rose.
Central Fund Bill, 1930 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That this Bill be read a Second Time."
On a point of order, I think it would be desirable that the Minister in charge of the Bill should be present before any discussion on this Bill takes place.
Cathaoirleach
That is not a point of order, but it is undoubtedly desirable that the Minister should be present. Perhaps I should be allowed to make a comment before the House enters on a discussion of this Bill. In the course of each year the Seanad gets three Bills dealing with what I may call financial matters—the Central Fund Bill, the Appropriation Bill and the Finance Bill. I suggest to Senators that broad general questions on Government policy might be discussed on the Central Fund Bill, but that matters of detail could be more suitably dealt with on the Appropriation Bill, while questions relating to tariffs might be raised on the Finance Bill. If that suggestion is adopted it would, I think, prevent interminable debate. The Minister for Finance is now present.
I do not know whether the remarks that I purpose making on this Bill to-day affect the Minister in charge of it so much as they affect the Minister in charge of one of the other Government Departments. I intend to concentrate entirely on what I look upon to-day as the most pressing problem that this State has to face, namely, the problem of unemployment. In approaching the subject, I ask that the various suggestions I propose making will receive the consideration of all members of the House. To my mind the conditions at present prevailing in the Free State justify a considerable amount of anxiety, if not of alarm. As I visualise present tendencies and conditions of unemployment elsewhere, the conditions of industry and commerce elsewhere as well as the fierce and increasing competition that is going on, I am driven to the conclusion that the tendency here will be for unemployment to increase, and that our present position will become worse as time goes on. I ask the Seanad to consider this matter from various points of view. The essential question to consider is: what are we going to do in regard to the human lives that are entrusted to our care, or at all events for which we are responsible as an administrative and legislative body?
I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not look upon this as in any sense a party problem, a problem whereby one party may score over another. I believe that it should be raised entirely out of that sphere, and looked upon purely as a big national problem, that in considering it we should consider what our resources are, how we can operate them to provide for our needs and provide employment for our people, at the same time realising the competitive forces and the world conditions that we have to face to-day.
Last year's returns show that imports to this country amounted to sixty-one million pounds, leaving us with an adverse balance of thirteen and a half millions. If we examine the import list we find on it a considerable number of commodities which we produce ourselves but which, at the same time, we are importing. I feel that a proper stocktaking, a proper analysis of the things that we need and use in our everyday lives that are produced at home as well as imported should be the best guide for the line of action that we ought to take in seeking a solution of this unemployment problem and making this State more self-supporting than it is to-day. Looking through the list of imports, I find that we import bacon and hams to the extent of £1,627,094, butter to the extent of £360,342, wheat to the extent of £3,186,842, wheaten flour to the extent of £2,438,734, sugar to the extent of £1,345,731, woollen goods to the extent of £1,557,245. In addition, we import manufactured goods, in the shape of boots and shoes, to the extent of £1,746,221, and various items of wearing apparel to the extent of £4,315,815. I do not want to argue that we can eliminate all imports, but I do say that we can reduce them.
The problem that we are up against is a two-sided one. I think that if we approached it in an intelligent way that we could do a great deal in the way of reducing imports. In approaching the problem there is first to be considered the question of production at home, and secondly the question of providing employment which is very badly needed in this country. In approaching the consideration of that problem we have also to realise all the different forces that are at work and that are keeping us in our present position. We must also consider the demoralising effect that unemployment, or partial employment which is so much more common, has upon our people. We all know that after a long period of unemployment citizens become almost unemployable. We also know that the individual workman who realises that the shadow of unemployment is always hovering over him, with all that that connotes— want for his family, insecurity, uncertainty and the feeling that his wife and children may be forced to live below what is their normal standard of living—is rendered incapable of giving the best that is in him. From a man placed in that position you cannot expect either good work or enthusiasm. I think that is one of the most destructive factors that we are up against in our system of economic production. Whether you employ 10 or 15 men in a factory or on the land, and that they know they are only being taken on for such time as they may be required, whether that be a period of two weeks or of two months, they will feel all the time that the spectre is hovering over them that shortly they will be turned out and left derelict on the world, except for the fact that they may be able to get the unemployment dole which, as Senators know, only applies to a limited number of the population. It cannot be expected that men employed under such conditions will have either interest or enthusiasm in their work. Men employed under such conditions degenerate to the extent that they lose heart and hope. There is no inducement to them to put their shoulder to the wheel and do their best.
There is one factor that we ought to remember in this—it is one of the social factors that seems to be neglected everywhere, and if not altogether ignored it certainly is ignored to a very large extent by the manufacturer or director in his economic outlook—and it is this: Where a factory closes, or partially closes, the machinery has to be maintained. An engineer has to be kept on to keep the plant in order and so on. Similarly, in the case of a man who employs live stock for the purpose of making a living— whether the live stock be in the shape of horses or anything else— he has to keep the live stock in condition. He must feed them and keep them ready for the day when there will be work for them to do. That factor is entirely ignored in the case of human life as applied to industry. In other words, we in this Christian country, like peoples in many other Christian countries, carry on in a most un-Christian fashion. I do not suggest for a moment that this problem is peculiar to us. We all know that it is world wide. We all know that the English industrial machine is going through one of the worst phases that it has ever experienced. We all know that the boom period is over in America. I would venture to prophesy that America will yet go through the worst phase she has ever gone through. There are reasons for these events happening. There are, for instance, economic reasons: reasons arising from the methods of production, to the aftermath of the war, and the abnormal conditions in world trade and commerce.
The thing that, in my opinion, we do not look at here and that we ought to look at is the fact that we have in this country an opportunity of creating something entirely different from the established order in business management, manufacturing control, and in the general machinery of production. We here have not a big industrial machine to smash. We can, if we have any wisdom, evolve something entirely different from the economic machine that has been erected elsewhere—a machine that I contend is breaking down and that, in my judgment, nothing will save it. As to the problem that confronts us in our own particular area, in my judgment we are not facing up to it. We are content to take imports from other countries. The buyer, the dealer, and the middleman talk about prices. Price is only one of the economic factors in the matter of production. What we have got to think of is the creation of a prosperous State for our own people rather than of making profits for anybody. I contend that until we set about tackling that problem that we will simply have to go on following, at the far-off tail-end, a machine that already is breaking down and is inevitably going to go smash altogether.
As I said at the beginning, I would like to see this problem approached on a broad national basis—from the point of view of having a national stock-taking. My suggestion is that we should analyse exactly what our needs are and how those needs are going to be supplied, that we should recognise that the primary duty of a State properly administered is the protection of the citizens of that State, that at any cost the State has that moral responsibility on it which it must fulfil, and only in so far as the State fulfills that duty of securing the life and well-being of the citizens is it justifying itself at all. I suggest that duty has been neglected in the past, and is likely to be neglected in the future. I say, too, that the time is ripe for a complete analysis of the whole economic position both from the point of view of manufacture, administration and labour. The time is also ripe for a consideration of the question as to what we are going to do with regard to the commodities which we import and which we can make at home— whether we ought to prevent these commodities coming in, if necessary.
