Review of Commercial and Agricultural Policies—Motion.

Professor Johnston

I move:—

That, in view of the present emergency, the Seanad is of opinion that commercial and agricultural policies should be reviewed with a view especially to the maximum immediate increase of agricultural production and employment.

I would like to express the hope that at some stage in the proceedings in this debate one or more of the Ministers will be present because what we have to say seems to me at any rate to be of a certain importance, and it is being put in such a way as to be helpful rather than otherwise to Ministers in the very difficult responsibilities which they are now facing. I was quite aware, Sir, that we could have raised all these points on the general debate on the Adjournment, but it seemed to me that if we followed that procedure what was likely to happen was that Ministers would have made an opening statement and then there would have been a certain amount of criticism, especially from this side of the House, and the general tone of the debate might have developed in a direction which would be psychologically rather objectionable, because when a Minister makes a statement, the instinct of people, especially of those who normally are in opposition to the Minister, is to criticise and, when criticised, the instinct of a Minister is to defend himself, quite naturally, and in the result perhaps the debate is not quite so constructive and so helpful as it might be. By taking this line, by proposing a definite motion, I seek to make a certain positive contribution to the matter under consideration and, therefore, in a sense, I put myself and Senator Baxter puts himself on the defensive and we give the technical advantage to the Minister or Ministers in their reply, if they wish to make use of that for debating purposes. Further, it creates this psychological advantage, that if we have anything to say of which Ministers approve they can with a good grace accept our suggestions and take full advantage to themselves for whatever may be the result thereof; whereas, in the other event, there is some danger of the debate developing in non-constructive directions.

The problem of increasing our agricultural production is intimately bound up with the problem of our economic relations with our great neighbour and I would suggest at the outset that we should approach that problem in a spirit of frank collaboration with our neighbour, collaboration, if you like, in sympathy for a common cause in respect of which we are legally neutral, but in reference to which we cannot possibly be morally neutral, for we are deceiving ourselves if we do not realise the fact that in certain events, if the western wall of defence on the Rhine should break down, it is quite probable that the Swastika instead of the Cross will float, not only over the western portion of the Continent of Europe, but over these islands. In general, however, I would suggest that if we approach our British neighbours in a spirit of frank collaboration and with the declared intention of endeavouring by every possible means to increase our agricultural output and the volume of our agricultural exports to them, if we put it in that form, we will make it easier for them to agree to those necessary imports of raw materials for our industries, new and old, which we require their co-operation in securing. Certainly our bargaining power in securing the necessary imports for our industries will be greatly improved if we can in any way expand our agricultural exports and make ourselves economically more worthwhile to our neighbours in their present time of great trial.

I do not want to be critical of the Government with reference to its general policy in this crisis but I cannot help saying that I got the impression that they were somewhat "moidered", if I may use a common hibernicism, in their attitude to the crisis—that is somewhat bewildered— and did not give that clear lead in economic or other matters which we look for from a Government which is responsible for the national welfare in a crisis of that kind. Looking at it solely from the economic point of view, I regard the present world crisis as it affects us—I was nearly saying as a Heaven-sent opportunity, but what it really is, is a Hell-sent opportunity— for us to put our national economy back again on an even keel and to liquidate all the mistakes we have made in the last eight or ten years.

It might be asked, although I do not think it will be asked, whether it is in any way departing from the spirit of neutrality, if we seek to increase our exports of food to our belligerent neighbours. In that connection, I would point out that in 1920-21 when this nation was at war with Britain, we nevertheless maintained our food exports to that country and were only too glad to be paid for them in sterling. In fact, in those exciting days, if the British had refused to take our agricultural exports we would have regarded it as a most unfriendly act and would have made the welkin ring with our complaints. The inference from that important fact is one or other of two. Either Great Britain is the national enemy only in a somewhat Pickwickian sense or we are, in our relations with the national enemy, following the teaching of Christian ethics rather than the modern international practice, and we believe that when our enemy hungers, we should feed him and that when he thirsts, we should give him drink. We claim the right at all times, whether at war with Britain or in a condition of friendly neutrality, to export as much Guinness as possible to that country.

We come now to the problem of unemployment, especially urban unemployment which seems to occasion, as I think, disproportionate concern to the Government at the moment. When we are faced with the problem of unemployment, due to some sudden dislocation in economic circumstances, the correct line of approach is to seek out in what directions it is still possible for the national economy to expand, and to use every means in our power, including appropriate State action, to bring about an expansion of economic activity in the directions in which such expansion remains possible, because such expansion will not only increase directly employment in the expanded industries but, indirectly, will have favourable reaction even on other industries which do not appear at the moment to be directly affected by such policies. We had an example of that in the years following 1932 when suddenly our normal economic expansion in the direction of agricultural production and export, was brought up against a blank wall and a serious dislocation of our economy was threatened. The Government of the day prevented what would have been a serious collapse of the whole national economy by their vigorous expansion of industrial development. Whatever I might think of that policy, as compared with other policies which would have been possible if we had avoided that blank wall, nevertheless on the assumption that the blank wall was inevitable, the policy of economic expansion in the direction of industrial development was not only desirable, but without it the nation would have fared much worse than it has fared.

Now we are face to face with a situation of an opposite kind. We find that, owing to various causes, industrial development must either come to an end or at all events its object must be to maintain its present position rather than to expand. On the other hand, we find that there is a limitless market for such agricultural expansion as may be possible under present circumstances and therefore, as I would suggest, the wise policy is to use every effort to expand agricultural production and exports and to increase employment in the agricultural industry, bearing in mind that, not only directly, but indirectly, such increase will have favourable reactions on employment in urban as well as in agricultural industry. If we make a direct attack on the phenomenon of urban unemployment, which is now exercising many peoples' minds, we are likely to indulge in most expensive methods of dealing with it, which will only have the effect of increasing the national debt. If we make this indirect approach to the problem of urban employment, and concentrate rather on expanding rural employment, the final result will probably be that we shall expand exports and sterling balances and increase the creditor position which this nation already enjoys in relation to its neighbour. Of the two methods of dealing with unemployment —one which increases the public debt of the State to the creditors of the State and the other which increases the credit position of the nation in relation to the neighbouring community which will be increasingly its debtor—I infinitely prefer the second method.

You may say: "What is the use of expanding agricultural exports to our great neighbour, to be paid for by increased sterling balances, which are likely to have a diminishing value if a depreciation of sterling should take place and which, in any event, are not likely to be balanced by an equal increase of imports of real goods and services from our British neighbours whose resources are now fully occupied in the prosecution of the war?" In the first place I should like to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that the inflation, or at all events the progressive inflation, of sterling is by no means inevitable. It is true that as compared with six months ago or a year ago, the £ sterling now buys only about four dollars whereas a year ago it bought about four dollars and 80 cents. In the last month or two, there was a fall in the value of sterling from about 4.60 to about four dollars but it is evident, I think, from recent statistics that the policy of our neighbour is to maintain the value of sterling at its present four dollar level and the effect of the fall to four dollars from 4.50 will be to raise, in due course, the price level of precisely that section of our economic production which was unduly depressed in the years following 1933. In other words, that change in the exchange value of sterling when it has time to work itself out, must lead to an increase in the price of goods imported into Britain and of goods produced in these islands which are in competition with goods imported into Great Britain from overseas. Therefore, we may look to the devaluation of sterling which has already taken place as a factor tending to increase the price level of our agricultural exports and to restore the equilibrium in favour of our agricultural producers which all the efforts of the past five or six years have been unable to restore.

But it is not to be taken as axiomatic that sterling will go on depreciating. My reasons for saying so are, partly the evidence derived from the character of the recent British Budget which shows a determination to meet a larger share of the cost of this war from the proceeds of taxation than was aimed at or achieved in the course of the Great War. We do not perhaps adequately realise the enormous financial strength of our British neighbours. In the present year, at the beginning, the national income of Great Britain was running at the rate of some £6,000,000,000 a year, equivalent to an income of some £120 per head of the population. In our own case national income is some £150,000,000 a year, equivalent to an income of some £50 a year per head of our 3,000,000 population. Now, at the present rate of public expenditure in Great Britain, on both ordinary and war purposes, a sum of £2,400,000,000 would be expended in a complete year, and it is likely that that rate of expenditure will increase rather than diminish as the months go on. Even if the total British Budget of expenditure rose to £3,000,000,000 a year, and even if we regard the whole of that expenditure as pure waste from a certain point of view, although a certain portion of it will still be expenditure on constructive services provided by the State and not all of it will be expenditure on war: even, as I say, if we regard the whole of that £3,000,000,000 expenditure as pure waste there would still remain some £3,000,000,000 per annum of national income possessed by our neighbours which would enable them to have on the average a standard of life corresponding to an income per head of some £60 a year—about £10 a year per head more than we enjoy who are not taking part in any war at all.

