The House, I presume, is aware of the procedure. When an amendment is submitted to a motion of this character, the motion is moved and seconded. Then the amendment is moved, and both are discussed together. There is only one debate. Two questions are put at the conclusion of the debate, the mover of the original motion having the right to conclude.
Private Deputies' Business. - The Agricultural Industry—Motion.
I move:
That, in the opinion of Dáil Eireann, it is essential that special long-term loans be provided for farmers at easy terms; that rates on agricultural land be completely abolished; that a moratorium be granted on the payment of land annuities, and that the payment of arrears outstanding be spread over a number of years in order to promote the recovery and expansion of the agricultural industry.
In the first place, so many weeks have passed since this motion was tabled that it may occasion some surprise that some change in it might not be necessary. It might be expected that it would be out-of-date, but the claims that I wish to put forward are so just and so reasonable that time only renders them more urgent. Farmers are as much entitled to-day as they were last July to special loans to enable them to re-stock and re-equip their farms, and to a temporary respite from the payment of annuities, the funding of outstanding arrears, and the complete derating of agricultural land. As a matter of fact, I think they are even more entitled to these concessions now, because the operations of the clerk of the weather, an official over whom this House has no control, have had a very detrimental effect on the agricultural industry during the past few months. The case in support of this motion rests mainly on the fact that during the past five years farmers have been bearing an intolerable burden, a burden that has been estimated by the Banking Commission to amount to about £20,000,000 a year. That estimate was based on statistics given by various Departments of State. It has been estimated that the total value of the agricultural output has been reduced by more than £20,000,000 since 1929. A reduction of £20,000,000 in the farmers' income, affecting 500,000 people who work on the land, must naturally have exhausted their resources, must have placed them in a very impoverished position, and deprived them of the means of carrying on and developing their industry.
Every Deputy will agree that the economic existence of this country depends upon the agricultural industry being extended in every possible direction. It depends also upon the volume and the value of agricultural production here being increased by every possible means. What chance have unfortunate farmers, who were forced to endure the effects of seven years of acute agricultural depression, during which there were export tariffs upon their produce, which reduced its value by 40 per cent., as well as restrictions on the export of live stock, which practically rendered them unsaleable, of developing the industry? Farmers who lived under such conditions cannot be expected to carry on in tillage or in live stock unless special relief is provided for them, by way of loans to enable them once more to get into the position of being able to work their land. In asking for loans, we ask for special loans that do not carry the same conditions as those applying to ordinary commercial loans. We ask to have it recognised that farmers have passed through an abnormal period of depression, and that they suffered very severely in what was generally considered to be in the national interest. Having made big sacrifices, they should now be put in the position of carrying on their industry. In order to enable them to do so is it not reasonable and just to demand that special terms should be given them, and that a sum of money should be set aside by the State to re-establish agriculture, by providing loans on especially easy terms?
I think the Minister for Agriculture stated some time ago that to provide loans for farmers to purchase live stock would result in putting up the price of live stock and would have an adverse effect on agricultural conditions generally, since farmers would have to sell the stock later. Nobody could seriously accept such a contention. The number of farmers requiring loans to purchase live stock might be considerable, but it would not be sufficient to alter the trend of prices, which are governed mainly by export prices abroad, and the greater portion of our live stock is exported. In addition to loans for stock, farmers require loans to put their land into a working condition, to improve and drain holdings, to make fences and provide buildings. All these things were neglected during the years of depression. Surely it is not unreasonable to demand that farmers should be put into the position that they were in some years ago. Farmers have been told that if they had no capital they could turn to tillage. Anyone who knows anything about agriculture will admit that there is no more hopeless, and no more disastrous activity than to proceed to break up land without plenty of capital with which to procure seeds, implements, supplies of artificial and other manures, as well as paying the wages of workers. Even in regard to tillage, farmers have to wait, at least, 12 months before they can reap any benefit from their labours. There is a case for impoverished farmers getting loans at a low rate of interest. It is not the intention of the motion to suggest that loans given on special terms, or at low rates of interest should become a permanent feature here, but should be given simply as an emergency measure to enable farmers to recoup themselves for the abnormal losses they sustained.
In addition to the case that can be made for the granting of loans at a low rate of interest, one can be made also for a temporary respite in the collection of land annuities, and for the funding of arrears that accrued during the period of depression. Farmers were called upon during that period not only to pay the annuities to the Land Commission here, but also to pay them to the British Government by way of tariffs on agricultural exports. That double burden, in addition to agricultural depression and restrictions on exports, rendered live stock unsaleable, and left farmers in a deplorable position. As a result they were unable to meet the demands of the Land Commission or the rate collectors. Apart from every other consideration, simple justice demands that farmers who made such sacrifices should be given breathing space, a temporary respite from the payment of land annuities. I know that it has been stated by, I think, the Taoiseach in this House, that if farmers were given a temporary respite from the payment of annuities now, and some concession by way of spreading the arrears over a number of years, there would, possibly, be a demand for the same concession in the course of a few years. Our answer to that is that we do not expect to have a period of agricultural depression such as we have experienced. We do not expect to have an economic war such as we have experienced, and we do not expect to have the various restrictions, with their consequential losses, inflicted upon us again in the course of a few years. We, farmers, only ask concessions of this kind on the ground that conditions have been absolutely abnormal. If such abnormal conditions were to arise again we might be justified in demanding similar concessions again in the future, but it is no answer to our demands to say that we would be putting up the same demands in a few years' time even if conditions were absolutely normal. Farmers in this country have always had a strong sense of justice and fair play. They have never demanded anything to which they did not believe they were fully entitled. They have always been prepared to pay what they believed they justly owed, but a position has been imposed upon them in which they have been compelled to pay, not what they justly owed, but an amount abnormally higher. They have been compelled to pay their annuities three or four times over, and to bear a disproportionate share of the whole cost of the economic dispute between Great Britain and Ireland. In every national dispute and in every national emergency in which the citizens are called upon to make sacrifices it is always a recognised principle that it is the duty of the Government to compensate, to some extent at any rate, those who have been called upon to make sacrifices in the national interest. We, farmers, when we realised that the economic dispute had been brought to an end, were confident that we would be treated in a similar manner, that some recognition would be given to the fact that the farmers had been, as has been admitted by Ministers in this House, in the front line of trenches in the economic dispute, and had borne more than their share, and more than any other section of the community of the burthen of that dispute. Yet we find that the only concession made to farmers on the termination of the economic war was to increase agricultural wages by three shillings per week.
