I was speaking on this motion some weeks ago when I had to move the adjournment of the Dáil. At the time, I was dealing with prices. I had said that the prices were much lower now for farming commodities than they were in 1931, and that the fall in prices was due more to the fall in world prices than to the effects of the economic war between the two countries. When the adjournment was moved I was just proceeding to quote some of the figures as issued officially by the Department of Industry and Commerce in this country and the Ministry of Agriculture in Great Britain, comparing the week ended 16th September, 1931, with the week ended 16th September, 1933. I propose, therefore, to continue to discuss those prices, but as four or five weeks have elapsed in the meantime I can now take a more recent week, namely the week ended 4th November. Taking the figures for that week in the Irish Free State and in Great Britain we find that there is a reduction of price in most cases in both countries. I will begin with the case of eggs. In the Irish Free State for the week under discussion eggs were 1/10¼ per dozen in 1931 and 1/8¾ in 1933—a reduction of 1½d. a dozen.
Private Deputies' Business. - Relief of Rates on Agricultural Land.
What grade eggs?
Dr. Ryan
Hen eggs.
What grade?
Dr. Ryan
Extra selected.
Will you give us the figures for selected?
Dr. Ryan
I should have said it is the average of extra selected and selected.
What weight were the eggs? Surely the Minister ought to know.
(Mr. Flinn made a remark which was inaudible).
I am not talking to a fish merchant now; I am talking to the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister does not know?
Dr. Ryan
The eggs under discussion were the same class of eggs in the Irish Free State in both cases.
Give us the grade.
Dr. Ryan
I will give whatever I think best myself.
What you know. That is very limited.
Dr. Ryan
The eggs under discussion were extra selected and selected in the Irish Free State. They are the same eggs in both cases.
There are two years in the difference. How can they be the same?
Dr. Ryan
They are the same class of eggs.
Give us the class. We know something about eggs.
Deputy Belton spoke for over an hour on this matter. Surely the Minister for Agriculture is entitled to reply without this constant interruption.
I am looking for information.
If the Deputy wants information he can ask for it in an orderly fashion, without constantly interrupting the Minister when he endeavours to proceed.
I want information.
Dr. Ryan
I know that the Deputy is greatly in need of information on many matters, but I think he should let me speak for the present. If he had a little more information he would not be making those interruptions. The reduction in the price of eggs in Great Britain in the week ended 4th November, 1933, as compared with the week ended 4th November, 1931, was 2d. per dozen, so that really the price fell more in Great Britain than in the Free State in 1933 as compared with 1931— ½d. a dozen more. That is quite understandable, because it happens that in the case of eggs the bounty is, in most cases—unless eggs go higher than they are at present—at least equal to the tariff. In fact, in most cases it is more than the tariff.
What is the tariff at present on eggs?
Dr. Ryan
Forty per cent.
And the shipping price is at present 15/-. The bounty is 2/-.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Did I hear the Minister aright when he said that the bounty is in most cases in excess of the tariff?
Dr. Ryan
It was, for the year.
Forty per cent. of 15/- is——
Dr. Ryan
Is what?
It is 6/-, is it not? Six shillings is more than 2/-.
Dr. Ryan
I am under the impression—I may be wrong—that the Deputy is a shipper of eggs?
Yes.
Dr. Ryan
And he knows that he is trying to deceive the House by making the assertion here that the 40 per cent. would be calculated on the 15/-. It is 40/140; in other words, two-sevenths.
I really do not follow now. On a point of explanation, I am not conscious of having tried to deceive the House. I asked the Minister what the tariff was on eggs, and he said 40 per cent. Forty per cent. of 15/- is 6/-.
Dr. Ryan
Yes, but it is not calculated on that. Take two-sevenths.
Even taking two-sevenths —we will say 4/-, but is not 4/- more than 2/-?
Dr. Ryan
The facts are that the figures issued by the British Ministry of Agriculture for the week ended 4th November, 1931, and the week ended 4th November, 1933, show that eggs have gone down by 2d. per dozen. According to the figures issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce in this country the price has gone down by only 1½d. It may be, as in the case of offals—the point was made by Deputy Dillon—that the shippers were paying the tariff themselves.
The next item is farmers' butter. In the Irish Free State the same price of 10¼d. was paid in the week ended 4th November, 1931, and the week ended 4th November, 1933. Turning to Great Britain we find that the price was reduced from 1/5¼ to 1/3½, a reduction of 1¾d., so that the British farmer is much worse off than the Irish Free State farmer one year compared with the other. The next item is milk at creameries. We have no creameries to compare ourselves with in Great Britain, so we have to take Northern Ireland. Over a six or eight months' period the average price paid by our creameries was 4d. or 4½d. per gallon, while it was 2½d. in Northern Ireland so that we beat them hollow in that respect. We are doing very well in the economic war—much better than if we had no economic war. In the case of fat sheep, there is a reduction in the Free State of 8/6 per cwt. and in Great Britain a reduction of 4/8, so that the Irish Free State farmer is worse off with sheep than the farmer in Great Britain. Coming to lambs, the figures in the Irish Free State show a loss of 9/6 a cwt., and in Great Britain a loss of 4/8. For lambs and sheep the Irish farmer is considerably worse off as a result of the economic war than the farmer in Great Britain. The next item is fat cattle. The price of fat cattle per cwt. in 1933, compared with 1931, has gone down in the Free State by 11/6 per cwt. and in Great Britain 6/-. For the week ending the 4th November, 1931, the price was 34/6 and for the same period in 1933, 23/-. The price of fat cattle in Great Britain shows a reduction from 43/8 to 33/9. They give two classes, the reduction in both cases coming to 5/4. In 1933, as compared with 1931, store cattle show a reduction per head in the Free State of £5 13s. 3d. and in Great Britain of £4, so that the very big reduction in the price of store cattle in this country is mainly due to a reduction in world prices.
What was the age of the cattle?
Dr. Ryan
Two years and upwards.
