This Bill is on similar lines to a Bill passed in 1932. Certain county councils put up schemes to the Department last year by which they proposed to facilitate applicants, who were unable from their own resources to provide money at that time, to make arrangements with merchants in the various counties. These schemes were submitted to the Department and were approved of. This year similar schemes were put up by a greater number of councils. Twenty-three counties have put up schemes this year. Last year schemes were received from only nine counties. The schemes have been availed of to a limited extent. I think something like 6,000 applicants have been supplied, but I think a greater number will be supplied this year. Counties have put up different kinds of schemes. In one county, for example, the arrangement is made that the applicant goes to the merchant and the merchant secures him. In that way there is no loss to the council. If the councils find that they have any benefit we have no objection. So long as there is no loss, we do not object, but it requires legislative sanction to give facilities of that kind.
Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Bill, 1940—Second Stage.
It is quite obvious to everybody that this is a Bill to authorise and validate the provision and sale of seeds and manures—in other words, to legalise what the county councils have done. This Bill is absolutely useless as far as the ordinary farmer is concerned. That has been clearly shown in the amount that was applied for last year under the same head. According to the Minister's statement, I think, only 6,000 applied in the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties, which shows that it is useless as far as the ordinary farmer is concerned. I support the measure, as I believe that in some cases, particularly in a few of the western and southern counties, it will be of some use to small farmers. I support it because I believe that anything advanced in that way to the farmers will be paid back to the county councils but, as far as the ordinary farmer is concerned, it is absolutely useless.
There has been a great deal of propaganda about the shortage of seeds and manures. I think that there will be no shortage of seeds and manures this year and that there was none last year. The merchants cried "Wolf." They went to the Department of Agriculture and represented that there would be a terrible shortage of Spring seed wheat and oats. The Department of Agriculture instructed some of those merchants to go off to Norway to buy seed wheat. They bought seed wheat which would not be termed wheat at all by the ordinary farmer, stuff called Diamantes. They brought back thousands of tons of it. Very little of it was used. Of course, before they bought it they had a guarantee from the Department of Agriculture. It remained in the hands of the merchants and was handed over eventually to the millers to be made into flour at an enormous loss to the Department and to the country. The same thing was happening this year, but I do not know if there was a guarantee. There was the cry again that there would be a shortage of Spring seed wheat and oats. Enormous prices were being charged—£3 and £3 5s.—for Spring wheat. Last Thursday I saw representatives of those merchants hawking their wheat and oats in the cattle market and inducing farmers to buy it for cattle food. I want to bring the matter before the notice of the Minister. I do not think it is quite right that under the present circumstances perfectly good wheat—as good as anything sold last year for milling purposes; the majority of it is the best English milled wheat— should be sold for animal food. I have seen it offered in several places at 30/- a barrel. The only objection to it is that it has been a little stained to show that it was imported wheat and could not be sent to the millers, but that stain is a vegetable dye which would not in any way interfere with it for milling purposes.
The same thing would apply, I suppose, with reference to fertilisers. There are fertilisers in the country, more fertilisers than the farmers have money to pay for. As the majority of the extra tillage this year will be done in the rich grazing lands of Leinster, the farmer's concern will be not how to force his crop but how to keep it back, for if we have a wet season he will not be able to reap the crop. But, with all the propaganda that, if the war continues long enough, there might be great danger of a shortage of these stuffs, I believe that when the real danger comes nobody will pay any heed to the cry of the merchants.
There are some points which I would like to raise in this House if the Minister for Agriculture were present, but I do not think it would be quite fair to put those questions to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. There is one thing he can do for the farmers, and that is to try and give them derating of agricultural land. He can use his influence in the Government and his influence with the Minister for Finance to provide more credit or working capital for farmers. Denmark fed England in peace time. Now, when the war is on, she will have to feed Germany, and, with Denmark out of the way, I think there is great prospect in this country for increasing production of butter and bacon and making it pay. The drawback is want of working capital. The Minister can do something in that respect, and it would be very much more appreciated than his Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Bill.
