Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is a very astute parliamentarian. He knew perfectly well that Deputy Donnellan and I were absent from the House on important business, in common with representatives of the other political Parties, while Deputy Cafferky was speaking last night. He knew, therefore, that we had no opportunity of hearing what Deputy Cafferky had to say, and he proceeded to give the House his version of what the Deputy said. The Deputy has informed me that the statements attributed to him by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney were not made by him. The Deputy accused Deputy Cafferky of having said that farmers should be compelled to pay their workers the same wages as are being paid to agricultural workers who travel to Great Britain. Deputy Cafferky said nothing of the kind, as I am informed. He did draw attention to the problem which exists, owing to the fact that the custom has prevailed in the congested areas of the west of Ireland of workers travelling to Great Britain and earning in a few months sufficient to maintain themselves for the remainder of the year, and he naturally pointed out how reluctant these people would be to work in this country for lower wages which would not enable them to accumulate the same amount of savings as they would accumulate in two or three months in Great Britain.
That is a problem which will require to be tackled. There is no doubt whatever that in many parts of Ireland there is a labour problem and a shortage of labour. Unless we are able to provide a means by which the surplus workers of one area may be able to secure employment in other areas where workers are lacking, it will be difficult to deal with production and an expansion of production on the lines we desire.
That, I think, was a reasonable statement on Deputy Cafferky's part. So far as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney accused Deputy Cafferky of stating that he desired the migration of people from the west of Ireland to lands in the midlands to a far-reaching extent, I want to say that this Party stands for fixity of tenure, that it has made it a plank in its platform and that, as Deputies will recall, I tabled a motion demanding that fixity of tenure be restored and, as soon as the Private Members' Order Paper becomes less congested, I intend to renew that motion. Who destroyed fixity of tenure in this country? It was Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's own Party in the Land Act of 1923. I do not want to dwell any further on these matters.
In dealing with agricultural policy we have to divide our attention more or less between conditions as they exist during the emergency and as they will exist in the post-war period. To my mind we, as the Parliament of this State, must direct our attention, first of all, to the immediate present and consider very carefully how we will meet any situation which may arise within the next few months. We have to plan carefully and efficiently. So far as this debate has proceeded up to the present, there was a certain air of unreality about it, inasmuch as a great deal of time was devoted to post-war agricultural problems while very little attention was directed to the problems of the immediate future.
Last week I raised a question in connection with our seed wheat supplies. I do not want to hurt the Minister's feelings by drawing his attention to a very grave mistake which appears to have been made by his Department in regard to the assembling and storage of spring seed wheat last year. But I do want to direct his attention to the urgent need for making sure that no mistake will be made in regard to the conserving of seed wheat supplies for the following year. We want to ensure that, wherever good spring wheat is sown this year, a careful record will be kept of it and that wheat will be earmarked for preservation for the following year. That is an elementary precaution which the Minister should be now planning to take for the coming year. There are various methods by which the seed wheat supply can be safeguarded. It is desirable, first of all, that the growing crop should be inspected before harvesting and that, as far as possible, farmers should be encouraged and induced to store as much as possible of the spring wheat for the following year, because there is no method by which spring seed wheat can be stored more efficiently and securely than unthreshed in the sheaf, provided of course that the stacks in the haggard are properly constructed on frames to safeguard the wheat from the depredations of rats and mice and other losses, and that they are properly thatched and secured. Some definite inducement should be offered to farmers to store the largest possible amount in their own haggards. That is the first essential. Then adequate precautions should be taken to see that merchants who undertake to store spring wheat— I am referring principally to spring wheat because it is more likely to go wrong—will store it properly in good condition, not heaped together in too large quantities, and that all precautions will be taken to preserve the germination and fertility of the grain.
In this connection, I want to say that there is bitter disappointment amongst farmers, in my own constituency probably more than in any other, inasmuch as they have been to a large extent compelled to purchase imported seed wheat. I do not want to say anything against the quality of that wheat; it would not be wise to say anything at the moment. But, having regard to the fact that this is seed which is not acclimatised and about which there can be no very great certainty as to its quality, I think the Minister should give some assurance that, in cases where there are failures which can be proved to be due entirely to the seed, some recompense will be made to the grower. If such an assurance were given, it would make for a better feeling and more confidence on the part of the growers. I do not intend to pursue that question any further.
I want to say that farmers in my constituency, and I think in every other constituency, are falling in wholeheartedly with the efforts to produce the wheat supplies that are required. We do hear complaints that it is rather unfair that Wicklow should be compelled to grow wheat to the extent of one-tenth of the arable land, when you have fertile counties like Monaghan compelled to grow only one-twenty-fifth. It may be due to some influence that Monaghan is getting off so lightly as compared with poor Wicklow. I think, however, the farmers are wholeheartedly falling in with the Governmental policy and the national policy in regard to supplying the nation's needs. The sowing season is now so well advanced that we hope that, no matter what happens, the maximum amount, not only of wheat but other essential crops, will be got into the larder. The weather has been favourable and I think the farmers have taken full advantage of the favourable circumstances to do their utmost.
