DEPRESSION IN AGRICULTURE—MOTION OF CENSURE.

Dr. RYAN

I move:

"That it is the opinion of the Dáil that the Executive Council is deserving of censure for its failure to take effective steps to deal with the depression in Agriculture and the serious economic situation arising therefrom."

In moving this motion, a Cheann Chomhairle, one would imagine that it would not be necessary for me to prove that there is depression in the agricultural industry. But on account of statements that have been made by the President in Cork, and in an interview with a representative of the "Daily Mail," I am afraid it is really necessary to prove that there is depression in the agricultural industry in this country. I think the President spoke, when addressing his constituents in Cork some time ago, about our having turned the corner, and he told the "Daily Mail" representative a few days ago that we had definitely turned the corner. I would be very glad, personally, to know if such were the case, but I am somewhat sceptical about it. After reading that report of the President's speech in Cork I happened to be down in my own constituency in Wexford, and I thought that I would try and find out definitely if there was really any improvement in the agricultural industry. I asked some farmers what they thought of the President's statement, and they told me that there was not a word of truth in it. I got the same reply from a number of farmers, but as the farmers generally have the reputation of putting the worst complexion upon the story, I thought I would go further. I asked some traders who were in the habit of doing business with farmers what their opinion was. I got an unanimous reply from them that this year was worse than last year—the worst year they knew for the farmers in the country, and therefore the worst within living memory. If we examine the figures of what the farmer is getting for his produce and what the farmer is paying for what he has to buy, I think it will be fairly evident to anyone not engaged in agriculture that the agricultural industry is in a very bad way. When we find from the figures published in the "Irish Trade Journal," and elsewhere, that the farmer's average income from his produce is only 30 per cent. over what it was in 1913, I think anybody will admit that the farmer is practically up against an impossibility. His income is 30 per cent. more, and the cost of living figure, as we all know, averaged for the last six months about 73 per cent. more.

The cost of living figure, if we examine it more closely, reveals that the items which make up food are not so high as the other items. As a matter of fact, they are somewhat about 64 per cent. increased. That shows us two things. First of all, it makes the case worse for the farmer than the figure at first appears to indicate, because the farmer is the producer of a good lot of his own food, and, therefore, his cost of living is gone up by more than 73 per cent., as he has to buy a big proportion of other things apart from food. It shows also that there is a very obvious profiteering going on amongst the traders who come in between the farmer and the consumer. If the people who buy the farmers' produce, and the wholesalers and retailers who pass on that produce to the consumer were all satisfied with a 30 per cent. increase over pre-war prices, then the price of food to the consumer should be only 30 per cent. over pre-war prices. But it is more than 30 per cent., and, therefore, we must conclude straightaway that the traders, the middlemen who come between the farmer and the consumer, are getting bigger profits than they are entitled to.

I maintain we are not giving the farmer the benefit of the argument. The farmer's cost of living has gone up by 73 per cent., whereas his receipts have only gone up by 30 per cent. We can quite well bring our minds back to 1911 and 1913, and we know the position farmers were in at that time. He would be a very brave Deputy who would go to his constituency and say to any farmer there that he was too well off in 1913, and that he could well afford to sacrifice 25 per cent. of his income at that time, because that is, in fact, what he is asked to do now. If he wants to keep up his stock, keep his work going, and keep out of debt, he must live on 25 per cent. less income than in 1913.

Let us examine different classes of the community and find out how they compare with the farmer at the present time. Every single class in the community has been compensated in some way for the increased cost of living. Traders, middlemen, wholesalers and retailers, all those who handle farm produce and through whom it passes to the consumer, are getting more than they are entitled to get out of their dealings with that produce. We see also that traders, wholesalers and retailers who handle other commodities are making, if it is distributed equally between them, anything up to 73 per cent. over pre-war profits. We come to other classes and we find, for instance, that civil servants—all Government servants—are protected by a bonus to cover the cost of living. If we examine the professions, we find that solicitors are entitled to charge bigger fees than pre-war, and other professional men, not bound by any legal fee, have also increased their charges. Even labourers, where they are lucky enough to have work, are paid a higher wage than in pre-war times. The farmer alone, of all classes of the community, has to live far and away below the cost-of-living figure. He has only £130 with which to buy £173 worth of goods.

How are the farmers carrying on in the circumstances? They can only do it by encroaching on their capital. Those of them who saved money during the war have been drawing on their savings and they have been able to keep their land stocked. Those who had not money were obliged to draw on their capital in other ways. Many farmers have not got money, but if they have their land well stocked they consider they have capital. The tillage farmer, if he has implements and horses and so on, thinks he has capital. The dairy farmer, if he has cows, considers them his capital. It is only by drawing on that capital that the farmers are able to exist at all. If we examine the statistics which were issued in June last we shall find that the dairy farmer— and we have been assured that the dairy industry is the biggest and the most important in the country—is reducing the number of his cows, and dairy farmers as a whole are, therefore, doing away with their capital. The number of cows has gone down by over 3,000. That amounts to only 3 per cent., but still the fact that they have been reduced at all is important. On the other hand, the number of in-calf heifers which would be necessary to replenish our stock of cows has been reduced by over 13,000, or 14 per cent. I think this is a very significant figure.

We have been assured by the Minister for Agriculture and by speakers from the Government side that dairying is going to be one of the principal industries of this country in the future. How are we to build up our dairying industry if the farmer is to be compelled, through whatever means, to get rid of his cows, or is compelled to keep less heifers for the purpose of replacing those cows? The reason why farmers have got rid of their cows is, I suppose, to keep the sheriff away, to enable them to pay rents or rates or other debts that could not otherwise be paid.

We have been told by the President on a few occasions lately that we have turned the corner, and we have heard the same sort of sentiment expressed by others from Cumann na nGaedheal platforms. They evidently believe that by keeping on telling the people they are better off eventually the people will begin to believe that they are better off, and then the next step will be that they are better off. Since the present Government came into power six or seven years ago things have not improved. We have drawn attention here again and again to figures telling us of the state of the country. We have pointed out again and again that the population has been decreased by over 100,000. That would not be so bad if there was an improvement now, but there is no improvement. If we look at the emigration figures for the first eight months of this year we do not find any improvement. We find that in 1924, 19,000 emigrated; in 1925, 30,000; in 1926, 30,000, and in 1927, 27,000. We thought there was going to be an improvement, but we find that for the first eight months of 1928 19,095 emigrated. Let us compare those figures with the first eight months of last year and we find that 16,912 emigrated then. During the first eight months of this year there has been the worst emigration since this Government came into power.

If we examine the figures in regard to livestock for the same period we find the number of cattle has been reduced by 327,000. If we go into figures for tillage, the number of acres under tillage has been decreased by 225,000. As I have already mentioned, the farmers can only live by drawing on their savings and we find on looking at bank deposits that these deposits have been decreased by £30,000,000. We can only conclude that the people have been living on their savings and they must come to the end of those savings some time.

We have been assured by the Minister for Agriculture, and I suppose he speaks for the Executive Council in this matter, that the policy is to develop the lines that are suitable to this country, not to pay any attention to what we are importing and to export more in order to pay for the imports. I think the Minister for Agriculture said something to this effect: Why should we try to stop the £7,000,000 worth of wheat we are importing? Would it not be better to produce £7,000,000 worth of butter, eggs and other things and pay for the wheat in that way? The policy of this Government is an export policy, but, if we examine the export figures, what do we find? We would expect to find that since this Government came into power the exports have at least improved, but such is not the case. The first year that has been quoted for the Free State is 1924. Compare 1924 with 1927. We find that in 1924 we exported £17,000,000 worth, odd, of cattle and in 1927 we exported £11,868,000 worth. In 1924 we exported, in sheep, £1,698,000 worth and in 1927, £1,325,000 worth. As regards pigs and bacon, in 1924 we exported £4,316,000 worth and in 1927 £4,582,000 worth, a slight improvement.

Mr. GOREY

What were the differences in prices?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is quoting pounds sterling?

Dr. RYAN

Mr. DAVIN

A lot of their own sons are in the police force.

Dr. RYAN

Because they cannot get anything else to do. The agricultural community have very little interest in paying pensions to the old R.I.C., who were associated in their minds with the levelling of their farms during the Land War, and with the completion of the conquest, so far as they could do it, during the Black-and-Tan war. They see very little reason why judges and others should be pensioned by this country for doing Britain's work while Britain was in direct control of this country. I think you can hardly blame the farmers if they fail to understand why a Minister, civil servant, or anybody else could not live on £1,000 a year. They think that the Free State Government might, at least, have been as diligent on their behalf as the Northern Government were in keeping land annuities here to relieve taxation. There are certain farmers who happen to have brothers in high positions earning £1,600, £1,800 or £2,000 a year, and these farmers consider themselves perhaps quite as good in every way as a man who is lucky enough to have a big job. The farmer, however, must go on toiling, as he has no hope of a pension, no hope of a bonus, no hope of promotion, no hope even of an annual holiday. This question of pensions, not only to the R.I.C. and people who are pensioned off after the Treaty, but future pensions, is an intolerable burden on the farmer.

I noticed that the Minister for Agriculture, when speaking on the motion in regard to pensions for widows and orphans which was introduced by Deputy T. Murphy, stated that the hard-working man received no pension and did not want it. If that were to apply to civil servants and others this would be a different country. I have already made reference to feeding stuffs. I know that for some time in the recent past the Minister for Agriculture has been advocating that people who have barley and oats should feed them to their stock. That is certainly very good advice. There is certainly at present no profit whatever in growing oats for market, and there is very little profit in barley or wheat. I read in the "Daily Mail" a few days ago that President Cosgrave said that we have had a succession of bad seasons, but that this year's harvest, generally speaking, is good. The President, speaking in October, 1927, said a very wise thing and it is a pity that he did not keep it in mind. He said: "I would say offhand that the farmer knows more about his business than any member of this House who is not engaged in farming." I believe that he will find it hard to convince the farmers that this is a good harvest. I do not know what readers of the "Daily Mail" will think, but it certainly will be very bad for the President and for the Government if the "Daily Mail" gets into the hands of the farmers. As to prices, there is possibly a very slight profit in barley, but I think it is only a possibility. There is also a profit on wheat.

Mr. HOGAN

How much a barrel?

Dr. RYAN

About 24/- a barrel.

Mr. HOGAN

What profit per acre?

Dr. RYAN

About £3 18/- an acre. The price for barley this year is 15/6. The price in 1911-12 was 16/7½, in 1912-13 it was 17/10, and in 1913-14 15/4. A bottle of stout was 2d. pre-war and now it is 6d. That would, of course, imply that a farmer should get three times for his barley compared with 1913. The brewer is not altogether to blame, as he has to pay about 700 per cent. more duty than in 1913. There again the Government comes in and takes the profit from the farmer. I do not know if he takes it from the brewer, but the brewer can look after himself. I saw a sample of barley the other day, and it certainly had an interesting history. It was sold in Carlow by a farmer for 12/6. The retailer sold it for 16/- to a buyer in Dublin. The transit companies got 1/6. The buyer in Dublin had it for 17/6. He was grinding it into barley meal and he expected to be able to sell it again for 19/-. If that barley goes back to the retailer in Carlow he will have it for 20/6, and, if it goes back to the farmer, he will pay 22/- for barley which he sold for 12/6. If we were to substitute home-grown grain for imported feeding stuffs there might be some hope for tillage in this country, but so long as the farmers are tilling in order to sell their grain on the market there can be no hope for tillage. That is quite evident. If the farmers were to grow grain for feeding stock there would be a profit both in tillage and stock, but every farmer is not in the position to do that. We find from a series of experiments that were carried out by county instructors in agriculture all over the country that home-grown oats was as good as maize for feeding up to 50 per cent. rations to pigs. Barley meal was as good as maize for pigs in all cases, and oats was as good as maize when fed to calves. In fact they pronounced it better.

For fattening cattle it was proved that a mixture of oats, barley and wheat was as good as maize and cotton-cake. If we find from live animal experiments, which I suppose would be more conclusive as a proof to us than any chemical analysis or anything else, that they are as good, surely some attempt should be made to see that the production of home grain is increased in order to replace the feeding stuffs that are being imported.

If the real value of oats and barley, therefore, were put down to be the same as Indian meal and other feeding stuffs coming into the country, we should have quite a different story. We should find that tillage was quite a profitable proposition. I suppose the difficulty is to regulate this matter. About twelve months ago, when talking on this subject of the replacing of feeding stuffs coming into the country by home-grown grain, the Minister for Agriculture asked me would there be any room in the country for grass. It is not going to take the whole country to produce the grain. As a matter of fact, about three and a half million acres would be sufficient, taking the average yield of these crops over the last few years.

I may be told that it is not the business of the Government to interfere, that the farmers should do it for themselves. I have already pointed out that the farmers, some of them at any rate, have no capital. Many farmers have approached me during the last year to get loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation in order to buy horses or machinery to do some tillage. There are many farmers who are quite willing to do tillage, even under present conditions, but they have not got the capital or the horses or implements, and some of them could not even afford to buy the seed. Then there are those who are producing grain, and who have cattle and pigs and yet do not keep that grain. Why do they not keep it? For want of capital. These men are waiting for the grain to be threshed in order to pay their rent or rates or other pressing bills, and they cannot afford to keep the grain. They must sell it for whatever price they can get. There are other farmers who are, perhaps, a little better off and could afford to keep the grain for a little while, but they have not got the storage. So that there is difficulty in this matter. It is a matter that requires organisation and Government help if the farmers are to be enabled to keep the grain in order to feed it to their own stock, or to sell it to their neighbour or somebody else in this country.

I do not believe this question can be got over by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. We were told some time ago that that Corporation would make everything right. I do not believe it will. I believe that there are many farmers at present who could not avail of help from the Corporation, because they could not afford to pay the interest on the loan in addition to their other charges. There are many men who believe that credit would put them on their feet. Many of them helped to put the present Government into power last September, believing that the Agricultural Credit Corporation was going to make them right. We were told by prominent speakers on the Government side during that election that if they were returned to power every worthy man would get a loan. That is fourteen months ago, and many have not got loans—in fact very few of them. Apart from the question of credit something should be done to encourage tillage. It has been proved by the agricultural instructors, whose experiments were controlled by the Department, that oats, barley and wheat, according to the animal they are to be fed to, are just as good as maize.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Does it not depend on the age of the animal?

Dr. RYAN

Not at all. I have mentioned already oats for calves and a mixture of oats, barley and wheat for big cattle. At present farmers who are buying imported feeding stuffs for calves or pigs are paying up to 13/- per cwt. for maize. The tillage farmer here does not want anything like 13/- per cwt. for oats, barley or anything else. There is quite a good margin there to pay for any expenses that might be incurred by the Government or any agency set up by the Government to make regulations in the matter. For the last two years oats were sold from 10/6 to 13/6 per barrel. Last spring, oats were bought back again for seed or feeding, as the case may be, at 22/- per barrel. There is surely something wrong there. The farmer spends his year at it, pays his rent and rates, pays labour and everything else to get the oats sown, and when he has it all done he gets from 10/6 to 13/6 per barrel, while the man who buys it from him and puts it in a store for six months gets as much again for keeping it for that time. There is necessity for Government action, and nothing can make the matter right except Government action.

No. I agreed with you, in fact.

