Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Feb 1940

Vol. 78 No. 15

Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Bill, 1940—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Belton

When I was speaking on this Bill yesterday, I referred to the circular that the Local Government and Public Health Department addressed to all county councils. That circular, if I may read it, is dated 1st February, 1940, and is as follows:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to state that in view of the necessity for promoting increased tillage every county council should consider the adoption of a scheme for the supply on loan terms of seed potatoes, oat seeds, barley seeds and fertilisers in the coming season to occupiers or cultivators of land who cannot procure supplies out of their own resources.

"On the adoption of a scheme by the council steps should be taken to give adequate publicity to the facilities available. A form of public notice together with form authorising and undertaking to pay were enclosed with circular letter No. 31/39 of 15th March, 1939. It should be noted that it will be open to councils to arrange for the supply of fertilisers as well as seeds. Where arrangements are made for the supply of fertilisers the model forms can be suitably adapted.

"If the county council prefer to proceed by way of guarantee to approved seed merchants of the whole or a specified proportion of the price it would be open to them to give such guarantees.

"A Bill to validate any action taken by the county council in accordance with these instructions will be introduced by the Government."

I presume this is the Bill. The Minister, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill yesterday, gave us the total amount of money either guaranteed or lent, and the value of the seeds sold to farmers last year, at about £6,000 or £7,000. By this morning's post I had letters from farmers in different parts of the country and they all agree on one thing, that a similar scheme to this, as worked in their counties, is useless. In County Dublin last year we would not work the scheme. I have a letter from a County Wexford farmer, which I received this morning. He says that the scheme is useless for Wexford. The scheme that this Bill will set up and that the Minister visualises is the only help he is going to give to agriculture. If this is all he can prescribe for agriculture, then this year will be as bad as last year. Let us remember that last year there was no war-time emergency such as we have now. I suppose the Minister is aware that in different parts of the country last year land was ploughed but not sown. My correspondent in Wexford says that the same thing will happen this year.

If the scheme is to be of the same proportions, extent, and scope as the one the Department of Local Government visualised for last year, then I can say that we in the County Dublin will have nothing to do with it. It seems to be begotten in the mind of the Ministry that this is some substitute for outdoor relief for down and out farmers. That is not the sort of aid that agriculture wants at this time, or that we in the county council visualise as an aid for agriculture in the County Dublin. We visualise a supply of money to meet a situation that world conditions have created for us in this year. It is quite possible, and highly probable, that by the end of this year all human and animal life in this country will have to be sustained out of food produced here. What are we doing to produce that food? That is the problem that I put to the Ministry. Before we come to discuss the Estimate for Agriculture, I would like to know from the Minister if that is the situation that he visualises, and if it is for the purpose of meeting that situation that he has introduced this measure. If this Bill is intended as a kind of out-door relief measure to help down and out farmers, then one can say that the Government have done nothing, except arbitrarily to make an order under the Emergency Powers Act, given to them by this House, directing all owners of land in the country to till a proportion of that land, without at all taking into account the impoverishment of the agricultural industry, the want on the part of farmers of liquid capital, the want of the wherewithal to till as much as they tilled last year, much less giving them facilities to till twice as much as last year.

I am afraid that if the Government do not waken up to the position, and if the submarine warfare succeeds against shipping, as it looks to have a fair chance of succeeding, then this country is going to be up against a terrible situation. It will be threatened with a famine for food to sustain human and animal life and all because the Government have not surveyed the situation properly and provided adequate means of meeting it. So far as I know, no steps have been taken to provide capital for agriculture unless we are to understand that this Bill has been introduced for that purpose. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will give the House some indication as regards the scope of this measure and what he intends it for. Because of the lack of information I think there is not much use in debating it any longer. I confess that I do not know what its real objective is.

Mr. Ruttledge

If it helps to shorten the debate I will tell the Deputy now. So far, the debate has been of a very rambling kind. This Bill has the same purpose as the measure that was introduced and passed in 1932. The object of it is to help small farmers who are not able to purchase seeds or fertilisers. In cases where they can show the county council that they are unable to obtain credit, the county council will give a guarantee to the local merchants to supply those small farmers with seeds and fertilisers. The money will not be collected from them until the end of the year. It is not the purpose of the Bill, and it is not the province of the Department of Local Government, to provide credit in the wide way that the Deputy has in mind. There is nothing more in this Bill than was in the Act of 1932.

Mr. Belton

Are we to understand that the emergency of this year has nothing to do with this Bill?

Mr. Ruttledge

No.

Mr. Belton

So that it is only following on the lines of the 1932 Act. Is not the Minister aware that that Act was a failure?

Mr. Ruttledge

I am not aware of that.

Mr. Belton

Is there not plenty of evidence to show that it was a failure? It has been in operation for over seven years, and last year only £6,000 worth of stuff was utilised under it. Is not that evidence that it was a failure? Why go to all this trouble to aid down and out agriculture with a kind of out-door relief when you have that fact before you, that last year, taking the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties, only £6,000 worth of stuff was distributed under the 1932 Act? In view of that, is it not a waste of time, and simply an attempt to fool the people, to introduce a measure of this kind ostensibly for the purpose of aiding agriculture? The public certainly will read this with interest.

Mr. Dillon

I sympathise with Deputy Belton——

Mr. Belton

The Deputy can sympathise with the Minister. He wants it more than I do.

Mr. Dillon

——in that this measure, if it were to be interpreted as a contribution to the solution of the credit problem of the agricultural industry in this country, would be ludicrously inadequate. It would do less than touch upon the fringe of the problem. If, however, it is concerned with nothing more than the very limited objective of getting seeds and manures into the hands of small farmers particularly, and large farmers as well, at once, and if the Government go on to say, that they propose to follow this up with comprehensive proposals to deal with the whole credit problem of agriculture, then I think more can be said for this Bill than at first appears. The effect of the Bill will be to mobilise the credit of all the shopkeepers in Ireland for the distribution of seeds and manures, and if it is expeditiously worked I think it may do some good, provided three other matters are at once attended to. The first is to take the import duty off superphosphates; the second is that the Government undertake to pay the bounty on imported superphosphates, and the third is that they secure supplies, because there is not the least use going to the farmers of the country and making credit available for the purchase of manures and seeds if, in fact, there are no seeds and manures to purchase.

