I move: To add at the end the following words: "And pending the result of such inquiry that the price of wheat of the 1947 crop be increased to £3 per barrel."
Private Deputies' Business. - Farm Production Costs—Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion and amendment:—
That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the Government should set up a tribunal, or other authority, to inquire into the cost of production of all farm produce with a view to ensuring that farmers shall obtain an economic price for such produce.— (Deputies Patrick J. Halliden and Patrick Cogan.)
To delete all words after the word "opinion" and substitute the words:—
"that a permanent tribunal or price-fixing commission should be set up, before which representatives of the agricultural industry will be entitled to appear, for the purpose of fixing the prices of agricultural produce from time to time, having regard to average costs of production and a reasonable margin of profit such as applies to all other Irish industrialists". —(Deputies Martin J. Corry and Thomas McEllistrim.)
Producers generally all over the world are demanding security and stability, and I think it is appreciated in most countries that they are necessary if the world is to be fed. According to the survey made by the Food Agricultural Organisation, there is considerable leeway to be made up in the food requirements of the world. It is not generally appreciated that more than 50 per cent. of the world's population is under-nourished in so far as they are unable to secure a properly balanced ration and adequate nutritious food. The majority of the people of the world have sufficient calories and carbohydrates but they lack proteins and vitamins to protect the foods that are so essential to good healthy diets. We have a world international organisation now looking after that, known as the F.A.O., and I think, if the aims and objects of that organisation are implemented, that it will have a very good effect so far as the primary producers of the world are concerned. As a matter of fact, I believe that unless they are implemented the world will be unable to fulfil the ultimate goal of production That is what the Almighty intended when the world was created and when it was peopled by mankind. Surely the Almighty intended that there would be sufficient capacity in the world, and in the soil of the world, to fulfil the requirements of the human race, if that capacity were properly and efficiently worked. There does appear to be a keener appreciation of what is necessary, what ought to be done, and to what the human race is entitled according to a Christian civilisation. Let us hope here that that end will be implemented eventually.
No matter what we ask for in the way of a tribunal and price fixing and all that sort of thing, a depression in one country almost inevitably has its repercussions not merely in the particular country but outside the country as well. It has its repercussions on the markets of other countries. It must be appreciated that, if the standard of the primary producer is to be raised, if he is to get a fair margin and if he is guaranteed security, it cannot be done in isolation: it must be done internationally.
I am very pleased that the Government here has joined that international organisation. I would like to say that agriculture is and ought to be a long-term policy. If we are going to raise food production, the man engaged in that work must feel satisfied that there is going to be a long-term market for his produce over a period of years, because, as a matter of fact, it takes two, three, four or five years to get into production, and it is essential that he shall have stability, security and the knowledge that in the coming years he is going to get a fair margin. I would like to make it clear, Sir, that I think a wrong impression is created abroad among the general community in regard to this whole question. Many people appear to think that farmers believe in dear food. I do not believe in dear food. I do not think that we should stand for a policy of dear food. We should stand for a policy of a fair margin for the primary producer: that he should be guaranteed a fair margin for his work. I wish to say that where stability or security is guaranteed by the State, there is a responsibility on the farmer to become, as far as possible, efficient. We cannot have better conditions, decent markets and fair standards if the primary producer is not efficient.
With regard to efficiency and low output, I say that a man with a low output cannot expect a good margin of profit, so that in considering this whole matter we cannot divorce one from the other. We must consider efficient production, high output and a fair margin as well. If we do that, and if we secure that, I believe that no section of the community can have a grouse. I believe the primary producers would be doing their duty to the community as a whole, and I believe that there is no other way of attaining success. I suppose the farmer Deputies and the Department of Agriculture are taking a great interest in the White Paper, which is in course of passage through the House of Commons, and in the methods adopted there to give security and stability to the primary producer: to stimulate production, to see what is given to the farmer, what is asked of him, and what is demanded of him in compensation for the security and stability given. As a matter of fact, we might be amazed at the sacrifices that the farmers of Britain are prepared to make in order to ensure that they will get fair margins in the future, because their experience has been a damn bad experience. In an industrial country like England, agriculture has been neglected, and for many years the farming community took little or no margin of profit; possibly they took a debit on some of their production.
I was disappointed that Deputy Corry did not go further with his motion and set out the sort of tribunal required. If we do not get an independent, autonomous tribunal, it will not be satisfactory. I would rather be without a Civil Service tribunal. If we get a Civil Service tribunal, a tied tribunal that will not be empowered to act independently, I do not think it will be a success. I submit that this tribunal must have full power, must be absolutely independent, and must be in a position to base its decisions on the evidence put forward.
