As this Bill is in the usual form and all members of the Seanad are familiar with it, I do not propose to make any speech upon it.
Private Business. - Central Fund Bill, 1954.—Second and Subsequent Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Expressing a personal view, this Bill makes provision for the public services for a period of four months from 1st April next. In the ordinary way it would afford an opportunity for discussing the policy of the Government. The policy of the Government—I do not know whether to say fortunately or unfortunately— in relation to those who take part in it will be open for discussion in a number of places for quite a considerable time and for that reason I would prefer not to discuss this particular measure in this particular place at the moment. The position seems to me to be a little like that where there is a prolonged "wake." I think we should not prolong the wake by discussing this Bill; that is my personal opinion. I have no power to impose it upon anybody. I do not intend to discuss the Bill. The moneys must be given for the public services. The policy behind the Bill and the provisions in the Bill will come in for very considerable discussion in the very near future. I do not think we need add to that discussion at the moment.
May I begin by expressing my pleasure, and I am sure the pleasure of the House, at finding the Minister for Finance back again in his usual place? Most of the people here present may reasonably expect to be members of this House even when it is reconstituted, but I can make no such assumption. Therefore, I should like to sing, as it were a swan song, with reference to the matters in which I am interested, and there is a particular subject on which I might sing that swan song in addressing myself to my main theme, which is to consider why the agricultural output has remained so remarkably inelastic in the last 20 years. Meanwhile I should like to make one or two disjointed remarks which are very intimately related to the subject matter of the Bill.
In the Book of Estimates, I recognise with pleasure that the Government have substantially increased the capitation fees payable in connection with secondary education in respect of registered pupils. Now, that is a long overdue reform and is of particular importance, especially in the case of smaller schools many of which are schools attended by the children of the minority. I should like to express my personal satisfaction that the Government have decided to make that very substantial addition to the contribution for secondary education. In the matter of secondary education we invite comparison with a neighbouring country. The school which I attended many years ago is now in the excluded area. In those days there were perhaps 60 pupils at that school; at present there are 250. Apparently, secondary education has enormously increased, in its numerical importance anyhow, up there. Down here also, doubtless there has been a certain increase in the number attending secondary schools. I think, however, we lag behind and I should like to see us overtaking that discrepancy by keeping up with Northern Ireland in that as in every other respect.
There is another matter which, I think, is worthy of mention. I notice that a certain famous dwelling of historical interest in Roscommon is about to be condemned to what you would call the knackers if it happened to be a diseased animal, but instead it is to the dismantlers. That is only one of several, in fact, scores of ancient dwellings of considerable historical, cultural and architectural interest and value which have been allowed to be dismantled in the course of the last 20 years. In a country which attaches so much importance to the tourist industry, it is time that we realised that one of the great glories of our country is the possession of these ancient historic buildings and houses and, instead of allowing them to be scrapped and treated as of on account, we should cherish them in every possible way and do what we can to promote their preservation, even if it is no longer possible for the families who own them to go on living in them.
Now there is an organisation called An Taisce which, I think, means "the cherishing institution" which would gladly undertake the cherishing of such buildings, but unfortunately they have no money. I am not suggesting that the State should dip its hand in the rather empty pockets of the taxpayers in order to provide large sums of money for this purpose, but it would be possible by altering certain rules and regulations to give to those persons owning historic buildings some incentive to keep on owning them instead of selling them for scrap.
One of the burdens on the owner of a house of this kind is the cost of rates. Now, if the house is dismantled, once the roof is gone the house ceases to be a ratepaying entity, so that in order to achieve that result people have an interest in destroying the house. From the State's point of view, it would come to the same thing if the State derated those historic buildings and gave the owners no excuse of that kind for taking the roof off and dismantling the buildings. If that were done those valuable buildings would have a better chance of surviving.
Another suggestion in that connection is this. Certain of these big houses have been acquired in recent years by wealthy outsiders, Englishmen, Americans and others, and so far as that has helped to preserve buildings that might otherwise have been destroyed, they have helped to preserve what is for us a national asset. But that tendency was seriously impeded by a decision some years ago to impose a 25 per cent. property tax on any non-Irish person acquiring property over here. I am not saying that there may not be certain considerations in favour of limiting the competition of outside capital when it is a question of buying an ordinary farm or property, but I am saying that it would be well to eliminate this 25 per cent. burden in the case of any building of this kind of historical and cultural value which a foreigner might be prepared to buy.
Those buildings and the properties associated with them have no possible interest for the ordinary working farmer with limited capital who is trying to make a living from the land, but they are a possible attraction to wealthy people from overseas and it could do no harm and it might perhaps give a certain promotion to the preservation of these buildings if we waived the 25 per cent. tax in the case of foreigners acquiring properties of this kind of historic and cultural value in this country. However, that is more or less by the way.
My main purpose is to consider why agricultural production has failed to increase in the last 15 or 20 years. I gladly recognise that industrial production has increased, especially since 1945. I forget the exact percentage, but there is a very substantial increase in it. But, for some reason or other, the increase in industrial production does not seem to carry with it that automatic substantial increase in the total real national income that a substantial increase in agricultural output would automatically bring about. It seems to be the case that, in so far as we are industrialising, we are merely altering the pattern of our productive activities without somehow succeeding in causing any substantial increase in the total output and real national income. If we can by any means bring about a substantial increase in agricultural incomes it will have what the economists call a multiplier effect.
There seems to be a kind of reliable statistical relationship between the agricultural income and the total national income, agricultural income being now roughly about one-third of the total national income, and it seems to me the situation is that if you could add £50,000,000 at present values to the value of agricultural output you would automatically increase the total national income by £150,000,000, the total national income tending to be something like three times the income of persons occupied in agriculture. That is why it is so practically important that every effort should be made to increase agricultural output and why I think an attempt to analyse the causes of the failure to do so is entirely relevant to our present discussion.
Let me set forth briefly some of the facts. You will find them in the Statistical Abstracts from year to year. Manpower over 18 years of age occupied in agriculture was in 1945 522,000 persons. In 1952 that number had decreased to 441,000 persons, a decrease of 80,000 in about seven years, so that manpower appears to be fleeing from agriculture at the rate of about 10,000 persons a year. That flight has been going on continuously for the last ten years, and I do not think it has yet ceased. Another feature of the flight from the land is that it is not confined to the wage-earning classes but is common to both temporary and permanent farm workers and also to the relatives of farming families. They are fleeing from the land too. That is one fact which is painfully true and which no one disputes.
Another fact—it can be found in the pages of the Food and Agricultural Organisation's report called Output and Expenses of Agriculture in some European Countries, pages 16 to 20— is that the output per, what they call hectare or acre of “arable equivalent,” in Ireland as compared with 13 other countries in Western Europe happens to be the lowest of any of those 14 countries. That is not a very creditable achievement on our part and it would be well if we could improve on it. However, when we come to consider output per person occupied, per member of what is called the active agricultural population, we make a rather better showing, and we are only in the third group there instead of the fourth and a good deal ahead of countries like Greece and Italy; but we would have to more than double that output per person occupied before we would achieve the standards achieved in Denmark and Belgium and we would have to nearly treble that output per person occupied before we could achieve the results achieved in the United Kingdom. I am not saying that there are not extenuating circumstances, but it would take too long to go into them now. I am only suggesting that the members of the House and the public would do well to familiarise themselves with the contents of that most important report.
