Compulsory Tillage and Guaranteed Prices—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That, while recognising that the possession of compulsory powers in relation to tillage is essential to the Government in the present emergency, Seanad Éireann is of opinion that guaranteed minimum prices should accompany the exercise of these powers.—(Senator Baxter.)

Professor Johnston

The motion standing in Senator Baxter's name deals with a problem which has assumed its present interest and importance on account of the war situation, but I think it is only a special aspect of a general problem which is always with us, and part and parcel of what we should consider in framing our general agricultural policy. In this connection I should like to say that, although not a member of that body myself, I think that it is a thousand pities that the Agricultural Commission has suspended its sittings or has had its organic existence terminated for it, because already it has done valuable and important work and it could continue to add to the services it has already rendered in dealing with problems of this nature and other problems. I think, in fact, however, that there is reason why we should investigate, at the same time, the special problems of our present abnormal situation and the permanent problems which we have to solve in framing a long-term agricultural policy.

Now, as far as I understand the matter, the present crisis with regard to prices has arisen in this way. It has arisen especially with reference to the prices of oats and barley. Last year, when the war broke out, everyone anticipated a shortage of cereal products as well as of other forms of foodstuffs, and Government policy rightly urged and, in fact, compelled our farmers to extend the area under cultivation so as to increase as much as possible the quantity of home-grown cereal and other products that would be available as food for man and beast. Now, last year, owing to the effect of the war situation the prices of all cereal products rose to a very high level, and at the prices current last season there was no difficulty whatever in inducing farmers to extend their cultivation of oats because oats at that time—or during the latter period of the season at any rate—were as high as 13/6 a cwt.

The price of oats last March was 13/6 per cwt. With a price like that farmers were certainly more than willing to maintain and expand the cultivation of oats, but I noticed at that time, although the price of oats was rising enormously, the prices of the other things for which oats is used as the raw material had not risen in the same proportion. Eggs went up in price and also beef, but not in the same proportion as the increase in the price of oats. The result of that was, owing to the high cost of feed, that poultry keepers in particular found that egg production last winter did not pay, and did not look like paying, and consequently they cut down poultry stocks wholesale. As a result there were not enough birds and animals in the country to eat up all the available oats at the then existing price. A good deal of that oats was carried over to the new crop season, and when the new crop came along and was added to the available supply there was still the same problem, of an excess amount of home feeding and an inadequate number of birds to eat it. The reason for that curious phenomenon was this, that the relation between the price of oats and the price of animal products had got out of proportion.

We cannot in our agricultural economy carry on with any degree of comfort unless there is a suitable price regulation between the various aspects of our agricultural cultivation, so that the price of oats is reasonably profitable for a man who specialises in oats while, at the same time, the man who specialises in animal products will find that it will be profitable for him, even if he has to buy oats from his neighbour. The price was dislocated by the unexpected events of last winter, and oats fell to a level which was not profitable from the point of view of the oats producer. As an egg producer in a small way, I regard the present ridiculously low price of oats as something that I feel will be of temporary duration, because, owing to the unprofitable level of the price of oats to producers, I fear the danger that, in the next season, farmers will not be so enthusiastic about producing oats and, in spite of compulsory tillage, there may be a shortage then, following the temporary glut of this season and that then will come the turn of poultry producers to feel the effects. At the moment the position is favourable to them and unfavourable to oats producers. I want a situation in which every branch of our agricultural production will know that they are on an even keel, so to speak.

In the nature of the case, and in the circumstances of our agriculture, about 70 per cent. of the oats produced in Éire is not consumed directly as human food, but is used indirectly on further agricultural production, and finally goes to market and is exchanged for money in the form of eggs and beef or some form of animal product, so that oats, generally speaking, is not a commercial crop. It is a crop which, from the point of view of our agricultural economy, is produced as raw material for producing other things. That makes it practically impossible to fix a price for oats in the same kind of way as the Government, as we saw, successfully fixed a price for wheat, because so much of the oat crop is not sold at all as oats but walks off the farm on four legs or in the form of eggs. However, the fact remains that, in any kind of normal circumstances, in the long run the price of oats is governed by the price of the products for which oats is used as raw material. Eggs are one of the products and beef is another, because I understand that crushed oats are an important element in the ration in the now lost art of stall feeding fat cattle.

I had the curiosity to work out the proportionate relation between the price of oats and beef for the last 60 years, bearing in mind that it takes about 4 cwt. of a cereal product, of which oats forms an important ingredient, to produce 1 cwt. of beef live-weight, I compared the annual average price of 4 cwt. of oats and beef by 1 cwt. live-weight, and I found in the normal year that the price that 4 cwt. of oats bore to the annual average price of 1 cwt. of beef was remarkably close to 70 per cent. The variation was from 70 to 75 per cent. and was very slight. In other words, with the price of 4 cwt. of oats in or about 70 per cent. of the price of 1 cwt. of beef live-weight, then our economy is on an even keel, and it pays to use oats as feed for the stall feeding of live stock. That proportion means that if 4 cwt. of oats cost 32/-, with beef at 45/- per cwt. it should pay to stall feed. If the price of oats rises more than the proportionate price of beef, then the proportion is increased above the 75 per cent. level, and the stall feeding of cattle will be discontinued.

