On Thursday night last the Minister was just about to define for me the term "working farmer" when we adjourned. Unfortunately, the pros and cons of who or what particular type of farmer is involved in the present or any strike does not alter the unfortunate lot of so many of our farmers throughout the country at present. Will the Minister deny that agricultural incomes and family farm incomes in particular have dropped considerably over the past year? I should like to know where the non-working farmers are to be found in this country? Many people seem to forget that the farmers are, I suppose, the only section of the community who do not enjoy a 5 day week at present. The farmers have no half holiday in the week. They must work a full 7 day week. They have no sickness benefit, no retirement, no pension schemes and the only holiday the vast majority of them get is, perhaps, a week or two when they get married and go on their honeymoon. These are the people to whom the Government appear to deny a reasonable living wage.
We know that 59 per cent of the farms in the Republic of Ireland are under 25 acres. The families on these farms are expected to survive on a figure of approximately £7 per week and it is tantamount to treason if they protest or insist on the right to bring up their families in some standard of decency. I feel I should take this opportunity of reminding the Minister of the pittances so many of our citizens are compelled to live on. For the five-15 acre holding, this year's income estimate is £232 per annum, or less than £4 10s per week. For farms of between 15 and 30 acres, the income is estimated at £386 per annum, or £7 8s per week and for those of the 30-50 acre holdings, a figure of £565 per annum, or £10 16s per week. Therefore, the average family farm income, on farms from five-50 acres, is £394 per annum, or £7 10s per week. When we bear in mind that the people who are earning those vast incomes must have at least £1,000 investment in land, buildings and property—and up to £10,000 — it is surely a poor return, when we contrast it with other sections of the community. When we break down the figure of family farm income, how many urban people realise that that income represents the return for the work done by not only the farmer but his wife, children and all the other members of the farm who must join in and give a hand in order to secure that mere pittance?
I should like to compare those figures, which were compiled by the advisory services, with those set out in the tables in the last national farm survey carried out during the years 1955-56 to 1957-58. On page 3, Part I of that Report we find—taking the same categories — the total family farm income of the small farms of between five and 15 acres during the three seasons of that Report, almost ten years ago, was £209 for the year 1957. Comparing that with this year's estimate of £232 per annum, we have an increase of £23 per annum in the family farm income of the smallest farms over the ten-year period. For the 15 to 30 acre group the figure in the national farm survey was £332 and, compared with this year's figure of £386, it is only £54 more. For the 30 to 50 acre group the figure ten years ago was £464, or £101 less than the figure for this year.
I do not for a moment deny that farm incomes have been static over each of those ten years. There was a considerable improvement during the first three or four years after that Report but, this year, family farm incomes have taken a nose-dive. Surely the present Minister for Agriculture and his predecessor must be aware of the grave economic conditions affecting our agricultural economy at the present time. That any Government should attempt to deny that these conditions exist is indeed extraordinary, since the farming community represent such a large sector of the population. The urban people in general seem also to be unaware of the fact that the farmers' share of the ordinary agricultural produce they buy—and, in many cases, pay so dearly for in the shops—is only 15 to 20 per cent of the retail price. Surely that it a poor return for the time and effort which farmers must put into their work. When we consider the poor incomes that have been made available to the farming community over the years, it is no wonder that there is a very rapid decline in the number of people actively engaged in agriculture.
Looking at the report by Dr. E. A. Attwood of the Rural Economy Division of An Foras Talúntais, we find some very informative tables in regard to the agricultural labour force in general over the period 1951 to 1961. With your permission, Sir, I should like to quote from this report because I feel that if the Department of Agriculture studied these figures and took them into account, they would find that they prove conclusively that there is a very dangerous situation, and that if something is not done as a matter of urgency, it may even be too late to apply remedies. It is stated in the introduction:
The following tables give the absolute and percentage changes in the agricultural labour force and its main constituents over the years 1951-61 for the State, the four provinces and each of the twenty-six counties. They are being circulated to make readily available the precise figure for each county. The data are derived from the Reports of the Population Censuses of Ireland, 1951 and 1961.
