Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1930

Vol. 14 No. 4

Public Business. - Position of Agriculture.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That in view of the desperate position of agriculture following the unfavourable harvest, in the opinion of the Seanad steps should be taken by the Executive for the immediate provision of employment or relief for those engaged in agriculture.— (Senator Comyn.)

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I do not propose to traverse the speeches of those who have opposed this motion, but I would like to add my voice to those who have accused Senator Comyn of attempting "to cause despondency and dismay"—a national crime of the first importance, and a serious crime elsewhere.

Senator Comyn has stated that the position of agriculture is desperate, and, though I agree with him that it is depressed, I do not think that it is necessary to use the language of despair, nor is it in the national interest.

To go straight to the Senator's elaboration of his motion, what were his chief complaints? There were four: derelict farms in Kerry, sale of milch cows, cost of civil bills, and the reduction of tillage.

I have some comments to make on each of these. In addressing the House last week, he referred to the derelict farms in Kerry and to the industrious farmers "who have climbed the hills and cultivated to the hilltops." He told us that the Commissioner's first duty was to examine the position of the derelict farms. I think that the House should know that there is under £40,000 of annuities outstanding in Kerry—that some £11,000 is outstanding in the richest district in the county, and that the very great majority of the whole is owed by men with a valuation of over £20. I can safely say that very few mountainy men owe a penny, and the reason is that they work and do not read the newspapers or debates in this House. If they can live, surely the others can, too.

I agree with Senator Comyn that the cost of civil bill processes are immensely high and should be considered, but was not the scale laid down by and in the interests of the legal profession?

The Senator has given us no figures with regard to the reduction in the number of milch cows sold, and I can, therefore, reasonably doubt the importance of this indication. I can, however, say this: If a farmer sells his milch cows it is seldom from necessity, but because the price of butter is low and he finds that beef calves are paying him best.

The calculation of 350,000 acres of land which has gone out of tillage presumably includes the abnormal war tillage area, and, so far as I can see, no artificial measures which will be beneficial to the farmer will prevent this area becoming larger in the next few years. The causes are several:

1. The increasing world surplus of grain and the consequent poor price of our surplus oats.

In actual fact, since 1911 the world area under grain has increased by exactly 27 per cent. I am quoting figures given by the President of the Agricultural Economic Society of England and I think they are fairly correct.

2. The fact that useful food as oats is, it cannot finish pigs or cattle in the same period of time as maize.

3. The better market for our greatly improved stores at an early age which means special feeding on imported rather than home-grown foods.

Surely these indications do not prove a case for registering despair— in fact an unbiassed perspective view would disclose this country with its peculiar advantages and situation as being better off than almost any country in the agricultural picture to-day. And now let us examine the panaceas which the Senator suggests for the world-wide depression in which we undoubtedly are sharing.

In the first instance he suggests the temporary remission of annuities. He quotes '79 and the '40s, but then it was a question of personal contact between landlord and tenant. Now the tenant owns the land which he pays for at a rate admittedly below its real value.

Colonel Moore

What I stated was that the State could only buy what was owned by the landlord and as the landlord did not own the land the tenant was just as much entitled to get remissions of rent as formerly.

The McGillicuddy of the Reeks

I did not refer to Colonel Moore's speech at all. I was dealing with Senator Comyn's speech. Any remission of annuities to defaulting farmers must of necessity be found by the further taxation of other interests and would be an injustice to those who have met their liabilities.

As a second form of relief, he suggests arterial drainage schemes and assures the House that he has expert opinion that money expended in this way will yield a return of 10 per cent.

Mr. Comyn

I modified that to nine.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I am satisfied with nine. I will take nine. Surely if that was the case there would be a number of syndicates operating in this country already.

Mr. Johnson

In Kerry?

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

It would never pay in Kerry. Drainage schemes must of necessity be local and will, therefore, benefit only a small part of the farming community, and it is going to be a miracle which we are all looking for if an expenditure by the State of £1,000 borrowed at 5 per cent. is going to produce £100 in the following year. Both these suggestions are measures which are, I submit, calculated to rob both Peter and Paul to pay Peter and are, therefore, unsound. The Minister for Agriculture has done a great deal for farmers. What he has done has been based on sound economic principles. I think there are still directions in which relief for the farmer might be explored by the Minister and his colleagues. Two of the measures which I suggest as a means of giving that relief are administrative and would mean no cost to the State. One of the troubles in this country is the number of units which are unproductive or not fully productive. Such relief as it is possible to give should be directed along the line of increasing production where it is too low. In a great many parts of the country there is a great shortage of buildings for housing animals amongst the small and large farmers. Although the Gaeltacht Act has done something in that direction, it is a confined measure and will operate slowly. I think more should be done, if it can be done, in that direction. The farmer is very slow to erect buildings, and to explain that one must get, so to speak, at the back of his mind to see the reason why. If he has any spare money he puts it on deposit at, say, 1½ per cent. When he looks for a loan he finds that the rate charged is somewhere about 5 per cent. He scratches his head and cannot understand why there is such a difference and why money is so dear. That will go on until our farmers get better educated in this and other matters. An increase in the number of farm buildings throughout the country would, I feel sure, show a marked increase in production in a very short time.

Again, the average of production might be increased by adjusting, in part where it can be done, the incidence of the rates. Only last session the Minister for Finance came to this House and told us that "there was no logical basis for the distribution of the Agricultural Grant." The position at the moment is that the higher the valuations of the richer lands are the bigger the grant they will get. I think if that were adjusted as to help the poorer districts you would in that way increase production and improve the state of the country. I do not think that any executive Government in this country should suffer such a state of affairs to continue.

Finally, I suggest for expert examination only, a possible further relief in the reduction of local government expenditure, the heaviest that at the moment the farmer has to bear, by having a federation of certain counties. For debating purposes I suggest that the State might be divided into five areas. From figures kindly given to me by the Department of Local Government I find that at the moment there are 21,000 officials, comprising local government, board of health and poor law officials, and that they are costing the sum of £621,000 a year. It seems to me that there you have ground for examination as to whether the country should maintain, for administration purposes, a boundary of 26 units, at a time when the whole world is carrying out amalgamations in business and other directions with a view to reducing overhead charges. I submit that is a matter for expert examination. I am not quoting any figures or making any calculations. I believe, however, that a very considerable reduction in expenditure could be effected if some such federation was arranged, and that economies would follow. That would afford administrative relief to the farmer and would cost the State nothing.

Mr. Wilson

The motion before the House speaks of the desperate position of agriculture following an unfavourable harvest. There are numerous farmers in this country who have no harvest. While this was a particularly wet season there never was such an abundant crop of grass. The graziers had to put in more cattle than usual to eat up all the grass there was. The farmers engaged in that particular branch of the agricultural industry certainly flourished. The grass grew because the rain fell. If the rain did not fall, and we had a dry season, we would have no food for the cattle and would be in a worse position than we are. The trouble was that we had too much rain. The quality of the grass, it is true, was not good, but taking everything into account it was not at all a bad year for the great livestock industry on which this country has to depend. The dairy industry is confined largely to the Golden Vale, where very little tillage is done. The crop that suffered most there from the wet season was hay. What hurt the farmers there was not the wet season but the fall in the price of butter. The same thing applies in a general way to the tillage farmer. His trouble was to get the corn crop saved. To start with that meant extra expense. When the corn was saved it was, as a result of the wet season, in a bad condition. The fall in prices affected the tillage farmer and has caused the depression which we have to deal with.

I propose to indicate how the tillage farmer might be helped by the Government if a remedy is to be provided. I heard the Minister for Agriculture to-day laugh at the idea of a tariff on oats. I do not want to say that there ought to be a tariff on oats, but if the Government had applied the same remedy to the oats market that they are now applying to the butter market oats would not be at its present low price. Whether that would hit the feeders or not I do not know. But if you had no oats coming into the country, as there is no butter coming in now, oats would be at a higher price than it is. One of the causes of the present depression is the fall in the price of oats. Corn is in such a bad condition, due to the wet season, that people are not able to get the price they expect for it. People cannot sell wheat this year even at the price paid last year. The wheat here this year is not suitable for the distilling industry, and is only badly suited for the milling industry. Consequently it is hard to sell it. I had samples of wheat returned because of its condition.

