Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 May 1933

Vol. 16 No. 21

Public Business. - Proposed Inquiry Into Agricultural Industry.

Sir John Keane

I move the motion standing in my name:—

That, in view of the fact that it is the declared policy of the Government to depend to an increasing extent on home production and home markets, the Seanad requests the Executive Council to institute a public inquiry as to the form of agriculture that is best calculated to ensure the prosperity of that industry in the altered circumstances.

I must apologise to the House for the circumstances which make it necessary for members to hear so much of my voice, but I think the House will agree that it is better to get this motion dealt with now. As the House is probably aware, I am not one of those who believe in regulation, but, on the other hand, I am not a doctrinaire, and, when circumstances alter, I am quite prepared to accommodate myself to circumstances and it is on account of altered circumstances that this motion stands on the Paper. Hitherto, speaking very generally, agriculture has been left to develop spontaneously, according to the experience of those engaged in the industry, according to natural conditions, according to what some would say is a rather undesirable motive of profit and cupidity but there it is. That has been the way in which the bulk of this vast industry of this country has been built up without any direct method, by what we might call the ordinary force of private enterprise, people seeking a living and seeking profit. I claim that that system has stood the storm well. While the whole world was economically depressed up to a short time ago, this country was comparatively fortunate. The people were not rich, but there was no very great measure of distress. The bulk of our population, living and depending upon the land, got a livelihood somehow. They escaped the starvation and hardship which came more directly and acutely on those living in populous centres. Under these circumstances, we reached a position, where, according to the official statistics, 33 per cent. of our produce was consumed by our own agricultural population and 18 per cent. was consumed by our non-agricultural population. I ask you to bear in mind, in view of the increasing desire for greater home consumption, that only 18 per cent. of our output was consumed by our nonagricultural population. Forty-nine per cent of our output was exported. This represents a large amount of capital development, traditional experience and the accumulated wisdom of the ordinary, plain people struggling to live and to progress. In the year 1932, there came a very distinct break with the past. Suddenly— almost without any warning—there came a steep drop in the volume of our export of agricultural goods. In 1931, we exported roughly £31,000,000 worth of agricultural produce and, in 1932, that figure was reduced to about £22,000,000—a drop of nearly one-third. I need hardly say that that one-third is by no means represented by the fall in prices. It is largely due to a decrease in the volume of exports. The full effect of this drop has been mitigated to a certain extent by State aid—by bounties, price regulation, as in the case of butter, and other reliefs. The full measure of that decrease has been, to a certain extent, deferred. I estimate the losses due to this unfortunate change in circumstances—some people call it the economic war, but I do not want to get on to controversial ground — at the very conservative figures: capital loss in stock, £10,000,000; annual loss of income, about £7,500,000. Of course, such an estimate must be, to a certain extent, guesswork, but I do suggest that my estimate is conservative. These are losses which, owing to the change, the farmers had to bear and which they are bearing now with great difficulty and with great hardship. I think that it is only right that we, in our responsible positions, and students of politics should have serious regard to this situation and not be satisfied with the old policy of letting things develop on natural lines. This whole break has come about by direct intervention and is the outcome of regulation and definite State action. If it was the natural outcome of economic depression and there was no definite human agency involved, no definite State agency responsible, I should say: "Let things go on as they are." But there is an artificial element in the situation and it has to be regarded as such. In examining the question as to what is to be done, we have to bear that in mind.

Obviously the first thing to be done is to get back to the position in which we were a year ago, when we were not penalised in our chief export market, when we had bargaining power equal to that of other competing countries, when we enjoyed goodwill and when we had every prospect of getting preferential treatment. That, I submit, is the first thing to do—to secure, what is generally termed, the recovery of our markets. But I rather doubt that that will be sufficient. Our chief customer, Great Britain, is being driven more and more along the same lines as we are going—along the lines of self-sufficiency. The very fact that these unfortunate circumstances have excluded our produce from that market has whetted the appetite of agriculturists in that country for a maintenance, in spirit if not in form, of the present conditions. Whether we like it or not, agricultural policy in Great Britain has changed and, to an increasing extent, the policy of self-sufficiency that we are following here is likely to be followed there. I suggest that agriculture will be protected there in an increasing measure to the detriment of our export trade. Moreover—this is unfortunate, because it is within our own power to remedy it—we are losing daily the advantage of bargaining with our best customer. While we, owing to our unfortunate conduct, have to stand aside, we see import quotas of agricultural produce being granted to the sister-Dominions, to Denmark, to the Argentine and, I think, also to some Scandinavian countries. That is exceptionally unfortunate, but it is a factor in the situation that we cannot ignore. Continuing our line of thought, what is to be done? I suggest that this matter must be examined dispassionately, apart from political prejudice, and apart from the short view. It is a big national question, not a Party question. Here is our main industry really in great peril. Unfortunately the tendency is to look at it from the sectarian point of view. Senator Comyn said that the day of the bullock, of grass, of the man and the dog are gone. That is not a statesmanlike view. It is very nice to say that the bullock, the dog, and the man closing a gate, means disservice to the State.

Mr. Comyn

If the Senator quotes me he should quote me accurately.

Sir John Keane

If I misrepresent the Senator I apologise.

Mr. Johnson

Senator Comyn withdraws the sentiment.

Sir John Keane

That was more or less the spirit of what the Senator said. Senator Johnson, with a much more consistent point of view, takes the line that production should be regarded in the light of service. There is no question of the pocket. People should be made, in his view, to produce if it is for the good of the community. How that is to be I do not know. I suggest that is not the point of view from which to examine the question. Again, there are the industrialists who say that if a market for home manufactures is built up population will follow, and that the population will have the power of consuming the surplus. That sounds very nice. But, again, we cannot take generalisation. Matters want close examination to see at what speed that consummation will be reached, or to see if ever there is any possible form of growth of industrial population likely to provide a market for our exportable surplus. This matter should not be examined or settled piecemeal. I suggest that much of the present policy is merely palliative, following the lines of least resistance, staving off the emergency, with no real thought of what is going to happen next year, or even within a few months. All this policy of bounties——

Cathaoirleach

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator's very interesting speech, but I suggest that he accepted the position as regards the home market and home production being the policy of the Government, and that that precludes him from arguing on the economic war or the economic policy pursued subsequent to it. The motion reads:—

That in view of the fact that it is the declared policy of the Government to depend to an increasing extent on home production and home markets.

The Senator invited an inquiry to show whether that home market and home production can do better—qua home production, qua home market. I think the Senator must try as far as he can to disassociate the two. I will give what liberty I can, but the Senator prevents himself in the forefront of the motion from travelling over the economic war.

Mr. Comyn

That is what the Senator wants to do. He does not want to continue now.

