Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Oct 1933

Vol. 49 No. 18

Private Deputies' Business. - Relief of Rates on Agricultural Land.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Dáil condemns the action of the Government in reducing the total of the grants payable for the relief of rates on agricultural land. —(Deputies Belton, O'Higgins and Minch.)

In resuming the debate on the subject matter of the motion standing in the names of Deputies Belton, O'Higgins and Minch, I acknowledge that it has dragged out at considerable length, but if it has I consider that that is a matter of necessity as it is a matter of very great concern for the farmers of the Free State. On this question of derating it is unnecessary to go into its history, or at all events should be unnecessary. We know that at a certain period total derating was promised and there can hardly be any doubt in the minds of anybody as to what that meant. That promise was made at a particular time when it was necessary for those seeking office to try to hold out some bait to the electorate of the country. I have a very distinct recollection of a certain proposal made here in 1931 by the Government then in office, the Cosgrave Government. That proposal was for a grant of £750,000 towards derating. That proposal was opposed in the House by the then Opposition who are on the Government Benches now. They maintained that it was not sufficient and that it should be £1,000,000. It was put to a vote and the vote for £750,000 was carried. Further than that, the goods were delivered and the farmers got the full benefit of that sum. That sum was allocated on the basis of fifty per cent. on rates and fifty per cent. on population, and I say that it worked out very equitably in the sense that it brought fair play and justice to the people in congested districts where there was a large population but poor land and small valuations. I can say for my own county that it brought a reduction in the rate of 3/2 in the pound. In the adjoining county, that can boast of good land and high valuations but with perhaps a smaller population, it brought a reduction of 2/5 in the pound.

I could look at this matter very lightly were it not that when it was being debated here the other night I could hear Deputies on the other side of the House joking about this matter in such a callous way as to bring home to one's mind that the present position of the farmers in the Free State was a joke and nothing else. Very few people have any doubt, or at least none should have a doubt, as to where the responsibility for the present position of the farmers lies. The consequences of the action of the present Government are now within the recollection of every member of this House and, I think, should be well within the recollection of every member of the general public. In 1931 they wanted to insist on a million pounds for the purpose of derating. The farmers got £750,000. In 1932 they gave an additional £250,000 and in 1933 they took away from the farmers, at a time when they were most in need of any aid that could be given to them, the sum of £448,000. That meant to the ratepayers all over the Free State an increase in the rate of 1/4 in the pound. Apart from that, at what time were the local councils given to understand that they would have to meet this additional rate of 1/4 in the pound? I know that in Mayo it was when they had their estimates already made out and when they were just ready to strike the rate that this bombshell was thrown into them and that they had to look for this additional 1/4. There were complaints with regard to the attitude of the county councils in such matters. Is it to be wondered at that there should be such complaints? The county councils were considered then to be unreasonable because they resented the treatment meted out to them. Without any indication or warning this demand was made on them for an additional 1/4 in the pound when their estimates were already made out.

We were told by the Minister here last week that this is immaterial and, in fact, that it is infinitesimal as compared with the land annuities; but what is the position with regard to the land annuities? They were going to collect only one-fourth of the land annuities this year, but what about how the land annuities are being paid to England? Is there any Deputy or Minister on the other side who can deny that the land annuities and a sum of £2,000,000 in addition are being paid by the farmers? Instead of three million odd pounds they are paying five million odd pounds. That is their responsibility, as they say themselves, in the front line trenches. But perhaps they will be told, and we have been told without a blush, that they are well off. Listening to Deputy Corry last week in this House it would appear that things must be all serene with the farmers in Cork. In fact, listening to him, one would imagine that the farmers there were in such a position now that they were inclined to get out with bands and banners to show how well off they are and how much they enjoy it. We are told they are not paying the land annuities. Are they not paying them twice over? Of course, things will be much better in the future since the Attorney-General has embarked in the cattle trade through his agents, Patsy Killeen and John Brown. Fourteen pounds was the price paid for these cattle and £15 duty on the other side. What is the value of these cattle? If 40 per cent. was the duty what is the value of the cattle? That is all over now, but I think it is right and proper to refer to it here so that people should get a proper idea of what is happening and what treatment is being meted out to the farmers at the present time.

There is another matter to which perhaps it is no harm to refer. I think it is right and proper to refer to it. I speak for my own county. I know that we are going to have sugar beet and the privilege of contributing to the expense of establishing sugar beet factories in other places. I am not trying to take a narrow view of that situation but we were told by a Deputy—and a Mayo Deputy too—that we were to have the industry established in Mayo. These hopes are blasted but we will have the advantage of contributing to the establishment of these beet factories in other places. I do not mind so much about that but I think that it was the Minister for Finance, in introducing his last Budget, who said when imposing a tax on tea, that it was a luxury. In the very recent past, the President himself said "tea is a luxury and we should not use it, but the farmers can get light beer for their breakfast." If that is the position and if, in military parlance, tea is to be out of bounds for the farmers in the future, what is the necessity for us to have sugar beet or to invest millions in setting up factories? If we are not going to have tea, what do we require the sugar for? It seems extraordinary that men occupying the positions occupied by the Minister for Finance and the President of the State should make these statements. In face of all that, the farmers and everybody else are asked to make a contribution to the establishment of these beet factories.

Will the Deputy not agree that the light beer might be mulled and consequently would want a little sugar in it?

So that you would have to drink it hot.

Just as you would like your Guinness.