I will not say that I do not approve of the remedy put forward by Senator Comyn, but I do want to say that I do not approve of the policy of not paying the land annuities. A few years ago the Government brought in a Local Government Bill by which the rates of a particular year were spread over seven or eight years. I opposed that Bill. I was one of the County Wicklow representatives in the Dáil at the time. I went down to the farmers there and advised them not to accept that Bill. I pointed out to them that the tendency was for prices to drop, and that they would not be as well able to meet their liabilities seven years hence as they were at that time. The farmers of Wicklow, following my advice, did not accept the proposal to have their liabilities spread over a period of seven years, with the result that they are now in a better position than those counties in the West which accepted the proposal in that Bill. The people who accepted that proposal are now feeling the effects of what was supposed to be a beneficial Act.

In 1923 an Act was passed under which a 25 per cent. reduction was given to a section of farmers on the original rental of £1,000,000 that came under the Act. It is seven years since that Act was passed. During those years the farmers concerned have been paying interest in lieu of rent. They have been paying ten per cent. more than they should have been paying. Neither the farmers concerned nor their descendants, in discharging the payments they have to make for the purchase of their land, will get any credit whatever for that 10 per cent. What it really means is that their payments will extend over 75 years instead of over 68 years. It is hard to expect farmers, in the position of waiting to have their land vested, to believe there is sufficient driving power in the Department concerned when it takes seven years before effect can be given to an Act of Parliament. They feel there is something wrong and that the driving power is not there. At first the question was that a certain amount of arrears had to be added to the purchase money. That was dealt with four or five years ago, but nothing was done to relieve farmers, waiting to have their land vested, from the payment of this 10 per cent. interest in lieu of rent.

The original rental was one million pounds. There was a reduction on that of 25 per cent., leaving the amount £750,000. Ten per cent. on that amounts to £75,000. The farmers concerned have been robbed, to the extent of £75,000 a year, because of the payments they have been obliged to make over the last seven years. The fact to be noted is that they will get no credit for these payments. I suggest that is a matter to which the Minister should give attention. If the farmers concerned were to be relieved from that annual payment it would be a considerable help to them.

Under the Land Act that was passed in 1903 most of the land of this country was transferred from the landowners to the occupiers. The arrangement under it was that interest was to be paid by the occupiers at the rate of 3¼ per cent., one-half per cent. of which was to represent sinking fund. The land annuity payments, about which we hear so much, amount to about £3,000,000. The sinking fund is made up of two-fifteenths of that sum. As I understand it, it is arrived at in this way. On the £3,000,000 3¼ per cent. is payable as interest, one-half per cent. of which is sinking fund. The ratio between the two payments, one for interest and one for sinking fund, is 13:2. Therefore the sinking fund represents two-fifteenths of the £3,000,000 collected each year. That amounts to £400,000 a year. The finances of that Act were arranged on the basis of £2 15s. per cent. We all know that during the last 16 years money has been worth 5 per cent. In my opinion this sum of £400,000 a year sinking fund should be invested at 5 per cent. instead of 2¾ per cent.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

So it is.

Mr. Wilson

If this £400,000 a year had been earning 5 per cent. instead of 2¾ per cent., as I contend it should, during the last 16 years, it would have meant an additional £9,000 a year, and that at compound interest would have amounted to practically a quarter of a million. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to get some of his Treasury experts to inquire into that position. If payers of the annuities under the Act of 1903 got credit for that quarter of a million it would give them a reduction of 7½ per cent. for one year, and would bring them into line with the people who bought out under the 1923 Act. I am not asking that people should not pay their land annuities, but rather that the Government should make inquiries with regard to this sinking fund, which I hold should have been earning interest at 5 per cent. during the last 16 years. Those who bought out under the 1903 Land Act are entitled to the relief which I claim is due to them. The sum I have mentioned should, I suggest, be given to them in the way of a bonus off their rents in these bad times.

There is another way in which the farmers of the country could be helped. We made our case for de-rating before the Commission that sat this year. I do not intend now to go into the arguments for de-rating. What I do want to draw attention to is the fact that there is the sum of £46,000,000—it is the property of this country—which is assessed for income tax but which pays no rates at all. Why that sum should be assessed for income tax and should pay no rates, while the seven millions invested in landed property should pay rates, I cannot understand. I hope the Commission that has been sitting will see the justice of the demand which we made for the complete de-rating of land. The occupiers of land have as much right, I hold, to be released from the payment of rates on their property as the people holding another class of property which, for income tax purposes, is assessed at £46,000,000 per annum.

Colonel Moore

Would the Senator tell us something about this sum of £46,000,000. What is it or where does it come from?

Mr. Wilson

There is certain property described by the Revenue Commissioners as "personalty." The assessment on that for income tax purposes is put at the figure of £46,000,000. My complaint is that it pays no rates.

Colonel Moore

Who are the people with this £46,000,000?

Mr. Wilson

Everyone in this country who holds shares. They are assessed for income tax on that amount, but they pay no rates. People holding other kinds of property have to pay rates on it. I hold that this £46,000,000 should pay its fair share of local taxation.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

Is there not income tax paid on this sum?

Mr. Wilson

There is, but there are no rates paid on it. Farmers have to pay rates and income tax as well.

Mr. Hogan

Small farmers do not pay income tax.

Mr. Wilson

Nobody, of course, pays income tax unless he has an income of £135 a year. If a small farmer has not that income he pays nothing in the way of income tax. Neither does the man in an industrial occupation. I hold that that sum of money should be liable for rates. It should be assessed for rates just the same as the £7,000,000 to which I have already referred. If it were made pay rates it would go a long way to help to de-rate the farmer. That is one way in which you could help to de-rate the farmer. Another way is in connection with the vesting of his land. Seven years have passed now since the Act was passed, and he is still paying interest in lieu of rent because his holding has not been vested. If steps were taken to complete the vesting of farmers' holdings it would give them considerable relief. The Minister should see that some driving power is put into the Department concerned so as to get that work finished quickly.

Statements were made on the last day about writs falling like snow-flakes. Of course, that is figurative language and no evidence was given to support the statement. As a matter of fact, the amount of arrears due to the Land Commission in respect of annuities is less this year than it has been for a long time. The bad period in connection with the payment of these annuities was during the civil war. Arrears amounting to about half a million then accrued, but these have been gradually reduced. The amount of arrears was never so small as it is at present. The balance sheet in connection with the operations of the Agricultural Credit Corporation has been issued. I understand that farmers who have got loans from the corporation have been meticulously prompt in discharging their debts to that body. There is no such thing as this desperate depression that has been referred to. There is undoubtedly depression, but it is entirely due, on the one hand, to the bad weather, and on the other hand to the fall that has taken place in prices. The way that the farmer can be helped is by reducing his overhead charges. De-rate his land and reduce his rent. I do not see any other way of helping him.

Senator the McGillycuddy suggested as a means of reducing expenditure that, in local government matters, there should be what he described as a federation of counties. Senators know that one of the biggest charges in connection with local administration is home help. If you have a federation of counties, such as the Senator has suggested, how can the conditions of applicants for home help be examined into? I am opposed to the Senator's proposal, because I do not think it could be worked out in practice. I agree that the cost of road making should be a State charge. I imagine that when the report of the De-rating Commission appears there will be no need for us to talk on that subject any more.

Mr. Connolly

You are an optimist.

Mr. Wilson

I am not, but it has come to this that we will either have to get that or to assert ourselves at the proper time. I believe in paying the land annuities. I have pointed out the reductions that, in my opinion, are due to the farmers of the country. We should stand for the policy of paying our debts. People who are getting loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation are paying their debts.

The arrears in connection with the land annuities are decreasing and if the fall in prices had not come we were going along in a nice jog-trot way, keeping our heads up. The people engaged in the main industry in this country are practically the only people who have been able to fight the competitors of this country on the foreign market. The industrialists of this country are always talking about protection. We have got to send our stuff across to fight the fellows on the other side, and we are doing it.

Mr. Hogan

Without any protection.