Sir John Keane

I am afraid my mind is not sufficiently metaphysical to appreciate these differences. What I was trying to lead up to was what our line of policy should be for the future, in view of the altered circumstances. I am suggesting that industry cannot be satisfied by bounties and price regulations, that they are merely palliatives, following the line of least resistance, taking out of one pocket and putting into another. The only permanent line must be to assist producers. I emphasise that because our circumstances are different to other countries. We have no great resources in industrial wealth. If, as in England, agriculture was a minor industry here, and if our industrial wealth was very great, we might easily—as we are doing in the Gaeltacht—draw upon the wealth of the general community to subsidise the minor industry. It is the reverse here. Agriculture is the major and the predominant industry, and you cannot preserve it by feeding it merely on its own fat. Agriculture cannot be spoon-fed, as I suggest the Gaeltacht is. The Budget shows the writing on the wall, and gives cause for very considerable anxiety in that respect. The problem needs calm and deliberate study. We should examine to what extent exports can replace imports. I have done so very generally. I do not think it can be done, merely by the cursory examination I have given it. On the face of it the problem looks very formidable. We exported produce value for £30,000,000 in 1931. If we were, practically, to substitute all possible imports with home-grown produce, at the most, I can only see that represented by £10,000,000 out of the £30,000,000. Conceivably if we imported no wheat whatever, no maize, no fruit and no vegetables, that might represent £10,000,000 out of the exportable surplus, but there still remains an exportable surplus value for £20,000,000. What is to be done with that? That, I suggest, is a problem for serious consideration. It is no answer to suggest that production should be decreased, or that produce value for £20,000,000 should not be produced at all. I am afraid that would merely mean what some people have prophesied under the new policy, a lower standard of living, and a general fall in the volume of production.

Then we should examine the possibility of increasing consuming power. No doubt if our agricultural and industrial policies are a great success, and if wealth grows, purchasing power accumulates to a certain extent, but I suggest to a very small extent, and only at a very distant time will that factor go very far towards satisfying the difficulty of dealing with exportable surplus. Then we have to examine whether, under the new circumstances, the present form of agriculture practised is the correct one, whether stock raising should possibly not give way, and be replaced by more intensive forms of agriculture and horticulture, and to see to what extent the gap could be made good by the development of forestry and the replacement of foreign imported fuel by peat. I am merely outlining the magnitude and the difficulty of the problem, and I am suggesting that it is not one which can be dealt with in terms of political shibboleths, party cries, mere hand to mouth palliatives, or easy artifices of that kind. It is a very big problem, and, on the face of it, to me it is insoluble, except along the disastrous lines of a slackening of the volume of production, and a lower standard of living. But I do not wish to take that despairing view, and I suggest that the whole problem is one of national importance, which should be examined scientifically and fully by competent people. It should not be examined from the party or from the political point of view, or by politicians. We should get—I do not like the word— some independent people, accustomed to economic study, accustomed to handling statistics, with a general knowledge of what is possible in agriculture, to see whether one form of agriculture could conceivably replace another. In fact it involves the whole future of agriculture in our national economy.

I framed the motion on very general lines. I would like to suggest that somebody outside this country should be called in to examine this problem. We have had ample precedent for that. The reason I make that suggestion is that I am afraid anybody we would call upon in this country would be suspect in some quarter or other. In the case of our electrical industry, when we wished for a big development we called in foreigners, received their opinions and acted on their advice. I do not say that we should necessarily act on their advice in what is now before us; but we should at least get the best opinions we can. I feel strongly that some inquiry on the lines suggested is overdue. I would never have moved this motion if normal conditions continued, if markets were more or less free, if trade flowed in its old accustomed channels and if those engaged in the industry were allowed to develop naturally on the basis of their traditional practice and experience. Everything has been altered. Some of the changes may be only temporary, but they have had a devastating effect. There are other changes which I fear are permanent and will sooner or later force upon us altered methods. The whole problem can only be approached after full and careful inquiry, and it is for that reason that I move this motion.

Mr. O'Connor

I beg to second the motion.

Mr. Counihan

We all know the reason for the altered conditions of farming. We all know that nothing can be done to ensure the prosperity of farming in this country while these altered conditions remain. What can we learn from a public inquiry that we do not already know? For those reasons I oppose the motion now proposed. What can be produced in this country that we are not already producing in abundance? We produce five times as many cattle as we require in the home market; we produce three times as many sheep, and the same applies to horses, pigs, poultry, eggs and practically all classes of agricultural produce. We had a market for surplus produce at our door and in that market we had a ten per cent. preference. We threw all that away and we are now exporting with practically 100 per cent. of a tariff on most of our produce. When we call attention to those facts we are called traitors and are told we are playing England's game. I say it is the Government and the Government's supporters who are playing England's game. It is the Government and their supporters who are traitors to this country, because they have taxed the country out of existence in order to produce cheap food for Britain and to produce, at the same time, some revenue. By their methods they have helped to put the British farmer on his feet to build up his industry to the detriment of our own farmers.

Mr. Foran

The Chair considered it necessary to call Senator Sir John Keane to order. Is the present speaker not going outside the subject-matter of the motion?

Cathaoirleach

I think he is.

Mr. Counihan

I am showing the reason why this motion should not be passed by the House.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is attempting to show it, but he is not attempting to show how we could absorb in the home market the production of the country.

Mr. Counihan

I want to show the Seanad that it is futile to set up the commission suggested. In the Dáil, the Minister for Finance boasted that he had saved £93,000,000 for this country. I do not agree with that statement and I think the Seanad, on consideration, will agree that it is not correct. I am sure Senators will agree also that the withholding of the land annuities, instead of being a financial gain to the country, will mean a national loss of at least five times £93,000,000.

Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator will try to show the futility of consuming in the home market the amount now produced in the country. He will then be in order.

Mr. Counihan

In 1931 we exported £30,000,000 worth of produce. On a big percentage of that £30,000,000 worth of produce we had a ten per cent. preference. I am sure that if the Government went the proper way about it at the Ottawa Conference we would have a ten per cent. preference on the whole of the produce exported. If we take a ten per cent. preference on the whole of the produce it would mean £3,000,000, and that represents the whole of the land annuities. Instead of that, we are paying on the majority of our exports a tariff of practically 100 per cent. The country is going out of production. We cannot produce for export under the present tariffs. The best grazing land in the country, at least a big percentage of it, is lying derelict. Senator Comyn attributes that to causes other than the depression in the cattle trade. His case was that there is a conspiracy amongst the Meath graziers not to buy cattle, and to let the small farmers who produce the stores suffer the loss. The Senator mentioned being at a fair in Kilfenora, and he heard Meath graziers saying there: "We cannot buy because this tariff is on." Senator Comyn said he bought some cattle at the fair. I can assure him that if he sells them now it will be easy to count the profit. All this tends to show the foolish statements that are being made by irresponsible people who claim to represent the farming industry and the cattle trade in this country. I have never been in Kilfenora, although I have been at most fairs in Ireland.

Cathaoirleach

There are good cattle there.

Mr. Counihan

I think most of the cattle sold at Kilfenora go to the lighter counties, such as Galway, Mayo and portions of Westmeath, to be grazed for a year before they are sent to Meath. I have never seen a Meath man going down to buy yearlings at Kilfenora, as the Senator mentioned.

Mr. Comyn

It must be cheap cattle you buy.

Mr. Counihan

I never knew Meath men to buy yearlings there. For the various reasons I have put forward, I will oppose this motion.

Mr. Comyn

I did not intend to speak on this motion, but owing to the constant references that have been made to me, and the misrepresentations of what I have said on other occasions, I feel that in the altered circumstances I ought to say something. What are the altered circumstances? Senator Sir John Keane says that we have a capital loss of £10,000,000, and that we have an annual loss of £7,000,000. Accepting his statistics, although I am very sceptical about statistics, I wonder how it is that this country is sustaining the economic war so well——

Mr. Counihan

But it is not.

