Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 1933

Vol. 46 No. 2

Private Deputies' Business. - The Economic Policy of the Executive Council and Farming.

I move:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that the economic policy of the Executive Council has in its results so impoverished a majority of the farmers of this State that they do not possess the capital requisite for the carrying on of their industry and that in consequence the Executive Council should now take the necessary steps to supply to these farmers free of charge an adequate quantity of artificial manures, agricultural seeds and spraying material so as to enable them fully to utilise the resources of their farms.

This motion is necessitated by the present condition of agriculture in this country. Personally I am not in favour, in normal times, of encouraging any individual, or any sets of individuals to look too much to the State, or when they are in difficulties to turn immediately to the State saying: "Extricate us from these difficulties." My view is that the best thing you can do to any industry is to make that industry self-reliant; the best you can do to any individual working in any industry is to encourage that individual to look first, and as far as possible all the time, to his own labours, to his own energies and exertions, and not to seek for external help. Those are the general principles which, I think, should animate a Government in dealing with individuals, and animate individuals when dealing with a Government. But there comes certain times, certain grave crises in the history of a country when that which would normally be most desirable cannot be achieved, and when to avoid disaster it is necessary for us to depart from what ought to be the practice in normal times. Nobody at the present moment can question the truth of the proposition that Irish agriculture is reeling under the effects of a blow more heavy than it has received in the lifetime of this generation, or indeed in the lifetime of many generations. I sincerely hope that the Executive Council, in dealing with the present state of affairs and in considering the condition to which agriculture has been reduced, will not content themselves with taking any very short or narrow view, that they will look not to what is likely to happen within the next month, the next three months, the next six months, or the next year, but will take a broad and long view, and that they will visualise what is likely to come upon this State; that they will take now all the steps which will avoid as far as they are avoidable, the consequences of the policy which they have pursued.

I said a few moments ago that agriculture was staggering under a blow more serious than it had received in our time. I would like the House to consider the condition to which agriculture has been reduced. If you take our live-stock alone, and the capital value of that live-stock, I am perfectly certain that the capital loss which farmers have sustained is something closer to £20,000,000 than to £15,000,000. That is an enormous capital loss, an enormous weakening of the agricultural resources of our country. I am perfectly well aware that that vast sum is not being withdrawn at the present moment from agriculture, because a great deal of that capital, which has been so reduced, will remain in the form of capital. As far as cash dealings are concerned, the loss will not be felt immediately. Let me give an example. If a man has got a cow which was worth say £20, if this economic war were not on, and which is now worth only about £14, no doubt that is no direct loss to the man financially, if he does not intend to sell the cow. Therefore, the entire sum I mentioned as being the capital loss is is not capital lost, when you come to consider cash dealings. But it is a capital loss when you come to consider credit dealings, because a person who has got a well-stocked farm, having saleable cattle on the farm, and saleable at a good price, is a man who can get as much credit as he reasonably requires. On the other hand, if a man has a well-stocked farm, and if that farm is stocked with cattle which are unsaleable, or saleable only at a very low price indeed, then that man's credit is gone, and the loss which has been already sustained by a farmer in the loss of actual capital, in the sale of the animals that he had been compelled to sell below what ought to have been their normal price, is supplemented by the loss of credit from which farmers are also suffering at present. The result is that in this State you have now a farming community which has not got the necessary ready money to purchase what it requires, and which, at the same time, has lost its credit. Because this is a matter of the very gravest economic importance I want the Government to visualise for themselves, as far as they can, what the condition of this country is going to be next summer, what the condition of the small working farmer is going to be next July or August, what it is going to be after the fruits of the present harvest have been exhausted and when he can support himself only upon such stuff as he can get either for cash or credit.

