Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Dec 1944

Vol. 29 No. 9

Agricultural Industry: Wages; and Guaranteed Economic Prices for Produce—Motion.

Mr. Tunney

I move:—

Recognising the importance to the community of the agricultural industry and the necessity of maintaining in that industry the maximum number of persons gainfully employed, this House deplores the inadequacy of the measures taken up to the present for ensuring to the farmer an adequate remuneration for his services and the low level of wages provided for the agricultural worker; calls attention to the unsatisfactory character of the machinery set up by statute to fix and regulate agricultural wages and requests the Government to—

(a) provide by legislation for the payment of a guaranteed economic price for all agricultural produce including live stock and live-stock products, and

(b) reconstitute the Agricultural Wages Board in such a manner as to afford to agricultural workers direct representation on the board; and to take such action as may be necessary to ensure that agricultural workers will be paid a living wage adequate to the needs of the worker and his family.

This motion in the name of Senator Smyth and myself was put down in the hope of drawing attention to the plight of those engaged in the agricultural industry, so that as a result of discussion, an agreement might be reached which would result in raising the standard of living of those on the land. If this House can do something to improve the position of those engaged in agriculture I am satisfied that it would have justified itself. I hope that every Senator interested in agriculture, which is the foundation of all our industries, will help in raising the standard of living of those who are engaged in it. We have had a native Government for a quarter of a century and it has effected many improvements throughout the country, the one exception being agricultural labourers and small-tenant farmers or uneconomic farmers. I approve of the tillage policy of the Government wholeheartedly. I support that policy because I believe that every farm, when the land is properly utilised, is the centre of a small industry. Being in agreement with the Government's tillage policy, I think it is too bad that the standard of living of these workers is so low, and that there should be such a difference between their standard of living and that of other sections of the community. That is not saying that the standard of any section is too high. I take it that no Senator will contend that a family could exist at the present time on a wage of £2 weekly. That is one point upon which I think there will be general agreement. We hear every day that those engaged in the agricultural industry form the most important section of our people, and that without them the nation could not progress. Why, then, is that section kept just above the borderline of starvation? As a matter of fact, it amounts practically to starvation to expect a family to exist on £2 weekly.

I cannot understand why the Government has not tackled the question in some way so that the present state of affairs would end. There are difficulties. I am not one to minimise these difficulties, but the question is of such vital concern to the existence of the nation that all Parties should join in an effort to raise the standard of living of these people. Apart from the question of food, what chance have these workers of buying clothing? Since the war started a farm labourer could not afford to purchase a suit of clothes. Where would the price come from? Considering the cost of food, everybody must admit that there must be hunger in an average family of seven that has to live on £2 a week. No section requires more clothing and boots than farm labourers and their families. The price of bed clothing is beyond their reach. Farm labourers have long hours of work, no holidays, and no conditions of employment. From the cradle to the grave, they do not have holidays, and even if they got them, they would not have the necessary money. They have no comfort, but hard work. Is it any wonder then that we read of a decrease in the population of rural areas and of declining school averages? Can we blame farm labourers for leaving this country to try to better themselves elsewhere? Who could expect them to stay here, when their wives and children are in poor circumstances, if they can better themselves?

In rural districts there is a decline in the average attendance at schools as well as increased emigration. Every county medical officer is complaining about malnutrition, a beautiful word for starvation. It is no wonder there is malnutrition and that children suffer from malnutrition when their parents or others responsible for them have not sufficient money to buy enough food to keep them. We hear talk about the prevention of tuberculosis. Picture the farm labourer who has only one suit of clothes. He has to work in that suit all day and when he goes home, there is not sufficient firing—and this is particularly true of Dublin and Meath at present—to dry his suit, with the result that he has to turn out in that damp clothing next morning. It is no wonder that the incidence of tuberculosis is as high as it is amongst that section. I say it is due to want of food, want of clothing and want of firing.

With regard to the increase in emigration, there was at all times in this country a certain section who were very anxious to emigrate and I will even go as far as admitting that occasionally there may have been isolated cases of persons leaving the country who had no need to go; but remember that the people in rural areas who are now going are forced to leave because of downright poverty and starvation. What is completely beyond my understanding is how it is that, in a Christian country, we cannot give these people employment, when, by going across to another country, a democratic country, with the same system of Government as ours, they can get employment at big wages. They are employed making implements which, if the war were to end tomorrow, could be dumped into the sea as useless and which, if they are used, must be used for the destruction of life. In this country we cannot give them employment at decent wages in producing something for the betterment and happiness of humanity in general.

These people are forced, as I say, to emigrate because of want and starvation in their homes and not because of love for any foreign country. I am not blaming the present Government —I am speaking in general—but if the Government of the Irish people is not fit to provide for these people, we should be honest about it. I say that they could be provided for here. We have the raw materials in the shape of land and bogs and useful occupations to which they could be put at a living wage, and I cannot understand why the problem has not been tackled in such a way as to bring that about. If the Government had tackled the question, it would have been done, and I fail to understand why it is the one matter which has been left aside.

If it were not for the farmer and the farm labourer, I wonder where our neutrality would be. It is very poor recompense to the farm labourer to have to see his children taking the emigrant ship, and the farmer himself has not much to boast of at present. We hear much about different types of social security schemes, but I remind the House that the Irish people in days gone by were a very proud people. They went to the far corners of the earth, even to the uncivilised parts, to earn the honest living which they could not get at home, and the majority of the Irish people to-day do not want doles or charity as much as they want employment at good wages. I remind Senators further that this nation will never prosper when we are reduced to putting so many of our people on doles and starvation wages. The only hope for the country lies in putting our people at work which will give a return and give them a decent living wage, because so long as we starve the worker, I believe we starve everybody. It is not, in my opinion, a good or a sound policy.

