This Bill is intended to give legal sanction to measures already taken by county councils to provide seeds and fertilisers on loan terms for persons who are unable to buy those for themselves under any other conditions. Under the Bill, the county councils can exercise their powers in two ways. They can sell seed on loan terms under Section 3, or give guarantees to seed merchants under Section 5. The recipient is required to pay the loans after the harvest, and the Bill provides that, in addition to the ordinary power of recovering a debt, there is power to recover it by means of a rate assessed on the person who has failed to repay the advances made to him. The present Bill is on the same lines as its predecessor, except that, under Section 6, the Exchequer will recoup the county councils one-half of any loss which may be sustained by them, up to an aggregate of £25,000.
Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Bill, 1942—Second and Subsequent Stages.
Would the Minister say how many county councils are putting this scheme into effect this year, and what is the approximate amount of money outstanding over the period during which the scheme has been in operation? What approximately are the losses which the local ratepayers will sustain as a result of operating this scheme? Section 6, to which the Minister has referred, provides for partial recoupment of losses. Does that partial recoupment refer only to the operation of the scheme in this year, or is cognisance to be taken of the losses sustained up to date?
It does not take cognisance of the losses up to date. The scheme is being put in operation, I think, in every county except one.
This year?
Yes.
And what is the amount which has been lost by local authorities to date? I know that in my county there is money outstanding.
From the 1939 scheme, the amount outstanding is £78, and from the 1940 scheme the amount outstanding, I think, is £2,834.
In all the counties?
Yes. I cannot say what is the amount for 1941; we have not got the recoveries yet.
I think this is a rather trifling way of dealing with such an important matter. A provision of £500 or £600 for each county—it does not appear to be much more than that —is entirely insufficient. While it is of benefit to people on valuations of £5 or £10, I think it is of very little use to people who own large tracts of land and who may not have sufficient capital to buy the necessary seeds, or, under the present tillage Order, to buy the machinery necessary to prepare their farms for cultivation. I think that in certain instances the failure to grow a sufficient quantity of wheat this year arose from the fact that large landholders whose purses had become attenuated found it difficult to acquire the machinery necessary for cultivation of their land. In whole districts in the grazing counties great losses were suffered by some of those people by reason of the fact that they had to wait upon their neighbours to till the land for them. Not only had they to wait upon the person who owned the machinery, but they had to wait until the lands of several of their neighbours had been dealt with. That often resulted in failure to sow the crop in time. I know of cases where winter wheat was contemplated, but it was not possible to sow the wheat until the spring, too late in some cases for a successful crop. I understand that in many cases this year spring wheat, which is uncertain of growth in any normal season, has been very uncertain, and in some places it is being ploughed up. That has resulted, I think, from want of the necessary amount of capital on the part of the people who own the land. During the past 12 months, as we know, the cattle trade was very adversely affected by happenings in this country, foot-and-mouth disease among other things, and the personal resources of people who held large tracts of land were exhausted. I think something special should have been done this year in regard to such people. The same thing is happening in connection with the reaping of the crop. I know people who had acres and acres of wheat under good land, and the proceeds of the whole year's work have been lost through failure to procure machinery to reap and thresh those crops in time.
This is a matter which has been cropping up for a number of years. It has done useful work, but I think something supplementary should have been done in this season to enable people to comply with the tillage regulations. I think the amount provided for is insufficient, and that the scheme should be extended. The question of security for the loans is one which causes much trouble. The history of those loans redounds to the credit of those who got them. The amount of arrears outstanding is insignificant. It is a very small percentage of the whole, and the Government subsidy has been little called upon, so far as I know, to meet any losses on the part of county bodies. I think that the worry and humiliation of looking for sureties, which are sometimes difficult to get, is one drawback of the whole scheme. I think the banks should step in in this matter and that the Government should, by some arrangements with the banks, obviate the necessity for this humiliating practice of begging for sureties.
The banks in the different districts should have knowledge of the people who are responsible. I remember in the old days, in some parts of Ireland, shopkeepers were the means of giving seeds and manures in the spring time and accepting the word of men of good standing, credit-worthy men in the locality, for payment in the harvest time. There was no such thing as this security. I can recognise well enough that it is necessary to have some form of security, but there are men who conducted their business for years and paid their way who could be accepted by the banks. Negotiation through the banks would be much more satisfactory than through the county councils.
I think this should be more a matter for Agriculture than for Local Government. I think Agriculture should really deal with these matters. While it is closely allied to Local Government, it is more immediately connected with one feature of Government — Agriculture. I think the Minister for Agriculture should have charge of these operations and that the banks should be brought in to help the work.
