage land. There are 1,000 acres there without one single building—they have all been demolished—and they are lying derelict. One farm where the buildings are still standing was worked up to last year, but now it has been let and there are only 13 acres of tillage out of 700, and that is something which the Minister might think of taking over.
I imagine there is something in Senator Burke's motion and I would be very sorry if any ulterior motive were imputed to him because he is always perfectly honest and sincere in any motion he brings into the House. He is a good Christian and has experience of the working of a co-operative farm. All districts are not like South Wicklow and Wexford, where there are big holdings. If the Minister and the House had taken a calmer view of the matter there is something in it that might help many districts in the country. In this district I speak of there are thousands of acres and I do not know how they are to be dealt with.
I have not much faith in the division of land as I have seen it in my own district. Some farms were divided and there was a scramble for land. Some men were given ten or 15 acres but they had not the necessary capital and it will be for all time a millstone around their necks. In one case 60 or 70 acres were left, with a mansion and extensive farm buildings. The valuation would kill such a holding and by the time the gardens and avenues were taken into account only 40 or 50 acres were left with these extensive buildings. It has not been a success in my part of the country. The term "economic holding" would have a different meaning in Meath or Dublin, but in South Wicklow and Wexford it means 70 to 100 acres. The idea of giving a man ten or 15 acres with the ten he has already is not going to place him in a better position or make his farm economic.
I am handicapped because the records of the debate have not been placed in our hands and I was not present at the last meeting, and I have not the same experience as Senator Burke, but I would like to give the motion my support and I would also like it to get a better reception in the House.
I think the House is grateful to Senator Burke for bringing along this motion. We have had an intelligent discussion this evening. Even if the opening discussion was unlike what we usually have in this House, still Senator Burke should be consoled by the tone of the debate this evening. I do not know whether Senator Burke is putting his motion to a vote or not.
I would rather support a motion asking the Government to give us guaranteed prices for farm produce for the next five years. If we had a motion like that before the House I think it would be more in the interests of increased production on the farm than any other motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That motion is not before the House.
The costs of production on the farm are going up in all directions and if the Government could be asked to keep costs down it would lead to greater production on the farm. Am I out of order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am afraid you are.
Then I will not be able to pursue the line I intended to take because I was going to point out that there were certain other things that might be done and that would be more useful than the passing of this motion or the putting into effect of this motion. The House agrees and everybody agrees that greater production is necessary and that greater production is the only way we can keep the country floating.
Co-operative societies in the South of Ireland are running farms. I have not seen the balance sheet of any of them and I do not know what it might reveal, but I know that there are a dozen or perhaps 20 co-operative societies which have farms. I do not know what the results of them are but I know that in one there is an insemination centre and that is good and useful work. If co-operative societies would indulge in that sort of thing it would be very useful.
I did not get as much information about Senator Burke's co-operative enterprise as I would have liked. There are 250 acres in the farm, I understood him to say, in the County Galway, and I would like to know how many acres are devoted to beet growing. I am not critical; I want to be helpful to Senator Burke. There is a beet factory in the West of Ireland and the people of the West of Ireland do not seem to be inclined to grow beet to keep that factory going. I suggest to Senator Burke that that is an enterprise to which he might turn his attention and perhaps by his example set his neighbours to work, although, as many people have pointed out, they do not seem to have followed the example so far in co-operative farming. If he would turn his attention to beet growing and save the beet factory in the West of Ireland he would be doing a great national service. Coming from a beet-growing district, I cannot understand why people in other districts do not grow beet because I think it is one of the finest industries we have.
Co-operation may assist farmers by providing machinery. Some of the co-operative societies in the South of Ireland provide machinery and it is a great asset to individual farmers. Co-operation might also provide the services of good bulls in remote localities, but I think the individual will always beat the co-operative movement, where farming is concerned.
