Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Mar 1933

Vol. 46 No. 9

Private Deputies' Business. - Economic Policy of the Executive Council and Farming.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that the economic policy of the Executive Council has in its results so impoverished a majority of the farmers of this State that they do not possess the capital requisite for the carrying on of their industry and that in consequence the Executive Council should now take the necessary steps to supply to these farmers free of charge an adequate quantity of artificial manures, agricultural seeds and spraying material so as to enable them fully to utilise the resources of their farms.

(Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney).

Mr. Corry

It is rather extraordinary that we have this continual wail here week after week, particularly from Deputies who absolutely forgot during the last ten years that there were any farmers in this country except whenever they thought of introducing some Bill to increase the loot which a landlord might draw and put a further burden on the unfortunate farmers. These were the only occasions on which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney ever thought that there were any farmers in the Free State—except at election times. At election times he remembered them again. It is rather extraordinary to see this particular Deputy, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, coming along here week after week with this wail. His wail this time is "that the Dáil is of opinion that the economic policy of the Executive Council has in its results so impoverished a majority of the farmers of this State that they do not possess the capital requisite for the carrying on of their industry." We need not continue with the motion, and will leave it at that.

He says that the policy of the Executive Council has impoverished the farmers. Which Executive Council does the Deputy mean? Does he mean the Executive Council that were here for the last ten years and that brought the farmers to a bare-bone naked condition—the Executive Council that handed over to the present Executive Council a farming community nine- tenths of whom were bankrupt and the other one-tenth on the verge of being bankrupt? That was the position of the farming community when we came into office.

A Deputy

They are worse now.

Mr. Corry

If I am to deal with the definition of farmers as given by one cloquent gentleman in the Centre Party to-night, I do not know where we will find ourselves. His definition was £300 to £500 valuation. He defined the class of farmers he represented anyway. Evidently, I had no right to speak for farmers at all because I had only £150 valuation. Would Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney cast his mind back a little bit. Let him go back to 1931 when he stood up in this House and opposed a Bill for preventing a landlord getting away with £9,700 of loot from twenty-four tenants. Does he remember when he went into the Lobby and voted against it and in favour of the landlord getting away with that?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

To what Bill is the Deputy referring?

Mr. Corry

And he was supported in this by his most sincere friends in the Farmers' Party.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

To what Bill is the Deputy referring?

Mr. Corry

I am referring to the Land Bill of 1930, which was opposed on its First Reading and which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney voted against.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It was not an Agricultural Land Bill.

Mr. Corry

Let us go back to the time when Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney opposed an amendment on the 1931 Land Bill and when he insisted that, in fixing the value of an estate, the landlord should get, first, the landlord's interest, secondly, the tenant's interest, and thirdly, compensation for disturbance. The three all go together. Does he remember that? Does the Deputy remember when he opposed in this House the giving of the relief of the 10 per cent. interest in lieu of rent for the five years during which Deputy Hogan broke his promise—I refer to the Deputy Hogan who was at one period Minister for Lands in this House. On each of these occasions I must admit that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was faithfully assisted by his noble comrades in the Farmers' Party. On the occasion to which I refer, the secretary of the Farmers' Union——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

On a point of order, is this speech relevant to anything before the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am waiting to hear whether it is relevant to what is before the House.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Fitzgerald- Kenney's motion reads: "That the economic policy of the Executive Council has impoverished the farming community." I am proving that the policy of a certain Executive Council did impoverish the farming community, but that it was the Executive Council of which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was a member.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is very interesting to discuss what a former Executive Council did or did not do, but it is not relevant to the motion before us. The motion before us has to do with what the present Executive Council did.

Mr. Corry

I am proving that when the present Executive Council came into office the farmers were so impoverished that they could not be any worse than they were.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the basis of that reason we could go back to the very foundation of this Dáil and discuss everything that has happened since. The Deputy must confine himself to the terms of the motion before us. These terms are perfectly clear.

Mr. Corry

Very well. I know very well that those things of which I spoke are rather bitter and that people do not like being reminded of their past sins. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney also in his statement on this motion was very anxious about the future of the farmers and about the next harvest. In his statement he said (volume 46, No. 2, col. 196): "It is pretty obvious that there must be a bad harvest this year, no matter what kind of weather is coming, unless the crops are properly sown and properly manured." Further on, he says: "No matter how good the weather may be, you cannot have a satisfactory crop." And later on he said: "That means that there will be almost for a certainty a bad harvest this year." He went on to say that it was absolutely certain that there was going to be a bad harvest.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Unless the crops are properly manured.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy has been hoping for a lot of things, and none of the things he hoped for has come to pass. The farmers, as I have said, were gradually getting poorer and poorer for a number of years, but during all the time that they were getting more impoverished and finding it exceedingly difficult to meet their demands, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, in this House, insisted that no matter how badly off they were, whether they were able to find money to purchase seeds and manures or not, they should pay the full amount of their land annuities to Britain. The policy of the present Executive Council has been to keep that money at home, and that is what is bothering the Deputy. As I said a moment ago, we were gradually falling on harder times. The value of our exports show that. In 1930 we exported £21,000,000 worth of live stock and £11,000,000 worth of butter, eggs, dead meat, etc. In 1931, when Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was Minister for what I think he called Justice, the value of our live stock exports was £18,000,000, a drop of £3,000,000 on the previous year. In that year we got £8,000,000 for our butter and eggs, etc., so that in one twelve months there was a drop of £6,000,000 in what the farmer got for his produce.