It might even be muddled and it could not be more muddled than some of the statements we have heard. We have also heard with regard to the cattle trade that the English market is not worth having and that looking for the English market to-day is like a child crying for the moon. If that is so, it is passing strange that the President should recommend that the farmers' produce should be sent into the British market and that they should accept £60 for every £100 worth of stuff that goes in there. That is a tariff of 40 per cent. I wonder where is the logic in that? Is it not very logical, very convincing and very honest? We are told that it is of no use to us and in the next breath, we are told that the farmers are getting bounties. Who is getting the bounty? Let us assume for the sake of argument that the farmer is getting the bounty. Who then is paying the bounty? Is the farmer to have his hand in his pocket for ever contributing to the payment of that bounty? Who else is paying it? He has contributed his share over and over again to this bounty, to this great favour, to this £1 15s. out of £6 that is being conferred on him. We have cattle sent across with a tax of £6 per head on them and the farmer then is getting fair play! He is getting a return for everything he has. I suppose the Minister for Agriculture has particulars now as to the areas in which 4½d. per gallon is being paid for milk. He had not got them at his disposal last week but I take it that he will now be able to give particulars of these areas. I think it was contended by the Minister for Lands and Fisheries that this price was being paid in 12 places. It is really unnecessary and tantamount to a waste of time for anybody in this House to be referring to these matters at this stage at all and I am sure that in anything I am saying there is little hope of convincing Deputies on the opposite side. That is completely out of the question and I would be a very foolish man if I tried to do anything of the kind.

Let us examine the other aspects of the situation and see what the farmer is getting to-day for his sheep and for his wool, what he is getting for his potatoes. He has oats on hand and is scarcely able to dispose of them at all to-day. The Minister has his hands full and I sympathise with him in the circumstances. The farmer is not able to dispose of his oats and notwithstanding this, he was told to till more. What does this tilling more mean? It means that the more they till the more they lose but still they are advised to continue. I knew of a farmer the year before last who sold his potatoes grown the year before at £8 a ton last spring, and he sold them this year at 15d. per cwt. Deputies can laugh and they can be as callous as possible——

There is not a potato grower among them.

Not very many, I should say.

Not one.

I tried to grow them but I failed.

And you are not laughing, Tom.

Let them think of the position the farmer is in. He has practically nothing to get for everything he had to sell, and everything he has to buy from the hat on his head, to the boot on his foot is taxed. He is paying 5/- a sack more for flour to-day than its proper price. I say that and I know what I am talking about; as a businessman and as a farmer, I know the position of the farmer. There is not an item which the farmer requires in respect of which he has not to pay an extra tax to-day, and not an item which he has to dispose of which has not to be disposed of at a sacrifice, and then we are told that the farmer is not badly off. They must be indeed an extraordinary class of farmers down in Cork, judging from the very happy position they are in according to Deputy Corry. In the other parts of the country, the farmers will give you an account of the great favours that have been conferred upon them. You will have to face the farmers some other day, and I think you will be very slow to face them, and, in my opinion, you would be wise in not facing them in a hurry. They will give you a very proper account of how they have benefited. You have brought them to the verge of absolute financial ruin. About that there can be no dispute. You know it well and it is unnecessary for me or for anybody else to tell you. The farmers themselves can tell you and your own supporters can tell you, and many of them will tell it to you privately. Notwithstanding all that, you laugh and scoff at the position into which you have dragged the farmer—a position which he never occupied before in my memory, at all events. We are told that if the farmer does not pay he will not get even the six days' notice, but that the sheriff will be sent in to him. That is very kind of you. We have heard about the payment of rates and annuities, as if the annuities have not been paid already, and are not still being paid. They have been paid many times over to the farmers' detriment. They adopted, foolishly for themselves, certain advice and they have to abide by the consequences. They have my sympathy, and I hope, when the opportunity arises again, they will take better counsel, and give their verdict in such a way that it will bring home with a bang to Deputies opposite the responsibility they have had in bringing about what I might describe as the absolute ruin of the farmers.

I said on a former occasion that I only hoped that Deputies opposite would try to brighten up somewhat. I repeat that. If they tried to brighten up a little and were not overcome with tragic feelings over the death of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the sacking of its leader, they might see some little hope, politically, even for themselves in the future. Seeing some little hope for themselves, they might begin to realise that there is some hope for the country even from their point of view, but this policy of decrying everything round about and giving way to this feeling of despair because they are in opposition will neither help themselves nor help the country. The motion on the Order Paper was not put down to help the farmers they talk so much about. It is not a proposal to give anything to the farmers. It is not a proposal to come to the relief of the farmers, to help in the agricultural or industrial sphere or to reduce taxation. It is a motion to give Deputies opposite a chance to talk, to create a political atmosphere throughout the country and to create uncertainty in both the agricultural sphere and the industrial sphere. It is a carrying on of that political propaganda that was launched by Cumann na nGaedheal just before it died. It is an attempt to carry on the play in some guise or other. Through the medium of this motion, Deputy Belton is endeavouring to carry the Cumann na nGaedheal propaganda into the veins of the new Party and to launch the members of that Party on the country again as the saviours of the farmer. It is hoped that by talk of this kind, and by motives of this kind the people—even those farmers associated with Cumann na nGaedheal—may forget that Deputies on the other side were ten years in office and that they never said as much about the farmers in that time as they did during the three or four hours that this motion has been under discussion. If they said as much about the farmer then as they are saying now and if they had been half as active then as they pretend they would be now if they got a chance, they might not be in Opposition to-day but here in these benches.