Before I come to what I regard as the explanation of these regrettable facts let us put on record quite briefly what we did in the matter of various kinds of crops since 1938. Our agricultural output is divided into two important sections, namely, live stock and live-stock products, which normally is by far the more important of the two, and cash crops, grown generally for direct human consumption. Under war conditions we had no option but to increase the cultivation of cash crops, things like wheat and so on, for our human consumption, and it was inevitable that there would be some contraction in the production of live stock and live-stock products; consequently the index number which reflects the situation, which is 100 for 1938, in both items, was in 1944-45, 86 for live stock and live-stock products, and 132.3 for crops and turf. We had to and did substantially increase our output of cash crops for human consumption or use, and we diminished our output of live stock and live-stock products. After 1944-45 and up to 1951 there was a reverse tendency—a tendency to increase once more the output of live stock and live-stock products and to diminish somewhat the output of crops for human consumption, so that in 1951 the index number for live stock and live-stock products production was back to 95.1 and the index number for crops and turf is down to 110.3. Taking the period as a whole, our increase in the output of one kind of agricultural product was more or less neutralised by the decrease in the output of the other and more important kind of agricultural output, with the final result that we are only now beginning to achieve something like the total agricultural output we had in 1938. In fact, in agriculture, as in industry, our changes, some of them forced upon us by circumstances arising out of the world war, are changes that have altered the pattern of production but have not contributed to an increase in its total volume. I think that what really happened was that for one reason or another we failed to integrate our cash crop cultivation with our live-stock production. I am not now trying to allocate any blame for this failure, a lot of which was due to circumstances over which we had no control; but some may have been due to mistakes of Government policy, and if the cap fits any particular maker of mistakes I have no objection to him wearing it.
The failure of live-stock product production to increase is the most significant and in a way the most sinister feature of our whole agricultural history in recent years. Let me illustrate that failure. According to official figures milk production, that is milk sold to creameries, in 1929-30 was 197,000,000 gallons. In 1937-38 it was 202,000,000 gallons. In 1951 it was 214,000,000 gallons. That was a slight but very welcome increase; but the other important use of milk, namely, the making of farmers' butter in the non-creamery districts, showed a regrettable decline. In 1929-30, 567,000 cwt. of farmers' butter were made, in 1937-38, 452,000 cwt. and in 1951, 329,000 cwt. Now milk is the most important element in the whole of our small and medium farm economy, and unless milk production can increase it is physically and economically impossible to bring about a substantial increase in the production of live stock and live-stock products.
Our pig output in 1929-30 was 1,450,000 pigs. In 1937-38 it was 1,306,000, and in 1951 it was 734,000, and that was a great deal more than it was in 1946 or 1947.
Our output of hen eggs in 1929-30 was 10.5 million great hundreds. In 1937-38 it was 8.4 million, and in 1951 it was 6.5 million.
Our poultry population in 1929-30 was 22.9 million, in 1937-38, 19.6 million, and in 1951, 22.1 million. But— and this is something I would like to rub in—the poultry population in Northern Ireland now exceeds the total poultry population down here, and the pig population in Northern Ireland, which used to be only about 1/6th of our pig population, is now nearly as much as our pig population. In 1929-30 there were 8.8 million poultry in Northern Ireland. In 1949 there were 24.2 million.
I want to arrive at some objective explanation of all our failure to bring about this increase in total agricultural production. Before doing so, I want to lay down some general principles with which practical farmers may or may not agree. If increased production is going to take place on our large farms in a way conducive to the maintenance of the permanent fertility of the soil, such increased production requires a suitable relation between the price of store cattle in the autumn and the price of fat cattle in the spring because otherwise it does not pay the large farmer to buy store cattle in the autumn, feed them in winter, use them to trample the straw into farmyard manure and then sell them in the spring as stall-fed cattle. Unless the straw which has become available as a result of extensive wheat growing, is converted in that way into farmyard manure and restored to the land, the permanent fertility of the land is injured. Between 1934 and 1948 there was not that suitable relation between the price of store cattle in the autumn and the price of fat cattle in the spring. The price policy imposed on us by the British in these 14 tragic years made it impossible for us to compete with the British importers of store cattle, to pay the same price for store cattle in autumn and produce them as stall-fed cattle the following spring. In 1948 matters improved for a bit and, in fact, in that respect they are probably all right at the moment but we do not know what is going to happen after the decontrol of cattle and meat in England in the near future. We do know that whatever Government is in power must exert itself to the utmost to prevent any restoration of the price relationship imposed on us between 1934 and 1948. Unless we are able to maintain a suitable relationship between the price of store cattle in autumn and stall-fed cattle in spring, large farmers will not have a sound basis for extending tillage, increasing production and, at the same time, improving the fertility of the soil.
On small and medium farms, increased production depends on a suitable relation between the prices of feed and animal product prices. From the small farmer's point of view, it does not matter particularly whether the feed is imported Indian meal or purchased barley meal grown by some other Irish farmer. The important thing is that there should be such a relationship between the price of the barley meal or Indian meal and the price of pigs and eggs that will pay the small farmer to increase and multiply the number of pigs and poultry he keeps about his land. Unless the price relationship is favourable to the small farmer, you are asking him to commit bankruptcy if you invite him to increase production because he is going to lose money if he has to pay for Indian meal or barley meal a price that is not economic. I feel this matter rather acutely and in a personal way, because I lately acquired a small holding on which I keep 11 hens which are yielding me a profit of about 2/- a week. I know that if I were to keep 50 hens I should probably incur a certain loss and if I were to keep 500 hens I would lose very heavily indeed. Unless the relationship between the price of hen feed and the price of eggs is maintained on an equitable basis the 200,000 small farmers will not and cannot increase their poultry production.
In the case of pigs, the situation is somewhat better because, although the price of feed went up substantially especially after the devaluation of sterling in 1949, the price of bacon was also raised. Consequently pig production has lately shown a steady and desirable increase. Nevertheless, the relationship between the price of pig feed and the price of pigs is not now so profitable as it was three or four years ago. The immediate outlook for an increase in the output of pigs is by no means rosy. These are factors which are inhibiting the efforts of our small farmers up and down the country and are also an explanation of the failure to increase agricultural production. All told we have perhaps a personel of 500,000 working on the land, either as farmers, members of farmers' families or wage paid workers. At least 300,000 are occupied on farms of 50 acres or less in size. On farms of that size you cannot provide an adequate income for the farmer and his family unless you specialise in animal product production, in other words unless you go in heavily for the production of milk, pigs and poultry.