When we come to consider the question of harvesting the very extensive and, I hope, very much increased cereal crops during the coming year, no member of the House and no farmer would be justified in ruling out the possibility of a much more serious shortage or even a complete elimination of supplies of imported tractor fuels. It is the duty of the Department of Agriculture, and it is the duty of this House, and of farmers, to envisage the situation which would arise in those circumstances. I am quite confident that even in the circumstances of a complete elimination of imported tractor fuels, we would still be able to cope with the very increased harvest of the coming year, but it would require a considerable amount of planning in advance, and of organisation. In the first place, a very large percentage of our reapers are drawn by tractors. If we are compelled to substitute horses for tractors in all cases, it will mean that the existing number of reapers and binders in the country would be altogether insufficient to cope with the harvest, because a tractor-drawn reaper and binder would cover a much larger area than a reaper and binder drawn by any team of horses. I think that must be taken into consideration. Therefore, we will have to face the fact that the entire harvest cannot be tied by mechanical reapers and binders unless we are able to import in the near future a considerable number of reapers. It is not too likely that we will be able to do so. We will have then to face up to the fact that, in areas where the science of tying corn by hand is unknown, we will have to resort to that method, and, if that is the case, it will require mobilisation of man-power. It will also require some instruction and some training of persons who are entirely new to this operation.
There is a serious problem to be faced, particularly in the midland counties and the big tillage counties, where the tractor and the reaper and binder have displaced hand work. Now is the time to begin planning and to make all the arrangements for the recruitment of the additional labour that will be required for that work.
It will also be necessary to make arrangements for the provision of additional horse-power for such work. Deputy O'Reilly drew attention to the fact that in the County Meath, where, I suppose, cereal crops are now grown as extensively as in the County Wexford, there are less than half the number of agricultural horses. That, again, will create a problem to which the Department of Agriculture will have to direct immediate attention.
I may be wrong—I do not think there are any statistics available—but I think at least 80 per cent. of our cereals are threshed by oil-driven engines. At any rate, it would be somewhere between 75 and 80 per cent. Have the Minister and his Department given attention to the problem of getting cereal crops threshed? I believe that here, again, is an extremely difficult problem. About 25 per cent. of the threshers are steam-driven. The number possibly could be increased by putting into commission steam threshers which have been discarded and which may be lying idle. I think the number of such threshers which would be suitable would be very small. We have then to consider the means by which 70 or 75 per cent. of the harvest is to be threshed. The problem would be solved to a certain limited extent by getting farmers to store their cereal crops securely and extend the threshing period, perhaps, by three or four months. That would help. There are other suggestions which would naturally occur to any intelligent Minister or member of this House. For example, if electric current were available in sufficient quantity it might be possible to direct a certain amount of it to threshing operations, particularly in areas adjacent to villages and towns, but there does not seem to be any great prospect in that direction.
No matter from what angle one views the question, one thing is certain, that if there is a further decrease in the amount of tractor fuel and in the number of mechanical aids available, we shall have to compensate for that to a large extent by recruiting additional man-power to agriculture. For that additional man-power we have to draw on whatever sources are available. That is a problem in regard to which information should be immediately collected from each county to ascertain the deficiencies that exist in regard to labour. Every farmer, particularly every large farmer, should be asked to report as to whether he is certain of having a sufficient amount of labour for the harvest or not. If he reports that he would require additional labour, the Department should immediately take ways and means of ensuring that that labour will be available.
Of course, that does not end the problems that would arise in the event of a shortage of tractor fuels, motor spirit, and so on. The problem of collecting and conveying cereals to the mills would present many difficulties. There would be greater difficulty in collecting and conveying sugar beet to the sugar factories. All those are matters which have to be considered very carefully. Plans in regard to them must be carefully laid, and all possible precautions must be taken to guard against a breakdown. There is no doubt that we can solve those problems if we face up to them.
There are two attitudes in regard to matters of this kind which are to be deplored. One is the attitude of the man who says: "This prospect is too deplorable to be considered. We must not consider it at all. It could not be dealt with." That is a foolish and undesirable attitude for anybody to take up. On the other hand, we have the foolishly optimistic idea that everything will come right; that nothing can go wrong; that, while misfortunes may happen to other countries, they could never happen to us. We should not adopt either of those lines of thought. Instead, we should be prepared to take note of what has happened in other countries, face the realities of the situation, and lay our plans to overcome whatever problems may arise.
