Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 11

Supplementary Estimate. - Vote 55—Land Commission.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken) (for Minister for Lands and Fisheries)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £800,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig Choimisiún Talmhan na hEireann (44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 46, agus c. 71, a. 4; 48 agus 49 Vict., c. 73, a. 17, 18 agus 20; 53 agus 54 Vict., c. 49, a. 2; agus 55 Vict., c. 48; 3. Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 agus c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Uimh. 27 agus Uimh. 42 de 1923, Uimh. 25 de 1925, Uimh. 11 de 1926. Uimh. 19 de 1927; Uimh. 31 de 1929, agus Uimh. 11 de 1931).

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £800,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 46 and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38 and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos 27 and 42 of 1923, 25 of 1925, 11 of 1926, 19 of 1927, 31 of 1929, and 11 of 1931).

This Estimate is necessitated by the decision of the Government to grant a moratorium to annuity payers for the first gale of the present year and substantial reductions in the annuities for the second gale. The annuities payable under the Land Acts 1923 to 1931 are paid into the Land Bond Fund and constitute the source of the half-yearly payments of interest on the Land Bonds issued for the purchase moneys of estates under these Acts. The Estimate is for the purpose of enabling the Land Bond Fund to meet the half-yearly payments of interest on Land Bonds due on the first of July next and on the first of January, 1934, and consequently the only annuities taken account of in the Estimate are those under the Land Acts 1923 to 1931.

The moratorium for the annuities payable on 1st May this year is estimated to amount to £535,000. The full amount collectible for the gale is £557,300, but of this sum not more than 4 per cent. (i.e. £22,300) is expected to be collected—the balance having to be contributed by the Exchequer. This sum will, however, not be lost as the Government propose to recover the amount with interest at 4½ per cent. by charging the tenant-purchasers Funding Annuities to repay same over 50 years from 1st May, last.

The reduction of annuities for the second gale of this year is estimated to cost the Exchequer the sum of £283,580. The full amount payable for that gale is £557,300 which by the Government proposals in new Land Bill will be reduced to £273,720. The deficiencies arising in the Land Bond Fund in the complete year ending 31st March, 1934, are arrived at by adding the estimated cost of the moratorium for the first gale of 1933 (say £535,000) and the reductions for the second gale (say £283,580) making a total deficiency for the year of £818,580. The excess over the amount of the estimate (i.e. £18,580) will be met out of the sum provided under sub-head J of the original Land Commission Vote advance to meet deficiency of income from Untenanted Lands purchased under the Land Acts 1923-31.

It should be clearly borne in mind that this Estimate does not involve any ultimate demand on the taxpayer as it will be more than off-set by the receipt in November and December next of 50 per cent. of the annuities under the Land Acts prior to 1923 formerly paid to Great Britain and of the first half-yearly instalment of the Funding Annuities estimated to amount in all to £1,165,000. If this sum of £800,000 were not provided the deficiencies arising from the funding of arrears and revision of annuities would, under existing legislation, fall to be met out of the Guarantee Fund.

Mr. Cosgrave

I have given notice to move: "That the Supplementary Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." The principle that is involved in this Estimate raises, perhaps, the biggest issue which will come before the Dáil in connection with the Estimates. It is presented to us in the form of a concession to the farmers. While agriculture remains, and it must remain in present world conditions, the main source of productive employment and wealth, this Vote may be said to represent the opinion of the Executive Council as to the capacity of agriculture in so far as its overhead charges are concerned; but it must be borne in mind that this concession to farmers is being made at a time when a very big reduction is made in the amount of the grant which is voted in relief of rates. If we allow, for the sake of argument, that this particular concession meets the necessities of the case, all agriculturists are not land annuitants. Consequently, one would expect that the Government would make some provision for those who are not in the position of getting any advantages from this particular concession.

