As this debate is going to be a very long one, I want to try to avoid as far as possible repeating observations which have been made by other members of the House. I propose to abbreviate my remarks. It has generally been admitted that, in connection with all post-war agricultural developments, we will have to improve our output and efficiency. No member of the House disagrees with that proposition. A study of the statistics of production in respect of those who compete with us in the foreign market would serve to prove the necessity for that increase in output. I agree with Deputy Bennett that it is most unwise to theorise too much, and all one can say from a study of all the statistics available, without being confused by them or going into them too deeply, is that we are in the second grade of efficiency rate. We are not very low down. We are not amongst the first grade of nations producing live stock, cereals, dairy products and pig products. We are near the first grade in certain forms of production, but generally speaking we are not in the first grade, although we could quite easily reach it by concerted effort on the part of everybody in the country. In other words, the position is not in the least hopeless. It is simply one that requires a long-term plan of improvement, giving confidence to the agricultural community —a policy which is accepted, generally speaking, by all members of the House.
Taking those conditions at present, I am not in the least pessimistic with regard to our capacity in the future to produce efficiently and compete in any market. Moreover, I think it is true to say that many of the disadvantages from which we suffer in this country obtained also in other countries. Farmers in other countries have been through world crises of great magnitude. They have all complained of the prices they were receiving. They have all complained that they were unable to obtain sufficient capital to improve their machinery. They lacked the opportunities that would enable them to make a profit on the capital invested in their farms. To that extent, farmers all over the world suffered more or less equally. We have to recognise then that we have to step up our production, and that it is not an impossible task. Let me give a rough estimate of what that means in terms of an intensive study that I have made of farms and of production in Athlone and Longford during the past five years. I have consulted a great many farmers. I would say that 5 per cent. of the farms in that constituency are equipped absolutely in the fullest sense to face up to post-war competition; about 45 per cent. are fairly well equipped. I should say that they require greater equipment in respect to machinery and in the knowledge possessed by the farmers' sons. I should say that 50 per cent. of the farms require a very great deal of improved equipment to enable them to compete successfully in the post-war period. These figures are only approximate.
We in this country have shown a steady, if slow, improvement in the last 20 years. Other countries have improved, and for reasons that we need not go into now, rather more rapidly than we have. We have, therefore, in the post-war period to step up our production. If we do that, I think we should be in a satisfactory position. On the question of post-war policy in general, I think we have learned enough from trade cycles in this country to realise that whatever we do in the way of industrial or agricultural expansion our home consumption and exports are inextricably linked.
All of us realise now that if you expand production you also expand the demand for special equipment and, in many cases, for raw materials. If you have a very large agricultural income from a farm, even under the most ideal conditions only a small proportion of the increased produce will be absorbed by the home market. The rest will have to be exported as a surplus. In fact, it is possible to have a policy of general expansion without interfering either with the industrial policy of the Government or with the policy of increased exports. That point has been very well summarised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the 1943 July number of The Banker—a British magazine—in which he said on page 39:—
"From the Irish point of view, Eire's future prosperity is largely bound up with that of the agricultural community and Irish agriculture can expand only through exports."
Recognising the need for an improvement in our economy, and examining the future in an entirely speculative way, it is quite obvious that there will be two periods. For about ten years after the war ends there will be a period of scarcity in which we will have an unrivalled opportunity of breaking into new specialised markets. I should also like to stress the importance of the comparatively short period, when hostilities end, in which we shall have a special market for pedigree stock, for plants of high quality, seed potatoes, the horse industry and all products related to foods with a high protective value. That temporary opportunity will not last long. It will afford us an opportunity of exploiting new markets in respect of those commodities. It is possible that we may be able to develop a permanent market in certain instances if we take advantage of the position offered to us.
I should say that for at least ten years after the war there will be an absolutely indefinite market for seed potatoes. Most countries will be unable to obtain supplies. Up to now the seed potato industry has been stimulated by normal methods: special inspectors, subsidies, the provision of special instruction and a more or less organised marketing system. After the war that market will provide an enormous opportunity and it would be a pity if the Government failed to take advantage of it.