In this debate, we have been asked to consider a number of motions which are on the Private Members' Order Paper. One stands in my name and in the name of Deputy O'Driscoll, and is as follows:—
"That, in order to promote the expansion and development of the agricultural industry and to safeguard the interest of farmers and farm workers in the post-war period, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the Government should immediately adopt a long-term policy guaranteeing economic prices for all the main products of agriculture."
I have been advocating that policy for a long time in this House. I have held the view that you cannot get in agriculture the measure of efficiency which everybody in this House desires and which every speaker in this debate has advocated unless you have some security of price, some security of income for the agricultural producer. It was very nice to hear Deputy Childers, in a refined Oxford accent, lecturing us upon our deficiencies. He tells us that we are a second-rate agricultural country, but he also assures us in a patronising tone that if we made a serious effort we might succeed in becoming a first-rate agricultural country. I should like to know in what way the present Government, of which Deputy Childers is a supporter, has contributed towards making this a first-rate agricultural country? Did the policy of deliberately depressing all agricultural prices during the first five years of the present Government's administration tend towards efficiency? Did the indiscriminate slaughtering of good calves tend in that direction? If we are to have efficiency, the farmer, whether he is extensively engaged in tillage or whether he engages in dairying or in any other branch of agriculture, must be able to look forward to a number of years of secure markets and secure prices. Farming is not a short-term occupation.
It is not an occupation that can be conducted from week to week. It is an occupation in which the intelligent operator must plan far ahead. We all know that the ordinary crop rotations are usually on a five-year term. We know that it takes at least five years to produce a dairy cow. All those facts are familiar to us. Therefore, unless the State stands behind the farmer, and gives him a measure of security, it is impossible for the farmer to plan efficiently. I am reminded of this by an incident which happened some years ago when the Department of Agriculture, through the public Press, advised the women of this country to sell their turkeys early at Christmas time, thus preventing a glut in the markets later on. A large number of women took the Department's advice and sold their turkeys early, with the result that the price afterwards increased by more than 6d. per lb. One of the angriest women I have ever met was a woman who had sold all her turkeys early—if she could only lay her hands on Dr. Ryan, what she would not do with him. That is just one example of what foolish, lighthearted, irresponsible advice given by the Department of Agriculture can lead to. Planning must be carefully considered.
When we state in this motion that we want guaranteed prices for the main agricultural products, I want to make it clear that we are not demanding guaranteed prices for every agricultural product. I do not think it would be either possible or desirable for the State to guarantee economic prices for everything that the farmer produces, but there are at least four or five main lines of production with regard to which guarantees could and should be given. First of all, there is wheat. No matter what conditions may prevail in the post-war period, we will require to grow a minimum amount of wheat in this country. It must be at least 50 per cent. of our maximum requirements, and it would probably be desirable to grow even more than that. In order to ensure that growers of wheat will take a deep interest in this branch of agriculture, that they will direct their attention to the improvement of the strains and varieties of seed as well as to the improvement of the methods of production, it is desirable that there should be a long-term guarantee on the part of the State that prices will be economical—that they will even be generous.
There is no difficulty whatever in connection with the implementing of that undertaking, because wheat is being grown and will be grown exclusively for the home market. The same considerations apply to sugar beet. Sugar beet growing is an industry which was introduced into this country 16 or 17 years ago. It was an industry which was entirely new to this State, but once the farmers were shown that it was reasonably profitable, they put their energy, their enterprise, and their skill into the cultivation of beet with remarkable success. I think I can safely say that the sugar beet growing industry is firmly established here, and it has a home market for its product. It has increased the national wealth enormously. It has provided a huge volume of employment within the State. It is in every respect a sound national industry, and it is one in regard to which the State should have no hesitation whatever in guaranteeing economic prices over a long period.
Of course, sugar beet growing was for many years denounced by orthodox economists as being unsound. We were told that it was a subsidised industry. I suppose it is, but it has justified the subsidisation. In that respect I want to say that the deep-seated prejudice which some orthodox economists have for subsidisation should be dispelled when they consider the success that has attended sugar beet growing. The sugar producing industry in this country is a sound industry which provides a large amount of employment. It is also of importance since it tends to raise the fertility of the soil. That is a very important consideration.
The next item of importance to be considered is butter. Here again there are thousands of reasons, many of which have already been emphasised in this debate, as to why butter production and the dairying industries should be preserved and given adequate guarantees for their security over a long period. What is true of butter is also true of bacon pigs and eggs. With wool and flax, these are all branches of agricultural production which could be safeguarded over a long period.
I have mentioned wheat, sugar beet, butter, bacon pigs, eggs, wool, flax and seed potatoes. There is one other branch of agriculture in respect of which I would also suggest that long-term guarantees in regard to price should be given, and that is, the stall-feeding of cattle. If the agricultural products which I have mentioned are guaranteed a market and an economic price over a long period, the farmer can look forward to a certain security of income in the future. He can plan for raising the standard of efficiency on his farm, and for improving the equipment on his holding and his farm buildings. He can feel a certain sense of security.
