It has been intimated to the Chair, verbally, that the subject suggested by the main Opposition for debate on the Adjournment Motion is the economic condition of the country, with special reference to the agricultural industry.
Adjournment of the Dáil. - Economic Condition of the Country.
Question proposed: "That the Dáil do now adjourn until Wednesday, October 26th."
I gave you notice, Sir, that I intended to raise a particular matter and that arises out of a statement——
It is not only usual, but obligatory, that the Chair should be notified, usually in writing, of the subject selected for debate on the Adjournment. Otherwise, every Deputy would have his own pet subject and the debate would be diffuse and futile. A subject has been selected by the Party of which the Deputy is a member. The Deputy intimated to me yesterday that he desired to raise a certain question. That matter was discussed, and at considerable length, on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, as an item in that Estimate. It is obvious, the Appropriation Bill having since become law, that the debate on the Estimate may not be reopened, nor may the Minister be arraigned on a particular item in his administration, nor is it permissible to reply now to the statement made by the Minister in his concluding speech on the Estimate for his Department. Therefore, the question of the Carrick-on-Suir Slate Quarries cannot be raised on this Adjournment Motion.
I am only going to raise it in so much as it affects agriculture and the particular motion that is before the Chair. In my part of the country, in South Tipperary——
The Deputy must understand that the question of the Carrick-on-Suir Slate Quarries may not be raised.
I am not raising it; I am only raising the question of agriculture in those areas and the facilities that might be given the people there to keep roofs on their houses. All the buildings in that part of the country are roofed with a certain kind of slate. Repairs are needed almost every day on one or other of the houses. You cannot replace the slates by galvanized iron or tiles, and neither can you replace them by asbestos slates. It is this particular type of slate used in this particular area——
The Deputy will not be allowed by any subterfuge to deal with slates for houses, slates obtained in the Carrick-on-Suir or other quarries.
I am glad somebody is able to mind the Minister. Only for that he would feel very unhappy to-night—only for the protection of the Chair.
To-day we are to deal with the economic condition of the country, with special reference to agriculture. It would be absolutely impossible and futile to attempt to deal with the general economic condition of the country without having particular reference to agriculture, because the agricultural industry, needless to say, is the foundation upon which the economic condition of the country is based. Yesterday we were dealing with the first citizen of the State; to-day we are dealing with the last citizen of the State, the farmer, the citizen upon whom the whole economic fabric of the State rests, the citizen who is bearing the entire burden of sustaining and maintaining the bulk of the population of this country. It is our duty to put before the Government, before they retire on their holidays, as clearly and as briefly as possible, the position under which farmers are labouring at the present time.
Nobody will dare to suggest that the agricultural industry is in a prosperous position. We have only to look over the statistics of prices for the past four or five years and compare them with the preceding four or five years to calculate the deplorable condition to which the agricultural industry has been reduced. It should be the duty of representatives of the people here to-day to impress on the Government the absolute, the urgent necessity of taking such steps as may be necessary to put the agricultural industry on a sound economic basis. The need for the restoration of the agricultural industry to an economic position does not rest on any appeal to the generosity of the Government towards the farmer, or any appeal to justice for the farmer, but to the absolute necessity of the Government realising that if this country is to continue, the agricultural industry must be restored to a condition of prosperity and to a condition in which it can expand and develop. That is the urgent problem that faces the Government at the present time—the restoration of the agricultural industry to a sound economic condition in which that industry can maintain the present population and can provide increasing employment in the future.
It has been clearly demonstrated that every branch of the agricultural industry has been declining during the past few years, not only live stock but various old-established branches of the tillage industry, such as potatoes, oats and other products, which farmers have been accustomed to raise in this country for hundreds of years. It would seem as if the Minister for Agriculture has been acting in an absolutely irresponsible and reckless manner during the past few years. By his action he has forced the farmers out of production in various branches of the industry to which they were accustomed. If you take pig-raising, for example, you find the farmers have been forced to get out of pig production. The result is that you have frantic appeals to the farmers in the newspapers every day to feed more pigs, to increase pig production. Such appeals would not be necessary if the Government realised during the past few years that it was absolutely impossible and futile to expect farmers to go on producing when they were not getting an economic price, a price which would cover the cost of production, the cost of the raw materials which they require in their industry.
It should be the first object of the Government to see that the price of every product of agriculture bears relation to the cost of production. You know from the statistics published that the price of agricultural products has increased since 1913 by about 11 per cent., while the cost of production in the agricultural industry has increased by over 100 per cent., and in some important branches of the industry by more than 100 per cent. You can compare any item of expenditure upon the farm with what it was in 1913. You can compare charges, in the first place, and you will find that wages are at least 150 per cent. higher than in 1913. The prices of agricultural implements, seeds, manures, etc., are at least 100 per cent. higher than in 1913. Therefore, you are up against the fact that while the prices the farmers are paid for their products have increased only by 10 or 11 per cent., the prices he has to pay for his requirements towards the cost of production on the farm have increased by over 100 per cent.
No industry could continue under such conditions, and it is no cause of surprise or astonishment to anybody who understands conditions and can read plain figures, that the agricultural industry is declining, that the number of people engaged in the industry is decreasing and that there is a general state of decay in an industry which should be the most prosperous in the country. We have had 16 years of self-government. For 16 years the people of Ireland have had the right to administer and manage their own affairs, and what has been the result? The result has been that the country is in a far worse economic position than it was 16 years ago, mainly because the most important industry has been neglected and no real attempt has been made to put that industry on a sound economic footing.
Various remedies have been suggested to prevent decay in the agricultural industry. We are told that the social conditions in rural Ireland should be brightened up, that the education given in the schools and colleges to the young people should have a rural bias; but no amount of education, no amount of brightening up in rural Ireland will close the eyes of our young people to the fact that they can find a more remunerative living and a better living in the towns and cities and in other countries than they can find in rural Ireland at present. Thus, you have the young people leaving the country in large numbers and the rural population is declining. That is the first problem the Minister has to face —the problem of securing and ensuring that the price of agricultural products shall bear a relation to the cost of production and leave a margin of profit that will enable the farmer to carry on his industry and to pay his employees a living wage.
We have already discussed the industrial alcohol factories which we were dealing with yesterday and to-day. There is one aspect in regard to those factories to which I want to draw attention, and it is that the price paid for the farmers' products by those factories, the price of the raw material, the potatoes which the farmer produces, is not an economic price. The Minister for Agriculture and the Government must face up to the fact that it is absolutely impossible to expect farmers to produce potatoes at £2 to £2 5s. per ton, and that that is not an economic price for such products and not a price that will enable the farmer to pay a wage of 27/- per week to his employees, and they must realise that the farmer, whether he produces potatoes, beet or wheat, is entitled to a margin of profit, just the same as the people engaged in manufacturing industries claim, and are allowed, a decent margin of profit.
In addition to providing the farmer with fair prices, it is absolutely essential that the overhead charges upon the agricultural industry be reduced and absolutely essential that the farmer should not be unjustly taxed and unjustly burdened with these various overhead charges. We know that, as compared with 1913, rates have increased by over 300 per cent. No attempt has been made to face up to this problem and no attempt has been made to do justice to the farmers in connection with their contribution to the upkeep of the local services. No section of the community is taxed for the upkeep of local services to the same extent as the farmer. I think every citizen will admit that it is the duty of people to contribute to the upkeep of the State and of the various public services, whether local or national, in strict accordance with their means, and I do not think that any farmer will object, or has ever objected, to being taxed for the upkeep of the local services in proportion to his means. Yet we find that the contribution which farmers are called upon to pay for the upkeep of the local services in this country bears no relation whatever to his means. You find two citizens of this country, one, a State official or a person with an income from some source other than rateable property of, say, £500 per year and living next door to him, a farmer with absolutely no income whatever, who is working his farm at a dead loss and has been doing so, as a result of the economic conditions prevailing, for the past four or five years. You will find that those two citizens have exactly the same rateable valuation and you will ask why this state of affairs should prevail. Why should those two people whose incomes vary so much be called upon to contribute to the upkeep of the local services at exactly the same rate? That is the position at present.
The system of financing local administration is unjust to property owners in general, but it is particularly unjust to the owner of agricultural property, the farmer, because, as I say, he is taxed upon a valuation on his rateable property, unmindful altogether of the fact that it is possible in this country to have an income, and even a very large income, without having any rateable valuation whatever, or only a very small rateable valuation. When the system of so basing the contribution which a citizen makes to the upkeep of services, national and local, was first introduced, perhaps hundreds of years ago, it might have been true that the income of each citizen depended on the amount of rateable property, such as land or buildings, which he owned, but that state of affairs does not prevail at present, and it is, as I say, possible for a citizen to have a very large income without owning any rateable property. Therefore, the present system of financing local administration must go. It must be repealed, and the contribution which the farmer is called upon to make to the upkeep of these services must be calculated on an entirely different basis from the valuation basis. For this reason, we have in this country, and we have had in other countries, a demand for the derating of agricultural land, a demand which has been acceded to in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but which is still ignored in this country, which, we are told, is governed in strict accordance with the principles of Christian justice.
Another question was dealt with to-day—the question of compensating the manufacturer. We are entitled to ask why the Government has been so generous in dealing with this manufacturer, or alleged manufacturer, while the claims of the farming community for compensation for what they have lost during the past five or six years have been completely ignored and trampled under foot. Why is there such a distinction made between the farmer and the industrialist, or the enterprising capitalist? I do not think you could call the people who run the factory at Roscrea——
It would be better not to refer to them further. The Estimate was passed to-day. The Deputy may make a comparison between industrialists and agriculturists, but may not go into the details of the Roscrea scheme.
I have made a mistake, Sir, in describing these people as industrialists or manufacturers. I think I shall call them—well—enterprising capitalists. At any rate, no attempt has been made to deal fairly with the farmers in connection with the tremendous losses they have suffered during the past few years. The Taoiseach has declared publicly on various occasions—and other members of the Government have declared —that the farmer has suffered very grave hardships during the past few years. I think nobody will dispute the fact that the reduction in the price of the commodities which the farmer produces—the essential products of his farm and the most profitable products of his farm, which were live stock— has been over 50 per cent., and in many cases the reduction has been 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. They were reduced to scrap prices as a result both of the economic war and of the various consequences of the economic war, and also as a result of worldwide depression. Surely some attempt should be made to recompense farmers for these tremendous losses. Justice demands that, since it has been a recognised principle of Governments that when any section of their people are called upon to make a sacrifice in the national interest, it should be the duty of the State to come to the aid of such people and recompense them as far as possible for the losses they have suffered. That principle has been introduced into legislation in this country in connection with the sacrifices which were made by people during the various struggles for independence from 1916 onwards, and there is no reason why the same principle should not be applied to people who have made big sacrifices in the national interest from 1932 onwards.