People often say that it is a mistake for Governments to interfere in business, that it leads to bureaucratic control. It has been said that business does not succeed when Governments take charge. We must remember that at the present time the British Government has to make itself responsible for its 1,600,000 unemployed people. As compared with this period last year, that figure shows an increase of over 200,000, while it shows an increase of 18,000 in the last two weeks. That is the modern tendency and indicates the swing of the pendulum as it is moving to-day. I venture to prophesy that the position is going to be much worse. In asking that the analysis which I have mentioned should be made, I do not propose to go into any one particular industry. What applies to one applies, in the main, to the others. What I would seriously urge is that the responsible authorities should, as soon as possible, establish some form of a Commission of Inquiry which would make a thorough investigation into all the factors that I have mentioned, as well as others that I have not mentioned. It would be the duty of that Commission to consider how this matter of production for our own needs, for the elimination of unemployment, should be put on an intelligent national basis.
I am glad the Minister for Finance is present, because I want to challenge one statement that he made in the Dáil last week. I refer to the question of the penetration of industry by foreigners. I do not propose to quote the exact words of the Minister, but, speaking on the question of the penetration of industry in this country by foreigners, he said, in effect, that it did not really matter very much so long as employment was provided. I dispute that statement. One of the greatest menaces that we have to face to-day is the encroachment of foreign control in the industries that we have. Take any industry where this penetration has occurred. We find that these business organisations or factories are operated in this country as branch establishments. Take the tobacco trade.
The factories set up here are merely distributing and invoicing houses as far as the business end of these concerns go. They manufacture goods, it is true, but they only manufacture them in accordance with the formula submitted and according to the system in operation in the parent house. One cannot complain against the manufacturer for that. One cannot complain about what they are going to do. The point that I want to stress is this: that if we in this country are to make any progress industrially we must aim at training our own people not only to control but to maintain and to run businesses. I contend that all the scientific work, all the higher administrative work, all the research work, and all the specialisation work that is necessary in business to-day is done in the case of these concerns at their headquarters, whether these be in England or elsewhere. The business they do here is carried out according to a certain formula evolved at the parent establishment. That formula is sent over here, and the work which is being done according to it has no educational or training value for our people. In other words, we are the labourers in our own country in the case of these industries which are controlled from outside the country. I suggest that training in the direction I have mentioned, administrative training, training in advertising and in chemical research, training in blending and in all the other processes are really the key things that we want to know. We are not going to learn these things while our existing industries are entirely controlled, as they nearly all are at present, by foreigners. Shipping in this country is also under alien control. It seems to me that for a number of years past this peaceful penetration that has been going on has spread itself. What I want to know is, what are we going to do about it? I realise the difficulties that will face any government in dealing with such a matter, but I contend that we have got to face it. If we do not face it, then in a very short time this country will be held in pawn, body and soul, by large controlling trusts at the other side.
It has often been argued as regards industry in this country, mainly on the question of price, that you cannot get goods made here at a price to compete with the foreigner. There is a good deal of truth in that. There is also, of course, a good reason for it. Any manufacturer outside of this country who is aiming at capturing the Irish market realises that, as regards some manufactures, he is up against a tariff. He is willing, perhaps, to shed his normal profits elsewhere to enable him to get the extra production for his factories so that he can dump his goods in here. We have got to realise that as regards manufacturers we are trying to cater for a population of about 3,000,000 people. We have to remember that we are competing with people in the main who have a ready market at their doors— a market of about 40,000,000 people who, on the whole, buy on a bigger basis than our people. With this big difference in population, 3,000,000 in the one case and 40,000,000 in the other, it is obvious to anyone that has ever been in the manufacturing business that these manufacturers, in addition to having a market amongst a population of 40,000,000 people, had at one time, at any rate, the biggest export trade in the world, and are now a very close up second. They have a tradition in manufacturing that we have not. These difficulties, to my mind, are the obvious answer to the argument that in this country we cannot produce goods of cheap manufacture. It is then a question for the Government of this country to consider, let that Government be what it will, whether it is content to stand on the question of prices or whether the nursing of particular industries by tariffs and, if necessary, by prohibitions or otherwise, is going to be their policy. In other words, it is going to be a problem for the Government of the day to decide whether it is going to provide employment for its own citizens, or whether it is simply going to hand out work to the stranger to do for them.
These are some matters affecting the lives and the well-being of the people of this State that I desire to raise on this Bill. I do not know whether members of the Seanad just realise the position as it is in this country. I do not know where they go when they leave this House. I do not know whether they are familiar with the conditions that prevail in our small towns and cities. I do know, however, that this shadow of unemployment, constantly hovering over a very big percentage of our people, is unmanning them and giving them a feeling of insecurity. This is a vital problem and one that ought to be faced at once. I do not know what way Senators feel about it. I do not know whether they are aware of the poverty that exists and of the activities of the various charitable societies such as that of St. Vincent de Paul and others. From the social point of view, it would be helpful if they were familiar with the activities of these societies. I appeal to Senators to support me in the plea that I am making for the setting up of a Commission to inquire into all these economic factors, an inquiry that will set itself to the task of finding out what we are going to do in the way of solving this problem that is there, or whether we are going to persist in the policy of drift that I am afraid we are indulging in at present. The policy before us, I suggest, is that as intelligent beings we should set ourselves to the task of seeing what can be done, of seeing what work can be provided, even at the expense of cutting down our imports. That, I think, would be a desirable thing to do. I hope the Seanad will support this proposal, and that something definite and tangible will be attempted on the lines I have indicated.
I did not know that Senator Connolly was going to raise this question, but I think it is well he has done it and I am glad of the manner in which he has called attention to this very important problem and the desirability of approaching its examination and seeking its solution on lines other than Party lines, or even lines which are determined by antecedent convictions. I think it would be a very desirable thing if some means could be found for having first the survey that he mentioned. He spoke of national stocktaking. I think that as legislators, or as public men, we have not yet got the materials in the right form on which to make our judgments and give a sound opinion upon the problems and their solution. A good deal has been done in that direction but much of what has been done has not been made public. We have had within the last three years numerous volumes of agricultural statistics and census returns. We have had returns published in the Trade Journal, and masses of information have been supplied in answer to questions in the Dáil, and otherwise, but there has not been any collation of that material. It has not been presented to the public in the form in which it ought to be presented. I take this opportunity of putting to the Minister a question which I had thought of putting in another way, and that is as to whether he is now willing, or how soon he would be willing, to make known to the members of the Dáil and Seanad and to the public the statistical material which has been already prepared and provided for the two or three Commissions that sat to examine these problems. The material is available. Some of it has been produced in provisional form, and some of it has been corrected and ought to be made available.
