When I listened to the Minister for Finance introducing this Vote on Account for £13,445,000 I was amazed at the paucity of his remarks in dealing with a sum of this magnitude. One would expect a painstaking effort on the part of the responsible Minister to justify in present circumstances this enormous expenditure—a continuation of a spiral started ten years ago; a sum which indicates further burdens of taxation on people already overburdened, and further additions to the national debt. The Minister evidently feels that his time is so precious that he can devote only six or seven minutes to discharging his responsibility to Parliament in defending a policy which involves an ever-increasing expenditure. He was certainly speaking euphemistically when he described it as a respectable sum. It is a sum which involves intolerable burdens, the continuation of which must inevitably cause dire consequences to our economic prosperity.
I listened to the Minister for Local Government trying to defend this expenditure. One is tempted to ask him whether the circular letter that emanated from his Department, and which the local authorities received recently, was a cynical joke. He has the cheek and audacity to lecture local authorities on the necessity for economies without first putting his own house in order, and then he comes here and tries to defend a policy of squandermania, extravagance and incompetence. The policy of the Government—which, of course, is fundamentally wrong—of giving direct financial assistance to non-productive elements, is each year throwing greater burdens on productive organisations, and is hampering or destroying the possibility of their normal expansion and reducing or retarding their capacity as potential sources of profitable employment.
While it is undoubtedly a humanitarian policy to make provision for financial schemes to help the poor by direct State assistance—and this can be justified to a greater extent during the emergency—it is, from the economic standpoint, not the best method of attacking the problem of unemployment. The promotion of profitable production, even with the aid of State assistance, is undoubtedly the only permanent solution. We all agree that the cost of administration must be substantially higher during an emergency, but the preparation made by the Government for an emergency of this magnitude is represented by the imposition on the people of the maximum amount of taxation possible from all sources, with the result that, during this emergency, when expenditure must be higher, there is no new source of taxation to tap.
Apart altogether from the incidence of taxation on our people, there is the question of value—the value of the services obtained by the nation for the contributions made by the taxpayer. Are the costs of State services reasonable in our circumstances, or are the Departments of State acting in an extravagant fashion? Is there overlapping of services or have we redundant Ministries? Are we getting public services sufficient to justify the burdens placed on our relatively poor people? Are we aiming at something far beyond our financial capacity, and is our administration moulded on a level higher than we can afford?
The trend of taxation in recent years, the number of unbalanced budgets, the soaring national debt involving higher and higher annual charges are questions which deeply concern the Minister entrusted with the custody of the public purse. After making provision for the defence of the country against the possibility of invasion, our chief concern is the securing of essential supplies and the making of ample provision for the production from our soil, to maximum capacity during the coming season, of essential food for man and beast. The enormous losses in shipping tonnage, the ever-growing perils of the high seas, our position in the war zone and our isolation in trade, make it of paramount importance to the Government to ensure that our productive capacity is exercised to the utmost.
Has this been done? Can we afford to take any risks about our food position? Is our agricultural productive capacity so organised that there is no doubt about the results we are going to get during this vital season? Is the House satisfied that this vital matter concerning the lives of the people has been, and is being, handled in an efficient manner?
The Taoiseach a short time ago went to Clare and said that they could not be blamed, because they had warned the people. Does the Taoiseach think that he, as Head of the Government, can evade his responsibilities and ignore the necessity of ensuring that every possible precaution is taken and that a properly organised effort will be made by the responsible Department to see that our maximum production is going to be effective for the coming year? Does he think his duty ends by merely warning the people that we are up against a tough proposition and that the matter of food production rests solely with the people?
One matter that ought to be examined is, why was the acreage required to be cultivated last year and the previous year below our expectation? Why was it we did so much worse in our efforts to organise production than Northern Ireland or Great Britain? Why did we fall so much behind our expectations in that respect? Was it due to any fault of our people, to the lack of capacity of our farmers to do the job? Was it because there was not a will to do the job, or was it due to lack of organised effort to see that the job was thoroughly done?
