I move:—
That the Dáil is of opinion that the Department of Agriculture should run several farms in each county under the direction and supervision of its agricultural instructors, independent of all other activities, on which decent wages would be paid, accounts kept and audited, balance sheets published with appropriate explanations of costings, profits, etc., for the purpose of demonstrating to farmers in a practical way how to make their industry pay.
This motion, being of a non-contentious and non-Party character, I hope it will be considered by every section of the House in the spirit in which it is set down. Briefly, what the motion contemplates is an extension of the scope of agricultural demonstration, as we know it at present, into a comprehensive scheme of demonstration by farms, embracing the whole field of demonstration plots, a scheme which will systematise and apply to practical farming the lessons hitherto conveyed only in a piecemeal and incomplete form, and, with particular regard to the keeping of accounts for the purpose of demonstrating in terms of £ s. d., the value of the lessons taught, and also the particular system best suited to particular types of farms and the variations of the system desirable on different qualities of land. The farms are to be operated by the officers of the Department in the county.
The real test, of course, of the success or failure of these farms will be the profits realised at the end of the season as disclosed by the balance sheet. It is necessary that these farms should be run independent of other activities, such as experiment, research, or the keeping and training of students, so that they get a fair chance. There is one feature about this scheme and it is, I think, unique in this respect. It is, I think, the first motion introduced since Dáil Eireann was established which proposed a scheme which is to be self-supporting. This scheme is intended to be self-supporting and to stand on its own legs. If it is not, it is not to be set up at all. Therefore, I hope it will have the unanimous support of the Fianna Fáil Party, who claim to stand for self-sufficiency. This is going to give self-sufficiency a chance in practice. These farms are to be self-supporting and are to differ from other farms run by the Department in that respect. The farms that are run by the Department have included in their activities, as we know, various other branches, such as research and experiment, and it is therefore impossible for them to give a fair trial to the wisdom of the lessons being taught by the agricultural instructors throughout the country. So long as they are not able to demonstrate and carry into practice the lessons they are teaching to the farmers and to show that they are profitable, farmers will not follow the advice given.
Everybody knows that the first requisite for a teacher is to secure the confidence of his pupils. The teacher who is teaching children must impress his pupils with the belief that he is competent to teach, and, when it comes to a question of teaching people who are grown up, he requires to a greater extent so to impress these people. In addition, these grown-up pupils, the farmers, have methods of their own. Naturally, they are conservative, and they will not throw away their present methods until they are taught that the methods they are to substitute are better than the methods they at present work on. Therefore, before these agricultural instructors can secure the confidence of those farmers and induce them to unlearn what they have learned in the school of practice, it will be necessary for them to show that the proposed methods are likely to pay them and that the adoption of these methods mean not merely that they will produce more and a better quality of agricultural produce, but that it will pay them to do so.
It must be a matter of business. Any man who goes into business naturally looks to whether he is going to get a living or not and whether it is going to give him a return for his expenditure, his labour and his interest. The farmer is not any different from any other class. He has to get a living and he wants to get the best living possible. If a farmer is convinced that it is going to pay him to adopt a certain method in the practice of his industry, if he is convinced that it will pay him a profit or increase the profit he already has, very little force will be required to induce him to adopt that system.
The two main functions of the Department of Agriculture are research and education. So far as research is concerned, I am quite sure that the Department's farms, as they are run at present, are quite sufficient for that purpose and, therefore, it will be unnecessary for these farms to carry out any research work; but so far as education is concerned, as I said before, the people to be educated must have confidence and they must realise that the men who are to teach them are competent to make a profit out of farming themselves. They must show that they are better able to run these farms than the farmers in the country. Another requisite for the successful teaching of farmers is the systematising of the arrangement for demonstration plots and its reduction to a comprehensive scheme under which all necessary branches will be included in the one farm. If you teach piecemeal certain things through a demonstration plot, the instructor may be able to prove that a certain manure, or a certain mixture of manure, will produce better crops of oats or turnips or potatoes; he may also teach that a certain mixture of grain will get better results in the feeding of pigs. He may demonstrate that a certain ration will get better results in feeding cattle and producing milk, etc. But when these things are learned piecemeal, the average farmer is not in any position to piece them all together and work out a system of agriculture from the scrappy information thus conveyed.