Dr. RYAN

That is all right. One of the objections they have to our growing wheat here is that we do not produce strong wheat. We have, in fact, grown strong wheat. It may not be a profitable crop. Some farmers say that they do not get much profit from it. But what is the objection to weak wheat as compared with strong wheat? The real difference between strong wheat and weak wheat, as far as I can find out, is that strong wheat absorbs more water when milled and being made into bread. It takes more water than the weak wheat. There is very little difference otherwise. The miller seems to favour strong wheat, because he can sell more water to the public than in weak wheat. The weak wheat, on the other hand, is bought generally by the people of the country who make their own bread. When this Government were considering the introduction of the beet-growing system, I wonder they did not consider the growing of wheat rather than of beet. There was standing out there in our imports an item of £7,000,000 every year for wheat and flour as against the figure of about £3,000,000 for sugar. You had farmers all over the country who were acquainted with the growing of wheat, but who had never seen beet grown. You had mills all over the country with Irish capital, while you had to go outside the country for capital to start a beet factory. The sum of £280,000 would certainly not be required for wheat-growing, as was required in the case of beet, because I believe that farmers will grow wheat if they are granted thirty shillings per barrel. The price this year was twenty-four shillings. Therefore, if the difference had been made up this year, for the amount of wheat raised in the country the sum would only come to about £60,000, and if we had gone on increasing the acreage under wheat instead of paying this £280,000 for beet-growing, we would find that we would have £1,500,000 cut off that £7,000,000. I wonder have the sugar imports been reduced by £1,500,000. In addition, you would have had the benefit given to every county in the State. There is no county in Ireland that could not grow wheat, while there are only three or four counties around the sugar beet factory in Carlow which get any benefit from the sugar-beet project. We know perfectly well that the offals from wheat—bran and pollard— are very useful as feeding stuff. We are only carrying out experiments to ascertain if the offals from beet are of any use or not. We might also say that bread is a more important article than sugar at any time.

It has been suggested that this question of wheat could be dealt with in many ways, but there is probably only one way in which it could be dealt with. It has been proposed, for instance, that a subsidy should be given per acre. That would hardly be fair. The beet system is a much fairer system than that. If a farmer goes to the trouble of tilling his land properly and having a good crop, he is certainly entitled to a greater reward than the man who does not till his land properly. I think, therefore, that a subsidy per acre is not a fair system. It has been suggested also—I do not know if it was suggested seriously—that it was part of our policy to put on a tax. That is not a very good idea, and it certainly is not a part of our policy. It is also suggested that the flour of every Irish miller should contain a certain proportion of Irish-grown wheat flour. That might be a good plan all right. It would certainly make it very difficult for the foreign millers to dump flour into this country. It would have that advantage, but it would seem to be a difficult thing to work. It would be very hard to regulate matters so that you would have a certain definite percentage of Irish flour in the flour consumed. It would be practically impossible for any Government Department, or any agency that it might appoint, to deal with this matter, to carry out the system fairly. If we take, in rough outline, the system that has been in existence in countries like Switzerland and Norway—the system of central purchase—there would not seem to be many difficulties in connection with it. If the Government themselves, or an agency appointed by them, were to take the entire wheat business into their own hands, if they were to say that for the next five years every barrel of first-class wheat grown by a farmer in this country would be worth thirty shillings, it might meet the position. I do not know whether the farmers would be satisfied with that figure or not, but that could be found out. In addition, if they were to have the buying of foreign wheat in their hands, surely the problem could be dealt with properly.

Suppose the scheme had started last year. The amount of wheat grown this year by farmers they would have bought at thirty shillings per barrel. They would have bought the remaining wheat wanted for the country from somewhere else. They would get to-day Manitoba wheat, which every miller is supposed to use—but which the facts do not prove—at thirty shillings, or Pacific at 28/6 per barrel. They would know in June roughly the amount of wheat grown, when they get the return from the Civic Guards as to the number of acres, and in November or December they would know for certain how much wheat the Irish farmers were willing to dispose of. They would then purchase the foreign wheat. If a miller, say, from Waterford or Dublin, wanted 500 barrels of wheat, and if the proportion of Irish wheat required was 5 per cent., then this central agency would write to their agents for foreign wheat wherever they might be and tell them to supply this man with 475 barrels of foreign wheat, and they would write, say, to some co-operative society and tell them to supply this man with 25 barrels of Irish wheat.

I do not say that we should absolutely maintain the percentage in every case, because it makes it impossible, but in or about the percentage should be maintained. That is, a miller would be compelled, on giving his order, to take anywhere between 2 per cent. to 10 per cent. of Irish wheat as part of his order. As it happens, the price of Irish wheat would be somewhat about the same as imported wheat. This year we may have to pay more for Irish wheat. But if the price was spread over the whole lot it could be put down at a certain amount. You surely could have a saving if an agent were to buy all the foreign wheat for the country. Surely it could be bought at a somewhat lower price than the millers are buying it for on their own. Apart from that, the whole cost of the thing could be levelled and the miller charged a certain amount for his wheat. We will probably have to face the problem whether it is going to increase the price of flour or not. I do not know how we can face that. It appears it does not make a lot of difference what price wheat is when you come to the price of flour. For instance, the price of Manitoba wheat in 1925 was 41/-, and the price of flour was 44/-. In 1928 the price of wheat was 30/-, and the price of flour was 36/6. That is, the price of wheat during those three years has come down 11/- per barrel, and the price of flour has come down 7/6 per barrel. If there was any reason for that it would be all right, but as a matter of fact the reasons are the other way round. Manitoba wheat is supposed to give red bran and red pollard. The price of red bran in 1925 was £5; this year it was £8 16/-. Red pollard in 1925 was £8; this year it is £9 6/-. Although the price of wheat came down 11/-, the price of flour only came down 7/6, and the price of offals went up 50 per cent. So that if by the central purchasing of wheat it could be proved that we are going to increase the price of wheat by 2/- per barrel, it is no argument that flour should go up, because flour should be down now, not to 36/6, but somewhere below 33/-, because offals are better now than they were. The millers would give one the impression—at least the bakers are more responsible for it— that our imported flour is all strong flour. They do not use anything else. This is Manitoba wheat, of course. You can only get red offals from Manitoba wheat. If the offals are white then it is not Manitoba wheat. But if any farmer goes into the premises of a provision merchant to buy feeding stuffs he will see just as much white pollard as red pollard and as much white bran as red bran. Where does it come from? We are supposed to get our bread from strong flour, and the white offals must come from somewhere. In addition to the two and a half million acres that would be required to produce all our own feeding stuffs, it would take about half a million acres to grow our own wheat. It may take years to get all the land back into tillage, but, at any rate, as we set ourselves the task of producing our own feeding stuffs and our own wheat, we would be on the road towards making farming a profitable industry, towards giving employment to all the agricultural population, and towards the reduction of our adverse trade balance by £12,000,000 a year. If that would not be a direct advantage to the farmer, it would certainly be an indirect advantage.

We have profiteering. The report of the Tribunal on Food Prices stated that the retail price of beef and mutton is between 1½d. and 2d. per lb. higher than it should be; that is to say, the farmer who rears up a beast, from the time it is a calf until it is ready to go to the butcher, gets at present prices for a 9 cwt. beast £17 10s., but the butcher who buys that beast and disposes of it in 3 or 4 days gets £4 more than he should get, according to the Food Prices Tribunal. If this were regulated, I do not say that the farmer would get £21 instead of £17, but, at any rate, it would bring down the cost-of-living figure, and in that way the cost of Government would come down, and the farmer would have his advantage like everyone else. In the same way the price of milk was pronounced to be far too high; also bread and other articles.

There is another matter. The farmer here sells his beef. I think this week the price is 39/- per cwt. A beast sold at that price is sent across to England, and it is sold at about 60/- per cwt. A beast that is sold here for £16 is sold in England for £24. The £8 difference must be going somewhere. I do not know what the Government have done to remedy this matter. Surely it is just as important a question to the farmers of the country in general as the improvement——

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

I want to understand that. Does the Deputy mean that the beast bought here for £16 is sold for £24 at Birkenhead?

Dr. RYAN

That is as far as I understand it. The price quoted there is 60/-.

Mr. HOGAN

We will both go into dealing at once and make a fortune.

Dr. RYAN

I think it would be more the Minister's business to go in against the dealers in this case. Another matter that the farmers have to complain of is that their land is still unpurchased, that in spite of promises at two general elections in 1927, numbers of them have not yet got their land vested, and they are paying more than they should be paying for it if it was vested. In connection with that, too, we find that labourers' cottages are not being built now as they were in the old times. The Government may be congratulated perhaps on their regulations—although I find they have not had the desired effect, they at least have done their best—with regard to the export of butter and eggs. This export, it must be remembered, so far, at any rate, is for one market, and it is certainly not good policy to be depending on one market. Of course, the Minister agrees with that, as I gathered from his speech at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce. We are told by some people that the British market is the best market. It is good, I suppose; otherwise certain people would not deal in it. But it must not be absolutely the best market, because Denmark, which gets the highest price for butter in the British market, only sells two-thirds of its butter there; it sells one-third elsewhere. If the British market was by far the best or the best, Denmark would naturally sell all her butter there. The same thing applies to New Zealand. New Zealand gets a better price than we do in the British market. Yet she does not sell all her butter there. An effort should be made to develop the home market. It is certainly the surest market, and it will be always there whatever may happen. Whatever there is in the home market we, at least, ought to keep for ourselves. For instance, although it may seem good policy to export £4,000,000 worth of bacon and buy back another £3,000,000 worth, it seems to me it would be better if we supplied our own market first and then exported the surplus. The same applies to butter. We do import a certain quantity of butter. It is not much. But it would be better if we supplied our own market first. We cannot, of course, have a home market unless our people are working.

When I am coming up here from Wexford I see in Wexford foundries that are capable of turning out agricultural machinery for the whole of this country, and yet the people in Wexford are idle and foreign machinery is coming in. There is a cement factory closed down and cement is coming in. Passing Enniscorthy, I see a bacon factory closed, while bacon is coming into the country and pigs are going out of it. At Ferns, I see an old tool factory closed down. Coming to Arklow, I see a large factory closed down. I cannot very well advocate the opening of it, for it is for munitions. But there are fishermen idle there. In Rathdrum flour mills are closed down, and then in Rathnew there is a brick factory closed. Every one of these places should be opened and working. There is a demand for the articles that these factories could produce in the country, but they are closed and people are idle. That is what passes for an industrial policy with the Government, the policy of free competition and of not interfering. But it is very hard to expect any industrial policy from a Minister for Industry and Commerce whose pronouncement on November the 3rd, 1927, was:

"We were told that if we could reduce our imports in certain ways we would, in fact, help to reduce the adverse trade balance, and we are to reduce these imports by producing certain things at home. To make out that that would help to reduce the adverse trade balance would be like the doctor who smashed the thermometer in order to show that the patient was well. If the trade balance means anything in the way of danger, it surely means this, that we buy articles at a greater rate than we can afford, and if we simply transfer the selling of these articles to somebody inside the country we make very little difference—some difference, but very little—as far as reducing the trade balance is concerned."

I hold that the Minister who has, as that statement shows, such a small grasp of the situation is not going to bring the industrial position back to what it should be.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy going to lead us into a debate on tariffs? I suggest, speaking from experience, if he does it will smother the debate on agriculture.

Dr. RYAN

I do not think I will be very long more now.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am not objecting to the length of the Deputy's speech. I am objecting to the introduction of general tariffs.

Dr. RYAN

There is no Deputy from any part of the country who has not a similar story to tell about the towns he passes through on his way to Dublin. Even city Deputies cannot come to this House without seeing factories closed. If a policy had been adopted to keep these works open I hold that the home market would be there for farm produce.

You cannot have a home market unless the people are working, and unless the people who are working have a decent wage they cannot buy such things as butter, bacon and milk, the farmer's principal produce. They can buy white bread and tea, but it is of very little consequence to the farmer as a producer whether they do or not. If he wants to sell his produce on the home market it must be to people who have a decent wage. If the Government had the interests of the agricultural community at heart, leaving out other interests altogether, they would, in order to create a home market, see that everybody was working and was being paid a decent wage for the work. I know the farmers are paying a poor wage. There are many agricultural labourers idle, and many who are working are getting a very poor wage. I believe the farmers cannot afford to employ any more under present conditions. If things were made right, as they should be, the farmer would employ more men and pay better wages, and if he did not. I say the Government would be entitled to compel him to do so.

That is the position of the farmers. They are in a hopeless position. Small things have been done to help them, but big things have been done to keep them back. We could, perhaps, ask the farmers to bear with it if there was some sort of a fight or agitation on which would eventually result in an improvement of the national status, or something else. But the farmer has nothing to look forward to. As far as I can see, the Government have given no indication that they will do anything to deal with tillage questions, do anything which would promote work or solve the big questions which affect the farmers. They do not even try to keep the farmer's hope up, if they cannot do anything else. They do not even try to do that by holding out inducements to the farmer to put up with his difficulties until we get some sort of an improved national status. We are not moving in that direction.

I ask the Dáil, in conclusion, to support this motion of censure on the Executive Council. I propose this vote of censure because the Government have failed to reduce the cost of government, and have failed to do anything with regard to local taxation which they certainly should have done, considering the amount of money going into the Exchequer. They should be censured, because they have failed to do anything with regard to land annuities which the farmers are paying, or with regard to the other amounts going out of the country every year; because they have failed to bring in any scheme or any policy for the improvement of tillage and the production of feeding stuffs; because of the prejudice of the Government against the production of wheat; for the non-fulfilment of their promises with regard to credit and land purchase; for their reluctance or refusal to deal with the profiteering question, and, finally, for persistent reliance on what passes as an industrial policy.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. M. O'REILLY

I rise in order formally to second the vote of censure proposed by Deputy Ryan. At the same time I take it that does not debar me from taking part in the debate at a later stage.

Mr. RODDY

I listened with a great deal of care and attention to the speech of Deputy Ryan. It was more in the nature of a lecture addressed to a body of agricultural experts than to an Assembly such as this. I propose, first of all, to deal with one of the last points the Deputy made. That was the point in connection with delay in the acquisition of land, and particularly delay in the vesting of land. This subject was debated at very great length in April of this year. I think I indicated then, county by county, the progress that had been made in the distribution of land since the passing of the Land Act, 1923, or to be more accurate, since the Land Commission was transferred to the Free State Government from the 1st April, 1923. I showed then quite clearly that land was being distributed to-day three times faster than during the former regime. I showed also that vesting was proceeding at a considerably faster rate than it proceeded at any period during the former regime. Practically all the old estates—and I mean by the old estates the estates that were being dealt with by the C.D. Board and some small balance lying over under the 1903 Act—have been disposed of, and there only remains the vesting of estates acquired under the 1923 Act. The vesting of these estates is proceeding rapidly, much more rapidly than the vesting of estates proceeded at any period under the former regime. We hope, as time goes on, to proceed still more quickly and to reduce substantially the number of estates on hands.

Deputy Ryan in the course of his speech covered a great many points. He started off by making the rather bald statement that agriculture is in a bad way. That statement has been repeated on many different occasions during the last three or four years. Deputy Ryan did not proceed to indicate in exactly what way agriculture is in a bad way. We realise perfectly well that at the present moment there is undoubtedly rather a slump in certain agricultural prices. But that slump is not peculiar to this country. You have the same slump in prices in most European countries, and, by a curious coincidence, the degree of the decrease in prices in those countries corresponds almost to the degree of the slump of prices in this country. That has been the case during the past few months. In fact, in many other countries the degree in the decrease is higher than in this country.