We have from time to time talked a lot about fixity of tenure. What our forefathers meant when they asked for that was, security in the possession of their homes. To-day the farmer who has not some measure of security in regard to prices has not security in the possession of his home, even though he may have legal fixity of tenure in his land. How many farmers were driven out of their homes during the 20 years that elapsed between the outbreak of this war and the end of the last one? They were driven out by reason of the collapse which took place in agricultural prices, and insistence, on the part of the State, that farmers should continue in production regardless of whether they were paid for their labour or not. Now, we farmers are sometimes accused of being unpatriotic and disloyal to the State when we demand fair recompense for our work, but there is no lack of patriotism and no failing in our duty to the State when we make that demand, because we realise that, unless the farmer is adequately recompensed for his work, he cannot continue to produce. He may endeavour to keep on producing at an uneconomic price, but sooner or later he will either become bankrupt or the fertility of his soil will become completely exhausted. That happened during the years of the depression. At that time farmers, in many cases, when they found that the prices for live stock, butter, pigs and other farm products declined, had to turn to the intensive growing of cereals even though they could not procure manures. In that way they had to exhaust the fertility of the soil.
Other farmers had to turn to the subletting of their land over long periods, and thereby completely ruined their land. All those evils were due to the fact that the State never had the courage to come forward and stand behind the agricultural producer and say: "If you produce the maximum from your land and give the maximum amount of employment that can be given on it, at the same time preserving and improving the fertility of your soil, we, the Government, acting on behalf of the community, guarantee to you that you will get a fair return for your work."
If the Government give the guarantees which we are asking in this resolution, they can rest assured that the farmers will do their utmost. I am in complete agreement with everything that has been said in regard to the necessity for improving and increasing the efficiency of work on the farm, and in regard to raising the standard of agricultural education. I believe that there is an almost unlimited amount of knowledge accumulated by scientists in regard to live-stock production and live-stock breeding, of improvements in regard to soil fertility, the growing of crops and the growing and cultivation of grasses. All this knowledge should be brought home to the individual worker.
I agree with those who say, in regard to improving the educational standard of our workers on the land, that we have got to rely to a large extent upon our young people. It is during the years that intervene after young people leave the primary schools that the maximum amount of knowledge can be acquired by them in regard to agriculture and other subjects. I do not advocate the raising of the primary school-leaving age as primary education is at present imparted. I believe that post-primary agricultural education is urgently necessary, but at the same time I can see the evils in a wrongly directed system of agricultural education or post-primary education. I can see and fully realise that it is wrong to seek to impart agricultural education entirely in theory. A boy leaves the national school and proceeds to a secondary school. Even if we assume that in that secondary school the theory of agriculture is taught, that boy, unless he has had some actual experience of work on the land, will never develop into a farmer.
I have heard it said by an experienced farmer that unless a young fellow succeeds in getting his hands dirty on the land before he reaches the age of 16, he will never be inclined to dirty them on the land afterwards. I think that is quite true.
It has been stated again and again in this House, and I may incur a rebuke from the Chairman of our Party, Deputy Halliden, when I more or less contradict the statement that the dairy cow is the foundation of the agricultural industry. I do not agree that the dairy cow is the foundation of the agricultural industry, although she plays an important part. I hold that the foundation of the agricultural industry is the farmer's wife. For that reason, if it is essential that boys who are going to devote their lives to agriculture should get a thorough agricultural training, it is equally important that girls who intend to settle on the land should receive a thorough agricultural training.
This applies not only to farmers' wives, but also to the wives of agricultural labourers. I know from experience, and it is probably the experience of other Deputies, that wherever you see a farmer who has got on well on his holding, who has brought up his family well, and the members of whose family have been successful in life, there is always a woman in the case, and the woman is always the farmer's wife. For that reason I hold it is desirable that girls should receive an adequate agricultural education. It is unfortunate that the rural science education given in our vocational schools is not being availed of by those who intend to live on the land. It is being availed of mainly by those who intend to get away from the land, and that is why I stated on a recent occasion that vocational education in our rural areas has not been a success.
I ask the Minister carefully to consider the motion which we have tabled, and I should like him to let the House know, when he is replying to that motion, what his attitude is. I have no intention of forcing the Minister's hand. I am anxious to hear him state his side of the case. If he indicates that the Government are prepared to make a reasonable attempt to meet the demand which is contained in that motion, I would be slow to ask for a division upon it, but I should like to have an assurance that the outlook which is outlined in that motion is receiving favourable consideration from the Department. The Minister knows that in Great Britain at the moment there is a ferment of agitation among agricultural producers for similar guarantees in regard to the future, and therefore he should endeavour to keep in step with the agricultural policy of other States.