It seems to me that even if things do not get worse than they are, we are going to have the condition of our working farmers next July and next August very much worse than it has been in human memory. I see no hope, and if there is hope I sincerely desire that the Government will encourage that hope, that this economic war may be brought to a termination within a reasonably short time. At the present moment I cannot see any signs that that eventuality is likely to take place. In consequence I must consider the condition of the farmers, the working farmers especially, and what that condition will be when they are receiving the wretched prices which they are bound to receive for their live-stock and for their live-stock products from now until, let me say, next Christmas. There was never amongst small working farmers of this State, except during the abnormal period of the Great War, a very large margin between comfort and poverty and that margin has now been swept away. If you come to consider what the position of these people will be next July, next August and next September, before the fruits of the next harvest will be available for them and when they have no cash and when they will get no credit from the shopkeepers, you will see that their condition will be deplorable.

If, and I am sure it is the prayer of every single Deputy that it will not occur, we happen to have a bad harvest then it seems to me that this State will be faced with famine. I do not see what else can happen. Of course you may say that there will be always a certain amount of live-stock which can be eaten but man cannot be completely carnivorous. He must have something else as well as live-stock. The mere devouring of live-stock will not keep your population alive. You will want more. If there is going to be a bad harvest this year it does seem that there is a danger, a very grave danger of famine in this State. That is why I am pressing on the Executive Council as earnestly as I can to look forward to the future, to see what may happen and to take steps now to prevent as far as they can prevent, worse happening.

It is pretty obvious that there must be a bad harvest this year, no matter what kind of weather is coming, unless the crops are properly sown and properly manured. I think that in a country like ours it will be impossible for the land to yield profitable and good crops unless that land is properly manured with artificial fertilisers. I say, no matter how good the weather may be, you cannot have a satisfactory crop if you put down an unmanured crop, but the majority of the working farmers of this State have not got, at the present moment, the ready money or the credit by which they would be able to purchase an adequate supply of fertilisers. Some of them have not got enough money to purchase any fertilisers at all. That means that there will be almost for a certainty a bad harvest this year if the crops go down improperly manured. I should like to press upon the Executive Council, as urgently and as strongly as I can, that they should now take all steps that they can to see that the necessary potatoes at any rate are properly manured and properly sprayed and that persons will not have bad crops this year solely because of the fact that they were unable to afford the price of the necessary artificial manure or the necessary spraying stuffs. This, to my mind, is a very grave matter and I should like the Executive Council to look forward and to consider what will be the effect upon the next harvest if the working farmer is not in a position properly to manure his crops. That will mean, as I have said, a bad harvest and what will be the result of a bad harvest upon a population which has got no money to buy any feeding stuffs for itself?

There is another way of looking at this. You are going to have relief grants. You have got relief grants already and you are going to have more next year and the year after. You are going to give employment out of these relief grants to men who are idle. Would it not be far better and far cheaper for the State if you engaged these men as far as you could to work profitably on their own land? Though it may cost the State some money, so will relief grants cost the State money and is it not far better for the man and the State, for the working farmers who must be helped at the present moment that they should be helped in a manner which will enable them to help themselves in the working of their farms and in the production of proper crops? Remember you are not dealing in this matter with mere pawns. These persons are suffering as a result of the economic war. They are not mere pawns. They are men of flesh and blood. They have a right to their lives and the enjoyment of their lives and they have got the right to demand that no unnecessary suffering shall be brought upon them. They have got a right to expect that the Government which is engaged in this economic war will have sufficient foresight and that that Government will take every single step to ensure that the consequences of the economic war will press as lightly as possible on those who have to suffer.

There will be—there must be— suffering. There is suffering now. There must be suffering in the future far greater than the suffering that there is now. You have entailed that upon the people, but, for goodness sake, see that that suffering is made as little as possible and, therefore, help in a practical way the agricultural industry, and especially the small farmers, who are the main people to suffer from the effects of this economic war. You have already, of course given very large sums in bounties. There is a bounty upon cattle exported to England, but that bounty is not going back to the producer. That is going to the exporters, but it does not help the price of cattle in the market. I should be very interested if the Minister for Agriculture will manage to produce any figures which show that those bounties have improved the prices in the fairs and markets, because I hold that they have not, and anybody who knows anything about the condition of the sales of Irish cattle, will know that the bounties have been of no value to the person who has bred the stock and brought the stock to the fair to sell. If they really did come down and help the actual producer the cattle upon which the bounties are being paid, then the Minister for Agriculture stands condemned out of his own mouth, because he has refused to put these bounties on sheep on the ground that they would be of no value to the owners of sheep.

