The Minister's speech was brief and did not give much indication of the Government's policy in so far as agriculture in general is concerned. To my mind it was disappointing to find that, with a new Minister and in view of the present position of agriculture—the shortages of so many essential commodities—we had not a more extensive survey or a clearer indication of the Government's policy. The present position of farmers in this country is unusual in very many respects. A number of farmers are enjoying a transient prosperity, if high prices for certain commodities can be regarded as indices of prosperity or of a satisfactory condition. However, comparing the general position, we find that after a number of years of intensive cereal production not merely have we not sufficient cereals for ourselves but that our general position leaves many things to be desired. There is a shortage of butter, bacon, and milk. While various remedies have been suggested and while some remedies have, in the past, been put into operation the general position has shown no signs of any substantial improvement. It is extraordinary that we find ourselves—after so many years of attention by the Department of Agriculture and, in particular, after intensive cultivation coupled with the Compulsory Tillage Order—unable to provide ourselves not merely with sufficient cereals but also with sufficient butter, bacon and eggs. Faced with that position, I think it is only natural that the Government should be expected to display a graver sense of urgency of the situation and that it should indicate to the House more clearly the steps which they consider necessary, after consultation with their advisers, in order to improve the position.
It is interesting to consider the recommendations and the conclusions arrived at by the post-emergency committee on agriculture. That committee submitted three reports and, reading the reports, one is struck in particular with certain findings in the majority report. It may be argued that we can never get a policy or a programme for farmers, either from farmers themselves or from elsewhere, which will find universal acceptance. It is very often contended that farmers can never agree amongst themselves and that, that being so, other sections of the community have either to consider or adopt measures which might facilitate or improve the position in agriculture. It is true that in this country and in many other small countries the pattern of agriculture differs greatly from county to county. That is one of the reasons, more than any other, why, I think, a unified farmers' organisation of any kind has never been successful here. It is true that the type of farming carried on in different parts of the country, while differing in many respects, is nevertheless complementary to that carried on in other areas. The small live-stock rearers in one part of the country provide the basic stock for sale to the larger farmers in other areas. Over a number of years that system has worked satisfactorily and has not merely enabled small farmers to reach a fairly high level of prosperity at times but it has enabled other farmers to get good basic stock. It is true that this system has always operated much more in favour of the large farmer than the small farmer. The heavy expenses, the risk, the outlay and the insecurity are all borne by the small farmer who rears live stock and subsequently sells them, mostly as immature cattle, either to other farmers or to cattle dealers who subsequently export them. So far as I can see there is no rapid or radical solution for this situation. These farmers are obliged for many reasons to rear calves and are obliged for other good reasons to sell them at an early age. Moreover, in the past they also reared and produced pigs on a very large scale. Both those lines of agriculture are particularly suited to the small farmer. The risk, however, and the scarcity of foodstuffs have, to a considerable extent, militated against this type of farming economy.
I would like the Minister to consider this question, as I think it must be considered in the near future: What are the Government's plans or views on the present system under which, or the present agreement under which, this country is selling unfinished stores to the British farmers and under which the British farmers after keeping them for anything from two to three months are in a position to get high prices for them? I believe that this agreement always operated against the farmers of this country. It may be that in the particular circumstances in which it was concluded no better agreement could be secured, but it is a fact that, having seen it in operation and noted in particular how unprofitable it is at any time to sell immature cattle, the position must be reviewed. It may be that many of those cattle exported are not immature, but they are certainly sold at a stage at which the greatest margin of profit is available to those who have them at the stage before they reach the butcher. Under the agreement which was originally in operation there was a differential price for cattle that had been three months in England. During the emergency this price differential was reduced so that cattle two months in England now benefit by it. The position for some time past is that stall feeding has ended in this country, or, at least, it certainly is at a scale that bears no relation to its former size, and this position has had, throughout the emergency, a number of results which were undesirable and which if allowed to continue must have very serious consequences not only for the farmers but for the agricultural labourers.