There are basically three sets of figures:—
(i) The total Agricultural Labour Force by category of worker (i.e. farmers, relatives, agricultural labourers etc.).
(ii) Total of Farmers, Relatives and Labourers, according to size of holding.
(iii) The number in each of the three main categories of the labour force by size of holding.
Looking at the first table in this report, we see that there has been a very big decline in the number of people remaining on the land. The first table gives the total agricultural labour force of farmers and family workers. Between 1951 and 1961, there was a decline of 10.6 per cent in the number of farmers working on the land. The figure in 1961 was 210,331 as compared with 235,331 in 1951. Perhaps that figure is not too bad. Perhaps we will be told that these figures are consistent with the figures in other countries where there seems to be a flight from the land, but when we look at the numbers of sons and sons-in-law who left the land during the period, we find them even more distressing. In 1951, there were 132,895 farmers' sons and sons-in-law actively engaged in whole-time farming, and in 1961, ten years later, that figure had dropped to 80,002, or by 38.9 per cent. That is a very drastic figure. We find, too, when we go through this publication, that the number of farms throughout Ireland which have no one to succeed or to carry on farming is quite alarming. We find also a very sharp decrease in the number of girls or farmers' daughters remaining on the farms of Ireland.
The reason why these people are leaving the land—and they are most important to the land—is the income available to them as a direct result of the agricultural policy of the Government. The number of people on the land is declining for the simple reason that the incomes which farmers are able to earn from their holdings are not capable of maintaining them in a reasonable standard of living. In present circumstances, it is unreasonable and impossible to expect the younger generation to work on the land. Therefore, as a matter of urgency, the Government should try to meet the situation by at least listening to the representations made by the various agricultural organisations, be they the ICMSA, the NFA or any other body representing the farming industry. Surely the figures in the Government's statistics are conclusive evidence that these people have a very strong case and putting off the evil day just will not do.
Last Wednesday, Senator Dr. Ryan said—and I am quoting from the Irish Independent of Thursday, December 15th, 1966:
... that the NFA was not satisfied with what the Government had done for farmers. He had the conviction that if another Government was in power they would not be so hard on them. His experience of farmers' parties was that they flourished for a while but always ended up as Fine Gael.
The people who composed these parties were always the same. The NFA was a body which was certainly anti-Government. He was in favour of having a representative farmers' organisation. It would certainly make things easier for the Minister for Agriculture.
I certainly do not share Senator Dr. Ryan's views on the NFA, or any other body for that matter. Any organised group of workers or of any section of the community which was treated by any Government as the present Government have treated both farmers' organisations this year, would have good reason to be anti-Government. I would hope that the people in the NFA and the ICMSA, in the interests of Irish agriculture and Irish farming, will not be deterred by cheap gibes or allegations that they are anti this or anti that. I hope that in the interests of themselves and their wives and children, and in the interests of Irish agriculture, they will demand and insist on their right to a reasonable standard of living so that the farming industry can continue and flourish.
Senator Ryan also said that on a valuation of £20 a farmer paid only £7 10s in rates. I do not know if there are many counties where the rates are less than 40/- in the £ but taking the figure at 40/- and taking into account rebates of one kind or another, farmers pay at least £10 rates on a valuation of £20. Senator Dr. Ryan's figure, therefore, was too low in that respect. On this question of rates, many people believe that farmers in general, because of grants and so on, pay very little rates or taxes: the public in general are not aware of the unjust way in which farmers are taxed. I have no objection to farmers paying rates on buildings, including dwellings, if the urban population must do so but I appreciate that a man in industrial employment pays rates on his home all right but he gets tax abatements and reliefs in respect of his wife and for each of his children under several headings. A farmer, on the other hand, not only pays rates on buildings but he pays rates on every acre of land he owns irrespective of whether the land is flooded, or whether it is good land or bad land. He gets no allowance in respect of his wife or his children.