I think, during this grave crisis, when we remember the danger to which this country is exposed from the point of view of a shortage of essential food, we have not a proper organisation or a proper machine to deal with the production of essential food. What type of organisation have we to ensure that we get 25 per cent. of tillage under the compulsory order? We have no organisation, beyond a few civil servants who are sent out through the country under this compulsory order to inspect lands and inform the farmers that they must do a certain percentage of tillage. Many of them are men who have little or no association with agriculture; they are men taken from other Departments, men who have little or no sympathy with the agricultural outlook, men who are merely instruments sent around to inspect agricultural holdings and to use the compulsory order to its utmost.
Why is it that we are in such a panicky position at the present time, that we have fines and prosecutions and compulsory entry on lands? Has the responsible Minister pictured to himself at any time the difficulty, the almost insuperable problem, that farmers in non-tillage areas have to face as a result of lack of proper equipment to deal with an operation that involves 25 per cent. of tillage on big holdings? Is it sufficient to make a compulsory order, to send Ministers down the country on a drive for food production, to make a general appeal, and for the Government to feel that their responsibility ends there and for the Head of the Government, in a few instances, to blame farmers for lack of patriotism and for another Minister to abuse farmers for hoarding wheat? Is it reasonable to expect farmers in the non-tillage districts and in the dairying districts of this country to do this work —men who have no experience of tillage operations, and men who have no equipment with which to do that tillage—unless they are provided with the necessary facilities? Speaking as a tillage farmer, I say that 25 per cent. of tillage of a substantial agricultural holding in this country involves a considerable amount of work and outlay and necessitates a fairly good type of equipment if that work is to be done properly and efficiently.
This situation was brought home to me last week in a very forceful way, when I saw a constituent of mine from North Kildare, from a grass district, and he shed bitter tears in my presence. In fact, he is a man who owns a big grass farm, who is doing a certain amount of tillage, who lacks the equipment to do the necessary tillage under the compulsory order, who made a sincere effort to hire the equipment that would be necessary to complete the 25 per cent. compulsory tillage that he was bound to do, who was visited by an inspector of the Department of Agriculture, and who was informed that he had got so many days to make a start towards completing that work. He had already arranged for obtaining the equipment, the ploughing plant and so on, necessary to do the work on his farm, but the people concerned had a big amount of work already booked, with the result that the equipment failed to reach him within the few days that were given to him to make a start. He was liable for 25 statute acres, and because he failed to secure the necessary equipment there was compulsory entry on his land, and 75 acres were taken over under the order and sub-let for conacre.
Now, I suggested to the Minister for Agriculture, 12 months ago, in this House, that if we were going to do this job satisfactorily, in my opinion, it would be necessary to organise any available equipment that we have in the country for work of that sort, that it was unfair to expect individual farmers to do this work in non-tillage districts where there was a complete absence of equipment, and that it was impossible for them to organise the necessary equipment to do their job. When one turns to the organisation that they have in Great Britain to do work of this sort, and when one reads of the work of war agricultural committees, the vast organisation involved there in tackling the work of food production, the attention to detail by an organisation of that sort, and the work, even outside of production altogether, of reclamation of vast tracts of scrub-land brought into cultivation of cereals, one begins to realise how much we have fallen down, how far we have completely and absolutely failed on the job, because we have no organisation of any sort to deal with that vital matter.
To my mind, it will be an everlasting disgrace to this country if we, with a small population of less than 3,000,000, fail to produce the essential food for our people during this crisis, with 12,000,000 acres of arable land, some of which can be counted as the finest agricultural land in the world. If we fail, we fail, in my opinion, through lack of proper organisation, through lack of proper direction on the part of the responsible Minister and the responsible Department. We are relying solely on the efforts and the direction of civil servants, who have no practical experience of the work that is necessary if we are to ensure that we will have effective production. As I said before, when one compares the results of our efforts for the past two years with the results of similar efforts in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, one begins to realise how we have failed in that respect, and I think it is grossly unfair for responsible Ministers and for the Head of this Government to get up and attempt to blame farmers for lack of the right spirit in this matter.