I think the principle of this Bill is altogether bad. This is bringing county councils into trade. At present their duties are fairly clearly defined in that they are the body responsible for local administration, but I think I am right in saying that this is the first incursion into business that can be perfectly well done through the ordinary channels of trade. The seed merchants are there to deal with individuals. All the machinery is there for the setting-up of co-operative societies. We have not got, and perhaps we should have— there is nothing to prevent it—small credit societies on a co-operative basis. Instead of that, here you come along using the county councils as hucksters, and using the whole of their machinery to do this business of peddling out seeds and manures to certain small individuals who, perhaps, cannot get credit on easy terms. It is all due to this altogether ridiculous, squeamish sentimentality that, because a person has not got money and cannot raise cash at the moment, the local authority should come along and spoon-feed him. The principle strikes at the root of all self-reliance and virility in the people as a whole, and if there is one thing worse than another in this country it is all this slobbering over debtors and defaulters. You see it in excelsis in the case of the Land Acts, where the more a person is a defaulter the better it is for him and the more relief is given to him, and where the honest person who has made every effort gets no assistance, while the person who makes no effort and makes a poor mouth can get all kinds of Government organisations coming to his assistance. It is the principle behind all that kind of thing which is really doing harm and undermining the self-reliance of the people throughout the country.
This, of course, may be only one example of it, but the principle is generally in that direction and is a thoroughly bad one, and following the line of least resistance which, I am afraid, those in high places are only glad to do instead of making people self-reliant and self-respecting. What I should like to ask the Minister is, where is this kind of thing going to stop? Why are seeds and manures more important than a number of other articles? Why not apply the same principle to boots? A man cannot very well work his land without a pair of boots. The same would apply to implements. Why are we not also starting, and what reason should there be for not starting, to have the county council or local authority supply clothes or even food on credit, since you are doing it in the case of seeds and manures? A man cannot go and work if he is starved and hungry. Why not, therefore, bring in the local machinery to supply him with food?
The whole thing is thoroughly unsound. It may be said by the Minister that this is only a small thing. That answer, however, if it were to be made, reminds me of the plea of the lady who was in unfortunate moral circumstances, and who pleaded in extenuation that, really, the unwanted infant was rather small. That, I think, is the only defence that the Minister can have for this. The principle of the thing however, is utterly wrong, and I think that the only justification the Minister could attempt to make for it is that it is small.
The next thing we see is in connection with Section 3, to the effect that, not only is the county council to be used, but that you are going to apply the machinery of collection as applied to the rates under the Small Dwellings Act; that is, that the landlord, or over-landlord—it is not necessarily the landlord at all, but the primary lessor—is going to be made the debt collector. I may be wrong, and I am sure the Minister will correct me immediately if I am wrong, but I understand that this debt is going to be collected like the rates under the Small Dwellings Act.
It is the other way around. It excludes him. It excludes the owner, and that is the purpose of it.
It excludes him? Well, I thought that, under clause (b) it was collected through the same machinery as the rates are collected under the Small Dwellings Act. However, since the Minister tells me that I have read it wrongly, I accept that, and that the landlord is not responsible for the collection. To that extent, therefore, the measure cannot be criticised, but I still claim that the major question in the thing is thoroughly unsound, that it is putting the county councils and local authorities into the position of retailers of certain selected articles, and that, if that is to be done, there is no earthly logical reason why that principle should not be extended, and the local authority should not indulge in any form of trade. The principle is thoroughly bad, and for that reason I oppose the measure.