That concession was made because the Government realised that there was in this House an active Party representing the labour interest, a Party which they sought to overcome, and because they believed that by making a concession to the agricultural labourer at the expense of the farmer they would win the agricultural labourer from the Labour Party to the Government. It was simply a move made in anticipation of the general election. That was the only concession I can see that was made to agriculture.
I think nobody can dispute the fact that farmers have suffered and suffered very severely during the past five or six years. Take the average small farmer raising eight or ten store cattle per year. That man formerly was able to market these cattle for £12 or £13 per head. During the years 1933, 1934, 1935 he was forced to sell these cattle at £3 per head. That left him an income of barely £24 or £30 per year upon which to support his family and carry on the business of his farm. That is just one aspect of the manner in which farmers suffered owing to the economic dispute and the depression in agricultural prices. Surely any reasonable person, appreciating the importance of the farming industry, would have realised the necessity for giving some chance to the agricultural industry by a temporary remission of annuities. Instead of a temporary remission of annuities, however, we have had during the past few months an intensive campaign for the collection of annuities. We have had a position in which farmers' basic stock, that is, their cows and horses, were seized in order to meet the demands of the Land Commission. I could give instances of farmers who offered money to the forces of the State who were sent to seize in respect of annuities, but the money was refused because it was insufficient to meet the demand. I could give an instance of one particular farmer who offered half the amount demanded and it was refused. He was engaged in removing corn from the field into the haggard with one horse. He had only one horse and, notwithstanding that fact, the horse was taken from under the cart. He was left there with a stock of oats, half made, in the kind of weather which we have been experiencing. When that farmer made a protest, or endeavoured to protest, against such action he was brutally assaulted by a member of the flying squad. I ask you, can any Government stand behind such action? Can any Government justify such action? Is it not the last word in tyranny and injustice? In addition to that, we have cases where farmers who had endeavoured to build up stock to supply the Dublin market had their cows seized and sold.
In all their actions in regard to agriculture the Government seemed to completely ignore the fact that the agricultural industry is the most important industry. They have simply proceeded on a policy of ruthlessly extracting from the farmers the last shilling which they claim to be due. It would seem as if they were inspired to a great extent by the people who formerly oppressed the agriculturists of this country. It would seem as if they were inspired by the landlord garrison, who are dead and damned for 50 years, but who still seem to be able to get their philosophy and outlook accepted by the people who are holding office in this country. In dealing with agriculture, it may be said, as was said of another Government in the past, that they have gone to hell for their principles and to Bedlam for their policy. But, they have done worse than that: they have gone to Belfast for their tools. They have imported from Northern Ireland a creature who was picked up in the slums or in the back lanes of Newry, a creature named Morgan, who attends——
The Deputy should not mention persons outside this House in speeches in this House.
This creature has been imported——
I told the Deputy he should not refer to persons outside the House under the protection of the privileges of the House.
Well, the position is that we have a Government compelled to use the very self-same methods that were employed by their predecessors, or rather, I should say, by the landlord garrison in bygone days. They have been forced to make use of emergency men who buy farmers' stock at a small proportion of their value. As long as the Government is forced to make use of creatures of that kind they are exposing themselves to the contempt and ridicule of all decent people. A Government which claims to be Christian should endeavour to administer the affairs of this country in a Christian manner. If it is necessary, even as a last resort, to seize stock, at least they should ensure that the farmer whose stock is seized and sold gets the full market value for that stock. We find an agent of the Government purchasing farmers' stock at one-third of their value. That agent is still continuing to do so without censure from his superiors. Surely a Government with any idea of Christian principles should insist upon their servants or agents acting in accordance with Christian principles and purchasing the seized stock at its full market value. We find that no recognition has been made of any principle of justice. It is simply a case of keeping the farmer under foot, trampling him under foot.
This motion asks for the complete derating of agricultural land. Farmers in this country have been demanding derating for the last ten years. It is over ten years since derating was introduced into Great Britain and the Northern counties. If there is any sincerity in the claims of our Government that they are anxious to restore national unity, surely they must realise that the imposition of rates on agricultural land in Éire constitutes a very serious barrier to national unity. They must realise that the farmers in the six excluded counties are looking across the Border witnessing the activities of the rate collector. Our Government must also realise that not only have they refused complete derating, but they have in various ways contributed to increasing the rates in every possible direction and thus making the burden on the farmers' shoulders more intolerable.
Every measure introduced here has tended to increase the rates on agricultural land. I am told that the measures proposed for aerial defence in this country will impose a certain burden on the rates. The grants held over the heads of the local authorities are always conditional upon the local authorities putting up a certain amount of money, thereby increasing the rates. Every measure that has been adopted here has increased the burden on the unfortunate farmer. What answer can the Government make to the demand for derating? Any answer that could have been made to that demand was made in England and Northern Ireland, and was found to be faulty. What case can be made for excluding the farmers of the Twenty-Six Counties from benefits which are enjoyed by the farmers of the Six Counties? You will be told derating will cast an additional burden upon other sections of the community. It will impose no burden on any section if it is financed by a reduction in public expenditure. It will impose no burden if the local services are financed by the State out of money saved through the exercise of public economy.