Mr. Curran

How much has it been since?

Mr. Corry

The Deputy can tell the House.

Mr. Curran

The Deputy is trying to mislead the House.

Mr. Corry

While that was the position, a drop in one twelve months of £6,000,000 in what the farmer got for his produce, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney said that the farmer must pay the full amount of his land annuities to John Bull. That was the cry and that was the policy that the Party opposite continued for a number of years. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and those associated with him could remedy the present state of affairs in a short period if they did what, in my opinion, they are paid to do, and if they gave us the head of that famous secret agreement which was undoubtedly made some time last December or last January.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is traversing the activities, or alleged activities, of the late Executive Council instead of the activities of the present Executive Council, which are under review. The Deputy cannot do that, and must confine himself to the motion before the House.

Mr. Corry

I am dealing with last December and January of this year, when the present Executive Council were in office. There is no doubt whatever that some very definite agreement was made between the Leader of the Opposition and their friends across the water. That must have been made some time in December or January of this year. If there was not such an agreement, how did it come that Deputy Cosgrave went before the people two months ago and declared publicly that he was not going to ask the farmers to pay any land annuities until the end of 1934, and was then going to give them a 50 per cent. reduction? What authority had he to make such a statement if he had not some definite agreement to go on?

Mr. Minch

Commonsense.

Mr. Corry

How was he able to fix the period in which he was going to allow the farmers to go free and the period in which they were going to pay 50 per cent.? That was the statement the country got from a Deputy who had insisted that it was highway robbery ever to dare to hold one shilling of the annuities— that it was swindling.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

On a point of order. My motion asks that the Executive Council should take definite steps to relieve the existing condition of agricultural distress. I submit that the Deputy's speech up to the present has not been anywhere near the motion.

Mr. Corry

I am explaining the manner in which the Executive Council could very quickly relieve the present situation if they got the assistance that they are entitled to get from those sent in here to do the nation's work. I hold that enormous assistance could be given to the Executive Council if the Leader of the Opposition would place on the Table of the House the secret agreement that he or somebody on his behalf made, for surely to goodness he did not speak without authority when he told the farmers of the country that he would relieve them to the extent of 50 per cent. of their annuities. He surely would not make that statement unless he had some definite promise from Mr. Thomas that he could carry out the agreement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would like to know what all that has got to do with the motion before the House. The Deputy will have to confine himself to the motion, or to discontinue his speech.

Mr. Corry

I bow to your ruling. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney ought to realise that the farmers turned him down and that with a full knowledge of all the facts and of what our policy was returned us to office. The Deputy talks in his motion to the effect that the Executive Council should now take the necessary steps to supply the farmers free of charge with an adequate quantity of artificial manures, agricultural seeds and spraying materials. What is the spraying material for?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

For spraying potatoes.

Mr. Corry

The people got rid of the blight at the last general election so that there will not be such a need for spraying material in the future. I hold that the present Executive Council have done more for the farming community during the last twelve months—that they can do more and will do more for the farming community in the future in relieving the burdens that were unjustly placed upon them in the past—than all those cures that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney talks about would ever do. For instance, take the price of butter. I know very well Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is not interested in those ordinary farmers; he is interested in the farmer who has no land annuities to pay. He is interested in farmers who have a valuation of £500 or £300. These are the kind of farmers that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is concerned about. When we look along the line we see what has been done for the farmers in the last twelve months and no matter what Government is returned here in the future, even if Deputy Fitzgerald- Kenney's Party could, by some miracle, which, however, I cannot see happening, come back here again they would never be able to extract the full value of the land annuities from the farmers. That is gone forever no matter what Government one has in view. No Government will ever again be able to charge the farmers more than half the annuities that have been paid in past years. That is a lasting benefit achieved.

The price of butter has been 117/- in the English market, so that the farmers can get that price for their butter. What would they get if the Cumann na nGaedheal Party was in its position of depending upon the one and only British market? They would get 83/- or 84/-. The top price was 106/-, so that since our Government came into power the price of butter, to the Irish farmer, means that he is getting 11/- per cwt. more for his butter than it fetched in the English market before—that is the farmer who works, keeps a dairy cow and keeps a man working on his land. The Cumann na nGaedheal Party are only interested in the big farmer who produces big bullocks that grow horns and are then sent over and sold in the English market. It is the same with every other branch of farming. Those who grew barley get from 14/6 to 15/6 a barrel for it, and the highest price in the English market was 10/6; that is 4/6 a barrel difference between the price that the Irish farmer would get and the top price in the English market. The same applies as regards oats. It was £4 10s. to £4 15s. per ton; that was the top price of the last harvest in the English market. What was the price here? I sold oats for £6 15s. It is really fetching £8 and £9 and £10 to-day. I got £10.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Will the Deputy tell me where you got £10 for oats? I myself have got £8, but I would like to know where you got £10 a ton for oats.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy is one of those who is quite prepared to take all the benefits that the Fianna Fáil Party will give him and still grumble.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not consider £8 a ton a high price at all.