Mr. Belton

Presumably the Department has done its business.

Mr. Dillon

I am sorry to have to say that if any such presumption is made it will be entirely false because, far from doing their business, the Departments of Supplies and of Agriculture have notified the importers of manures that they will not pay the 10/- bounty on British manures. Not only will they not pay the bounty, but they intend to levy a 20 per cent. duty on Belgian superphosphates of lime.

Mr. Belton

Well done.

Mr. Dillon

There is only one accessible country at present prepared to export artificial manures, and that is Belgium. There is a Customs duty of 20 per cent. on every cwt. of "super" from that country, and a withholding of the 10/- per ton subsidy which is paid on "super" coming from any Irish factory.

What is the use of providing credit to purchase manure if you absolutely prohibit, in effect, the importation of supplies of manure for the farmers to buy?

An Ceann Comhairle

I would like to remind Deputies that it has been decided not only in a Standing Order but by established practice that, if matters such as those with which the Deputy is now dealing are discussed on one Vote they cannot be repeated on a subsequent Vote. It is quite likely, at an early date, that the Deputy or other Deputies may desire to raise these matters on some item in the Vote for the Department of Supplies or on that for the Department of Agriculture. If the debate on those items is now prolonged, the Chair may be constrained to prevent a repetition of the discussion on those Votes.

Mr. Hickey

May I put in a word of explanation?

Mr. Dillon

The very essence of this principle is co-ordination between Departments. One Department is pulling one way and another Department is pulling another way. What might have been of merit in the Minister for Local Government and Public Health's proposal for credit here is completely negatived by something his colleague is doing.

An Ceann Comhairle

There will be ample opportunity for dealing with other Ministers later.

Mr. Dillon

The difficulty is this: we are bound to have regard not only to what is written on the Bill here but to what the consequences of this Bill are going to be when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Supposing this Bill were passed at a time when abundant supplies of manures were available, suppose I could order in my shop 100 tons of Belgian super to-morrow, I think it would not be such a bad Bill at all; but, in the County Roscommon to-morrow, suppose my customers come in with dockets from the county council offering to buy super-phosphate of lime from me, I must say to them that I have not got super-phosphate of lime to give them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy does not contend that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has any responsibility in that matter?

Mr. Dillon

I say that to bring in a Bill to provide credits for the purchase of manures which are not there is to turn Parliament into a complete fraud. I am stating to the House now that if 100 men come in to my shop under that Act to-morrow, with credits provided under that Act, and ask me to give them super-phosphate of lime, my reply must be that I cannot give it to them because I have not got it and cannot get it.

Mr. Keating

Nor can anyone else get it.

Mr. Dillon

I believe that there is perfect equity and fairness in the distribution of phosphate supplies.

Mr. Keating

They are not to be had.

Mr. Dillon

The supply is not to be had and they will not let us get it. We could have got considerable quantities from Belgium.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy is precluded from debating that on another Estimate, he cannot blame the Chair.

Mr. Belton

I would ask indulgence for a word of explanation. When the Minister defined his view of the scope of this Bill, I had intended to raise some points, but I dropped them because he had a different view of the scope of the Bill from what I visualised.

Mr. Dillon

I simply want to help the House. There is the problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair wants to guide the House on well-defined lines.

Mr. Dillon

I fully appreciate that, but my difficulty is that if I commend this Bill I apprehend that I am partaking in a fraud. I cannot see that the provision of credit on these lines or on any other lines is going to achieve our purpose unless we are satisfied that it can be advantageously used. I beg the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to appreciate that fact and to realise that, over and above his duties as Minister of his own Department, he has a certain duty to co-ordinate his efforts with those of his colleagues in the Government, and that he cannot simply wash his hands of all responsibility by saying, "That is my own contribution to the problem, and if my colleagues negative that, it is their responsibility." He is a responsible member of the Government and it is his duty to see that the measures he takes to assist the people will not be rendered nugatory by the activities of other members of the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no doubt that the Deputy will remind the other Ministers of their responsibility in due time. He will have the opportunity later.

Mr. Dillon

I think it is right to say that, unless there are results from representations made elsewhere, this Bill is perfectly useless. It is worse than useless, as it is going to have in this restricted sphere a very inflationary tendency. It must be remembered that shopkeepers, like all other men, are human; and if there is a brisk demand for a commodity a competitive price will prevail. If, however, you artificially create three times the demand without in any way augmenting the supply, prices will tend to rise. That is particularly true of seeds; you may do something to control the prices of manure, but very little can be done to control the prices of seeds. Therefore, unless the Deputy's colleague is going to take appropriate measures, this Bill, instead of being a help, may become a great menace. The end of it will be that the man who has ready cash will be unable to get a supply and the man who is borrowing from the county council—trusting to God that something will turn up—will collar all the supply. That will leave the man who wants to pay his way and who is in a position to pay his way unable to do so as a result of inflationary prices created by this Bill. I appreciate the contention that the Government cannot be made responsible for supplies, but I trust that within the limit of your permission we have brought home to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health the urgent necessity for co-ordination and for securing co-operation.

An Ceann Comhairle

I trust the Deputy did not misunderstand me. There is no objection to a Deputy pointing out alleged defects of the Bill or suggesting that it may not be effective for certain reasons. To detail what other Departments should do in the matter would not be in order.

Mr. Dillon

I hope I have made clear to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health the dangers which lie in his way, that the Bill cannot be made effective without efficient co-ordination between his Department and other Departments; and that, far from doing anything effective, it might become a real evil in restricting the supply so that many would be unable to get a supply if this Bill is passed.

