The decrease in the area under potatoes was no less than 25,220 acres. We had the Party opposite clamouring for an increase in the acreage under wheat, and they were satisfied to see the acreage under the potato crop drop to such an extent that the people had to pay record prices for potatoes, irrespective of whether the Fianna Fáil Party or an inter-Party was in power. The people had to pay record prices for potatoes at a time when wheat had reached soaring prices and when Fianna Fáil could have been compelled, if they were in power, under the agreements which they had made themselves some few years ago, to import wheat.
As regards this problem of agriculture, we should consider it from a more realistic point of view. We should approach it perhaps more as individuals than as Party members and, above all, less as politicians. Where the Minister and the Department are concerned, it is true to say that if Deputies are prepared to examine the position with a completely detached mind, they will find that the services which are now being offered by the Department of Agriculture are providing advantages for the agricultural community which were never heard of some years ago. There may be no opposition as regards the operations of Merrion Street, but apparently there is opposition to dictatorship.
As regards the statements that have been submitted to us relating to the activities of the Department, we find 45 schemes listed. I suggest that each and every one of these is, in its own way, beneficial to the agricultural community. Of necessity, of course, they must also be of benefit to the whole country. I propose to refer to three which seem to me to be of outstanding merit. We all know of the advantages of the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Many members have spoken of its advantages. All of us should be prepared to say that that scheme alone can be of outstanding merit in what it can achieve for the country.
There is also the scheme for the pasteurisation of milk. I think we must all be prepared to say that, as the years pass, all these schemes, when put into operation by the Department of Agriculture, will be of immense advantage to the country. They will be an inducement to our agriculturists to realise what a source of self-help they can be not only to themselves but to the country as a whole. The agricultural community should be prepared to co-operate to the utmost in the operation of these schemes.
The third scheme which was praised by Deputy Beegan was the land rehabilitation project. We all know what value it has been to the country. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the words which were spoken by himself when referring to this particular scheme. He said: "The bulk of the machinery previously operated by the Department has been disposed of." Is it not right to say that there one has what may be described as the whole of the Fianna Fáil calamity in relation to this particular scheme? That went on over the last three years.
Deputy Beegan referred to the importance of the small farmer. When he was speaking, did we not all realise that the tragedy was the selling of this machinery? That, in itself, meant that it was the large farmer who was going to gain by it when a contractor was given the control of such machinery.
We know well the losses that were sustained by the small landholder through the policy which was put into operation of selling that machinery. The losses sustained by the small farmer in that respect alone are immense. I sincerely hope that, when the working of this important project is again undertaken, the present Minister will have full control of it. I trust that, by the operation of this project by the State, the small farmer, the man who needs the most help, will get the help of the State and will not have to queue, and be at the end of the queue, while those who can buy the machinery will go into the larger land holdings in preference to going into smaller holdings.
I do not intend to enter into a discussion on milk supplies now except to say to Deputy Moher that, contrary to what he said in this House last week, he is not a lone voice when he speaks on that subject. There is a scattering of Deputies from all sides of the House who hold the same views as he holds in regard to milk supplies and I may say that the Deputies in question have held these views for a number of years past. I believe Deputy Moher knows my views in this matter and I will not change them. Having mentioned the subject so many times in other years, I feel it would be useless for me now to go into the whole question again except to say that I agree that, at the present time, the problem of milk supplies and of breeding is such that, even if we have tackled it, we have gone only a very short distance along the road towards achieving what we want in this country.
It may be said that we are inclined to be local in our views. Cork, Limerick and Tipperary can be regarded as dairy counties. If the agricultural system in these three counties is quite different from that pursued in the Midland counties then surely we are entitled to try to have this problem solved in a manner most beneficial to the people concerned? I believe that if more use were made of the Jersey cow and of the Friesian cow, in which I have been interested, it would be of benefit to the country. As I say, although we are approaching our goal we are approaching it very slowly.
About two years ago I drew attention to the fact that certain facilities were required at the Darrara station and I am glad to see from the report which I have here that these facilities were provided in the course of the past year.
Where we, in the southern counties, differ from the people in the Midlands is that we believe the only feasible way of dealing with agriculture in this country is to zone it. If we in the South believe in dairying and if the people in the Midlands believe in a different system then obviously something must eventually be done about the whole question.