The failure, to my mind—and, speaking as a farmer, I have no hesitation in saying it—does not rest with the farmers of this country, but rests with the Government and with the responsible Ministry. First of all, take the position as it exists. What sort of organisation have we to deal with credit problems and with seed problems? We have none. That responsibility is thrown back on local authorities. The financing of it is thrown back on local authorities. Is that as it should be during this crisis— pushing the responsibility on to local authorities? This matter of an expansion in tillage operations of this sort is one that involves a considerable amount of capital expenditure, and surely to goodness there ought to be a central organisation to deal with credit problems and with seed problems. There is no such thing. Have we any organisation to deal with labour problems, or to tackle the labour problems that are inevitably bound to crop up next harvest owing to the drainage of skilled agricultural workers from this country to Great Britain? Are we going to allow the country, particularly in the non-tillage districts, to be denuded of the men that will be needed to save the harvest? Are we going to set up any sort of machine or organisation to ensure that there will be ample labour to save our crops next harvest?
Then, on this question of the price of wheat, we had no end of haggling and cheese-paring on a vital matter that concerned our food, a matter that was essential to the very life and existence of our people. Why should there be such cheese-paring about it? If the agricultural community, and particularly those who have a conservative policy with regard to the fertility of their soil, are asked to draw substantially on the most valuable asset that they possess, their greatest heritage, the fertility of their land—if they are asked to draw substantially on that capital asset, then at least the Government should have no hesitation in justly compensating them. If it is in the national interest that we should draw heavily on that fertility, then these people are entitled to just compensation. There should not have been a question about it. There is no man inside or outside this House but must admit that a declaration of a reasonable and fair price early last season would have made a considerable difference to our wheat output during the coming season.
As to the farmers' overhead charges, rates are 100 per cent. higher than they were ten years ago. You have also many agriculturists in the country hampered by pressure from the Land Commission for arrears of annuities. I suggest that some arrangement ought to be made whereby pressure would be eased during this time, when the nation is relying absolutely on the efforts of individual farmers to put their backs into the job and to get the maximum production from their land. If that extra production is required, it involves extra expenditure, and the money is not at the beck and call and command of individual farmers. If a farmer has to incur extra expenditure for increased production, that is not the time to bring pressure on him to meet arrears of annuities. Then we have had growing up in this country during the last 12 months a new demand on farmers. Many farmers are now being hounded by the officers of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for income-tax. Many farmers who are not liable are being pressed to pay income-tax. The House appreciates the methods that are adopted by the Inland Revenue Commissioners. Whether you are liable or not the demand is made, and it is your responsibility to prove that you are not liable. That means that a farmer who can ill afford it must seek professional advice to defend himself against the hounding methods of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. These are the methods that are being adopted at present, when this country is relying absolutely on the efforts of the agricultural community to produce to their maximum capacity.
The chief anxiety in England during this production period is to ensure that no agricultural plant of any sort is standing idle. It was only by extreme pressure on the part of Deputies interested in the supply of kerosene for the operation of tractors that it eventually dawned on the Minister for Supplies that there was something in the case they were making. It was a menace to have tractors standing idle for days. There is, I admit, an improvement in that respect, but there is room for further improvement. As I say, we lack the organisation that is necessary. The type of organisation I visualise is organisation by practical men who will have the vision, foresight and practical experience to see where delays occur, where wastage occurs, and where there is failure to use our equipment to the best possible advantage in the national interest. Where you have civil servants without any practical experience and without any sympathetic outlook on the problems that confront the agricultural community, there is to my mind a real menace that in this season, which is more vital than ever, the job will not be done thoroughly and efficiently and we will not get the maximum production. I have no hesitation in saying that the effort is there, the will is there, and the capacity to do the job is there, but the organisation is lacking.