Mr. Bennett

The Minister for Agriculture announced recently that he is going to put at the disposal of farmers provision to enable them to get fertilisers—particularly, as far as possible, to enable them to grow crops this year. Apparently, the Minister has passed the baby on to the Minister for Agriculture, so if in passing references one alludes to agriculture, I hope the Minister for Local Government and Public Health—on whom the responsibility rests for the provision of fertilisers— will pardon us for going outside his Department somewhat. I do not propose to go into a debate on agriculture.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy would look at Vote 52, G. 3, he will find that a fertilising scheme is included in the Vote for the Department for Agriculture.

Mr. Bennett

I am alluding to the present Bill which is enabling the Minister for Local Government and Public Health through county councils to provide fertilisers for farmers.

Mr. Belton

It is the county councils who have to do it.

Mr. Bennett

The Minister is primarily responsible, but it is the local councils I am thinking of. Something like this has been in operation for some time and has not been largely availed of, and will not be availed of on the present occasion, for one reason. That is, as Deputy Dillon has said, that most of the people know that what it is intended to provide cannot be provided. There is another reason: it is difficult to get a loan from the county council; there are a number of difficulties. I know of a farmer who went to the county council last week and asked about making an application for money for fertilisers, whereupon one of the county councillors told him to leave it alone, saying that it was so tied up with regulations and with looking for securities that it would not be any good to him when he would get it. That is the experience of a lot of people.

This Bill does not provide easy credit for the purchase of fertilisers. Deputy Dillon says that if the stuff is there the merchants are prepared to facilitate the county councils and the farmers, but the farmers will have extreme difficulty in getting facilities under this Bill. That is proved by the little advantage that was taken of it previously. Last year in the whole of Ireland there was only £6,000 worth of credit availed of. It will not be availed of here. The Minister for Agriculture has made a hash of this particular matter in the last four or five years, and now when there is a pressing need amongst the agriculturists of this country he passes the the responsibility to the Minister for Local Government, and expects us to level whatever criticism we have here and now at this Bill and save him on a subsequent occasion from the direct accusations which ought to be levelled at him. Now is not the time when provision ought to be made to give the farmers an opportunity of getting manure. Three or four years ago would have been the time to do that. Even if manures and fertilisers were now available in proper quantities, as they are not, it would in some cases be too late. In the last two or three years, because of the difficulty in getting manures at a reasonable price, some of the land has been allowed to deteriorate, and was not in a condition to give a proper crop last year, not to mention this year or next year. There were various additions to the cost of manure. Last year it was 25 per cent. over the year before, and we had 76,000 acres less crops than we had the year before. I hold that one of the principal reasons for that was the lack of fertilisers. There may have been other reasons, but that was one. This year, I do not know what the result will be, because there will be less and dearer fertilisers than last year.

There was a question asked yesterday by one of the Minister's own colleagues about the abolition of the 20 per cent. duty on imported artificial manures. If that 20 per cent. had been taken off a year or two ago, as was demanded by several Deputies in this House, there would not be the same position in regard to fertilisers that there is to-day. Fertilisers could have been got, and could have been in the stores of the merchants of this country, so that they would be available to the farmers. I have here statistics published not by the Minister for Agriculture, strange to say, but by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was not the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

Mr. Bennett

We cannot get all the Ministers together on this Bill, but I am referring to the complete fiasco that this Bill will prove to be in attempting to provide for the needs of agriculturists this year. Last year there were 76,000 acres less crops than the year before, mainly, I hold, because there were not sufficient fertilisers to manure the lands efficiently, and the farmers did not till as much as before.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister in charge of this Bill had no responsibility for that.

Mr. Bennett

I will not develop the argument.

An Ceann Comhairle

Other Deputies might be tempted to do so.

Mr. Belton

Why did he introduce this Bill here?

Mr. Bennett

For the 76,000 acres less under tillage, there were substituted various other things—I do not want to go into it—but the net effect was that we had 38,000 acres less under crops, pasture, or anything else you like, last year, mainly because of the lack of artificial manures. Perhaps this is not a matter for the Minister for Agriculture—I do not know who is at fault—but when I looked into this list of acreage under crops, and the substitution of hay, second, third and fourth years, and permanent pastures, I find that we come down to the position that whereas in 1938 there were 11,606,000 under cultivation or in some other way used by the farmers, there were in the subsequent year 38,000 less acres under any form of use. What I want to know—the Minister for Local Government cannot answer me; it is a conundrum—is what became of the 38,000 acres. Is that loss due to coast erosion or to flooding or has the Land Commission taken over the land, or is it used for the propagation of various vegetable matters like docks, thistles, and other things, or have we adopted the American and Canadian system of summer fallow in order to restore the fertility of the worn-out soil? In any case, 38,000 acres of land appear to have gone off the map, according to the statistics I hold in my hand. Where that land has gone to I do not know, but it has disappeared according to the statistics here, and I should like to know what has become of that 38,000 acres.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might deal with the measure before the House.

Mr. Bennett

To shorten matters, we had every facility for getting suitable quantities of cheap fertilisers during the last two years, and they were not availed of.

Mr. Belton

We had not the money to buy it.

Mr. Bennett

If the 20 per cent. duty had been dropped, there would have been cheap fertilisers available for every merchant in this country. The stores could have been stocked with them, and there could have been sufficient there to carry on tillage last year efficiently, as well as having enough for this year, but it was not done. Now this method of pretending to give the farmers access to some sort of credit to provide fertilisers is adopted. That is simply passing the baby on to the Minister for Local Government, and from him to the local bodies. It failed in previous years when it was possible to get artificial manures at some sort of price, big or small. There is no chance whatever of its success in this year when the difficulty in obtaining any sort of fertiliser is enormous.