So that if we had no economic war we would have no export of cattle to England.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy should reserve some of these good points until he is winding up. There is an increase in the price of bacon in both countries over the price obtaining in 1931. In the Irish Free State bacon was 5/6 higher and in Great Britain 6/6 higher, so that roughly the farmer in Great Britain is 1/- per pig better off than the farmer in the Free State.
What is the price of pigs to-day?
Dr. Ryan
As far as I remember pigs were quoted 46/- per cwt., fat, and 52/- per cwt., lean.
What was the price on the 4th November?
Dr. Ryan
The average for fat and lean was 46/6. Oats, about which there has been so much talk recently, and about the price of which accusations have been made against the Government, were, on an average, 4/9 per cwt., while our neighbours across the border got only 3/11, so that the Free State farmer is better off there than those in the North of Ireland. There are no figures issued for Scotland, but I got an extract from the Glasgow Herald of October 10th, 1933, in which it is stated that a meeting of farmers was held at which the Government was condemned. That seems to be an international disease amongst farmers. At the meeting it was stated that the farmers could not continue to produce oats for 13/- and 14/- a quarter. I believe a Scotch quarter represents two barrels in this country, so that they would be getting from 6/6 to 7/- a barrel, while our farmers were at least getting a little more. At the meeting one farmer criticised the British Government for its inaction. He complained that as far as he could see the Government had neglected agriculture. He said that when the next election came along the farmers would not be found voting for the present British Government.
That is international, too.
Dr. Ryan
I have the prices of various commodities, and any Deputy who cares to look at them in the Library will find that prices here have, in some cases, been better; that we have held our prices better than British farmers and in other cases worse. On the balance, I would say that we have not; that the farming community is worse off in 1933 than British farmers. But, against that it must be remembered that farmers here are well compensated for their losses owing to the economic struggle by a permanent reduction of £2,000,000 yearly in their land annuities. There has been a reduction this year of £3,000,000 in land annuities. Some Deputies made the point that derating was different to the reduction of land annuities. On this side of the House we have held that it is fairer to give a reduction of land annuities than to give any further reduction in rates, because rating is fixed more or less on a fairer basis than on the valuation of the land. Every farmer has to pay rates pro rata, according to the value of his land, as closely as it can be fixed. There may be certain complaints about rateable valuations, but, on the whole, the owners are paying more or less according to the value of the land. On the other hand, the annuities were not assessed on the value. Some farmers had to pay £2 an acre, while others paid only 2/6 an acre. It was much fairer to halve the annuities rather than to halve the rates. Having done some research in this matter, I am very glad to find that Deputy Belton held that opinion on one occasion.
When?
Dr. Ryan
1926. It is a long time to go back.
Will the Minister give the reference?
Dr. Ryan
I will. A meeting was held at Rathcoole, according to the Leinster Leader for the 11th December, 1926.
Deputy Norton, who supplied you with that, is not in the House at present.
Dr. Ryan
That does not matter. I have the newspaper. Deputy Belton was a prominent speaker at the meeting, which was called to condemn the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. The Deputy thought they should not be sending £5,000,000 to England.
That is more than Fianna Fáil had done at that time.
Dr. Ryan
I know. Even if we did it later, we stuck to it better than the Deputy did.
The Deputy showed you the way.
Dr. Ryan
The meeting having been called, Deputy Belton got up and condemned the Cumann na nGaedheal Government for sending the money across to England. He said that it was going to be the ruination of agriculture in this country, sending £5,000,000 to England every year. As Deputy Batt O'Connor is not in the House at present, I do not like to quote what he said. In the course of his remarks, Deputy Belton said that the burden of rates could be reduced by a reduction in land annuities. That is sound. I agree with that. Everyone on this side of the House agrees with it. Evidently Deputy Belton agreed with it at that time, or else he must be an awful twister. I am sure he agreed with it at the time.
I agree with it now.
Dr. Ryan
The point I want to make is that the halving of the land annuities was more beneficial to the farmers of this country than any further reduction in rates. The motion before the House in the name of Deputy Belton deals with a reduction of rates.
The land annuities have been paid twice over now.
Dr. Ryan
The mathematicians on the other side of the House are hard to follow. Deputy Belton said:
"The whole matter was coming to a head now in the Dáil—that was 1926—and it was to be hoped that the voices of their representatives would be heard against the proposal to send these annuities to England."
Unfortunately the Minister's Party did not come in then; they did not take Deputy Belton's advice at the time.
Dr. Ryan
When we did come in we kept the money at home.
When the horse was gone, you came to lock the doors.
Dr. Ryan
We kept the money at home, but Deputy Belton was not satisfied, because he was on the wrong side of the House.
The Minister's Party was not in the House until Deputy Belton brought them in.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy stated that every Deputy who voted for sending the money to England, voted for what was tantamount to unemployment and increased rents. It would be most interesting to read the whole speech——
Read it.
Dr. Ryan
——but I will spare Deputy Belton's blushes. I will not go any further with it. It was really only designed to show that if Deputies on the other side were really honest on this matter, we would have not only this Party, a big majority of this House, in favour of the policy of keeping the money at home, and of reducing land annuities, but we would have many of the Deputies on the other side with us, too. If they were only honest enough to admit now what they were honest enough to do then, we would have them behind our policy, but I suppose it does not matter to Deputy Belton whether he is honest or not.
He showed you the honest course.
Dr. Ryan
I have said that the big reduction in the prices of farm commodities in this country was due to the fall in world prices and not to the economic struggle between the two countries. We have tried to compensate the farmer for his losses on the world market. We have tried to compensate him, by protecting and subsidising certain of the farming industries, such as milk products. I believe that our prices for milk in this country can compare favourably with those in any other country in the world. I know that during the summer, I got prices from many of the continental countries and from Australia and New Zealand, the big milk producing countries, and so far as I could find, at the time, at any rate, no country was paying as high a value for milk as we were paying in this country for milk going to the creameries.
Might I ask the Minister a question? He said earlier in his speech that the average price was 4d. to 4½d. per gallon. Does the Minister claim that that is the average price over the whole country for last year?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Fourpence to 4½d?