It may be said, of course, that the State, in various ways, has compensated farmers for the losses they have suffered, but even a casual survery of the whole position ought to convince the members of the Government that any measures they have adopted with a view to compensating the farmers have been altogether inadequate. We are told that various sums have been spent on bounties on agricultural exports. We have got to ask ourselves how much of those bounties were passed on to the farmer? It must be remembered, in dealing with a situation such as existed here during the economic war period, that the export trade of this country was completely disorganised and that the farmer's losses were not alone the tariffs which the farmer had got to pay upon our agricultural exports, but also the losses consequent on that disorganisation and restriction of trade. During the years 1934 to 1935, I think, the exports of cattle from this country to Great Britain were reduced to almost half. As a result of that, of course, prices were deflated and it was almost impossible for the farmer to sell his stuff at any price. The result was that the farmer had got to take whatever price was offered for his stuff by the exporter; and there was no obligation on the exporter to pass on to the farmer whatever bounties were paid to him, since he could buy stuff in the markets for any price he liked to offer because, as I have said, more than half of the surplus cattle could not be exported and thus the farmer had to give away his stuff at any price the exporter cared to offer. The result was that the exporter got the entire bounties that were paid on live-stock exports and, in addition, substantial profits.
We know that licences were distributed in 1934 by the Department of Agriculture and we know that these licences were worth about £5 or £6 each. How did it happen that these licences were worth about £5 or £6 each? It happened simply because there were twice as many cattle in this country as could be exported and therefore the exporter who had got a licence derived a benefit on each beast, for which he held that licence, to the extent of £5 or £6. We know that during the years 1934 and 1935 those licences were not distributed to the producer but to the exporter. Everybody realised—even the Minister was brought to realise—the injustice of that system. Yet, for one year, those licences were distributed to exporters and withheld from the producer, and each licence was worth £5. That loss also may be included amongst the losses the farmers suffered during the economic war period. It was only when licences came to be worth less— that is to say, when the number of cattle which could be exported from this country increased—that the distribution of licences was handed to the county committees of agriculture and the licences distributed direct to the producer. While they were really valuable, however, they were retained in the possession of the Minister and distributed to everybody who could allege that he was an exporter.
Now, farmers have suffered greatly from all these injustices. They have borne bravely all the burdens that have been placed on them, and now, when the economic conflict is over, surely they have a right to have their position reviewed and a right to appeal to the Government to take some steps, and adequate steps, to recompense them for the losses they have suffered. You may ask: what exactly was the loss which farmers suffered during those years? Of course, it is very hard to calculate exactly or accurately what each individual farmer lost, but we know that the exports from this country declined by about £20,000,000 a year. We know also that the earnings of the entire farming community declined by over £20 per year on the average, and we know also that the total value of agricultural output declined by an almost similar sum; so that, as a rough calculation, you can put the farmers' losses in this country at £20,000,000 per year or about £120,000,000 for the six years during which this condition of affairs prevailed.
We are asking what the Government is going to do in connection with that matter. Are they simply going to ignore the claims of the farmers? Are they going to let them continue to live in a condition of poverty, let the young people get away out of the country and allow the whole economic condition of the country to decline? I think the Government should take a bold and courageous step towards putting this country on a sound economic basis by putting the farmer in a position to derive a profit from the working of his farm and to increase the output of every acre of his holding and thus increase the wealth of this country. It must be realised that the losses which the farmers have suffered have placed them in such a position that they cannot increase the output of their holdings. Without capital, they cannot possibly increase their acreage under tillage, or increase their stock, or provide better machinery, or artificial manures or any of the things which are required in order to increase their output. At the present time, the farmer has absolutely no capital. Surely it ought to be the duty of the Government to realise that the agricultural industry must be provided with the necessary capital to increase production. As we know, no industry can be established in this country without capital, not even the old cow industry in Roscrea. Since that is a fact, how can our Government expect the agricultural industry to develop and expand unless they are prepared to provide the necessary capital to enable the farmer to equip his farm in such a way that he will be able to increase the output of his land?
We will be told, and it will be repeated, of course, that there is no money available to provide the necessary capital for farmers. Yet, we found that a few weeks ago when the Government required £10,000,000 to recoup or compensate John Bull for being whipped, they had no difficulty whatever in finding the money. They had no difficulty whatever, in raising the sum of £10,000,000 for that purpose. Surely it should be possible for the Government to raise another £10,000,000 to recoup or compensate the farmers who were whipped during the past five or six years? Surely it should be possible for the Government to find that money, since it is quite clear to everybody that that will not be wasted money? It will not be money sent out of the country as in the case of the £10,000,000 sent over to England. It will be money which will be invested in the country, which will bear a high rate of interest, which will increase the productive capacity of the country, and increase the wealth of the country. The population of this country, whether they like it or not, have got to live upon the wealth that is produced in this country, which is mainly agricultural produce, and it is the most urgent problem of the Government to see that the output of the agricultural industry is increased. They can only do that by providing the necessary capital. The Minister for Agriculture advanced an argument against providing loans to farmers at a low rate of interest, or providing them with capital to purchase stock. He said that it would increase the prices of live stock, and that the farmers would be in danger of losing their money since the prices would again decline. I should like to point out to the Minister that that is not altogether true. It usually happens in this country that during the latter months of the seasons the prices of cattle decline, and it would be very desirable that the Minister should provide capital for the farmers to enable them to purchase stock during the months of October and November, stock which they could feed upon their holdings, thereby consuming their supplies of hay and other produce, and producing farmyard manure over their farms to enable them to carry on their industry, and increase their tillage and other branches of the industry. Surely that suggestion ought to receive the Minister's consideration. There are in this country thousands of farms upon which there is quite ample feeding for live stock for the winter months, but upon which there is no stock to be fed. That state of affairs quite naturally leads to the deterioration of those holdings. The feeding stuffs will be either sold at a sacrifice—given away practically—or allowed to rot in the haggards. The stock will not be fed over the winter months, and the result will be that there will be no farmyard manure for the land in the spring. Surely that is a point which the Minister should take into consideration. He should try to get as much live stock as possible fed, and well fed, upon the farms during the winter months, so that the farmer will be in a position to manure his land properly, and will have well-fed cattle —either finished stall-fed cattle or good forward stores—to put on the market during the spring months, and also have a supply of farmyard manure to enable him to carry on the tillage operations of his farm.
I think, if the Minister will consider the matter from that standpoint, he will see that there is a real national gain to be derived from advancing money to the farmers to purchase stock, a national gain not only in the live-stock side of the agricultural industry, but also in the tillage side. He must realise that the policy which has been pursued during the past few years —the policy of forcing farmers to get out of live stock completely and concentrate altogether on tillage—is an absolutely unsound policy which is not calculated to enable the agricultural industry to flourish. It is not calculated to increase any branch of the agricultural industry, not even the tillage side of it, because it must be realised that the attempts which the farmers have been making during the past few years to carry on tillage on a large scale, without live stock, have been most detrimental to tillage in this country; have turned the farmers to a very large extent against grain growing; and have turned their farms also against grain growing, by reducing them to a condition in which they cannot grow any kind of grain crop satisfactorily. Surely, the Minister will realise that there is absolutely no use in thinking that the agricultural industry, which has lost so much money during the past few years, can carry on without increased capital. Surely he will realise, since he has co-operated in depriving the farmers of their capital, that it is his duty to advance the money which the farmers require to carry on their industry, and to advance it in such a way as will give the best return, not only to the individual farmer, but to the nation. The farmers of this country are as patriotic as any section of the community. They have always been prepared to co-operate in any national work, or in any national enterprise, and they have been prepared from the very outset to co-operate with the Government in promoting industrial development. Notwithstanding the fact that industrial development has imposed a very heavy burden upon the farming community, the farmers are prepared to bear that burden provided they get fair treatment; provided that they in turn are given protection in their industry, such protection as will enable them to get a fair price for their produce; and that they are given such relief from the overhead charges upon their industry as will enable them to carry on production, to increase production, and thereby increase the number of people living and working upon the land.
I am not going to detain the House very long on this particular matter. The case of the agricultural community has been fairly argued by Deputy Cogan, but there is a phase of it which struck me very forcibly within the past few weeks. It is rather peculiar that the Government claim to be assisting the small farmer and the poor farmer. Everybody who has any experience of that type of person knows that there is a certain time of the year known as the "hungry month."
There is an Irish phrase for it—Mí an Ocrais. In other parts it is known as "July, an Chabáiste." It is very significant that the effect of Government policy has been to increase the cost of living on these small farmers at this particular time. A general election was held on the 17th June, but the day before, the price of flour —not bakers' flour, but ordinary flour used by the people—jumped by 1/- a sack. On 29th June there was a further advance to 43/- and on the 6th July it jumped to 44/9. In other words, there was a rise of 3/- a sack in less than three weeks in the hungry months. Small farmers who were not making any profit out of the wheat scheme had to keep pace with that increase. I asked what could possibly be the reason for it, and I was informed that at a certain time the Minister would issue an order that all home-grown wheat was to be put into flour produced in this country, and that when he made that order it would increase the cost of flour so much. If that was done immediately the whole policy of the Government would be exposed. Therefore, by gradually increasing the price in the months of June and July the millers will not be given the opportunity of doing it all at once. That is an astonishing state of affairs. We had a case to-day of a halfpenny a gallon being added to the price of petrol to compensate for what is going to be done here, but 3/- a sack was put on the price of flour, which is an absolute necessity, in the course of three weeks. I do not want to talk about the big farmer who is growing wheat or about the ranchers that have been referred to by Fianna Fáil speakers. I am talking of the position of small farmers during the hungry months who had to pay 3/- a sack more for their flour between the 16th June and 6th July.