Mr. Wilson

Yes, although we have now got protection so far as butter is concerned. There is another matter I wish to refer to. This country is suffering a great loss annually because of contageous abortion in cattle. I think some money should be spent on research work to find out the cause of that disease. We have 1,200,000 cows in the country. If one takes into account the number of yearlings that are reared it will be found, I think, that the financial loss which this country suffers from the prevalence of that disease must be in or about £2,000,000. Money devoted to research work in connection with that disease would be well spent. To get it stamped out would be a great National benefit. The losses suffered by abortion and sterility in cattle ought to be made a live question. I think some effort should be made to get research work undertaken in this country. As far as I see from pamphlets that we get from the Department of Agriculture, all this research work seems to be done by the people in other countries—in Denmark, Germany, France, England and other places. We scarcely ever hear of any discoveries being made by our officials here. Tables put before us in connection with tests carried out in the case of milk and other things show that all that work has been done by Germans or other people. We do not seem to have any research work done in agricultural matters. We are nowhere, as far as I can see, in that direction. There is enough money spent in the Department of Agriculture, and surely we ought to get some results from it in the direction I speak of.

Arterial drainage was mentioned as a means by which employment could be given to farmers. I was a member of the Unemployment Committee that was set up some years ago. Officials from the Board of Works came before us and gave us particulars relating to every area in the country where drainage was considered necessary. The conclusion that we arrived at was that all the areas in which drainage work could be considered as an economic proposition had already been drained, while in the case of the areas to be drained the work there would involve a contribution from the State ranging from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. of the total cost.

I am not saying that the State should not contribute to that work, or that it might not be a good thing for the State to drain those areas. It would certainly provide work, but I am afraid there would be little, if any, return for the money spent. In view of the information that was put before that Committee by the Board of Works, I do not think that any share of the cost of carrying out arterial drainage schemes should be placed on the farmer.

I am not going to vote for this motion. I do not think it will affect any good purpose. It has given us an opportunity of airing our views. It has given me an opportunity of telling the Minister that we expect the de-rating of land and, also, that when he was in charge of the Department dealing with the land annuities he did not carry his weight there so far as the vesting of land is concerned. The directions which I have indicated are, in my opinion, the only directions in which I can see help can be given to the farmers. The depression that exists is due to the fall that has taken place in prices and to the bad weather. Live-stock, fortunately, are holding their price at the present time. If the price of live-stock should fall, then you are going to have real depression in this country. If the price of live-stock should fall to the pre-war level, then the poor people who are rearing yearlings and selling them to the graziers will be in the position of receiving probably half what they receive to-day in income.

Mr. Johnson

Senator Wilson has spoken as a practical farmer. I intend to speak from the facts and figures that have been placed before us by the Minister for Agriculture and others who are practical farmers. Senator Wilson is not going to vote for the motion, although he has indicated the steps whereby immediate relief for those engaged in agriculture should be provided. He eliminates employment. He is not in favour of the State providing the means of immediate employment for those engaged in agriculture, but he is in favour of the State providing relief for those engaged in agriculture, so that he is going to vote against the motion because it suggests the immediate provision of employment or relief for those engaged in agriculture by the Executive Council. I was sorry to hear that from Senator Wilson, because he must realise that in many parts of the country, if not in Wicklow, there is a superabundance of labour nominally engaged in agriculture, but who ought to be employed at some other effective and useful national work. I want to support the motion in so far as it says that, in the opinion of the Seanad, steps should be taken by the Executive for the immediate provision of employment or relief for those engaged in agriculture.

Mr. Wilson

There is a provision already of £300,000 for the giving of employment in rural areas.

Mr. Comyn

That is a temporary measure.

Mr. Johnson

That is the point I was arriving at. The Senator's statement that he is not going to vote for the motion is a condemnation in effect of the Government proposal to the vote of £300,000 for the provision of employment for those engaged in agriculture. The passing of this motion would in effect support the Government action in voting that £300,000. I would join with those who have objected to the first two lines of this motion: "That in view of the desperate position of agriculture following the unfavourable harvest," etc. I propose to vote for the motion, not because of the desperate condition of agriculture, but because I believe that the state of agriculture with falling prices, and because of the overburdening of the agricultural industry, very large numbers of our people ought to be employed in other industries. It has constantly impressed itself upon my mind that when we are speaking of agriculture we are using, too general a term. There are various interests included when one speaks of agriculture, and it is true in regard to this particular discussion. I do not think it is right or desirable it should go out from this Seanad without objection that the position of agriculture in the country is desperate, because the country is unduly dependent on agriculture, and if we say that the great stand-by in the economy of the country is in a desperate state, it is going to make a bad impression. I, therefore, object to the use of that adjective.

I will prove what I have said. I think about 45 per cent. of the total agricultural produce is livestock, and some where approaching 40 per cent. of our exports are livestock. Senator MacEllin, in the course of his speech last week, made use of a term which is frequently loosely used, and it is misleading, that is, that agricultural products are down to pre-war level. I have the official reports of prices, and the averages for 1911 to 1913 are compared with 1930. These prices are printed in the Irish Trade Journal of November of this year. If one takes the price of live stock, which constitute something over 30 per cent. of the total exports, we find the relative position in the quarter ending September this year as compared with the average for three years pre-war is about 40 per cent. above pre-war prices. There is practically nothing in this list lower than 12 per cent. above pre-war prices, and that is for farmers' butter, so that it is misleading to say the prices are down to pre-war level. If one is using the word "desperate" in the belief that prices are down to pre-war level, one ought to examine the position and find out whether the prices are not from 30 to 40 or 50 per cent. above pre-war level, and, if one finds that that is so, one will see the undesirability of using a term of that kind in this way.

Mr. Wilson

What price is set down for wheat or oats in that journal?

Mr. Johnson

I am speaking of the proportion of the produce of the Irish farm which is exported. Something over 30 per cent. of the total exports and something over 40 per cent. of the total produce of Irish land is live stock. There is no price here for wheat, so presumably it is not sold. No price is given in this list whether for wheat exported or sold in the local markets. Oats are quoted at 5 per cent. above pre-war price. The proportion of oats in comparison with general Irish agricultural produce is very small, and is a non-export. On the point raised with regard to milch cows, there is a question of serious import. I think Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks is not quite right when he minimised the importance of the figures regarding milch cows. In the same journal it showed that on 1st June this year there was a decrease of 2,462 in the population of milch cows, and an increase of 11,000 heifers in calf, but in June, July and August there is an export of over 6,000 over and above the export of 1929, so that we must take note of the fact that there is an export of milch cows over and above the number exported in 1929, for three months following the return of over 6,000 of an increase. That is a serious matter, and it gives point to one of the arguments used by the mover of the motion.

Senator Wilson touched upon a feature of the position when he spoke of the possibilities regarding a fall in the price of livestock. I think the world indications are that there will not be an equivalent fall in the price of livestock due to factors other than those we can control, but when one is making comparisons and considering the position of agriculture, one cannot but be struck with the comparison between this country and another country which has figured largely in discussions in recent times. I heard during this debate an interjection regarding the position of Australia. If one could imagine that our livestock, constituting 30 odd per cent. of our exports, had fallen 50 per cent. in price in one year, then you could imagine what would be the position of this country. Australia exports wool and wheat, and I think they comprise something like 50 per cent. or nearer to 60 per cent. of the total exports of Australia, and they have fallen between 45 per cent. and 60 per cent. in price in one year, and yet one wonders how Australia manages to survive.

Colonel Moore

It is bankrupt.

Mr. Johnson

No. Do not make that mistake. The State may be in difficulty, but the people of Australia are not bankrupt. They are living at a much higher level than we are living. Senator Wilson asked what would happen if the price of live stock had fallen to the extent that the prices of our butter and oats have fallen, or to the extent that the prices of commodities exported from Australia have fallen. Australia has a great industrial economy to fall back upon. It has industries that are able to maintain a standard of living despite the fall in her exports. We have not those industries, and we cannot fall back on industries to maintain the standard of living if the prices of agricultural produce fall in anything like the ratio that Australian prices have fallen. The conclusion one is forced to draw from an examination of the position is that the right and proper method of relieving agriculture in this country— relieving that large proportion of the people nominally engaged in agriculture but who are merely living on farms—is direct encouragement to industrial employment and production.

Mr. Connolly

And by the same methods.

Mr. Johnson

Perhaps, but not necessarily. There are other means of helping agriculture than through tariffs. If tariffs are inevitable, and the only immediately practicable remedy, I say enforce tariffs, but we are bound, if we want to establish and maintain an economy which would be safe if prices fall for live stock as they have fallen for other goods, to establish an industrial economy to supplement to a very much greater degree than we do to-day the agricultural economy of this country. I propose to vote for the motion, with the proviso that I am not accepting the proposition that the position of agriculture to-day is desperate because of an unfavourable harvest.