Dr. Ryan
There might be a few a little higher than that.
The Minister said that nobody was lower than 4d.
Dr. Ryan
I did not hear of anybody.
Here is one candidate— 3½d.
Dr. Ryan
Where?
Ballaghaderreen.
Dr. Ryan
It must be badly managed. We have tried, in spite of the Party opposite and against the opposition of the Party opposite, to give the farmers of this country a decent price for wheat, at least as good a price as we thought we could afford, taking all the circumstances into account, and I think that the farmers who grew wheat this year are well satisfied with their experiment. There is not the slightest doubt that we shall have a much bigger acreage under wheat next year, and that, I say again, not only in spite of opposition at the time the Cereals Bill was going through, but in spite even of the prophecy of Deputy Dillon to-day on our whole cereals policy. We have also tried to encourage tobacco and beet, and next year we hope to have 40,000 acres more under beet than we have had hitherto.
At 30 bob a ton?
Dr. Ryan
At 30 bob a ton, yes.
And at a loss of £1,000,000 to us.
Dr. Ryan
And we are getting more applicants than we can take.
Mainly at your expense.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy claims to stand for the farmers in the country——
Yes, without a doubt, and he is not ashamed of it, either.
Dr. Ryan
We should take a note of that.
Take a note of it, do. You are only a medical practitioner.
Dr. Ryan
That is nothing to be ashamed of.
You are only a medical practitioner, but I am a farmer.
Chair!
You are only a physician. I am sorry, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle.
The Deputy need not be expressing sorrow so often. Let him endeavour to remember what he has been told on several occasions, that a Deputy or a Minister cannot be interrupted except on a point of order. The Deputy does not consider what he has said as a point of order?
I hope that before this debate is finished I shall have the pleasure of addressing the Minister.
Dr. Ryan
We all look forward to that pleasure.
Let the Deputy be clear on that, too. No Deputy will have the pleasure or displeasure of addressing a Minister. Any Deputy who addresses the House will address the Chair.
I will address the Chair first, but I hope that when addressing the Chair I shall have the pleasure of addressing the Minister.
Dr. Ryan
I think it would be great to let them all talk. In addition to beet, we also offered inducements for the growing of tobacco, fruit and vegetables, and Deputy Belton will agree that we have done everything possible to get the home market in vegetables for the Irish farmer. The next question that one would naturally ask in this debate is, whether the farmer can pay his rates or not, taking all these things into account, and taking into account present prices compared with those of 1931, and the fact that there are certain industries within agriculture that are subsidised, and perhaps put on a better paying basis than even in 1931. Having taken into account that they are now asked to pay only half their rent and, in fact, this year only a quarter, but for the future half their rent, we want to know whether the farmer can pay his rates or not. I am of opinion that the farmer can pay his rates, and will pay his rates if he is only left alone and not encouraged not to pay them.
If the Government will leave him alone, he will pay all right.
Dr. Ryan
We will leave the Government out of it altogether. I want to give a little history of the part that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and others have played in this matter of the payment of rates. I think they have not played a very noble part. If they had left the farmers alone their rates would have been paid already, and if any Deputy will look up the record of the payments of rates in average counties, he will find that they have paid just as well as last year.
Not failures like yourself.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is taking this matter a little too seriously. There was a meeting of the Ard-Chomhairle of Cumann na nGaedheal held on 30th March, 1933. I think it was Cumann na nGaedheal at that time. At that meeting, there was a proposition by General Mulcahy:
"That the Ard-Chomhairle instructs the Standing Committee to examine the situation at once with a view to indicating by what means, however drastic, the economic war could in their opinion honourably be brought to an end."
On the motion of Mr. Hogan of Dublin, seconded by Mr. Brophy, the Ard-Chomhairle passed a resolution strongly condemning the Government action in relation to the Chief Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána. That has nothing to do with it, except that it was rather a strange resolution to pass, seeing that we had placed a heaven-sent leader at their head. This resolution, however, was proposed by General Mulcahy and passed, to the effect that a committee should be appointed to go into the matter, and take action, however drastic, to bring the economic war to a head. At the same meeting, there was later a resolution passed that the convention should go into private session. The convention went into private session and considered methods of stopping the economic war, however drastic, and so we heard nothing about them for a little while longer until we came to May 4th, when another meeting was held. The committee had considered the matter with a view to devising methods, however drastic, and Mr. M. R. Heffernan, a prominent figure in this House at one time, proposed a resolution setting out that the South Tipperary County Council was fully justified in not striking a rate. He gave various reasons for his resolution, into which I need not go here. It was discussed for some time, and Mr. P. Belton, T.D., said that he thought the resolution should be amended to refer to Dublin and the other county councils which had taken a similar stand.
Hear, hear!
Dr. Ryan
He did not want to be left out in the cold. Mr. Gearóid O'Sullivan said that the only way to deal with this matter was by direct action—direct action, mind you. Of course, the thing was passed. Mr. Heffernan withdrew his resolution in favour of an amended resolution by Deputy Belton approving of the action of the County Councils of Waterford, Dublin, Cork, South Tipperary and Kilkenny in refusing to strike a rate. So we had the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation meeting and officially approving of the actions of those county councils that refused to strike a rate and giving encouragement to their followers, whatever few followers they have, throughout the country not to pay a rate under any circumstances but to hold out against an unjust Government.
These are your words, your language.
Dr. Ryan
Yes, I am just visualising what took place at the private session. Deputy Cosgrave, in putting the resolution, defended the technical legality, and was taken to task I noticed a few days afterwards by the Irish Times. Deputy Cosgrave, leader of the Party at that time, defended the technical legality which the Government depended upon to make these county councils do their business. There you had Deputy Cosgrave, their leader; Deputy Belton, one of their most prominent members; Deputy Heffernan, one of their ex-members; General Mulcahy, Deputy Gearóid O'Sullivan, all defending this action of the county council in not striking a rate. These Deputies knew very well at the time what they were doing. They knew very well that they were encouraging the people not to pay rates. They knew they were setting a headline to the country in giving their blessing to the county councils that stood out. They knew they were giving a headline to every ratepayer not to pay rates. The county councils were right and the Government were wrong!