There is an indication of an upward tendency in the prices of our main agricultural products. During the past few weeks there has been a substantial increase in some areas in the prices of bacon. There is an indication that there will be an increase in cattle prices. Every man who has followed conditions relating to the cattle trade, during the last twelve months particularly, will admit candidly that there is bound to be a considerable increase in cattle prices during the course of the next two months. That is inevitable because of certain world-wide causes— a world-wide shortage in cattle, certain abnormal demands for leather, and other reasons which Deputy Ryan is well aware of.

The Deputy referred to the question of profiteering. Some eighteen months or two years ago a tribunal was established by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in response to a public demand to investigate certain charges that were made in the Press and from public platforms as to the profiteering going on in this country. A Commission was established of which two Deputies of this Dáil were members— Deputy Major Cooper and myself. Numbers of sittings were held all over the country. Sittings were held, I think, in about eight different centres in various parts of the country. Invitations were given to members of the public to attend and give evidence in support of the profiteering that was alleged to be taking place. Notwithstanding the invitations that were issued, not alone in the daily but in the local Press as well, not a single witness came forward to give evidence in support of the alleged charges of profiteering. It was difficult for a Commission of that kind, with their terms of reference and their limited powers of inquiring in certain directions, to investigate absolutely the charges that were publicly made as to profiteering in certain matters.

If there is profiteering going on in certain essentials of the farmer's industry, the remedy is perfectly obvious. The farmer can easily overcome that difficulty by organisation and by co-operation. In many districts, particularly in the West of Ireland, the farmers, through their co-operative societies, are to-day buying very many of the raw materials they require for their industry and, as a consequence, they have made a very substantial reduction in their production costs. After all, you must face up to this position, that if production costs are going to be reduced, if the farmers' overhead charges are going to be substantially reduced, there is only one possible way of bringing about that reduction, and that is for the farmers themselves to co-operate and, through their co-operative organisations, to buy as much and as many as possible of the raw materials of their industry. That is what is being done in other progressive agricultural countries to-day, and until the farmers here are prepared to learn a lesson from the progressive farmers of other countries I fail to see what hope there is for them. Government subsidies and Government doles are not going to help the farmers here.

Recently I had the privilege of visiting Canada with some colleagues of mine in the Dáil. So far as my limited opportunities allowed me I investigated the conditions under which agriculture was carried on in that country. I made investigations, particularly in those districts and provinces where mixed farming is carried on. I find that farmers in Canada are gradually building up organisations to deal with every single product of their industry. Not only have they selling organisations for the purpose of dealing with those products, but they have purchasing organisations as well for the purpose of procuring the raw materials of their industry.

The need of co-operation amongst the agricultural community has been preached for twenty years. It has met with some limited success in certain directions, but until co-operation is put into general effect here, until the Irish farmer is as much interested in co-operation as progressive farmers in Denmark, Australia and New Zealand, where co-operation has made tremendous strides in the last two years, the farmers in this country are not going to reduce very substantially the margin between production and selling costs that exists to-day. After all, the products of the agricultural industry are determined largely by prices and, if we examine the prices of agricultural products over a number of years, you will find that the farmers, in the main, are concentrating on the production of those products that have given them the best yield over quite a number of years.

So far as the balance of prices over a long period of years is concerned, the farmers are undoubtedly producing the commodities that have consistently paid them best over a number of years, and while Deputy Ryan and many of his colleagues have advocated the growing of wheat in this country much more extensively—I agree that for food it would be advisable for the farmers to grow wheat much more extensively—to grow wheat in the sense of competing with countries like Canada, the Argentine or the United States of America for the purpose of producing flour is sheer nonsense. After all, you must remember that in countries like Canada, the Argentine and the United States of America you have wonderfully rich land. I was told by farmers in Alberta that wheat was grown on their lands for a period of forty years without any fertilisation whatever, and in one case I was told—though the farmer concerned was not prepared to verify it—that wheat had been grown for sixty years without any fertilisation. That was wheat grown in the western provinces of Canada. The same thing applies to many of the western States of America, although there I admit that fertilisation has been more generally resorted to, and to a great extent the same is true of the Argentine. You have in these countries a set of conditions that we have not here, and in face of the competition of these countries, in face of the natural advantages they enjoy, advantages of soil and climate, you could not possibly grow wheat here and make it an economic proposition.

In quoting statistics, the Deputy carefully refrained from quoting statistics that have been published for the first nine months of this year and that show quite clearly that there has been a considerable increase in the values of our main agricultural products. There has been a very substantial increase in cattle prices. I need not quote the figure, because I am sure the Deputy has got it. There has been an increase in the exports of sheep, pigs, bacon, and other things. The Deputy has carefully refrained from quoting these figures. After all, it is ridiculous, in my opinion, at all events, to try to establish a comparison between the year 1913, when conditions were absolutely normal, and the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925. The Deputy, as a farmer, must know that the policy of this country was completely revolutionised by the European War. The Deputy must further realise that the farmers went in extensively—almost exclusively —for grazing during those years, and, as a matter of fact, we are still, to a certain extent, suffering from the effects of the policy which was embarked on then. The farmers in many counties have held on to the grazing policy, even though they have, in fact, been losing money, or have only succeeded in making ends meet, during the last three, four and five years. But a comparison between the year 1913, when conditions were absolutely normal, when, as a matter of fact, agricultural conditions in Europe and in the world were more in our favour than at any period prior to that, and recent years, is absolutely ridiculous and does not lead us anywhere in the discussion of an important subject like this.

Farmers here have undoubtedly come to realise that if they are going to make good, if they are going to reduce the margin between the prices they get for the commodities they produce and the prices that they have to pay for the commodities that they require, there is only one way to do it, and that is to increase production, and go in more exensively for mixed farming, particularly for dairying. Farmers are coming to realise that. But it is a question that; after all, cannot be unduly forced. You must allow the change to develop normally and gradually. The State can undoubtedly do a certain amount to encourage a development of that kind by education and by other methods, but such a development can only be brought about in time, and it will take some time to bring it about. That is the only reasonable way to set about the establishment of a proper agricultural economy in this country.

Mr. M. O'REILLY

In examining such an important question as agriculture in this country, I think it would be only fair to the farmers to start off by admitting this one fact, that farmers in this country, as well as farmers in other countries, have at all times done the best possible thing in the circumstances with which they were faced. It would hardly be fair to compare this country with Canada; neither would it be fair to compare this country with the Argentine. There is no possible comparison. In a country like Canada you have mass production in a rather weak state. I may tell you that I have no great reverence for Canada. Canada would be a rich country if it got an opportunity; it has not got it and it will not get it. Canada will remain more or less as it is. The Argentine is a different country—a country that has made its opportunities. It organised itself; it changed from being a huge cattle and sheep-raising country into an intensely agricultural country in a few years. Part of the Province of Buenos Aires produces as much wheat as all Canada, so that there is no comparison between those two countries. Neither is there a comparison between this country and the Argentine.

At the same time I do not think it would be fair to go into this question of agriculture without examining its past history, without finding out more or less if in the last hundred years we have improved, or if we have continued to go downwards. I fear if an examination is made that the statistics and the returns of the different years will point distinctly to one continual downfall in that industry. Different things took place, none of them of any advantage to agriculture. When the Act of Union was passed Ireland lost her market by the destruction of her industries. The great famine came along and completely disorganised production. Taxes were immediately substituted for what was once a protected industry. The Government of that day, perhaps feeling rather troubled in its conscience, started to subsidise, and I find that these very subsidies that were given were the cause of the complete demoralisation of the whole system. Free trade came in. It was of great benefit to England but a disaster to this country. It compelled the people of this country to pay more in produce for the necessaries of life. Income taxes were then substituted in England for what had been raised through tariffs on foreign materials. The English people benefited, perhaps to the tune of £12,000,000 or £14,000,000, but what took place here? We were compelled, through the loss of markets, through the collapse of industry, to cease production. We had to buy in the English market. We bought materials in that market for which we had to pay perhaps two or three times as much in produce for inferior articles.

Thus the history of agriculture carried on. Emigration started and took away our best. Not alone did it take away producers, but it took away consumers as well, with the result that the agricultural industry practically collapsed. Other subsidies and other schemes were tried, always with the same result. Since 1921 several schemes have been adopted here, and although we may not have had time to see the results, and it is perhaps unreasonable to make the statement, still I do not see any good results from any of these schemes. The same desolation, the same misery, continues. Emigration, which is the real way of judging the prosperity of any country, continues at the same rate. I take it, therefore, that we have not discovered what is wrong, and I take it, therefore, that no matter what schemes we propose, no matter what money we may the farmers' pockets, we cannot be successful. There is, undoubtedly something else wrong with . There is no necessity in a country of this description to have such a thing as they have in Canada— mass production. Small countries, with traditions like ours, should have no necessity for such a thing. Canada, a country that has no tradition, can adopt any means. But we are in quite a different position from that of Canada. We have been left here, through the introduction of free trade, constantly faced with higher and higher costs of production. For that reason the farmers have endeavoured to change their system.

If we look up the statistics for the last hundred years we find that we have been gradually leaving tillage out of the question and turning to the rearing of cattle. There is a reason for that also, and that is that the cost of production, the cost of tillage, became so high, through emigration and other reasons, that farmers were forced to reduce it, and therefore they adopted the feeding of cattle, which did not entail any labour. One result of that was that we were confined to a single market.

Another result was that we were opposed to the world, to the great ranching districts of the Argentine and other countries, which perhaps have mass production and had much better machinery at their disposal than we had. But the great thing was the cost of production. We were unable to produce cheaply enough, and we are still unable to produce cheaply enough. The reason for that must be quite obvious to anybody who reads the history of our country, and it is that all along the line since the years of the famine local taxation, indirect taxation, and perhaps direct taxation, have been constantly on the increase. We find as we examine the figures that as these charges went higher emigration increased and production decreased. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that there must be very near connection between the two. As I said here the other day, we have adopted a system of always collecting in taxation of one form or another more than we absolutely need, with the intention of throwing a sop to the agricultural industry by way of grants or schemes. That is the system which we have pursued, and it is the system which, I take it, we are pursuing to this day. I tried to prove here last week that if some of that money were left in the pockets of the agricultural community it could be much better spent than when it is collected here to a centre from which we distribute it. The farmers are always faced with one particular difficulty in their business, namely, the impossibility of ever expanding. You see all through the country farmers who have settled their families generally getting it very hard to tide over their difficulties. You see farmers who have not done so, who remain together, and who are, perhaps, able to carry on, but there is no expansion in any sense. If you are absent from this country for ten or twelve years you see on your return no improvement in their farms, no improvement in their houses, and no improvement in the local towns. If, however, you are absent from other countries for three or four years you see a constant improvement and signs of prosperity, but here that has never been the case. I think our system of taxation should be changed, not, as Deputy Byrne suggested, by a complete abolition of taxation, which I do not advocate, but by remodelling a system under which it is impossible for the farming community to be successful.

This question of taxation is one that from the very beginning must have caused the complete disruption of the agricultural industry. It hit directly, especially indirect taxation, at the very poorest in our locality. You find that efforts were made to relieve the Gaeltacht. We had recently a long discussion on that topic. In previous years under the British Government a Congested Districts Board was organised to try and relieve these people. It succeeded to a certain extent but I think, as well as I can remember reading some of the evidence given before that Commission, that one gentleman proved conclusively that the question of indirect taxation was the question that most affected the people in that locality. You will find the same thing all over Ireland. So far as I remember, a sum of about 8/- per head was distributed among people in those areas but the sum taken from them in taxation, even in the poorest cases, was something like £2 15s. per head. The statement was also made that that money was expended in drink. That is not so. A good part of it was probably expended on tobacco, a commodity which greatly affects the poor of the country. It does not, perhaps, to any great extent affect the wealthy or those people who are in secured or assured positions, but it certainly does in the poorer districts all over my constituency as well as every part of the South and West affect the very poorest there. It is the only little consolation left to them in life. There is no use in using the argument that that is a luxury. To these people it is not a luxury. In a dreary existence it is the only consolation they have. That to them is a very heavy and important item. It affects the workman who works on the farm. He demands and must get more wages. Therefore the farmer has to pay a greater wage and his cost of production is heavier. That is the result of the action of indirect taxation. In that case it is quite clear that the cost of production is directly attributable to indirect taxation.

Mr. ALLEN

And put Deputy Gorey on the reins.

Mr. GOREY

He is helping a little way. This vote of censure on the Minister is for failure to take effective steps to deal with the depression in agriculture. As far as I followed the case made, no alternative has been put up. None of the things that have been done for agriculture by the Government have been condemned. No new suggestions have been made as to what should have been done, except one only, and that stands out shoulder high, and that is compulsion—compulsion in every department of our national life, industrial, farming, and otherwise. One Deputy talked about profiteering. We know that there is profiteering, but what is the suggestion? That the State should step in and should be the shopkeeper, the industrialist, and the agriculturist. That the State should set up national receiving and distributing depots.

Mr. ALLEN

They did it in other countries.

Mr. GOREY

We should like to hear what countries have set up national receiving and distributing depots. The only way to get rid of profiteering, if you are going to do it by the State, is to set up a national institution. The only alternative is co-operation amongst individuals, voluntary co-operation, with State help, and that is being given. Every encouragement is being given. Everything has been done short of compulsion. That is the only thing that has not been done, and that is the only thing that has been suggested—that we should have State compulsion.

I am not going into the question whether dairy farmers have reduced their cows, or whether we are short of in-calf heifers. I have not the figures. Those who are in a position to do so can deal with that. But I will deal with some other things. The Deputy said that what has been done has not had much effect. It may not have had all the effects we wished for, it may not have realised all the hopes we entertained. But what has been done opened the gap wider with regard to the trade balance. Has it improved the position, or has it been the reverse? Has our trade position been worsened by what has been done? Has our trade position been improved by what has been done? If it has been improved, the whole system stands vindicated. If we have gone back, then what has been done stands condemned. I want to hear that question treated here. Is it suggested that what has been done has been done wrongly, and, if so, where has it been wrong, and can it be done better, and how can it be done better? Anybody standing up here and talking about agriculture ought to be able to get beyond the experimental or groping stage.

I admit that Deputy Ryan is honest in this—that he wishes to get better results. I say with all due respect that he has been only groping. Any Deputy standing up to condemn the Minister or the Government for the agricultural policy adopted in this country ought to be able to get beyond the groping stage, and ought to be able to point out what has been done wrongly, and how it should have been done better; and if there was something that should be done, how it is to be done. That is due from any representative who claims to represent the public. He ought to be able to suggest a better way. Until Deputies can suggest a better way there is no sense in their attack. It is too late now to use that vague expression "something should be done." The people of the country demand something better than that vague phrase. They want to know what it is that should be done and how to do it. The time is ripe for a party of the size and self importance of the Fianna Fáil Party to suggest what should be done. What should be done is that, as a nation and as political parties and as individuals, we should start to do a little clear thinking, a little more honest thinking, and a little less political thinking. It is not one form of compulsion that must be adopted to meet Deputy Ryan's complaint. There must be compulsion on the farmer to use Irish-grown corn in his feeding stuffs. That the Deputy's speech was altogether aimed at. His idea was that advice, example and help have failed, and that there is nothing left but compulsion. Can it be denied that this Government has given advice, example and help with regard to the use of home-grown foodstuffs, the production of pigs, and so on? Can that be denied? What more could be done than has been done in that direction? That advice has failed, and that example has failed; State help has failed, and there is nothing left but compulsion.