In order to deal with it it may be necessary to set up a seed potato board constructed on the lines of the Electricity Supply Board, a board composed of people whose duty it would be to expand seed potato development in every possible way and by every possible means. I believe that is a market that we should be able to hold even after the period of scarcity is over. Following that temporary period there will come, it is quite evident, a period of hard competition. The competition that we had to face before the outbreak of war will then be resumed and probably relatively lower prices will obtain while a higher quality than ever will be demanded of those who import into their country the agricultural produce that we have to sell. We have the time now to prepare for that period of competition. I refuse to be pessimistic about the future of agriculture if we take advantage of that interim period and prepare our plans for a higher output and greater production per acre. It is essential, to my mind, that we should not lose the opportunity given to us because, as I have said, for a considerable period after the war there will be a world scarcity of all foodstuffs.
To get down to the practical suggestions that were asked for by the Minister for Agriculture, I want to say that the most difficult problem will be that relating to the development of scientific agriculture. I agree with a considerable amount of what Deputy Hughes said on that. I think we have to face the facts that we shall not be able to develop a sound agriculture until we obtain the confidence of the farmer. The Government, of course, will have to give a certain lead, but at least 75 per cent. of the effort will have to be made by the farmer himself. We shall need to change from the extensive method of farming to which we have been accustomed to an intensive method. I do not blame the farmer for being conservative about making a change of that sort. We have to face the fact that he has been conservative because the extensive system of farming has paid him for years and years. To put the point in a different way: the risk to the farmer in changing from the old extensive system of agriculture to an intensive system is too great to warrant him making the change. He first of all needs conviction and confidence. It is the duty of those who study agriculture, both practically and theoretically—those who are the leaders of agriculture throughout the country— to provide the necessary leadership. But as long as we have production by individual farmers it is the agricultural community that will have to take the principal steps, aided and assisted by the Government.
I think it is very important that members should realise the reasons lying behind the extensive methods of agriculture. Up to now, since 1920, the farmers have had to face constantly falling prices. They have had to take part in every national crisis affecting our international relations. They have seen a negligible interest in the form of a return on their capital. They find it very easy to place their savings in the non-agricultural sphere and to obtain a certain interest on these savings upon which they can rely. If they have been successful in that respect they have found, taking all in all, and allowing for world fluctuations, that it pays them to purchase more land instead of investing their profits in highly intensive cultivation of their holdings. Then again, the emigration door has always been open. As a result, there has been a very slow, steady improvement, but the farmer has naturally been reluctant to make a capital investment—that is, if he had the capital—or to go into scientific farming, and he would need a very great amount of conviction before doing so.
I am quite convinced that the potential intelligence of the farming community is more than sufficient to make the changes desired, providing those who ask for the changes are convincing in their arguments. The facts are that there has been a very considerable distance between the farmer and the Department of Agriculture; their relations are distant and the two parties must be brought together before any development can take place. A very small section of the farmers has been really inspired by the Department, and unless the numbers of farmers in touch with the work of the Department of Agriculture and Government leadership are increased, we shall not achieve the success we hope for.
We have had various proposals put forward in the House. One suggestion for the improvement of agriculture is the payment of subsidies. Certain subsidies for agricultural produce already exist, and members of the House know very well what they are. I regard them as a useful cash encouragement, as a provision of extra liquid working capital and nothing else, and any extension of subsidies in the form of guaranteed prices for export or in the form of subsidies for tillage would simply drive a farmer into thinking not in terms of increased total income per acre, but of increase in the income he receives per unit of production.
Agriculture will never reach a fully competitive position unless we think from now onward in terms of an increased income per acre and not necessarily in the form of an increase per unit of commodity. We have to depend on world prices, very largely. We can introduce cash prices in respect of certain commodities, as the present Government has done, but we really depend on world prices, and therefore we must consider the efficiency of our output. We cannot rely ultimately on subsidies.