They were not far astray.
Dr. Ryan
They were altogether astray, because the people did not follow them. The people have paid their rates despite them.
I was a member of the Farmers' League, and I may tell you this much—he was right in making that statement. I will deal with it when you are finished.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is a little bit heated.
I have already told the Deputy that he must cease interrupting. If the Deputy interrupts again I shall have to ask the House to take notice of his interruption.
I shall not be sorry to leave the point, because the Minister for Agriculture knows no more of what he is talking about than a cat does about a mouse.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is excited. If the Deputy would try to control himself and allow me to speak for some little time longer I shall give way to him. I do not see why Deputies should not control themselves for a little while and make their speeches when their own time comes. I say that that meeting held on the 4th of May gave the imprimatur of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to the non-payment of rates which they were trying to push on the country at the time. They failed in that. They came to the conclusion themselves that they failed, and they did not try to pursue the policy any further. The next occasion that I can find any public appearance of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party or their leaders was when Deputy Cosgrave went to Ferns. I find a report in the Irish Independent describing how with bands playing native airs and flags flying he was escorted to the ancient castle of Dermot MacMorrough where he addressed the people. He spoke at the ancient castle of Dermot MacMorrough, a fitting place for him to make his speech. He made the usual speech which he had been making for the previous five months, but he omitted any reference to the rate campaign. He let Deputy Belton down. He let them pay their fines and get out of the mess into which they had got.
Deputy Belton thinks he got good value for his £25.
Dr. Ryan
I believe he did. He is a sport anyway, and he paid it.
He is as good a sport as some of your Back Benchers, who got 20 guineas a day.
Dr. Ryan
I was wondering whether this campaign was going to be revived both by the Cumann na nGaedheal members who are county councillors and by the Cumann na nGaedheal members in their speeches at the conventions under the U.I.P.
What campaign does the Minister refer to?
Dr. Ryan
The campaign of non-payment of rates.
Whom does he allege took part in that? Does the Minister allege that any member of this Party took part in any campaign to prevent people paying rates?
Dr. Ryan
What does the Deputy mean by "this Party"?
The Minister knows perfectly well what I mean.
Dr. Ryan
I was talking about the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, and I gave a history of their campaign.
The Minister is driven to wriggling. Does he allege that any member of this Party took part in a campaign to prevent people paying their rates?
Dr. Ryan
I do allege that members of the Party have encouraged people not to pay their rates.
He alleges what is false.
You encouraged people in 1922 and 1923 not to pay their annuities.
Will the Minister give a single instance where any member of the Party encouraged any campaign against paying rates? Give one instance.
Dr. Ryan
I do not like to repeat myself. I do not want to go over all this thing.
If you did not repeat yourself you would have nothing to say.
Dr. Ryan
I do not mind reading the resolution passed at the Cumann na nGaedheal meeting on May 4th. Mr. Heffernan, ex-T.D.—that is a title he will never lose—moved on behalf of the branch that the action of the South Tipperary County Council in not striking a rate was fully justified.
A Deputy
Is that a campaign against paying rates?
Dr. Ryan
Is it the contention of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, or the U.I.P. Party, or the R.I.P. Party, that the rates could have been paid although the county council did not strike them?
No, but the farmers had paid the rates already through the tariffs, and you had collared their money in the suspense account.
Dr. Ryan
Is it the contention that what decided the Irish farmers not to pay the rates was that they had been mulcted in tariffs already?
No.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy O'Leary will not be able to make that right.
I will make it right later on.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Belton cannot make that right. He has let his leader, Deputy Dillon, down.
May I ask the Minister was it a campaign against non-payment of rates, or was it a protest against the Government withholding the grants?
Dr. Ryan
It was both.
There was no question of the non-payment of rates.
Dr. Ryan
It was a protest against the Government withholding the grants, and the protest was to take the form of not striking a rate.
That is not a no-rates campaign.
Stick to your first charge.
Dr. Ryan
How could the rates be collected if they were not struck? There should be less wriggling on this. If Deputy Dillon had been allowed to handle this he would have got out of it, but Deputy Brennan and Deputy Belton have let him down badly.
No.
Dr. Ryan
After further discussion Mr. Heffernan withdrew his resolution in favour of an amended resolution proposed by Deputy Belton approving of the action of the five county councils —Waterford, Dublin, Cork, South Tipperary and Kilkenny—in refusing to strike a rate. Only one of them stood their ground. The others let them down.
I am responsible for their standing their ground, and I am proud of it.
Dr. Ryan
You were found responsible for it.
I did not hold you responsible for it.
Dr. Ryan
That is right. I am saying that you got good value for your money.
I hope you got as good value.
Dr. Ryan
If Deputies are satisfied I shall leave that point.
A Deputy
The motion.
Dr. Ryan
The motion, yes.
I thought that was forgotten.
Dr. Ryan
I think it would be better for the Deputies if I did not come to the motion. The motion says: "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." Now, I am just going to come to that motion. The Government has had this matter under consideration. They came to the conclusion, as I have said already here to-night, that the reduction in the land annuities was much more beneficial and much fairer to the farmers as a whole than a reduction in rates and, as I said before, I am supported in that by Deputy Belton. However, we have considered the matter further, and we think that a more equitable scheme could be got as a permanent scheme. We are considering that permanent scheme at the moment and I hope it will be introduced and passed through both Houses in time to give the relief of rates for next year.
That is a victory for the motion anyhow.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think so, because as a matter of fact, I think the county councils were circularised last May.
The motion is down since March.
Dr. Ryan
Is that so? The county councils were circularised to the effect that there would be a new system of derating in 1934 and the following years and that the scheme would be based on the amount of employment given. I think that is a very good system.
A Deputy
A good system for you.
Dr. Ryan
I will not have to pay rates at all under that scheme. The scheme that will be brought in in 1934 and the following years will be based on the amount of employment given.
What are they to be employed at? Is it growing oats?
