I am quite sure the Minister would be present if it were possible. This motion is very similar to one which was tabled by me some years ago, I think it was away back in 1945, when we had a different Dáil, constituted on different lines. It is just a repetition of an idea which has been expressed in many forms by farmers all over the country. Farmers naturally say: "Here is the Department of Agriculture setting out to teach us how to farm. Why do they not, instead of telling us what to do, take a farm and show us how well they can do it themselves?" That is one aspect of the problem. But another and more important one is that there is nothing more urgently needed at present than that the costs of production in agriculture should be accurately ascertained. There is only one way to ascertain them accurately and that is by running a farm under the auspices of the State and seeing how much profit or loss can be made out of it.
The need for such an investigation of costings is very apparent to anybody engaged in agriculture or even mildly interested in it. In every portion of this city and amongst every section of the community outside the agricultural population we hear people talking about the enormous profits farmers are making out of the land. We hear people talking about the extraordinary prosperity of agriculture at the present time and when farmers seek to dispute those assertions they are just told that they are not serious, that they are trying to put their finger in somebody's eye. The farmer, however, has no redress. He may produce figures; he may spread them over days or years and he may work them out as accurately as possible; the rest of the community will not accept them but simply say that the farmer is trying to make a case for himself and trying to deceive the rest of the community. But if the State, that impartial body, that body which is representative of all sections of the community, that body which is supposed to govern in the interests of all sections, were to undertake the running of a farm, then the figures would at least bear evidence of not being prejudiced in one way or the other.
There are, of course, two established methods by which costs of production may be ascertained. One is to adopt the method which was adopted in this country during the first world war and for a year or two afterwards and which has been adopted in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, that is to take a number of farms and record the accounts of those farms as accurately as possible. That is one method and I am not saying anything against it. I feel, however, that a better method would be for the State to run a farm. I should like to see the two methods adopted. I should like to see this survey carried out here as in Northern Ireland. Some years ago we got a promise that such an investigation would be carried out by the Department of Agriculture but, for some reason or other, the then Minister ran away from it and the present Minister has not made up his mind to adopt it.
Great credit is due to the Irish Sugar Company for undertaking a costings survey in regard to the production of sugar beet. That progressive company, which is under very able direction, did decide a few years ago to meet representatives of the Beet Growers' Association and in conjunction with them set up a costings investigation. I believe that that investigation is giving good results. In addition, some time ago we had in Cork an investigation into milk production costings carried out by Professor Murphy. More recently we had an investigation into general farming costings in Roscommon carried out by Mr. O'Connor. All these surveys are desirable and a step in the right direction. I think, however, the investigation which this motion envisages would go further and would be more definite, more concise and clearer than anything carried out up to the present.
When, practically four years ago, our motion for a demonstration farm to investigate costings was before the House it was extraordinary the peculiar ideas which were expressed by various Deputies in regard to the matter. I hope there will be no misunderstanding in regard to this motion. I hope nobody will say that he does not understand it. I hope nobody will say that it is proposing that the State should waste the taxpayers' money running farms because, if agriculture is reasonably prosperous, there is no need to waste one shilling upon these farms. These farms, if acquired, must pay if agriculture is prospering, if they are typical of the average farm, and if they are run with reasonable efficiency.
I should like to explain the idea which Deputy O'Reilly and I had with regard to this proposal. What we suggest is that the county committees of agriculture, under the direction of the Department of Agriculture, should acquire one or two farms in each county. They would be put under the control of a manager who would employ workers and pay them the standard rate of wages. They would keep accounts of all items of income and of outlay, and the farm, in addition would act as a demonstration farm and be open to inspection by the general farming community.
This is one of the ways in which the ideas of the Department could be very effectively put across to the general farming community. These would be places which farmers would visit on Sundays and Holidays, or during their spare time, to see how things were being done. They would study the accounts which would be publicly displayed and be published in the local papers. Thus we would have in every county an agricultural centre. We would have the Department of Agriculture put on its mettle to prove what it can do. Unless prices were so low as to make farming an entirely uneconomic proposition there is no doubt whatever but that this farm should pay.