I do not often find myself in opposition to the remarks of Senator Sir John Keane, but on this occasion I find myself approaching the problem from a somewhat different point of view. I may say, to begin with, that I welcome this Bill on the whole, because it does a little— although, I fear, only a very little —to help to increase agricultural production in a time of great national and international emergency. It is quite true that it would be better that money for the purchase of agricultural requisites should be obtained either from the private capital resources of farmers, or from the credit which they themselves dispose of. We are faced, however, with a situation in which, for one reason or another, many farmers, small and large, are not possessed of adequate private capital, and are not possessed of means of borrowing from any of the recognised institutions for lending money. Consequently, if these people, who are actually in the occupation of land, are to play a part in increasing the production of food that is so necessary at this time, something must be done to give them access to the necessary credit in the absence of privately-owned capital; and, inasmuch as this Bill appears to me to do at least a little to provide that necessary foundation of credit that is at present lacking, and inasmuch as the Bill will tend to increase, in however small a measure, the amount of agricultural production, I personally welcome the Bill.
It would be better, in a more ideal condition of society, that there should be credit societies of farmers, mutually to guarantee each other's credit, so that they could collectively approach banks and obtain money from legitimate sources. We are not dealing with that problem at the moment, however. We are dealing with a situation in which, because suitable machinery does not exist for a vitally necessary purpose, other machinery, however unsuitable from a general point of view, must be extemporised and applied to the solution of that urgent problem. Although I sympathise with much that Senator Sir John Keane said about the unsuitability of the machinery, I am prepared to accept the principle that such machinery should be used in that way. I fear, however, that this Bill will not do as much as the situation really requires for the promotion of agricultural production. The times require that there should be a vast increase of agricultural production of every kind in the country. The fact is that the possibilities of substantial increases are, I think, greater in the case of larger farmers than in the case of the smaller farmers, and therefore public policy should be directed to removing all obstacles of capital, credit, or finance, which in any way restrict the efforts of farmers, and especially of large farmers, to increase that necessary amount of production under present conditions.
I think that the Government then should give attention especially to the part played by the larger farmers— and when I speak of larger farmers I mean the 50-acre man or the man with a bigger acreage. The Government should give attention to the part these farmers must play if that necessary increase of production is to be secured. Therefore this Bill, which seems to be aimed especially at the problems of the smaller farmers, seems to me to be quite inadequate, and I would ask the Government to consider in all seriousness what the State is going to do about the necessary provision of credit and capital for the extension of the productive activities of the larger farmers, and if there are obstacles from the side of the banks as well as from the side of the State, I should like to know what the banks are going to do in order to facilitate such necessary increase of production, because we are now living in times so extraordinary that the ordinary canons which govern our actions in normal times must go by the board, and the only point of view that we can consider in connection with all these problems is whether or not it will bring about as rapidly and extensively as possible the minimum increase in our available agricultural output.
I am rather surprised to hear of any opposition to this Bill. We have had a good deal of agitation in the country for credit and most of the agitation came from the Opposition to the Government. I think this Bill a good Bill and a good way of providing that credit. I do not know what the theory of it is, but, with regard to the practice of it, the Sugar Company operate a scheme very similar to this, which has worked out excellently. It has brought very many people into production who could not otherwise have got into production, and if this Bill is as successful as that scheme, it will be very successful. Senator Sir John Keane expressed the view that it is bad in every shape and form, but, if it is, it will die a natural death. I think the Senator is connected with one of the big banking institutions in this country, and it is my opinion that the banking institutions of the country are not doing their job. If they were there would be no need for this Bill, and Senator Sir John Keane would be doing a good day's work if he could bring his people down to brass-tacks and get them in touch with the common people, the people who are creating production.
Senator Counihan referred to a couple of matters which were rather wide of the mark. He referred to the Swedish wheat called Diamante, which has been introduced into this country, in rather deprecating terms. That wheat is good and very suitable to the country, and the bulk of the farmers would be very amazed if they heard Senator Counihan's opinions about it.
Why do they not continue to grow it?
It is being grown, and Red Marvel, which is more or less indigenous to the country, has been turned down completely and its place taken by Diamante. There is a surplus of wheat of all kinds in the country this year, and perhaps that is what Senator Counihan refers to, but it is better to have a surplus than a shortage. The Senator also referred to fertilisers and said that there were more in the country than the people could pay for. I think I represent a fair number of farmers in this House, and I say we have had representations from many people that we should urge on the Government the bringing in and subsidising of superphosphates. I cannot understand Senator Counihan's viewpoint that it is only the farmers of Leinster who use artificial manures. I believe that there are more artificial manures used in County Cork than in the whole of Leinster.