Actually our oat crop year by year is only a matter of about 12,000,000 cwt. and tends to diminish, although in the present season, on account of the expansion of our oat crop it has increased in a gratifying way. There are nearly 20,000,000 poultry in the country, and according to the books a hen, if let, will consume about 1 cwt. of cereal products in a year, and about half of that may well be native oats, or if our hens got all the oats they would like to get, they would go far towards using our whole oat crop. Personally I do not believe they get anything like the amount of oats they would like to get, or that they should get, but if our poultry population was properly fed I do not think this glut of oats would be so much in evidence and we might find that we have not half enough of oats, instead of having too much.

On the other hand, the diminution in the population of poultry has undoubtedly diminished the demands for the oats that are available, and has made it impossible for farmers who specialise in producing oats to realise those oats at a profitable price. The fundamental trouble, which accounts for our failure to use up the oat crop of last year and from which arose our difficulty in using up the oat crop this year, is the fact that the stall feeding of beasts has been discontinued now for many years and has not been revived to anything like the extent that is desirable in the long-term interest of our agricultural economy.

Reverting to that proportional thesis, I pointed out that, with 4 cwt. of grain about 75 per cent. of the price of 1 cwt. of beef live-weight, stall feeding was a profitable practice. For a number of years, however, during which the so-called economic war raged, that proportion was raised from about 75 per cent. to about 120 per cent., and no farmer was going to be fool enough to feed 3d. worth of grain in order to produce 2d. worth of beef. Now, on account of the very special circumstances that existed during this year, with stall feeding out of fashion—and it is not being revived—at the price relation between beef last winter and oats last winter, it was not profitable to stall feed. Oats were too dear and beef was too cheap. At the present relation between the price of beef and the price of oats, it would appear to me—looking at it as a mere matter of theory—that it ought to be profitable once more to revert to the practice of stall feeding.

However, there again we are up against another difficulty, and this time a difficulty not of our own creation but created for us by our neighbours. The British differentiate between the price they pay for beef which has been reared and fattened in their own country and beef which has been produced in this country, sold to them as stores, and only finished in their country. The position is that they give a pretty large differential price for beef which is altogether of their own production and a price which is about 10/- per cwt. less for beef which they import from us and kill immediately after importation. In practice, what happens is that our cattle go out, perhaps nominally as fat cattle, but after three months' stay in Northern Ireland or Great Britain they qualify for a lesser degree of subsidy, which adds about 5/- or 7/6 a cwt. to the price, as compared with the price if they did not get that subsidy. The effect of that three months' rule is that, from the point of view of a person selling a forward store in this country which would be ready for slaughter in March, if he kept it here and stall fed it during the winter, and sold it in March, he would only get the beef price for imported beef fit for slaughter which is, as I say, some 7/6 or thereabouts less than is otherwise obtainable.

On the other hand, if he sells it in January to somebody who keeps it for three months in the other country, that person can look forward to getting a differential price after three months, and the result is that the man selling the beast in January may look forward to getting a price nearly as high as if he kept it for three months more. During that final three months' interval, the animal will lose as much in the price per cwt. as it will gain in the net weight, and, consequently, the final three months, in the case of the fat beast, is not considered profitable for our farmers, and therefore stall feeding is not practised here to anything like the extent to which it should be. This differential price, which has put stall feeding out of the question for our farmers, is a price imposed by the British in their own supposed interests. They ought to be the best judge of their own interests, though—looking at it as an impartial outsider—I say that it should be in their interests now that we should feed and fatten as many cattle as possible during this coming winter, and sell them only when fit for slaughter.

By imposing this differential price, they compel us to unload on them in January cattle which would be better if kept until later. If we could get the British to alter that three months' rule to, say, one month, it would make the stall feeding of fat cattle profitable once more. Then, far from having a glut of oats and selling it at a rotten price, we would find that there would be hardly enough oats in the country to meet the increased demand. That is the primary and most important way in which we can use our oat crop.

Mr. Counihan

I am sure that the main concern of Senator Baxter, and of the Senators who support this motion, is to obtain some form of a guarantee from the Minister that the people who are compelled to till their land will be assured of a market for their crops, a return for their outlay, and a living wage for their labour. Senator Baxter is neither very sure nor very keen about the minimum price for oats, barley, and other crops. He sees a difficulty in obtaining that minimum price, and a difficulty for the Minister in giving it. Senator Baxter has proposed another remedy—one which, to my mind, is very much more feasible than that of guaranteeing a minimum price for oats and agricultural crops: he suggests that there be a guaranteed price for the finished article to which those crops are fed.