Going back to the days when the State was founded, we find that, in the proclamation of the men of Easter Week, of which we are all proud, it is stated that there should be equal rights for all our citizens Is the principle of equal rights given effect to when the most important man in the nation, the man who is keeping the nation in existence at present, is asked to work every day in the year and every hour of the day, whether wet or fine, for £2 per week, in a nation where people are paid £20 a week? I cannot see how it can be said that there are equal rights for all citizens on that basis. I say that it is wrong—and I do not mind who is offended—that a small section should get such an amount and that the more important man, so far as the nation is concerned, should get so little. The higher civil servant is non-productive so far as the nation is concerned. He is not as important as the agricultural labourer who has to work out in the muck from Monday morning to Saturday night for £2 per week.

I stand for a decent living wage for all, but we have raised the standard very high in some cases while leaving it very low in the case of the farm labourer. Not alone have we left the standard of the farm labourer low, but we have passed measures which mark a difference between those living in rural areas and those living in urban centres. More than one Act and more than one Order made by the Government gives preferential treatment to people resident in cities and urban areas as against those in rural areas. We say that we desire to encourage people to stay on the land, not to leave the rural areas, while encouraging them, even by Acts of Parliament, to move into the cities because it is to their advantage to do so. That has been done in different Acts, in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, for instance, and it is one of the matters which should be amended forthwith. If I were living in a rural area and thought my days were coming to an end, it would pay me, if I had a proper interest in my wife and children, to move into the City of Dublin because the amount I would receive would be higher. It is a bad policy because children reared in a rural area would be trained in agricultural work and would, I believe, be a greater asset to the nation later on.

So far as the farmer's side of the question is concerned, I do not intend to go at length into that. I shall leave it to Senator Counihan to put the farmer's side of it. I am sorry that Senator Baxter is not here. But I will say that I am not satisfied that the farmer is getting a sufficient price for certain commodities. I am sure Senator Counihan will put up that point.

Mr. Counihan

It is your motion.

Mr. Tunney

Well, I will please you by saying that I am not satisfied that a sufficient price is being given for oats, and that, down the country, a sufficient price is not being given for milk.

Mr. Counihan

What about cattle?

Mr. Tunney

I have spoken in another place with regard to cattle. I hold that there is not a sufficient price being given for cattle. The question of the price of cattle is a very big one. After all, I could not expect this Government, even if they were a Government of supermen, to be able to govern the price of cattle in other countries or to be capable of fixing a price for our produce when it goes to another country. But I do say that I am not satisfied, despite the statement that I saw in the newspapers yesterday from a certain organisation, that the farmer is getting a price for the cattle sold in this country proportionate to what the people have to pay for the meat they buy. No later than yesterday cattle were bought in the Dublin Cattle Market at less than 5d. per lb. and, allowing for wastage and all that, I am satisfied that the margin is too great between the 5d. per lb. that the producer is getting and the 1/5 per lb. which the poor person in Mountjoy Square has to pay for steak. That is a point which I should like the Minister to take note of and to have inquiries made into it. Although the association says, with the approval of the Department of Supplies, that there are not excessive profits being taken by the retailers of meat, I am afraid there are. The position is this. When the price of cattle was raised at the commencement of the war, the people engaged in the sale of meat in this country were not very long about raising the price of meat to the workers and to the people generally. But, now that the price of cattle has fallen to pre-war level, I am sorry to say that the price of meat has not fallen proportionately. No matter what the organisation may say about that position, I am satisfied that there is excess profit.

With regard to the price of cattle in general, I should like to see some sort of price fixed for cattle, because at the present time the price of store cattle is heartbreaking to the farming community. I am one of those who are not unreasonable. If we do not put the farmer in a sound, economic position, we cannot expect a high standard of living for the labourer; we cannot expect him to give good wages. On the other hand, if it has come to the point that the farmer is not capable of paying, if the Government is not able to raise the standard of the farmer sufficiently high to enable him to pay good wages, I say that the wages of the labourer should be raised, even if it has to be done by subsidy. The rest of the people are depending for their breakfast, dinner and supper on the farmer and the labourer and still they want them to remain in a state of semi-starvation. The whole thing is wrong.

I would divide those engaged in agriculture into three sections: the big economic, substantial farmer, the farm labourer and the small farmer whom I might term the uneconomic farmer. The uneconomic farmer is the hardest hit at present—he is finished altogether. Within the last two months I had an illustration of that sad state of affairs. I had a letter from a farmer in Tourmakeady, Co. Mayo. He is the father of eight children—five girls and three boys. He wrote asking if his eldest daughter could get employment in Dublin. This man has one of the best holdings in the Tourmakeady district. In his letter he says: "We cannot sell cattle"—after all, there are very poor store cattle in that area—"we cannot sell sell sheep, we have no pigs. There is no employment to be had in the district. I produce turf, but I have to sell it at 15/- per ton"—people in Dublin are not getting turf at 15/- per ton. "Not £1 came into this home for the last 12 months. The shopkeeper has refused to give credit, with the result that I wish to God the war was over so that I could emigrate to the United States with my family." That man is a native Irish speaker and every member of his family is an Irish speaker. He was a member of the I.R.A. in his district and he did what he could for the freedom of the country. He is an honest, industrious farmer. It is very hard lines that the only prospect for that man is to wish that the war was over so that he could sell out his holding and emigrate to America with his wife and family, if he has sufficient money. I am sure that those Senators who reside in Connaught are aware of many similar cases to that one. Men of that type are the backbone of this nation. Is it not hard lines that, after rearing his family, that man sees no prospect before him but the emigrant ship for himself, his wife and family? Senator Counihan has put down an amendment to this motion. I always thought that Senator Counihan was an honest man, but I am very suspicious of him as a result of the putting down of this amendment.