You are spending money now upon bounties to help the farmers and that it is necessary that you should give them help I quite agree, but I suggest that the most practical way in which you can help the farmers, and especially the working farmers, and I have in my mind naturally the farmers of my own constituency principally, the best way you can help them is by seeing that their land is properly manured and properly seeded this year. It will not be unless something is done. Remember, that not only will you have bad crops this year but at the same time the quality of your land will be very much reduced and if you put down a bad class of seeds—a bad class of hayseeds let me say,—and you have got to put down a cheap and worthless mixture or let your land tumble into grass because you have not the money to buy seeds, that land is going to suffer for very many years to come. I should like to ask the Executive Council to consider if there is any more practical way in which they can help the working farmers than by seeing that they get these necessary things free of charge this year. They have not the money to pay for them. It is very little use giving them facilities to buy. I would very much rather see them getting these seeds and these manures free of charge this particular year than to have them borrow money to purchase these necessities with the hope, and even perhaps the intention, of never having to pay that money back. In my opinion, that is the most demoralising thing that can happen to anybody—to enter into contracts and borrow money with the hope that he will never be asked to pay.

This situation, as I see it at any rate, is one which does call for the giving of assistance. These people require assistance. If you are going to avoid something very close to a famine, and if you have something approximating to a famine, remember that it is quite clear that the resources of the Poor Law will not be able to deal with anything approaching a famine because the ratepayers are the farmers and the farmers are the very persons who will be in the position of not being able to pay rates. Even the whole resources of the State may be exhausted in endeavouring to keep people alive if a famine, of which there is a real danger, does come upon this State. I should like to ask the Executive Council, as I have said already, to look at this matter seriously and gravely and to take a long view of the present condition to see what may happen and to take steps to ensure that whatever does happen will do the least possible amount of damage to the people of this State.

I wish formally to second the motion.

That extremely melancholy Deputy opposite has painted a positively dreadful picture of the condition of the farmers. What the Deputy has got to recognise —assuming that it is true, and he is the witness—is that he is also a witness to the fact that the people of this country preferred that condition of affairs to a Cumann na nGaedheal Government. That is on his own testimony. All these dreadful things are there for about three millions of people, who are just as intelligent as the Deputy, to see them, and yet the free electorate of this country actually preferred that state of affairs to a Cumann na nGaedheal Government. What must a Cumann na nGaedheal Government be like if the people preferred that dreadful condition, which the Deputy has painted, to a Cumann na nGaedheal Government? You must remember that the Deputy is his own witness. He is not going to tell us that the people of this country are unintelligent or that the people of the West of Ireland do not know the circumstances just as well as the Deputy does.

What amazing degree of expert knowledge on the sale of cattle has that lawyer on the opposite benches that is not possessed also by the ordinary farming member of this Irish community? They know all that and yet they prefer that that condition of affairs should continue rather than that Government shall come here. All I can say is that if I was Cumann na nGaedheal I should say "A plague upon such backing." I certainly should not choose that advocate even in a running down case. Last June the bottom was to fall out of things. Now it is next June. And then it is next August, and then next September, and then, "Please God, let us have a bad harvest and it will come true."

That is not true. The Deputy has made a deliberately false statement.

I do not desire to ask the Deputy to withdraw that.

The words "deliberately false statement" must be withdrawn.

If the Parliamentary Secretary says that he believed I said "please God, there will be a bad harvest" it is untrue.

The Parliamentary Secretary must quote the Deputy correctly.

His last hope is a bad harvest.

That is absolutely untrue.

Then, his first hope is a bad harvest.

That is absolutely wrong. My hope all along was that there would be a good harvest.

Then neither his first nor his last but his only hope is a bad harvest.

That is a misrepresentation of my statement.

There was to be bankruptcy in June.