It is of the utmost importance if we are to form a proper judgment on this question that the information which is at the disposal of the Minister, and can only be obtained from Government offices, should be placed at the disposal of Deputies, Senators and the public in general. I have had occasion for my own purposes to make a good deal of examination into the returns which have been published by various Departments and have tried to arrive at some sound conclusions based on those returns. I will say that whatever my previous position has been, the examination of these returns has forced me to the conclusion that the country's economic state is a very serious one indeed—not that it is more serious than it was three or four years ago. I am not suggesting any decline. That is a matter I have not come to a conclusion on, for I have not had the material for examining it. Most of what I have to say is based on returns relating to the year 1926. I make the statement without attempting on this occasion to support it by figures which can be produced that the 3,000,000 people in this country cannot be maintained at the standard of life which is enjoyed by a normal, well-fed, reasonably-clothed artisan and his family out of present production, agricultural and industrial. In so far as we and those with whom we are associated are living at a higher rate, and consuming more than the average reasonably well-fed artisan, we are only able to do it because a large section of the public are living much below that reasonable standard.
The standard that I am referring to is the standard in regard to food based upon the not extravagant ration provided to soldiers in the National Army so far as men are concerned, with a deduction of twenty per cent. for women, a deduction of fifty per cent. for old people, and in respect of children the standard set forward by the workhouse authorities for the Dublin Union in 1922. These are not high standards. Yet, I say that the 3,000,000 population, men, women and children in their respective proportions, cannot be maintained at that standard out of present production, agricultural and industrial. In respect to the expenditure on clothing, furniture, household sundries, fuel and light, I have simply taken the standard adopted by the cost of living inquiry committee in 1922, derived from the household budgets from 110 different towns throughout the country. When one realises this one sees how lacking our productive output is to allow of a sufficiency for capital expenditure, let alone for luxury expenditure. Included in the output I am speaking of, is the value which is derived from road-making, house-building and structural operations. That is to say, the production of goods and work done of a kind which is not saleable and transportable. Taking the whole of the industrial production based upon the reports of the census of production and the net output of agriculture based upon the agricultural returns I say that the total output if devoted to providing food, clothing and the ordinary household essentials would not provide a standard of comfort which the fairly well-fed artisan's family to-day enjoys.
That is a serious condition of affairs, and it is a warning to everyone of us as to the necessity for concentration on increased national output. I am not for the moment dealing with the question of mal-distribution. That is another and very important question, but I think in this State at this time it is not of primary but of secondary importance, though it may have its necessary bond with the major question of production. I urge on the Minister the necessity for allowing the public to have access to all the materials which he and his Department have in their possession so that we can form a reliable judgment upon these questions of paramount importance. I think perhaps it would be inadvisable having said so much on that one point to elaborate it, but I could, I think, convince the Seanad that the statement I have made is well-founded and can be substantiated without any doubt whatever. I am not in entire agreement with Senator Connolly in the inference I drew from his statement that the problem is one that can be solved by the imposition of tariffs so as to prevent the importation of goods in competition with those goods which can be produced at home. I believe that tariffs are essential in the present state of public education, in the present state of public desire to obtain that which they can get most of for the least, and that there is a necessity for tariffs, but I think that to point to tariffs as the remedy, and the sole remedy, until we have had an examination is rather unwise.
We have done our best, no doubt, to examine the subject and the problems with the material in our possession, and we have tried to arrive at certain conclusions as to how these problems should be met. My examination of those has led me to the conclusion that we can only increase productive output sufficiently on the industrial side by some protection or assistance in the way of fostering home industries. I think that may be done by a variety of methods. I think it would be an entire mistake to devote the whole attention to tariff propositions as though there was no other way or no auxiliary method required. If Senator Connolly's remarks were intended to lead to the conclusion that increased industrial prosperity and increased national output could only be obtained by a tariff policy, and that would be sufficient, then I dissent entirely. A great deal has been said from time to time about this country being an agricultural country, and the necessity for concentrating attention on the agricultural industry. I think it is inevitable that agriculture will be the main source of national wealth production for many years, if not for ever, but in view of the economic tendencies in Great Britain, and our dependence upon that market, I think it would be a real mistake to allow the public mind to think that agriculture is the only method whereby this country can maintain itself and reach a stage of prosperity. I think it is probably admitted that an increased output from agriculture cannot be as quickly obtained as an equal increase could be obtained through the process of manufacture.
I venture to say that in view of the economic tendencies, in view of the price movements, in view of the world competition, and in view of the demand in English industrial districts for cheap food, all our efforts for improved marketing and improved quality will be necessary to reach and maintain the position in the English market that we have somewhat receded from. To maintain a somewhat relative position in the English market and to bring the present return, we even require an increased sale in that market, a better marketing of goods of a better quality, to obtain a cash return equal to that obtained in recent years. If that is so, it seems to me to point to the necessity for a great deal of attention being given to the question of increased industrial output. While we must inevitably do all we can to improve the position of Irish agricultural goods in the English market, there is an equal or prior necessity at this particular stage to do whatever is possible to be done to replace the import of manufactured goods by home-manufactured goods. How that is going to be done is another question, and I am not going to enter upon it now, but I am glad that Senator Connolly has raised this subject in the manner in which he has raised it. I would like to support his plea for an inquiry and for stocktaking, and, as I said, a survey. I think it would be very well if we could all of us realise that the present national output, whether industrial or agricultural, is entirely insufficient to maintain a reasonably prosperous population.
On a point of explanation, Senator Johnson said that he drew a certain inference that the application of tariffs was the only suggestion I made as regards the development of industry. I would like to point out that I mentioned tariffs, prohibition, and any other means.
I think one of the advantages of the Central Fund Bill is that it enables us to display our powers in debating some abstract proposition. I am not going to follow that example, good or bad as it may be, but I would ask the Minister for information on one or two matters. One is the delay in obtaining the final report of the census of production. Some very important items should emerge from the census of production, and one is our agricultural production. At present, and only by very indirect methods, we get certain census figures, but it is essential we should know from our statistical department what is the amount of agricultural production per head of the population, and then we would have an indication as to what development in increased production is possible. I believe there are large possibilities of increased agricultural production by normal methods, and by that I mean by instructing the people and leaving them alone to work out their own salvation. Another very important matter allied to that is the question of farm costings. At one time, there was a department in connection with the Department of Agriculture dealing with this matter of farm costings which produced some very interesting figures taken from a number of farms at a time when agriculture was very prosperous.