If the Government will implement the sort of tribunal that is envisaged, then the agricultural community must get down to the job of preparing costings, and that is a very big matter. If we were doing costings it might have many benefits other than securing a good price. It might show us where we are making mistakes, what particular branch of agriculture is not paying or is not efficient, and possibly we would be in a position to compare one area with another and in that way be able to determine the type of agriculture best suited to the soil and weather conditions in different districts. There is an extraordinary difference in the conditions that operate in different areas.
The amendment moved by Deputy Heskin merely stresses what has been brought to the Minister's attention at various food conferences all over the country. Judging from the reports of these conferences, it has been represented by the delegates in attendance that, in the conditions under which we are producing various commodities, the present prices are not sufficient. We have to take into account the cost of production, the cost of labour and the anticipated increase in costs. I am glad that Deputy Heskin has put down this amendment, which brings to the Minister's attention the seriousness of the problem. Already his attention has been directed to it at conferences down the country and it is only proper that his attention should be directed to it here.
The British agricultural community have been promised that, in the price arrangements for the coming season, the bad conditions of last year will be taken into account. It is only fair that the same should be done here. It may be suggested our farmers got voluntary help. I do not think there is any such thing as cheap labour. We appreciated the voluntary labour very much, but the farmers were very generous with the volunteers. It was a question of getting the labour at the right moment. I believe the farmers were pretty generous with every man who offered his services. Although the voluntary help was there, it cannot be said that the farmers got cheap labour through voluntary help.
From a Parliamentary Question I asked a few weeks ago, it appears that there has been a substantial reduction in the amount of wheat delivered to the mills. The quantity was 92,000 tons on 1st February last. The Minister could argue that the country has suffered by that amount, but there is another way of looking at it. The income of the agricultural community has suffered by that amount and the cost of the bad harvest can be calculated from that figure—92,000 tons at 55/- per barrel. That will give us some idea of the reduction in the income of the agricultural community.
I am giving the Minister a precedent, if he is prepared to take one from another country. Usually we are not prepared to do that. In a neighbouring country the responsible Minister indicated that the bad harvest of last year will be taken into account in the price to be fixed for cereals in the coming year. Let us face the difficulties that exist. We have had a very late spring; we are still snow and frost bound; little or no ploughing has been done. A tremendous effort will be required if a good job is to be done. It would be a great incentive if the Minister announced that there will be an increase in the price of wheat. It will be a powerful incentive to the agricultural community and they will put their backs into the job. They will have to work, not eight hours a day, but night and day during the coming weeks the moment the weather clears up.
There is no tractor fuel at the different depôts in the country. If the weather clears up next week, the farmers will be shouting for fuel. It will be a shocking state of affairs if the tractors are to remain idle the first fine day that comes. The matter is an urgent one. The farmers should be stimulated to make the very best effort within the next few weeks. I am sure the House will help the Minister in every way. We will all co-operate as far as we can. In view of the disappointments of the past 12 months and the hardships the agricultural community has suffered, an incentive now would have a tremendous effect on what will be done in the way of national effort during the next month.
I quite agree that a tribunal should be set up to inquire into the cost of production of all types of farm produce, but I can see that even if such a tribunal were established it would take a very long time before its findings could be submitted to the proper authorities. I suggest that while such a tribunal would be considering the problem the Minister should make every effort to encourage production in the country. We all realise the position that exists. There is very little wheat, but that is due to the very bad crop last year. The ration of butter has been reduced to 2 ozs. per week per person, and the sugar ration is down to a ½ lb. per head per week. The Minister is a young man and a farmer, and I am sure he will face the position with courage and determination in a effort to save the agricultural industry from the ruin which it is facing at present.
What I suggest he should do is to summon a conference of producing farmers—not a conference of professors or people of that type—of farmers who are actually producing and delivering goods for the people, and of representatives of the agricultural workers who have to work shoulder to shoulder with the farmer in the great effort to produce food for the nation in this emergency, presided over by experienced economists from his Department, and let that conference arrive at a reasonable price so that, first, a decent wage may be paid to the worker to encourage him to remain on the land, and, secondly, that the farmer will get a reasonable profit, a reasonable return on the capital he has laid out. That, to my mind, is the approach to the position as it presents itself to us to-day.
My reason for putting down the amendment was that I feel that if we want to secure an adequate supply of wheat for the nation, a price which will be an encouragement to the farmer must be given. We know well that, due to the fact that in many areas there was no tillage tradition, the farmers there did not have the equipment necessary for such a huge production of wheat. Now, as Deputy Hughes has pointed out, because of the terribly bad weather during the winter and the frosty weather of the past five or six weeks, tillage in all areas is two months late. I estimate roughly that at the moment not 15 per cent. of the ploughing has been done. How are the farmers and their workers to face the situation? There is no use in asking a horse to pull a load he is not able to pull and there is no use in asking the farmers and their workers to produce their quota of food unless they get some encouragement to do so. The horse must be fed and the farmer and his workers must be fed by way of cash return.
