When speaking on this Estimate the last evening I had come to the point of dealing more specifically with some of the important matters in connection with the overall policy on agriculture. I emphasised the importance of one particular crop, namely, the potato crop. While we all appreciate the wisdom of wheat growing, there are parts of the country,particularly around West Cork and in other areas, where it might not be so suitable for the farmers to adopt a policy of wheat growing. I would expect the farming community to realise the importance of wheat growing but not to the detriment of other essential crops.
If we take the report submitted by the Minister in his opening statement, we will find that comparing the years 1939 and 1952, the total acreage under potatoes alone has gone down. That also applies to other important items. Whatever may be said by the Minister and his Government about the inter-Party system of government, the figures as submitted here show clearly a reduction in the potato crop in the year 1952 as against any of the three years of the inter-Party Government. The point I am trying to make is that there is more than wheat growing involved in the general picture of agriculture. For instance, the figures submitted show a reduction in total corn crops for the year 1952. In the case of root and green crops if we compare 1952 as against 1949 and 1950 the same applies.
I could go on with many such comparisons, but I assure the Minister and the House that it is not my intention to praise one system and condemn another. We have been listening to a very important member of the Government, none other than the Minister for External Affairs, who did nothing but try to draw a Deputy of the Labour Party into stating a preference for one policy as against another. What we are interested in in the Labour Party as regards agriculture is not alone pursuing a progressive policy but being-prepared to say without fear of contradiction or without hesitation that agricultural policy is not solely for the benefit of the agricultural community or of the consumers. It must be based on an honest approach and an endeavour to help all sides.
Again taking these figures submitted by the Minister, in the case of milch cows in 1950 as against 1952, a reduction is evident. Even after two years of the operation of the Government's policy, agriculture has not shown the wonderful or complete change-over to a new era of prosperity about whichwe had been told by some members of the Government.
Another point I wish to deal with and in relation to which much has been spoken inside and outside this House for a long time past is the question of milk supplies and prices. In this regard, we must be prepared to fix a price, not for a few months, but over a longer period. That, to my mind, is the kernel of the situation in regard to milk supplies. The producer must know where he stands. We must also consider the problem of the consumer in the City of Dublin, in Cork City and in the various towns and villages. It is quite evident from information in various parts of our constituency that owing to the price of milk many families with a large number of young children find it absolutely impossible to supply sufficient milk for those children.
The members of the House have been speaking on a very important item up to a few minutes ago but the Government and all the members here must study agricultural problems in a more determined fashion. It is not sufficient for any member or Party to take the side of the agricultural community in an endeavour to get their support. We have a responsibility, a responsibility which, perhaps, the Minister for External Affairs when speaking on this Estimate, was trying deride. However, until we are prepared to mend our system of agriculture, particularly in relation to milk supplies, we are failing in that duty.
In the Minister's absence. I mentioned that it is totally unfair that it is not made feasible for farmers to go in for any particular breeds of cows they wish to select. There is victimisation at the present time as there has been over the past 20 or 30 years. The farming community are at a disadvantage by this victimisation in regard to certain breeds as against others. The people in the towns and cities are also victimised because they must pay the penny or 2d. in the gallon which may be given to farmers at any particular time. As well as being a problem for the farmer it is a problem for the consumer. That problem, in my opinion,can be eased greatly if we are prepared to extend facilities to farmers in relation to certain breeds, such as Friesians, or any of the other strains.
Hanging on to the dual policy which at present operates, may be all right if we follow a beef policy, but the problem of the consumer also must be considered. I believe that the price of milk is undoubtedly connected with the low yield which is so noticeable at present.
Apart from the reference to the half-holiday, no mention was made in the Minister's opening statement to agricultural workers. People bemoan the fact that they cannot get agricultural workers. Very many of them, when they were able to get them, expected them to work for almost slave wages. They failed to realise their responsibility to these workers. Certainly, that did not apply in all cases. It strikes me very forcibly that it is the large Iand-owners in particular areas that I know who are guilty of abuses in dealing with workers. If agricultural workers are not available in many areas it is because wages and conditions have not been anything like they should have been.
Very often a particular Deputy, whose name I will not mention as he is not here at the moment, emphasises that agricultural workers should receive £6 a week. It is quite simple to use such catch cries. It is not a matter of what farm workers should get; it is what they are getting that is important.
