I move:—
That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that more effective measures should be taken by the Government to promote the expansion of agricultural production.
This motion has been on the Order Paper for some months. It is a motion of extreme importance, and I do not think that any member of this House should apologise for raising a matter of such vital importance. From every authoritative source of opinion, the view is being expressed that this nation at the present time is in a very grave economic position. That grave position is due in large measure to the failure of our economy to increase output to such an extent that we will be able to maintain a favourable balance of trade with other countries.
It will be accepted that there is no source of output so capable of expansion as agriculture. During the past few weeks, we have been supplied with the Irish Statistical Survey for 1955. In it, we see that manufacturing industry has increased beyond all bounds. From a base of 100 in 1938, the manufacture of transportable goods has gone up to almost 200. On the other hand, from a base of 100 in 1938, the volume of agricultural output, both gross and net, has increased by only nine points, and this in face of the fact that nearly every comparable European country has increased its output, since the termination of the war, by as much as 50 per cent. and, in some cases, more.
How could nations that were devastated by war have made such a recovery, while our country presents a deplorable picture of almost stagnant output? That is a question this House has to consider and a question that everybody in public life has to consider as a matter of serious responsibility. It is desirable in dealing with a matter of this kind that we should deal with it on a non-political and non-Party basis. For that reason, I am glad there was agreement in regard to the taking of this motion to-day.
Every one of us who has the interest of the country at heart will say that it is desirable to take agriculture out of politics and, so far as it is possible, to take politics out of agriculture. To do that, there must be a new approach to the whole question of agricultural development. We must get away from the period when it was customary to hurl slogans and battlecries across the political arena. Happily, it is now regarded as futile and almost insane for anyone to ask who shot Michael Collins or who shot Cathal Brugha. Happily, those issues are now closed.
In the same way, I think it is equally futile to ask who slaughtered the calves or even to ask who cut the price of wheat in 1954. Those are past issues. It is not the water that has flowed past the mill that turns the wheel, but the water that has still to flow. It is the future we have to deal with now. It is no harm to wipe the slate completely of all those Party catchcries. Both of the big political Parties in this country have had the responsibility of the control of Government over the past 34 years, and if there has not been the progress in agriculture we would like to see, then I suppose a certain amount of responsibility must rest on both Parties.
Fianna Fáil held office for a period of 19 years. Under various titles, Fine Gael held office for a period of 15 years. Both big political Parties, therefore, have had a considerable period of responsibility, and I think it is time that both sides now sought to get away from making accusations against each other in regard to the development or the non-development of agriculture. We on this side of the House are prepared to agree, and gladly agree, that Deputy Dillon, the Minister for Agriculture, was not responsible for the deplorable weather of 1954 or neither was he responsible for the collapse in the price of cattle during the present year. On the other hand, neither was the Irish Press responsible in any way for the deplorable fall in cattle prices during the present year. We must remove the atmosphere of falsehood and misrepresentation.
I stood at a public meeting some time ago in one of the Midland counties and I heard the Minister for Agriculture say that, when he took office, the amount of ground limestone produced in this country would not fill an eggcup. A very substantial and extensive farmer standing beside me turned to me and said: "That is an amazing statement, because in 1947 I had three lorry loads of ground limestone delivered on my farm." I felt it my duty as a public representative to defend the Minister for Agriculture, but the only defence I could offer was that his hens were bigger than anybody else's and that, in all probability, they laid bigger eggs. Therefore, he required bigger eggcups.
We have heard, too, similar accusations in regard to the low output of agriculture during the emergency or war period. Anyone will acknowledge that the output of certain products, for instance, live stock, was bound to decline, particularly when there was a large increase in the acreage of tillage. I have before me the figures for agricultural output over the years. They show that, while the net output of agriculture to-day is nine points higher than in 1938, in the year 1945, it was 12 points higher than in 1938. In 1942, I think it was 11 points higher than in 1938. That indicates that output generally was not so very low during the war period—that while, on the one hand, cattle stocks, sheep stocks and live stock in general declined, there was, on the other hand, a substantial increase in tillage output.
I think I have said enough to show that, over the past few years, an atmosphere of unreality has been created and I would say that, in the main, the present Minister for Agriculture must bear a considerable responsibility for it. However, whether he does or not, if we are to have a new approach to this matter, if we are to have a less partisan and political approach to this matter, the initiative must rest in very large measure in the hands of the present Minister, or whatever Minister is holding office, because a Minister can always influence to a great extent the trend of discussion in regard to agricultural matters. He has that power and privilege so long as he is Minister.
