Private Deputies' Business - The Agricultural Industry—Motion (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (10th Dáil) – Wednesday, 16 Nov 1938

Private Deputies' Business - The Agricultural Industry—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion and amendment:—

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.

—(Deputies Cogan and Thomas T. Burke.)

Amendment:—

1. 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."

—(Deputy Dillon.)

Captain Giles

While I am satisfied that the setting up of the Agricultural Commission is a step in the right direction, I agree with Deputy Cogan and with Deputies on the Independent Benches, that immediate help is needed. I am satisfied that the present year has been one of the hardest that the farmers have passed through. It may be said that the economic war is over, and that the country is now reaping the benfit of the settlement. That is all right for people who had their lands stocked, and who had the means to carry on. But the land of large numbers of small farmers was denuded of stock and they have no money to purchase even a few cows. I am sorry to say that that class are now in debt to the banks, to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and to other institutions. In the past, that type of farmer was the real mainstay of the country. The Government should take this matter in hands boldly by coming to the aid of these people by issuing cheap money. If they did that they would do more for the farmers than all the talk that we heard from Deputies. Land belonging to that class of farmer has been denuded of stock for years through no fault of the owners. It was these men kept the fairs and markets going. They paid their way always and they are now entitled to fair consideration from an Irish Government. The issue of cheap, long-term loans is most essential at present, because for a number of years farmers have given up the draining, reclaiming land or manuring of land. If the country is to be got into full production farmers who always drained the land and gave employment should get the opportunity of doing so again. The issue of a long-term loan would confer immense benefit on the agricultural community. There should also be a cessation of the collection of rates once the agricultural commission has been set up.

While I do not expect the Government to be able to do everything at once, I think they should fund the arrears of unpaid annuities. They did it before, and I do not see why they should not do it again. At present, farmers do not know whether they own their land, whether they have to pay the original rent or half of it. The rent should be fixed on a certain basis and should be standardised. Some men who owe six or seven half-yearly instalments will not be able to meet their debts. The only hope is to spread the amount over a number of years and to give these people a chance of getting into production again.

Another thing that would be of immense benefit to the agricultural community would be free imports of seeds, manures, and also machinery that cannot be manufactured here. These should be allowed in duty free as in the past. I remember when middle-class farmers in my county imported perhaps three or five tons of basic slag for their land. Dozens of carts were engaged drawing that slag home from the canal. For the last six or seven years farmers never do anything like that. In fact, they do not worry about farmyard manure, and, as a result, the land is going into rushes. That is not right. If we are to pass on the old tradition of working the land for all it is worth that position should be changed.

The fairs affect the prosperity of our country towns. Perhaps four or five fairs were held in each county in the year and they brought money and business to the towns. These fairs have almost disappeared. As a new type of business has started I should like if the Government could step in to deal with it. The new game is for a class of jobbers or middlemen from God knows where to buy stock on the lands. It is rarely that a strong farmer goes to fairs with cattle now. They are sold on the land to dealers from England or Scotland, and the towns reap no benefit from such transactions. The bringing of people into the fairs meant that the shops, the drovers and the unemployed got a little benefit. The new system has done a great deal of harm to the towns and has broken up the fairs. These middlemen buy the cattle and give no one else a chance of earning a shilling. Concessions have been given to all classes in the community, with the exception of farmers. The labourers have got fixed wages. I do not begrudge them. They are entitled to them. They have also got cottages and new houses to which they are entitled. In the last four or five years, nearly all officials, big and small, have got increased salaries and fixed pensions, but farmers, who are the real producers, got nothing. That is unfair. Before fixing wages the men who have to pay them should be given the means to do so, because they will pay the wages without Government interference if they are able to do so. The cause of the trouble I believe is because we have a Government in power which will not take the only step that is worth taking, and that is to give the agricultural community an opportunity of making agriculture a paying proposition. We have a flight from the land at present. In the past, labourers from the West of Ireland and from congested districts flocked to England and Scotland to earn a living as potato pickers, or as the hewers of wood and drawers of water. I am sorry to say that from County Meath, which is supposed to be a wealthy county, I have seen labourers, and also farmers' sons, going away to become potato pickers in England and Scotland. That happened previously only in the time of the famine. I hope that some steps will be taken to see that the farming community get a living at home, instead of having to go to England and Scotland to look for work. If the agricultural problem was tackled in the proper way we would not have to be asking for doles, sops and bounties to try to keep things going. There would be no need for that if farming was made a paying proposition. The unemployment problem will then solve itself. Every farmer who could make profit on his land would give more employment.

If he was doing well he would employ more labour. I see around my own county farmers who formerly employed anything from five to 15 men, and sometimes 20, who are to-day employing only one, two and three, and some of these in a casual capacity. Surely to God, there is something wrong in a county like mine when you find the farmers not employing labour. It is not their fault. If it was a paying proposition they would give employment. It is not a paying proposition, and therefore they must let their land go into grass or weeds, or whatever they like it to go into.