Mr. Comyn

The people are sustaining very well the economic war, and would my friend accept from me that the reason is that it was impossible for this country to pay a tribute of £5,000,000 a year, which she had been paying?

Miss Browne

A Chathaoirligh you have already ruled references to that out of order. Senator Comyn is now speaking outside the motion.

Cathaoirleach

Yes, that is outside the motion.

Mr. Comyn

I agree with Senator Counihan that it is not desirable that there should be a public inquiry as to the form of agriculture best calculated to ensure the prosperity of that industry in the altered circumstances. I agree with Senator Counihan in that. I also agree with Senator Sir John Keane that, as this subject has been broached at all, it ought to be considered calmly, dispassionately, and that fair play, if possible, should be given to every person in this country. But I deny that the question for solution is the question set down in Senator Sir John Keane's motion. The question for solution in this country is how best to provide for the people of this country. What are you going to do with the 20,000 or 30,000 young people who are growing up? What are you going to do with these young people, the surplus that is not exportable at the present moment? Senator Sir John Keane said that in times past agriculture had been allow to pursue its normal course. I deny that agriculture in this country was ever allowed to pursue its normal course. Look at the splendid lands for 50 or 60 miles around the City of Dublin. Is it to be supposed that that land has always been in the position it is now?

Mr. O'Hanlon

What are you going to produce on it now?

Mr. Comyn

The Senator will allow me to make my speech. I am going to speak as calmly as possible on this question, and in what I am going to say I am not going to make any Party gain. These lands were cleared of the people living on them without the consent of the people. That was the first part of the conquest. The conquest that was thought most desirable was the conquest of the rich lands of the country. They continued to clear these lands, and in the first 30 years of the Norman invasion they cleared——

Mr. Wilson

That is a long time ago.

Mr. Comyn

But they were cleared.

Miss Browne

That is not even history at all.

Mr. Comyn

Take another part of the question. When industrialism started in England it became desirable to produce agricultural commodities here for the English market. In the district between Ballinasloe and the Clare border the whole country was cleared in the last century in order to create large farms. Was that done with the consent of the unfortunate people living on the land? What is the problem before us? The problem is to proceed as best we can for the good of the people of this country on the fairest terms that are possible. How is that to be done? How is employment to be secured? I do think it is by the policy which the Minister has sponsored, the policy of more cultivation of the soil. I think that a greater cultivation of the soil can be secured by smaller farms and by the purchase of these large tracts of land and the settling of the people upon them. That is a problem which I would not be inclined to leave to any specialist, foreign or domestic, or to any statisticians. I say that because it is a problem which, if not solved on fair and reasonable terms to everybody, the people of Ireland will solve for themselves. I have great distrust of these statisticians. I do accept for the purpose of my own argument the statistics given by Senator Sir John Keane, but, speaking generally, I think statistics are very misleading, and particularly statistics quoted by a professor. I think it is within the knowledge of everybody that a certain professor stated that the agricultural population of Limerick is greater per acre than the agricultural population of Wexford, ergo, dairying provides for more people than tillage. Now these are statistics, and that is the conclusion that is drawn from these statistics, but the professor evidently did not know or certainly did not advert to the fact that an acre of land in Limerick, even in grass, is able to produce five times as much as an acre of land in Wexford.

Miss Browne

Not at all. I question that statement.

Mr. Comyn

Where is the comparison between the rich lands of the Golden Vale in Limerick; where is the comparison between the rich lands around Kilmallock and the mountain land of so much of Wexford?

Mr. Wilson

For grazing purposes there is not; but for tillage purposes there is.

Mr. Comyn

These are the sort of statistics which would be submitted to the foreign specialist, who is to determine for the people of this country how they are to live. I would ask Senator Sir John Keane to consider this point, that it is the interests of the people that have to be considered and not the profits of any particular agriculturists.

Cathaoirleach

The motion before the House is a very simple one, but nobody tries to keep to it. The motion is:—

That, in view of the fact that it is the declared policy of the Government to depend to an increasing extent on home production and home markets, the Seanad requests the Executive Council to institute a public inquiry as to the form of agriculture that is best calculated to ensure the prosperity of that industry in the altered circumstances.

Mr. Comyn

I submit to the Seanad that this public inquiry should not be held for the reason that the problem for the statesmen and people of this country is not how to provide the greatest profits for one man in respect of any area of land but how to provide for the people, and I would ask Senator Sir John Keane to consider very seriously the problem that is before us now and the implications of that problem. We have an increasing population. The outlet which we had in former times for that population is no longer available. The people are here in growing numbers, growing not in arithmetical progression but in geometrical progression. What is to be done? Are they to get employment? I should say that everybody will agree that they are, if possible. In the years immediately in front of us how is that employment to be secured? My solution, and I am sure it is the solution of every man who looks at this dispassionately, is that the great source of employment is the soil of Ireland—by tillage on the farms as they are at present constituted and by creating small farms, on every one of which there will be some tillage.

Mr. Counihan

What will you do with the surplus?

Mr. Comyn

There are, first of all, the new months that we hope to have. There is a great lot of humbug talked about what will be done with the surplus. I do not think it is fair of Senator Counihan to ask that question. So far as I know, 90 per cent. of the meat consumed in England is imported from abroad.

Cathaoirleach

That does not affect the motion.

Mr. Comyn

The Senator asked me a question.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator must not be led away from the motion.

Mr. Comyn

If we can deal with what we have as a surplus at present, seeing the markets that are available, it will be quite easy for us to deal with the increased surplus, if we have it. The Senator admits that, under this system of small farming, we shall have an increased and an increasing surplus, because we shall have more tillage, and we shall have employment for our people. I would invite Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Counihan to consider that problem fairly and dispassionately and without any party spirit, and see how a change can be brought about on fair terms to everybody. One thing I should like to say in conclusion is that I, for one, am not in favour of disturbing any vested tenant right where that right existed, and I am certain that that is not, and never will be, the policy of this country. Where the tenant right existed, I think it ought to be respected, and I am sure it will be. I might, however, remind Senator Counihan that that tenant right never did exist in the large grazing tracts, which are now practically useless to this country and its people.

Miss Browne

I wish to support the motion for an inquiry as to how far the system of agriculture can be altered and should be altered in the present circumstances. I have not the slightest doubt that an independent inquiry would reveal that this system has been evolved in the brains of muddle-headed theorists who know very little about it, who have no practical knowledge of agriculture, and who have rushed this devastating policy on the country with very little consideration as to the results for the unfortunate people. For that reason, I should like to see an inquiry. If people who have experience, and who know something of economics, above all practical intelligent farmers, can be brought before a tribunal and their evidence published, I believe it would have a very good effect. A large number of people, who do not study statistics or economics, were induced to back up the Government who set out this very rosy programme before them without giving them any indication of what the results of that policy might be.

Senator Comyn made some extraordinary statements. Of course his history is altogether wrong with regard to the land question. In the great confiscation that took place in the past only the large landholder was dealt with. The Cromwellian confiscation is the principal one and in that only the great landholder was disturbed. The tiller of the soil was not disturbed. He is wrong altogether in his history as to the origin of the land question in Ireland. He is also wrong in backing up the idea that if you sweep the cattle off the land and only produce food for the people you are going to promote tillage. He is wrong about Wexford and Limerick, as I can prove very easily. I can justly claim that the farmers of Wexford are the best tillage farmers in Ireland.

Mr. Comyn

The land is poor — some of it is.