Mr. McLoughlin

I regret that I cannot speak on this motion that Senator Comyn has framed from the depths of his great experience, for I confess that I know as much about agriculture as Mark Twain did when he said "Turnips should not be pulled but shaken from the tree." However, judging from some of the speeches we have heard here, I do not think that ignorance of this subject is barred. The Senator who drew up the motion on this subject might have described the position as bad, but the only adjective he could get to describe its condition is that it is desperate. I suggest to the Senator that the adjective is out-of-date. Fifty years ago it might have been right to describe the condition of agriculture as desperate.

For the last fifty years we have been listening to the cry of agricultural depression and to the woes and plaints of the farmer. In the old days, we were told that once landlordism was got rid of and the tenant became the owner of the soil his prosperity was assured. Landlordism has been got rid of, and every tenant is the owner, or the prospective owner, of his farm, and yet the welkin still rings with the cry of agricultural depression. We are told that the condition of the farmer to-day is as bad as it was in 1879 or the eighties. I do not believe it. I am ready to believe that the large arable farmer who has to employ all his labour is severely hit by the prevailing conditions, and he is not able to make ends meet, but he is the victim of world-wide conditions which are not peculiar to this State. Bad as his position is, he is not as bad as a similar class of farmer in England and Scotland. The small class of farmers in the Six Counties, who have the advantage of de-rating and the retention of annuities, are shouting as loudly about hard times as the farmers here. I saw in a Press report the other day that the Farmers' Union in the Six Counties have found their grievances so pressing that they approached the British Minister for Agriculture to get relief from the depression, but he refused to do anything.

I mention that to show that the nostrums mentioned by our economic quacks here with regard to de-rating and the land annuities as a cure for all our agricultural ills have failed to cure the ills in the Six Counties. Whether in the Six Counties or here, there is only one remedy for the farmer—and that is hard work and not Government aid. In spite of the doleful dirge we have heard about agricultural depression, I maintain that if a farmer works his farm of from 25 acres down to 9 acres and pays attention to his business, making proper use of the land, selecting the proper stock and feeding it properly, he will be able to make ends meet even under the most adverse conditions. When the Gaeltacht Commission were investigating conditions in Donegal, they gave an instance where a family of six lived on nine acres of the poorest land, and they not only supported themselves but made £60 a year profit.

Mr. MacEllin

Ridiculous.

Mr. McLoughlin

It is down in black and white, and what could be done in one instance could be done in the case of 80 per cent. of the small farmers of this country. From my own observations, and from talking to the farmers about my own neighbourhood, I can bear out what Senator Wilson says, that not for the past ten years have the people got so much money for cattle and sheep as this year. Not since 1920 have the prices been so good. If farmers get 2d. a stone less than last year for oats or wheat, that is compensated for when they buy a bag of meal or flour and they pay for it 15s. less. A farmer has to buy that every week while the average quantity of oats he would have to sell would only be about 300 st. One can see that the balance is in his favour. The figures do not show that agricultural depression is as black as some Senators have painted it. A man who attends to his business and works his farm properly will not allow himself to be distracted by politicians pointing out short cuts to prosperity by means of de-rating and withholding annuities, which to the average small farmer would not amount to more than £4 at the outside. Attempts are made to mislead the farmer into believing that these things are of greater consideration than the proper development of his farm, which is of twenty times as much value, instead of encouraging him to produce more and make use of the greatest market in the world that is at our door.

The farmer has the doctrine preached to him, like the character in "Juno and the Paycock," that it is derogatory for him to supply John Bull and that his prosperity depends on competing with the Argentine, the United States and Russia in raising wheat. In this way the farmer is being discouraged and given a false outlook. He is being taught, not to rely on his own hard work and exertions, but to look to the Government for sops and subsidies, and if he does not get them to blame the Government for all his ills. That is a policy that is bound to sap and undermine the moral fabric of the country, for it destroys initiative and degrades the character of the people. It gives them the mentality of mendicants. It lowers them mentally and morally, and yet this is the policy of the Party of high principles and superpatriots, who say that they are out for the moral and social upliftment of the country. It is because I regard the motion as part of that policy, and as mere propaganda, that I am not going to vote for it, and I ask the majority in the Seanad to do the same.

Mr. Toal

Senator Comyn in moving his motion appealed for general support from the whole Seanad. I am sure had Senator Comyn put his case as it should be put in a straightforward manner he would have general support in the Seanad. To my mind, Senator Comyn has painted the picture very badly. He tried to represent that this country is in a desperate state, and that, in fact, it is worse than it was in 1879, or as bad as it was in 1847. He represents that it is in a hopeless condition. My experience as a farmer is that farming conditions in this country are not nearly as good as we would wish them to be, but they are nothing like as bad as Senator Comyn said, and as others have represented them to be. The Senator mentioned as a proof of his argument that the people are selling off their milch cows, and that writs are going like snow-flakes all over the country. The first part of his argument has been answered to a certain extent by Senator Johnson, but I think Senator Johnson should have gone further. Senator Comyn told us the agriculturists of this country were selling off their milch cows, and that it was necessary to do so in order that they would be able to keep body and soul together. No doubt, within the last year the number of milch cows has decreased by 2,462 in the Saorstát. In my opinion the farmers sold off their milch cows as a good business transaction. There was a great price for these milch cows in the market, and when they sold them off they replaced them by young heifers. Senator Comyn did not tell us that there was an increase of 7,050 heifers in calf up to June. I think it was good business to take the high money that was going for the milch cows and to replace them by heifers.

Senator Comyn did not tell us that in the Six Counties, where they have all the advantage of de-rating and the land annuities, in the last twelve months, ending in June, the decrease in milch cattle in Northern Ireland amounted to 11,809, while the increase of heifers in calf was only 4,144, so that there has been a far larger reduction, as these figures show, in Northern Ireland than in the Saorstát. Senator Comyn would have us believe that there is no hope for this country.

Mr. Comyn

I never said so.

Mr. Toal

I should qualify that. I think he does hold out one hope for this country, and that is in the election of his Party to office, so that they could introduce wholesale tariffs to enable the country to survive. In my opinion, it would be one of the greatest eye-openers this or any other country ever experienced if we had twelve months of Fianna Fáil in power. Senator MacEllin told us that the bye-roads in this country were going out of repair; that they were totally neglected, but Senator MacEllin or Senator Connolly did not tell us with reference to the main or trunk roads of the money we have got out of taxation, and the amount of employment and labour given as a consequence in the country to small farmers and agricultural labourers. The contribution for that purpose amounts to almost half a million yearly. My experience is that the money spent in that direction has done more good than any other money that has been expended. The small farmer got the opportunity of earning that money during the slack season of the year, and the labourer also got the opportunity of earning it. Moreover, it is not a starvation wage. In the county to which I belong they have not reduced the wage of the labourer by a fraction, although the cost of living has gone down considerably.

Mr. Johnson

What is the wage?

Mr. Toal

Twenty-eight shillings a week. I think that is a consideration that should be taken into account. We also received from that fund 40 per cent. of the upkeep of our main or trunk roads. Senator MacEllin did not say that that is a very considerable advantage. We have been told that the remedy to apply to farming—Senator Comyn did not altogether say that, but I suppose it was at the back of his mind—was to stop paying the annuities.

Mr. Comyn

My friend has no right to misrepresent me.

Mr. Toal

The Senator did say that if we had a remission of the payment of annuities for the present term it would be a relief. I agree. If it was possible for the Government to extend the time for paying the annuities it would be a great advantage to extend the period for their payment for an additional 25 years. I know that that would require legislation, but I do not think it is beyond the ingenuity of the Minister for Agriculture to introduce legislation that might extend the time. Senator Comyn also said that by drainage schemes we would be able to give considerable relief as regards unemployment. The Senator should be aware that we have drainage schemes in every county in Ireland, and the county councils are quite at liberty to put in force drainage schemes. If it is proved on inquiry that it satisfies the farmers who are going to benefit, then the schemes can be got through quickly, and the Government are prepared to pay from 30 to 50 per cent. of the cost. Senator Comyn's suggestion looks very well, but I would like to know has the Senator gone into the figures to ascertain what it would mean to have wholesale drainage of the land. We are told that the cost of running this country is altogether excessive, but I can assure Senator Comyn that if we go in for wholesale drainage without proper supervision, it would be a very serious matter for the country. Senator Comyn and others appeal to the Government to do something towards helping unemployment and helping the farmer. The Senator pictures this country as being in a desperate condition, down and out, and some of his friends say that we are on the borders of bankruptcy, but still they want the Government to finance the schemes they put forward. If the country is on the borders of bankruptcy, where is the money to be got to finance the schemes? The only encouragement Senator Comyn and his friends offer the people is to paint the picture as black as it is possible to do, and to make people outside interested in the country believe there is no hope for it.