I should like to have the Minister's explanation or if it is his intention to let certain sections of the community grow fat on the hardships and sufferings of those who are least able to bear them. Labour Deputies should take official notice of the fact that the price of flour has been increased by 3/- a sack, as that meant an increase in the cost of living as far as the workers are concerned during the hungry months of June and July. As I have the official figures dealing with the cost of living, there can be no question about my statement. I want to point out that the policy of the Government is imposing grave hardship on the agricultural community and on the workers, and I suggest that some steps should be taken to deal with the position.
A great number of credulous people are, perhaps, impressed by those who have been talking about the great prosperity of agriculture during the past five years, but the position is different when they look at the unstocked lands, or examine the books of the various county councils to see the enormous increase that has taken place in the arrears of rates, or if they have access to the books of the Land Commission they would discover that the arrears of land annuities have increased. An examination of the books of shopkeepers and of the business community whose bills have been unpaid over a long period would show a worse state of affairs. These are things that should be seriously considered by those whose special care it is to maintain the interests of the farming community. There is no doubt, but the farming community during the past five years have suffered as perhaps they never suffered in the previous history of the industry. I feel that a special effort should be made by the Government to give relief to the class that has always been looked upon as wealth producers. That class may not have retained great wealth, but, at any rate, people who are in nonagricultural pursuits depended upon them for a living. There are so many varied interests in agriculture that it might be hard for the Department, that has the special care of the industry, to devise a scheme which would bring it relief. One form of relief can be fixed upon with almost perfect unity, and that is relief from taxation, and particularly from local taxation. The upkeep of public services seems to fall almost entirely on the poor law valuation of agricultural land. That may have been equitable many years ago, when all these services were purely local, when the poor were maintained in their own parishes, and when there was practically no other outlay, but now we have the interests of the whole countryside maintained, as far as local services are concerned, on the poor law valuation of agricultural land. I think a very drastic alteration must be made in that method of taxation. That was apparent in 1931 when the Government of the day, even after the adverse report of a commission on derating, gave relief, by increasing the agricultural grant by £750,000, and in the following year they carried out their recommendation and increased that sum to £1,000,000.
They provided that form of relief to agriculture, at a time when our class of exports were absolutely at their very highest peak. What is to be done for the farmer to-day when our exports have fallen and the value of our exports has fallen to an almost incredible degree during the past five years? Surely, it must be apparent to every responsible Minister, who has a thorough knowledge of what the farmers have gone through, that there is need for a very drastic relief and an exemplary reduction in the taxation that is imposed upon them. We have to remember that there is a very serious responsibility on the Government of this country with regard to agriculture. That was always recognised since this State came into being and, if we are not going to pay attention to the wants and the disabilities under which agriculturists suffer, then I say our last state will be very much worse than the first. There may be some light ahead and there may be a better future before the farmers of this country, but you must consider those who have gone through the mill, who have suffered by the special duties. that were imposed at a time when we were carrying on the economic war with our neighbour. They are certainly entitled to some form of recompense, some form of restitution for the moneys that have been wrested from them, and I say that the halved annuities, while we have reason to be thankful for them, still, at the same time, were given before ever we started any economic war with England, and there is due to the agriculturists who have had wrested from them by taxation an overwhelming sum of money some method of recompense, and I say that that method of recompense can best be given by reducing the taxation on the local services. The demand note in every case applies to every man, whether it be big or small. Just as the halved annuities apply to him, so also does the demand note apply to him, and the arguments that would apply to one would apply with equal force to the other. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that the question of relieving the farmer, either in whole or in part, of the upkeep of the local services is one of the easiest ways by which he can give him relief. The Minister is able to find large sums of money for other purposes, and the purpose that I have mentioned is the one which, I think, will meet with almost unanimous demand by the agriculturists of this country.
There may be some people who have not suffered to a great extent, but they have been equally insistent in demanding that they would get the same form of relief from the upkeep of these local services. After all, it is a partial system of taxation. It is a system of taxation that is unusual to carry on, a taxation of one particular section of the community, while a wealthier section, and a very much larger section, perhaps, of the community, who could bear taxation better, are exempt from the upkeep of these local services.
The Agricultural Grants may give some relief but, after all, they are only tinkering with the situation. Other countries have found it necessary to give this form of relief to the agricultural farmer. Great Britain, and Northern Ireland and various other countries do not tax their land for the upkeep of local services. That is done in quite a different way, particularly when these local services are now extended to the whole community.
We were told that bounties and subsidies were given to the agriculturists. That class of person that has been mentioned by Deputy Cogan, that is, the enterprising capitalist, seems to have been able to get more of these than the agriculturists for whom they were primarily intended and they were certainly never passed on. In the rise and fall of the markets, they would be only human if they did pay themselves first and the agriculturists afterwards and there is no question at all about it that those men who were exporters of cattle or other forms of live stock took very good care to recompense themselves first and to give whatever was left to the agriculturists afterwards.
There is a big flight from the land and that does not indicate the prosperity that people are endeavouring to convince us exists. There is the flight of the young men and the young women into other industries that are and would be supposed to be maintained by the agriculturists and, therefore, you have to take the question of the agricultural wage of 27s. a week. There are men who are letting their men go rather than pay that. There are men who owe county councils as much as £500 in arrears of rates. There is the Land Commission where there are very large arrears of land annuities due and some of us who approached that body were informed of the huge arrears that are due by many of the people that we had to go to them about. Those are the conditions which must be taken into consideration and if the Minister has any doubts as to the truth of the depression that exists amongst the agricultural community will he accede to the request which we have so often made in this House, that is, to set up a commission to inquire into the best means of relieving it of its present disabilities and the best means that can be devised of paying compensation to the farmer for what he has gone through? If that is done, I say that there is no question at all about it that you will by that means do the best thing you possibly can for the country.
I expect the answer to the speeches from this side of the House will be the usual one that the country has re-elected the Government for the continuation of the policy that was responsible for bringing the agricultural community to their knees. Well, I doubt that that will answer all these things. It is possible that a majority of the electors may be got to give a decision contrary to the interests of the nation as a whole, and I think if the census return which was lately issued is examined, it will be an answer to that contention. I think the census return will show very definitely that the trend is away from the land. There must be some cause for which the people are flying from the land. The country districts are becoming devoid of population, and the cities are overflowing. That is a very dangerous change to take place in any country. For many reasons it is even more dangerous in this country. If this country becomes top-heavy, and if the population of the cities and large towns becomes out of proportion to the people in the rural districts, it will be very serious, because, after all, they are not producing economically in the cities and in the big towns, whereas the only hope of economic production is on the land. The industries that have been started in these other places have to be subsidised or have to be protected by high tariff walls which impose a very serious burden upon the consuming public and especially upon the people in the rural areas, whether they be farmers or farm labourers or whatever they be. That is a very serious aspect of the whole question. The setting up of a few hundred factories might not be such a great boon if it has the effect of bringing down 500,000 factories, because every farm in the country is a factory. If the people who are living upon the land are unable to carry on and unable to buy the products of these new factories, then the whole thing comes toppling down like a house of cards.
The worst feature of the exodus from the land is that it is the pick of our people who are going, and the unfit cannot go and have to remain upon the land. As the proportion left decreases, the proportion of unfit increases, and it is easy to foresee, if that tendency continues, what is to be the result in, say, 20 or 40 or 50 years. If the fit portion of the agricultural community continue to fly away from the land and flock into the towns, either of this country or any other country, then the unfit will remain. They will be the only section of the people then that will be making any attempt to produce economically, and the result will be that after a time they will not be able to produce anything. The condition that we have at the present time is serious enough when, as other speakers have pointed out, the value of our exports, which is principally agricultural exports, has deteriorated to less than half.
For the last full year, the full year ended the 30th April, I notice from the statistics that the adverse trade balance has mounted to over £21,000,000, or more than the total value of our exports. I do not believe that this country is so wealthy that the value of its income from any source, whether from the section of the population that may be sending home money or whether from funds invested abroad—I do not believe that the income from those sources could make up for the difference. The condition is very serious and it requires the careful attention of the Government. No matter what may be the views of the population upon certain issues put before them in election times, I do not believe that they seriously consider all the aspects that are involved. They hastily come to a decision and then they throw great responsibility on the leaders of the people. Of course the people who put certain views before the electorate must also accept a big share of responsibility.
The people vote in the elections and they put in a certain Party as a Government and if things go wrong they think that they have nothing to do only get rid of that party. But the harm has been done in the meantime and the people who vote do not think that they have any responsibility at all. They must realise that they have a big responsibility, but there is also a responsibility cast on the people who are put into office. The people who have all the facts and figures at their disposal are often put in a position of peculiar responsibility. They should rise to that responsibility and see that the country's best interests are safeguarded, that the population are not driven from the land, attracted to the cities, or forced to emigrate.
It is evident from the trend of things that something must be done, and the sooner the better. I think the Minister would be well advised to pay more attention to the urgent demand that is coming from the farmers for a fair deal. All they are asking is a fair deal. They have not been getting that in the matter of prices for their produce, in taxation, or in any other way. They have to buy articles at prices considerably higher than the world prices. They have to pay well for the products of the sheltered trades set up behind tariff walls. They have to sell their produce at less than the world price. The cost of production has been more than doubled within the last 30 or 40 years. Is it any wonder, when that is so, that the agricultural community find themselves in a very difficult position? They have been carrying on for the last five or six years on their savings, any of them who had savings. Those who had no savings had to work on credit. They have been carrying on by means of credit with the result that very many, an increasing number, are now bogged in debt to shopkeepers, banks and wherever else they could raise money. Unless there is money advanced to clear these debts and the economic position is so improved that there is a prospect of repaying their debts, then the end of agriculture is in sight, and that means the end of the Irish nation.
I appeal to the Minister to pay a little attention to those matters. We are not making speeches now to suit the gallery. The election is over and we are going to gain nothing by speeches. We have our responsibilities here on all sides of the House. We consider this a very serious matter and the Minister must pay careful attention to it unless he intends to let the country drift further along the road it has been going and unless he wants the population of the cities to increase out of all proportion to the population in the rural areas—to deplete the rural areas of all the people worth keeping there, people who should be encouraged to remain there to produce something economically, to balance the trade, the population and the production of the country. If there is not more economic production, more produced without loss, then production will be no use, adverse trade balances will continue to increase and difficulties both financial and economic will arise. I hope the Minister will carefully consider those matters.
