Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1933

Vol. 46 No. 6

Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Before the Minister moves the Second Reading, I wish to state that the motion and the amendment will be debated together and the question will be put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." If a vote is challenged on the main question, it will be taken without further debate.

Perhaps it might also be mentioned that there is agreement that the vote be taken on the Second Stage not later than 7.30 p.m. That is to say, the Second Stage will be concluded before we take up Private Deputies' Business at 7.30.

I move:

That the Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill, 1933, be read a Second Time.

This measure is a very simple one. Its purpose is to enable the moneys at present in, or hereafter to be paid into, the Purchase Annuities Fund to be paid over to the Exchequer and thereby to relieve, first of all, the local authorities and, secondly, the Exchequer and the taxpayers generally of the disabilities which the existing position, and particularly the operation of the Guarantee Fund, might otherwise impose upon them. In order to do this, special legislation is necessitated by the terms of the Land Act of 1923.

As no doubt the House is aware, a Guarantee Fund has been a feature of all the Land Purchase Acts since 1891. As originally constituted, and as it remains to-day, such a fund was formed by the hypothecation to various land purchase funds and accounts of several Exchequer grants made to the local authorities in relief of local taxation, it being arranged that the disbursement of these should be made by the Exchequer through the Guarantee Fund. Under this arrangement, therefore, Local Taxation Grants are, in the first instance, paid out of the Central Fund into the Guarantee Fund, which is then used to make good to two other funds such deficiencies as may arise by reason of the non-payment or non-collection of the land annuities. One of the two funds to which I have referred is known as the Land Bond Fund and was established under the Land Act of 1923 for the receipt of annuities and the payment of interest and sinking fund on the bonds created for the purpose of that and subsequent Land Acts. The other fund known as the Purchase Annuities Fund is the fund referred to in this Bill. Like the Land Bond Fund the Purchase Annuities Fund was also created, as many members of the House may be aware, under the Land Act of 1923. It constitutes a Clearance Account for the purpose of receiving the annuities under the earlier Land Acts of 1891, 1903 and 1909. It accordingly fulfils some of the functions originally assigned to the Land Purchase Account and the Irish Land Purchase Fund, the two funds referred to in Section 12 of the Land Act of 1923, which this Bill proposes to amend. As in the case of the Land Bond Fund, should any deficiency arise in the Purchase Annuities Fund, it is made good out of the Guarantee Fund.

That has led in this year to a rather extraordinary position. The Government, as the Dáil is aware, has granted a moratorium in respect of land annuity arrears arising out of and prior to the May-June gales of last year, and has granted further moratoria in respect of the November-December gales of 1932 and the May-June gales of 1933, while it has further decided to introduce legislation which will reduce by 50 per cent. all annuities and rents payable under all the existing Land Acts, whether passed originally by the British Parliament or by the Oireachtas. This latter measure, it may be of interest to note, will involve a reduction of £2,100,000 in the annuities and rents collectable under all existing Acts. Due to the operation of the moratoria already granted in respect of the gales of last year, the Land Commission only collected £1,061,275 in respect of the annuities which then fell for collection, or approximately 35 per cent. only of the total amount required to fill the Purchase Annuities Fund for the current year, leaving a considerable deficiency in that Fund.

If it had not been for the operation of the Guarantee Fund no complication would have arisen on account of the Local Taxation Grants; and the simple position might have existed in which the deficiency in the Guarantee Fund or the deficiency in the Purchase Annuities Fund would have been allowed to remain. Unfortunately, however, existing land purchase law does not permit of this easy solution, and the deficiency in the Purchase Annuities Fund and in the Land Bond Fund has had to be made good in the first instance out of the Guarantee Fund and, consequently, out of the Local Taxation Account, that is, out of the grants which the Exchequer makes to local authorities in relief of local rates.

As it was not, and is not, the policy of the Government to fill the Purchase Annuities Fund at the expense of the local authorities, special measures had to be taken in this year for the payment of the grants to such local authorities. This payment was originally made in part by an advance in the first instance of £500,000 from the Emergency Fund and then by a further advance of £194,000 from the Central Fund. Subsequently, the position was completely covered by Estimate No. 75, which the Dáil adopted last week, and by which it was provided that the sum of £1,616,000 should be advanced to the Guarantee Fund in order to cover the deficiency in the Purchase Annuities and to release the full amount of the Local Taxation Grants to the local authorities.

So far I have dealt merely with the situation which has been created by the moratoria in respect of the annuities falling due during the present year. If the Guarantee Fund arrangement be not suitably modified, and if as a preliminary the steps proposed to be taken in this Bill are not taken, a similar position will arise out of the moratorium granted in respect of the May-June gales of 1933 and the further general reduction of all the Purchase Annuities and Land Commission rents by 50 per cent. Once more we shall have a deficiency in the Purchase Annuities Fund and the Land Bond Fund and once more, if the local authorities are not to suffer in consequence, the Exchequer will have to make a special provision to meet the deficiency. This time, however, the position will possibly be somewhat more serious than last year in so far as the total deficiency on the Purchase Annuities Fund and the Land Bond Fund is not likely to be much less than £2,000,000.

There are four ways in which the position which has arisen and which will arise, as I have described, can be dealt with. (1) We can allow the statutory position to remain as it is and impose additional taxation to provide the Local Taxation Grants twice over. I think that the Dáil will agree that that course would be unthinkable. Or (2) still allowing the statutory position to remain as it is, we can pay the Local Taxation Grants out of the Guarantee Fund into the Purchase Annuities Fund and withhold them, or the equivalent of them, altogether from the local authorities, which I think, once again, the Dáil will agree is equally unthinkable. Or (3) we can borrow the money necessary to fill the Purchase Annuities Fund and the Land Bond Fund, but that course would involve additional and wholly unnecessary taxation on the people. None of these courses, in the opinion of the Government, would be justifiable in present circumstances. There remains only the last and the simplest method of dealing with the problem and that is the method proposed in this Bill, which is to pay the moneys in the Purchase Annuities Fund into the Exchequer to be used for the general purposes thereof.

I am glad to say that this, the best of all the ways that could be adumbrated, has already commended itself to many sections of the House, not merely in relation to the particular aspect of the problem with which I have just dealt, viz., the association of the Local Taxation Grants with the Guarantee Fund, but also in relation to the general position of the Exchequer and of the provisions which we have to make for the normal and abnormal Supply Services of this year. For instance, speaking so recently as 1st March last, Deputy McGilligan, as reported in Volume 46, Column 169, of the Official Report asked: "Why was the Government taking the Supplementary Estimates out of taxation?""Why not," he inquired, "break in on the nest egg?""What," he demanded, "about the four millions cash held out as a glittering prize to the people?""£48,000," he said, "is a small sum out of £4,000,000 to be distributed." Then again, the somewhat obscure organ which officially presents the views of the Cumann na Gaedheal Party to such a public as still remains to support it, has been making a continued demand for the release of the moneys in the Suspense Account. The Government is glad to be able to concur in the view so widely expressed that no useful purpose would be served by keeping our money in that account any longer. We propose, as Deputy McGilligan only a week or two ago requested, to use the moneys to meet the cost particularly of Supplementary Estimate No. 75, and to meet, of course, the other services which have been hitherto financed out of the Emergency Fund. That is the reason why the Bill has been introduced.

Now, as to the Bill itself. As I have already said, its primary purpose is to provide that the moneys so going to the credit of the Purchase Annuities Fund shall be paid over to the Exchequer. That is provided for by Section 1 (1), subject, however, to the limitation which is imposed by Section 2. I understand that Section 2 (2) has occasioned a good deal of speculation as to its exact purport. It is simply to provide that certain moneys which were hitherto paid back from the Purchase Annuities Fund to the Guarantee Fund shall continue to be paid to that Fund, and shall not be paid into and appropriated for the general purposes of the Exchequer.

The necessity for this limitation arises on two grounds. As I have already endeavoured to make clear, the House will understand, that, in addition to the current annuities paid into the Purchase Annuities Fund, there is also paid into that fund the arrears of annuities subsequently collected, after they had been declared to be arrears, in respect of the gales on which they fell due. But the Purchase Annuities Fund has already indirectly received these annuities by reason of the advances made to it from time to time by the Guarantee Fund. Consequently, the amount in respect of the arrears should not be appropriated by the Exchequer after they have been credited to the Guarantee Fund, but must be allowed to remain there in the first instance, and subsequently paid over to the local authorities to whom they are rightfully due. Otherwise the Exchequer would be getting in effect the same annuities twice over at the expense of the Guarantee Fund.

The second case which must be provided for is that it arises out of the repayment of the deficiencies of income which arise in this way, particularly under the earlier Acts of 1891, 1903 and 1909. If a holding is vested after the 1st May, which is the date on which the gale collection begins, no payment in respect of that holding can be secured from the tenant until the beginning of the following gale, on the 1st November. At the same time the stock which has been created for the vendor on the vesting of the holding begins to rank for interest at once, and the interest becomes payable on the 1st July. Consequently the deficiency of income on that stock arises and hitherto has been made good by an advance from the Guarantee Fund. I do not think it is necessary for me to detail at length the several arrangements which have been made to provide for the repayment of these advances. It is sufficient to point out that the advance was made in the first instance by the Guarantee Fund on the responsibility of the local authorities, and consequently as the advance is repaid the moneys which thus accrue to the Guarantee Fund should not be appropriated for the general purposes of the Exchequer, but, as in the case of arrears, should go to the local authorities to whom they rightfully belong. That is all there is in the Bill.

It will be seen, therefore, that the measure now before the House is perfectly simple and straightforward. The proposals which it contains are designed to give substantial relief to farmers and to the taxpayers generally. It is certainly a Bill opposition to which cannot be sustained on the grounds advanced in the amendment which, I understand, it is proposed to move at this stage. That amendment, if I may say so, seems to be a clear case of biting off one's nose to spite one's face. If the premise upon which it is based were well founded, which it is not, it could not possibly provide an adequate reason for holding up this Bill, and thereby imposing an additional burden in the form of additional taxation on the farmer. If those who are responsible for the amendment desire to assist the farmer, then, I suggest that it would be better for them to facilitate the passage of this Bill and to raise the question of the amount of the annuities to be collected in the discussion on the new Land Bill which will shortly be introduced.

The one thing to be clear about at any rate is, that the amount of the annuities to be paid, whether it be at 100 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the present value, or whether it be anything at all, cannot assume practical importance until next November or December. A good deal of time will elapse before then, and a good deal of water will go under the bridges. We shall, no doubt, see a great many changes in the present position, possibly amongst them a solution of the outstanding disputes which the amendment purposes to desire. If it should be found would not this House and the Oireachtas appear foolish in the extreme if it acted in the manner suggested in the amendment? And, if it be not found, in what way would the amendment assist us to a more satisfactory solution? I accordingly move the Second Reading of the Bill. As I have already stated in view of the relief which it will afford to the Exchequer and to the taxpayers generally, it should be facilitated in its passage.

I move the following amendment:—

To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the words:— inasmuch as by the operation of British Tariffs on Saorstát agricultural produce farmers are discharging the interest and sinking fund payments on guaranteed Land Stock the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to the Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill until proposals have been introduced by the Executive Council providing that pending the solution, by arbitration, agreement, or otherwise of the outstanding disputes between them and the British Government, land purchase annuities shall not be collected or payable whether in respect of lands purchased under the pre-Treaty Land Purchase Acts or the Land Act, 1923, and subsequent Acts.

Some two years ago, in the Dáil, in a motion by the then Leader of the Opposition for relief for the agricultural industry the House was treated to a picture of the difficulties which then confronted that industry, and various statistics were afforded, the cost-of-living, the reduction in the prices of agricultural produce, increased costs consequent upon altered conditions of living and so forth. Generally, a picture was painted which demanded, according to the then Opposition, special relief for the farming industry. Some of the extracts from the statement that was then made are rather illuminating taking into account present circumstances. It was before a general election or, rather, I expect, it was in anticipation of a general election. There was, possibly, a by-election pending at the time, and particular reference had to be made to the needs of agriculture and to the desire of the Opposition at the time to do something for it. In the course of the statement there occurs this:—

In the preamble to the motion there is a statement that the agricultural industry is at present depressed. I think we all know that it is.

"There is a statement that the agricultural industry is at present depressed." What is the position to-day? Is it in a more depressed condition to-day than it was two years ago? Is there a greater need for assistance for agriculture to-day than there was two years ago? Is it measured by a sum of one and a half million pounds, assuming for the moment that that sum were available in order to minister to the needs of agriculture? One and a half million pounds—a very small sum having regard not alone to the picture that was painted at that particular time but to the circumstances of the moment. They were not altogether blind to the importance of agriculture at that particular time, because, amongst other figures that were given here in the Dáil as to the importance of the industry, it was mentioned that, according to the Census of 1926, there were 672,000 employed in agriculture.

As regards employment, the industries covered by the production census of 1926 only accounted for 107,000 workers. The census of occupations accounted for 186,000. The number employed in agriculture was 672,000.

It was then in a depressed condition and more than any other section of the community the farmers, it was stated, are at the mercy of their market. So they were. They were only at the mercy of their market at that time— they were not then at the mercy of a Fianna Fáil Government which deprived them of that market. Later on, the President, then Leader of the Opposition, said:—

Speaking a couple of days ago ... I pointed out that whilst the prices the farmer got for his produce were only about 15 per cent. in advance of the prices obtained in 1914, the burden of taxation upon the farmer had increased threefold.

But that was in 1931. A very different state of affairs occurred during the last twelve months, when the burden of taxation was increased and very considerably increased by the people who, two years ago, were weeping salt tears for the condition of agriculture and who were, according to themselves, the only people in the country who had any realisation not alone of the importance of agriculture but of the need for doing something for it.