Mr. Quirke

What made you think that?

Mr. Tunney

The question of derating is one of the biggest questions ever raised in this country and one of the most important. So far as any land that is tilled is concerned, I do say that no rates should be paid on it because it is an asset to the nation. But I cannot understand why Senator Counihan should put down this amendment in order to cut across my motion. If Senator Counihan wishes to table a motion that there should be derating of agricultural land, I am prepared to second it in order to have the matter discussed, because I have very strong views on the question of derating, so far as tillage land is concerned anyhow. I hope, therefore, that Senator Counihan will withdraw his amendment and support the motion and, if he so desires, he can put down his amendment in motion form and I will support it in order to have it discussed at the next meeting of the Seanad. I hope Senator Counihan will take that advice.

I am glad that the milk question has been taken up by the Government, but of course that applies only to in and around County Dublin. Are the responsible authorities aware of the conditions under which dairymen have to work? Talk about slaves in a foreign country—nothing could be worse. The men who have to milk cows, dairy workers generally, are working on the 365 days of the year. They have to work both in the morning and the evening and yet they are not paid sufficient to give them even the meals they need for the amount of work they have to do. There are really no conditions of employment for the dairy workers. The milkmen work hard in order to supply milk to the children of this nation, and I submit that this section of workers has the highest rate of tuberculosis. What is the reason? These men must work morning and evening; they do not get sufficient rest or food, sufficient warmth or nourishment, with the result that they are easy subjects for any disease. Their lives are very short because of the conditions under which they have to work.

I hope that the tribunal that has been established will end once and for all that cruel state of affairs. I do not know what the conditions in Limerick are, or how they manage there. I am aware that the dairymen in County Dublin, County Meath and the other counties that supply the city with milk are employed under conditions which are really a disgrace to the nation. They have to work under really cruel conditions. I hope if the Minister for Agriculture does not take action in this matter, that the tribunal will give careful consideration to it. These workers are human beings and why should they be treated as one would not treat a dog? They are not treated as Christians or human beings. The majority of those who employ them should be ashamed to call themselves Christians. These men cannot even attend their religious duties, such is the nature of their work. Perhaps in summer time they can, but in winter time they cannot attend their religious duties, even on Sunday. That is one thing I feel very sore about, and I hope it will be remedied forthwith.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, at a meeting the other day, said the only hope of the nation was the agricultural industry, that it was going to save the nation, but that the people would have to work harder and would have to be more efficient. He did not say anything would be done to improve their standard of living. The agricultural community have worked hard for the last five years, and they have saved this nation from starvation. So far as our neutrality is concerned, if we were starving we would not be able to remain neutral, and we would be starving if it were not for the effort made by the farmers and their labourers. The least this nation should do in return is to give the labourers a fair wage and the farmers a reasonable price for their produce.

The Transport Bill which we passed here has been welcomed by all sections. There are conditions of employment set out in that legislation and I am glad of those conditions of employment. At the same time, that legislation related to transport matters only, transport operating from the city to the rural districts, and I do not see why there should be a difference between civil servants, railway workers and any other types of workers in the country. While I welcome good conditions for the railway workers, I cannot see why there should be special conditions for them and no conditions for others.

With regard to the Agricultural Wages Board, that board does not represent the agricultural workers or the farmers so far as County Dublin is concerned. I know some of the men who represent the farmers on that board and, speaking subject to correction by Senator Counihan, I am satisfied that the farmers of the County Dublin did not select them, and, as far as the labourers are concerned, we had the sorry position that when a wage was fixed last year there was a gentleman on the Agricultural Wages Board supposed to represent the farm labourers of County Dublin and at the time the agreement was signed he was working in Britain, having gone there nine months previously.

In the Dáil the Minister's attention was drawn to that fact and he has remedied the position. He has put another man in his place. With all respect to the gentleman put on, I say he represents no section, nor has he the confidence of the agricultural labourers. I am saying that, although he is a great personal friend of mine and a decent fellow in every respect; but he does not represent the agricultural workers of County Dublin. Somebody asked me how he was selected, what were his qualifications. I do not want to go into that, because if I did I would be following the example of every shabby politician by saying that his only qualification was that he was a member of the Fianna Fáil club in Coolock. That would be shabby, and I do not say that now.

Mr. Foran

Oh, no; the Senator would not be guilty of anything like that.

Mr. Tunney

I do not want to say it. I know he has not the confidence of the workers of County Dublin, although he is a decent fellow. I hope some machinery will be set up whereby the farm labourers of County Dublin will have direct representation—that they will be called together and be able to nominate their own representative. Surely they are entitled to that? Over in the Dáil the position was put strongly to the Minister. He knew the County Dublin workers were organised and he should at least have consulted the organisation.