In my experience the farming industry is in a terrible position owing to the bad season. We know that there is world-wide depression following the effects of the Great War, and that for these reasons our country is not in as good a condition as we would wish it to be. I agree with Senator McLoughlin that certain classes of farmers are in a position to work their farms economically, and are even able to make them pay. I would like to vote for a motion that would bring benefit to the agricultural interests if that motion was brought forward in the proper spirit, separated from party colours. I hold that the principal object of this motion is propaganda, and therefore I decline to vote for it.

Mr. Barrington

I did not propose to intervene in this debate, but Senator The McGillicuddy of the Reeks made some suggestions that I think might be developed in a very desirable way. As far as this motion is confined to a desire to help those engaged in agriculture, I am sure the Seanad will be unanimously in favour of it. But the question is: how is it going to be done? I do not think that Senator Wilson's very deep and astute suggestions are capable of leading to very much, but, as a practical farmer, I know that where buildings and improvements are required on a farm— and I believe in the great majority of farms that is the case—a good deal can be done. I can give my own experience. I found on a farm I own that buildings were very necessary. I put up these buildings. The Seanad should bear in mind that wherever farm buildings are erected they are erected with a view to increasing the carrying capacity and the output of the farm. They are therefore a benefit to the community at large. The result in my case is this, the moment the buildings were erected the rate collector came along, a valuation was prepared, and I had to pay five times as much rates. I will not say that the whole of that was due to the valuation put on the buildings. It was due to the increase in the rates, and it was very considerable. In my case I had to pay five times as much rates as I paid before the buildings were erected. When we were discussing the re-erection of buildings in the City of Dublin and elsewhere some years ago—not agricultural buildings—it was considered desirable that they should be exempted from rates for a very considerable time. I know that if you reclaimed land in the old days under a British Act of Parliament, I think that land was exempt from all rates for seven years. I fail to see why, when men erect buildings on a farm at their own expense, which undoubtedly would have the effect of increasing the production of the country, and increasing exports, a very good case cannot be made for either exempting them from rates altogether or for a certain length of time.

Senator Wilson further stated that on some Commission of which he was a member that evidence was given from the Board of Works that there was no place in the country where arterial drainage could be carried out at a profit. That is one subject that I know something about, and such a statement has led me to think that I was in error in thinking what I did. I know many places where arterial drainage would pay, and pay very well. I am aware of the attitude the Board of Works has taken up in many of these cases and, from my experience of that Board in the past, I should advise Senator Wilson to take their advice with a grain of salt.

Mr. O'Neill

It has occurred to me that it is not too late to have this resolution amended in such a way that it would appeal to the proposer and to the House if it read in this form: "That in the opinion of the Seanad steps should be taken by the Executive for the immediate provision of employment or relief for those engaged in agriculture." My proposal would involve dropping the words "in view of the desperate position of agriculture following the unfavourable harvest."

Mr. Comyn

I am willing to accept that form.

Cathaoirleach

I will take that as an amendment to the original motion.

Mr. Johnson

I second.

Mr. Douglas

Acceptance of the amendment does not mean that we are in favour of the motion. It is quite immaterial.

Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. Comyn

I accept the amendment.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

I have very little to say on this matter. Senator Comyn thinks the position of agriculture is desperate while Senator Wilson thinks it is not, but that it might become desperate, if the fall in live stock products corresponds with the fall that has already taken place in cereals. Senator Johnson agrees with Senator Wilson and says that the way to provide for a possible desperate state of agriculture is to establish industries in the country and to let industries carry the load. Establishing industries means spending money and farmers who are consumers and taxpayers will pay the greater portion of that money. When you have industries established out of the farmers' money—and they are short of money—industrial conditions may be better, but that is not going to relieve agriculture.

Mr. Johnson

About two hundred millions are invested abroad.

Mr. Hogan

I do not think you will be able to take them. I think that if industries are to be established it will be the taxpayers and the consumers will pay, and I think farmers will pay half, if not three-fourths, of the cost. When you have established industries, I doubt if they will be successful. Any State-established commercial undertaking is never successful, in my view. Even if industries were successful it is no solution; the farmers' position is going to be desperate if the fall in live stock and live stock products corresponds with the fall in the price of cereals generally. In the main, I think Senator Wilson is right, and I think we can congratulate ourselves on the position. The one Party that should not at this stage say anything is the Party to which Senator Comyn belongs. I do not know about Senator Moore. I am not clear what Party he belongs to. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce pointed out last week that he was repudiated some time ago by the Fianna Fáil Party. He claims that he is a member of it himself.

Colonel Moore

The Minister for Industry and Commerce made that statement the other day. I questioned where it came from. The Minister promised to send me particulars, but I have heard nothing since.

Mr. Hogan

I will tell you; it was in the Dáil. For the sake of argument we will accept Senator Moore's statement that he is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Comyn

He is on the Executive, just as you are in the Cabinet.

Mr. Hogan

That would not prove anything.

Colonel Moore

If the Minister has nothing worse to say to me than that I will be quite happy.

Mr. Hogan

I was endeavouring to pay the Senator a compliment. The Fianna Fáil Party should not intervene in this debate and talk about agricultural depression, because if we had concentrated on grain-growing this country would be in a desperate condition. Canada is in a desperate condition; Australia is certainly in a desperate condition. Their main production is grain-growing for sale. The climate suits grain-growing. You can produce grain there year after year on four or five hundred acres with three men, without any necessity of root crops. You can produce grain in Canada about ten times as cheaply as it could be produced in this country. The soil, the climate, and everything conspire to make it a crop for that country. Possibly the same conditions apply in Australia. Yet these countries that produce grain under magnificent conditions that we could never hope to compete with, are now in a desperate condition, because in fact the price of the product which they are producing has fallen to an abnormal extent. Yet that is what the Fianna Fáil Party advocated that we should encourage during the last four or five years.

Mr. Connolly

Not for an export trade.

Mr. Hogan

That silly distinction between home and export trade should not be insisted upon, at least in the Senate, where people are supposed to be grown up, where they know something about business and take business considerations into account. It does not matter where you are selling if you can only get 15s. a barrel for wheat. It is no consolation to you when you are receiving 15s. a barrel that it is an Irishman and not an Englishman is paying you. Nor is it any consolation to the country as a whole if the taxpayer is paying the difference between 15s. and 35s. in order to make the farmers happy. In principle there is no difference between selling in the home and foreign market. Everyone who considers the matter can realise that. We can make the farmer quite happy by giving 40s. or 50s. a barrel. Even if he exported, by paying an export bounty just as Australia pays on butter, that bounty will have to be the difference between the price he gets at home or abroad and what he considers a paying price for his produce. That would be the difference, say, between 15s. and 40s. or 50s. Three or four years ago the farmers of this country refused to grow wheat at 32s. a barrel. The area under wheat was then decreasing. If that proves anything it indicates that farmers were unwilling to grow it at that price. Farmers who were actually in the business, with most suitable land, whose conditions suited wheat-growing, were actually going out of wheat-growing when it was 32s. a barrel. I think without drawing anything like an exaggerated conclusion, I can claim that before you can persuade farmers who are not growing wheat, for their own good reasons—because the land is not suitable or for other reasons of that sort—relative commercial reasons—they would require considerably more than that amount to get into wheat. Whatever they would require, let us call it x shillings, 40s. or 50s., I agree with an instructor of the Department of Agriculture who was asked by the leader of the Opposition in the Dáil what would induce the farmers of the country to grow something like half the wheat required here, and he answered him on the spot: “The gun.” I agree with that. Nothing else would induce them to do so. For the sake of argument, let us assume that many of them would do it and that the price of wheat is round about 40s. a barrel. Whether that wheat is sold at home or abroad, the difference between the market price— at present something like 15s.—and 40s. will have to be found. If it is sold at home it can be found by the consumer. If it is sold abroad, it could be found by an export subsidy, by the taxpayer, but so far as the farmer is concerned he does not give twopence about the silly distinction between the export market and the home market.

