Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 1934

Vol. 18 No. 25

Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act, 1933. - Adjournment Debate.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

In view of the extremely important work in which we have been engaged, I regret the delay in raising this matter, but the statement to which my notice refers is of such a serious nature that I cannot allow it to pass without notice. A short time ago some Ministers were speaking at a public meeting and they were reported in the public Press as having made certain remarks which I shall quote here. On this occasion I have made quite sure to take the quotations from a paper that cannot make any mistake. I refer to the Irish Press. On 27th May the Minister for Defence was speaking at a public meeting in Dundalk and he made a certain statement there as reported in the Irish Press. The statement is headed “Bullock Worship.” Of course we cannot do without bullocks. Cows have calves and the calves become bullocks unless they are slaughtered as calves for their skins. This is what the Minister is reported as having said on that occasion:

"A lot of farmers who were carried away by political prejudice refused to accept the facts of the situation regarding wheat-growing ... and refused to develop the wheat policy. They could not have patience with those farmers any longer. Drastic action of some sort would have to be taken against those who were cornering land and using it to fatten bullocks that could not be sold, and would not use it to produce the wheat the Irish people required ... if the farmers who had the land at the moment would not use it they would see that farmers were put in who would use it."

Now, Sir, those are the Minister's words as reported by the Irish Press on May 28th. Hitherto we have had just callous indifference to the interests of the farmers, but this constitutes a definite threat that farmers who refuse to develop the Government's policy will be dispossessed of their land, and is in direct conflict with the statements made by Minister in this House during the passage of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill through this House.

In volume 16 of the reports of the Seanad Debates, column 431, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is recorded as having said:

"The position is that if wheat is not grown there is no harm done."

On column 605, the Minister for Agriculture confirms this policy with the words:

"The idea in this Bill is not to compel anybody to grow wheat but to try and make it a paying proposition."

It was on assurances such as these that the House relied when they passed the measure into law. There are many farmers all over the country whose land is unfit for wheat and, what is more, they know in what way their land can be made to yield the best return. With that knowledge, they are doing their best to make both ends approach towards each other—not to actually meet—in the very difficult and unfortunate circumstances which obtain in the country to-day. If these men do not grow wheat on their land, if they do not want to develop along the line of the Government's policy, they should not, owing to the assurance we had, be forced in any way to do so. It is very alarming to hear those who should be responsible Ministers indicating that compulsory wheat tillage is coming, that there is to be an end to security of tenure as well as to the cattle trade. This change of policy will add to the despondency and want of confidence which is already felt in the country.

One Minister tells us to till more land. We all know that more tillage requires more manure and that more manure means more cattle and an export market for our surplus. A second Minister warns, or threatens, us that, if we do not till, other people will be put in to do it for us and we will be put out on the road. A third Minister goes around and says that he is killing off the cattle trade at the speediest possible rate. It took 100 years to build up that trade and he hopes to destroy it altogether. Possibly, people get excited at these public meetings at cross-roads and chapels. Possibly, the Minister for Defence when he was dealing with this matter was just a little unfortunate in his choice of words. It may be that he made a mistake in what he was told to say but, in any event, it would be to everybody's advantage if the situation were made somewhat clear.

Sir John Keane

I do not want to stand between the Minister and the House. The House wants to hear the Minister's explanation, but I suggest that statements of this kind are especially disquieting in view of the special powers the Government has in regard to the acquisition of land. If things were normal, and the ownership of land were protected in any reasonable way, it would be different, but we know that the Government has power to go in and take land from anybody. These powers, coupled with the statement made by the Minister for Defence, are distinctly disquieting. I do hope that the Minister will give an assurance that people enjoying the possession of lands will not be forced, by indirect means, to adopt any system of agriculture the Government seek to impose.

Mr. Wilson

I do not place very much reliance—if I may use the word —on speeches made by Ministers in their perambulations through the country. We all know what these hostings are like. An endeavour is made to get the people to cheer and all that sort of thing and the speeches are not really meant to be taken seriously. The serious part of it is, however, that these statements are made by Ministers. What I suggest is that, notwithstanding that they are Ministers, they are still subject to the law. I do not know that there is yet any law by which anybody could be compelled to grow wheat unless he so desired. The tenure of land, it is said, is to depend on the use made of it, but that is only the statement of a Minister. The law does not say that. We had a very definite assurance, on the passing of the Land Bill, that land would not be taken over if husbandry be carried on in a reasonable manner except for certain services.

