This motion suggests that the agricultural community should be relieved of the payment of rates during the financial year 1934-35 because of the continuance of the economic war. There is abundant evidence of the increasing distress amongst the members of the agricultural community, whether we take as proof of that the huge amount of arrears outstanding either as rates or as land annuities. Another thing that illustrates that distress is the tightening of credit by merchants and shopkeepers in the cities and towns. Those engaged in agriculture are experiencing great difficulty in getting an advance of money from some of the larger banking institutions. Even those engaged in the selling of seeds and farm implements are demanding ready cash payments from farmers, who, for the reasons stated, are unable to make them. The Government's panacea for the relief of this distress, brought about by Government policy, is intensive tillage. The farmers are getting the advice to till more land and they hear the slogan "Grow more wheat!"
It is to be regretted that there was a tendency to allow much of the arable land of the country to go out of cultivation and to turn it over to the bullock. It was a tendency that should be stopped. But, the present Government, in their zeal to check that evil tendency, moved the pendulum too far to the other side. It was agreed that in order to have a balanced agricultural economy the area under tillage should be increased, but, as I have suggested, the Government, in their anxiety to carry out that very laudable idea, went ahead with their tillage policy without examining all the facts. The result has been that their policy has been a most disastrous one for the agricultural community with corresponding ill-effects on the working-class people of the country. It would be very useful for some members of the Government Party to look up occasionally the statistics provided for them by the Government Departments. Anybody who takes the trouble to look up the Census of Production for 1933-34, and who directs his attention particularly to page 23 will find most illuminating information. He will find that there is an average 600,000 acres of our land under oats. The average yield of grain per acre is slightly over one ton. That is calculated to give a ration of something like 36 stone of oats per annum to every member of the community, including young children and babies, or about 26 stone of oatmeal, 1 lb. per day. In that commodity, we have obviously a large surplus, which comes under the heading of "exportable agricultural surplus." We grow about 2,000,000 tons of potatoes which amount is calculated to give to each inhabitant, including young children and babies, about 28 lbs. each week of the year. Here, again, we have an exportable surplus. In nearly every department of increased tillage, we find that we have an exportable surplus. Assuming that we double, treble or quadruple our tillage, we shall certainly double, treble or quadruple our exportable surplus of these agricultural products. Assuming that we go in for increased tillage, the ordinary farmer will tell you that the produce must be fed to stock. Owing to the economic war, which is mentioned in this motion, the market for live stock and live-stock products has been restricted and made unprofitable. We all agree that we should not expect the farmer to grow crops which he cannot dispose of either in the home market or in a market which is already restricted and rendered unprofitable.
I remember well the guffaws and marks of approval on the Government side of the House when a Deputy suggested, in his speech, that the British had gone over to the Sinn Féin policy, that they were practising a policy of self-sufficiency and proposed to go extensively into tillage. Everybody should know that that state of affairs can never be brought about in Britain. She will never, unless she wishes to lose her position in the industrial world, be able to till sufficient land to produce food for her 40,000,000 people.
The failure of our special representatives at Ottawa is responsible, in my view, for a great deal of the trouble and the depression that exists amongst the farming community at present. I understand that the scheme for the regulation of meat imports into Britain will come to an end on the 31st March of this year. It is well known that the Dominions are watching the position in anticipation of what may happen when this agreement comes to an end. When the Minister gets up to reply, I hope he will have some suggestion to put before the House and that he will give some indication as to what he intends to do in relation to this agreement which comes to an end on 31st March. We have been told that agreements have been entered into with other countries. Here, again, I would recommend members of the Fianna Fáil Party, and particularly members of the Executive Council, to look up the census of production and to ascertain how much of our products will enter Germany and what the quantity and value of the imports from Germany into this country will be. I looked up the position in regard to Belgium and I find that we are buying from Belgium £9 worth of goods for the £2 worth they buy from us—about 4½ to one.