Mr. Corry

No, but when your Party was in power you would not get £6, and at the same time the farmer had to pay the full annuities, and if he did not the Cumann na nGaedheal Party would have the sheriff put on him. The top price in the English market was £4 10s. and £4 15s. when the Deputy's Government was in power.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Not at all.

Mr. Corry

I can produce the papers, but these are things that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney does not deign to notice at all. What I want him to get into his head is that after ten years walloping the unfortunate farmers and looting them for the landlords it is too late now to act the goat. The farmers are finished with his class; they will have no more to do with them. One would think Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was the only person representing the farmers of this country. I want to tell him that I represent far more farmers than he does.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not agree.

Mr. Corry

I represent far more farmers, than any Deputy, in my constituency. Even if every man who voted for Cumann na nGaedheal in the last election was a farmer I polled more votes than the whole of them put together. I polled within 200 votes of the total Cumann na Gaedheal poll in East Cork, so I speak for a few farmers, and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney should remember that. We found the farmers down and out. We found them under the grass policy of the former Government practically wiped out. We cannot drag them back in a year.

Mr. Curran

Would you try them now?

Mr. Corry

Yes, I would, but not the farmer with £300 valuation. We are not so interested in the farmers who were championed by loyal Deputies here to-night—the farmers who have no annuities to pay and, and, therefore, would get no relief from the reduced annuities. We are sick of that kind of thing. We do not represent these farmers. We only claim to represent the body of farmers who want to be represented here. I represent the ordinary working farmer in my constituency, the man who takes off his coat, does his work, is anxious to plough and till his own land and keeps dairy stock and a hired man to market his goods at home. I represent the farmers who will employ their families on the land and who hire men to assist them when necessary. So far as the £300 valuation man, of whom Deputy Finlay spoke, or the farmer on whose behalf Deputy MacDermot and Deputy Dillon appealed and who have no annuities to pay, I do not claim to speak for them. I do not speak for the men with five or six hundred acres and a mansion and who got them out of the rack rents they secured under Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's Land Acts. I represent the particular class of farmers who elected our Executive Council and in whom the farmers place their confidence, and we will look after these farmers in this country. The Fianna Fáil Government will look after them in the future, and I can promise Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney the farmers in this country will be both happy and prosperous in a few years because we shall keep at home that which he gave to the foreigner. In regard to the last portion of his motion I remind him again that the people of this country are fed up with the blight and they got rid of it at the last election.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I should like to ask the Deputy a question.

Mr. Corry

Certainly.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Is he in favour of my motion or against it, because from his speech I have failed to learn whether he is or not?

Mr. Corry

If Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney chooses to put down a motion like this, I think he is occupying the time of this House very badly. If Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has the courage even now to do some little bit for those whom he claims to represent, he ought to coax his friend, Deputy Cosgrave, to publish that secret agreement he made with Jimmy Thomas.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That expression was used the other night and the Chair expressed the wish that it would not be used again. I would remind Deputy Corry that when he uses an expression of that kind towards a member of the House of another State, it is disrespectful. It should not be used towards a member either of this House or of any other House outside the country.

Mr. Corry

I only called him by his own name. If that is any insult to him I withdraw it.

Mr. Curran

I have listened to this discussion for a while and it struck me that everything was introduced except what the motion really represented. We had oats, milk, butter, tillage and so on, but as far as I understand the ordinary rules of debate the motion was confined to the desirability of seeing whether or not the farmers were in a position to buy seeds and fertilisers for the coming year. I would like to repeat the question put by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney to the Government Benches and ask them whether or not they are for or against this motion? I await an answer. I am still waiting.

Dr. Ryan

Is a Deputy entitled to ask questions?

Mr. Curran

I have asked the question whether they are for or against the motion, and I cannot get an answer. That seems very strange to me. I would remind the Minister for Agriculture that another Government Department has circularised local authorities asking them to formulate a scheme to provide farmers with seeds and manures for the coming year. That may appear strange to Deputy Corry, but it is a fact. I listened the other night to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. He said: "We are the Government. We increased our representation, from 34 to 56 and 77 and we are the people." We do not deny it. Neither do I deny that farmers voted for the present Government at the last election, but let the Government take the responsibility which should be on their shoulders, and not to try to put it on local bodies and local authorities who were never intended to shoulder the responsibility of supplying seeds and manures to the farming community. I want to tell the Minister for Agriculture, as I happen to be a member of a local council, that on their suggestion last year that council adopted such a scheme and gave out seeds and manures value for something like £500. I leave the House to guess how much of that has been repaid at the present time. I want to tell the Minister for Agriculture that only £12 has been repaid out of that £500 advanced by the local authority to finance a scheme adopted on a suggestion of a Minister of this Government. I cannot see why local authorities should undertake any such responsibility. If such a responsibility has to be borne it should be borne by the Government of the country. That is my object in speaking on the motion.