There are some things which I should like to suggest but which would be out of order, and perhaps I ought not to deal with them; but it would be well if some of our young men were sent to continental countries where farming is far more up to date than it is here. If a little something along that line were done, it would help us in the agricultural world considerably. A great many people from the West of Ireland migrate each year and if some direction could be given to these people to migrate on to the land rather than to work in the cities, it might be all to the good. I do not know how to suggest that might be done, but we always ask the Government to do things we are not able to do ourselves, and I suggest we ask the Government to do something in that direction.
I was impressed last week by Senator Burke's statement in putting his motion before the House, not so much in respect of the merits of the particular scheme he enunciated or the results which had been derived from it, but because of the evident sincerity of his proposal. I came to the conclusion that, if the Senator in his experiment did not achieve ultimate success, it would not be due to laziness or lack of energy on his part. When he spoke of the results achieved, however, I did not think they were as good as they might be, considering the spirit prevailing on a communal farm. From time to time, we hear of the great profits made by farmers and the very low wages they pay compared with the profits they make on the sale of their produce. Senator Burke was able to point out that they were paying a wage of 4/- over the basic wage to farm labourers, together with a bonus of £10 a year. That was so much to the good, but I do not think it is really as great a success as one might expect from a farm co-operatively worked.
I believe that a scheme of agricultural co-operation taken up by farmers on adjoining holdings would be of benefit not alone to themselves but to the consumers of their produce. The unfortunate part about it, however, is that farmers, as I know them, and I had experience of some of them some years ago in the matter of co-operation, do not take kindly to the proposition. I remember in 1919, when money was fairly plentiful with the agricultural community, a number of farmers in adjoining townlands adjacent to where I live decided to pool their resources, with a view to setting up a co-operative society. They had the advice of people in a position to give expert advice, people like the late Father Flanagan and Mr. Moore, but they did not accept that advice. They were told that successful co-operation meant marketing of produce raised by those co-operating and that entering a commercial business should really be the last part of their effort. These farmers decided to ignore that advice and they started a business they knew nothing about, a shop doing a general business, which met the fate of similar shops set up in various areas by co-operative societies. After three or four years, it went into liquidation.
I believe that if these farmers had taken the advice they got to spend their money on the purchase of equipment and to buy raw materials, fertilisers and seeds co-operatively and to sell their produce co-operatively, they would have met with success, but they did not do that. The result was failure and that failure was not peculiar to that particular district, because I know that all over my county and in some of the adjoining counties the same thing happened. Several of these shops started in that way, started, as I think, at the wrong end, failed, because the people financing the scheme knew nothing about the business they were financing and they had to put people in charge of their business who could do what they liked and who did what they liked, as results subsequently proved.
I believe that the present agricultural policy of this Government, if accepted by the farming community, will at least inoculate them with the microbe of co-operation. The adoption of the parish plan and the results that will flow from it will be an incentive to farmers to take an interest in that system of work. Very attractive benefits are offered to farmers who are willing to co-operate. I know that some farmers' sons who, having got together some capital as a result of hard work in an adjoining country, are contemplating the purchase of drainage equipment, and I believe that the experience they will gain by the time they purchase that equipment and set to work co-operatively will enable them to set a headline to the older people to carry on the management of their farms in a similar way.
The adoption of the parish plan is a step towards giving the people an idea of the benefits that flow from co-operation. I am told that in districts where it has been adopted the people are very pleased with its success, and, as nothing succeeds like success, the areas which have not yet adopted it will, I believe, adopt it in the immediate future. It is a system of co-operation which does not interfere with individual liberty and which will lead to eventual success. I believe that, if the Government were to take up Senator Burke's scheme, the machinery to implement it would take some time to put together, and it is very doubtful if, in the end, the results would justify the expense and labour entailed.
Many of those who spoke to this motion did not seem to have read its terms very closely and it struck me, listening to many of the speakers, that if Senator Burke had not been so transparently honest in going into such detail about his scheme but had argued his motion from a purely academic point of view, he would probably have met with less opposition. The motion does not ask the Government to set up anything. It merely asks the Government to encourage and facilitate the establishment of a small number of co-operative farms or co-operative farm units as an experiment, with a view to the extension of either or both these systems of farming if found to be satisfactory. If they are not found to be satisfactory, as the motion implies, they are dropped.
