Notice was given by Deputy Cogan that the subject matter of Question 54 of the 8th October would be raised on the Adjournment.
Adjournment—Agricultural Costings.
Yesterday, in reply to questions put by Deputies Heskin, Corry and myself, the Minister said that, in replying to similar questions on the 20th January, 1947, and 6th May, 1947, he "gave the House to understand that it was my intention to set up a permanent tribunal or commission to advise as to appropriate producers' costs for agricultural products. Since then, I have given the matter further consideration and have decided that, instead of the proposals then contemplated, I propose making a submission to the Government recommending the establishment in my own Department of a costings section to advise me on matters relating to the cost of production of agricultural products". In reply to supplementary questions, the Minister rather aggressively claimed that he had a right to change his mind. The right to change one's mind is accorded generally to ladies, but I think that even his worst enemy will not accuse the Minister of being a lady or even of possessing many lady-like qualities. The Minister has deliberately broken a solemn pledge which he gave to this House away back in January last.
I was young and foolish then.
The Minister is not getting mellow with age.
That may be true. The Minister was new to his position—I will admit that. However, the Minister is not so very young not to know that this question of agricultural costs and costings has been debated in this House and throughout the country over a long period. Every manufacturer, every producer who has sought Government assistance, every manufacturer who has established a new industry under protective tariffs has demanded and secured that he will obtain his costs of production plus a margin of profit. We farmers frequently ask for higher prices for our produce—particularly during the war years—and we are often told that we are trying to exploit the rest of the community and to hold the rest of the country up to ransom. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be official indisputable costings upon which a farmer's case could be based and upon which the community would be able to see that the farmer was not asking for anything excessive or for anything more than his cost of production plus a reasonable margin of profit. The Minister in asserting his right to change his mind is asserting the right of any ordinary individual in any ordinary circumstances. However, when a definite pledge is given either to a national Parliament or to anybody else, but particularly to a national Parliament, that pledge ought not be broken. A motion was tabled early this year by Deputy Halliden and myself. The motion was as follows:
"That Dáil Éireann 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."
Within ten minutes of the handing in of that motion at the general office two prominent members of the Fianna Fáil Party handed in an almost similar motion. Those two motions were debated in this House on the 14th and on the 26th of February. It was reasonable to assume that since the case for those two motions was strong and unanswerable they would have been accepted by Dáil Éireann. They were proposed by this Party. They were supported by Fine Gael and, so far as I remember, by the Labour Party also. In addition, a similar motion was proposed by two members of the Fianna Fáil Party. In that situation it appeared inevitable that the motions would be carried. The Minister came into this House knowing perhaps that Dáil Éireann would pass those motions and he gave a very solemn pledge that he would introduce legislation immedately to implement the proposals contained in them. He appeared to me at the time to be almost impatient and nasty because I was pressing him for the strongest possible assurance and because I was, apparently, casting some doubt upon his intention to implement those proposals. He repeated several times a statement such as this which I quote from column 1447 of the Official Report of Wednesday, 26th February, 1947:
"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."
The Minister continued further:
"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."
Did you accept that assurance at the time—if you can call it such?
It was accepted.
You divided the Dáil on it.
The motion was proposed and seconded. The two motions were withdrawn. I did not divide the Dáil.
I understood you had a division on it.
I was inclined to doubt the Minister's word. I was inclined to be afraid that the Minister would change his mind but he asserted so strongly that he would not go back on his promise that Deputy Halliden and myself agreed to withdraw the motion. I consider that that was an outrage upon this Parliament. In order to prevent a decision from being taken upon a very important national question he gave an undertaking that he was going to implement the terms of the proposal before the House. I consider that that was a matter upon which the Minister himself, without being asked any question, should have come forward to the House with an apology. This matter represents such an important reform that I was almost surprised when the Minister informed the House that he was going to implement it. For years there has been pressure on the Minister's predecessors to adopt a proposal of this kind.
Since the last Great War when there were investigations into costings this matter has been considered urgent by farmers because farmers have realised that until there are official figures which will be accepted and not disputed in regard to their costings they cannot be assured of a reasonable and a decent margin of profit. We know that at the present time the situation is very serious. We know that farmers are being asked to produce, to expand, and to enlarge agricultural production. We know they are being asked to produce for prices which leave them at a definite loss on their actual costings. The Minister knows that. He knows that the farmers are losing enormously on the production of wheat and that this year they are even losing enormously on the production of barley. We know that in Great Britain, with a Socialist Government, with a Government that cannot be said to be agricultural or pro-agricultural, there has been a substantial increase and the whole range of prices is higher than here and that they are guaranteed for several years. In addition to better prices in Great Britain there are, also, acreage subsidies which enable the farmer to produce at a profit: subsidies of £10 per acre for potatoes: £3 per acre for wheat and rye. Why have these prices been given to the farmers of Great Britain?—simply because the Government there realises that the farmer cannot be asked to produce at a loss. No industry could produce at a loss and still survive. However, in this country, we have a Government which relies on force, on tillage Orders, on compulsion, on an army of inspectors and a Minister for Agriculture who declares his intention to send in tractors not through gateways but over fences and ditches, if necessary. That is the attitude of the Government here towards agriculture.