Miss Browne

No. I know every inch of it. There is some very poor land and some very good land; there is some first-class land in Wexford. There is a great deal of land, notably 4,000 or 5,000 acres of slob land, which is fine grazing land reclaimed from the sea. Wexford, as a matter of fact, has almost every kind of land that you could imagine. I myself possess a heavy clay soil which takes a great deal of hard labour to cultivate. The district of New Ross possesses a shingly soil which is easily cultivated. Senator O'Hanlon can tell us about that. Around Enniscorthy there is land of an entirely different kind.

Cathaoirleach

This is all very interesting, but is it pertinent?

Miss Browne

I want to give one instance to refute Senator Comyn's contention that merely growing food for the whole population will provide more tillage. I shall take a concrete example of a neighbour of mine who employs six labourers. He lays down so much land under oats. The people cannot eat all the oats. Everybody who has tilled land knows that in the rotation where you have grown oats you must grow green crops to clean the land. Are the people going to eat these hundreds of acres of turnips and mangels?

Mr. Comyn

Not on a 20 acre farm certainly.

Miss Browne

Are they going to eat five acres of turnips and mangels?

Mr. Comyn

They would not want five acres of turnips and mangels.

Miss Browne

If you are tilling land you must have some turnips after corn in proper rotation. Senator Comyn knows nothing about tillage or the proper rotation of crops. Take this neighbour of mine who keeps six labourers and works very hard on the farm himself, as well as two brothers. This is an actual, and not an imaginary example. His system was to grow all the food for his household, as far as possible, and to grow a very great deal for cattle. It is not a very large farm, but he stall-fed a large number of cattle this year. The cattle that would have sold for £22 per head last year realised £12 per head this year.

Cathaoirleach

Did he get that on the home market? If not, it does not come within the terms of this motion.

Miss Browne

If the export of cattle is prohibited and if that man has to depend on the home market, he cannot produce half or quarter the number of cattle. What is he going to do? He is going to go out of tillage. That means that so much land is going out of tillage and that so many more men will be unemployed. As a matter of fact, that man is reducing his staff. Instead of keeping six men he is keeping now only three, because his export market has been cut off. The thing is all wrong from beginning to end. It was begun at the wrong end. That is one concrete example of what will happen if you cut off the export market. An inquiry will prove these things. We can gather statistics such as these concrete examples and prove to the people that it is impossible, even with a population three times greater than we have now, to till the land and give employment, without an export market. The land of Ireland can never be tilled to any extent if we are to depend on the home market. You cannot grow wheat without growing green crops. You must have a proper rotation. Otherwise how are you going to clean your land? To a practical farmer the thing is childish.

The more cattle you have the more tillage you must have, but of necessity there must always be a considerable amount of land in grass. Grass is the best of foods. No farmer, let him be the best that ever was born, can produce food which is as good as grazing for animals. You cannot carry on a system where you have all tillage. Even if you had a population of 8,000,000 you must have a great deal of land under grass in Ireland. There is a considerable amount of land which any economist would think it a sin to till because by tilling it he would not produce food as good as that provided by the grass on it. There is other land which it would be better to till. Much of the land of Wexford is tillage land and will not produce grass. The people in these areas could carry on tillage, but I protest that by doing away with the cattle trade, by seeking to confine the cattle trade to the home market and cutting off the export market, you are going to reduce tillage in the country. I could give many examples where that has happened as a result of the Government policy. That is why I support the demand for an inquiry because I am perfectly certain that what I am saying now could be proved at that inquiry, and that that inquiry would result in having these facts put before the people. These facts would come to the knowledge of a great many people through this inquiry who do not think about them at all now.

At the last fair in Wexford, in the Minister's own constituency — this is touching on the economic war, I suppose, but it is interesting—the number of cattle sold there involved a loss to the pockets of the farmers in that one corner of £6,000. That is at one fair alone. If there was never an economic war there would not be a market in this country for that number of cattle, proportionately I mean. There could not be a home market in this country for that number of cattle. I am taking that one instance to illustrate my point. The loss on the number of cattle sold from that one corner of the County Wexford calculated at a loss of £6 per head — they were all of the class which would be liable to the £6 tariff— was £6,000. If you have not an export market, economic war or no war, the price for cattle must be very low. The home market would never pay a price higher than what we are getting even with the economic war, and perhaps not so much, as the home market could not absorb all our cattle. I support the motion because I should like to have the matter inquired into and would like to have statistics about it. I should like to have it proved. It is all theory at present. The theories of muddle-headed people are being inflicted on the country to our terrible loss. Even if the economic war were ended to-morrow, there would not be a market in this country for all the cattle produced here. I repeat that even if you had a population of 8,000,000 you would not have that market. The inquiry suggested is an entirely different thing to that suggested in the motion we had last week. There is no comparison at all between them. I could go on, but the discussion is so strictly limited that we cannot very well go into the effects of the policy of the Government. All we can ask is how a home market is going to increase tillage in the country and increase the population. It cannot be done. If an inquiry can show more clearly than the few words we can say here that it cannot be done, I should welcome the inquiry.

Mr. Johnson

I want to say a word or two in commendation of the way in which Senator Sir John Keane introduced his motion. In the main, I am inclined to support his point of view. I think his motion is mistaken in so far as it asks for a public inquiry and I think it would have been better if his proposal had enlarged the field of inquiry to include industry in general. The Senator has given his opinion that in the circumstances something in the nature of a planned agricultural economy is necessary. I have been of opinion for a long time that not only a planned agricultural policy to effect a preconceived purpose is necessary but a planned industrial policy also. I do not think that a public inquiry of the kind Senator Miss Browne has indicated is going to produce the practical results that I conceive Senator Sir John Keane is aiming at. I appreciate that he is not endeavouring to make a case for or against the Government's present policy. He recognised that changes have taken place in the world irrespective of the changed fiscal relations between England and Ireland and that these changed circumstances make it obligatory in the interests of the country that there should be an inquiry into our agricultural economy. That is a sound argument and deserves consideration. Senator Comyn derided statistics and he has some justification for deriding statistics as they are carelessly used. I would like him to ask himself in the calm of the evening how is the Government of this country to carry on, and have any policy at all, unless it has some statistics to guide it?

Both Senator Sir John Keane, and Senator Miss Browne, who supported his motion, seemed in the argument to suggest that if we can only get back to the position that existed before June of last year and the situation that prevailed at that time, then things would be right for agriculture. No less an authority on agriculture than Deputy Mulcahy, with all the authority of an ex-Minister, is reported as having said on Sunday last: "The Minister for Industry and Commerce declared last week the Government policy would not be satisfied unless they supported as many people on Irish land as they did in Denmark, but those who know most about it in the Minister's own Department have already told us that the policy of the Irish farmer supports on every 1,000 acres of land 61 permanent workers for every 56 that the Dane is able to support on his. Meanwhile, the policy which enables us to support that population, such as it is, is being scrapped."