On a point of order, I made a statement in which I expressed the hope—I put it in very strong words—that there would be a very good harvest next year. I submit that it is out of order for the Parliamentary Secretary to state that I said the very opposite of what I did, in fact, say.

Then, there must be a bad harvest——

The Parliamentary Secretary must quote the Deputy correctly and must accept his word as to what he actually said.

I accept his word without any hesitation, but what hope has he of all the evil prophecies he has been making coming true except through a bad harvest?

I shall let him go on.

If it is a good harvest, his prophecy does not come true. The Deputy was elected as a T.D., not as a prophet. If only some of these terribly bad things would come so true that some other person than the Deputy would recognise the disaster come upon the country because the Fianna Fáil Government had come in twice and had come in to stay! Last time, we were caretakers. We were in on an 11 months' tenancy. All you had got to do, Jimmy Thomas, was put the pressure upon them, when the people would squeal and the caretakers would be thrown out. Everybody was taught that. We were treated as if they were just waiting for us to go. They would not have a by-election. No —they would not have two by-elections. No—they would not have three by-elections. No—they were waiting for the critical moment, when they would lift their little finger and give to the people of this country permission to throw out the caretakers and put in a Cumann na nGaedheal Government. That was the first time. Now, we are here with a lease. We are here to stay and the people who knew everything that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney pretends to know were the people who put us in —put us here with a lease to carry on as we were carrying on. "That the Dáil is of opinion that the economic policy of the Executive Council has in its results so impoverished a majority of the farmers of this State...." If they believed that the policy of the Executive Government had permanently impoverished the people of this State, would they have put us back?

Is the Deputy's case that the whole of the electorate of the Free State are fools? That is the only case he can have. The plain English of it is that the people of the country who made the Dáil who made the Executive Council, were of opinion that whatever sacrifice they were temporarily asked to stand was good value for money, was good value for nationality—that whatever sacrifices they made in the present was a good investment for the future. They have put this Government back to go on doing what it did before—to wage an economic war to keep a nation's ransom at home. That is what is impoverishing the people—the keeping of a nation's ransom at home. Poor Jimmy may be impoverished but we are not impoverished by keeping a nation's ransom at home. The policy of the Executive Government has impoverished the people! Why and how? Because they have set their feet upon a path which leads to the development and building up of industries that will absorb not merely present unemployment but which will face up to the absolutely unescapable fact that we have got 25,000 more per year to absorb into employment. Two hundred and fifty thousand young men and women went out while the Opposition was in power. That was the cheap way of employing them. We have not got that way. We are impoverishing them, apparently, by providing a policy under which there will be industry in the country, under which the people will manufacture the things they use instead of importing them. That is the sort of impoverishment that the Irish people approved at at the last General Election.

You have got to watch what is happening. Look back a few years. The representatives on this side, which has constituted that Executive Government, were only 36. They became 44. They became 57. They became 72. They became 77. And they became that while the people were living in the experience of the methods of making the country prosperous under Cumann na nGaedheal. Recognise that slow growth, that steady and inexorable growth of public opinion behind the Executive which that bright young man opposite says has impoverished the majority of the farmers of the State. If we did that, how is it that there is not a party here now that even pretends to call itself a Farmers' Party which is opposed to us? What were the majority of the farmers doing when they would not even call themselves farmers? Assume for a moment—it is an amazingly impudent assumption— that what is called the Centre Party represents the farmers—eight per cent. of this House, 8 per cent. of the country. Are those the impoverished farmers? Are those ten men, most of whom have been filched from under the fostering wing of Cumann na nGaedheal—are they the farmers?

They claim to represent the farmers.

You represent "the impoverished farmers?

All classes of farmers.

Do you represent "the majority of the farmers" who are "impoverished"?

We claim to represent the farmers.

Therefore, if you are adequate representatives of the farmers, the farmers can only be about 8 per cent. of this community. How many hundred per cent. more than you represent repudiated you and do repudiate now, through the rest of this House, your title to call yourselves the representatives of the farmers?

I now move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd March.
Top
Share