When the House rose on Thursday last we were discussing one of a series of ill-considered and hastily drafted motions, which Deputies opposite had put down on the Order Paper for the purpose of occupying the time of this House and giving them an opportunity of making speeches. This particular motion is somewhat different to the others, but there was no difference between the speeches that were made in support of it and the speeches made in support of any other motion moved by the Party opposite during the past 12 or 18 months.
Private Deputies' Business. - Relief of Rates on Agricultural Land: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Dáil is of opinion that owing to the increasing distress of the farming community arising out of the continuance of the economic war, the Executive Council should take steps to relieve agricultural land of rates during the financial year 1934/35.—(Deputies T. O'Higgins and T.J. O'Donovan.)
There is no change in the Minister's speech, anyway.
The Deputy may be surprised——
Not a bit.
There have been changes since the motion was put down, judging by the names that are to it. There was at that time a rather close alliance between Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Belton, Deputy Minch and Deputy Byrne, but I gather they have all split now. What is going to happen in these days of their division to the motion that in the days of their unity they put down, I do not know.
They are unanimous on it.
Deputy Bennett says that they are unanimous, but I am very doubtful about that. Not only had few of the speeches that were made any reference to the motion but these few speeches were made by Deputies who appeared to be opposed to it even though they are colleagues of the Deputy who moved it.
When the Minister was a colleague of mine he would not come into the House.
Let us hear the motion. I want to remind Deputies of the motion which they have moved. It is a curious motion:
That the Dáil is of opinion that, owing to the increasing distress of the farming community arising out of the continuance of the economic war, the Executive Council should take steps to relieve agricultural land of rates during the financial year 1934-35.
I say that is a curious motion. By that I do not mean that it is a surprising motion, but that it is one which arouses curiosity. The wording of it was obviously carefully framed to avoid giving any indication of the policy of the Party opposite upon the general question of derating agricultural land. Have they a policy? The particular proposal which they have embodied in these words, to relieve agricultural land for one year only, is of course very contrary to the policy they advocated when they set up a Derating Commission, and on the report of that Derating Commission, here in this House and throughout the country, criticised as uneconomic and unwise the whole policy of derating agricultural land. Now they are prepared to do it for one year. I wonder why this proposal was put forward in this particular way? Is it because there has been another change of policy over there, that the news is being broken gently to their supporters, that they are only asking them to swallow the pill for a limited period as a preliminary to an announcement of the full conversion of Deputy Cosgrave and his Party to the policy to which they were opposed in 1931? Or is it that individual Deputies opposite have a definite point of view in this matter, and that these definite views of individual Deputies could not be reconciled, and that this motion was introduced in this form to conceal the diversity of opinion amongst Deputies opposite?
Or rather to give you a chance to redeem your promise.
This Party will always redeem its promises, and in relation to this matter we are redeeming our promises.
I don't think!
I want Deputies to remember that this is their motion. They initiated the discussion. They asked the Dáil to come to a decision on a question of policy, but not a single Deputy opposite has given us a reason for doing so. We had a number of speeches made by these Deputies, but not a single one of them was related to the particular motion on the Order Paper. We want them to tell us why this particular method should be resorted to in preference to some other method. Do Deputies opposite believe in derating agricultural land or do they not? We are entitled to get an answer to that question before the debate concludes. They have brought in this carefully qualified motion. They want the Dáil to commit itself to this very limited principle, but they have not given us any indication of their own outlook on the matter. Either they believe in the policy of derating agricultural land or they do not. They have asked us to agree to remove the rate charge from agricultural land for this coming year because of the agricultural depression, but remember in 1931 the arguments they used against the policy of derating——
Might I interrupt the Minister for a moment?
Certainly. I am used to it.
The Minister said that the motion asks that agricultural land should be relieved of rates for the coming year.
Yes.
I want to direct his attention to the fact that the relief is asked for the present year, not for the coming year.
It was the coming year when the motion was put down.
It has not come yet.
Let us consider in relation to the particular form of the motion, the considered opinion of the Derating Commission established by the late Government in 1931, on which they based their policy in that year:
The relief of rates on agricultural land should be considered on its merits and the decision should not be determined or influenced by present conditions of agriculture.
For the foregoing reasons we are satisfied that the question of relieving agricultural lands and buildings of rates should be decided on its merits and apart altogether from the question of depression.
That was the policy in 1931 but they changed their opinions with the change in the side of the House on which they sat—and now, because of the depression in agriculture, they want agricultural land derated for this year. Why is Deputy Cosgrave limiting the motion to that?
I shall tell you in a minute.
I hope the minister did not change his opinions when he changed his seat in the House, and that he will vote for this motion.
I have changed my opinion about a number of things and I shall tell you about some of them in a minute. I said I was curious about this motion. I am curious to know what is actually intended by it. I am curious to know what it represents in relation to the Party opposite. Remember the Party opposite is very secretive about its policy. It takes very great pains on all occasions, in this House, outside this House, in its official organ—I presume "United Ireland" is still the official organ of the Party—and all its publications, to conceal its policy from the people.
We have now got an opportunity of learning their policy upon one matter —a matter upon which we thought we knew their policy a short time ago, because they were among the most vigorous opponents of any proposal to derate agricultural land, on various grounds. They now want it done as a temporary measure. What does Deputy Cosgrave mean by a temporary measure for the year 1934-35? Does he consider that the motion, not having been passed within the financial year, can now be discarded and that we can come on now to the next motion—on which we can have a perfectly similar discussion in any event—or does he mean that the time limit to the motion was too short and that its terms should now be extended to cover the ensuing financial year? Does Deputy Cosgrave think it possible to derate agricultural land temporarily? I am quite sure that he does not. I am quite sure that no Deputy opposite believes that if land could be completely relieved of that charge for a period it would ever be possible to impose that charge again. Of course it would not. It is not possible to have a temporary derating of agricultural land, and Deputies opposite know it.