Another important item which I think should have been tackled, not alone to-day, but 14 or 15 years ago, is in connection with some of our largest people in the farming community who were very strongly in production in both the tillage and live stock trade. In the year 1921 a large number of these people got the huge crash. They got the crash right down from that to the year 1932, when they got the real death fall again. Those people, through no fault of their own, have very heavy debts in either their banks or the Agricultural Credit Corporation or something like that. They are in debt through no fault of their own. They have been producing and doing the nation's work, and through unforeseen circumstances, instead of their land being a paying proposition, they were driven into debt with the bank. I think, now that a national Government is in power, these things should be remedied, because it is unfair. These people are our best people. They are, in fact, the people who rushed into business when it was good and have done what we wanted them to do, and have given employment in both tillage and the live stock trade. To-day and for the last 15 years they are in one of the most deplorable plights of anyone in this country. They find their land is not their own. The bank owns it. There is perhaps £500 or £5,000 debt over their heads. They find that instead of working the land for themselves, they have it set to some class of middleman on the 11 months system. They have looked to the Irish Governments—the first and the second Governments—they have rushed to T.D.s and everybody, but all in vain, and I say it is our duty as national people in our own Parliament to come to the aid of these men. They are at present no use to themselves and no use to the community, and I think that they are certainly entitled to some consideration. It is not their fault. The crash came without their knowledge, and I think there should be a fifty-fifty basis brought about between those to whom they owe the debt and themselves. It should be done and could be done without any hardship to anybody, but they are left in a position in which they are no use to themselves or to the community in general. It is a pitiable thing, at a time when there is a chance of this country recovering again, to see the farmers going out of production. It is certainly the truth to say they are going out of production. We see less tillage and less labour on the land. Is not that a poor prospect for a country which we were told for the last six or seven years was rounding the corner? It must be a very long corner, for we do not see around it yet. We want to see in this country more eggs, more poultry, more tillage and more employment. To bring that about, the Government has a problem to tackle and should tackle it. I believe myself that the Minister for Agriculture, if he wants to save his face, ought to tackle his problems with his coat off.

I cannot understand at all the mentality of the Labour Party in this House. Nobody seems to understand them. They were for three or four months here and they could not even think of an amendment. When we were in the happy position of getting the Government to agree to set up a commission we really thought that, instead of talking, that commission should be set up and that we could get on with the work. I am sorry to say that all the talk that is going on has kept back this commission and the sooner that commission reports the better for us all. At the last moment the Labour Party came in with an amendment. I do not know what they brought it in for. Another Deputy had that amendment in long before them. It seemed they wanted to get some political capital out of it if they could at all. I want to tell the Labour Party that they and they alone are responsible for more of the troubles and ills of this country to-day than Fianna Fáil. They could have put Fianna Fáil out of office from the year 1932 to 1936 if they wanted to do it. They would not do it. They were not the friend of the farmer then, but they whine and cry to-day and say they are the friend of the farmer. Why do they say that? Because the Labour type of people have deserted them and have found they are no use for anything. I say to the Labour Party: "Do your duty to your own people. Do your duty to yourselves. Instead of bowing to the Labour in the North and to the Reds in Spain, go and bow to the poor unfortunate hungry farmers in your own country and see about setting up this commission. Help to relieve us of our ills, and do not try to make political capital at the expense of the community."

I cannot understand why the Irish farmers have suffered for the last six years without taking a definite stand. I believe they were entitled to take a definite stand. We heard of labour strikes in our big factories and all over the country and they are entitled to have them. The farmer was entitled to strike, and I believe if the farmer did his duty to himself and his children he should have struck and refused to produce anything on his land. He should have sat down and left the City of Dublin, which is becoming wealthy at the countryman's expense, to think where they were getting their cheap food. If the farmer did that I can tell you that any Government in power would toe the line and come to the relief of the man who was on strike because the strike would be a just one. It would be the most just strike that ever took place in Ireland. It is a shame to see the City of Dublin fattening and battening at the expense of the man who is producing the food that is put on his table. I would say to the farmer: "You have slept on it too long, and it is time you woke up." If this commission brings him nothing, and that his case is put on the long finger, on the shelf, I think it is his duty to sit down and produce no more until he makes these wealthy people in Dublin who are fattening and battening at his expense, realise that, if he goes out of production they will go into starvation. So I hope Mr. Tom Kelly, who is a city man, will realise that we can throttle him if we want to.

Mr. Kelly

We will go down and take it from you.

Captain Giles

You will go back again.