As I said, the statistics are set out in great detail showing the various reductions in the prices of the produce sold by the agricultural community and figures are given to show the increased cost upon it, and now we come to 1933. It was thought at that time that £1,000,000 should be given in relief of rates. Three-quarters of it was given, discounted entirely by the criticisms of the means of raising the money, and the means remain. The same taxation is in operation. Sugar, which was denounced as an item which should be taxed, still remains as a means of getting the money which is being given. Petrol, which was denounced as an item for taxation, although it was recommended a short time before it was imposed, still remains as an item of taxation, but we are told that there is to be a reduction, not in the one million pounds; not in the quarter million pounds and not in the three-quarter million pounds, but in the sum that was given some five, six or seven years ago—something they had not heard about, I suppose, until they came into the Dáil— but, two years ago, as I have said, all the reductions in the prices of agricultural produce were set out.

What is the position to-day compared with twelve months ago or with two months ago? The live-weight price of cattle per cwt. in the Dublin market, in February, 1932, was from 38/- to 42/-. In January, 1933, the price, live-weight, was 30/- to 35/- per cwt., and now, after a month's experience of this Government, what is the price? Live-weight, last week, it was 24/- to 28/- per cwt. During the period they were on these benches, we were taxed with and blamed for every reduction there was in the price of agricultural produce. I am not specifically blaming the Government for the reduction in the price of agricultural produce, but I am blaming them for the reduction in the price which is consequent on the policy they have pursued and the imposition of tariffs on the goods of this country into the only market there was, as was referred to by the President and by the Minister for Agriculture, who was at that time, on this side, and who admitted in this House that there was only one market —only one market for the exportable produce of the farmers of this country.

It has been injured and, perhaps, permanently injured by reason of the policy that has been adopted, and if we look over the returns showing how far our agricultural produce has decreased and the trade exports of this country have decreased we find that in seven short months it amounts to something like £7,000,000. What will it be at the end of twelve months? And, at this time, in the opinion of the Executive Council of this State, the farmers are able to pay 50 per cent. of the annuities—50 per cent. of the price they could pay when cattle were from 38/- to 42/- a cwt. Let us take an average of 40/- as against 26/- a cwt. now—one and a half times a better price for cattle, a reduction of one-third in value.

Speaking here some three or four months ago on this subject of annuities, the President of the Executive Council drew our attention to the fact that the £5,000,000 a year, which is the sum in dispute, amounted to 40 per cent. of our cattle exports. The £7,000,000 that we are short, by reason of this policy, is a much bigger percentage, and there is no great opportunity for agriculture in this country unless the markets, which are the right of the farmers, are restored to them, and there is no great opportunity for the extension, expansion, improvement or maintenance of the ordinary secondary industries of this State unless these markets are restored. We cannot restore them. We do say in respect of the burdens upon agriculture that while their market is injured, while their agricultural produce is subject to such crushing burdens as are at present imposed upon the only market in which it can be sold, the only relief which can be given is relief from the burden of the annuities while the economic war lasts. Accordingly, I move the motion.

I beg to second the amendment.

Speaking in support of the amendment of Deputy Cosgrave I should say that it does not even go far enough. The amendment says:—"Farmers are discharging the interest and sinking fund payments on guaranteed land stock." Farmers are discharging much more than that. The farmers are in fact discharging the cost—whatever the cost is—of the pensions of the resigned R.I.C., local loans and other sums which were hitherto paid to the British Government. Possibly the Ministers on the Government Benches will deny that. They deny that the British have collected any sum equivalent to all those payments, but the average farmer—at least the farmer whose main export is live stock—is fully aware that he has contributed his share to all the amounts specified.

Some time before the recent election I was instrumental in sending the entire stock of a small farm to a market in England. The stock consisted of twenty-seven 1½ years old bullocks from a small farm of 24 or 25 acres with an annuity of something about £20. The British tax on these 27 cattle amounted to a sum of no less than £115. There was as a contribution to that great tax a sum of £30, a bounty given by our Government, a bounty which I might say would have been given to the English buyer if he had bought the cattle instead of to the farmer who exported them. At any rate the farmer was at a loss of a sum of about £85, or a sum of over four times his annuity. He not alone contributed his full share to the guarantees mentioned in the amendment but he contributed much more than his share, whatever his share would be, of payments in lieu of pensions, local loans, and of all the other taxes that the Ministry for the last twelve months has imposed on him. That perhaps was an isolated case, but if the Minister is anxious I dare say it would not be difficult to find numerous cases of the same description.

During the last three years, as Deputy Cosgrave said, the present members of the Ministry, then in Opposition, took great pains to point out the lamentable condition of the farmers in general and their inability to pay the then existing overhead charges. I think practically every Minister on the Front Benches at the moment contributed at that period. The Minister for Finance, who has introduced this measure, in a contribution to the debate in May, 1931, said amongst other things: "our criticism of the Government proposals is not that they are making a grant towards relief but that they are making a grant which in all the circumstances of the time is wholly insufficient to afford any relief to farmers." The grant-in-aid which the late Government was giving at that time was in the opinion of the present Minister for Finance wholly inadequate to give any relief whatever to the farmers. Dr. Ryan, the present Minister for Agriculture, speaking in the debate on the Vote on Account in March, 1931, went elaborately into figures to prove the poverty of individual farmers and the farmers in general. He quoted statistics from, I think, the Census of 1926. The Minister will himself be able to relate the comparison of prosperity between 1926 and 1933. He quoted statistics to prove the total value of our exports and home consumption of agricultural produce, with deductions in the shape of all possible expenditure, and he arrived at the conclusion that there was left to the farmers of the State from exports of cattle produce, after expenses, consumption at home and everything else, a sum of five and a half million pounds; in other words, a round sum of about £20 per head to the farmers of this country. That was in 1926, when as everybody knows, and as even the Minister for Finance will admit, the conditions of the farming industry were, very much different from what they are now. At any rate, the Minister for Agriculture at that time stated that the whole income of the agricultural community was five and a half million pounds, out of which he said the unfortunate farmers had to purchase the necessaries of life in the way of imports of tea, sugar and other commodities, educate their children, and so on. Of course, having argued so far, he said that was impossible. I agree with him; it would be impossible.

I should like the Minister for Agriculture to go into the same figures again in this month of March, 1933— to go into all the statistics he went into at that time and arrive at the aggregate income of the farmers of the Saorstát at this date. I very much doubt if he will find the balance of even five and a half million pounds which he then said was left to the farmers. All this money in the Suspense Account is undoubtedly the farmers' money. If they have not directly contributed the exact sum of four million odd pounds which the Minister says he has in the Suspense Account, they have directly contributed a good part of it, and they have certainly, in other ways, contributed more than an equivalent sum by their contribution to the British taxes and other taxes of our home Government. The illustration which I gave at the commencement of my speech, is an individual confirmation of that statement. If the Minister wishes I can provide him with the necessary receipts and other items in connection with that particular transaction. Anyhow, the farmers are contributing a good deal more than any sum that will ever be in the Suspense Account. It does not matter to me personally what is the amount the British say they have collected in the last few months by way of their taxes. I believe the sum runs into 2½ millions, or something short of the annuities in any case, but the average farmer, who sells his stock, is at a loss of much more than the sum that is actually taken from him by the British tax collector. He knows full well that a sum a good deal more than any statistics will prove has been taken from him by the reduction in the price of his agricultural produce at home.

There is a danger that possibly the farmer will altogether lose his only export market. Those of us who read the newspapers saw within the last few days that the Danes, our great competitors in the British market, are offered greatly increased facilities for sending produce to England on certain conditions, and the main condition is that they will be better customers of England. Anyhow, they are likely to increase their exports of agricultural produce to England to our disadvantage. Possibly in a year or so our hold on the British market will have vanished and we shall be left to the tender mercies of the Government to provide our daily needs. I hope that that prospect is more pleasing to the general community than it is to the ordinary body of farmers.

I do not know what prompted the present Ministry to bring in this Bill. If you take their average speeches for a period of some years, it would appear that there was no necessity for this measure. Perhaps it was that some of us, desirous of establishing the validity or otherwise of certain acts of the Government, intended to apply to the courts for a ruling on this matter, eventually enticed the Ministry to bring in this Bill. Whatever the reason was, the agricultural community will watch carefully how the Ministry, having got this money, propose to distribute it. Those of us who are interested in agriculture hold that this is our money, in fact that it goes a very short way towards compensating us for the losses we have sustained in the last twelve months owing to the action of the Ministry, and that this money should not go back into the Central Fund for any use whatsoever except for the direct benefit of the farming community— if it is to be used at all for any purpose other than what it was originally intended for. We shall certainly be opposed to the use of this money for general taxation purposes. It is our money; we have a lien on it. As I said, it will be very far short of compensating us for our losses. It would appear to us that, at any rate, until the present dispute with England is ended, and we all hope fervently it will be ended in the near future, this money should not be used as the Ministry propose to use it. It will perhaps make a settlement more difficult than it even is at present. None of us at this side of the House wishes to impede the Ministry in their settlement with Britain. We feel, however, that the action the Ministry is taking now will make that settlement more difficult day by day, and we ask them, as the amendment in Deputy Cosgrave's name proposes, to refrain from this action pending a settlement of the economic dispute with Britain, and above all until such time as the farmer is able to engage freely in opposition to the other countries in getting his share of the only available market outside our own for his agricultural produce. While we all hope that the efforts of the Ministry to increase home consumption will bear good fruit, none of us can look forward, at least at the moment, to a day when we shall be able to consume a very large part of our own produce, and it will be necessary for us, for a good while at least, to export a great proportion of that produce somewhere else.

We were promised in debates that new markets would be found for us to compensate us for the closing of the existing market. We have waited in vain hopes that such markets would be provided for us. The obtaining of such markets looks to us now as remote as it did six months ago, and to those of us who, unfortunately, for a considerable number of years must export a large proportion of our agricultural produce, it is vital that we should be left in a position where we would be free competitors in endeavouring to obtain our share of that market. I certainly am wholeheartedly in favour of the amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.

I hope, sir, that Deputy Bennett is not correct in his assumption that this Bill takes us further away than we are already from chances of a settlement. I inferred from the speech of the Minister for Finance, and also from previous utterances of the President on this subject when he said that our credit was good enough, even that these moneys were taken, to cope with any possible settlement, that this Bill does not imply that the Government are setting their faces against a settlement to any greater degree than they have done in the past. I think it would be desirable that we should have an explicit assurance on that before this debate comes to an end. There are two objections to this Bill which immediately occur to one on reading it. One is that there are no safeguards to secure that these moneys released from the Suspense Account will, in fact, go, and go only, to the people in what are called the front line trenches in the economic war. The second objection is that there is nothing to secure, and so far there has been no pronouncement of Government policy that secures, that there shall be an equitable distribution between the different classes of farmers of whatever relief is given as a set-off against the hardships they are suffering from the economic war. We know, of course, that the people paying land annuities are to be relieved to the extent of half their annuities, but there is a considerable number of farmers who, for one reason or another, do not pay land annuities. There are free holders; there are people who have not been able to become purchasing tenants and are still paying old-fashioned rent. So far there has been no hint from the Government that anything is to be done to give relief except to the people paying annuities. The Government have dropped their de-rating pledges which would have provided some relief to other classes of farmers. Now, I think that the Government ought certainly to take into account the position of such farmers as do not gain anything from the relief given in connection with the land annuities, and do something for them.

These are the two objections to the Bill itself that immediately occur to one. I may say that we are opposing this Bill, primarily and mainly, because it is one link in the whole chain of Government policy as regards the financial dispute with England of which we entirely disapprove. I am not going to take up the time of the House by detailing once more all the reasons why we disapprove of that policy, but I may say that everything that has happened, and everything that is happening day by day, confirms us in the opinion that the Government policy on this question has been alike disreputable and stupid.

I am supporting the amendment and opposing the Bill. I oppose the Bill on principle. The Minister for Finance described it as a simple and straightforward Bill. I agree that the Bill is simple and short enough so far as its provisions go, but I cannot agree that either the Bill itself or the policy it supports is straightforward: a policy that has done untold damage to this country and particularly to the farming community.

Deputy MacDermot, in his opening remarks, said he hoped there was no foundation for Deputy Bennett's fear that this Bill represented a still further move away from peace in this so-called economic war that is being waged between the two countries. Surely, that must be one of the attractions of the Bill for men on the opposite side of the House. Deputy MacDermot must know perfectly well that since this economic war started no two months have gone by that some new obstacle in the way to peace was not raised by our Government. Compare the situation since the economic war started with any period subsequent to the so-called negotiations. Did any steps taken by the Government bring us nearer to peace? Did they not bring us further away? Was not every step by the Government taken in order to raise new difficulties in the way of a settlement between this country and Great Britain?

Deputy MacDermot tells us that he opposes the Bill because it is portion of a general policy. It is one step: it is a new step. First, there was a dispute on the question of the annuities; then, when the hopes of the country ran high, when the people thought there was a chance of accommodation between the two Governments, what did we find? Did we find the two Governments nearer? No. We found them further away by reason of various other matters that were raised, making a settlement, as Deputy MacDermot and the House must know, much more difficult. Later on, was there any evidence of goodwill on the part of the President and the Government to settle this dispute? Surely it was the very opposite. Was there not an almost insuperable barrier put in the way when the country was told that there could be no settlement until partition was removed? Is not this another step in the same direction? Can it be read in any other way? Is it really intended to be read in any other way?

I do not think that any intelligent man can be under any other impression than that the Government do not want a settlement because a settlement would not fit in with the rest of their policy. I am not speaking now primarily of the Government's policy as to the international relations between the two countries, but of their general economic policy. I think the Government believe that the future prosperity of the country is to be found along the lines of their economic policy, but at the same time every utterance by members of the Government—the President, Ministers and various other members of the Party—makes it clear that a preliminary step to the successful launching of that particular policy of full economic independence is the destruction of one of our principal external trades: the principal trade that is always mentioned when dealing with the dispute between this country and England. They are, I believe, consistent in one thing—by going out along that particular line they are going to kill that trade. They have not taken a single step to remedy the present state of affairs.

