During the 'thirties, when farmers complained about the inadequate prices being paid for their produce, they were told there was a world-wide surplus of food and that nothing could be done to improve their condition—as a matter of fact, some things were done to make their condition much worse by the present Government's predecessors—but when, during the war, there was a shortage of food, the farmer was not allowed to take advantage of that shortage. Controls were imposed upon most of the essential products of the farm to keep prices down, and I suppose that was necessary in order to safeguard the interests of the consumer, but, having kept farm prices down during the emergency, it is our duty to see that, during the years of peace, and we hope that, in spite of all the signs and indications, there will be many years of peace, it is the duty of the Government to see that the farmer gets a fair return.
The Minister, in opening this debate, made a statement which will be very firmly imprinted on the minds of the farmers and farm workers in the country. He said, as reported in the Irish Independent, he would like the success or failure of his five years in the Department of Agriculture to be judged by whether the agricultural worker had been raised to the level of the industrial worker. In making that statement, the Minister has set for himself a very high standard. It is an aim which it will be difficult to achieve and I applaud here and now the courage of the Minister in setting for himself that high and difficult standard, because we know that the standard of income in agriculture has never, at any time during the past 25 years, been more than half the average standard of income of those outside the agricultural industry.
Professor Duncan, in one of the reports of the Post-Emergency Agricultural Planning Commission, referred to this matter. He said that the national income in 1926 was £154,000,000, that the income of agriculture was £49,000,000 and that of the non-agricultural section of the community £104,000,000, and that, in 1939, the income of the agricultural section of the community was £51,000,000, while the income of the non-agricultural section was £118,000,000 making a total of £169,000,000. He must remember that there is approximately the same number of people gainfully employed on the land as are gainfully employed at other activities, and we see, therefore, that the average income of the agricultural producer, whether farmer or agricultural worker, has always been, during the past 25 years, less than half the average income of the rest of the community. It will be a splendid achievement if the Minister, during his five years of office, is able to reverse that tendency which has existed over so many years. If he is able to raise the income of the average person engaged in work upon the land to the level of that of the average person engaged in non-agricultural activity, he will go down in history as the greatest Minister for Agriculture this country has ever had or could have.
In many ways, the prospects for agriculture are bright. This may be due to the fact that I am speaking as a farmer and farmers are perhaps incurable optimists, but, so far as one can judge and taking all world circumstances into account, there are good prospects facing the agricultural industry. A trade agreement between this country and Great Britain has been entered into, the result of which will be to tie our prices to the level of prices prevailing in Great Britain. There would not be anything very hopeful in that fact, if we did not know that it is now the settled policy of all parties in Great Britain to see that the agricultural producer in that country gets a fair return for his work and that the agricultural industry is kept in a fairly good state of prosperity. There is, therefore, an immense advantage in having secured a reasonable measure of parity with British prices.
In pre-war days, it was the settled policy of the British Government to keep agricultural prices down so as to provide cheap food for the industrial population. That policy has now been definitely reversed and in that fact I can see hope for the agricultural industry and hope that it will not be so difficult to ensure that fair prices are paid to all producers here. While I do not agree entirely that we are absolutely dependent upon the standard of prices prevailing on the other side, I believe it is possible for a proagricultural Government to raise our prices here higher than those on the other side, but I admit it would be difficult to do so, to maintain a higher level of agricultural prices in this country than that prevailing in Great Britain, so far as some of the cheap products of the agricultural industry are concerned.
But, as I said at the outset, farmers are not so much concerned about prices as about the margin of profit which they will get in their industry, and, when we come to this matter of the margin of profit, we have to bear this fact in mind, that, while we have achieved certain parity with regard to prices with the British farmers and the farmers of Northern Ireland, we have not secured that parity with regard to costs. Here we have to pay almost 100 per cent. more for the essentials of the agricultural industry, and particularly for our fertilisers, than the British farmer has to pay.