I heard Deputies of the Farmers' Party suggesting guaranteed prices for export. The Minister who could fix the figure at which the price for live stock would be stabilised would be a genius. If the price index for agriculture in 1939 is counted as 100, then it has very nearly reached 200. The question arises, at what figure should the Minister stabilise export prices? Should it be the figure for 1938, for 1937 or for 1942, and if he does stabilise the figure at a certain price, what happens to the profits when the price of cattle is above that figure, and what happens to the losses when the price is below that figure? Again, as regards a guaranteed export price, could we be sure of some collaboration between ourselves and the British, because it would seem to me that that would require to be agreed on—some vague level of price for the future to carry on with?
If we do have a guaranteed export price for our live stock, our farmers will have to realise that the free market is gone for ever. Under such conditions we would see a system of standardisation which would stagger the minds of the farmers who voted for the members of the Farmers' Party who now suggest a guaranteed export price for cattle. I think possibly ten years from now the whole world may go in for stabilisation of prices for agricultural produce. It depends on how far there will be world stability, and on many other factors. Obviously, this country can hardly do it in a unilateral way unless there is some way of envisaging what the world prices are likely to be over a considerable period.
Having dealt with the general position of agriculture, I should like to make a few suggestions to the Minister, although I am quite sure most of them have occurred to him already. If anything I have said will encourage him to further investigation, I feel that my words will not have been in vain. First of all, on the question of education, the more one makes a study of agricultural education in other countries, the more one is struck by the fact that in many of the countries that rival us in our export trade, education is done by the farmers themselves. There does not seem to be a very great desire on the part of farmers to take formal instruction in agriculture in any country. In Denmark, for example, which is so often cited to us, they have a school education which does not consist of agricultural education; it consists of education of a kind to inspire the Danish youth to be good citizens, and it does not consist in definite technical instruction. The farmers apprentice their sons to other farmers, and in that way they learn the most up-to-date methods of farming. I cannot say that there is any highly developed agricultural instruction in the sense that every farmer's son goes to school for a period.
The next point is that we are assured by our education authorities that the primary curriculum is full, and if rural science is to be taught—the basic facts of agricultural science—it must be taught beyond the primary school age. The next factor is, as Deputy Bennett said, that we need more practical demonstrations than theoretical ideas in order to bring about a change in our agricultural production.
Agriculture has become a very complex science, a science of a kind hardly dreamed of 100 years ago. Nevertheless, as Deputy Bennett said, we need more practical demonstrations. I suggest that the Minister should consider preparing for far more education in the form of travelling vans with proper modern film apparatus for the purpose of giving instruction in the schools. That is one method by which the instructor could link practice with theory. If the people could see the work done on the film about which the instructor is talking. relate theory to practice and see the cash value of improved agricultural methods shown in simple graphic form on the film, it would do more than anything else to impress on them the necessity for more scientific methods. I am told that film instruction in other countries has proved highly successful, in that, although it does not actually show what might be described as agricultural practice, it nevertheless relates practice to theory in a way in which no other medium of instruction can.
Next, I should like to suggest that a great many of the Department's leaflets require re-writing in the light of modern conditions. The information in them is perfectly correct, but our farmers, like any other group of people, are susceptible to modern methods of advertising. The instruction in these leaflets is not sufficiently colourful. I have seen it better done in other countries. There is not half enough illustration of the cash value of the recommendations made in the leaflets. I have seen a great many of these leaflets—I have read at least three-quarters of the combined book of leaflets—and there are a great many occasions on which the practical cash value of these improvements could be indicated in simple graphic form for farmers to appreciate. Instead of that the leaflets make only general recommendations as to the steps and no attempt is made to show the practical value of these steps.
I think the Government should start the experiment of offering free instruction courses in practical and theoretical agriculture for six-monthly periods to young men between the ages of 15 and 18. I think there will have to be an extension of the agricultural college system, and although, as I have said, I do not believe that agricultural instruction can be easily popularised, because many farmers prefer to learn on the land, I do think that an experiment, even in one county, would prove valuable and the results could be seen.