Several speakers agreed that co-operation was a good thing, but suggested that there was something in our national character, some kink or other, that we were too individualistic to want co-operation, although all agreed that it was a good thing. If it is, there can be nothing wrong in suggesting that it should be encouraged and facilitated. In fact, the parish plan is nothing more than co-operation in another form and Senator Orpen has pointed out that there could be many forms of co-operation. I do not think the motion merited the type of criticism extended to it in some quarters because it merely asks that the Government should encourage the establishment of a few of these farms or co-operative units as an experiment— merely as an experiment—and, if they are found unsatisfactory, they can be dropped. The terms of the motion are so wide and so general that there could be no serious objection to adopting it.
I am one of those who do not believe that there was anything sinister in the idea of Senator Burke in putting down this motion. I speak here as a farmer and I want to say that I compliment Senator Burke on putting down the motion because it has brought forth an exposition of many useful ideas which may be helpful to some future Government. He is to be congratulated on having given an opportunity to the Seanad of discussing such a subject. Personally it is a matter of regret for me that I could not be brought to support the motion by my vote, because, in the first place, I do not think the proposal is feasible. Senator Baxter has emphasised one great obstacle in the way, that is, the difference in the size of many farms which would raise insurmountable obstacles, and not alone the difference in acreage but the difference in the nature of the soils, the arability of the land and so on.
Another reason why I would not feel inclined to support the motion is that, while I admire the idea and am happy that Senator Burke has made such a success of it on his own farm, if it is to be a success, it will be purely a matter for the people in the district and not subject to any directive or guidance from any Government. If you talk to any farmer, he will tell you: "Let the Government leave us alone and we will get on all right." That is the attitude the farmer generally adopts and it is an old tradition with the farmer that he believes, rightly or wrongly, that he knows more about his own land than anybody can tell him. He has knowledge handed down from his father and grandfather as to which field will grow the best crop of oats, the best crop of beet or the best meadow, and, with all due respect to expert advice, I say that in the long run the farmer knows how to manage his own farm better than anybody can tell him. The recent provision for soil analysis is a good thing for the farmer. It is something which will be helpful to the farmer, but if the farmer is left to his own resources and devices, he will make as good a job of his farm as can reasonably be expected.
It would damage and seriously hamper any attempt at co-operative farming, were there to be any governmental interference; but, notwithstanding that, there is nothing to prevent any group of farmers from organising co-operative farms in their various areas in the same manner as Senator Burke has done. The fact that two farmers can be found to co-operate in the management of their farms does not prove that ten farmers could be found to co-operate in the same way, and indeed my sad experience is that even two farmers, who may work very harmoniously for a year or two or three years, will very often then disagree and dissolve partnership. I would stress the advantage to be derived from co-operative farming, if it could be developed voluntarily, in the matter of the sale of produce. If there could be some system of direct marketing, there is nothing that would serve the farming community and the consuming public better. It is common knowledge that for many things, for potatoes and vegetables, the farmer does not get a price sufficient to cover the cost of production. It is equally well known that when those commodities reach the consumer's table they reach it at a very prohibitive price. One important advantage that would arise from co-operation would be a system of direct marketing, of benefit to the producer and to the consumer.
In conclusion, I would like to say that Senator Burke in introducing this motion, as in many other motions, has rendered a direct service to this House.
I believe that this debate has been both interesting and useful and I am glad to know that a good many Senators are in favour of some form of co-operation. I would like to emphasise again—perhaps I did not emphasise it sufficiently at the start—that I do not suggest that the particular form of co-operation which we tried in County Galway was the ideal type. I only gave that as one example. I suggested that there might be several other forms of co-operation which might be more suitable for general application in this country. Senator Orpen gave another example, where three men co-operated, each owning his own animals and land, and he told us that that experiment has lasted, so far, for 13 years and is still going strong. That is another form of co-operation. Therefore I feel that, even if the majority of Senators do not agree with the type of experiment on which I worked in County Galway, that does not prove that the motion was unreasonable. The motion is in very general terms, as Senator O'Connell pointed out, and merely suggests that the Government should encourage and facilitate some form of agricultural co-operation.