My recollection of an examination of the figures was that by placing a reasonable sum to reserve it was obviously prudent finance in days of prosperity for a farmer to get six per cent. or seven per cent. interest on his capital. That was in the boom year, and he is getting much less now. The total gross production in agriculture and the profits got from scientifically obtained costings would be of enormous value in any examination of our economic position, but if I am asked to go further along the lines suggested by Senator Connolly or Senator Johnson I decline. I do not object to the setting up of a committee of inquiry, but I strongly object to putting up any proposition to the Government to interfere in the matter of trade or commerce. It is easy looking at the matter in the abstract to see all kinds of nice things you would like to do. If I might refer to recent events in England, the Labour Party came into power with great hopes that they would be able to tackle the unemployment question. In their view the solution of it was that it was a question of money, but when they examined it they found it could not be cured by the spending of money, and the only effect has been to increase the volume of unemployment since the Government changed. Take Germany. There is no country where scientific thought on these matters operates more fully than in Germany, where rationalisation has been carried out to the utmost limits. In all their methods the Germans, as we know, are a very thorough people and yet only to-day I saw in a responsible paper that there are 3,000,000 unemployed there, after all their methods of dealing with the problem. I quote that merely to show that you may do more harm than good if you interfere by Governmental action.
I know it is fashionable to deride the old fashioned policy of leaving people alone to work out their own salvation. I do not know there is any satisfactory alternative to that. It will be said, if you leave people to work out their own salvation you will have young people employed in factories and so on. That is absurd. You must look at the thing reasonably, and with a sense of proportion, but there is a danger in trying to form a synthetic economic system by means of control and regulation. There is no country where this has been successfully done, but in a country like America where they are left alone they are abundantly prosperous. That country has great natural resources. The reason it is prosperous is that initiative is encouraged in all directions and trade union restrictions are reduced to a minimum. They aim at getting the largest possible share of the profits but they set their faces against any restriction on output. For those reasons, which I could develop at great length, I hope the Government will be very careful before they depart from the old, tried and accepted principle of leaving trade alone. There is no better method than the old capitalistic system.
I agree that we should not use millions of imported manufactured articles that the country is quite capable of producing. When that happens there is something radically wrong either with the Government or with the producers, perhaps due to laziness on the part of those who supply the needs of the Irish community, or the Government possibly in allowing that state of things, the importation of these manufactured products at a price which comes into competition with the native producer and precludes him from getting an economic price for what he produces. His produce, owing to these artificial imports, is sold for less than it costs him to produce. In either of these events there is something abnormal, and some radical treatment is required. Agriculture at the moment is very depressed; farmers will tell you that they know of no crop that they can produce at a profit, with the possible exception of beet, but there is a subsidy for that and it is thus artificially sustained; if it were left unsubsidised it would collapse within twelve months. The farmer could possibly keep up some fair competition and sustain himself against normal competition from outside under ordinary circumstances, but when you have countries offering inducements to their people to produce goods or the natural products of the land for the purpose of export and subsidising that export it is a very different state of things. Yet other countries are doing that and are exporting their produce to this country and to England at a price that renders it impossible for farmers in these countries to dispose of their produce at an economic figure. Apart altogether from the question of tariffs, for the protection of the community, for sustaining its agricultural life, and for giving employment to our people, which normally they would have if they were supplying their own means, somebody should intervene in order to stem this unnatural trade, unnatural because it is a bounty-fed, a subsidy-fed product of a country which has a surplus, and it is bounty-fed in order that it may be exported. There is something radically wrong somewhere, and, apart from the question of tariffs as a remedy for a state of things of that sort, I think that the Seanad will agree that some action ought to be taken.
As to the depressed state of farming, at the moment, the ordinary farmer will tell you that he does not know what crop he can grow at a profit. Possibly the farmer who is feeding his own produce to his livestock and sending it to the market in the form of livestock and dairy produce is holding his own, but the majority of the farmers are not. They will tell you that they cannot sell at a profit. Some little time ago a man came to this country and stayed with me in Waterford for a week. He was one of the directors of the North Coast Co-operative Society of Sydney. He told me that twenty-five years ago he and a few other farmers on the Tweed River, which separates Northern New South Wales from Southern Queensland, got together. They formed a small co-operative society, and without any aid from the Government, and purely from their own co-operative exertions, they developed that society, until to-day their balance sheet shows that they have reserves of about £300,000, that they paid £45,000 in dividends, and that they put by another £50,000 in reserve in one year. This man travelled round this country, and I said to him: "What is wrong with the country? What is wrong with our farming and our methods?" He said: "So far as I can see you are lacking in co-operation; the farming community do not seem to know the first thing about co-operation. We have only the same markets as you have to depend on. Our principal market is England. We send our produce to the London markets in competition with you. You are only a few miles away from the market, and we are 14,000 miles away. We have to pay heavy transport rates by rail in our country, and then the ocean freight and overhead charges, and yet we can undersell you. I find our produce in the Dublin markets, where we are under-selling you." I asked him to go a little deeper into that, and I said to him: "How do you manage your affairs that you can bear all this extra cost and yet undersell us here?""Co-operation," he said." Right from the start we transmit our produce in bulk. We have our whole system arranged on co-operative lines. Our transport system and our productive system is perfection. We arrange everything in bulk, right down to our salesmanship in London. We got enormous concessions in rail transport and also in salesmanship by sending along certain of our products at certain times of the year and to certain markets, as we are advised, and in that way we get enormous concessions which constitute our principal profit."
I have turned that over in my mind very often since, and I think where you have a market such as England, which is and always must be our principal market, where there are factors outside our control regulating the price of everything we have to sell in that market, we cannot control prices, we must take them as they come. They may vary from week to week or from month to month, but where certain factors are beyond our control we must simply do as others are doing, as I think every business man is doing, no matter what line of business he may be engaged in. The ordinary trader has to look ahead for twelve or eighteen months; he has to have an intelligent anticipation of the markets right ahead before he can proceed to purchase. The same thing applies in the drapery business and other businesses of that sort which have to cast ahead twelve months and take their chances, but they can intelligently anticipate what the demand will be as far as the data at their disposal is concerned, and they arrange to make their purchases accordingly. I would say that the Government could help the farmer to anticipate, and various experienced salesmen at centres on the other side would be able to guide the farmer from past experience with regard to the class of products that would be saleable and in demand at different centres at different times of the year.