Therefore, I am led to the conclusion that this motion was not introduced for the purpose of indicating the opinion of Deputies opposite as to the best method of relieving agriculture in the year mentioned but as an indication that their policy is being gradually brought over to the point when they will be able to emerge before the people as full-blooded supporters of the policy of agricultural derating. As I said here on Thursday night, if the Party opposite are adopting that policy now, it is not because of the depression in agriculture but because of the depression in Cumann na nGaedheal.
What about the depression in Fianna Fáil?
Fianna Fáil was never depressed. The policy of derating agricultural land was turned down, not mainly upon economic considerations but upon administrative considerations. Deputy Cosgrave was inclined to contest that argument here on Thursday last, but I want to read for Deputies some of the main reasons advanced by the Derating Commission against that policy——
The country did not accept that as the last word.
——reasons which were reiterated by Deputies opposite when they were sitting on these benches— reasons, the fallacies of which, if there are fallacies in them, are only coming out now for the first time. The following are some of the main reasons advanced by the Derating Commission:—
"The remission of agricultural and industrial rates would have far-reaching effects on the structure of local government in the counties and would involve the virtual termination of local responsibility for, and control of, local services. Any reconstruction of the system of local government should take precedence of, and not be undertaken merely as a necessary consequence of, the granting of relief from rates on agricultural and industrial hereditaments. The transfer to the central authority of services administered by local authorities for the purpose of securing a remission of rates on productive hereditaments cannot be recommended."
And so on.
The local government system has been changed since. They have a different franchise.
Whatever changes have taken place in local government in the meantime only strengthen the arguments used in 1931 against the policy of derating.
No, they weaken them.
They strengthen them.
They weaken them.
Well, the Deputy and I can agree to differ on that. There is another consideration. Most of the Deputies who spoke on this motion, as I said, did not refer to it at all. Not one of them offered a reason why it was better to relieve agriculture in times of depression by removing the rate charge instead of assisting it by some other method. There is depression in agriculture, not merely in this country, as has often been pointed out, but in every country. Because of that depression in agriculture it is necessary for the State, out of its general resources, to provide assistance and relief for those engaged in agriculture. That is being done. It is being done to the full limit that this State can afford to do it. Some part of that very large sum, that is provided annually for the assistance of farmers, goes undoubtedly for the relief of rates.
Give an example.
The additional Agricultural Grant, for instance. Other parts of that sum are given in the form of bounties upon exports. Some parts of that sum are given in order to maintain guaranteed prices for wheat and other agricultural products in the home market. Some part of it goes for the purpose of relieving the cattle situation by financing the free beef scheme. The whole sum is divided up into subsidiary amounts, all of which are used in some particular manner or another to provide relief for agriculture. I gather, however, that the considered policy, if they have a policy, of the Party opposite is that more of that sum should go to relieve the rate charge and less of that sum for the other purposes for which State financial assistance is now being given.
The Minister has not listened to the case that was made.
I did not hear it.
The Minister was not here to hear it.
Of course I was here to hear it, and the Dáil Reports are there to read. I defy the Deputy to go through any of the speeches made in that debate since it first started—I think it must be six months ago since it started—and find a single argument in favour of the resolution as it stands on the Order Paper.
I can give it to you in two sentences. What about the local loans you were collecting?
I am not saying that the speeches were irrelevant. A Deputy can make a relevant speech about that motion without giving an argument in favour of it.
Will the Minister deny that the Government is collecting the local loans from the local authorities and individuals and not paying them, whereas England is collecting them from the farmers' produce?
What has that to do with this motion?
It is because the Central Fund has the advantage of that and the farmers' produce has to pay the British Government that money, and the money that the Central Fund is getting, which it should not get, should go to relieve the rates.
That is not the motion.
The motion must be founded on that and nothing else.
The Deputy is not in that Party now.
Do not play the showman. Get down to business.
The Deputy brought you in here, anyway.
The Minister must be allowed to make his speech without interruption. A good many speeches were made without interruption, and the Minister should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
Deputy Belton only wants derating up to £50 valuation. That is the latest.
Who said that? Deputy Gibbons wanted it in full a few years ago.
I should like to be allowed to get back to the motion just for a little while.
There is the case made. Controvert it now if you can. You are not going to run away at a tangent on this.
I take it that this is what we are asked to agree to—I may be misrepresenting Deputies opposite and I would hate to do that—that a larger proportion of the total sum which the State can afford for the relief of agriculture should be given in the form of relief in rates rather than in some other method. I am quite certain that is what Deputies opposite have in mind because it conforms to Cumann na nGaedheal policy since the inception of Cumann na nGaedheal. They always said: "Wait for something to turn up. If there is depression in agriculture, let us give them something in the nature of relief in rates, and hope for the best." It was a hope that at some future date some change would happen, how or why they did not know, but which would avoid the necessity for further relief. Is that a sound policy? Is it wise to ask the Dáil to commit itself to the giving of relief to agriculture in that way, rather than by setting ourselves down seriously to plan an agricultural policy?
Plan?
To use the financial resources we have in order to effect the successful initiation and operation of the agricultural policy that we have decided upon. There is no agricultural policy in this motion.
Nor in the plan.
There is no plan in the motion.
It is your plan.
