Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 11

BANKING COMMISSION. - MOTION BY DEPUTY HEFFERNAN (RESUMED).

"That the Dáil is of opinion that agricultural interests in the Saorstát should have been given direct representation on the Banking Commission and that the terms of reference should have specifically provided for an examination of the agricultural credit problems of the Saorstát."

Mr. WILSON

This motion seeks to increase the membership of the Banking Commission so as to include a member who, while having a knowledge of banking, will also be conversant with the needs of agricultural credit. I do not intend to detain the House very long. I desire to direct attention to what I consider would be a matter of vital importance to the considerations of a banking commission. Banking in this country is at present conducted on what are known as short-term loans. While a banker, when approached by a farmer, would consider it very good business to lend him money to stock his land on a short-term loan, he would consider it outside banking practice to grant a long-term loan. In one case he considers it to be good banking practice, but in the other case he considers it outside his duty. There should be other means by which a farmer can become possessed of his land. In that connection this country is different to many other countries on account of its land tenure.

In England and Scotland a farmer can take a farm of 200 or 300 acres and the capital required would be merely the sum which would supply him with implements, stock and so forth. He has to pay nothing for the holding, and if he has a sum of money to provide implements and stock he can carry on. In this country, however, the occupier is the owner and, to get possession of land, a farmer requires a considerable amount of capital. The result is that in this country farmers are starved for want of capital, as all their capital is sunk in their holdings. Sometimes they are short of money for implements and stock. Our banking system is not conducted in such a way as to have that business catered for. Therefore, we consider that this particular point, which is so vital to the agricultural industry, should be definitely provided for in the terms of reference in connection with the Banking Commission, and by the addition of somebody well informed upon such matters. The Minister can say, of course, that we are at liberty to go before the Commission and submit our views. It is, however, well known that unless there is somebody on the Commission who will keep the idea before him of the necessity for providing for agricultural credit it will be allowed to go by the board. We feel that in considering such vital matters an additional member with the necessary qualifications should be added to the Commission. From the terms of reference it can be conceived that the intention is to deal with matters different from those with which we think it should deal.

It is to deal with questions, I take it, of high finance, the technique of the law of banking, and other such things, and the Minister might say that the credit that we require could be dealt with better by trust companies and so forth. But these trust companies are not coming forward; nobody is willing to advance money to the farmers. That may be as a result of the action of farmers themselves in the past; I am not questioning the reasons at all, but the fact remains that the land is starved of cattle and on that account production is not up to its maximum, is not as high as it might be were the farmers supplied with sufficient capital at a low rate of interest. It is with that idea in view that we say that it is the duty of the State to try to find a means for getting greater production and that greater production can only come from, amongst other things, the provision of the necessary capital at a cheap rate. In England long-term loans have been given to farmers, particularly in the case of those who, during the war period, were foolish enough to purchase holdings at war prices and who are now practically insolvent owing to the depreciation in value of the holdings. The Government there has made provision to tide these people over a long period. We have numberless cases of that kind, where men sold their farms at what they considered an exorbitant price and bought other land for double the capital that they had, having borrowed from the banks. These men are now on the verge of bankruptcy. The problem of providing these long-term loans is the problem that ought to be before the State, the problem of trying to get the maximum production from the land, and this is bound up with the question of credit. I believe that it would be a good stroke of policy and a stroke of statesmanship if the Minister directed the members of the Banking Commission to bring their minds to bear on the problem that exists here and which can only be dealt with by them by giving them a direction in their terms of reference.

If the Minister thinks it would serve his purpose better to have an addendum to the terms of reference bringing in the idea embodied in Deputy Heffernan's motion we would have no objection to it. The main thing that we require is the addition to the Commission of a person who will have the necessary banking experience and at the same time be conversant with the needs of the farming population. If you examine the record of bank managers through the country you will find that they are estimable men, very decent men, and so forth, but none of them has any idea as to the needs of the farmers around them. Their ideas are based more on industry and so forth. They cannot understand why, if a man obtains a loan to help him to purchase his farm, he is not able to repay it in four months or six months. They say that it must be paid. Banks can deal effectively with industry and commerce, but they are absolutely unsuited to the needs of the farming population. For these reasons I think that the Minister ought either to amend the terms of reference or agree to the motion.