We know that the farmers have a duty to make this great effort but we also know that they must be compensated like every other section of the community. In the newspapers every other day, we see reports of trade disputes all over the country. If he farmer sat down and refused to do his work, he would be a criminal. If he refuses to till, he is brought before the court, and, if it is so decided, he may be imprisoned for refusing to do his work.
Quite recently, we discussed a motion in relation to wheat which was designed to secure a reduction of the tillage quota by a very small margin, and I should like, in discussing this matter, to touch upon that motion. I believe that the Minister should exercise his common sense, and should instruct his inspectors to use their common sense, and not enforce the Tillage Order in areas where the farmers are not able to produce an economic yield of wheat per acre. By increasing the price of wheat to £3 per barrel, the man with good land will be induced to grow more wheat and he will make good the loss caused by the failure of the uneconomic holder to grow wheat. That uneconomic holder can grow another commodity much more suited to his land than wheat, a commodity which is very essential for the people, oats or barley. Potatoes are another essential crop which he could produce and I suggest that it be left as a matter of choice to him. Leave the man with the land which will not produce grain economically to produce his own crop. That is the best way of doing it and will prove to be the most successful way in the end.
Recently, the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave a rough estimate of the yield from the 1946 wheat crop and I was amazed by the figure he submitted to the House. It represents less than three and a half barrels of wheat to the acre. Surely there must be something wrong. This year, I had between 50 and 60 acres of wheat, and I recently calculated what I got from that acreage as around nine barrels to the acre. I thought I got a good yield this year. In other years, I considered, and I even argued here, that the average was around the seven-barrels mark, and I am greatly surprised that the Minister's estimate should be so low. It represents 2,160,000 barrels when it should be well over 5,000,000 barrels. For that reason, in view of the arguments put forward and the lateness of the season, I appeal to the Minister to be courageous and determined. If he will face the music as a farmer Minister should, he will put courage and determination into the farming community and they will produce the goods.
With regard to another crop, barley, I should like to point out that, in my view, we are following an unwise course in encouraging the importation of this grain. In reply to a question I asked in 1944, I was told that the imports of barley were 36,449 tons or 368,490 barrels, representing at our price £1,123,000. For the three-year period, 1944 to 1946, it represented a total of over £9,000,000 on the export price. That brings me back to the matter of the uneconomic land. Barley is a crop which can be produced on this land, and, if you give a price for barley, you will get the goods produced. If we are to pursue the Government's own policy of producing food for the nation and for live stock, it would be sound policy for the Minister to encourage these people with this uneconomic land to produce the barley which we are importing from our cross-Channel neighbours and to give the farmer at home —I do not ask him to pay a price of 61/- per barrel—an economic price so as to encourage him to produce. I suggest that 50/- a barrel should be paid for barley and, with that price, I believe that you would get sufficient barley without being under the necessity of importing it.
As regards the manure subsidy of 2/6, the Minister stated, in reply to a question, that the voucher would not be exchangeable until next autumn. That means that a man who produced wheat in 1944, for instance, will be without any remuneration in cash or kind for three years. Take the case of a man producing ten acres of wheat, with an average of seven barrels to the acre. That would be 70 barrels, which, at 2/6 per barrel, would amount to £8 15s. If the ordinary rate of interest payable in the post office—2½ per cent.—be added, that would be 4/4½ in addition. The farmer is entitled to his interest as well as everybody else. In the second year, the amount owing him would be £17 10s., plus 8/9 interest. In the third year, the amount would be £26 5s. 6d., plus 13/1½ interest. That sum of £26 would be of assistance to the farmer in meeting a liability or in clearing his rent or rates. I think that it is unfair to withhold the vouchers for so long a period. The vouchers should be cashable in the year in which the crop is grown. If the same is to apply this year, the farmers will be three and a half years waiting.
Take the case of a man who is growing 40 or 50 acres of wheat and consider the cash value of the vouchers over a three-year period. It does not follow that because a man is growing a large acreage of wheat he is well off. The amount due to him in respect of subsidy would, perhaps, meet his rates or help to pay his labour. He is entitled to consideration more than most other people, because he has to face greater liability as regards cost of production—implements, labour, rent, rates and taxes. It is very unfair that a man should be kept so long out of his money, and I think the Minister should take into consideration the loss which the ordinary producer suffers in this respect over a period of years.
As regards labour, Deputy Hughes referred to the voluntary labour available last year. There is no doubt that those who came voluntarily from the cities and towns did their best throughout the country. Farmers everywhere appreciate the effort made by them and the spirit with which they worked, whether skilled or unskilled. In nearly all cases, the men and women were entitled to a wage, as many of them lost their employment during that period. Whether they did or not, the farmers paid them and paid them well. I do not think that the farmer is as selfish as many people would lead one to believe. He will pay his wages and, in nine cases out of ten, he will pay through the nose. He has to pay if he wants to keep going. The farmer has to cater for a market and has to hold that market. For that reason, he cannot go out of production.