I did not say that. What I said was that the greater amount of the extra tillage would be carried out in Leinster this year, that is, of rich pasture lands which require no artificial manures.
Senator Counihan is leading the House and himself astray when he says that there are plenty of artificial manures in the country at present. There are not, and it is just as well that the Government should know it, and that the sooner provision is made for some extra superphosphates in the country the better it will be for production. I welcome the Bill. I think it is a good Bill and that it will supply a very great want.
This discussion has become rather more interesting than we anticipated at the outset, but I cannot understand what Senator Counihan means when he refers to "the ordinary farmer". What is an ordinary farmer? I have always thought the people who availed of the provisions with regard to the purchase of seeds and manures ordinary farmers. They are small farmers, and they are the people who are most in need of help. This Bill simply provides a means of giving them the credit of which Senator Counihan speaks.
I did not object to the Bill. I said I supported it, but I said that it would be of no use except to a very limited number of farmers.
That is what puzzles me. I find it hard to define an ordinary farmer because the farmers whom I know and who have availed of these provisions can be considered as ordinary farmers. I was rather interested in Senator Sir John Keane's remark about killing initiative in the people by giving them doles of this nature, and I am inclined to agree that it would be a bad thing to accustom the people to living on the Government and depending on the Government for everything, but we must realise that there are certain people who must be helped. Even in the best conditions that could prevail in the agricultural industry, some of the smaller men would always find it hard to get credit and would find it difficult to get that credit through the ordinary channels— for instance, the banks. In the past the retailers of these goods were the people who gave that credit, but many of the retailers, as a result of the operations of the various co-operative societies in the country, are no longer in a position to give that credit. The business of the vast majority of the merchants who did give credit of that nature in the past has gone. That business has been taken over by the various co-operative societies, and the result is that these small farmers who, in the past, got credit in the way of which I speak, now must get it through the State.
It would be a good idea if credit societies could be formed in the country and I think it would be the business of the co-operative societies throughout the country to form such societies. In countries in Europe, such societies have done very good work, and efforts have been made from time to time in this country to form societies on the same basis. They have never succeeded, but now that there are powerful co-operative societies, composed entirely of farmers, throughout the country, I think they would be the people to provide such facilities. I do not see how it can be met otherwise. If the small farmers can no longer obtain credit in the way in which they got it in the old days, the State must step in and provide it for them. I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that it is dangerous to encourage the people to believe that they can always fall back on the State. It would be much better if, by some means, the people could be encouraged to exercise their own initiative and do all they could to help themselves.
Who killed that initiative?
The State in the case of every country, to some extent, helps to kill such initiative because it has to. When hard times prevail and people have to be helped, as, for instance, the people in our western counties have to be helped, that to a great extent kills initiative. It would be a very desirable thing if there was no necessity at all for State aid, but, unfortunately, we cannot get away from the fact that it is necessary and this Bill provides it.
This Bill is not intended to be a comprehensive measure and it is not intended to be such as to provide the facilities which some Senators seem to have in mind, that is, credit facilities for farmers. If such provision were to be made, I would not be dealing with this Bill. It would be the job of the Minister for Agriculture and I am not going to be drawn away on a side-path into a discussion on agriculture. I do not understand Senator Sir John Keane's references, and I certainly do not see the relevancy of talking about self-reliance and virility and associating that with the Land Acts. It was self-reliance and virility which were responsible for securing the Land Acts. The Senator seems to think that this is a modern tendency and that we were trying to start a system of doles, but if he knew anything of the history of public bodies or of Acts of Parliament enacted in the past, he would know that as far back as 1881, an Act similar to this Bill was passed by the British Parliament and that these provisions were operated in the last 60 years by the old boards of guardians. There is no use in coming in and talking here when you do not know what you are talking about.