I can also tell the House that at a railway station in my constituency the quantity of manures handled at that station last week was 120 tons less than in the corresponding week of the previous year and for the week before was 90 tons less than in the corresponding week of the previous year. Is that not an admission that owing to the state of affairs in which the farming community find themselves, they are unable because of lack of funds to purchase these necessary commodities? Apply that situation to every station throughout the country. I am speaking of facts and I am not going back on what the last Executive Council or the present Executive Council did. I am speaking of what is happening at the present day and that is how this debate should be carried on. A Railway Bill was brought before this House recently. I suppose it is not quite relevant to mention it now, but at the same time everybody in the House was anxious at that time to assist the railway company. Take that item alone in respect of manures and you will see that hundreds of tons of artificial manures less than the previous year have been railed. What is the logical consequence of that or the logical inference to draw from it except that the farmers of this country are not able to supply themselves with the necessary seeds and manures for the present spring?

Mr. J.I. McGuire

When I first read over the motion my impression was that it was almost undebatable. The motion contains a proposition which, to my mind, is absolutely obvious and for that reason, as I say, my first impression when I looked at it, was that it was completely undebatable. On the last occasion when we had this motion before the House we listened for 90 minutes to a speech from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, and not for one minute during these 90 minutes did we hear anything that had the slightest bearing on the motion. To-night we have been treated to a 40-minute speech from Deputy Corry and not for one minute again has he said anything which has the very remotest relevancy or the very remotest connection with the motion which is before the House. The only difference between the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary and the speech to which we have just listened from Deputy Corry was a difference of method. The Parliamentary Secretary was more adroit, more tactful, perhaps, in his approach to the subject than was Deputy Corry. It was harder to detect while the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking that he was entirely evading the issue. To-night, while Deputy Corry was speaking, it was absolutely obvious to everybody who listened to him that he was evading the issue, and you, a Leas- Chinn Comhairle, when you intervened, pointed out to Deputy Corry the absolute irrelevancy of the remarks which he was addressing to the motion.

The motion before the House is:

That the Dáil is of opinion that the economic policy of the Executive Council has in its results so impoverished the majority of the farmers of this State that they do not possess the capital requisite for the carrying on of their industry...

That is the first part of the motion and if that first part is established the rest follows as a matter of course. If in fact the farmer has been so impoverished by the policy of the Executive Council that he no longer has the requisite capital to put manure on his land, it follows that the Government should supply him with those necessary manures. I said, when I first got on my feet here to-night, that I thought the motion was undebatable. During the past twelve months, the figures for the agricultural trade of this country have dropped by £12,000,000. In other words, £12,000,000 less of money is circulating in this country to-day than there was before the Fianna Fáil Government took up office. I think that any reasonable man would be inclined to suspect that the position of the farmer to-day is attributable to the policy of the present Government.

He would be inclined, at least, to suspect, but I go as far as to say that any reasonable man would go further than that. For myself, I say that it is an absolute certainty, it is nothing short of certainty, that the present position of the farmer is entirely attributable to the policy of the present Government and an admission of that fact has been made by that Government itself, for the farmers' land annuities have been reduced by half. What is the meaning of that reduction? The meaning of the reduction, obviously, is that the farmer has, at least, been impoverished to the extent that he requires a fifty per cent. reduction in the payment of his land annuities, so that we need not go further than that. That is as far as we need go in this motion. The first part of the motion is established once we establish that the farmer has, in fact, been impoverished and a 50 per cent. reduction in the payment of land annuities establishes nothing if it does not establish that the farmer has been impoverished. Why has he been impoverished? Because the agricultural trade of this country has £12,000,000 less of money circulating within its ambit than before the present Government took up office. That is the reason he has been impoverished and that is the reason why it has been necessary to give this 50 per cent. reduction to the farmer. Having established that part of the proposition, there is no need to go any further and it is only common justice, if the farmer has been impoverished by that policy, that the measures advocated by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney in this motion should be taken.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I think that one would be inclined to agree with the last speaker that this motion is undebatable. If the policy of the Executive Council is responsible for impoverishing a majority of the farmers in this country, the question was put to the farmers two months ago, and the farmers said "It is all right. Carry on," but in spite of that we have Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney coming back and raising the question on behalf of the farmers. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney in his motion raises at least three points. He starts off by saying that we have impoverished the farmers of this country. He says, secondly, that there is a lack of capital amongst the farmers and, thirdly, that they want seeds and manures. If Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney had the interests of the farmers at heart, he would not have raised this controversial question as to whether the Executive Council were responsible or not, but he wanted to make political propaganda out of the motion rather than get something for the farmer. Why did he want to raise this question of the Executive Council being responsible? Why not start off the motion by saying that there was a lack of capital in agriculture and that the capital should be supplied for seeds and manures? Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney did not want seeds or manures for the farmer, as his speech introducing this motion, which was very clear, indicated, when he talked with hope in his heart of the coming harvest being a poor one, but he did not want to see seeds and manures supplied to the farmer at all.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

On a point of order, what I said was as clearly put as it could be—that I hoped and, in fact, I think I actually used the words "everybody must pray" that the next harvest will be a good harvest.