I do not think there is any aspect of agricultural economy that gives greater employment in the winter time than the stall feeding of cattle. Most farmers throughout the winter months find it extremely difficult to keep on some of their agricultural labourers. The present high wages, to which of course the agricultural labourers are fully entitled, are making it more difficult and will make it more difficult in the future and if there is one result more than another that is likely to accrue from this during the coming winter it is that farmers will dispense with, say, an additional man or two, temporarily at least. If we can adopt the policy here, or if we can get an agreement under which our fat cattle can be sold to Britain or sold anywhere else that it is possible to get such an agreement—I think experience shows that the safest market and the one most readily available and with the present shortage of meat in England the one most likely to be available in the future is the British market—we can not only absorb here considerable quantities of foodstuffs but a very considerable number of additional agricultural labourers or, at any rate, retain here during the winter agricultural labourers who are obliged and have been obliged in recent years to seek employment elsewhere. On top of that we will have available an increased supply of farmyard manure which every farmer knows the land to be in need of at the present time. It seems to me that there are two possible methods of returning to the stall feeding of cattle: one is by securing an agreement under which it will be possible to sell fat cattle directly. Alternatively, if we cannot get this we should pay a bounty here on stall fed cattle. It may be that a bounty on fat cattle may enable farmers in general to rear more calves and that, in the long run, may have advantageous results on our milk production. No matter from what angle the matter is approached, no matter what system is adopted, it is essential to have an agreement under which it would be possible for our farmers to stall feed cattle here on a greater scale than ever before. The sooner that is done the better it will be for the farmers and the agricultural labourers.
I would like to refer for a moment to a matter that has often been discussed on this Vote in the past, that is, the question of milk production. Listening to Deputy Heskin, I got the impression that his solution was increased prices. It is true that the cost of everything concerned with milk production has risen considerably in recent years; wages have gone up, feeding-stuffs, when available, have increased in price and the cost of transport has increased. Generally speaking, costs have considerably increased since the pre-war years and since the early years of the emergency but I think we have reached a point when we must stop to consider the position especially when we consider the Minister's speech on the Agricultural Produce Subsidies Vote and the fact that the increased price payable as a result of the advances in the price of milk early this year will result in a sum of not less than £2,000,000 per year being paid by the Exchequer in order to maintain if not to increase our milk production. I think we must consider what other methods or what other policy can be operated in order to improve the position.
Deputy Heskin referred to the fact that the average cow supplying milk to the creameries yielded about 500 gallons. I think that is the kernel of our whole problem. Unless we can substantially increase the average yield increased prices will not secure any increase in milk production and increased prices will not keep those farmers in production who are now proposing to go out of production. It is often said that dairy herds are broken up because the farmers find them uneconomic. Unless the farmer is prepared to use only that cow which is more economic than the 500-gallon yielder no artificial device, either by way of subsidy or enhanced price, will enable the farmer to keep in production. Subsidising farmers at the present moment in relation to the 500-gallon cow is merely subsidising inefficiency. The country should not be called upon to pay enhanced prices to the farmers while that situation continues.
The question then arises as to the way in which the yield can be increased or as to how we can make available in this country a supply of suitable cattle of good quality and high milk yielding potentialities. That is something which will require careful and thorough investigation. In his opening speech the Minister referred to the fact that he hoped to have the assistance of a committee of experts to advise him in this matter. Numerous proposals, a number of pamphlets and many addresses have in recent times been issued on this question. The only comment I have to make upon it is that my own experience over a number of years has shown that it is not an easy matter to build up a good dairy herd. It is expensive. It takes a considerable period of years of intensive study and work. One wrong cross from the point of view of continuing high milk yielding cattle may have results which it will take a considerable number of years to eradicate.
In view of the shortage of butter at the present time and the fact that we are unable to produce sufficient milk to supply our own needs a number of farmers have been prompted to seek a remedy for this situation by importing and establishing here herds of cattle of a high milk yielding dairy strain. In view of the fact that we are dependent to a considerable extent in our particular agricultural economy on the sale of store cattle, it would be undesirable for us to embark on a too widespread encouragement or use of the more noted dairy strains of cattle. Whatever may be said for increasing the yield of shorthorn cattle and, at the same time, improving the standard by extending the premiums available for shorthorn bulls, I think it would be undesirable that we should embark on a widespread encouragement of particular strains of dairy cattle such as have been established in other countries. In the last analysis the situation would become infinitely worse if we were to encourage exclusively in the future or on too large a scale the use of dairy shorthorns, particularly the English dairy shorthorns.
One salient feature stands out here and that is that farmers and breeders can always recognise these cattle at fairs and elsewhere when they wish to purchase them. If dairy shorthorns are encouraged here together with the use of dairy bulls, either imported or bred at home from existing shorthorn herds, we shall in time reach the position with which they are now faced in England where they have dairy shorthorn cattle of a very light type entirely unsuitable for beef production and entirely unsuitable for store cattle. If we were to reach that position here it would be impossible for the farmers to differentiate between the highly developed milk breeds and the ordinary cattle. If we are going to develop a policy of intensive milk production in particular areas we should consider, long before any encouragement is given to these English dairy shorthorns or to the extension of premiums here for dairy shorthorns produced at home, all these difficulties and problems which may arise in order to ensure that we shall not reach the position they have reached over there.