It is your motion. That is the real Cumann na nGaedheal Micawber-like outlook, expressed in words—carry on and hope for the best, that God is good, and that the British are not too bad. The main difference between Fianna Fáil policy and Cumann na nGaedheal policy in relation to agriculture is what I have said. Cumann na nGaedheal policy, if it is worthy of the name, is to afford some measure of relief in hard times and hope to goodness that something better will turn up in the future. The Fianna Fáil policy recognises the facts of the situation, and the circumstances which are operating in the home market, in the British market, and in every market in the world; the necessity for effecting a change in the basis on which agriculture here was conducted in the past, and to use our financial resources in order to induce that change as rapidly as possible and with the least possible hardship on individuals. Cumann na nGaedheal policy contemplates complete dependency on the possibility in the future of continuing to sell cattle to Great Britain at a profit. Their whole outlook is warped by the idea that there is some course of action open to the people or the Government of this country which is going to make it possible for Irish farmers to sell still more cattle to Great Britain at a profit. They refuse to recognise the hardest possible facts, no matter how often they are brought to their attention. On Thursday last when Deputies Fagan and Holohan talked raimeis of that kind, I reminded them of the British Government's White Paper on agricultural conditions in Great Britain which had been circulated that morning. It was obvious that they had not read the Paper, or, if they did read it, they did not understand its significance. The market for cattle in Great Britain is one about which Deputies opposite should try to find out something.
There is not a single word about the export of cattle to Great Britain in this motion.
Order.
The Deputy's objection has been noted.
You want to get away from the motion.
I claim that this motion, if it is advocating anything at all, is advocating it on the basis of affording relief to farmers in the hope that at some time they will be able to get back the British market in which to sell cattle.
It is not. Pay the farmers what you are forcing them to pay for you.
We will want it because all the calves will soon be dead.
I want to point out that this market for cattle in Great Britain has not proved to be profitable to British farmers, who could not get prices that would pay them until the British Government subsidised them. Why did the British Government think it necessary to subsidise the price of cattle in Great Britain if that market was so profitable that we should abandon everything in order to get the opportunity to sell our surplus cattle there. Why did the British Minister of Agriculture say in the British House of Commons on Friday last that, but for the assistance given under the British Agricultural Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, the cattle producers there would be faced with disaster? That is the market Deputies want us to concentrate upon.
Even though they are getting £6 more for cattle than we get. That leaves us very bad.
They are very bad and they are getting £6 more than we get.
What must be the condition of our farmers?
The Deputy wants us to advocate that Irish farmers should concentrate on the production of live stock for that market.
No, stick to the motion.
What is their policy? In so far as they have any policy, in so far as they have given expression to any policy here it has been this, and nothing more, that we should risk all our chances of prosperity in the future and the stability of the economic structure of this State, upon the opportunity of selling our cattle to whatever extent we can produce them, in that market which, according to the British Minister of Agriculture, was so disastrous for British farmers that it was necessary for the British Government to subsidise cattle prices there.
It is £6 a head better than the German prices. We want to get into it and we are paying to get into it.
Is it not for that reason precisely that the policy of the Government to advocate is to get out of cattle?
What are you going to get into?
We will talk about that later. It is clearly bad policy to produce goods and to have to sell them at a loss.
The Minister is talking through his hat.
I am here to discover what is order and what is in order. The Deputy will at least respect the Chair.
I apologise to the Chair. The Minister does not know what he is talking about.
The British Minister of Agriculture knows what he is talking about.
He was able to "cod" you anyway.
We must assume that the Minister there knows more about the condition of the cattle market in Great Britain than we do, and knows more about the intentions of the British Government in relation to that market than we do. The fact is that at present, according to the British Minister of Agriculture, the prices prevailing in that market are such that, if the Government had not subsidised them, cattle producers there would have to face disaster. These were the words used by the Minister. Are conditions there going to improve for us in the future? Do Deputies opposite know what the policy of the British Government is in relation to their home market for agricultural produce? Are the farmers of this country to be advised to continue producing for that market the limited range of products they formerly exported to it?
The motion deals with 1934-35.
This is 1934-35. Mr. Elliott, the British Minister of Agriculture, stated in the House of Commons last week:—
"The Government held firmly to the policy set out in the White Paper and they had no intention of permitting the extinction of the livestock industry in Great Britain. The Bill would give time while discussions were proceeding. Their primary duty was to the home producer. It was the home producer's position which was in jeopardy and it was his position which this long series of negotiations was designed to secure."
The intention of the British Government in relation to the British market for cattle was made clear in that statement. The market is going to be reserved for British producers, to whatever extent the British Government can secure it. It is because of that they sent out their ultimatum, not to this country, with which the so-called economic war is in progress, but to New Zealand, Canada, Australia and South Africa, to ask them to choose between a tax on meat sent to Great Britain or drastic quantitative restrictions. Deputies, are, no doubt, capable of keeping themselves informed how it is proceeding. They saw the reply of the New Zealand Government, which was published yesterday, which was practically an intimation by that Government that if the British choose to adopt that course against their export trade they would retaliate against the British exports to New Zealand. The British Government is prepared to face that because of the critical position of their own agriculturists in the British market. Yet Deputies profess to regard it as a serious policy that we should cast everything else aside and stake all our chances upon our ability to secure in that market conditions that the British farmer cannot secure, and that no other Dominion farmer has been able to obtain. It is nonsense, and Deputies opposite know it is nonsense. I ask them, if they regard themselves as a serious political Party, to sit down on some occasion and seriously examine the facts in relation to the whole of our agricultural position, and, on the basis of these facts and not on Deputy Belton's fancies, to try and frame a policy.
We will not go to the Minister for a policy anyway. He would not know one end of a plough from the other.
That is too old.
There is an alternative policy expressed in this motion — the policy of handing out relief in the form of a reduction in rates without any clear idea as to what is going to follow from it. We want to give help to the farmers in their depressed condition. We do not deny that they are depressed. We do not deny that agricultural prices are unduly low, and that for many of his products the farmer is not getting back the cost of production; but for a number of these products to-day's price is higher than the average price of 1931, the last year during which the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in office. But, nevertheless, the price is too low.
Would the Minister give us some items for which prices to-day are higher?
Any cereal — barley, oats, wheat, or bacon—pigs.
And suck calves.