Dr. Ryan

I hope your prayer will be heard.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I think the Minister should not misrepresent what I said.

Dr. Ryan

I am sorry if I misrepresented the Deputy and I withdraw if I did misrepresent him, but perhaps the Deputy did not catch exactly what I said. I said that the Deputy's speech gave me the impression that he had hope in his heart that the harvest might be a bad one.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not know how the Minister got that impression. My words were perfectly clear.

Mr. Corry

No one could get anything from them.

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy had the interests of the farmers at heart, he would not try to raise this controversial subject that had so recently been settled by the people themselves—as to whether the Executive Council were responsible for the impoverishment of the farmers. He would have come here and pointed out, which any reasonable person would admit, that there is a lack of capital in the farming industry. He would have pointed that out and tried to see if something could be done to supply the necessary seeds and manures to the farmers for the coming year, but he did not want to do that. He wanted to string his motion on the allegation that we had ruined the country. The other point was only a side issue so far as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was concerned. If he was really serious about this motion and wanted to get something done for the farmer, would he have given way to his own leader, Deputy Cosgrave, on one evening here, in Private Members' time for a propaganda motion that Deputy Cosgrave brought in? Why did Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney not insist on his rights in the interests of the farmers and go ahead with his motion?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Again, on a point of order, was not Deputy Cosgrave's motion taken in Government time?

Dr. Ryan

No, it was taken in Private Members' time.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It was taken in Government time—on a Tuesday.

Dr. Ryan

On a Tuesday, in lieu of Private Members' time, if you like, but no other Private Members' time was given that week.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Because the Dáil did not sit.

Dr. Ryan

There are three points to be dealt with in this motion. The point whether the Executive Council are responsible or not does not matter a great deal to the farmers at the present time. There is, then, the point as to whether there is a lack of capital or not which, as I say, nobody will dispute. I think everybody will admit that there is a lack of capital amongst the farming community at present and there are quite a number of farmers in the country who cannot find the capital to purchase seeds and manures. We come to the last point of the motion— whether we should supply these seeds and manures or not. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney says that we should supply to these farmers, free of charge, "an adequate quantity of artificial manures, agricultural seeds and spraying material." Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was a member of the Government for a while and he, surely, must have some experience of the requirements of a Minister when asking for a thing like this. He must ask what is it going to cost, the first thing any Minister must look to before he puts up a proposition.

What would it cost if we were to give it? We have about one and a half million acres under tillage in this country. Roughly half of that is under cereals and the other half under root crops. Taking even oats, which is the cheapest seed probably of any of the crops that are sold, and take the price that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney got for his oats—taking it that it was good seed—£8 a ton, it would cost about £1 an acre for the seed and £1 an acre for manures to do the thing properly and that would mean £2, so that it would cost £3,000,000. Is it reasonable to ask the country or the Government, at present, to supply £3,000,000 towards this system of seeds and manures at a time when there are, perhaps, many other wants which we cannot meet in the way of people on the unemployment list and so on.

There are many farmers who have the seeds themselves and who have the capital to purchase seeds and manures. If there are not, it speaks badly for Cumann na nGaedheal because, if they had any little reserve at all when we came into office, surely we could not take it all in the space of 12 months. Cumann na nGaedheal must have left them on the borderline of bankruptey.

Mr. O'Leary

The people did not think so in Wexford in the last election.

Dr. Ryan

What does the Deputy know about Wexford?

Mr. O'Leary

I know where they put you.

Mr. Corry

Deputy O'Leary ought to know where they put him in North Cork.

Dr. Ryan

Someone said that it is the function of the Government to do this thing directly and not bring in the public at all. Suppose I said there were £3,000,000 available at the moment, would anybody be able to put up a scheme whereby seeds and manures could be distributed with few abuses? If you said to the farmers: "You can have as much seed and manure as you like," you will still have many of them who will take more than they require, and possibly they might use the seed for foodstuffs. In that way you have to keep a certain check. Does anyone think the Government would be in a better position than the local authorities to carry out a check?

It is not the first time the local authorities were asked to do a thing like this. Before we took up office a seeds and manure scheme was in operation. Some years ago such a scheme was worked through the county councils. Credit was allowed by the county councils for seeds and manures and when the rates were being collected a collection was also made in respect of the amount of seeds and manures given out on credit to the farmers. We really are not doing anything new at all when we ask the county councils to adopt this scheme. We sent out a stock circular, something similar to what has been sent out to county councils from year to year; in fact the very same circular as was sent out by Cumann na nGaedheal. During the last four or five months I was told by many people that this situation was going to arise. I got several suggestions but I did not consider any of them in any way feasible or workable. If anyone here can suggest a scheme to me that will be in any way workable I will guarantee that that scheme will be in operation within two or three days.