Six or seven years ago, when another Government was in office here, we were told that they were extravagant, and that a saving of at least £2,000,000 a year could be effected. That sum would completely derate agricultural land and leave a considerable surplus. We will be told that there are large numbers of farmers here who would derive very little benefit from derating. I have never yet come in contact with a farmer who would not derive some benefit if he was exempt from the periodic or perhaps frequent visits of the rate collector. It may be said there are some people whose rates are absolutely insignificant, but these are scarcely farmers. People with a valuation under £5 hardly ever live exclusively out of their holdings. They are people who are either agricultural workers or are engaged in some other activity. Nobody will suggest that a person could live on a holding with a £5 or £10 valuation.
So far as holdings of a higher valuation are concerned, there is a considerable advantage to be gained from derating. You may ask why should we derate agricultural land and why not relieve people in the cities and towns of the burden of taxation, of rates or income-tax, or something else. The whole case for the derating of agricultural land rests upon the fact that the present system of rating is unjust. Every citizen will acknowledge that he is bound morally as well as legally to contribute to the upkeep of the State, according to what is right and just. Every citizen will admit that we are bound not only to pay direct but also indirect taxes. But it is not an established principle that, so far as direct taxation is concerned, it should be based on the taxpayer's means.
The whole trouble in connection with the rates on agricultural land is that they bear no relation to a person's means. Two people may live side by side on holdings each with a valuation of £20. One may be a civil servant; he may be a person in receipt of a private income of £1,000 or £10,000 a year. The other may be a small farmer and yet you will find they are both compelled to contribute alike to the maintenance of local services. Is the system which allows such inequality a just system? Is it a system which any Government could stand over? You have the fact that the British Government, even though they have not always been very keen on living up to high ideals of justice, have found that they could not stand over a system so inequitable and unjust as the present system of rating on agricultural land and they were forced to abolish the rates on agricultural land. I think that not alone will the derating of agricultural land be a step in the direction of giving justice, but a step towards the introduction of a fairer system of taxation generally, a system based upon the means of each individual citizen. I believe that the derating of agricultural land must inevitably be followed by derating of other property. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the derating of agricultural land inflicts injustice upon other sections of the community. As a matter of fact, it simply paves the way for a just and equitable system of taxation based on the citizen's income.
These are the three demands included in this motion. I think no member will dispute that they are absolutely justifiable and, not alone justifiable, but that there is urgent need for immediate relief for the agricultural industry. We are all painfully aware that the agricultural industry has been steadily declining, except for the few years of the war, for the past 50 years. Tillage has diminished; live stock have been reduced; every branch of the industry has declined. Most people hoped that when we had set up in business as a free country our Irish Government would take immediate steps to come to the rescue of agriculture, and that one of the first actions of an Irish Government here would have been to arrest the decline in the industry and to arrest the decline in the population of rural Ireland. Yet we find that, during the past 16 years, the population of Ireland generally, and of rural Ireland in particular, has sharply declined. People advance various reasons for that decline. They say that it is due to the fact that the young people seek amusement and pleasure and leave the rural areas; that it is due to the fact that custom in this country is against early marriages; but the real reason for the decline and for the decay in our rural areas is the simple fact that the farming community are not being fairly or justly treated.
When this country was subject to Great Britain there was an excuse for that state of affairs because we were governed by a nation which was predominantly urban, but to-day we have self-government and we are a nation predominantly agricultural. At least, we still are, but it looks, from the present rate of decline in agricultural population, as if this country will soon be predominantly urban. While the country is still predominantly agricultural, so far as population is concerned, and still absolutely dependent for its economic existence upon agriculture, surely some big effort should be made to rescue the industry from the slippery slope down which it seems to be sliding to complete decay. Surely some big effort should be made to encourage the people who are still struggling to live on the land to keep up the struggle; and to encourage the young people who are leaving the schools to turn their attention to agriculture. There is no means by which that can be achieved until there is some immediate improvement in agricultural conditions and the suggestions contained in this motion, I think, offer some hope of improvement in rural conditions.
In seconding this motion, I must say that Deputy Cogan has not left me very much to say. I would, however, earnestly ask the Government, even at this late hour, to come to the rescue of the farmers. If they do not do so, the farmers will be bankrupt, without any doubt. If the members of the Government travelled up and down the country as I do, and saw the poverty which exists, they would quickly change their minds as to how the farmers should be treated. I now ask the Government to put into force every item of this motion and I shall say no more.
Mr. Brennan
I move the amendment standing in the name of Deputy Dillon:—
To delete all words after the word "essential" and substitute the following:—
"to increase the production and profitable sale of agricultural produce and to that end a loan should be made available to agriculturists at a rate of interest not exceeding 3 per cent.; that a Commission of Inquiry into the Agricultural Industry be set up consisting of:—
1 agriculturist to be nominated by the I.A.O.S.
1 agriculturist to be nominated by the Royal Dublin Society.
2 farmers to be nominated by the Minister for Agriculture, one whose valuation is £30 and not over; another £50 or over respectively.
1 person to be nominated by the Federation of Irish Industries.
1 person to be nominated by the Banks' Standing Committee.
1 person to be nominated by the Minister for Agriculture, and
1 person to be nominated by the Minister for Finance.
3 members of the Dáil to be appointed by Committee of Selection. The Chairman of the Commission to be a Judge of the High Court or Circuit Court;
the Terms of Reference of the Commission to be to recommend proposals for increasing the volume and value of agricultural production in all its branches, and that pending a report of the Commission of Inquiry the rates on agricultural land as and from the 1st April next be met out of the National Exchequer."