There is a kind of liaison between farms of all sizes and I would like to emphasise the interdependence of the various-sized farms and the various forms of activity on these farms in different parts of the country. The principal feature of that liaison, traditionally, has been the fact that small farmers generally, and the dairy farmers in particular in the areas specialising in dairying, were the principal producers of store cattle which became in other parts of the country the raw material for the dry stock beef producing industry. It was because of the importance of store cattle to dry stock farming areas that Government policy traditionally, no matter what Government was in power, insisted on maintaining the dual purpose cow as the principal type of animal which should exist on practically every farm in the country. Now that dual purpose cow is a unique phenomenon in the whole of Western Europe. There is no other country in Western Europe which attempted to promote a small farm agricultural economy based on the dual purpose cow. Every small farm economy in Western Europe, I think it is no exaggeration to say, which has prospered based its prosperity on a plentiful milk supply produced on the farms and on the production of by-products that depend for their existence on a plentiful supply of milk. So the one unique phenomenon, the dual purpose cow in this country, may be related as cause and effect to the other unique phenomenon, the fact that we have the lowest output per acre of 14 Western European countries.
Those of us who study agricultural statistics have had from time to time our attention drawn to the fact that pigs and poultry are relatively most numerous in those parts of the country where dairying is the major activity of the general farming population. There is a natural affinity between pigs and poultry on the one hand and dairying on the other. Those who specialise in dairying, the people in the creamery districts, have been very touchy about the price of milk and very insistent on getting an adequate return for their efforts to produce milk and butter. I will not go into that at any considerable length, but I will say that perhaps they would not be quite so interested in the high prices they now need for milk and butter, if they were doing rather better in the by-products of the dairying industry, in the production of pigs and poultry, but, because of circumstances which I have tried to explain, pigs and poultry have not been doing very well lately, and consequently the price being got for milk and butter bulks much too largely in their total thoughts and they have to insist on a higher price than they might otherwise stand out for.
May I illustrate that by some official statistics? I want to compare the direct financial proceeds of milk production, both in the creamery districts in the form of the value of milk sold to creameries and in the non-creamery districts, in the form of the value of farmers' butter, with the total value of the output of pigs and hen eggs. In 1929-30, the value of milk sold to the creameries, plus farmers' butter, was £9.3 million, while the value of the output of pigs and hen eggs in that year was £15.1 million—a wide margin of £6,000,000 more than the total value of the milk sold to creameries or turned into butter on the farms. In other words, the value of the by-products of dairying was getting on for being twice as important financially to the people producing it as the value of the milk and butter. When you come to later years, however, you find a shrinkage in that margin. In 1937-38, the value of milk in both forms was £8.2 million and the value of pigs and hen eggs output £10.4 million. In 1951, the value of milk in both forms was £20.1 million and of pigs and hen eggs £23.6 million. In other words, instead of being twice or three times as much, the value of the by-products of dairying was only very little more than the value of milk as a direct source of revenue to farmers.
I happen to know of a certain farmer in the South of Ireland whose programme, on his 500 acres of land, is to keep 60 Jersey cows and to produce 1,000 pigs in the year, fed mainly, if not entirely, on barley grown on his own farm. His total turnover must be of the order of £40,000 or £50,000 a year, but that is by the way. I gather that his milk cheque will probably be somewhere between £4,000 and £6,000 a year, but his gross receipts from pigs, if he carries out his programme, will be of the order of £20,000 a year. In other words, in his case, the value of the by-product based on the dairying industry and on skimmed milk is going to be three or four times as much as the direct value to him of the milk produced by his Jersey cows. It would be a sound policy if we could so arrange things as to induce or to encourage our people to multiply pigs and eggs and greatly increase their relative importance compared with the direct value of milk and butter, but doing that depends on being able to expand the total amount of milk, including skimmed milk, and to maintain a suitable price relationship between pig feed and pig prices.
If our dairy farmers abandon the dual-purpose cow, and there is an increasing volume of criticism of that now much abused animal, and go over to pure-bred dairy cattle, it might be a solution of the problem, so far as they are concerned and so far as the possibility of increasing pigs and poultry in the country based on a greatly increased flow of milk is concerned; but it will undoubtedly impair that old liaison between the dairy farmers and the small farmers, on the one hand, and the dry stock people, both arable and grass, on the other, which was one of the factors binding together our national economy into a single whole. However, the people who say that our dry stock farmers have no right to expect the small farmers to produce their raw materials for them are perhaps talking sound sense, and if the dairy farmers cease producing surplus store animals for dry stock farmers, the dry stock farmers will then have to begin breeding their own beef cattle, and perhaps they might then go in for genuinely beef types and the final results may be better farming in these areas as well as in the dairying area.
I should like to see a new liaison established between large farmers and small farmers even if the old liaison based on the dual-purpose cow must eventually go by the board, and that new liaison should take the form of our farmers going in not only for intensified grass cultivation by modern scientific methods but also for a greatly increased tillage output of grain crops not only for human consumption but also as feed for animals maintained by small farmers in different parts of the country; but if that development is to take place, the people selling feeding barley must be content to get a price for that feeding barley which enables the other farmer using it to feed pigs or poultry to make a reasonable profit. In fact, the final price at which he should be content to sell his feeding barley should be directly related to the export price which the producer of pigs and poultry can hope to get for his finished product. Any farmer selling feeding barley at a higher price than that is simply cutting off the branch of the tree on which he should be arranging to sit for the future, because it will only kill the trade and prevent a very desirable development.
There was something done in 1953 which was very injurious to the small farmers and, I think, not good for the country, either. The Government made a mistake and pushed the price of wheat up too high. It is now well above the level of world wheat prices, with the result that more than 100,000 acres more wheat were grown in 1953, but 80,000 less acres of oats and barley were grown. The result of that has been that, in view of the extraordinarily high price at which maize is still being sold, the high price of wheat has carried up the price of all the other grains in sympathy and raised it above any economic figure that would make it appeal to the small farmers trying to produce pigs and poultry, so that there is not only a high price for, but an actual scarcity of grain feed for farm animals on the small farms, which again has tended to inhibit the most desirable kind of increase in agricultural production— the result of that mistake in fixing the price of wheat too high.
I am all in favour of a reasonable price for wheat which would tend to maintain a certain reasonable acreage against all possible eventualities of the future, but I think 350,000 acres are far too much and I know that a lot of it is being obtained at the permanent expense of the land. A further result of that 350,000 acres of wheat has been that the bread subsidy has had to be increased in the Estimates which are before the House. I think the bread subsidy for the coming year is up by nearly £1,000,000 and is now costing us well over £7,000,000. That means that the taxpayer is being asked to subsidise the high price obtained by the fortunate owners of land which is strong enough to grow wheat.
That is bad enough but much worse is the fact that it has put temptation in the way of farmers to go in for what I call wheat ranching which is even more objectionable from the national point of view than cattle ranching. Cattle ranching did not impair the permanent fertility of the land but wheat ranching does. By wheat ranching I mean taking a cash crop of wheat out of the land and leaving the straw in heaps in the fields to rot and allowing the land to tumble down to grass and not giving it its proper quota of farm manure. I do not care how much wheat we grow in the country but I do care that every item of wheat straw produced in the country should be tramped into manure in the winter time and restored to the land in the following spring.