Deputy McGovern and others have asked the Minister to pay attention to certain matters. Only for the manner in which the Minister has looked after the agricultural industry during the past four years, despite the advice of Deputies opposite, it would be in a very queer position to-day. Only for the manner in which the Minister came to the assistance of the creamery farmers by subsidising and putting up the price of butter, only for the way in which he assisted the tillage farmers and the grain-growing farmers, what would be the position of agriculture? Deputy McGovern talks about the farming community and the factories. Are he and other Deputies there in favour of the policy put forward by their shadow Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, who advocated the closing down of the four beet factories? Does Deputy McGovern favour that? Does he favour the getting back to the grass policy of Deputy Dillon? He comes here and tells us about the people of the country straying to the towns. What is going to keep them in the country if the tillage policy is abandoned?
What tillage policy?
The tillage policy carried out for the last four years that has kept the farmers in production, kept them going despite the advice of Deputies opposite who wanted to shipwreck them in order to support their policy.
There is less produce for the acreage under cultivation.
We have got back the cattle market that Deputies opposite were looking for. Does any Deputy over there contend that they have got the £3 a head they once said they would gain on the cattle? Are not the cattle prices worse to-day than before the agreement was made?
No.
They are far worse, and I have experience of it. You can control your market here; the market which has been given to the Irish farmers here can be controlled. The Irish farmer can fight in that market for a decent price for what he produces, but you cannot make the grass grow in England, and I think the farmers have learned a very bitter lesson in that respect for the past three months, when they took cattle to the fair and found that they got less than they got last March. We have had a lot of talk about factories for some time past, and we have had it even since Deputies opposite came back, when, according to Deputy McGovern, they had no axe to grind. They apparently had before the last general election. What is Deputy McGovern in favour of—finding employment for our people by starting industries, or paying for them in the home assistance rates or in unemployment assistance? Which of the two is he in favour of? I have had one very vivid example in the town of Cobh.
Will Deputy Corry tell us what he is in favour of? Is he in favour of the way in which widows' pensions are paid in rural districts?
Deputy Corry should be allowed to make his own speech.
I will deal with every item dealt with by Deputy McGovern, and a little more. I would like Deputy McGovern and other Deputies to speak their minds and not to speak with their tongues in their cheeks—talking about factories on the one hand, and standing behind Deputy Dillon in his advocacy of closing down the beet factories and throwing the employees of four factories on the road as another burden on the unemployment assistance bill and on the home assistance bill for the local ratepayers, on the other. Deputy McGovern is in favour of that, or at least he has not repudiated the statement of his leader, Deputy Dillon, on it. He is evidently also in favour of the abolition of the wheat policy. At least, he has not repudiated his leader, Deputy Dillon, on that either. If we are going to endeavour to keep people on the land, is that the policy that is going to keep them there? Are they going to be kept there by a policy of wiping out tillage, of wiping out wheat and beet, and getting back to the bullock and the ranch?
Who asked you to do it?
That was what Deputy McGovern has advocated here. He did not exactly say "ranch", but he worked around it. I heard statements made here a fortnight ago, and again to-day, as to the manner in which farm machinery was turned out by these factories and I invited Deputy Hughes to a test. He has not yet taken up my invitation to test the Canadian mowing machines which he was advocating against the machines turned out by Pierce's of Wexford, and to find out which is the better. I have an old Pierce machine on my farm which I have been using for about 15 years. Deputy Brasier spoke about unpaid rates and annuities in Cork. Deputy Brasier was a very fluent advocate of the campaign of no rates and no annuities in Cork.
There was no such campaign.
I beg the Deputy's pardon. I read out here speeches made by county councillors at public meetings in which they advocated no payment of rates.
I do not believe that statement.
If the Deputy consults the Official Reports, he will find it, and if he has any doubt on the matter, I will make him a present of a little scrap book with all those things pasted in it which I keep. They make very bitter reading. It is a grand thing to stand up at a farmers' meeting and to shout: "Pay no rates or annuities. Pay nobody", but it is a very different thing when, a couple of years after, this little paper is produced to you and you are asked if that is a speech which you made on such a date.
The Deputy's memory is very bad in that respect.
It is not. I will send the Deputy a cutting from the Press of speeches made in the Carrigaline area on that matter. I carefully preserved these things because I knew they would be useful another day.
The Deputy knows well the position of the ratepayers in Cork County.
I do, and so does Deputy Daly. He knows that the position has improved immensely and that the rates have come in far better in the last two years than they came in previously, and, I might say, 100 per cent. better than they came in when that little campaign was going on.
There was no such campaign.
Has the Deputy preserved a record of the speeches made by members of his Government promising the complete abolition of rates on agricultural land?
Yes. I was myself one of the principal advocates of derating, and I proved that I was doing far better by the ordinary farmer in giving him a 50 per cent. reduction in his annuity, and when I found that, I stood for it and got it.
Half a million pounds better.
And a 100 per cent. increase in his rates.
Deputy Cogan is a new member here and we have not any past ghosts of his to bring up, but you never know his luck. He might come back the next time and we will have a few of them then. I maintain that the policy that has been pursued by the Minister for Agriculture is the only policy that is going to keep the farmers on the land and a policy which, now that we have the £5,000,000 which Deputies opposite wanted us to hand over to John Bull, can be carried a few steps further than we were financially able to carry it in the past. The farmers can get a decent price for what food they can produce for the home markets, for beet and wheat and for grain, which Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGovern are anxious to wipe out. By the admixture scheme, we found a market for the farmer's barley and oats.
What about the counties that cannot grow wheat or beet?
Deputy McGovern can never see beyond his own pigsty in his own back yard. He is here not as a Deputy merely representing one little spot, but the whole Twenty-Six Counties, and perhaps the thirty-two counties if we can get them across the Border. That is what I blame Deputies here for. I object to the little insular view by which Deputy Bennett, in connection with the milk business, is quite willing to march into the Lobby with Fianna Fáil and vote for an extra price for the farmers' milk, while Deputy Mulcahy marches in the opposite direction on behalf of the unfortunate consumers in the town who have to buy the butter. That kind of game can be played once too often. Deputy McGovern is not prepared to see Deputy Cogan's point of view at all and not prepared to help him to get a price for the farmer who grows barley and oats. He is merely prepared to gamble with him in this game. I am sure that Deputy Cogan would not be anxious to follow Deputy McGovern into the Lobby to vote for the wiping out of the admixture scheme. That kind of game is all right when you can confuse the issue, but when you bring it down to brass tacks, to the definite point of whether Deputy Cogan is in favour of Deputy Dillon's proposal to close down the beet factories and whether Deputy McGovern is in favour of the admixture scheme, we have a different position altogether, and particularly if we can get Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Bennett to agree on the stabilisation of milk and butter prices. Deputy Mulcahy led the famous campaign here to give the farmers 3½d. a gallon for milk but Deputy Bennett rebelled against it and marched around with us. In the same way, when Deputy McGovern tries to lead a campaign against the admixture scheme, Deputy Cogan will wheel the other way.
The position in regard to annuities and rates in Cork County is far different to-day from what it was and, mind you, the farmers have not yet got much benefit financially out of the famous Agreement. They have got very little financial benefit because, as I say, the price of cattle to-day is just as bad, if not worse, than it was last March.
In 1934 and 1935.
And the price in 1932 and 1933 was far different from what it was in 1927 and 1928, and the Deputy knows it as well as I do, if he was farming at all at the time. He knows that the quantity of agricultural produce that was sent over to England in 1931 was once and a half as much as was sent over in 1927, and realised £13,000,000 less. We have nothing to gain or lose by facing the facts, and we should try to face them honestly.
The Deputy knows that smuggling across the Border was a flourishing trade for three or four years.
We have been hearing a lot about that smuggling, and we heard a lot about it to-day. If what Deputy Cogan says is right about smuggling, then Deputy McGovern should be a millionaire, and so should everybody else living up there around the Border. There is no use in talking that way. The actual position to-day is that the farmers have got no benefit as yet out of the Agreement—not one penny. The price of cattle is worse to-day than it was before the Agreement was made. We cannot help that. Nobody can help it. It just depends on the present situation—that there is no grass in England for cattle, and there is nobody to buy them therefore. Also, of course, the Government there are looking after their farmers, but apparently, according to Deputies opposite, our Minister is not looking after anybody. I challenge any Deputy over there to say that he got the £3 a head, since the Agreement, that Deputies opposite were shouting about at every chapel gate in the country as having been lost during the economic war. Let them produce one farmer who has got the £3 a head, or even 30/- a head—yes, or even thirteen pence a head, of an increase. It is just as well to be honest about these things.
Why did the Government—
Deputy Corry should be allowed to continue his speech.
Why was there an agreement signed by the Party opposite when they were in power to hand over that £5,000,000 a year to Great Britain? Of course, Deputy Cogan was not here at that time, and therefore he had no responsibility, I suppose. I suppose he will act like Deputy Dillon now, with regard to that agreement, and wash his hands of the whole matter like Pontius Pilate. As I say, it is time to get down to facts, and face them honestly. If we are going to be here for the next five years, Deputies should endeavour to help out and should not come here just to make a nuisance of themselves. If you want to help out the farmers, then come in here and try to do so. You will not help out the farmers by all this kind of moan, 99 per cent. of which is lies and one per cent. truth. We had Deputy Brasier talking here to-day, but Deputy Brasier led a campaign throughout Cork County with regard to the payment of the annuities, and he spoke right, left and centre against their payment, just because he had no annuities to pay himself and therefore could not be caught out. It is time to get rid of this kind of trash. I may have done a lot of wrong things and a lot of queer things in my life, but there is one thing I always did, and that is that whatever I advocated I was prepared to stand by, and did stand by it, and if there was a kick to be got out of it—well, I took the kick. If it meant doing six months in jail because I advocated a certain thing, I was prepared to advocate it and did advocate it. I never asked anybody to go where I would not go myself, but there was not that much pluck in any of the leaders of the annuities campaign. However, that is past and done with now. Deputies over there get up and talk about the unfortunate condition of the farmers, but who brought about that unfortunate condition of the farmers in Cork County, at least? It was those who galloped around the country at a time when we were trying to arrange for contracts with the farmers for their beet, and who went around discouraging the farmers and even burning the contracts, in a dirty, mean endeavour to drive the farmers into bankruptcy and ruin in order to bolster up a rotten case for the handing over of £5,000,000 a year, out of the farmers' pockets, to John Bull.