Mr. Hughes

There appears to be some confusion among Deputies as to what we can talk about on this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

What is in the Bill, or what a Deputy might reasonably desire to see in the Bill or to omit.

Mr. Hughes

You told Deputy Dillon, Sir, that we could not discuss fertilisers—that the Minister is not responsible. I agree, because I contend that it is the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture. It was the Minister for Agriculture who should have provided credit facilities, and who should have brought in this Bill, instead of dealing with it through the Department of Local Government. To my mind, the Bill is a paltry and miserable attempt to solve a problem that is of vital urgency in regard to our agricultural economy at the present time. The country is seething with dissatisfaction and discontent. That is due in no small measure to the total lack of financial resources whereby the present prices due to the war situation could be fully availed of. One would expect that, with the prospect of better prices for agricultural produce a brighter outlook would prevail amongst our agricultural community, but such is not the case. There is nothing but gloom and dissatisfaction, because many of our people, as a result of the policy of the Government during the last few years, find themselves without capital. Many of them are without stock, and many of them have no credit facilities whatever, at a time when credit if available could be used to very good purpose.

This Bill is to provide credit facilities through local authorities for seeds and fertilisers. To my mind it is not nearly enough and only barely touches the fringe of our problem. It appears to me that it is simply pushing the responsibility of the Government on to the shoulders of the local authority. I personally, and we here, do not believe that the local authority is a proper medium for supplying credit to farmers. Many of the local authorities already find themselves in financial difficulties and at most it is only going to provide a paltry few thousand pounds to the farmers at a time when credit is urgently needed. Furthermore, I think that it will be impossible to get this Bill evenly or fairly, on balance, administered throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. What I mean is that you may find some local authorities will administer this scheme in a generous way while others will administer it in a very stingy way. Their excuse will be that it is their responsibility to safeguard the ratepayers and that they are going to take no risks in that respect. I think this is a time when risks should be taken in providing credit facilities for our people in order to put them into production. I am satisfied that this is not the method and that it is not going to prove satisfactory.

As I said before, at most, the amount of money provided through this medium is going to be very, very limited. We want to provide not only food for our people, but we want to provide animal food as well. We are of opinion that the Government should make an immediate arrangement with the bankers to provide credit for the purpose of increasing tillage this year. We believe that this credit scheme should go much further than the provision of fertilisers and seeds. When we can provide credit and loans for housing and industrial undertakings, for alcohol factories and for peat industries, surely to goodness the Government ought to be in a position to provide credit for the vital industry, the fundamental industry, of the country. This is an opportune time for infusing credit into that industry, and if this opportunity is not availed of to restore the prosperity to agriculture that existed nine or ten years ago what is this country going to face in the aftermath of the war? Every energy should be strained by the Government at the present time to rehabilitate our agricultural community and to put it into effective production.

There are many farms in the country that are non-effective as food-producing units. That is because they are burdened with debts already, which are known as frozen loans. I think that in dealing with this problem of credit the first thing that ought to be tackled by the Government is the problem of frozen loans. It is strange to say that in negotiations between the banking institutions of this country and people that availed of these loans to purchase farms during the Great War it has been found that the man who has tried to meet his obligations in that respect cannot negotiate a reasonable settlement with the banks and those who have absolutely refused to pay their interests and to try to reduce capital for three or four years find it less difficult to effect a settlement with the banks. For that reason, this whole matter of the frozen loans should be tackled by the Government. If necessary, I think legislation should be introduced to deal with it, to get rid of those that exist at the present time and to put these farmers into production who have had millstones round their necks for a number of years and who have been unable to work their farms effectively.

When we speak about loans for farmers we do not mean to provide loans for farmers to purchase land because, after all, that is not a loan, but a capital investment. We do not advocate the provision of any capital for the purchase of land. We simply ask the Government to provide capital to put our people into effective production, to enable them to buy stock to stock the land and to carry the existing stock that is on the land.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is a long way from this Bill which deals with the provision of loans from local bodies for seeds and fertilisers.

Mr. Belton

On a point of order. It is these people who have the frozen loans who are really referred to in the circular that the Minister's Department has sent to the county councils—those who are not able to provide seeds and manures from their own resources.

An Ceann Comhairle

In this Bill?

Mr. Belton

Yes. Those are the very people to whom the Minister refers in a circular. I would quote it only I have lent it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has quoted it already.

Mr. Belton

Yes, but I would emphasise that point now but for the fact that I have lent it.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Minister is not responsible for dealing with frozen loans for the purchase of stock.

Mr. Belton

He has come to the help of the people who have them.

Mr. Hughes

As Deputy Belton has pointed out—and I agree—that is the type of people that will try to avail of these schemes through local authorities.

Mr. Belton

Those are the people for whom the scheme is meant.

Mr. Hughes

There is going to be this risk about it that if they avail of the scheme under the local authority, and if they go into production they may be pounced on by the bank when they come to sell their crops later on.

Mr. Belton

Sure.

Mr. Hughes

To make this scheme effective, at least in a small way, the Minister must put in some provision, to guard against that, that a local authority will have a prior claim on those people over the banks or anyone else.

It has been pointed out by Deputy Dillon, and I absolutely agree, that this Bill may have a very injurious effect if there is not a sufficient supply of fertilisers available and although you, Sir, pointed out that that is not the responsibility of the Minister, yet we can hardly refrain from touching on that matter. At least, he can advise the Minister for Agriculture that if we are going to avoid inflation in the price of artificial manures a sufficient supply must be made available. If that is not the case then the scheme is going to do more harm than good. The demand will be increased. The demand will become very, very keen and the goods will not be there, with the result that the tendency will be to force up the price. That will have a very serious effect. The solution is that we can undoubtedly buy quantities of superphosphates from England, Belgium and Holland at the present time and the tariff of 20 per cent. should be taken off immediately. There is, I believe, a sufficient quantity of kainit and 30 per cent. potash salts available. Supplies are available from France and Spain. Spain has opened up her kainit quarries, and there will be ample supplies of potash and nitrogenous manures. Our real problem is in regard to superphosphates. It would appear that only 75 per cent. of last year's supply is available and with the increased area of land which is being turned to tillage, there will not be nearly sufficient to meet our requirements.

