This is purely a formal Bill, similar to the one that was passed last year. It is to legalise the schemes that were submitted for the purchase of seeds and manures.
Agricultural Products (Regulation of Exports Bill), 1933—Money Resolution. - Seeds and Fertilisers (Supply) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
This is a most futile little Bill really. There was a very large problem here—that was the provision of seeds and manures for a great number of persons in this State who were not able to purchase manures for themselves, and who were forced in consequence this year to put down their crops without an adequate amount of manure, and in some instances without any at all. This matter however was very fully discussed on a motion which I brought forward in the House. My arguments then fell upon very deaf ears, and I do not think that the power of hearing in the Minister for Agriculture has improved since last March, and that there is no use in my going over the same ground again. What miserable little sums these are to deal with large problems! The grant to the constituency or rather to the county which I represent falls short even of £2,000. The Bill as far as it goes is to a certain extent right, but I think it should be upon the Government and not upon the county councils to have solved this problem. As I said, it is a miserable wretched little Bill which effects nothing. I have nothing further to say on it.
I would have thought that when introducing this Bill the Minister would have given us some information as to how this scheme worked since put into operation last year. There was a scheme similar to this introduced to the House by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health last year.
Dr. Ryan
It is his Bill of course.
In the Bill introduced last year the county, councils were authorised to supply seeds and manures for the people. My recollection of that Bill was that the county councils were supposed to supply them on loan, that the people were to pay for the seeds and manures after the harvest. That is I take it the intention of this Bill. I would be interested to know how far the facilities provided by that Bill were availed of and in how far were the county councils repaid. I imagine if we are to judge from our own experience on our farms if people paid for the seeds and manures last spring, very few of them would have been able to repay what they borrow this time. I will be very much interested to hear if any of them were able to repay. I hope they were. But I think we should consider this scheme in the light of our experience. The sum provided is not quite so small, £25,000. I think it would be desirable to know from the Minister how the last scheme worked in order to ascertain if some more profitable way of administering this scheme could not be devised.
Last year a number of county councils on the advice of the Minister gave out seeds and manures. Under the new regulations this year before any person could be supplied with seeds and manures they had to sign some sort of insurance. They had to get two solvent sureties. I would think that the county council under this Bill should be recouped for what was lost by them in this scheme. I do not think any county council should be asked to lose this money. Recoupment should be given to those county councils who gave out the seeds and manures last year. They should be treated so that the loss would not fall on the county council.
I have experience in the administering of these schemes for the past two years. About 50 per cent. of the seeds supplied in 1932 was paid in full and up to about two months ago, I should say roughly speaking 50 per cent. was still outstanding. Some of that money may have come in since. I estimate that there will be not less than 25 per cent. to fall on the county council. However it is a good scheme and it justified itself by enabling many who could not obtain the necessary seeds and manures for their land to sow their crops. The scheme is more than amply justified. In the modification of the scheme as operated this year the Government is guaranteeing to recoup the local authorities 50 per cent. of the losses on the scheme if there is any losses as the result of its operations. I think that is the Minister's idea. I disagree altogether with Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney when he suggests that the State should bear the responsibility for the whole cost of this scheme. Local responsibility is needed because then you will have more careful selection of the people who will be given the facilities under the scheme. I would advise, with a full sense of responsibility, that the scheme should proceed. It has justified itself, will justify itself in the future, and will be an earnest of the Government's intention to help those who have certainly had somewhat distressing times, from various causes, in the past.
A very diplomatic way of describing it! I thought the Minister was going to tell us something about how the last scheme worked.
I will give that information on the Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Friday, 21st July, 1933.