As I have said, it is time to stop all that talk now. I advocated previously, and I advocate it now again, that in my opinion the Minister for Agriculture and the Government should take definite steps to take the burden of the main roads and trunk roads off the backs of the ratepayers. Whatever justice there may have been formerly for looking to the farmers for that money, there is no justice in it to-day. The usefulness of those roads to the agricultural community has gone now, and gone for ever. We think that the motorists and the motor trade generally, to whom those roads have been handed over now, should be prepared to bear the burden of them. As far as agricultural policy is concerned, all I ask the Minister to do is to see that the farmers get a fair and decent price for what they produce and what they can sell here at home. There is no use in talking about other markets. You cannot get any better price there than what is going, but if the farmers get a decent price for their wheat and their beet, and a guaranteed market for both, and if they get a decent price for their oats and barley and a guaranteed market, the farmers can and will recover. There are 100,000 more milch cows in this country to-day than there were in 1932. There are something like 40,000 more yearlings here now than there were in 1932. That is the position as far as live stock on the farm is concerned. That is the actual position with regard to that, and with that knowledge how can we talk about ruination and bankruptcy for farmers? Things are tight and the farmers are hard hit, undoubtedly, but the farmer who is the worst off to-day is the one who went into the Agricultural Credit Corporation and borrowed money from it and cannot pay it back. I do not want to see too much credit facilities extended to the farmers. I am not too much in favour of that. What I want to see is that the farmer gets a decent price for the crops he is producing on his holding, and that the burden that is thrown on his shoulders—an unfair and unjust burden—in the shape of the money he has to pay for trunk roads and main roads, which are no use to him, should be taken off his shoulders. That, in my opinion, is one way in which agriculture can be helped in this country, and the only way, to my mind, in which we can help it.
We have now the money which we took off John Bull. Let us use it, by all means, for the relief of the farming community, but let us use it wisely and well for agriculture, and let us not use it in giving derating to ranchers. When it suited Deputies over there, and when Deputy Mulcahy was a member of the then Executive Council, these Deputies had a very different viewpoint. Deputy Mulcahy was a member of the Executive Council that set up a derating Commission. And any Deputy here who wants to have any idea as to what a Jack-in-office thought when he was in power with regard to derating, should go down to the Library and read all about it. I advise Deputy Cogan to read about it and to compare what was said then with the speeches that we had from the benches opposite this evening. Deputy Cogan might be a very honest man coming in here amongst us for the first time, but let him go back to old times and see what happened in those good old days when Deputy Cosgrave was over here on these benches and Deputy Mulcahy was Minister for Local Government, sitting over here on these benches and looking after the collection of the rates. Mind you, that was the boy who saw to it that the rates were collected. Nobody could talk to him then about derating or that the farmers could not pay. Why, poor Deputy Carey, who was here in that good year about which Deputy Cogan was speaking—the year 1932—spoke at an urban council meeting down the country and brought in a derating resolution there asking the Minister for Lands not to collect any more annuities because the unfortunate farmers could not pay them.
That was the position. That was the actual position—according to Deputy Carey, who was then a Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy sitting on those benches—of the unfortunate farmers in my constituency in those days. That was the position in those days according to an individual Deputy of the day. Are not the farmers in my constituency far better off to-day when they are able to pay even a little of the rates and annuities despite the economic war? What I ask Deputies here to do is to realise the position, and to realise that the humbug which they have been trying for the past five or six years did not take; it did not work. They tried their best, but, every time they went out to the people, the people saw through them, and they came back in lesser and lesser numbers every time. If we have to take them out again I am afraid there will be nobody at all over there, and I would not like to see that happen because I get a certain amount of amusement out of their speeches. I would not like to see empty benches over there. That is the position, and that is what I am asking Deputies opposite to realise. I am asking that the farmers should get a fair show, that they should get what I consider a fair show for them, namely, that they should get a fair price for what they produce here for the home market, which in my opinion they are entitled to, and that the burden of trunk and main roads should be taken off their backs. That to my mind is a fair deal for the farmers out of that Agreement. I looked for the help of Deputies over there in getting that for the farmers, but instead they come in here with the balderdash which they have been trying for so long. They should not waste the time of the House in trying it over again.
Deputy Corry in the course of his speech made two good points. One was that we ought to face facts, and the other was that we ought to stick as closely as we could to the truth. As far as I can, I intend to take his advice in those matters; in fact, to be a better example of his own moral than he is himself.
The first time you ever did it!
There were one or two points even in Deputy Corry's rambling speech with which I rather agree. I am glad at any rate that he has come this far with us—that he is asking the Minister with us to give the farmers an increased price for their commodities. Mind you, when we come down to real facts—that is what we all want; that is what every one of us here on this side of the House is driving at—the one thing which Deputy Corry will not deny is that all is not well with agriculture at the moment. I am not saying that all was well with agriculture in the last five years, or even before the last five years.
You are coming along.
But certainly all is not well with agriculture now. Deputy Corry said a moment ago that there was no benefit got out of the Agreement. I deny that. I am not saying that a better agreement could not possibly be made, but there was benefit got out of the Agreement. I am very glad that there was benefit got out of it. We anticipated, when the economic war was settled, that there would be certain benefits, as far as selling our agricultural product in England was concerned. We got it, and we are not denying it. Deputy Corry denied that there was any benefit. He made the statement that cattle prices are no better than they were last year.
No better than they were last March.
Deputy Corry is quibbling.
No.
Now he comes to last March. I do not want to get into an argument with Deputy Corry across the House. He made a statement here that cattle prices are no better than they were last year.
I beg the Deputy's pardon. My statement here, and the Deputy will find it in the official report, was that cattle prices now are no better than they were before the Agreement was made, and that they are not even as good as they were last March.
Deputy Corry wants—
I do not want to be misrepresented.
He wants to get to the days immediately before the Agreement. Let us take March. Deputy Corry knows full well, or he ought to know if he is an agriculturist at all, that prices had risen in March in anticipation of the Agreement. They had risen to a figure beyond which everybody knew they could not go. Everybody with a farm knows that. If Deputy Corry wanted a fair comparison he would have gone back to last November, or the same period last year, or the same period in any one of the preceding five years. But he wants to quibble, and he quibbles with the month of March because he knows that, in anticipation of the Agreement, in anticipation of better results than the Agreement gave possibly, many farmers held their stock or bought stock at prices that were not warranted.
Ask Deputy Keating.
Deputy Bennett must be allowed to make his speech.
Everybody knows there was a fictitious price for cattle last February and March. The Minister knows that as well as I do. It is not a fair comparison. I am not blaming the Minister or anyone else for that. There was speculation, if you like. Mind you, that was largely due to the whispers of Fianna Fáil Deputies through the country that there was going to be a big jump in cattle and that you ought to buy if you were lucky enough to be able to buy. Speculation in agriculture was never much use, and it is not much use now. Most of the people who speculated during that period have burnt their fingers. The fact is that all is not well with agriculture. I will repeat what my colleague, Deputy McGovern, said here—we are not making election speeches. Nobody can say we anticipate another election, and anything we say now is said for the sole purpose of trying to benefit the agriculturists in the country. I agree, if you like, that the Minister is making as good an endeavour as he can with the same object in view, and anything that I say now, or have said at any time, is not in personal hostility to the Minister but in general criticism of the policy of the Government.
Deputy Corry mentioned the factories. The factories are all right, but what we want is the same treatment for an old industry as is given to the new industries; a fair crack of the whip for the agricultural industry just as a fair crack of the whip is given to new industries of any description. We do not decry new industries. It is a good thing for the country if industries can be established on a paying basis, if they can be established without injuring the oldest and the principal industry of this country, namely agriculture. If new industries are only going to be built up on the corpse of agriculture, then we are against new industries. We had various instances of industries built up at the expense of agriculture with the excuse perhaps that they were originally instituted to benefit agriculture. Take the case of the factories we were discussing to-day, the alcohol factories. One of the principal reasons we got when that industry was mooted was that it was going to benefit agriculture; that it was going to give a good market for agricultural produce as far as potatoes were concerned. What were the conditions governing the industry? They were all right for practically everybody on the commercial side of it, but when you come to the agricultural side of it you find there was great neglect. There was provision made for capital, for credit, for building, and everything else, and when everything was said and done there was going to be a certain 5 per cent. profit for the people in it. But there was no provision which ensured that the farmer was certain of getting even the cost of production of the potatoes he supplied, not to mention 5 per cent. profit after he had paid expenses. There was the added difficulty, outside of everything else, that while it was not going to do the farmer any good it was going to do certain people a lot of harm. It was going to impose a burden of £83,000 a year on the users of motor cars in this country, people who are already burdened much more than others in similar circumstances.
We had the case of another industry, which was established primarily to benefit agriculture, the one at Roscrea. What was the effect of that? A meagre price was given for cattle. There was certainly no 5 per cent., 10 per cent. 12 per cent., or any other per cent. in the way of profit for the cattle supplied to that factory. Every care was taken, when that particular industry was established, to ensure that those who set up the factory would be facilitated in every way with credit, with guarantees, and free raw material. In fact, they had the certainty of a profit whatever happened. If this country could be made an Elysium, where there would be certain profits for everyone engaged in trade, none of us could criticise whatever profits an industry made, but if all these things are to be done at the expense of the unfortunate agriculturists, we have a right to object. As far as Deputies on this side of the House are concerned, we consider that agriculture needs something on the line that Deputy Corry referred to at the end of his speech, and that is increased prices for agricultural produce. To that I might add, increased production and a reduction of overhead charges. Otherwise, I do not think you will have increased production. There certainly will not be increased profits. Above all, I still hold that the creation of certain credit for farmers is vitally needed. I agree with Deputy Corry that there are numerous farmers in difficulties. I do not want to go back on the past and deal with the causes, but numerous farmers are in difficulties. Some of them had savings but spent them, while others who had no savings went into debt. Other men who were in debt are now bogged.
Within a radius of eight or nine miles in the locality in which I live, there have been six or eight sales on behalf of the Land Commission for unpaid annuities. These are mainly farms upon which there was very little stock. Some of these people had no stock, and they are to be sold out for unpaid annuities. I do not say that the Land Commission had any other course to take, but I am arguing on behalf of such men, and I want to point out that there is no possible way of lifting them up unless first of all giving them credit, and enabling them to stock their lands and engage in farming. It is idle to talk otherwise.