I think the case for the amendment has been made by the mover of the motion. He impressed on the House that he was looking for an emergency measure, for a temporary respite. We do not think that any emergency measure, any temporary respite, or any temporary advantage that can be conferred on agriculture to-day, in its present condition, is sufficient. We feel that the question of agriculture must be examined in the light of all the new factors. We have opened up a new era now. The Government of the country have been educated——
By the Opposition.
Mr. Brennan
They are certainly not preaching the same policy which they preached in 1932, in relation to agriculture. That is all to the good, and, as a matter of fact, I should be inclined to throw bouquets at the Government for it; but this whole question of agriculture, in view of all the new factors, requires to be thoroughly examined in the light of all these new factors, in the light of the information which the Government have from their own nominees, the Banking Commission people, and in the light also of the information they have from the publication of figures for which they themselves are responsible with regard to the fall in the value of production here. We feel that an examination of the position must be undertaken by somebody, firstly, because agriculture has reached an ebb at present at which no temporary advantage can put it where it ought to be, and, secondly, because the disease must be diagnosed and, when diagnosed, ruthlessly dealt with.
We have come to the conclusion also that the shifting of burdens from one back to another is not a solution of any of our difficulties. We have all a common platform. Everybody in this country says that agriculture is the basic industry of this country. Very well; if it is, let us see what has happened to it for the last few years. Deputy Cogan has told you, and it is quite true—and all the figures published by the Department of Industry and Commerce, by the Department of Agriculture, and by the Banking Commission, will tell you also—that agricultural production here dropped by over £20,000,000. That must have affected somebody. It was not the farming community alone that it affected. It affected every person, every activity and every industry in this country. If agriculture is the main industry—and let us all admit that it is and that there are no two questions about it—and if we are going to have any prosperity in this country, the prosperity of the country lies in the soil of the country. That is where it lies, and no other place—in the soil of this country. What has happened to this country—to the soil of this country? Let us take up the question of the purchase of artificial manures in the last five or six years and see what has happened to the soil of this country, or let us take up the feeding of concentrated foods to cattle, or stall-feeding, which is so important to this country and to the soil of this country. Let us see what has happened. How far and how long are we going to have that situation continuing? The application of artificial manures in this country dropped by something between 20,000 and 30,000 tons per year in the last five years, and it has dropped all the time. That meant that, possibly, 60,000 or 80,000 or 90,000 acres went unmanured every year. Our feeding of concentrated foods to stall-feds dropped by over 52 per cent.
The repercussions of that are to be felt and seen on the soil of this country. It might be of interest to people in this House to be told that quite recently there were representatives of the British farmers in this country. They were in County Roscommon. They were sent over here as a kind of investigating committee, if you like, to look around them and see the type of live stock here, and, possibly, learn some lesson from this country. The opinion they expressed in Roscommon was that the land of this country is being starved; it has every appearance of it. One of these gentlemen said that he had a farm of 400 acres on the other side, and, of that 400 acres, 100 acres each year was being top-dressed with artificial manures, and it was able to carry 400 head of live stock and fatten them on the land. Now, there is no land in Ireland to do that to-day. The soil of this country is not good enough to plant food stuffs continually without having something put back into it. Those who think so are making the biggest mistake in their lives. It is not. The soil has got to be continually fed back.
Now, if we are to consider seriously what has happened for the last five years—I do not care even what particular political reputations were at stake—if the Government is seriously to consider what has happened for the last five years, to consider now, even at this stage, what are the possibilities for intensive farming in this country, they would not mind political reputations or anything else, but they would go ahead and get the work done —they would try to put farming on its feet. One great mistake, however, that the Government made was that it went forth on a policy of blind industrialism. Now, we all wanted industries in this country, but they should have been well planned. They should have been of such a nature that they would be able to produce goods worth the money. Has that happened? Everybody knows that it has not, but in their blind industrial madness they forgot the main industry. Nobody would advocate now that the only salvation for this country is a tillage policy. The Minister's predecessor, the late Mr. Hogan, wanted tillage, although he was put down as the Minister for Grass. Why was he put down as the Minister for Grass? Does anybody now ridicule the idea of more grass in this country? No; and the reason is because it is the greatest asset we have. We have 12,000,000 arable acres in this country, or about that. If we were to till 4,000,000 acres, or less than 4,000,000 acres, we would produce every single thing that the people of this country require as far as cereals and roots are concerned. What are we going to do with the other 8,000,000 acres? I am sure that the Government is convinced, and that every member of the Fianna Fáil Party—outside of the city members, who do not understand this question but who nevertheless are and must be interested in it—is convinced now, that the one thing that should be advocated for the people of this country to do is to produce more and better live stock if we want to have prosperity.
For five years we were gallivanting in the wilderness and talking about the British market. We did not want it back! We got it back, however, and, thank God, that era is finished. Now that we have got it back, however, and now that we can at least look forward to getting on that market and to getting there on equal terms with other people, what are we going to do to get back the custom we lost while we were gallivanting on the economic war? We are doing nothing. There is only one way that it can be done. It can be done by producing more and better live stock, by having them earlier, and by having them better fed. How are you going to do it? You are going to do it, firstly, by paying attention to the soil of this country and by putting back into the soil of this country what it wants.
I entirely agree with the case made by Deputy Cogan with regard to derating, but I do not think that, even if you had derating to-morrow morning, it is going to solve our difficulties. Somebody must take off their coats—not somebody, but a lot of the best and most scientific people that we have in this country or in any other country who can help us to solve our problems, and our problems are great. We want to get down to bedrock. We want to assist the Minister for Agriculture and we want him to assist us. Let him or the Taoiseach do what was done in connection with the Banking Commission. In other words, search the world and get the best experts to come and try to put us on our feet. The Taoiseach knows perfectly well, and the Minister for Agriculture knows perfectly well, that if we are going to get on our feet we will get on our feet by following pursuits which are profit-earning and which will leave us a profit.