That situation would only arise if, as I said before, the price of store cattle in the autumn is suitably related to the price of fat cattle in the spring and if the farmers who grow wheat have both capital and enterprise necessary to enable them to acquire an adequate number of cattle for winter fattening. It would be disastrous if the present tendency to wheat ranching were encouraged. Rather than that should happen I should like to see a substantial reduction in the total area under wheat in the coming year.
I might summarise what I have said so far. We should think of our national economy as based on our agricultural economy. So far as industrial policy is concerned, we should put the agricultural horse before the industrial cart in which case we can confidently rely upon a desirable and permanent expansion of industry as well as agriculture, as has been the experience of other countries, including the much admired Denmark. So far as the agricultural economy itself is concerned, we should think of it as consisting of interdependent elements and we should try to devise policies which will integrate all these elements, penalise none of them and give all an incentive to increased production. May I quote some words used by Thomas Davis in another connection which might also be said in reference to the agricultural economy and the various elements of it: "Neither can be safe or sound save in the other's weal"?
Before entering on the matters which have been discussed by Senator Johnston, I should like to join with him in expressing our pleasure at seeing the Minister for Finance back in harness again. We know that he has been through a trying and difficult time, although when we have to sit and listen to him here we know he fights hard. But I think there is reason to believe that there is another Seán MacEntee. Now that he is back we hope he will have a complete recovery. We are really glad to see him. I want to say that as far as I am personally concerned but I am sure that I am expressing the views of my own colleagues also.
On the issues raised by Senator Johnston, I should like to say that, generally, I assent to the point of view expressed by him. I see no cause for quarrel with the objections which he has expressed. To a certain extent, I feel in the same mood as Senator Hayes about discussing this Vote but, on the other hand, the Seanad has its responsibilities. I think it is only fitting, now that we have the opportunity of calmly debating the issues raised by this Vote and hearing what the Minister can say in reply, perhaps, he might be less calm somewhere else later, that we should ventilate our point of view on the wisdom and soundness of Government policy as it has been pursued.
I must frankly express my view on this matter. As I see it, Government policy has not been a success. I could use very strong adjectives to convey my dissatisfaction with it and with its results. As we see the fruits flowing from governmental activities in the country and the things that matter in the country, I feel that the Government have been a failure. What are you to look for? By what standard are you to judge whether the Government are making a success of their job or not? How are you to prove whether the moneys which we are voting are being wisely or otherwise spent? Apparently Government spokesmen— even the Taoiseach himself has tumbled to the fact at last—realise that agriculture is the fundamental element in our national life and that the success or failure of agriculture is the yardstick by which we are to judge what a Government has achieved.
Judged by that standard, I challenge anyone to say that Government policy has been a success. The Minister or his colleagues in another mood may stand up and denounce the farmers because they are not doing more and because they are not getting more out of the land. Senator Johnston has pointed to the fact that in 50 years our productivity from the soil has not increased. Whose fault is that? Ministers may say that the farmers are not doing their job, but to the extent to which we are falling down in our efforts to increase production national progress is being halted and held up.
In my opinion, that is due primarily to the failure of the Government. When we first set out to build this State we met with great difficulties and divergencies of opinion as to what we should call it, the form it was to take and so on. When we had done all that, I am afraid too many of our people believed, as they believe to-day, and farmers amongst them, that the State could do everything for you and that the Legislature could create conditions for the farming community that would make them feel comfortable with no worries. I think Governments did nothing to discourage farmers thinking along these lines. Instead of indicating to them how much there is that nobody can do for the farmers but themselves, the State, apparently in the rôle of a fairy godmother, sought to chaperone our country people along a particular road and tried to adopt them so that they would pursue a particular line of thought. I do not know whether they believed it or not but their objective seemed to be they could convince our farmers that they could take dictation and direction from the State, the Minister for Agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture as to how they were to farm their land and if that were done all would be well with the farmers and with the country.
I come from the country. I would ask you to look at it as it is to-day. It is grey and cold and miserable and along great areas you would have to ask is there anybody living there at all. The land looks neglected and I would say it is the most neglected looking land in Europe this side of the Iron Curtain. I have been in a number of those countries and have seen what has been done. The test of that is the statement made by Senator Johnston, which the Minister knows to be a fact, that in 50 years our agricultural production has not increased. We have farmed along lines which if they were pursued by farmers in other countries with a different climate would have left their land derelict and desolate.
There is a monumental work by two Englishmen called The Rape of the Earth and it describes the appalling consequences of the neglect of the soil in many lands. The only thing that has saved this island of Ireland from the same devastation as has taken place in Africa, America and Australia, away back from the earliest times up to the present, is the fact that we have the heavy rainfall we have. On the continent of America, millions of acres of land have been destroyed by bad farming techniques. The soil has been blown off and washed into some of their great rivers and in the cities along the Mississippi the roofs of the houses are only just level with the bed of the river because of all the eroded soil that has drifted there due to bad farming methods. Anyone knowing anything about sound agricultural conditions and techniques who would look out on the Ireland of to-day would have to admit that the land of Ireland is terribly neglected.
I attribute this state of affairs in the first place to the fact that we have conditioned the minds of our farmers to thinking that the State will solve all their problems for them. Instead of educating the farmer, training his mind, putting at his disposal the kind of information and knowledge that is available to all the farmers in Europe we have led him to believe that by some political effort and activity we can find the answer to his problems. However, we have failed.
Is this a true statement of the position or is it not? Why would one stand up in one of the Houses of the Oireachtas and make a statement like that? We must consider the output we are getting from the land. At a time when every country in Europe has very considerably increased its productivity we have to ask what is wrong with Ireland. What is wrong with the farmers of Ireland? What is wrong with the Government of Ireland? What is wrong with our methods?— because we are the people who have fallen down. The British farmers have increased their productivity by almost 60 per cent. since pre-war and ours has barely reached pre-war level. The Danes, the Dutch and the Swedes have all increased output to a very considerable extent. We have not. In my judgment the fundamental difference between our farmers and all those others is that they have agricultural education at their disposal which is not available to our farmers. I said this before in the presence of the Minister and he spoke about the number of educators we have. That is not so. Our educational institutions are the same to-day in Ireland as they were when the State was established. I do not think there has been a foot of space added to one of the agricultural educational institutions since the State was founded. I suggest that this is the only country in which that is the case and if we are not making the progress we ought to make, that is the real cause.
There are many new devices which must be employed and which, when added together, will enable us to achieve greatly increased productivity, but the first thing our farmers require is to have the know-how. That is something they have not got and which must be supplied. I am not going to go into a discussion to-day as to the relative merits of tillage and grass production, of the return from poultry and eggs on a small farm as against what comes to the owner from the production of milk, or the relative merits of this anachronism we call the dual-purpose cow against the pure dairy breeds, except to point to this fact that we in this country have been importing New Zealand butter. This butter is produced in a country not terribly unlike our own. They have no doubt a milder winter in part of the country, but they have a pure dairy breed of cattle there and they are able to export butter here, thousands of miles across the ocean, sell it cheaper than our farmers can, and pay their workers £10 per week.