Now, these facts are sufficiently surprising, but I have them on the authority of an article which appeared in the Economist and they certainly impressed me with their significance. I would like to pass them on for what they are worth. We may take it then that British policy will be to maintain the value of sterling, and to avoid anything in the nature of large scale inflation, so that we may with confidence continue to export, and to expand our exports and be content to take payment in the form of increased sterling balances possessed by our banking system and of increasing deposits by our farmers.

We come now to another question to which I think I can give only one answer and that is: can our agricultural production be increased? I think it can, although, of course, in all agricultural matters quick results cannot be obtained. Any considerable increase of agricultural production must be a matter of years rather than of months; but, at the same time, as I will show later on, it is possible now to take certain steps which in the course of six months will make a substantial increase in our agricultural production possible. Now, I think that in pursuing a policy of increasing agricultural production we should not revolutionise the general character of our agricultural economy. We should aim at increased tillage, and at the production, especially, of roots and forage crops: of those things which can be used either for feeding animals or for feeding human beings. If it had not been for the fact that we have already expanded wheat production in the last few years, and done so to some extent at the expense of the fertility of the soil, I would advocate a substantial acreage of wheat, but I think we have already enough wheat acreage under cultivation to meet our minimum requirements, on the assumption that we can continue to import wheat reasonably freely in the next year or two, and in the belief that we have already a substantial store of wheat in the national granary. The danger with reference to wheat is that unless the wheat is grown in rotation, and that you have an adequate area of root crops, it leaves the land very dirty and destroys the fertility of the soil. I am told by farmers, who know what they are talking about, that far too many acres of land have suffered in that kind of way, and will take years to recover the fertility that was lost by this process of snatching a cash profit from wheat crops in an unbalanced rotation. Consequently, by all means maintain your 200,000 acres of wheat production, but especially exert yourselves to increase the area under roots, thus taking care to restore the manurial constituents of the soil, because a succession of cereal crops, especially wheat, will destroy the soil.

Further, it was questioned in the other House whether it was wise to aim at an increase of live stock. In my view we should aim not only at an increase of tillage both for the feeding of man and beast but also at an increase in the numbers of live stock. I know quite well that it takes about 6 cwt of wheat or other cereal products to produce 1 cwt. of beef or meat products. But our grass, and there still will remain millions of acres of grass, is authoritatively said not to have been fully used by live stock and there is no other method yet devised by which the equivalent of grass can reach the human stomach except by feeding live stock on it. Therefore our aim should be to increase the number of our live stock as well as our tillage products for the feeding of live stock and for feeding human beings.

Now, it is always possible for a country which specialises in live-stock production, and which aims to produce a large share of its winter feed from the products of its own tillage, to treat that live stock as a kind of reserve of human food supply. If feeding becomes short and there arises competition between humans and live stock for available food supplies, it is always possible to kill off surplus stocks of live stock and consume them directly, and then feed ourselves on the food which the live stock would otherwise have consumed in a normal economy. Live-stock production provides in that kind of way a sort of double guarantee of human subsistence, partly through the surplus flocks and herds that can be killed off if food should run short, and partly from the food intended in the first instance for flocks or herds that would be capable of being switched on to human consumption if times should become really very hard.

It is surprising how much of the things we normally give to pigs and hens, and even cattle, that human beings could eat if they had to—not that we want to do it—but we can subsist on much of the food which we normally give to live stock. The chief items in our existing economy, apart from dry cattle, are pigs, poultry, cows and sheep. The pig population of this country has remained more or less stable somewhere in the region of about 1,000,000 pigs for the last half century or more. In my view it is nothing short of a national scandal that the production of pigs is not very much more in evidence than it is. Actually, there are only about 1,000,000 pigs in the country, and that figure has been stable for many years. There are about 400,000 holdings in the country, every one of which could keep half a dozen or more pigs on the average if they set about doing so. Actually 400,000 holdings keeping 1,000,000 pigs averages only about 2½ pigs per holding, and, looked at from that point of view, there is room for considerable expansion in the total pig population, and in the average number of pigs kept per holding. Similarly with regard to poultry, we have about 20,000,000 in the country, and 400,000 holdings, which implies an average poultry stock of about 50 per holding. That is very little more than the number of poultry which could be maintained by the off-scourings of the dinner table and the farmyard. If we were serious about our agricultural development, we would long ere this have raised our poultry population to something like an average of 100 per holding instead of 50 per holding. Again, with regard to cows we have about 1,200,000 cows, which when divided by the number of agricultural holdings gives an average of only three cows per holding. If we were serious about the business of dairy production we should have a far higher average than three cows per holding.

The aspect of our agriculture that most strikes the townsman is the comparatively small proportion of tillage in which we normally indulge. At the moment our corn, root and green crops add up to about 1,500,000 acres. Our hay crop, both rotation grasses and permanent meadow, adds up to about 2,000,000 acres, and there are about 8,000,000 acres of permanent pasture. If we increase tillage, and I think we should, we must diminish the area under grass. In doing so, we should take care to plough up only that grass which is most inferior as grass, and which, therefore, will give the greatest increase on balance by the sacrifice of grass in favour of a tillage crop. People do not adequately realise the extraordinary proportion of our total output of food which is derived directly from grass. The scientists have devised a formula for expressing a common measure of the volume of food output. They talk about starch pounds, or starch tons or starch equivalent. In one of our most valuable official statistical publications, we have an account of the yield in terms of starch pounds or tons of our various food crops in a series of years ending in 1926. It appeared that in 1926 the aggregate value of the starch equivalent of hay, corn and root crops was 2,500,000 tons. In that year there were 8,000,000 acres under pasture, and according to Dr. Kennedy, whose authority in this connection is very much respected, we may assume that the starch equivalent per acre of good grass land is in the neighbourhood of 1,400 pounds, or more than half a ton. Taking it at half a ton or less, it would appear that in 1926 we derived from grass a starch equivalent of 4,000,000 tons, whereas we obtained from hay, corn and roots put together only 2,500,000 tons. In the ordinary functioning of our economy, therefore, we derive twice as much food value from our pasture lands as we do from the lands which we cultivate with the plough. That, of course, is no reason why we should not plough up inferior pasture under present conditions, but it is a reason why we should take care not to plough up pasture land of such a kind that we may perhaps destroy more food value by ploughing up that pasture than we create by putting it in oats or barley.

Another aspect of the problem of increasing food production is the availability of labour supply. As things are at present, the number of agricultural labourers in employment is about 120,000. The number who are out of work, or who have drifted into the towns, or who are working on the roads is not known to me, but at all events it constitutes a substantial reserve of agricultural labour, which by a suitable policy could be switched back again to agricultural production, so that as far as available labour is concerned there is no reason why agricultural production should not be rapidly extended. In this connection I would remind you that in 1914 to 1918 there were some 200,000 Irishmen, many of them belonging to the agricultural labouring class, who were by no means neutral in that Great War, and were not available for agricultural production. Yet, as I will show presently, in spite of that scarcity of man power in those years our agriculture made a tremendous effort, and did considerably extend the area under cultivation and the total production of food in terms of starch equivalent.