You cannot continually feed the dog with his own tail. That is what bounties and subsidies mean. You may and you must occasionally have bounties, and you must have subsidies, but, in the main, agriculture in this country will have to carry the burdens. No matter where they are placed, they will come back to its shoulders. That is why we have put down this amendment. That is why we feel that no temporary advantage, no temporary concession, no temporary respite, as Deputy Cogan said, is going to put us back where we want to be put. In every daily paper and every weekly paper in this country we have responsible people worrying about the falling population in this country, worrying about the falling averages in the schools, worrying particularly about the fall in the marriage rates in the rural districts. How are we going to tackle it? It is a serious problem, and I do not propose to suggest a solution for it, beyond this, that until you place farmers in a position in which they can afford to be comfortable, in which they can afford to be as well off as the people engaged in other pursuits in the country, you will have the people flying from the land. As I said to-day on a previous measure, we have fixed hours, fixed wages, fixed holidays, for other people in this country. Mind you, I am not against that, but it is a very dangerous thing in a country like this. After all, we have less than 3,000,000 people in this country. We are not a big industrial country. We are depending upon agriculture to supply us, in the main, with funds for everything. All our industries, all our business, depends upon the success of agriculture. Spoon-feeding agriculture will not be any good to it. You must put it on a paying basis. As I said a while ago, we have here a peasant proprietorship; we are, in fact, all small farmers. Take this country county by county. If you take up the census and find the average size of the farms you will be amazed. This is a country of small farmers, small hard-working farmers, whose wives and families are toiling and drudging from Monday morning until Saturday night, without a fixed wage or fixed hours, or a fixed holiday.
They have to work on Sundays too.
Mr. Brennan
In a country which is composed of people like that you have got to be very careful in awarding to people outside that industry privileges which you cannot offer to the people inside that industry. There is certainly a desire at the present time to leave the land. People do not know why it is. It is probably hard to diagnose it, but certainly the advantages enjoyed by people who are not working on the land are the biggest inducement to leave the land. We hear it referred to as a flight from the land. Personally I am inclined to dispute that, because if we were to take up the census to-day—if it were up-to-date—we would find that with the operation of the Land Commission you have more holdings in this country now than ever you had before. Every one of those holdings has a proprietor. Nobody has run away from it. There is somebody living in it. But the population is not there; the people there have not got married. For whatever reason that has happened. It is a problem to be solved. It is a problem which must come up for solution very soon, or if it does not come up pretty soon this country will never recover. We feel that, from another angle, examination of this problem of agriculture is imperative and urgent. I do not think there are many persons in this House who are satisfied, or were ever satisfied, that the land of this country is being worked to its productivity or anything like it. In Denmark, for instance, according to the figures published, which can be found in the Library, taking the year 1900 and the year 1937, they increased their production of butter by 100 per cent.; they increased their production of bacon and hams by 100 per cent., and they increased their production of eggs by 300 per cent. in that period. We have gone back. What has happened? How is it that in that country they have been able to achieve that increase?
I am pleading for an examination of agriculture, an impartial examination of it. We have set out a formula here, or a suggestion to the people from whom such a commission might be drawn. We do not ask the Government to tie themselves to that, but we are showing what we think is impartiality. We are giving the Minister an opportunity of appointing his nominees. In fact, the whole thing is outside politics altogether, and ought to be outside politics. If Denmark could increase her production of eggs by 300 per cent. in the last 37 years, we ought to be able to do the same thing. I do not like reminding the Government of what has happened since they came into power with regard to eggs and poultry in this country. They know it. Everybody knows it. I do not think there is any loss which caused more discontent in the farmers' houses than the loss of the poultry and egg industry, because that was the industry which gave the woman of the house and her daughters a little cash in hand. It gave them some little comfort which they had not got in any other way. That industry has dwindled. The figures are appalling. In 1931, according to the figures produced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, we got into this country £2,031,000 for eggs. What did we get last year? We got £837,000. Imagine what that must mean to the farmers' wives of this country, to the people in the cottages of this country, to the labourers' wives of this country! The relief of rates on land or the relief of annuities is not going to cure that. That is the reason, while we demand as a right the relief from rates, that we also feel there must be an examination of the whole position.
Nothing less is any good to the farming community. It would be good business for the Minister for Agriculture, if he does not see his way to adopt that suggestion of ours, to select five or six people to travel Europe and bring back ideas with regard to agriculture. There is an intensive application of artificial manure in Germany, in Holland and in Denmark, where they put out per acre 14 times what we do.
In this country at present we are keeping an eye on industrialism. We are keeping an eye to the things which in the main do not count. We can find £300,000 for industrial alcohol or something else and we think we are making a contribution towards agriculture by doing that; but we are not. If the Minister for Agriculture would make a contribution of £300,000 towards the cheapening of artificial manure, it would be the best investment for this country. It would not be like a bounty or a subsidy for cattle, oats or barley or anything else; it would be something that you would have the benefit of over a period of years.
Within the last 18 years New Zealand increased her agricultural production by 100 per cent. We have not done anything in all that time to increase our production. I am pleading for an examination of the real position that exists here. I do know that the question of credit facilities, which Deputy Cogan spoke about, is a very important matter. But, do not take me as saying that the prosperity of this country lies in the hands of the people who want credit; it does not. I want this House to come to a decision that an agricultural policy which will bring prosperity to the farmers ought to be found even before providing credit for them. Credit is not any good to a man unless he can make it pay. With farming in the position which it is to-day, credit may mean what it did to people who got it some years ago—they simply lost what they got and are not able to pay it back. That has happened in various cases. The Government should examine their own agricultural statistics and the report of the Banking Commission, which they set up themselves, which deals with this matter of agriculture. They should not be afraid to tackle this question because it is a big one or because they may possibly have to go back on their political past. They should not be afraid to tackle this problem; it is there and has to be tackled by somebody.