When things like that take place, the time has come when we must do more than examine our consciences. We ought to examine the facts and realise that there has been an appalling neglect of possibilities and opportunities. I have no doubt that the level of fertility of our soil is disastrously low and, while the Taoiseach, the Minister for External Affairs and his colleagues may preach from the housetops about the importance of fertilisers and the value of lime, the job is not being done. They are not getting the story across to the farmers. They ought to go somewhat further and try to discover why that is so. We had some people talking about the necessity for capital investment on the land. We had the Taoiseach and his colleague going to the banks to make an arrangement with them. If there was not some truth in the allegation that there was a shortage of credit, I do not know why they went to the banks. But what sort of an arrangement did they make? They got credit for the credit-worthy farmer. Was that not a marvellous confession? The credit-worthy farmer does not want the Taoiseach, the Minister for External Affairs, the Minister for Finance, or anybody else to speak for him. He can get the credit himself. What about the other fellows—and there is a great number of them? What about the credit-worthy farmer, the man who can finance himself or who has available to him the credit to secure the finance? The job is not being done on his farm, either, I am afraid. Why is it not being done?
The Minister for External Affairs said somewhere that the farmers themselves had plenty of money if they wanted to invest it on the land. He gave a figure of £70,000,000, if I make no mistake, as being to the credit of the farmers in the banks. I do not know how he managed to get that figure, what method of calculation he used or what secret information is available that enables one to determine how much belongs to farmers, to traders and to professional people. At any rate, this figure is given and it is said they have the money themselves if they want to put it into the land. He went further and said something about their getting 1 per cent. interest in the bank and he asked why they do not invest it in the land. Then there was the other point, that if a man had a deposit in the bank, on the strength of that deposit, they said, he could borrow from the bank at 1 per cent. higher than he was being paid interest on his deposit. Was not that a marvellous concession? Whatever the position is, if the farmers have millions in the banks, will the Minister for Finance tell me why those farmers—who are hardheaded enough and as anxious to make money as any other citizen—are prepared to leave the money on deposit and not invest it in the land where the investment will bring a much greater return? Why is that? Is the farmer such a stupid person? Is he so terribly conservative that he is not prepared to invest it? In my opinion, the real reason is that the farmer does not know that and does not believe it. He has to be taught it, he has to be educated and it has to be proven to his satisfaction so that he can see it himself. There is no one saying anything about that. In any other European country that education is being given. I am as conscious as anyone else of the difficulties in persuading farmers to go out on new lines, but there is not a man in the whole wide world who will rise to the occasion more quickly than the Irish farmer, if he is satisfied there is more money in it.
The first thing which should have been done very many years ago by the Government here was to realise that we had only emerged from a condition of slavery, that our people had been denied education in every field, that we had no opportunities even of crossing the land frontiers to see another race across the Border and what they were doing, or of having them come to us We had all this insular position in which God placed us, denied opportunities for education, study and learning. Here we were when freedom came to us. What has been done since to enlighten us? I have to confess that I am terribly dismayed at the result of native government and the way it has fallen down on this fundamental problem. It is little wonder that the younger generation rising in Ireland to-day discount all the activities of those whom they call politicians in their endeavour to do anything for agriculture. They speak slightingly of them, they do not trust them, they do not believe that there is any salvation whatever in the domain where the politician can serve and has power to work and to do good. They do not believe that they are genuine or sincere about it. If Parliament is to keep its hold on the people of the nation and on the younger generations rising within the nation, it must do its duty through the Executive that is charged with the responsibility of government for the time being. The Minister and his colleagues have completely fallen down on this. Burdens of taxation are pressing very heavily on our people, for the reasons I have stressed time and again over the years in this House. We have neglected the all-important obligation of seeing that we were increasing our productivity and raising our level of income to such a point that when a greater burden was put upon the people, they would be able to carry it. Generally, that is my view as I see the situation at the moment.
There are many aspects of Government policy in relation to agriculture that I would like to have clarification on at the moment. Senator Johnston addressed himself to the problem of wheat. I am very much concerned about the problem of milk and milk production. I do not think it ought to be necessary for us to bring butter from any country in the world. We ought to be competent to produce enormous quantities of milk products for export. Why are we not doing it? That is something which ought to be answered by the people who have been responsible for the Government of this country for 19 out of the last 22 years. I would like to know, for instance, what the farmers can hope to see this year as the price of milk. What are they going to be paid in the coming year?
The offer Deputy Dillon made them.
What was that?
To accept a reduction of the prevailing price, over a period of five years.
Is that what the Government is giving?
That is what you offer.
I am asking what the present Government is offering. I understand they have a Milk Costings Committee, if it is still in existence. I do not know if the burial is to include that committee. It is not good enough to wait until the middle of the milking season, when the milk is on hands.
I do not like to interrupt the Senator, but I think he is treating me and the House very unfairly. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that when I was coming in to take this Vote on Account I was approached to find out if I would agree to introduce the Vote formally, without making any speech and then the remaining stages would be given without any debate. It was understood that Senator Johnston was to make a statement in regard to agriculture, but I did not know that one of the leaders of the Opposition was going to deal with these matters; otherwise I would naturally have made the speech I normally make in putting this matter before the House. I think I have been very shabbily treated.
May I point out to the Minister that I was unaware that speeches were to be made? I would have spoken otherwise, but not on the lines that Senator Baxter has taken.
I know nothing whatever about it.
It is a pity Senator Hayes did not inform you.
He did inform him.
No one approached me about this. I was unaware there was any such arrangement come to, but no arrangement can exclude the right of a Senator to express his view on this. I am perfectly in order. I am giving the Minister an opportunity to rebut what I am saying; he will have the opportunity to reply. That is what is in my mind, as I want to hear the answers to this. If there are answers, he will have an opportunity to state them fairly and reasonably. I am trying to put the case as reasonably as possible. There are other farmer Senators in the House and they are not without knowledge of the conditions in the country. If what I saw is an overstatement, if it is not representative of the facts of agricultural life at the moment, then——
Sir, I wish to point out to you that I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of what Senator Baxter is saying. What I am concerned about is that the person who generally speaks for him, in arranging the business of this House, made a certain agreement, which Senator Baxter is breaking.
He made no agreement with me or anyone else, and I reserve the right to express my view here while I am here.
Does Senator Baxter state that Senator Hayes did not inform him that that arrangement had been made?
Not before he came into the House. I heard nothing whatever about it before I came into the House. I was not consulted about it.
There was some discussion on the matter before the House met.
Not with me.
You were informed?