I know some of the arguments that will be used against such a proposition. One is that it might not be fairly conducted, that the Department in its anxiety to prove that farming was profitable would cheat, as it possibly could cheat, unless it were carefully watched. For example, it could go in for some specialised branch of farming that would not be available to every farmer. The first condition, in order to make it fair and equitable, is that it should be an ordinary commercial farm, run on the lines of the ordinary farm in the county. That is to say the Departmental farm would not engage in any line which would not be open to every farmer in the county to engage in. Again of course the figures in regard to income and outlay would be carefully recorded and would be available for inspection at any time of the year.
Another argument that might be used against this demonstration farm is that the Department in running it would be at a disadvantage as compared to the average farm. I do not accept that argument. The Department would, of course, be running it with paid workers. We know, of course, that very many of our farms are run with family labour. That might be regarded as one disadvantage, but against that you have a number of advantages. First you have the selection of the manager. He, of course, would be the most efficient man that could be found. That is an advantage it would have over the ordinary farm which in course of time, goes to a farmer's son or a relative. They have not the power of selection which the Department would have in this case. The Department would also have the advantage that the manager, in all probability, would be a young man in the full vigour of his health. That would be an advantage over the ordinary farm in the country which may be run by old people or a widow and in some cases by invalids who might not have the physical strength to work a farm with the highest possible efficiency. Thus the Department would start off with the initial advantage of having a man of youth, vigour, experience and efficiency in charge of the farm.
From the farmer's point of view the argument might be put up that the Department would have one tremendous advantage over the average farmer in that it would have unlimited advantages at its disposal. I do not think that should be so because I think the Departmental farm should be financed in the same way as the average farm is. If credit facilities and capital are readily available to the ordinary farmer they should also be readily available to the demonstration farm. Thus the Department farm in each county would start on an equal footing with the ordinary farm. If they are able to make profit on this farm then there is no reason why every farmer should not make a profit. If they are unable to make a profit, then there is an established case for a revision of agricultural prices. Of course that is the keynote of the entire experiment.
I think we are all agreed that the farmer who runs his farm efficiently is entitled to a fair price for his produce, one that will leave a reasonable margin of profit. This experiment carried out in each county will enable the Department and the Government accurately to ascertain what is a fair price, and on that basis the prices of such commodities as are fixed by the State can be ascertained. There is a controversy going on in the country at present in regard to the price of milk supplied to creameries and to the cities and towns to consumers. Cows will, of course, be kept on this farm. The cost of producing each gallon of milk will be ascertained. In the same way, we have had controversies in this House as to what constitutes a fair price for bacon pigs. On this demonstration farm pigs would be kept and fattened, and so we would be able to ascertain what constitutes a fair price, based on these accurately ascertained costings. Everything depends, of course, upon the experiment being carried out with absolute fairness. If there was any attempt to cheat in one way or another the experiment would be of no use, but if carried out with honesty, accuracy and absolute impartiality this demonstration farm would, I think, become of immense advantage to progressive agriculture: it would become a spear point in each county and would be followed by the entire farming community in that county.
I want to make it clear that this farm would be a demonstration farm in addition to carrying out ascertained costings. It would not be an experimental farm, because as such it could not be used as a means to ascertain costings. For example, if the Department were to try out new varieties of seeds on that farm and they failed, of course that would completely invalidate the entire investigation. On the other hand, if it were to produce on the farm some variety of seed of superior quality, not available to the ordinary farmer, then it would make the test unfair and unsatisfactory. If it were carried out on the lines which Deputy O'Reilly and I suggest in this motion, it would be of immense value. It would deprive critics of the Department of the argument that the Department are preaching what they are afraid to practice. An ounce of practice is worth a ton of precept. It would drive home any progressive theory that the Department would have with double force if they could show that theory put into practice and if it proved profitable.
It may be said that various demonstrations are carried out on farms throughout the country, that is to say, plots of land are manured in a special way that is recommended by the Department or seeded in a special way that is recommended by the Department, but such demonstrations do not show the all-in crop produced on an entire farm. They are simply piecemeal demonstrations. On a farm run by the Department on the lines suggested in this motion there could be a complete and comprehensive demonstration which could be followed by any farmer.
A question might arise as to the size of the demonstration farm. My view is that the farm should be typical of the farms in the county or, if it was not possible to decide on a farm which would be typical of the farms of the county, there could be two farms of varying size, say, one of 30 acres and another of 60 to 80 acres. I recommend the motion to the House and trust that it will be accepted.