In our policy with reference to this great war, we should bear in mind the lessons that are available from the last great war, and one of those is that a firm, clearly defined national policy is desirable in the very beginning of the war. In the case of the last great war, some two years elapsed before Government policy became active in the direction of a policy of increasing agricultural production. In the first two years of that war the rise of prices was only a moderate one. Here are the figures: Based on 1911-13 as the standard year, the index number of agricultural prices in 1914 was 105.1; in 1915 it was 131.7; in 1916 it was 154.8; in 1917 it jumped to 202.0, and in 1918 it was 228.8, so that the farmers, responding only to the stimulus of price, did not apparently over-exert themselves in the first two years, but when the price factor became obviously favourable they did exert themselves very considerably. The volume of our agricultural effort in 1917 and 1918 was very respectable, and made a valuable contribution to the final success of the allies in that great war. The figures for our total output, in terms of starch pounds of hay, corn and roots were 2,500,000 tons in 1913. They fell in 1914 to 2,200,000. They rose in 1915 to practically 2,500,000. They fell again in 1916, but in 1917 and 1918 they rose, and in 1918 reached a maximum figure of 2,700,000. So that, there was a substantial agricultural effort in those years, and these were some of the results.

Now, tillage increased enormously in those years, but—and this is the point that I should like to emphasise—that increase of tillage was mainly an increase of cereal production. The cereal production increased from a total of about 900,000 acres, in 1913, to a maximum of 1,456,000 acres in 1918. The cultivation of root crops increased by only about 100,000 acres, whereas cereal cultivation increased by some 500,000 acres. Now, in those years there was a difficulty in connection with the import of artificial manures, and feeding-stuffs were scarce. Nevertheless, we had to carry on and do the best we could under the difficult circumstances of the time. The figures for the import of Indian meal might be put on record for the convenience of people who may be reading the Official Debates. In 1913, we imported—I am referring now to the figures for all Ireland, because these figures related to all Ireland at that time—14,880,000 cwts. of maize. In 1914 that figure was just over 13,000,000 cwts. In 1915 it was 13,700,000 cwts. In 1916 it was 10,200,000 cwts. In 1917 it was 7,400,000 cwts., and in 1918 it was about 2,250,000 cwts.—a terrific drop took place in 1918.

Similarly, with regard to the import of phosphate rock, the figure in 1914 was 117,000 tons, but it fell to 62,500 tons in 1917, rose again to 107,000 tons in 1918, and so on. In other words, in spite of the terrific expansion in tillage, it was impossible to get an equal expansion in agricultural manures and in imported feeding-stuffs for our cattle. The effect of all that on our agricultural fertility was injurious in the long run because, as every farmer knows, the more you can feed your live stock on imported concentrates the more you will be able to improve the fertility of your soil, by the effect of the increase in manurial value when, in one form or another, it reaches your land again, whether pasture land or tillage land. So that, to be able to import feeding-stuffs from abroad is, indirectly, a way of feeding the land and keeping it in a good condition. Therefore, we must be on our guard, as far as possible, against the tendency towards a diminution in the fertility of the soil that may result in that lack of imported concentrates. However, in my view, the chief cause of the decline in productivity, after the last war, was the unbalanced increase in corn crops, and the impossibility of increasing the acreage under roots in order to keep step with the acreage under corn crops. Root crops only increased by 100,000 acres, whereas cereal crops increased by 500,000 acres, and therefore there was a scarcity of manure for the land, with a consequent impoverishment of the land, and our agriculture had to pay for that during the years following the war.

Mr. McEllin

Would the policy of free trade have affected the matter?

Professor Johnston

I do not see what that has to do with it. However, I referred just now to the collapse of productivity that followed after the war in the years 1920 and 1921. Our total production, in terms of starch tons, in 1918, in hay, corn and root crops, was 2,764,000 tons, but in 1920 that total fell to 1,767,000 tons. It was the same in 1921 and, in fact, it remained low, at about the 2,000,000 tons level, until 1924, and only reached the pre-war norm of about 2,500,000 tons in 1926, at which figure it has remained, more or less, ever since. In other words, we paid up in the postwar years for the necessity of having to expand our cereal production without expanding our root production and with a deficient quantity of manure available.

Now, to-day we are faced with a similar problem of expanding agricultural production and with a scarcity of artificial manures and of imported feed. That brings me to what I regard as the most important point in the remarks I am now making, and that is the absolute necessity for an increase in the stall-feeding of large cattle during the next six months if we are to get the manure necessary for next spring's root cultivation. We are told that there is a scarcity of Indian meal, and of this and that, but by hook or by crook, we must find, in one way or another, the means of feeding, in the stalls, the biggest possible number of large cattle during the next six months in order to have a sufficient supply of animal manure for next spring to take the place of the artificial manures which we cannot now import in adequate quantities. I cannot seriously believe that it is impossible to obtain in these islands a sufficient amount of Indian meal to put us over the difficulties of the next two or three months. In the first eight months of 1938, we imported—if I remember rightly what appeared in the official records—some 5,000,000 cwts. of maize, and in the first eight months of 1939 we imported some 6,000,000 cwts. of maize. In other words, if those official figures are telling the truth, we imported 1,000,000 cwts. more maize in the first eight months of this year than in the first eight months of last year, and I should like to know where it all went to, or what became of it. However, even though there may be no Indian meal left in the country at the moment, our neighbours, the British, across the water, have been in the habit of importing some 70,000,000 cwts. of Indian meal, about twice as much as they were in the habit of importing 20 years ago, and surely they could spare us a few million cwts. for the purpose—a purpose which would be to their advantage also—of enabling us to increase the number of stall-fed cattle in the next few months.

There is that difficulty, as I have said, with regard to the feeding of stall-fed beasts, which, as I have said, I cannot take seriously; but there is a much more serious difficulty in regard to the problem of stall-feeding cattle here in the next six months, and that is in connection with the British subsidy for fat cattle that they have been paying to their own breeders in the last few years and which amounts to some £4,000,000 a year. The object of that, from their point of view, is to increase the return from fat cattle, enjoyed by their fatteners of cattle, without increasing the cost of home-produced beef to their own consumers. If that was all there was to it, we might say that they have a right to transact their affairs in their own way, but that policy of theirs has objectionable and, in my view, disastrous reactions on our interests, and, in fact, is undermining the foundations of our whole agricultural economy. The position is that that subsidy is paid, as a matter of course, in respect of all cattle bred in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but it is also paid in respect of all cattle imported from Eire into their area—at not quite so high a rate, but nevertheless paid—provided they stay in that country at least three months. The effect of that is that British finishers of cattle, looking forward to that subsidy, can bid up the price of our store cattle to a level at which our large farmers or cattle finishers cannot compete with these British importers of stores, and, therefore, all the best of our store cattle leave the country in an unfinished condition and all the value of their manure, not to mention the profit from finishing which might otherwise be reaped in this country, is completely lost to this country. The position is that if we may assume that an animal is ripe for slaughter at 24 months old, then, if we export that animal at 21 months old, the British importer can claim the subsidy in three months' time in respect of it, which makes it worth some £3 or £4 a head more to him than if no such subsidy could be claimed. If he imported that animal at 24 months old, when ripe for slaughter, he could claim no subsidy, which would mean that to that extent it would be worth less by some £3 or £4 a head to him.

The net effect on us is that the value of the 21 months' beast to us to sell in Britain is the same as the value of the 24 months' beast, on the assumption that 24 months is the age at which a beast is ripe for slaughter, so that any farmer who feeds a beast from 21 months to 24 months or, putting it more generally, who feeds a beast during the last three months before it is ripe for slaughter, and then exports it, is feeding it for no financial return whatever and, not being altogether fools, our farmers do not feed beasts under these conditions. In fact, stall-feeding, as we know, is almost a thing of the past and the manure which would be the result of stall-feeding an adequate number of cattle is also a thing of the past, and the absence of that manure will make our agricultural effort of next spring utterly futile unless we can find some way of restoring a normal situation.

This is one of the matters in which we could tell our British friends and neighbours exactly where they get off, to use an American slang expression, and speak to them very severely for their own good as well as ours, and represent to them that they must alter that policy in some way and collaborate with us in doing something which will neutralise the effect of that subsidy policy in destroying stall-feeding of cattle over here. In making those representations to Britain, might I suggest that we avoid the disastrous mistake recently made of sending a boy on a man's errand to Moscow; in other words, it is not a job for a civil servant, however distinguished. It is a job for a full-dress delegation of members of our responsible Government who should go to Britain and explain to them all about the effect of this subsidy and collaborate with them about that and other aspects of our mutual economic effort. If we approach them in the right way, I have no doubt that they will co-operate with us in seeking to remove one of the most serious obstacles to our effort to expand agricultural export.