I am in thorough agreement with that statement and that policy advocated by Senator Baxter. It is one which has been advocated by every responsible agricultural representative for many years. It is the policy advocated by the Minister's predecessor, the late Mr. Hogan. Mr. Hogan had very little regard for the farmer who grew oats as a cash crop, or any sort of grain as a cash crop, but he had an extraordinary veneration and admiration for the farmer who grew corn and other crops and—as he put it, and as Senator Johnston put it now—"walked it off the land". That is the policy which would meet the ideas of Senator Baxter and other Senators who believe in the principle of the motion. The Minister should consider doing something regarding that policy, as it would be in the interests of the country, it would continue the fertility of the land, it would create employment and would help to keep us with a favourable trade balance, besides meeting the wishes of Senator Baxter and the others by creating a market for our surplus crops.

The policy of which Senator Johnston speaks—that of "walking the produce off the land"—is as sound to-day as at any time when it was advocated. Senator Johnston spoke of stall feeding. I am afraid we will have very little of it this year. The cattle which we would buy for stall feeding, or which we have at the moment, are worth more for export, to be stall fed in England, than if kept here to be stall fed and later exported as beef.

Professor Johnston

But is not that the result of the British differential price?

Mr. Counihan

They have controlled prices in England, and quite a different price for Irish-fed cattle. At the moment, it represents a difference of 6/- or 7/- a cwt. So far as the price of beef in England is concerned, the increase in the controlled price there between now and the 1st February next will be very small—only about 5/- a cwt. At the present time, forward stores here, suitable for stall feeding in England, are making from 48/- to 50/- per cwt. If we were to keep them and stall feed them, we could not expect to get much more than that for them before next March. It would be very foolish, therefore, for our farmers to keep them. They are suffering enough as it is, and surely they are not so foolish as to keep cattle in these circumstances. They are not going to use up their feeding stuffs stall feeding, in view of the fact that they are not likely to get more for the cattle, as beef, than they are able to get for them to-day as forward stores. The only thing extra they would have from the stall-feeding is the manure. The Minister will not allow oats or straw to be exported despite the fact that oats is worth about twice as much in England as it is here. In England, at the moment, they are paying £4 10s. a ton for straw, while in this country straw is unsaleable. I agree that the Minister is justified in stopping the export of anything that we want for our own use. At the same time, he should see that our producers are given a profitable price for anything they have to sell and are not allowed to export. If the Minister compels people to keep stuff in the country, then I say the farmers should not be the only sufferers so far as that kind of transaction is concerned.

As I have said, straw is selling at a very good price in England. I understand that it is being used for making paper. I think that our Minister for Industry and Commerce should suggest to some of our paper manufacturers that the surplus we have here should be used for the manufacture of paper. We must be importing a lot of pulp for the manufacture of paper. If they are able to convert straw into paper in England, why cannot the same be done here? The Minister has suggested the cutting down of production in the case of a few commodities. I think that policy is entirely wrong. I strongly advocate increased production, even of pigs. I think we should go in for all the agricultural production we can. We may need it all in a short time. In the course of a few years it may be the only thing we shall have to barter for the imports we need. If the Government compel farmers to till their land in the interests of the nation, it is only simple justice that they should guarantee to the farmers a fair return for their outlay and labour. We all realise it may not be feasible to give a minimum price for oats, and for other agricultural produce, such as roots, which are all consumed on the land. All that could be met by the policy advocated by Senator Baxter, namely, a guaranteed price for whatever is produced on the land. If the Minister were to do that he would be meeting the situation, and would, I believe, be doing a good service to the country.

Some time ago the Seanad passed a motion dealing with the question of credit for farmers. The Minister, I think, undertook, when that motion was passed, to have the question it dealt with investigated by the Agricultural Commission. Senator Baxter, who is a member of that commission, says that the motion never got there. In view of the promise given by the Minister, I would like to know why the Agricultural Commission did not consider the question. I think it is the lack of credit that is keeping many farmers from going in for the stall feeding of cattle this year.

Mr. MacCabe

I do not agree altogether with the proposal to have fixed minimum prices for food produced on the land. I think it is true to say that over 60 per cent. of our farmers have only 30 acres or much less. They are prepared to use all the food they produce and, consequently, a fixed minimum price would be of no use to them. Fixed minimum prices for food are of no use if you have none to sell. I am rather inclined to stress on the Minister the advisability of having fixed minimum prices for three items of food that are raised on the land, namely, eggs, butter and pork. We all know that from the month of February to about the end of June we always have a surplus amount of eggs. Prices during that period are at their lowest. It is all very well to say that, at the moment, eggs are selling at 2/9 and 3/- a dozen, but in view of the fact that there are no eggs, or at least very few, in the country, the number of people who will benefit from these prices will be very small. There is a difference of 9d. per dozen in the price paid to producers for eggs in the Six Counties and the price paid here. The women, who are chiefly concerned in the production of eggs and poultry, feel, in view of that difference, that it is useless to be feeding fowl for egg production. If the women were encouraged, by having a fixed price for eggs, there is no doubt but that home-grown corn would be fed to the fowl, that a considerable amount of it would be consumed and that our egg production could become profitable.