The reason why I propose to send this Vote back is that in our view what is demanded in this case is in excess of the capacity of farmers or of agriculturists to make at the present time out of their industry. The very fact that the Government considers that agriculture should bear the whole of the cost of the annuities up to May and June of this year, that is, the May and June annuities of last year, the November and December annuities of last year, and the May and June annuities of this year, forces us to the conclusion that the Executive Government considers that agriculture is in a prosperous condition. Funding these annuities up to date and starting the concession which the Government proposes to grant in new legislation is only a temporary relief. It could be justified if there were prospects in the immediate future of a restoration of the prices which agriculturists were accustomed to receive during the past few years. It must be remembered also that during those years the protagonists of the present Government in power and the Government when it was in Opposition, were continually, here in the House and outside on the hustings, focussing public attention on the difficulties of agriculture, on the necessity of relieving the industry of agriculture of every possible burden, and pointing out that taxation, land annuities and rates, at the then standard of charges which prevailed, were beyond the means and the subsistence which could be got from land in this country. In the short space of 12 months conditions have worsened very considerably for agriculture. The other day, here in the House, the Minister for Agriculture informed us of a question which had been put in the British House of Commons regarding the price of fat cattle for some period in May—the 25th of May—and the price per cent. live weight of first quality fat cattle was announced for the 17th of May as 40/10 as compared with 49/10 per cwt. for the corresponding week in 1932. That is very interesting; but of much more moment to agriculturists here in this country is what the price of fat cattle was in the Dublin market on an equivalent date. On the 18th of May, 1933, as reported in the "Irish Times" of the 19th of May, the average price was 27/6 per cwt., that is approximately 33? per cent. less than the British price.

As far as this Estimate is concerned, the mere funding of the May and June annuities shows clearly that the Government considers that this industry is capable of bearing, having regard to those prices, the burden of the annuities up to date, because the so-called concession does not run and will not run until the Bill which was introduced this evening is passed into law and then it would only operate as and from November and December next. The price of fat cattle at corresponding dates in previous years should be taken into account. In 1932 it was 44/- on the Dublin market and, while the Minister was at pains to emphasise the big drop of 9/- from 49/-, we have to consider here the drop of 16/6 from 44/- and, at the same time, to bear in mind the fact that in the opinion of the Executive Council the annuities can be paid in full because the mere funding of them is only a temporary relief and they are going to be paid and must be paid according to law if this estimate and the Bill that the Minister introduced this evening passes into law. Consequently, I move that this Estimate be referred back for further consideration.

Here in the House within the last week references were made to what were called doleful speeches contributed by certain members from these benches. I should say that a statement by the Minister for Agriculture would be taken as a fair sample of an optimistic statement on the other side of the House. Here are some of his remarks as reported in the "Sligo Independent" of the 3rd of June of this year:—

"I want to assure you," declared Dr. Ryan in conclusion, "that the Government is not unaware of the condition of the people. We know that times are bad; that the farmer finds it hard to make ends meet; that the labourer finds it hard to get work, and that the shopkeeper finds it hard to get his money."

That is not a very optimistic statement—a statement of fact, a statement which, taken in conjunction with this Vote, means that the annuities for the current time are going to be paid, if not to-day on some other day, because they are to be added to the future payments which will fall to be made by tenant purchasers and they are made at a time when the price of one particular article sold in the Dublin market—probably the most important article we produce—has gone down from 44/- per cwt. to 27/6 in 12 months. Going through the list of the exports of agricultural produce in this country, that is not the only indication of a reduction either in output or in price. This morning I was given figures which showed that for ten months the export of horses amounted to 3,565. For the year 1931, which was a bad year, the exports amounted to 10,000. The figures in respect of the various other items show either a contraction or a huge reduction in price. Let us take a particular item which is of consequence to the families of farmers, the families of labourers and of the smallholders throughout the country—the raising of poultry and the export of poultry. For the month of April this year the exports amounted to £225 as against £3,568 last year. Those figures, which are compiled and published by the Government, indicate a state of affairs which would justify a reconsideration of this Estimate. We increased the exports of fat cattle in the month of April from almost 9,000 which we exported last year to over 11,000 this year. The price received last year for the 9,000 was £168,000 approximately. The price received this year for the 11,000 was slightly under £150,000. Store cattle show a reduction in receipts of £100,000; milch cows from £377,000 to £277,000; milch cows and springers from £77,000 last year to £17,000 this year. Calves are up from £43,000 to £68,000. There is a lesson to be learned from that. If we are going to give other people the opportunity of rearing the stock which was formerly reared, and out of which money was raised, in this country, it is going to be serious for the main industry of the country. The export of horses for the month of April last year was £63,000: this year it is £35,000.

Assuming for the moment that a certain majority of the people in this country want the Government's policy, want to do what the Government wishes to carry out in connection with this whole scheme, surely there has been time in the course of 12 months to consider what further efforts might be made in respect of the industry of agriculture. No class of the community, no order of the community, has suffered as agriculturists have suffered during the last 12 months. Their losses are not confined to themselves. The losses which are borne by agriculture affect other classes of the community, because if there is an interruption in the circulation of money in the main industry there must be a reduction in the money in circulation in the secondary industries of the country. In consequence, I say there is now attempted to be imposed upon this industry in the country burdens beyond its capacity to bear, burdens which will result in making the condition of a certain number of men and women hopeless, and which will place whole families in a position from which it will ultimately be impossible to rescue them. The losses are not confined to any one class or one order. The losses will not be equated as between the different individuals in a certain order in the community. If by reason of these imposts people are driven to the wall— or to the lunatic asylum—a very serious responsibility will rest on the Executive Council.