I think that there was some misunderstanding in the minds of some Senators with regard to Government action or Government interference. I would like to make it very clear, therefore, that this motion did not suggest that the Government should establish, by force or by compulsion, these co-operative farms or farm units. It did not suggest that the Government should interfere with anybody. It merely suggested that the Government should encourage and facilitate. Many people have asked in what way. I suggest in two ways. Firstly, the Government might facilitate persons who desire to co-operate, persons who willingly and voluntarily wish to co-operate by allocating to them (through Land Commission action), when land becomes available, a certain amount of land; and secondly, it might lend them sufficient money. Now, several Senators mentioned that if our little experiment in Country Galway was successful, why was it that many other people did not undertake something similar? I think there is a very simple answer to that question; and that is, that there were a number of people who told me that they would like to undertake something similar but they could not do so for two reasons. One was that they had not got the land, and the other was that they had not got enough money.
Those were the two difficulties they were up against. We were fortunate in having a certain amount of land, not a large amount, and a certain amount of money; again, not a very large amount, but that is the answer to the question as to why many other people were not able to try this system. It was because they had not the facilities. My suggestion is that if there are people, and I feel that there are, who are keen on the idea of co-operation, they should be facilitated, and they should be encouraged when the appropriate time comes, by having allocated to them, not for nothing, as they are quite willing to pay for it, a certain amount of land, and also money for machinery and other essentials. I hope that I have now made clear the type of Government action I have in mind. In the case of some forms of agricultural co-operation, such as that suggested by Senator Orpen, the co-operators have the land, and all they require is the loan of a certain amount of money.
The Minister expressed the view that many of the ideas on which I spoke could be put into practice in the scheme which he describes as the "parish plan". He suggested the parish plan as a sort of alternative proposition. I would like to make very clear that I am not in any way opposed to the parish plan. I think it is an excellent scheme. I am wholeheartedly in favour of it. In fact, for some time I have been in communication with the Department in the hope that the parish plan can be introduced into the parish in which I live myself. I wish the parish plan every success and I hope that everybody, in all Parties, will co-operate to make it a success. But, as was stated in a leading article in the Irish Times a couple of days ago, that does not mean that there should not be experimentation of some other form. That is what I suggest, that in addition to the parish plan, persons who wish to experiment in some form of agricultural co-operation should be encouraged and facilitated. Then, again, the Minister mentioned parish councils and that both Catholic and Protestant clergymen were on those councils, as if that was something in opposition to our suggestions in connection with agricultural co-operation.
There, again, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I am entirely in favour of parish councils, and of Catholic and Protestant clergymen and laymen cooperating on them. In fact, I have been a member of a parish council ever since the year 1939, on which Catholic and Protestant clergy and laymen did co-operate and did useful work together. I am entirely in favour of that. There is nothing in that which is in opposition to our own proposal in this motion. Then, again, the Minister mentioned the desirability of every farmer owning his own house. Some people might take that statement—although it may not have been meant to be so—as an insinuation that we who advocated co-operative farming wanted to deprive people of their houses and their land. We had no intention whatever of doing so. In fact, we have facilitated people to become owners of their dwelling-houses, which they had never owned before. In our small experiment, on which there are seven men engaged, none of them, when the scheme started, owned either a house or land. Far from being prevented, we facilitated them to become owners, and now every one of these workers owns a house, a portion of land, a cowshed, and a poultry house. I hope it will not be very much longer before they will own more land than at present. Under our particular system, each of these people has a certain amount of land which is his own private property; and, in addition to that, there is a certain amount of land worked jointly on the co-operative system. It is only a matter of degree how much land each of them would prefer to have privately owned, and how much they would prefer to work co-operatively.
I think it was Senator Quirke who mentioned that if the scheme was successful why had we sold a certain number of poultry houses. It was perfectly true that we had sold some poultry houses. For a number of reasons, which I do not think it desirable to go into now, as I do not want to delay the House, we decided temporarily to keep less hens. It did not mean that the co-operative scheme was unsatisfactory. I think Senator Hawkins mentioned that we had handed over a certain amount of land to the Land Commission.