The Livestock Breeding Act is in certain respects a good Act, and it has had many good results but it was never intended, certainly it was not intended in the way in which it has been worked, to improve the milk recording capacity of our cattle in general and it was merely adopted to eliminate indiscriminate breeding and to eliminate the production and the breeding here of nondescript cattle. While I know that there has been an improvement in recent years under the changed system, no attention has been paid at all to the question of milk production or to the ancestry of the bull selected for licence. I cannot understand why the two cow-testing schemes should be operated separately. The scheme for the registration of pure-bred cattle is carried out under the county agricultural instructor or the county agricultural inspector. He is sent there by the Department of Agriculture and he operates in a particular area. At the same time, covering not merely the same area but very often the same herds, you have the local supervisor operating and in his reduced area he is in a position to pay more frequent visits. I think both schemes should be amalgamated and the work should be left to the cow-testing supervisor. In that way it should be possible to cover the area more frequently and at the same time enable the employing authority to pay a sufficient income to the supervisor while releasing the inspectors or instructors for other work under the Department of Agriculture. As the schemes are run at the present moment there is a considerable amount of overlapping. Under my suggestion of amalgamation a different set of records and a different set of particulars would enable the schemes to be kept separately but the work could be done by the same supervisor and the local cow-testing association could do the work much more easily.
The supervisors at the present moment work extremely hard. They travel over considerable distances and, even with the small increase granted in their incomes in recent years, they are still not paid commensurate with the work they do, and the income is insufficient to attract the right type of man. In some districts it has been impossible to get applicants for the position of supervisor. I suggest that the amalgamation of these schemes is worthy of consideration.
Considerable stress has been laid during the course of this debate on the desirability of increasing production. The majority Committee on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy refer in paragraph 214 of their report to the utilisation of land in a manner that will produce the maximum profitable return: "In the cropping of land the objective to be aimed at is its utilisation in a manner that will produce the maximum profitable return in relation to the comparative advantage it derives from soil character, climate and market opportunity. Provided that fertility is maintained to the maximum extent attainable with economy, the national advantage will be best served by producing from land the goods that command the greatest exchange value for the minimum of production cost." They go on further in the report to say: "Since 1939 we have had what is little short of a large scale experiment in total agricultural self-sufficiency accompanied by substantially higher prices, and yet the result has been that our gross volume of agricultural output has not increased. In the light of that experience there would be no prospect of an increased volume of output if we were to adopt a full agricultural self-sufficiency policy for an era in which the threat of insufficiency of food and the realisation of high agricultural prices will no longer operate."
I think that the committee in those two paragraphs have shed light on the whole agricultural position. No matter how you look at the position, it gives no grounds for complacency. In view of the intensive cultivation which has taken place, and in view of the fact that we have for the first time adopted an all-out policy from the point of view of cereal production and self-sufficiency, we ought to be in a position to assess accurately the success or otherwise of that policy. It has, as I said, left us in an unusual position. It has left us with fewer people employed on the land and with less agricultural produce. For that reason, one of the first steps that should be undertaken with the greatest possible vigour and with the least amount of restriction is the importation of artificial manures and fertilisers. In the past great stress was often laid on preserving the home market for farmers. We see now that the home market has limits; that, coupled with the shortage of fertilisers and foodstuffs, home production has limits; and that we can farm what amounts to a larger area by making available a larger supply of fertilisers and feeding stuffs.
I understand that there is still in operation an Emergency Powers Order which limits and controls, not merely the importation, but the sale of fertilisers. It is difficult for anyone to understand why that Order should still be in operation. I think that all restrictions on fertilisers or maize or any other feeding stuffs should be withdrawn. No case can now be made for directing fertilisers that are available into particular channels. It may be that the Department should, if they think fit on the information available to them, direct that the available supplies of fertilisers should go first of all to certain farmers. But certainly no case can be made for restricting the supply of fertilisers to particular firms or restricting the import of these fertilisers in any way. For some reason that is not apparent there is still a restriction in force. I do not think that there is a similar restriction on the importation of maize or any other feeding stuffs that can be imported. We must take all tariffs or restrictions off these commodities. It is very often contended by those not engaged in agriculture that a tax on agricultural machinery or fertilisers should be borne by agriculturists, just as a tax on industrial machinery is borne by industrialists. It is not generally realised that agriculture in most cases only permits of one crop a year, that agricultural production cannot be expanded rapidly, or new channels opened up as rapidly as is the case in industry. It is not possible for farmers to expand their production rapidly or to engage in new lines of agricultural production or farming economy. I think that any tax, restriction, quota or prohibition operating on the supply or distribution of artificial manures or fertilisers is detrimental to the farmers and should be not merely modified but withdrawn completely.