Dr. Ryan
Some people in this country, in talking about employment, go on the line, like the Deputy who has just interrupted—he is a pro-milk man—that all employment should be for the production of milk. The Deputy who has interrupted would be content that all employment would be for the production of milk. Others, like Deputy Belton, who was a cereals man, would be all for the production of corn.
I am both. I am for Paddy Hogan's policy-another cow, another sow.
Dr. Ryan
You look it.
What about a market for our produce?
And a medical officer to keep the cow in health.
Dr. Ryan
Some of these Deputies are the greatest people in the House for interrupting. They never make a speech. I suppose they were brought up that way. Deputy Belton said, at this famous meeting where he accused Deputy Batt O'Connor of having cold feet: "In this so-called agricultural district of Rathcoole where were they to get work?—the way was by growing the food they ate and by making the clothes they wore."
Do not you remember that I provided that agricultural policy for you and, what is more, I practised it?
Dr. Ryan
If I could go back far enough, I am sure that I would find that Deputy Belton made the world. I am quite certain that he will soon claim that, because, as I told him already, he is suffering from megalomania.
You are bringing me into medicine now, and that is out of my depth.
Dr. Ryan
I must get back to the motion now, if I am allowed by Deputies. As I was saying, some Deputies say that the dairy farmer is the biggest employer in this country. Others say that it is the man engaged in the growing of corn, barley, oats and wheat who is the best employer. Others claim that a great deal of employment is given in the tending of livestock; others, in the tending of grass; others hold that great employment is given in the growing of vegetables.
I would have them cutting turf.
Dr. Ryan
Well, even cutting turf or growing fruit. I think it would be rather a hard task for the Government or for anybody else to decide as between all those contending parties, and what we say is that we will give all you want, let you all have your own way, whether tending livestock, feeding pigs or anything you like, but the derating of land will be given on the basis of the amount of employment you give. That is the fairest basis possible, and that is the basis on which we mean to bring it in next year. I think that Deputy Belton should not press this motion until he sees what a fine scheme we have under consideration.
Your scheme is begotten of this motion.
Dr. Ryan
It was announced last spring. Deputy Belton claimed here once that he was responsible. First of all he said that there was no tariff on rhubarb, and, when I said that there was, he said he was responsible for getting it. This derating scheme, for which we hope to bring in a Bill during this winter, will be based on the amount of employment given. We want to be fair to everybody—to the dairy farmer, the oat grower, the fruit grower, the turf cutter, and everybody else—even the man who keeps rabbits or who keeps horses, or the man who wants to keep his tennis courts clean.
What about cold storage?
Dr. Ryan
If the Deputy got a little cold storage now it might improve him. The highest standard of derating was given in 1932, and we took the year 1932, therefore, as the standard year, the most favourable year possible. On the first £15 valuation that a man has we say that the man is entitled to that valuation himself and will give him whatever the standard derating may be for the particular county on that, and for every person employed, whether son or brother, a relative or a hired man——
A Deputy
A daughter?
Dr. Ryan
No, a daughter does not come in—only males. As long as the man is getting full-time employment with that farmer he will get a certain allowance on every £10 valuation or so much for every man he has employed. It will be absolutely fair for the whole country. It will be based on the amount of employment given, no matter what kind of farming is being done. Some people hold that the rancher is an asset to the country and gives employment. If that is so, he is all right. He can go on being an asset, but he will only get derating according to the amount of employment he gives.
Will you fix the wages that the employees will get?
Is it a fair scheme that a man with a large family of young people, none of them of an age to be regarded as a man, will not come under it?
Dr. Ryan
Any over 18 years of age.
Of course, but what about the man under 18?
Mr. Ryan
I do not see how it is unfair to a man with a large family.
Let me put a case like this. I know a man who employs two people in the house—there is only himself and his sister. Right beside him is a man with nine children. The other man will get relief because he gives employment, but the man with nine children will not. Will that be a fair scheme?
Wait till he comes to get the money!
Dr. Ryan
The man giving employment is evidently working his farm better than the other.
Better than the other?
Dr. Ryan
He must be.
Will you look up and see if he has paid his land annuities?
Dr. Ryan
We shall look up and see whether a man has paid his rates and annuities and if he has not there will be no relief.
If he conspires, the rates will be doubled on him.
Dr. Ryan
I am giving only a very bare outline of the scheme which will come before the Dáil some time during the winter session. Deputies will then have an opportunity of studying it. When I was rather rudely interrupted, I was speaking of the policy of the opposite Party on this rates question. I said that Deputy Cosgrave, when he went to Ferns in June, had dropped this plank from his programme. When it came to a question of the policy of the new Party, I was anxious to see whether they would adopt this no-rate item. They did not. What they said was that they would halve the annuities. Of the 24 articles of their policy 23½ were Fianna Fáil. The only difference was the other half, which concerned the question of going into the Empire. That was the only difference they could make from our policy. I suppose that was a sop to Deputy Dillon's Party—going into the Empire.
As regards halving the annuities, I am sure Deputy Belton will say that he led them into that, because he spoke of that in 1926. In 1926 he advocated reduction of the annuities and he ought now to claim that he got that Party to do something, because he is always claiming that he got us to do something. Everybody who took any interest in the matter thought that this new Party would be out for derating. But they are not. All they said was that they would consider the matter. That is about 1,000,000 to one against derating. In the first place, they must get into power and, in the second place, they must consider the question. A double event of that kind is surely 1,000,000 to one against derating.
You were keen on it at one time.
Dr. Ryan
I was very keen on derating at a time when I thought the annuities could not be reduced. But when I was educated by Deputy Belton and realised that the annuities could be halved, I said that that was a much better thing than derating. Now, we have halved the annuities and we shall go farther in derating the man who deserves derating next year, but only the man who deserves it. I think that Deputy Belton ought not to persist with this motion because we intend to bring in a scheme to relieve the rates of the farmer who deserves relief.