Major COOPER

Deputy Wilson's argument is, as it always is, a forcible and cogent one. The only trouble was that he convinced me in the wrong direction, at any rate as far as the first part of the motion is concerned. Deputy Wilson talked about the unwillingness of the banks to advance money on the security of holdings. You do not want a farmer on the Commission to investigate that; you want a historian. That is an argument for putting Deputy Professor MacNeill or Professor Curtis, or some other historian, on it, because there are historical reasons why land is a marketable security in Great Britain and is not a marketable security in Saorstát Eireann. It is that there is no free market in land here, that when land is put up for sale there is always the possibility that someone will say that fifty years ago his ancestors were evicted from it. That is why banks will not advance money on the security of land.

With the second portion of Deputy Heffernan's amendment I would be in agreement were it not for the fact that I think it is stating what must be obvious. I do not believe that any Banking Commission, however it may be composed, wherever its members are drawn from, could look into the problem of banking in the Saorstát without considering agricultural conditions. Take the case of any bank you like. If you look into it you will find that for one branch in Dublin, Cork or Waterford, there are ten branches in small country towns mainly dealing with farmers' business. You will find, in addition, that there are another ten sub-branches open on fair days. I do not think that any commission of educated men, of men with any knowledge of banking, could overlook the importance of the agricultural side of banking and of credit in the Saorstát.

With regard to the criticism that has been expressed as to the personnel of this Commission, no Commission is perfect, but I think that the personnel of this Commission has sufficient knowledge and sufficient experience to take all these factors into account, that one member at least has a good knowledge of agricultural conditions and of advances of money on land, possibly a somewhat pessimistic knowledge, but a knowledge born of experience, and I hope and believe that they will find— I think they must find—that the one salient problem, whether it is in their terms of reference or not in their terms of reference, is how to re-equip the farmer financially. That is the problem, not only for this Commission, but for this House and for the country. That is at the bottom of most of our present troubles.

During the war the farmer made money, made a good deal of money in some cases. He improved his standard of living and the standard of living of his family, and now that money is made with much greater difficulty, that markets have gone down, that he has to face greater competition, Canadian competition, New Zealand competition, such as he had never had to face during the war, he still, naturally, and I think on the whole, correctly, seeks to maintain the old standard of living. If he wanted to let it down his womenfolk would not let him. But in that endeavour he has gradually exhausted his capital and is now in a very bad position indeed. He has barely capital enough—in some cases it is enough, in some cases it is not enough—to stock his land to its fullest economic advantage. This Commission will not solve that problem. It may indicate the direction in which we may achieve solution, but the problem for the Executive Council and for the Dáil is to put the farmer on his feet economically. I believe that if we could do that we should have solved most of our problems, not perhaps constitutional problems, but I believe that this is at the back of the problem of unemployment, the fact that the farmer cannot afford to employ on any big scale, that he cannot even support his children, who are flocking into and flooding the labour market.

I do urge the Minister for Finance to go, if possible, beyond the terms of this motion and indicate if he has any idea of a direction in which this problem of setting the farmer on his feet can be solved. It is not easy and it is not a problem purely for the Government. I have no sympathy with the people who say: "This is the Government's business," but I do think that the Government, even if it does not give money, ought to be able to give ideas and directions, ought to indicate the basis, whether by credit societies, whether by a corporation which will give loans for longer terms, supported by the security of the Gárda Síochána, by which the farmers may be helped to get out of the rut. It is partly his own fault that he is in the rut. He carried on the old standard of living too long, in my opinion, but at the same time he is in the rut, and in some counties he is very badly in the rut. I do not think that the country can prosper as we wish it to prosper until he can be pulled out of the rut.