The Minister for Finance, speaking here this evening—I was going to say expressed the hope of a settlement— but not at all, he said that there was a possibility between now and next November that possibly there might be a settlement. That is the only hope held out to the people of the country— the possibility of a settlement. There is no indication, no hope even expressed by the Government that there would be such a settlement, but just the possibility that somehow, from out the blue as it were, a settlement would come: that the people of the country would wake up some morning and find the whole matter settled.

In reality, of course, this Bill is a further obstacle in the way of a settlement. It may be that there are other purposes that the Government have in view in introducing this Bill. It may be that it is an attempt, after the event, to legalise actions, the legality of which, to put it very mildly, was open to very grave doubt. They have been collecting money for a twelvemonth now and not putting that money to the use for which it was legally intended. Here is a Bill to set the Government right on that particular matter, but in setting them right it does place, incidentally, another obstacle in the way of a settlement of the economic war between the two countries. That, after all, is only in keeping with the traditional policy of the Government in dealing with this whole matter—the attitude in accordance with which they have always put further obstacles in the way of the possibility of a settlement.

It is quite true that by this Bill they may be able to escape the consequences of the illegal action which they have been taking during the past twelve months. So far, they will have gained. But what will the country gain? We oppose this Bill on principle. It breaks the bargain on which land purchase was founded. It puts this money to uses for which it was never intended. As I say, we oppose the Bill on the ground of that principle, but we also oppose it on the ground of expediency, because we think it is fatal to the economic and national welfare of this country. We are promised—and this again is only one further evidence of their policy—a continuation of this fight; of its becoming a fight for fight's sake, practically. What the country has suffered in the past twelve months or in the last six months—to deal only with the sufferings due to the land annuities question—is to be continued; and the farming community, which has had placed upon it so many burdens during the past five or six months, has got no hint of any relief from a continuance of this, but, instead, is getting stroke after stroke and blow after blow from the Government. And the very slight compensation that is promised—nothing in this Bill, but even supposing we take on its face value a Bill that is promised to reduce the land annuities by one-half—what very little compensation that is for what the farmer has lost, for what he has actually paid out during the continuance of this economic war since it started! What will the farmer be relieved of? Half his annuities! Ask any farmer in the country—not merely the rich farmers as they are called, though why they are so called I do not know—ask any small farmer, say those in County Kerry who have black cattle for sale, how much they have lost during the last six months in the decreased value of their beasts. And this is to continue! And of the relief that is promised to them in the way of land annuities, what have they got in return for their loss in trade, which exceeds the loss paid in the way of annuities to Great Britain? Half their annuities off! Surely, even from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, if from no other point of view, it is an entirely inadequate compensation to the farmers for the losses they are suffering. If a settlement were come to, or an accommodation arranged—and it is always within the competence of the Government to make a settlement favourable to the farmers of this country—but possibly there would be a loss of Government prestige in that. They fear they would appear weak—but such action would be nothing of the kind. Possibly it is that they have committed themselves to this: That this fight must be continued no matter what loss may be inflicted on the country or what damage may be inflicted on the farmers.

There may be a further reason for the continuance of this fight and for the refusal of the Government to face up to the realities of the situation, and that is their policy for the farmers to get out of the cattle trade and into the raising of cereals and root crops. None of them has ever given a satisfactory answer to the question of what is to consume our root crops even if we do get into cereals and wheat. Is it not more cattle? Can we get out of the problem of the cattle trade and of the markets? Deputies will remember that, a short time before Christmas, the Minister for Finance held forth the prospect of new markets. That prospect for new markets has gone from bright to dim from three months to three months. At one time the Government speeches were filled with references to alternative markets. Then came the confession that there were none to be found. Then we are solemnly assured that the prospects of alternative markets are much brighter than they have been. But where are they? One thing is certain, and that is that whether you get into wheat or not, that problem of the export of our surplus cattle will remain. As long as that problem is there it is not merely a question of the losses inflicted for the next twelve months or of the losses that have been inflicted on the farmer for the last twelve months; it is a problem covering a much longer period than that. Notwithstanding this, the Government quite indifferent goes on.

The mover of this resolution, Deputy Cosgrave, referred to previous debates here. Again and again, from all parts of the House, and from platforms all over the country, we have been told how the farmer two or three years ago was crushed under the burdens put upon him by this State. Surely if the farmer were crushed then, the burden placed upon him now is altogether greater than ever before. We were told that he was crushed then, as was shown by comparison between the price he was getting for his produce and the price he had to pay for his requirements. Has the price for his produce increased? Rather, has it not diminished? For the moment, we need not decide whether or not that decrease is due to the policy of the Government; but the fact is that it has diminished, and seriously diminished, within the last three or four years; and if the farmer, from the point of view of the burden of taxation, expenses and so on, had to face a position so exceedingly difficult two or three years ago, what is his position to-day? What is the comparison to-day between his income— what he gets for what he sells—and what he must pay out to produce these articles? If the hearts of the present Government a couple of years ago were wrung so much by the hard lot and the sad lot of the farmer, why have they now hardened their hearts so much at a time when the farmer has had to pay so much, largely owing to the policy of the Government, in the way of losses and in the way of duties levied on his produce? Is not that the time to come to the fullest assistance of the farmer? Half the annuities would be a very slight recoupment to the farmer for the losses that have been put upon him, and we are threatened with further diminutions in the assistance given to the farmer up to the present in connection with the rates. It has been dealing blow after blow at an industry which, nobody has been stronger than individual members of the Government in insisting, has been already hard hit. They have been inflicting blow after blow upon that industry for months past, notwithstanding their individual professions. The losses sustained by the farming community have, of course, in part been due to the fall in world prices, but they are also due to the policy of the Government, which made the effect of the fall in world prices simply catastrophic here. Surely, if world prices were low, that was not the time for a Government with any sense of responsibility to inflict further blows and make the decrease in world prices intolerably worse here. Serious as the fall in regard to world prices has been, it has been made much worse by the blows inflicted on the farming community in this country by our own Government.

There is a great deal of sympathy and respect for the farming industry and for agriculture—in words—but in practice there is nothing but contempt for it, judging by the action of the present Government. That is most unjust. It is a question not merely of expediency as to whether that body of producers should be driven to bankruptcy altogether, but it is, further, an act of injustice inflicted by the land annuity policy of the Government. It is unjust to ask them to pay their annuities while the crisis lasts. It is because of that that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party has framed the amendment proposed here to-day. The farmers have lost a great deal more than the land annuities. These losses have been referred to by several speakers, so that it is not necessary for me to go into them now. But it must be clear, whether or not the Government succeeds in its policy of changing the whole agricultural outlook of this country, and the whole economic policy of this country, that there is a transition time to be bridged over, and unfortunately that is not a time for entertaining the most optimistic views on the matter. I suggest it is not a time in which the Government should make up their minds to make the position of the farmers impossible.

On the question of the general welfare of the community and on the ground of the justice of the case, I think the amendment we have moved ought to get the support of all Parties in this House. The Government ought to wake up to the fact that whatever bright dream they have for the future, however much they may hope to build up a new economy and a new Ireland, they cannot build it up by the impoverishment of the whole farming community, and that is what they are trying to do. Why is it necessary, if they are trying to build up the economic future of the country, whatever we may think of the lines along which they are trying to do it, that they must always start with the work of destruction? This is not the time when most of the farmers are so severely hit, and with them the towns as well, to continue this policy of collecting the land annuities from the farmers. The farmers have suffered much more than any other body in the country, and until there is a definite expression of policy from the Government that as long as the economic war continues there is no intention of collecting the annuities, and that proper steps will be taken to legalise that matter, we ask the House to support this motion.

Anything more deplorable than the manner in which this unfortunate controversy has been conducted would be difficult to imagine. The farmers of every grade are the victims of a policy which is ruinous to the country as a whole. What they looked for is, not that the money collected from them should be used for other purposes than that for which it was collected, but rather that it should be kept as a whole for negotiations which in the end must take place.

Already by direct and indirect losses the farmers have paid more than the entire amount of their annuities. If all their rates and taxes were remitted they would not nearly compensate the farmers for the losses they have incurred as a direct result of a conflict not of their choosing, and upon which they were never consulted. Instead of remission, this Bill proposes to use the money subscribed by the farmers, by way of annuities, for other purposes. And while that is being done the farmer is again being mulcted by having his rates increased. All the increased expenditure in the different counties has been forced upon the people by new services. Those administering local affairs, in the different counties, were trying to do something to keep down the rates. The Government now comes in and by their attempt to get over the difficulties they are raising the rates upon the people. I appeal to the Government not to down the farmers. They seem to be down wholesale upon the farmers; but they should recognise that the farmers belong to the principal industry of the country. In our county this reduction of the agricultural grant will amount to one shilling in the pound. We have already struck our rates; we will have to go back again to the people and strike a new rate to get that money which was always previously given to the reduction of the rates. The people should look more to the interests of the farmers of the country than they are doing.

In rising to oppose this Bill and to support the amendment I may say, in the first place, that this Bill is an ugly offspring, but is the natural result of wedlock between political expediency and national dishonour. The only thing I can congratulate the Government on is the brevity of the Bill—the economy in words it shows in regard to it. The less space this Bill takes up in the Statute Book of the nation the more the chance, and the greater the hope, of its being overlooked by future historians. It is in keeping with that view of the Bill that I should, in passing, remark that neither the Minister for Lands and Fisheries nor the Minister for Agriculture has thought it worth his while to attend the House. It is in keeping with the very elemental nature of this Bill that members on the Government Benches remain studiously silent, hanging their heads in shame and sheltering themselves behind the wigs and gowns of lawyers and the well-known irresponsible verbosity of the Minister for Finance.

It is about time this House and the country generally got square with the situation and got a grasp of what exactly is intended by this Bill. With all due respect to the usual clearheadedness of the Leader of the Centre Party, I submit that this Bill means only one thing and can only mean one thing. That is banging, bolting and barring the door to any hope of negotiation or satisfactory settlement of the economic war between this country and Great Britain. If proof of that is wanted, it is found in the fact that when the Leader of the Labour Party attended some months ago in the British House of Commons and when the word was passed around there that the moneys were being held in a special Suspense Account, that they were not being taken into the ordinary funds of the Exchequer, the circulation of that rumour in the British House of Commons had a very great effect on deliberations of that body and on subsequent statements made there. This Bill proposes in its one clause to burst the Suspense Account. I suggest that no matter how strong our credit may be as a result of the efforts of the Government here from 1922 to 1932, this Bill is a deliberate, defiant gesture and it proclaims to the world that the Government in this country has no intention whatever of taking any further steps to end the economic war.

We were told during the recent General Election that all that was necessary to end that economic war was one more vote of confidence in President de Valera, that if he got that one more vote of confidence the Fianna Fáil Government would immediately dictate the terms on which this economic war would be ended. Now we have this Bill and what does it amount to? An abject confession on behalf of the Government of their incompetence as negotiators and their failure even to make a further effort to negotiate on behalf of the Irish people. That is the greatest confession of failure that was ever made in this House or any other House of Parliament. The very first responsibility of any Government, whether they be popular or unpopular, is to negotiate on behalf of their people when their people are hard pressed and when their people are in trouble. Here we have this miserable little failure, this miserable little confession of failure to negotiate or to make any decent or courageous attempt to end this miserable mess that has existed for twelve months between this country and Great Britain.

There are two or three points that occur to one's mind in relation to a Bill of this kind under which the Minister for Finance presumes to take, for the purposes of revenue, into the National Exchequer certain amounts that were heretofore paid by the Irish farmers to those who advanced the money for the purchase of this land. Leaving aside the argument as to through what particular channels these moneys will be transmitted to the bondholders, why did not the Minister for Finance, or anybody on those benches, attempt to make any case to show how, under any set of circumstances, the money is due to the Exchequer? Did the Exchequer ever advance the money for the purchase of the farmers' land? Did the Exchequer ever advance the money for the flotation of land stock? Under what set of circumstances is the Exchequer entitled to take into its maw those particular rents? Even allowing that there is a case to be made or that arguments can be produced as to the regularity or irregularity of the channels through which this money was heretofore paid to the bondholder or to the man or woman who subscribed that money, what right in any case had the Exchequer to take those moneys?

This money either belongs to the farmer who pays it or to the bondholder who advanced it to but the land but by no stretch of the imagination, along honest lines, could any middle party show it is entitled to step in and seize the money. If I am paying a debt to a trader and if either the law or anybody else says that that debt shall not be paid, then the postman has no right to step in and seize the cheque that is in the envelope At the present moment, we have the middleman, the person who is merely agent for collecting these moneys and transmitting them, stepping in and seizing the money. We have the miserable attempt to make the Irish farmer sharer in the sin, to make the Irish farmer a sharer in the crime, by turning to him and saying: "Look here, divide the swag. You take half the loot and then everything will be all right."

We are living now in a set of circumstances when that money is already being collected by the British Government by their tariffs. That money is already being paid to the bondholder. Therefore, the next query that arises is this: If the money is being paid to the bondholder, if the man who advanced that money is already getting that money from the Irish farmer, why should the Irish farmer be asked to pay it again to the Exchequer in this country or in any other country? Let somebody over there make some effort to show what right the Exchequer has to seize that money, what right the Irish Government has to lay it down that those rents must be paid to the Irish Exchequer and must, as well, be paid to the bondholders by reason of these tariffs. The motion before you here to-day is that as long as the Irish farmer has to pay the annuities to the bondholder through the medium of tariffs the Irish farmer should not be asked to pay his annuities here at home, pay on the double.