At the outset, I am suggesting that the first step towards a departure from the position of Party conflict in regard to agriculture would be an agreement on the part of the Government to set up something in the nature of an agricultural council. If prices are to be fixed from time to time, if decisions have to be taken of a very important nature regarding agriculture, it is essential that they should be taken after consultation with a representative body which has the right to speak on behalf of the organised farming community.
It may be said as a justification for the failure to establish such a body in the past that farmers were not sufficiently organised. It will be recognised, however, that in the past few years great progress has been made in getting the farming community on an organised footing. Once they are organised, the constitution of an agricultural council, representative of every effective and worth while agricultural organisation, would be quite a simple matter. In fact, it is known, and it may be remembered by some of the older members of the House, that when the Department of Agriculture was first established over 50 years ago, it had associated with it an agricultural council.
It is also well known that in Great Britain the policy of successive Governments has been to meet the representatives of the organised farmers each year and settle with them in regard to the main points of agricultural policy. I am not suggesting for a moment that Parliament should resign its function of having the final decision in regard to policy, and in regard to agricultural policy in particular, but I am suggesting that a truely representative agricultural council should be consulted in the fullest and most serious way, openly and publicly consulted, in regard to agricultural policy before it is decided upon.
It is possible that even the best Government in the world might not be able to reach complete agreement with the council, but at least it would be an indication that the views and the interests of those actually engaged in agriculture were carefully considered and given priority in the matter of settling agricultural policy. I suggest there is a great deal of leeway to be made up. An increase of 50 per cent. over 1938 at least is possible. Somebody might ask if that is desirable, but I think there is no need to labour that point. An increase of 50 per cent. in the volume of our agricultural output would completely change our whole economic position. It would add enormously to our external balance of trade. It would help to create a favourable balance of trade and it would completely wipe out the deficit in our trade balance. It would put us in a position to import perhaps still more essential goods for the development of other industries.
Many opinions are expressed as to why agriculture has not made the progress it should have made over the years. Some people, naturally, are inclined to blame the Government— whatever Government is in power—and some people almost invariably blame the farmers. I think it was an Irish poet who once said in regard to the Irish nation: "We have heard our faults a thousand times in speeches, sermons, rants and rhymes." However, I think the Irish farmer is as intelligent and progressive as any European farmer or any farmer in any country in the world. If there has been a failure to increase agricultural output, it must be traced to some fundamental causes.
We have to ask ourselves why the Department of Agriculture, established 50 years ago with great enthusiasm, with young and earnest men associated with it at that time, failed to make any impression on agricultural conditions. Why is it that, after the establishment of this State, with the agricultural community the largest section of the people, the Government over the years have not been able to increase the volume of production in agriculture as other countries have done?
There are some people who think it is due entirely to the inefficiency of the farmers. I do not hold that view. I hold that it is due to a variety of causes which are, in the main, peculiar to this country. I am sure no Senator will dispute the fact with me if I say that it is possible in this country, more than any other country in the world, perhaps, to farm very profitably without farming very well. To explain that I will say that if a man owns 100 acres or 200 acres of land, or even less—50 acres—and if he sublets it in conacre, he will probably draw a larger net income than if he were working the land intensively.
Again, many farmers have found that, by putting the land under permanent pasture, stocking it well, minding the stock well, buying at the right time, and selling at the right time, which is rather difficult at the present moment, but over the years managing the live-stock economy reasonably well, they have been able to make just as good an income as the man who is employing labour, tilling extensively, keeping a large herd of cows and carrying on an intensive and difficult system of farming.
As long as that position prevails, as long as it is possible to make just as good an income, if not better, by a system of low-output farming as it is to make it by a system of high-output farming, there will always be a tendency for a substantial number of our people to concentrate on low-output farming. Remember that net income is not the price that the farmer gets for his produce. It is the difference between the price he secures from the butcher, the cattle-dealer, the merchant, the miller and all others, and the expenditure which he incurs to produce his crops and his livestock. As I say, net income on a low output farm in many cases is as high as it is on an intensively worked high output farm. If you get down to the root of the matter and you want to ensure that the maximum output is secured from the land, you have to concentrate on encouraging the intensive farmer. There is no question in this connection of compulsion. We in Fianna Fáil, as a Party, have never believed in compulsion in regard to agriculture.