I was informed when Senator Hayes stood up here. That is a different matter. If we are going to debate this point, I am ready to debate it too. I want somebody to state here that anybody can make any arrangement that excludes any Senator from expressing his view. If there was any agreement arrived at, about which I was consulted, I would be the last in this House to dishonour it. At least some of my opponents will admit that.
So Senator Hayes acted on his own?
Apparently. He may have consulted with other people but not with me and I am quite capable of making up my own mind.
If the Minister was given to understand that these matters would not be raised, it is obviously unfair to the Minister to go into them.
I want to know does that mean that I am not in order.
If the Senator feels that he is not bound by the undertaking or the agreement arrived at with Senator Hayes, then he may proceed.
I was not consulted.
The Senator is in order.
I thought I would deal with these matters and give the Minister an opportunity of rebutting what I am saying. I am not the only person here who has something to say on which the Minister's reply will be of considerable interest. I am not saying something which is absolutely new. I am saying it in the hope that it will sink in.
I was addressing myself to a problem that is all important in rural Ireland in the coming year, the problem of milk production. Senator Johnston dealt with it. I am not out of order in doing so. I should like to hear from the Minister what is his view and what is the Government's policy on this matter. I would like to know where the farmers stand. We ought to be told. Statements have been made elsewhere by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to a scheme which he is promulgating for the eradication of T.B. in our cattle stocks. Senator O'Donovan would be very concerned about this. Apparently we are waiting for the receipt of money from America to proceed with this all-important job. Have we reached a decision that this job must be done, apart from the method and the financing of it? I do not know what the Minister and his colleagues have to say about it. We should make up our minds that it is imperative to proceed with the work because otherwise we will very soon arrive at the position that our national income will be considerably reduced because our products cannot be sold in Britain and our population would not be able to consume them unless better progress is made in increasing the population than has been made for the last 20 years.
There are other Senators who watch what is being done in Britain in regard to the eradication of T.B. There are areas in Britain where herds have been cleared to the extent of 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. They have reached the stage in Britain where almost 45 per cent. of the cattle are free from T.B. That means that great areas in Britain will be closed to our cattle unless they are free from this disease. Unfortunately, they are not free.
Are we going to wait until we get money from America to start a job that we ought to have been doing long ago? I do not know. Apparently, that is the line, but disaster awaits us along that line because in the not too distant future there will be thousands of live stock on our hands which it will not be possible to sell in Britain. That will be a very unhappy development. It will be another kind of economic war and it will come about because we are doing nothing about a matter which is fundamental to our economy.
I want to draw attention to another aspect of Government policy about which there has been a great deal of discussion over the last couple of years. I do not know how one can tackle such a problem other than by ventilating it in Parliament. We are providing money for health services. We are supposed to provide health services in our local authorities. Local authorities are very perplexed as to the cost. There is great need for clarification. When one is confronted with the situation that has obtained in County Cavan for many months one wonders how much sincerity there is behind all this talk of health services. There is a number of hospitals in Cavan. There is a small surgical hospital of 70 beds. There is a surgeon in the hospital. For months we have been trying to get additional staff and we have not been able to find them. That is not due to any fault on the part of the local authority. It is the central Government which is responsible. For months the surgeon has been working practically day and night. On dispensary days I have seen queues waiting for examination. There is no other doctor available to attend accident cases.
The following advertisement appeared in the Dáily papers yesterday:—
"Cavan County Council
Medical Officers required.
Applications are invited for whole-time, temporary posts of Resident Medical Officer:
(a) County Surgical Hospital, Cavan;
(b) St. Felim's Hospital, Cavan (Medical).
Salary will be at the rate of £6 per week with board and residence in each case.
The appointment will be for a period of six months.
Applications, giving full particulars of qualifications and experience, should be submitted to the undersigned."
Think of that salary—£6 a week. For three or four consecutive meetings of the health authority, we have been asking the county manager if he has been able to secure the services of an assistant-surgeon for the surgical hospital or medical men. Invariably, the answer has been "no." I think one assistant-surgeon came the other day. When we ask the county manager to explain the difficulty in obtaining staff the answer is that the salaries being offered are not adequate to secure the services of the kind of people we require. We make it clear that we are ready to pay; that if something occurs in the hospital—as occurred in hospitals in other places— and if we have not adequate staff to deal with the situation, if the local authority is brought into court it may cost us hundreds of pounds. The manager's answer is that he cannot get them because he cannot get sanction for any increase in the salaries. This is in public print. That is the position. That is the sort of tomfoolery that is going on while we are boasting about what we are doing for the health of the people. The fact is that we are not manning the services. Why I do not know. I do not know what sort of stupid bureaucratic control and what sort of dead hand is over this service that would allow that sort of behaviour, instead of enabling local authorities who want to carry out their responsibilities and obligations to do so in the manner in which they should do it.
I could pick out each one of these other Votes and point to some equivalent Fáilure on the part of the people who are charged with the Central Administration. I have indicated my general dissatisfaction with the policy which has been pursued by this Government. At this stage of our history after so many years of native Government, I do not think that this is the sort of situation on which we should have to report. Instead, we should be able to acclaim the progress which we should have made. We should be able to point to facts and figures in relation to greatly increased yields from the soil and greatly improved conditions in agriculture, in land reclamation, and so forth. We ought to be able to say that greater numbers of people are being employed on the land and we ought to have an immensely increased output from the land. We have been given figures to the effect that our grasslands give something like 1,000 starch units per acre. Eight, nine and ten thousand starch units per acre have been obtained from grass: 2,000 and 3,000 have easily been obtained, and yet our acreage is 1,000 starch units per acre.
People complain about the high prices of food, about high taxation and about their ability to bear the increasing burdens which are being imposed upon them. The reason for all that hardship is the Government's Fáilure to obtain from the land the greatly increased output which it is capable of giving. The great Fáilure of the Government lies in its neglect to provide a suitable scheme of education in this connection and in its neglect to put at our disposal the machinery and the equipment that could and should have been provided for us.
As a result of an agreement reached by the leader of the Opposition Party and the leader of this Party, there was an understanding that the Minister would briefly introduce this Bill, that the leader of the Opposition would make a statement on the lines which he did and that Senator Johnston would be allowed to make some remarks on agriculture. I am not quarrelling with Senator Baxter's demand to put forward his views on this matter but I might point out that it is typical, I think, of what leaders of his Party have done in the past behind the backs of their own Ministers in entering into agreements and not keeping them. It is a very serious thing if leaders of a Party come to an agreement—particularly an agreement in relation to the introduction of an important measure of this kind, especially in view of the time it is being introduced—and it is subsequently broken. When I saw the Bill on the Order Paper to-day, I felt that here was a golden opportunity for those people—particularly the members of the Opposition—who were criticising the amount demanded in our Book of Estimates. A demand was being made that, out of the total sum, a certain portion of the moneys should be made available to the Government in order that the services should continue over a period of some three or four months. I felt that now, at least, we could hear from those people who wanted to criticise, where exactly the economies they desired should be exercised or what particular service should be reduced or extended.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, an agreement was entered into and, as a result, the Minister did not make the statement which he might otherwise have made on the introduction of this Bill. However, that is beside the point now. Before the discussion concludes, we may hear from the members of the Opposition something about what services they think might either be reduced or increased and what deductions they would make if they were in a position to do so.