Take the case of the farmer who is producing milk. The position in that regard speaks for itself. In a country where the people always had plenty of butter, they have to-day only two ounces per week. I believe that the whole cause of that is that a sufficient wage is not being paid to the worker on the land to encourage him to stay there. If you want to have that wage paid, you will have to increase the price of the commodities which the farmer sells. When I refer to a sufficient wage for the workers, I include in that term the members of the farmer's own family. I do not see why they should be slaves to the nation. The farmer himself might like his day, or two or three days, out but sooner or later the family will get tired of that. They will want to know why, if their co-worker during the remaining days of the week can go off on Sunday afternoon to a hurling match or other amusement, they should have to remain at home to milk 15, 20 or 30 cows. I hold that the members of the farmer's family are as much entitled to a wage as are the sons and daughters of industrialists who work in their offices. The farmer's family do not want office pay. All they want is a reasonable rate of pay by way of an increased price to the farmer to encourage production.
How many people in this city and in the villages of rural Ireland are paying 4/- and 5/- per lb. for butter? We are told that that is black-marketing. Whether it be black-marketing or white-marketing, the people will try to get butter at any price. Why should those who have power to fix a price prevent the producer from getting a reasonable price? I hold that the price of milk at present should be at least 1/5 per gallon during summer and 1/8 during the winter period. That would increase the price on the average by about 5d. per gallon. Taking the value of that in butter, it would represent an increase of about 1/2 per lb. That added to the current price would make 3/6 per lb. How many people, even amongst the poorer sections of the community, would refuse to pay 3/6 per lb. if they could get a sufficient quantity of butter? I say without fear of contradiction that nobody would have objection to a reasonable price being paid to the farmer in order to get the article they so badly need and which is so essential to-day.
I should like to deal with one other point in connection with family labour on the farm before I pass away from this matter. We are told very often that the farmers have millions of money on deposit in this country. Where did these deposits come from? They represent the slave wages of the farmers' sons and daughters of 50 or 60 years ago. These sons and daughters worked on the farms until they reached the age of 40 or 50 years, and could not get married. They all lived together on the farm until it was eventually passed on to a young nephew or niece. Their earnings, the produce of their slave wages, have been lodged in the banks almost since the time banking institutions were first set up here. These are the deposits belonging to farmers which are so often referred to by other people throughout the country. They are the slave wages as I say of the forefathers of the present occupiers of the farms. Thank God, to-day, the young boys and girls are not going to live under such conditions. They are going farther afield. Years ago a certain sense of pride attached to them but to-day they are satisfied to knuckle down and to take jobs in factories, to go as maids or enter some other employment in order to get a reasonable remuneration which will enable them to partake of the ordinary pleasures afforded to the youth of the modern age.
Take the workers on the land to-day. Three years ago, in a debate on agriculture, before the present Minister ever appeared as Minister for Agriculture, I had the courage to say that the wage of the agricultural worker should be 45/- a week. That was three years ago and his wage even yet is not 45/-. I say to-day, even though it may be unpopular in my constituency and elsewhere, that you must have a levelling up, that you must bring the wages of the rural worker within a reasonable distance of the wages of the rural industrial worker.
I shall not say that his wages must be brought up to the level of those of the city worker but they will have to be brought up to a reasonable level, that of the rural industrial worker. I hold—I am not afraid to mention the figure again to-day—that the agricultural worker if you want to keep him on the land should be in receipt of 55/- a week. In order to give him that wage and to encourage production it will be necessary to increase the price of milk, wheat, beet and barley. As I said in my opening remarks, the present Minister for Agriculture is a young man, who is himself a farmer. Face up to the situation that presents itself to you. The picture is painted and the picture is ready to be exhibited at the moment. You know what it is. Instead of operating compulsory measures against the farmers, face up to the situation.
The Minister.
Face up to the situation with courage and determination and, if you do your part, the farmers will do theirs and will produce all the food that the nation requires.
The Deputy should refer to the Minister as the Minister.
So I did, Sir.
The Deputy used the second person "you." As Deputies should address the Chair, the second personal pronoun is taken as referring to the Chair.
I am sorry, Sir.
I am quite aware that it was only a slip on the Deputy's part.