Mr. Boland

I do not intend to prolong this debate, because I agree with Deputy Giles that if the talk is going to continue it will delay the commission. I think he ought to have thought about that himself, because he made a long speech the last evening and continued again to-day. I do not intend to prolong the debate, but I think, after the speech made by Deputy Dillon, something has to be said. He must not have been in earnest about it. He seems to have been surprised that the Minister for Agriculture accepted his amendment. He did not accept the whole of it. Deputy Dillon put down an amendment, and most of the points have been accepted. The Minister agreed to the commission. Deputy Dillon does not seem to have been in earnest about it at all and, judging from the remarks of some of the speakers on the Fine Gael side, they do not seem to have wanted it either. Some of them have almost anticipated and told the commission that is to be set up what findings it is to bring in. Deputy Dillon, for instance, cannot conceive of any commission not recommending derating. Well, other people could conceive of that. Anyway, the commission is the body to decide whether they recommend it or not. One thing we must remember is that a commission was set up by Deputy Cosgrave's Government and, after going carefully into the whole question, it recommended against derating. When our Government were considering what relief we would bring to the farmers, the fact that this commission had reported against derating had some influence in the decision we came to to put the money towards halving the annuities, which cost more than derating would have cost. I do not know, as I say, what this commission is going to report. Deputy Dillon is one of those people who knows everything, and he cannot conceive of this commission not recommending derating. As a matter of fact, judging by the speech he made here on last Wednesday, he seemed to know exactly what the commission was going to report on every subject—veterinary research, grain growing, cattle grazing and everything else. Deputy Dillon anticipated the commission on every subject. He could not give the Minister the credit of meaning to do well by agriculture by agreeing to set up this commission. He had to be as offensive as he possibly could. He said the Minister was afraid to face the mess, and "was trying to pass the buck," in his own poetical language. That was a nice spirit in which to accept the Minister's decision to set up this commission. In the course of his speech, he said the maize meal mixture scheme "was gone up the spout," that anyone who dared to criticise that scheme when it was introduced was called a traitor and all the rest of it. The fact of the matter is that that scheme did serve a very useful purpose when it was introduced, as every grain grower in the country knows. It provided a market for grain at the time, and kept the grain producers in production until they were educated into the growing of wheat.

Now wheat has been put on a secure basis and a large percentage of our wheat is being produced here, and I am sure even Deputy Dillon must have felt comfortable during the recent crisis when we were faced with a world war when he found that, due to the efforts of the Government of this country in the last six years, notwithstanding the economic war, we were producing a large percentage of our requirements in wheat, that we had saved our milling industry and that we were practically independent of outside resources for our supplies. In addition, we might have had to go short of many manufactured articles if that war had come about—and we all know we are not out of the wood yet—but for the industrial policy of the Government. I say, not alone are we not ashamed of the policy that we have given effect to during the last six years, but we are proud of it and mean to continue it. The Minister for Agriculture is quite satisfied, now that he has put wheat growing on a proper basis, that this maize meal mixture scheme can be dispensed with and accordingly he has dispensed with it. I say he was quite right to do it when he found the time had come for it.

Deputy Dillon complains about the Pigs Act. Every farmer knows that Act served a very useful purpose, too, and because Deputy Dillon gets £900 for £200 he presumes that the industry has been making enormous profits. I am sure they have been making great profits but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is such a thing as a nuisance value. People have what they call a nuisance value, and I think buying out Deputy Dillon for £900 was cheap. If I happened to be a member of the board of the bacon factory I would think I had got away with it very cheaply if I got rid of him for £900. That, I submit, is another aspect of the bacon factory case that he made which ought to be considered before we jump to the conclusion that the shares suddenly jumped to 4½ times their value. Nothing we have done is right—not even the acceptance of the motion—and this at a time when the Minister had actually settled with the British without any thanks to the Opposition Party. He can thank them, of course, for their attitude during the last negotiations. But, if they had adopted that attitude at an earlier stage, we are quite satisfied that the economic war could have been settled long before it was.

We have to remember the attempts made in every way during the last six years to break this Government. I do not want to rake up the past, but when Deputy Dillon brought us over the last six years I am entitled to go over them too and remind him of the serious situation with which we were faced. The "shirt" movements, which were such a menace on the Continent, were being introduced here. Marches on the City of Dublin were threatened. "No rate" and "no annuities" campaigns were actively pursued. We almost had a state of war at one time, as there was a cutting of communications. All these things were done, and Deputy Dillon was one of the people who stood for that sort of thing at a time when we were facing an attempt by the British Government to squeeze us into submission. Thanks to the powers of resistance of the Irish people and to the fact that they were not prepared to listen to those who tried to break this Government down and defeat the Irish people, we succeeded in getting a fairly satisfactory settlement for this part of the country. We have always admitted that when the recent negotiations were taking place the Opposition Party did behave decently. But, if they had done so at the beginning, that settlement could have been made sooner.

It would be much better if Deputy Dillon and the Opposition stopped talking on this motion when the Minister agreed to accept the idea of setting up a commission. What the terms of reference are going to be has not been decided yet. As a matter of fact, Deputy Giles was right when he said that there had been a lot of talk of this. But he tried to blame the Labour Party, who hardly spoke on it at all. I am satisfied that the Minister is not going to set up a commission until the debate is ended. Therefore, I think the sooner it is ended the better.