The Deputy said that the only hope for tillage was to get the Irish farmer to use home-grown foodstuffs. That is a very sad commentary on the Irish farmer. It is a very sad comment to pass from one farmer to another. I admit there is a good deal of truth in it. The way to make that right, according to the speeches we have heard, is not by example, advice or help, but by compulsion. We are to compel the farmer to use Irish-grown foodstuffs. We are to compel the millers to mill Irish flour, and then we have to go and compel the Irish consumer to consume bread made of Irish flour. There is no use in compulsion in one direction only. You have to go down the whole gamut from producer to consumer if the Deputy's hopes are to be given effect. There has been a good deal of harping upon the fact that millers have not got protection for flour milling in this country. And after that statement, the next statement of the Deputy was that the barley price in this country was bad. Barley was sold in this country as low as 12/- a barrel until the outside, or Scotch and English trade, opened for Irish barley. What was the Irish miller doing in the meantime? Had he been buying up any of it? The Scotch millers could buy in the Irish market, take the stuff across the sea, mill it in Scotland, and sell it as a Scotch feeder. How much did the Irish miller buy to sell in this way? The Irish barley could find a market across the Channel, but it could not find a market here. These are the people who come here lobbying and pulling strings for protection. What are the inevitable conclusions which are to be drawn from the case that has been made here? That we, as a race, are unfit to occupy a place in this busy world.

Deputy Ryan suggested that the Government should take up the corn of the country at a reasonable figure. What will they do with it, having taken it up "at a reasonable figure?" They will probably have to sell it at a reasonable figure, and they will have to obtain a reasonable price for the finished article—the pig, for instance. What did Dr. Ryan visualise when he talked about taking the crop up at a reasonable figure? How far did he want to go? He should not have stopped at the statement about paying a reasonable figure to the producer. He should have gone on the other two or three stages and carried out the logic of the statement. We had a lecture about growing peas and beans. Quite right. Beans particularly are one of the most valuable products we have for animal feeding, and I am sorry there are not more grown in the country. But what has been the advice of the Department of Agriculture in that connection—that peas and beans and oats and barley should be grown, mixed and used as a food crop for our stock. That advice and example have been given, and there is nothing needed only compulsion. This State had better make up its mind on a whole-hog policy of compulsion in every Department. It will be compulsion at every turn—compulsion for the grower, compulsion for the miller, compulsion for the baker, and compulsion for the general public. That is a very complete list, but nothing short of that is of any use. There is no use in an assembly like this in talking of anything else.

Dr. RYAN

I would not compel you to thresh a catch-crop.

Mr. GOREY

I did not use the word "catch-crop." I referred to a mixed crop grown for food. In addition to the compulsion to which I referred, you require compulsion in regard to the housewife. Our women folk in this country should be compelled to know how to make bread. That is Deputy Ryan's doctrine. Nothing less than that is any good. They should be compelled to turn out good bread, and impose a penalty upon them if they do not. That would be a very complete bill, but nothing less would be of any use. How much of the £7,000,000 is going to be eliminated when all this is done? Did Deputy Ryan say that we could do away with the whole of it?

Dr. RYAN

Mr. DERRIG

Is it not in order for Deputy Maguire to discuss the question of deflation? It was discussed in the British Parliament about a fortnight ago, and I think it ought to be discussed here. It certainly affects agriculture.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I can quite conceive a motion being put down which would enable a speech on that question to be quite in order, but the motion now under consideration does not deal with that question. The Deputy will see that if that matter is now allowed to be discussed there will be no limit to what can be discussed on this motion.

Mr. MAGUIRE

I think the motion condemns the Government and not the Department. The motion is against the Executive Council rather than against the Department. I say that in so far as the Government have not taken measures to prevent a recurrence of that they are guilty and are responsible for neglect. They may state that to meet the situation they introduced an Agricultural Credit Corporation, the ultimate object of which is to provide funds and stabilise the finances of this country, so that the farmers will not again be submitted to the dangers and inconveniences they have laboured under. From my experience of the Agricultural Credit Corporation it will be many a long year before the Corporation, at its present rate of progress can even assume to the title of being useful to the community.

I suggest that a State insurance scheme for stock should be introduced to assist the farmers. That may seem a big proposition, and certainly the problem is a very big one. If you have regard to that fact, that at least in the West you have a great number of small farmers, the amount of stock on whose farms will have an approximate cash value of £100, that £100 is just the difference between the well-being of that farmer and his family and their complete ruin. During the period when the fluke took such toll from the stocks of our country, a farmer losing three or five cows would lose his entire stock. He had nothing to fall back on; he had no means by which he could replace that stock. Fancy that farmer being left continually at the mercy of a disease that might at any time break out and leave him without stock. Fancy the danger of losing one cow out of three without any means of replacing her, and possibly losing her at the calving season, too. I suggest a State form of insurance on cows should be undertaken. Perhaps later on it might be possible to include other stock. Cows are more important to the farmer than other stock, and a scheme of State insurance would be a very feasible thing, although it is a big problem.

If such an insurance scheme were undertaken, and the farmer was secured against possible losses, you might have the problem solved of how the Agricultural Credit Corporation could safely make provision for loans to farmers in a small way. It would also open the way for the banks. In the past the banks found that, if they lent money to the small farmers, whenever they sought to realise the security was closed, inasmuch as they found great difficulty in getting a purchaser for the farm. That difficulty would be eliminated if the stock was insured. If the banks, the Credit Corporation, or other societies that lend money, found that a person did not intend to meet his liability, they could secure payment by taking possession of the stock. I recommend that course as the only one along which the danger of a repetition of the fluke disease may be averted. It would also provide an opportunity of encouraging loans to farmers for the purpose of re-stocking their land.

In face of the dire position that the farmers found themselves in shortly after 1921—the big slump in the price of cattle and produce due to the inflation of currency, followed by successive wet years that meant the ruin of the crops and the death of cattle through fluke caused by the wet season—not alone was any effort made to meet the situation as it then existed, but, as if to place the last straw that was to break the animal's back, the Government came along with a Bill—I am sorry Deputy Gorey is not here— providing that the land annuities and other debts chargeable against a farm should be recoverable under the extreme clauses of a penal enactment that has no equal in this country. Not alone was there no sympathy with the man who found himself down-and-out as a result of causes over which he had no control, but the advocates of no compulsion passed a Bill to ensure that a farmer placed in that position had no opportunity to recover his ground. He cannot let his land or take in grazing cattle. If he does take in grazing, his creditors come down and sweep off the grazing stock. The man's position is really hopeless. In no conceivable circumstances, except through a miracle or a stroke of good luck, can he regain his feet. I ask, in the interests of the down-and-out farmers, down-and-out through no negligence of their own, that that enactment be withdrawn, that it be eliminated from the existing laws of the State.

The Minister a short time ago, speaking on the possibilities of agriculture, said the remedy was to be found in a farmer finding a cow, a sow and an increased area of tillage. I am quite sure that would go a long way towards solving the problem, but if the Minister has sufficient confidence in that, will he be practical and provide the farmer with the means of supplying these things? If these acquisitions can solve the problem, why does not the Minister speed up the business of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and give the farmers the price of one cow, one sow and the means of putting under cultivation one acre of tillage? I have no doubt that these things would contribute largely for the betterment of the country. I urge on the Minister that the best way to secure the extra cow and sow and the acre of tillage is to show the farmer that he is going to get something in the way of a better price for the products he puts on the market. It is in the Minister's power to make it possible for a better price to be secured by the farmer.

Deputy Gorey looked around here very anxiously and gleefully and asked where was the alternative market; had it been discovered by some boys in the House while experts in other parts of the world had been looking for it and failed to find it? I will show him how, without increasing expenditure by one penny, we can make it more profitable for the farmers who are encouraged to have an increased area of tillage, an extra cow and an extra sow. This year we have voted, by way of relief of rates for agricultural holdings, something like £600,000. This £600,000 is an addition to a sum of £600,000 that heretofore had been made available for the farmers. If the Minister will earmark that £600,000, and allot it in proportion to the area each farmer has under tillage, he will be able to make it possible for the farmer prepared to work his land and to get the extra cow and the extra sow, to work himself into the position that he will not have rates to pay at all; he will remove the liability on the working farmer to pay to the rancher, the man who does not want to make his land useful to the community, compensation by way of a grant in relief of rates. That is the way the Minister can carry into effect the solution he has discovered for the betterment of farming conditions. Let him provide the necessary funds for the farmers to enable them to get the extra cow and the other essentials and then back up that by placing at the disposal of the farmers an opportunity to make those things pay.

There is one factor I wish to lay particular stress on, and that is the position of the farmer in the congested areas. Naturally under any adverse conditions the farmers in this country would suffer. As a result of the inflation of currency and the successive wet seasons, the first section of the community to suffer was the small farmer. His means were limited, and consequently he went under more quickly. Up to the present he is the one man who has received no assistance by way of loans. In a great many parts of the congested areas it is difficult for a man to continue to live on the products of his patch of land. Some additional employment must be found for him. We were told in the past the remedy was to break up the ranches and this would provide the solution for most of the congests. We know now they were only talking generalities in those days. Having come to deal with the thing in detail we find we have not enough land to go around. We may not have enough, but still the problem must be solved in some way. I suggest the Government should undertake to survey all those areas in which congests live and examine the position with a view to discovering what form of industry those areas would be capable of producing economically. I could make suggestions, but I know that without having a practical experience and having at my disposal the geographical and transport facilities available, my suggestions might be very impracticable. I suggest the Government should appoint an expert to investigate the position in those areas and report on the possibility of developing some little industry that would give employment to the people and make it possible for them along with the little they can secure from their patches of land, to continue to make a living. If no other provision can be made by way of supplying them with large farms, then that is the only solution. The solution of industries in those areas has a good deal to recommend it rather than the idea of centralising industry and bringing the people to the larger cities and towns.

In the West of Ireland there are a good many natural deposits in the form of minerals. I suggest that it is the duty of the Government to have a geological survey made of these deposits to see in what way and to what extent they could be developed and made useful so as to assist in maintaining decent conditions of life in these parts of the country. Another remedy would be, as has been stated by Deputy Ryan and other speakers on these benches, to reduce the cost of government. I will not dwell on that, because it has already been dealt with, but I mention it as a very sound and practical way of dealing with the situation as it exists. Another Deputy—I think it was Deputy Roddy—referred to the possibility of increased prices for cattle within the coming two months. It is my opinion, and it is the opinion of people who are fairly well versed in this matter, that as long as we continue to breed cattle for the market in competition with countries like the Argentine and Canada we are up against impossible odds. We cannot do it. Our area is too small; the actual expenses and the overhead charges are so much greater than what they are in those countries that it is impossible to do it.

Deputy Roddy criticised the suggestion that this country could grow wheat in competition with the Argentine, America and Canada, but I think the proposition to grow wheat or other crops is far more practical than the idea of continuing to raise cattle in competition with those other countries. There can be no possible hope of continuing our present grazing system and making it a successful proposition. While we are up against competition of these foreign cattle in the English market at this season of the year we can only expect what we are receiving and what we have received for the last five years—a bad price at the end of the season—and that continues up to the spring months. From February up to June the price of beef, particularly of forward stores, is quite remunerative. The remedy is by increasing tillage on the lines that the Minister for Agriculture outlined the other day, and by making an effort to get rid of the big ranchers and graziers, to have more cultivation, feed our cattle on the crops during the winter season and have them for the markets in the good months. That is, to my mind, the only remedy and the only safe means to take.

That the whole failure of the Government to meet the situation up to the present is a fact needs no word from me to prove. Ministers and Deputies on the Government side may say that we have rounded the corner and that there is the appearance of prosperity, but if these men have camouflaged some people by that statement they certainly cannot and will not camouflage the farmers. The farmers know that there is no upward curve, and I tell the Minister that unless there is a complete and radical change of attitude towards agriculture, the tendency of agriculture will be, steadily and surely, to go down to ruin. The remedy is at the Minister's disposal. It is to carry out some of the schemes that have been outlined. That may require capital, but I am convinced that capital in this country, as well as capital in any other country, will find its level, and that money will be invested if things are looking right and sound. The banks here will be anxious to invest their money in this country as soon as they see that there is an economic and sound prospect for such an investment. It is only when this big problem of agriculture is tackled on really sound lines that money will be found to be available for the forward progress that is required. On the other hand, if the banks or other monied institutions refuse to deal with problems of a practical nature when they are put forward, it would be the duty of the Minister for Agriculture and of the Government to tackle the problem, and to let it be seen that no institutions here have a private right to the resources of the country, and if any institutions endeavour to make use of the principal industry of the country for their own selfish needs, that they will receive short shrift. If the Minister asks for the assistance of this House he will find that he will have behind him very substantial following in tackling that or any other obstacle that stands in the way of a really active policy.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. REYNOLDS

I think that the Deputy ought to indicate to the House how he manages his own farm. He has a model farm, and I think he ought to indicate to the House how he manages that model farm.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Order. Is Deputy Maguire finished?

Mr. MAGUIRE

Yes, but I would like to hear the Deputy's question.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Well, if Deputy Maguire has not heard the Deputy's question, that is splendid.

Mr. DAVIN

Perhaps they would adjourn to the Lobby.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I endeavoured to follow Deputy Ryan's statement, but I found it somewhat difficult to establish a connection between the motion and the arguments that were used in support of the motion. To my mind, the Deputy's arguments, interesting as they were, were such as would be more fitted to a series of lectures by an agricultural instructor. His arguments seemed to me like a compressed lecture, comprising various matters which might very well be given by an instructor on agricultural conditions, holding certain views similar to those held by Deputy Ryan. The Deputy's motion is based on the proposition that there is a depression in agriculture. I think that everybody in the House will agree with Deputy Ryan in that regard. Those of us who have been in close association with the agricultural industry are perfectly well aware of that fact, however opinions may differ as to the actual degree of depression. Deputy Ryan taunted Ministers, and the President in particular, with being optimistic enough to say on a certain occasion that we are at least turning the corner, that we are beginning to pass, if ever so slightly, away from the trough of depression in which the agricultural industry had fallen. In that connection Deputy Ryan quoted some figures taken from the Trade and Shipping statistics of 1927. I do not accuse the Deputy of being deliberately dishonest in the figures which he gave, because I believe that he endeavoured to make as reasonably honest a case as he could in the circumstances, but he did not explain, in quoting the figures showing a reduction in our agricultural exports, that in the first case he was dealing with the value of the article exported. Of course, as I need hardly explain, comparing the values of exported articles one year with another is no real criterion of the value of exports, as prices may vary, and naturally the values in themselves are not examples of how exports have gone down.

The Deputy quoted certain figures given on page 11 of the statistics to which I have referred. Without following the Deputy completely along the line of argument which he took, which it would be impossible to do without having a copy of the Deputy's statement before me, I know that the Deputy pointed out that, taking the volume of exports of our agricultural produce in 1911-13 at 100, by comparison with that volume, the volume of our exports in 1924 was 104.7, and that in 1927 it was 99.3, the conclusion being that we had not turned the corner. But the Deputy omitted to say that the volume in 1924 was practically the peak volume, for exceptional reasons. There was an exceptionally large export of agricultural produce in that year. The volume of exports for 1925 had decreased to 87, as compared with 100 in 1911-13, and the volume of exports in 1926 had gone down still further—to 86.7, but the volume of exports in 1927 had gone up to the level of 99.3, almost to the level of the volume of exports in 1911-13. The Deputy might, when referring to that table, also have pointed out, if he wanted to be fair in regard to the position of agricultural exports and the optimistic view which has been taken by some Ministers, that the volume of exports in 1927 was greater than that of any other year since 1919 inclusive, with the exception of two years—1922 and 1924.