The Deputy went on to denounce the Government's policy. But Deputy Mulcahy was quoting statistics, and the inference he drew was that the Irish farmer had evolved a policy that was the best that could be operated in this country. He quoted statistics prepared in the Department of Agriculture at one end, and the statistics branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce at the other. I want to suggest that it would have been better, more honest, and, certainly, a better guide if he had gone a little further into the Department of Agriculture statistics. When he gives these figures for the Free State and Denmark he was quoting from the Agricultural Returns Statistics Volume, published a few years ago. That, by the way, gives the figures for 1912 and compared them with those of Denmark for 1923. If he had really made enquiries and taken the figures for 1926, which were available, and compared these figures with Denmark in 1932, he would have found that a 1,000 acres of land in this country maintained 55 persons against 56 in Denmark. That is to say, that there was a decline from 1912 to 1926 in the number of permanent workers maintained in the land in Ireland from 61 to 55, but that is by the way. The point is that these very statistics, that Deputy Mulcahy was quoting, showed that the total number of workers per 1,000 acres — crops and pastures — on small farms in the Saorstát of from one to 15 acres was 180, compared with 127 in Denmark. On farms of 15 to 20 acres the figures were 100 in the Saorstát against 80 in Denmark. On farms of from 30 to 50 acres, 69 persons in the Saorstát against 67 in Denmark; on farms from 100 to 200, the numbers in the Saorstát 30, as against 45 in Denmark, showing that the small farms in this country are bearing a very much higher number of persons per 1,000 acres, and a very much larger proportion than the small farms in Denmark are asked to bear. But the larger farms in Denmark bear a very much higher proportion of persons than in this country. For instance, on farms of from 100 to 200 acres 45 persons per 1,000 acres are employed in Denmark and in the Saorstát only 30. Farms of from 200 to 500 acres carry 34 persons in Denmark as against 19 in the Saorstát. The inference from that is that the methods of agriculture in Denmark, which the Deputy was endeavouring to suggest, show a far smaller number of persons per 1,000 acres than the methods of agriculture operating in this country; but the methods of agriculture operating in this country led to over-crowding on the poorer, and to under-crowding on the better lands in this country relative to the comparative conditions in Denmark.

He might also have got other statistics kept by the same Department that show that the percentage of output per worker in Denmark was £196 as against £96 in the Saorstát.

Cathaoirleach

Do they consume it all at home?

Mr. Johnson

I have not finished on that point but I think it is appropriate to the subject. What seems to be the aim is the production of commodities consumed at home on a larger degree than at present. Senator Sir John Keane clearly and frankly recognises that quite apart from present contentions — to use a mild word — between Great Britain and Ireland, affecting agricultural produce, a change has taken place in world economy and possibly, I do not know how far he went, but I shall limit it to that word possibly, even if everything between the two countries was settled amicably it would still be impossible to get back to the position which existed say ten years ago. I think it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that as between 1929-30 and 1931-32 before the present difficulties arose, there was a drop in the agricultural output of this country from £55,000,000 to £42,000,000. That was not a decline in volume but a decline in values. The value of the export agricultural produce was a declining one, and a rapidly declining one, quite apart from any change in the ordinary relations. I wonder does anybody think to-day that it can be said, confidently, that the price position in the world has reached its lowest level, and that it is inevitably bound to improve. I doubt it. We may say there are possibilities, first, after the World Economic Conference has concluded, that the situation in Britain, and in this country, will gradually revert to the position that existed before 1929, before the big slump in values began. That is one position: that things will revert to the state that existed in 1929. The second is the probable one, that Britain may follow a policy such as Senator Sir John Keane suggested and recast her agricultural economy. That is to say, she will have, of settled policy, changed her attitude towards agriculture and will endeavour to make Britain herself very much more self-dependent than she has even been before. I suggest that that second outcome is a much more likely one even though the World Economic Conference achieves the greatest success of the most optimistic. If that is the case, it is inevitably going to have a very big effect upon the economy of mately, no matter what happens, cannot get back to the position that Senator Miss Browne would so heartily desire, and that is the position of this country prior to 1932.

If that is so, then there surely is a case made for an inquiry into the best form of agriculture and, as I would suggest, the best way to ensure the maximum output, and the best way of disposing of that output. I for one believe, that we must get down to the roots of things in considering problems of this kind, and recognise the effort that the agriculturists make, while acting under the stimulus, superficially, of a market and a price for their produce in that market, are ultimately aiming at the production of foodstuffs for the maintenance of man. Agriculture in this country ought to have as a definite, conscious object, the production of foodstuffs for the maintenance of the people in this country. Undoubtedly, as everybody, with even the slightest and most cursory knowledge of agricultural conditions knows, agriculture in this country will produce far more than the people of this country are likely to consume for a very long time, and it is inevitable that there will have to be an export trade. I make a present of the fact to Senator Miss Browne and others that that export trade, probably, will have to be in the main to Great Britain, but I suggest that the Minister has a right to consider this subject in the light that, having in mind all the circumstances, and having in mind everything that happened since 1916, the present situation as between Britain and Ireland will be a permanent one; that is to say, that there is never again going to be the same freedom of access to the British market that there has been in the past. I think the Government policy should be founded upon a recognition of that as a probability. I think that at the moment, up to now, they have recognised that that was a probability, but I think that the country's economy ought to begin with the conception that it is a probability. It may not eventuate that way. It may be that we shall be able to find an outlet for a considerable proportion of our agricultural produce in the British this country, and the position ulti-market. If so, so much the better. All the advantage will be with us if we begin with the assumption that there is not going to be any outlet in that direction.

I think, therefore, that it is no use simply speaking of this as a problem of the organisation of agriculture. It is immediately bound up with the organisation of industry in general. In fact, there is no sharp, defined line that may be drawn between the agricultural economy of this country, the industrial economy of the country, the politics of the country, and the general cultural development of the country. That is all one big problem, and it cannot be cut into pieces or divided sharply, one part from another. Therefore, I would say that the inquiry could not be confined rightly to the mere technique of agriculture, but has to have regard to the general purpose of agriculture and the general conception of national policy in all other respects.

The fall in prices in Great Britain, and the fall in prices in the Free State was very steep indeed in 1929. It has fallen still further since 1929; but if we got back to 1932 or if we got back to 1931 or even to 1929, does anybody claim or suggest that that would mean prosperity for Irish agriculture? Calamity had come to the country then and if there had been no difference of opinion on land annuities or on any other controversial subject with Great Britain, and if there had been no barrier against the import of Irish produce into the British market, a motion such as this would have been equally necessary. An inquiry and a plan would have been necessary and a complete recasting of the agricultural economy of the country would have been desirable. One can show, I think, very vividly, if one is not so much disposed to flout statistics as Senator Comyn is, that the position of the Irish agriculturist — of the farmer — in this country has been a deplorable one, so far as at least one half of the agricultural population is concerned, for quite a number of years. I cannot, for myself, justify the maintenance in the cities of so large a proportion of people who are living at a much higher standard than so large a proportion of the agriculturists are capable of living. I think it is due to the agriculturists that there should be an inquiry into their position. It is due to the agriculturists that, if the organised community, represented by the Oireachtas or by the Executive Council for the time being, requires that agriculture should produce live stock or grain crops or whatever it may be, they should receive a definite guarantee of a payment for their services to the community in the production of those goods.

I said, I think, that the present Government policy is destined to fail unless it takes in hand the organisation of agriculture and the direction, by inducement, encouragement and guarantee, that agriculturists should follow in the pursuit of their calling.