Ever since our co-operative farm started there have been people in the locality short of land, and most of the land handed over to the Land Commission was land that belonged to my mother until her death recently. It did not belong to me, or any other worker on the co-operative farm. In addition to that, some of the land which we have worked co-operatively has been handed over to the Land Commission, on the understanding that they will allocate it to some of the persons working on the co-operative farm. They will become owners of this land. They are free to do so, and it is their intention to continue to co-operate with the remainder of us. I think there is nothing in any of these statements which would prove that co-operation was undesirable.
Now, the Minister, and Senator Seamus O'Farrell, referred to the experiment carried out over 100 years ago at Ralahine. That experiment failed because of the faults of the late Mr. Vandeleur. I do not think, again, that that proves anything against co-operative farming. There was a letter in the Irish Times the other day from some relation of this Mr. Vandeleur explaining the position. In any case, I am not suggesting for a moment, that in the twentieth century we should do things just on the same lines as they were done 100 years ago. Senator S. O'Farrell went into great detail about certain peculiar rules and regulations at Ralahine about not calling people by nicknames, and so on. I do not believe that any Senator would seriously think that we would follow exactly what was done in that experiment 100 years ago. That experiment, while it had its faults, did a certain amount of good. I believe it was a very useful experiment. Times have changed completely since then, and I think a different form of co-operation would be desirable now.
May I explain that my criticism was that Ralahine failed for two reasons; that the owner gambled the property away, as he would be entitled to do to-morrow if he wished, and the second reason was that the workers on the farm had no proprietary rights in it? I asked had his workers the right to sell or divide his farm.
In reply to the point raised by Senator S. O'Farrell, there would be no danger of the workers on our co-operative farm losing their rights, or their property, even in the unlikely event of my taking up gambling. As it was introduced into the debate, I should mention, that the jointly-owned property is held by trustees; so that, even if I did gamble, which is an unlikely event, I would only gamble away my own share. I could not gamble away the shares of any of the others.
The Minister stated that no co-operative farm, so far as he was aware, had lasted for more than two generations, without the sanction of the prison and the gallows. I never claimed that any co-operative farm had lasted for more than two generations. I do not think that that is any argument for not carrying out an experiment in co-operative farming. Something similar to the parish plan might have been tried, but if it did not last two generations that would not mean that we should not try it again. There were many things that were tried in the past, and that failed. That is no reason why we should not try them again, on some slightly different lines, to-day.
I am not suggesting something that is frowned upon in every other country. I believe there are actual experiments in co-operative farming being carried out in certain other countries at the present time. I do not see why we should not, if we wish, carry out some small experiments in this country also.
I am not, moreover, suggesting any experiment which would put any great burden on the taxpayer or the ratepayer. Even if the experiment did fail, nobody would lose much. There is a possibility, however, that people might gain.
The Minister also mentioned that a Ferguson tractor could turn in a very small field. He apparently suggested that the invention of the Ferguson tractor would make co-operative farming only a thing of the past. I agree that the Ferguson tractor has enabled people to till very small fields, but I still believe that larger fields are more economic and that it would be desirable in many cases for persons, who wish to grow oats or wheat, to grow it in one large field rather than in several small fields. It can, of course, be grown in small fields, but it is more economic to grow it in large fields with modern machinery.
The Minister also suggested that the average farmer with about 20 or 30 acres would be able to get all the machinery he would require. I am afraid I do not agree with the Minister there. I do not think the average farmer with only 20 or 30 acres could afford to buy the whole range of Ferguson equipment or any other equipment necessary. If a farmer with 20 or 30 acres could buy all the machinery he required for a fully-equipped farm, his farm would be over-mechanised and machinery would be lying idle for a large part of the year. Farmers would not need all that machinery for 20 or 30 acres. Therefore, it would be uneconomic, even if a farmer could afford to buy it. That is another reason why co-operation between several farmers in regard to machinery would be desirable.