In the case of butter, I think it will be admitted that the Minister did everything possible last year to level prices. On a recent occasion here, the Minister referred to the decrease that had taken place since 1939, in the case of our milk supply. He attributed it to two or three causes. There is one cause I would like to refer to, and I believe we will suffer very much more from it in 1941 than we are suffering at the moment: that is, the prices now being offered for springers and in-calf heifers. At the moment, the ordinary farmer with four or five cows is being offered anything from £40 to £45 for cows up to ten years of age. In view of the fact that he has not got a great amount of capital to draw on, he is tempted to sell that cow. That cow is exported to the Six Counties or to Britain, and that is the last of the cow so far as he is concerned and the last of a good cow so far as the State is concerned.

The same applies to in-calf heifers. They are being sold off, not because the farmers wish to sell them, but because the fancy price is available and they want money, and as bad as we felt in 1939, I fear that, in 1941, milk production will decrease to a greater extent than in 1939. There are two alternatives. One is to prohibit the export of in-calf heifers and cows under ten years old—personally, I would not be in favour of that because I feel it would be a rather drastic measure— and the other, which I would recommend, is to fix a price which will encourage the farmer to keep a good cow and, from September to May, to guarantee a price for his milk or butter. If he sees that there is a prospect of making something, he will keep the good herd. It will be to his interest, as well as providing an asset for the State.

The third matter to which I wish to refer is pork. Surely no sane person would think that anybody could raise pork at the moment at a price of 88/- per cwt. for first-grade quality. This time 12 months, young sucking pigs, or bonhams, as they are called in other districts, were realising 50/- each. At the last fair at Cavan this year, they were sold at 25/- each. A pig will be doing very well if it weighs 1½ cwt. after four months' feeding. There is no hope of getting imported feeding stuff like Indian meal, and the farmer has to feed his stock on stuff raised on his own farm and, taking into consideration the fact that his labour is free, such a man is producing pork at a loss. I do not want to go into details as to how that could be remedied, but I have no hesitation in saying that the price which the bacon curers charge the retailer or merchant is one which should call for special comment. I have seen some of the invoices of decent, respectable merchants. They show that the price charged to the consumer was reasonable, but that the price charged by the bacon curers was unreasonable and represented even far more than double what the producer got for the pork he raised on his farm.

That is a well-known fact, and that position should be remedied immediately. The consumers think that the farmers are getting an enormous amount, in view of what they pay for bacon, but that is not the position. They are paying for profits which they should not be paying. These are three matters which, if the Minister considered them, I feel would result in 85 per cent. of the stuff produced on the farms being consumed on the farms, leaving very little for sale. I hope that when the Minister is making his New Year good resolutions, it will be one of his good resolutions to consider these matters and to give all the assistance he can to the type of farmer I have referred to.

Mr. Byrne

I must apologise to the House for not having carried on the debate as, having moved the adjournment on the previous day, I should have, but I did not expect the debate to be resumed so early. In principle, I am altogether in favour of the motion. I have been advocating fixed prices and arguing in favour of them for a very long time, but in that period, I also began to realise that I was up against some very big obstacles. I entirely agree with Senator Baxter in his statement that all of us who are engaged in agriculture are put in a false position compared with the rest of the community. Most of our charges are fixed and in every shop we have to pay the price demanded from us, but in respect of nearly all the things we have to sell—there are some exceptions now—we very often have to take what we are offered, and not only that, but we have to spend time haggling and bargaining with dealers, middlemen and all kinds of people in an effort, very often unsuccessful, to get anything near the cost of production.

If I could see any possibility of carrying these proposals out, I would be altogether in favour of the motion, but I see very big difficulties in the way. We have fixed prices at the moment for wheat, for beet, and, to an extent, for milk, and I am quite satisfied from what I know of the Minister that he would extend that principle much farther if he saw any possibility of success, but we have this big problem: What are we going to do with all the corn, outside wheat, and with the roots? Senator Baxter, on the previous day, admitted that difficulty. We have also the problem, when dealing with the corn crop, to which Senator Quirke pointed, that is, the development of machinery on the farm. That development has taken place to such an extent that I notice that the man with less than 20 acres is now employing hired tractors like the people with farms of over £200 valuation. In my young days my business often brought me to the hay-market in Smithfield, and I remember seeing hundreds of horses drawing out loads of hay, but the other day I found that it was all being done by lorries. The horse was the greatest consumer of oats we had, and he is fast disappearing from the farm.

The only market for oats at the moment is in what Senator Baxter has stated and what the Minister has advocated, the feeding of cattle, but how far that is going to bring us, I am not quite sure. There are a number of people in the counties with which I am acquainted, who, for one reason or another, are unable to grow wheat, who even probably find it difficult to grow barley, and who cannot grow beet, for the reason that they have no beet factories near them. These people grow oats every year, and mainly as a cash crop, because they want money at certain periods to pay rents and taxes. The solution suggested that we could get over that difficulty by feeding does not altogether meet the situation.