There are one or two other aspects of agricultural policy on which I should like to touch briefly. I think it is quite feasible, if we go the right way about it, to expand the number of persons employed as agricultural labourers for wages by at least 50,000 in the course of the next few months. The total number of agricultural wage workers is, I believe, about 120,000, but the number of farmers employing that total is only some 50,000, that is to say, if every farmer who employs any wage-paid labourers at all could increase his employment of wage-paid labour by one man on the average, we would get an aggregate increase of agricultural employment of some 50,000 workers which would make a very substantial contribution to the necessary agricultural effort. How are we going to bring this result about? I would suggest that our policy with regard to road workers, and the wages paid to road workers, has had the effect, in recent years, of attracting workers away from the land, where the minimum wage is 27/- a week in some areas, on to the roads, where the minimum wage is more in the region of 35/- a week. I think it is in the national interest that we should cut down the amount of capital expended on road improvement in the present national emergency, and if one result of that cutting down is that more labourers are available for self-respecting employment in agriculture at 27/- a week, I, for one, would regard that as a very salutary result of that cutting of what is now a luxury expenditure.

Further, our general policy in recent years has tended to increase the attractions of urban residence and urban employment, and if we wanted to make agriculture relatively more attractive, or urban employment relatively less attractive, I think we should frown on all efforts to increase, in the present time of emergency, the standard of wages and the standard of living of all urban employment which is in direct competition with agricultural employment in the sense that it is capable of being performed by ex-agricultural labourers. If necessary, I would go so far as to subsidise the payment of agricultural wages to all additional agricultural labour employed and, in that connection, I should like to bring before the House certain facts recently brought to my notice about what our neighbours in Northern Ireland have been doing in recent years. They have there a scheme by which any farmer who wishes to carry out the drainage of his farm, and much land both there and here is badly in need of drainage, can, by applying to the labour exchange, get labour for that purpose for schemes approved of by inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture and, for such schemes, a farmer is entitled to a refund of the wages paid to such additional labour amounting to 75 per cent. or 85 per cent. of the amount of these wages, as the case may be.

In that way the State spends, in the form of wages to workers doing work which is improving the national equipment of agriculture, money which would otherwise be spent in endowing the idleness of those same workers and, therefore, the community as a whole gets value for that money and the farmer gets, at a remarkably cheap rate, certain improvements carried out which otherwise he might not be able to afford. But the fact that the farmer must contribute some part of the cost of those wages is a guarantee that the work done will be work of real value on that farm and, therefore, of real value to the community as a whole.

I should like to see some such scheme adopted if necessary, not perhaps for the purpose of drainage, which is work of long-term improvement, but in connection with the immediate task of increasing the volume of employment and agricultural production and, therefore, employing additional agricultural wage workers. Further, I would take every step necessary to restore the credit basis of our agricultural producers, of our farmers, both large and small. In that connection I think that the scheme associated with the name of Senator Counihan might well be revived from the pigeon holes and considered favourably. The State should do everything in its power to make available a sufficient provision of agricultural implements and tractors, and all things which can be used for the rapid expansion of tillage.

Now, that our farmers, although they lack resources, do not lack resource, will I think be evident from an anecdote with which I propose to close my remarks. A friend of mine, who farms quite a large area, found himself in need of a tractor and rather short of money with which to buy one. He managed to buy an old 15 h.p. Ford car for five pounds and he found that, with the ordinary gearing of that car, the lowest of the three forward gears was too high for tractor use. But, being a man of considerable resource, he did something queer with the crown-wheel of that car which had the effect of turning the reverse gear of the car into a forward gear and the three forward gears into three reverse gears. So that, in present conditions, that farmer is in a position to reverse that car as a tractor at the rate of 48 miles per hour, or more if he wants, but he can only go forward slowly and painfully at the rate of some five miles per hour. He did all this primarily because he wanted a tractor to harvest his grain crops as best he could. Perhaps he was unconsciously providing a parable of our agricultural economy which in recent years has shown its ability to reverse rapidly and in the most favourable circumstances can only go forward slowly and painfully at a moderate rate. I suggest that, if we can put our agriculture as a whole in a forward gear, we may allow the farmers to steer the car of agriculture for themselves to whatever objectives are indicated by the prices and profits that will show themselves in the course of the development of the new situation, and, if we do all we can to expedite their efforts in this direction, we will have done everything possible to facilitate an increase of agricultural production.

Mr. Baxter

If an emergency did not exist, the purpose of this motion should, I think, commend itself to the House. It is asking for a review of commercial and agricultural policies with a view, especially, to a maximum and immediate increase of agricultural production and employment. It may, of course, be said that so far as is obvious to us, there is no great evidence of emergency here, except perhaps that there has been a reshuffle of Ministers, that we have a partial black-out, and that we have some interference by the censorship which has come in for a fair amount of criticism. Although Senator Quirke has left the House, I noticed that he was down flying a kite in Tipperary and, I presume, he flew back to Meath.

This must be the first world war in which we have not been engaged, and let us hope that we are going to keep out of it, and that we are quite clear in our minds that we mean to keep out of it. We ought to try to get clear what we mean to do if we are going to stay out. We are asking particularly in this motion what we are going to do with our land and how we are going to do it. Speaking generally, I think the farmers and their representatives and those who are interested in agriculture have reasons to complain that there has yet been no positive lead given by the Ministry as to what we are supposed to do with our land in the present crisis, apart from a general declaration and a desire that we want more tillage. If you go on Senator Johnston's line, there is every justification for an effort to increase your tillage area to the greatest possible extent. I am thinking about the use of the land of the country in a way that will bring the greatest benefits to every one of the people here. I think that must be our first consideration.

In so far as Senator Johnston's scheme, and his view of making contact with the people to whom we have been selling our wares in the past, is a means to an end, I am all for that. But I think that what we have to keep in our minds right from the beginning is that our farmers have done in the past and will continue to do in the future, if they have the liberty to do it, what would pay them best. They will work their land as well as they can with the resources at their disposal and at their command and they will do the kind of work for which they are best paid. Our trouble for a very long time has been that we have felt we have not been paid for the work which we were doing. We have complained, and I think rightly so, in this House and at considerable length, that every kind of activity was being encouraged, subsidised, sponsored, and all the rest by the Government, while agriculture was being permitted to stagger along as well as it could, and that was very badly because of the burdens put upon it. But when war comes and a state of emergency exists, the nation finds itself much in the plight of the hunter in the jungle who is faced with a lion or a tiger, who is not thinking of whether his tie is straight or not, but who considers what he is going to do and do quickly so that he may save his life.

We are now faced with a situation where a great many of those new industries, secondary industries as at the best they could ever hope to be, will probably fall by the wayside and the people in the towns and the cities will begin to think and talk about agriculture and seek to build up into quite a respectable industry something on which they were prepared only to frown, and certainly give very little consideration to, any time during the past five, six, or seven years. It is interesting to notice the length of space given to a report in the Press to-day of a meeting of an organisation in the city last night and the amount of discussion that took place there in regard to the farmers' problems. That is all to the good and is a sign of the times. The frills and dressings are falling away from our economic life here as they must, because all our people in the towns and in the cities are beginning to think of how they are going to be fed and who is going to do the feeding. The farmer is now going to get his chance. He has been waiting to see what the policy of the Ministry generally is going to be with regard to the use of the land. He is just going to wait until they speak.

My view is that there should be no waiting at all. The mind of the Ministry should have been made up long ago and they should have spoken. There should be a definite policy, and the farmers ought to be getting into their stride because it is essential to our well-being that our land should be used in the right way, that the most should be got out of it, and that a sound policy should be pursued from the beginning, not, as Senator Johnston said, the kind of policy that is going to upset our internal economy and, when the war is over, leave us only with wasted land which will be very little good to the owner of the land, valueless to the nation and presenting us with problems in regard to which, for a certain time, there can be no solution.

Comparing our position with 1914, when another world war came upon us, you find us definitely worse off, no matter how you are to judge us. That is no great tribute to the use we have made of our liberty. In 1914 we had 1,690,000 acres of tillage; to-day we have 1,470,000 acres. In that year we had 4,236,000 cattle, and to-day we have 4,130,000. We then had 3,230,000 sheep, and to-day we have 3,034,000. We then had 1,083,000 pigs, and the pig population to-day is 900,000. It is interesting to note that although in 1914 we had over 200,000 acres more tillage, we had more live stock of every kind than we have to-day. If that is how we have used our freedom, then it was not too well used. It is true to say that in the years succeeding 1914 the area under tillage definitely went up; we had over 2,250,000 acres in 1917 and the figure was higher again in 1918.