Some Senators have mentioned that if a number of farmers join together and buy a reaper and binder, the difficulty is that if Monday is a fine day, they all want to use it on that day. I agree that is a difficulty, but not a very serious one, as Senator Baxter says. With a little co-operation, that difficulty can be overcome, but with our system it is overcome automatically, because we have one large field of wheat or oats, and, as there are seven men owning it, it does not matter at which end of the field we start. The whole field is cut and saved and every man gets one-seventh of the total produce. Every man gets his fair share.
Senator Ó Buachalla and Senator Séamus O'Farrell mentioned the fact that no other group in Ireland, as far as they were aware, had adopted our system. I think I have already explained what I believe the principal reason to be, namely, that they may not have the land or the money to do so.
Are not there schemes whereby co-operators may get loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation?
Senator Ó Buachalla is quite correct in that. Loans can be obtained from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, but——
By co-operative bodies.
The difficulty is that the amount required in the case of persons who have not got a little capital already is rather large, and the rate of interest, as I said in a previous debate, is rather high. That deterred them. I admit that they might have got it if they had been prepared to pay the full rate of interest, and had had a little capital to start on.
And plenty of credit. Then they would get more.
Yes. Some of them, I am afraid, have not sufficient credit to be able to obtain adequate capital. When I proposed the motion on that subject, I said—and I still believe—that more credit facilities are required for farmers, not only co-operators, but many individual farmers. Individual farmers have come to me and told me that they applied for a loan to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and were refused, over and over again, and of course, there was no reason given.
Senator Ó Buachalla raised another very interesting point. He asked what was the difference between a co-operative farm and a profit-sharing farm, if there was any difference. It is up to each person to define those terms as he thinks best. My reply to that would be that on a profit-sharing farm, normally, the owner of the farm would probably own the machinery and stock, and at the end of the year, after paying the fixed wage, would decide to give a bonus. It would be entirely at his discretion. The workers would have no say. All they would have to do would be to say "thank you" when they got their bonus.
I think I was misunderstood. Actually, the question I put to the Senator was whether the land was co-operatively owned, in other words, whether the land really belonged to the co-operators or not. I think that was the question. I quite understand the vast difference between co-operation and profit-sharing.
I thank Senator Ó Buachalla for making that point clear. In our case some of the land is owned by the co-operators. Some of the land is at the moment owned by me, and we are putting some of it in the name of trustees, so that it can be held on behalf of the co-operators. We investigated the possibility of forming a co-operative society, but we found that by doing that we would pay a lot more in taxes, and it would be altogether uneconomic. However, with regard to profit-sharing, it is, I think, as far as it goes, very good. I am not belittling profit-sharing. It would be a splendid thing if a large number of employers, not only farmers, would give all the workers a share in the profits, in addition to the fixed minimum wage. But, we go a bit further than that. We share not only the profits, but also the management. Every worker has a share. Everybody has an equal vote, and everything is decided in the most democratic way by majority vote.
Senator Burke has not yet told us how profits are estimated, and what deductions are made for rent and other things before they are estimated.
As Senator Séamus O'Farrell has asked that question, I have no objection to telling him. My only reason for not mentioning it before was that I did not want to take up the time of the House in going into details.
I do not think that we are concerned with the private affairs of that farm.
People like Senator Baxter may want to follow the example; and should have the fullest information possible.
If Senator Baxter wants information, he has a way of getting it.
I do not wish to detain the House too long. Very briefly, the position with regard to that farm was that until almost a year ago the land belonged to my mother. It did not belong to any of the co-operators. We paid a small rent to her for that land and everything else was equally shared. Since her death the land became mine. Many of the co-operators have now become owners of part of the land. There is no rent now payable to anybody, except the Land Commission annuity which, in the country, is usually called "the rent".
The Minister and several Senators mentioned the fact that there are other things in life more important than efficiency. I entirely agree. I never suggested for a moment that efficiency was the most important thing in life. I think efficiency is, however, an important consideration and, if you can have efficiency, and all the higher virtues as well, so much the better.