Senator Baxter started off by decrying the approach of the present Government to agriculture. He asserted that, because of this Government's approach, we have not had the increase in production that we should have. What, in fact, is the position? I think Senator Baxter went back to the time of the taking over of the State from a foreign power and, therefore. I think I am entitled to do likewise. For a period of ten years after the taking ever of this State, we had a Government in office and, on the termination of that term of office, we found that the trend of agriculture was not upwards. We found that we imported agricultural goods to a value of not less than £6,000,000—and I would say that £6,000,000 worth of agricultural goods in those days would represent a very considerably higher sum now.
The Party that took office in 1932 put a very definite policy before the people. We encouraged our farmers to grow the food to feed our people and our animal population. The education which Senator Baxter so urgently demands and which he states is so very essential to bring about increased agricultural production was, in fact, hampered by the members of the Party to which he did not then belong but to which he now belongs. They told our farmers not to accept this national policy, not to grow the food to feed our community and our animals, not to grow wheat, and so forth. They asserted that the land of this country was not suitable for the growing of wheat and that it was not good national policy for us to grow wheat when we could import it cheaper than our farmers could grow it. The same can be said about the attitude which was adopted by Senator Baxter's Party to other farm produce. What was the position of that very important arm of our agricultural industry, the dairying industry? It was on the brink of collapse at the time.
Senator Baxter referred to the price of milk. He asked the Minister and me, I think, when I had an exchange with him, what price the Minister is now prepared to give. What happened during the three years of the Coalition Government. The then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, was anxious to export Irish butter as soon as possible. He pointed out to the farmers that if that objective were to be achieved it was essential to steady the price given to the dairy farmer who was supplying the milk to make the butter. His offer was not the continuance of the prices that then prevailed but to reduce the price and, as far as I recollect, the reduction in the price meant that the farmers would get something like 1/- per gallon for their milk. If the farmers agreed to that offer, the price of 1/- per gallon would be guaranteed over a period of five years. These suggestions were put forward by the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, and by the Department, to all the dairy cooperative societies throughout the country. Undoubtedly, some accepted the offer: records prove that in some cases the suggestion was accepted. In the great majority of cases, the offer was rejected by the representatives of the dairying industry. However, whether it was accepted or rejected, what results did it bring about? The people who were then engaged in the dairying industry considered that if the policy which the then Minister for Agriculture advocated were given effect to, the dairying industry would no longer be able to survive as a paying proposition. In a period of one year, therefore, the milch cow population of this country declined by 30,000. It was because of such a steep decline in the population of the dairy stock of this country in that period that, 12 months later, Deputy Dillon was compelled, for the first time in a period of years in Ireland, to import butter from Denmark, New Zealand and elsewhere. It was not done, I would say, as a deliberate policy, but it was brought about as a result of a statement which was made. That was accepted by the dairying community as what would later on be the policy of the Minister if he continued in office, so far as the dairying industry was concerned. That position has not rectified itself yet and butter still has to be imported from other countries.
Senator Johnston, I think, referred to a farmer here who went completely into setting up a herd of Jersey cattle and because of their yield he was able to have an increase of milk in his dairy and was able to go into pig production on a large scale. Does Senator Johnston or Senator Baxter suggest for one moment that that would be good national policy, that we should encourage all farmers in this country to go in for Jersey stock? If they did so, what would be the position? In a few years we would have no exports of beef and none of this grand market that Senator Baxter and his friends have so long looked forward to and so highly praised, because it would not be there. We would be relying totally on the production of milk, butter and other byproducts.
Why debate a point nobody made?
The point was made by Senator Johnston and Senator Baxter got up and said in his opening statement that he entirely agreed with Senator Johnston's proposals.
You are speaking about dairying.
I did not interrupt when Senator Baxter was speaking.
I am just trying to correct you.
I can see the point but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a statement converted into a point against Government policy, while it is not good national policy if accepted and put into practice by the majority of our farmers. I think Senator Baxter will agree that the dairying industry is the backbone of our live-stock trade in this country. Realising that, this Party has continuously supported it. Let us be frank about it in this House as we should be outside it. It is because we realise that, that some of the actions that had to be taken in connection with the Budget were taken and hardships inflicted on people. That is why the price for butter which is now being paid has to be paid by our people in order that the industry should be supported. If Senator Baxter can suggest any other remedy, well and good, but the only other remedy is to subsidise to a greater extent than we do at the moment, and if we do that where is the money going to come. from?
The real solution is to get a cow that will give the milk.
Senator Baxter or Senator Johnston are not, I believe, in favour of the dual-purpose cow.
There is no such thing.
Quite a large number of people are in favour of the dual-purpose cow and some of them are in favour of the six-day cow and a majority would be in favour of the cow everybody could milk, but these things cannot be brought about if you are going to examine them from the national point of view. If you want to have milk and beef you cannot have Jersey stock or any other of the great milking strains all over the country.
Senator Baxter, and I think Senator Johnston, made reference to the increased acreage of wheat. He was not too pleased about that increase but what strikes me very forcibly as I go up and down the country and see the large increase in the acreage of wheat that there was last year and the amount of land ploughed up for it this year, is the change of heart that has been brought about so quickly in the case of those people who during the war years had to be dealt with drastically in most cases to get them to produce wheat. We find now they are going into it voluntarily and as a business proposition. Here, again, I think Senator Baxter and his friends should examine very carefully a statement made by Deputy Dillon in this House when he was speaking on matters in relation to agriculture.
He was not speaking on the Central Fund Bill?
No, he was not. The small sums involved in this Bill would not last him while he would be smoking a cigarette, not to mind a cigar. He expressed it in these words, that being a democrat—and no doubt he is —he was prepared to continue for a term of five years at least this foolish codology of encouraging our farmers, and he was prepared to pay those fools of the Fianna Fáil Party who were still prepared to continue this foolishness and codology of growing wheat. But it was only because he was a democrat and it was only for a period of five years. But, if by any chance Deputy Dillon was now in office, the term of five years would just now be expiring and then Senator Johnston need have no fears because he would not have 365,000 acres under wheat.
But he is still a democrat.
Senator Hawkins might be allowed to make his speech.
Senator Baxter also referred to an interview the Taoiseach had with the banks in regard to credit and the question of credit for farmers. If my memory serves me rightly, Senator Baxter was a member of the Agricultural Credit Corporation for a number of years. I am prepared to admit that he has a very extensive knowledge of the difficulties of farming and agriculture in general and what surprises me is that all during the term of years that he was a member of this very important credit organisation he did not bring about the changes that he now suggests should be brought about whereby there should be some organisation, or even where the banks would be, in a position to make available money to the people whom he or they would not consider credit-worthy. When the term credit-worthy is used it is not meant that a person is not in need of credit but it is used to convey that the person is one who, if given credit, will make proper use of it, and do everything humanly possible to repay the moneys borrowed. Here again, will Senator Baxter have to disagree with his former Minister, because I can recollect that Minister for Agriculture becoming very vocal on this question during the discussion on a motion which came before this House when he said, as Minister for Agriculture, that he was quite satisfied that the institutions and the facilities available were sufficient for any farmer in this country who was credit-worthy and required credit? To emphasise this, he made use of the statement that he would be damned if he would go any further for anybody.