I do not believe if you leave to the free play of markets, the mere chance of an improvement in the price of pigs or a decline in the price of butter — the chance of fluctuations in the price of cattle and so on — that you are going to get the best output of agricultural produce. I say that there ought to be a planned economy with a definite objective. The State should say to the agriculturalists: "We require so much of this, so much of that and so much of the other and we will pay you for it." The State should take into its own responsibility the organisation of the export of such surplus as is necessary to be exported. I think the Government will find, before it can bring its own present policy to successful fruition, that it will be bound to follow that direction. It will be bound to undertake the export marketing of whatever surplus is available for export. It will be bound, I suggest, to have some control of the kind of import that will be received in exchange for those exports, and to consciously plan, guide and direct the export and import trade of the country.

For these reasons I believe that an inquiry, such as Senator Sir John Keane indicates is necessary, should be undertaken. As I said I do not think a public inquiry would be of any value, but I do think it is essential, if the Government is to move forward with a definite, clearly understood objective that it should have a conscious plan to work out by the aid of the ablest economists, publicists, thinkers, statisticians and statesmen that it can get. It is no use going along without a plan, with one section thinking in one direction and another section thinking in another direction. For these reasons, and a good many more which I am not going to weary the House with, I would ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to the proposal for an inquiry into the form of agriculture that is best calculated to ensure the prosperity of that industry in the altered circumstances, and that the Government would couple with that best form of agriculture the best method for the disposal of the produce of the agriculturists.

Mr. O'Connor

In my opinion there is a very sensible idea behind the motion moved by Senator Sir John Keane. It is desirable, I think, that we should have something in the nature of an inquiry as to how those engaged in agriculture and the live-stock industry can be relieved from their present deplorable condition. It is not necessary, I think, at this stage to discuss how the personnel of the committee making that inquiry should be constituted. That would be a matter for the Government. The intention behind the motion is good, and I do not think anybody could object to it. In my opinion the Senator's proposal is a wise one. I listened with a good deal of interest and, I confess, with a certain amount of amusement to some of the arguments put forward in the course of this debate, especially to the statistics that were given about the classes of stock reared and the form of agriculture pursued in certain parts of the country. We heard a good deal to-day, too, about the history of the country. An Irish poet has written:

A time there was, ere England's griefs began,

When every rood of ground maintain'd its man.

Princes and lords may flourish or may fade,

A breath can make them, as a breath has made;

But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,

When once destroy'd, can never be supplied.

I remember the time when the farmers of the country were subject to capricious eviction and when there was very little interest taken in the question of tenant right. I remember well the way that situation was dealt with in South Tipperary, my native county. I would be sorry to see a recurrence of what took place then. My friend, Senator Comyn, made a statement this evening which amused me a great deal. He was speaking of tillage in his native County of Clare, which I know very well. In my opinion you would not get ten acres of suitable tillage land in the whole of that county. Between Lisdoonvarna and Ennis the land would grow little else than hazel nuts. During the Great War people were compelled to till some of the rich lands of the country. In my part people were obliged to till 20 acres of good rich land that is entirely unsuitable for tillage. It is only suitable for grazing and finishing cattle. The people who were compelled to till these 20 acres of rich land suffered at least a loss of £200. The corn grown on it had to be raked up and cut with a grass machine. I think it is absurd to be telling people, who know their business, what they should do with their land.

I think a good many who talk about increasing tillage and increasing the wealth of the country have very little practical knowledge of agriculture. I know some people who have nice bits of land attached to their homes and when their neighbours volunteered to plough it for them they refused the offer, preferring to keep a couple of calves on it. So far as I can see, tillage is not going to be made fashionable nor do I think it is going to prove the El Dorado that some people imagine. If the wealth of this country is to be restored, then, in my opinion, the way to do that is to give us back our home markets that we have been deprived of in the last year. That is the only hope I see of restoring agriculture and the live-stock industry to the position they were in a year or two ago. If something is not done in that direction, then in my opinion the present situation will end in bankruptcy and rebellion, and that, perhaps, in a shorter time than some people imagine. I might mention a matter that I have personal knowledge of. We do business for a man who lived in this country. On Saturday last we shipped 100 cattle for him to England. We had a wire to say that the cattle arrived all right, but that the tariff payable on the cattle on the other side was £564. Senators can imagine what that meant to a man who wished to carry on trade with Ireland; 68 of the cattle were three year olds and on these a tariff of £6 per head had to be paid. The others were two-year-olds and on these a tariff of £4 a head had to be paid.

How can any man be expected to carry on trade with this country when you have a tariff of £564 in respect of 100 head of cattle? I have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Sir John Keane's motion and I am sure that the Minister has every desire to promote the prosperity of the industry with which it seeks to deal. He should, especially, be sympathetic to the views expressed by the lady Senator, Miss Browne, who represents his native county. Every statement she makes is entitled to the fullest respect, coming, as it does, from an intelligent tillage farmer. I should be glad to see a tribute paid to her industry and intelligence and, also, to the farmers of her county. My sons know the county and they speak in the highest terms of it. It is hopeless to try to visualise what is going to be the position when you have men selling cattle £6 per head below what they normally got for them. The only thing that I can see is the eventual bankruptcy of the county councils. It will not be very long until they reach that position, and when there will be no money to run the country, and the outcome of the present situation will be chaos and rebellion.

Miss Browne

I beg to move the adjournment of the debate. There is not a quorum in the House.

Sir John Keane

Might I second that motion? There is rather a small House to continue debating this important subject.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

We cannot adjourn on the basis of the absence of a quorum. There is a quorum.

Miss Browne

I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, independently of the question of quorum.

Mr. S. Robinson

I think the Minister would like to have the debate completed. He has been waiting for it for two weeks, and it is most unfair to ask him to sit here for hours again with new-comers arriving anxious to talk.

The Question—"That the debate stand adjourned"—having been put, a division was challenged.

Sir John Keane

Could we not come to agreement about this? The House is very empty, but I know that a number of Senators are interested in this matter.

Mr. Johnson

I suggest to Senator Sir John Keane that it is quite obvious that the House is not interested in it.

Sir John Keane

It is, but it is rather late.

Mr. Johnson

It would be far better to have this matter dealt with now. It is not going to get any more satisfactory elucidation.

Miss Browne

I do not agree with that. I think it is very important.

The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.

Cathaoirleach

The Question is: "That the debate stand adjourned until next Wednesday."

Question put, and declared lost.

Mr. Quirke

I thought that, for once, I was in agreement with Senator Sir John Keane, and I probably would have been were it not for one word in his motion—the word "public." The idea of a public inquiry into anything of this nature is absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion. I did not hear Senator Sir John Keane's argument in support of his motion, and missed part of Miss Browne's speech in support of it, but, in regard to the part I did hear, all I can say is that, if Sir John Keane had not any more able support for his motion than Miss Browne, I am sorry for him. The idea of holding a public inquiry is absurd. As I understand, a public inquiry involves a sort of general invitation to everybody interested in the subject from all over the country to meet in Dublin. It would appear to me that the people in the country are more interested in the agricultural industry than are the members of the Seanad, if we are to judge by the attendance here to-night. If any such invitation were issued, the only suitable place for the holding of this proposed inquiry would be the Phoenix Park. Senator Miss Browne said that it was absolutely impossible for us in this country to consume the cattle produced here. As I heard somebody criticising Senator Michael Comyn, I shall not mention any figures but if Senator Miss Browne will look up the statistics and find out the amount of beef, and meat generally, used by the people of England, Canada and various other countries, she will be convinced that we, with our increasing population, would have no trouble whatever in consuming the amount of beef produced here at present. Senator Miss Browne laughs. At present, I suppose she is eating only about the same amount of beef that she has eaten for a number of years. It is probable that she has not felt the depression that we hear so much about. I am sure she will agree with me when I say that, within the last 12 months, a number of people in this country have eaten meat once a day for the first time in their lives. There is no reason why, under proper conditions and under a proper form of government, the people here should not eat more meat than they have been eating. I do not for a moment suggest that we should not have any exports of beef from the country. I believe we should have exports and I believe we should export a good many other things. But I do say that we could increase our consumption of meat, regardless of what Senator Miss Browne says.