It is now five minutes to ten, and the Minister for Agriculture rose at nine o'clock. Before moving to report progress on the last occasion that this matter was under discussion, the Minister for Agriculture had spoken for more than an hour. We have now been listening to the Minister for Agriculture for one and three-quarter hours. His purpose in rising was to resist the motion standing in the name of Deputies Belton, O'Higgins and Minch: "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." I propose to follow the Minister in so far as it is possible to follow any man through a fog of verbiage. I shall try to follow the points raised.
The Minister began, with a courage born of desperation, by blandly asserting that agricultural prices were not materially lower here than they are in the six counties of Ulster and in Great Britain. He makes that assertion in face of the fact that numbers of cattle are being driven across the Border every night—smuggled across the Border—and that men are prepared to risk imprisonment and heavy fines in order to get their cattle across the Border. According to the Minister for Agriculture, in Leinster House, they are doing that for fun. They are doing it to see if they can run more quickly than the R.U.C. Rational people, such as the practical farmers who stand in the fairs from day to day, would not run the risk of imprisonment and heavy fines if there was not something to be got out of it. They will be comforted and chastened to know that the Minister for Agriculture cannot understand why they go on like that, because they could get just as good prices in the County Monaghan as they can get in Derry, Fermanagh or Tyrone. Look at the prices. The Minister admits that the price of cattle has fallen here since we have had the blessing of a Fianna Fáil Government, from 34/6 to 23/-. Last week, the comparison would have been between 36/- and 22/9. The price of fat sheep has fallen since we were blessed with the advent of Fianna Fáil from 34/3 to 23/-. The price of lambs has fallen from 37/6 to 25/9. The Minister rejoiced to be able to report that pigs had held their own. He did not go on to say that the price which ruled the pork industry last January, after 12 months of Fianna Fáil, was 24/- per cwt., and that that operated so effectively to reduce the pig population here, that in the 44 weeks ending November 2, 1933, 751,000 pigs were cured, or exported, whereas in the 44 weeks ending November 5, 1931, 907,000 pigs were cured or exported. The Minister for Agriculture has managed to keep the price of pork here just level by reducing the pork trade by 25 per cent.
Every single branch of agriculture at present is a losing branch so far as the producer is concerned. It is only right to say that the period of loss for the big cattle dealer and the man with extensive fattening lands is over, for he can go and buy cheap cattle from the small farmers and, having bought cheaply, he can sell cheaply. He suffered loss last year. In some cases, these men were wiped out. Those who survived are making profits now. The man who is being crushed down into the earth is the man who is producing the cattle, and that man is the small farmer in the west of Ireland, the south of Ireland——
And in the Gaeltacht.
I challenge the Minister for Agriculture to name any single branch of the agricultural industry in which a small farmer could occupy himself to-day and make a profit. I am speaking for the small farmers in the Gaeltacht, in the west and south of Ireland. I know of no branch of agriculture in which a small farmer can engage profitably at the present time. The fowl trade has been wiped out; the egg trade has been turned upside down and, with regard to the pork trade, no man knows what is going to happen to it in the next two or three months. Those engaged in the industry have to close down the factory to-day and open it to-morrow. No one who is sending pigs to a bacon factory knows what price he will get. At any moment prices may slump. They rise one day and perhaps slump the next day.
The Minister speaks of 4d. and 4½d a gallon for milk as the average price throughout the country. Where does that average obtain? Are there any Fianna Fáil Deputies prepared to substantiate the Minister's statement that they have got an average of 4½d. a gallon? The Minister says that in some cases more than 4½d. a gallon for milk was obtained. Where are those creameries? They may be in existence but, so far as I am concerned, I never got more than 3.6d. during the last 12 months. I will be glad to know where the creamery is which pays 4.5d. a gallon for milk. The Minister tosses off a series of figures which he says are published by the Department of Agriculture. They are not published by the Department of Agriculture. He gave figures which he alleged are the ruling prices for selected and extra selected eggs. Where are those figures published? I suggest there are no such figures published. Of course, the Minister may trot out any figure he likes. All I can tell him is that the price of eggs during the last 12 months, week after week, in the country markets—and that is where the people sell them—has been 20 to 30 per cent. lower than last year, and 50 per cent. lower than in 1931. Anyone who is in everyday touch with the country markets knows that perfectly well.
There is no need to go into the figures for sheep and fat cattle. The Minister admits the indictment there. A rational man listening to the Minister cannot but be amazed that he has the audacity to stand up in this House and maintain that agricultural prices at the present time do not show the effects of the economic struggle that is going on between President de Valera's Government and the British Government. They do, of course, and as evidence of that the Minister is pouring out money as fast as he can to try to mitigate the appalling effects that that economic upheaval is having on our people. He is pouring out money in so reckless a way that a judge of the bench in this city felt bound to express the strongest disapproval of the methods adopted by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture in administering these bounties; felt bound to call into question their conduct in the administration of these moneys; felt bound to point out——
That is not true.
What is not true?
The statement the Deputy has just made.
Does the Minister deny that the administration of the bounty scheme was adversely commented upon from the bench?
The method of distribution was not considered at all.
I am addressing a question through the Chair to the Minister.
The Deputy stated that the judge made a reference to the Minister for Finance.
If the Minister wants to run out on his colleague, I cannot hold him.
He does not; he merely wants to show the loose sort of statements that the Deputy makes.
The Minister ought to try to remember that in matters of finance and the administration of moneys voted by this House he has a responsibility.
Will the Deputy quote the judge's remarks?
This bounty system is administered through the Department of Agriculture. It must be carried on with the consent and with the knowledge of the Department of Finance.
I think the Deputy will find some difficulty in relating comments on the administration of the bounty with the claim for full derating.
The Chair will, perhaps, remember that when the Minister for Agriculture was speaking he made the case that there could be no reason shown for restoring what had been taken off the agricultural grant because the price of agricultural produce had not fallen and, therefore, the farmers were not suffering from any inconvenience at all as a result of the economic war. I rebut that allegation. I say that they are suffering very grave inconvenience and that that is manifest to every rational person. I say further that the Minister is pouring out money recklessly and improvidently in an endeavour to mitigate the disaster that has come on the agricultural community and, so grave is the crisis, that he is committed to pour out money in so irresponsible a way as to bring down on his own head and on his Department censure from the bench.