I want to refer to something said by Deputy Fagan, who asked me to enquire about an order to the sheriff in Westmeath. He said that an order has been made about the sheriff's fees there different from what had been in force up to recently. There has been a change made in Westmeath undoubtedly. It has nothing to do with the Land Commission. But the Department of Justice, when they went into the books of the sheriff, found that he was not charging the fees in that county that were charged in other counties, and the Department directed the sheriff to charge the same fees in Westmeath as were charged in other places. That was the only change made. As Westmeath was not being dealt with by the sheriff in the same way as the other counties, they were simply bringing it into line with the other counties and the change was made.

On the question of the payment of annuities. I have been pressed by Deputy Cogan and a deputation which he brought to me to make some arrangement for a moratorium. My answer to that was that the Government were not prepared to do that. But if people who find themselves in arrears and are genuinely not in a position to pay would make representations to the Land Commission and make some effort to meet their liabilities, they will be met decently by the Land Commission, as they always have been. We are not prepared to give a moratorium. The collection of annuities, I am glad to say, is steadily improving. We know there are people who are not in a position to pay, but there has been difficulty undoubtedly in finding out who could pay and who could not. I am not suggesting that there is any campaign against payment now, but there certainly was for a long period. Where the Land Commission is satisfied that people are genuinely not able to meet their obligations, they have always been prepared, as every Deputy knows, to meet these people in a reasonable manner. All I can suggest to Deputy Cogan, and others who want to have this general moratorium, is that if they have any particular cases to make and they bring them to the notice of the Land Commission, they will be dealt with in a sympathetic way.

I do not think I have anything more to say, but I could not allow Deputy Dillon's slanderous talk—because that is really what it was—to pass. He did not exactly call the Minister for Agriculture an imbecile, but he said that the scheme he introduced could only have been conceived in the mind of an imbecile. With all respect to the Chair, I think that that sort of language ought not to be allowed from Deputy Dillon or anyone else.

Mr. Bennett

It is pleasant to find the various Parties in the House unanimous in something, and there seems to be unanimity that all is not well with agriculture—that it is in a somewhat depressed condition. That is all to the good, and it is better late than never. But, if the general anxiety about the farmer's condition is accompanied by a genuine determination to put an end to the circumstances which retard prosperity, then we will get somewhere and something will be done. I am glad to see from this debate that there does appear to be anxiety, if not determination, to end it.

Another good thing which has emerged, not alone from the debate but from some observations made outside, is that agriculture has come to be recognised as an industry. It is the most vital industry we have in this country, one that is engaging thousands of men skilled in their job and hundreds of thousands of skilled workers. I do not think there is any member of the House who would deny that an agricultural worker is a skilled worker. One may say that agriculture is the sole industry that, so far as our exports are concerned, matters materially to the welfare of the country. It supplies certain products to the people at home in sufficient quantities, as well as products to the value of many million pounds for export.

If we debate the matter in that particular light, recognising that agriculture is a very great industry and that its existence is vital to the country, then we must realise what depression in it means, not only to the occupiers of land but to thousands of workers and to the country itself. We are losing thousands of those skilled workers. After years of training they are fleeing to other lands, and perhaps in time it will be difficult to replace them. We have the recognition that agriculture is an industry and not a haphazard occupation. The feeling did exist not very long ago—perhaps it is held still in some places—that agriculture was something to be despised, and that anyone could engage in it without training and without skill. That feeling no longer exists. We have advanced to this extent at any rate, that the bulk of the people of the country now recognise that it is a very great industry and vital to the country. All of us are agreed that agriculture is depressed, but we are not all agreed as to the magnitude of the depression. A figure of £20,000,000 of a loss as between one period and another has been freely mentioned in this House. If we are down £20,000,000 in our exports, and an undetermined amount in home sales—because after all home sales are governed by the export price—that does not truly represent the position, because we have no figures to show what the increased overhead charges in the industry amount to. Comparisons between one period and another as to produce sales prices are of very little value unless they are accompanied by figures relating to comparative costs of production.

What is the amount of the loss that has been incurred in this industry in the last eight or ten years? I cannot compute it, and I doubt if any member of the House could make even a reasonably accurate estimate of what that loss has been. Neither do I believe that any man outside the House could make a fair estimate of what the actual loss has been, and my reason for saying that is that we have no detailed accounts of the increases in overhead charges. We know that the rates have gone up, that wages have gone up as well as the cost of implements, manures, feeding stuffs and other things; but in spite of all that we cannot make a really true estimate of what the actual loss incurred by the industry has been. There are other losses that one cannot compute. Every new industry in this State, helped by a subsidy or in any other way, is in effect a new tax on the agricultural industry. Every extension of the social services is an additional burden on the agricultural community. The cost of all the improvements in labour conditions is also an added burden. All these have their effect. All of them may have been necessary. All perhaps were necessary, but our argument is that more than a fair share of the burden fell on the agricultural community: a share that was greater than it could carry. We do not ask for the abolition of any industry or for any less generous treatment for the workers in agriculture or in any other industry. All that we ask is that the really vital industry in this country should get a fair crack of the whip and should be given the necessary aids to prosperity.