I regard this motion as an attempt to placate a certain section of the people and that section could be very nicely described as "die-hards" or irreconcilables—people who refuse to be convinced that anything good can come from a Fianna Fáil Government. The present policy of the Government has brought about, as the motion admits, altered conditions. If the motion had been brought on after we had had a year's trial of that changed policy, there might be some justification for it. But the fact is that we have not got over one entire period yet and the results, so far as we have gone, indicate that that policy is going to be a success. Underlying the speeches we have heard in support of this motion is the idea of embarrassing the Government. Senator O'Connor comes out with that well-known slogan: "Give us back our markets." Now, that kind of thing is being shouted at every cross-road in the country by a certain Party and the fact that it is associated with this motion convinces me in the belief I have already expressed, that this is an attempt to show that section in the country that something is being done for them in the Seanad, that some people are fighting their battles up here and doing their best to embarrass the Government. If the people supporting this motion believe that by keeping this kind of thing going in the Seanad, in the Dáil, or anywhere else, they can embarrass the Government to such a pitch as to bring about the change of policy, I believe they are making a great mistake. There can be no compromise on the attitude taken up by the Government, that the people of this country have the right to manage their own affairs in their own way. The present policy of the Government was accepted by the people in two elections——

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is now going somewhat outside the motion. What is under discussion is the policy of the Government and how that policy can be improved.

Mr. Quirke

To criticise a policy which has been accepted by the people is an attempt to embarrass the Government and to get them to turn away from that policy. I believe there can be no compromise on that policy and that there will be no compromise.

Mr. Staines

I can assure Senator Quirke that I have no intention of trying to embarrass the Government. I should like to tell Senator Johnson that whether the statistics he quoted are his own or Deputy Mulcahy's they are no use to me. I do not believe in statistics. I know Ireland. I have travelled it from one end to the other. I have lived in many parts of it. The policy of the Government is to get us back to the land. We were dealing with a Railway Bill to-day. We were putting the railways on wheels, as Senator Comyn said. To get back to the land, we cannot use the railways because they are using imported coal. Incidentally, the railways might try the Arigna stuff. I think that is quite good. The policy is to get us back to the land—to the 20 acre farm, which is to support a man, his wife and family. That is a good policy if it works. But Senator Comyn reminded us about the people between Ballinasloe and, I think, Ennistymon, who were removed without their consent. I put it to Senator Comyn that if we are to remove the people from the cities back to the land, it will not be done with the consent of the people.

Mr. Comyn

I beg the Senator's pardon. I never said that we were to remove the people from the cities back to the land. What I said was that there was a surplus population of young people who must get small farms or they will take them themselves.

Mr. Staines

The Senator made some remark about clearances between Ballinasloe and somewhere else in County Clare.

Mr. Comyn

I talked about clearances at the time of industrial development in England. There were clearances made at that time to suit their policy and not with the consent of the people.

Mr. Staines

My difficulty is to know, if we all clear back to the land, will we get the consent of the owners. We will not. Having farms of 20, 50, 100 or 200 acres—I do not think there are many with 300 acres—how many people will be able to work on the land? Take the people in Dublin, wholesalers, retailers, middlemen, agents, shop assistants, and even cattle salesmen, how many of them would be able to work a 20 acre farm and to rear a family on it? The same applies to carters, drovers, professional men and Senators.

Mr. O'Neill

And golfers.

Mr. Staines

And golfers. I will not include Deputies because someone must carry on the Government. Suppose we all went back to these farms where would it end? In my opinion it would end where we began about 300 years ago, with everyone living on 20 acre farms on which the people were then able to feed families. In those days there were no such things as railways, pictures, motor cars and all the other things that everybody wants nowadays. The housing problem in Dublin is a very serious one. People are taken out of tenements and at public expense —because grants have to be given and money borrowed—put into houses in Cabra, Marino and elsewhere, As soon as the tenements are vacant people come up from Tullamore or from Athlone and occupy them. How is that to be stopped? Some Senators mentioned dairying in the Golden Vale and compared it with wheat growing in Wexford. The Seanad and the Department of Agriculture should leave these things to the farmers. In the Golden Vale in Tipperary and Limerick it pays to produce milk and in Wexford it pays to produce wheat.

Miss Browne

No.

Mr. Staines

It pays better than other things.

Miss Browne

To produce beet.

Mr. Staines

In some parts of Wexford black oats pays better than white oats, but in the West of Ireland the people would not look at black oats. These matters are best left to the people concerned. The cattle business may be all right for Meath but it is wrong for the rest of the country. I think Senator Sir John Keane's motion is in the right direction, and that we should have an inquiry so that the farmers would be told what sort of tillage suited the different localities. Where farmers are accustomed to tillage it would be silly, even for the Department of Agriculture, to tell them whether they should grow wheat, black or white oats.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I did not think this debate would be so extended, but would be confined, more or less, to dealing with the necessity for an inquiry. I listened practically to the same debate previously. On three or four previous occasions I heard Senator Counihan make the same speech. He made it on the Cereals Bill and also on the motion for the establishment of the pig tribunal. In future I will know what the Senator is going to say no matter what is to be discussed. Senator Miss Browne also made the same speech that she made previously, the only difference being that she took the opposite side to that taken by Senator Counihan. Senator Miss Browne said that this motion is different to the one dealing with the setting up of the pig tribunal, and that this was the sort of inquiry that was necessary, while the other one was not necessary. Why the same speech should be used to justify the two matters I cannot say.

Mr. Counihan

They are both futile.

Dr. Ryan

I listened with great interest to Senator Johnson, and I agree practically with everything he said, including his conclusions, that we should deal with the marketing and export of our products and with our imports. I agree with Senator Johnson that if a proper inquiry could be held into these questions it would be very useful. When I saw this motion on the Order Paper I thought it was a reasonable one to come before the Seanad, because it is put in a very reasonable way and does not understate or overstate the policy of the Government. It is true that it is the declared policy of the Government to depend to an increasing extent on home production and on home markets. That was put fairly. But when we have speakers departing from that, and taking it for granted that we do not want to have anything to do with the British, or with any other markets; that we are going to eat all the cattle in the country, it is hardly to be expected that anyone would pursue such an argument or try to answer it, as has been done here more than once. Consequently I do not intend to go into it again. If we have taken a certain line of policy that does not mean that we have said to Great Britain: "We cannot have anything more to do with you, either buying or selling". As Senator Johnson very well put it Great Britain is our neighbour, and that country is naturally the country with which we would trade under normal circumstances. Apart from that, we do not think we should buy the trade at a cost of £5,000,000 a year. Hence our attitude on the economic war.