This motion condemns the Government. We were told that it should not have been put back as far as it was on the Order Paper, that it should be given special time. It condemns the Government, but what has the Party opposite been doing since they came in here but condemning the Government in respect of every proposal brought in? Could they not try some kind of helpful criticism? Even from their point of view, there might be something good at times in measures brought forward by the Government and, by helpful criticism, they might improve the Government measures and raise their followers out of that slough of despond in which they are at present. They introduced this motion for no other reason than a political reason. They want to make the Party boundaries throughout the country wider than they are and to create Party feeling, bitterness and animosity. These were fast dying out. They want to bring back a feeling of despair amongst the people. That is not alone the attitude adopted by the Opposition on this motion but it was the attitude adopted on other motions. Deputy Belton, when talking on this motion, said a great deal, as he always does. He talked about the farmers. He always talks a lot about the farmers. If I know anything about farming, and I do——

If you did.

——I spent more hours behind the plough than Deputy Belton.

You made very little use of them.

I made good use of them. I spent more hours behind the plough than Deputy Belton or the last speaker and spent more time at other work on the farm than they did. My experience is that the farmer who talks and blows his own trumpet too much is never any good for himself or his farm.

We are listening to one.

The farmer who is always able to tell every other farmer his business is never any good for anything but talking. That is my experience. That would be proved very effectively if I were to go into individual cases of Deputies I have in mind who come in here and talk about themselves as farmers. With all the nonsense he talked—amounting, I suppose, to 95 per cent. of his entire speech—Deputy Belton made one very laudable statement. I give him credit for it and I should like to see it carried into effect. He said that there never was a time when there was as much need for unity and co-operation amongst all political Parties and all sections of the Irish people as the present time. That is Deputy Belton's opinion.

The opinion of the whole of us.

We shall take it that Deputy Belton is the leader now. We shall take it that this revolving bench has placed Deputy Belton at its head for the moment and that when he makes a statement of that kind he is speaking for his whole Party. I should like to know what that Party has done, or is prepared to do now or in the future, towards putting that very laudable proposal into effect. There never was, according to Deputy Belton, a time when the unity of the Irish people was more needed. If the Irish people are to unite, whom are they to unite behind if not their elected leaders? Whom are they to unite behind if not those to whom the vast majority of the Irish people have declared their allegiance? Are we to scrap the elected majority and unite behind the new dictators on the plan of the man who is, at turns, the leader of the Party opposite, Mr. O'Duffy? Whom are the people to unite behind? I should like to have that question answered by the Deputies opposite. I, for one, am prepared to meet them on that suggestion of Deputy Belton which, we are told, is the united wish of the Party opposite. I should like to know, however, before meeting them, what is to be the basis of the unity which is to be established. Is it to be unity behind the majority of the Irish people? If it is, there should be no need in the future for continuing on political lines here. There should be no need for irritating speeches on platforms by this Party, that Party and the other Party. There should be no need for vast expense in organising Parties and decorating the members with blue shirts and berets to fight against another Party if all are to go forward as a united people to do the best for the country. There would be no need for these things if that suggestion, made by Deputy Belton, were seriously made and accepted by the Party opposite—that is, that they stand behind the majority of the Irish people, help the Government when doing the right thing, encourage the people to follow them and, on any other issue on which they think they are not doing the right thing, to criticise them in a helpful manner, but not try to drag the people into a slough of despond, as they have been doing for the past five or six months. I should like to eliminate everything that Deputy Belton said and to concentrate on that phrase and say: "We are prepared to meet you on that" and cut out all this cheap political talk that has been going on.

Give us the £450,000.

It is time to cut out these things. If Deputies opposite are prepared to go on these lines, it will be very helpful to the people and to the country. I must say that I seriously doubt these pious protestations, but we must wait and see what the result will be when Deputy Belton makes his concluding statement.

Perhaps the Deputy would talk to the motion now?

If I have been out of order Deputy Belton is the last man in the House who should call me to order. I am talking to the motion and to the statements made in connection with the motion and I think I am entitled to do so. According to Deputy Belton's own statements, the farmers are not as badly off as other Deputies in his Party would say. Instead of the farmers opposite and Deputy Belton proposing to reduce the farmers to the poverty line out of which we raised them, let them take a step forward now not to reduce the standard of the non-agricultural portion of the community but to raise the standard of the agricultural portion of the community. That is the essence of this motion. It purports to leave the agricultural section in as good a position as the present Dáil found it last February. That is the purpose of Deputy Belton's motion. Look at his statement here. He says:—

"The proposal which creates the essence of the motion is that the farmers should be given the £450,000 that was taken from them."

He is protesting against that. Are we to take it that if they got that £450,000 now, the farmers would be quite satisfied, that they would be, as he said himself, in the same position as they were in 1931?

Other speakers followed Deputy Belton, and I went carefully over their speeches because I was anxious to see if they had anything new to say, anything that one could go on definitely and say that they were in earnest in putting down a motion of this kind. We find Deputy O'Higgins speaking and he is, of course, one of the men who sponsored this motion. Deputy O'Higgins is very much perturbed owing to the position of the farming community. The farmers are very badly off. I think if he were in earnest about all these statements he would face up to the facts much better than he tried to do when speaking on that occasion. He told us that things are so bad that within the next two months no Government Department will be able to carry on, that the local authorities will be unable to carry on and that they will have completely broken down. In column 2147 of the Official Debates, 4th October, the Deputy is reported as having said that secretaries and others responsible have reported to the Government Department that the country is absolutely in a state of poverty and that they cannot see their way around the next two months, that the people are in a state of bankruptcy and poverty and that two months is the longest time they can hold out. I do not think that Deputy O'Higgins is very worried over that or that the farmers are as badly off as that. When you consider the amount of money spent on excursion parties and paying their fares to all these meetings and in the purchase of uniforms to wear on these occasions——

To wear in Mountjoy!