Personally, I welcome the decision of the Minister to set up a commission. I have been somewhat sceptical perhaps of commissions, but at least if the commission does nothing else it will produce a lot of material that will be of infinite value to the people of this country. If the commission is to be in any way effective, then to my mind it must have almost limitless powers. Its activities must not be confined to production and production prices. It must examine the aggregation of circumstances which caused the depression; it must inquire into what extent the industrialisation of this country has affected agriculture; it must inquire into the increased overhead charges in the industry. The commission will gather valuable evidence in that way, evidence that it would not be possible for an individual to secure. It must also inquire into the question of credit generally, and the reasons which have made it impossible for agriculturists to get a loan on the security of their property. It must also inquire into transport, and, in fact, into anything that may seem to the commission reasonable and necessary. All that is going to take time. While we are awaiting the report of the commission, I do not think that we are asking anything that we ought not to ask from a home Parliament when we plead that, in the interim—now that we are all agreed that there is depression and that we are all anxious to help—some temporary relief might be offered to agriculture. I am not going to say what form it should take.

There was a suggestion with regard to a moratorium. The Minister thinks that is impossible. The only difficulty I see about a moratorium is this, that at the end of it the arrears would have to be funded. There was also a suggestion that the activities in connection with the collection of land annuities should be greatly reduced. Various suggestions were made as to what form the relief should take. Derating has been generally suggested as one of the things that would offer immediately effective relief to farmers. Personally, I believe it would. There may be others who differ from me, but I think it is generally recognised that derating is one of the things that would give the most effective immediate relief. The Minister for Agriculture, if I have correctly interpreted what he said on the matter, while not actually opposed to derating, appears to think it would be something of a cold comfort. I think that would shortly describe what he said. I might retort in the manner of the gentleman who, when asked whether he would have his whiskey hot or cold, replied: "I will have a little cold while I am waiting for the hot." We do not care what sort of relief we get, hot or cold. We would be grateful for any relief that the Government choose to give us, some immediate relief while we are waiting for the report of the commission. I do not think the Government are so devoid of ingenuity that they cannot think of something as a temporary relief for agriculture.

Many people will say that we are looking for an agricultural Utopia. Perhaps we would be, if it were possible. What we do ask is that the House, and the Government, should try to create an agricultural economy somewhat analogous to that pertaining to other industries; to procure for the agriculturist a fair return for the capital invested in his industry. It is too often forgotten that there is very great capital invested here in the industry of agriculture. If things were really right, there should be a percentage return on that capital. We ask, further, that there should be, not only fair remuneration for the skilled workers on the farms, but that there should be equal remuneration for the farmer himself and those members of his family who assist him in his work: in other words, to put an end to the existence of unpaid slavery on the land. That is what we ask, and what we expect eventually to get. We believe that with the sympathy of the House expressed in this debate we are going to get something of what we ask. We anticipate valuable results from the commission which the Minister has promised to set up, whether in effect or in the amount of information it will set before the country. I should like that any evidence given before the commission be published from day to day, so that the people generally will be really cognisant, for the first time, of the position of agriculture.

I have tried, as far as possible, to keep out of the technicalities. I have tried to avoid discussing wheat, beet, or any other technical aspect of the industry. We ought to confine ourselves to the economic end of it, to ascertain whether there was a loss— I think we are agreed on that—and how much was the loss; to find out whether we are producing economically or uneconomically, and if uneconomically, how best to end it. Thanks be to God, I think there is an anxiety on all sides of the House to improve matters, and if the commission does nothing better than help us along that road, it will not have sat in vain.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

While we all appear to agree that agriculture needs a stimulus at the present time, I believe that the work of the commission will not be successful unless the report contains suggestions that will enable the Government to set up the necessary machinery to give employment to the rural workers. A great deal has been said about the position of the farmers. With most of that I agree, but I do not agree with the speakers who suggest that if agriculture is prosperous the workers also will be prosperous; that they will get employment when agriculture is prosperous. That may be true in certain branches of agriculture, but it is not true as far as the cattle trade is concerned. I have had experience for years of what the cattle trade brought to the county I represent and I know that it adversely affected population and employment. I am not anxious that we should go back to that position. One of the Labour Deputies, speaking here, said he was satisfied that the prosperity of the farmers means prosperity for the workers. It has been reiterated from the Opposition Benches. I say that if we are to have prosperity in the rural districts we must have full employment for our people and there must be some measure of control by the Government to enable that to take place. In the cattle trade, where the cattle increase in numbers the population goes down. The more prosperity we have in the cattle trade, the lower becomes our population.

There is another aspect of the situation that deserves the attention of the commission. It is the tendency nowadays for farmers to displace the workers by the introduction of machinery. They tell us it is more progressive and more economical to invest in machinery to do the work. It is the line of least resistance and no one can blame the farmers if they find it is economical. But in the interests of the country the matter should receive attention. I find in many cases where tillage has been carried out on a large scale during the past few years that the tractor has been used to plough the land, to sow the seeds and it has even helped to harvest the corn. Not alone has machinery reaped it, but it has threshed it on the fields and brought it to the farm, with the result that there was scarcely any manual employment given on the large tillage farm. The mechanisation of the agricultural industry demands a supply of foreign petrol and oil to the exclusion of the hay and oats that would be consumed by horses. The number of people displaced by the machine is considerable. We have blacksmiths, harness makers, wheelwrights and others, not to mention agricultural labourers, deprived of employment in consequence of these things. The farmer is killing his own market as far as oats, other cereals and hay are concerned. We find in the country the position to be such that it should not be tolerated. Some people may call it progress but no one can say that it is for the benefit of the country.