I have not much to say on this motion except that I wish to support it in its entirety. All we ask for is that a tribunal or a commission should be established to inquire into the costing of all farm produce. I think that such an inquiry is long overdue. It was pressed on the predecessor of the present Minister for quite a considerable time but met with no success. We have now arrived at the time when we shall have to face up to the situation as it is. If such a commission were established and its findings put into effect some years ago during the emergency, we would have avoided many of the serious food shortages that we are experiencing to-day. We have a definite shortage of food at the present time. It is a strange thing that in an agricultural country which in former years had not alone sufficient food for itself but also an exportable surplus to dispose of, we should now be facing a shortage of primary products. Bacon has completely gone off the market, sugar is scarce and the butter ration has been reduced to two ounces per person. Where the butter has gone is a mystery. The average person in the country does not believe that our butter reserves have been reduced to the extent which allows only of a two-ounce ration per person per week. We want a tribunal established to inquire into the cost of producing farm produce, and which will give adequate representation to producers. Some years ago the predecessor of the present Minister established the Pigs and Bacon Commission. We had a flourishing bacon trade at that time. The strange thing is that, since that commission came into being, the pig population dropped to about one-third of what it was formerly. The reason for that is plain for anybody to see. The members of that commission were not producers themselves and did not understand producers' difficulties or the advantages which a commission composed of producers coming together and discussing proper ways and means of maintaining a certain pig population in the country, could confer on the general body of producers in the country. I understand that Deputy Corry favours a tribunal composed of civil servants.
I said nothing of the kind.
I was listening to every word uttered by the Deputy and the impression I gathered from him is that he favoured such a commission. If I am wrong, I shall withdraw.
You will withdraw it now.
Do not get so hot and bothered about it. You certainly did make a speech on the subject and I understood that you were in favour of a body composed of civil servants. I definitely came to the conclusion that the object of the Deputy's motion was more to defend the agricultural policy of the Government than to arrive at the same conclusion as Deputy Halliden.
I am not responsible for the Deputy's intelligence. Do not blame me for it.
Thank God, you are not.
I thank God I am not.
The farmers of the country demand a price for their produce sufficient to cover the cost of production plus a margin which will represent a fair wage for the labour expended in producing that food. That is a perfectly fair demand. If a factory or industry is set up in this or any other country, the promoters float their company, get in capital, install machinery, estimate output, make a very close survey of their market and they fix a price for each particular article which that factory will produce which will return to them the cost of production and a fair margin for profit. One of the greatest causes why coercion has to be used in connection with certain farming operations is that farmers are constantly discouraged by the fact that no matter what labour they put into the land, they do not get a price for their produce which will permit them to pay a decent day's wages for work on their land. What we ask in this motion is that means will be provided by which they will be guaranteed a price which will leave them, over and above the cost of production, something which will enable them to pay a reasonable day's wages to those engaged on the land.
The question of the production of food in the coming 12 months is one of paramount importance at the present moment. We had very inclement weather in January and the last five weeks' frost which has made the ground as hard as iron has held up work very seriously. I urge that the Minister should go into consultation with other Ministers concerned to devise ways and means of facilitating farmers in every possible way. Even if the frost cleared off now, there is just as serious an emergency before the country as confronted it in the harvest of last year. The work that would normally be done in the months of January and February in other years, will now have to be done in the next three or four coming weeks, in the month of March. Practically no wheat has been sown in my part of the country, and it is just as well, as the fierce frost would have killed it and the ground would need reseeding. If the wheat crop for next year is to be safeguarded, every effort will have to be made. One of the previous speakers mentioned that no tractor fuel was available at the depôts to allow the tractors to work if the weather cleared up. That is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In reply to questions here this week and the last week that the Dáil was sitting, he did not feel very hopeful and did not seem to grasp fully the gravity of the situation.
There is one other factor I would like to bring before the Minister, which concerns his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to some extent also. I see that we are promised this week-end 34,000 tons of coal from the United States. I would ask him to ask his colleague to ear-mark a certain amount of that coal for blacksmiths. When we start work in the spring, the blacksmith is our best friend. Horses have to be shod, tools and implements altered, parts repaired and new parts made. Even if you get a complete set of new equip- ment from the factory, you always need the blacksmith to stand by. In nearly every case, they are trying to work on turf, charcoal or timber. I am sure the Minister is quite familiar with the run of things in his own constituency and knows that no blacksmith can work properly without good coal. If the farmers are held up for two or three days, it will be a serious handicap, so I ask that that matter be dealt with and that, if there is any of this consignment of coal suitable for blacksmiths' purposes, it be given to them.
