No, you are good at evasion. On this matter of the growing of grain crops in general, I met a farmer last Sunday night who had wheat for sale. He had it threshed and loaded and he went off to the merchant, expecting as in previous years to have no difficulty. When he arrived in the merchant's yard, he was informed that there was no storage accommodation and that the merchant could not take it from him, that he should bring it home and the merchant or his agent would tell him when he could take it. Having listened to that story—which was true and accurate in every respect —I came to this conclusion, with which most farmers will agree, that if it were not for the fact that the present Minister for Agriculture is now occupying that post, if it were not for the fact that his general attitude is known, there is not the slightest doubt that, if someone with a different outlook towards these matters were in charge of that Department, that merchant would have found place for that load of wheat.
Sometimes a farmer might be dissatisfied with the price; he may grouse and grumble a little bit, but there is nothing more demoralising for a man who has ploughed and sowed and reaped and threshed and placed upon a wagon, in the full belief that he was setting off to dispose of his crop and get his cheque, than to be turned away in the man's yard and sent back with it for eight or ten days. Again I claim that that sort of situation is brought about because of the known attitude of the occupant of the post of Minister for Agriculture towards tillage and crops in general.
There was a Parliamentary Question, to-day also, dealing with the potato crop. Again, as on the question of oats, apparently, the Acting-Minister or his officials had not time to work out the details by which the agreement, which we were told was made some time ago, to dispose of our surplus potatoes, would be made effective. In that connection, I come myself from a fairly good potato-growing area and only a few months ago, in fact less than a few months ago—I think it was about the 9th July—we had an assurance from the Minister for Agriculture that he had secured a market in Great Britain for 50,000 tons of ware potatoes at £10 12s. 6d. per ton from November to February, and £11 8s. 6d. as between February and May. In moving his Estimate in this House, here is what he had to say in this matter:
"There is a guaranteed market for 50,000 tons of ware potatoes in Great Britain at £10 13s. 6d. per ton delivered f.o.b. at a port in Ireland between November and February, and £11 8s. 6d. per ton delivered at the same port between February and May. None of us will grow rich on that, and if the British want any increased supplies of potatoes from this country they will want to straighten themselves and pay a bit more for them, but there is no obligation. We will send them 50,000 tons, I believe, at this price this year, if the potato crop turns out as it looks like turning out. In any case, it is a useful basement to have under potato prices that if any temporary surpluses occur, there is a price of £10 13s. 6d. at the port here up to February, and £11 8s. 6d. thereafter. I am in a position to say to the House, however, that, in future years, if we wish to produce a greater acreage of potatoes the British Government are prepared to take from us whatever acreage we are prepared to offer. If they want a larger acreage than we are at present offering them, they will have to do better than £10 13s. 6d. and £11 8s. 6d., and I intend to tell them so. If they are not prepared to go a bit higher—no hard feelings and no potatoes; if they are prepared to go a bit higher—mutual satisfaction and more potatoes."
When a member of this House only a few weeks ago, as a member of a deputation, reminded the Minister of this assurance, reminded the Minister of the Taoiseach's statements in introducing, and asking this House to approve of, the agreement made with Great Britain—the assurance which the Taoiseach gave us was that we had, "for the first time in history", secured a market for all our agricultural produce—and asked the Minister for Agriculture what were the prospects of the farmer being able to dispose of some of his potatoes, the only satisfaction secured was to be asked the question: "Have you sold any potatoes?" The reply was: "Yes, I have.""What price did you get?""Seven pounds a ton.""You are lucky," he said "you are a mighty lucky man." Here is a Minister who, having made these statements—and I can, as you know, refer to half-a-dozen other statements dealing with this particular subject— here was a man who had claimed that a market had been secured for our surplus potatoes and who, in the words I have just read out, admitted to a deputation a few weeks afterwards that he would not like to ask the British, because they had a fairly good crop of potatoes themselves, to honour the agreement that had been entered into between the two Governments. Is it any wonder then that a good deal of concern should be felt throughout the country because of the effect on agriculture, on production, on employment, on the whole welfare of the community, that these wild extravagant statements and the failure, the complete, utter failure to live up to them, would have upon the productive effort of the country?