I move to send back this Estimate for reconsideration, because all the facts, all the figures, all the information that we can get about the home and export trade, are such as to convince us that the agricultural industry cannot bear any land annuities during this year, and that in fact if the Government were wise, far-seeing and had a comprehensive policy, they would relieve them even of rates. Accordingly I move that the Estimate be sent back.

Mr. Bennett

I am supporting Deputy Cosgrave in proposing that this Estimate be referred back. I do not think it will be at all necessary to make a very long speech in support of that intention. We have had at various times in this House within the last ten or 12 months the difficulties of the farmers put in various shapes and forms. One does not have to rely on figures to demonstrate the farmers' losses. Statistics and figures are altogether unnecessary to the ordinary farmer to verify his losses. One has only to take a short holiday in any country district, and the most unenlightened member of the community will get sufficient evidence to satisfy him that the conditions in agriculture are more than depressed. Deputy Cosgrave a moment ago read some statistics proving a loss in cattle. The loss as represented by statistics does not at all show the losses that the ordinary farmer has suffered. The loss is anywhere from £4 to £8 a head, possibly more in some cases. In Kerry certain classes of cattle are I should say not practically but altogether unsaleable. Certain classes of smaller cattle in districts like Kerry are absolutely unsaleable. This Estimate proposes to fund certain moieties of the annuities in such a manner that the farmer will have to pay. A certain number of us on this side of the House have always advocated during the last 12 months that during the continuance of this economic war the farmers should not be asked to pay any annuities at all; that it is an injustice to make the farmers pay an annuity under present circumstances. Conditions have got much worse since we made that proposition last year and early this year. The Minister for Agriculture himself, speaking last November when there was only a 20 per cent. imposition of duty by the British, estimated the all-round loss on cattle by farmers at £4 a head. That was before the imposition of the 40 per cent. duty. It does not need any great effort in mathematics to calculate what their loss is now when there is a 40 per cent. duty. One does not need to elaborate the loss on sheep and other animals, and other agricultural products, to demonstrate that the conditions of the farmer are such at the moment that if an effort were made to collect the annuities from them it would lamentably fail. That being so, it is unjust that the Government should ask for these annuities at all. There is another reason which makes the farmer's position even more deplorable than it was. Not alone has the price of his produce gone down but his local rates are higher this year than they were the previous year. There is a considerable addition to the local rates of the farmer by the lessening of a certain grant. Altogether his conditions are such that it would be impossible for him to, in any circumstances, meet the annuities if asked for them, and we consider that it is unjust for the Government to ask an impossibility of the farmers. We have advocated, and we advocate now, that no annuities should be asked of the farmer during the continuance of the economic war. We reiterate that. We maintain that we find it impossible to support this Estimate and we have to demand that it be reconsidered.

Mr. Anthony

On similar Estimates and Supplementary Estimates in this House I have frequently attempted to relate the position of the townsman to the position of the agriculturist. I do not intend to do so now, but I would like to stress particularly the plight in which the agriculturists find themselves. In my constituency there are about 5,000 farmers. I have on many occasions had complaints from my constituents as to their position since the present Government took office. The Minister read so rapidly that I was unable to take any notes of his statement, but I gathered from him that there is a considerable deficiency, or an anticipated deficit, of something like £283,500. If my figures are wrong, that is due to the rapidity with which the Minister read his statement.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is an asset— there is £800,000 of a deficiency.

Mr. Anthony

He suggests that this deficit will be made up by the Exchequer. The Exchequer is a very comprehensive term. The Exchequer derives all of its revenue from the ordinary taxpayer. In this instance, the balance is to be made up by the Exchequer and a very considerable sum of money is involved. This Government promised us, before they took office, that they would reduce taxation by at least £2,000,000 without inflicting—to quote their own words— hardship on any section of the community. It certainly cannot be suggested now that hardship has not been inflicted on every section of the community. We have the farmers telling us every other day that they are unable to pay their rates. We have local bodies, county councils and others, protesting that they cannot collect the rates. In some cases a mandamus has been issued against local bodies to compel them to strike the rates. When these councils refused to strike the rates they were not actuated by any dishonest motives; they felt that the people they represented were unable to pay those rates.