But not for cattle. The same position applies everywhere. It is not necessary to reiterate the fact, because Deputies must be aware of it. They know that the world price for every agricultural product is unduly depressed, because all countries are subsidising their exports; and as each country finds that its sales abroad are falling off it increases the subsidy, leading to a further increase in the subsidies elsewhere. In fact, we are getting into the position in which it would appear to be the ambition of every country to give its agricultural surplus away for nothing to foreigners. As a gentleman in Cambridge last week pointed out, we were the only country that had adopted the logical course of giving part of that surplus to our own people for nothing. The fact is that when you subtract from the price paid for some agricultural goods sent from Australia and New Zealand to the British market the cost of shipping them, the cost of insuring, the cost of distributing them in Great Britain and the profits of the distributors, there can be practically nothing going back to the primary producer.
That is the depression in agriculture which has hit us as well as everybody else. It is to deal with that depression that a policy must be formulated, a policy, however, much better than that enshrined in the motion which even the Deputies who have moved it know could achieve nothing. Of what immediate benefit is it to a farmer to get relief of his rates? On the typical farm the rates only represent 3½ per cent. of the total expenses of the farm. On the average farm— taking large and small together and bearing in mind that any calculations based on the figures available for the average farm are necessarily misleading—the rate-charge is only 5 per cent. of the total farm expenses. Is it going to help the farmers to meet the depression and to carry out the reorganisation of their industry, which is necessary, merely by relieving them of that small proportion of their total expenses? Not at all. If we are going to do the job properly we will have to do it on entirely different lines to that. First of all, it is obvious that we must endeavour to limit the exportable surplus of every agricultural product to the extent of the probable export markets available for it. That is sound commonsense. It is obvious that we can get a much better return for our exportable surplus if we limit it to the size of the markets available for it than if we try to cram into already overcrowded markets much more than these markets are capable of absorbing.
Our little surplus is only a drop in the ocean. It does not affect prices in the export market at all.
But at the present time we are limited by quotas in every market. That is a fact which the Deputy is ignoring. The total quantity of any agricultural product which we can sell in any market is fixed not by us but by the Government of the country concerned, and we must endeavour to limit our exportable surplus to the sum total of our quotas in all countries. It is only upon that basis that we can secure, not more profitable prices in these markets because that is outside our control, but a better return in the home market for the Irish producers of these goods.
But if we are limited by quotas we cannot send the goods out even if we were to send them for nothing. A quota is a quota.
And that is why I gave the Deputy that as the first consideration, namely, the limitation of the exportable surplus to the extent for which export markets are available, and, secondly, of marketing our goods under conditions which will secure for us the best possible return for them. That has not been done in the past. Deputies opposite are aware that the price of Irish butter on the British market has been kept unduly low by the chaotic marketing conditions that prevailed here: that as soon as one of the Irish creameries succeeded in getting a customer for its butter at a particular price, another Irish creamery came along and quoted a few points lower in order to get a sale for its product. Therefore, it is necessary in the new world circumstances in which we are now limited by quotas so to organise our marketing arrangements that that type of competition between ourselves, to the disadvantage of other Irish producers, is eliminated. In the interval, while we are carrying out the reorganisation that is necessary, while we are effecting a reduction in the exportable surplus to the limits of that probable market, and while we are perfecting our marketing plans, we must maintain, to whatever extent our financial abilities will permit, the export bounties now being paid.
We must endeavour to produce for home consumption the agricultural goods which hitherto we imported. In the past we imported agricultural goods to the value of several million pounds annually and, therefore, obviously, in the present circumstances, we must try to produce these goods for ourselves. We are doing it in great measure at the present time as regards wheat, beet, animal feeding stuffs, bacon and other products of that kind. We imported these in the past. We have now got to produce them at home. The market available at home for these goods is of very considerable value indeed amounting, in the aggregate, to £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 per year. We must secure in the home market for the Irish producer a price that is going to yield him his cost of production, and a little more. It is only in the home market that we can do that, and we can only undertake to do it when it is possible to so organise production as to ensure that the home market is going to be adequately supplied from Irish farms. As a necessary corollary to that, we must obviously reserve the home market for the Irish producer of agricultural goods, and over and behind all that we must seek, by the development of our industrial and mineral resources, to provide alternative opportunities of employment for those who have not been in the past, and may not be in the future, absorbed in employment on the land.
If that agricultural policy appeals to Deputies opposite—and it seems to me, in relation to the facts of the situation, that no other agricultural policy is possible—we must obviously utilise the financial resources which we have in our hands and can make available for the assistance of the farmers to give immediate effect to that policy rather than to finance the Micawber-like attitude the Party opposite would have us adopt. Nothing is to be gained by merely handing out relief to agriculture in the form of reduction of rates unless, associated with that relief, there is a plan which is going to put the agricultural industry beyond the necessity for that assistance at some time in the future. Deputies opposite are continually talking about the economic war. I, for one, should like to see the end of the economic war, if for no other reason than that it would make Deputies on the opposite benches face up to the situation and come to a realisation of the fact that the essential difficulties of agriculturists are not due, in any way, to the economic war. The economic war has temporarily depressed the price of cattle. It has depressed the price of cattle below the price we might have obtained—a price which in itself would have been uneconomic. Even at the price at which our cattle could be sold in the British market if there were no special duties levied on them, it would not pay us to increase, or even to maintain, our present surplus of cattle. It is not paying the British farmer to produce cattle. Why should it pay us? If the economic war were ended, in the sense that all these special duties were removed, we should still have to face the prospect of reorganising agricultural production on the lines I have stated. If that be so, surely it is a wise policy for us to use the finances made available from the Exchequer to facilitate the change-over by giving assistance to agriculture in the form of guaranteed prices for wheat and other agricultural products, as well as by maintaining export bounties and contributing to the extent that is reasonable to the payment of the farmers' rates to the local authority.
