Another rate collector in the Ennis district answered the first question by putting the figure at 40 per cent., and the second by the figure of 75 per cent. A man in another part of the Ennis area seems to have been very careful, and to have gone to an extraordinary amount of trouble to find out the mortality amongst live stock. He gives the figures of 10 per cent. for Clara; 5 per cent. for Dowra; 5 per cent. for Spancil Hill, and says that the shortage of money was due to that extent. In the Ennistymon area the mortality is put at 25 per cent. amongst cattle, and 60 per cent. amongst sheep. This collector says that the distress was practically 100 per cent. and that the shortage of money is due to the above causes. I have a letter here which was received from a rate collector in the Miltown-Malbay area. His letter is dated 2/12/'26, and he says: "I have made careful enquiries among the farmers all over my collection area and have taken lists of those who have lost their stock. I am giving the following reply to question 1: I think 20 per cent. would be a fair estimate. With reference to question 2, it is rather difficult to give an estimate, but I must point out that a certain percentage is due to the fact that many farmers, especially with regard to sheep and young cattle, when the fluke visited their flocks, took the remaining healthy ones and disposed of them at any price rather than let them die." In the Kildysart No. 2 district 80 per cent of the live stock are returned as having died in the period September, 1923, to April, 1925, and 90 per cent. of the shortage of money is stated to be due to that cause.
In Kilrush the mortality is put at 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the shortage of the money as being due to that cause. The rate collectors, who know their districts inside out, give you these returns, the figures varying from 10 per cent. to 70 per cent. These men had no axe to grind, and there is no reason why they should exaggerate. They were asked to compile careful and accurate returns and they did so. In addition to those, the Clare County Board of Health sent down a circular asking the home assistance officer to give the name of the electoral division where the mortality of live stock was greatest; secondly, to state whether the resulting poverty led to a fresh class of applicant for home assistance; and thirdly, whether this burden was due to people who had lost stock or due to poverty and unemployment connected with the losses of others. Replies have been received, and I shall give one. I take, for instance, this one from the home assistance officer in Kildysart district. She answered "Yes" to numbers two and three.
"The resulting poverty has led to a fresh class of applicant for home assistance. The burden is due both to people who have themselves lost stock and the poverty and unemployment consequent on the losses of others."
Here is another one from the Kilmihill area, which was badly affected:—
"(1) I beg to report that I made minute inquiries and found that the mortality of live stock in all parts of my district was appalling, comprising the parishes of Kilmihill, Kilmurry M`Mahon, Killimer, Knockerra, Cooraclare, and Kilrush.
(2) The resulting poverty led to a fresh class of applicant for home assistance, namely, the farm labourer.
(3) This burden on the rates is not due to people who had lost stock themselves, but due to the poverty and unemployment caused by their losses."
I do not want to read every one of those, but I think I have established a case to show that the position in connection with live stock mortality in Clare has been very serious indeed. I anticipated the criticism that it is rather late in the day to come forward with this Motion for a census, but I put it up to the Minister two years ago, and it is no fault of ours that the Motion has not been taken earlier. The fault lies elsewhere in putting up a petty scheme good enough for immediate poverty but not capable of dealing with such a crisis as that which we were faced with in many counties in Ireland. Again, think of the amount of money put up to deal with this credit society—a petty £100,000 to deal with the losses of cattle and live stock. The Government's own figures amount to 2,000,000. I admit they are willing to give £2 for every £ subscribed locally; the original proposal was pound for pound. You had £200,000 available for distress under the new scheme, which was held to be an advantage.