In recent weeks and months, it has become part of the Opposition's campaign on local authorities and elsewhere to raise this bogey of the terrible cost of the health service and the implementation of the Health Bill on the farming community. Senator Baxter, when the Bill was before the House, pleaded very much with the Minister for Health to have introduced into the Bill a section whereby the provisions of the Bill could be put into operation piecemeal and that Cavan would be the last county in Ireland that they would apply to. I do not know what Senator Baxter has against the people of Cavan.
They have not enough pull to get a hospital like some of the other counties. That is one thing.
He talked about the services there and says that they cannot get staff. Well, this is a democratic country and you cannot compel people to go and live in Cavan under the conditions prevailing there, or until Senator Baxter and the members of the local authority make suitable provision for staff. I think it is hardly fair of Senator Baxter to use his position in this House to decry the efforts of a number of his colleagues on the council for not having made such provision in the past
The Minister will not permit us. The Senator should not misrepresent what I said.
The real difficulty is that people will not go to Cavan because they might have to listen to speeches from Senator Baxter.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Hawkins should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
We in Galway do not claim to be any more progressive than those in the other counties.
You are good politicians, and that explains it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Hawkins should be allowed to make his speech without interruption. I think Senator Baxter did get time to make his speech.
We have provided suitable accommodation for our doctors. In connection with the regional hospital that is to be provided in Galway, we, first of all, set about the erection of a home for our nurses.
Where did you get the money for it?
We got it from the same source as that from which the Senator is now looking for it.
And cannot get it.
When it came to a question of getting the money, we were never afraid to go to our own people for it, through taxation or otherwise. However, I think that does not arise on this Bill. As I have said, it would have been my wish if Senator Hayes, Senator Baxter and others had availed of the opportunity which this Bill presented to them of giving us their ideas on it, and of telling us what their objection is to the proposed expenditure or the provision that we are now making for the various services. It is very easy, of course, to drag in a red herring for the purpose of distracting attention from the purpose of the Bill by relating it to agriculture or to some other activity. I think that Senator Baxter has Fáiled in his effort, despite the fact that he has violated the agreement that was made by his own leaders.
I must admit that I am rather bewildered by this discussion.
It is not the first time.
I understand that this is a discussion on the Vote on Account. I was bewildered first of all by the method of its presentation by the Minister. However, having heard the Minister's explanation I accept it, but at the outset I was not aware of the circumstances which occasioned his method of presentation. Therefore, I must admit that, for a long time, I was just wondering what sort of a political poker game was going on in this House whereby the big Parties had decided amongst themselves on a certain procedure. Surely, the question of the voting of £36,000,000 is a matter of very grave concern to all the people of this country, but, apparently, it was decided that nobody was to speak on that.
No. That is not so. No such thing was decided by anybody. Senator Johnston, for example, spoke and nobody stopped him, and nobody is stopping Senator O'Donnell from speaking.
I was not aware of the position until it was explained by the Minister that it was arranged that he was to get away early. I am not going to try and hold him up, but I do think it is unfair that an arrangement of that kind should be come to between Parties in this House of which other members are not aware. I am aware, of course, of the Minister's recent grievous illness, and I certainly would be the last person to cause him any discomfort by asking him to remain and endure a long discussion in this chamber. This is the Central Fund Bill which imposes taxation. This is all very well for the political Parties, as such. They will be talking about this in a few weeks' time, but we have the right to talk about it here, and I think that we should talk about it despite any arrangements which have been made.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator has been told that there has been no arrangement. There has been no pronouncement from the Chair in regard to any arrangement. If the, Senator were to proceed and deal with the Bill it might be better.
I do not think, Sir, that you were in the Chair when the statement was made by the Minister. It does not entirely bear out what you have said. However, it is my intention to accept your guidance. As far as this Vote on Account is concerned, I am not going to fall into the trap set for me by Senator Hawkins and give reasons as to why the Bill should or should not be increased. I expect we shall have general confessions on that all over the country in the next few weeks. We shall have one side trying to justify the proposed expenditure and another side saying why it should not be so much.
It is quite obvious to anyone, who is not living in Mars, that there is a great deal of interrogation in the country as to why taxation should be at the figure that it is. I am not going to argue for or against the amount that is involved here. Apart altogether from politics, there is, I think, agreement amongst the people that it is costing far too much to run the country. Taxation at the moment is crippling. Even the Taoiseach himself has said that taxation is crippling the country. All that I wanted was to hear the Minister's justification for the amount in this Vote on Account. I know that, roughly, it represents one-third of what it is going to cost to run the country. The total estimate for this year is in or about £108,000,000. The Minister will say that he cannot cut down anywhere because of the demands that are made on him for various services, that A will want certain services, and that B will want something else. In any event, we have here a bill for £36,000,000. Again, I want to say that I am not blaming the Minister for his method of introduction of the Vote on Account, now that I know what occasioned the method of its presentation. I think it is a very bad precedent to establish and, as an independent back bencher, I want to protest against it. I hope it is the last occasion on which a Money Bill will be presented to this House under an agreement made by any of the Parties in it or by anybody else in this House.
When I came to the House, I had no idea that there was to be any proposal made to order the business in such a way as to allow the Seanad to dispose of the matters on the Order Paper this evening. I had anticipated that we should have the usual debate on the Vote on Account, and, if so, I would have satisfied Senator Frank Hugh O'Donnell fully, I think, of the purposes for which this money is required. However, Senator O'Donnell does not labour under the disadvantages which the ordinary citizen labours under. If he will take the trouble to read the report of the debate in Dáil Éireann, he will be able to satisfy himself in relation to all these matters which he has raised.
I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with the speech which Senator Baxter made. The Senator said nothing new on this occasion, and, having listened to him for a great number of years, I should have been very much surprised if he did. His arguments have been answered and refuted so often that I do not think I should say anything further in regard to that except to correct him on one point. The Senator thinks that New Zealand is a country which is very much like ours. I would advise Senator Baxter, when he goes home, to consult an atlas or a geography and, if he does, I think he will see that it differs from ours in one very important particular. It is very much larger, much less densely populated, and, as he himself has admitted, the winters are very much milder. Therefore, it would be extraordinary, indeed, if, in these circumstances, it was not able to produce butter at a very much lower cost than we are. There is nothing further I would like to say. I understand that the Seanad proposes not only to deal with the Central Fund Bill but also to take the Intestates' Estates Bill, and I notice that quite a number of amendments are down to that. That measure is, I think, of some importance, and I do not wish, therefore, to hold up the House any longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill put through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration, and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.