I ask Deputies opposite in all seriousness to withdraw this motion now, to take it back to their councils and there reconsider their policy and the particular ideas which gave rise to this motion. When they next come here with a motion relating to agriculture, let them come with one which will set out seriatim the particular steps that, in their opinion, should be taken to deal with the agricultural position and the particular legislative or financial measures that would have to be adopted to make these steps possible. At the present time, they are merely talking generally and uselessly about the position of the farmers. We all know the position of the farmers. Deputies on this side of the House are as clearly familiar with their position as are Deputies opposite. The only difference is that we are definitely trying to place the Irish farmers in a position in which they will be immune from the vicissitudes of international trade—in a position in which they will not be dependent for prosperity upon the chances and changes in a market over which we have no control. We hope that we shall put their industry upon a basis that will secure for them the reasonable prospect of a livelihood based upon the production for home use of the agricultural goods we ourselves need and the production for export of only those goods for which an export market can be found in not more than the quantities required. That is a clear policy. It has, at least, the merit that there are no ambiguities about it. If Deputies opposite do not agree with that policy, I ask them to give us their policy with the same clarity and lack of ambiguity.
I have listened to two speeches from Ministers on this motion. We were taxed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with not having read the motion. He himself read it—it was, I suppose, a slip—as referring to next year. That is not so. It is intended for the current year. I do not know whether the statement is true or not but it has been mentioned in the Press that one Minister has had to read a section of an Act of Parliament eight times to understand it. It comes badly from the Ministry which is afflicted with that type of mind to tax us with not having read this motion. We have just been treated to a dissertation on the Derating Report—a very able report. That is a very interesting document. There is only one thing wrong in introducing it on this motion. That is, that it is dated 22nd April, 1931. This is the year 1935. Much has happened in the interval and a very different state of affairs exists now amongst the farming community from the state of affairs that existed in 1931. It might interest the House to know that although that was a very important Commission—a judge sat upon it—it was brought into existence under a warrant of appointment from the Ministry of Finance. This, of course, is a much more stylish —I should not like to say snobbish— Government than the Government then in office. When this Government brought forth a Commission to inquire into the pig industry, it was appointed under the hand and seal of Donal O'Buachalla, His Majesty's representative in this country. I am quite sure that the Minister who has just spoken has not read that report.
We have been treated to many figures in connection with the price of cattle to show the dangerous position that live stock rearing has reached in Great Britain. We are told, in effect, that live stock rearing is not an economic proposition over there. The Minister has failed to realise that, in England, they are determined to put that industry on a sound basis. He has probably not seen the Act passed last year which provided for bounties upon cattle of British origin. Under one section of that Act, Irish cattle which had been three months in Great Britain were given the status and rights of cattle of British origin and became entitled to the bounty of 50/-, just as British cattle. The back benchers of the Government Party who have addressed themselves to this motion are all, I presume, agriculturists, just as the two Ministers who have spoken with all the knowledge derived from a life-long experience and a realisation of the ups and downs, the advantages and disadvantages of agriculture. Some of those who have spoken told us during the past couple of years that there was no use in turning our attention to the British market. They told us that, in the first place, Britain could not pay for our cattle, and, in the second place, that the people of Britain could not consume them. The understanding or agreement which was arrived at during the last month or two marks down the statement that they cannot consume our cattle as so much bunkum. They are going to take 150,000 more. These people who, we were told, were not in a position to consume our cattle are able simply to get a good bargain for selling their coal to take 150,000 head of our cattle. And they made a good bargain, notwithstanding the fact that some members of that Party over there said that they had brought the British to their knees? What are they getting? They are getting first class cattle—no better produced in the whole world—at rock bottom prices, and £6 on the horns of each beast, and a few pounds less on the horns of the less finished lots. Altogether we are presenting them with half a million of money along with 150,000 cattle and we are taking from them the coal that it was unpatriotic to buy some months ago. When the Party opposite had their coat turned one way it was unpatriotic to buy British coal; when they had it turned another way it was patriotic to buy it. "Let us," they say, "circulate the money among the cattle producers in Mayo." And that is the modern patriotism! Whatever way they turn their coat the label is the same.
What Ministers have forgotten in connection with this whole business is that they disturbed an industry that was in a fairly frugal position. I put it no higher than that. For the first ten years of this State, although £4,000,000 per year was collected in annuities from the farmers, they were no more than £20,000 behind in their payments. What is the position since this popular Ministry came into office? Although they halved the annuities they are £1,100,000 short on this year's collection. And to-night we have had an Estimate for £45,000 for increased locomotion expenses of the Gárda, for more uniforms and possibly to buy more machine guns so as to impress this country that the forces of might are behind this patriotically-inclined Ministry. Everyone who is acquainted with the position and knows it, as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health does, knows that the position has got far worse in the last three years. The percentage of the collection of rates has gone against the collectors to the extent of 12 or 15 per cent. in the last two years. Knowing that position of affairs they have sent out word to the county councils that they are deducting large sums from their grants. In the case of Cork County Council they have indicated that they are deducting £118,000, yet they ask us have we no better policy than what they call this footling resolution to put forward.
Let us examine their policy. In December, 1932, I met a farmer from Limerick who had 150 head of cattle which he could not sell in Limerick. He was offered £1 per cwt. for them there and refused. He went over to England, paid the tariff, got the bounty and realised 29/6 per cwt. Is it possible for every farmer in Ireland to bring his cattle across and get the last penny for them? Of course not. The whole farming strategy of the Government would have to be gone through. The speech we have just listened to from the Minister is complete humbug from start to finish. It was well phrased, eloquent and high-sounding but there was no plan, there was no suggestion as to how the farmers could get the money to which they are entitled for their produce. It was just the speech of a townsman such as we heard from the Vice-President the other evening. He told us that he had been speaking to a clergyman in Meath who lost money the first year but made money the following year. What was his explanation of how he made money the second year? That he bought the cattle more cheaply. What about the man who got the small price? What about the poor farmer in distant parts of the country who had to accept half the price he got in former years? Then we had the other part of the policy of the Government in order to help the farmers. What was that? The slaughtering of calves and the production of the skins for 10/- to 12/6. Did anyone hear of such nonsense outside of Bedlam?