We were told that we were concentrating too much on our export trade. Of the articles we do produce, beef, mutton, bacon and eggs, we have an export surplus of £30,000,000. We were told that we were concentrating too much on that, and that we should retain the home market, which is worth £3,000,000, and to grow more oats and wheat for sale. Luckily we set our face deliberately against that, and we advised the Irish farmer to concentrate on live stock and live stock products. Time has justified us. The fall in the price of live stock and live stock products has been nothing like the fall in the price of cereals. Moreover, the fall in the price of cereals has been of the greatest possible benefit to the farmers. Two commercial considerations put the position of the Irish farmer at present in a comparatively satisfactory state. One is that live stock products, with the exception of butter, have maintained their prices, and the second is that the price of cereals, grain and meal has fallen. These two factors combine to make the farmer's position particularly happy as compared with the position of farmers in other countries. Someone mentioned oats. Oats, if sold as a cash crop, as Senator Johnson pointed out, is about 5 per cent. over pre-war price. What made oats cheap? Someone said the bad quality. No, but the good quality of Indian meal, palm nut cake and other cakes. The reason oats is cheap is because feeding stuffs are cheap. Why should I pay above 5/- a cwt. when I can get Indian meal at £4 15s. a ton?

Mr. Wilson

You would not give Indian meal to race-horses.

Mr. Hogan

Nor would you give them Irish oats at certain times of the year. The amount of oats consumed by horses is negligible. We raise £5,000,000 worth of oats in this country. I wonder if £100,000 worth of oats is consumed by race-horses. I doubt it. The consumption of oats by horses is of no account compared with the consumption by other animals. When we have to take into account what our policy should be regarding oats, we have to consider the biggest markets for oats; we have to consider what use oats is put to in this country; and we have to take care that we are not going to penalise farmers who use most oats in the interests of farmers and other people who use less oats. Of the £5,000,000 worth of oats consumed, I should say that not £100,000 worth is consumed by race-horses. I doubt if £200,000 worth is given to horses, while the rest goes to live stock. What has made oats cheap? The fall in the price of feeding stuffs, because people can get cheap pollard, Indian meal and cotton cake. If the price of oats is low that is a misfortune for the farmer who sells oats. On the other hand, it is the greatest good fortune for the farmer who buys feeding stuffs. Therefore, the more we till, the more we have to buy. That simple fact does not seem to have penetrated into the heads of certain politicians, even after four years. Any farmer will understand it if he takes the trouble to give it five minutes' consideration. If you till, a quarter of your area must be roots. You may manage to get out of a particular rotation, if you are in a small way, but if there is to be any extension of tillage, a quarter of your area must be roots. I need not go into the reasons. They are technical reasons. But that is a fundamental.

Take an acre of land. You will get ten tons of mangolds out of a rood. A ration of mangolds is 3 stones. That is 500 rations out of a rood of ground. Out of a quarter acre of ground you will get about 14 cwt. of oats, about 112 stone, or 200 rations. In other words, if you take your rotation, and if all the land of the country was tilled, a quarter of it would have to be under roots. You would produce about twice as many rations of roots in order to feed with the corn produced off the rest of your land. Any farmer knows that, and knows that you must buy feeding stuffs because you have more roots than you could economically feed with grain. In Denmark they till all the land but they import two and a half times the amount of grain they produce. Every tillage country imports, and must import, a tremendous amount of grain. It was because we realised that fact—and every working farmer realises it—that we concentrated, as far as we could, on the production of live stock and live stock products. It was because we realised that that we refused to have anything to do with the idiotic policy of making imported grain dear, and the present circumstances justify us. Here we are far better off than English farmers, far better off than Canadians, than Australians or the farmers of any country who go in for grain-growing for sale. Instead of proposing a resolution of this sort in the Seanad at this stage, I should expect that some Senator in the Fianna Fáil Party would do the big thing, admit that they have been wrong all the time, and apologise on learning a little more about agriculture.

It may be that there will be a fall in live stock corresponding to the fall in grain. Then the position of agriculture will be much worse. Then, of course, Senator Comyn and other Senators will have their field day; there will be something to talk about. Our misfortunes will be paraded and so on. But I would advise Senators, at any rate, to be thankful at the present moment that we are just a little bit better off than we might have been and to concentrate their attention not so much in making capital out of misfortunes that do not exist, but rather to do their part as citizens and Senators in providing against possible misfortunes in the future. If we face the future in that way, in a helpful way, ready to make allowances and to realise that no Government can provide against world conditions, when world conditions go against us, the country will be heartened and prepared to face the future.

I hope Senator Johnson is right, and that the fall in live stock and livestock products will not come. The indications at present are that livestock products, compared with other products, will maintain their price. There has been a fall in one product, namely, butter; it has been pretty severe. As regards that question, I think the Government has done its duty by the dairy farmers of the country, who are a most important class and the mainstay of our agriculture. We have transferred during the last four years—long before this fall in prices came—the creamery industry to the farmers themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. We never tried to hide that fact. We reorganised the industry; we rationalised; we closed redundant creameries and reduced overhead charges. We put the creameries of the South of Ireland in an absolutely sound financial position, and if we had not done that during the last three or four years the dairying industry would never have been able to meet the sudden depression this year. It is largely because we did that, with their co-operation, that the creamery industry has been able to stand up to it. But it appears to me, if I am to judge by statements made both here and in the Dáil, that we should be blamed for foreseeing the situation and taking measures beforehand to put the industry right. Finally, this action which has been taken recently on the advice of the Tariff Commission to prohibit butter thus carrying the industry over until the Tariff Commission has time to make its report.

Mr. Johnson

May I ask the Minister to explain more definitely how it is the taxpayer has taken the cost of that transfer?

Mr. Hogan

We paid the Condensed Milk Company £365,000. Half these creameries were closed, and a subsidy was given in respect of all the creameries. We used an increased number of officials to persuade the creameries to reorganise, rationalise and close creameries. All that cost money, and there was good value given for the money.

Mr. Foran

Socialism.

Mr. Hogan

It was Socialism of a kind. Socialism is all right if you can be sure of the Socialists. Now we are told that there are certain indications that the position is very bad. We are told of derelict farms. I know of one class of derelict farm where people stopped paying their annuities, two or three years ago, on Senator Colonel Moore's advice.

Colonel Moore

The Minister knows perfectly well that I never gave any such advice.

Mr. Hogan

Senator Colonel Moore said, "Do not pay England." He knows perfectly well what his agents told the farmers in 1922, 1923 and 1924.

Colonel Moore

I have no agents.

Mr. Hogan

The agents of the Party to which Senator Moore belongs.

Colonel Moore

The Minister knows that I and others went to his constituency and advised exactly the opposite.

Mr. Hogan

They did not advise the opposite. As I said, the agents of the Party to which the Senator belongs went to cross-roads and to one house after another telling the people not to pay their annuities. The Senator then, having to be respectable on public platforms, said: "Pay your annuities to us and we will give them back to you." That may be respectable, but the farmer is pretty wide awake. A lot of them took the Senator's advice, and they found themselves with three or four years' arrears which they could not meet but which they could have paid year after year. A number of men were demoralised by propaganda of that sort and refused to pay their annuities. They spent the money some other way, and at the end of three years or so their farms became derelict. But there has been a solution of that sort of case. We are finding plenty of people willing to buy the farms of those who refuse to pay their annuities, people who are not afraid to work the derelict farms as they are called. They are being sold much more readily than in the past. It is because a decent public spirit has asserted itself in the country. The spirit of the country is a lot better; it is asserting itself and will continue to assert itself, and year after year we are finding it easier to sell farms. What Senator Colonel Moore attempts to do is to make an analogy between rents and annuities. A number of people know that there is no analogy, that an annuity is interest on money lent. These educated people calling themselves patriots ought to know better than attempting to mislead the farmers by trying to make false analogies between annuities and rents. The small farmer is a better citizen, a better nationalist, and has better traditions than these people think. He knows his business. He is the sort of man who would stand up to the bad times; he is not a softy who hopes to get his living not by work on his farm but by government action, by subsidies and grants, and by refraining from paying his debts.