The Government cannot escape responsibility in this matter. I do not want to go back on the responsibility which the Government carried for the last five years. I want the Government to look forward. There is no use in telling the farmer that we are going to find salvation in beet and wheat. That is not any good; that is finished. Everyone on the benches opposite knows that it is nonsense. So far as agriculture is concerned, you must have an industry which is paying its way and producing a profit; which is not a national loss, much less an individual loss. The Government should examine their own statistics dealing with the pig industry. What has happened to that industry? Does not everybody know that there is something wrong there? When foreign bacon was being imported here, people advocated putting a tariff on foreign bacon or that it should be prohibited altogether, which it was. They felt that if that were done it would open up to the farmers a greater market for their pigs. But what has happened? We have fewer pigs now. Is there not a case for examination there? Is there not a case for examination of the poultry industry!
The Minister now thinks that the admixture scheme ought not to be continued. In that he is possibly influenced by the figures with regard to pig and poultry production and, if he is not, he ought to be. Whether he is or not, he is apparently convinced that that scheme must go; in other words, that it is not a sound one. It was never a sound one. I am giving the Minister credit for being honest about this. He must be convinced that the thing is wrong or he would not propose to abolish it. He is abolishing it and, consequently, he must be convinced that it has done damage. Nevertheless, he says the damage must continue for another 12 months. He said that next September he is prepared to withdraw the scheme. Why is he going to withdraw it? Evidently because it has done harm. If it has done harm for four or five years, will it not continue to do harm for the next year?
Is there no other way to deal with the barley and oats growers than to let the country suffer for another 12 months under a scheme which the Minister is convinced did damage to the country? There ought to be some other way of doing it. Would it not be a better policy for the Minister to say now: "I am convinced that the scheme has done harm; I am convinced that the poultry trade and the pig trade, and others, have suffered as a result of the scheme and I am withdrawing it to-day; if there is any barley or oats left over and not consumed in this country, I am going to buy it; I am going to sell it to the mills and let it be sold to the farmers as cheap feeding for poultry?" Is not that a far better policy than continuing for another 12 months a policy which he is now convinced did damage?
Personally I do not think there will be 1 lb. of cereals that will not be used even without the admixture scheme. The oats crop is a bad one and in parts of the country it will be very hard to realise cash for it at all. A shopkeeper in Roscommon told me the other day that he was obliged to buy oats from some of his farmer-customers who came into him. They had just done their threshing. He bought the oats at 8/6 per barrel, although he did not want them at the price. They were no good to him because the weather was bad, the harvest was bad and the crop was bad. I do not think that the Minister should have been cowardly about the admixture scheme. Once he came to the conclusion that it had done damage or was doing damage, he should have discontinued it straight away. We, on this side, feel that there must be a complete examination of the agricultural position, that whatever is to be learned from other countries should be learned, that whatever has been found to be of advantage in other countries, taking everything into consideration— soil, climate and soforth—should, if practicable, be introduced here.
Other countries have dairying such as we have here but they also go in for winter dairying. How do they manage that? We ought to find out. Other countries are using as a substitute for maize not barley or oats but potatoes.
They have to put them through a certain process. What about examining into that? Is it not a proposition worth examination? New ideas in agriculture, in soil cultivation and, particularly, in the manuring and treatment of soils obtain in other countries. We are lagging behind. We want a bold, forward agricultural policy. I have no doubt that, if the people of this country were put on the right road and if they realised the potentialities of our soil and our grass for live stock, with a market right at our door, even with the disadvantages of the past five years tied round their necks, they would be able to get back to their former position and hold their own. I have not lost hope in this country but my hope does not lie solely in a tillage policy. If we went for a whole-hog tillage policy, we should have no market to which to export our products.
May I draw the attention of the Deputy to the terms of the motion before the House? The motion does not permit of a review of the policy and administration of the Minister. The Deputy should limit himself to arguing for or against this motion. The motion deals with the derating of agricultural land, long-term loans, a moratorium in respect of land annuities, and the spreading of the payment of arrears over a number of years.
Mr. Brennan
Surely, in pleading for an examination of agriculture, I have the right to cover all the ground relating to agriculture. I am pleading for an examination of agriculture and, surely, I am entitled to show that that examination would be beneficial. To do that, I must be at liberty to cover the whole subject of agriculture, no matter how it presents itself. Unless I am permitted to put the case in all its aspects, I cannot succeed.
The Chair does not want to be severe on the Deputy who, so far, has not related his arguments to either the motion or the amendment.
Mr. Brennan
I do not think you have been long in the Chair, A Chinn Comhairle.
Admittedly, I have not been long back in the Chair.
Mr. Brennan
All the time I have been pleading for an examination of agriculture.
Then, I shall hear the Deputy.
Mr. Brennan
What are the burdens which agriculture has to carry to-day, and what are the prospects of easing those burdens or of increasing the income of farmers so as to enable them to bear these burdens? I have before me figures published in the report of the Banking Commission relating to the overloading of the public debt. That is a very serious matter, because no matter how we try to shift the burdens, they will come to rest on the backs of agriculture. A Labour Deputy, speaking a short time ago on the Holidays Bill, referred to the anxiety which obtained when the Conditions of Employment Bill was going through. He said that they were told that it would result in pauperism, but the Bill went through and everything was working smoothly. Of course, everything is working smoothly. But what has happened? The costs have gone on to production. The costs have gone on to the people, and the people are the agricultural community. They are the people who, in the end, are going to keep this country going or to let it fall. You have all those reactions and repercussions.
As Deputy Cogan pointed out, grants are being made to the county councils by the Local Government Department and by the Board of Works for the relief of unemployment, and these grants are conditional upon the ratepayers—otherwise the agricultural community—putting up a certain percentage of the amount granted. There the agriculturists are affected on the double, because some of that money was taken from the Road Fund, which was ordinarily a fund to relieve the rates and which was applied in an unconditional way. Now its application is conditional on the ratepayers putting up certain sums.