We find that the leader of the Party opposite that evening when talking about this matter harped back of course to the economic war as they all do. That is the whole trouble. The speeches they made before the second last general election were made by them at the last general election and the speeches made at the last general election are being made here now and throughout the country. They go on in that way regardless of the fact that the people have completely turned them down and regardless of the fact that they are a discredited political Party. Deputy MacDermot said that these are questions that can be settled perfectly well and perfectly honourably and with great advantage to the people of this country by making up our minds as to what we want and by going and entering into negotiations in a business-like manner. That is Deputy MacDermot's contribution to the debate. He was pressed several times as to how that could be done in an honourable way in the interests of the people of this country by settling with the British. He did not give us any idea at all of how it could be done. When a Deputy spoke about the prosperity of the farmers in England and in the North of Ireland, which is as badly off as here, Deputy MacDermot said: "You cannot make an end of the economic war until you put your cards on the table as regards your attitude to the whole question of constitutional relationship with Great Britain." Now, that is another side of the question. What is Deputy MacDermot prepared to do on that matter? Is he prepared to put his cards on the table on that question? He followed that up by saying that all that was required by the British was not so much a matter of money as between this State and the British but the acceptance of the great principle of the sanctity of agreements. Agreements with the great British Empire, which is noted for the great regard they have for the sanctity of agreements! We are now to go on our knees to the great British Empire and say that any agreements made by anybody, whether the people here signify their will or not, were agreements that we must keep. We must keep these sacred agreements with the British because the British always kept every agreement sacred. They kept them sacred until they found it convenient to break them. Deputy MacDermot followed that by saying that the Minister pointed to the bad condition of the farmers in England and Northern Ireland and added:—

"When he suggests that our highest ambition would be to make the Irish farmer no worse off than the English farmers or the Northern Ireland farmers are at present he is saying something that is not so, because much more than that could be accomplished. As I pointed out to him on a previous occasion there ought to be joint action by the farmers in the Free State, the farmers in Northern Ireland and the farmers in Great Britain by which the farmers of these islands would get protection as against the foreigner and that is what could have been accomplished at Ottawa, if our case had been properly fought there, and that is what will be accomplished at some time in the future when there is a Government in office here with courage and intelligence enough to make a decent trade agreement."

That is the policy so far as the Party opposite is concerned. They are not only going to raise the standard of living here but they are going to tackle the question in England and to make England a prosperous country. They are going to tackle the question in Northern Ireland, and every farmer in these three countries is to be brought to a very high standard of living by the Party opposite. They are going to tackle the British Empire and Northern Ireland, as reported in column 2169 of the Official Debates for the 4th October. That is the new Empire Party for you. That is the statement of Deputy MacDermot, who is going to make a success of farming in England, who is going to make it a success in Northern Ireland and in the Free State. We would like to know a little of his plans. I think the Government are entitled to know what are his plans and how this great success is to be brought about.

Is it fair on the part of Deputy MacDermot to keep all that valuable information at the back of his head? Is it fair that these plans should be left there in cold storage until some future day? We have this very dishonest thing of dragging in a footy little motion of this kind dealing with £450,000 all the time that that great plan is there in secret at the back of his head. That is absolutely disgraceful and dishonest. We found later on that a speaker in talking about that motion, Deputy McGovern from Cavan, the most popular man there according to his own statement, said that what the farmers there wanted were higher prices for their production. They wanted better prices for cattle, pork, beef, eggs and butter. He wants high prices for them and nothing else. He wants higher prices for cattle, pork, beef, eggs and butter. He stated that the position of the farmers was that they wanted cheap foodstuffs to enable them to finish their live-stock products and to get the best price they could get for these. The Deputy did not tell us whether they would get a big price for the finished products even if the economic war were settled. Deputy McGovern said this: "It is admitted that the more they produce"—the farmers—"the more they lose and the sooner they will be bankrupt. I know farmers who employed labourers before the economic war started at all. These progressive farmers could not make ends meet." That is before what is alleged to be the result of Fianna Fáil policy came into operation, that is before the economic war started. The progressive farmers were becoming bankrupt. The Deputy's advice is to produce very little in the way of grain; till very little but rear cattle for the British market. That sums up the attitude of the Opposition.

Then we have the statement of Deputy Brennan who is, I think, the first practical farmer on the Opposition Benches who has yet spoken, possibly with the exception of Deputy McGovern. Deputy Brennan lives by farming, he confines himself to it. His summing up of the situation is: "We are living on a policy of subsidisation from beginning to end. How long is it going to last? How long can it last?" He protests against subsidising everything. If the Opposition were to get into office would they stop subsidies? Do they protest against the subsidising of butter? If they do, and if the price of butter goes back to what it is in other countries and the price to the consumer similarly goes back, what hope is there for the dairying industry?

The Opposition should endeavour to speak with one voice and have some definite programme. If it is Deputy MacDermot's programme of having an Empire Party let us have it in black and white. As it is they do not know where they stand; they are hitting out in the dark, shadow boxing, trying by various means and in divers tongues to say everything that will catch on and become popular with the people. Then they will placard themselves as the saviours of the farming community. After ten years of office they succeeded in bringing the farmers to the edge of bankruptcy. The last speaker sneered at beet growing. His idea of using hundreds and millions of tons of sugar was to put it into tea. I know many people who do not use sugar at all in their tea.