I appreciate the fact that the Government at the time did realise the position of the farm workers and they brought them from a hopeless position just so far. Nevertheless, the machinery as at present constituted is not satisfactory and does not represent the farmers of County Dublin. I do not intend to suggest a solution of the entire problem now being discussed, but have just touched on it here and there. I know it is a big one and I hope that the House will consider it and try to reach some solution. If we are not in a position to offer more to the people who have done so much for this country, we are letting down the Irish people. We should not offer doles. I am in favour of the dole, if a man is unemployed and cannot find work, but the unemployed generally in the country are against that type of thing. They want work at a good wage. If we continue at the present rate for another quarter of a century of native Government, I am afraid we will be a long distance removed from the pride and principle of our ancestors. The other few points I have to make I will reserve for the closing of this debate. I hope the House will view this motion in the same light as I do and that it will be discussed in the hope of finding some solution for the problem.

Mr. Smyth

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Counihan

I move the following amendment:—

In sub-paragraph (a) to delete all words after the word "legislation" to the end of the sub-paragraph and substitute therefor the words "for the stabilisation of rates on agricultural land at the rates prevailing in the local financial year 1914-15"; and to delete all words after the word "paid" in the second last line and substitute instead the words "the highest wage which the agricultural industry in the different areas can afford to pay".

Senator Tunney has asked me to withdraw this amendment and to support the original motion. I would be very glad to do so, if there were any common sense in the motion he proposed, but as it stands, I cannot in any way agree to it. Senator Tunney and the Labour Party, when putting down this motion, may have done so with the best intention in the world to help the farmers, but they should know from the reception given by the Government to similar motions for the relief of farmers, proposed in this House by Senator Baxter and myself from time to time, that this motion in the names of Senators Tunney and Smyth has no possible chance of being accepted. I do not think the House or the farmers want it accepted in that form. Senator Tunney wants all agricultural produce, including live stock, subsidised.

Mr. Tunney

No, I did not attempt to say that.

Mr. Counihan

That is what the motion says.

Mr. Tunney

No.

Mr. Duffy

Surely, the Senator read the motion before starting to speak.

Mr. Counihan

It is to "provide by legislation for the payment of a guaranteed economic price".

Mr. Tunney

Where is the subsidy there?

Mr. Counihan

It is there definitely. The Senator said very little about the farmers' position with regard to agricultural produce and live stock. His whole speech was on the wages for agricultural workers and the position they were in. We all know that farmers are losing money this year on cattle, which are making £4 to £5 a head less than last year and £25 a head less than they made during the last war. Most people know that the price of sheep has dropped practically to half and that pigs are selling for £2 a head less than last year. The Senator said there was a very bad price for oats. We all know that many farmers grow oats as a cash crop. A big quantity of that produced this year is a very bad sample and would not be sold even at the Minister's minimum price. Senator Tunney did not tell us how it was to be subsidised or how the Minister was to guarantee the economic price for that produce.

Mr. Tunney

How is the price of wheat guaranteed? This would be in the same manner.

Mr. Counihan

The majority of crops grown by the farmers in this country are grown for consumption on the farm by the farmer's own stock. Senator Tunney did not tell the House how we were to subsidise those crops. Of course, the obvious answer to that is to subsidise fat cattle or live stock which, I suppose, would be more in line with the Senator's motion; but that would raise another contentious question. I can imagine the discussion then as to whether it should be given to the farmer who reared the calf or the farmer who fattened the bullock, and if the Minister decided—as he decided before—on the farmer who fattened the bullock——

Mr. Duffy

What subsidy?

Mr. Counihan

——I can hear Senator Ruane and the Labour Party kicking up a fuss and saying that the small farmers in the west and in most parts of the country had no fat cattle and that this was another injustice to the small farmers who had no bullocks, as the Minister was playing into the hands of the big farmers and graziers. That is the way it would go.

Some few years ago, I proposed in the Seanad that there should be a subsidy paid on fat cattle for export stall fed. The idea at the back of that was that we would have stall fed cattle put to produce farmyard manure to grow more and better crops and retain the fertility of the land. When the Minister turned that down, there is little hope that he will agree to the present motion.

If this motion were accepted it would mean filling the country with Government inspectors. We have enough of them at present, and the farmers do not want any more of them. The Government could not pay subsidies in the manner suggested in Senator Tunney's motion without taking the step of appointing additional inspectors. The result would be that the farmers would simply be persecuted. Our experience of Government measures passed with the object of improving the position of the farmer and agriculture has not, I am afraid, been a very happy one. For example, we have the Pigs and Bacon Act, which we were told would improve the position of the pig trade; we have licensing regulations of various kinds, and we have a host of Orders made by the Minister. I am sure that all these measures were passed with the best intentions in the world, but they have all proved to be disastrous so far as agriculture is concerned, so that the position to-day is worse than it was before. Speaking on behalf of the cattle trade, I desire to say that we do not want any more Government regulations. We want as little interference as possible with our business. We want to be allowed to carry it on in our own way without Government interference. That would be the best thing the Government could do for us—to allow supply and demand to regulate prices. I make that statement here with the full authority of the national executive of the cattle trade which considered this matter.

A few weeks ago Senator Baxter raised a question here about the poor demand and the bad prices for cattle. The Minister and Senator O'Callaghan replied on that motion, but in my opinion they both missed the principal cause for the prevailing bad prices. I think the principal cause is that we have too many young and badly-bred cattle in the country at the moment. Cattle of that class are not wanted anywhere. Another reason is this: that formerly the cattle produced by small farmers in the south and west were taken up to the big farms in Leinster and fattened or turned into good stores for export to Great Britain. The position to-day is that most of these big farms have been split up, and, consequently, there is no room on them for the cattle produced in the south and west. There are very few big farms left in Leinster to take in the small and young cattle bred in the south and west. I tried to point that out when the Land Bill was under discussion in the Seanad, but I was not allowed to proceed.