What are we faced with now? We have practically the lowest area we ever had under tillage; our cattle stocks are definitely lower than they might be, and than they would be if the advice put forward from these benches had been listened to by the Government. The trouble in this country for years has been that the impoverishment of the farmer has prevented him using his land to the full. Credit facilities were not available for tillage or stocking, for the purchase of proper machines or anything else. These facilities could not have been made available except through the agency of the State. We had the Minister for Finance telling us about the danger of inflating prices for the farmers if you made credit or capital available to them. If the Department of Finance had adopted a proper policy, there are many farms to-day that would be fully stocked. The stocking of them would require much more money now than it would two years ago. That problem is still there.

What are we to do with our land? One thing that occurs to me is that we are not going to be hungry so far as beef, pigs, butter and eggs are concerned. The extent to which we will be able to continue the export of these commodities depends on the extent to which we will be able to increase the area under tillage. We had a certain tillage policy here for a few years past. In my judgment it was a perversion of the type of policy which the country needed. Certain areas were being tilled and the produce was sent to other parts of the country and fed to stock there. The net result was to decrease the number of stock and, consequently, the numbers in the country to-day, particularly with regard to pigs and cattle, have been reduced. The Minister—I do not know how we style him now, but he was the Minister for Defence—suggested that we require an increase of 900,000 acres in tillage and we need a considerably increased area under grain. If the Government are wise in the policy they pursue as to how the land should be used, they will do as Senator Johnston suggests—try to get a greatly increased area under roots. As regards the growing of grain, you can get that in certain counties. What we really want is something like what the late Minister for Agriculture advocated—one more cow, one more sow, and one more acre under the plough. You want the extra acre on the small farms. We do not want to get the larger tillage areas in Wexford, Louth and elsewhere going in extensively for grain growing, which has to be sent into the poorer farming counties. I do not think, under a policy like that, that we would get the extra production we want.

As Senator Johnston pointed out, we have been accustomed to import anything from 400,000 tons to 600,000 tons of maize per annum. I suggest we can replace that maize to a very considerable extent by increasing the area under the potato crop. I think we should get away from the idea that the only way to replace maize is by the growing of some cereal here. I suggest that by extending the cultivation of the potato crop we would largely solve the difficulty with which we are confronted, that is, the shortage of maize meal. Had the Government set themselves seriously to discover some substitute other than the maize-meal mixture scheme, they would, I believe, have come to the conclusion that the development of potato culture would meet the situation.

I have not the facilities that Senator Johnston has got, but I have been making some calculations, and I should like to submit them to the House. Let us take it that, on the average, we import 400,000 tons of maize meal. Four cwts. of potatoes will give you the equivalent content of 1 cwt. of maize. On that basis 400,000 tons of maize would require 1,600,000 tons of potatoes. If we get 10 tons of potatoes to the acre, that would mean 160,000 acres under potatoes. We have this advantage, that any land in this country can grow potatoes. Land on which you cannot grow barley or wheat will grow potatoes. Potatoes can be grown on the smallest and the poorest farms and it is on that type of holding that we want to increase production. I know there are difficulties; I realise what Senator Johnston has pointed out, that there are difficulties in regard to manuring. I have not a ready solution for that. If, in the initial stage, we were able to get a quantity of artificial manures and increase the number of live stock in the first year we would, I believe, have solved the problem to a certain extent and made matters easier for the second and succeeding years.

I want to point out further, with regard to the potato crop, that while in the country generally the average yield per acre was something like eight tons, the Department has, from experiments over a period, shown that the average for five years was 15 tons per acre. Imperial Chemicals, in the course of experiments for the years 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, showed that they have been getting crops varying from 23 to 28 tons. I suggest that when the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures talks about an increased area under tillage, particularly in grain, he is approaching the problem of tillage from the wrong slant. He is thinking of particular counties that he knows very well. I do not think he knows his Ireland well. I suggest that a problem of increased tillage should be thought of, not only with a view to the consequences in this period of emergency, but of the possible developments which will come along in relation to future agricultural policy. If the question was approached from that angle, I think we would be developing here a new type of agriculture which would, to a considerable extent, solve the problem of overseas imports, upon which we have been accustomed to rely for a long time. I do not know if the Minister, who is present, can clarify the situation as to whether or not we are to have a plan for compulsory tillage. One Minister announced in the Dáil that they had decided on the principle of compulsory tillage but that the actual details of the plan would be announced later by the Minister for Agriculture. I do not know how far we have got in that respect. What I have to say on that is, I think it is all wrong. The situation now differs from what it was when the British Government was in control here, and issued orders for the introduction and application of compulsory tillage.

We are not at war, and we do not mean to be at war. I hope we are going to keep out of the war. Obviously from what has happened in northern European countries, it is very difficult for neutrals to keep out of the war, but let us be clear that we are going to keep out of it, and let us act like neutrals. I do not know why we should embark on compulsory tillage. I am all in favour of getting more land under the plough. I will go as far as any one there. I will give any encouragement or any co-operation to get more produce from our tillage fields, but if I am asked right away, if the first thing that any Irish Government should do with Irish farmers, was to decide on and apply a compulsory tillage scheme my reply would be that I think it would be all wrong, and a misunderstanding of the psychology of Irish farmers. They never got a chance to pull themselves together since 1923. I think they have a chance of doing so now, and I am convinced that if Ministers approach this problem of getting increased production from the land in the right spirit, and with an open mind, without applying the big stick from buildings in Merrion Street, there would be a much better response.

The Taoiseach has been continually pleading for understanding and co-operation. Farmers have been struggling through many wars and they are tired of doing so. The last thing they want to have to do is to explain to their own Government why they cannot till some fields. If co-operation is wanted, the way to get it is by understanding farmers' problems, by realising that they have problems, and I believe in that way more land will be got under tillage. Speaking in the Dáil last week the Taoiseach said:

"It is only by organisation of ourselves to meet the new emergency that we can hope to escape from it without very serious damage and very serious consequences....... I would like to see emerging from this time of trial an organisation in which we would have our communities in the parishes organised ....... It is easy enough to devise a general scheme. The more voluntary it would be the better it would be, and if we could get from Deputies here, of all Parties, some help generally for the organisation of such parish committees, we could be sure at least that in a crisis like this the real needs of the people would be met."

I am all for that. I think that is the first thing to do. Before orders are issued about compulsory tillage, or spoken of in whispers, the first action of the Government should be to try to get the people of the country to pull together. I believe if the matter was approached as it should be they would succeed in getting farmers in the various parishes who have not come together since 1918 or 1919 to do so. The people know the land as no inspectors could know it. Inspectors may think that they do, but there are corners in every farm that will not be understood until they have been worked for years. A man flying through the country in a car cannot understand the land and the people amongst whom he goes know that. In my judgment compulsion would be a wrong approach to this problem. The Government should first set about taking action, by organising the people in the parishes, and by setting aside a certain sum of money to be spent by some organisation, by the co-operative movement or something like that, and I believe the people would then respond. They would say: "Yes, we can make money out of this, but apart from anything else, we want to get cows, sows, pigs and poultry. If we want to increase our stock we can only do that in particular areas by raising more food from the land." The people would then begin to ask themselves if they had money for horses, ploughs or seeds. The local creamery or co-operative society could help there.

If some such help were available there might be some Government organisation to come along to assist in a scheme of co-operation. If that was done I believe there would be a new spirit abroad, a spirit which is badly wanted, while if you apply compulsion to farmers particularly all sorts of other questions will arise. The question that will arise to such farmers will be: "Have we horses for ploughing? Have we ploughs, and if not how can we buy them?" Farmers would have to pay at least £20 more for a horse to-day than 12 months ago. There is also the problem of manures and other necessaries. That aspect of the question should be seriously considered. Are there going to be exemptions from the scheme? If so, who will be exempt? Would I have to go to someone on the opposite side of the House to get exemption? Will not that question arise and will it not be played upon? Instead of securing respect for government in this country, and making that respect higher than it is to-day, its power and its influence may be weakened. In a crisis like this a country can only stand in the sense that its policy represents the views of all citizens. There are intelligent and patriotic people amongst the farmers and they are willing and able to play their part at a time like this when called upon. If they are called on, it should not be by wielding the big stick, because from such methods the results will be the same as they always have been, when you try to drive Irishmen.