Soon we will be all drinking beer and milk.

I sympathise with the Deputy who talked about sugar if his idea is that it is only used in tea. He sneered at the idea of money contributed by way of taxation in County Mayo going into the erection of a sugar beet factory. When County Mayo helped to subsidise to the extent of many thousands of pounds the erection of a beet sugar factory in County Carlow, Deputy Davis did not protest. He made no protest because that was Deputy Cosgrave's factory.

That is one of the white elephants.

It was all right, according to Deputy Davis, for the Mayo people to help then. There were no protests, but now, because there is a factory being erected in Galway that will benefit the farmers of Mayo and Galway, we have the Deputy protesting emphatically.

You said the factory would be erected in Mayo.

As a matter of fact, it is being erected only sixteen miles from the place that I indicated.

You told them in County Mayo that they would get the factory.

It is being erected only sixteen miles from the site previously selected. The Deputy sneers at the idea now, but when his Party was in office there was not much assistance given to Mayo by its Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies in the direction of influencing the erection of a factory in the county.

You thought you had the influence, but that did not work.

The Deputies opposite now tell us there is nothing in these beet factories. When his Party were in power, Deputy Davis never advised them that in County Mayo there was a suitable site and the farmers were quite willing to grow beet. We have now got a sugar beet factory for the West of Ireland and if Deputy Davis and the other Mayo Deputies over there have any interest in their constitutents they will tell them to grow all the beet they can so that they will make a big profit. Every acre of beet will be taken by the Tuam factory.

At a profit?

You know a lot about farming. I am sure you will not grow any of it.

Neither will Deputy Belton. He is trying to find something else more profitable.

Sure, and if you were a businessman you would do the same.

I thought you were a farmer?

So I am. I farmed more in one year than you did in your whole lifetime.

We want practical farmers in this country.

The beet will be grown whether there is money in it or not and the factory will spring up.

It will soon spring down again.

I know that in certain Cumann na nGaedheal quarters although they talk a lot about the farmers they are very definitely trying to create the atmosphere, particularly in Mayo, that beet should not be grown. According to Deputy Belton it cannot be grown at a profit. That type of argument is being used in order to try to dishearten the people. The same tactics were used on another occasion in regard to wheat. Cumann na nGaedheal told the farmers that wheat could not be grown. Now the farmers who grew wheat are arranging for its sale at a profitable price and the men who took the advice of Cumann na nGaedheal are scratching their heads. The same thing can be said of the farmers whom they discouraged from growing barley. In the circumstances I do not think that the people they are trying to discourage from growing beet will take their advice.

According to Deputy Davis, County Mayo has suffered a lot. This much can be said of the county: the people have paid their rates as well as in other years. There are good farmers there and they are not the type of people who keep their money in the bank and will not pay their debts until the bailiff comes to the door. There has been talk of poverty in County Mayo. I know that there are difficulties there, not because of the present Government's policy but because emigration is not allowed as it used to be and because migration to England is not as profitable as it was. If the Deputies opposite were in power there would be in County Mayo what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney prophesied would exist under Fianna Fáil and that is dead bodies on the roadside from hunger. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's illuminating statement a few weeks ago was that in a few months President de Valera's way would be barricaded—that was not the word, but it is something like it—by the dead bodies of people who had died from hunger because of Fianna Fáil tactics.

I never used any such language.

Read the "Western People," then, which is one of your greatest supporters.

Quote the "Western People" and not your imagination.

That was the statement made by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. I would like to put this question to Deputy Davis. He talks about the increase of rates owing to a £250,000 reduction in the agricultural grant this year. He said that amount had to be added to the rates. I would ask him which would the people of Mayo prefer, that slight increase in their rates or the reduction of the old age pensions made by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government.

Would they prefer an increase of 1/4 or a reduction of 3/2? The Deputy knows little about the Mayo farmers now. The Deputy does not pay much rates.

The Deputy should realise that even if Fianna Fáil reduced the amount of the Agricultural Grant by £250,000, or £500,000, that for the poor and in the houses of the farming community there has been a gain of a little over £500,000 in increased pensions. I would prefer to see an increase of 1/- in the pound in rates, which would necessitate a reduction of the Agricultural Grant by £250,000 and at the same time would give £500,000 to the aged poor. There are moneys being distributed among the poor in many ways. There is money given to provide the homes of the poor with fuel and to provide destitute families with more milk. There are large amounts given, at frequent periods, for the relief of unemployment and for important works in various localities. The amount given in that way far outdistances the reduction made in the agricultural rate. I would prefer taking an interest in the small working farmers like the Mayo farmers who are paying their rates. I would prefer to see the moneys given in that way than given through the medium of the Agricultural Grant paid in the way the Cumann na nGaedheal Government used to pay it, where the large ranchers reaped the largest amount paid. It is a better way of balancing the burden, with the result that, as we see, the Mayo and Galway farmers are better able to pay their rates. There are many other matters I could deal with. This motion in no way tends to help the farmers and it is not intended to help the farmers. It is meant as propaganda. It is meant to give a chance to Deputies Belton and Davis to air their views before the country.

It is a subject that must be very annoying to you.

No. It is rather a subject of great amusement and would not have been but that we know the Deputy's views. I say it is absolute dishonesty to have this kind of motion put down here and sponsored by Deputy Belton. Deputies opposite say this is a terribly serious thing. If it is, why was it not introduced by the Leader of the Party opposite, or why was it not introduced by representatives of the farming community?

Are there any six men on the benches opposite who till half as much land as I do?