On the question of equipment, even still we have certain tariffs operating against the importation of certain essential implements. I think it was a stupid and short-sighted policy that in the last two or three years necessary agricultural implements which could be imported were prevented from being imported by the operation of prohibitive tariffs. Why have we not an organisation in this country similar to the W.A.C. in operation at the other side? The Minister for Agriculture has a consultative council. What use is made of that council? Is it not a fraud, is it not a mere farce, is it not mere eyewash to have such a so-called consultative council; a council which is summoned to meet only two or three times in the year and which is not consulted but informed that certain things have already been done and certain decisions have already been taken? Is there not some responsibility on the Minister for Agriculture to ensure that any spare equipment we have in tillage districts is organised and made available for people in the non-tillage areas? Is it fair or reasonable to make a compulsory tillage order and say to a man: "You have to till 25 per cent. of your arable land. It is your job to find the equipment. It does not concern us whether you have the necessary implements to do that job or not; that is your concern. If you have not the necessary equipment and are not in a position to find the equipment, we will compulsorily acquire the land and take it over from you and do the job. It is your look out to see that you get the implements." I think that is a most autocratic and arrogant attitude for the Minister for Agriculture to take up.
At the beginning of the Great War, when we had no up-to-date mechanical appliances, or very few anyway, the Department of Agriculture organised ploughing equipment and brought it from the tillage areas into the non-tillage areas. I remember distinctly over 20 horses and ploughs going from County Carlow to County Meath to deal with tillage operations in that county. All that was organised by the Department of Agriculture. Is it possible that the Department of Agriculture have not profited by that experience of 20 years ago and that they fail to realise or are simply shutting their eyes to the necessity for organising equipment of that sort? As I said, the greatest anxiety of the war agricultural committees in England is to ensure that there is no wastage or loss in the operation of vital equipment for the production of food at the present time. There is no directing authority here to ensure that wastage does not occur. I am confident that there is any amount of ploughing plant standing idle for days and days at a time because we have no organisation to ensure that it is being used to the best possible advantage.
There is another matter which a good many people have mentioned to me, and which requires immediate attention, and that is the necessity of organising labour for the harvest next year, and even at the present time in non-tillage districts. There is a heavy drain on agricultural labour. A large number of men are leaving the country, and there is a real danger that we shall not have sufficient labour to save the crops next harvest. It seems to me an extraordinary state of affairs that, in the month of March, we should be getting into a panic regarding the tilling of the 25 per cent. of arable land. It is too late to ensure that that will be done now. We are breaking up old grass land which has not been cultivated for 100 years or more. By putting in a cereal crop immediately after ploughing, the chances of success, in my opinion, are very poor. The land will lack the mellowing action of atmospheric conditions over the winter. It is necessary to aerate soil which has been buried for so many years, and that soil will turn up practically barren, with complete lack of nitrogen. There is a definite necessity for early turning-over of that land in order to secure reasonable results. Ploughing of this land at this late hour is almost certain to lead to failure. That shows lack of direction on the part of the responsible Ministry, and lack of organisation. Steps should have been taken to ensure that that would be done in good time. The attention of the farmer should have been directed to the wisdom of that policy. When the work had to be done, it should have been done in good time, so that the farmer would get a reasonable return.
In the old tillage districts, the greatest handicap we are up against is the lack of artificial manures, particularly sulphate of ammonia. We have a residue of phosphates and potash, because we have been putting in substantial quantities of these in recent years. But they can only be used if there is sufficient nitrogen in the soil as a plant food. I am not satisfied that any really serious attempt has been made to secure a supply of sulphate of ammonia. Imperial Chemicals, who make this product—a synthetic product —were simply chock-full of sulphate of ammonia last June and July. The British Government were of opinion that the Germans had their eye on it and that it might be bombed. They decided that early distribution of the supply should be made amongst British and Northern Ireland farmers. It was distributed at £10 10s. a ton, less £1 per ton, rebate, for taking early delivery. The distribution was carried out early last summer. Such a quantity of sulphate of ammonia came into Northern Ireland that they had it packed to the ceiling. It came over the Border to our black market at £40 and £50 a ton, although it cost only £9 10s. a ton.