It is well to realise how small things bring home to a person better than do big things what these tariffs have meant. I have a letter here from a constituent of mine. It is with regard to a poor woman, a very small landholder, a woman who sold fifteen turkeys at Christmas and the tariff on these fifteen turkeys amounted to £5 13s. 9d. That sum of £5 13s. 9d. was equal to that woman's land annuity. Picture the occupier of that little holding, through the machinery of tariffs, merely on the sale of Christmas turkeys, being called upon to pay the equivalent of the land annuity. And remember that those tariffs are applicable to every article that woman has to sell—her poultry, eggs, pigs, sheep and her few cattle. Try to realise how many times over in the course of a year's trading that woman pays the land annuities through the medium of tariffs and, having satisfied yourself on that point, try to satisfy yourself as to the justice or the equity of demanding from that particular holder that the tariff should be paid over and over again to the Irish Exchequer, which has never even alleged that it advanced the money.

I am endeavouring to-day to make the Fianna Fáil Government, the Fianna Fáil Party, honest before their own people; to put them in a position to justify and keep their own promises. For years every one of the Deputies on the Government Benches has ranted up and down this country; the tune they were accustomed to sing at every cross-roads was about the non-payment of land annuities. What did the fellow down the country, any ordinary man, interpret by the cry of the non-payment of land annuities but that it was the policy that the farmers should not be asked to pay land annuities?

What does the Deputy mean by "the fellow down the country"?

The farmers have now awakened to a realisation of the fact that that policy, in practice, means asking them to pay land annuities several times over. Quite aside from the fact that the farmer may be paying the amount three or four times through these tariffs, through the foolish economic war launched because of Government failure to negotiate and by Government incompetence to effect a bargain, we are suggesting to-day that the Irish Government should not ask the farmers to pay the amount over again. We have reached a stage as a result of the economic war, with shrinking trade and withering revenues, where a Fianna Fáil Government finds it necessary to put Irish workmen working at 24/- a week, because of the shortage of money; where they find it necessary to double income tax because of a shrinking revenue; where they find it necessary, in the hardest year the farmers ever knew, to reduce the grant in relief of rates by half a million pounds. In the set of circumstances arising out of this economic war, is it too much to ask that the farmer should not be obliged, with all those handicaps and all those disabilities, to pay the land annuities over again to a body that never advanced the money, to a body, who ever else may have a claim to the money, that has absolutely no claim to it?

I can sympathise with the Minister for Finance, after a year of political intoxication, after a year of squandermania, facing up to an annual budget, facing up to the date when he must give an account of his stewardship. I can sympathise with such a Minister plunging in any direction for finance; but I would rely on those behind and around him to see that whatever pockets he may pick, he should not attempt to pick pockets that have been picked every week in the year. He should face up to his own responsibility and the responsibility of those who sit alongside of him for the very desperate plight in which the farming community finds itself. If he will realise the condition of markets, the condition in which the farmer finds himself, he will certainly see that it is impossible to justify a demand in a year such as this that the land annuities should be paid so many times over.

I would like the vote on this Bill and this motion to be undertaken by people voting strictly according to their knowledge, their consciences, and their idea as to what is fair and what is unfair. I have no doubt that there are as many people on the Government side of the House as there are on this side strong in the belief that the new imposition which this Bill presumes to place on the back of the Irish farmer is an imposition, a disability, which the Irish farmer is unable to meet. We hold, and have always held, that the moneys must be paid back to the bondholders. Seeing that the moneys due to the bondholders are being collected through the medium of tariffs and that that particular debt is being discharged through the medium of tariffs, our position is that there is no justification whatever for the Irish Exchequer to try to seize further money from the Irish farmer and create a claim to these moneys. It is the thin end of the wedge of State ownership. If the Irish farmer pays rent for his land to me or to anybody else, he recognises me or the other person as the head owner of that land, and if in this year 1933, after all the years of agitation and strife for the ownership of Irish land by the Irish people, the Irish farmer is to begin paying rent to an Irish Government, he has once again given up the ownership of land, surrendered his title, undone the work that was done and neutralised the victory won as a result of fifty years' hard struggle.

I am only tempted to speak because of the statement just made by Deputy O'Higgins. It is evident that the Irish farmer's title to his land was not at all affected while that farmer, because of the treachery of Irishmen, had to pay that money into the British Treasury to be given, if the British wished, to the bondholders. The Irish farmer's title is to be ruined only if the money is kept in this State. It was time the admission was made by the speakers—and they have been numerous—from the Opposition Benches that their efforts here or in the country are not in the interests of the farmers but are in the interests of the British—that the money is not to be held in this country at all but is to be paid to the British. Deputy O'Higgins has stated, in other words, that the Government are committing highway robbery by introducing this Bill. What is the attitude of Cumann na nGaedheal? According to Deputy O'Higgins, the Government are giving at least half the swag to the farmers. That is more than the farmers got under a Cumann na nGaedheal Government, because in their time all the swag went across to the British. They should at least, as Irishmen, be satisfied that some of the swag is kept at home. If, on the other hand, as Deputy O'Higgins says, it is highway robbery for the Government to keep half the swag or to keep all of it from the British, what is the Cumann na nGaedheal way of settling the question? Their way is not to collect the swag at all.

This Bill, according to Deputy O'Higgins, is barring and locking the door against negotiations and a settlement. The Cumann na nGaedheal proposal is barring and locking the door further by reason of not collecting the annuities at all. What is the Cumann na nGaedheal method of approach to it? What suggestions have they made as to how this matter is to be met since the opening of the debate to-day? We understood a few months ago that they had a very cut-and-dried way of settling the problem in three days. We have not heard since the debate was opened what bargains they have struck with the British or how they were to settle in three days. Perhaps many of us might change our minds if we heard what bargain or negotiations they had with the British before the election about having an agreement in three days. What were their proposals or bargains?

There were no proposals or bargains.

They stated, anyhow, that it would be settled in three days. How was that to come about? Was it in the terms of the amendment here that the annuities were not to be collected? Is that the Cumann na nGaedheal policy, as suggested at the General Election? If it was we would be inclined to go part of the way with them. If it was not, why did they change it since the Election? Or are their methods of negotiations to be on the advice given by Deputies Fitzgerald-Kenney and McGilligan a few months ago when they were going to take the case into the courts? Are they going to take the case into the courts now? What is the attitude and what is the position of Cumann na nGaedheal on this question at all?

Wait and see.

Let the people see.

Well, I think the farmers should not wait and see on this matter. It would be foolish to do so. But while they are waiting and seeing the farmers are entitled to some of the swag. Deputies on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches object to the farmers getting some of the swag.

One thing I have noticed in this debate, and that is that the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies have not said, up to the present, that the Government has no mandate on this matter. That is a change. We had been listening for over a year to Cumann na nGaedheal and on every proposal that was made here they challenged the Government for its mandate. This is one matter now on which they cannot challenge the Government for its mandate. The Government got its mandate and this Bill is enshrining the policy for which the electors gave a mandate not so long ago. This Bill is carrying into effect the promises made by Fianna Fáil at the Election. There was a mandate given word for word for this Bill, and I notice that the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies are not now challenging the Government's mandate in bringing in this Bill. If the Government had not brought in this Bill, as they are now doing, that would be pointed to by the Opposition and we would be told that they had not carried out their mandate. I am convinced that the amendment proposed by Deputy Cosgrave is not seriously meant at all. We know it was up to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to say something on this matter. They had either to say one or other of two things—pay the annuities in full and hand them over to the British or do not pay them at all.

Will the Deputy say if the Government are to give us back our markets?

Yes, get us back our markets. I would like if the Cumann na nGaedheal Party would enlighten us on that matter. It is a very touchy thing at the moment and I would like Deputy O'Leary to get up here and tell us how we are to get back these markets, and to what extent. I would like they would give some suggestions to the President as to how these markets can be got back, and tell us the value of these markets to the Irish farmers if they can be got back. If any of the Deputies opposite would come down to a clear case as to how these markets are to be got back, I am convinced that they will get a very good hearing from the Executive Council, and if they do not get it from the Executive Council they will get it from the Fianna Fáil Deputies. Let us be practical about these markets. Let us not have a vague statement from Deputy Cosgrave about a settlement in three days—one day going to London, one day in London and one day coming back. Let us have from him a clear statement about the markets he is to bring back to the farmers. The Deputies opposite have been talking about it to the farmers, who are tired about all this talk. The Government gave them an opportunity of talking on that some weeks ago and they got every facility for putting their case before the people. Let Deputy Cosgrave come down to the present case and tell us how this could be settled by negotiations and how the markets can be captured.

Let Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies tell us what right the British have to this money. I think it is better that the Irish farmer should be given the benefit of the doubt, despite Deputy O'Higgins' sneers that the Government have been dishonest about giving half the swag to the farmers. I saw a circular under Deputy O'Higgins' name a few days ago. That circular was issued to an organisation that existed to some extent, the A.C.A. It talked about dishonesty and Communism in this country. We have not heard much about Communism in this debate, but we have heard a lot about dishonesty. I expect other speakers will bring in the programme of the A.C.A. in the course of the debate and let us know how they are to rid this country of the Government elected by the will of the people, and tell us about their programme for making the Government honest. In their suggestions they might come down to facts and tell the Government that they have no right to carry out the programme for which they were elected by the will of the people. They might tell us that we should not respect the will of the people. Let them tell us that, if they care to do so. The Government in putting this Bill forward are doing so because they respect the will of the people and are carrying out the mandate they got. I challenge any of the Opposition to prove that they are not doing that.

It is extraordinary that the Deputy who has just spoken from the Government Benches did not read this Bill. His short speech here is quite a sample of the election propaganda, the result of which he told us was registered by the will of the people in returning a Fianna Fáil Government. In his own picturesque language he told us that half the swag is going to the farmers. He has just told us that. I do not see one word in this Bill to show that that is the case.

Deputy O'Higgins is wrong so.

Deputy O'Higgins is not this Bill. We are not here to discuss Deputy O'Higgins. We are here to discuss this Bill, and I presume Deputy O'Higgins is not speaking for the Fianna Fáil Party. Now we must discuss the reality in this Bill, and the reality in the amendment from the point of view of the present situation of the country. The speech delivered by the Minister for Finance, if it means anything, is a confession of failure on the part of himself, his Department and his Government. In brief the Minister said "if you do not allow us to raid this Account we cannot carry on; we are out of money." What is the position there? Who has a claim on this money? It is to be paid over to the Exchequer and the farmers will get one and a half millions. The officials in the Department of Local Government and Public Health have drawn up a scheme by which the farmer must employ a man for every 25 acres or a multiple of every 25 acres he holds. We must change this country overnight from a grazing to a tillage country. We must get rid of the grazier. We are told that we do not want the British market. The respect which the Government Party has for agriculture was demonstrated here the other day, when two useful hours of the time of this House were taken up by a Parliamentary Secretary, who would not know a plough from a harrow, speaking on agriculture. He is not here to-day. I wonder why the Government are without their heavy-weights to-day. To whom does this gift belong and what are the losses that have accrued to agriculture? Last week we had a return of our agricultural exports for the last six months. They showed a falling off of £8,000,000. There is every prospect that this economic war will continue for a further six months with, we may safely assume, a further falling off of £8,000,000, making £16,000,000 in twelve months. The agricultural economy of this State, like the agricultural economy of every State, has worked itself to a certain level. It produces a certain amount which keeps the price-level at a certain standard at home—a price-level which, we can assume for the purpose of argument, is remunerative. It produces a certain amount for export. Of that amount for export, £16,000,000 worth will be turned back within the course of 12 months. I hope that the President and the Minister for Finance will face up to realities. They are not now misguiding or fooling the people in back rooms. They are out here in the noonday sun of public opinion. They are not speaking to youngsters of 21 and youngsters of over 21. They are speaking to men who have been in the firing line of agriculture. We want to know, not so much for our own information as for the information of a country which is being driven headlong to bankruptcy, on whose shoulders this loss of £16,000,000 of exports is going to fall? If £16,000,000 worth of exports is thrown back into the Irish economic pool, it will depress the standard of prices within the Free State to the exact amount of the value exported of that produce. I ask any Fianna Fáil Front Bencher to challenge the economic truth of that statement. In other words, the agricultural industry of this country will have lost by 1st July next £16,000,000 worth, for which President de Valera and his Party are responsible. Have they lost anything else?

You do not——

I speak on this matter on behalf of agriculture.

You do not represent an agricultural constituency.

It is a pity that the agricultural constituencies did not send men with intelligence to represent them and not people to sling mud. I represent agriculture to an equal extent with any man in the Free State and to an equal extent with half the Fianna Fáil Party put together. I pay higher agricultural wages than any man in the Fianna Fáil Party.

How much did you export?

I do not farm like your Minister and your Deputy Minister by borrowing farming implements from my neighbours.

I borrow and farm——

Deputy Belton must be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Who has lost the £16,000,000? The agricultural industry. The prices in the home market have been depressed in the aggregate by £16,000,000. In other words, if that £16,000,000 worth was allowed to be exported, the farmers would have got as much for the stuff that remained at home as they got for what remained at home and that £16,000,000 thrown in with it. That is an economic truism and I challenge any Minister or any Deputy opposite to deny its truth.