I do not see how we are going to do it, although we were told by Senator Counihan and others that we would get a better price, and I think Senator Baxter suggested that we should give a subsidy on the export of cattle and bacon. But there is a very big problem there. There is a certain amount of oats being bought for the manufacture of oaten meal and oats is even being put into mixtures for cattle, but the price we are getting is not adequate. It is suggested that the Minister should fix a price there. Could there be a fixed price for all the feeders and dealers who are going to fatten cattle? Are they prepared to pay a fixed price or a decent price? I am not quite certain that we can get over that problem by the means suggested. It would be all right for the man who dealt largely in cattle, who tilled and fed with his own oats. He could proably make a profit on the transaction but it is very doubtful if it would help the vast majority of the people, and I cannot see how we are to get over that problem. If we could deal with it as we have dealt with wheat and beet, where we had a home market sufficient to consume all we produced, it would be workable. Even in the case of milk, we might be able to do more but it would be very difficult. Despite all Senator Counihan says about greater production, I am not in agreement with him. In the case of many things, if you produce too much, you will make it impossible for the farmer to get the price he should get or the price fixed for him. The problem is: What are we to do with the large amount of oats we have? How are we to get a fixed price for the barley not used for malting or for our root crops? It is easy to say that you can feed stock. I agree that you can and I think that the Minister is right in seeing that nothing is exported this year. I do not think he would be justified in doing otherwise and nobody would recommend him to do so. But I do not know how the motion is to be given effect and I have not heard from any of its supporters how it is to be done. I should be anxious that the Minister and the Department would give it consideration because I believe we cannot get farming on a proper footing or provide a living for the farmer until some means is found of letting him know what he will get at the end of the year. The difficulty is that he is engaged in a gamble against drought and rain and other conditions. When he puts in a crop he does not know how much he will get when he takes it out. Nobody is more keen than I that some solution should be found but I cannot see the solution at the moment. The Minister, or some Senator, may have some solution up his sleeve but I do not know what it is. It is easy to say that a subsidy should be given to the farmers but that is a very big problem because we do not know what price we will get in the external market and there are big difficulties in reaching that market. I am not satisfied that that would solve the problem either. While I should be very anxious to see Senator Baxter's idea carried into effect, I do not know how it is to be done and I cannot see that the adoption of this motion would get us any farther.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

B'fhéidir nach ceart domh-sa labhairt ar an cheist seo ar chor ar bith mar ní feirmeoir mé. Ach, taobh amuigh de na feirmeoirí, tá a lán daoine gur gá dhóibh maireachtain d'fháil san tír. Má leantar leis na deontaisí seo do na feirmeoirí, beidh ar na daoine seo an t-airgead do dhíol. Ar an adhbhar sin, ba cheart dúinn bheith cúramach. Ní leith-sgéal é a rá go bhfuil sé riachtanach ar na feirmeoirí cuid den talamh atá acu do shaothrú. Ní mór an méid sin. Dá mbeadh feirmeoireacht cheart againn, ní 12½% nó 20% a bheadh ar na feirmeoirí do shaothrú ach 80% no 100%. Tá na feirmeoirí ag fáil a lán cuidithe agus a lán deontaisí fá láthair. Má thuigim an sgéal, tá siad ag fáil cuidithe ar an bhagún, ar an im, ar an chruithneacht, ar an bhiatas, ar an aol agus ar an aoileach ealadhanta. Gheibheann siad laghdú ar a rátaí agus ar an chíos bhliana chó maith—níl sa cíos ach leath an méid a bhí orra roinnt bliadhna ó shoin. Mar sin, tá cuidiú maith ag dul do na feirmeoirí ó na gnáth-dhaoine mar gheall ar an talamh atá 'á shaothrú acu. Muna bhfuil teacht i dtír acu nó muna bhfuil siad in ann maireachtain d'fháil mar tá siad, ní dóigh liom gur ceart do na daoine atá ag íoc na gcáineacha a thuille cuidithe do thabhairt dóibh. Muna bhfuil teacht i dtír ag na feirmeoirí beaga, is mithid dóibh eirighe as an obair. Isé mo thuairim go mbeadh sé chó saor don tír an "dole" nó an deontas do thabhairt dóibh agus an talamh do roinnt imeasg daoine a bheadh oilte ar fheirmeoireacht. No, má tá na feirmeacha ró-bheag, ba cheart iad do chur le chéile agus a oibriú mar cho-fheirm faoi'n Riaghaltas. Ní féidir leanúint le deontaisí, mar atá gach Seanadóir ag moladh anseo indiú.