Some people may argue that it is not wise for farmers to get into debt or to borrow money. It could be argued that it is not wise to encourage anything by borrowing money, but we have instances all round us of new factories being started, and of great expenditure of money that was borrowed from the State, and there was nothing immoral about it. When it is proposed to issue cheap credit or long term loans to farmers it is considered to be immoral. That is a sore point with all who are engaged in agriculture. When a certain living and profit are provided for people who engage in industries, any fool could start these industries and it is considered to be all right, but when something similar is proposed for the agricultural community it is considered to be immoral. I believe the day must come when land will be derated. That is one of the overhead charges that must come off, and I believe that it is as certain to come as it is that the sun will shine to-morrow. It is idle to argue against it. The only possible effect of our argument will be to make it come all the sooner.
Everyone knows that the cost of maintaining the social services is rapidly getting beyond the power of farmers to bear, and that there must be a breakdown some day. The possibility of a reduction in charges for local services is not very rosy. I do not think any Deputy could argue that he sees any prospect of a reduction in local charges for a number of years. Everyone who is honest must admit that there is no such prospect. If people cannot pay these charges now, what prospect is there of bearing a further increase? Relief must come. The only hope I have is that it will come soon. I believe that the Fianna Fáil Government will eventually give it, like many other things they did in recent years. The Government here reminds me of the Conservative Government in England and the attitude of the Liberals as regards Ireland. The Liberals had pre-vision and saw what would be fairly good for this country, but when they tried to do something for it they were defeated by another body, the House of Lords. Then the Conservative Party came along and took steps to carry out proposals that had been previously suggested by the Liberals. The same thing has happened here. We have had a repetition of developments that took place in England. This Party preached a certain policy for years, and the Opposition Party, that now forms the Government, preached what was diametrically opposite. However, they came around gradually to our point of view, and most of the things we desired were eventually adopted by the present Government Party. The processes of education were slow but sure.
How did you get over that side?
I got over here with the support of the people of the constituency I represent. They sent me here, believing that I might do some good. They may be wrong in that, but they have sent me here to represent them for 12 or 13 years. As soon as they tell me I am no longer required I will take off my hat and get out. Part of my job here now is to try to convert Deputies on the opposite benches to our point of view.
What a hope!
It is not a hope. It has been accomplished. We have succeeded in bringing you towards the policy we advocated. That is a matter of history, and I do not want to go back on it now.
Better not.
Everyone knows it. Anyone who read the Government programme at the last election could see that it was a recantation of all that they had said for the past five years. If that is not a conversion, what is it? I have talked a good deal about agriculture and some people would probably call it bosh. The Minister would probably call it bosh, but many of the things that I suggested when dealing with the position of agriculture, the Government adopted.
Not a single one. Mention one.
I cannot think of one now, as I gave the Minister so much advice in the past. I think he will admit that, and agree with me there.
Never.
I will always give the Minister credit for being good natured. Whether he agreed with me or not he was always genial, and, as far as I am concerned, I always tried to keep the personal element out of these discussions.
That is so.
To sum it all up, there are three essentials if we are going to revive agriculture in this country; first there must be, as Deputy Corry says, an increased price. I add to that that there must be increased production. It can be facilitated in many ways—by a lessening in the cost of agricultural machinery and implements, the cost, in fact, of the necessities of agriculture, and by an issue of cheap credit to farmers, because there is a number of them that will never raise their heads unless they get some way of restocking their lands or engaging in some form of agriculture. There are farmers in this country engaged in no form of agriculture. The people I mention have practically derelict lands. Are those people who have had a series of misfortunes over bad years to be practically thrown on the road?
There should be some effort made to relieve them. I believe, particularly in Wicklow, the sheriff goes round with a battering ram. That, happily, is not taking place in our county at the moment anyway. That has not occurred very much, but there is a tendency to sell the land and I think that tendency could be developed too much. I would like that this people should get a chance, and the only chance they can get is by some provision of capital, which could be safely charged on the lands for somebody afterwards, even if the lands eventually had to be taken over by the Government and divided, but I would first of all give the people a chance to make up for what everybody agrees, from one cause or another, was a bad period in this country. Without going into the issue one way or another, we can all agree that the last eight or nine years—we will not confine it to any one year—was a bad period for agriculture and many people got into difficulties they should not have got into. It should be the policy of all of us to try to help them. There is a number of people who cannot survive without capital, who cannot progress any further than they are and the issue of a loan, to my mind, is essential. There must be some relation between industry and agriculture. While industry may be developed and perhaps, if you like, should be developed, it must not be developed at the expense of the other industry.
To cut it short, I propose, as far as I am concerned, that what we give to industry, if we are going to build up industry and ensure the promoters of industry a profit for their enterprise, we must equally ensure that the people engaged in the oldest industry in this country are guaranteed a fair price for their production, not alone a fair price for their production, but I might say, something in the nature of an assured profit at the end of their year's working.
Badh mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire agus go ndéanfadh sé tagairt dí nuair a bhéadh sé ag freagairt, sé sin ceist an ime agus an bhainne agus cionnus tá an scéal. N'fheadair ar cuireadh an cheist chuige cheana, acht tá dlú-bhaint leis an gceist seo ag muinntir Luimnighe. Is eol don Aire go bhfuil roinnt airighthe airgid curtha i leath-taoibh i mbliana chun cabhrughadh le déantús an ime. Tamall gairid ó shoin cuir muinntir Luimnighe toscaireacht ó feirmeoirí atá ann chuig an Aire agus dubhairt sé rud áirighthe leo mar gheall ar feabhas a chur ar an luach atá le fagháil. Níl an feabhas sin tagaithe fós agus badh mhaith liom fhios a bheith agam ar an scéal agus badh mhaith liom go ndéanfadh an tAire tagairt dí. Cead tá beartaithe ag an Roinn mar gheall ar luach an ime as seo amach? Dubhradh cheana go n-árdofaí an luach ó tosach an Iúil. Níor deineadh sin. Badh mhaith an rud é agus is oireamhnach an rud anois go ndéanfaí an scéal so soileir.
First of all, with regard to the question raised by Deputy O Briain in regard to the price of butter and milk for the coming portion of this year, I made a statement some time ago that if the prices were to improve on the British market over what they were at the time, that was about 178/-, I felt we could do better in regard to the price of butter from the 1st July on. The prices did not improve. In fact, I think, they were back slightly. At any rate, they did not improve and, although we could have done something very, very small from the 1st July on, I thought it more advisable to postpone any increase in price until the 1st August. There is some money there which will go to the dairying industry and it does not make a great deal of difference to the dairying industry when they get it, because it is not going to be put into the Exchequer. It will be given to them at some time. I thought it better, instead of giving an increase of ? a cwt. from the 1st July on, that we would try and make it more than that from the 1st August on. I hope we will be able to do something from the 1st August. At any rate, the money is there and they will get it some time.
With regard to this debate in general, there are various requests for an improvement in the agricultural industry but there is not, I am afraid, any very constructive suggestion. If you call, say, derating, a constructive suggestion, without making some provision for the financing of derating, it is easy to be constructive. I will come to derating and will deal with it in more detail. Nobody who spoke on behalf of the agricultural industry gave any considered scheme for the betterment of agriculture and, as far as I am concerned, I am very anxious to improve the conditions of the farmers as far as it possibly can be done, but although I have schemes under examination at the moment in the Department, I am afraid I must confess that I have not got very much to help me here. I think too, when we are discussing this subject that we should take things as they are and not try to exaggerate. It does not help at all. I think every Deputy, whether he is on the Fianna Fáil side or on the Opposition side, knows very well that I have to make the best case I can to the Government, but if I talked to the Government on the lines that some of the Deputies have spoken here, they would, of course, see the fallacies in my argument immediately and say: "There is no use in talking on lines like that." We should try to get down to the facts as they are. First of all, we should recognise, if we are going to be honest in this thing, that the conditions of farmers have been improved by the Fianna Fáil Government. We were asked during the last four or five years, for instance, by members of the Opposition, to give them back their markets. The members of the Opposition were not very particular how they got back their markets during the last four or five years. In fact, it was often stated by members of the Opposition, both in public and here, that they would be much better paying over all the money to Britain and having their markets than the way things were. That, of course, made things harder for us during the negotiations. At any rate, we have got their markets back.
Have you got back the market?
There is perfectly free entry into the British market.
That is not an answer.
But that is what the Deputy was asking for for the last four or five years.
We wanted you to get it back before it was lost. You now have lost it and you cannot get it back.
We have lost it and cannot get it back? I suppose I had better go on, because I have only half an hour. I say we have got back the British market. All the cattle we can get in there or we are likely to produce here can be sent there. The same applies to sheep, horses, butter, eggs, poultry, bacon—everything that I could mention. I say we have got the market there and can send in as much as we ever sent in in any one year before the economic war.
How many sheep did you send this year?
I say we can sell all the sheep produced in this country.
You cannot.
Why not?
This year's returns disprove that.
The Deputy is adopting his usual game of the most silly and futile sort of interruptions.
Is that so? The figure is down by 50 per cent. in the first half of this year.
We have got the market back. In addition to that, I say, that if we compare the present time with 1931, and that ought to be, I suppose, the touchstone for Deputies McMenamin and Bennett, who are supporters of the Cumana na nGaedheal or Fine Gael Party, or whatever they like to call themselves, we have got our markets back. Compared with 1931 we have got additional markets. This brings me to the point made by Deputy Cogan, that our policy was to develop tillage at the expense of live stock. It was never any such thing, and if Deputy Cogan had been here for the last five years he would know that in every single speech I ever made on agriculture I always denied that.
As a matter of fact, the Deputies over there laughed at us for making the coal cattle pact. Why did we make it except to develop the live-stock industry, to try to get a market for our live stock in England? They laughed when we got a market in Germany, in Belgium and in other countries. Why did we do it except to get a market for our live stock? We got the German market in addition to the English market and I have been advised by people who sell in the Dublin market and who are still misguided enough to vote for the opposite Party—so you will not take their advice as being biased —to continue with the German markets. They said to me, "For goodness sake, do not drop the German trade." Buyers for Germany go into the Dublin market and they take fully 25 per cent. of the animals offered on Thursdays and they always give a top price. They go higher than other buyers and they keep prices up. They ship the cattle to Germany. In that way they have a good effect on the market generally.