One of the first duties of the Minister should be to see that phosphates and other chemical manures and lime are brought to the farm at the lowest possible cost. I believe there is profiteering in every stage of the transport and distribution of artificial fertilisers. Therefore, it is essential that there should be the freest competition with a view to bringing down the price. If necessary, direct action should be taken to ensure that such vital commodities as rock phosphate are brought to the country by the cheapest possible routes and distributed in the cheapest possible manner. Even if it is necessary to infringe on some vested interest, that must be done because the fertility of the soil must be restored at any price. I may be wrong but I believe that one of the most essential things is to get phosphates and lime on the land in the largest possible quantities and as cheaply and as speedily as possible. That is one way in which we could bring about the expansion in agricultural production for which the Minister has dared to hope.
The costs of every kind of seed should be brought down to the lowest possible level. In addition, the farmers should have access to the best quality seeds available in the world. While there may be in this country interests that may be served by the promotion of home production of seeds it is essential, when regard is had to the importance of good seed, that all the resources of civilisation, so to speak, should be at the service of the farmer.
I now come to one of the weakest points in the Minister's speech in introducing the Estimate. He said he had guaranteed a price for wheat for five years in order to satisfy the whims of certain foolish people who believe in wheat. I do not think a Minister should embark on such a far-reaching measure, which costs the taxpayer a very considerable amount of money, merely to satisfy the whims of foolish people who do not know what is best for themselves or the country. There is only one justification for a guaranteed price for wheat over five years, and that is that it is in the national interest to have a certain amount of wheat grown. The Minister did not make that case. Therefore, I say he made no case. However, the Minister has been wise, whatever his motives may have been, to guarantee a price for wheat. Last week I was speaking to a very progressive farmer. He said to me: "Do you know, I think this man Dillon will be a great success." Heaven forgive me, I did not accept the suggestion without question. I asked him "why?" and the answer was: "He is going to do me a good turn by guaranteeing the price of wheat for five years." This is a farmer whose land is exceptionally fertile and he believes that he can grow wheat at a very substantial profit over the next five years and that if he requires oats or barley for feeding he can purchase them at a reasonable rate. His land is not suited to barley or oats because it is too fertile.
I am sure the Minister will not be flattered to hear it suggested that he will go down in history as the Minister for wheat, the Minister who put wheat in a firm position in the rotation of farm crops. Whatever the Minister's motives or intentions, he will achieve a useful purpose by putting wheat in that position and, unquestionably, that is what will be achieved by his five-year guarantee. We must remember that the guaranteed price for wheat means a subsidy to the wheat grower. The general community pay that subsidy and, in particular, farmers in areas which cannot grow wheat contribute to that subsidy.
I was a member of a deputation that waited on the Minister for Agriculture last week on behalf of the sheep raisers on the mountain. I put the case to the Minister that the sheep owners in the hill areas should be given a subsidy similar to that which is given to the sheep owners in the hill areas in Great Britain. Nothing is more dangerous from a national point of view than the serious reduction in the population of sheep and cattle. So far as sheep are concerned, the price is reasonably good, as we know, and the Minister was able to assure the deputation, as far as one could foresee, that the price of sheep would be good for the next four or five years. There is a certain guarantee in the trade agreement in regard to the price of sheep. Nevertheless, we have the position in which sheep breeding, particularly in the hill areas, has declined to an alarming degree and, unless very drastic action is taken, that decline will continue notwithstanding the fact that there is a fair price for sheep. It would have been good policy to encourage sheep owners to continue to breed ewes and to raise lambs and thus increase sheep stocks on the hills. It is the hill sheep which are the foundation stock. The Minister did not advert to the serious situation facing agriculture, not only in regard to sheep but in regard to cattle. There is a decline in the number of calves and, this year, in the number of in-calf heifers and heifers kept for breeding. This is only natural, as a store heifer will fetch a much higher price than an in-calf heifer. Why should a farmer be a benefactor for the rest of the community, losing £20 or £30 per head by keeping heifers for breeding? We know what a well finished heifer will make in the market, if fat, and what she will make, if in calf.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,