I wanted to point out that the splitting up of the few remaining big farms that we have in the country would be a disaster for the small farmers; that the only market which the latter had for their young cattle was the big farm in Leinster. I had intended to point out that the big farmer and the small farmer are interdependent—that one cannot exist without the other, and that if we continue to break up the few remaining big farms we have, we will have several motions of the kind that Senator Tunney has moved brought forward in this House and in the Dáil deploring the terrible condition in which the small farmers in the south and west find themselves.

The principal income of most of the farmers in the south and west, and, indeed, of all the new farmers established on holdings in Leinster, is derived from the sale of their live stock. It does not come from the growing of wheat, beet or oats. Senator Baxter, when speaking some weeks ago, bemoaned the small prices which stores were making in Cavan. There are other places besides Cavan where small and young cattle are making bad prices. I have here a report of a fair held recently in Listowel. I may tell the House that there is as good land around Listowel as there is in most parts of the country. The report of this fair was supplied, I imagine, by a reporter from the Minister's Department. It states:—

"Listowel fair, held on Wednesday last, was very large, and demand was good for animals showing quality and condition. The trade for other classes was slow. Prices, approximately, were: Yearlings, first class, £3 10/- to £6; second class, £2 to £3 10/-. Two-year-olds, first class, £9 to £12; second class, £7 to £8 10/-. Three-year-olds, £17 to £20."

Anyone who thinks that a farmer can rear a calf and sell it as a yearling at £2 should know that such a thing cannot be done. That is not an economic price for a yearling. The question is, how is the Minister going to rectify that position?

Mr. Quirke

Will the Senator take an order for a couple of wagon loads of them at £2 a head?

Mr. Healy

He is not a Listowel farmer.

Mr. Counihan

I agree with what is said in the report, that there is good demand for good quality cattle. I can say that there is sufficient demand for them in England, and that all of them that we can export will be taken from us. The only thing that is holding up their export is lack of shipping space. If it were available all the good cattle that we have to offer will be taken from us by the people at the other side. If we persist in the game of splitting up all the big farms and continue to produce badly bred young stock, a policy which has been advocated by the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil people, and even by Senator Sweetman, who has advocated the breaking up of ranches, then the position of the farmer is going to become worse. I may remind the House that Senator Sweetman, when introducing his Bill a few weeks ago, said that he would not have done so if he thought that the passing of it would interfere with the activities of the Land Commission. According to the Report of the Banking Commission, every new farmer that we set up costs the country £1,100. That free gift of £1,100 is paid by the taxpayer. In addition to that free gift, Senator Tunney now comes along and wants the taxpayer to pay a subsidy to these new farmers for what they produce on their land.

Mr. Duffy

There is nothing about a subsidy in the motion.

Mr. Counihan

The proposal is to pay them a subsidy for the live stock and live-stock products which they produce.

Mr. Duffy

There is nothing about a subsidy in the motion.

Mr. Counihan

I say that it cannot be done, and the sooner that farmers, the Labour Party and others realise that the better it will be for all of us.

Mr. Tunney

If we are all to be poor let us all go together, but why have one section living in a state of starvation as at present?

Mr. Counihan

I am satisfied that if the Government were to accept my amendment for the stabilisation of rates on agricultural land at the rates prevailing in 1914-15, that could be done without costing one penny in administration. All farmers, small and big, would benefit proportionately. It would go in a small way towards redeeming the promises made by Fianna Fáil before they become a Government. It would also have an influence on Partition, since it would help to allay the fears of high taxation shared by farmers in the North of Ireland.

That would have an effect. Every Party in this State, including Fianna Fáil, have promised derating from time to time, but nothing has been done. I suggest this half-measure, which would be some relief. It could be given without engaging in administrative cost, and it would benefit every class of farmer, big and small. The cost of my proposal would not be very much. It is estimated that the rates raised on land in 1914 in the Twenty-Six Counties was £1,120,000. The demand for 1943-44 was £2,814,000, so that the amount to be found would be about £1,700,000. The administration of that scheme would cost nothing. The farmer would still have to pay about 5/- in the £ on the valuation of his agricultural land, as well as the ordinary rates on his house and buildings, as people in the towns and villages have to pay. If that concession were made, it would relieve the farmer of some of the rates which go at present to the upkeep of roads which are of very little use to him in his work. In fact, they are more of a disadvantage to him in their present condition than anything else. It would also help to relieve him in respect of the rates which he has to pay to provide water supplies, sewerage and other amenities which residents of the towns and villages enjoy at his expense. Just as Senator Tunney hopes that his motion will meet with the approval of the House, I hope that my proposal for pegging the rates at the 1914 figure will be acceptable. It is a very small concession to ask from the Minister. My amendment to the last paragraph of the motion—to pay the agricultural workers the highest wages the industry can afford—should satisfy the most extreme worker and the most extreme labour leader. Senator Tunney has painted a very gloomy picture of the situation of the small farmer and the agricultural worker——

Mr. Tunney

The big farmer is fairly well off.

Mr. Counihan

He is the only farmer who is paying any agricultural workers. What is the solution that Senator Tunney has or the Labour Party have for the relief of depression in agriculture? Last year, the farmers grew an enormous acreage of corn and other crops. Having gone to the expense of producing those crops, they found themselves with a shortage of machinery, a shortage of labour and the worst harvest weather they had had for many years.