What was the nature of the censure from the bench? Will the Deputy quote the words which are supposed to represent the censure that came from the bench?
I do not know what the Deputy means.
May I put it this way to suit the Deputy's infantile intelligence? Will the Deputy indicate the nature of the censure that came from the bench?
The Deputy resorts to coarse abuse. He speaks in a manner I am unable to understand. I still fail to understand what his observations relate to.
Does the Deputy suggest that a reference to reckless expenditure was made by a judge in the courts of this State?
I am not prepared in any sense to paraphrase every word I say for the benefit of Deputy Briscoe. If Deputy Briscoe wishes to extract any meaning from my words which they do not legitimately contain, he must seek solace in the Official Report. Every word I have said I stand over.
You do; nobody else does.
I am not looking for approval from that side of the House and particularly from that seat on that side of the House.
And especially from a Jewman.
When I do I will be in a very unfortunate position. Anyhow, these are the facts.
Perhaps the Deputy will try to exercise some control over one of his refined supporters.
The Deputy who interrupted should not have made such a remark. The remark is not parliamentary.
The Deputy should not have reflected on a man's religion.
I desire to draw attention to Deputy O'Neill's interjection.
I will give way to the Deputy only if this is a point of order.
It is a point of order. On a former occasion in this House Deputy O'Neill stated that I had no faith. A reference has now been made here to my religion and Deputy O'Neill has said that I have not got one.
I have not opened my lips. I would be very sorry indeed to introduce any such element into the House. I assure the Chair and the House that I have not opened my lips in connection with this whole matter.
I accept Deputy O'Neill's statement that he did not make the remark, but it was made from that side of the House.
I trust the Deputy will tender an apology.
I withdraw the statement and I apologise for falsely accusing Deputy O'Neill of making a coarse remark which to Deputy Dillon might appear refined. But that remark was made from that side of the House and if he was a man with any sense of decency he would apologise. The remark was made.
By whom? Deputy Briscoe said that Deputy O'Neill made a certain statement. He has withdrawn that now, but he has not apologised.
I did apologise.
A Deputy
Deputy Briscoe's hearing is defective.
I need hardly say that any such interjection would be deservedly dissented from on this side of the House. The House must excuse me, for it is somewhat difficult to maintain the thread of one's argument amidst such a tornado of susceptibilities and sensitiveness. But I was dealing with the manner in which the Minister found it necessary to disburse £2,000,000 of public money in order to mitigate the effects of the disaster which his Government had brought upon our people, and the existence of which he now takes so drastic and catastrophic a step to counter. By the Department over which he presides, £2,000,000 of public money is being poured out without apparent authority, without any regulations and without any scheme of administration, and in such a way that it seems to be that nobody, no matter how the fund was plundered, can be convicted of fraud, because there were no rules or regulations against such a fraud being committed.
That such a state of affairs could exist is in itself deplorable and shocking, but that it could exist side by side with the declaration from the Minister for Agriculture that there was no necessity for any such fund is not only shocking, but audacious. I pity the Minister for Agriculture. He comes in here bewildered by the impossible task set him by his colleagues, and he rambles and rambles interminably, thirsting for irrelevant interruptions, and cheerfully galloping after them when they are made. But he never comes down to the point. He never comes down to give any account of his stewardship in his administration of the Department of Agriculture in this country. The Minister has audacity. He has forgotten the existence of the word "shame." But there is still left him some fear of something which warns him that if he comes face to face with the results of his own policy, not even his exterior of brass will be proof against the poison. I do not very much mind the Minister for his rambling, because that only redounds to his own disgrace. I do not mind the back-benchers of the Party getting up and making reckless charges, because charming as these back-benchers may be, most of the people of this country know them to be an irresponsible lot, and do not pay much heed to them.
That is a reflection on the people themselves.
No, they chose a suitable train for the leader they want, and after all if they are a bit gay and irresponsible could not the same be said of the Government that takes £2,000,000 and pours it out in such a way that there are neither rules nor regulations and that there is such a want of system for its disbursement that the very judges on the bench have remonstrated and expressed amazement that any public department should act as they have acted?
Will Deputy Dillon address himself to the people who put them there?
I have already done so. My reply to the people who put them there was: "They fooled you once, shame on them, I am sorry for you; they fooled you twice, more shame still on them, I am sorry for you; but by the Lord if they fool you three times, the devil mend you." That is what I have already said to the people, but the people are at last beginning to understand them, to understand that though they are decent, kindly fellows, still they are an irresponsible lot. But when one of these warriors gets upon the front bench he ceases to be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and becomes a Minister of this State. That changes the feeling of respect that attaches to what he says, but it does not change the man, and that is his misfortune. Deputy Dr. Ryan from a back bench could do very little harm, but Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Agriculture, in the front bench is very different. People read what he says. Those who do not know him personally might believe him.
The Minister has tried by devious ways to create the impression here and in the country that there was a conspiracy set on foot by members of this Party to induce people in this country to break the law and withhold payment of rates. The Minister knows that is not true, and he dare not repeat it outside this House nor make a specific charge in connection with it, because if he did so he would be made responsible. He knows the charge is not true. It was never a fact. But members of this Party have, in their capacity as county councillors, resisted the striking of a rate. That was a perfectly legal thing to do, and there were perfectly proper methods of going about having that matter tried out in court and a verdict got. They took a certain course of action that the circumstances justified. They were entitled, as public men, if they believed it to be in the public interest, to decline to strike a rate. They did it on the grounds that the Government in withholding a large part of the agricultural grant after the original rate had been struck, was doing a gross injustice and was doing something manifestly contrary to the will of the people.
Now what did they do? When the Government moved in a constitutional and legal way to have the matter brought before a proper court, they did not come into court and cry as an answer to the charge "Up the Republic." They did not deny the authority of the court and show their contempt for the authority of the court of the people. They went into the courts of this country. They made their case. They conducted themselves respectfully and they made no bones about abiding by the verdict. Is that to their discredit? I do not think so. It is greatly to their credit. Admittedly they suffered serious personal loss. It was a serious personal loss to many of them. It was not the first personal loss they sustained doing what they conceived to be their duty in public life and probably it will not be the last. But at least they did what they believed was right. When the courts of the country found against them, they made no bones about the matter.