The farmers are depressed as a result of the bad harvest last year. It was an act of God and there is no human being to blame for it. Very often it happens that after their very best efforts the weather takes away half their profits and is the equivalent of robbing them. That has depressed them seriously and this severe spell, to the end of which I hope we are now coming, is not improving their tempers. On top of that, we had the farmers' excellent effort last year to produce sufficient beet, but the sugar factory strike had disastrous effects on the production. Many farmers in my part of the country, even in spite of persuasion from me, have refused positively to grow beet, although they were making a little margin of profit from it. Without taking the big growers into account the whole labour in the case of the small growers is generally in their own families. Even then, it is a very costly crop, costing anything up to £35 a statute acre to produce, regardless of the output from that particular acre. That is a rough estimate and I might be pounds wrong, but I would say it is not less than £35 a statute acre. Then I hear a lot of talk in my constituency regarding the profits of the sugar company, although there is not a sufficient price paid for beet. A good deal of notice is taken of the enormous profits made by the sugar company and the farmers ask themselves why they should produce beet so that the company may have those enormous profits. That is a matter for inquiry. I do not profess to charge the company with making excess profits. I do not want to see them working without leaving some certain sum aside to meet contingencies and pay the shareholders, and so on, but if it is a fact that the profits are too high, that is not tending to induce farmers to grow beet.
In some people's minds, this talk of prices may create the impression that the farmers want to increase prices too much and that the goods they produce will be too dear for the consumers in the cities and towns, who will not be able to purchase them. During this year at least, owing to the general world shortage, the farmers of this country must go all out to provide the necessary food for ourselves. We do not intend to shelter the lazy good-for-nothing who produces only half the normal return of his land. That is another point. In addition to inquiring into the cost of production, we need and demand from the Government every help and assistance in increasing production per acre over the whole country, since then and only then can we afford to sell our food more cheaply to the consumers in the cities and towns. We could afford to sell it more cheaply and yet make a fair profit for ourselves, if we could grow one and a half times as much on each acre, since we could sell that total product at exactly two-thirds of the price. The consumer would benefit as well as the farmer. That is our aim.
Under the present Government policy, we are definitely not making the average acre of land produce as much as it should. There should be more attention to fertilisers and to other points that would help the farmers to get bumper crops this year. If that is not done, we will be in a very serious situation. I hold it was the policy of the Government in the past and the policy of the Minister's predecessor which left food as scarce as it is to-day.
The motion we are discussing asks that the Government set up some authority to inquire into the cost of production of all farm produce, with a view to ensuring that farmers shall obtain an economic price for it. No one could take any objection to that proposal. The farmer is surely entitled to an economic price for the goods which he produces and with that I am in full agreement. However, listening to the debate and to the suggestions made this evening, it is pretty obvious that those who speak for the farmers and know the farming conditions are convinced that the present prices are not sufficient and that the motion, if put into operation, must mean that the economic price referred to, if established, would increase the price of practically every piece of produce coming from the farm and thus automatically increase the cost of living.
Deputy Hughes suggests a remedy, an increased price for wheat, while Deputy Halliden wants increases for wheat, barley, milk and farm workers. It seems that the only solution is to consider this agricultural problem together with the general problem of prices. All the disadvantages which we suffer to-day —low production and lack of interest on that part of the community to participate in farm work—are due to the fact that the conditions of living offered to the farmer for his work are not comparable to the conditions offered to operatives in other industrial undertakings in this country. I believe that is true, but if we are to make this survey, which must result in an increase in the cost of all produce that is requisite in our daily lives, we must make a much wider survey than has been suggested in this motion.
We will have to make a survey covering workers in all our industrial undertakings. Farming cannot be segregated and made a separate unit in the life of the country. All our workers comprise one unit. The work of one should dovetail into the other. The reward should be in proportion to the work that each operative puts into his work whether in an industrial or manufacturing concern or on the farm. We have set up here a court which now examines the question of wages for workers. The wages are fixed, I assume, on the cost of living to-day. There can be no question but that every worker is entitled to a substantial increase in order that he may have the purchasing power which was his on the wage he had six years ago.
I do not know whether the increases which farmers have got for their produce would give them a 50 or a 60 per cent. increase on what they were getting six years ago. It is pretty clear that conditions will be made worse than they are unless the survey embraces all engaged in industry, and unless a standard is fixed that will be comparable, one with the other, or as near comparable as conditions will permit. The result of that survey should be to give a fair reward to all for their services.
If, however, you proceed to set up a tribunal to make a survey in regard to agricultural prices and leave out of consideration altogether all other industrial occupations, then there is no doubt but that the prices based on it will cause greater hardships and unrest amongst other sections of the community. My suggestion is that we should have a general survey and enforce it generally. I am not disputing at all the claims made by some speakers that the prices paid for our farm produce are below what they should be. I do not think, however, that the adoption of some of the suggestions made is going to remedy the situation.
There is talk about increased prices for wheat, beet and milk. Among certain groups of farmers we now have a monopoly established as regards certain types of agricultural production. Those engaged in beet production are able to demand, year after year, an increased price for beet. They represent a comparatively small section of the community, but yet the beet producers can threaten the community with a strike and up goes the price of beet. Similarly we are moving into a kind of corner in wheat growing. Wheat is not a crop that can be grown generally. It has to be remembered that the land on which beet and wheat can be successfully grown is the best in the country. The people engaged in growing wheat are fast creating a monopoly for themselves and are not slow in exercising the power of that monopoly. But what about the position of the small farmers living on the poorer land in west, south and north? They represent a majority of those engaged in agriculture. They enjoy no monopoly and never can. They carry on a system of mixed farming which includes poultry and pig rearing, a certain amount of dairying and the growing of general crops. These crops are not cash crops. They are grown mostly to supply the household needs and to produce food for the feeding of a few pigs and some poultry.