The Government, before they took office, placarded the country with leaflets and pamphlets declaring that if and when they got into power they would give farmers full de-rating. According to the view expressed to me by agriculturists in County Cork, they would prefer to be fully derated and, under present circumstances, they would prefer particularly to be put on a level with their northern neighbours rather than be called upon to pay rates which they cannot afford to pay and which the industry is not capable of paying. In that connection, the Cork County Committee of Agriculture wrote to me a couple of weeks ago asking me to bring before the House a resolution which they passed unanimously, and which is as follows:—

"That we, the Cork County Committee of Agriculture, having invited the members of the Cattle Trade Association and agricultural organisations in the county, as well as others interested in the industry, to discuss the present deplorable position which has arisen since the imposition of tariffs, after careful consideration are of opinion the time has fully arrived to ask the Minister for Agriculture and the members of the Dáil in the City and County to use influence with our Government to take up negotiations with the British Government for the reopening of the markets by the removal of tariffs, for the disposal of our surplus produce at present on hands, with a view to enabling the people to meet their liabilities in the present depression and to help to retain the services of the farm labourer so as to enable him to maintain his family, thereby reducing the unemployment list, which is a most serious issue for the Government and State."

In the face of the last dozen words of that motion we have a suggestion coming from a Government official that the farmer should substitute his relatively well-paid male labour by female labour at a cheaper price.

We are told that one of the first interests, almost the paramount interest, that this Government has at heart is the interest of the agriculturist. It must be regarded as a truism that increased expenditure by this or any other Government will mean increased taxation. The money that goes into the Exchequer is paid by the ordinary taxpayer. The Minister for Finance has not an inexhaustible well from which to draw capital for this and every other kind of State expenditure. It is time we called a halt to this kind of legislation in which with one hand we almost cripple an industry and, with the other hand, we attempt to succour it by this method of supplementary estimate. The farmer has suffered many losses that possibly may not be known to many members of the House. We know that many small farmers around the western seaboard combine fishing with farming. This year has been a very disastrous year for fishing. On some portions of the coast around Cork County, where farmers used to derive some small revenue from fishing, the receipts are absolutely nil this year. On the inland fisheries, largely because of the fact that these fisheries are, in the main, particularly in my county——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling a bit.

Mr. Anthony

These farmers have to pay rates and they will have to make up this money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not the main Estimate; it is a Supplementary Estimate. In this particular case we are confined to a deficiency in the annuities, and the proposed method of meeting that deficiency, and also the position of the Land Bond Fund. On the main Estimate, the Deputy can, of course, discuss the big fundamental issues, but he must not do so on a Supplementary Estimate like this.

Mr. Anthony

I bow to your ruling, but I understood the main Estimate did not provide sufficient money to meet the deficiency, and that this Supplementary Estimate is to make up for that deficiency. Consequently, I understood, I could relate this Supplementary Estimate to the main Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy will get an opportunity later of discussing what he has in mind.

Mr. Anthony

I will confine myself now, therefore, to the Supplementary Estimate. I merely set out to show that in so far as this Estimate concerns the people I represent, they feel they cannot bear any further burdens on their industry, which is mainly agriculture. As agriculture is our main industry, it naturally follows they will have to bear the main portion of the burden.

Mr. Minch

If the main body of citizens, whether they are small wage-earners or salaried earners, find that because of the stress of economic circumstances they are getting into debt or are in debt, then, whether you call this country Saorstát Eireann or a Republic, the fact of the matter is there is no liberty for anybody. If the Minister listens to Deputies on his own back benches, if he listens to the advice he will get in the different Departments, it must be brought home to him that the conditions of the country at the present time cannot last. There is nothing but hardship crawling through front doors and back doors. Whether one occupies a mansion in the country or a stores, or a retail shop in a town, there is nothing but economic desolation; and this is the time that the sum of £800,000 is to be borrowed. Borrowed on what? Borrowed on bankruptcy. How this is to be reconciled with raising the actual money afterwards is going to be a problem that will tax even the Executive Council. Everywhere one goes, and has the privilege of seeing confidential returns kept by those who keep their business in a scrupulous and businesslike way, knows there is nothing but loss—real loss.

Mr. Donnelly

What about the last ten years?