Mr. Curran

Will the Government guarantee the money?

Dr. Ryan

I will come to that. I thought that there might be a credit scheme for the merchants. We had a scheme under consideration under which a farmer who would buy seed from a merchant would sign a document giving the Minister for Agriculture authority to pay out of the subsidy that would eventually become due to the farmer the cost of the seed and manure. In that way the merchant could give seed and manure on credit and we would afterwards settle the account. That would not, of course, apply to oats and barley, because there would be no subsidy in those cases. We thought, perhaps, we might be able to manage in a particular way and that we could permit certain merchants to supply seed to those who required oats and barley and also to supply them with manure if they required it, the merchants taking a certain responsibility in the matter. That, however, appears to be unworkable. I admit there were at least two or three merchants prepared to accept responsibility for the debt, provided they could get a loan from the Government or from some other source; but the scheme would not be accepted generally. It was also pointed out to me that a scheme might be arranged under which a merchant might go to a bank in his own town with bills signed by the farmers and counter-signed by himself and the bank might be authorised to discount them. Anyway, after much consideration, it was decided that the various schemes submitted to me were practically useless. None of them could do any more than could be done in the ordinary way of granting credit facilities.

Mr. Belton

The last scheme you mentioned must be for the £200 or £300 farmers.

Dr. Ryan

No. It was thought of in a district where a £200 valuation would include quite a number of farmers. The next thing we did was to ascertain if the county councils would take over the scheme as they did in other years. We sent out the usual circular.

Mr. Nally

When did you send out that circular?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know the exact date.

Mr. Nally

Was it not last week, after the motion was put down?

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy thinks it was Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney got the circular sent out——

Mr. Nally

I am sure of it.

Dr. Ryan

He did not do it last year. I did it last year without Deputy Fitzgerald Kenney's help. Anyhow, if the Deputy so wishes, I will give Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney credit for it.

Mr. Smith

You will have to give credit to Deputy Nally too, because he was the seconder.

Dr. Ryan

Very well then, on the advice of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and Deputy Nally a circular went out to the county council and it was pointed out that necessary legal effect would be given to it later on, as was customary in other years. Replies from some county councils were unfavourable. Some county councils said that it looked as if their losses under last year's scheme were going to be heavy and they were not prepared to undertake the scheme again. Other county councils replied that they had not adopted it last year and were not going to do so this year. I thought it might be an encouragement to county councils if we offered to stand part of the loss, if there was a loss.

Mr. Curran

When was that notice sent to the county councils?

Dr. Ryan

It was sent out about six hours ago. Of course, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is responsible for all this.

Mr. O'Leary

There is something due to Thomas O'Donnell too, the Chairman of the National Farmers' Party.

Dr. Ryan

Anyway, the circular is on its way to the county councils. It points out that the Government is prepared to stand part of the loss, if there should be any loss under this scheme, provided they adopt the scheme. The Government has agreed to suffer a loss of £25,000. I think the whole amount lent by the county councils under last year's scheme did not come to more than £17,000. We are hoping the county councils may adopt the scheme in a bigger way this year and it is possible, therefore, that the losses might be heavier than they were last year.

Mr. Belton

What is the scheme, and who is going to finance it?

Dr. Ryan

The county councils.

Mr. Belton

But the Minister already knew their attitude before he sent out the circular at all.

Dr. Ryan

I know the type of reply that would come from a county council on which Deputy Belton would have his way. If the county councils suffer a loss under this scheme the Government is prepared to go half and half with them.

Mr. Belton

Why not offer to do it right away? Why not stand in 50-50 now with the county councils?

Dr. Ryan

That is what I say we are doing.

Mr. Belton

No.

Dr. Ryan

The leader of the Opposition told us one day here how well reared he was. He told us how well born he was and how well brought up he was. I wish his followers would show some of that now. Well, this scheme is dealt with in the circular which is being sent to the county councils. The circular will explain the scheme fully and I need not go into it in any detail here. This circular will explain that provided the last loan is met and provided the person is not in arrears with his rates or in arrears with any loan made last year, the Government is prepared to go 50-50 with the county councils in the cost.

Mr. Belton

Provided he is not in need of help, you will help him. That is the sum and substance of it.