The suggestion I wish to put forward is this—that we have sufficient land in this country to provide for our agricultural community. If you take Meath. my own constituency, for instance, we have there an area of 577,000 acres. That is the approximate area of the county. We have an agricultural male population of 16,500. That includes farmers, farmers' sons and agricultural workers. That gives us approximately one man for each 35 acres—that is, one man, whether farmer or labourer. When we allow for the waste land it is possible that figure would be reduced by one-third. The average in Leinster would be found to be something smaller. If we take the Twenty-Six Counties as a whole, allowing for the congested areas, the average would be much less. I suppose one agricultural worker or farmer for about twenty acres. The task would appear to be to provide that each 10 or at most 15 acres should maintain, at least, one man.

If the commission approach this matter with a view to arriving at a solution, they, no doubt, will find the means to do so. Of course, it can be suggested that the subsidies, grants, unemployment assistance and so on, should be devoted towards subsidising the farmers to enable them to meet the wage bill they would be called upon to pay for each 10 or 15 acres, which would be the outside acreage that would maintain one man. That would certainly place us in the position that we would have productive assistance given to the country instead of unproductive assistance and the dole. It would also do away with rotational employment as we know it. The country worker has no objection to the rotational scheme of employment provided full wages are guaranteed to him at the end of the week. If the agricultural worker is employed for only four days in the week he should be entitled to a full week's wages. That is a matter that should merit some consideration, and possibly some means might be got to overcome the position so as to enable the worker to receive a full week's wages for, say, the four days' work in which he would be engaged.

I am quite aware that the farmers have a number of grievances. Small farmers are entitled to all the consideration that it is possible to give to them. I have no objection to grazing or to ranchers merely because of the fact that a man is a grazier or a rancher or that he is engaged in the cattle trade. I have an objection to the system of grazing simply because it does not give the amount of employment that the welfare of the nation demands. We are all aware that the small farmers owe money to the banks and to the Credit Corporation for many years past. We know that in the division of the lands from 1922 to 1932 very heavy annuities were placed upon the men who got this land. Even though the annuities were halved subsequently, they still find that the burden is pressing them too much.

Then there is the case of the small farmers who live in urban areas and who are compelled to bear the charge of very high urban rates. We have the case of those farmers whose out-offices are insufficient and are not in such a state of preservation as would enable the farmers to carry on their tillage operations in the way we should like them to be carried on. We know all these things, and while we ask that they may be rectified, we also ask that the worker who pays a share of the charges for social services—incidentally I may remark that he pays his share of the charges that arise consequent on the default of various farmers to pay their annuities—should be entitled to have his position secured. Working and living on the land should give the farmer, the farmer's son and the worker all the facilities and advantages that are enjoyed by people in other walks of life and in the professions. The farm worker certainly should, as far as possible, have advantages similar to those given to people who are engaged in industry. I do hope that this commission, when set up, will evolve a scheme that will be comprehensive enough to cover these matters and that the farmers' sons and agricultural workers will be placed in a position whereby they will be given full employment on the land. If the commission approaches the matter from the point of view of providing work for everybody, I am sure their deliberations will be successful.

Mr. Keating

I wish to support the amendments under the names of Deputy Cogan and Deputy Dillon. Before the general election of 1932 the Fianna Fáil party promised to derate agricultural land, and if it were necessary to do so at that time, I should say it is doubly necessary to-day. After six years of the economic war and after a number of bad harvests, I find that the farmers in Wexford, the constituency which I represent, were never so badly off and were never in a position where they needed derating so badly. The amendment asks for what is certainly due to the farmers, unless this country is altogether to go out of tillage. If the Government kills the goose that lays the golden egg, what will then remain? All our wealth practically comes out of the land. I am aware we have a few industries, but we depend mainly on the land. I certainly support and approve of all industries that are economic, but if the farmer is not in a position to purchase our manufactured commodities what use is it trying to carry on industries? If the farmer is bankrupt, the country is bankrupt. We have heard a great deal from the Fianna Fáil Benches about grazing ranches and about having cattle on the land instead of men. Well, I rather think that by now most Deputies realise that what is complained about in ranching can happen just as well under mechanised farming. A man can get in tractors, binders and reapers and give very little employment in the growing of corn. As a practical farmer I have always advocated the raising of cattle, for I believe the system of mixed farming gives more employment than raising corn. I know that the farmers in Wexford who raise cattle are good employers. In fact, more employment is given on the land in cattle raising in the winter than in the summer. Through the policy of Fianna Fáil, coupled with a very bad season this year, there are many farmers now who are not in a position to stock their lands. It is up to the Minister for Agriculture to find some scheme that will give those farmers assistance in the restocking of these lands.