Dr. RYAN

What about 1923?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Those were omitted. I presume that no statistics were available for 1923. The Deputy may perhaps have some knowledge as to why these statistics were not available.

Dr. RYAN

I have no knowledge.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Accepting the point of view that there is a depression in agriculture, naturally before we proceed to blame the Government and to pass a vote of censure on them for not producing remedies for that depression, we must examine into the causes of that depression. I did not hear Deputy Ryan say that he ascribed the causes of that depression in agricultural prices to the Government. I think that anybody who examined the situation with a fair mind will recognise that in the main the causes of depression were altogether outside the control of the Government, that the depression in agriculture and the causes of it were not confined to this country alone, and were due to conditions which were world-wide. It is scarcely necessary to explain the conditions which brought about the depression. They are practically self-evident.

I have always said that increased production in itself was not the remedy for the depression in agriculture. It is an old saying and a true one, that high farming is no remedy for low prices. Increased production undoubtedly would be an advantage to the farming community if production could be increased on a paying basis. The problem for those who are endeavouring to work out the economic salvation of the farmer is to see how production can be increased as a paying proposition. I maintain that, in so far as the endeavour on the part of the State has been to see that agricultural products are produced in such a manner, and of such quality, as to secure the highest possible price in competition with the other agricultural countries, the State has done its part, and that although the results have not yet become very definitely clear, and very fully shown, there is no doubt that the action which the State has taken in stimulating the production of high-quality agricultural produce has resulted, to a certain extent, in increasing the prices which we have got in the outside market, and undoubtedly will, when followed up, result eventually in placing them very close to the level of other competing countries who share that market with us.

But we have to advance slowly in that connection. It seems to me that everybody who wants to see something done wants to see it done immediately— he wants to see immediate results, and results in regard to agricultural products cannot be immediate. The education and training of the people and the necessary Government control which must follow, are a slow process and one cannot expect to have immediate results. Having done our part to see that the farmers produce the best agricultural products, the best of their kind, if we find that producing those products, with the overhead charges which the farmer has to pay, is not paying as well as it ought to pay, our next step is to endeavour to reduce the cost of production on the farmer. That is the line which we will have to follow in future, and the efforts which we may make in this House should be along the line of endeavouring in so far as it lies in our power, to reduce the cost of production to the farmer, that is to reduce the cost of the articles which the farmer must buy to live and to produce.

It has been already pointed out that there is one way open to the farmer to reduce these costs, and that is by co-operation and buying in bulk. I accept it that that is one of the principal ways open to the farmer. But there is another way which will have to be availed of, and which is outside the powers of the organised farmers, working as an organised unit—that is a reduction in the cost of production. When one starts to talk about reducing the cost of production on the farmer one finds that one is opening up a most intricate and involved subject—that there are so many factors which go to make up the cost of production that one cannot by one stroke of the pen, or by one simple Act of legislation, provide the means by which the cost of production and the cost of living can be reduced to the farmer. We all know what the cost of living means and the advantage it is to reduce it. We all know that every reasonable effort is being made to reduce it. We all know the various factors involved. The same thing applies to the cost of production —the articles which the farmer must use in order to produce—his agricultural machinery, his seeds, manures and feeding stuffs. If we can by any action of ours reduce the cost of these articles for the farmer, we will be helping him and taking a step which may help to place his industry on an economic basis.

The vote of censure which has been moved has not been proved. The charge has not been proved. The endeavour is to show that by neglect of the obvious remedies for the agricultural depression the Government has failed to meet the contingency and the depression which have arisen. I maintain that in so far as the actual positive stimulation of agriculture is possible by means of legislation, the Government has more than done its part. I maintain that the causes of depression in agriculture are causes which are, to a large extent, outside the control of any Government—that they are due to world-wide causes and that the remedy will depend eventually, to a large extent, on world-wide conditions.

The contribution by the Deputy who moved the motion, though a very interesting one and one which opened up avenues of discussion as to the possible future development of agriculture, was not one which brought home to the Government of the day the fact that they had failed to do their part. I believe that in so far as the stimulation of agriculture is concerned the Government have done their part. The other side of the story, which has to do with reduction of the cost of production, involves a great many factors, including the factor referred to by the Deputy— high taxation. I have expressed the view several times, and I still hold the view, that high taxation is a factor in keeping up the cost of production on the farm. It is an important factor, though I do not say it is the only factor. If that is so, surely the remedy is for the Deputy and his colleagues on the same benches to show how taxation on the farmer can be reduced. When we were talking about the effect of high taxation we endeavoured, at least, to show how taxation could be reduced. We faced up to our problems and we worked along the lines of solving those problems. We are still working along the lines of solving these problems, but I have listened to Deputies on the opposite benches for a considerable time and I have not yet heard one concrete, practical suggestion which, followed out, would result in the reduction of taxation and in easing the burden which the farmer has to bear.

The Deputy ascribed other failures to the Government—failure to reduce rates, for instance. I am as anxious to see rates reduced as the Deputy is, but surely the reduction of rates does not lie with the Government. Surely, it lies, to a very considerable extent, with the local bodies. The question involves de-rating, which is a complex and difficult problem which will probably have to be discussed at some other stage. The scheme of tillage put forward by the Deputy I have already dealt with. Allusion has been made to the vesting of land in the tenants by the Land Commission. As has been already pointed out, the Government has endeavoured to do its part in this matter. I would ask those who are interested in the matter on the Government side to endeavour to expedite in every way the vesting in the tenants. A burden is cast on the tenants which would not be cast upon them if vesting were effected. I am satisfied that the Government are doing their best and are expediting the completion of land purchase as much as possible. Generally, I feel that the Deputy has not made his case. The alternative scheme of agricultural development put forward by the Deputy would, in my opinion, be a retrograde step, instead of a step in advance. If I have to choose between the policy of agricultural development suggested by the Deputy and that which has been pursued by the existing Government, I have no hesitation in saying that my support will go with the existing policy.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I rise in an atmosphere of profound inspiration. I am occupying one of the seats that were occupied for a number of years by the erstwhile Farmers' Party. For the last few minutes, I have been endeavouring to conjure up from the misty past the shades of the wise, powerful and well-meaning Farmers' Party and to recall some of the burning words of wisdom that they poured upon the Minister for Agriculture from these very benches. I remember in 1925 when these benches were made resound with the thunder of the Farmers' Party in denunciation of the policy of the present Minister for Agriculture—or rather the want of policy— in meeting what was then described as "a devastating epidemic of fluke." I myself was quite prepared to join in that denunciation, as I am to-day willing, and perhaps anxious, to join in that denunciation. If I endeavour to strip this discussion of a good deal of its theory and bring it down to the realities that a farmer might understand, I hope it will be believed that I do so in the interests of the farmer and with the understanding that I will endeavour to get from the Minister his opinion and his policy on a few of the main features and on a few of the main difficulties that face the farming community to-day. This motion, to my mind, resolves itself into two parts. Is there agricultural depression at the present moment and has there been a reaction during the years since 1925 as a result of the losses that took place in that year? The other question naturally arises: What has the Government done to deal effectively with that depression? These, to my mind, stripped of all the theory and stripped of all the more or less highbrow economics we heard from every side, are the two propositions before us. Deputy Heffernan told us that one cannot estimate from the statements made by Deputy Ryan what actually has been the loss. He stated that he was dealing with values rather than with the actual loss that had been suffered. Representing an agricultural constituency, as I do, I have endeavoured to find out what, in the main, has been the loss to the farming community. I looked up what is described as the cattle population in the census——

Mr. HOGAN (Minister)

That is a bad word.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

I refer the Minister to his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He has a better opinion of the value of words than I have and that is the term he gives us. I find in regard to cattle that there is a reduction between 1923 and 1925 of 286,278. Lest it might be contended that we exported more, I find that between 1924 and 1925 there was a reduction in the export of cattle of 249,205, representing an approximate value of £4,279,521.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister)

That is up to 1925.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

It is between 1924 and 1925. Between 1924 and 1926 there was an actual reduction in the export of cattle of 307,002, representing an approximate value of £5,121,462. In the sheep export between 1924 and 1925, I find a reduction of 524,468. I find also, in the matter of tillage, that between 1923 and 1924 there has been a reduction of 33,413 acres. Between 1924 and 1925 there was a reduction of 39,012 acres. Between 1922 and 1925 there was a reduction of 21,043 acres. As regards butter exports, between 1924 and 1925 there was a reduction of 55,465 cwts., representing an approximate value of £387,897. How this matter presents itself to me is this: there has been a loss to the farming community. There has been a very specific loss. The cattle have not been exported and the cattle are not in the country. Something must have happened to the majority of the cattle in that period. I have endeavoured in my own constituency to ascertain if there has been any change upwards in the position of the farmer. I have endeavoured to find out amongst the farming community whether there has been any effective method of dealing with these losses from 1925 up to the present time— whether there has been any movement by the Government to re-establish the economic position that the farmer found himself in before this epidemic occurred. I find in my examination of the position that there is no upward curve in that position. You might demonstrate by figures that there is a slight inclination upwards, but I find that, in actual practice, the reaction since 1925 has been such that the farmer to-day finds himself in the position that he is not able to meet the actual demands upon him. Therefore, there has been no real facing up to the situation on the part of the Government. I want to make whatever contribution I make to this debate brief and clear. I do not want to score any points whatever, even if I could—possibly I could not—off the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

Hear, hear!

Mr. HOGAN

Deputy Byrne is so unaccustomed to scoring any point off anybody that he cannot imagine how I could score off even the Minister for Agriculture. Perhaps I might give a local turn to the matter, that is, really, what we have got to do; we have to go back and examine the position as we find it locally; we have to take our own counties and constituencies as standards by which we will measure the other counties and arrive at a conclusion as to the country as a whole. I have a document which I think I made use of in this House before but it is of such importance that I think I could claim the privilege of the House in again quoting it. When this cattle mortality occurred and when there was so much distress consequent upon it, the Clare County Council asked that some definite statement should be made so that those in authority would have an opportunity of realising the extent of that cattle mortality. I thought myself, at the time, that the Minister for Agriculture was not sufficiently well informed on the matter. I do still believe that the Minister for Agriculture was not sufficiently well informed on the matter. I believe that the information in his offices and the statistics supplied to him were not such as could be relied upon, and, in order to get some kind of a stamp of authority, the Clare County Council asked the rate collectors to examine the position in the different rate collecting areas and to find out what was the cattle mortality in these areas and to say what was the reason, and how much that cattle mortality interfered with their collection of the dues to the County Council.

The questions put to each rate collector were:—

"What was the extent of live stock mortality in your district between September, 1923, and April, 1925?

"To what extent is the shortage of money due to that cause in your district?"

In the Ballyvaughan district we find that in the two rate collecting areas the extent of live stock mortality was 20 per cent. and 33 per cent.; in the two areas in Corofin it was 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.; Ennis, 30 per cent., 40 per cent., 15 per cent., 25 per cent. and 20 per cent.; Ennistymon Rural District from 20 per cent. to 33 per cent.; Kildysart district, 40 per cent. to 80 per cent.; Kilrush Rural District (four rate collectors' districts), 20 per cent., 30 per cent., 50 per cent. and 70 per cent.; Meelick, 10 per cent., 20 per cent., 25 per cent., and 50 per cent.; Scariff rate collecting districts, 40 per cent., 20 per cent. and 10 per cent.; Tulla rate collecting districts, 70 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. That represents a position that was calamitous at the time. It was something that presented a serious condition that should be faced up to by the Government. The reaction of that upon the farming community is still having its effect. The reaction is such that the amount of money put down does not represent the actual losses. What has to be considered is that the farmer had not alone the loss of his cattle to contend with, but that he had to sell his hay and crops at a sacrifice because he could not purchase cattle to consume them, and, consequently, he could not meet the demands made upon him; he could not meet the local demands nor the national demands. I do not want to be taken as saying that there is undue pressure brought upon him for land annuities, but I do suggest that there is pressure brought upon him to the extent that his cattle are seized, taken to Dublin, and sold, with the result that the Land Commission perhaps gets £1 or £2 out of the decree and the tenant gets nothing. The amount is spent in various ways, in transport and other ways. Very little goes to the Land Commission, and nothing at all goes to the annuitant. I put that to the Minister as something that has not been dealt with, or that no attempt has been made to deal with in what one might call a satisfactory fashion.

I do not propose to put forward remedies. I do not propose to say what course the Government should have taken. The thing is so obvious, the Government itself ought to have seen to the methods it ought to have employed to meet this difficulty. I am making the case as mild as I possibly can. I live in an agricultural district. I know the condition of the people in that district. I know perfectly well what their difficulties are, what their troubles are, and the strain that is put on their resources to meet the demands upon them. I know that there are many of them in very dire distress, and in the unfortunate position that they cannot do what they are willing to do and what they would like to do.

I would ask that the Government consider the position not in any spirit of partisanship, and I would ask the House to deal with it not in a spirit of partisanship, but as something that is of national importance, something that demands the strength of every party in the country to try and find the remedy for.

There are other matters that possibly enter into the question, and which caused some amount of economic distress amongst the farming community. We do know that there are farms to-day throughout the country which are not of the same value as they were when the valuation was made. We do know that there are people paying rates to-day on valuations that are entirely excessive. We do know that there were certain things which gave a certain value years ago that they have not to-day. They are paying on these valuations, and probably will continue to pay on them. These are matters that probably are not so theoretical; they are very practical. They are not so theoretical as some of the things we heard in this debate. I would put them to the Minister as being practical propositions. The propositions that this motion resolves itself into are these: Is there economic distress amongst the farming community? Was there economic distress amongst them in 1925? Has that been relieved? Has it been removed? My contention is that it can be readily proved that there is economic distress, and the reaction of 1925 and the reactions from other reasons have not been met by the Government. The Government at the present time is asked, and asked very forcibly, to introduce some means by which economic distress amongst the farming community should be remedied, at least, if not entirely removed.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

When Deputy Hogan asks whether there is economic distress amongst the farmers I suggest he is taking the question of economic distress as a comparative term. There is, of course, economic distress amongst the farmers, comparatively speaking. There is equal economic distress amongst the shopkeepers. There is economic distress amongst the farmers in England and there is economic distress amongst the shopkeepers. Not only is there economic distress, comparatively speaking, in this country and in England, but there is economic distress all over the world. There has been economic distress all over the world as compared with the conditions either pre-Truce or during the war, and when I am asked is there economic distress I cannot answer the question.

Deputy Hogan's rate collectors went around Clare and said to the farmers: "The Government is going to pay for all the live stock that died; how many cattle, how many sheep and how many pigs belonging to you died." The answer was, 80%, 40% and 30%. Deputy Ryan, on the contrary, told some of his farming friends that he had a vote of censure on the Government down; that he was going to charge the Government with failing to deal with agricultural distress in the country and that he wanted to prove his case. He asked his farming friends were they in a bad way and they said they could not be worse. He then went to two or three shopkeepers and told the same story. I am sure he picked a Cumann na nGaedheal shopkeeper.