The Government could be very helpful in collecting material which would allow the farmer to come to a decision as to what crops he would sow in order to meet the demand. Instead of transporting their produce in small parcels, I understand that if farmers sent large consignments of 300, 400 or 500 tons the railway people would be quite prepared to send a special train and would give welcome concessions for transporting that produce in bulk to a steamer going across to Liverpool or some other port in England to meet a demand at a certain time for that class of produce. The steamship people would also be prepared to make considerable cuts in their freights if the produce were made up in a convenient form and sent in bulk. In addition, you should have co-operation with regard to the salesmanship on the other side—co-operation all along the line. In the market the salesmen would handle the produce in bulk, distributing it according to the facilities which they have. I do not know exactly whether this would be the function of the Government, seeing that the farmers themselves have apparently not been able so far to co-operate in any marked degree. Whether something is inherent in Irish farmers that is not present in the farmers of other countries I do not know, but they have not so far succeeded in joining in a friendly way for the conduct of their business. Co-operation is operating on the lines I have indicated in other countries that are in competition with us. How far the Government might be able to overcome whatever difficulty there is I do not know, but my friend was sure that the solution of all the farmers' difficulties lies in co-operation, that when to-day a man who is running a farm might just be able to keep his head over water, if his business were conducted as a member of a co-operative society on strict business lines, he would get concessions right along the line: he would get scientific production, scientific transport, and scientific salesmanship, and possibly put a little more energy into his operations, and the benefits that would accrue to him would constitute a very considerable profit on his year's work.
I simply throw out these few remarks because I am satisfied that the adverse trade balance can only be favourably affected by extra production on the land. The wealth is there; it is latent, but the land will produce nothing except it is worked with the spade and with the plough. Our people are quite capable of producing that wealth and of applying their labour to the soil. It is and must always be the main industry of our country. It is the only source of wealth that is practically unlimited, all depending upon the energy that is put into it. The wealth is there, we are walking over it, and it requires only a certain amount of intelligent working and intelligent co-operation, as far as production, transport and salesmanship of the produce is concerned, to benefit the farmer materially, pull him out of his present difficulties, and favourably affect the adverse trade balance.
I did not intend to intervene in this debate at all. There are many people here better qualified to speak than I am, but I am a farmer myself and I would like to say a word in favour of the Irish farmers. We have had many instances in recent years, principally in regard to the sugar beet, showing how the Irish farmer is able to rise to the occasion when he gets a chance, and how he is able not only to compete but to produce a crop very much superior in every way to those produced on the Continent, where that crop has been grown for many years. We have been hearing about co-operation for a very long time, and we have had some experiments in it. I do not want to say any more about it, but I think the average Irish farmer is about tired of listening to comparisons between himself and farmers of other countries, especially farmers on the Continent. We are tired of hearing of Denmark and Belgium. The conditions there are quite different Anyone who has travelled in these countries will have seen people working in the fields at six o'clock in the morning; they will have seen women working in the fields. I have seen that myself in my own county, but that is a thing that is past now. The women do most of the work of harvesting the sugar beet in Belgium Germany and other countries. The wages and the standard of living in those countries are very much lower than in England and Ireland.
I think there is scarcely anything that irritates the Irish farmer, who is trying to do his best, than comparisons with farmers in other countries where the conditions are not the same. Senator Kenny has given us the example of Australia, a country far away, with a climate totally different from ours. Farm produce can be put on the London market at a lower cost from Denmark and other Continental countries than it can from Ireland. The Irish farmer, especially the small, middle-class farmer, works very hard and is doing very creditable work under the present condition of affairs, and I think the Government would be well advised to adopt Senator Sir John Keane's suggestion that people should be let alone to work out their own salvation when they themselves know what is the best thing to do, especially in the case of farmers.
It is true that in the long run the prosperity of any community depends upon the energy, the enterprise, and the skill of its individual citizens. But there are circumstances in which State intervention is not only desirable but is absolutely necessary. Senator Sir John Keane has accounted for the prosperity in America—prosperity that would now seem to be waning—as being due entirely to the fact that people are left severely alone by the State. That is an amazing statement to make in regard to a country where the State itself prevents a man from having a drink if he wants it. I think personal liberty has been interfered with by the State in America to a greater extent than in any of the European countries. But it is not a case of the State leaving the people alone here; the people here will simply not be left alone, and not least the farmers.
Let anybody go to any part of the country and talk to a farmer, and the first question you are asked, after talking about the weather, will be: "What is the Government going to do for us?" That will be the question you will be met with everywhere and Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Miss Browne say: "Follow the old example and leave us alone to work." They simply will not be left alone, there is no denying that fact. It is necessary, in an undeveloped State such as ours, which is half a century behind the foremost countries in industrial science, commercial training and manufacturing skill, that the State should lend a hand, that the State should organise, should assist with technical advice, and, if possible, with financial assistance, in order to create an industrial basis that has never existed in reality and to try to maintain it if possible under world conditions.
It is a remarkable fact that the only measures the Government has introduced which have been universally regarded as good measures have been those that received the unmitigated opposition of Senator Sir John Keane and those who think with him. There was the case of the Shannon Scheme, the Dairy Produce Act, the Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act, the Beet Subsidy Act, the Livestock Breeding Act, and the Railways Act of 1924. He objected emphatically to every one of these as an undue interference by the State with the liberty of the individual trader, farmer or company, as the case might be, and he said that their effects could only be of an evil kind. Some Senators will remember his epic defence of the scrub bull, which he elevated into the position of a national hero that should be preserved to the nation. The elimination of this gentleman was to him a national calamity because it interfered with the individual God-given right of the farmer to any sort of bull at all, thereby destroying the reputation for quality of Irish live stock. It will be admitted that State intervention in matters of this kind was necessary, that although intelligent farmers knew that the policy embodied in these Acts was good for the agricultural industry, they still had to be coerced in order to adopt them. Nobody will deny that the Dairy Produce Act has had the most beneficial effects and that the same is true of the Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act, and still I have known dealers in eggs to cite it as one of the atrocities of the present Government, and as one of the evils of State intervention. That is undoubtedly one example of the good effects of State intervention in a mainly agricultural country, although Senator Miss Browne says that the circumstances are entirely different here. All the circumstances are on the side of Ireland in that respect, in regard to the fertility of the soil, the climate and the proximity to the greatest world market. If the men and women in Denmark work harder and longer than the men and women in Ireland do, that is another matter, and there, of course, the State cannot help. But I know that so far as labour is concerned it is infinitely more closely organised in Denmark than it is in Ireland, and that trade union restrictions—if you could call them such—are more severely enforced there than here. The fact is that there is not and never has been, except for a very brief period during the war, any trade union organisation at all as far as agricultural labour here was concerned, that men worked almost any hours from the rising of the sun to its going down, that they were badly paid, badly housed and generally treated at one time not much better than the serfs in Russia; so that Senator Sir John Keane cannot say that anything in the nature of trade union restrictions has hampered the Irish agricultural industry or prevented it from doing everything that it did not do.
I entirely approve of the progressive measures that the Minister for Agriculture has introduced because they all make for efficiency in Irish agriculture and for better agricultural produce. I would suggest that that policy be extended to non-agricultural industrial enterprises. We have been more backward in ordinary industry than we have been in agriculture, and I think that State assistance, by way of technical advice, by way of organising the numerous small manufacturers that we have, inducing them to avail of the most up-to-date machinery and equipment and giving them information regarding modern inventions and modern science would be to the good and would help to develop our industries very much more effectively than anything in the nature of tariffs could do in the long run. It is true that tariffs and prohibitions might be necessary in certain circumstances, but unless they again were supplemented in a more positive way we would simply be protecting inefficiency, erecting a wall between the industries concerned and world competition, and making our people pay higher prices for their produce.