Our agriculturists realise that the very worst system of agriculture that we could adopt in this country would be to go to the cost and expense of putting land under the plough and of putting in seeds and then growing a poor crop. You cannot grow a good or a profitable crop in this country without the liberal use of artificial manures. That is of paramount importance. Over and above the consideration of the position of any manure manufacturer in this country, it should be the first consideration of the Government to provide artificial manures for the increased tillage operations this year because, if that is not done, it will mean that our efforts in a very great measure will be barren and ineffective. We shall be turning up a lot of old soil in this country that has not been aerated for many years. We shall be turning up to a depth of six or seven inches, soil that is practically barren, coming from that depth, because it has not been exposed to the air for many years. For the first year it will be nearly barren, until it has been properly aerated by the atmosphere. We must provide the constituents which that soil lacks by the liberal use of artificial manures. I should like to impress upon the Minister and the Government the necessity of removing the tariff from superphosphates.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy realises that the Minister for Local Government has no responsibility in that matter.

Mr. Hughes

At the same time he is responsible for this Bill which aims at providing supplies of seeds and fertilisers, some of which are subject to tariffs.

An Ceann Comhairle

Tariffs do not come within the scope of the Minister for Local Government. In all probability the Deputy will use all these arguments for the Minister for Agriculture to-morrow or next week.

Mr. Belton

I wonder what the Bill is for?

Mr. Ruttledge

You know all about it. You had it in operation in County Dublin.

Mr. Belton

We tried it and we had to suspend it.

Mr. Ruttledge

You know what is in the Bill.

Mr. Cogan

The attitude displayed by the Government in the introduction of this Bill reminds me of Uncle Podgers, a character in one of Jerome K. Jerome's books. The outstanding characteristic of Uncle Podgers was his zeal in assuming heavy burdens and placing them on the shoulders of some other person afterwards. In this Bill, the Government has taken up the burden of initiating this scheme and is placing on the unfortunate county councils, who are at present unable to meet their own liabilities, the responsibility of financing it. It is impossible to imagine or to conceive how the Government think that county councils at the present time, with their heavy obligations for the financing of public services, their limited resources and their very limited revenue rating powers, can finance a measure of this kind adequately. Any impartial person must admit that to finance increased agricultural production at the present time would cost about £2,000,000. How can the county councils be expected to collect that amount or to take the risk of advancing that amount, the risk of suffering, perhaps, considerable losses and placing those losses upon the shoulders of the unfortunate ratepayers? This is an absolutely irresponsible measure on the part of the Government, and it shows they have no sense of responsibility whatever or no real desire to increase or encourage agricultural production.

Mr. Ruttledge

Does the Deputy know that there were no losses under the previous scheme?

Mr. Cogan

The Deputy is quite aware that the previous scheme was so objectionable and so difficult to operate that it was only availed of to a very limited extent. The Deputy is aware that county councils, having regard to their limited resources, were extremely careful in advancing money to help agriculture. The result was that the previous schemes were practically speaking, fiascoes. That is why very little losses were incurred by the county councils. The county councils cannot afford to take any risks having regard to their limited powers of raising revenue, but the State, having regard to the importance of the agricultural industry and to the enormous increase which can be brought about in agricultural production if a courageous and bold course is adopted in providing adequate credit for farmers, can afford to take a certain amount of risk which the county councils dare not take. It is the duty of the State to take some risk in financing agricultural production, having regard to the extent to which the Government has, in various ways, restricted agricultural production during the past few years. In order to compensate the agricultural industry for some of the losses which it has suffered, in order to enable the agricultural industry to take advantage of the prospective increased demand for foodstuffs, it should be the duty of the Government to do something more adequate than is outlined in this Bill. At the very least, if they are empowering the county councils to incur liabilities, they should guarantee portion of these liabilities. They should guarantee the county councils for at least 50 per cent. of whatever losses may be incurred. If they did that they would show some sense of responsibility.

I might remind the Government and the Minister of the credit facilities which were provided in this country by a private company in connection with the growing of sugar beet. When the beet growing industry was introduced into this country by a Belgian company, not only were the growers provided with credit and with supplies of manures and fertilisers but advances were also made to the farmers to the extent of £5 per acre. It must be remembered that seeds and fertilisers are not the only cost which farmers will have to incur in increasing their tillage. The heaviest cost which will be incurred will be the cost of labour. Everybody knows that in order to cultivate an acre of land it is necessary to incur increased labour costs, to the extent of £7 or £8 an acre. Surely the State should be able to afford credit facilities to the same extent as the sugar company with regard to beet, and advance £5 per acre to cover the cost of labour, prior to the harvest. Unless the Bill is amended the county councils will bear whatever loss is incurred by giving additional credit facilities. If the Bill is amended in that respect it will not be as objectionable as it is at present.

Mr. Allen

Listening to the Opposition one would imagine that the Bill would not be workable at all. Deputy Cogan said that there would be difficulties in the way of anyone who wanted to avail of the facilities provided by the Bill. He should remember that any county council that adopts this scheme may make regulations to make the Bill workable, and these county councils represent the farmers. If a county council makes stringent regulations against its own people, the members being sensible men, have good reason for doing so. Deputy Bennett said that some farmers considered the Bill not worth availing of. County councils when drawing up regulations can make them as simple or as strict as they like. There is nothing in the Bill to compel county councils to make regulations of any kind. Some people object to the county councils making any regulations. This is a simple Bill to validate something that was in operation last year, and that worked very successfully. There is nothing in the Bill to compel any county council to put such a scheme into operation, but if there is need for it, it can have it. A great deal of play was made by Deputy Hughes and by Deputy Dillon as to the need for the provision by the Government of other facilities for farmers. I do not propose to follow the Deputies in that respect. If a county council is not prepared to take risks, and if the State has to take all the risks, who is to pay? Will not the farmers have to pay their proportion in any case? In my opinion county councils are in a better position to provide the machinery for giving the small credit needed under the Bill than the State, because they are much nearer the people and have the machinery available in particular areas. As a result it would cost the councils little or nothing to operate this Bill, while it would be very costly if the State had to do it.