When these moneys were withheld, Britain said they should be paid. Our Government said "No.""Very well," said Britain, "if you do not pay the statutory way, I will get them my own way." Britain put on a tariff and she set about collecting not the £3,000,000 that the farmer was liable to pay under the Land Acts but the £5,000,000 that the Free State Government had contracted to pay to Britain. Who paid that? The farmers. In addition to the £16,000,000 worth of agricultural produce turned back by the tariffs, about £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 worth got through. Of this £13,000,000 or £14,000,000, the British Government has confiscated £5,000,000. On whom have they confiscated it? Is it the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil, which has not a farmer? No, but from the agricultural industry. Therefore, the cost of the economic war to agriculture will be, as things are moving, by 30th June next, not the £3,000,000 annuities; not the £5,000,000 that we were bound to pay under the Ultimate Financial Settlement of 1926 but £21,000,000. If this Bill goes through— a Bill which means war to the knife— we are going to have a perpetuation of these conditions, so that we must not count our losses even at £21,000,000 but we must count them in an annual sum of £21,000,000 capitalised which, at the rate the British Government have floated loans in this country, means a sum of £600,000,000. If we are going to lose the British market in perpetuity—the Fianna Fáil Party have done all that is possible to make us lose that market—then the Fianna Fáil Party stands condemned of having caused, within one year, this country to lose £600,000,000. I notice that the President smiles. Will the President smile when I put this to him—that I, as a member of his Party, asked him to call a special meeting at the beginning of July, 1927, to decide policy on the question of the land annuities?

What has this got to do with the Bill? In fact, what has any part of Deputy Belton's speech got to do with it?

I did not catch your question.

The Minister was addressing me. It is not necessary that the Deputy should hear the question.

I missed the remark just as the Minister missed a train when he was going to join the British Army.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

The Deputy did not miss many trains when he was trying to split the Fianna Fáil Party.

We are going to have tillage. We are going to make this land flow with milk and honey, having robbed it first.

Is there anything in this Bill about tillage?

Previous speakers without exception have had plenty of freedom to discuss the policy surrounding this Bill.

I suggest that the Deputy has had that too.

I bow to your ruling. Of course, I recognise that you guide the debates, not the Minister for Finance. This Bill if passed will take our market from us.

I thought it was taken away already.

Deputy Killilea will have to allow Deputy Belton to make his speech.

If I must further amplify my remarks, it will take our markets from us in perpetuity. If the Deputy wants the meaning of that word I shall give it to him.

I admit that you are the only intelligent man in Ireland— that you have the brains of the country.

We are to have a huge tillage policy as a result of this Bill. We are to grow all the wheat we want. I suppose it has occurred to Ministers that every additional acre under wheat puts at least six acres under tillage; that, to grow wheat in this country we must have a six-year rotation and at least 80 per cent. of the total produce of that six-year rotation will be animal food, not human food. In other words, land under the plough will carry a larger live stock population than land under grass. If your increased live stock population cannot be sold in a remunerative market, then the bottom falls out of your whole tillage plan. The future of tillage here is bound up with a good market for our live stock. This Bill closes that market in perpetuity for our live stock. The Government Party have attempted to make the case that Deputies on these benches want to extract money out of the Irish farmer and that the Government have come along to retain that money for him. It took the Government Party five years to realise that there were annuities payable. It took them a couple more years to decide whether they would come into the Dáil or not. If there is any substance in the case put forward by the Government now there was equal substance in it then. There was as good a case for retaining the annuities in 1922, before you shot Collins and broke Griffith's heart, as there is now, but it was not put forward.

What has this to do with the Bill?

It has this to do with it, that the farmer has been losing not for one year, but for ten years, if your contention is right. If your contention is right, that you have come to help the farmer out of his difficulty by retaining the moneys in the country that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party agreed to pay over, the natural question to ask is: "Where were you when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government had to make a settlement with the British? Why were you not standing by their side?" You taunt us here, and you have taunted us in the country with playing England's game. Why did you play England's game for nine years?

How does this arise on this Bill? I suggest that the Deputy is making a most disorderly speech.

The Minister did not protest when a Deputy belonging to his Party said that the Fianna Fáil Government had just been elected on this issue. But when I put to the Minister the very language used in the election by himself and his Party that got them, not a majority, but 50 per cent. of the seats in this House, he protests that I am out of order. I am very much in order, and you were very much out of order when you tried to wipe the farmers' eyes. You got 50 per cent. or so amongst them, but the day of reckoning will come.

Is it in order when a point of order is raised with the Chair for another Deputy to attack the Deputy who has raised the point of order?

A Deputy can be attacked to a certain extent and in a certain fashion, but I suggest to Deputy Belton that he is wandering a bit too far. I have given him a good deal of latitude, but he is wandering very far both from the Bill and the amendment. He ought to confine himself a little more closely to the terms of the Bill and the amendment.

I did not consider I was getting away from the subject so long as the occupant of the Chair sat quiet. I do not see, if this Bill is passed, how we can get out of the mess. There is no hope of a settlement held out—we must go on. Agriculture is an industry on which not only itself depends but on which the manufacturing industries must depend in future. Agriculture has been well described as the mother of the nation's wealth that industry employs. If agriculture has to lose in the current year and in future years over £20,000,000 of its income, it is quite evident that it cannot carry on. It is also evident that other industries cannot grow up or prosper in this country. The famous saying of a great man whom we all knew has been trotted out, that this country cannot exist without an industrial arm. It had only the one arm—agriculture, but the Fianna Fáil Party cut off that arm and has left it without any arm. How are we to maintain and develop industries if they must be maintained out of the purchasing power of agriculture? The purchasing power of agriculture has diminished by the figures I have given and which I have quoted from the official returns of the Government. They cannot be controverted, unless the Government have not compiled the returns properly, which I am sure they have done. Agriculture cannot go on in these circumstances.

We are told by the Minister that this is a simple Bill, that everything will be right if we pass it. Agriculture has been robbed, but he graciously condescends to grant a moratorium for the land annuities up to next November or December, whereas the amendment takes the stand that we have paid the annuities and that they should be remitted altogether. That is quite just, and the policy of the Government is quite unjust. It cannot be sustained by any argument. Representatives of the farming community in the Dáil ought to know from their experience that the fall in prices makes it absolutely incumbent on the Government to come to the rescue of the farmers by remitting these annuities. This Bill, if carried into law, will deprive us of the British market in perpetuity. We will then have to consider a low price level, a lower standard of living, lower wages than we have been accustomed to. Even when we had the British market we had one of the lowest standards of living in Europe. That is a contingency —a certainty—which the Labour Party in this House should remember before voting for a lowering of the standard of living of the working community.

We are told that the implications in this Bill are simple. We have never been told on what the settlement broke down. It may be going outside the terms of the Bill to deal with that question, but the terms of settlement requested by the President are something that would be illuminating, if discussed in this House. That would bring many sins home to roost. I hope Deputies will think very seriously, and think furiously, before they vote for this Bill and for a reduction of the agricultural income by twenty millions annually; perhaps in perpetuity. We find that the agricultural price level in 1931 was 93, compared with 100 in 1913—seven points below the 1913 figure. I would like to remind the solitary Labour representative now in the House that in 1913 the highest agricultural wage in any county was 18/-. The agricultural price index for 1931 was seven points below that figure. We had a bit of a row here recently over a wage of 24/- a week. I do not stand for the low wage of 24/-. I am giving the figures not as an advocate of them, but for purposes of comparison. That was before the economic war started. If the economic war is going to take out of the agricultural pool twenty millions what is going to be the agricultural wage? Let the Labour Party consider that before they vote. If they vote for this Bill they are voting for a weekly agricultural wage of 10/ —if it will be possible to live by agriculture at all in this country. The industrialists who want to go to the Government to borrow money——

They have got the swag, anyway.

——made out of agriculture or for which it is mortgaged in order to start industries, should remember that it takes agriculture to keep these industries alive. Let them consider that before voting to kill that industry, the goose that lays the golden eggs, which provides the money to finance industry, to pay tariffs in the shape of high prices and provide a market. I am not one who has ever been opposed to industrial tariffs or to the industrial development of this country. It was all simple according to the Minister for Finance, but it means war to the knife with Britain, a loss of our markets in perpetuity as well as the strangulation and bankruptey of those industries that have been financed by loans from the State, because the agricultural community will not have the power to buy the products of these industries. The effects of the Bill will be to reduce agricultural wages, to reduce the standard of living of working farmers and their families, and to fill the emigrant ships in the future when there is a country to which the people can go. It is not the Fianna Fáil Government that is keeping them at home but the fact that America has been closed to them. This Bill, when passed, is going to fill the emigrant ships and to turn jackdaws into the three hundred mythical factories that we have got from Fianna Fáil.

I was rather surprised at the amendment because I thought some time ago that Cumann na nGaedheal were going to go to law in order to make us pay the annuities to England. That was the story during the last general election. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney stated that they had a good case. Deputy McGilligan stated the same thing, and the Centre Party, the Lord save us, also gave their seal to the bond, that the Government should not alone pay England, but that they were going to law to compel them to pay the annuities. Lo and behold we have heard nothing about the law since the election. We are wondering where are the lawyers who advised Cumann na nGaedheal on the question, or have they been paid on their briefs yet. We have been wondering, where are the law proceedings to compel the Government to hand over the money to Great Britain? We have heard a lot from those who spoke on the amendment about the impoverished state of the farmers—that they had to pay this and that. We wondered what was behind all the motions and amendments that came along since last July. Every second week we had a motion here about the annuities. One would think that the bubble was burst at the general election; that Jimmy Thomas would have seen that he had no hope whatever from Cumann na nGaedheal; that that Party was finished for good, and that there was no hope that it was going to come back into office and to pay him the money. Deputy Belton has travelled a long way since I knew him first in 1927 as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Fianna Fáil has travelled a long way since.

The Deputy jumped from that Party into the Independent Party.

You swallowed the Oath.

The people would not elect him as an Independent Deputy but now we have him elected as a member of Cumann na nGaedheal in patches. I do not know where he will make his next jump, but if I were the Chief Whip of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, I would not place too much reliance on the Deputy sitting too long at one last.

I pulled the mask off you, anyway. The arm was to have fallen off your body before you would take the Oath but you swallowed the Oath.

The Deputy is very hard to catch. He hops about so much.

Everyone of you swallowed it.

Deputy Belton has made his speech and surely he has had enough of it.

You do not expect Deputy Belton to sit here and be insulted.

Deputy Belton is not insulted.

Does Deputy Belton deny that he was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1927——

It has nothing to do with this Bill. Deputy Corry will keep to the Bill.

You brought me in and gave me a quid a day for it.

——and that, as such, he was in favour of the land annuities being held here?

You owe me a quid a day since.

Tell us about the prosperity of the farmers.

You told them in North Cork about that prosperity.

And they put me at the head of the poll, too.

They did but you lost your chum.

If Deputy Corry does not want to make his speech, he will have to desist altogether.

As soon as the baby over there will stay quiet and get his feeding bottle, I will carry on. We had those gentlemen opposite telling the farmers all about what the economic war was costing them, telling them how many times they were broken in the last twelve months and how many had gone bankrupt in the last two months. We had that tale of woe poured out day after day and night after night and what was the result? The farmers of this country told Cumann na nGaedheal "You gentlemen who brought in the 1923 Act, who handed over to the landlords of this country the loot that you dragged out of the pockets of the unfortunate tenants, who came in here"—I heard Deputy Cosgrave alluding a while ago to it—"when it was proposed to give one million pounds for the relief of rates and said that the farmers were so well off that they should not get it" and who came along in the following year, 1930, and, under a Land Bill, refused to give any relief whatever to the tenants whom they had made pay 10 per cent. over seven years—Deputy Roddy will probably remember it and he will also remember the three annuities he clapped down on the unfortunate tenants in any land he was taking over for division——

Which, of course, has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.

The argument that has been put forward in the amendment is that the farmers are discharging interest and sinking fund payments. I am going to prove that what the farmers had discharged in the past left them so bare and naked that they were able to discharge nothing whatever and that what was handed over to Fianna Fáil was a bankrupt farming community unable to pay anybody or anyone and the market that was being held for them by the illegal payment to Britain each year of £5,000,000 was not worth a hang.

Why subsidise it then?

If the hopping gentleman will remain quiet for five minutes and if I can be sure that to-morrow he will not be a member of the Centre Party I will answer him but I cannot be sure of him for five minutes——

The Deputy can be quite sure that I will not be a member of his Party.

I do not believe they would take even him although they took a lot of queer fellows. It was the action of the Deputies opposite and of one Deputy, at least, whose name is down to this amendment, in making that secret agreement and in handing over this money illegally to Britain that has caused the present trouble because I maintain that, if that secret agreement had not been made, there would never have been any question of handing over that money.

Why did you not come in and stop it?

Oh, shut up, and do not be making a damned idiot of yourself.

Deputy Corry will have to withdraw that remark at once.

I withdraw the remark.

And Deputy Belton will have to cease interrupting. That is definite. He got plenty of latitude himself to make his speech and he cannot continue interrupting Deputy Corry indiscriminately as he is.

They are old pals and you cannot blame them.

I submit that it was a perfectly legitimate interruption.

The Deputy cannot submit anything of the kind to the Chair. He cannot interrupt any Deputy except on a matter of order and it is on a matter of disorder rather than order that he is interrupting.

The Deputy will do so if it is going to be done.

What does Deputy Belton mean?

If it is going to be the ruling all round, certainly.

Does the Deputy suggest that the Chair is not giving that ruling all round?

I may be wrong but it is not my interpretation.

Deputy Belton has been interrupting Deputy Corry indiscriminately since he got up to speak and he will have to desist.

I agree with you, sir, that Deputy Belton has no right to interrupt Deputy Corry and that, to that extent, he has been slightly disorderly, but, at the same time, Deputy Belton was interrupted several times while he was on his feet.

And the Chair has protected Deputy Belton.

It may have escaped your notice, but he was interrupted several times.

I think that at all costs the decorum of the House ought to be maintained and Deputies ought to assist in maintaining it.

I cannot hear Deputies advocating disorder and Deputy Belton is indulging in disorderly interruption at the moment.

As I was saying when I was interrupted—I regret that Deputy Roddy has left the House— practically the whole of this trouble has been caused by the action of Deputy Belton and his new associates, and he should recognise that when he comes to attack Fianna Fáil on this matter. He should recognise that, at one time, he was of opinion that these annuities were not legally due and should not be paid. He was a Deputy of this House at one time as a supporter of that policy——

On a point of order, I should like the Deputy to produce a scrap of evidence to show that, at the June election in 1927, Fianna Fáil ever said that the land annuities should not be paid.