Mention was made about the bounty. I know a cattle feeder in North Dublin whose land borders on Meath. He had cattle weighing 12 cwt. and a man with a licence came along and offered him 17/6 per cwt. and no more. Ten guineas was the offer for animals that would attract the best show-yard buyers. No better animals could be seen in England or Scotland. What did the man with the licence get for them? He paid 30/- to send them across, and £6 the tariff per beast; that is they cost him £18. He sold them at a price returned in the agricultural markets report of 40/6 per cwt., so that the licence holder got as his profit the difference between £18 —£10/10/0 to the producer and feeder, 30/- transport and £6 tariff— and £24 which he realised in the British market. Then we are told the Government have a plan. They have devised a scheme for the extension of tillage and so on. They have a scheme for tobacco and wheat and beet growing in the country. But there are 4,000,000 head of cattle in this country. Suppose there are some hard-headed farmers and business men who will change over from one kind of farming economy to another. After working in that way for a period will there not be a loss ultimately? I know men who made money in the last couple of years and honestly they were not supermen. I know a man who changed over. First he put cattle on his land; now he has 80 acres of tillage. He is going into his accounts very carefully to see in what manner he would lose the least money. I asked him how his land would be in five or six years. "No good," he said. "I know that but at present I am losing less money."
There are two sides to agriculture. There is the man who will in no circumstances allow his land to go out of what is called "good heart," and there is the man who is not going to lose money. The thing that should concern the Minister for Agriculture is to have the land in the best possible condition, capable of producing good live stock. He talks about improving the production of cattle, but that was done before him. No matter how that is done there will be a surplus which must go into the fat cattle market for beef, unless you produce sires for other parts of the world, whose progeny will come into competition with ours in the markets later. I hope in any trade with Germany we will not have a repetition of the Galteemore and Ardpatrick affair, when they met us at Ballsbridge, beating us in prices realised for their live stock there. These fat cattle are the farmer's stock, and he must sell them. It is out of them he gets his money. In face of these things, is there anybody foolish enough to compare the set of circumstances which exist to-day and that which existed five years ago? Nobody outside Bedlam would do it.
A letter appeared in the Limerick Leader, dated 9th March, in which the prices in 1931 and 1934 are compared. Calves, six months and over, first class, were £8, and second class, £4, in 1931; in 1934, calves six months and over, first class, were £2, and second class, £1. That is the profitable industry that has developed from the administration of the last couple of years. One to two-year-olds were £11/10/0 to £14 in 1931, and in 1934, £5 to £6/10; two to three-year-olds, in 1931, £15 to £17, and in 1934, £6 to £8. Is it any wonder that we are asked for £35,000 this evening to harass the agriculturists of this country for rates and annuities having regard to these prices? The cattle trade is not the only trade in this country. In the report of the commission set up by his Excellency the Governor-General, or under his hand and seal, the output of pigs in Saorstát Eireann for the years ending 31st May, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 is given. For the year 1929-30 the value is £8,989,000; for the following year, £7,727,000; and for 1932-33, £3,779,000— down £4,000,000 inside three years; and I presume the Minister has read that report.
Why not take the 1934-35 figures?
They are not furnished yet. His Excellency will have to sign another document for that. It will keep him busy.
The Deputy only wants to go back for four years.
If I were dealing with the matter after the manner and style of the Minister, I would have eliminated the first year, but I did not do that. I gave him all that is in the report, and he can read it himself on page 17.
Do you think we could repair all the damage you did during our first year of office?
It took us six years to repair all the damage you did.
I am jumping the Minister here and I will give it to the Minister if he wishes. The value of pigs in this country on the day I left office was nearly £7,750,000 and the value now is £3,750,000.
Not now—you have not got the figures.
Last year, the jump is down rather than up. I have given my last year.
Last year was 1934.
I do not have to read these matters for myself seven or eight times. The Minister can study that at his leisure.
Would the Deputy state what we paid for foreign bacon in that year?
The Deputy will have to make that a little more clear for me.
What did we pay for the foreign bacon we brought in? We got £7,000,000.
That makes the case still worse. The Deputy does not realise that he has put his foot into it. Here is the position of affairs.
And the foreign feeding stuffs.
There are £7,000,000 worth of pigs produced in this country, plus what were imported. Assume it was £2,000,000 worth. I will give the Deputy any figure he likes. All that we can produce now, or that we have in stock, either for home consumption or export is £3,779,000 worth. Now, there is something wrong.
There is something very obviously wrong.
There is no more exalted person in this country at the present moment than Donal O Buachalla and it is under his commission that I submit the figures.
The price of pigs is now better than it was in 1931 by several shillings a cwt.
And we have fewer of them.
There were more pigs bought by Saorstát bacon-curers last year than in any year of the last ten.
We must have eaten them alive, and I did not.
Would the Minister say how many pigs were sold by farmers this year as compared with the previous year?
I have given you the figures. The price is better.
We were told by one of the two Ministers who addressed the House on this motion that £9,000,000 had been distributed amongst agriculturists from the Exchequer, and of that he discovered £1,800,000 represented the reduced annuities. What never went into the Exchequer never came out of it. That is a certainty. The second point he made was that £1,100,000 came out for butter. That money never went into the Exchequer, and it has nothing to do with the Exchequer. He mentioned £200,000 as the sum that was going to come out for wheat. It may. £150,000 went out last year. In future, people are going to pay it to the flour millers.
It is time they did.
We have reached a point where national taxation is up by £4,000,000 per annum since this Ministry came into office. In addition to that, they got the annuities that were in the fund, plus the sums that had been levied or provided for in the Estimates — pensions, Local Loans Fund, and so on. The whole sum—I am speaking from recollection—in the Suspense Account was £4,677,000, of which £1,616,000 was voted. They got a net sum of £3,000,000 apart from that taxation. In addition to that, we have the butter levy, the sugar tax, the wheat tax which the people are liable to meet next year in the cost of flour, and we have the bacon levy, and local rates are higher than they were three or four years ago.