There is no intention, no desire, to find out what it costs the farmer to produce and to give him at least his production costs. It is an outrage and a breach of faith with Dáil Éireann. I do not know how Deputy Corry regards it but I think it is an extraordinary thing that a pledge given to a member of the Government Party should be violated, as this pledge has been. I did not mind the Minister breaking pledges to Opposition members. Perhaps he has no love for them. It is a very serious matter to break a solemn promise given to the entire House, on the strength of which the House agreed to the withdrawal of proposals which were before it.
I want to warn the House that this debate will conclude at 8.10 and that the Minister must get at least ten minutes to reply.
I have been for a long number of years, in this House and outside it, endeavouring to get agriculture, which is the greatest industry in this State, placed on a level with other industries. Other industrialists may present their costs of production to a tribunal which will consider them and allow a profit on them. Agriculture is the industry on which the people of this State have to depend in every emergency. Without it they must starve. We find that industry in the position of having to compete with industrialists for labour. It is the worst paid industry in the State, with no hope of coming to a position in which it can pay its labourers a wage in keeping with the cost of living. That is our present position and that has been our position for a number of years. Anybody having the slightest knowledge of agriculture must admit that during the past two years the price of wheat in this country has not been an economic price, a price at which the farmer could afford to grow wheat. Anybody outside a lunatic asylum could not allege that it is an economic price. Farmers this year are threshing three to four barrels per acre of wheat. The only cereal that is left free—oats—is making £5 a ton in the public market more than the price the Minister has fixed for wheat. That is our present position.
We sought the only means there is of protecting ourselves, the establishment of a tribunal before which farmers could present their costs of production and say: "There is the cost of production. We want a profit on that." Since we got this guarantee from the Minister and from his predecessor, we went to certain trouble and expense in order to get costings. We in Cork arranged with a professor of the university who is an expert on costings to take costings for milk in the case of a number of milk producers. We had the results ready to go before a tribunal. I have a great deal of admiration for the Minister for Agriculture.
Be careful.
I admire any man who says: "I am going to make up my own mind in this, that and the other thing." It is the right way to do it. I would prefer any time to have my case, if I had a case, put before a farmer Minister than any set of officials. I say that here and I make no bones about it. I am not like other people who say: "You had a solicitor as Minister for Agriculture. You were growling about that. Then you got a doctor. Now, the devil mend you, you got a farmer."
But did we?
I believe the Minister will play fair but there was a solemn promise given here by his predecessor on two separate occasions and a solemn promise given by himself when he became Minister and I certainly think that his statement of yesterday needs very definite explanation and that it should not require Parliamentary Questions to get that explanation from the Minister. The Minister should come forward after considering this matter and say: "I consider this is a better plan" and put up that plan.
Surely he told you about it before yesterday.
Deputy Hughes did his best to prevent us getting that tribunal.
I did no such thing.
Deputy Hughes has no place now in it.
I took much more trouble than the Deputy.
Read the Official Reports. I have only a few minutes. I have no time to waste. I will have a lot of time, however, in a few days' time.
I gave a lot more help than the Deputy who obviously was playing politics.
One Deputy at a time.
I cannot help it if Deputy Hughes interrupts. He ought to learn to conduct himself. He is supposed to be a shadow something or other——
There is a fair amount of substance here.
Will the Deputy conduct himself?
Deputy Corry is in possession and must be allowed to continue.
I want to put the position as clearly as I see it. I consider that the Minister has acted unfairly. This industry, which is the greatest industry in this country, must get fair play. All that we on behalf of the agricultural community are looking for from anybody is fair play. Agricultural labourers are being taken from the fields every day of the week by industrialists who are supposed to be placed on a level with us but who can pay three times the wages we can pay. That is the present position. If we send a man to deliver milk in Cork City we get a letter from him to say that he is going to work in one of the industries. That is the situation and until the Minister realises it he will find that instead of stepping up production he will step down production.
Unfortunately, the attitude adopted towards wheat-growing for the past few years has resulted in wheat being a most unpopular crop. I say that as one who is a believer in wheat-growing, a believer in the policy that this country should grow its own bread and keep its people in any emergency. There has been done with the agricultural industry what dare not be done with any other industry. I challenge the Minister for Industry and Commerce to go to the millers in the morning and to tell them that they will have to produce flour at less than the cost of production. I would like to know what their answer would be. They would close down the mills. To the industry that is providing food for the people the Government say: "You must produce. If you have ten acres of land you must plough a certain area. You must put a certain area under wheat." When, as a result of that, you do not get the price of the seed, you are told that next year they will talk to you about that. It is rather reminiscent of the policy of the Sugar Company who told you, when you had a bad year, that they would fix you up the next year. That kind of thing has gone on for long enough and I suggest to the Minister that he should make a definite statement as to his intentions in connection with this matter, in connection with the two guarantees that were given by his predecessor and at least one guarantee that was given by him. I want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply.