That is not a point of order.

He has just said in his speech that I supported them.

That is not a point of order.

I am quite ready to produce all the documents that Deputy Belton is looking for. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government insisted on handing over this money. We are told now that the farmers are so badly off by reason of discharging certain amounts of money that they should not be asked to pay annuities at all, but when the farmer's revenue was reduced by £13,000,000 in the course of a few years what was the cry from the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches? What was the cry from the Cumann na nGaedheal Executive Council when the farmer's revenue was reduced in 12 months by over £6,000,000? His revenue, as between 1930 and 1931, dropped by over £6,000,000, and still we had Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Blythe, who has departed from amongst us, saying that the £5,000,000 must be paid no matter what you get for your cattle from Britain and no matter whether you get your cost of production or not. Assisted and supported by their faithful friends in the defunct Farmers' Party, which has now become a Centre Party, we have that cry. When the farmers of this country dropped £13,000,000 in their revenue we had that cry going on: "Whoever will be paid, whether you are able to feed your children or not, whether you are able to pay your labourers or not. whether you are able to pay the shopkeepers or not, there is one person you must pay and that is John Bull." That was the policy and that was the cry. Because a Government has come in here with backbone enough to say that this money which has been illegally paid for so long will now remain in this country, and because under this Bill the money is going to go to the benefit of the people of this country, we have cries from the Deputies opposite in connection with it, the Deputies opposite who were the cause—the direct cause, I would say—of any inconveniences that the farmers have suffered during the last twelve months. Were it not for those gentlemen who night after night, with motion after motion, give help to the enemy, that tariff would not have been on 24 hours, and they know it and the people know it. The people know it, for when they went out to the people the people gave them the answer that they would give to any Judas. It is rather amusing to hear what those gentlemen have to say on coming in here after being to the people, after putting their case to the people and after the people turning them down as they did. I can speak for as many farmers in this House as any Deputy on any bench opposite, for I polled just as many votes at the last General Election as the whole Cumann na nGaedheal Party put together—the whole box and dice of them put together.

You paid them well for it!

I polled as many first preference votes as the whole Cumann na nGaedheal Party and I speak for as many farmers as the whole Cumann na nGaedheal Party put together. They speak for the interest they supported here during the last ten years —the interest of the landlord. Nobody else's interest mattered. When a Land Bill was being introduced here it did not matter what skinning the tenant got so long as the landlord got his pound of flesh. We had the same thing with regard to the so-called Farmers' Party which was elected here to support them.

Do not worry about the Farmers' Party.

When there was a motion to recover the loot that the landlord robbed from the tenants of this country, and when the secretary of the Farmers' Party wrote up to the Farmers' Party in this Dáil asking them to vote for it they went a bit lower and voted for the landlord that he might get his loot. Facts are stubborn things.

You know nothing about them!

Facts are stubborn things and you do not like them. It is about time that Deputies opposite, as public servants, instead of endeavouring to hurt and injure the people of this country by giving hope and aid to the enemies of the country, would at least endeavour to do some little bit for the people whom they are supposed to represent. If they cannot assist them in any other way, they should assist them at least by their silence and let us do the work which we were sent here with a mandate from the people to do We claim that we got that mandate, and all the bickering and shouting that was here during the last twelve months will not do now. The people knew the whole thing when the general election was fought; the 40 per cent. was then.

I wonder where was Deputy Cos grave going to get the land annuities, or was he not going to pay England until 1934? Where was he going to get them? Was there to be one bargain for one political party in this country and another different attitude entirely towards another political party? Was England going to forgive Deputy Cosgrave the land annuities until 1934? Was that a bargain? Was that an arrangement? Was that a secret agreement? If it was, where is it? Why is not this secret agreement here now to assist this Government in driving a decent agreement? If Deputy Cosgrave is anxious to help the country, let him show the secret agreement which he made with Britain by which Britain was forgiving him the whole of the annuities until the end of 1934 and allowing a 50 per cent. reduction afterwards. Let him show us that agreement. Who made it? Where was it made? Cumann na nGaedheal offered it to the farmers— Cumann na nGaedheal who said that it was highway robbery to keep the annuities and that they were being illegally kept. Did Cumann na nGaedheal say: "It is highway robbery to keep them. We will be highway robbers, too, and keep them?" Where is the agreement? Is that agreement to be dragged out of some other pigeonhole in the Cumann na nGaedheal headquarters when Cumann na nGaedheal will be passed and gone at the next general election? Is that where it will be found? I challenge Deputy Cosgrave here to say what grounds he had for making an offer to the farmers of this country that they need pay no annuities until the end of 1934. What grounds had he for making that statement? What grounds had he for saying that after 1934 the farmers of this country would only have to pay 50 per cent. of the annuities? What grounds had he for making that statement? If we are to take the case made by the lawyers who were consulted to make a case for Britain at the expense of the farmers of Ireland, the full annuities should be paid, every farthing of them, every day they fall due; therefore, what grounds had Deputy Cosgrave for stating to the people of this country that they need pay no land annuities until 1934? What agreement had he made on that basis? Where is the agreement?

You have asked that twenty times.

You were asleep all along. Sleep for another while.

Mr. Burke

I assure you I am very wide awake.

I am sorry I woke you.

Mr. Burke

I know the Deputy has a great knack of making everybody go to sleep, but I did not fall for it this time.

Do you want a rocking-chair? If Deputy Cosgrave had any grounds for that statement there is no doubt that that evidence would be very useful to a Government negotiating with Britain now. If he had any agreement made with the British Government—with Jimmy Thomas—by which in return for the aid he gave Thomas during the last twelve months, Thomas guaranteed "now that the general election is on, if you go back we will give you this much," that agreement would undoubtedly be of great help to our Government in negotiating now. Let us have that agreement. Let us have a copy of the bargain that was made between Deputy Cosgrave and Jimmy Thomas. I am sure a copy of that will be of much more assistance to the people of this country and to the farmers of this country, than the attack which is being launched here to-night. Of course they know that attack will fail, and it is only the last kick of the dying horse.

The Bill before the House seeks to give the Executive Council power to utilise the money in the Suspense Account. We believe that that is the last link by which any agreement, or any negotiation, might be brought about between the Government of this country and England. We had hoped that, while this money was still in the Suspense Account, and seeing that the members of this Government were anxious for a settlement, and seeing that the members of the British Government were also anxious for a settlement, there might be some hope or chance of having this economic war ended. Now it seems that all our hopes are dissipated in that direction. I was struck with the latitude allowed in connection with matters of debate before the House. I shall try to confine myself to the matter at issue and I do not want to wander over a long field, going back over ten years and every year since. We are concerned primarily with the present case. We say that the money in the Suspense Account was paid by the farmers; it was intended primarily to be paid to the people who lent the money to the farmers. We never said it was due to the British Government, or to the Irish Government. We say it belongs to the people who lent the money, whether from Britain or from Ireland, or from Hong Kong. We say further that this Government have no right to utilise these moneys for any other purpose than paying the interest or sinking fund to those who lent the money to the Irish farmer. Everybody, on both sides of the House has discussed the position of the farmer for the last two hours. They seem to have great sympathy for him. I hope they will still keep that sympathy for the farmers down the country. Nobody has a better idea than I have of the farming community, and I ask those on both sides of the House to realise the position the farming community is in.

The suggestion was made a while ago as to how we could get a good return for the farmer—and said in very good faith. Well, now, the answer to that is to acknowledge the best agreements in connection with the dispute between this country and Britain—that is how there might be some possibility of a return to a normal position in connection with the farmers of this country.

The Minister for Finance takes unto himself, I understand, the spending of this money. It was always understood that this money was primarily belonging to the farmers, and that when it would be spent, it would be spent in connection with the farming community. That is pretty strange seeing that the agricultural grant which can be given to farmers in the past, and which the present Government were largely instrumental in giving to the farming community, are now going to be all taken from them. That does not show any sign on behalf of the Minister for Finance that he is inclined to turn around and give the money back to the farming community again. I suggest that would be the first thing, and I suggest also that under present circumstances it would be the last thing that the Minister for Finance should have done—in these serious times of depression to reduce the grants which he himself and his Government were largely instrumental in giving to the farmers. That is all I have to say. For these reasons I must vote against the Bill, and for these reasons solely. I again say that, to us down the country, it seems to leave no hope of any settlement between the two Governments concerned, and that is what we deplore.

I rise to support the amendment, but before giving any reasons for that support let me say that I deprecate extremely the bad taste, to give it a very mild term, of Deputies on the opposite benches when they are allowed to refer to a member of another House in another country as "Jimmy Thomas." Now I wonder would our national pride be outraged, would that fighting spirit in our race be outraged, if we heard our Minister for Finance referred to in the British House of Commons as "Johnny MacEntee."

On a point of order, is the Deputy making a speech on this measure, entitled to lecture the Chair? May I call your attention to the fact that the Deputy used the word "allowed?"

I withdraw that, but certainly it is a splitting term. He must have allowed it if it escaped his notice.

I think it is a matter of regret that certain terms were used with reference to members of Houses outside this State. I think it should not be done, and I think that expression should not have been used.

I thank you very much. I support this amendment for a reason amongst others—a reason which I have not yet heard advanced by any speaker who has so far taken part in this debate. We have heard a good deal of the poverty and the hardship now being endured by the farmers, all of which I know to be true, but little or no reference has been made to the repercussions of this depression in agriculture which have taken place in our cities and towns. I feel, sir, that a continuance of this economic war will spell further disaster to the ordinary working classes, people in the towns and cities, the dockers and others engaged in the distributive trades, and most, if not all, of this disaster is brought about by the imposition of the British tariffs on Saorstát agricultural produce.

I am mainly concerned with that particular class in the community known as the working class. I am one of the representatives of the second city in the Saorstát. In the borough of Cork we have very many people engaged in agriculture and in its subsidiary industries. All those people have met with disaster after disaster because of the economic policy of our own Government. In addition to their ordinary normal work as agriculturists, quite a number of small farmers had certain riparian rights which represented to them a certain amount in hard cash per year, but there is not one mile of fishing let this season from Cork City to Macroom. This valuable asset, representing a sound cash proposition to many of those small farmers, has been taken from them. I suggest it has been brought about by the economic policy of our present Government. Before the beginning of this economic war we also had in my constituency a large trade in eggs and fowl. That, too, has been very badly hit. I have received letters from people on the seaboard asking me to take up with the Department of Fisheries the question of getting them some bounty, some kind of financial help, to enable them to market their shell fish in the English markets. This little industry in the County Cork at Ringaskiddy which is about twelve or fourteen miles outside the city—the industry was established there for a number of years —gave precarious employment, but at any rate it gave some employment in that area. It has been crushed because of the operation of the British tariffs.

I would like to put this question to members opposite: Is it a trait in our Irish character that when we engage in a fight and the other fellow hits back that we begin to squeal, because that is what it amounts to? I am slow to believe that the majority of our Irish people are squealers. We retained the annuities. The people on the other side said: "We will get them out of you in another way," and they were quite entitled to say that. Because they hit back we must, like spoiled children in school, squeal and go and complain to the master. I refuse to believe that our Irish people are developing into a nation of squealers.

Deputy Corry, I think it was, stated that Deputies on the Opposition Benches were bringing hope to the enemy. We have heard that cry before. Any man who had the courage to stand up and condemn outrages was told that he was anti-Irish and was playing Britain's game. I claim to be as good an Irishman as any man on the opposite benches. I refuse to play England's game, but I also refuse to see my own fellow-countrymen brought almost to a state of semi-starvation because of the lunatic policy of this present Government. We heard again to-day for the third or the fourth time the question of mandates discussed: that the Fianna Fáil Party came into this House with a mandate to do this and that. I suggest that the eight members of the Labour Party did not come in with any such mandate, and it is the eight members of the Labour Party who are keeping Fianna Fáil in power to-day. Of course, if one keeps on repeating long enough that Fianna Fáil have got a mandate to do this and to do that, to do all the foolish things that they have done, lots of people outside will begin to believe it. I believe that lots of Fianna Fáil members themselves also believe it because they keep on repeating it.

Does the Deputy?

It is a kind of Pelmanism: keep on repeating it and you begin to believe it. I feel sure that Deputy Breen would not be a squealer, and would not subscribe to the doctrine that because the other fellow hits him that the other fellow is wrong.

I would not squeal like the Deputy.

Deputy Breen was too plucky a man for that.

I believe the Deputy was in bed at the time.

One of the things that I refused to do was to give up my gun to anyone, and I have it still.

I heard they left it to you.

Well, I did what the Deputy perhaps did not do—I buried it for a time. During the discussions on the economic policy of the Government we have heard a good deal about the number of factories that have been established and the number they propose to establish. Even the merest tyro in economics should know and does know, so far as Irish economics are concerned, that agriculture being our main industry most of our purchasing power must of necessity flow from that particular industry. when our best market is gone, a market that we threw away of our own volition, where can we get the money to purchase the commodities manufactured in those factories? My experience has been that while you may have a factory established here and there, giving work of a kind to a number of young boys and girls, we have numbers of persons who at one time were in relatively well-paid employment being put on half-time, and in many cases discharged from their employment. I know that in one of the oldest tobacco factories in Ireland to-day the employees are on half-time. We have that situation despite the statements made from time to time that we are establishing new factories everywhere, and that more people are being absorbed into employment. Then we hear this legend which was placarded and advertised on the dead walls and the ditches all over this country: "Fianna Fáil has stopped emigration." My Heavens, was such piffle ever spoken?

What has that got to do with the terms of this Bill and the amendment?