The position is that we have the German market as well as the market we were asked by Deputies opposite to get back. In addition to that we have got the annuities halved. This is going to be of permanent benefit to the farmers. The farmers fought valiantly for the last four or five years supporting the Fianna Fáil Party. They were behind us to win that victory of the halved annuities. I do not want to be vindictive, but I will say that it was the Fianna Fáil farmers on their own who won that victory, and not with any great help from anybody else. They also won that same victory for the farmers who support Fine Gael, but we are going to be generous and we will grant them that.
We are growing 230,000 acres of wheat this year. There was not that quantity grown in 1931. The wheat this year, if we have the same profit as last year, is going to be worth £2,500,000. All that goes into the farmers' pockets. They would not get all that if the country was unfortunate enough to keep a Fine Gael Government in office. We will have 36,000 acres of beet over the 1931 figure and the farmers will have an increased income from that source also. We have built up our seed potato trade to an enormous extent since 1931. Then we have the tobacco industry, the flax industry, the growing of fruit, and so on.
What is the total increase in tillage?
I have not got the figures here, but the Deputy is intelligent enough to get those figures for himself. I am mentioning the position of the farmers compared to what it would be if Fine Gael had continued in office. If that had happened they would be paying £5,000,000 to England, discouraging the growing of wheat, beet, and all those things such as fruit, vegetables, tobacco and flax, and they would be merely keeping their eyes on the British market. I am making that comparison, and I am indicating what would be the position of the farmers if Fine Gael were in power. We have to that extent improved the position of the farmers as compared with what would be the Fine Gael policy.
I want to address some remarks to Deputy Cogan, who is a new Deputy. I may be quoted by some of the Deputies opposite as saying that the farmers are well off. I am not saying they are well off. I would like to see them a whole lot better off. But when I am trying to improve the position of the farmers, I think Deputy Cogan and others might try to help me. Deputy Cogan says that the farmers' prices as compared with 1913 have increased only by 11 per cent. and their production costs are increased by 100 per cent. I do not think that is quite true. Wages undoubtedly have gone up, but I think Deputy Cogan will agree that where a man used to employ three men in 1913, he now employs only two, because there have been advances in labour-saving devices and he has not to employ the same labour in order to get the same result.
I do not quarrel with the figure given by Deputy Cogan—it is probably correct—but I absolutely disagree when he says that implements and seeds and manures have gone up by 100 per cent. Manures have not gone up. My recollection is that sulphate of ammonia is much cheaper than in 1913. Potash is not much dearer—it may be a little dearer. Phosphates are somewhat dearer. If the farmer buys the same complement of manure as he did in 1913, I do not think he pays very much more. There is nothing like 100 per cent. of an increase. The same applies to implements and machinery; they do not amount to 100 per cent. over the 1931 figure. Seeds are not gone up by 100 per cent. In 1913 you would pay 16/- to 18/- a barrel for barley seed, and 14/- for oats for seed. Possibly you might pay 25/- for wheat for seed, but there is certainly nothing like 100 per cent. of an increase. Again, all that seed was produced in the country by the farmers, with the exception of wheat.
We should try to state the case as it is, with as much truth as we can, and, when we have done so, let us see what we can do for the farmers. I do not think Deputy Cogan is right when he says that pigs are not paying. I produce pigs and they are paying. Deputies opposite may, perhaps, consider that I am a good farmer and they cannot do as I do. Take the formula of the Pigs Tribunal—they gave a formula setting out what should be paid for pigs, providing the feeding stuffs are at such a price. I gave particulars of that formula here before, in the course of a debate. According to them, any farmer should be making a profit of 12/- to 20/- per pig and he should have no difficulty in making that even if he was only a middling sort of farmer.
The next point is that we are not giving sufficient in the case of projects like the beet and the alcohol factories. We are told we are not giving a decent price to the farmers. In the case of beet we are giving a little more than they are paying in Great Britain. If we compare conditions there and here, they would be in favour of the Irish farmer with regard to the cost of production. In the case of potatoes they are offering £2 to £2 5s. a ton. When those factories were started, I was attacked by the Opposition and told that potatoes were being sold at £1 a ton. If we double the price it is not bad, and maybe that price can be improved. As a result of the alcohol factories starting, they have increased the price of potatoes at least by 100 per cent. That is not bad progress after a year or two, and if necessary they may have to go further.
Deputy Cogan says that rates have been increased by 300 per cent. since 1913, and no attempt has been made to mitigate this. I do not know that it is true that rates have been increased. I happen to be a ratepayer in the same county as the Deputy. We are, perhaps, particularly unfortunate there, possibly more unfortunate than people in other counties, but I do not think the rates have gone up by 300 per cent. It is not true to say that nothing has been done to mitigate the position. From 1930 to the present time the Agricultural Grant has been increased by £1,300,000. That is a considerable mitigation. It would mean that the rates would be doubled if that grant had not been made. It is not true to say that nothing was done to mitigate this. There are other grants that increased considerably, like the grant from the motor taxation account.
There may be something to be said for derating, and I can quite understand Deputies holding the view that all land should be derated. As was mentioned by Deputies, the Fianna Fáil Party held that view once, but the Fianna Fáil Party were somewhat in the same position as the Party opposite, trying to put a definite, concrete proposition to the Government in power, and they suggested that all land might be derated.
When we came into office, however, we examined that whole position and we found that we were going to confer a bigger benefit on the agricultural community by halving the annuities. Derating would cost £1,700,000, and halving the annuities cost £2,200,000, so that really £500,000 more was given to the farmer by halving the annuities than would have been given by derating. That, however, was not the principal point. The principal point was that rating is based on valuation; and, if farmers must be taxed, it is, to a great extent, a just tax on all farmers. We would, of course, be more just if we extracted no taxes, but if we must extract taxes, it was a just tax because it was based on the value of the land. The annuities were not based on that principle at all. One farmer was paying £2 an acre and another, perhaps, 5/- an acre for a similar type of land and by halving the annuities, we were giving a good benefit to the farmer paying the big amount and only a small benefit to the farmer paying the small amount, so that in every way, halving the annuities was a much juster proposition and, in the aggregate, gave a bigger benefit to the farmers.
When we compare this State with Great Britain and talk about Great Britain and Northern Ireland having no rates, we must take other things into account also. In Northern Ireland, they are paying full annuities, and, as I have already shown, if we had full annuities here and derating, the Government would be better-off and the farmers less better-off. The same applies to Northern Ireland, where they have full derating, but also the full annuity, and the farmer there is not as well-off as the farmer here. I do not believe the English farmer, taking his rent and rates together, is better-off than the Irish farmer. I am sure the English farmer is paying as much for his land as the Irish farmer pays for his, and if we make a further comparison between the British farmer and the farmer here, based upon the cost of production in general, the English farmer is paying much higher wages than we are. They have a minimum wage, but those Deputies who read the British agricultural papers will see that the wages are fixed by trade unions, trade agreements, or whatever you like to call them, in many areas far above the minimum rate so that they are paying higher wages and their rents and rates are at least as high as ours. Against that, are they getting much better prices for their stuff? They are getting more for their cattle and sheep because we have to pay freight going across. They are not getting as much for wheat and, in fact, we are getting considerably more. They are not getting as much for beet, for potatoes or for eggs. We are giving a subsidy on eggs going out and they are competing on equal terms with the British. At times, we get more for pigs and, at other times, they get more, but taking things all round, the British farmer is not getting any more than we are, although his costs are higher than the Irish farmer's.
We are told that the bounties did not reach the farmer. That is possibly true. Certain bounties at certain times did not reach the farmer; but it is put to us that we have halved the annuities, but "what about that"; and we gave them bounties but they did not reach the farmer. In other words, nothing we did was any use, but nothing has been suggested in its place. I think Deputies would make a better case if they were more reasonable and said that we did give bounties and did a certain amount of good, but that we have withdrawn them now; but instead, we are told that they did not get them, so that that money was foolishly spent and all went for nothing. We are told that when the licences were valuable, they were given to the exporters, and that when they became less valuable, they are given to the producers. That is probably true, but I can tell Deputies that while we were giving out those licences to the exporters of cattle, they were all used. That was at the time when we were anxious to use whatever quota we had for cattle to the full because we wanted to get rid of all the cattle we could. Later on, when we began to give the licences to the farmers themselves, only about half of them were used. The rest were lost or never used. We could not possibly have given them to the farmers when we wanted to see every single licence used.
I dare say it is true that the farmers want capital, and I think I would be in favour of any scheme of credit for certain purposes that could be worked practically. I think it would be a very useful thing for farmers to get capital for the purchase of working horses, machinery, and things like that that would be used for production, but where they would not be competing against their neighbours or could not possibly do any harm by increasing production. Deputy Cogan said that I had spoken against the indiscriminate provision of credit to the farmers in order to buy live stock. What I pointed out at that time was that if we were to give a great deal of money for the purchase of live stock, the farmers would naturally compete against one another and inevitably drive up the price of live stock. A time would come when these farmers would have to get rid of that live stock, and the export price would rule the price at which they could sell, and I said that I was very doubtful if they would make anything at all on the live stock bought under those circumstances.
The Deputy also says that we should give out a certain amount of money to the farmers to buy live stock in the autumn, but I think the same objections hold here. What is the total value of the cattle going out from this country in the autumn? It is not more than £2,000,000 and that is a very small amount compared with the large figures Deputy Cogan was dealing with. Suppose we were to give it to selected farmers—and we would have to select them because there would be no use in giving £7 or £8 to the individual farmer. They would go to the fairs to buy cattle and would compete against one another. There is no doubt that a demand for those cattle in the British market, if there were no cattle going there, would increase very steeply and very rapidly. The price would go up, not only by reason of the competition between the farmers themselves, but also by reason of competition between the exporters, where the numbers going across would be less. They would then keep these cattle over the winter. Under Deputy Cogan's suggestion, they would have to export them in the spring and they would be exported along with cattle normally exported at that period, so that the numbers for export would be much higher than normally in the spring, and they would go down below the natural price and I believe the farmers would have very little. I am not saying, however, that we should not continue with the issue of credit and, in fact, increase it, if possible. There are individual farmers of the type mentioned by some Deputies who would benefit enormously by a loan and who could buy a certain amount of live stock with other things. That could be done, but I think there would be great danger in doing it in an indiscriminate way.