Deputy Belton can always exaggerate so far as he himself is concerned. We are so used to hear him that it does not matter. He exaggerates at times and I believe at times he under-estimates himself, as when he goes back to the second bench opposite. I say there is no earnestness on the part of Deputies opposite who profess such concern for the farmers. If there was they would tackle the good things Fianna Fáil have done for the people and they would try to make the beet, and other proposals, made by this Government, a success, and not try to smash the machinery of government by going on with this propaganda and this crying out that the country is going into bankruptcy. That would be a better type of patriotism than the spiteful system which is adopted by Deputies opposite at the present time. Deputy Belton should realise that what the country wants is a united front at the present time and that that would be the best thing that could happen and the best policy that could be adopted to-day.

I have no intention at all of following the line of argument adopted by Deputy Cleary. It is evident to anybody that Deputy Cleary knows very little about the subject under discussion because he scarcely referred to it at all. He talked about wheat, beet and sugar, and everything, except the motion in connection with the problem of rates and which at the present moment raises such a very important question. It is interesting to read some of the speeches or some of the statements made by the Fianna Fáil Party when in Opposition in 1931. I shall read briefly one or two statements made by Fianna Fáil Deputies in 1931. I am quoting from volume 37 of the Official Debates, column 2179. On that occasion the President said:—

"The position really is that while the farmer has to sell his produce at something like 15 per cent. in advance of the prices which obtained in pre-war years, he has to pay something like 68 per cent. more for the goods he buys. Therefore, the position is telling against the farmer."

That was the argument of Deputy de Valera, as he then was, in 1931. It would be illuminating—but I am not much good at figures—to give the prices of agricultural produce in 1931 and compare them with what they are now. Does any Deputy opposite tell the House that the condition of the farming industry in 1931 was anything like what it is now? Will any Deputy opposite stand up and say that? That was the President's contribution here in 1931 when he was asking for £1,000,000 in relief of rates. The statements of Fianna Fáil Deputies on that occasion would be very illuminating for anyone who cares to read them. I do not propose to read many of these statements. Deputy Ryan, as he was then, on that occasion said:—

"I want to make this point as to the necessity for relief. As an agricultural country we are dependent greatly upon the export market for the sale of our produce and we compete there with many other countries."

I wonder what does he think about the export market now. Has he changed his views in connection with the export market? There is a whole lot of interesting reading in this. I was not a member of the House on that occasion, but I well remember—and I think every farmer in the country will remember—the case which the then Fianna Fáil Party made on behalf of the farming community. That was in 1931. He continues:—

"On the Vote on Account last week I mentioned certain rates that are being inflicted on counties. While the President was talking in Dunlaoghaire about the intentions of the Government in regard to derating and while other Ministers were talking about the intentions in regard to derating, Bills were brought before this Dáil which put additional rates on counties. The consequence is that the counties are now paying at least a shilling in the £ more."

He goes on in that strain:—

"Formerly, if the farmers who were on the county councils found they could no longer bear the burden of the rates they could, at least, knock off that 2d. rate for the time being, but now it is mandatory."

So much for Dr. Ryan in connection with those problems. They were great advocates of the farming community in those days. Deputy Corry had something to say on that occasion too when they were looking for a million pounds in connection with relief of rates for the farmers. I will not go at any length through any of his statements because I do not want to delay the House. He said:—

"I hope the House will not approach this matter in the light of ‘we are giving something for nothing to the farmers.' If we give him this relief we are only restoring to him a very small bit of what has been taken from him, grabbed unjustly from him, since the Dáil came into operation."

That was Deputy Corry's contribution to the debate in 1931.

And a true one.

Now the Government has this year taken £450,000, or something approaching half a million pounds off the Agricultural Grant. Will anybody say that in this year there was a justification for that reduction in the Agricultural Grant? Deputies have made statements here from time to time about relief in annuities and so on, and suggested that everything was lovely, but I cannot help referring those Deputies to the position of the farming community. I said on many occasions, and I will repeat now, that the vast majority of the farming community depended on livestock to meet their obligations. The dairying industry in itself was not a paying proposition except for the rearing of young stock. Members of the Government in this House and outside it have been talking about what they have done for the dairying industry. Even the Minister for Industry and Commerce —whom I admire as Minister for Industry and Commerce, but I am certain that when he talks about agriculture he is referring to something he knows very little about—said very recently in a speech down the country that only for the Government subsidies the farmers would be getting only 2d. a gallon for their milk; that butter was only 8d. per lb. in the British market. On the very day on which he made that statement butter in the British market was from 105/- to 110/- a cwt. If we had no economic war, and trade was going on in the ordinary way, the farmer would be getting a ½d. per lb. more for his butter, and the consumer would be paying 5d. per lb. less.

The Minister for Agriculture has laid it down here, and I think quite rightly, that the cost of production of milk is about 5½d. per gallon. I know something about the production of milk, and I know that the average price which I got during the last three or four months was 3¾d. a gallon. That is what I have been getting, and I am sure it would be the average for a good many others. That would give the farmer about 9½d. for the raw material—for as much milk as would make a pound of butter—although the consumers are paying 1/3 for it. Even though the consumers are paying for it the farmer is not getting it. It is immaterial to him whether the consumer pays a shilling or two shillings if he is not getting it himself. It is the farmers themselves who have been paying the subsidy in connection with butter, and they are getting little or no benefit from the whole transaction. They are getting 9½d. for the raw material. I would ask city Deputies like Deputy Kelly to realise that position. They probably think because they are paying 1/3 or 1/4 for their butter in Dublin that the farmer is getting the benefit. He is not getting the benefit.