What was the Labour Party's solution for that situation? They issued an ultimatum to the farmers of County Dublin for higher wages, shorter hours, weekly half-holidays with pay, annual holidays with pay and several other preposterous demands which the farmers could not concede. There was an implied threat that, if those demands were not met, labour would be withdrawn from the farmer and his crops allowed to rot. That is the consideration which Senator Tunney and his colleagues have for the farmers. That is the sympathy they show to those who tried to save the people from starvation and to feed the animal population as well. There was the threat that, if this wage was not conceded, they would call the men out and let the crops rot. I do not think that Senator Tunney can deny that.

Mr. Tunney

I am afraid that the Senator does not know what he is speaking about.

Mr. Counihan

I shall be glad to hear any member of the Labour Party repudiate that action.

Mr. Tunney

You know——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Counihan must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Counihan

I should be glad to hear Senator Tunney repudiate the action of the organiser who issued that threat.

Mr. Tunney

You said it was the Labour Party who did it, which is entirely different.

Mr. Counihan

The Labour Party were identified with it.

Mr. Kyle

Who spilled the milk which was being put on the train?

Mr. Counihan

Are the wages of the agricultural workers as bad as the Labour Party and Senator Tunney represent them to be? I maintain that the wages compare very favourably with the wages of any other class of workers. If we take the 1914 standard, there is a bigger increase in the wages of the agricultural workers than there is in the wages of any other class of workers in the country.

Mr. Kyle

What were they in 1914?

Mr. Counihan

In County Dublin, the wages paid to agricultural workers in 1914 were 10/-, 11/- and 12/- a week.

Mr. Kyle

I thought so.

Mr. Counihan

The wages to-day are 41/6, 46/- and 50/- a week. In many cases, agricultural workers are getting £3 and £4 a week. Senator Tunney referred to the wages of agricultural workers in the North of Ireland and in England. I say that the wages to which I have referred are better than the wages paid to the agricultural workers in England. The increase is more than 300 per cent. over the figure for 1914 and the cost of living has not increased by that percentage. If those workers were in England or the North of Ireland, or in the banks, or the Civil Service, many of them—single men—would have to pay income tax instead of getting subsidies and doles. They are doing that in England. The agricultural worker at the present time is satisfied. I know many of them and I have discussed the subject with them. They say that, if there is security and constant employment, they want to be allowed to work. They do not want any more big farms split up; the people who are getting small farms will have to try to work out their own salvation without any more subsidies; they are getting quite enough from the Government. I would agree to subsidise wheat, beet and milk. We are doing that at present and further than that I do not think we should go.

Mr. Duffy

You will have the inspectors all the time.

Mr. Counihan

Perhaps. At any rate, I am satisfied that this system of subsidies and bounties will not create prosperity for agriculture, and that the farmers and the farm labourers will have to rely upon their own work.

Mr. Tunney

Or upon the emigrant ship.

Mr. Sweetman

I suggest, with respect, Sir, that Senator Counihan should be allowed to speak without further interruption.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have already said so, and interruptions must now cease.

Mr. Counihan

All I am pleading for is security for our homes and our lands, security against strikes of the kind I have mentioned, security for a market for our agricultural products or, at least, for our surplus agricultural products. The Government state that they are anxious to help our farmers, but I suggest that that is the only way in which they can help the farmers of this country, and if that is accomplished, I shall look forward to the promise of a brighter future for the farmers of this country.

Mr. Hayden

I rise to support this motion because I consider that it is one of the most important that has been put before the House for a number of years. As an agricultural worker for over 40 years I think I have experience of what the farmer and the agricultural labourer have to endure in work on the farm. In 1939, when this emergency started, it should be remembered that the farmers and the agricultural labourers came to the rescue of this nation. That is why I wish to support this motion. They came forward and gave of their best in order to produce food so that the people of this nation should not be hungry.

I can say, as an agricultural worker, who has gone through the mill for over 40 years, that I know the conditions of the farming community. I do not know what were the wages paid to agricultural workers in the years when I started work. I admit that they were considerably lower than they are to-day, but what about the high cost of living to-day? I have had experience with public boards, and I know of cases of some of these people having to look for home assistance. I know of cases of agricultural workers actually having to look for home assistance because the amount they receive in wages is inadequate to sustain themselves and their families. I know of cases where the parents are unable to provide food, clothes and shelter on the wages they receive. I know of cases where the children cannot go to school because they have not got clothes or boots; and where agricultural workers are unable to go to divine service on Sundays owing to a lack of clothing, even though they are in receipt of a wage of £2 a week.

In my own County of Carlow we have the medical officer of health pointing out that a great number of the children of these agricultural workers are suffering from malnutrition. The reason they are suffering from malnutrition—and I think every Senator here will agree with me—is that their parents cannot afford to buy proper food for them. I think that the Minister for Agriculture will agree with me on that, and I think he knows that I am not one who makes exaggerated statements. Some people, of course, are always blaming the Minister for all these things, but I think the Minister knows that I am not that kind of person. About 12 months ago, I heard a man blaming the Minister for Agriculture as being responsible for the lack of water on his land. That kind of thing is ridiculous, of course, and I am sure that the Minister knows that I do not get up here merely to ridicule him. I only wish to point out the facts. We have heard Senator Counihan, however, talking about the price of cattle, but the price of prime beef in butchers' shops in the country is 1/6, and the price of mutton is 1/8.