Mr. Minch

And in the vast majority of cases there are large overdrafts and small overdrafts which are proportionately affecting individuals in the same way. That is the condition in which one finds people in the country, whether engaged in agriculture or in ordinary business, living. I presume at a later stage we will have a full-dress debate on this question. I honestly and sincerely say that in speaking here to-night I have no desire to make a Party speech. My desire is to help people through their distress and hardship. My action is taken not with the intention of weakening the economic war from a national point of view, or to suggest that the knee should be bowed in surrender to any nation or people in the world. My object is to bring to home to the House what is not fully known in Dublin and that is the terrible distress existing in the country. In this, as in everything else, the Government are becoming subject to the influence of officialdom and bureaucracy. They are living only in a Dublin atmosphere and forgetting altogether about the rural atmosphere. £800,000 is to be borrowed on bankruptey. The farming community, on whom the towns exist, are contributing hardly anything to the towns now. The towns which in the past contributed to a very large extent to the advancement both politically and economically of this country are anæic and in decay. Nothing seems to be done; no hope seems to be held out. Sense seems to be cast aside. At one time I read in the "Irish Press" a leading article which stated that the economic war was going to bring back nationality to this country——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The economic war is not in order on this Estimate.

Mr. Minch

I bow to your ruling. But it seems to me that this policy of drift is not helping agriculture to get back its markets, but is rather going to lead ultimately to a shambles through which no Government will be able to pull the people.

Mr. MacDermot

I confess to being a little puzzled by Deputy Cosgrave's motion with regard to this Estimate. I do not know whether it is due to inexperience, or to my being dense, but I feel in need of further elucidation as to the logic of this motion and also, as to its practical effect. I understand this motion is rendered necessary by the decision of the Government to give an amount of relief, to the farmers which consists in funding annuities not due to economic war, but before the economic war. If support of Deputy Cosgrave's motion means that one is declaring one's belief that this sum is absolutely insufficient I would certainly support it. I stated, all along, ever since the economic war began, that there should be no exacting of annuities in any shape or form whether arrears or current annuities so long as it continued. In point of fact, we will have on the Land Bill, I presume, an opportunity of going into this question in all its aspects and proposing such amendments as may be deemed proper. Meanwhile, as regards this Estimate, would not referring it back be rather in the direction of stopping the relief proposed even though it is insufficient and only partial relief. Is it logical to do that? I may be mistaken in my outlook and I am open to conviction. At present I do not see what is the sense of referring the Estimate back for reconsideration and I should be glad of some enlightenment on this subject.

Mr. Cosgrave

The reason for sending back the motion is that we consider £800,000 insufficient as matters stand. The Government propose to collect in November and December next half of the annuities in respect of the Act of 1923 because this refers to that Act. Our contention is they should not be collected and that that sum of £260,000 should be added to his Estimate. For that reason we propose to send it back for reconsideration.

Mr. MacDermot

So it is quite distinct that it is to be sent back for the purpose of being increased.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I am not surprised that Deputy MacDermot did not follow the opening statement of the Minister for Finance because I agree with Deputy Anthony that his figures were read, one would think, with the intention of not affording information to the House rather than with the desire of conveying information to the House. Possibly if the Minister read the figures a little more slowly and clearly, if Deputy MacDermot will allow me to say so, he would not have fallen into the pardonable error that he has fallen into. Our object in bringing forward this motion is that the farmers shall not be asked to pay any portion of the annuities during the current year, whether funded or non-funded or in any other fashion. This motion does not deal with annuities before the economic war; it deals with the gale of annuities which became due in June of this year.

Mr. MacDermot

The present month.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I look upon this matter really as part and parcel of the whole Government policy. You bring the condition of affairs in this country into a desperately bad state. You find that people cannot pay their debts and that the Government itself cannot, out of its current revenue, carry on. Then you go and you adopt, and you urge other people to adopt, the very cheapest and worst of all methods of getting out of a difficulty. You say: "You have a little credit left, go and borrow". That is the position into which farmers are by force being put at present by the Government. They are in effect being forced to borrow to pay their debts. The Government say that the farmers owe them this last gale of annuities. They admit that the farmers are not in a position to pay the amount due under the last gale. Then they say: "Go and borrow; we will lend the money", because that is what it comes to. The farmers are going to have these annuities, as they had other annuities before, like a millstone tied round their necks for many years to come. Personally, I am not quite clear as to how many years are going to be taken to pay off the principal, interest and sinking fund on this current gale of annuities which is in effect a borrowed sum of money. Whether the time be long or short the persons who owe the annuities are compelled to borrow the money from the State at 4½ per cent. for the purpose of paying them. The object of the motion is that they should not be asked to pay this sum at all, certainly not asked during the currency of the economic war and during the currency of the economic conditions in this State which the policy of the present Government has brought about. The Government have taken from the farmers in the shape of annuities something like £1,600,000 this year and put it into the Exchequer. That is money which, in my opinion at any rate, the Government have absolutely no right to take and that is an opinion which I hold as confidently as I can hold any opinion. It seems to me that, if one thing is perfectly clear, it is that no Government has any right to the land annuities. The Government of this State has no right to them; the Government of Great Britain has no right to them. Neither the Government of this State nor the Government of Great Britain, who are merely in the position of agents, have got a right to intercept the payment of annuities going from the person who owes the annuities to the holder of the stock, who represents the person who lent him the money which he is repaying.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We shall pass from that now.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