In my opinion the Bill meets the needs of people who may want credit. County councils can either provide the money or guarantee those who require it. In the constituency I represent the council guaranteed the seed merchants and had not to provide any money. That scheme worked satisfactorily. The number of people who applied was very small. I believe that the numbers requiring credit generally under the Bill will not be very big. I direct the Minister's attention to what I consider to be an omission in the Bill. The Long Title mentions barley seeds and oat seeds, but does not mention seed wheat. I think the definition should be amended on the Committee Stage. Perhaps the Minister would introduce a suitable amendment. I wonder if money advanced or guaranteed under the Bill would rank as a limitation of the borrowing powers of councils. It might be necessary to mention the total sum that a council could lend under the Bill, but I think the amount should not rank as a limitation of its borrowing powers. I believe this is a useful Bill. It was in operation last year and worked well in the counties where it was tried, and for that reason I support it and recommend it to the House.

Colonel Ryan

I am not opposing this Bill, but I am surprised at the time it is introduced. It is almost too late to work a Bill of this kind now, but in future years some such scheme might be helpful. If there was some small scheme for providing credit, such as the Agricultural Credit Corporation provides, it might be of great help to the poorer sections of farmers. It is extraordinary that the Minister for Agriculture is not in the House while this Bill is under consideration. There is a scarcity of seed for spring wheat. The conditions laid down as regards borrowing are, as Deputy Allen said, a matter for county councils. That is where the Minister shirks complete responsibility. I suppose if the debts are not paid the county councils will have to meet them. Apparently all the Minister has to do is to put this Bill through the House, and to give the county councils power regarding the loans that may be given for seeds and fertilisers. At the county councils this proposal has been lauded as a great measure introduced by the Government.

Under the Bill however, there must be two solvent securities, and the county council must recommend the man who gets the loan. If I want £50 and if I have two solvent securities, I can go into any bank and get the money and I will not want a recommendation from the county council or the board of health. I think that is a ridiculous provision to have in the Bill. The Minister should have some control in the matter. That is my opinion in view of the capital that has been made about this Bill. If the conditions as to the granting of credit had to be made so tight, then it is as well not to pass this Bill at all, because any small farmer who had reasonable credit could go to any bank manager under such conditions and get £10. I understand the Minister has been warning people over the radio not to use fertilisers on grass. Fertilisers can be got from those who had seed wheat for sale. Everybody knows how the people growing beet get fertilisers and if we are not going to use fertilisers for grass, I think it would be better to leave it alone. It is extraordinary that the Minister for Agriculture is not here to say: "Take the tariffs off fertilisers and let every merchant get all he can". I approve of the scheme, but I do not approve of the way it is to be controlled by the county councils, nor do I approve of the county councils lauding it as a great Fianna Fáil boon and then saying that there must be two solvent securities and that an applicant must be recommended by the county council.

Mr. M. Brennan

I am sure there will be great disappointment when the country realises the provisions of the Bill. The Minister's excuse for the Bill is that it is practically the same Bill as that introduced in 1932 and Deputy Allen's excuse is that it is the same as the Bill that operated last year. We had not got a war in 1932 or last year, and there was not the demand for tillage that there is this year.

Mr. Allen

There is just the same.

Mr. Brennan

No.

Mr. Allen

By anybody who tilled.

Mr. Brennan

Deputy Allen does not think that there is any extra tillage required by reason of the war. He does not represent the Government view and I am glad that he does not.

Mr. Allen

I did not say any such thing. There is a demand by people more tillage this year.

Mr. Brennan

There is a demand for more tillage this year.

Mr. Allen

In some areas, yes, but in others, no.

Mr. Brennan

We will leave it so. I insist that there is a demand for more tillage and that we are going to have much more tillage. The Government have asked that a certain percentage be tilled this year. Is that not a demand, or has Deputy Allen not heard of it? There is a very definite Government demand for it which, according to the Government, is going to be insisted upon. Deputy Allen apparently has not heard of it, but nevertheless it is true. Now, that demand exists and, with that demand before us, all we get is a repetition of the Bill that we had in 1932 and 1939. In my view, all this is simply tinkering with a big matter. If there was not an abnormal demand, it might meet the exigencies of the moment, but with an abnormal demand, it is practically useless.

I do not intend to go outside the scope of the Bill, but, to my mind, the Bill is an enlargement in some respects of the Bill referred to by the Minister and I do not think that in that matter, it is either helpful or useful. It is really taking from the Government the responsibility which ought to be theirs and putting it on the county councils. I am sure the Minister will admit that there was a very large dissipation of the people's substance during the economic war, so far as farming is concerned and that has brought about a situation in which there are many people not credit-worthy in the country at the moment. How are we going to make that up? We are going to make it up by giving power to the county councils, as set out in the Long Title of the Bill, to provide and sell barley seeds, oat seeds and seed potatoes and so on, and by providing for the giving of guarantees in respect of sales. I am sure that the Minister and everybody in the House will agree that it is not good business to turn a county council into a trading body. In the first place, it has not got the experience nor the officers; it has not got the accommodation for storage, or any expert people to do the buying for it; and if you were —I have no fear that any county council is going to do so—to set up a county council in opposition to traders, you would not be doing anything useful.