A good deal of loose talk and loose thinking have been indulged in with regard to the penetration of foreign capital. The great complaint in the past has been that Irish capitalists would not invest their money in Irish enterprises, that they resorted to foreign countries to invest their capital, and I think we had a glaring example of that in the case of the sugar beet factory in Carlow, where the capital, amounting to half a million pounds, was not subscribed by Irish investors except, I believe, to the extent of about £10,000. If ever there was a safe investment the Carlow Sugar Beet Factory was one, and still we could not get Irish investors to invest in it. We must get capital somewhere, and if it is bad for Ireland that foreign capital should penetrate here it must be equally bad for those countries in which the two hundred million pounds of Irish capital is invested. Foreign control, of course, is another thing, but unless Irish investors come along with money it has to be found somewhere else if we are going to have anything. I fail to see how you can prevent people from disposing of their capital as they wish.
There was a great patriotic insurance company here to which all the public authorities gave their insurances, and it was sold at an enhanced price to the first bidder that came along, notwithstanding all the talk about patriotism. There is not an Irish insurance company that tomorrow would not sell if they got a price that would induce them. That is the law of economics and the law of commerce, and until we can induce our very patriotic investors who invest elsewhere to invest here, I am afraid the only alternative is to take such foreign capital as comes along. It sounds very bad to hear people denouncing the penetration of foreign capital who keep their money in an English bank and who will not give an Irish bank even the privilege of handling it, and we have had an instance of that kind in recent discussions. It is rather soon for us, therefore, to start talking about this matter in alarming tones. Senator Connolly talked about the introduction of the tobacco factories here. All I say is that they give a considerable amount of employment and they give infinitely better conditions than any of the Irish tobacco factories gave before. Far from being a loss to the country, they have been a splendid gain to it, and the bringing of them in has been a great achievement. Personally I feel no alarm on account of that sort of penetration, seeing that people like these are the only sources from which we have been able to get capital.
I had hoped that the Minister for Agriculture would be present, as I wanted to call attention to the expense of the Land Commission. However, I will probably get an answer from the Minister for Finance, who is present. An enormous sum, amounting to £818,000, is spent every year on the Land Commission. Last year the amount was £800,000. Salaries come to £230,000, travelling expenses £32,000, solicitors' expenses £7,800, and incidentals £1,000. Altogether £270,000 out of £800,000 goes in salaries on the Land Commission Vote; practically one-third of the amount goes to officials. When Land Purchase Acts were first introduced on a large scale the intention was to buy up all estates and divide them. One of the principal arguments was that the country would be saved great expense by the sale of the land to the people, and that that would mean an enormous reduction in the amount spent on salaries in the Land Commission. The very opposite has occurred, and the Land Commission is now as firmly entrenched as ever it was. Once officials are established on a big scale—and I do not want to say anything against them—they become entrenched, so that it is almost impossible to get rid of them, unless some Titan comes here and ends the Department one way or the other. I do not want to make any special complaint about the Land Commission or the Minister for Agriculture, but a special effort should be made to reduce this enormous sum of £800,000 that is required for its maintenance. That ought to be done once the land is purchased and distributed. The existence of the Land Commission ought then to end. I am afraid it will not. I am afraid it will continue a great deal beyond our time, and beyond the time of the youngest person in the Seanad. To my mind the progress of the Land Commission is not at all satisfactory. The farmers want the land question settled. The State has to pay £800,000 yearly for this Department. If the Minister for Agriculture were here he would tell me, no doubt, that the Department was going full steam ahead, and that it was doing in one year what previously it had not done in twenty years. Our grandchildren will probably be told the same thing—that the Department was going full steam ahead, and be reminded of how things were being done in their time and in ours. That might easily be done.
I am not satisfied exactly with the methods employed or that the Department is doing as much good as it might do. On the contrary, in many ways I consider it is doing a considerable amount of harm. I happen to know something about what happened on an estate in the West of Ireland. I am not connected with the estate in any way, but I know something about the conditions there. The district is a very poor one and the land is also poor. The people were living in wretched boggy holdings, and were earning by their labour more than they could possibly earn by the land. The owner of the estate was pressed to sell it by the people. He sold to the Land Commission, which took the people out of their own holding and gave them nice farms of 18 or 20 acres containing fairly good land. On the face of it that semed very good. What happened? It was found that the people could not pay the charges on the land that they got. There were reasons for that; possibly some of them had not money to stock their land, seeing that they had been earning their wages daily and had no spare money. When they got 18 or 20 acres of good land they could not stock it. Another reason, and perhaps a greater reason than not having the money, was that the price they were asked to pay came to £2 an acre, although the owners were only able to get £1 an acre from graziers and other people to whom they let it. Instead of having to pay what was paid for the land before they got it, the new owners found that they had to pay twice as much per acre. That seems strange. But the explanation is simple enough. In all probability what happened was that the land was cheap enough, but that when the State proceeded to divide it, banks, walls and houses were built which had to be paid for by the occupants. By the time the occupants paid the annuities and the cost of building the houses the charges had doubled. In that part of the West of Ireland practically no land can be made pay at £2 an acre. In this case, when these people had been in possession for a year or so, after being called upon to pay at this rate, they went to the former landlord and asked him if he would take back the land. He refused to do so, and pointed out that the tenants had asked him to sell and that he was not now going to take back the land. What position they are going to be in the future I do not know.
One man who had no money to stock his land let it to a grazier—I do not know whether he was a big or a small grazier—and all he got for the 18 or 20 acres was the grass of a cow. The owner handed over the land to the grazier and only got in return the grazing of a cow. That man was not in a better position than he was in previously. His position might be worse because he had previously been employed by the owner of the land. I am not imputing anything to the Minister for Agriculture or to the Land Commission in connection with the matter. I suppose they could not do anything, but the man cannot pay the price which is now demanded for the land.
It must not be supposed that I am opposed to peasant proprietorship or division of land. I was considered an extremist in that respect before many of the people in this House were born. I have always been very anxious about it, and I am still of opinion that something will have to be done to find a way out, so that people who have been given nice little farms will be enabled to pay their way. Otherwise it is better that they should not be put into these farms. A great deal of improvements have been carried out. One must praise some of the things that have been done. For instance, I notice that £60,000 is to be spent on housing in the Gaeltacht. That will help the people there. I also notice that £211,000 was spent on the improvement of estates during the past year. That is all to the good. I am not saying one word against that work. However, some of the people are not able to pay for the land they got. That would seem to me to impede the progress of people who want to live economically. Two things stand in the way, the cost of the newly-built houses and the annuities. These things prevent these people getting on. I heard the same story in different counties, in Galway and in Mayo, where the people got land but found they were unable to pay for it. I am sorry that the Minister is not here. No doubt he would be able to give some answer. Generally he has a good answer for most things. I would be very glad to hear him on this matter as I think it should be rectified.