I am not against the proposal to grow wheat, though that question can hardly be discussed on this motion. The motion is intended, I think, to get an assurance from the Minister for Agriculture that the statement of the Minister for Defence does not represent Government policy. That is what is sought. There is a good deal of anxiety, particularly amongst farmers who hold grass lands, as to what the idea is behind the Minister's statement. If Senator Parkinson were here he would give good reasons to the Minister why these grass lands should not be disturbed. It appears that great advantage to the live stock industry is reaped by the fact that horses are enabled to gallop over these pastures in their youth. These pastures are grazed by cattle and, for the sake of the live stock breeding industry, it is to be hoped that a certain area will be allowed to be kept under grass. I suggest to the Minister, though it may be out of order, that there is a means by which he could revive the price of live stock in this country without any loss to the Treasury. It would be possible for him to increase the farmers' capital, which has been unjustly depreciated owing to the operation of these tariffs. The President stated at Ennis that the British collected £4,500,000 in special duties, and that we provided £2,500,000 for export duties, and gave half the land annuities to balance the amount the British collected. Our idea is to raise the price of the 4,000,000 cattle in this market. That can be done by paying all the export duty — £4,500,000 — received by the British and collecting the whole annuity from the farmer. The price of cattle would then rise to the right figure. The Government would lose no money and we would have got back our capital, which had been depreciated. The Government will be paying only £4,500,000, and our cattle will rise to the extent of £3 per head, which will make £12,000,000. In that way, we would be able to carry on the war and we would be losing nothing.

Miss Browne

I desire merely to quote the report of a meeting held in Enniscorthy in support of the candidate going forward in the Fianna Fáil interests. The Minister for Agriculture was present at that meeting, which was reported in the Wexford Free Press of the 9th June. Mr. Malachy Sweetman, who was a candidate, made the following statement:—

"One of the things he would help the Government to do would be to make the farmers pay a high rate if they did not go back to tillage and give employment and, if they did not pay the rate, they should be made bankrupt and their land auctioned. That land could be bought for half-a-crown an acre. They had an anti-rate campaign to get back the cattle trade, but the cattle trade could be got back in the morning by taking down the tariff walls and abandoning the industrial policy of the Government. If he was elected, the first thing he would do was to say at the county council that it was the duty of the members to go to the auctions of the garrison men who could afford to pay their rates and who would not pay and to bid at the auctions. Mark my words," said Mr. Sweetman, "I will go and bid at the auctions if you put me in."

I suppose he is afraid to go when he is not in.

Sir John Keane

Who said that?

Miss Browne

The Minister was present and spoke at the meeting. The Minister himself made the following statement:—

"I am told you will not be allowed into one of their secret meetings,

referring to the United Ireland Party,

"unless you can show your demand note for rates and show that you have not paid them; and that, if you have paid them you will get into trouble and you are no use to them any longer."

It would be painting the lily to make any comment on either of these statements. I merely read them.

Mr. O'Connor

Reference has been made to the callous indifference of the Government to the prosperity of the farmers. As regards the growing of wheat, farmers try by every possible means to increase the money value of their land. We, ourselves, have carried on mixed farming, to which there is a considerable amount of labour and expense attached. During the war years we had 57 acres of tillage. We had a field in very good condition. Cake had been used on it. We sowed ten acres of wheat, but just at the time when it was beginning to ripen the weather rendered it unfit for anything except stallfeeding. The question raised here is as to the use of compulsion on people to till their land. I think that it ought to be left to the intelligence of the person who owns land to make the best use of it. Some of our people grow wheat every year, but the country generally is not suitable for wheat-growing compared with countries where there is more sunshine which enables the wheat to ripen properly and provide good flour. The cattle industry, I regret to say, is becoming almost bankrupt because of the continuance of the tariffs. Personally, I cannot understand why the thing is not being brought to a settlement between our Government and the English Government. We are in this position now that we are suffering to a tremendous extent. We see our staple industry being crippled.

Cathaoirleach

The question of the economic war is slightly outside the motion.

Mr. O'Connor

The question of the economic war is hitting the farmers to such an extent that they cannot carry on. My contention is that the Government should see plainly the necessity for taking steps to bring about a settlement. We want to have it settled. It is anticipated that the question will be settled some time. I submit that the policy of "no surrender" is not one that should be adopted by the Government. We want a settlement and we want it urgently in the interests of the country and of its prosperity. The sooner the settlement comes the more we will welcome it.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

The Cereals Act of 1933 contains some provisions for the encouragement of wheat growing, but, as has been mentioned by some Senators, it is entirely optional with a farmer as to whether he will grow wheat at the price offered. Under the present legislation we have no power to compel any farmer to grow wheat, or indeed to engage in any other form of tillage. I have always hoped that it will be possible to get our full requirements of wheat grown under a voluntary scheme. The Government certainly have no intention, without at least another year's trial, of introducing any such thing as compulsion. I do not know, if it came to the point of considering compulsion, if I would be in favour of it under any circumstances, but up to the present we have not considered it because, as I say, we hope to get our full requirements in tillage under a voluntary scheme.