Deputy Ryan and other Deputies have referred to the security which county councils will ask of people who require assistance. The county councils have all my sympathy in these matters, and I agree with Deputy Allen that it is their own business. They may or may not prescribe restrictive regulations, but they are the custodians of the ratepayers' money, and I am sure that Deputy Allen or Deputy Ryan would not agree that they should consider their responsibilities in that regard lightly. I know that if there was free seed being given to-morrow, the number of people who would apply for it would be far greater than the number I would trust to repay, if it had to be paid for, and county councils have responsibility in these matters. The principal change that I find in the Bill is in Section 3 which sets out that if any person who has got seeds paid for by a county council, or has got a guarantee which has to be honoured by a county council, fails to pay, the county council can incorporate the debt as a rate in the rating demand and apparently can have it collected by the rate collectors. That is important. It is, I presume, a safeguard for the county council and it makes it easier of collection in that way. I hope that all the borrowers will be acquainted with that regulation and with the particular section in the Act when they come to seek assistance.

There are two ways, apparently, according to the Bill, in which money can be recovered. It can be recovered in the way I have set out, or in the ordinary way, as in the case of the sale of goods, by taking people into court and recovering the money; but what appears to me to be a crux is contained in Section 5. Deputy Allen asks that the moneys borrowed for this purpose ought not to limit the borrowing powers of a county council. Section 5 takes care that it will not, at least to any extent, but that it will have to be redeemed within two years. The moneys borrowed by a county council in 1939 must be repaid to the lender by 1941 and the moneys borrowed in 1940 must be repaid by 1942. That strikes me as peculiar, because suppose there is money which has been lent, or goods paid for, and the accounts are out since 1st February, 1939, that money must be repaid to the treasurer from whom the money was borrowed by 31st March, 1941. County councils have the right this year to put that upon the rates, to rate it up against the particular individual, if he is a ratepayer, or, if he is not a ratepayer, to collect it from him as if he were a rated occupier. But then that may not be collected for another 12 months. It has a whole year to run, and, in that time, the county council must make provision, according to Section 5, for repayment to the treasurer.

They cannot make that provision by way of a general rate on the ordinary ratepayers, because they do not know yet whether the man is going to pay or not. It appears to me, therefore, that if a county council is going to incorporate a debt of that kind in the ordinary rating against an individual, a longer period will have to be allowed than two years for repayment to the treasurer. I do not think it can be done inside the period. It appears to me that there is a crux there.

The underlying principle of the Bill is, as the Minister said, that it is simply a Bill to deal with small farmers who cannot find money or credit to buy seeds and fertilisers. But in practice it means very little. We operated this scheme last year in Roscommon and there were between 40 and 50 applicants. The amount ran into some £400, I think, a certain amount of which is outstanding yet, not a very large amount I admit—some £40 or £60. I do hold that if these applicants who came to us for credit last year provided the same security to the seed merchants they would get the seed and manures. After all, I do not know any seed or manure merchant who is not prepared to supply seeds and manures if he thinks he is going to be paid. These merchants have been carrying on a business of that kind for years. As a matter of fact some of them have probably burned their fingers over it. Nevertheless they have carried on in that way and are prepared to carry on. This Bill, therefore, is little more than a kind of pretence, because if the security which a county council will ask for, and must ask for as the custodians of the public purse, were forthcoming to the seed merchant, the seed merchant would supply the seed.

This year, with the demand for extra tillage and the necessity for manures and extra seeds, the people expected that a big effort would be made to provide credits for the purchase of seeds and manures. There is no such big effort being made. This is nothing but a repetition of the Bill of 1932, and there is really very little in it. I suppose the present is not the time to discuss what the Government ought to have done. I do not think, however, that this Bill is much good. I hope the councils will use it for what it is worth. I do not think it is going to be of very much importance whether they do or not, because I think the facilities that will be offered to people who want credit can be got outside equally well. Such as it is, we are prepared to work it in Roscommon, as we worked it last year. It did oblige some 40 or 50 people to some small extent, but, on the whole, I do not think the Bill is worth much. It is just a small attempt, as the Minister said, to meet the small farmers.

Mr. Nally

I am supporting this Bill, but if the Minister wants the Bill to be a success it is important that the matter should be speeded up and the seeds and manures made available as quickly as possible. I also wish to let him know what some county councils have been doing with regard to this. The county council with which I am acquainted has laid down a rule that no farmer whose valuation is over £15 will be allowed to purchase seeds or manures under the scheme. The farmer whose valuation is under £15 will only be allowed to purchase seeds and manures provided that the merchant who supplies him will act as a surety for him, while he must also provide another surety as well as the merchant. I think that farmers over £15 valuation should be included in the scheme. Another thing is that the farmers who are allowed to purchase are limited in the amount with which they can be supplied to 50 per cent. of their valuation. A farmer with a valuation of £15, therefore, can only get seeds and manures to the amount of £7 10s. 0d., which is a very small sum at present. A farmer whose valuation is under £15 will have more than 12½ per cent. of his arable land under tillage every year. The farmer whose valuation is £20 or £25 will require credit in order to purchase seeds and manures. I appeal to the Minister to have the matter speeded up and I also think that farmers should be made aware in some way that they can get this credit. The seeds and manures would really be required before the 17th March. The potatoes will be in the ground before the 1st April and from the beginning of April the oats will be put in. It is, therefore, time that they should get these seeds and manures so as to have them ready when they will be required.

Mr. J. Flynn

I should like to know how this measure will affect the people in the congested districts. The regular scheme in operation for the supply of cheap seeds to smallholders in the congested districts has fallen very far short of the requirements and this measure has been mentioned as a means by which the Department of Local Government might be able to meet the requirements of these people. I should like to urge on the Minister that people from the Gaeltacht or congested districts should be considered in connection with the benefits to be conferred by this measure, particularly in the present year. We have this question of security which was mentioned here. I should like to impress on the Minister that making seeds available through the county councils in that way might not be practicable so far as the congested districts are concerned. The best system so far has been the one adopted by the Department of Agriculture in making seeds available for people under £5 valuation; but even under that scheme the quantities supplied are not sufficient. I should like to make the point that if this measure is to be put into operation immediately money should be made available by the Department of Local Government to meet the requirements of these people. The cottiers in the Gaeltacht districts have been deprived of their usual allocations of cheap seeds and great hardship has thereby been created in those areas. If funds could be made available through the Department of Local Government, those people who have been unable to avail of the allocations in the regular way from the Department of Agriculture would be able to get the benefits which may accrue from the present measure.