At this stage it is difficult to know what is the position with regard to the future, and of credit, about which so much was said in the other House. It may be that it will be less difficult to obtain credit than in past years. I cannot see how certain men can work until capital is made available to them. I know that Senators on this side of the House have pointed out how difficult and how inadvisable it was to have credit easily obtained. Here we are in a world in which nations are fighting for liberty, and men for their lives. Some are fighting to preserve possessions for people who are not themselves able to fight, but who are able to pay so that the fight may go on. In this country men are expected to come along and to make a contribution at least towards preserving the status quo, and to keep people from being hungry. They have land but it is not equipped or made productive. They are expected to engage in this fight. What are the people who have the money going to do with it? Are they going to expect farmers to undertake to pay 6, 7 or 8 per cent. for the use of money, with which they are going to produce crops to keep the people living in the towns and cities from being hungry, and when the war is over what will be the position of these farmers when deflation comes?

I do not think our farmers will take risks like that a second time. I think myself that the Government here will have to see to it that credits will be made available to the farmers and that if credits are made available, money will not expect a price for its service out of all proportion to the returns the farmer gets for his own services. Whatever action the Ministry may have to take in order to equip the farmers and the land of this country to play their part in this world struggle, they must see to it that our people have enough to live on during the time the war goes on and that afterwards they have enough to enable them to survive the chaos that follows it. The Ministry will have to see that such a state of things will not arise, that one-third of the land of this country will not be playing its part in the way it ought to be able to play it now. I hope that whatever else we are going to do our Government and the Ministry collectively will realise that what they want in this time of difficulty is the co-operation of all our farmers, and that before any action will be taken by the Ministry to antagonise them or to treat them as people who cannot be trusted to live up to their responsibilities or to imagine that some form of compulsion must be applied to them at a time like this, other methods will be used. Let the Government tell the farmers what they want them to do with their land, the kind of crops they want them to grow and what they are going to pay them for those crops. When provision of that kind is made by the Government there will be no need to use compulsion on the farmers to do their duty and to act up to their responsibilities to themselves and to the country.

Peadar MacFhionnlaoich

Tairgim:

"Is é tuairim an tSeanaid gurab é an tslighe is fearr le tuilleadh tortha d'fhághail ó'n talamh, na an talamh do roinnt go tapaidh ar dhaoinibh a bhéas toilteanach agus ábalta ar a saothrú; agus ar choingioll go saothróchar ainmroinn beacht de gach gabháltas gach bliadhain feasta."

Támuid ar aon aigne go luigheann sé mar dhualgas orainn tuilleadh tortha do bhaint as ithir na tíre, mar sé sin an bun-chisde amháin atá againn le saidhbhreas agus cothú d'fhághail. Níl ann mar sin ach teacht ar shlighe le tuilleadh saothair do chur sa talamh. Tuigtear do chách nach bhfuil an talamh dá saothrú mar ba cheart; go bhfuil an mhórchuid dí ina luighe bán gan curaideacht gan toradh—ach amháin na buláin, agus na ba, agus na caoirigh do chothú ar cibé féar fhásas innte. Easbaidh cuireadóireachta an locht is mó. Fágann na feirmeoirí, agus na daoine a thugann feirmeoirí ortha féin, an locht ar ghach uile sheort ruda ach ortha féin: ach ní hí an cheist is mó: cé air a bhfuil an locht, ach go bhfuil an locht ann agus gur mithid, agus gur ró-mhithid, é do leigheas. Níl an barr ag teacht ó'n talamh; níl an síol dhá chur; agus tá, nó beidh, géar-ghábhadh leis an bharr sin. B'féidir sul a bhéas bliadhain caithte againn, go luighfeadh bás no beatha muintear na hEireann ar an cheist sin.

Tá molta tugtha cheana féin ar an scéal agus níl mise i n-aghaidh na molta sin, ach seo moladh fé leith agam-sa dhá thabhairt ins an rún seo, go rannfar an talamh ar dhaoinibh a shaothróchas í agus go ndéanfar gan mhoill é, go mbeidh deis síol an Earraigh do chur. Talamh díomhaoin do roinnt ar fhearaibh díomhaoine; sin é an leigheas a mholaim-se: ach é a dhéanamh in am. Tá na fir díomhaoine againn chomh flúirseach leis an talamh díomhaoin. Bíonn siad i gcomhnuidhe againn ach beidh siad dhá uair níos líonmhaire feasta. Leis na bliadhnta, bhí na fir óga ag imtheacht as an tír seo agus ní bheidh cead aca imtheacht feasta. Tá bac ortha dul go Merioca, tá bac ortha dul go Sasain, no go hAlbain; agus fiú na daoine chuaidh anonn cheana féin, tá a lán aca ag teacht ar ais. Cad é an seift a bhéas againn le biadh do sholáthar do na daoine sin, mara dtugfar an talamh dóibh? Mara gcuirtear ar an talamh iad beidh siad gan obair, gan slighe beatha, ach an déirc agus an deontas, nó an "dole" mar a tugtar air i mBéarla.

Ní'l mé a' maoidheamh go mb'féidir feirm talmhan beag no mór do thabhairt do gach duine aca seo, nó go ndéanfadh cuid aca aon mhaitheas dóibh féin, no do'n náisiún, dá gcuirtí i seilbh feirme iad. Ach tá cuid mhaith buachaillí óga a bhéas gan obair a d'fhéadfadh tabhairt fá thalamh a shaothrú agus cuireadóireacht do dhéanamh agus a d'féadfadh an oiread airgid d'fhághail is chuirfeadh stuic agus treallamh ar fheirm bhig. Dar ndóighe caithfidh lucht roinnte na talmhan bheith cúramach cé dhó a dtabharfa siad seilbh: ach séard a mholfainn seilbh sealadach a thabhairt go deireadh an chogaidh agus athscrúdú do dhéanamh annsin——

Mícheál Ó hAodha

Agus iad do chur amach annsan?

Peadar MacFhionnlaoich

—ar an fheidhm a baineadh as an talamh agus an tseilbh do bhaint d'aon duine gur theip air toradh maith do bhaint as a fheirm. Ag deireadh an chogaidh, bheadh ainmroinn mhaith de'n tír faoi bharr, agus cleachtú ag a lán daoine ar fheirmeoireacht: agus luighfeadh sé ar Riaghaltas na tíre gan leigean do'n tsaothar dul ar gcúl feasta. B'féidir go dtiocfadh tairbhe do'n tír sa deireadh as timpist mar an chogadh má bheir sé ar ár ndaoine óga dul ar ais ar an talamh agus fanacht ann.

Tá dóigh eile inar féidir toradh bhaint as an talamh agus aos díomhaoine d'fhághail slighe beatha as; sé sin an dóigh a bhfuiltear ag baint feidhme as san Rúis fá láthair, .i. feirmeacha móra do shaothrú i gchomhar; ach ní comhar ceart é. iad muintear an Riaghaltais ag a bhfuil seilbh na talmhan agus lucht oibre fá pháighe aca. Níl mé ag moladh an dóigh sin ins an rún seo, ach b'féidir go mb'fhiú fiacháil do bhaint as. Buadh amháin do bheadh ann, go bhféadfaí úsáid a bhaint as gach eolas atá fáighte ar na gléasannaibh is fearr le toradh fhághail as an talamh. Mar adubhras cheana, tuigimíd uilig nach féidir dúinn, gan ró-bhaoghal, leigint do shotharú na talmhan sleamhnú ar nós cuma liom mar tá sé fá lathair, agus sinne aghaidh ar aghaidh le saoghal corrach, contabhairteach. Tá, agus beidh, mórán plean is seift dhá mholadh mar leigheas ar an scéal. Molaim-se an plean seo agus fágaim fá'n tSeanad a dtuairim a thabhairt ar an cheist.