Dr. Ryan

As I say, from the time this institution was started here away back in 1922 or whenever it was, the only scheme that was ever adopted for the supply of seeds and manures was by asking the county councils to do it. Last year, we did the same. This year, we are going a little further and, if the councils adopt this scheme, we will stand 50 per cent. of the loss. I do not think that the Government is expected to do anything more in this matter. I think that when Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney put down this motion he did not want the Government to do more than that, because if he wanted the Government to do anything big or generous in this matter, he would have put down a motion with which the whole House would agree. Somebody asked whether the Fianna Fáil Party agreed with this motion. Of course, they do not. The people around the country do not believe that Fianna Fáil is responsible for the poverty in the country at all. If the people of the country did they would not send us back here. Yet, Deputies opposite expect us to agree with this motion. I am surprised at the low level of intelligence of the people returned here at the last election, and at the things they ask. If Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was in any way in earnest about this motion, he would have given some little thought to its drafting. Surely, he would not have put down that the present Executive Council "has in its results so impoverished a majority of the farmers of this State that they do not possess the requisite capital for the carrying on of their industry" and, surely, he would not ask us to supply these farmers with an adequate quantity of artificial manures, agricultural seeds, and everything else they might get into their farms free of charge. According to the motion, all a farmer would have to do was to call into a Government depot in the nearest town and say he wanted 100 tons of manure, say, to sow four acres of corn, and get it free of charge as long as he was able to draw it home. The Government is to supply it and all the seed the farmer requires. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney gave no thought to that motion. I suggest that the only thought he gave to it was "what can I blame the Executive Council for, and on how much can I hang them," and then he said: "we must say that the farmers are in grave need." What are they in need of? Not seeds and manures.

If the Cumann na nGaedheal Government had been in power, the farmers would not be in need of seeds and manures, because if Cumann na nGaedheal were in power the farmers would not be sowing corn with the price that corn would be fetching in the country. We are responsible for all this. We have got a policy and Cumann na nGaedheal and everybody knows what our policy is now. As I said already, the people of the country are satisfied—all except the members of the Opposition. There is depression in the country, but in no place is there such depression as on the Front Bench opposite. Would Cumann na nGaedheal go back and examine their own policy and try to picture what this country would be like if they were still in power. They had practically said that their policy was a free trade policy. The second string to their bow was that they were on friendly terms with Great Britain and that they would get the advantage of the British markets. If that Government were here still where would we be now? A free trade policy, friendly terms with Great Britain, and the great British markets open in which to get a preference. Where would the country be?

When we brought in the Dairy Stabilisation Bill, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party opposed it and not only opposed it but obstructed it. They used both fair and foul means to prevent its going through. We can take it for granted that if they had been here there would be no Dairy Stabilisation Bill. It is true that we would have free trade with Great Britain. At the present time, according to the reports of the markets, New Zealand butter is 73/- to 76/- per cwt. and Australian butter 71/- to 74/- per cwt. At all times, while trading in the British market, the Irish butter was a few shillings below the price of New Zealand butter. Sometimes it was just the same as the Australian butter, but it was always below the New Zealand butter. That is the price that we would be getting now for Irish butter in the English market.

Mr. Belton

What is Irish butter fetching now in the British market?

Dr. Ryan

It is 76/-.

Mr. Nally

Is the Minister aware that Irish butter is quoted in the British market at 56/-?

Dr. Ryan

I am aware that the price in the British market is 76/-.

Mr. Keating

Why are you sending your butter to that market and paying a bounty?

Mr. Belton

The Minister's figures are wrong. It is 76/- after paying the tariff.

An Ceann Comhairle

I spoke already to-day about interruptions. I want to warn the Deputies that the Chair will take serious notice of persistent interruptions.

Mr. Belton

Mine was not an interruption. I was asking for information.

Dr. Ryan

We are getting 76/- for Irish butter now. That is the price that Cumann na nGaedheal would be getting even though they are more friendly with the British Government.

Mr. Belton

Does not that 76/- represent a real price of 45/- in cash when the 40 per cent. tariff is taken into account?

Dr. Ryan

No. Deputy Belton's arithmetic is all wrong.

Mr. Belton

If my figures are wrong, will the Minister tell us just what the butter fetches in the British market. Have you not to take 40 per cent. off the 76/-.

Dr. Ryan

The Revenue Commissioners do not calculate on the same basis as Deputy Belton. At any rate, I was going to draw a picture of what this country would be like under a Cumann na nGaedheal Government. I thought that that would please the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. Surely, they would like to know what the position would be when everybody would be smiling and when there would be no tariff at all, with Cumann na nGaedheal here. They would get 76/- for butter. But it does not matter what we are getting in the British market. The creameries are getting 117/- for butter.

Mr. Belton

But we have to pay for it ourselves.

Dr. Ryan

I will show you how it is paid for afterwards. If Cumann na nGaedheal were in power, they would pay five million pounds a year to England and the British Government would let our stuff in free. In fact, we are better off now.

Mr. Belton

We would have exported 16 millions more of our agricultural produce to England in the last year.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy's figures are almost as fantastic as his politics are irregular.

Mr. Belton

Surely the loss of 16 millions in our exports is much greater than——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have already warned Deputies about persistent interruptions. If the Deputy persists, I shall have to name him.