I should like to ask the Minister also what his present views are with regard to this whole controversy about demonstration farms. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Bennett when he says that a farm run by the Department of Agriculture, or a demonstration plot, while valuable in many respects, is not as valuable as a farm run by someone selected by the Department in the ordinary way to work the farm on the most modern methods and to keep accounts so that the results could be seen and published and made available to farmers in the same district.
I should like to ask the Minister what he thinks about the problem because obviously it will be very difficult to run any farm on a partly free basis. Anybody who thinks of the basis on which it has to be run—what kind of individual to select, to what extent he is to be free, to what extent he is to be advised, what capital should be given to him when he starts—will see immediately that it is all very well to talk about having demonstration farms run by farmers, but when it comes to the starting of them, a great many technical difficulties arise. I should like to ask the Minister if he has examined the matter and what his conclusions were.
I think the next step in agricultural development in the future lies in subsidies and loans to encourage better production. I do not believe in subsidies on the sale of the produce, and I believe that it is going to cost at least £100,000,000, at the very minimum, to modernise agriculture in this country, taking into account the provision of machinery and the working capital necessary for the adoption of modern conditions. I think that, so far as it is practicable, it is better to spend money in encouraging the agricultural community to purchase modern machinery at cheaper rates, in encouraging them to use fertilisers and to reclaim their land, as is done at present under the land improvement scheme, than to lend money which has to be paid back.
I am not averse from the idea of agricultural credit, but agricultural credit which can be furnished in the form of subsidies on equipment rather than in the form of loans would, to my mind, be a great advantage. I believe that, particularly when the war is over, we shall have to give subsidies on a great many forms of equipment and shall have to give loans and grants for better outhouses and for improving the whole equipment of our farming community.
The next matter is the question of the improvement in our veterinary services, and I was glad to hear from the Minister that the whole matter was under consideration. From a pamphlet written by one of our veterinary surgeons, Professor Kearney, it would seem that the total loss from the principal diseases to which live stock are subject amounts to something in the region of £4,000,000 per year. I should say that that would be the minimum and that one could safely say that it approximately amounts to £4,000,000 a year, in the form of loss of live stock and loss of the milk which would be taken from the live stock. That is a colossal figure, and I am certain that when the post-emergency agricultural committee reports on the matter it will be found that it is approximately correct and certainly not far off the correct figure. It will thus be seen that we need a very great improvement in our veterinary service.
There is not half the number of veterinary surgeons per thousand farms in this country that there is in other countries rivalling us. To my mind, there ought to be centres in which the veterinary surgeon would be available to farmers on different days of each week. I think the Government should investigate also some form of veterinary insurance, under which, by payment of a small fee each year, based on the number of cows possessed by each farmer, it might be possible to arrange for free veterinary service. I understand that a scheme of that kind is working very satisfactorily in parts of England, and certainly something should be done to stimulate the ease with which veterinary services can be obtained and also to undertake researches for the elimination of live-stock diseases.
We come then to the questions relating to giving the farmers encouragement to take measures for improved production by offering premiums of various kinds. I should like the Minister to consider whether in connection with the dairying industry it would not be possible—perhaps not now but later on—to offer premiums, such as have been offered in connection with wheat, for subsidised fertilisers to farmers who carry out certain improvements in their dairy farms. For example, a farmer who is a member of a cow-testing association might have a greater subsidy for the purchase of his artificial manures than a farmer who did not belong to such an association, and farmers who carried out other improvements and who operated their dairy farms in a certain way could be given these premiums. I believe a lot could be done in that direction.
We come then to the question of the encouragement of special forms of production. I do hope, as I have said, that the Government will investigate the question of seed potatoes and will carry out an investigation of all the special forms of production which may relate to a post-war export trade, such as pedigree stock, plants of special varieties and the production of better cheeses. One of the most remarkable things is that, since the war, one can obtain in this country about 20 cheeses unrivalled in any country in the world but which are made in absolutely negligible quantities by a few devoted souls—in certain cases, individuals and, in others, communities of nuns.