Those people are not in a position to threaten a strike or to demand that the price of their produce must move up from time to time. You have there a disadvantage and an inequality which is being suffered by a big section, so far as numbers are concerned, of the farming community. Their position requires a thorough investigation, because they are carrying on their work under very unfavourable conditions from the point of view of soil and climate. They should get a fair deal out of the proposed survey if it ever takes place. I do not know how it is to be done. It is a big problem.
I have every sympathy with any proposal that aims at the betterment of those engaged in agriculture. I think that more could be done for them by the Department of Agriculture. It should give more attention to the application of scientific methods for the production of agricultural products. We should have a scientific examination of our soil and its adaptability for growing various classes of crops. Special regard should be had to the treatment of poor soil. Bad sub-soil should get special treatment, and you have a lot of it in the west, and north of Ireland. It is non-porous, but perhaps by scientific treatment it might be made porous and could then be employed in profitable production. The scientific treatment of our soil is an absolute necessity if our farmers are to continue in production under modern world conditions. Perhaps with the extension of electricity in rural areas it might be possible to provide small farmers with machinery for milking cows. One of the difficulties experienced in the dairying industry is that of finding workers who will attend on Sunday mornings and particularly on Sunday evenings to milk cows.
Is the Deputy speaking on the advisability or otherwise of setting up a tribunal?
I am. The proposal is that a tribunal should be set up to inquire into the cost of production of all farm produce with a view to ensuring that farmers shall obtain an economic price for such produce.
One of the reasons I asked the Deputy was because I thought he might desire to say something on the setting up of the tribunal. This debate must conclude at 9.15, and I understand the Minister is anxious to intervene in it and the House might like to hear him.
I was not aware of that and I shall give way.
I do not know, Sir, that you were correct in saying that I was anxious to participate in this debate. However, you have made the statement and I am on my feet.
I regret that I misrepresented the Minister.
Partly, I think. It may be that this has been an interesting discussion and it may be that it has not. After a very depressing harvest in 1946, a wicked winter in 1946-47, and a late spring on top of it, we had some depressing speeches from those who claim to speak the minds of the farming community. I do not propose to follow that line, nor do I propose to deal with the various matters discussed in the course of the debate. The motions we are discussing deal with the establishment of a costings tribunal in regard to the establishment of which this House got an assurance from my predecessor and from myself. I explained here on the last evening when we were discussing this matter that I had been given to understand that those who tabled these motions were satisfied with that assurance.
Is the Minister accepting the motions?
In reply to a Parliamentary Question, I have given the House an assurance that I intended to introduce proposals for the establishment of a costings tribunal. Whether or not Deputy Cogan regards that as an assurance I cannot say, but it seems to convey very plainly, as far as I understand English, that it is the intention of this Department over which I preside to introduce what is sought for here. For some reason or another best known to the movers of this motion and, as I say, in spite of a sort of understanding to the contrary, we find ourselves discussing a matter that apparently is already agreed to.
In the course of a discussion which, to my mind, should not have arisen, all kinds of issues have been raised, such as the composition of this tribunal, what will be the attitude of the Government towards its findings, what will the Government do in this eventuality and in that, the wisdom of having producers' representatives, the futility, as Deputy Hughes described it, of having what he called a "bound tribunal." Surely these are all matters which would be quite in order on and appropriate to a discussion of the proposals when they make their appearance. As I have said, I have given an assurance that there will be no undue or unnecessary delay in bringing them forward so far as I am concerned. When that stage is reached, it will be quite in order for Deputies to give expression to many of the points of view to which expression has been given here.
I must say that I regard this discussion as a complete and absolute waste of time on the part of those who are always complaining of the inability of the Government to provide them with the time to discuss Private Deputies' Business. I do not want to be an offender in that respect and therefore I can only say that the measure to which these motions refer is in course of preparation. I cannot give any assurance as to the actual date on which it will make its appearance, but when it is introduced we can have all these points of view brought forward. Since Deputy Hughes has mentioned the matter, I should like to give him an assurance—I am not saying that he will accept it—when he talks about a "tied" or "bound" tribunal, that, so far as I am concerned, this is my attitude towards matters of this kind.