Dr. RYAN

There are none in Wexford.

Mr. HOGAN

There are. I deny that vehemently.

Dr. RYAN

Not a single one.

Mr. HOGAN

I deny it vehemently. We will have to agree to differ on that. He asked him did he hear that the farmers were in a bad way, that they were very short of money with which to pay their debts, and he said they are in a shocking way; they could not be worse. That is no good. Neither Deputy Hogan's statistics, obtained in that way, nor Deputy Ryan's statistics, obtained in that way, have any value whatsoever. To come back to the debate, Deputy Ryan was of opinion that the President was wrong in stating that we had turned the corner. I think the President was right. I will give my reasons. The farmers now are not nearly as well off as they were in 1913. Neither are the farmers in England, nor the farmers all over Europe. There was not the same money as there was during the war, but they were in an extremely sound position. They were going ahead, increasing their stocks. There was less money and credit, but there were more cash transactions.

The world was a happy place, if we only knew it, in 1913. Everyone was fairly well off, everyone was working hard. The farmers in 1925, 1926 and 1927 were not nearly as well off as they were in 1913, nor as they were in 1916, 1917 and 1918. During the war all food producers had a great time; they did extremely well. But that is not the question. Every Deputy who thinks over it knows that after the war, when food was no longer so valuable, when prices collapsed, farmers all over the world began to suffer bad times. So did industrialists. I think there is no doubt that the farmers had worse times than even the industrialists. From 1921 to 1925 there was a collapse in prices. A collapse in prices is always accompanied by a collapse in production. There was a steady decline in production up to the year 1925, in England Scotland, France, Germany and all over the world. That steady decline was caused by a fall in prices. I will not go into the reasons; that is too big a subject. Deputy Maguire mentioned one, he said our financial policy was wrong. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle said that that was a subject which should not be debated here, that there should be some limitation. The Deputy attempted to point out that it was due to a policy of deflation that followed the European war. I will not go into that. I will only say that I do not know anything about deflation or inflation. I do not believe that there are any Deputies in this House who have any real knowledge on the subject. It is a most intricate subject and there are only five or six people in Europe who have any detailed knowledge of that question. I do not know anything about it, but I do know that the English financial system is as sound a system as there is in the world. I do not think we can do very much better. That may be or it may not be the case, but the fact is that in 1925 prices collapsed and production collapsed. The collapse in prices was steep, it was particularly steep in 1921, but it continued and is continuing still. The decline in production was particularly steep from 1921 to 1925. The fact of the matter is that in 1925 that tendency was arrested, undoubtedly the figures show that. Deputy Ryan quoted figures for cows, in-calf heifers, pigs, sheep and so on. He made the point, a genuine point, that there was a decrease in the number of cows and in-calf heifers as compared with 1927. He did not make the point, which he should have made, that there was an increase in the number of cows and in-calf heifers this year as compared with 1925. Here are the figures for cattle. Before I read these figures I want Deputies to realise that there was a steady decline in the numbers of cattle down to 1925. The total cattle in 1925 was 3,991, 358.

For 1927 the figures are:—Milch cows, 1,234,242; heifers in calf, 97,098; total, 4,047,013. The figures for 1928 are:—Milch cows, 1,230,506; heifers in calf, 83,931; total, 4,125,145.

What really happened was this. You had a steady decline in production up to 1925, a stoppage, an arrest, of that tendency in 1925, and a very slight increase from 1925 onwards, taking one year with another. I do not like to compare one year with the year immediately following. Such comparisons are always illusory, in agriculture especially. Deputy Hogan compared the figures for 1924 and 1925. I am not sure whether I am right, but I believe I am relatively right. I think in 1923 or 1924 there was the biggest export of cattle in living memory. If you examine the exports of cattle for ten years, you will always find that immediately after the year in which there has been a very big export of cattle there is a small export. The reasons are perfectly obvious. Those are the figures from 1925 and 1927. Taking pigs, there is an immense increase. I did not bother to get the actual figures, because there have been too much statistics in this debate and too much misleading statistics. There has been a tremendous increase in regard to pigs. There has been equally an increase in sheep—a tremendous increase between 1925 and 1927. I will leave out the word tremendous, and I will say there was a considerable increase. There was also an increase in the production of butter, milk and cream. I have not any figures before me with regard to pigs and bacon; we can take the two of them together. I agree with Deputy Ryan that it is not quite a satisfactory tendency to have an increase in live pigs as against bacon, but that is a detailed question which I do not want to go into on a debate like this. I have given you figures relating to cattle, sheep, pigs, butter and eggs. I think there was an increase in eggs since 1925, but I am not sure; I think there was an increase from 1925 to 1927. That followed a steep decline in the production of these articles. In 1925 that was arrested, and not only have we stabilised the position but there is a slight decrease. I put it to any Deputy, was the President's statement that we are turning the corner a fair description of that? I certainly think so. Irish agriculture consists of cattle, sheep, beef, mutton, pigs, bacon, eggs, and poultry. That is Irish agriculture. That has been Irish agriculture within living memory, and it will continue to be Irish agriculture.

I find it very difficult to intervene in this debate because a multitude of points have been raised. Deputy Ryan made, if I may say so, a very well-informed speech, but it was really a technical lecture. He probably knows a considerable amount of the practical side of farming and, if I am to answer, my speech must be not an economic exposition but another technical lecture, and that will lead us nowhere. I do welcome one statement he made, and it was that the only hope for tillage in this country is to substitute imported food for home-grown food, and increase tillage for the feeding of livestock and livestock products. That is my theory of agriculture. That is the doctrine I have been advocating for the last five or six years. I believe the only hope for increased tillage in this country is an increase in tillage for consumption on the farm, and for the feeding of livestock and of livestock products. Deputy Ryan, in opening the case for his Party, made that point. I congratulate him. He has come a long distance. We have got a long way from the time when we were to produce barley for all the breweries and all the distilleries in Europe, when we were to have a great export trade. I have read a lot written by the economic theorists in that Party. We were to have wheat for export, possibly to Canada. We have got a long way from the time even of compulsory tillage. It is at last admitted that the only hope for increased tillage is to substitute imported food for the home-grown food, and increased tillage for consumption on the farm, for the production of livestock, and as the raw materials for livestock products. I hope Deputies will stick to that. That is sound and absolutely right. I hope they will not desert that position and go back again to the perfectly absurd views they had on this question about a year ago.

The Deputy suggested also that not only should we produce all that we need in the way of meals, cereals, roots, etc. for live stock and the products of live stock, but that there should be some attempt made to prevent the importation of foreign foodstuffs. Why do Deputies tack on that point to a perfectly sound proposition? I make this statement without fear of contradiction. There is not a farmer in the Dáil who knows anything about agriculture, who has ever fattened cattle, who has ever produced milk in winter, who has ever fed pigs, but must know that the more cereals he produces, the more tillage he has, the more foodstuffs he will import and purchase. Practically no foodstuffs go into Deputy O'Reilly's county, Meath. That is summer farming pure and simple. There is very little tillage there as compared with West Cork. The small farmer of West Cork, County Galway, North Tipperary, who tills quite a big percentage, comparatively, of his holding, buys far and away more foodstuffs than the County Meath farmer who, perhaps, owns four or five hundred acres of land and has only two acres of tillage. Denmark produces far more butter and eggs than we do, and far more bacon, but no beef We purchase £4,000,000 worth of meals; they purchase £8,000,000 worth, notwithstanding the fact that more than half of their land is in tillage. Why Deputy Ryan, who knows something about the practical side of farming, should tack on to a perfectly sound argument in connection with home-grown food an absolutely unsound argument against the importation of more food, I do not know.

Dr. RYAN

I would like to know what exactly the Minister is charging me with, because I think I am being charged in the wrong.

Mr. HOGAN

I will tell the Deputy what I am charging him with. The Deputy made it quite clear he was entirely in favour of more tillage for the purpose of producing food as the raw material for live stock products and as food for live stock. His whole speech was deprecating the importation of foodstuffs such as maize, cotton-cake and so on. He went to great trouble to show that maize could be substituted by oats or barley. Half his speech was dealing with this point, that it was absurd in an agricultural country like this to be importing £4,000,000 worth of meals. That is the stock-in-trade argument of the Party to which the Deputy belongs. It is absolutely an unsound argument. How anyone who has ever farmed land, fattened cattle, produced milk in winter, or who has ever fed pigs, could use such an argument honestly, I could not understand.

Deputies must remember that when it comes to the realm of commercialism propaganda is no good. A small thing makes all the difference in the world. There is no doubt that we could produce all the protein food we want in this country. There is a certain percentage of protein even in roots, not to speak of barley at all, and there is protein in oats. But can you produce the protein foods which are absolutely essential? Can you produce them economically? The answer is there, if you want to look around you. If the farmers of the country could produce protein food economically from barley or oats, they would not be importing cotton-cake. I am told that maize meal is exactly the same as barley. So it is to a point, but there is a slight difference. There is a little more indigestible matter in barley than in maize meal. There are other matters. The ordinary farmer has not sufficient buildings to store barley, and he finds it convenient to buy maize meal. All these are commercial considerations— advantages, conveniences, which the shopkeeper, the manufacturer, the factory owner take into account, and which the farmer also takes into account. If the Deputy will agree that increased tillage is desirable for the purposes of feeding live stock on the farm, and will agree also that the more imported foodstuffs we get into the country, provided they are coupled with tillage, the better, then we would be at one in our agricultural policy. I interrupted the Deputy while he was speaking and I asked him a very simple question. If I am to produce all the meals I require to feed my cows, I must produce more roots, and I must farm my land properly. These are some of the considerations.

I advise Deputies not to lie awake at nights thinking too much of the amount of foodstuffs we import. They should concentrate their attention on the sound point that Deputy Ryan made. That is, that it would be sound economics to have an increase in the area under tillage in this country in order to feed the live stock, and in order to provide raw materials for live stock products. The Deputy made certain other points in that connection which I do not propose to dwell too much on. He asked himself the rhetorical question—how can the Government help in bringing about this increase in tillage? He answered it after a bit. Perhaps the Government could buy up oats at 9/- per cwt. and sell it at 11/- or 12/-. Perhaps the Government could buy barley at 8/- per cwt.—the figures are only relative—and sell it at 10/-. I do not know. I pay the Deputy this compliment—that I doubt if he believed in that. If there are oats on the market at 9/-, why do the farmers not buy them? If the farmer cannot get more than 9/-, how will the Government do it? If the Department of Agriculture takes a big mill in the County Cork and buys a couple of thousand tons of oats at 9/-, who will give them 12/- for it? If 12/- can be got for that, then surely the farmer who owns it can get it? Possibly 11/- per cwt. can be got in the early spring from the people who own horses in Dublin. I know the ordinary cab or car-driver pays 1/6 a stone for his oats and for his bran. I do not want the Deputy to quote those figures for me. That would absorb only a very small quantity of the oats in the country. But when the Deputy suggests that the Government should go into business, buy up mills, purchase the oats and barley of the country and re-sell it, surely he must know that he is advocating a proposition which will only land everybody in expense and loss. If the barley is stored in the granaries that some Deputies have spoken of, will that make Guinness give more for it? It would not affect the price by one penny.

Mr. DAVIN

It would have done so this year.

Mr. HOGAN

It would not. It might be, for instance, that occasionally the Government would buy in a rising market. That would be a gamble, and it would only come off occasionally. But, speaking generally, it would not affect the price by one penny. The only effect would be that the cost of the administration of such a scheme would have to come out of the pockets of the farmers who sold the oats and barley. But here is the real point. What is the occasion for all this? The Deputy should be logical. Having once admitted that correct economy for the farmer is to produce more cereals and roots for feeding on his own farm, why advocate that he should sell them to another farmer and buy another farmer's produce? That is what it comes to. Instead of selling it let him feed it himself, and save all the expense of taking it to the mill, of dealing with a Government inspector, of paying cartage and storing to save the risk of a lower price. Let him keep it in his farm and feed it himself. Undoubtedly there should be more tillage. This is a country of small farmers. Seventy or eighty per cent. of the land is owned by farmers whose valuations are less than £30. They may have three or four acres of tillage each. A little more would cost them nothing. It would mean that instead of farmers of £16, £18 and £20 valuations sending their sons to work on the roads in the spring-time—this may be an unpopular thing to say in some quarters—they should keep them at home and put their work into the land, into draining land, into working land, into a little more tillage, that they should leave roadwork to the people who need it more, and in that way everybody would be increasing the national wealth. The farmer in this country who sells grain is going against the times. The farmer who is attempting to market grain, whether it be oats or barley; the farmer who is attempting to market any tillage crops to any great extent—of course there may be minor transactions to which this would not apply—who makes a practice of marketing grains and roots, or any of the products of his farm, as a cash crop, is going against the times and is not going to make money out of them. It would pay the farmers, and pay them well, to keep their sons and daughters at home and working, to till a little more and to produce more home-grown food, and for every pound of meal they produced, and for every extra cow and every extra sow they kept, they would import an extra quantity of maize, cotton-cake, and protein foods of that sort.

I think I have dealt with this question of increased tillage and the methods by which increased tillage would be brought about. Deputies will note that I have deliberately omitted any reference to wheat. I will deal with that separately. I want Deputies to note that the only suggestion made by any Deputy who spoke in favour of the motion that the Government has failed in its duty was a suggestion like that—that increased tillage could be brought about if the Government bought up the grain, put it into granaries and resold it. Leaving out the suggestion with regard to a subsidy for wheat, the sole contribution from the Opposition benches on this question as to how to bring about increased tillage consisted of a suggestion by Deputy Ryan that the Government might buy up the oats and barley of the country, employ graders and inspectors, and sell it back to the farmers themselves.

Mr. DAVIN

Did he use the words "buy up"?

Mr. HOGAN

Buy—purchase. I do not see the Deputy's point. That has been the only suggestion made up to the present for increased tillage. They have all run away from compulsion. Perhaps it may come now. But the only suggestion——

Mr. SHEEHY (Tipperary)

The only argument of yours in regard to increased tillage is the feeding of pigs and cattle.

Mr. CORRY

He tells us to keep our children at home, where they would work for nothing.

Mr. HOGAN

Deputies will have an opportunity of comparing my suggestions with the suggestions that are put up from the opposite benches, and they can make up their minds about them. I am only concerned now to point out that, though this debate has lasted more than four hours, the only suggestion made from the Opposition Benches directed towards increasing the area under tillage has been the suggestion by Deputy Ryan that the Government should purchase cereals in the way of oats and barley from the farmers and resell them to other farmers. Another point was made by the Deputy, that not only should we have no importations of feeding stuffs, but that, so far as possible, we should first supply the full home market, and only after that think of exports. He suggested that I stated on some occasion that I am not concerned with imports. I do not remember making such a statement, and such a statement would have no meaning. I am concerned with imports, but in quite a different way from the Deputy. However, his point of view, apparently, is to supply the home market first and afterwards think of exports. Such simplifications of that sort mean nothing. You do not think of these two things in watertight compartments. You think of production generally and then you think of selling a thing the way you think best. That is the way the business man and the farmer thinks. I think, in fact, that it has been admitted that the agriculture of this country in the future must be the production of livestock and livestock products. I think that that admission has come, by implication, from Deputy Ryan's speech. I again omit this question of wheat, which I can deal with later; that would perhaps upset to some slight extent, my generalisation, and I propose to leave that point to the end. I think I am right in stating that it has been admitted almost directly that the agriculture of this country has been the production of livestock and livestock products, and that there has also been the admission that that must continue to be so. If that is so, it is another long step in advance, and we could then agree that we should all concentrate on increasing the production of these articles and on making them more profitable.