I hope something will come out of that. We are told that the policy of Fianna Fáil is a sound one. Long before to-day I have said, and I say it again to-day, that the policy is not sound. The only way you can make it sound is by the Government helping the downtrodden farmer, the man who has been kicked from pillar to post and generally treated like a bad-bred dog. The farmer has not the life of a slave. The farmer's wife and children have to work long hours, and without pay. The sooner the Government realises the necessity for derating agricultural land and finding money in loans for the farmer at a very low rate of interest, or free to the farmer——

Mr. Hickey

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but on a point of order, Sir—and I must congratulate you, Sir, on your patience—I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is not a quorum.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is right.

Mr. Keating

It just shows how little interest they are taking in the farming community.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present—

Mr. Keating

I believe there is an understanding between the two Parties to finish to-night, and I shall not say anything more, under these circumstances. I only hope that the Minister for Agriculture and the Government will see their way to derate agricultural land and to find cheap money for the farmer to enable him to restock his land and pay his employees. Some few weeks ago I asked the Minister for Agriculture to give a bounty on stall-fed cattle. If he and his Government intend to make this country prosperous and to encourage tillage, you have got to stall-feed. The farmer in this country to-day cannot stall-feed cattle unless he is provided with help in the way of a bounty per head, and the way for that bounty to reach the farmer, to whom it is due, is to give it into his own hand. The man entitled to that bounty is the farmer who feeds the cattle. He has to pay his men extra for work in stall-feeding on Sundays and so on, and, owing to the cost of living, it is due to the men. I do not object to that, but I do object to the Government grinding the farmer down, with his nose to the grindstone, and turning the handle until the farmer has no nose left.

I ask the Minister to look into the question of giving a bounty on stall-fed cattle. He said that he gave it last year, which he did, but that bounty did not get into the right hands. I hold that it is quite easy to give it to the man who feeds the cattle, and the man who is entitled to get the bounty is the man who stall-feeds the cattle. County Wexford has the name of being the best stall-feeding county in the State, and if they do not get a bounty on their cattle—even though it is very late in the season now—there will be very few cattle left.

Mr. Cogan

In listening to this debate, I have had a feeling of loneliness and isolation, and it has been brought home to me very forcibly, as a result of this debate, that the farmer has very few friends on either side of the House, and no friends on the front benches of the big political Parties. The motion which I have submitted to the consideration of the House is one which simply asks for plain, simple justice for the farmer. It asks for complete derating of agricultural land, which the farmers of Northern Ireland and Great Britain already enjoy. Is there anything unreasonable in that? It asks for a temporary moratorium in the payment of annuities and for special loans to enable the farmers to recover from the effects of several years of depression, and we find that both of the big political Parties are united in opposing that motion. Now, it seems to me that there is some excuse for the Government Party in opposing the suggestions contained in this motion. At least, if there is not an excuse, there is some explanation for their attitude. They have to face the difficult task of putting up the money to finance those proposals, and that might to a certain extent explain their hostility to them.

Mr. Hickey

All our talk is in vain, then?

Mr. Cogan

I said that it was at least an explanation, if not an excuse, for their attitude that they have got to face that difficulty, but there is no excuse or explanation whatever for the attitude of the Opposition Party who solemnly pledged the electorate at two succeeding elections that they stood for complete derating of land, and yet when a motion is laid before this House asking for complete derating they opposed it.

Mr. Corry

Nobody believed them, anyhow.

Mr. Cogan

They opposed it. Now there is a question of the grievances and the claims of the farmers being submitted to a commission appointed by the Government—by a Government which declares that it is hostile, and determinedly hostile, to derating. Does anybody think that a commission nominated by a Government hostile to derating is going to report in favour of derating agricultural land? When the leaders of the Opposition Party were in power, and when they were opposed to derating, they set up a commission to enquire into this question. Did that commission report in favour of derating? It did not. Commissions, almost invariably, carry out the wishes of the Government that nominates them. Of course, there are some exceptions to that general rule, such as the Banking Commission, but as a general rule commissions carry out the desires and wishes of the Government that appoints them. Accordingly, anybody who hopes that a commission set up by the present Government is going to report in favour of complete derating is living in a fool's paradise. Governmental commissions have a very bad reputation as far as the agricultural community is concerned. Commissions have discussed farming and farmers for 300 years. They have failed to produce anything except dust to throw in the eyes of the people, and anybody who seriously thinks that this commission is going to be an exception to the general rule must be very optimistic indeed. As far as I am concerned I have no objection to the Government setting up a commission, or setting up ten commissions if they wish, but I have a very strong objection to the Government being allowed to pretend they are doing justice to the agricultural community by simply setting up a commission to inquire into its claims. If I had delivered 50 barrels of wheat to a miller, and I demanded payment, it would be no answer to my claim if the miller were simply to say: "I am holding an inquiry into your claim"; neither is it any answer to the farmers' legitimate demands, demands which have been repeated year after year, to say that the matter is being inquired into by a commission which may sit for weeks or months or years.