Dubhradh a lán anseo ar fheirmeoireacht ach tá rudaí eile chótairbheach don tír agus atá feirmeoireacht—agus, b'fhéidir, níos tairbhighe. Má tá airgead le spáráil ag an Stát nó ag an phobal, ba chóir é do chur sna rudaí seo a bhéarfadh biseach don Stát—cur i gcás foraoiseacht, nó talamh garbh do bhriseadh suas, nó iascaireacht— iascaireacht fairrge, go háirithe—nó báid tráchtála. Bhearfadh na rudaí seo tairbhe don tír agus, má tá airgead le spáráil againn, b'fhearr é do chaitheamh ar cheann de na rudaí seo ná a bheith i gcomhnuidhe agus i gcomhnuidhe ag tabhairt deontaisí do na feirmeoirí agus na feirmeoirí i gcomhnuidhe agus i gcomhnuidhe ag gearán.

Gheibhmíd a lán eolais ar fheirmeoireacht o Seanadóir Mac Eoin. Ach thiocfadh leis an Seanadóir Mac Eoin an dubh do chur ina bhán ar dhuine le figúirí. Ní chreidim na figúirí do thug sé dhúinn. Thiocfadh le duine na figúirí do chur ar dhóigh eile i dtreo go mbeadh athrú ar an sgéal. Nílim sásta glacadh leis na figiúirí a thug sé don Tigh. Is minic a chluinimíd an sgéal i dtaobh an dóigh mar bhid na luacha suas agus anuas. O rugadh mé 80 blian ó shoin, tá an sgéal amhlaidh— na luacha ag dul suas séasúr amháin agus ag teacht anuas an chéad séasúr eile, agus bhí na feirmeoirí go measardha sásta leis sin. An méid a chaillfeadh siad bliain amháin gheobhadh siad é an chead bhliain eile. Cuir i gcás an coirce agus na cearca ar a raibh an Seanadóir Mac Eoin ag cur síos. Tá an sgéal céana ag baint leis na beithidhigh ach, fá láthair, b'fhéidir go bhfuil cuid de na feirmeoirí ag díol barraidheacht acu. Caithfidh na feirmeoirí meadhon do shocrú idir an bhliain seo agus an bhliain atá le teacht. Ní rud nua an cheist seo agus ní ceart gearán náisiúnta do dhéanamh di.

Mar gheall ar bheithidhigh mairt, is tabhachtach an obair "stall feeding" ach b'fhéidir go bhfuil barraidheacht oibre ag baint leis. Cuid de na feirmeoirí ní maith leo an iomarca oibre do dhéanamh. Ach níl aon imnidhe ar fheirmeoirí a raibh mé ag cainnt leo mar gheall ar na luacha a gheobhas siad. Má tá an Riaghaltas nó an tAire sásta luacha minimum do chur ar rudaí ar son na bhfeirmeoirí o am go ham, nach ceart luacha maximum do chur orra chó maith, i dtreo go bhfuigheadh na gnáth dhaoine cothrom na féinne? Dá mbeinn i mo fheirmeoir, b'fhéidir nach mbeadh an dearcadh seo agam, ach tá mé ag labhairt ar son 1,000,000 duine nach bhfuil giob talmhan acu gidh gur leis an náisiún an talamh. Is mar phríbhléid atá an talamh seo ag na feirmeoirí agus ba chóir dóibh bheith buidheach den náisiún mar gheall air sin agus bheith sásta a ngabhaltais do shaothrú agus a thuilleadh tairbhe do bhaint as an talamh ar a son féin agus ar son na tíre.

Mr. Fitzgerald

This problem of agriculture which, like the poor, is always with us, seems always to induce people to propose solutions in the nature of confiscation of the land or of State ownership of everything. Senator Byrne seemed to me to suggest that there could be no hope for agriculture or no prospect before the farmers unless a situation could be created in which the farmer had a guarantee that at the end of the year he would become possessed of a certain fixed sum of money. I think that, if there is no hope for farming except on those terms, we might say there is no hope for farming, because the very basis of farming, in which man cooperates with nature, means that he is indulging in a certain amount of gambling. Nature itself is more propitious in one year than another, and it is the natural order of things that the farmers should be better off as a result of one year's labour than another. Nevertheless, the farmer does, to my mind, suffer from very considerable injustice as things are.

You may remember that, some months ago when we had before us here a Bill dealing with conditions of employment and statutory holidays for workers, there had always to be clauses stipulating that those rules would not apply to people who were working on the land, because it is possible, one might say, to rationalise and to control industrial production in a way that you cannot do with agriculture. You can order that boot-factory workers shall work only seven or eight hours a day, that they shall have a fortnight's holiday in the year, a half-day off every Wednesday, Sundays free, and so on. The manufacturer of boots then works out the production of boots that will result from such a number of hours, working so many days, and decides that as his wages amount to so much and his cost of raw material comes to so much he will charge the public such a price for those boots, ensuring that he will get a fair profit out of it. In the case of the farmer, there are two things interfering. The boot manufacturer, if he has produced too many boots, closes down the factory and says: "I will not open until 5th November next, because we have such a stock of boots already that if we unloaded them on the market the price of boots would diminish to a figure which would leave us a loss rather than a profit." But the farmer cannot say to the grass: "Stop growing now, but get going at full speed on 5th November next." He has to co-operate with nature, and nature dictates his operations.