I submit that this emigration was caused—we all know how it was caused in the past—I submit that we would still have emigration were it not for the fact that Uncle Sam stopped us from going over. The question has been asked: How did Deputy Cosgrave propose to solve this question? I do not propose to answer the question. That is a question for Deputy Cosgrave, who, I believe, will be able to answer it satisfactorily. But if I were asked to answer it, and if I were a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, I would say that Deputy Cosgrave has answered that question very fully in this House on at least a dozen occasions. The only sensible way in which that question could be answered, and the only sensible solution that could be given— and, mind you, I feel that when everything is said and done there is a strong analogy between an industrial dispute and this present economic dispute between this country and Britain—is to realise that in the final analysis it boils down to a conference between the two interests involved, and I do not see—I cannot see—why the President of this State could not drive an honourable bargain with the people at the other side of the water and come to an equitable and lasting peace with the people of Great Britain. The way out—the honourable way out—is to get into conference with the other parties to this dispute, namely, the British, and have an end put to this economic war. That is the way, I presume, that Deputy Cosgrave would have solved this economic crisis.

I do not propose to occupy the House at any great length, but I want to say that, above all things, I dislike cant. We have heard a lot about the advocacy of the non-payment of the land annuities. There may be members of the House, even amongst the Fianna Fáil Party, who do not even know the origin and the history of that catch-cry. First, we heard about it in connection with de-rating. Then the annuities were to be retained for that purpose. But we had a gentleman, well-known in Dublin and fairly well-known throughout the country, whose name I need not mention—a well-known Communist—he was the first person in this State who advocated that the land annuities should be retained. So that, if there is any credit, or if there is any discredit, in that policy, it rests not on the shoulders of Fianna Fáil but on the shoulders of a well-known Communist in this country. At one period, while that catch-cry was getting a large number of followers, I myself suggested either in this House or outside, I am not quite sure where, that a far more honest cry would be "pay nobody." It would be both popular and attractive in this land of saints and scholars, and, mind you, you would win votes on it.

But it has nothing to do with this Bill.

We were asked—I think it was by Deputy Cleary—how, even if negotiations were opened up to-morrow, were we going to get our markets back, and he also asked us the question: What would be the value of these markets if we did get them back? I wonder at the innocence—at the childlike simplicity, if you like— of Deputy Cleary. I think we will all admit that there is a strong likelihood, almost a certainty, of getting our markets back if we proceed along the right lines; but as to estimating the value of these markets, that is quite another question. Everybody in this House, I think, is prepared to admit that there is a world-wide economic depression; that that depression is not peculiar to this country but that it is world-wide; and the rather foolish question put to us, or rather to the Opposition here, as to the value of these markets, if recovered, is beyond me.

I feel that, if the Fianna Fáil Government were more concerned with the economic prosperity of the Irish Free State than they are with attempting to satisfy a small number of extremists outside whose policy is directed towards bringing about a state of affairs in this country when the value of the farmer's title to his land will be questioned and, in any case it will be questionable—as I say, if the Fianna Fáil Government were more concerned with our economic progress than they are with that kind of propaganda, then I say that it would be a good thing for the country. For these reasons, amongst others, I propose to vote for the amendment.

The impression to be gained from the speeches of the Opposition brings us back again to what is really the main issue at stake in this question. It is certainly bad enough for us to be trying to develop our internal policy in our own way in spite of the interference of a great empire, but not alone are we up against that empire, but we have the same tools working for it that were responsible for all the bloodshed and horrors of the past years. Who was responsible for all this? What is the fight for? Was not the surrender of 1923 responsible? Leaving out the past, this side of the House is doing its best to maintain the sovereign will of Ireland and, thank God, President de Valera will maintain it to the end. What does England want? She wants you to be her tools to enforce her own will here. Irishmen want markets, we all know. I am a farmer just as well as any man on the opposite side, and I say that you will get your markets yet. A few years is nothing in the life of a nation. Why do you surrender now and put your people in the future in the same trouble and destitution as they have been in since the Act of Union. I ask the people here in this House and outside the House to support President de Valera on this Bill.

I regret that my friend, Deputy Hales, is trying to wag the flag a little here.

He wagged it before.

That sort of speech does not help the farmer who had to bring his beasts to the fair of Longford yesterday or to the fair of Edgeworthstown last week or to the fair of Cork to-morrow. It does not help us in the problems confronting our country and our people at the present time. I am not going to say anything about that subject except this one word: that it would be much better if that speech was not delivered.

In the last general election the present Government went before the electorate, and told them that if the people voted for them peace would come. The people have given them a sufficient mandate that would strengthen them in the fight against England, yet what is this that they have offered; they classed us, who were their opponents, as being the supporters of Britain, as fighting the English battle, and they applied other catch-cries that appealed to the electorate. I respectfully submit that the people gave the Fianna Fáil Government the support they were entitled to. They gave them much more. While I dispute the method by which the Fianna Fáil Party got that support, I have to recognise the fact, that as a result of that election, Fianna Fáil was able to form a Government of the strength they have. I am not to be taken as retracting or withdrawing anything from that strength. The Party opposite are the Government, and the responsibility of Government rests upon them. The people have given them that power owing to the story that Fianna Fáil Party told the electorate, and the promises they made, and upon the Fianna Fáil Party rests the responsibility and upon no one else. Now what are they doing to-day? The hardships that the farming community are suffering are so severe that the farmer does not know where he is going to turn in order to meet the demands that the Government are making upon him. The Leader of the Opposition, unfortunately in my opinion, made an offer at Naas, in which he told the country that if he were elected he would give the farmers a moratorium for the land annuities up to 1934. The Fianna Fáil Party answered that by saying that Deputy Cosgrave had come round to their point of view, and they led the people to believe that if they were elected they would do better than Deputy Cosgrave had promised. This Bill shows, in a very definite way, what the Party opposite are going to do now. I am perfectly satisfied that if the Leader of the Opposition had been elected he would have done all the things that he had promised and would see that the people of the country should get all they deserved to get. Because after all this is a great country.

The farmers in this country are the people who fought Ireland's fight. They are the people who maintained our soldiers in 1919, 1920 and 1921. We are punishing them now as Cromwell never punished our people. We are punishing them in a far greater sense than he ever dreamed of. There was a fair in Longford yesterday. I saw farmers taking their cattle to that fair. I saw them take springers and heifers and calves and other sorts of beasts. These farmers all had demand notes for rates in their pockets, and the President, here last week, said he would see that the rates were paid. These were Fianna Fáil supporters. They had been very particular to pay their rates, but there was not one halfpenny to be got in the fair of Longford yesterday, or in that of Edgeworthstown last Friday. There were people, no doubt, talking about the bounty, and about this, that and the other, but there were no farmers getting the bounty; and the result is that the farmers of this country to-day are being punished in a sense, and in a way, that nobody ever dreamt of. That is what is happening to the farmers; to the men who are the mainstay of the nation. Unfortunately we are not industrialised, notwithstanding the tariffs, and the 300 factories we have. I admit that we have 300 factories, but I do not know where they are. I only know we have none of them in Longford-Westmeath.

They have changed that figure. Now it is only 149.

Whether the figure is 300 or 149, we have none of them in Longford-Westmeath.

Surely there are some factories in Athlone?

Yes, they were there before we started these tariffs.

We have one of the best in Ireland there.

Yes, and in relation to it we have a tariff. The manager of that factory told me that Mr. Lemass (Minister for Industry and Commerce) was the most gentlemanly man he ever met. "He gave us a tariff," said he, "that we wanted, but, now, unfortunately, I have lost my London contract and have had to discharge 300 employees." Is not that nice? I would like a few more interruptions like that from Deputy Donnelly, because they bring things to my mind.

I think you said there were no factories in Westmeath.

We have not started any of the new factories. We have not one of the 149. When I had been listening to the election speeches of Fianna Fáil candidates the number of factories was 300. This Bill does not improve the position of the farmers in any way. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health has notified all medical authorities that the relief of agricultural grant is to be reduced to the tune of over half a million pounds—I have not the exact figures by me. The result is that the farmers of Longford-Westmeath are faced with an increase in rates approximately of 1/- or 1/2 in the £. Listening to the Fianna Fáil speakers, during the last election, one would be led to believe that de-rating was already past the post as a winning horse. There was no question at all about that. Now we find ourselves faced with 1/- or 1/2 additional rates instead. I would like Deputy Breen to remember that the farmers were the people who fought the battle, and not us. They were the people who minded our posts for us and fed us in that particular time. We have in Longford-Westmeath the Camlin and Inny arterial drainage boards. The farmer is expected to pay up in all these things. The Labour representatives, whose benches are unoccupied now by the way, expect the farmer to pay reasonable rates of wages to agricultural labourers. I would like to ask, as a first question, where is the farmer going to get money to do all these necessary things which the State expects from him without thinking at all of his family. The farmer is also, you must remember, charged with the responsibility of a family.

I wish to lay very great stress on the point made by Deputy MacDermot, that this Bill does not give any relief to people who are not paying land annuities as such, but who are paying rents of various types, fee-farm grants, etc. Yet they have to live. They have to keep their cows, produce calves, rear them to be bullocks and stores, and sell them. We are going to give them no relief whatsoever. The only way we could have helped them would be by a system of de-rating. I should like to remind the President and the Minister for Finance, who is now present, that there is an organisation of farmers in the country who are very great supporters of the present Government and who feel that the only way you can help these particular farmers is by honouring the bond you gave, that you would give complete de-rating. While I do not hold any particular brief for these farmers I should like to remind the Government that that is the only way you could help these farmers. Now it appears that de-rating as a policy has been dropped, and that the non-payment of land annuities has been dropped also. I remember a certain doctrine was preached in 1922-23, that no land annuities should be paid, that the Free State should be broken up and that the best way to achieve that was that nobody should obey the law or carry out any obligations that the law imposed. While I do preach, and have always preached the doctrine of obedience to the law, I say that the present Government, because of the hardships which they are now inflicting on 49 or 50 per cent. of the people of the country by their present policy, by putting these people, as Deputy MacDermot has said, in the front line trench, should meet them with something more than this Bill gives them.

According to official returns the Irish farmers have lost something between £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 in seven months. The land annuities amount only to £3,000,000 per annum. It is a big sum I admit, and I wish I had it, but £3,000,000 as against £7,000,000 is a comparatively small sum. It means that the farmer loses £1 to save 10/- and that you are now proposing to give him only 5/- out of that 10/-. You are only giving him half the amount of the land annuities and you expect him to stand the whole racket for your land annuities policy, your ex-R.I.C. pensions policy and your policy for the non-payment of local loans, etc. Why should you do that? If there is a farmer Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches, I should like to ask him a question. Is he prepared to vote for that treatment of the farmer? Is he prepared to vote for a policy that is going to take from the farmers of this country a sum of approximately £15,000,000 per annum to gain £3,000,000, of which you are only going to give the farmers £1,500,000? You are also going to charge him 4 per cent. on your funded annuities.

I am perfectly satisfied that the amendment is the only policy that the Government could adopt without any question or without any loss of prestige to themselves. It is only fair and equitable that during the continuance of the economic war no land annuities should be collected. That is the net substance of the amendment as I read it. The amendment reads:—

Inasmuch as by the operation of British tariffs on Saorstát agricultural produce farmers are discharging the interest and sinking fund payments on guaranteed Land Stock, the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to the Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill, until proposals have been introduced by the Executive Council providing that pending the solution, by arbitration, agreement or otherwise, of the outstanding disputes between them and the British Government, land purchase annuities shall not be collected or payable whether in respect of lands purchased under the pre-Treaty Land Purchase Acts or the Land Act, 1923, and subsequent Acts.

I think that is the only way by which the present Government can honour the bond they have given to the people. I think that Deputy Cosgrave in tabling an amendment such as this, is helping the Government in a very definite way. There is only one reason why the Government should refuse to accept the amendment and that is that it has been tabled by Deputy Cosgrave. If they do not accept it that can be the only reason.

I submit to the President that that is not a just or equitable reason, that he should accept the amendment in the spirit in which Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy O'Higgins have proposed it and that he should try to give effect to it without evasion or pressing. I suppose if I wanted to make a case as to why Deputy Cosgrave should not table this amendment, I could perhaps put forward reasons as to why it should not be proposed, but as far as I can see when Deputy Cosgrave tabled the amendment he was really helping the Government. He was helping them in a way that was constructive and that was helpful to the people, a way that was just and equitable. I further want to remind the Government that when they went before the electorate at the last election and said: "Vote for us; make us the Government again independent of all Parties and you will have peace and plenty," the people did so. The Government now has a majority over all Parties. The people have done their part and it is up to you now to do yours. I ask you to do it because, as I have said before, the farmers are the backbone of this country and if the farmers collapse, this country collapses and it will not be worth even a Fianna Fáil Government.

I thought that as a result of the last election, we would have had an end to exhibitions such as we have witnessed again this afternoon. Every one of the questions that were raised here, was raised before the electorate. The people who have got to face these burdens, which we admit have been placed upon them, did not hesitate in the answer they gave. I had hopes that that answer was sufficiently clear to deter members of the Opposition, who admit that we have got a majority, and have got upon our shoulders the responsibility of safeguarding the national interests, from doing what they have been attempting to do once more to-day. I ask them to look across at another House of Parliament in another place where this same issue has been discussed more than once. Will you find members of the Opposition there suggesting, as one Deputy here suggested, that the action of the Government was disreputable? It is disreputable, according to certain Irish representatives, for an Irish Government to stand by its interpretation, as it sees it, of a legal case in which it has been definitely supported, not merely by the opinion of lawyers, but by public opinion; but it is not disreputable for Mr. Thomas to suggest that this Government has violated the sanctity of agreements. You will not find any member of the British House of Commons saying that the Government there is disreputable because it does not accept our statement of our case. We have got a responsibility and it is a serious responsibility.