I think this Bill is a very useful piece of legislation and this amendment will help considerably in encouraging local authorities to give more credit. I think a good credit scheme would help considerably to increase cereal production, particularly in the new tillage areas. In the old tillage areas, people get their credit from their merchants, but in the new tillage areas, farmers have great difficulty in getting credit, because in fact there are no merchants there. I believe that a credit scheme is particularly useful in these districts.
I noticed along the railway line on the way to Dublin that there was a tractor ploughing up the grass land. If that is being done under the Compulsory Tillage Order it is wrong, because it is too late now to enable a return to be got from it. It is only skimping the job and no crop will be produced for this year. If that is being done under the Compulsory Tillage Order, it should be stopped.
What about mangolds or turnips?
They are not sown by any sensible farmer, at this time of year now. In the old days, when Senator Healy was on the land that work was often done at the end of June, or in July, but now turnips and mangolds are planted in May and June. Fashions change even in that respect.
Senator Cummins referred to the fact that difficulty was experienced in getting sureties. I do not know of any credit-worthy person who would find difficulty in getting two sureties to go bail for these loans. In my district, no credit-worthy person has any difficulty in finding such sureties. I agree with Senator Cummins that this provision of credit should be made by the banks, but when the banks are not doing it, I think it is well that it is being done in this way through the county councils. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill forward and also on bringing in the amendment he has introduced to-day.
I think Senator Cummins was under a misapprehension as to the purposes of this Bill. It is a social measure, not a measure to assist agriculture as an industry or the production of crops or food for sale. It is designed to assist mainly the subsistence farmer — the man who wants seeds and fertilisers for the production of food primarily for himself and his family. This measure is brought in year after year with the definite intention of assisting the smaller man. What Senator Cummins and Senator O'Callaghan have said is quite correct. If this was a measure really for the development of agriculture, for the encouragement of agriculture as an industry, it would be brought in by the Minister for Agriculture, but I say again it is not on that basis it is planned. In regard to this measure, we have got to bear the limitations of it and the limited purpose which it is intended to serve in mind.
I cannot see that there is any great humiliation in asking a man who is going to ask his neighbours — because that is what it means when he goes to the county council — for the grants to purchase seeds and fertilisers, to bring along two friends who are prepared to vouch that if he does get the money to buy seeds and fertilisers, he will devote it to that purpose. If you made it possible for people owning a portion of land to go to a county council asking a loan without any sort of guarantee whatsoever that the money will be properly used, and if they could get the money, I am afraid you would have many people availing of this Bill and a great many of them would not devote the money to the purpose for which it was intended. I think it is inevitable that, in a scheme of this sort, the persons who take advantage of it should be required to bring along people who would be prepared to sponsor them as honest trustworthy men, and I think that there is no alternative to this in the schemes as they have been operated by most county councils up to the present — at least no alternative which would be any simpler. Some county councils, I know, require that one of the guarantors shall be the merchant who is selling the seed, but, even so, they require a second person as security also.
On the Schedule, when you say "the maximum recoupment", is that an actual figure? Has the Minister the actual figure the county councils will be entitled to?
No, it is based on this principle, that £25,000 is being allocated to the counties in proportion to the agricultural population, that is, the aggregate guarantee has been divided up over the county councils in proportion to the agricultural population in each particular county. In the case of Cavan, it is based entirely on that, and also in the case of the others. That is the maximum recoupment which the Government will make.
On that point, while I agree that obviously in the poorer counties, where the population is high, you will probably have greater needs, but, on the other hand, in other instances, it might not be so. You might have a county, two adjoining counties, for instance, where the density of population was approximately the same and where a much greater sum might have been spent for some particular reason—failure of the potato crop, for example — in one county in one particular season, as against the amount that would be necessary in the adjoining county. With all these figures, it is difficult just to say which would be the fairer method, but it seems to me that the total amount which would be spent in any county, the amount which the Minister may make available, ought to be related to this fact more than to anything else, because there are likely to be greater losses. In my county, we might make £2,000 or £3,000 available for the purposes of the scheme. In Leitrim, they might make £3,000 available also. In one county there might be much greater failure to repay than in another, and the ratepayers in a county where repayment was not made to an appreciable extent would have to carry a much greater burden. Has that aspect of the matter been considered?
It has. This provision is rather experimental this year. Apart from that, this represents the maximum amount of recoupment of default and there has been nothing in our experience heretofore to suggest that in any county the amount to be recouped will reach these figures. If experience shows that the figures are insufficient, the scheme can be reviewed.