In the South, we are not satisfied that the milk yield is as high as it should be. The milk yield must, of necessity, be directly related to prices. Take, for instance, the 400-gallon cow. The owner of such a cow will, of necessity, have to demand a much higher rate for the milk than, say, the owner of a 900-gallon cow. If cows give a good return it automatically follows that the farmer who owns them will not find them uneconomic.
The remarks made by Deputy Moylan as regards grass and silage are remarks which undoubtedly could be uttered by each one of us here. We hold the same views on that matter but, because they have already been expressed, I do not intend to open up that question again except to say that we are solidly behind such views— views coming, as it were, from the same county.
Deputy Beegan referred to cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry. I shall be very brief in my remarks in this connection and what I shall have to say is not simply a question of praising the present Government and of attacking previous Governments, because such an attitude will get us nowhere. I should like to refer to the figures which were submitted in the Minister's memorandum. Taking the average figures for the period 1934 to 1938 and comparing them with the 1954 figures, we see there is an increase of 12 per cent. in respect of cattle, an increase of 2 per cent. in respect of sheep and a decrease of about 19 per cent. in respect of poultry as compared with the average figures for the years 1934 to 1938. There is also a decrease to be noted in respect of pigs as against the average for the 1934 to 1938 period.
In view of mechanisation and in view of the advantages which I mentioned earlier that come from the Department through the various services, can we afford to be satisfied with an increase of 12 per cent. in cattle, of 2 per cent. in sheep and a decrease of 19 per cent. in poultry? Can we say that in the 20 years from 1934 to 1954 sufficient progress has been made on the basis of the figures submitted in the Minister's memorandum? There is not much point now in bewailing the mistakes of the past. Our task is to look forward so as to ensure that, 20 years hence, whatever Party or Parties may be in Government at that time will be able to show much more favourable percentage increases in respect of the period 1955-75 than we have been able to show in respect of the period 1934-54.
We realise the difficulties which had to be faced in the 1939-1945 period, which was a war period, but, under present conditions, we cannot be satisfied with a small increase in agricultural production and, no matter what Party may be in opposition, it is useless for one Party to play against the other where agriculture is concerned because, in my opinion, that is what has left agriculture in the unfortunate position in which it is to-day.
We heard Deputy Corry speaking in the course of this debate last week. As usual, he spoke of the poor old farmer. Deputy Corry's poor old farmer is still struggling to try to pay his rates. However, it struck me very forcibly that Deputy Corry was able to tell us that for every one tractor in 1952 there are ten now, and that for every one combine in 1952 there are 50 now. That shows that the individual is not as badly off as Deputy Corry makes him out to be. If that be true, may I suggest that we indulge in less self-pity, which gets people nowhere?
Sometimes we hear people in this House, and more outside it, complain and bemoan the danger of a welfare State. It is strange that these people turn on us severely in the matter of the danger of a welfare State when it comes to a question of certain social security or other advantages for certain sections of the community, but what is happening in regard to agriculture is that the farmer is being made the plaything of one large Party as against the other. Grants, in themselves, are helpful at times, but they are only temporary measures of relief and, if we continue with them, then it will be useless for us to say, at the end, that the money is being well spent in agriculture.
I consider that an important problem that must be posed and faced is that of credit facilities—loans where necessary. We know that this matter has been mentioned here year after year, but if we are to make the farmer entirely independent we cannot do it by giving him small grants. Neither can the farmer be made independent if he is played off by one political group against another. The real way to face up to this problem of giving the farmer a measure of security is by giving him loans at low rates of interest. He can then work out his own salvation in his own way and as I know the farmer, he is quite capable of doing that once given the encouragement.
It is a pity that from time to time we have Deputies coming in here and saying that grants which had already been £20 should be increased to £40. That could lead to the position where a Deputy could come in and say that a grant which is now value for £40 should be £80. I should like to say that any views I have expressed here have been for the benefit of agriculture because I realise that agriculture itself is of vital importance and because I believe it should be the number one national industry rather than the number one national charity.
While on the subject, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one of its aspects—the question of flax growing. About 1949 or 1950 the Minister found himself bombarded from all angles in this House because he had offended certain gentlemen who came down here from the north-eastern counties and had tried to hold up to ransom the farmers growing flax. We made it quite clear at the time that we stood behind the Minister in his attitude and after the past three years we can see the tragedy that has been enacted in connection with flax growing.