The leader of the Opposition mentioned the possibility of a trade agreement with Great Britain, pointing out that the British had made an agreement with Portugal and that the Germans had made an agreement with Turkey. He might have mentioned also that Russia had made an agreement with Japan. I cannot see why he should not be able to effect some kind of trade agreement with the British. I am not satisfied that any real effort has been made to arrange such a trade agreement. Are we to continue to provide the British with essential foodstuffs—livestock and livestock products —in exchange for paper money? Are we to continue to export these foodstuffs in huge quantities without a quid pro quo? I am not satisfied that a proper attempt was made by the Government to secure a supply of sulphate of ammonia. Instructing a civil servant at this end to get into communication on the 'phone with a civil servant at Whitehall, or Colwyn Bay, or even the sending of a civil servant across to the other side is not the proper way to effect a trade agreement. Here is a matter which is vital to food production—a supply of sulphate of ammonia. We are getting supplies of it over the Border into our black market at a price 500 per cent. and 600 per cent. above the actual cost and we are told that it is not possible to secure a supply of that essential commodity through the ordinary channels.
The Minister for Supplies told us to-day that he is prepared to give a firm which has gone into liquidation a permit to export certain stocks of whiskey. I understand that these stocks are considerable. I have heard the figure of 250,000 gallons mentioned. It is extraordinary that the Minister should be prepared to permit the export of 250,000 gallons of stimulants, which are badly needed by the British, without making any effort to effect a deal on the matter. The Minister for Supplies told us last week that the continuance of the present ration of flour and bread, with the 20 per cent. reduction, depended on a single, slender hope—a lucky break in shipping. The Minister also told us that 30,000 barrels of barley had been taken from the maltsters for the manufacture of flour. Even in to-day's paper there is mention of the shortage of stimulants in Northern Ireland, while there is an acute shortage of stimulants in Great Britain. This is due to the fact that the acreage under barley there was controlled down by the W.A. Committee. The price for barley referred to by Deputy Dillon last week—£5 per barrel—is due to the fact that the acreage under barley was brought down to the minimum so as to ensure that the maximum acreage would be devoted to the production of wheat.
With a shortage of stimulants, and the fact that malting barley is not controlled, the price of that barley has soared in England. The Army authorities, and particularly the naval authorities, contend that men cannot be expected to risk the perils of the sea without stimulants, of which there is a grave lack in England. We are in a position to supply stimulants. Are we going to release 250,000 gallons of whiskey without making any condition whatsoever? Are we going to take paper money for that whiskey, or are we going to take up the attitude that we will have to get sulphate of ammonia or wheat? On the question of the 30,000 barrels of barley that are in the hands of the maltsters, would it not be a fair business deal to put up a proposition to the British Government that we will convert them into stout and ship it to England in exchange for 20,000 or 25,000 barrels of wheat? Is it possible that we have not one Minister in the Government with sufficient courage to go across to England to put up a proposition of that sort? Is it possible that we are going to continue to export all the surplus food we have merely for paper money? Is it possible that no man in the Ministry has the courage to go across and say to the British Government: "If you make some effort to give us a certain quantity of sulphate of ammonia in order to expand production, it will have the effect of leaving us with a bigger surplus of food that we will undoubtedly export in the ordinary way. What are you going to do about it?"
I am satisfied that no proper effort has been made to effect a deal of that sort. There appears to be no reason why a trade deal could not be effected between this country and Great Britain. Until an effort is made by the Government, and by the Head of the Government, to see if that is possible, it is only reasonable to expect that many people will hold the Government responsible for the lack of the essential supplies that would be available if a proper deal was effected. There is undoubtedly a surplus of sulphate of ammonia in England. It is a nitrogenous manure, of which there is a real shortage for the purpose of food production. There is going to be rigid control of all artificial manures in England during the coming season, with the exception of sulphate of ammonia. The fact that sulphate of ammonia is exempted from control shows that there are sufficient supplies available. It is a synthetic product manufactured in huge quantities by Imperial Chemicals.