They made their protest in the matter of these rates, and in making it they believed they were doing what was right. But it is a mean and contemptible thing for the Minister of a State to make back-hand charges against members of this Party; to charge that we conspired to break the law. If the Minister believes that, he has a solemn duty to place his information in the hands of the Chief of the Crimes Department of the Gárda Síochána and have us arrested and tried. That is the proper thing to do. If there has been a conspiracy amongst the members of this Party to break the law or to defy it, the proper thing for the Government to do is to bring the members of this Party to justice. The same applies to the members of the Minister's own Party. No one on this side of the House asks for any preference or consideration. On that matter we are quite prepared to accept the verdicts of the courts of this country. We are quite prepared to stand our trial before any court set up by the laws passed by the Oireachtas. It is a contemptible and an irresponsible thing for a Minister of State to charge his political opponents with crime under the shelter of parliamentary privilege when he has not got the courage to institute proceedings.
Now, the fact of it is, that we believe, and we make no concealment of our belief, that we consider that so long as this economic war goes on the Government ought to find the rates from the Central Fund. They make the war; they are carrying on the war, and they ought to find the finances for it. That is a perfectly rational position to take up. We believe that the Government ought to accept that responsibility from the Central Fund. We have consistently said that unless and until the Oireachtas does that, the people must pay their rates if they are able to pay them, and that where they are not able to pay them they ought to take pen and paper and sit down and write to the responsible authority explaining the reason why they cannot pay and that there ought to be no attempt to ignore the rate collecting authority. Where you have the money you ought to pay. Where you have not the money you ought to sit down and write to the competent authorities and tell them the reason why you cannot pay and what offer you are prepared to make. That is our position, perfectly plain and perfectly clear. I challenge the Minister for Finance and the President to say if they believe there is any conspiracy amongst their own members. I would advise the Minister for Finance to go down to Kerry and look into the situation there. It is the worst county in Ireland for the payment of rates. There was a worse collection in Kerry than in any other county in the Free State, and Fianna Fáil has five members from it out of seven. Let the Minister do a bit of searching in Kerry and he will find that there is a conspiracy there to withhold rates, and maybe that is not the only thing that they are conspiring to do in Kerry. Let him deal with these conspiracies with the same courage and the same abandon that he is ready to deal with a conspiracy not to pay rates, and this Party will have nothing to complain of. But there ought to be an end, once for all, to mean back-sliding insinuations. Let anyone that wants to make a charge come out and make it and they will be met, but do not chose some small fellow who has nothing but his £360 a year. Put up someone who has something to be taken off him, and if he makes that charge outside we will take it off him. Do not put up some fellow who will plead privilege for his parliamentary salary and then go bankrupt.
I wonder does the Minister for Finance ever think back to the time when he was a member of the Opposition, when in 1928 he got up and told Mr. Blythe, who was then Minister for Finance, what a miscreant he was when he introduced his Budget. He said that it broke his heart to think of a burden of £20,396,000 in taxation being laid upon the poor people of this country. That was in 1928. I want to refresh the Minister's memory and to remind him of the price that ruled for cattle in 1928. It was about 45/- per cwt. The burden of taxation that he thought was absolutely heartbreaking at that time was £20,396,000. I will quote what the Minister for Finance, who was then in Opposition, said at that time:
"The actual amount raised last year was £20,396,000, so that at the very lowest computation taxation during the current year will be heavier than last year to the tune of £339,000. Can we impose such an additional burden? Will industry sustain it, for if industry cannot sustain it I submit that we are not justified in imposing it? At the present moment, in proportion to our resources, in population and in wealth, we are the most heavily taxed country in Europe."
Just imagine Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, striking the table as he used those words. He went on:
"I dare say that we are almost the most heavily taxed country in the world."
Well, bad and all as we were in 1928 we are £12,000,000 worse in 1933.
We are able to bear it.
It is really a boon and a blessing to men to have Deputy Alderman Tom Kelly always able to come in and dot the i's and cross the t's and make even the Minister for Finance blush. Yes, we are able to bear it. I hope Deputy Gibbons takes great satisfaction from that. Is he better able to bear it now than he was in 1928?
He looks fairly strong, anyway.
He would want to be. In a lengthy speech in the Official Debates Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, wept over the condition of the country and said that it broke his heart to think of the poor struggling farmers labouring under such a burden. I have no doubt that by the time he was finished the poor Minister for Finance of the time, Mr. Blythe, felt a very small man. He must have said to himself "If this man ever becomes Minister for Finance marvels will come to pass." Well, he was right, but they were the kind of marvels that he never anticipated—the greatest marvels that ever came to pass in any country in the world. It is because these marvels have come to pass, and because the Minister has placed upon the backs of the poor people of this country a burden which he himself declared was unthinkable and monstrous, that the people now cannot pay their rates. You can convict him out of his own mouth and out of the mouths of his colleagues and of every man sitting on the opposite benches with the Greek chorus of Alderman Tom Kelly joining in. They know as well as we know that the people are being ground into the earth. They know as well as we know that this motion is justified, and the testimony and the proof of that is that they themselves are coming forward with a scheme in order to meet the point raised in this motion. It is a harumscarum scheme. They cannot do the sensible thing. It would not be the Fianna Fáil way. It would not be Pretty Fanny's way to do the sensible, commonsense thing. It is to have trimmings and ribbons and Fianna Fáil decorations on it, but in fact they dare not get up to meet this motion. The sensible thing to do would be what we ask, but that is not their way of doing business. But even so we would sooner get something for the poor people in the Fianna Fáil way than get nothing. We cannot expect commonsense or reason from them, but thank heaven we have managed to extract some little measure of justice out of them. We wanted the whole thing, but we are glad to get a bit of it. I move the adjournment of the debate.