Sin an méid a bhí le rádh agam, ach ba mhaith liom focal nó dhó do rádh fá mholadh eile. 'Sé is dóigh liom go raibh an Seanadóir a bhí ag moladh an rúin eile, go raibh sé ag iarraidh cuidiú le taobh amháin ins an chogadh mór. Ní aontuím le sin. Tá rud eile adubhairt an Seanadóir nach n-aontuím leis. 'Sé ár ngnó amháin annseo ná slighe bheatha do bhaint amach do mhuinntir na hEireann le linn na h-aimsire seo. Má bhíonn breis earrái, breis biadha nó aon rud eile againn, níl mé i n-aghaidh iad do dhíol le n-ár gcómharsanna agus le haonduine a cheannóchas iad agus a thabharfas leis iad. Ach níor cheart dúinn bheith ghá sholáthar—sa chéad áit—ach dúinn féin.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand it was agreed at the beginning that the debate on these motions should conclude at 5.30. If that arrangement is adhered to, it would seem desirable that the Minister should be given an opportunity to intervene at this stage in order that the debate may conclude.

Aire Tailte (Tomás O Deirg)

Níl a lán le rádh agamsa. Cheap mé go mbéadh an tAire Talmhaidheachta i ndon teacht agus b'fhéidir go dtiocfaidh sé fós. Ní raibh sé ar fóghnamh agus mar do mhínigheas sa Tigh indiu níl mé cinnte an mbeidh sé ann. Sílim, dá mbeadh gádh leis, go mba mhaith leis go mór bheith ann. Níl mórán baint agamsa leis an rún atá ar an bpáipéar acht chomh fada is a bhaineann an rún atá in ainm an tSeanadóra Mhic Fhionnlaoich liom. Tá sé ag iarraidh orrainn an talamh do roinnt níos tapúla ionnus go mbeidhimíd i ndon níos mó biadha fhagháil agus mar sin de. Tá roinnt mhaith tailte idir lámhaibh againn ins na scéimeanna atá 'á saothrú ag Coimisiún na Talmhan agus beidh siad ag dul ar aghaidh leis an obair sin. Bhí cosc ortha de bhárr go raibh leasú ag teastáil ar an dlighe a bhaineas le tógailt na talmhan agus ós rud é go bhfuil na leasuighthe sin ann anois badh mhaith liom go rachaimís ar aghaidh níos tapúla. Ar aon chuma, tá cuid mhaith tailte a bhfuil scéim ullmhuighthe chun iad a roinnt agus is dócha go mbeidhimíd i ndon a lán dena tailtí a roinnt roimh an Earrach. Tá tailte eile idir lámhaibh againn agus caithimíd ár ndicheall a dhéanamh dul ar aghaidh le h-obair Choimisiúin na Talmhan. Ní dóigh liom go dtuigeann an Seanadóir go ró-mhaith, mar sin féin, má's cead dom a rádh, nach féidir an cheist faoi thalmhaidheacht agus curadoireacht a chur chun cinn níos fearr agus an talamh a roinnt níos tapúla. Obair an-mhall 'seadh roinnt na talmhan agus tógann sé tamall fada chun í do chur chun chinn. Sílim go mba cheart dom a mhíniú don tSeanad as Béarla cionnus atá an scéal ar fad.

The position is that the Land Commission have a considerable amount of land in the course of distribution. A substantial proportion of the total acreage is almost ready for distribution, in so far as schemes have been prepared by the inspectors. I expect that, in the ordinary course of events, a substantial proportion of the Land Commission's commitments will be dealt with in a comparatively short period. Possibly a great deal of land is represented by schemes actually prepared or in course of preparation, and it may be possible to have it divided even before the Spring. Another portion is land to which the Land Commission is definitely committed, in so far as commitments have been made to persons outside in respect of its acquisition. I think we shall have to go ahead and acquire that land also. I think we shall go ahead and carry out the commitments of the Land Commission in respect of schemes which have been prepared or are almost ready and the further quantity of land in respect of which notification has been given of intention to acquire—for example, in respect of which the price has been settled. The position with regard to land division, generally, is that if landowners carry on farming in a reasonable way, according to the principles of husbandry—certainly if they carry on their farming on sound lines—there is no fear of the Land Commission interfering with them. That has been made clear on more than one occasion.

The House may also be interested to know that a great deal of work has been done since the 1923 Act was passed. Since then, 940,000 acres have been divided and, of this total, 486,000 acres were distributed amongst 37,400 allottees during the term of office of the present Government. Before 1923, 750,000 acres had been divided by the Congested Districts Board, so that the amount of untenanted land acquired and divided by State agencies is 1,700,000 acres or, roughly, one-tenth of the total area of land in the country —good land and bad land. That indicates the tremendous amount of work done under the British Government and, of course, to a greater extent, under native Governments. The amount of money spent on improvements has also been enormous and the amount of land bonds, representing the total amount of purchase money covering these transactions, runs into many millions of pounds, so that we cannot assume, when we speak of land division, that we are dealing with a problem in respect of which not much has been done. We have to bear in mind that a great amount of work has been done. There has been a huge expenditure of money and huge capitalisation on the part of the State in order to put these transactions through. A huge acreage of land has been divided. A great deal of land available for distribution has been brought into the machine and if the appropriate proportion of the land in the machine is eventually divided, the vast bulk of the work of land acquisition will have been dealt with.

In the future, we cannot look to operations on the same scale as in the past, even in times of emergency. It is quite true that the Land Commission has increased its staff and extended its operations and, at the present time, it has a substantial amount of land in hands. When that has been disposed of, I do not think there will be a large amount of land which it could be said might fairly be the object of attention by the Land Commission. Moreover, there is a limit to the speed with which you can proceed with this work of land division if you are to obtain the best results. The Land Commission has to acquire its land by a well-thought-out process. This process provides the land owner with full and reasonable means of objecting to proposals to acquire his property and of having these objections heard and determined. Land has to be very carefully inspected —often more than once—and all the circumstances of the owner have to be taken into account before a decision is reached as to whether or not any part of it should be acquired. When a decision to acquire has been taken, the owner must be notified and given an opportunity of appealing, first, to the Lay Commissioners and next, if he so wishes, to the Appeal Tribunal. All this takes time and it may safely be said that, between the date on which land is first inspected and the date when a scheme of division for such part of it as may be acquired can be put into operation, a period of from 18 months to two years will have elapsed.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Sin é an locht atá ar an obáir.

Tomás O Deirg

Ba mhaith liom é do roinnt i mí amhain no i seachtmhain amhain acht ní feidir é sin do dheanamh agus an obair do dheanamh i gceart. Is eigin duinn dul do réir dlighe agus seans do thabhairt dos na daoine dul os cóir na cúirte. It will be be seen, therefore, that if it is the Senator's view that land division can be utilised as an immediate means of procuring greater production from the land in the present emergency, he cannot have studied the position as closely as we should wish. Land acquisition is a process that cannot be speeded up more than seems necessary in the national interest and when you are in an emergency, as we are at present, you have to examine a number of circumstances which do not obtain in normal times. One of the circumstances I have referred to already; where people till their land or carry on agricultural operations according to proper methods of husbandry and in a reasonable way, the Land Commission is not going to interfere with them.

We should like the operations of the Land Commission to be carried on because they are a valuable means of providing employment. A great deal of money is spent in the improvement of estates which are divided. A substantial amount of the annual expenditure goes to the provision of housing. We do not know at the moment to what extent we may be able to carry out our commitments in respect of housing or the subsequent work, which we would like to continue. The question of housing materials arises. Moreover, the amount of work that can be done with a particular amount of money will be less as prices increase. The Government is particularly anxious that the work should continue in the congested areas. A substantial proportion of the money expended yearly since a native Government came into office has gone into these congested districts. If we have an influx of young people to the country, who may find it difficult to obtain employment, this is obviously one of the ways in which we can assist these areas. Therefore, the Government is anxious that housing should be continued, that work on the congested districts and on bogs should proceed as well as the rearrangement of holdings. All these works give employment.