Every day in the week is a meatless day for the agricultural workers, because they cannot afford to buy either beef or mutton. I think that the Minister should do something to control the price of beef and mutton at the present time, because the difference between the price for cattle and the price charged by the victuallers is excessive. I know a great many hardworking farmers who have always paid good wages when they could afford to do so, but I cannot agree that all the farmers were always anxious to pay good wages to their workers, and I do not believe that an agricultural worker can support himself and his family in decency on a wage of £2 a week at the present time, and bring up his children as they should be brought up. I think it is appalling to see the number of children in our country to-day who are without boots or proper clothing. I know that the Government has done a great deal of good work. I do not wish to deny that, but I do hold that they could do a great deal more so as to enable the farmer to pay a little more to the agricultural labourers and enable them to feed and clothe their children properly.

I have gone through the cases of many agricultural workers' families, and I find that a wage of £2 a week is not sufficient to provide even three square meals a day for many of these families. Yet we have the medical officers telling us that our children are suffering from malnutrition. They are bound to suffer from malnutrition if there is not sufficient money in the household to provide proper food and, apart from malnutrition, they are subject to epidemics of various kinds. For that reason I hope and trust that the Government will do something to enable the farmers to pay a higher wage to their workers because, at the present rate of wages of £2 a week, it is impossible for an agricultural worker and his family to subsist.

Padraic O Máille

Sílim go n-admhaíonn gach duine againn anseo gurb iad feilméaraí na tíre seo agus an mhuintir atá ag obair ar an talamh an dá dhream is tábhachtaí in Éirinn, mar is iad a shaothraíos furmhór de shaibhreas na tíre. Is maith liom go mbeadh comhoibriú eatorru agus go dtiocfaidís le chéile mar dá fheabhas dá mbeidís i ndon an talamh oibriú isea is fearr d'fheádfadh an dream eile saothrú fháil.

Tá de bhuaidh sa tír seo go bhfuil talamh thar barr againn—talamh atá i ndon beithígh agus caoire a reamhrú. Tá dhá oireasacht orainn: níl saibhreas faoi'n talamh, ar nós guail agus olaí, rudaí atá riachtanach le haghaidh déantuis eile.

Más amhlaidh le rá faoi'n talmhaíocht e, níor mhór go mbeadh déantuis eile ar bun a bhéarfadh obair do chuid eile de na daoine. Ba cheart go mbeadh déantuis den tsórt san ar bun in éineacht leis an bhfeilméaracht. Ansin bheidís i ndon furmhór a gcuid féin de na beithígh agus de na caoire agus de na muca a dhíol sa tír seo agus gan a bheith orthu aon mhargadh do thóraíocht thar sáile.

Labhrann an Seanadóir O Cuanacháin go céillí go minic ach chuaidh sé thar fóir i gcuid de na rudaí adúirt sé anocht. Dúirt sé go raibh sé ag dul ag bánú na talún ar na feilméaraí móra tuilleadh feilmneacha móra a roinnt agus feilméaraí beaga a chur orthu. Ní aontaím leis sin agus dá mbeadh sé fíor féin, b'fhearr go mór go mbeadh na daoine ar an talamh in áit beithígh.

Níor mhínigh an Seanadóir O Cuanacháin cén fáth go mbeadh farasbárr airgid dhá fháil ag muintir na Sé gCondaethe ar a gcuid stuic thar mar fhaghas an chuid eile den tír. Níl an mhuintir thall ag tabhairt an luach ceart ar an stoc, idir caoire agus beithígh, a cheannaíos siad fá láthair agus béidir go dtiocfadh sé sa saol nach mbeidh siad i ndon an oiread sin féin fháil sna blianta atá romhainn.

As it is getting late, I do not wish to detain the House. I am glad to see that this motion is not in the interests of one class more than another, though no doubt the proposer of the motion stressed the wrongs of one class more than another. I think it must be admitted on all sides that the farmers and agricultural workers are the two most important sections of the Irish people, because they produce three-fourths of the wealth of the country. In the old days I happened to be a follower of the late Arthur Griffith. Arthur Griffith knew the importance of the farming industry and the large part it played in the national economy. He realised, great thinker that he was, that it was necessary to develop the industrial arm in addition to the agricultural arm, that one section ought to help another. It is, no doubt, almost impossible to start industries in the present period, because to start industries we have to import from outside the necessary commodities. I am a very strong believer in the afforestation of the country. I believe that a great deal of wealth rests in that direction, but the Forestry Branch of the Ministry of Lands is held up at the moment because they cannot get wire to fence in land to be planted. Other industries are also handicapped. I look to the future when we shall have the homes of the people lighted by electricity, and have brighter and better homes. In the meantime, the important thing is to carry on life as best we can.

I have frequently heard Senator Counihan in this House. He generally gives expression to a great deal of common sense, but I never heard more "ballyhoo", as they say in the United States, than I heard from him to-night. Senator Counihan alleged that the quality of cattle in this country has deteriorated considerably since a certain number of breeders went out of business. I contest that statement, and I tell Senator Counihan here that cross-bred cattle are the best beef cattle. They are better than pure bred cattle, and they are a greater asset than the few herds of Aberdeen Angus we had in the country.

Even conceding his point, I would prefer to see people rather than cattle in the country because the wealth of the country lies in the human population of the country. When the country was divided in ranches, we know how the nation decayed. Senator Counihan, with his knowledge of the cattle trade, speaks of an open market across the water. He did not tell us why a certain percentage was paid for cattle in from the Six Counties over and above what is given for cattle sold in the Twenty-Six Counties.