The next matter is a very important one. The next industry about which I as an individual — and I know that my views are shared by many members of the House and by many members of my own Party who know the conditions —feel concerned is the present attitude of the Minister, the Department of Agriculture and the Government towards the dairying industry. I am not unreasonable in the sense that I know well that it is not easy to secure from the Government, and it is not easy to ask the taxpayer to provide, all the assistance that from time to time the dairy farmer will seek. I am fully conversant with that side of the problem, but when you have a Minister for Agriculture going down into dairying district and saying to dairying farmers: "do not come to me asking for 1/6d. a gallon for your milk until you are paying your workers £4 per week; do not come to me looking for 1/6d. per gallon for milk so long as you carry on a system under which you are keeping on your land a 300-gallon cow."
I appreciate the difficulties of this or any other Government in doing all that a Minister for Agriculture might wish to do for the dairy farmers but I see in that approach to the problems of the dairying industry, as I see in the approach of the merchant to the farmer who was told to bring his wheat back in a week or a fortnight because there was no storage, the one result, namely, that dairying must decline.
Just imagine a Minister accusing the dairy farmers of maintaining in their herds cows with a capacity of 300 or 350 gallons while at the same time reversing an effort on the part of his predecessor to take the only steps that can be taken if that disastrous state of affairs is to be curbed. I claimed during a discussion on the Estimates, and I repeat the claim, that it is unfair for a Minister, who claims that he is the one man who will not impose compulsion on the farmers and will not himself enter or allow his officials to enter upon the farmer's holding without an invitation, who has claimed for the farmers all this freedom about which we have heard so much from him, at the same time, to hold over their heads and to operate an Act of this House that has been in operation for the past 25 years and that has contributed more than anything else to the situation in which we have the 300- and the 350-gallon cow. So long as that Act is operated in the way in which it has been operated and so long as the dairy farmers are deprived of the sort of cow that would be likely to give them a higher standard of living and a higher income, no Minister for Agriculture has the right to say to them, "So long as you maintain a cow of this type, so long as you refuse to pay wages up to the £4 a week standard, you need not come to me for increased prices."
Instead of what he calls subsidisation of the dairying industry, other courses are being recommended: we should go in for ensilage; we should use fertilisers; we should use lime. I am in full agreement with that policy because it was from those benches, after I came into office, that I advocated, and with Government approval at the time, decided to go in for, in a very big way, the production of ground limestone for use on our land, but I know enough about farming and farmers to know that the one thing that will induce them to buy lime and phosphates to improve their land is to treat them fairly and to give them a price for their produce that will tempt them and coax them along those lines.
I have heard some of the silliest arguments used and the most nonsensical comparisons made by the present Minister in justification of his present attitude towards this industry. Honestly, I believe that this man is living in the moon. This man is not in touch with the realities of life as we know it. My complaint and my charge to-night is that there must be a considerable number of the members of this Government, if not all of them, who know that this man cannot be relied upon, who know that this man is liable to say anything once he gets to his feet. Surely to goodness, they must have some control over him. Could it be possible that in this Government in relation to such an important matter as the whole problem of agriculture this Minister is allowed to go freely and to make decisions in relation to the questions with which I have been dealing and a number of others that I will not have time to touch on in the course of this discussion? I do not know, I am not interested, I do not care how he came to be Minister, but there must be somebody in the Government or some members of this House supporting the Government who are able to see that this is going too far, that this has already gone too far, that this must stop. I know myself that it is terribly awkward in your present circumstances as a Government to deal with this matter. Irrespective of any steps you may take to deal with this oats and potatoes position, I can see—and I am not a person who goes in for making prophecies — that in the coming year there is going to be a flight from tillage.
Deputy Dunne, in a supplementary question to the acting-Minister to-day, wanted to know — I think this is the gist of the supplementary question— having regard to the known intention of many large farmers to go completely out of tillage, because of the effect such policy and such action would have on employment and because of the dangers of the international situation, if any steps would be taken to deal with the problem. I was not too clear as to what exactly was the reply of Dr. O'Higgins, the acting-Minister, but I want to ask him now if we can have a clear and definite statement at this late hour, coming up to the month of Christmas, as to what the policy of the Government is to be and what is expected from the farmers in general for the next 12 months, now that the occupant of the post of Minister for Agriculture is abroad settling the affairs of the world. It appears from the leader of the Federation of Rural Workers that there is some conjuring going on about this matter, and I must say that I congratulate Deputy Dunne if he is the driving force behind the scene. I would be the first to congratulate him publicly for trying to secure a clear and definite statement as to what is to be the Government's policy and what is to be expected from the farmer.