The net sum is £150,000 which would then diminish the original one by 25 per cent. The fact is that this sum is only playing with the question. Then again how difficult it is to start even at the end of two years to deal with this provision; two valuable years have been lost. Is it realised what a menace it is to the whole social system to leave land unstocked for a period of two years destroying the whole earning power of a community? I may expect men will say land was not very profitable for the past two years and these people have not suffered a great loss. It is fallacious to take the point of view of a return on capital. The ordinary farmer works his land with unpaid family labour; he does not look for a return on capital or for payment for his time and service. He is glad if he makes both ends meet. In the absence of having his land stocked he has failed to secure that much. He has had no earning power of any kind or at the best a very little earning power and remember his overhead charges were the same and are still accruing. His rates remain the same and his land purchase annuities remain the same. But because he had not live stock on his land he could earn less. The return weekly or monthly from the residue of his live stock was not sufficient to make both ends meet and even now at the end of two years it is demonstrated that these credit society schemes have failed. Anyone who could visualise the prospect felt that they were bound to fail and we are back again where we were two years ago. We have to go over the same old grounds.
I claim the first thing is to find out accurately what areas this mortality was heaviest in because you can lay down no hard and fast lines. Every area will have to be taken on its merits, and will require treatment different, more or less in degree, from other areas and you will have to schedule those areas. As to the expense of this thing it cannot be very much. We have already a few checks. The Gárda Síochána carry out a census of live stock and annual returns of crops once a year and even to that extent the existing returns are a check upon the returns of losses which the people may give in at the moment. You have a further check. You know the area of every man's home, and his poor law valuation. You know his land purchase annuity, the character and the class of land it comprises and any practical farmer I claim can determine whether a man has many cattle. If he is exaggerating his cattle it at once becomes apparent. You have a further check. If you tell a man that if he exaggerates his losses he will be denied relief it is a check. I claim people are not so bad as they are painted; they are quite willing to come forward and they do not want to exaggerate their losses. Exaggeration of their losses reacts against their own interests.
It does not do them any good to get their lands the reputation that they are unsound even in a season when lands were not sound. It does not do for a man to say he has lost everything when it is well known that he did not, and that though his losses were heavy he did not lose a hundred per cent. I submit the expense would be trifling, and the administrative side presents very little difficulty. Even the President himself, when he visited Clare about the 30th May, 1925, was under the impression at first that Clare was not as badly affected as other counties. He even said that while a special case for treatment could be made out for Leitrim no such case could be made out for Clare. But I understand he definitely modified his views before he left the county.
This question is not brought forward as one of party tactics. The question is so big and of such vital importance that no one would be foolish enough to bring it forward for party reasons or for political expediency. We want to show that those people have lost their stock and have been unable to replace them, and that the credit society was not, of its very nature, able to meet the situation partly through lack of funds and partly by the proposal originally put up that the sufferers should take the initiative to relieve themselves by providing deposits. In addition a high rate of interest had to be charged, five per cent. for the money from the credit society. That is a pretty stiff rate of interest.
I admit that the Government quite freely gave to those credit societies a loan of £100,000 for three years free of interest, but that did not reach the sufferer, who was obliged to pay to his credit society 5 per cent. That in itself meant a very big difference even upon his borrowing. It represented really very little less than the rate at which he could get money from a joint stock bank. What is more, he could get the money from such a bank without the investigation of his affairs locally, which is necessary in the other case. The credit society scheme was from its nature unable to meet the situation. I submit that not alone to my own county, but to every county in the Saorstát, this is of primary importance. If we let the people sink into abject poverty—and you have lost two precious years—what is going to happen? The credit society scheme has failed, and I see no hope for it in the future. I submit that we must get back to fundamentals and find out where the losses were occasioned. You have got to come down to something definite and find out where the loss was before you can think of a remedial scheme. A remedial scheme must be dependent upon the conditions, good, bad or indifferent, in an area. I claim that that is the first course of prudence, the first direct measure by which you can go to the assistance of those men.
I ask Deputies not to be bound by Party leanings, to look at things from the higher and national point of view, and realise that if this community sinks, as is only too evident, into hopeless poverty, the social services must break down. You cannot maintain roads or hospitals or any social service. The position is daily getting worse. I think I have sufficiently impressed the House with the position in County Clare. I have not exaggerated it, and I say that the losses there were so heavy that the methods adopted by the Government failed to meet the situation, and that the one proper and direct method is to find out accurately and determine concisely the losses sustained in every parish, in every townland, and in every farm.