If there are difficulties, and I admit there will be little difficulties in putting this into practice, the difficulties should be taken up by the men competent to do so, namely, the instructors in agriculture, and not by men who are incompetent, some of whom are uneducated, who have not time to study these things, who have, perhaps, a prejudice in favour of their own system, and are not, perhaps, disposed to change the system unless it is reduced to such a practical form that they can see for themselves the whole thing put into operation and see the results. Everybody is looking for results at present in every walk of life. Naturally the farmers want to see results—what is to be got out of it. They want to see if the methods recommended by the Department's instructors are better than those they have been operating themselves.
The Department has been operating for the last 30 or 40 years—I do not know exactly for how long. At any rate, it has not advanced one step. It has shown nothing through these demonstrations that was not shown 30 years ago. Any branch of industry, or any undertaking that does not go forward, must be going backwards. There is no such thing as standing still in this world. Since the Department is not advancing, not making any progress in any direction, it must be going back. I hardly know of one farmer who bothers his head writing for a leaflet because there is hardly anything new in the leaflets. I have been living in a district for 25 years and an agricultural instructor was only once invited to that district for a lecture since I went there, and I was responsible for having him invited. The suggestion never came from anybody else. If that is the attitude of the farmers everybody can see that there is something required to make the Department officers more popular, and to bring their instructions more into favour with the farmers. That is what they are for.
We must remember that practically £1,000,000 is voted by this House for the running of that Department, and it is most desirable that it should be turned to the best account, and that the best results should be secured by the officers of the Department. They are men in whom I have great confidence if they get a chance. They are quite competent to teach. I believe they could do great service to the country. But there is only one way to teach, and that is the practical way; and the practical way is the way I suggest.
I do not propose to go into the details of the scheme. I may not be competent to do that, and it is not necessary at this stage. The Department have officers who are quite competent to go into this and devise a suitable scheme. If they want any assistance Deputy O'Donovan, whose name is also to this motion, will be glad to give any assistance. He is much more competent than I am to deal with the subject. He understands the subject and I am sure if he is called upon he will assist in working out the details. I do not believe there will be any difficulty about them. Where there is a will there is a way. If the will is there there will be no trouble in getting over any difficulties which may present themselves.
I only propose to give a rough idea of the object in view. The object is really to show, when the accounts are made up at the end of the farming year, that there is a profit to be got out of these farms, and that by adopting the methods recommended and carried out on these farms other farms can increase their profits. The real object, in other words, is to show that there is money in farming, that there is money in doing things in an up-to-date manner. If it is shown that there is gold in the farms as well as in Wicklow, you will have farmers going from one end of the county to the other to see how it is to be got out. Possibly, you will have Deputies and Senators, who were never on a farm before, taking up farming with the best intentions. I have no doubt that they will be able to satisfy any impartial committee that they are actuated with the best and the most patriotic motives and are out to give employment. There is no question that no member of the Fianna Fáil Party will want to stump the country telling the farmers from political platforms to do such-and-such a thing, to grow this and that. There is no necessity. It is a humiliating thing for the Minister to be lecturing farmers who will not attend his meetings because they have no confidence in him. On the other hand, his subordinates, who are competent and command the respect and confidence of farmers, could do the work.
The Department's officers in every county will be only too delighted to carry out this work, although it will impose a good deal of extra labour on them, if the Minister treats them generously. I suggest he should do so by giving them a decent percentage of the profits of the farms. I would not be stingy with them. They will put their hearts into their work and go into the work in earnest. Then the remainder of the profits can go to the Department and help to pay its expenses Not only will these officers have an inducement to work, and to show by their methods, and by the practical operation of these farms, that their teaching is sound, but they can, at the same time, prove that the Minister's teaching is sound, that the Minister's schemes, which he recommends to the country, are all that is to be desired. The people will believe them when they will doubt the Minister. Besides, it will be much more dignified for the Minister to let these competent men do their own work and save himself all the unnecessary trouble to which he puts himself. One thing I must say of the Minister and the members on the Front Bench is that they are not lazy and that they certainly work hard. The Minister has shown that he is prepared to adopt any number of schemes and to take on plenty of work. This scheme will not, I think, increase his work; if it does it will be worth more than the increased work imposed upon him. It will increase the work of his subordinate officials, but they will be only too glad because it will increase their remuneration. For that reason, I hope the Minister will accept this scheme wholeheartedly and give it a fair chance.