There is one point with which I do not find myself in agreement regarding Deputy Dunne and the supplementary question I have referred to. He referred to the danger of large farmers going out of tillage. I will go much further than that, however. Because of the way the matter has been handled, the public pronouncements that have been made and the demoralisation existing among farmers because of all these factors, not only the bigger farmers but farmers in general are preparing the way to get out of tillage. What are the factors, what are the pointers, what are the signs that induce one or force one to such a conclusion? If you want to know the attitude of mind of farmers, large and small, go to an auction. Go to some place where a farmer's home is being broken up for one reason or another. The auctioneer goes into the yard and the first thing is the plough, then the cultivator, the harrow, the drill plough, and the next is the harness and all that equipment. You can see the attitude of the farmers towards those. There are, I am sure, auctioneers in this House from other parts of the country, but I can only speak for my own part. Not only have I received information from auctioneers but I have attended those auctions myself and have noticed the tendency.
I have gone to areas on the Meath border where the farms are fairly small and this was the cry I met with there —this was some months before oats became unsaleable —"Ah well, we have been for years past in the habit of going into Meath and taking conacre there but now of course that there is no compulsory tillage the landowners there will not let their land for tillage and what are we to do?" I am not inventing that story. If Deputy Dunne or any other Deputy of this House thinks that the policy of the present Government will have an effect on employment only in County Dublin, I would be prepared to take him to a number of centres where he will meet farmers who will put up the sort of case that has been put up by me. When you talk about the dangers of the international situation, when you talk about the advantages of a reasonable tillage policy the immediate cry from the head of the Department of Agriculture to the country and to the farmers is "you are trying to create; you are trying to make believe; you are trying to pretend that there are dangers in the world around you. They do not exist. That is all designed for political purposes, for narrow political purposes to represent some individuals or Party in the country as wanting these things just to impose hardships on you who work the land." I appeal again to the acting-Minister and to the Government. I have ceased a long time ago to think seriously of the Department of Agriculture as presided over by Deputy Dillon. So I am accusing the Government and charging them as this is their responsibility. I am asking the Government to give us now, without such qualifications as "If war breaks out" or "If this or that happens," the policy which this country is to pursue. Let us be told even now in the days before Christmas that the policy definitely for the next 12 months will be so-and-so. If it is to be the policy announced by the present Minister for Agriculture, then my prophecy is that, not only will tillage decline so far as the big farmers referred to by Deputy Dunne are concerned, but tillage generally will rapidly decline, because according to everything that is being done and everything that has been stated so far as agriculture is concerned, one would swear that it was designed for the purpose of producing that result. If you exclude political considerations and could get to know the minds of the farmers, without regard to their loyalty to this Party or that, whether they want a Fianna Fáil Administration or the present Government to continue, you would find that 80 per cent. of them would agree with the view which I have expressed. Let there be no doubt of that on the part of Deputies.
If there is nobody representing the farmers and supporting the Government who is sufficiently strong and influential to force the Government to take a different road from the road which they are pursuing, then I appeal to those Deputies who are supporting the Government and whose interests are mainly concerned with those engaged as workers on the land to take action now, because if they do not take action now it will be too late. Surely there is a necessity for something better than this day-to-day policy in regard to this industry, something better than getting in this House what we got to-day, namely, replies from the acting-Minister for Agriculture which undoubtedly were designed to help some Deputies over the difficulty of voting against this motion. If anybody on the benches opposite knew what the policy was, why was it not announced five or six weeks ago when the problem to which I refer arose? Why was it necessary to wait until the Dáil met, when as a matter of fact Deputy Cogan went to the Taoiseach weeks ago to ask him to have a meeting of the Dáil convened specially for the purpose of discussing this matter, to be told that the Minister responsible had made the position of the Government clear?
Is it not apparent to anybody that we must have something better than a stop-gap policy towards this important industry? What is to be the Government attitude towards or what provision has been made to compensate those farmers who sold their oats in the last six or seven weeks, owing to the hesitancy or refusal of the Government to state what their attitude was with regard to that matter, for any loss they may have sustained as a result of disposing of their oats at prices that were not adequate to meet their costs? Are they to be told that there is now no redress for them? Having disposed of their crop have they to pay the penalty?