With reference to the question raised by Senator Moore, there is, as he will have to acknowledge, a considerable amount of work still before the Land Commission. A time will be reached, I hope, when we will have done with this division of land. The sooner that comes about the better, because there are certain disadvantages in having the process actually going on. There is every desire to complete it as soon as possible but any speeding up of that work involves not a decrease but an increase in the Vote and speeding up has other difficulties, and it is not possible to speed up beyond a certain degree. Otherwise the inevitable mistakes which sometimes will occur in placing people on the land will be multiplied. It might happen that people who are unsuited, who had not the capacity, or the capital, or who for some other reason are unlikely to succeed on the land, would be selected. If we were to speed up to the extent of trying to complete the work in two or three years, the number of unsuitable people would be very much greater, and the work would be more costly and inefficient. Everything that can be done to do the work efficiently in the shortest possible time is being done. I do not know anything about the individual cases to which the Senator refers.
With regard to the question of the final report of the census of production it is with the printer and will, I believe, be published very shortly. So far as farming costs are concerned sanction has been given by the Department of Finance within the last few months to the Department of Agriculture to resume the scheme for the compilation of farm costings which they formerly had in operation. But I think it is only fair to say that the value of farming costings is in many cases open to considerable doubt. They are of very much less value than the costings in manufacturing industries, because there are so many individual factors to be taken into account and the conditions vary so much on the individual farm that farm costings must be used and received with very great caution, and must be taken as a mere general indication of certain limits rather than to be used in the way certain other costings can be used. I happened to be present at the discussion in relation to farm costings—and I was convinced, and I think I can say that the Minister for Agriculture felt that while the compilation of farm costings served a certain purpose, the value of them was very much less than people who knew very little about agriculture generally thought.
On what I think was the main point in the discussion, unemployment, I feel that it is more satisfactory to discuss this matter with Senator Connolly than with some advocates of protection, because, as I gather, Senator Connolly admitted that protection means the throwing of a burden on the community, that, broadly speaking, if we decided on protection, prohibition, or any other means to achieve the same purpose, it means that while more employment might be given, the public is going to have to pay to some greater or lesser extent for that additional employment. There are certain advocates of protection with whom it seems waste of time to enter into discussion, because they take up the point of view that we can impose protective tariffs, or impose restrictions on imports and that things are going to be sold cheaper than before, and that immense employment is going to be given. If the facts were as these people indicate then a Government which would not go in for high protection all round would be certainly guilty of criminal negligence. The real position, as I think Senator Connolly put it, is that we have to make up our mind as to whether we will pay the price for increased production or similar means, whether regardless of what it would cost, we will have that increased production or bear the cost. The real difficulty is that we are up against a certain economic system here. If we try to bring about a change in that economic system too suddenly we might easily decrease employment taking it as a whole rather than increase it. Our employment is mainly agricultural but partly industrial. By the imposition on a large scale of high tariffs we could get some thousands of people employed in industries in addition to those at present employed in them. The real question is whether by doing that, or in the process of doing it, we would not put more people out of employment in agriculture, or whether if we do not actually put them out we are going to reduce their standard of living to an intolerable extent. The real point is whether in putting on tariffs, and imposing a charge on the people to increase industrial production, we are not going to break the backs of a very large number of farmers, and that is what the Government has to face up to. Everybody wants increased employment and increased production, but the problem of getting increased employment, taking all sorts of employment into account, is not a simple one, and the people who will look only on industrial employment and who will close their eyes to the existence of agricultural employment, and agricultural unemployment, are closing their eyes to the real difficulty of the whole situation.
I do not know that we would gain anything by setting up a commission of inquiry such as Senator Connolly suggested. My belief is that the value of an inquiry really increases, as the scope of the inquiry, which those concerned are asked to work, is limited.
Was there not a commission recently appointed by the Dáil? When is it likely to report?
I do not know what commission the Senator is referring to.
Cathaoirleach
What commission do you refer to, Senator?
I think it was the Economic Committee.
It expired a year ago.
Did it ever report?
Yes, a majority and a minority one and the usual trappings. The real point where the scope of an inquiry is very wide the probability is that much time will be spent, there will be arguments about it and no results. I was a member of the Economic Committee to which Senator Sir John Keane referred, and it failed to get very far for various reasons.
It did what it was intended to do.
I do not think it did. One reason was that the scope of the inquiry was too wide. There was another commission of which Senator Johnson was a member, and it suffered from the same defect. The difficulty is that if you appoint a general commission of inquiry into economic things, it cannot deal merely in generalities. It has got to get down to individual subjects, and when you get down to individual subjects in a commission with general terms of reference, you find that you have no one really expert or specially competent to discuss any of the individual subjects. Commissions of inquiry are often very useful, and get information that would be impossible by other machinery, but only when the terms of reference are narrow, and when you select people specially competent to discuss them within the terms of reference. I believe that a commission of inquiry such as Senator Connolly suggested would be about as useful as what was called the Figgis Commission or the Economic Committee to which Senator Sir John Keane referred. People would spend a great deal of time at them, and some people would gain a good deal of knowledge, but beyond that I do not know that we would be very much further on.
Senator Connolly did not indicate the point of view that I expressed in reference to foreign capital and the foreign control of industries. He merely gave the sense of one remark that I made in the course of the discussion in the Dáil. I certainly said practically all the things that the Senator said to-day in regard to the undesirability of having the industries of this country generally under foreign control. I am quite aware that the disadvantages are very great. I think I pointed them out in greater detail in the Dáil than Senator Connolly did here. I did say in regard to an individual industry that it does not matter very much whether or not it is under foreign control provided employment is given. The disadvantage of foreign control is not such a disastrous thing in the case of an individual industry. The disadvantage arises in the case of industries capable of doing an export trade and that are under foreign control. As I pointed out in the Dáil, a branch factory owned here is never going to grow to such an extent that it will carry on an export trade. The firm of Messrs. Jacob was mentioned as one which does a great export trade from this country. That firm also has a factory in England. If the firm of Messrs. Jacob had been originally established in England, with a branch factory here, then, of course, you would have no export trade from the Dublin factory. The Dublin factory would be just kept going for the purpose of supplying the market here.
What about Ford's factory?
That is a special case. I think Senators will agree that there are exceptions to any of these general rules. It is fair to say, speaking generally, that if you take a branch factory here belonging to a firm in England or elsewhere that it will not be allowed to grow to a greater size than will be necessary to meet the market here.
What about closing down factories?
