This motion is to set up a committee to consider and report its opinion on the national policy at present being pursued "with particular regard to its consequences on the economic and social life of the people." If it is really intended to be passed on its face value, it seems to me to be entirely inappropriate and quite an impossible proposition. I should also have read the second paragraph of the resolution, which says: "That the Committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to take evidence." The present national policy, in so far as it affects economic and social life, is every act of the Executive Council and if a Committee of the Seanad is set up, and can send for persons, papers and records and can take evidence and examine into every act of the Executive Council, of course it means that the Executive Council is superseded. As I say, if this motion is meant to be taken at its face value, it is impossible, but as a means of raising a discussion on general policy I think it serves a purpose. It is so wide that one is justified in talking on almost anything within the jurisdiction of the Executive Council.
I was interested to hear Senator Counihan to-day following upon statements of Senator Baxter's last week, apparently desirous of confining the discussion on this motion to the old topic of the effects of the present fiscal policy and agrarian policy of the Government upon agriculture. I do not think that the motion should be confined to that side of national policy at all, and I propose, shortly, to refer to certain other aspects of national policy. Before doing so I should like to draw attention to an extraordinary statement by Senator Baxter last week and more or less repeated and confirmed to-day by Senator Counihan, suggesting that prior to 1932 the farmers were doing very well. Senator Counihan, for instance, quotes the policy of the ex-Minister for Agriculture and makes reference to the acreage under tillage crops. He is right in his figures as regards the total area under crops but it is just as well for the purposes of record to have it down that the total root green crops, including flax and fruit, is up since 1931 by 71,000 acres and that the deficiencies are due to a decline in the area under hay. That, by the way. Senator Baxter told us of the happy homes that had been built up by prosperous farmers in the past. Until recently he said they were paying high rents and rates but, despite these difficulties, they accumulated considerable savings. That is in Column 1276. Further on in Column 1279 the Senator said: "There are poor farmers in this country, on the western seaboard, who lived decent-lives and enjoyed comparative comfort for 20 years." I think that the general indication of the argument of the Senator last week was that prior to the inauguration of the new Government's policy, affecting agriculture, the farmers were in comparative comfort and had considerable savings and that the losses had occurred since the Government came into office with this new policy. But Senator Baxter had a different view in 1926. He was then Deputy Baxter, and I shall quote from the Dáil Debates, Volume 14, March 24, 1926, column 1609, where, when speaking on the Estimates, he said:—
"If we consider the plight of the small farmer we have to exclaim that this sum must be reduced, because the people have not got the money and cannot find it. I hold that not alone do the bank deposits show a falling off, not alone does our export trade show a debit balance, but I am perfectly satisfied that two thirds of the farmers are carrying on, trying to pay their purchase annuities, trying to pay their rates, and trying to pay the national taxation by depleting their capital. By that I mean the selling off of their cattle and other stock."
Further on, he said:
"I believe that the position is really so serious that unless stock is taken, unless something is done to call a halt, we will find, after a year or two, at our present rate of progress, that half the farmers will not be carrying one-third the stock that is necessary to make the holdings economic, and that, while the other half may not be in such a bad position, they will be very near it. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture knows quite well what the position is; he knows that thousands of farmers to-day are not able to pay their land purchase annuities and have not a hoof on the land. Other men are paying their annuities by taking, perhaps, their second-last cow to the fair. I am not overstating the case; I am talking of conditions exactly as I know them."
If that were the position in 1926, I wonder does the Senator wish us to believe that between that year and 1932 the condition of affairs, as exemplified in that quotation, was so revolutionised, that the farmers became comfortable, and had considerable savings in the four years of declining prices that followed 1926. Senator Baxter asked me a direct question, as to what I thought of the policy which he quoted from the Minister for Agriculture, of restrictions on output. My answer to that is this, that so long as the agriculture of this country, or any country, is dependent for success upon the sale of produce in a market which it cannot control, and if at any time that market decides that the amount that is being sent to it is too great for its capacity to absorb, then a policy of restriction of output is necessary whether that restriction is imposed or is undertaken voluntarily. The policy of restriction of output is, of course, not confined to this country, and if Senator Baxter would agree, I would join him in making a demand that there should be no restriction on output until it is perfectly clear that every inhabitant of this country is fully supplied with all that agriculture can produce. I would not seek to have any restriction on output until assured that everything that can reasonably be consumed by 3,000,000 of the people is available for them. But we are conducting agriculture for a market, and it is pretty obvious that that market is not willing to receive all that this country could produce in the way of agriculture. Therefore, some restrictions and some re-direction of the course of agricultural production seems to be inevitable.