Who is getting it?

I am telling you what I am getting for it, anyway. Deputy Cleary asks us to brighten up and smile and be merry.

That is good advice.

I know it is good advice. It is grand advice for those who have not to make a living out of industry. It is very easy for those who are not doing that to be merry. What is the position? What can the farmers produce? Oats is practically unsaleable; wheat is not yet a product which the farmers have gone in for. I grew wheat myself this year; I will grow it next year, but I can tell you it is very far from being a substitute for the live stock industry, which has been ruined by the policy of the present Government, and it never will be.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but how does he account for the fact that the Mayo farmers have paid their rates this year as in every other year?

I am not acquainted with the position in Mayo.

They are prepared to work there.

I can tell you that I am as good a worker as anybody in this House or outside it. I can look back and say that I have made a good living out of farming in the past. I am unable to do it now owing to Government policy. The demand at present on the agricultural community for rates in the county I represent is £138,000. In 1919-20 the demand made on the agricultural community was £94,000, and in 1914 it was £54,000. It is £138,000 now, and that at a time when the President stated that the prices which the farmer was getting were so much lower as compared with two years ago. Does anybody in his senses believe that those obligations can be met by the farming community? That is the problem which is before the country. Deputies think that the farming community can turn around and make money out of nothing. They are now promised a beet factory. I do not object to it in the least; I will be a grower of beet myself. I am one of those fellows who have a try at everything.

Hear, hear. You are in the right school now. You can have a try at the three policies.

I mean in so far as farming is concerned nobody can teach me anything. I will have a try at all kinds of farming, tillage and everything else.

Cut out ranching.

I will cut out nothing. I am not a rancher and there are very few ranchers, as far as I know, in the country.

Amongst the Centre Party.

No, nor amongst any other Party. I do not know what is the idea in introducing this question about ranches. It is trotted out every day here. I do not see any ranches myself. Deputy Corry, speaking here on this motion, talked about the man with thousands of acres. I do not know any of these men. I know the farmers in my own area, the farmers I represent. The majority are tillage farmers.

What about round Templemore?

I have never delayed the House very long, but I would suggest that this is a very serious matter and that the debate should be conducted as befits such a serious question. This question of the ability of the farming community to pay rates is no laughing matter at all. The farming community are as honest and as hard-working as any other class. They are anxious to pay their way and to meet their obligations, if they are in a position to do it, but the economic war and the tariffs which have been imposed on their produce prevent their doing so. I hope I shall not hear any more about what the tariffs on our agricultural exports amount to. It was sufficient when John Brown had to pay over 100 per cent. on his few cattle. We say that not alone are the farmers paying their annuities through these tariffs, but they have paid their rates and everything else as well. The British Government have been collecting the annuities from the Irish farmer and you are not able to prevent their doing it. I, myself, on a certain transaction was charged £140 by the British Customs Authorities. You were not able to stop them collecting that off me. I say that in that respect I, and those like me, have not alone had to pay our land annuities, but we have had to pay a sufficient sum to cover our rates and everything else as well. We cannot find the money for everybody.

Dr. Ryan

One statement made by last speaker was referred to before in connection with this motion. He states that from the particular creamery to which he is attached he is only getting 9½d. for butter fat. That is news to me, I must say, because I spent part of my holidays this season visiting creameries in the south and I made it my business to ask, among other questions, what they were paying for butter fat. The lowest price I heard from any creamery was 11d. Some of them were paying 11½d. and some 1/-.

I mentioned 9½d. It takes two gallons and a half of milk to make a pound of butter. Make it out that way.

Dr. Ryan

It does not take two and a half gallons to make a pound of butter. I have also noticed in this debate that farmers on the opposite benches generally commence their speeches by saying that they know all about farming. They generally challenge members on this side whether we have any farmers to compare with them. Deputy Belton, according to himself, is the only farmer who knows anything about farming. He has left the House but Deputy Curran got up to make a similar claim, that he was an adept in the business and that we could not teach him anything about farming, that he knew all about it. The strange thing is that, while these accusations are made against members of this Party, the farmers in this Party do not appear to make any bones about paying their rates. They appear to be able to pay their way all right.

Question. I know some of them who have not paid their rates.

Dr. Ryan

At any rate, they are not making this propaganda against the payment of rates which the Opposition Party have tried so unsuccessfully. This motion is simply asking the Dáil to censure the Government for reducing the Agricultural Grant. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking here about a week ago, asked some of the speakers on the other side to give us some indication as to how we could restore the reduction in the Agricultural Grant. We should be very glad to have it. The Minister pointed out on that occasion that when we try to make economies, we are opposed on every occasion by the Opposition Party. We have never brought in a motion or a Bill since we came into office that would mean economies in any way that we were not opposed. On the other hand, when we bring in Bills to increase expenditure in any way we are never opposed. These Bills always go through. There is never any opposition. The Party opposite is always prepared to support the Government in these Bills and to take any credit there is going in the country for the spending of money on extra services. Yet they are never prepared to join the Government in making economies. They bring in a motion censuring the Government for reducing the Agricultural Grant and when they are asked, as they were asked by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to give us some indication as to how the money can be obtained, there is no reply to that question.

The first claim made in support of this motion is that the farmer is badly off. A considerable amount of play has been made with reference to speeches from this side regarding the condition of the farmers. It has been said that we have made out that the farmer is rolling in riches, and so on. I never heard any member on those benches make that claim. The claim made was that the farmer was not any worse off as a result of the economic war. We know the farmer is badly off, is probably worse off than he was two or three years ago, but what we do not agree with is the statement that that is due to the economic war.