In the great majority of cases in the past there was a considerable difficulty on the part of the county councils in the cases operated through them in recouping the amounts advanced, and that was simply because there was no real check on the system. I hope that this will be a vast improvement on the existing system so far as advances and securities are concerned. I would urge on the Minister, if at all possible, to make this measure applicable to the congested districts and to the Gaeltacht districts.

Mr. Ruttledge

This Bill does not pretend to be anything more than what it is. The Department found that there was a number of councils last year who were anxious to continue the scheme. This Bill was primarily introduced or at any rate it was brought before the Government in order to validate what was done last year. When that Bill was before the Government it was suggested that a number of councils were anxious to carry on the scheme this year and we found that a number of them were prepared to carry it on in the same way as last year's. After considering what was done last year the Government decided on incorporating what was done under last year's scheme in this Bill. Deputy Belton spoke well over an hour, I think, on this Bill, and in his attempt at showing his innocence, he pretended that there is something more behind the Bill than there is. He seems to have in mind the turning of the county councils into financial corporations for dealing with frozen credits and seed debts. That is only the Deputy's pretence, because the Deputy knows all about the previous Acts. If he was not chairman of the Dublin County Council when that scheme was first in operation, we all know that he was a very big noise there. That year the scheme operated only to the extent of £36; in 1933, £60; and in 1939 it was not put into operation at all in the Dublin County Council.

There have been a number of councils, particularly three councils, who have been operating this scheme— Cavan, Mayo and Leitrim. In Cavan last year the figure was £2,406, Mayo was £1,800 one year, and £1,200 last year, and so on. These three councils are mainly the councils that took up the scheme. It is the small farmers who are mostly applying. The number of them who took advantage of it in Mayo is 800. Roscommon did not avail of it so much. We will give facilities to councils who are anxious to avail of these schemes. If a council desires to do anything in this way we do not see any objection to giving them authority to do it. But we do not pretend that this scheme is going to give everybody seeds and fertilisers on credit. It is intended for the persons who can show that they have places in which to sow the seeds or who can show that they need fertilisers and are not able to purchase them out of their own resources and are unable to get credit. These are the people and these only are the people for whom this Bill is intended. If anybody suggests that the Government is going to operate this Bill as being a wonderful solution for the difficulties of agriculture that person is quite wrong. The Government have no such intention to operate the scheme in that way. It is simply a Bill to satisfy the councils who have been operating those schemes. That is all.

I am not going to enter into this question of the difficulty of supplying manures and fertilisers, their high cost and all that sort of thing. I know perfectly well that all this will be out again here in a few hours' time on the Agricultural Estimate, the appropriate place in which to discuss it. I am not going to follow Deputies into these irrelevancies or on those lines. Deputy Nally and Deputy J. Ryan, also, raised the question of the insufficiency of time in this matter. A circular was sent out on the 1st February to the secretaries of the county councils intimating to them if their councils wished to put those schemes into operation they could go ahead with them. I understand that the councils' secretaries issued advertisements informing the people that these facilities were available. I understand what Deputy Nally said about the arrangement in the case of the Mayo Co. Council—that the trader is asked to sign. Those are matters that the county councils in their wisdom or otherwise laid down for themselves. The scheme has worked satisfactorily in Mayo up to the present. It is entirely a matter for the councils to consider whether those precautions under the scheme might be loosened; whether they might extend it to people with the higher valuations, who are in need of seeds and fertilisers and allow them to avail of the facilities under the scheme. These really are matters for the county councils themselves. Our experience has been that putting these schemes into operation has not resulted in any loss. People have been paying up. There is a difficulty in some part of Kerry where guarantees were given and these resulted in a little loss in the end.

Deputy Allen talked about including wheat. Wheat was included in the previous Bill. It was found that the people who are usually applying for seeds and fertilisers were small farmers and, as a rule, these grew little wheat. There really is no objection to including wheat in the Bill, and on the Committee Stage, I will have an amendment to include wheat. I do not want to say any more about the Bill. It is a very simple one. There is no justification whatever for bringing into the debate on this Bill a discussion on the whole agricultural position.

Mr. Brennan

Will the Minister give the House some information as regards Section 5 (2) and (3) of the Bill? I raised a point in connection with that section about repayments.

Mr. Ruttledge

The experience has been that two years have been ample.

Mr. Brennan

Yes, possibly, but my point is about giving the local authority the right to incorporate it as a rate arrangement. I want to put it this way —suppose the county council lets the first year go; the man does not pay his account and they incorporate it as a rate. Then it goes another year without being collected. Where will you get the money? The man has not yet failed. Consequently the council cannot put it on the general rate which is in course of being demanded; what will you do?

Mr. Ruttledge

Put it on the county funds.

Mr. Brennan

You cannot do that because the estimate will be out; the rate will be made before the 31st March and it will have to go three years no matter how you manage it.

Mr. Ruttledge

We had no trouble with that in the past.

Mr. Brennan

You had not this authority then.

Mr. Ruttledge

They were all cleared up.

Mr. Brennan

Has the Minister any experience of incorporating debts of this sort on the rates—is not this the first time it was incorporated as a rate?

Mr. Ruttledge

It is an attempt to get these things wiped out so that they may continue their schemes.

Mr. Brennan

We may be caught between two fires.

Mr. Ruttledge

If there is anything in the point, I shall consider it between now and the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 6th March.