Another difficulty for the farmer is that, except where he is producing goods for home consumption, the price of which is controlled by the imposition of high tariffs, he has to compete in a world market. He cannot say: "My land has been less fruitful this year than last year, so I must charge more in order to get a fair profit." Except in the case of tariffed articles he has to accept the price, both for internal and external consumption, that is dictated by world conditions and not by his own will.

The proposal which is always put up to solve the agricultural difficulty is, as I say, the State guaranteeing everything and the State taking everything over. I remember some months ago when our Labour colleagues here were proposing a system which seemed most carefully worked out to pretend that the right of ownership remained, but which in effect demolished it altogether. It was something like this, that the State should give the farmer the land, should provide him with his seeds, should arrange what he should grow, market what he grew, and give him a fixed price. The farmer was to have no say in the manner in which he was to utilise his land, and have no say as to what use he was to make of the produce of that land. That was a complete elimination of the dual aspect of ownership. With regard to this motion which is before us, it begins with the phrase: "While recognising that compulsory powers are essential to the Government in the present emergency..." I do not know whether or not they are essential to the Government in the present emergency. If the Agricultural Commission which was set up a few years ago had gone into this whole question and had said that it was nationally necessary that a certain proportion of the land be devoted to tillage, and that that could only be done by the exercise of coercive powers by the Government, one might say: "They presumably have examined the case. We must assume that that decision is based upon sound evidence, and accept it, coming from that quarter." I believe as a matter of fact that the Agricultural Commission set up by the Government some years ago—I am speaking subject to correction by the Minister—has just ceased to function; that they have just suspended their operations, whether permanently or not I do not know.

In this country the various activities of a farmer are all correlated. When the Government some years ago, when there was no war in existence at all, decided that they wanted the farmer to grow wheat, they took the method of offering subsidies. It worked out rather unfairly for a great number of farmers, because a great number of farmers were not able to grow wheat at all. When there was talk about injustice to the farmers, the Government always stated the amount that it was paying in subsidies. Now, that applied only to certain farmers. The fact that a certain amount of money was given in subsidies does not mean that the equities were met. The man who before the Government interfered was producing a beast—I am not being exact in my figures—and as a result of certain expenditure, certain labour, certain capital and so on, was able to make £6, could be switched on to another work; for instance, they were put on to growing wheat and beet, and a certain subsidy was given. If, instead of that, the Government had told them to grow tea—it could have been done; they could have put up glass and so on—and had given them some subsidy, accepting the subsidy the farmers may have been at a disastrous loss. Therefore, the mere giving of money in the way of subsidy to force the farmers to switch from one form of production to another does not necessarily mean that the farmer is getting justice by receiving that money. The ordinary system of farming in this country has been mixed farming. It was generally agreed by those who had the best intelligence and the most experience of conditions in this country that it was the most fruitful form of production for farmers here. When the Government offered a subsidy for the growing of wheat, the man whose farm was situated in a place which was comparatively suitable for the production of wheat, could sit down and say: "I will work out whether or not it will pay me if I devote so much of my time and so much of my land to the growing of wheat, and get such a benefit given to me generously by the Government and taken by them out of the unfortunate consumers' pockets".

Now we have this system whereby with regard to wheat the subsidy still remains, but there are also compulsory powers taken by the Government so that the farmer no longer sits down and says: "Will it be worth my while to grow wheat and receive that subsidy or would it better serve the wellbeing of my family if I did not grow wheat and did not bother about the subsidy?" The Government takes powers to dictate to the farmer how he shall use his land and supports its action by all the sanctions that the Government has power to enforce against him. In farming, you cannot segregate one item from another. You cannot say: "Put so much of your land under wheat and carry on otherwise as you are doing," because the whole thing is a unit and one thing fits in with another. Therefore, when the Government says to the farmer: "In view of an emergency, your personal interest must be subordinated to the social good," it is ordering that the farmer shall order his life, not as his judgment indicates to him as best for himself and his family, but that that interest must be subordinated to the social good. When the Government does that there is a corollary to it. If the farmer's action is to be dictated by the social authority with a view to the social good, then that authority must recognise that it is bound to him in other ways as well. If the Government here said to the boot factories: "You have got to manufacture something else; one-fifth of your production must be women's hats," or something or other like that, you would have all the manufacturers saying: "As our machinery and all the rest of it is going to be put out, as our whole economy is going to be upset by this proposal, then you must make such arrangements as will guarantee to us that as a result of a year's labouring we will have received a fitting reward for our labour and for the expenditure of our capital."