On the other hand, we find Ministers talking about settling more people on the land, of dividing and sub-dividing farms, and maintaining this as an agricultural country. I am very sorry to say that so far I have not been able to grasp what the national policy of the Government is. A good many years ago there occurred in this country a real change in the relationship between the land owner and the occupier. The coming of the Land Acts and the revolution that they created was a real revolution, inasmuch as they transformed the character of the social relations between the occupier and the owner of land. But, since the later political revolution of 1916-1921, I have not yet seen any sign that either the last Government or this Government has any notion of a transformation of the relations between townsmen and their fellows. Their agricultural policy is an extension—a perfection if you like—of the policy initiated long before the Free State was established, as a result of the agrarian agitation and the revolutionary activities. The success of the political revolution was made possible by a belief that it would introduce some changes affecting the future status of the non-agriculturalists, that is to say, that large and respectable class of the community, the men of no property.
There is going on an attempt to introduce an industrial revival. Very much has been done in the way of social amelioration, and I have nothing but thanks to give to those who were instrumental in ameliorating the conditions and creating a new state of affairs which will salve the wounds that are caused by the maladjustment of economic relationships. The President made a speech recently outside the Oireachtas in which he went some little degree towards exposing his mind as to the future policy of the Government and of this country. He indicated at a lecture that
"our aim is not to overturn the system.... We are reformers.... What we have to do is to try to end the abuses of the system.... It has abuses which have to be attended to but it works, though badly.
"They were trying to arrive at a proper balance between the agricultural industry and the manufacturing industry and to get a proper distribution of wealth in the community."
At another stage in the speech the President indicated how they were desirous and had the definite purpose of introducing legislation which would make it possible in times of stress and unemployment for people to carry on. All that is very good, but I should suggest, if Ministers were present, that if they look ahead they are not going to solve their problems by adherence to that policy solely. I can see no germ yet in the social and economic affairs of this country of any new idea which, by the process of growth, of development, will make impossible or unlikely a recrudescence and a renewal of all the evils which present social legislation is intended to ameliorate. Ministers have spoken about the settlement of larger numbers on the land, and the division of agricultural holdings. I made a calculation, roughly, I admit, and it is subject to correction, but is probably not very far out, which indicates that if all the holdings over 100 acres were cut down to 100 acres, and if all the farms under 25 acres were raised to 25 acres, and all the adult male relatives who are living on and assisting on these farms were given 25 acres, there would be a shortage of 1,500,000 acres of land, so that sub-division, to the extent I have indicated, is not possible within the present area of the land of this country.
But what is too often forgotten when looking at this problem is that there is, at least, as large a number of people who are not land holders, and inasmuch as those who are at present living directly upon the land should get their land hunger satisfied before we come down to the non-agricultural population, it is inevitable that if you settle people upon the land in small holdings, even with the present population, we are going to leave as large a number without land and as large a number without other property of any economic value; meaning to say, men who are dependent for the livelihood of themselves and their families on employment and wages. If there is to be, as one naturally expects, a growing population, there is going to be a growing population which will be waiting for employment and for wages. That is a very important fact and one that must be taken into account. I am waiting to hear whether, within the system of property ownership, the Government has any views as to changing the relationship between the non-property owning and the property owning person; to give the non-property owning person some security for a livelihood, by virtue of earning, not charity—not doles, and not State assistance—but by virtue of the fact that he is a full man and capable of earning a livelihood.