As I said, with regard to Senator Johnston's scheme, I thought that the Minister for Agriculture, although he has not been well, might be in a position to attend the debate and speak, if necessary. I am not as conversant with the expert questions raised by Senator Johnston as I would like in order to deal adequately with the points he has raised. Obviously, they are points demanding a good deal of information from acknowledged agricultural experts, as to the type of farming which is best in the interests of the country, the changes which ought to be made at the present time and the things that the Government should have in mind in formulating any new policy. The whole question is under consideration by the Department of Agriculture.

No final decision has been reached on the question of compulsory tillage. If the Government think that it is necessary in order to provide food supplies for the people of this country, and incidentally to maintain our agricultural production at a high level to enable us to pay for our imports and to give employment, to increase our national wealth, they may decide that a scheme of compulsory tillage is necessary. Senator Baxter has referred to the unpopularity of compulsory measures in this regard and, of course, if the necessary results could be obtained by appeals or co-operative organisation or in any other way, by voluntary means, I am sure the Minister for Agriculture would be reluctant to introduce compulsion. But, the point is that there is a large proportion of farmers in this country who are tilling and who have always tilled a proportion of their land in accordance with good agricultural practice. There is another proportion who do not and those who till and who would be prepared to till far more in the emergency will naturally ask themselves whether they are being treated fairly if they see farmers in other counties or even perhaps in their own districts, who are not prepared to do their duty on a voluntary basis. Those who will do their duty will certainly have a grievance. Senator Baxter, unfortunately, did not point out what is going to happen in the case of those who may not be able, for example, to till or who may not have the will or the industry to till in the new circumstances. Neither Senator Baxter nor anybody else, obviously, can give an assurance on behalf of these people.

Senator Johnston has made a very strong case for concentration on a certain type of farming, but while his view is of importance and must be carefully weighed and considered, I think one of the primary matters that the Government must address itself to— and I think the Minister for Agriculture will have it particularly in mind —is to ensure that we have sufficient supplies of food, cereals as well as other food, which, thank God, we have in abundance for our own people. It is entirely a question of whether we can get what we would consider to be the necessary supplies by voluntary means or whether the expert advisers of the Minister for Agriculture, who have been studying this question, will recommend to the Government that a form of compulsion should be introduced. No final decision has been reached, but I am sure the Minister will advert to the considerations put forward by Senator Baxter as well as to the other aspects of the question. I agree entirely with the Senator that very valuable results can be obtained by appeals for voluntary co-operation, and I am sure that the Government and individual members of it will make these appeals. I think it would be no harm—it is probably my duty—to say that we would be glad to have the co-operation of the leaders of other Parties and members of the Seanad and Dáil generally in making these appeals because, undoubtedly, if this problem is tackled in a genuine national manner and in a spirit of co-operation by all Parties, as Senator Baxter has pointed out, much better results will be obtained. At the same time, if it is found necessary to introduce some form of compulsion, I hope it will be borne in mind that such a scheme will only have been introduced after consideration of all the facts and for the reason that the Government feel that some measure of compulsion is necessary in order to ensure a sufficient supply of food for our own people. If compulsion is introduced on that basis I hope that Parties will see that there are national reasons for it and will not do anything that would tend to make the working of the scheme more difficult.

The problem of labour has been referred to. That is a matter that the Department of Agriculture will also have to go into. There is the problem of the provision of implements and fertilisers and, finally, the question of credit. I would like to say that I believe with Senator Baxter that, owing to the difficulties farmers have had in the past and the claims which will now be made upon them for extra tillage, extra food production and generally to make more use of their land, to put it in a better state of fertility, an opportunity presents itself to those who control credit in this country to be as liberal as possible so as to enable the farmers to meet these obligations and to take the necessary steps between now and next spring to see that our agricultural production is considerably increased. I hope that I will not be misinterpreted, that nobody will think that I, any more than Senator Baxter, would wish that loans should be given in a wholesale manner. Obviously, those in charge of credit will look after that side of it. I have read in the newspapers complaints and, of course, those of us who have been in political life know, that in the last war farmers, for one reason or another, were tempted to commit themselves very heavily to the banks for the purchase of land and that that caused a good deal of trouble subsequently. What is in question now, I think, is to put the farmers in a position to increase agricultural production, to enable them to get the necessary implements, fertilisers and labour, in so far as these are available. Some of them, we know, will be short. It is probably necessary to say that the Government hopes that facilities will be given to the farmers in that way and that it will be recognised that this is work of first-class importance and that no work could be of greater importance in the national interest. Therefore, those who can assist in that way, by helping the farmers to get credit will, I am sure, see the matter in that light.

The whole question of agricultural production, as I have said, is under consideration in the Department of Agriculture. I have really nothing to add to what the Minister for Agriculture stated in the Dáil. He pointed out that he does not favour compulsion in the first instance. He would prefer to proceed by appeals for co-operation and voluntary effort but there is that difficulty, that unfortunately in certain cases we shall, undoubtedly, if we proceed entirely on a voluntary basis, have complaints—complaints very often well grounded, I am afraid—that certain members of the community are not fulfilling their obligations. The difficulty is to reconcile the position of letting these people go free and not applying any measure of compulsion to them, and stressing the need for greater effort from the farmers generally.

Mr. MacDermot

Has the Government not yet made up its mind as to whether there is to be compulsion?

Mr. Derrig

It has not reached a final decision yet.

Mr. MacDermot

Can the Minister give any indication as to when there is likely to be a decision?

Mr. Derrig

I cannot. I would rather leave it to the Minister for Agriculture. I am sure if any statement is going to be made, it will be made within the next week. I think these are the only points with which I am in a position to deal. I shall call the attention of the Minister for Agriculture to the points raised in the debate and ask him to consider them in the steps which he proposes to take to increase agricultural production.

Mr. McCabe

The word "compulsion" does not sound very well to the Irish people. Compulsion and coercion are two things the Irish people detest. They fought coercion in years past and they succeeded in ridding themselves of it. It is to be hoped that our native Government will not for the present, at all events, enforce compulsion on the farmers, in their desire to get them to produce sufficient food to supply the nation's needs. To my mind, it would be more or less penalising the farmer because at the moment he is not in a position to carry out, as he would wish to carry out, the instructions and the regulations that would be imposed upon him. Take, for instance, the use of fertilisers. I speak subject to correction when I say that there appeared in the papers a few days ago an order imposing restrictions on the importation of fertilisers to this country. If that is true, to my mind it is a serious mistake because if the farmers are asked to produce more food they will certainly want more fertilisers in the way of artificial manures. As one who has sold artificial manures through a co-operative society for the past 30 years, I have some knowledge of the amount of artificial manures used in the production of food and also in the production of grass. Any curtailment in the amount of fertilisers used in the past would certainly embarrass the farmers very seriously at the moment and they would not be in a position to produce more food. It is most important that the Government should make a pronouncement on this particular matter because, as Senators are aware, the weather at the moment is very good and farmers are prepared to plough the ground. The only obstacle in their way in carrying out ploughing operations is the uncertainty in regard to a sufficient supply of artificial manure and they are reluctant while that uncertainty exists to proceed with the work.

The question of credit for farmers has also been raised. If they are to get the recognition and the encouragement to produce more food to which they are entitled, they should be provided with credit. When I say credit, I do not mean that they should get free money but money at a low rate of interest. The answer to that from the Minister in charge would probably be that the Government could not advance money at a low rate of interest at the moment, but I say that if the Government utilised the co-operative societies throughout the country, these societies are in a position to know solvent people and well-to-do people, people who are not wasters in the country. Money advanced by the Government through the co-operative societies would repay itself and would be a great asset. That is one way in which the Government can encourage the farmer to produce more food. It would also give him an opportunity of employing more labour. It is absolutely essential that the farmer, if he is supported and helped by the Government and given the co-operation of the people in general, should in turn absorb as many of the unemployed who are competent to work on the land as possible. If he gets encouragement I am sure he will do so, but if for any reason he is unable to do so, I think it would be a great matter for the Government and the country if unemployed men were engaged on productive work on the land instead of keeping them on doles and standing at the corners of the streets, to the demoralisation of the country and, certainly, not to their own advantage.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I take it the motions are not being pressed?

Professor Johnston

I do not propose to press my motion to a division.

Motion No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

An bhfuil an tairisgint eile tarraingte siar?

Peadar MacFhionnlaoich

Tá.

An tairisgint, le cead an tSeanaid, tarraingte siar.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Oct 1939