These are just small people who have produced about 20 varieties of cheeses which rival the great cheeses of France, but the production of which is negligible. They cannot fill even the home demand, but there is absolutely no reason why we should not develop a world trade in these cheeses, provided the people are instructed in their production and provided the necessary capital and equipment are made available.
At least five of these cheeses are produced in negligible quantities by the good lady who spends part of her time lecturing on producing them. Quite obviously something needs to be done in these cases. If the Government could stimulate production of these special forms of agriculture which not only advertise our agriculture all over the world but could add to our production, it would be a very valuable thing. It would also be to advantage if small factories in Dublin and elsewhere were started to make vitamin concentrates—products of malt—on a purely experimental basis. After the war there is going to be a big demand for vitamin concentrates all over the world and I think that also ought to be investigated as well.
Before the war we had negotiations with the Brazilian Government in connection with their exports of maize. Previous to that we bought most of our maize from the Argentine, to the value of about £1,000,000 cash. We sold the Argentine £1,000 worth of goods and paid the balance by way of dividends on English securities. There is no harm in that provided the dividends are still there after the war and provided we have the same free use of British currency as we had before the war, and provided that the British will allow us to have the same use of currency as before the war, all of which is a very doubtful proposition.
We were offered a trade pact by the Brazilian Government by which we would take a proportion of three units imports from Brazil to two units exported to Brazil. We were offered maize of good quality provided we sold the Brazilians seed potatoes and young pedigree bulls. The scheme broke down for an entirely artificial reason, the existence of the fluctuating milreis as the unit of Brazilian currency which depended almost entirely on the price of coffee. I realise that the Government were probably right in turning down the scheme at the time but I do not think we should be able to afford in future to turn down a proposition of that kind.
I think world conditions will compel us to investigate these matters, to investigate these special types of exports and to overcome conditions of fluctuating currency in so far as they can be overcome. I realise, of course, that it might also be argued that we could not produce sufficient quantities of potatoes and of young pedigree bulls to make up our export quota and that there might be difficulties on that account, but I think the Government should consider the establishment of an export marketing board so that there could be special investigation of special forms of export.
Another problem I should like the Minister to consider is in connection with overcoming some of the drudgery of farm life. I do not believe that the young people of this country, any more than any other country, are going to be willing to go in for the same degree of great physical exertion involved in farming that they did before the war. That is part of the world progress. It may not be considered good by some people, but machinery is entering into the whole field of production now and I should like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the formation of machinery centres. We have heard a lot of talk about machinery centres elsewhere and there are quite obviously great practical difficulties in connection with their operation. If the Government were to start a machinery centre where there are middle-sized and small farms there would be the problem of considering the class of machinery to be used, what system would be used to provide for rotation among the users and how the machinery might be used co-operatively. I believe these difficulties could be overcome. I believe it is worth while trying, by way of experiment, a machinery centre where the machinery could be run on the rotation basis, even where provision would have to be made for a mechanic to keep it in order. It is certainly worth an experiment and might even be tried on a small scale now. At the same time it would stimulate co-operation in the farming community.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he has made investigations into the first Young Farmers' Club in the Twenty-Six Counties, which has been started. I understand, by a Mr. Spain, an agricultural instructor, in Kilmallock. I obtained the literature of the Young Farmers' Club in Great Britain, and I have been given the pleasant surprise of finding that there was a number of these clubs in existence in the westerly part of Northern Ireland, among people who are exactly similar to our own people, who are under the same influences and the same traditions. In Northern Ireland these farmers' clubs have been tried out and they are doing quite well and if farmers' clubs can be successful in Northern Ireland, I think they can also be successful here. It is a matter worth considering. The only way we are ever going to develop agriculture is by stimulating the interest of the young people. The elderly man has seen so many difficulties and developments in his lifetime that he is not likely to make sudden changes but we can stimulate the young people. I should like to ask the Minister if he knows of the existence of the club in Kilmallock and whether he will consider taking steps to see whether these young farmers' clubs could be set up as an experiment in the country. The clubs I speak of have done very good work. The young farmers attend them, there is a discussion on agricultural matters, debates and a question time. They get prizes for these discussions. Secondly, they have competitions in the growing of cereals on plots, competitions in the rearing of calves and in regard to lambs, sheep and poultry. Prizes are offered for these. The Government could help in these matters by seeing that farmers' clubs should conform to a certain type, that there should be certain minimum regulations and they might agree to offer prizes or money for prizes. I think it is an experiment well worth trying. I have made investigations and I have found that there are at least three very successful clubs in Northern Ireland. The work of the clubs consists of social intercourse for the purposes of discussing farming problems, debates and discussions and then, the practical side, in the development of competitions. If existing organisations such as Muintir na Tire can do this work well and good, but I think it is an experiment worth trying for a time at any rate, an experiment which might well be stimulated by the Government.