While the Agricultural Wages Board have done their work in their own limited way, in many ways it would be much more beneficial for the agricultural worker and the agricultural community, particularly those who are farseeing and wise enough to accept present-day policy as between labour and employers, to have a system on the lines of the Labour Court. The Minister may refuse, as his predecessor did when we asked that the proceedings at the meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board be published. I see no reason for that refusal. I fail to understand why the right is denied to the Press to publish these meetings. If some ofthe things that happen at these meetings were reported, it would certainly be more humane. If important meetings between employers and workers can be reported I cannot see why meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board should not be published, particularly having regard to the fact that there is State money involved in calling meetings of the board.
Having regard to the amount of work to be done, tribute should be paid to the inspectors of the Agricultural Wages Board. There is not a sufficient number of inspectors employed. If the benefits of the weekly half-holiday, annual holidays and proper wages are to be afforded to all agricultural workers, the whole system of the Agricultural Wages Board should be investigated and, if necessary, altered to suit present conditions.
I would particularly draw the Minister's attention to the fact that when Irish-bred horses are successful in races in other countries, it seems to be a general policy of the people in England to claim that the horses had been bred in England. Whether the horse wins in England or on the Continent or in America, we are put in the background. I would be anxious that through the Minister's Department such false information should be flatly contradicted every time it is published. Credit should be given to this country when it is entitled to credit.
To sum up my remarks on the Estimate on the 24th June and this evening, I believe that the overall policy on agriculture should be embodied in a three-in-one policy. The three things that must be considered are the producer, the consumer and exports. If we are solely concerned with one particular branch, we are bound to fail. If we restrict our efforts to helping the producers at the expense of the consumers we will not have efficient agriculture. We cannot completely line up with the consumers in the home market to the detriment of the producers. One must be coupled with the other. I dealt with exports on the last occasion. I tried to stress the importance of adopting and improving a system amongst farmers of co-operative selling. From the time the produce leaves the farm until it reaches the shop to be boughtby the consumer there are too many side shows, as it were, on the road. It could be that because of the operation of all these middlemen the price is not suitable to the farmer himself and the agricultural community as a whole. Then they complain when they hear of the price charged in retail shops, and also the consumer is bound to complain when he hears of the cost of production in some cases as against the price charged in the shops. Here you have the two ends of the scale, but the difficulty is that between the two of them there are undoubtedly too many profiteers stepping in to the detriment of the producer and the consumer.
If we are trying either to formulate or to support a policy on agriculture I believe it is important for us to be honest in our approach to it and to be sincere, either in our criticism or otherwise. On the 2nd July, in column 488, an Independent Deputy in this House, in the course of his remarks, mentioned that the Labour Party apparently speaking on agriculture wanted the agriculturists to get artificially depressed prices for their produce. According to the Official Report of 24th June, 1953, in column 1937, a Labour Deputy in this House— I happen to have been this Deputy— was speaking, and then this Independent Deputy found it suitable apparently to take completely out of their context words spoken on agriculture here. His line quite evidently is: "Of course, export all we can and let the home market look out for itself". The speaker on that occasion has more reason to be connected perhaps with agriculture than I as a member of the Labour Party have, but he must know as I know that if we are to adopt a system of complete exports without protecting the home market, in some years to come if, please God, peace will continue, the result will be a danger of a fall in prices on the export market owing to competition from other countries; and are we going to leave our agricultural community here in such a position that, while they may reap good rewards for a couple of years, after that, owing to world-wide depressed prices, they must fall with all the other people who will fallsimply because they are dealing in the export market?
I will not repeat what I said on that occasion, but I believe that for the farmers co-operative efforts are essential in trying to do the utmost we can for all concerned. The one way we can help to protect the home market is by being prepared in a co-operative system to give a fair and just price to the producer. Although some members may not be in favour of it, if it is possible and suitable for us to export even under State services and gain thereby, I fail to see why we cannot, by subsidisation of the prices of butter and milk on the home market, help the home consumer and, in particular, to help the farmer. There should be a situation whereby the farmers will have one market that will always be at their doorsteps, and that is the home market.
I finish on that point, saying what the policy of the Labour Party is irrespective of how any particular Independent Deputy may wish to twist it—a fair, just and sensible price for the farming community, but at the same time protection for the consumers who undoubtedly are entitled to fair consideration in the home market as well as anyone else.