Dr. Ryan

Who says rubbish?

I do—absolute rubbish.

A lawyer.

Why are they smuggling cattle across the Border, incurring fines of hundreds of pounds?

Dr. Ryan

With a view to dealing with this point, I have brought the report of agricultural prices published by the Department of Industry and Commerce in this country and the British agricultural markets report in Great Britain. I think it will be found —and if Deputies are honest enough on the other side to admit it, I think some of them know it quite well—that the fall in prices is to a great extent due to the fall in world prices and not at all due to the economic war.

Oh, glory! Where does the £6 per head come in?

Dr. Ryan

I shall deal with that in a few moments if Deputies will have a little patience.

If the Deputy can understand them when he gets them.

It would not be hard to understand as much as the Deputy.

Dr. Ryan

The first thing in this list is fat pigs. I shall take as an example the figures published for the last week available, the 16th September. I have also got the returns for 1931. We shall take a period well into the regime of Cumann na nGaedheal, when there was no economic war. We shall take the week ending the 16th September, 1931, and compare it with the corresponding week in 1933.

And with the 16th September, 1932.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, later on, if you wish. I am taking 16th September, 1931, 16th September, 1933, and 16th September, 1932, if you like.

Yes, 19/- per cwt. live weight.

Dr. Ryan

Bacon pigs were sold in the Free State markets in 1931 at 43/9; in 1932, 41/3——

19/- in November.

Dr. Ryan

Your recollection is gone wrong.

I am telling the truth.

The Deputy will have an opportunity of telling the truth, or what he considers to be the truth, if he desires in this debate, but the Minister is entitled to give his views on the matter.

Am I to listen to a lot of lies?

The Deputy is not entitled to interrupt the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

Is the Deputy entitled to refer to what I am saying as lies?

If you say they were 41/3. What was the price last November?

Dr. Ryan

I think I was responsible for having the Deputy put out of the House before and I do not want to press it this time.

You are a responsible man.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think, however, that it is in order for him to refer to what I say as lies. On 16th September, 1931, the price realised for fat pigs was 43/9, and on 16th September, 1933, it was 52/9, an increase of 9/-.

What were they in November, 1932?

Dr. Ryan

Now, we shall take Great Britain. In Great Britain, taking the same dates, fat pigs increased from 10/- to 11/6 per score lbs., which works out at 8/3 per cwt., so that we had an advantage of 9d. per cwt. there—a slight advantage. Of course there are big disadvantages. Do not get alarmed that your whole case is going to be beaten. It is not. Porkers were 50/9 in this country on 16th September, 1931, and in 1933 they had gone down to 47/3. We had a reduction there of 3/6. In Great Britain porkers increased from 12/- to 12/6 per score, which is about 2/3. Taking fat pigs and porkers together, there would be a reduction, if they were half and half, but they are not, of 2/6 per cwt. this year, as compared with 1931. Then as to eggs. Between the 16th September, 1931, and 16th September, 1933, there was a reduction of twopence per dozen and in Great Britain a reduction of a halfpenny per dozen. We are down 1½d. per dozen there. As to farmers' butter. In the Free State there was a reduction of ¾d. per lb., and in Great Britain a reduction of 1d. per lb. We gained a farthing per lb. there.

What about creamery butter?

Dr. Ryan

We cannot compare the price of creamery butter in the Free State and Great Britain because there is no such thing as British creamery butter, as Deputies should know. We can, however, compare it with the North of Ireland. The price of milk delivered to the creameries, taking the average for the year, was from 4d. to 4½d. in the Free State, and from 2½d. to 3d. in the North of Ireland, so that there is a very big gain there.

This year?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

What is milk in England?

Dr. Ryan

It is about 1/8 per gallon.

An ex-Minister of your Party stated——

The Deputy must not get up and interrupt in that fashion.

Dr. Ryan

They get very impatient when you tell them the truth about those things. The next item is fat sheep.

A Deputy

They are a drug on the market.

Dr. Ryan

In the Free State there was an extraordinary decrease in fat sheep. These official figures are very unpleasant evidently, because the Deputies are finding out that the Irish farmer has only gone down, at any rate, a little more than the British farmer and they do not like to hear that.

Eightpence in the lb.

Dr. Ryan

Fat sheep in the Free State from 1931 to 1933 went down from 37/- per cwt. to 20/- per cwt., a reduction of 17/-, which is practically a little over 50 per cent. of what they were getting then. When we come to Great Britain what do we find? We find that they went down from 10½d. per lb. to 8½d. per lb. That is 18/8 per cwt., which is a worse drop than we had in sheep. Really the farmers in Great Britain, who have no economic war, have more to complain of as regards the drop in world prices than the Free State farmers.

Why do you export them there then?

What do you pay the subsidy for then?

Dr. Ryan

I am being asked some of the most ignorant questions.

They are a bit touchy.

There are some Deputies who may not have an opportunity of participating in this debate if they are not careful.

I think it is a fair question to ask why a bounty should be paid if it is not economical to send them.

It is for the Chair to decide whether a question is fair or not. The Chair has decided that these interruptions must cease.

Dr. Ryan

It would be better for them to keep silent. Fat lambs in the Free State from 1931 to 1933 fell from 41/- to 26/9 per cwt., a reduction of 14/3. But in Great Britain the reduction was from 11¾d. to 9¾d. per lb., or a reduction of 18/8 per cwt.— a worse drop to the British farmer, according to the British market report issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in Great Britain.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share