"Stop the issue of civil bills," we are told. Imagine that being put forward in the Seanad as a contribution at this time. What happens then? I I do not mind the unfortunate solicitor or lawyer being put out of business. What happens? It should not be discussed seriously.

It is suggested that we should undertake drainage on a large scale. There are Drainage Acts at present in operation in every county in Ireland, through the county councils, and the cost is paid partly by the owners of land benefited and partly by the State. The suggestion now is that the State should pay all. When the State pays who pays in the long run? We seem to be just going around in a circle. I would remind Senator Comyn when he advocates that particular remedy as a means of solving this acute depression that he mentioned that the farmer is suffering because he is paying for 53,000 civil servants.

Mr. Comyn

I said the farmer and farm labourer were paying now £1,000,000 more in taxation than they were paying four years ago.

Mr. Hogan

I think his words were that one of the burdens was the number of officials paid out of taxation, that the farmers, though they have not to pay all this taxation, paid a large amount of it. But when it comes to drainage, he forgets all that and suggests as a remedy for depression that drainage should be taken entirely off the rates and put entirely on taxation.

Mr. Comyn

Arterial drainage, certainly.

Mr. Hogan

Who are to pay for this?

Mr. Comyn

Why not pay it out of the million you have taken from the farmers?

Mr. Hogan

I do not know anything about that million. Senator Wilson made some suggestions which are worth examination. One, for instance, that the farmers are entitled to a 10 per cent. reduction which they have not got. On the other hand, I might say that the farmers are not entitled to the 25 per cent. reduction that they have got. It is admitted that land cannot be vested at once. Under the old system of land purchase the tenant was left there until his case was reached. It might be one, two, three, four or five years. During all that time he was paying his full rent. We changed that provided that the tenant should get an immediate reduction of 25 per cent. and that at the end of the period when his land was vested he would get another 10 per cent. reduction. The result of the new Land Act will be that the vesting will be completed next year and that they will all get their 10 per cent. reduction.

The Senator mentioned rather a difficult matter. He dealt with this question of land purchase finance, and pointed out that under the 1903 and 1909 Acts the rate of interest was 3¼ per cent., that 3¼ per cent. is being paid in the shape of annuity every year and invested at 5 per cent., and I suppose 6 per cent. during the war, whereas when the finances of the Land Acts were being considered they only contemplated investing at the current rate—round about 3 per cent. He said that this should be given to the farmer in relief. He has forgotten that if you do that people will have to go on paying their annuities longer. Once a bargain has been made it is absolutely unsound, no matter what the temporary difficulties are, to interfere with that bargain, and it will not pay in the long run. There might be a case for interfering in the bargain, but if you do land stock will not be redeemed so soon. What is the result of the state of affairs which Deputy Wilson has indicated? It is this. A farm is vested. I get an advance of £1,500. As the finances were originally settled, that £1,500 could be paid in 67 years. What has happened? It will be paid in far less time. A case came to my notice the other day. The farm was vested in 1904; the advance was £1,500; the amount of the advance outstanding at present is only £500. Two-thirds has been paid since 1904. It is because money can be better invested and because the Sinking Fund has become more valuable for that reason. You are getting all that advantage on account of this increase in the rate of interest. Land purchase is possible, as everybody knows, except people who do not want to see it, because of one man lending, another borrowing, and the State making the terms easy. The rate of interest is low and the time of redemption is extremely good. In that state of affairs it is unsound, because of any temporary advantage, to interfere with land purchase finance. Let that be done by Fianna Fáil in their own big way, and we shall await the result.

The Senator was quite right when he mentioned that if you want to help the farmers in a constructive way you should concentrate more on research. He mentioned a matter like contagious abortion, and pointed out that if somebody could get a cure for that particular disease it would probably mean a saving to the farmers as great as the whole annuities. If anybody could find a simple remedy for finger and toe in turnips and cabbage, he would have done more for agriculture than the Department of Agriculture could do in 20 years, or the Fianna Fáil Party, plus the Republican Party, could do in 20,000 years.

Mr. Comyn

Or that you could do in your lifetime.

Mr. Hogan

Or that I could do in my lifetime! These are problems that require capable men. They are problems that can only be solved by long years of research. The Senator was right when he said that it was on matters of this sort that we should really concentrate. If we do get success we shall have permanent and solid success and we shall have got it cheaply and without extravagance. If the amendment is passed, my view is that it is more or less a vote of confidence in the Government, because we have already done what is suggested in Senator O'Neill's amendment, which I understand Senator Comyn has accepted. I think I will accept it in that sense.

Mr. Comyn

I am glad the Minister has accepted the amendment, and, therefore, I hope his battalions will be all on my side. He could do nothing else, because the Minister, with all his ability, has not put forward a single answer to the very moderate and very reasoned statement which I made this day week. Not one answer has he put forward to that statement, and, of course, he could not if he spoke the truth. I do not suggest that he would speak an untruth. The reason he could not answer me was that I know and he knows that everything I said was true as to the condition of agriculture and that the remedies which I urged upon this Seanad, not in any partisan spirit, were reasonable and practical.

The Minister has spoken about a number of things to which I made no reference whatever in my opening statement. A man of his resource descended to finger-and-toe in turnips and he spoke about wheat. In the course of my opening statement I had said no word at all about wheat. I do advocate the growth of wheat in this country. I advocate it not merely on economic grounds, but on national grounds. I say that for the safety of this country and as an insurance against starvation in the eventualities which are likely to arise in the course of the world's history, we ought to have at least a six months' supply of food in this country. Whether wheat is 30s., 50s. or 100s., a certain proportion of wheat should be grown in this country and all the wheat ought to be milled in this country and milled under the control of people who owe allegiance to this country and to no other.

I pass by that little red herring which the Minister, with his usual skill, has drawn across the track. He has answered every suggestion that was made by those who purported to oppose this motion. He has never ventured to answer any one of the arguments which I put forward in opening this debate. What I said in my opening speech was this. In the last eight or nine years 350,000 acres of land have gone out of cultivation. In the last 12 months 104,000 acres of land have gone out of cultivation. That must be a great national loss. It must be distinctly injurious to the working people throughout the country and I will take this opportunity of saying that the labouring men throughout Ireland and their sons deserve more of the people of Ireland than they appear to be receiving judging by some of the speeches that have been made. They have had their share as much as any other class in the fight which has been made in the last 40 years for Ireland and they are entitled to their share in the result. I say that much. I mentioned two of the matters which I consider are deserving of very serious consideration by the Minister, not in the sense of a mere advocate making points. I wish him to consider them as put forward not by a partisan but by a person making a fair and moderate statement of the position. I also stated that the milking cows were being sold. On that occasion a number of my friends to the right and to the left were determined to reply to me. An adjournment of this debate was demanded and granted for the purpose of enabling some of my friends to sharpen their tomahawks. They thought better of it; they are not here to-day to answer and no answer has been made to the statement which I made on this subject seven days ago. I stated a simple fact that the milking cows are being sold. That is second year cows. The Minister understood thoroughly what I meant by that. That is a sign of great depression and of great want of money. I reminded him of an old Irish proverb and I am not ashamed to use the Irish language in this Seanad. The proverb is this:

"Nuair a airigheann tu an chuach ar chrann gan duilleabhar

Díol do bhó agus ceannaigh arbhar."

"When you sell the cow starvation is nigh." That, in the vulgar tongue, is the meaning of that proverb. They are forced to sell the cow to pay the annuities and my recommendation is this, stop the blizzard of processes and civil bills for this Christmas. The Minister says they are paying well enough and that they are getting the farmers' sons to buy the derelict farms. Are they? Are they getting grabbers to buy derelict farms? Will he give us statistics of that in Kerry, Clare, Tipperary or Limerick? Certainly he will not. There is no desire for those farms and more is the pity because the farmers of Ireland love their land and I am sure if they had any chance of making a living in their farms they would not leave them because as an old parish priest once said—perhaps my friend the Minister does not remember—when he was advising the members of his flock, the farmers, as to whether they would go out of their lands or not: "If you go out it will be a long time before you will find a latch that will fit your thumb as well as the latch of your own door." That is a thing that is in the minds and the hearts of the farmers of Ireland. The Minister has given me no answer at all. I am sure that the Minister in his heart of hearts if he could only rise above pettifogging controversies about details, if he was as big as he ought to be, would have said, "I absolutely agree with everything that Senator Comyn has said."