May I have a few moments, Sir?
With the Minister's permission.
On the 24th January, 1947, I moved a motion in the Dáil asking that a tribunal or commission be set up. The Minister gave an assurance that the tribunal would be set up. I was rather amazed to find to-day that there has been a variation in the promise that he made at that time. Our idea was that agriculture, which is our basic industry, should be raised to the status of every other industry so that the farmer would be paid the cost of production plus a decent margin of profit for himself, his family and his workers. The Minister stated yesterday that, instead of having this tribunal constituted as we thought it would be, its personnel will consist of officials of his own Department. While I have the greatest confidence in those officials I would appeal to him to see that this commission or tribunal, when it is set up, will include practical farmers. There should be, at least a number of farmers on it. At the moment there is a Costings Commission sitting which was set up by the Beet Growers' Association. A number of farmers are engaged on that with Professor Michael Murphy. We would have more confidence in such a commission than in one consisting purely of civil servants. I appeal to the Minister to build up his commission on the same lines. There should be a good number of practical farmers on it.
In my private capacity I would not like to be accused, and would not like to feel, that I was a person who, on giving his word would be inclined to renege it. In a matter that would be a personal one, I would know exactly all the circumstances relating to the undertaking that I had given. It may be that I am dense, but I can see no relationship between an undertaking given in relation to some matter that concerns a man personally and a declaration made in good faith at the time with no intention of doing other than honouring it, and then finding on closer examination a more attractive method and system of achieving largely the same thing. I cannot see, in taking such a course as that, that I as a Minister can be accused of a breach of faith.
Deputy Corry has reminded me that I should have made an announcement to the country when I found myself shaken as to the wisdom of establishing a commission or a tribunal. Before the Dáil adjourned, Deputy Corry asked me, at the conclusion of my speech on the Estimate, if it were my intention to set up this tribunal. Although I do not think that in my reply—I have not the report before me—I made it as clear as I might have, at least I gave him to understand, I think, that I was in grave doubt as to the wisdom of proceeding along the lines that I had previously indicated.
I remember when I was young—when first I struck off to a ceilidhe—I thought I was a great fellow until it got dark. Sometime during the night, maybe it was 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock, I started for home. I was crossing a hill and there was a bit of a moon which was sometimes covered by fast-moving clouds. As I climbed up I saw some small black object on the top of the hill and said: "What in the devil is that?" I pretended that I did not care. I kept going on, but the nearer I came to the object the larger it became. I was terribly frightened. I said that I must go the whole hog now, anyhow. When I got up to it the object, instead of being something dangerous—whether a ghost or an animal or whatever thought that may have occurred to me as to what it might be, I found it was a rush bush.
That often happens. I had proposals for the establishment of this tribunal roughly framed. They were perhaps casually examined by me. As I made a closer analysis of them as to how they would work, as to how they would be operated, and I asked myself what kind would the tribunal be, would there be farmers on it, would there be technicians on it, would it be a tribunal of all technicians, would it be one of part technicians and part farmers or would it consist of all farmers, am I to be accused of a breach of faith if, on a closer examination of this problem, I failed to find a satisfactory answer to these questions? I do not mind being accused, but I do not think it is fair to accuse me of a breach of faith in any way.
I have before me a report of a discussion in this House which took place some time in 1942 when my predecessor established the Post-war Agricultural Committee. I have here the Parliamentary questions which were addressed to him by Deputy Hughes and Deputy Cogan suggesting that that committee was composed largely of technical people. The whole discussion that took place goes to show the dissatisfaction that was displayed by these Deputies because, as they said, there was not any practical farmer on it. Suppose, as I tried to explain yesterday, I were to set up a committee of technicians, what would farmers say? Suppose I set up a committee of technicians and farmers would there not be a constant struggle between the two. There would not be an intelligent technical discussion or examination of a particular problem but a wrangle between the two sections as to which of them would get the best out of it: as to which of them would secure the recommendation that would be most favourable to a particular class.
I am sorry the Minister did not come down to join in the discussions we had about the sugar company costings.
Suppose I were to set up a tribunal composed of men with the stern prejudices of Deputy Corry, what do Deputies think would happen to the rest of the community? After all, these are matters that I as Minister am entitled to consider. I have considered them very carefully. The Government may see fit to refuse to accept my recommendation. I have come to the conclusion that the course which I propose to suggest to them is a more feasible one. It is one in which I have faith and I have that faith in it after the most careful examination that it was possible for me to give to the setting up of this machinery and trying to see how that machinery would work. I believe that the machinery which I am suggesting should be set up will work much more efficiently and satisfactorily both from the point of view of the farmers and the general community.
Will the Minister tell us how it will work?
Is it the intention of the Minister that officials of his Department will undertake this investigation?
It is my intention to make a submission to the Government and until they have approved of it I cannot say what they will do.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.10 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 15th October.