The Government, by this action—and it is justifiable in a time of war though that does not necessarily make it justifiable at all times—is interfering with the farmer's economy. It just happens that this comes after the previous interference we had before the war. It does seem to me that if the Government can make a claim on the farmer, the farmer can make a claim on the Government, and that is not merely met by saying: "Segregate certain things; devote a certain portion of your land to wheat and we will give you a subsidy". It seems to me that in a large part of the country it is no good trying to grow wheat. You can grow things such as oats and barley. When the Government says, "You must give up such a percentage to tillage", the Government immediately is bound to guarantee to the men who give their land and labour to that form of production a fair return for the use of their land and labour. That is quite clear. But also, as the whole economy of farming fits in together like a jigsaw puzzle, it does seem to me that the Government, when it is interfering with the rights of the farmer for the social good should interfere with the social good and should take from the whole of society sufficient to make the farmer's labour remunerative to him. That seems to me to be just ordinary justice.

What I am a bit afraid of in a case of a motion like this is—I noticed it, I think, with regard to Senator Douglas, who spoke a while ago—that people are always looking round and saying: "If this can be done now, therefore it or something analogous can always be done". Senator Douglas said that inasmuch as people are able to produce £10,000,000 a day for the purpose of pursuing a war, nobody is going to tolerate that there will be unemployment just because money cannot be produced to give men wages for non-productive labour. That does not follow at all. I pointed out earlier that if you go around this country you will see obelisks and all sorts of works that were done to give people an excuse for drawing wages for doing useless work. And that is not during the last few years. That goes back. You will see some nineteenth century productions and some eighteenth century productions.

Senator Douglas referred to the fact that the British Government are spending £10,000,000 a day. They are presumably spending that now but if this war was going to be as permanent and as endemic as unemployment and the need of relief schemes are in this country, then the British Government could just as well stop it to-morrow, because they are spending £10,000,000 a day on the assumption that that is an abnormal situation and is only going to last for a certain maximum or minimum time. If anybody said to the British people, "You have got to carry on producing £10,000,000 a day for war purposes for the rest of the life of this generation and the generation after it," it would be obvious to everybody that it could not possibly be done. A man on his birthday or at Christmas can disport himself with turkey and wine and all the rest of it. You could say to him, "If you can have turkey and wines and all the things that people associate with Christmas on Christmas Day why cannot you have it every day in the year?" He says, "Well, Christmas comes but once a year." We might say roughly it is the same attitude with regard to war. You can afford to spend £10,000,000 for a certain number of days but you cannot afford to map out a policy which commits you to spending £10,000,000 a day for the whole of the future. In the same way with regard to this resolution that is before us. At the present moment the Government, in view of an abnormal situation, is taking what we must regard as abnormal action in interfering with a natural right of ownership that the farmer has in his land and taking from him one aspect of ownership, namely, the right to decide what use that land will be put to. It is doing that, as I say, under abnormal circumstances. A corollary to that is that if the Government takes the power it must also take the responsibility of seeing that the farmer will get an equitable return for the use of his land and for his labour. If we say the Government has the right to interfere, the Government therefore has the duty of making this other arrangement to see that the farmer does not lose by it. If it is done for the whole of society, then the whole of society must be responsible.

Senator Byrne is aspiring to a condition of things in which the farmer will have a guarantee from the Government for ever, as it were; that at the end of each year he is going to draw a fixed salary, possibly with a cost-of-living bonus, just like a civil servant. That is to say, that the farmer, the one charm of whose life is an element of freedom, the knowledge that he is his own master, is going to be caught up in this appalling, crushing machine of the State by being guaranteed at the end of the year that he will draw so much money and he is going to have shelter and food and clothing and the rest of it, just as if he was living in a totalitarian or communist State. I do not like that.

I am afraid of this proposal, because of the tendency to think that what we have in normal times should be suitable as a general rule. As the Government has taken this power to say to the farmer that he will have to alter his economy in order to suit the Government's purpose, then the Government has a responsibility towards the farmer which is not met by a mere guaranteed price in relation to beet or wheat. As long as you are going to have the Government in the irresponsible position where the members of it can say: "We want wheat and we will force you to produce it, but so far as the rest is concerned we will wash our hands out of it," you will have continual aggression by reason of the Government interfering with men and the ordering of their own lives.

I know it is popular. The farmers want the Government to give them Civil Service conditions and the Labour Party want it; everybody is asking for it. On the other hand, we get annoyed when the warble fly inspectors come in and forms have to be filled up. If the Government interferes with the farmer, the Government must guarantee certain things to the farmer. If the farmer wants independence, then he must not ask too much from the Government.

Both sides have to recognise the equity of the position. When the Government takes abnormal powers, the farmer has a right to claim abnormal conditions from the Government. When a man has to order his life, not as he thinks, but as the Government decides will best serve the interests of the people, then that man has a claim on the Government and on the nation. If we accept the first part of Deputy Baxter's motion, which the Government obviously accepts, as it implements it, then the conclusion he draws from that must be accepted by all of us.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 4 Dec 1940

Compulsory Tillage and Guaranteed Prices—Motion (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1940