The only other matter I should like to refer to is the Supplementary Estimate. A large number of farmers have suffered grievous losses as a result of the weather experienced in the late winter and early spring. Those of us who have in our constituencies upland areas realise possibly more than others how severe these losses were. I can only speak from my own experience. The difficulties and losses experienced by farmers in certain parts of County Dublin, such as Brittas, Glencullen, and other upland areas, have been unparalleled. Loans are being made under this scheme to facilitate farmers to restock their holdings. It is not generally realised, however, that these farmers will have to restock at a time when cattle prices have reached heights not attained for a considerable time. They have to restock at the dearest time. They are trying to get back again into production. In some cases they are faced, not only with heavy losses, but the wiping out of their entire stock. I think, therefore, that the period allowed for the repayment of these loans is insufficient.
Another difficulty is that in order to get a loan a farmer must have two guarantors. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Agricultural Credit Corporation or the Department to make a loan to a farmer without some evidence that he will repay it or without some security for the money advanced. A farmer whose stock has been wiped out or whose supply of seeds, if he has any, is barely sufficient to seed his farm and whose machinery is out of date is not in a position in most cases to secure guarantors. No farmer or shopkeeper will act as guarantor for a farmer whose stock has been wiped out. I think that the Department will have to adopt a different system and get a personal report from an inspector on the conditions of such a farmer. They will have to consider whether such a farmer is likely to repay a loan. From the farmer's point of view, it is almost impossible to get a guarantor in many of these cases.
I think that the Department should also, in cases where farmers have suffered losses, make representation to the local authorities to extend the period for the payment of rates. I have known cases of farmers who, owing to the severe weather during the harvest, were not in a position to sell their oats, hay or wheat. If they did sell any, the quantity was largely reduced and, in certain cases, it was not sold at the best prices obtainable. During the last 12 months these farmers have had a very hard time. The weather during the autumn, the winter and the spring nearly put a number of them out of business, while others were on the brink of having to go. I suggest that the Department should request the Department of Local Government to ask local authorities to view sympathetically the payment of rates in such cases.
I should tell the Minister that I was disappointed that he did not give the House an indication of the conversations which officials of his Department had last week with two officials of the British Ministry of Food. In reply to a question in the House of Commons, it was stated that certain matters had been under consideration. No matter how we view the uncertain conditions in agriculture, or in the world, the House would be anxious to get from the Government information as to the plans they have for making a new agreement, dealing not merely with live stock but with agricultural products generally. I referred at an earlier stage to the price differential that is operating against our farmers. It is time that that price differential was dropped and that every effort was made by the Minister to get a more favourable agreement. Unless a more favourable agreement can be got conditions in agriculture are bound to be more uncertain.
In so far as other commodities are concerned two things are essential before considering a new agreement, and these are an increased supply of fertilisers and feeding stuffs in order to increase production. If we could increase production at a cost that would enable us to supply ourselves with sufficient butter, bacon and eggs, it might be possible to come to an agreement to sell the surplus to Britain or to some other country. Unless we can increase production at a cost which will enable our farmers to sell at a price that will not merely give them a profit, but that will be within the capacity of the average wage-earner, nothing will convince me that increased prices hold any solution of our problems. Any increase in the price of agricultural products which results in an increase in the selling price of commodities, not merely to farmers, who may not have sufficient for their families, but for the cities and towns, must ultimately increase the cost of living.
The Department should consider the problem, not merely from the farmers' point of view—who are the first consideration of the Department—but in relation to other sections of the community. It should be borne in mind that the present high prices of certain agricultural products, such as meat and butter, leave no margin for a further-increase, and whatever steps may be desirable to increase production must be taken in the light of that situation. I am anxious to hear the Minister's views on the whole question of our aims and policy, not merely on live-stock production and on the sale of cattle, but to supply our own needs and enable us to sell the surplus at a good trade price abroad.