With great respect, sir, I am putting forward the argument that the Government should not ask that this sum should be funded; that they should wipe it out because they have no right to collect it. I submit that that is a relevant argument. Anybody who honestly goes into the question with an open mind and examines the entire position, and who has got anything approaching average intelligence, cannot hold the view that this State has any right to these land annuities. They no more belong to this State than to Great Britain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is not this an estimate to make up for a deficiency in the collection of annuities and the proposed method of meeting that deficiency?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Then I cannot see the relevancy of this.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

My proposed method is that this gale should be completely wiped out and the Estimate increased for that purpose. Deputy Cosgrave's motion is that the Estimate should be referred back for that purpose. Surely no stronger argument for wiping it out could be put forward than that the Government have not the right to collect it. This £1,600,000 which has been taken should go back to the agriculturists.

Mr. Donnelly

Why did you collect them for the last ten years?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It should go back to the agriculturists to relieve their needs and, while conditions remain as they are at present, no further sums should be asked from them. This gale of annuities should not be funded. It is admitted that it cannot be paid. It is admitted that the Government have reduced the agricultural population to such a state that they cannot pay their way. It is admitted that the Government have reduced agriculturists to a state of penury. Now they come to this House under these conditions and say, in effect: "It is quite true we have ruined these men; we have prevented them paying their debts; now we are going to fasten round their necks this load of debt which is to remain for many years upon them." That is a position which we say the Government should not take up, which we say no Deputy who takes the slightest interest in the welfare of the farming community should support, and, at any rate, we intend to oppose it.

Mr. Fagan

The Government, in my opinion, would be well-advised to make other provision for the annuities besides asking the farmers to pay them, because the farmers are unable to pay. There may be some who can pay their annuities out of the reserves of former years, but there is not one farmer who can pay them out of the earnings of the past year. There were no profits made in the past year; there were only losses. Even if the Government did not collect the annuities that would not remove the hardships of the farmers in my constituency, but it would help to lessen their sufferings. The complete abandonment of the collection of rates, taxes and annuities would not compensate any farmer for the loss he has incurred in the economic war. There is not one farmer that I know of but would gladly pay all these if old prices could be restored. We are told that prices are bad in Great Britain. The prices there rule the prices in this country, but before we get these prices we have to pay a 50 per cent. tariff on our stock. It leaves us 50 per cent. worse off than the British farmer. For every £1 the British farmer pays us for our cattle we only receive 10/- Therefore farming in every sphere is, as I pointed out, being carried on at a loss. You cannot have it otherwise with these high tariffs against all our agricultural produce. Therefore I wish to support the sending back of this Estimate to the Government so as to increase the amount of relief to the farmer who is fighting this economic war.

Mr. Keating

To my mind I think it outrageous for the Government to ask the farmers to pay annuities under present circumstances. Before the last election the members of the Government went around telling the people that if Fianna Fáil were returned to power we would not have to pay any annuities. Then they modified that by saying that the farmers would have to pay the annuities but that the Government would keep them. Then the economic war started and the farmers have been suffering severely since. My annuity for my holding is £27 16/2. On the 20th June I shipped 13 cattle off my farm. I was charged as a tariff on these 13 cattle a sum of £56. How many times have I paid my annuities in the matter of these 13 cattle alone? The present Government wants, they say, to make this country prosperous but what they really are doing is killing the people who want to work. The people are being ruined by these tariffs. The more the farmer produces the more he has to pay. Then they tell you about the home market. As long as we have a surplus to sell that the home market cannot absorb, the home market is very little use to us because the home market price is governed by the price that we get for our exports. I submit that any man who is trying to live out of farming at the present time is paying his annuities three times over in tariffs. It is very unfair for the Government to ask the farmers to pay annuities pending the end of the economic war. The Government say they will not surrender. They will not surrender while the principal industry in the country is being ruined. How will you build up a nation if you bankrupt the farmers?

Mr. Donnelly

What about the people in the towns?