As Senator Sir John Keane stated very fairly when introducing his motion, even if there was no economic war this case would probably arise. We do not hear that the farmers in the North of Ireland are perfectly satisfied with their condition. They have all the advantages that we are told we would have if Fianna Fáil were put out of power, and if another Government came in. Very often I have seen resolutions which were passed by farmers' committees, and at meetings of Farmers' Unions in the North of Ireland, protesting against the treatment they are getting from their own Government; also protesting against low prices, and pointing out that it was impossible for them to pay land annuities. Evidently the farmers there are not as well off as they would like to be. The same thing applies to many other countries. Looking at it from that point of view, whether the economic war ever occurred or not, or whether it will be ever settled or not, the problem remains. I think therefore there is a very good deal to be said for putting down this motion. The real difficulty arises when you come to the details of it.

The Seanad requests the Executive Council to institute a public inquiry as to the form of agriculture that is best calculated to ensure the prosperity of that industry in the altered circumstances.

That is the problem most people are up against; to ensure the prosperity of the agricultural industry. That problem is very acute in the United States, which is a powerful and a fairly self-contained country, where they have their home markets, and are not dependent, to any great extent, on exports. Agriculture there is in a very depressed condition. I do not think there is any European country in which agriculture can be said to be prosperous. The problem we have to face is somewhat the same as every other country in the world has to face at the present time.

I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that it would be absolutely hopeless to get a committee of inquiry formed from the different political parties, because we would never get any nearer a solution than we have got this evening. Representatives of the different parties would state their political views, and, in quite a dogmatic way, would lay down the cause of the whole thing, without suggesting any remedy except the old parrot cry: "Give us back our markets". I am glad, at any rate, that it has not been suggested as a remedy, to select a committee from the Dáil or the Seanad or from the different political parties.

Senator Sir John Keane believes that a committee formed of people from within the State would hardly be successful. I do not know if they would. No suggestion have been made by people who claim to be outside politics, if there are any such. I do not believe there are, because almost everybody votes at elections and in that case they all must know something about politics. There are people supposed to be non-political— people who do not support the Government sometimes say they are non-political-and to have something more of the economic mind. They have not come forward with any useful remedies. I am very doubtful if they could give us any remedy, even if they were put on a public inquiry. Senator Sir John Keane suggests we should go outside the country in order to get the personnel of the commission of inquiry. Much the same conditions exist everywhere. If people were to come to me from France, Germany, Great Britain, America or elsewhere and suggest they were suitable people for this inquiry I would naturally ask them why they did not solve the difficulties in their own lands first. The real difficulty is to get people likely to offer a solution.

I do not see any objection to the passing of a resolution requesting the Executive Council to consider this matter. I am sure the Executive Council would have no objection; but if I were to tell my colleagues there that I had listened to a debate in the Seanad and I was of the opinion that we should consider this matter they would ask me what I proposed. What could I propose? If I say a committee must be set up, they will ask me what persons I would appoint on that committee and what suggestions in that respect were made by the Seanad. I am afraid I would have to remark that if they read the Official Debates they would find much the same type of discussion as goes on here on everything else that arises. I would not have anything useful to offer in the way of a suggestion. Until the Senator is in a position to make more definite recommendations to the Executive Council, I do not think they could consider the matter. If he is able to say to the Executive Council. "Here are two, three or five men——

Mrs. Clarke

Or women?

Dr. Ryan

——or women who would be quite competent to examine this matter and offer useful suggestions", and if he were to set out other matters in more detail, I am quite sure the Executive Council would be very glad to consider his proposals. Passing a resolution like this without giving some indication of how the problem can definitely be faced is not going to lead us any further. I am quite sure that if, within the last 12 months, the Executive Council were told that there was an expert in America, Germany or elsewhere who could solve our agricultural problem they would immediately ask his advice; but they do not know of such a person.

We have been accused by Senator Miss Browne of entering on this thing without thinking of the subject in any but a haphazard way. We are really continuing the policy we were following for the last 25 years, back to the old Sinn Fein times, when it was always held to be the country's best course to produce all we could to meet our own needs. Wherever we see a commodity such as fruit, beet, tobacco, wheat or anything else that we can produce in this country, we ascertain if it can be produced here in a reasonably economic way and, if it can be, we try to get down to the production of that article in order that we may employ our own people. We have tried to get more people employed on the land.

We have found from statistics—and grave doubts were placed on the value of statistics here this evening—that if you want more intense production the only way is to have smaller farms. It has been shown that big farms over 50 acres in extent do not produce as much as the small farms under 50 acres. In addition to protecting tillage crops, such as wheat, beet and other things that we were importing up to this, we have also tried to get to the division of the land so that there may be more intensive production amongst the small farmers. That is the general policy that we and most other countries have been pursuing.

Agriculture in most countries is depressed. No country will take a chance at the present moment on opening its doors by removing tariffs on agricultural produce and allowing other countries to dump their stuff. Every country appears to be agreed that the best policy to pursue is to have protection for agricultural produce. The fact that we are to an increasing extent depending on our home market and on more home production is a source of satisfaction to us. That is the same policy that is adopted by other countries.

I have no very pronounced view as to whether this motion should be accepted. I think it would be much more useful if it were framed in a more detailed way and if there were some indication given to the Executive Council as to who are the people who could give advice. I think the only point that matters is whether there are people who would be useful on such an inquiry. If we knew that there are such people available we would have no hesitation in asking them to inquire into the condition of the agricultural industry here and advise us how best to shape our policy for the future.

There is one particular point to which I would like to refer. As Senator Quirke said, we have taken a certain stand in this matter. We are perfectly certain that we have taken a just stand on behalf of the Irish people. As long as we are the Government we are going to remain where we are as regards our stand against England on this financial question. We have taken responsibility for it and were not afraid to go back to the people after they had got a taste of what it meant and to say to them: "We have done this. You know what this economic war means and we are before you again——"

Miss Browne

Not the majority of the people.

Dr. Ryan

There is a majority of us at any rate. We have taken that responsibility and we mean to be responsibility for it. If I have given any indication that I would favour a public inquiry it is not because we want to remove this responsibility from our shoulders, but I want to show that we are not so conceited as to think that others would not know more about it than we would.

Sir John Keane

As regards the last part of the Minister's remarks, I only make this comment that there is a big difference between a taste and a surfeit. The people did get a taste of this before but now they have got a surfeit. This motion only comes from me as a reasoned suggestion to the Executive Council. If they do not see the need of an inquiry that is well and good. But feeling strongly that the problem is one of great national importance, that we are moving towards a very unbalanced condition and that the balance will not be restored by industrialism I moved my motion. I agree to a certain extent with Senator Johnson that you cannot confine it to agriculture. It may be mainly from the point of view of agriculture but you must have regard as well to the industrial position and to the general economic factors. If the Executive Council do not think this motion is necessary well and good. I was hoping that they would see the urgency of that problem and deal with it in whatever form they considered best. I do feel strongly that it is disastrous to let this question drift and that there is a certain responsibility directly on the Government to undertake regulations or to be driven to make regulations as to the best way in which to deal with this question that is so important for the country. That is the reason why I am satisfied, after close examination, that there is a necessity for this motion. However I leave myself in the hands of the House with regard to it.

Cathaoirleach

Will you withdraw the motion, Senator Sir John Keane, or do you want a division on it?

Sir John Keane

I am quite prepared to withdraw the motion. The Minister knows the position. Owing to the small number of members now in the House, I do not want it to go to a division.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The House adjourned at 7.45 until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 31st of May, 1933.