My friend The McGillycuddy of the Reeks said there are two things you must teach the farmers—number 1, to be better farmers, and number 2, you must do something by way of reallocation of the Agricultural Grant. I would like to tell my friend The McGillicuddy that the farmers of Ireland are the best farmers in the world, and if they got a chance they would make this country blossom like the rose. As to a readjustment of the Agricultural Grant and pettifogging things of that description, they are beneath consideration in this debate. Senator Wilson, who usually brings commonsense into these discussions, went into matters which I think, with great respect to him, were irrelevant to the discussion. I agree with what he said when he spoke about land annuities and about the British Exchequer getting 7 per cent. and allowing only 2¼ per cent. in respect of that portion of the annuity which goes towards the sinking fund.

Mr. Hogan

Senator Wilson did not say anything of the kind. He said the exact opposite. He said the money was there and could be utilised.

Mr. Comyn

If Senator Wilson did not say it I think my apprehension is at fault. And I am trained to understand words as they are spoken. I heard Senator Wilson speak and I heard the Minister speak. I understood from the Minister that the farmers of Ireland are getting the full credit of the increased interest on that sinking fund.

Mr. Hogan

That is correct.

Mr. Comyn

If the Minister says that I am very glad to hear it, but, examine as I could, all the legislation dealing with this matter, without his assurance I would not have come to that conclusion myself. I will leave it at that and hope to have more enlightenment from the Minister on some other occasion on that subject. I was greatly surprised to hear that from the Minister, and he will permit me to take an opportunity of verifying it as soon as I can.

Mr. Hogan

You can verify it quickly by looking at any certificate of redemption.

Mr. Comyn

I do not like to enter into a discussion which is not relevant to the matter before the House. I take the Minister's assurance for the moment. I tell him I am greatly surprised and that it is not in accordance with my view of the finances of any of the Land Acts.

Let me take the remedies which I propose. I propose as one of the immediate measures for the relief of distress in this country that the law in regard to arterial drainage should be altered so as to allow the Board of Works to proceed at once, at the expense of the State, with the making of the arterial drains. I stated that because, in my opinion, it would be a great relief to the agricultural labourers of this country, the men who will have no employment during the winter. The Minister, instead of examining that, as I think he ought to have examined it, critically and carefully, throws it back on me with a suggestion that it is simply a Party manoeuvre to have the name of trying to get the State to pay what the farmers are to pay for. It was no such thing. I grounded my argument on this, that in the past four or five years, from one cause or another, the farmers are being compelled to pay at least one million a year more than they had to pay before. That ought to go back to agriculture, and I suggested that this is a most profitable means whereby the money could go back to agriculture. Perhaps my friend the Minister was so busy that he was unable to grasp the full significance of what I said. It was not intended in any partisan sense whatever. It was intended as a suggestion from a farmer. I am glad to say I am a farmer. It was intended as a suggestion from me, speaking as a farmer to the Minister, as to how he could relieve the depression amongst the agricultural labourers and, at the same time, do justice to the farmers. Apparently he has chosen to regard it simply as a shaft shot in political argument. I protest against that, and I say that my speech was not intended at all as part of a system of political propaganda, but that it was intended honestly as an attempt to deal with the problem of agricultural depression and to enable the Minister, if he could, to do something to relieve agriculture.

These are some of the matters which have been referred to in the course of this debate. Of course, I pass by all the allusions to myself as an amateur. In fact, I would not attempt to answer Senator Miss Browne, nor would I attempt at all to answer some of the gentlemen who purported to misconstrue what I said. They said that I was an alarmist and that I was making a partisan speech.

Cathaoirleach

May I point out to you, Senator, that the object of allowing you to reply is for the purpose of enabling you to controvert such statements and not of reiterating your opening speech?

Mr. Comyn

I am thankful to the Chair for giving me that opportunity, but it has been said that I was an apostle of despondency. I wish to remind the Seanad of one passage in my speech on the last occasion which, I think, Senator Miss Browne having heard ought not to have forgotten. I said: "I am not despondent as to the future of this country. I think we will get through our difficulties, and that the country will ultimately prosper, but at present it is getting depopulated." Is not that true? Is the country getting depopulated? Has the rural population gone down 350,000, or probably 500,000, in the last ten years, even allowing for the natural increase of population? Is not that a matter which the Minister for Agriculture should seriously consider? I said on the last occasion that the Minister had done some things well; that he had shown considerable energy in many directions, but there is a problem facing him that will write on his record the word "failure" unless he faces it. Can he face it alone? I do not know. If he cannot face it alone, I think he ought not to be any longer responsible for the conduct of what was the Department of Agriculture.

I see to-day that that Department is to be dissolved. Well, let all evil go with it. I hope that the new council which is being established will tackle this problem of the cultivation of Irish land. It was said to me by a member of this House: "Well, we must stop the depopulation of the country at this stage; it has gone far enough, and we will stop it now." We will stop this tendency to allow the land to go out of cultivation. What I say is, bring back the land into cultivation, and have the people on the soil. It will cost very little. The Minister, by some observations which he has made, has indicated to me very clearly that he really has been studying this question, although for party or forensic reasons he has not really stated this evening what is in his mind. I wish he had done so. The four or five matters which I have brought before the House cannot be controverted. The reasons which I gave for the depopulation of the country, for the land going out of cultivation, and for the farmers selling their milking cows—second year cows —cannot be controverted, and the remedies I suggested still hold the field.

I insist that the civil bills and the decrees shall cease for this Christmas and next spring. It does not matter how much my insistence amounts to. It may amount to very little. It may be simply a voice crying out unheeded at the moment, but I tell the House that it has gone into Munster, Connaught and Leinster and it will be heard. The second remedy that I proposed was that the Government should go on with the drainage and reclamation of the land, not merely with that, but with the clearing of land which does not require drainage. There are ten or twelve methods by which land can be improved. Now in this country you may talk as you like about professions, trades and industries, but there is only one industry at the moment which is capable of absorbing labour to a very large extent, and that is agriculture. I do wish that the Minister, having youth on his side, would concentrate on this problem of agriculture. If the Minister does not do it, then whoever occupies his position in the future must concentrate on this question of agriculture.

I am not sorry that this debate has proceeded so far. I am sorry that the question has not been more fully discussed. I am sorry that Senator Sir John Keane, who moved for the adjournment of the debate for the purpose of sharpening his rapier, is not here, because I had a flank attack ready for him. It was the only thing I prepared in the course of this debate. This is a matter which the Seanad should consider. A friend of mine about ten years ago borrowed £40 to buy a cow. He has paid six per cent. interest ever since on the £40 and now he owes the bank the price of two cows.

Dr. Gogarty

How many calves had he?

Mr. Comyn

This is a question which Senator Sir John Keane and the very able financiers who sit here on my left as well as the Minister ought to consider——

Cathaoirleach

The question which the Senator is now discussing is rather irrelevant.

Mr. Comyn

——in view of my proposal that the annuities ought to be remitted this year and that there ought to be measures of relief for agriculture.

Cathaoirleach

I will now put the amendment moved by Senator O'Neill and seconded by Senator Johnson.

Mr. Comyn

I have accepted that amendment.

Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.

Original Motion put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 21.

Tá

• Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
• Michael Comyn, K.C.
• Joseph Connolly.
• Michael Duffy.
• Thomas Foran.
• Thomas Johnson.
• Seán E. MacEllin.
• Colonel Moore.
• John T. O'Farrell.

Níl

• William Barrington.
• Sir Edward Bellingham.
• Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
• Miss Kathleen Browne.
• R.A. Butler.
• Mrs. Costello.
• John C. Counihan.
• The Countess of Desart.
• James G. Douglas.
• Michael Fanning.
• Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
• P.J. Hooper.
• Cornelius Kennedy.
• Patrick W. Kenny.
• The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
• James MacKean.
• John MacLoughlin.
• M. F. O'Hanlon.
• Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
• Thomas Toal.
• Richard Wilson.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Comyn and Connolly. Níl: Senators O'Hanlon and Wilson.

Motion declared lost.