Mr. Keating

The Deputy asks what about the people in the towns. It is the countrymen and the farmers who bring their money into the towns who help to make the towns prosperous. The townsmen want the farmers' money and trade. If the farming industry, the principal industry in the country, is not prosperous the towns cannot be prosperous. If you carry on the economic war you will bankrupt the farmer and the people in the towns will be bankrupt when the farmers have no money to pay them. There is not one bit of use in the Government's saying "we will collect the annuities." Because of the inability of the farmers to pay it will be impossible to collect them; the money will not be there. The Government talks about funding the annuities of November and December, and May and June at 4½ per cent. That is only tightening the millstone around the farmer's neck for he is not able to pay and it is up to the Government to relieve him.

Mr. Donnelly

Surely Deputy Keating can pay the £27 a year.

Mr. Keating

No, while I am being charged a tariff of £56 on my cattle.

Mr. Donnelly

Surely you can pay £27 a year annuity. It is only 10/- a week.

Mr. Keating

Deputy Donnelly can make his own speech and I will make mine. I do not know whether he is a townsman or a countryman. I know that the more stock a farmer produces the more he has to pay. Between the Fianna Fáil Government and the British Government the farmer is being crushed out of existence. I may tell the Deputy that I was fighting landlordism in the time of Parnell and I have been fighting when he was not in the fight and when many of those on the Government Benches were not born.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is travelling very far from this Estimate.

Mr. Keating

I will get back to it again. My whole argument is the inability of the farmer to pay. I think that is clearly proved. It is up to the Government to help the farmer, or to finish up the economic war and let the farmer help himself. I have nothing more to add on this only to say: "God help the townsmen if the farmer is ruined."

Mr. Donnelly

The Deputy is only paying 10/- a week. He is only paying £27 a year.

Mr. Keating

I have told the House already what I paid on one lot of cattle. The Deputy can make his own speech. I will not interrupt him.

Mr. Donnelly

It is only 10/- a week he is paying for his farm.

Mr. Roddy

I have been just a little mystified by this Estimate introduced by the Minister. The Minister told Deputy Haslett to-day in reply to a question that for the year ending 31st March, 1933, the total amount of land annuities collected under the Land Acts, 1923 to 1931, was £448,603. In that case why is he asking for £800,000 now? Is he acting on the assumption that no annuities will be paid, under the Acts 1923 to 1931, on the second gale this year? I think the Minister stated also that the total annuities collected under the Acts up to 1923 was £1,165,000. If you deduct £448,000 from that £1,165,000 you have over £700,000 left. I was not able to follow the Minister because he read the figures so quickly and I was not able to get them clearly. I certainly do not understand how he arrives at the figure of £800,000. I think he also stated that a moratorium was granted in respect of annuities for the first gale this year. Notwithstanding that there is a moratorium in existence, his Department is sending out demands for annuities during that period. Within the last fortnight I saw numbers of such demands and it was only to-day that I saw others. I cannot at all understand why these demands are being sent out during the period when the moratorium was supposed to be operating. Apparently it is the Minister's intention to fund this £800,000 at 4½ per cent., plus, I assume, a half per cent. for sinking fund, so that the unfortunate farmer will have to be paying that annuity with 5 per cent. in respect of this £800,000 which is to be funded. In other words he will have to pay a higher annuity than was ever paid under any Land Act so far. That annuity of 5 per cent. is enormous, considering the present state of the money market. The Minister by virtue of the arrangement he is making in connection with the Vote on this annuity proposes to enhance the annuity. This arrangement is in every sense inequitable because the annuitant will be asked to contribute £800,000 for the purpose of funding the arrears of money due by the farmers over certain periods and the farmers themselves who are not annuitants and who are paying, some of them, very high rents at present, will have to make their contribution for the purpose of assisting other farmers. There are many farmers whose holdings are not at all covered by any existing Land Acts and yet these farmers, notwithstanding the loss they have suffered up to the present, will be asked to contribute still more in order to enable the Minister to carry out this funding arrangement for the purpose of assisting a certain limited small number of farmers who purchased under the Land Acts of 1923 to 1931. The arrangement on the face of it seems rather an extraordinary one and I feel that it is an arrangement that it will be very difficult to administer.

I should like to know from the Minister for what period he proposes to fund these arrears. Is the period to be 50 years? I think he did mention 50 years on one occasion in this Dáil. Is it to be for 50 years or 60 years or 80 years? If it is to be the full period to which the Land Act of 1923 is to run, then it should be possible under existing circumstances to fix a very much lower rate of interest. I agree with Deputies who have spoken that under existing circumstances the farmers are unable to meet even the half annuities plus whatever additional annuity will be fixed under this funding. As it is, in many counties the collectors find considerable difficulty in gathering in the rates and in many counties the collectors are unable to get the rates from many farmers because of the losses they have suffered so far in consequence of this unfortunate dispute between ourselves and Great Britain. It seems to me that a very strong case has been made for increasing the amount asked for in this Estimate to £1,000,000 in existing circumstances.