Another problem affecting the future of agriculture is the new science of grass cultivation. I must confess that the complexity of it is beyond me. I have read about half a dozen books, and I have walked continuously, week after week, in one of the farms where it is practised. I have examined it. There is the application of grass strains to particular lands, linked with the use of artificial manures, ensilage, and with such things as very dense rotational grazing. It is a very complicated science, and I realise that it is becoming universal all over the world. It seems to me that we might begin to develop research in relation to that in the future. I cannot believe that we can apply the English discoveries to this country without seeing how they work out. If there is a research station at Aberystwith where they produce hundreds of varieties of grasses for different soils, will the Minister let us know whether it is possible to consider the setting up of a research station here to apply the Aberystwith methods for grass cultivation to this country, and to see how far we can get going with something that we can actually achieve, something which could be worked out practically for this country. I realise, as the Minister said in a former debate, that any steps taken would be extremely slow, that at the rate at which we can produce these new and valuable grass strains, it would take years and years, and that it would take a tremendously long time to bring about any noticeable improvement in the grass strains of the country. But the sooner we begin the better for agriculture.
I should like to close by observing that the Government have taken very valuable steps in the last ten years in the direction of improving agriculture. Because of the conflict we had with Great Britain, the Minister has very often been the butt of most unmerited criticism. Whether or not the economic war with England was justified, I think it is up to the members of this Party to recall the fact that very considerable fundamental steps were taken in the past ten years for agricultural improvement.
We have now reached the point where we have to take very many more fundamental steps for agricultural improvement, but they are all part of continuous progress. I should like to recall that we did secure the farmer, to some degree, against fluctuating world markets by providing a home market with certain guaranteed prices; that we did revalue, to a certain degree, the effects of taxation by modifying the annuities and by derating; that we did carry out the system now in vogue in England of insisting on good husbandry for farmers above a certain acreage by dividing up farms that were badly run amongst uneconomic landholders; that we carried on the work of the last Government in connection with the grading of produce; that the steps taken by the Government for grading eggs had been of immense value to our poultry trade before the war; that recently we took valuable steps for grading fruit and improving the fruit market; that we carried out legislation to improve the cleanliness of milk and the production of milk, although we are far from the perfect road in that respect; that we also took steps to deal with the diseases of animals by a number of Acts to control the use of animal veterinary medicines. We have now started on long-term schemes of drainage and rural electrification. We have helped in the expansion of seed potato production. We have improved agricultural teaching in secondary schools and increased the number of instructors in the country. We have increased the grants for almost every form of agriculture that could be mentioned and we initiated grants and loans for the purchase of agricultural implements. We have helped to stimulate the production of flax. What is perhaps almost more valuable than anything else, we have initiated the land improvement scheme, under which 18,000 farmers have improved their lands, and we are spending money at the rate of nearly £400,000 per year on that service.
I think all of us are satisfied, allowing for the fact that conditions will be more difficult than before when the period of scarcity is over, that we must make far greater efforts towards improving our agricultural production and that, whatever we did in the past ten years, we will have far surpassed it in the next ten years if we are to place agriculture on absolutely sound foundations.
I should like particularly to call the attention of the Minister again to the question of machinery centres, the question of subsidising young farmers' clubs, and the development and increase of veterinary services. There is also the question of whether the Minister thinks that the most modern type of travelling films should be introduced as an ancillary to agricultural instruction in schools.