Officials of my Department will, so far as I am concerned, carry out my policy as Minister and the policy that has the approval of the Government. Whatever their own views may be, I will see to it that they will do that. If at any time I find it necessary to call upon any official of my Department to take part in or sit upon any commission of inquiry or tribunal, I want to assure the House that he will not be in any way tied, but will be placed on that body for the purpose of discharging that responsibility in a free and conscientious manner. If we are to discuss these matters when they come forward, let us not proceed to discuss the wisdom of a particular type of tribunal on the basis that, because it is composed of this particular type of person or that, it will be tied to the Department, to the Minister or to the Government or, because it is loaded in some other way, it will be tied to the farming community. If a tribunal is to be established it will be free from any control or influence on my part.
As I said, I do not wish to follow the rather depressing sort of line that has been taken or that has become so popular in this House when discussing agricultural problems. I meet an odd farmer here and there, just the same as other Deputies. I have an idea of the type of people farmers are and I think I understand them as well as most other people in this House, and I would be sorry to think that the point of view to which expression is given here, that depressing note which is often struck here, is the farmers' attitude towards the many problems that confront them and the nation and I would be very much more depressed than I am if I thought that note were a true reflection of the farmers' point of view or the farmers' attitude.
The motion and amendment are not pressed.
In view of the statement by the Minister for Agriculture to this House, I agree there is no necessity now for a division on the motion, but I would like to emphasise two points.
The Deputy has five minutes in which to do it.
As the Minister has stated, we have had a depressing autumn, a bad winter and a spring later than ever before, some two or three months practically. The farmers want encouragement, and I would ask the Minister to review the position as regards the price of wheat and the price of milk. These are two matters on which I should like the Minister's assurance: that he will immediately have the price of wheat and especially the price of milk reviewed.
I should like also, as Deputy Blowick remarked, that coal would be reserved for blacksmiths, if at all available. I am aware of the great hardship to farmers up and down the country who want to get work done, horses shod and their implements repaired for the spring. I have had letter after letter from blacksmiths in various parts of the country urging me to put the matter before the Dáil. I hope that the Minister will keep this in mind and if anything possible can be done in the matter that he will make representations to the proper quarter. That is all I have to say, and I have no reason to doubt that the Minister for Agriculture will expedite the setting up of this tribunal as quickly as possible and that we all shall be satisfied with the personnel of that commission and with its findings. It is eminently desirable that the farmers' sons and daughters should get a fair crack of the whip. As some Deputy has remarked, they have been kept working day in and day out, year after year, with no means of settling down in life, as getting married is out of the question for economic reasons. I think, Sir, there is no necessity for continuing, and I unreservedly accept the assurance of the Minister that everything possible will be done.
Motion and amendment withdrawn.
What is the position of my amendment?
Of course, if the motion is withdrawn the amendment falls as nothing can be added to a non-existing motion.
I did not know that Deputy Halliden withdrew the motion.
The amendment is to add something to the motion. The motion is now gone and nothing can be added to it.
I was raising the point that I wanted the amendment put.
But if the motion is withdrawn, the amendment lapses.
I have been asked, a Chinn Comhairle, for an assurance from Deputy Halliden on two points and I think it is necessary that I should say, in relation to one of them, what my attitude is. These two points are milk and wheat. According to the White Paper, to which he has referred, I am obliged to examine annually the milk position. As far as the price of wheat is concerned, I have gone to the Government because of complaints I heard in Limerick, Carlow, Sligo, and because of my own belief, and I have asked them to restore the vouchers to the wheat growers for 1947. That concession has been granted. It may be regarded as small but it is a concession as far as I am concerned, and it is well that the House and the country should know that the wheat price for 1947 is closed and it is better for us, instead of keeping an agitation of this kind alive, to get out and urge the people to do their job, hard as it is, having regard to the circumstances, rather than keep this thing dangling all the year. The price of wheat fixed for 1947 is regarded by the Government as a price that is fairly reasonable and generous, having regard to all the circumstances. I must say that I agree with it. I want to give the House an assurance that I must, according to the White Paper, examine the milk position.
I did not know that Deputy Halliden had withdrawn the motion.
The Deputy was not here possibly when it was agreed that no division would be called for. That was agreed in the House on the 14th instant.
I think that Deputy Heskin was right to inquire into the position in regard to his amendment and I think it could hardly be expected that the House was unanimous in agreeing to the withdrawal of the motion.
I put the logical point to the Deputy. The amendment was to add something to the motion. The motion having disappeared the amendment lapsed.
I object to the withdrawal of the motion.
I do not object to the withdrawal but I submit that a motion can only be withdrawn with the consent of the House and if a Deputy objects he is entitled to his objection.
Quite right, but Deputy Halliden said "withdrawn". I said "withdrawn" and nobody objected.
I did not hear Deputy Halliden.
It was agreed on the 14th of the month that the motion and Deputy Corry's amendment would not be pressed to a division.
I did not understand what Deputy Corry said.
Nobody understands what Deputy Corry says.