Edition Bobbett2. Speeches and statements by Elizabeth F. Bobbett
1954 Dublin, Meeting of the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association
Source: Wicklow People, 06.11.1954
At a special meeting of the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association, in Dublin on 18th October, Miss Elizabeth F. Bobbett, Member of the Wicklow County Council, speaking to the resolution: “That the National Agricultural Industrial Development Association strongly objects to any financial policy that deprives our agriculture of full production,” said she felt actuated to propose that resolution in order to bring to the notice of the people the many disadvantages under which the agricultural population was working at present, and see if they could find a solution to at least some of their problems. They knew from pronouncements by members of both Governments and from many prominent people, that they all now agreed that agriculture was their greatest wealth-producing source, and that the land was their greatest asset.
Production: They also knew that from all sides the farmers were being urged to increase production. Hardly a week went by but there was some reference in the press deploring that their agricultural production had been static over the years, very little increase in the over-all position. Some would cry out that they had not enough tillage, and more employment on the land, while the next day it would be a cry that they should have more livestock to export. They were tired of hearing of how their neighbours in other European countries could export agricultural produce at much lower prices than they could, but she felt that the proper picture was not given them of the circumstances which prevailed in those countries and their costs of production compared with the position here.
The annual statistical survey of 1953 complied by the Central Statistics Office showed that there was a drop of 12½ per cent in production of cattle and calves between 1952 and 1953, and in horses a drop of 47 per cent, but that decline was offset by an increased output of pigs amounting to 39 per cent and increased output in butter, eggs and milk. The output increase in wheat that year was 64 per cent, and for sugar beet an increase of 48 per cent.
The number of males engaged in farm work at June, 1953, showed a decline of 20,000 for the year, while the decline for the ten years 1943 to 1953 was 115,000. They had recently reviewed the report of the Commission on Emigration, and the published minority reports of some of the members of that Commission. In the general conclusions of the Commission, it was stated that “the case for giving a high place in the order of priorities to agriculture rest on the fact that, by encouraging agriculture, use is made of the physical attributes which gives the country a natural advantage in competition with other countries. Exports to pay for additional imports required for industrial developments are increased, under-employment and un-employment on the land are reduced and the income of the agricultural community is increased, thereby providing a larger home market for industrial production.”
The Most Rev. Dr. Cornelius Lucey in his Minority Report, stated: “As I see it, the majority report writes off the land as a source of population increase. With this view I am in profound disagreement.”
In his very excellent report, His Lordship pointed out as his first two items in efforts to stop the flight from the land as follows: 1. That farmers and farm labourers alike, want a standard of living and leisure commensurate with that of other sections of the population. 2. That agriculture does not provide this standard for the numbers at present engaged in it.
She thought they had evidence enough there to show them that the position in agriculture was very serious, and needed immediate study and action. First, she would draw their attention to the increase in production of both wheat and beet. That was because the farmers had been guaranteed economic prices for those two items in the past few years, which enabled them to increase production knowing they had a secure market for it.
During the past four years, since lime and fertilisers became more available, the farmers had taken advantage of them and also of the increased technical advice offered, particularly in the matter of soil-testing, with the result that yields of crops had been very much increased. The quality of their grass land had improved, which had helped materially in increasing milk and butter production.
If they were to increase their production from agriculture, the benefits must come mainly to those engaged in it, the farmer and farm worker, so as to encourage them to stay on the land, and enable the farmer to give full employment. That could only be done if fair prices were guaranteed for what they had to sell and if their costs were fair.
They were often told that supply and demand ruled all prices, but that should not be the case when there was an artificially created lack of demand. They had a lack of demand on the home market because people had not the money to buy all they required, and they had a controlled price on the export market knowing that they had a surplus which must be sold.
If they examined the position of agricultural exports from other countries they found that in New Zealand the farmer was paid 2s 11½d a gallon for the lowest grade milk going to the creamery. Allowing that the New Zealand milk might be Jersey milk, and that they could make one lb of butter out of two gallons of milk, they had the position that it took 3s 11d lb of milk to make one lb of butter to [[?]] gallons milk to make one lb of butter [[?]] Irish creameries and 3 gallons on the [[?]]. The New Zealand housewife could buy her butter retail at 1/8 a lb, while the butter was sold on the British market at 3/- a lb.
The USA farmers were guaranteed £34 a ton for [[?]], which was offered for export at £29 a ton? The present price for Irish wheat top grade, was £32 16s a [[?]]. The farmers in Britain and Northern Ireland were given [[?]] prices still for some of their produce. It appeared to her that the financial policy in other countries was used to ensure increase in agricultural productions.
If they asked for increased prices for agricultural produce here, they would be told that it could not be done, as it would increase the cost of living. But seeing that their land was the wealth-producing source could they not make a good case that it be used to the fullest advantage to ensure a better living for their own people. When she said their own people, she meant both producers and consumers. Why not demand the Government take the necessary power to enable them to use the credit of the nation the wealth-producing capabilities of the land to ensure just prices to producers, and at the same time to subsidise consumers so that they could buy more good, fresh, agricultural produce.
They had a surplus of bacon at present, and shortly would have a surplus of butter. They heard that it might have to be sold in Britain at a subsidised price. Was it fair to ask their people to subsidise such export while being denied the subsidy themselves. They might ask what about their exportable surplus. Well she did not see why their farmers should be left at the mercy of the importers to give whatever price they liked. Why not the Government buy the surplus butter or bacon or poultry and let them exchange it for necessary imports or make their own price for it.
They would be told that to relieve agriculture would put extra taxation on other sections of the community. Again she held that much of the taxation on the community was caused by the extraction through rates to meet interest on bank-created credits. That was an item which also could be financed without debt if the credit of the country was used for the benefit of the nation.
In conclusion, she would remind them of the continuous stressing that farmers needed education. They did not deny they needed much technical advice, but she thought that other sections should also be asked to take advice and improve their production methods and quality. She referred in particular to bacon at present. They were told they did not breed the right pigs, but breeding was only part of the finished product. No matter how well bred they were, if they were not properly fed and then if not properly cured, they were spoiled. They heard a lot of instructions on the most economical feed, and the fattening powders to save feed, etc. There was a vast difference in the feeding of pigs and poultry to get the best quality in finished products. What would be more beneficial to increase agricultural production and consumption would be publicity on the nutritional value of fresh food as against substitutes.