Mr. M. DOYLE

I do not entirely agree with Deputy Cooper's exposition with regard to the insecurity of land in this country, and the security of land in England. I think the reason to which he has put it down is not at all correct. For instance, in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922, when we had practically no security, no law, the times were prosperous and farmers could get any advances from the banks they wanted. Therefore the present position is not due to insecurity. There was more insecurity in these years, more cattle driving, more opposition to law, than there has been since or than there is at present. Deputy Wilson's point was much more correct. The reason why banks at present refuse to advance money to farmers is because there is no money in land. The people who are in it cannot get anything out of it. If a farmer wants a loan of £100 to-day, he must offer security amounting almost to £1,000 before he can get it. Therefore, I hold that we should have on this Commission somebody who has an interest, and a big interest, in agriculture, as well as people interested in banking, so that the needs of the farmers may be well and carefully considered. I say that if some reasonable credit facilities were given there would be a probability that many would get out of the rut referred to by Deputy Cooper. But with the present banking facilities and the short term loans prevailing—three months is about all that the biggest farmer in the country will get at present, with a security of £1,000 for a £100 loan—he certainly cannot get out of the rut, and with a sympathetic Commission, a Commission of which one at least of the members should know something about practical agriculture, the problem would be better dealt with.

Mr. BLYTHE

The question of the personnel and of the terms of reference of this Commission were very carefully considered. It was decided that it was not desirable that there should be sectional representation, that we should not try to get representation for the various interests that would be concerned, directly or indirectly, with a change in the banking system, but rather that we should make it, as far as we could, an expert Commission. We realised quite fully, just as fully as Deputies on the Farmers' Benches, the importance of the whole question of agricultural credit, but we did not believe that the getting of a report from this Commission that would enable us to take action would be in any way facilitated by the addition desired by Deputy Heffernan. The Commission is really already—though this is not an argument that I am using against Deputy Heffernan's motion—rather too large a body, but we were not able, owing to the interests that had to be represented, to make it smaller than it is.

There are, for instance, four members representing the existing banks here, and it might be argued that that is a large number. It is a large number, but the interests concerning the different classes of banks will come under review, and each of these four members represents a different class of bank. One, for instance, represents a bank which has its headquarters in the Saorstát and a note issue; another represents a bank with its headquarters here but with no note issue; another represents a bank which has many branches here but which has its headquarters in London; while another represents a bank with branches in Northern Ireland. Arrangements may have to be made which may affect these banks. It was felt to be desirable that where they were to be intimately affected by the Commission their different points of view should be directly represented. There are other members of the Commission who have given attention to the whole question of agricultural credit. There is one member of it, whose name I mentioned already, who certainly has given a tremendous amount of time and study to the question of agricultural credit. He has practical experience of it. He has more knowledge of it—mind you we are dealing with banking and not with a commission on agriculture—than I think anybody in this country. The Chairman of the Commission, Professor Parker Willis, has done investigation work on rural credit, while Mr. Campion has been connected with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. That is a bank which made special arrangements for agricultural credit, or at any rate for advances on market produce. We have therefore three people who have given special study to the question of agricultural credit. Representations will be made to the Commission by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry and Commerce and other Departments concerned, and if the Commission thinks it necessary it can call, not only outside people, but the officials of these Departments, for the purpose of having laid before it any information that can possibly be got. There might come a time when you would want the help of practical farmers. For instance, if the Commission were to recommend the setting up of some type of a Land Mortgage Bank —I do not know whether it will or not, but that is a thing that will occur to anyone as a likely recommendation— a specially constituted body which would give loans on long terms to farmers, and which might perhaps have certain special privileges, it might then be necessary, when we came to frame a law setting up such a bank, to have practical farmers on the Committee. That would be the time when we would come to work out the recommendation in detail. Deputies have got to remember that this is a Banking Commission which is to review the whole banking position here as well as the laws relating to banking and note issue in this country.