It is a serious responsibility for a small people and for the Government of a small people. I asked Deputy MacEoin, when he was speaking a few moments ago, to carry his mind back to 1919 and 1921. I asked him what he would have thought at that time of people who, pointing to the burdens that the inhabitants of the country had to bear and the sufferings they had to endure, would say that these burdens and these sufferings were sufficient reason why we should surrender. I know what Deputy MacEoin would then have said to anybody who would have uttered a remark of that kind. I ask the Deputy to remember these days.

I ask him to remember that we have this serious burden placed upon our shoulders. Let him remember, too, that we have not willed this thing. There was no alternative left to the Government except to stand by its rights and refuse to surrender. The moneys we hold we claim to be our own; we can show good cause for holding them. We have told the opposite party that we are prepared to meet them in negotiation, that we are prepared to submit the matter to arbitration, but that the arbitral court must be a world court and not one dictated by them.

I am not at all questioning the President's sincerity on that point, but I think he might give some consideration to the sufferings of the people.

I will come to the Bill later on. I am talking on the general principles at the moment. I have been trying to show that the present Government here has not adopted this course as a matter of choice. No other choice was left to us if we were to defend our interests. We have told the British that we are open to negotiate and we have showed our sincerity by going over more than once. We are prepared to permit this matter to go to arbitration provided the court is a world court. The British tried to make it a matter of principle that it should be confined to a Commonwealth court. We, as an equal matter of principle, are not going to submit it to a Commonwealth court.

It is ridiculous to suggest, as Mr. Thomas suggested recently in the British House of Commons, that there was an agreement that we should go before a Commonwealth court. Nothing of the kind. Anybody who reads intelligently the report of the 1930 Imperial Conference will realise that the agreement was this: that, first of all, they should agree to submit it; that if there was agreement to submit it to a Commonwealth tribunal it would be of a certain character. But there was no agreement that disputes between ourselves and Great Britain or between Great Britain and South Africa or any of the States within what is called the British Commonwealth should, as a matter of right and duty, be submitted to such a court. There was no such agreement. It was not we who were represented at that Conference; it was our opponents on the other benches. They equally maintain with us, and no less rigidly than we, that they would not have it as a matter of compulsion to go to any such court. We are, therefore, acting in accordance, not merely with what we think right, but what our opponents, when they were sitting here, thought right. Do they want us to go back on that and accept the conditions that Mr. Thomas and the British Government attach to arbitration? I hope they do not. They have not said so, at any rate, and I trust their attitude to-day is at least as good as it was then. What can we do? Continue to pay this five and three-quarter million pounds a year?

We are not able.

You were not able to pay it very well for the past four or five years, but yet you continued to pay it. The Deputies on the opposite benches, when in power, said it was an obligation that had to be met. They paid the money and squeezed the Irish farmer in order to pay it. There was no question whatever of letting the annuitants off with half then. There was no election then.

It would be immoral.

It would be immoral to do it then, but when an election came on Deputy Cosgrave, in the manner of a bidder at an auction, said that the things which were immoral before could now be done in order to win the election. This amendment is of the very same character—another bid—and the Irish people, if it were put to them, would treat it in the same way that the House will deal with it to-night.

The President is talking of the rights and wrongs between himself and Great Britain. I submit that the Bill before the House deals with the remission of half the land annuities.

If I am out of order I will be put right by the Chair. I am going to make my own speech now and I will deal with the narrower issues in the proper time. I am dealing with the fundamentals of this dispute. Why is this thing being argued?

On a point of order, I respectfully submit that what we are discussing is the motion for Second Reading, plus the amendment. I respectfully suggest that the President has gone far outside that.

Have not several Deputies also traversed the same ground as the President is traversing?

Quite so. The President is in order.

The debate is a rambling one and I can understand why it is a rambling one, and why the various aspects of this question should have been adverted to in one way or another. Has the burden been placed upon our farmers of set purpose, so to speak, by the Executive Council? It has been placed upon the Irish farmers because the Executive Council have had to defend the interests of the people of this country, and the action taken by the British Government has been taken because we are defending these interests. The issue is quite plain. You have either to surrender and do what the British want you to do, or you have to face whatever burdens may follow. There is no other way out of it. We have been told of the £5,000,000 or the £7,000,000. Deputy Belton ran our losses in the last year up to £600,000,000, capitalising them. He has not tried to capitalise the losses we have already sustained by the payment of five and three-quarter millions for the last ten years, or the loss we would sustain if this five and three-quarter million pounds were to be a continued payment for a number of years. Of course, Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy MacDermot and other Deputies have got some way up their sleeves by which they are to go over and get the good British Government to give us this money. I wish they would tell us how. I think it was Deputy Cleary who said here a while ago that he would like very much to hear how that was to be done. During the election I asked them to tell us. All we got from Deputy Cosgrave was that he would go over and make a settlement in three days. Again, the secret is carefully kept. Now the Irish people have heard all that tune and they have shrewdly come to the conclusion that there is nothing behind it. They have shown by their sound commonsense that they are ignoring it and that they are facing realities in this matter. They know that this thing will get them nowhere. But the Irish people are prepared to make these sacrifices, whatever they mean, in order that their right to retain these vast sums of money will be vindicated.

Coming to the immediate issue in the Bill what does it do? It simply gives the House an opportunity of passing its judgment on the intention of the Executive to pay these moneys out. Up to the present time these moneys have been held in a Suspense Account and it is proposed to make them available for Exchequer purposes. That is the real purpose of this Bill. As evidence of our good faith and our desire to settle this dispute amicably, without inflicting injuries on our own people or without inflicting injuries on the other party, we put these moneys in a separate account pending the result of arbitration. But no progress is being made. Are we going to leave these moneys there indefinitely? Are we going to do the sensible thing and utilise them for our current means knowing, as Deputy MacDermot has already said, that our credit is good and that if we should go finally to arbitration and if by any possible chance there was to be an award against us our credit would enable us to meet any demand that that award would bring? We are using these moneys because there is an immediate need for using them. That is the purpose of the Bill. Does it bring either nearer or further away the question of a settlement? Neither one nor the other. It was a gesture on our part. We did that to start with. We did not talk about it. We did it as an ordinary matter of safety and from the point of view of having this money immediately available. That was not apparently known to the British Minister, Mr. Thomas, until it was accidentally mentioned in the House of Commons. It was only then it was made known and he asked us the question. There was no on our part to tell him before that. When we were asked about it we told him it was so.

Keeping the moneys in the Suspense Account was only a gesture. It was as if we said "here is the money." If, by any chance, the award should go against us the money was there available. The position to-day is the very self-same, because if the award did go against us, then we should have a demand on the national credit to find that money. Our attitude is: "We will meet that obligation when it arises; we are not going to continue to keep these moneys for an indefinite obligation when there is immediate need for their use if there is not to be further taxation on our people." The attitude of the Deputies on the other side would be to put taxation on the farmers instead. Are we going to tax the members of the community to make good this money, to provide this money, if it is not used for Exchequer purposes? Money can only be got in one way—either by taxation or by borrowing. Naturally, the uses to which it would be put would be those to which it would be proper to put moneys raised by taxation. If these moneys are not used for current Exchequer purposes they will have to be replaced by other sums, and our attitude is that if by any chance in the end an obligation of this sort to pay these moneys were to be upon us, then we should find these moneys. Instead of finding these moneys later we can find them in the present instance. We might have to borrow later and I think borrowing for that purpose would be justified in such an event.

Now, the next thing is this suggestion that we are not thinking of the people in the front-line trenches at all; that we are not thinking of the farmers at all and that somehow or other we have been guilty of bad faith towards them. These statements have been made, but there has been no attempt to justify them. As a matter of fact, I think that other sections of the community are beginning to complain that we think too much of the farmers' interests and too little of the interests of other sections. We have responsibility not merely for the farming community but for the whole community. There are people who are out of work. Their right to live and to get an opportunity of living is as sacred as the right of the farmer to get money for his cattle. The interests of the whole community have to be safeguarded. I think that this Government has not been unmindful either of the interests of the agricultural community in general, or the kind of special interest we ought to take in them. Now, as I admit, they are the people in the front-line trenches in this particular matter.

What have we done for the farmers? The first thing suggested here is that this money is the farmers' money that we are appropriating. First of all, I want to deal with that. Whose money is this land annuities money which we have collected from the Irish farmers? First, is it the farmers' money in the sense that it is their property, in the sense that it belongs to the agricultural community? No such thing. That money belongs to the community as a whole. Because it was on the credit of the community which was formerly part of the United Kingdom that the advances made available to the farmers were raised. They were raised on the credit of the community as a whole.

We have become successors to the rights of that community of Great Britain and Ireland. That is our case. Therefore these are State moneys. Let nobody forget that. That is our attitude. It has never been otherwise. We never told the Irish farmer that the money would not be collected from him and we never told him that the money was his. We told him definitely at the start that these moneys belonged to the State. We said to them: "They will be collected from you because it is a payment due by you to the State, and having been collected they will be there in the common Treasury and they can be used in just the same way as the moneys raised through taxation or other methods can be used, either in relief of general taxation or they can be used for special purposes associated with the agricultural industry."

We said very definitely that as these very moneys were coming from the produce of the agricultural community and as that industry was the basic industry, that we considered it would be in the interest of the community as a whole to make these moneys available for the development and the advancing of that industry. That is something that the farmers did understand. I say that as one who, when on the Opposition Benches, always stood up for the farmers' interests and as one who always tried to get the previous Government here to realise that agriculture was passing through a very trying period. I said the period was so difficult it would justify the community, as a whole, standing in and helping the farming community through that particular crisis. I want the farmers to realise that the community is giving them a very liberal gift when it is relinquishing its rights to these annuities and handing them over to a section—to the farming community— because that is, in fact, what is being done. We are giving not merely half, but the whole of the annuities to the agricultural industry. You will say that we are only giving half. I pointed out before that we are giving the whole. Every penny that is to come into this State from the land annuities in the future is to go back to the farming industry alone, and other sections of the community are not going to benefit one penny. I gave you the figures before and, if you examine them for a moment, you will see that what I say is being done.

We are going to collect half annuities from the people who are buying out under the 1923 Act, half from the people who bought out under the earlier Acts and half from the people who will buy out in the future. We are going to collect from those only half the annuities for which they would have been liable if this particular Bill we are to introduce was not introduced. Remember, it is only the annuities under the Acts prior to 1923 that were going over to England and that are in question. We have to make provision out of the half of these for the half annuities arising out of the 1923 Land Act and for the half annuities in respect of those who will purchase in the future. Therefore, let the farming members of the community realise that the community has surrendered to them for the whole period of sixty years the right to receive the moneys coming back to the community in redemption of the advances for which the community was responsible. Let no farmer Deputy here and let no farmer in the country say that the community has been ungenerous to him in that regard. It has been quite generous.

I remember, when dealing with this matter in public first, telling the farmers that we would give them £2,000,000 out of the £3,000,000, and that the community was only going to retain in the Treasury £1,000,000 out of the £3,000,000 for general purposes— reduction of taxation, social services and other matters for which it might be decided to utilise it. I suggested that it was possible, or probable, it would be utilised for the development of the agricultural industry, but I made no promise about it. Now, we have Deputies coming along and suggesting that we have been changing our tactics —that we intended to have de-rating, and that we have run away from de-rating. Our attitude was that there was a sum of £3,000,000 in question in respect of the land annuities. We said that £2,000,000, at least, would go back to the farming community. As that coincided roughly with the amount necessary for the completion of de-rating, we said it could be applied— we probably said it would be applied— to that purpose, leaving £1,000,000 in the Treasury for general purposes. On consideration of the whole question as to how best £2,000,000 could be devoted to the farming industry, we came to the conclusion—I said this not after the election, but before it and during it— that it was better to leave the money in the farmers' pockets than to collect it and give it back in any other way. That position was before the farmers during the election and I do not think that any of them were foolish enough to think that they could have it both ways, that they were going to get half their annuities back—the whole of the amount of the annuities as I explained —and have de-rating at the same time. That simply could not be done. Lest there should be anybody foolish enough to think that, I explicitly stated that that was not contemplated. In the name of the community, we have given to the farming industry the whole of the money coming from the land annuities.

A question has been raised as to the farmers' title. One of the reasons that I should like that the farmers should continue to pay something for their land to the Central Treasury is that I am anxious to safeguard the title of the farmers. Which way would the farmers' title be better preserved: by refusing to pay back anything to the Central Treasury—the treasury of the community in whose name the advances have been made— or by paying back something to secure themselves, so that the individual can say, "I paid for that; it is mine." Which policy is the better one? I think that the people who have been making suggestions of Communism here to-night are working directly in favour of such policies the moment they suggest that the farmer should be completely relieved of the obligation to pay anything for his land.

Only while the economic war is on.

Only while it is on, but it is hard enough, as everybody knows, to collect State debts from any section of the community that can be strongly organised politically. There is nobody here that does not know that. When they have not paid for four or five years, do you think they will begin to pay then? Of course, Deputy MacEoin is very innocent when he wants to be.

Not a bit of it.

I can deal with that some other time. We promised to have the vote on this motion at 7.30.

Would I be permitted to ask the President a question?

Yes, before 7.30.

I already put the question in my very brief speech— whether any relief is proposed for farmers who are not in the position of having purchased their lands under the Land Acts?

The number of such farmers is very small. I am afraid that we shall not be able to make any special provision for them. I am only speaking of that part of the assistance which has reference to the land annuities. Apart from that, they will share the other assistance with the rest of the farming community.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Ta, 76; Níl, 53.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Mícheál.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Joseph.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadha.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Davitt, Robert Emmet.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Kent, William Rice.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Bennett and Seán Brodrick.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 50.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Mícheál.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Joseph.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadha.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Good, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Kent, William Rice.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Davitt, Robert Emmet.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies O'Donovan and Holohan.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday March 16th.
Top
Share