Again, I do not suggest that increased remuneration for work done is the main thing in life by any means, but I think that most people with small incomes quite naturally and rightly desire to have slightly increased remuneration, and I do not think that there is any crime in that. Other Senators have spoken against experiments in co-operation on the ground that we had not a sufficient remuneration. some of them criticised us for wanting too much, and others said the whole trouble was that we had too little. As I mentioned, our average income has only been about 8/- a week above the agricultural minimum wage fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board. I entirely agree that it is too low. It is far lower than we would like it to be but I do not think that is any proof that co-operative farming is wrong. We are working under great difficulties, and I think that there should be some experiments where conditions would be more ideal for such a co-operative venture, and where the results would be likely to be more substantial. The farm we are working has only 250 statute acres—not Irish acres—and a lot of it is very poor, bad, rocky or wet land. Our income, therefore, is comparatively low. We are at present reclaiming some of it, under the land reclamation scheme, and we hope that when the bad land becomes good land, as a result of the reclamation, the income from it will be improved. Also, as Senator Orpen said, our income is not exceptionally low when it is compared with the income of many of our west of Ireland farms. He gave an example from County Roscommon, where many farmers had less than the minimum wage, although they worked for longer hours. As the income on our farm was only 8/- a week more than the agricultural rate, I would remind the House that the men on this farm work only a 49½-hour week, at their own wish, so as to have a half-holiday.
There are many farmers in the country who work a 60-hour week, and a 70-hour week, and get very little more than a minimum agricultural wage from their holding. The reason they work such long hours is to try to increase their income.
On the other hand, I should point out that the 49½-hour week on our farm does not include a certain amount of Sunday work, for which they also get paid. Of course, it is only the really necessary work which is done on Sundays, such as the milking of cows. I believe there are certain virtues in the system, quite apart from financial remuneration, where you have a number of people, even if only two or three, co-operating together. It brings out the virtues of patience, tolerance, goodwill and a readiness to accept the decision of the majority, and also a willingness to listen to the other man's point of view. That is not just my own opinion. It is an opinion which has been expressed in the Labour Party's Agricultural Policy Statement where agricultural co-operation was advocated. I should mention that this motion is not simply my own. It was the unanimous opinion of the Parliamentary Labour Party that this motion was desirable but, again, that does not mean that it is simply a Party motion. We also have many people outside the Labour Party who are keen on agricultural co-operation. There are many examples of different kinds of agricultural co-operation. In fact, Senator Orpen was the originator of the system of co-operation known as the "economic farm unit". That system would be very suitable in parts of this country, and might work in many cases where the particular type tried in County Galway would not work.
The Minister and Senator Ó Buachalla mentioned that there were a number of agricultural colleges and demonstration farms in this country, and asked: "Therefore, what more do you want in that line"? I feel that there should be more of different types of demonstration farms and experimental farms, both co-operative and otherwise. I did not suggest for a moment that co-operative farms were the only type suitable for demonstration farms. I think it would be very desirable that there should be demonstration farms of 30, 40 or 50 acres or larger, each to be run by a progressive farmer if he is willing to do it voluntarily. I am not suggesting that he should be compelled. Many of these progressive farmers would be quite willing to run a farm on the general advice of the Department in return for certain considerations, such as a sufficient capital, to get the most up-to-date machinery. If he was willing to do that, the farm could be used as a demonstration farm, and the man in charge of it could be given an extra weekly allowance if he agreed to keep accurate accounts and records.
I would suggest, in that connection, that these farms should not be all of the same size. In some areas, they could be as small as 30 acres, in another area they could be 50 acres, and in yet other areas 150 or 200 acres. Some of them could be run on the co-operative system, and others on the ordinary system. The experimental farms to be carried out in the most efficient way should be at the public expense. Senator Ua Buachalla rightly said that you cannot expect a private individual to carry out large experiments. I agree with him, because they are costly things, and the expenses should be payable by the State. The Minister asked me if I advocated co-operative farms of 1,000 acres or 2,000 acres. In the case of such large areas, Senator Orpen's system would I think be more practicable as there could be a number of farms, each privately owned but worked in co-operation.