There are a great number of very important problems, some purely financial, that will come before the Commission. For instance, at the present time in this country we have no gold. It is, I believe, the decision of the British Government that British currency notes should be withdrawn. That obviously creates a situation which people of great theoretical and practical knowledge, from the financial side, have got to consider. You would not put practical agriculturists on a Commission that is to examine a question of that sort any more than you would put them on the expert Commission which examined the scheme of Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert. Then there are other problems. Take the question of note issue of banks. We have banks here with a certain authorised note issue. That note issue refers to the whole of Ireland. The setting up of the Saorstát as a separate entity requires that that matter be reviewed and that the note issue be adjusted to the Saorstát area and be apportioned in some way. You have banks here which have not the right to have a note issue and which are desirous of getting that right. That is a matter that would have to be considered by the Commission. Another point that might be considered is that instead of having a number of banks with a note issue, whether you should have a Consolidated Bank, as is done in other places, with a note issue. That is another of the problems, that is highly technical. Then you have the position that you have nothing here that fulfills the functions of a Central Bank. The Bank of Ireland, except in minor details, does not occupy or fulfill the function that the Bank of England does in Great Britain. As a matter of fact, as far as our banks are concerned, the Central Bank is the Bank of England. You have the position—I am not saying this by way of criticism of the banks and I do not want to be taken as making any attack on them—where our banking system is largely a conduit pipe for the bringing of money out of the country for employment outside it. That is a matter, not for a practical agriculturist to consider, but for banking experts.

Mr. BAXTER

Surely the fact of having a practical agriculturist on the Commission would not prevent it from reporting on these matters. Would not his presence be rather more of a help than a hindrance?

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think you can overload a committee in that way. If anything the Committee is big enough already, and I do not think it would be at all desirable to enter on a discussion of this question of the representation of interests on it. The Commission will have to keep its eye open to the whole agricultural position. The people on it would be incompetent if they did not realise that this is an agricultural country and that the agricultural needs are of paramount importance. This is a difficult and a very delicate subject to speak on. We know the way things are magnified and how attempts are made to create feelings of uncertainty and alarm when there is not the slightest need for that. This is a subject, as I say, that it is difficult to speak on or to discuss with any sort of freedom. I can assure Deputies that the Government realise what the position is and have given it the most careful study. They feel that the best results, and the most practical results for agriculturists and others will be got by maintaining the constitution of the Commission as it stands. I do not want to suggest any drastic action, but there is no doubt that agriculture and everybody else in the community would benefit if the direction which is given to the flow of money by the existing bank system, or lack of system, were altered. There are quite a number of problems of a highly technical and difficult character to be considered by the Commission. I put it to the Dáil in the most serious way that this is a matter that has been most fully considered. It is a matter that bristles with difficulties, with certain elements of danger in it, and I suggest that the Commission should be left as it stands.

As I said earlier, this Commission will survey the whole field. It will make its recommendations, and these recommendations will probably be in outline. It is not my view of this Commission that if it recommended such a thing as a Land Mortgage Bank or some special institution for giving loans to farmers, it should work out itself that recommendation in detail. Once it reported in general terms in favour of it, it would be for the Government to work out the recommendation in detail. That would be the point where you would want the man from the land, the man carrying on the farming business, to assist you in getting your details right. But he would not be of assistance in the consideration of the matter in the way it came under review by the Commission. He would not be nearly of so much value as a man, say, like Mr. Smith Gordon —I do not want to particularise amongst members of the Commission— who has given a tremendous amount of study to this question and who has a knowledge of economics and financial matters that perhaps a special representative put on would not have. It is not usual to discuss here the personnel or terms of reference of a Commission, because it is not a matter that can well be discussed without doing harm. You cannot discuss it in detail. I can assure the Deputy, however, that the matter has had the fullest possible consideration. The Government feel as strongly as any member on the Farmers' Benches that agricultural credit, and the making of the best arrangements that can be made for agricultural credit, is of primary importance.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