Dr. Ryan

Would the Deputy allow me to paint a picture of what the country would be under a Cumann na nGaedheal Government? The people would be getting 76/- per cwt. for butter or a few shillings less, the price of the Australian butter, instead of getting, as at present, 117/- per cwt. We are getting 117/-. Everybody knows quite well—nobody in the Centre Party and not even Deputy Belton will deny—that the farmers would not remain in cows if they were getting only 2½d. for their milk. They would get out of cows. They would say that they could not carry on. Our creameries would close down and we would get out of cows. Even Deputy McGuire, who spoke on agriculture, knows that without cows we cannot have cattle. So that we would have neither cows nor cattle. We would be driven back to pasture for sheep. We would have no cows or cattle if Cumann na nGaedheal were in power because nobody could keep cows in this country with a price of 2½d. per gallon for milk. Everybody knows that the farmer keeps the cow for what he can get for milk and butter. If he does not get a decent price he will not keep it. If Cumann na nGaedheal were in power we would have a nice country, with plenty of grass for sheep and plenty of room for exercise left.

Again, Polish bacon was coming in just before we came into power. Our predecessors stopped that. They put a tariff on bacon, but it was a tariff which enabled Canadian bacon to come in free of duty. The result was that last year the prices of pigs were lower than they are at the present time. Farmers are going out of pigs even at present, but the prices this time last year were lower still. In Saorstát Eireann, this time last year, bacon pigs were 45/- and 46/- on the average and now they are 1/- or 2/- higher at least. Even at present prices, the number of pigs is going down. This time last year, the number was going down, and if Cumann na nGaedheal had remained in power they would naturally have this Empire preference and Canadian and Northern Ireland pigs could come in. Our own farmers would have gone out of pigs; they would not be able to compete and we would be eating foreign bacon. We would, therefore, have a country without pigs or cattle. New Zealand mutton was coming in, too. It was questionable if our own people could remain in sheep or lambs with New Zealand mutton coming in, so that we would be driven back upon a country with practically no stock at all.

Mr. O'Leary

The snow did away with a lot of sheep. That gets you out of a bit of trouble.

Dr. Ryan

It is a pity it was not a bit heavier down in North Cork. As regards tillage, we had already gone out of wheat. Nobody could grow wheat in this country. As everybody in this House and in the country were aware, farmers were not going to grow wheat at 15/- a barrel. Neither were they going to grow barley at 10/6 a barrel — the Northern Ireland and British price last year—so that we would be out of barley. The same thing would apply to oats. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney would not get £8 per ton for oats if grain which would oust the oats was coming in unrestrictedly. The land would, therefore, go out of tillage, so that we would have a country with plenty of grass and nothing to eat it if Cumann na nGaedheal had remained in power. The people had better sense than to allow them to remain in power. That was the only way to save the country.

I believe that a few days ago Deputy Haslett made a rather strong speech about prices here as compared with prices in Northern Ireland. I have been watching the prices from week to week here and in the North of Ireland. Prices are a bit better in the North of Ireland but, taking seven or eight pork markets on this side and on the other side of the Border, there never was a difference of more than 1/6 per cwt. between Northern prices and prices here. There was always a difference of 1/- per cwt. before this Government came into power, so that to keep this £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, we are losing 6d. per cwt. on our pork. I have got letters frequently from people living on this side of the Border asking why we do not put a tariff on cattle, because the people of the Six Counties are sending in their cattle to be sold at Free State fairs.

Mr. Haslett

Is the Minister serious about that?

Dr. Ryan

I am serious. I have got the letters.

Mr. McGovern

The Minister is altogether wrong. I know because I live along the Border.

Mr. Haslett

Would the Minister like to have a certified report of the markets on both sides?

Mr. Belton

That statement of the Minister is as valuable as all the rest of his arguments.

Dr. Ryan

The reports I get are the Saorstát market returns which are collected by certain agents who were appointed by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. They are sending their reports to us so far as the Saorstát is concerned. We kept these agents on. I do not know who furnished the Northern Ireland reports, but they are sent in to the Northern Government, so that you cannot accuse us of tampering with the figures. Take poultry and eggs. The price for poultry is as good as it was this time last year—it is as good for the month of February this year as it was for the month of February before Fianna Fáil came into power last year. The price of eggs is just as good for February, too. I do not know how it compares with the North of Ireland price, but it is as good for the month of February this year as it was for the month of February last year, so that the economic war cannot be interfering with these things at all.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister aware that the price of eggs is lower to-day than it has ever been since the period before the famine?

Dr. Ryan

I am not aware of that.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister gets up and says the price of eggs this year is as good as it was last year.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That is absolutely absurd.

Dr. Ryan

The statement was made by the Opposition frequently during this debate that our exports are down. It is quite true that the figure for cattle exports is down but the numbers are down by 120,000. How could we export 120,000 cattle if they were not there? We were handed over a bankrupt country by Cumann na nGaedheal. There are 120,000 fewer cattle exported this year than last year but if the cash value of the exports is down, that is so because the numbers have gone down. The prices of store cattle in Great Britain—first-class shorthorn yearlings—have gone down in 1932 as compared with 1931 from £13 15s. to £11 15s.; two-year olds have gone down from £17 10s. to £15 15s.; dairy cows have gone down from £27 15s. to £25 10s. In Great Britain in 1932, as compared with 1931, the price of cattle went down by £2 per head.

I now move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 23rd March, 1933.