Mr. Counihan

I told it frequently.

Padraic O Maille

He has not told us on this occasion. I believe, as I have often said before, that the price of cattle is dependent on the price that the English people are able to pay at the moment. We cannot be sure that within the next few years our present customers will be able to pay even the present prices for our livestock, so it behoves members of all Parties in this country to try to pull together so as to create a situation here in which the Irish people will be able to consume in their own land all the live stock—fat cattle, sheep, and pigs—produced in the country.

Mr. Foran

What will be the position of this motion if it is talked out to-night? Will the debate be continued on the next day the Seanad meets?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes. I presume the debate will be adjourned at 9 p.m. if it has not then concluded.

Mr. Healy

I want to deal only with one question to which Senator O Maille has already partly referred. Senator Counihan stated in answer to a complaint made here by Senator Baxter that there were bad prices for cattle, that we could attribute that to the fact that many of our cattle were badly bred. For many years past we have heard a lot about efforts to improve the breeding of our cattle. Is Senator Counihan's contention now that the present quality and breeding of our cattle are inferior to those of former years?

Mr. Counihan

I did not say that.

Mr. Healy

If that is so, it is tantamount to a vote of censure on the Department of Agriculture. Are the cattle bred in this country at present inferior to those bred some years ago here?

Mr. Counihan

There are more inferior bred cattle in the country now than some years ago.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I have listened to the debate on this motion with interest. Since the motion affects the farming community and agricultural labourers, I was inclined to approach its consideration sympathetically, but I must admit that so far I have heard no argument that would convince me that I should vote for the motion. Senator Tunney and Senator Counihan indicated that something should be done but further than that they did not go. Nobody, so far, has been sufficiently explicit in stating what he expects this House to do, what it is that is required from the Department of Agriculture or what the Minister should do to improve the position of farmers and agricultural workers. Sub-paragraph (a) requests the Government to "provide by legislation for the payment of a guaranteed economic price for all agricultural produce, including live stock and live-stock products."

I think I would be correct in saying that the ruling prices for agricultural produce are higher than they have been since the last Great War, and if the farmers are not prosperous there must be some other reason for it. I am one of those who believe that prosperity cannot be brought about by the manipulation of prices. If the farmer's prices are raised to a higher level than those which exist at the moment, if the price of butter is to be increased to 3/6 or 4/- a pound, if the price of bacon is to be raised, if the price of wheat is to be raised, what will happen? I suggest that you will be automatically raising the cost of living, and during the debate here to-night the greatest complaint has been that the cost of living is so high. Surely it will be agreed that the cost of living affects the farmer as much if not more than anybody else. I come from an area where the majority of the people are small farmers. In fact, I come from an exceptional area, because in my county there are about 10,000 agricultural holdings with a valuation of under £20, and approximately only 1,000 holdings with a valuation over £20. I know that the farmers in County Leitrim and all over the West of Ireland are very seriously affected by the cost of living. We must all agree that the farmer is a purchaser of butter, bacon, flour and sugar, and if the prices of those commodities are to be increased his standard of living will be affected. While I agree that the farmer should get the highest possible economic price having regard to all the circumstances, I would not suggest that the cost of living should be raised to a point which would reduce the standard of living, because I have always considered that the standard of living and the cost of living are in inverse proportion.

With regard to the paragraph which proposes that the agricultural workers should get a higher wage, I agree that the man who works on the land should get as high a wage as it is possible to give him, having regard to the farmer's ability to pay. I think there has been a great improvement in the wages paid to agricultural workers, and I would say that they are comparatively better off now than they were previously, but I do agree that they are entitled to as good a wage as people in comparable employment.

Again, on the question of agricultural prices, surely we must admit that if normal conditions prevailed we could not export any of our agricultural produce at present prices. If normal conditions prevailed, other people would be able to produce as good an article at a cheaper price, and those who needed that article would buy it in the cheapest possible market. At the moment our only exports of any consequence are live stock. Because we have no control over the prices ruling in a foreign market, we are not able to regulate the price of our cattle. I agree that there is a great difference between the present price for cattle and the price paid by the consumer for fresh meat. Nobody has suggested what the Minister for Agriculture is expected to do. If I heard a convincing argument to the effect that such and such a thing could be done, I assure the proposer of the motion that I would support it, but I have not heard that argument. I suggest that we cannot assist the people engaged in agriculture by raising the prices for their produce, which would result in raising the cost of living and reducing the standard of living. The only way in which we can help them is by the introduction of better methods of production in agriculture. There was a lot to be said for the philosophy of the late Minister for Agriculture. He wanted to see one more cow, one more sow, and one more acre under the plough. I think the solution of our agricultural problem here is to be found by the adoption of that method.

I agree that the present Minister for Agriculture has the same views. Unless there is increased production, the farmer, and more particularly the small farmer, cannot continue to exist. If the small farmer is not in a good position at the moment it is because of his inability to make a big turnover. A big turnover seems to be the secret of success in any business, whether it is a farm or a factory or a retail shop. How is the small farmer's turnover to be increased? I think increased production will have to be achieved by the introduction of more scientific methods in agriculture. It will also be necessary to ensure that the people engaged in agriculture, particularly the small farmer, will have ample capital and will be taught how to use it on the proper lines. I think the Minister for Agriculture should take steps to ensure that after the war every possible effort will be made to increase our production by the introduction of scientific methods and by making ample capital available to the people engaged in farming in a small way.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator now, please, move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I formally move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until next sitting day.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 17th January, 1945.