My remarks on this motion must necessarily be rather brief. Notwithstanding what the Minister for Finance has said, I must draw the attention of the House to the terms of reference of this banking commission. They are:—

To consider and report to the Minister for Finance what changes, if any, in the law relative to banking and note issue are necessary or desirable, regard being had to the altered circumstances arising from the establishment of Saorstát Eireann.

I desire to draw special attention to the words "To report and to consider ...what changes, if any, in the law relative to banking and note issue are necessary or desirable." The banks in Ireland are regulated largely by an Act passed in 1845. It permitted notes to be issued for sums not less than 20/-. In England there was an Act passed about the same time which made the minimum note issue £5. In other words, it would be a gold standard, whereas in Ireland they effectively substituted paper for gold. The effect was to drive currency out of the country, leaving us with this paper substitute. There is no mention in these terms of reference of credit. From first to last, the word "credit" is not mentioned. The Commission is to inquire into changes in the law relative to banking and note issue. In the Act of 1845, there is no reference whatever to the question of credit. It only deals with such questions as note issue, who may or may not be directors of banks, etc. It appears that in the year 1840 or 1841, notes were issued without restriction by banks and associations of persons in Ireland. That was prohibited after the Act of 1845, and no company or bank which was not then issuing notes had power to issue afterwards. It appears that it was laid down by statute what amount they could actually issue, that being based on the issue of 1841. That was made a standard. Over and above that, all banks with note-issuing powers were allowed to issue notes (in excess) equivalent to the amount of gold and silver they had in their possession. That is really what, in my opinion, this Commission will have to deal with, changes in the law relative to banking and note issue. There is no mention of the extension of credit or the granting of credit facilities to agriculture or any kindred industry. It is confined to this water-tight compartment set out in the terms of reference. The subsequent part of the terms of reference is, of course, merely political and refers to the altered conditions brought about by the setting-up of the Saorstát. The Minister cannot, I think, fairly tell us that this Commission will deal with the question of credit. That may be his intention, but let us remember that this Commission will enjoy autonomy and that they will read directly into their terms of reference. There is nothing in the terms of reference to compel consideration of credit, and if the Minister wanted them to consider that question, why did he not insert words to that effect?

The gentlemen who constitute this Commission will have regard only to the litera scripta and act accordingly. It is everywhere admitted that the economic conditions in Ireland are bad and it cannot be disputed that the banks, even in those bad times, are doing very well. The gentlemen who are to constitute this Commission are, no doubt, eminent in their own walks of life, but they have no sympathetic outlook on the economic conditions here. They are men trained in a certain groove in the banking profession, and, naturally, they are not men of liberal sympathies or sentiments. Yet you ask these men to sit in judgment on a system which, by restriction of credit, has maintained itself. I do not want to prejudge this Commission, but you have on the Commission men who have been all their lives bent to a certain system and who can see no other. How is it expected that these men would admit the principle of extension of credit? Again, some of them are representatives of banks whose headquarters are outside this country. Even from the political point of view, if we are to have anything in the nature of a distinct credit system here, how can men who are officials of banks with headquarters in London or Belfast assist in the work? I contend that it is not possible and that it is not in accord with human nature. Other men have come from abroad. They have no intimate knowledge of the conditions in this country. These men are to sit in judgement on a system which, while not helpful to the extension of credit in the country, has been successful in securing large dividends for the shareholders. In other words, you are asking these men to stultify themselves, and I do not believe they will do it.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I am not satisfied with the way the Minister for Finance has met our demand in regard to this Commission. We did not ask for majority representation on the Commission. We only asked for reasonable representation of the farming interests. The Minister refers to our demand as a "sectional" demand. Surely, in this State of ours, with agriculture occupying the position it does in the economic fabric, our demand cannot be regarded as sectional. The economic and financial interests of the State are bound up with the financial and economic interest of agriculture, and any Commission set up to deal with the conditions of banking which does not directly deal with the question of agricultural credits will not be satisfactory and will not have the confidence of the farming community. We are told that agricultural credit interests are represented, and we find that the banks in Ireland have four representatives on the Commission. They have those four representatives for reasons given by the Minister, which I consider simply trifling. One bank happens to have headquarters in London and note issue in Ireland. Another has headquarters in Ireland and note issue in Ireland. Another has headquarters in Belfast and note issue in Ireland. Another has representation because of some special circumstances which make it different from the other banks. These are the reasons why the Minister has appointed four representatives of banking interests on the Commission. Surely such representation is redundant. I cannot speak off-hand as to the exact connection between the banking representatives and industry. But we may take it for granted that the majority of them are directly concerned with industry and finance apart altogether from the question of banking. It cannot be denied, I think, that industry is represented—if anything over-represented— on the Banking Commission.