I have here figures in relation to loans and stock outstanding by the local authorities. What do these figures show? That we have an enormous increase in local commitments. Even during last year and this year, or rather 1936 to 1937, the provision for the repayment of the interest and Sinking Fund by the local authorities has been increased by £126,173. But that is not anything at all like the entire bill. I am mentioning these things to try to impress on the House that the burdens on agriculture have increased and that they are still increasing with no prospect of any reduction. Unless we can have a basis of prosperity for the farmers and unless we can put agriculture into a better position so that it is going to show a profit, these increased burdens on agriculture cannot continue. Farming cannot pay under these burdens. If we are going to have prosperity in this country, I am sure the Minister for Agriculture is as convinced as I am that there will have to be a complete examination from beginning to end of the whole agricultural position. It is becoming clear that the farmers in this country cannot continue to carry the load which is on their backs at present. Industry must be put into the position that it is going to return a profit. If you are going to have a prosperous rural community and contentment on the land; if you are going to free the agricultural community from the inferiority complex forced on them to-day you will have to help them, in some shape or form, to prosperity.
You have not that contentment to-day amongst the rural community that you had in the past. We are living in a new era. We are living in a dangerous era. It is not as easy to have contentment in the land now as in the past. There are numerous factors to be taken into consideration. One thing I would impress upon the Minister before I conclude is this—he is the watchdog of the farming community and he should see that no inducements are held out to people to leave the land. That is what is happening just now.
He should see that something is done to give the farmers a chance and to put them in the position that they can carry their burdens; they should be put in the position that they will not be afraid to rear a family in rural Ireland. To-day they are afraid to undertake the rearing of a family in rural Ireland. The people in this country who are inclined to look upon the farmer as an inferior person ought to beware of what they are doing. The farmer is not an inferior person. He ought to be made to feel he fills the most honoured rôle in the community, that he is nearer to nature and nearer to God than anybody else in the country. The farmer is the primary producer of food and clothing for the people. We ought to be very careful when passing legislation granting concessions, holiday measures, fixed hours and fixed wages to other people, that we should not intimate to the people on the land that they cannot expect to enjoy any of these things; that they are never to look forward to these amenities. That seems to be the position at present. They cannot look forward to any of the concessions that other people get. There is a peculiar complexity about this country and we ought to be very careful about it. Where you have peasant proprietorship, where you have the small farmers all over the country, you ought to be very careful as to what you are doing.
If the Minister sets his mind to tackle this question, if he is convinced now, as I believe he is, that agriculture must be made a paying proposition, not a subsidised proposition, he will seriously consider getting the best minds he can to make an examination into this problem. Let us have all the scientific assistance we can get. Let us have all the commonsense possible to deal with this. I have no doubt that if the matter were tackled in that way and if you had commonsense brought to bear upon the position of agriculture you would succeed in getting a solution. The relation of live stock to everything else on the farm should be examined. The relation of live stock to the only market which is available should be gone into. If the matter were tackled in this way I have no doubt you would again have prosperity amongst the farming community. Until you do that and place the farming community in a position of independence and comfort, not in a position of worry and anxiety, there will never be prosperity and contentment for the whole country.
The motion before the House moved by Deputy Cogan and Deputy Thomas Burke asks that special long-term loans be provided for farmers at easy terms; that rates on agricultural land be completely abolished; that a moratorium be granted on the payment of land annuities and that the payment of arrears outstanding be spread over a number of years. These at first sight appear to be rather a big order. Naturally, they would have the approval of any farmer or any person who wants to advocate the claims of the farmers. Without going into the question whether the farmer should get these things, the only question that arises is whether the other members of the community should be called upon to contribute towards these various schemes or not. Let us first of all take the question of the rents or annuities and rates. Deputy Cogan said that we in Eire were anxious to end Partition, but that if the Northern farmer were to look across the Border and see his colleagues here in Eire paying rates, naturally he would not be keen on coming in, especially seeing the condition of the farmers in this State. Now, I do not think there is any necessity to exaggerate anything in this matter. I am sure that every Deputy here could make a good case on behalf of the farmer. We can examine the case much better by not exaggerating. We may be able to agree to do something——
Deputies
Hear, hear!
Putting the rent and rates together, you will find that the farmer in the North of Ireland is paying as much as the farmer on this side of the Border. I say that because, when half the annuities were taken off the farmers in the Twenty-Six Counties, it amounted to a sum of something over £2,000,000. Now derating would not have cost as much. In fact it would have cost annually about £500,000 less. Looking at the matter, therefore, in a rough way, it would appear to me that half the annuities plus the rates here are not any higher burden than the full annuities plus the rates on the other side of the Border.
Therefore, in advocating that the farmers here should be given derating, I do not think it is right to bring in the case of the farmer in the Six Counties and assert that he is better off from that point of view. Deputy Brennan said that the abolition of the annuities or derating would not be a permanent solution for agriculture. I hold the view very strongly, and I stated in this House very recently, that if we are to devote a million pounds, or whatever the figure may be that we would spend on the promotion of agriculture, personally I would not recommend that it should come in the form of derating. There were other matters mentioned by Deputy Brennan that might give very much more useful results if we had the money to spare to carry them out. However, I am not against derating on principle. I only say that I do not think it is the best way that we could help agriculture in this country if we had the money to spend, and, of course, that is a very big "if." I am sure the Minister for Finance would find it extremely difficult to find the amount necessary to derate agricultural land here at the present time.
I just want to touch upon a few other points that were raised by Deputy Brennan before going on to deal with the motion and the amendment in general. I do not want statements to go unchallenged, if they appear to me to be unjust or perhaps inadvisable. In the first place, Deputy Brennan said that we were not importing nearly enough artificial manures or concentrated feeding stuffs to this country.