I should like the Minister also in his reply to clarify the position in regard to the payment of the annuities under the Land Act of 1923. Demands have been sent out to a certain number of people to pay these annuities, but there are many other people who acquired land under the Act of 1923 who have not been asked to pay either rents or annuities. I cannot understand why such a discrimination has been made, and I should like the Minister to indicate in his reply if it is his desire that those people who did acquire land under the Act of 1923 should pay their annuities even for the period in respect of which a moratorium was supposed to be in existence.

Mr. Nally

I should like the Minister in his reply to state if he is aware that the Land Commission have sent out within the last fortnight quite a number of demand notes all over the country. Down in Mayo, hundreds of receivable orders have been received within the last 14 days from the Land Commission asking the people to pay their rents. Assuming that they have paid their rents, I should like to know what is the intention of the Minister. Does he propose to refund that money to the tenants? I think he should make that quite clear in his reply.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy Roddy and Deputy Nally spoke about demand notes. These are for grazing rates. They are not the ordinary land annuities.

Mr. Roddy

No. I am prepared to send one to the Minister if he thinks so.

Mr. Aiken

It was not a bit if wonder that Deputy MacDermot was somewhat hazy about the discussion after listening to Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, because, I suppose, he has a right to suppose that two gentlemen who were in the Government for ten years should know at least a little as to what they were talking about. One would think that we propose to collect £800,000 from the farmers instead of making arrangements not to collect £800,000 from them. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney can plead that he is a little deaf and did not hear me rightly, but at least he is able to read, and he should have been able to read the note that was passed round to all the members of the Dáil setting out the terms of the Supplementary Estimate. It reads quite plainly, at any rate, in the copy which I have, that £800,000 is provided to meet deficiencies in the collection of annuities payable under the Land Acts from 1923 to 1931 and to enable payments to be made to the Land Bond Fund under Section 6 of the Land Bond Act of 1925. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was talking about bondholders and that we should be meticulous in passing on the money to England in order that the bondholders should be repaid. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Roddy at least should know what the Land Bond Act of 1925 is. If there is a deficiency in that Land Bond Fund the bondholders, who advanced the money to the Free State Government to purchase the lands from 1923 to 1931, cannot be paid. They should also know that care was taken at that time to ensure that that situation could never arise and that, if it threatened to arise, the deficiency in the Land Bond Fund was to be met out of the Guarantee Fund. Again, any deficiency in the Guarantee Fund is met out of the grants which the Government give in relief of local rates. So that, in effect, refusal to allow the passage of this sum of money means that the Deputies who vote for its refusal want one or other of two things; either they do not want the bondholders who advanced the money to the Free State Government for the purchase of the land to be paid, or they want the money to be paid out of the grants that usually go to local authorities.

It is no wonder that Deputy MacDermot was a bit amazed. I was amazed myself when I heard all the rubbish that Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney talked about this matter. It is as plain as a pike-staff to anybody. Deputy Roddy referred to the moneys that were collected. Replying to Deputy Haslett this morning I gave him the figures of the moneys collected under the Acts prior to the Treaty—the moneys that came in under the old British Land Acts. We are speaking here of the deficiency that will arise in the payments under the Land Acts from 1923 to 1931. That deficiency, when you take in the whole of the gales of May and June—or the funding of that—plus half the gale due in November and December, will amount roughly to £800,000. That has to be met.

Mr. Roddy

I think Deputy Haslett asked for the amount of unpaid annuities under the 1923 to 1931 Acts as well.

Mr. Aiken

I think the Deputy is mistaken. The question had reference to the old Acts, the original Land Purchase Act, and not to the 1923 to 1931 Acts.

Mr. Roddy

It was part of Deputy Haslett's question.

Mr. Aiken

You have a deficiency of £800,000 which has to be met. As I say, if the money is not paid into the Land Bond Fund, the Land Bond holders cannot be paid, and if the Government are forced to take it out of the Guarantee Fund that Guarantee Fund must be put in funds from the grants that are given to the local ratepayers.

Mr. MacDermot

Might I put this question to the Minister, again for elucidation as to the logical inference to be drawn from the support of Deputy Cosgrave's motion? Why should there not be a third inference, namely that the Estimate ought to be increased? Is there anything to rule that out as a logical inference?

Mr. Aiken

This Land Bond Fund has to be put in funds by the 1st July, and this is the last possible date to do it. The moneys must be transferred to-morrow.

Motion: "That the Supplementary Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"—put and declared defeated.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Dáil went out of committee.

Estimate reported and agreed to.