I have stated already that I do not at all accept the allegation of Deputy Cogan that we have been concentrating altogether on tillage. We have not. As a matter of fact, our programme in 1932—and we did not take this from Fine Gael, whatever Deputy Bennett may say—was to fill whatever part of the home market we could with some of the things we thought we could produce here, such as wheat for bread, beet for sugar and a few things like that, and we advocated increased tillage to supply these wants in the home market; but we never at any time advocated a reduction of live stock. In fact, as I have said already, we did things as a Government during the last four or five years to find a market for our live stock and instead of being helped by the Opposition, who are the live stock men of the country, or at least who speak for them, our efforts were received with laughter. They tried to make little of our bargains wherever they could, and now when we have this British market, which they have been calling for all the time, they ought to be satisfied that we are in a position to go on with the production of live stock.
Now, I was also accused by Deputy Cogan of helping to deprive the farmer of his capital. Of course, we did not hear the details of that, but I do not know in what way we are supposed to have done it. During the last four or five years the Fianna Fáil Government were accused by the Party opposite of injuring the farmers to a great extent, but I hope Deputy Cogan is more sensible than to believe anything he might have heard from that side. We were fighting a fight on behalf of the farmers. Of course, that was never admitted by the Party opposite, but we were fighting to keep that money from going to Great Britain, in order to be able to give the farmers this relief of half their annuities, as well as other benefits. As I have said already, the Fianna Fáil farmers who stood by us won that fight, and they can claim that they won it without any help whatever from the people opposite. Deputy Bennett and other Deputies have talked about us going over to their side, but I would ask Deputy Bennett to tell us in what part of our particular policy, so far as agriculture is concerned, have we gone over to their side. Another Deputy talked about the small farmers and the poor farmers, and said that we had increased the cost of living on them by putting up the price of flour. Well, one thing I know, at any rate, is that the flour millers were honest enough to put up the price of flour the day before the general election. That might look like a stab in the back to us. However, I am glad they did it, because, even with that, we did very well in the election. However, that must be taken in relation to the price for the coming cereal year, which commences on 1st September. It is from that time that the flour miller, whether he is milling in September or at any other time, calculates the price of flour, and I think I am correct in saying that the price of flour is calculated as if he were putting in the same percentage, as otherwise there would be jumps—one miller putting in 40 per cent. and 10 per cent. at various times, and another miller putting in different percentages at other times. Accordingly, they have agreed to take the whole year through, and the price is arranged on the national percentage. Of course, as far as these prices are concerned, I suppose the Prices Commission will watch them in order to see that they are not doing anything wrong.
Deputy Brasier raised some points, but I do not think there was anything he mentioned that was worthy of much attention, and I think Deputy Corry dealt adequately with some of his points. However, he did deal with derating, but again I have to complain that he did not tell us how this money might be found. There is no use in dealing with derating on the basis that Deputy Dillon proposed—that is, by way of a tax on sugar—because the farmer himself would have to pay that tax just the same as anybody else. Take it at about £1,500,000 to-day, or a little more, and we have a population of about 3,000,000, each consuming probably about the same amount of sugar; that would mean that everybody would have to pay a tax of 10/- on sugar for the year. I think that 80 per cent. of the farmers would lose on that proposition, because the farmer with, say, five in family, and with a low valuation, would have to pay more in tax than he would derive from derating, and certainly 80 per cent. of the farmers would lose on that if it were to be based on a tax such as a tax on sugar, or any such tax to which everybody would have to contribute. That, however, is the suggestion that has been made, and we have not had any other suggestion.
Deputy Brasier also proposed that we should set up a commission to deal with this question of agriculture. Well, I cannot understand that proposition. It was also put forward in the other House, but I cannot understand why we should have a commission to examine the agricultural situation. In both Houses we have, I think, a big number of farmers who know the position well. They are farmers themselves, they know the difficulties the agricultural community have to face, and all about the question generally. Indeed, we hear fairly often about it in both Houses, too. Why then should we set up a commission to examine the question? I do not see how any commission could be more expert than the Dáil here, and I do not think that the setting up of such a commission would do the least bit of good. At any rate, I am quite sure that whatever such a commission might recommend, Deputy Bennett would still make the same speech as he made here to-day when it would come to a question of discussing the report of such a commission. I say that we should discuss this matter ourselves. Over and over again during the last five years I have asked the Opposition to make a good suggestion; and I would always consider a good suggestion and perhaps adopt it. If that should happen, then Deputy Bennett will be able to say that we have adopted some of their programme. So far, however, they have made no suggestions. One never knows, however. They might make a good suggestion some time, and if they do so, I am sure to adopt it.
In talking about this matter, I should also have mentioned that we did put up quite an amount of money in the last few years, in the way of bounties and so on, in order to help the farmers to tide over their difficulties. One of the principal items in that connection was butter and the dairying industry generally. The object there was to keep up the price. Deputy Bennett talks about the farms of six or eight people in his area being up for sale, practically, at the hands of the Land Commission. That is a dairying county and we have done quite a lot for the dairying industry. We have kept up the price of butter. We have kept its price above the world price all the time, and very much over the world price at some periods. Still, the Deputy tells us about these people whose farms are up for sale by the Land Commission. Now, I regret very much, as I am sure everybody in the House regrets, that anybody should be forced to reach the position where the Land Commission are threatening to sell them up, but we cannot be accused of not doing anything. The Government has done everything that it possibly could do for the dairying industry.
Deputy McGovern talked about the industries in the towns having to be subsidised, and the remainder of his speech was in favour of subsidies for agriculture. Well, I suppose that you could call a tariff a subsidy, in one sense. These people are subsidised in that way, but on the other hand we have quite a number of tariffs on agricultural commodities also. We do not allow world wheat in here, nor do we allow sugar or any of the fruits or vegetables. We could not even allow beef or mutton or bacon from certain parts of the world or we would be swamped altogether. So that everything is subsidised, in that sense, if you call a tariff a subsidy. The Deputy calls it such with regard to the town industries.
Is no industry paying?
Of course, the industries are paying, and so is farming paying wherever the farmer minds his business properly and only takes part in politics at an election. Wherever the farmer minds his business properly and only comes out in politics at an election and votes for Fianna Fáil, his farm is paying. Others, of course, are agitating against the Government all the time, and naturally their farms cannot pay. They should mind their business properly and not pay so much attention to politics and to Fine Gael, and their farms would pay. I agree with the constructive part of Deputy Corry's speech. He advocated the taking over of the main and trunk roads from the local authorities. That is a thing that can be examined. Personally, I should like to say in that connection, although I have said here that I do not think derating would be a boon—it certainly is not going to be the boon the people opposite would make it out to be to the majority of farmers; in fact, it would be a burden on the small farmers if we got it in the way suggested—even so, I am not opposed to reliefs in taxation at all; and if the Government during the coming year, say, can spare a few hundred thousand pounds, and if they were to ask me what I would recommend, I might suggest an increase in the Agricultural Grant. However, there are other ways, perhaps, in which it could be spent better, and I am having certain schemes examined, which, I think, might be very useful to the farming community, and perhaps more useful than the matter of the Agricultural Grant.
Deputy Bennett talks about increased prices, increased production and reduction of overhead charges. It is a very vague sort of statement. If I thought I could satisfy the farmers of this country by going down and saying: "Your prices should be increased, your production should be increased and your overhead charges should be decreased," I would have a great time. But that is not enough. Naturally, the farmers would say: "How is that going to be done?" That is what I want to know—how is it going to be done? If you take cattle, for instance—the same applies to a lot of things—where you have a surplus for export, the export market is going to fix your price, unless you give a bounty, and if we give a bounty we are told that the farmer will not get it. It is all right talking about doing things. You can quite well increase the farmers' prices where all the produce is consumed at home, like wheat and beet. We could raise the price of wheat and beet and the farmer will get the advantage, provided the consumer or the taxpayer can afford it, as the case may be, but where there is a surplus for export it is a very difficult thing to do, except by an export bounty.
Reduce the overhead charges.
Reduce the overhead charges? The only suggestion which has been made in that way is derating. I have dealt with derating to a certain extent, and I do not know in what other way the overhead charges can be reduced. At least, that was the only suggestion made.
And reduce the cost of living.
By bringing down the price of, say, meat, butter and eggs?
No.
That is the only way it can be done.
Reduce the high tariffs.
Reducing the high tariffs might not reduce the cost of living at all. If we take the tariff off boots and shoes, does the Deputy contend that the price of boots and shoes would go down? I do not think it would. I want Deputies to be a little bit more specific on those points. If they put up any specific suggestion we will have it examined. I quite agree with Deputy Bennett that no matter how we may differ we are not going to be personal, but I do not think it is fair for him to say that we saw that the promoters of the Roscrea factory were going to be safeguarded. We did not see to it. We made the best bargain we could. If they said to us, "We will put up the factory without making any conditions," we would have said: "Very well; that suits us"; but they would not put it up unless they got certain conditions. We would not have asked those people to start a factory in Roscrea only that we wanted to get rid of the old cows in order to benefit the farmers. We started off, therefore, by trying to benefit the farmers. We looked around to find a way of disposing of those cows. We thought of making meat meal and salvaging those cows in other ways. We asked certain groups on what conditions they would do it, and after asking the different groups we took the best proposition we could get. Is it fair now to say that we saw they were to be safeguarded? They saw to it. We did not see to it.
Somebody saw to it.
We had to agree with it, if you like.
We allowed them to get it, anyhow.
I do not think there are any other matters arising, except that Deputy Bennett wound up by accusing us of taking over part of their policy. I think the Party opposite have come so much to adopt our policy that they think it is their own. In regard to every single thing we did in the last five years, they say it is theirs to-day. For goodness sake, would the Deputies opposite get the manifesto issued in 1932 by Fine Gael—or Cumann na nGaedheal as they were then—and the manifesto issued in 1932 by Fianna Fáil. They will see that the whole Cumann na nGaedheal policy has been torn up, and the two Parties have now adopted the Fianna Fáil policy.
What about "Thanks be to God, the British market has gone"?
The British market is back. Is it not? Who said that?
Nobody said it!
Nobody said it.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.35 p.m. until Wednesday, October 26th, at 3 p.m.