I am on the point at the moment that we are in fact doing what the Deputy said we ought to do, namely, that before exporting anything we are supplying the whole home market. Of course, I admit that this is another point altogether—that if we could capture the £3,000,000 and export £4,000,000 we would have achieved a big thing. But I am on a different point. That so far as we do produce agricultural products we do supply the whole home market. There is only one item on which I can be successfully challenged, and that is bacon.

Last year it was less. Where is the Irish farmer at a disadvantage compared with the English? In one way he is at a disadvantage, because he pays more for his boots and clothes, and when Deputies opposite get their way and put a tariff, not only on blankets but every piece of woollen that comes in, every piece of cloth and paper, and when we carry out Deputy Dr. Ryan's suggestion that there should be a tax on imported agricultural machinery, then the Irish farmer will be in a happy position.

That would amount to about £1,500,000. Is it worth it?

Mr. CORRY

You are paying large sums in war bonus.

Mr. HOGAN

That is another question. That may be all wrong. If it is, abolish it. We must treat the subject separately. I will take the Deputy's own figure. To produce 300,000 acres of wheat would take £1,500,000, coming from someone, and there is only one place for it to come from—that is the taxpayer. Is it worth it?

Mr. CORRY

Will it not be better than the army?

Mr. HOGAN

That is another question. This must be treated on its merits. Abolish the army afterwards, when you have done that. Of course, I must say I do not agree with Deputy Corry that 15/- per cwt. would get an increase of from 30,000 to 300,000 acres. Nothing like it. You will get no wheat grown in the Gaeltacht, very little in Galway, and very little in other parts of the country. It is only in suitable land it would be grown. You cannot get 300,000 acres of wheat grown at even the 15/-. Accepting that it would take £1,500,000, why should that be spent? What is the national advantage? There is no reason urged why there should be 300,000 extra acres of tillage. 100,000 acres would be the outside. If an increase were brought about by artificial methods those methods would have to be applied every year, otherwise they would revert; secondly, that increase is only an increase in a specific crop, and there would be a corresponding, or an almost corresponding, diminution in some other crop.

Mr. KENNEDY

Apply that to the sugar beet.

Mr. HOGAN

I will come to that in a moment. What is the advantage? I would like Deputy Ryan, who knows something about farming, to tell me. Give me £1,500,000 for ten years and there will not be in the country any shorthorn but a pedigree one. Look at what you would do with that as regards the shorthorn cattle. You would make the livestock in this country the best in the world, and have a situation like Jersey Island, having nothing but the best pedigree cattle.

Mr. DAVIN

That is a grassy argument.

Mr. HOGAN

I hope I will not hear that an argument for breeding livestock and producing livestock produce is grass. We have got past that in the Dáil. If Deputies will consider they will find there are other means of spending £1,500,000. I put it to Deputies in all seriousness, is this £1,500,000—which is a gross underestimate, as it would be nearer to £2,000,000—worth it? What is the advantage? It is beginning at the wrong end. Any increase in tillage will be only temporary and will last only while the subsidies last. The moment the subsidies go the area under tillage will go for certain. You can only bring about an increase in tillage by an increase in all your profits. An increase can only be brought about by a realisation on the part of the farmers that tillage pays, that it pays the small farmer, and even the big farmer, up to a point. In my opinion one of the real difficulties about persuading the farmers to increase their tillage is the fact that people talk so much nonsense about it. I suggest, having regard to the fact that seventy-five per cent. of the farmers are under £30 valuation, that you do the best for the farmers if you persuade them to keep one extra cow, one extra sow, and to till an extra acre of land. There is hardly a farmer in this country under £30 valuation it would not pay to do that, provided he did more drainage on his land, and provided he and his family worked harder. It would be all money coming in sometime. We cannot bank on the increased difference between production and the final prices.

We must bank on increased production, and we cannot have that unless the farmers realise there must be a little more tillage and that a little more tillage would afford them a little more live stock. If you could in ten years bring about that state of affairs it could be done for a negligible cost, and it would do one hundred times as much good and bring one hundred times as much prosperity to the country as all your subsidies for wheat schemes. We have been told we have neglected agriculture. I want to know where. I know the farmers are very hard hit, and that there is depression in agriculture. I know that the farmers for the last five or six years have had a hard time to make out. I know there are as good farmers in this country as in any other country, but unfortunately these are the farmers who never write a letter to the papers, and who have too much to do to go into the county councils to blather about Land Commission annuities, and so on. I know the big majority of them have made a real attempt to stand up to the adverse conditions of the last few years. They have done that consciously in their own interests and in the interests of the country. I claim we have done everything we could for them.

We have undoubtedly done a considerable amount for the dairying industry. The Dairy Produce Act was a great success. Irish butter was selling at low prices, and the price is still too low, and it was being undoubtedly driven off the market in England. It was in a disgraceful position in 1923 and 1924. It was being driven off the market. We put it in an impregnable position with the co-operation of the farmers. We have done the same with eggs. We have undoubtedly brought about an immense improvement in the live stock in the last few years, and we have been copied by Northern Ireland, by bringing in large numbers of first class animals. We have done a great deal for the improvement of the live stock, but the results have yet to be seen in the working of the Live Stock Act. We have made an experiment that has been received generously by all the parties when we bought over the Condensed Milk Company and announced our policy and handed over the dairying industry to the farmers themselves. That was a very big and dangerous project for the Government to embark upon. We have done that. Where have we failed? That is what I want to know. In addition we have established faculpan ties on agriculture in the University colleges, and we have organised them so as to make them so far as material advantages are concerned of an equality with any faculties in the world. We have attempted to find a new crop for the farmers in sugar beet. I could go down the line talking over our agricultural economy, and on what our projects are and what we could do for the farmers.

In regard to agricultural projects, I would like to know where have we failed? I repeat that the farmers of this country had a very hard struggle. It would be an optimist who would say that the bad times are completely over, but undoubtedly things have become stabilised. The farmer who has stuck it for the last three or four years should not be depressed and defeated now. It is not patriotic. I do not care what your views are on Land Commission annuities. I do not care what your political views are, it is nothing but unpatriotic to preach a gospel of pessimism to the farmer. Deputy Ryan knows, and every Deputy who knows anything about agriculture knows, apart from the merits of the case, that you are not going to save the farmer by talking about not paying his annuities. I suggest that we ought to have an agricultural truce, that the farmer should be left alone, and that the Deputies of all Parties should realise that if the farmer gets to be a defeatist, if he loses heart, this country is beaten. I do not care what the political structure of the country may be whether Free State, a Republic or a Monarchy, if the farmer loses heart and becomes a defeatist, this country goes down. I suggest that is the problem which is much more important than any political problem in connection with any particular form of government. I suggest that the right course for Deputies is to let the farmer alone, to give the farmer a chance. I agree that it is the business of the Government, so far as possible, to reduce the farmer's burden, whether of rates or of taxes, direct or indirect, that he has to bear.

Mr. O'HANLON

I must say that I have been greatly disappointed at this debate. We have travelled from the Argentine to Canada, round by China and Peru. We have heard read a list of statistics which were quoted about all sorts of questions—what is a balanced ration for a calf; or whether they should eat crushed oats or decorticated cotton cake. This debate reminds me of the fact that on all occasions when the farmers' interests are being discussed in this House or on political platforms, the farmers interests are always overshadowed by political propaganda, and that fact was abundantly evident on both sides of the House to-day.

I must say that I was grievously disappointed with Deputy Dr. Ryan's opening. His statistics were all right, but he could not resist bringing in his Party's political propaganda into the question into which it should not have been introduced, good, bad or indifferent. The question under consideration is: has a serious economic situation arisen as a result of depression in agriculture, and has the Government failed to take the necessary steps to remedy that? Now, another remarkable factor in this debate is the Minister's reply. The Minister talked on every subject in this debate but on the one subject that hit the spot. That was the speech of Deputy Hogan, of Clare.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister)

I forgot that.

Mr. O'HANLON

What is the farmer faced with? Agriculture has neither capital nor credit. Over 75 per cent. of the productive workers of the State are engaged in agriculture, and the balance of the productive workers are engaged in industries largely dependent upon agriculture. It is the farmers who are the consumers of the products of the industrialists. Hence it is not agriculture alone that suffers from the depression. Every citizen in this State feels the pinch, and the depression on agriculture reacts everywhere. That, in a nutshell, is the economic situation in the Saorstát to-day. That was the position of affairs when Deputy Ryan put down his motion six months ago. The main industry of the country has been allowed to lie in the condition in which it was six months ago or six years ago, because nobody takes an interest in it. The discussion on this motion has been delayed for six months. The motion has appeared on every Order Paper that has been issued in that period. Nothing has been done or attempted by the Government in the meantime to relieve the depression, and that depression was admitted. I must, therefore, assume that the Government was going to suggest and do suggest that there is no such thing as depression in agriculture at the moment. We have heard all about the various Acts which were passed for a number of years back. We were told about the Egg and Dairy Acts. The Egg and Dairy Acts were no doubt palliatives to a degree, just a little nourishment to keep the vital spark in the agricultural body. As for the Live Stock Improvement Act, this has added nothing to the farmers' incomes so far. Therefore it must be admitted that none of these Acts has improved the condition of the farmers so far as these two great needs are concerned. And what are these two great needs? What is the cause of the depression in agriculture? The cause is that the farmers have neither capital nor credit.

Mr. DAVIN

Hear! Hear! That is the point.

Mr. O'HANLON

That is the whole point. The Minister for Agriculture has a panacea. That panacea is that the small farmer should get another cow, another sow and an extra acre of tillage. Let him go down to the country and tell the small farmer who cannot pay his land annuities where he is going to get the capital for that. What about the Credit Corporation? Well what about it. Does anybody here know anything about it? There has not been a word about the Credit Corporation in this Debate and for information sake I would like to know something about it, because I know nothing about it myself. I have heard nothing about it in this House and my constituents know nothing about it. The Minister for Agriculture stated that he knew nothing about deflation and that there was only five or six people in the world who knew anything about it. I must congratulate the Minister upon having brought one of them to Ireland. I will quote you a statement from one of those gentlemen. It is a statement made by the Chairman of the Credit Corporation, a gentleman who was brought over from England to be made chairman of this body at a salary of £1,500 a year. Here is what he said about deflation, speaking the other day:—

"Many people look towards the Agricultural Credit Corporation as if it were some Lourdes Grotto of finance, with miraculous power of healing all the cripples of deflation." The cripples of deflation to whom he refers are of course the Irish farmers whose cause we try to plead to-day, and unfortunately we find many of them. The chairman of the Credit Corporation with his salary of £1,500 a year for talking platitudes like that to the Irish farmers, is certainly not a cripple of deflation, and, in my opinion, the Agricultural Credit Corporation has been, through its chairman, directors, secretary, chief clerk, staff clerks and all the minor financial experts a veritable Lourdes Grotto so far as finance is concerned. The chairman of the Credit Corporation has made another statement in which he says:—"I wish to emphasise that the Corporation is not merely a financial investigating and marketing body, such as an Issuing House; it is a borrowing institution. In fact its primary function is a borrowing rather than a lending one. Now the basis of the appeal which the Corporation will make to the investor later on is twofold; first the credit of the State, and, secondly, the land mortgages and other securities that it will accumulate as it expands. Some people appear to think that the Corporation should not trouble much about the second, since the credit of the State will in any event be the prime security for its borrowings. But after all the resources of the State are limited; its credit would be very seriously damaged if it embarked on unwise borrowing. Besides the collateral land mortgages will be a very real security for the investor. It should be obvious that the more the Corporation enhances the value of the collateral security the cheaper it can borrow, and consequently the cheaper it can lend in the long run. On all counts it would be folly for the Corporation to pursue any but a sound and conservative lending policy."

What about the farmer who pays no rent or rates?

Mr. O'HANLON

Where is he to be found? A few weeks ago I asked the President:

"Whether the Executive Council has under consideration any measure for the purpose of assisting farmers in the present depressed condition of agriculture and consequent depreciation in the value of land ... and if he will state when proposals for legislation for the extension of agricultural credit will be introduced."

The Minister for Finance replied that:

"The Government has continuously under consideration proposals for the purpose of assisting farmers in the present depressed condition of agriculture,"... and that "the experience of the working of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1927, is not yet sufficient to enable a sound judgment to be formed as to what extension, if any, is necessary in the provision of agricultural credit."

I say the place for the Government to find out the working of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, of which they say they have not sufficient knowledge, at the moment, is to ask the representatives of the people in this House exactly how it is working in the various counties, and they will very soon find the answer that there is pressing necessity for the further extension of agricultural credit to the farmers. They have it under "continuous consideration." Now "continuous consideration" of agricultural credit will not pay land annuities and debts and rates and taxes, and will not purchase seeds next spring. It will not buy stock, not even a cow or a sow, or the extra acre of tillage, and financial assistance is urgently wanted. Only yesterday I was speaking to one of the best farmers in my county, one of the most practical men in the county, and, strange to say, a very strong supporter of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I have seen him on platforms against myself on many occasions. He told me—and he comes from one of the most prosperous parishes of the county—that four of his neighbours who hitherto had been in a prosperous condition had abandoned their farms, which were now derelict. If they were put up for sale they would not get a shilling for them. Yet we are told by the Government that they have continually under consideration the question of extension of agricultural credit, and that the experience they have at present does not justify extension. These are the things the Government should be considering. No matter what may be said to the contrary, if there was an investigation made, if the Government consulted their own Party, they must be convinced that the extension of agricultural credit is absolutely necessary. I say if they do not realise that fact, and if men on their own back benches, sitting behind them, do not bring pressure to bear upon them, then a very serious state of affairs will arise next spring, bad for the Government, bad for the State, and disastrous for agriculture.

When people talk about agricultural matters there is a feeling, especially in the city, that agriculture runs on while we play. People in Dublin go to the theatres, anywhere you like, the farmer does not count. It is my opinion, and I expressed it before, that, in reality, we are a nation of snobs. Snobbery of the highest degree is to be got in this City of Dublin. The greatest snobs in the City of Dublin and it is a snobby town, are the men who have just stepped off the farm into a profession, into business, into officialdom in Dublin. They are the people who sneer at farming and everything connected with it. Some of them, if they met their fathers and mothers in Grafton Street, would go to the other side for fear they would have to recognise them in public. And when that atmosphere is here in the city, at the seat of Government, I am afraid that that snobocracy in those who have just come off the land, has destroyed the Government influence in favour of agriculture. These people have done harm, and, God knows, the Irish farmer has produced more worthless things than scrub bulls.

I am not a pessimist. I have been an optimist all my life, and if I were not an optimist I would not be here trying to do something for the farmer, because I tell you any man who comes here to do anything for the farmers is a Mark Tapley of the first degree, an optimist first, last, and all the time. Thank God I never was a politician, and never will be. I am convinced that this country can be made prosperous and financially independent. We will leave the political side of it out of this debate. Everyone has his own ideas on that. If we go about it unbiassed by Party considerations or personal prejudices, the road to prosperity runs through the farmers. If we travel that road, helping and encouraging, we shall open for those who follow an enduring prospect of happiness and prosperity which will be reflected in our villages, towns and cities. Let us get back to the plough.