We have been told by Fianna Fáil spokesmen that, as a result of recent negotiations, an arrangement has been entered into which should ease the position somewhat for our farmers. The arrangement referred to is known as the "cattle-coal arrangement." Deputy Belton, I think, described it as the cattle-coalscuttle arrangement. That arrangement has not had the effect that many people anticipated. Already there are indications that the price of the imported commodity is to be increased, with corresponding ill-effects on the agricultural community, including agricultural labourers, and on the workers in the towns and cities. Under ordinary circumstances, we exported cattle to the number of about 700,000 per annum to Britain. That was before the economic war. There is no reason why that market should not be opened to us again. Even under present adverse circumstances. our only enemy—as Britain has been called by some of the Government spokesmen—has taken over £500,000 worth of cattle from us in a very short time. In the year 1934-5 she has paid us for our cattle something like £4,000,000, even with the economic conflict in progress. I felt, and many other people also felt, that there was a return to sanity on the part of the present Government when it entered into the agreement relating to coal and cattle. I regarded it as an indication that further agreements with our nearest neighbour were to follow. So far, we have not heard of these agreements from members of the Government or their supporters.
I was approached by a number of farmers in my own constituency who asked me, not alone to support this motion, but to support another motion on the Order Paper which suggests that the Government should undertake the running of two, three or more farms in the Free State and see if they could make a profit out of them. I do not know what will happen to this motion, but I want to press, as sincerely as I can, upon the responsible Minister that it is about time that we got away from a policy of prejudice and got back to a sane and ordered Government in this country. Let us, once and for all, make up our minds, as I said on a previous occasion in this House, that we cannot expect Canada, or the Argentine, to take our agricultural produce, neither can we expect the people of China or Peru to eat our beef. I would ask the Minister responsible to press upon the Cabinet the desirability, in the interests of the people in general, and of the agricultural community in particular, to get back to some kind of decent agreement with our neighbours and to get them to open their markets closed to us, in my view, by some contentious politicians and people actuated by prejudice.
Someone has said that every farm in the country was a factory. I do know it was at one time the policy of the President of the State to foster, as far as possible, small farmers in their particular industry. But since he became head of the Government the obverse seems to be the case, and everything he and his Government are doing, in so far as it relates to agriculture, at any rate, is the negation of the policy they preached in this country some years ago. I am in almost daily touch with farmers in my own area and I can assure the Minister, and the Government, that I have not heard one of these men proclaim, as was charged here last evening, that they would not, in any circumstances, pay their rates or annuities. I do not want to labour that aspect of the situation for certain reasons. I am perfectly certain that when the Minister and his Government were going before the country they put their policy and programme fully, and I believe honestly, before the people, but so far few of their promises have been fulfilled.
I disagree with what was said by one speaker last evening on this side of the House, when he apparently suggested that the farmers did not vote for the present Government. They did vote for the present Government, and if the farmers are in trouble to-day, to that extent, they deserve to be in trouble. I think it is useless to suggest that the farmers did not vote for this Government, because as the Minister for Local Government pointed out they got their majority in certain rural constituencies. He was careful to admit that one county did not support his policy, namely, County Cork. In that, again, Cork showed its wisdom. It is quite true Cork has frequently blazed the trail in this country. We all look forward to the next general election when, perhaps, the rest of the country will follow in the footsteps of Cork.
I should like the Minister and his colleagues to go closely into the figures which the Department of Statistics publishes from time to time. If they do they can easily see who is our best customer and whether it is wise for us to open up again the markets we have got or to depend upon whether we might sell a few packages of eggs to Belgium. I said before that we were pursuing a dangerous policy in allowing too much of our arable land to go out of cultivation. I agree tillage should be the groundwork of that policy. But again I emphasise the fact that the present Government in its over-zeal to do the right thing, and to develop the industrial arm of the country, have gone a little too far, and that they have not shown the courage that they proclaim they were capable of showing, in grappling with this question and doing the big thing once and for all. It is more difficult to swim against the current than to float down with it. I ask the Government to take their courage in both hands, and as they have made an approach in the matter of trying to regain our market, to make a further approach. If they do that they will do so without any loss of dignity; they will act as men worthy of the trust and confidence of the country if they get rid of this economic war and the disasters that it has brought in its train.