What we want from the Government, and what we have a right to expect from the Government—from a Government which has asked for a clear majority to govern this country—is that they put forward a sound constructive agricultural policy and carry it into effect. Having a clear majority in this House they have no right to shelve their responsibilities by setting up a commission, and no farmer will recognise their right to do so. If the Government fails to do justice to the agricultural industry, and to give immediate relief to that industry, the Government will be held responsible and must be held responsible, no matter what assistance they have received from the Opposition body to evade their responsibilities. The responsibility must rest upon the majority in this House, who have been elected to govern this country, if they fail to do justice to the main industry here. We have been told by Deputy Keating that there was an agreement between the two big Parties to finish this debate to-night. I do not know how that agreement came about, but the Deputies in this part of the House have not been consulted. It seems to me that there is some kind of a secret alliance growing up between those two Parties to try to prevent the farmer from getting justice.

It seems to me as if the two big political Parties in this country are about to merge into one big mutual admiration and co-operative society. I personally should like to see, and am glad to see, a certain amount of friendly feeling growing up between those two political Parties which have been so bitterly hostile in the past, but I should also like to see them agreeing to do something in the country's interest, something in the interests of the agricultural industry. I think that an agreement to cheat the farmers of this country out of their rights is a rather ignoble end to an ignoble squabble, and I think that the Government Party must feel very grateful to the Opposition for coming to their rescue in this matter. They must feel grateful to be in a position to say: "Well, we have met the farmers fairly. We have done what the Opposition Party, who claim and have always claimed to be the farmers' spokesmen, asked us to do. They asked for a commission. We have set up a commission, and that is our answer to anybody who says we are not treating the farmers fairly." I think that the setting up of a commission is not doing justice to the farming community. The farmers have waited for 16 years to get a square deal in this country, in which the majority of the people are supposed to be engaged in agriculture, in this country which is dependent mainly if not entirely upon the agricultural industry. Surely it is not just or fair to the farmers that they should be compelled to wait now for months or perhaps years while this Kathleen Mavourneen commission is deliberating. I object to an attempt being made by the Government, backed up by the Opposition, to shove on to a commission the full responsibility for their failure to solve the agricultural problems. The lawfully and democratically elected Government of this country should take on their shoulders the full responsibility for governing this country and doing justice to the farming community.

I should like to advise both of those political Parties, and especially the Government, that if this commission fails to deal fairly with agriculture it may finish up by becoming not a commission of inquiry into agriculture but an inquest upon the agricultural industry, because the position of agriculture at the present time is desperate, and unless some immediate relief is given, that industry will dwindle, decay and die. This commission may not only become an inquest upon the agricultural industry, but if it dawdles too long over its job it may become an inquest upon the two political Parties who were responsible for setting it up, because the farming community are not in a mood to tolerate undue delay. They are not going to tolerate the setting up of a commission merely to cheat them out of their rights. Therefore I advise the two big political Parties, and particularly the Government who will have the job of nominating this commission, to see that they appoint to this commission men who are not prepared to defeat the ends of justice, but who are determined to bring immediate relief to the agricultural industry. Otherwise this motion will be a very disastrous one for the Government. I have been told that my refusal to withdraw the motion has had the effect of having the commission set up. That is absolute nonsense. If the Government had decided to set up a commission, neither I nor any other member on the Independent or Opposition Benches could prevent them doing so. The setting up of the commission was not dependent in any way on the result of this debate. If it was, it would mean that while the motion was under discussion the House would be debarred from discussing any question affecting agriculture.

There is nothing to prevent the Government going ahead with the commission. As far as farmers are concerned, the commission does not absolve the Government from doing its duty, and dealing fairly with agriculture. Accordingly, there is no reason why I should withdraw a motion which asks for justice and for concessions for the farming community. There is also no reason why we should be satisfied to wait until this commission has brought in its report. Many speakers dealt with the motion and the amendment but, if they were anxious to facilitate the setting up of the commission, I wonder why they occupied so much of the time of the House. Surely if they wanted to have the commission set up they would have refrained from taking any further part in the debate. If these speakers felt that it was necessary to say something to justify their position, they have shown their insincerity. Many speakers travelled over a variety of subjects and some of the statements were weird. We had a prominent spokesman for the Government declaring that the roof of the agricultural structure was falling in. That was an alarming admission from a Government supporter, and I think justified the placing of the motion on the Order Paper. Everyone knows that if the roof of a house is falling in, it is no longer a desirable place of residence. The people in it are justified in getting out. If the roof of the agricultural industry is falling in, and if people are flying from the land, are they not justified in doing the sensible thing? Why does the Government not realise that the main industry, as one of their chief spokesmen has admitted, is collapsing, and why are not immediate steps taken to relieve those connected with it? Why does the Government not adopt the suggestions contained in the motion? They are suggestions which offer some immediate relief to those engaged in agriculture, and they might prevent the roof of the industry falling in.

Mr. Corry

On a point of order, I made no such statement.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 16 Nov 1938