I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This may be described as the annual Bill to continue in operation, for another year, the Seeds and Fertilisers Act. I should like, in order that there may be no misunderstanding of the ambit of the Bill, to remind the House that this is not an agricultural credit Bill, in the proper sense of the term. It is a merely a Bill to enable necessitous persons who may have a plot of land to secure credit to obtain seeds and fertilisers in order to provide food for themselves and their families in the first instance, and, if of course they have a surplus of food to dispose of it to other persons. The Bill, as I have said, is an annual one and it has been fairly generally availed of. Every county council has adopted the measure, and put schemes into operation under it. It is also a validating Bill in so far as it validates the requests which were made to local authorities to put a measure of this sort into operation.
Committee on Finance. - Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Bill, 1944—Second Stage.
As the Minister has stated, this is an annual Bill which comes before the House for approval. It is reasonable enough. It is intended to help certain people who cannot secure credit by any other method than that provided in the Bill. I have nothing to say against it except that it does not go far enough in the matter of providing credit, especially during this emergency, in order to enable people to meet the needs of an expanding system of food production. The scheme of the Bill makes no attempt to deal with that problem. I might also say that neither has the Government made any attempt to deal with that problem. One must appreciate the big amount of finance that is involved in carrying through an expanding system of food production, in the amount of equipment that is required, the cost of ploughing, cultivating and preparing seed beds, the cost of providing seeds and manures. When one thinks of all that, one begins to realise that there is a very considerable sum of money involved before the producer can hope to cash-in on his work and on his effort.
We all know that quite a number of people find it very difficult to provide the necessary capital to enable them to expand their production, especially in those areas where they had no equipment for tillage purposes in the past. In previous years I have criticised this measure from that point of view. In the Principal Act there is no limitation as to the amount of credit that may be guaranteed, but in actual practice local authorities do not go beyond £10 or £15. That is the extent to which credit is provided in particular instances. If people want greater assistance they have to try to secure it from traders and merchants. It is true, of course, that, generally speaking, credit facilities are provided all over the country to a great extent, especially where people are credit-worthy. That, however, has this disadvantage, that a producer securing credit in that way from a merchant is more or less tied to him in the sale of his produce and does not enjoy the advantages of a free market. However, I suppose the Minister is not concerned with that aspect of the problem; he is merely interested in getting the approval of the House for this measure, which attempts to provide, in a very small way, credit facilities for people unable otherwise to secure them.
The Minister has not given any information as to the amount of credit provided in the past year or in previous years. I should like to know the trend of this type of credit in recent years. Has it had an upward or a downward trend? It might be interesting if Deputies had some information on that point.
I think the proper Department to administer this Bill is the Department of Agriculture. I can never understand the mentality of the Department of Local Government in respect of the treatment of rural and urban holdings. There is quite a different system in operation in respect of plot holders in urban areas. It is considered right to give them free seeds and fertilisers and even free implements, but as regards the plot holders in the rural areas, who are endeavouring to do exactly the same thing as the plot holders in the urban areas, they are not given any such facilities. Can the Minister explain why, in the urban areas, such facilities are given to plot holders, while in the rural areas, almost across the road as it were, the cottier or plot holder does not get free seeds, fertilisers or manures? The rural plot holder has to pay the local authority for everything he gets and now, with the managerial system in operation, the screw is being put on and these plot holders are being forced to pay to the last penny.
I think the Department of Local Government does not appreciate the good that the plot holders in the country are doing. If they got a little more encouragement they would produce more food for themselves and their families and relieve the situation from the point of view of town dwellers. I do not suppose the Minister is prepared to alter the system. I think the proper Department to deal with this Bill is the Department of Agriculture, which might see the necessity of increasing food production and enabling these people in the rural areas, cottiers and plot holders, the people who are making possible a good deal of food production, to get the same facilities as the dwellers in the urban areas.
I think Deputy Hogan is under a misapprehension. The position of plot holders in urban areas is that they have to rent their plots—pay economic rents for them— and provide themselves with seeds and fertilisers afterwards. Under existing legislation persons in receipt of unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance are entitled to get plots for a nominal amount and are given seeds and fertilisers. That legislation was enacted to encourage unemployed persons to utilise the period during which they were idle, to utilise it in some way that would be beneficial to themselves. I should like to say, in that connection, that the rather extraordinary thing about it is that the number of employed persons who have taken plots, at any rate in the City of Dublin, and who pay an economic rent, greatly exceeds the number of unemployed persons who took plots, even though they got the plots for nothing and got seeds and fertilisers free. However, there is no real comparison to be made between the purpose which this Bill has in view and the purpose which the Allotments Act sought to serve. The intention here is to assist those people who happen to be in the occupation or the ownership of small plots and who are in necessitous circumstances—to secure for themselves such seeds and fertilisers as will enable them to use their land usefully. As Deputy Hughes pointed out, the scheme is not an agricultural credit scheme; it is a social service and, therefore, comes more properly under the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
Deputy Hughes asked me to give particulars with reference to the operation of this scheme. In 1940 the number of recipients of loans under the Act was 3,157 and the amount involved was £17,139; in 1941 the number of loans granted was 9,269 and the total amount involved was £56,285. The scheme was then operated by 26 county councils. In 1942 the number of loans granted amounted to 5,509, representing a total sum of £38,678. There were still 26 county councils operating the scheme. Last year the number of loans amounted to 5,423 and the aggregate amount involved was £43,580. Twenty-seven county councils, in all, operated the scheme. The average sum involved for each borrower was about £8.
Can the Minister account for the fluctuation in the figures?
I can not. Perhaps a lot of people who got a start found they did not require any further assistance. They may have been able to finance themselves subsequently. Probably they made a small profit and were able to carry on without having to have recourse to the county council. There has been a decline in the number of persons who have made application since 1941. I might mention that 1941 was the peak year in respect of the number of persons and the total sum involved.