But apart from that, under the Land Act of 1923 and under subsequent Acts the Land Commission have, I believe, the power to take over land for the relief of congestion. I have said under the Land Act of 1923 and subsequent Acts because I want to show that every Government which has held office here since the Free State was set up has approved of that principle of having land taken over for the relief of congestion. The Land Commission have set out on a rather big scheme of trying to settle this question of congestion. The Land Commission will naturally want a great deal of land all through the country. In their selection of land they have to take into account the use that is being made of a particular farm. If there are two farms side by side, and if they only want one I am quite certain that the Land Commission would select the farm on which there is very little employment given as against the one on which there is a great deal of employment given, whether it is given by way of tillage, dairying, or in any other form. Keeping that in view, I think that the Minister for Defence, if he used the exact words reported, was giving what might be regarded as a friendly warning to farmers who want to hold on to their land. Because if a farmer, or a land owner, is very anxious to hold on to his land in spite of all the depressing talk that we hear about the losses on farming, it is only fair that he should be warned that if he is anxious to hold on his best chance is to make the best use of his land.

Sir John Keane

And lose more money.

Dr. Ryan

If the Land Commission take his land he will be compensated. I am saying that if a land holder wants to keep his land, in spite of losses and everything else, he should make the best use of it, and as I was saying, the Minister for Defence was giving the farmers a friendly warning — that is, if the Minister was correctly reported. I was on the platform, but I do not remember his exact words. At any rate, he was giving the farmers a friendly warning that if they want to keep their land they should make the best possible use of it.

Mr. Wilson

It is all a question as to which is the best way of using it.

Dr. Ryan

If the Land Commission come to decide the question I think they will be naturally inclined to leave land to the person giving the most employment. I want to say further that land cannot be taken without compensation. May I say this, in reply to what Senator Sir John Keane said, that if a land holder is meeting with continual losses his best solution would possibly be to give his land to the Land Commission and get compensation so that he may cut his losses. Senator Miss Browne raised a point about a speech made by a candidate for the Wexford County Council who was on the platform with me to the effect that he would see, if elected, that the farmers would pay a high rate if they were not giving employment. He was, of course, speaking in approval of the present system of relief of agricultural rates.

Miss Browne

He did not mention that.

Dr. Ryan

He may have mentioned it, but naturally his speech was not reported in full in the newspapers. At any rate, he was speaking in approval of the present system of relief of agricultural rates, which, as Senators are aware, affords the maximum amount of relief to the farmer who is giving the greatest amount of employment. Under that system a land holder gets the maximum amount of relief on the first £20 of his valuation. That is, where he or she owns the land. The first £20 of the valuation is derated at the maximum amount of relief, and then for every male maintained on the land, whether the male is a relative or an employee, relief is given on £12 10s. od. of the valuation. The position, therefore, is that the farmer who is giving good employment gets the maximum amount of relief, and the farmer who is not giving employment pays the highest rate. Possibly my friend at the meeting in Enniscorthy was only speaking to the effect that if he were elected he would support the system of relief on agricultural land.

Miss Browne

Do you approve of that system and of what he said?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I was a member of the Government that introduced that system of relief on land, and naturally I approve of what he said. If the Senator would like to know it, I also approve of what he said afterwards: that he would advocate that the county councillors elected would go out and buy cattle at the sales where the cattle were seized for the non-payment of rates, because after all if county councillors do not insist on the rates being paid and give good example themselves by going out and buying these cattle, naturally the local services will fall through.

Miss Browne

Will you say that the next time you are in Wexford?

Cathaoirleach

I think, Senator, that you should not interrupt the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

The Senator knows very well that I went to Campile to a meeting held specially to congratulate men from that area who bought cattle at these sales. The meeting was held for that purpose. It was an enormous meeting, everybody I take it being unanimous in congratulating them. I want to assure Senator The McGillycuddy that under our present power we have no authority to compel any person to till his land. That is as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned. The other point that has to be taken into consideration is, that the Land Commission have power to take land, apart altogether from any powers that we have, and I want the Senator to realise that that was what the Minister for Defence had in mind in warning those farmers — that their land may be taken from them if they are not making proper use of it.

The McGillycuddy

I want to thank the Minister for clearing up the situation so ably — the cattle trade and everything else. I hope that he will get the Minister for Defence to mind his steps the next time.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.55 p.m. to Wednesday, the 20th of June, at 3 p.m.