That is another matter to which I will come. It is in industries which might become export industries that the disadvantage of foreign control is greatest. I think that the milling industry would never do an export trade. That is one of the industries in which if the question of foreign control did arise there would be much less to be said against it than in a great many other industries. With regard to the closing down of Irish factories, I think that the change in the situation brought about by the political changes here are not understood. In the old days, when there was no Government here, if a foreign combine, and especially a British combine, decided to buy up factories to close them, the people had no remedy. They had no way of dealing with that threat or injury. But when you have a Government set up here, it changes the position entirely. If there was any deliberate scheme of closing down industries here of purchasing industries here for the purpose of closing them down, the Government have or could obtain from Parliament ample powers to meet such a situation. I am satisfied that there is not the slightest danger, when there is a Government here, of any foreign combine pursuing a campaign of buying up Irish factories for the purpose of closing them down. If a foreign combine were to do that, then, as I said before, it would be liable to have put to death the hostages that it gives.
It could prevent their developing.
I spoke already on the question of development. I am now on the question of the disadvantages of foreign control. What I have just mentioned is one of the disadvantages of foreign control. I think it only comes up in relation to industries here that do an export trade. When the Senator interrupted I was dealing with the question of foreign combines coming in here and buying up factories for the purpose of closing them down. I do not believe that there is any question of that going on at all. I believe the agitation that is going on in connection with this matter is just one of the ramps that are got up from time to time. If at any time there seemed to be any danger in that direction it could be easily averted. In our present position we do not need to be troubled about foreign capital coming in. Generally speaking, in our condition of industrial development, and having regard to the unwillingness or the inability of people here to start industries, we should welcome the coming in of people who will set up industries or develop or extend industries.
I agree with Senator O'Farrell that the coming in of the tobacco companies was a very good thing. So far as I know, that has meant that people are getting the same quality of goods at the same price as if there was no tariff protection at all. The setting up of these factories gives employment. There is certain directional employment in these factories which is not given here, but a great deal of employment is given in them. In the case of the tobacco factories, that employment is given at no cost to the people here. There are other instances in which factories have been set up and employment given. Last week I referred to the clothing factory which had been set up. Its goods are being sold here at the same price as the goods it manufactures at its factory in England. While it is doing that, an increased amount of employment is given here. The whole question of foreign control and of foreign capital is one which it is perfectly easy to deal with whenever there is any need to deal with it. If the growth of foreign control, or the growth of foreign capital in industry here becomes a menace then there is nothing easier than to put a stop to its progress. That is the real difference now as compared to old times, when there was no Irish Government here. It is a difference which a lot of Senators and Deputies fail to see. I fear they allow themselves to be carried away by an agitation which would have real force behind it if there was no Government and no legislature in this country, if there was no government here to make regulations to deal with such a situation. I am afraid a lot of Senators and Deputies fail to understand the changes that have been brought about by the setting up of a Government here.
What I have said about tariffs and unemployment applies, I think, to the point made by Senator Johnson about increasing production. We have tried to use all the methods that seemed suitable to us for increasing production here. We have tariffed a considerable number of industries. We have set up a Tariff Commission to examine proposals for tariffs on other industries. Apart from tariffs, a great deal has been done, particularly in relation to agriculture, to increase production.
A great deal more money is being spent on cow-testing, for instance. Increased sums are provided each year for this purpose. Additional provision has been made for the establishment of a faculty in agriculture at University College, Dublin, and for the establishment of a faculty in dairy science in University College, Cork. A rationalisation process, in connection with the creameries of the country, has been to a very large extent carried through, and it is the basis for further rationalisation of the butter and dairy industry of the country. Subsidies are being given to the I.A.O.S. greater than the subsidies before the change of government. Additional help is also being given through the operations of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Then there has been a great speeding up of the activities of the Land Commission in the matter of the division of land, with a view to enabling individuals not only to live better but to enable them to increase production. A great number of measures referred to here on previous occasions were introduced for the purpose of increasing production in agriculture. Fundamental measures for increasing production in agriculture were the Dairy Produce Act, the Live Stock Breeding Act. The effect of these measures will be to increase production.
The Government has considered the question of subsidies, and has tried it in one instance. The subsidy given in the case of the sugar beet has led to a good deal of employment being provided. In some respects, that particular experiment proved disappointing, because while the acreage under beet has increased to a very considerable extent the position is that the sugar beet is grown in substitution for other crops. Therefore, there has not been a net increase in tillage. There has not been the net increase that was anticipated. Of course, nobody can tell what will be the future with regard to the sugar beet industry here. It has been very successful in some ways. So far as the crop and the percentage of sugar content are concerned, the experiment has been a success, but nobody could contemplate the continuance of that industry permanently by means of a subsidy. Nothing like the amount of the existing subsidy is going to be paid at the expiry of the ten years' period. At the expiration of that period it will remain to be seen whether, working a factory as closely as it can be worked, it can carry on and afford to pay farmers such a price as will pay them to grow the beet without a subsidy when the subsidy is reduced, if not eliminated altogether. In any case, that experiment has been tried. In the case of other industries, they have been kept going or extended by advances of money under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act. In other directions direct attempts have been made to increase production. Drainage works, which had not been carried out for more than two generations on any considerable scale, were undertaken, such as the schemes relating to the Barrow and the Owenmore. In the case of some old drainage works, renovation schemes were carried out, and generally a great deal of work was done to increase production.
The position, briefly, is that in every sphere, by legislative and administrative effort, we have aimed at increasing production and at giving employment. We are satisfied, from all that we can see, that there is no easy, simple way of dealing with this problem. It is true that in the case of a great many other countries, countries with great scientific training and administrative experience and with all the factors in them which face us here, they have not been able to find a solution for this problem. It is not easy to find one. I think that the capitalist system which we have here necessarily involves a certain amount of unemployment, but nothing like the amount of unemployment that we have at the moment. The substitution of another system for the capitalist system would have its own little difficulties. The position is that while everything ought to be done to modify the suffering which exists, to remove it as far as possible— while no scheme or method should be neglected to do that—we are not at all helped by the suggestion that the appointment of a Commission or the adoption of a policy of high protection all round is going to solve it. The problem is not as simple as that. If it were, I venture to say, by way of flattery, that we would have done it long ago.
Senator Johnson asked about certain statistical material. If there is any statistical material which is not merely in the nature of estimates, and which has been put before Commissions, I do not see any objection to the publication of it, and I will look into that matter. Of course, there is some statistical material which does not profess to be more than estimates. There would not be very much advantage in publishing material of that kind. Its publication would only lead to misunderstanding. People would take these estimates, which had all the infirmities of estimates, for being something else, and that would only lead to misunderstanding. I will look into the question of what statistical material has been prepared, material that has not yet been published, although it might be suitable for publication.
Question put and declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th March.
Cathaoirleach
Notice of motion will appear on the Order Paper for Wednesday next proposing to take the remaining stages of this Bill on that day.