I do not like to make any personal reference to any member of the Commission. But I fear that I cannot make my statement without dealing to a certain extent, personally, with one member who was said to have such an intimate knowledge of agricultural credit as to represent adequately the farming interests on this Commission. I refer to Mr. Smith-Gordon. I do not want to belittle his ability or knowledge of agricultural credit but my contention is that the knowledge of gentlemen of the type of Mr. Smith-Gordon is largely theoretical and that he cannot have any real knowledge of the practical credit problems of agriculture which exist at present. We cannot expect that representation by theorists and men who have not got a practical knowledge of farming conditions will lead to the adequate attention to these problems. I am aware that Commissions sat in the past and went very minutely into this question of agricultural credit in Ireland. The report of the latest Commission on Agricultural Credit in Ireland is practically regarded as a standard work all over the world. It will be within the power of this Commission to refer to that report and to deal with agricultural problems in the light of the findings of that report. But unless the Commission is going to sit for a long time and give a great deal of time to the consideration of the problems which will face it, it will be almost impossible to get adequate attention for the findings of that Commission. We do not suggest that a new inquiry be instituted into the question of agricultural credit, but we want to see that a definite bias is given to the inquiry in that direction. We have no indication from the terms of reference or from the personnel of the Commission that that bias will be given. Except for this debate, we should have no assurance that this question of agricultural credit would have been touched upon at all. If touched upon, it probably would be only so far as it would affect technical banking questions.

I am not inclined to place anything like the importance the Minister has placed on technical banking problems in Ireland as distinct from other countries. The technical banking problems all over the world are more or less standardised. They do not differ much in one State and in another State, and they do not require consideration by so many technical experts. But I maintain that the agricultural credit problem of the Saorstát is almost unique. Our agricultural credit problems are different from those of practically every other country. They bear no comparison with the agricultural credit problems in the Commonwealth of Australia or in the Dominion of Canada or in the United States. In my opening statement, I said it was not my intention to make an attack upon the present banking system in this State, for the reason that this is neither the time nor the place to make such attack.

First of all, we must not condemn the present banking institutions in advance. We must find out if they are at fault, and if we find out that they are at fault then it will be time to condemn them. It is evident to anybody that banking in this country is much too easy. It is much too easy for the banks in this country to make their money. They have not to take the risks which, in my opinion, banks which are adequately fulfilling the duty that they owe to the State ought to take. They are acting, as the Minister has said, as conduits for the purpose of collecting Irish money and transferring it to the English money market, where it can be safely invested, while the banks can continue to draw their profit and pay their shareholders increased profits from year to year. It is an extraordinary thing that the worse economic conditions become in this country the greater the profits of the banks. Economic conditions and agricultural conditions are now, probably, at a lower ebb than they have been at for a great number of years. Yet we find that the banking profits are still increasing.