Senator Seamus O'Farrell mentioned land annuities, and he seemed to me to insinuate that in some way the workers on our farm were paying land annuities which would benefit someone else. That is not the case. Anybody who pays the annuities gets the full benefit. Some Senators, and I think Senator Seamus O'Farrell again, said that co-operative farming was not a new idea. I never claimed for a moment that it was a new idea. I said it was a very old idea which could be tried under modern conditions, and that further experiments would be useful.
Some Senator mentioned that we should encourage the growing of sugar beet. I entirely agree with that. I am not in any way opposed to sugar beet, and it can be grown on any type of farm, where the land is suitable, co-operatively or otherwise. One Senator insinuated that I was not doing enough to encourage the growing of sugar beet in the particular district where I live. I think that it is unfair for the Senator to suggest that unless he knew all the circumstances. I would not have mentioned it at all if the matter had not been raised, but I can say that, in addition to growing sugar beet, we presented a silver cup for the best acre of sugar beet grown in the district, and there was a competition between a number of young farmers organised by the Young Farmers' Clubs in the locality, and I think we have thus; in a small way, helped to interest people in sugar beet and encouraged them to grow it. Senator Hawkins mentioned parish halls, agricultural education, films in parish halls and an increase in the school leaving age. All of these suggestions are excellent, but a demand for these things is not proof that co-operative farming is wrong. Several Senators seem to have adopted the attitude that we should not try to encourage agricultural co-operation because there were so many other good things to be done.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is almost six o'clock.
One more minute will be sufficient and perhaps I may conclude.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Would the House agree to extend the time?
Certainly, it is the last speech.
In conclusion, therefore, I would say that I believe that this debate has been very useful, and I hope it will encourage many people to consider, and perhaps later to put into practice, some form of agricultural co-operation, either similar to the co-operative farm which I have mentioned or similar to Senator Orpen's system. With regard to the co-operative farm which I have mentioned, I think there is nothing to prevent any farmer who owns a considerable amount of land, and who employs men, to give, if he wishes to do so, to those men, not only a share in the profits, but also a share in the management, and I hope that some will do so.
Why ask the State to enforce it?
We never suggested that the State should enforce it.
I never suggested that co-operative farming or co-operative anything else, if it were voluntary, was bad. I objected to an attempt to force it on the country through the State.
There has been no attempt to enforce it.
I may not have convinced Senator S. O'Farrell, but I think that every other Senator agrees that there has been no suggestion of enforcing it. I should perhaps adopt Senator O'Connell's suggestion and read the motion once again:—
"That in the opinion of Seanad Éireann the Government should encourage and facilitate"
—it does not say "enforce"—
"the establishment of a small number of co-operative farms, or co-operative farm units, as an experiment..."
I still believe that is a reasonable suggestion. I do not blame anybody for opposing it. Naturally, if we all agreed on every point there would not be much object in debate. The debate, on the whole, has been useful, a number of good suggestions has been made, and I think there is no need for me to say any more on the matter.
The Senator did not finish reading his own motion:—
"with a view to the extension of either or both of these systems of farming, if found to be satisfactory."
That would suggest that the State should enforce it.
"With a view to the extension", voluntary extension; there is no suggestion of force.
There is no mention of "voluntary".
There is no mention of force.
There is no mention of compulsion.
I would like to make it quite clear that I am only suggesting the extension of the system if it is done willingly and voluntarily by all concerned. I do not press for a division, but perhaps the Chair would like to ask those in favour to indicate it in the usual way. I think the majority are opposed to it, but that does not prove by any means that the motion was not desirable.
Motions, by leave, withdrawn.
It is proposed to adjourn until Wednesday and it is hoped to have for Wednesday the Transport Bill from the other House.
In order to give travel facilities next week would it not be better to sit on Tuesday?
That suggestion was made too late.
Thursday would be very awkward.
I am indulging in the hope that Senators will be so anxious to go home on Wednesday that the Second Stage of the Transport Bill will be finished.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, March 15th.