No.
It so happens that I have to pay them, and I ought to know. That is the best test of all.
So have I. The Deputy is hardly paying them on land.
It happens that I am, strangely enough, and it is much higher valued in County Dublin than it is in County Cork. If the Deputy wishes to know, it is £2 5s. an acre, and that is stiff enough. It is in this set of circumstances, with the combined pressure of taxation towards the Exchequer and towards the various bounties and levies, and other things of that sort, and with local taxation higher this year — and if the Deputy has any doubts about it, he will know it next year—that we have to consider this motion. If the prices of agricultural produce were as good as they were four years ago, the impact of that taxation, the impact of those levies, and so on, would make a case for derating. Even if there had been no increase in taxation at all, and if there had been the drop there has been in the collection, it is obvious there would be a case for consideration even in that respect. That was the view of the Ministers some three or four years ago. It is not necessary to emphasise the undertakings that were given by the Ministry when they were looking for office. We all know about them. We know all about their promises, undertakings, persuasions and plans, but it is advisable occasionally to see what some of them may have said in the more lucid moments when they were not in office. In the Limerick Leader, of March 9th, Mr. D.P. O'Connor writes:—
"I will quote from a report of a conference of Co. Limerick farmers at the Town Hall, Limerick, on February 14th, 1931, convened by circular, signed James Colbert, T.D.; Tadhg Crowley, T.D., and Alderman Bourke, T.D. Mr. Derrig said: `They knew the difficulties under which the dairying industry was labouring. He understood the arrears of rates in Co. Limerick amounted to £54,000. The totals of the rates in rural areas at present represented an increase of over 50 per cent. on the 1914 figures.' Mr. Derrig added `that the principle of the relief of rates was long ago admitted, when following the abolition of the Corn Laws agriculture was forced into the depressed condition in which it had remained since. The British Government recognised that the farming industry required such relief, and in fact even before complete derating was introduced in Great Britain the farmers were relieved of 75 per cent. of their rates. Your demand for an increase in relief at present is simply a demand to extend a principle that has been already almost universally admitted. The farmers stood on the reasonable ground that those who received the benefits should pay for them. It was very questionable whether any person's rateable valuation was in fact a fair estimate of his ability to pay rates. They could easily imagine the case of a farmer who was so heavily rated that he could not pay his rates or annuities and compare it with the case of a prosperous professional man with a small valuation.' "
Relief of rates was given—up to nearly £2,000,000.
The Ministry gave £250,000 the first year they came in, over and above what had been granted by their predecessors. In the second year they reduced the Agricultural Grant £448,000, on the specious plea that that money was going to be spent in home assistance and so on, and it was not.
In that year the annuities were halved—another £2,000,000.
As a matter of fact that point was nearly escaping my memory!
It is a rather important consideration.
Then this year they gave £20,000 over and above what they gave in their first year, or some figure like that. If the Minister contradicts me, I will admit a larger figure. The annuities, we are told, were halved. The facts are that the British Government is collecting on agricultural produce almost £4,500,000. The Ministry endeavours to collect £2,000,000 here, so that for a debt of £4,000,000—to put it no higher—the farmers are asked to pay £6,000,000. We are told that they are getting relief and bounties. I have described two particular instances of one bounty. I have not gone around looking for them, but there is no man in this country who is satisfied that there is anything else but a scandal in connection with the licences. Very few farmers are satisfied that the bounty reaches them.
Should we abolish the bounty? Is that what the Deputy wants?
It is not my problem. This is your mess. When you are in the middle of it do not ask us, "How are we to get out of this?"
Do the Deputies opposite want the bounty abolished?
If the bounty does not reach the persons for whom it is intended it is waste money.
Do you want it abolished?
Will you set up a tribunal to consider it?
We set up a tribunal for you.
If everybody had his deserts you would be before the tribunal long ago.
The British Government is collecting, you might say, £4,500,000. It was £1,000,000 over their Estimate, and the only way they could stop the money from flowing in was by putting a limitation on the number of cattle they were going to take. That was the only way it could be stopped. Then we were told that they could not consume them, and that they could not pay for them. Mind you, low as is the price that they are paying, and heavy as the tax is that they are putting on them, we could get no more from anybody else, and we have tried hard. Mr. de Valera, as he then was, is reported in the Irish Press of the 18th March, 1932, as saying that: “The overhead charges on farmers are too high for them and must be lightened. One of the heaviest of those charges is the burden of the local rates.” There is the oracle himself contradicting the Minister who told us that it was only three and a half per cent. or five per cent. Here is the great man himself telling us that one of the heaviest of those charges is the burden of local rates. He added: “We propose to derate agricultural holdings.” Now, that is pretty hot stuff. “They are derated in Britain and in the Six Counties.” We cannot keep our eye off that old dear no matter what we do. “Two of the £3,000,000 unjustly taken from us each year in land annuities will suffice for this derating.” That is not a promise; it is only a statement! That was the state of mind of the President of the Executive Council, notwithstanding all the Minister has said. He was satisfied that local rates were an unjust and unfair burden on agriculture. He led the people of this country to believe that when they came in they would derate agricultural land. The report of the Derating Commission was mentioned here to-night. Was there any member of the Fianna Fáil Party who supported that policy at the time? Not one of them. They were all against the report. Fianna Fáil would promise more than derating to get into the seats of the mighty.
A Deputy
That is what you are doing now.
In very different circumstances. Two or three years were not necessary to teach me my business when I was over there. I had had some experience of business. I had had some experience of the world. I knew the truth of Burke's statement when he said that you cannot indict a nation. The policy of this Government is little short of indicting the farmers of this country, who are practically the nation. Think for a moment, as Deputy Brennan has said, that in the short space of two or three years 450,000 men are going to be demoralised and are going to refuse to pay their rates! No such thing. It could not happen. These are the real difficulties that are confronting the farmers and that have placed them in that position.