I suppose a number of difficulties will arise in the minds of some people in this connection. I have heard people ask how the land is to be got. They have asked me, "Do you favour taking over the land from the people?" No, I do not, nor do I favour, as a practice, the Government taking up farming. I believe that private companies or private individuals can conduct any business better than a Government Department can. It is only for the purpose of demonstration that I would like to see the Department take up these farms and run them. It is possible for farmers through the country to run one, two or three farms in normal times and make a profit on the running. That being the case, there is no reason why trained experts could not run them, pay a decent wage, preserve decent conditions of employment, and show a profit. They should be quite competent to do it. If the average farmer is able to make a small profit after paying all his bills, then it is quite reasonable to assume that these experts should be able to make a very much increased profit and to set a headline for the farmers through the country, to the benefit of the neighbouring farmers and the community at large.
There are many ways in which the Department could acquire land. They might buy it in the open market by public auction or by private negotiations. They could take it on lease. They could take land from men having derelict farms. Such men would give the Department a lease of the farms for a number of years and would also be glad themselves to be employed. Some of them are competent workmen who, through lack of capital or for some other reason, are not themselves able to make good. It would be open to the Department to choose any of these courses which would not interfere with the right of any individual. In short, I do not think there would be any difficulty at all about securing the land.
Then as to the class of farm that would be most suitable, as regards size and quality in each county, I suggest it would be the average for that particular county. For instance, in Cavan, the average farm would be from 20 to 40 acres. In another county, it might be a much larger-sized farm and so on. By taking the average farm in size and quality, it would give a fair test and a fair outline of how that class of farm should be run. Its working would be followed with the keenest interest by every farmer in the country. The people would go there and they would see how the thing was being done. It would be of course necessary that accounts should be kept and that the farm accounts and the farm itself should be open at certain times for inspection by all interested. In this way I submit that a great benefit could be conferred upon the agricultural community.
Another difficulty that might arise would be the provision of capital. To some people that appears a very big difficulty, but I do not see anything insurmountable at all there. We have the Agricultural Credit Corporation which lends money to farmers, the money being repaid over a number of years. I am quite sure they would offer the same facilities to the Department because the chances of repayment are more certain from the Department than from some farmers to whom they lend. I am sure they could lend money on the same terms as they lend it to the farmers—6 per cent., plus the cost of drawing up the agreement, plus 2/- or something like that for keeping the accounts. That would work out at something less than 6½ per cent.— the same terms as those at which the farmer borrows money.
When the Department buy the land, buy the stock, and machinery and erect buildings, they could get the money from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. It is necessary that these experts should be put on equal terms with the farmers before the profit they show at the end of the year can be compared with the profit made by the farmers. The first item of course to come out of the profits of these farms would be the 6½ per cent. or whatever figure it would work out at for the interest on the capital sum invested in the land. machinery, stock, buildings, and so on. There might be a sum set aside for depreciation, but I think in this case there will be no depreciation. I expect that the land would be improved and that the buildings would show an improvement too. For that reason that item might be left out. There should be something set aside for insurance, repairs, tariffs, and wages. I am not sure whether the tariffs should come before wages or the wages before tariffs. I propose to put the wages before tariffs because the tariffs are only a temporary thing—at least we hope so. As soon as there is a change of Government there will be a change of policy and tariffs will disappear. The second item would be rates and annuities. Rates are also to disappear as soon as there is a change of Government for agricultural land will be derated so that these two items will be taken off, and we will not have to provide for tariffs or rates.