Mr. Brennan
I said "using."
Certainly; I do not want to misquote the Deputy. I am quite prepared to agree with the Deputy in that. It would be most advisable if we could use much more artificial manure in order to increase the productivity of the soil. Similarly, it would be most advisable if we could use more concentrated foodstuffs and turn out more live stock. On the other hand, is it not true to say that there has been a big falling off in the demand for these commodities in the last few years. There was undoubtedly a reduction in the years 1933 and 1934 but, if the Deputy looks up the returns, he will see than last year we were back to the level of 1931 as far as artificial manures were concerned.
Mr. Brennan
Might I give the Minister the source of my information? My local dealer in Roscommon told me on Saturday last that in 1930 he sold 500 tons of grass manures whilst for this year he sold only 114 tons.
That may be true of that particular locality but the amount of artificial manures, between what was imported and produced in this country, was about the same in 1931 and 1937. There is not much difference either way.
Beet and wheat would account for a lot of that.
That may be so. There would not be a very big difference either between 1931 and 1937 in the amount of concentrated feeding stuffs used. I have not the exact figures. Of course, it is an infinitesimal part of what we should use. If we could induce our farmers to use four or five times the amount of these commodities it would be a splendid thing for the country.
Mr. Brennan
Absolutely, its only salvation.
The Deputy mentioned that we might give a bounty on the sale of artificial manures. That is one proposal I have been examining for some time but, apart from the question of financing a scheme of that kind—we might possibly be able to induce the Minister for Finance to give us some money for that purpose—the administration of some of those schemes is an extremely difficult matter. That applies to other schemes too. I agree with Deputy Brennan that the giving of credit in an indiscriminate manner is sometimes dangerous. We have gone into that matter before and I do not want to go over it again. I think that credit for some purposes, such as building and so on, would be very useful to some farmers. The provision of loans at a small rate of interest would be useful. I must say that, as far as credit for the restocking of farms is concerned, I do not think that a point or two in the rate of interest would mean very much; because if a man borrows £100 to buy cattle, whether he gets it at four or six per cent. does not make nearly so much difference as the fair to which he brings out these cattle to sell. In short term loans for restocking farms, the rate of interest does not make any great difference. The matter of facilities for credit at low rates of interest, which is mentioned in the motion, is being examined. That is another scheme that might be useful in the present circumstances. I do not think I could agree with Deputy Brennan when he said, if I understood him rightly, that it was admitted by everybody that wheat and beet were finished.
Mr. Brennan
I did not use the word "finished"—not yet.
I do not know whether the word was "finished" or "going to be finished."
Mr. Brennan
I did not use that word.
I am quite sure that whatever Government will come in here—whether it be a Fine Gael Government or some other Government—is going to continue the wheat and beet schemes. As a matter of fact, Fine Gael make very sure when the elections come round of telling the electors that they are going to continue these schemes. There is no use in coming in here, then, and saying that they are finished.
Mr. Brennan
Would it be of any advantage to the Minister if I told him what I did say?
Yes.
Mr. Brennan
I said that the prosperity of the country did not lie in the cultivation of wheat and beet alone.
Not alone, certainly. We might finish on that point because it is getting a bit late. There is no use in saying that this Party is altogether for tillage, or that the people on the other side are altogether for grass. One statement is just as ridiculous as the other. We cannot have the country all under tillage or all under grass.
Deputies
Hear, hear!
The whole difference between the two Parties is this. When we came in here in 1932 we looked up the statistics and we saw that at the rate at which tillage was declining, there would be practically no tillage in ten years or so. Of course it could never disappear entirely because people would continue to grow potatoes and crops of that kind. It was not going to disappear completely. We set out, as far as our agricultural policy was concerned, to try to increase tillage by getting wheat and beet and other crops grown here as far as possible. There may not be a big difference between the policies of the two Parties now, but if there is not a big difference, it is not we who have changed. It is the Fine Gael Party who have changed because they signed a report in 1928 and they sent out pamphlets to a number of people in the country saying that we could not grow wheat because the soil was not suitable, the climate was not suitable, and the crows would eat it all. Now, after five or six years, when we have proved that we can grow wheat in this country, they come along and say: "We will continue to grow wheat. We are all the same way of thinking now." They have been converted. I move the adjournment of the debate.
What is the intention of the Government in regard to the adjournment?
The House will meet again on Wednesday.
I am asked by my Party to raise this matter. On that day, we are informed, there is to be the Second Reading of the Eggs Bill and the Second Reading of another Bill, and there are two small Supplementary Estimates.
Yes.
Is it the intention of the Government to bring the Dáil back for another one-day sitting?
There is also the Committee Stage of two other Bills.
There were no Committee Stages put down for next week.
I understood there were.
Mr. Brennan
I know the Minister for Local Government and Public Health did not name the date for the Committee Stage of his Bill.
The Committee Stage of the Insurance Bill is down for to-morrow week.
My recollection is that the Minister said Thursday week.
That is to-morrow week.
There was an objection by the Labour Party to the Committee Stage being taken on next Wednesday and the Minister's idea was to give a more extended period between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage.
Committee Stage has been fixed for Thursday week.
There does not seem to be any intention to sit on that day. If it is the intention to bring Deputies up for a one-day sitting next week we strongly protest against that arrangement. I believe the Government could find sufficient business for a two-day sitting, and if they cannot they should not bring Deputies, who have other business to attend to at home, up for a one-day sitting only. I believe they could find sufficient business for two days.
I think we shall.
If the Minister could arrange to give us a full week's business in a fortnight's time, it would be better than bringing us up for one day next week.
We shall have to meet this day week.
Mr. Brennan
You may be able to root up something else meanwhile.
Debate adjourned to Wednesday, 2nd November.
The House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 2nd November, at 3 p.m.