I have no desire to say anything that might in any way cause panic or cause people not to have reliance in the banking system of the country. I believe our banking system, as it exists at present, is thoroughly reliable and that the depositors' money is perfectly safe. But I maintain that the banks owe a duty to the country, apart from the duty to their shareholders and depositors. They have certain privileges and rights in regard to which they owe an obligation, and it must not be regarded in the future that a bank is fulfilling its duty to the State when it takes a depositor's money and keeps it safely, regardless of the manner in which that money is invested. Some of the Deputies who spoke here went into questions of detail which, in my opinion, are questions to be considered by the Commission set up—the question of a free market for land and matters of that kind. I am confident that there will, in the future, be a more or less free market for land in Ireland. There is not any great reason for fear that the agricultural credit system in Ireland will fail because of not having a free market for land. Finally, I want to say that we believe that the agricultural credit problems should be again examined into, in view of the changes which have taken place since the time of the Great War. We believe that the findings of the Commission on Agricultural Credit, voluminous though they be, are not up to date. We believe that new problems have arisen, problems that did not exist at the time of the setting up of that Commission.

In connection with that matter, I must refer to the remarks of Deputy Wilson, as regards land which was purchased at an excessive price throughout the country and purchased largely by the aid of the banks—the credit given by the banks to the farmers who bought the land. It may seem that I am making an argument against myself when I speak of the banks having advanced money to the farmers, but I maintain that the advances were made in the wrong way, that the farmers got the wrong kind of credit, and that the real banking credit that is required by farmers is not available. The cry is going up that farming is being strangled for lack of credit facilities. We say that farmers cannot get money from the banks unless they can give excellent personal security. I am not of the opinion that the whole agricultural problem of this State can be met by credit, but I am of opinion that the question of credit is one of the problems we have in connection with agriculture, and it must be dealt with amongst other problems which the Commission has to deal with. It is scarcely necessary for me to point out that the whole welfare of the State must depend on the prosperity of agriculture. I think it is not necessary for me to point out that agricultural conditions have not been worse for a great many years than they now are, and that still worse prospects are facing farmers. Agriculturists are less hopeful now than they have been for a long time. I think it is the duty of the Dáil and of all concerned to set their minds to the problem and see if we cannot devise something which will be of aid to agriculture. I believe one of the first things which we have got to devise, one of the first helps we have to give to agriculture, is to improve the credit system. I am convinced that the system that exists at the present time is not suitable to the peculiar conditions existing in the Saorstát. I am not convinced that the Commission which has been set up by the Executive Council will inquire into the agricultural credit conditions to the extent that is necessary, nor am I convinced, even if it did, that the agricultural conditions are such that they will enable them to deal adequately with the question of agricultural credit. I might say, speaking from the Farmers' Benches, that we are not satisfied with the way the Minister has met us. We have not asked for a majority representation on this Commission. We would be satisfied with two representatives—Deputy Doyle said one. We certainly will insist on getting one representative of practical agriculture, and if the Minister does not agree to give that representation which we demand, I say that we, as representing the farming interests, will not have any confidence whatever in the results of this Commission, and the results will be no real tangible benefit to the agricultural community of the Saorstát.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 35.

Tá

• Pádraig Baxter.
• Seán Buitléir.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Seán de Faoite.
• Connor Hogan.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• William Norton.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Tadhg O Donnabháin.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Donnchadh O Guaire.
• Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
• Nicholas Wall.

Níl

• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• James Dwyer.
• Michael Egan.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Eoin Mac Néill.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Risteárd O Conaill.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Conchubhar O Conghaile.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• Risteárd O Maolchatha.
• James O Mara.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Seán Príomhdhail.

Tellers—Tá: Deputies Connor Hogan and Wilson. Níl: Deputies Dolan and O'Connor.

Motion declared lost.