Deputy KENNEDY

rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Ryan was to conclude at a quarter to ten.

Mr. KENNEDY

Three minutes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Three minutes is the favourite phrase most people use.

Deputy DAVIN

rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I would like to hear Deputy Davin if he is prepared to speak only for five minutes. After that I think it is for Deputy Ryan himself to say what he will do for the remainder of the time.

Mr. DAVIN

Deputy O'Hanlon has, in my opinion, put his finger on the real point when he states that the cause of agricultural depression is solely due to the shortage of working capital. I realise it is a very difficult job for any organisation like a Government to act in a way which a Government should act towards an unorganised producing community. The difficulty which the Government of to-day are confronted with, or which the Government of tomorrow will be confronted with, is that they have to deal with a body of agriculturists who are unorganised.

I will deal briefly with the point the Minister mentioned in his speech. He poured a certain amount of ridicule on a suggestion, which was not gone into in detail by Deputy Ryan, that the Government should purchase the grain crops for the purpose of guaranteeing grain-growers an economic price and disposing of them afterwards to the best advantage. I believe what Deputy Ryan suggested is the same suggestion that Deputy Aird put forward by inference in a question which he addressed to the Minister on the 25th October last. Therefore, if Deputy Ryan's suggestion is ridiculous, Deputy Aird's is equally ridiculous. Strange as it may appear, I agree with Deputy Aird's and Deputy Ryan's suggestion, and it would be interesting to see whether Deputy Aird is prepared to back his opinion in this matter by voting in favour of the motion.

Mr. AIRD

I see what the Deputy is at all right.

Mr. DAVIN

The suggestion which the Minister previously made in a speech he delivered at the Chamber of Commerce is that the acreage of land under tillage should be increased. How does he expect grain-growers to increase their tillage, grow grain and give a good deal of employment if they are to be confronted with a price of 12/- to 14/- per barrel for barley? The acreage under barley this year, as given in the official statistics, is 129,092. That gives a great deal of employment to agricultural labourers throughout the grain-growing counties. I foreshadow, if the prices to be given in the years to come are the same as the pawnbroking prices given to growers this year, that the acreage under tillage, as far as barley is concerned, will be decreased rather than increased. The suggestion I put forward is that put forward by Deputy Ryan and privately backed by Deputy Aird, which amounts to this: that the Government should come in at a particular period of the year and reconstruct the derelict mills all over the country, store in them the grain for the farmers, advance to them by way of short-term credits, or some other method such as the Agricultural Credit Corporation, a certain minimum figure for their grain, then hold the grain until those who want it are willing to pay a decent price, and then hand over the difference to the growers. That is an easy method of dealing with the grain situation, and it is the only method of dealing with it, as the Minister knows. The average grain-grower cannot afford to hold his grain in bad barns, because if he does it will deteriorate. If he holds it in sacks he will have to pay 2d. a week for sack hire.

The only way to deal with the situation is for the Government to come in and store the grain until those who want it will pay a decent price. We know that the Government have roughly set aside three million pounds for the encouragement of the beet growing industry. What is the position? The beet factory in Carlow which has been making good profits for the last few years offers 44/- a ton for next year's beet crop. Will that tend to increase or decrease the acreage of land under beet? I think it will help to decrease it. We will hear very few more demands from Wexford, Buttevant and Limerick for beet factories. What does that show to me and others who speak for the Labour Party? It means that as you are decreasing the acreage under tillage you add to the list of unemployed in this country and so far as the party is concerned we are prepared to support any Government or party in this House which will force the hand of the Government to provide working capital to enable farmers to till more land with advantage to themselves and to help to reduce the abnormal number of unemployed mainly due to the depression in the agricultural industry.

Dr. RYAN

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Fisheries said that we had definitely turned the corner; that the President's pronouncement was right, and my figures wrong. In order to prove his contention the Parliamentary Secretary said the price of pigs had gone up. I have looked up the prices in to-day's newspapers and I find that pigs have gone up for the last few weeks. For instance, the price of a 4 stone pig is 76/- but if we go back to September 1st the price was 82/-. A pig under 6 stone is quoted at 76/- but on the 1st September last the price was 80/-. It was higher still last April. A pig of 12 stone is quoted at 70/- to-day but it was 80/- in June, and 82/- early in that month. I hope it is not a mere fluctuation in prices. That is no reason for saying that we have turned the corner. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was unfair to make a comparison between agricultural prices in 1913 and in the present year. He said that conditions had been changed by the war. There is no doubt about that. I think when I was quoting the figures I made a contrast between the exports of Denmark to the British market and the exports from the Irish Free State. I showed that last year the exports from the Free State to the British markets were 99.3 of the 1913 exports whereas the exports from Denmark were 164.5 as compared with the exports in 1911-13. That does not fit in very well with the contention of Deputy Gorey that, owing to the Great War, Denmark got markets elsewhere across her border, in Germany, and that that was why Denmark was not now sending her full complement of butter to the British markets. If Deputy Gorey is right in his contention that Denmark had found other markets as a result of the Great War then the increased exports of Denmark are far and away greater than 164 per cent. whereas our exports are not in the position they occupied in 1913.

Deputy Gorey's principal point was that I advocated compulsion. Well, I suppose if a Government is asked to do anything that would be advocating compulsion. It is very difficult to suggest that the Government should do a thing voluntarily, because it would have little value. I am quite sure that Deputy Gorey did not object to the various Acts that were passed for the benefit of agriculture because there was a certain amount of compulsion in them. He did not object to the Dairy Produce Act; he did not object to the Livestock Act or to the Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act. There was a good deal of compulsion in every one of these Acts; still there was no objection to compulsion there. If I have advocated certain things here, as Deputy Gorey says, the logical conclusion to be drawn is that they will extend as far as the housewife. I do not think they will extend without compulsion. It is hard to foresee. At any rate, if it is going to have a good effect in the country there is no reason why the housewife should not be compelled to make bread from Irish wheat just the same as the baker.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs offered a good deal of criticism to some of our suggestions. His first contention was that the Government was not responsible for falling prices. That view is also held by the Minister for Agriculture. I do not believe they are responsible for falling prices at all, but I do not think that falling prices should excuse the Government for leaving the farmers in the position they are in. If the farmers are getting less now than they got in 1913 it is the business of the Government to reduce taxation in order to give them a chance of living. I know that the Government cannot compel anybody to give a better price to farmers than they are getting now. There might be some exceptions in the case of oats and barley. Take the case of beef on the British market. The Government cannot interfere there and cannot compel Britain to give a better price. Farmers when getting big prices during the war were able to pay twice as much in taxation as they can pay now.

It is not that the Irish Government are responsible for the fall in prices, but I say they are responsible for not bringing down the cost of government, seeing that the farmers' prices have come down. As I said in introducing the motion, if the farmers can only get 30 per cent. more for their produce now than they got in 1913, and if against that taxation per head is 160 per cent. higher, surely there must be something wrong. What is wrong is that the farmer is getting too little and that he has to pay too much for government. The fact that he is getting too little cannot be remedied. The fact that he is paying too much for government can be remedied. That is the point I want the Government to direct their attention to, and not to side-track the issue by saying they are not responsible for the fall in prices.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs said that if farmers had barley to sell for 16/- a barrel, and if it were good value for feeding, why did not some other farmers buy it at that price. That is not my point. My point is this: that 16/- is not the price at which the farmer was selling his barley. The price quoted, 16/-, was the price at which the buyers were selling barley to the maltsters. If farmers were selling barley at 14/- or 16/- a barrel, it was not my idea to get other farmers to buy it from them. My point is that they should get, at any rate, something near the value of the barley in order to encourage them to remain in tillage, and, if possible, to till more. What I am concerned about is that, as in the case of maize, it should, if possible, be regulated that people buying barley should buy it at what it is value for in order that the growers may till more.

The Minister for Agriculture said that a man could feed his barley to his own stock. That is not always possible. I know real tillage farmers in certain districts in County Wexford who keep practically no stock, except horses for working the land and perhaps a cow or two for the use of the household. They have practically no stock for winter feeding. They make tillage their business and they would grow grain still if they could sell it at a decent price. On the other hand, there would be certain people who, as the Minister for Agriculture mentioned, till a certain amount to sell, and who are prepared to buy more feeding stuffs along with what they till. That is what should be regulated. Some regulations should be made whereby the grain can pass from one person to another and that the person who is producing the grain would get a price that would induce him to grow more. The Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs said that the farmer will always produce what pays him best, and that it is an economic impossibility to make him do otherwise by State action. I think that is fairly evident. That is a very wise saying, and if the State were to intervene—not to try to make him produce something that does not pay him—but to try and regulate things so that it would pay him best to produce certain crops that would, perhaps, be doing what I have advocated.

I have never advocated that you should try to compel any man to produce what does not pay him to produce, but I have advocated that you should make it pay a man to produce what you want produced. The solution of the difficulty, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, is more production, if possible on a paying basis. "On a paying basis." In fact, according to his previous statement, you will not get it unless it is on a paying basis.

The Minister for Agriculture commenced by telling us that he know absolutely nothing about inflation and deflation. I suppose a man would not really be a finished financier except he knew something about inflation and deflation. Still the Minister says that he does know that the British financial system is the best in the world. Has he taken that on hearsay?

Mr. HOGAN

More or less.

Dr. RYAN

Or does it follow that as Britain is good in other ways she must have a good financial system? At any rate, he has not gone into this matter for himself. I suppose he has taken it second-hand in some way or other. The Minister has proved to us that the number of animals in the country has gone up from 1925, and I must say I am very glad to hear that. I do not know whether the Minister exactly accused me of trying to evade that question. I do not think he did. In any event, I did not try to evade it. The sheet which I have in my hand only contains figures for 1927-28, and the trade and shipping statistics from which I quoted do not contain figures as to the number of animals in the country at all. The Minister made an attempt to congratulate us on changing our policy since this time last year. I think it would be very interesting to go back and read up the debate we had here in October of 1927, and then read the debate which we have had to-day. It would be very interesting to learn whether the Minister has not changed more than we did. On that occasion, when I was advocating increased tillage, the Minister asked was I sure whether or not there would be any grass left in the country if this scheme of increased tillage was carried out. I think he deprecated the whole thing, and told us that dairy farming was the best form of agriculture—the most profitable form—at the time in this country. He pointed out that the farmers had discovered from their own experience that summer dairy farming was the best, that they left their cows out on grass from 1st May to 1st January, that they were dry during four months of winter and did not require very much feeding while housed—in fact, that no tillage was required. I think the Minister did not see very much wrong with that policy at that time. I am certain that at that time he did not go so far as to advocate that a man under fifteen acres should till another acre.

I do not think it is fair to accuse me of advocating a stoppage of imports. I did suggest that we should grow our own grain in order to replace that £4,000,000 worth of feeding stuffs coming into the country. If we were producing that £4,000,000 worth of feeding stuffs, and if it were found that we could use more in the country, we might then advocate further tillage, or we might, perhaps, say, "Well, now we are tilling as much as we can afford, taking into account the rotation of crops and the number of years you can allow land to remain in grass before bringing it into tillage again." If, taking all these things into consideration, we were tilling as much as we could till, and we wanted more feeding stuffs, we would have to import them and I would have no objection. I would have no objection as long as we were tilling as much as we possibly could and thereby trying to relieve unemployment in the country, and trying to give cheaper feeding stuffs to the farmers than they are getting by means of importation at present.

Perhaps the sow would not be worth it.

Mr. HOGAN

He would get a young one. He would have to wait for three months, of course. It is not a financial question, anyway.

Mr. CLERY

She might be seized for an annuity.

Dr. RYAN

A question arose here about creameries. Surely it should be just as easy for the Government to legislate for the sale of grain on the Irish market as it is to legislate for the sale of butter on the English market. The Minister, speaking on the 26th January, 1927, when introducing a Supplementary Vote, said:—

I need not now go into the question of the sale of Irish butter and indicate the weakness which was inherent in past methods...

and then lower down he says:

Before any new creamery gets the benefit of these credits it must agree to come into that federation and join up with the rest of the creameries in selling its butter in that way.

If that is not compulsion, I do not know what is. If compulsion is being used in that way, why is it—and I believe this is a fact—that the largest producer of food in this country, the Dairy Disposals Board, has not come into this federation?

Mr. HOGAN

They have always sold their butter through it.

Dr. RYAN

I apologise and I withdraw the statement. I did not know that.

Mr. HOGAN

I think it was published that they did not sell their butter through the I.A.O.S. They do.

Dr. RYAN

I see. I have nothing more to say except to express the wish that my motion will be successful. It would be the best thing that could happen to the farmer.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 73.

Tá

Allen, Denis.
Anthony, Richard.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Patrick.
Bourke, Daniel.
Brady, Seán.
Briscoe, Robert.
Corkery, Dan.
Corish, Richard.
Corry, Martin John.
Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Davin, William.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
Fahy, Frank.
Fogarty, Andrew.
French, Seán.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Goulding, John.
Hayes, Seán.
Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
Holt, Samuel.
Houlihan, Patrick.
Jordan, Stephen.
Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
Kent, William R.
Kerlin, Frank.
Killane, James Joseph.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, Michael.
Broderick, Henry.
Buckley, Daniel.
Carty, Frank.
Cassidy, Archie J.
Clery, Michael.
Coburn, James.
Colbert, James.
Cooney, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick John.
Maguire, Ben.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Moore, Séamus.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mullins, Thomas.
Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
O'Connell, Thomas J.
O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
O'Kelly, Seán T.
O'Leary, William.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Reilly, Thomas.
Powell, Thomas P.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Sexton, Martin.
Sheehy, Timothy ((Tipperary).
Smith, Patrick.
Tubridy, John.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Aird, William P.
Alton, Ernest Henry.
Beckett, James Walter.
Bennett, George Cecil.
Blythe, Ernest.
Bourke, Séamus A.
Brennan, Michael.
Brodrick, Seán.
Byrne, Alfred.
Byrne, John Joseph.
Carey, Edmund.
Cole, John James.
Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
Conlon, Martin.
Connolly, Michael P.
Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
Cosgrave, William T.
Craig, Sir James.
Crowley, James.
Daly, John.
Davis, Michael.
De Loughrey, Peter.
Doherty, Eugene.
Dolan, James N.
Doyle, Peadar Seán.
Duggan, Edmund John.
Dwyer, James.
Egan, Barry M.
Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
Fitzgerald, Desmond.
Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
Good, John.
Gorey, Denis J.
Haslett, Alexander.
Hassett, John J.
Heffernan, Michael R.
Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
Hennessy, Thomas.
Hennigan, John.
Henry, Mark.
Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
Holohan, Richard.
Jordan, Michael.
Keogh, Myles.
Law, Hugh Alexander.
Leonard, Patrick.
Lynch, Finian.
Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
McDonogh, Martin.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McGilligan, Patrick.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, James E.
Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
Myles, James Sproule.
Nally, Martin Michael.
Nolan, John Thomas.
O'Connor, Bartholomew.
O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
O'Leary, Daniel.
O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
O'Reilly, John J.
O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Reynolds, Patrick.
Roddy, Martin.
Shaw, Patrick W.
Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
Thrift, William Edward.
Tierney, Michael.
Vaughan, Daniel.
Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

Question declared lost.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 29th November.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 28 Nov 1928