This evening I asked the Minister for Justice did he stand over the seizure of goods, putting them up for sale and knocking them down at one-tenth of their value. I asked him did he stand for that. That is what goods are knocked down at. There is no use in the Minister saying that it is a mistake for these people to allow their cattle to be seized. The position is this: The farmer who is able to pay happens to be surrounded by a number of men who cannot pay. He has to stand in with them. That is unfortunate, but there is no Party in this country more responsible for that state of affairs than the Party on the Government Benches. They told the people that if they stood together they could get their rights and now it does not lie in the mouth of any man on the Government Benches to say to a farmer "I know you have got the money and you can pay." That is no answer. The man should be able to pay his debts and his rates and annuities out of the working of his farm; out of his industry and his holding he should be able to get the money that would meet all these liabilities.
In the course of a letter a farmer in Limerick points out that not alone in the price of cattle but that for practically every other commodity produced in the country there has been a catastrophic drop in prices in the last four or five years. The Minister tells us that the Government knows that. Is it conceivable that from one end of this country to the other a whole succession of people say "we are unable to pay" unless it were so? No organisation, not even the Fianna Fáil organisation at its best—and it was fairly strong just as we were going out of office—would have been able to prevent people paying their debts if they were able to pay them. And at that time the Fianna Fáil organisation would have been delighted to place us in a difficult or impossible position with the farmers.
For the non-payment of these annuities to-day there is no other reason than that the industry cannot pay. It may be, in circumstances such as this, that there ought to be a pooling of the wisdom on the part of people who would say amongst themselves "What can be done?" We believe that the only method of improving the condition of the farmers is to end the economic war. Some time ago a great many people were surprised, having regard to the statements made by Government Deputies in the last couple of years in connection with the inability of the British consumer to buy our cattle, on waking up one morning to find that a pact had been arrived at. That was the coal and cattle pact. Were the circumstances so propitious for such an understanding then as was arrived at? They were not, and if, in such circumstances, when there is a tariff war on and a great many people are doubting the sincerity of what is behind that tariff war, a pact is arrived at whereby the British people take 150,000 more cattle from us than they did a year ago, is it seriously contended that we could not make a better bargain with the British if there were a settlement all around? Does not the Minister know that in any settlement of this tariff war, the Irish farmer would get off very much better than at present? Is it seriously contended that a reduction of half the annuities compensates for all that the farmer is losing?
There is no greater danger than driving honest men into a position in which they find that they cannot meet their liabilities. In my time I have seen many honest men who would not defraud a person of a penny, men who would go out of their way to meet their liabilities, but who, when times became hard, were difficult to deal with. If, as a result of the policy pursued now, the farmers are driven to depression or ruined, mark you, notwithstanding whatever good bargain may be got afterwards—at the end of a year or two—it will be found that nothing will restore or compensate for what has been lost. It is nonsense to tell those farmers to change over. When you have got numbers of people accustomed to a certain system of farming or accustomed to any particular system of agriculture, it is impossible for them to change from that system. Anybody who makes an inquiry through the Land Commission as to what happened in the case of migrants will understand the truth of this. Men were transferred from the less fertile parts of the country into the rich lands of Meath and Dublin. The migrants got much better holdings in Meath and in the rich lands near Dublin. These people would not come from the less fertile parts of the country unless they got better holdings. I inquired as to how they got on and I learned that very few had been doing as well as they had been doing on the less fertile lands. What was the reason of that? A different style of farming. Possibly on the Government Front Benches, one out of the ten or 12 has experience of working land and these are the men who are asking for a complete change in the agricultural system pursued by the farmers. They are ordering or directing a new system of agricultural economy. It would take the genius of Solomon to make a success of that policy within the time in which they propose to make that change. Possibly they think that the economic war is necessary in order to bring about this state of things.
I tell the Minister and his colleagues that a very serious responsibility rests upon them. It will not be possible later by means of compensation Acts to restore the broken homes, to put back the children who have been taken out of the schools and to give to the young man who has gone along two or three years perhaps with his profession any compensation that will make up for what they have lost. I tell Ministers it will not be possible to do that. Remember we had an experience of it before in connection with disturbed conditions such as these. These disturbed conditions may have very much more reactions and troubles not alone for the Ministry but for the people of the country. It would be well for the Ministers then, before it is too late, to review the circumstances and to see whether it would be possible for them to give the farmers what they are asking. Meantime, by reason of the increase in taxation in this country and the extra cost in such items as sugar and other commodities that the farmer has to buy; by reason of the increase in local taxation and by reason of the harassing of these farmers, I am convinced there is no way out of complete derating of agricultural land. I do not see how it is possible to rehabilitate the agricultural industry except by giving them derating. If Ministers were in touch with agriculturists; if they heard the stories that are being told about the increased cost in connection with tillage and other matters, they would realise just as clearly as I do that during the next few years derating has got to be given to agricultural land in this country.
At the time when this motion was put down, what might be called normal rates were in existence throughout the country. Now, the position is that by reason of non-payment of part of the annuities a sum of £750,000 is going to be deducted from the local grants. We are told it is the law, but it is a law that can be changed without an Act of Parliament. It is a law that a piece of white paper brought in here with a sum of £750,000 written on it restoring the money to the Guarantee Fund, would get over. That is all that is necessary. I would advise the Ministry to consider doing that before it is too late. Somebody asked where is the money to come from. In the Budget of 1932-33 there was produced a surplus of £1,141,000. In the third page of the Minister for Finance's speech on the Budget last year, he declared that he had a surplus of £1,355,000. Those two items together would give derating to agricultural land this year and next year.
Debate adjourned until Friday, 15th March.
The Dáil adjourned at 10-30 until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 14th March.