In the past year, according to the figures available, there has been a reduction of 50 per cent. in the acreage under flax. What a loss! The large wheat growers may not be concerned with a man who loses on flax growing, but for those down in South-West and West Cork and in the counties around the Border, who could undoubtedly be making a very substantial profit on flax growing, it must be a severe blow to realise that they have been forced out of production because of the prices available.
The Minister mentioned two important points in connection with this question. One was the prospect of an increase of 1/- per stone and the second was the continuance of imports, for trial purposes, of continental varieties of flax. Flax is an important crop for the people concerned in its growth and I hope that before the Minister's present term of office expires the acreage under flax will be much more satisfactory than it is at the present moment.
Deputy Beegan did mention one matter in which I have been very interested and about which I am afraid we are completely at variance. That is his reference to the co-operative market. I could not at all agree with the views he expressed on that matter and I feel sure they were not the views of his Party. Obviously he has not been speaking as spokesman of his Party. I could not for a moment imagine putting the co-operative system on the basis he suggested and saying that on that basis it would be of most use to the farmers. There is no more sense in a co-operative market along the lines he mentioned than there would be down in O'Connell Street. We are interested in the question of a co-operative market and we realise that for the welfare of the farming community every step should be taken towards the achievement of a sound co-operative marketing system.
The other sections of the community have shown little interest in agriculture and naturally will not worry about this aspect of the farmers' problems and the irony of the whole thing is that it is people who are not directly concerned from a financial viewpoint who are advocating that the farmers should put into operation a co-operative marketing system. I agree that such a system would be of far greater help to the farming community than is generally realised at the moment. Already we have had a certain amount of co-operation by such organisations as Muintir na Tíre and Macra na Feirme. They have interested themselves in fostering among their members the important and desired form of co-operative movement—keeping politics out of it.
I agree to a certain extent with Deputy Beegan when he refers to this problem of export and export prices versus the home market, but I should like to say that it is not just now that I have changed to this view. I have held that view all the way through. We know we are very lucky at the present time to get exorbitantly high cattle prices on the British market but I, or any member of my Party, have never for a moment been an advocate of the point of view that we should concentrate on the export market and forget the home market. When all is said and done, the guaranteed home market, built up on the availability of supplies and the position of the general consumer to buy from the farmer, is the most healthy and most secure market we can have, coupled, of course, with the advantages of an export trade, but if we are prepared to concentrate on the export trade alone to the detriment of the home market we are not being fair to the agricultural community or to the general consumers throughout the country.
The consumers are directly concerned in it as ratepayers and taxpayers. Everyone must play his part in every scheme introduced for the benefit of the farming community, be it the land rehabilitation project or anything else because year after year we hear a considerable lot about the problems of the farmers. In connection with the land rehabilitation project, even when the work is done the farmer is still worrying about the liming of his land. After all, the land is his own. But what about the agricultural labourer? He must find work and it is essential for the farmer to realise that the agricultural labourers are an essential section of the community. The farmer must realise also that it would be unfair to the country as a whole if a Government continued to throw out everything on his behalf and take in very little.
We sincerely hope that, as a result of the advantages given by the Department of Agriculture under the present Minister, and the various schemes that are of advantage to no one but the agricultural community, the return will be of benefit to the farming community by way of earned profits. We also hope that, with increased production, the whole community, the consumer, the housewife and everyone else concerned, will not be left out in the cold.
There is one section above all that I could not conclude without mentioning, that is, the farm workers. I have listened to a good deal of the debate and have read the Dáil reports of the rest of it and I have not found any Deputy from the Opposition pointing out the problem in relation to farm workers. We hear of the tragedy and the calamity involved in the reduction in the price of wheat and the various problems besetting the farmers but, apparently, the problem besetting agricultural workers is to be put aside. We say that if there is to be prosperity and harmony in rural Ireland the farm workers must not be left out. We were with the Minister a few years ago when the farm workers got their charter of freedom and the right to a week's holiday. We cannot sit back now and say to them that they have all that they are going to get.
The cost of living affects the farm worker and his family just as much as it affects any other section. We of the Labour Party want to make it clear that in our co-operation with the other Parties in this inter-Party Government, while we are solidly behind them in any effort which will give prosperity to the agricultural community, under no circumstances can we afford or in no circumstances will we allow ourselves to be put in a position where the farm worker is forgotten.