I should like, for instance, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce would give us the results of his thoughts on this problem. We have had a considerable number of measures brought before us which have become law, all aiming at the re-establishment or establishment of industry, and all moving with the purpose of establishing industry in exactly the same form as has produced the evils which the President, in the statement at the recent lecture, said had caused the abuses which he deplored.
I want to know whether it is the mind of the Government to introduce into the social economic life of this country any proposal, accepting the property system, which would change the relationship of the non-owning class—the men who have only their labour to sell—from that of dependence upon the owning class. So far there has been no indication of the introduction into the economic social life of this country of any change which, by virtue of its gradual development, will bring about a change in social relationships. We hear talk of distributism, the wide distribution of property. What has been suggested or thought of as a means of distributing industrial property? We have schemes for the amalgamation of capital concerns, the re-establishment of industrial companies with their capital subscribed in this country, all of which, no matter how successful they may be, no matter how they may be dispersed over different towns, means the dependence upon those proprietary interests of the working-class community, which to-day is as large as the agricultural community and which will inevitably grow to be larger in numbers than the agricultural community.
The question of national policy and its present tendencies, and the consequences upon the economic and social life of the people, are very appropriate to considerations of this kind. I think Ministers sometimes feel that they are forced, by virtue of the economic facts to do, in regard to the establishment of certain classes of industry, what the idealists amongst them would like to avoid. Sometimes they think in terms of a wide dispersal of small industries, even cottage industries, but when they come to deal with concrete proposals we have the beet sugar factories requiring a large aggregation of capital. We get policies in regard to the amalgamation of the carrying companies requiring large aggregations of capital. We get suggestions about cement factories, three or four, which require large aggregations of capital with their expensive plant and employing few workmen. As the economic facts emerge, it will be found with the establishment in this country of an industrial arm of any power that the dependence of the working class upon the capitalist class will become as distinct and as clearly marked as it is in other countries, even small countries with a developed industry, inevitably intensifying the cleavages that at present exist in those countries. Similar cleavages will occur in this country unless there are introduced into our economic life and schemes of one kind or another which through their own growth and development are going to bring about a radical change in the social economic relationships which have dominated the past and which, as far as one can see, if present policy is pursued, will continue to dominate it. Now, I think it must be admitted, if what I am indicating has any foundation at all, that such a course of affairs will mean a consolidation of working class interests and of the struggles that inevitably follow that consolidation, especially when, as he has occasionally said, the Minister for Industry and Commerce intends that there should be an economic plan and enough concerns in this country to ensure that there will be a fair amount of internal competition. That internal competition is going to lead to conflicts and consolidations on the side of capital, with, as a corollary, consolidations on the side of labour. That seems to me to be a matter very well worthy of consideration.
I quoted a few weeks ago, rather in an aside, a statement which I intend to quote again. I take it from the statistical returns. It indicates a tendency which will, I think, be emphasised year by year as the industrial processes develop. It is a tendency for the margin—between the wages and salaries paid out in the course of production and the value of output—to grow. Taking the years 1926, 1929 and 1931, there has been quite an appreciable decline in the proportion of the net output that is paid away in wages and salaries, notwithstanding that there has been an increase in the total sum. The effect of that, of course, is that those receiving wages and salaries are able to buy a smaller proportion of the net output year by year, and so far as the statistical returns of the 1932 census of production have been published, they show the same tendency. Instead of a rising tendency it is a declining tendency, and it is not peculiar to this country. I think it will be found that, as plant and capital become more intricate and more and more expensive, the disproportion will be emphasised. That should be a warning to Ministers who are taking a long view of national policy as to whether they cannot find a means of introducing a new principle which will not be a mere principle of ownership, strongly saturated with the spirit of acquisitiveness, but one which, while retaining the principle of ownership, will introduce a new social relationship, a new purpose in industrial production. Unless that is done, I think the future is going to be a replica of the past and the present: that there will be a continuous intensification of the conflict of interests and of the organisation of those conflicting interests, with results that we can all foresee at some time in the future of a violent upheaval. I have made these comments in the hope that Ministers will at least take them as a matter of serious consideration or, if one likes, as a challenge to them to produce their considered views as to what is to be the future of this country in regard to economic social relations.
