It is an astounding thing, and it has been remarked by many people, that when the Estimate was moved the Minister for Agriculture had no statement, good, bad or indifferent, to make on its introduction.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £276,950 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Talmhaíochta agus seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin, maraon le hIldeontaisí i gCabhair.
That a sum not exceeding £237,950 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and of certain services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.—(Minister for Justice.)
He is not here at all now.
He will be here shortly.
If there never had been the precedent that a statement was always made on the Estimate itself, together with a statement on the general position with regard to agriculture and the policy that was being pursued, one would imagine that under the present conditions, some statement of policy would be made. The fact that no statement was made is all the more remarkable when we consider the attitude taken up by the Minister when, from the Opposition Benches, two years ago, he last spoke on the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture. At that time, the Minister as reported in column 1977 of the proceedings of the 27th May, 1931, said:—
"The Minister in his opening statement did not give us any very clear or general review of the result of the working of his Department as he did in previous years. On previous occasions he was inclined to tell us what were the effects and the good results of the various Acts that had been passed under the wise administration of his Department. It would appear that he was not very much inclined to go on that line in presenting his Estimate this year."
That was the attitude of the present Minister on that occasion. He drew attention to the fact that it had been the custom not only to deal with the Estimate itself, but also with general policy, and the general position in regard to agriculture. This complaint was made even when the then Minister went carefully and in detail through his Estimate. It is therefore all the more astounding that no statement, good, bad or indifferent, is made under the present circumstances. If there is any feature outstanding with regard to the present Estimate, it is that £81,000 odd less is being provided for the assistance of the creamery industry than was provided in the last Estimate.
There is a situation in the country which has been described by the Minister and his colleagues as a blessing in disguise. The disguise at the present moment is so thick that the Minister apparently cannot get any exact picture of that situation. If the Minister wishes an expression of opinion from individual farmers, or farmers at meetings, or even if he takes the local Press, he will find that this industry which is of such importance, and which he especially is supposed to look after, is labouring under such difficulties at the present moment that the farmers declare that they are not in a position to meet their obligations, either as regards their ordinary debts or as regards State debts in respect to which the Minister and his colleagues have informed them that they will get no mercy if they do not pay. The persons engaged in the industry for which the Minister is responsible are in such serious difficulties at the present moment that they are taking up the attitude that they are not able to support the machinery of local government, or to contribute towards the general taxation imposed on them. They find themselves reducing, as Deputies of the Minister's Party have pointed out, the number of persons they have employed, and in many cases reducing wages. They find themselves up against the question of the conservation of their capital.
If there was ever a time at which, in order that the Dáil might discuss what the Minister had to say, a statement should be made, I submit it is the present time but, on the contrary, the Minister, in reply to Deputy Dillon, stated that he wanted to hear what other Deputies had to say. The Minister on the last occasion heard something of what other Deputies had to say. In order that the House might discuss this Estimate with fairness to itself and the Minister, I would suggest that the Minister should now make a statement on the general position. I have had put before me statements by some persons who are in fairly close touch with general financial conditions. The Minister for Finance would, I am sure, say that the inspectors of taxes throughout the country were very keenly alive to the general position of the finances of the country.
I have had drawn to my attention a statement made by an inspector of taxes to a person in one of our principal dairying counties, on the question of what wages ought to be paid in the agricultural industry at the present time. This inspector pointed out to this person, who was making certain claims with regard to wages in connection with income tax, that amounts of £1 12/- per week to John so-and-so, £1 5/- per week to Michael so-and-so, and 14/- per week to Patrick so-and-so, were surely excessive for milk men, as such work was usually performed by women who could be obtained at 5/-, 6/- and 7/- a week. You have the position that in March last you had Finance officials pointing out to a farmer, engaged in what the Minister himself, I think, has described as the basis of the agricultural industry, namely, the diarying industry, that 32/-, 25/- and 14/- a week for men were, surely, excessive wages, and suggesting that instead of employing men, even at these small wages, women should be employed and that suitable wages for women were 5/-, 6/- and 7/- per week.
The aspect of the dairying industry that meets us here in the City of Dublin is, first, that we have to pay something over 75 per cent. more for butter than the world price. Citizens of Dublin have to pay 1/4 a lb., as against a world price approximately of 9d. per lb. for butter. It is the basis of our agricultural industry. I think the Minister committed himself to that statement. At any rate, it is a very important part of our agricultural industry. Statistics available in 1926 show that our exports of butter alone were about 4½ millions, whereas the total consumption in the Free State of the produce of our farmers was 11½ millions. So that our butter export was one-third or more than the total consumption in the Free State of the product of the Irish farmer. Therefore, it is an important part of our industry, and that important part of our industry is in such a condition that we have to pay 1/4 per lb. for butter in the City of Dublin as against the world price of 9d. per lb., and the Finance officials administering the Government's policy are telling the people engaged in that industry, which is one of our principal dairying industries, that wages of 32/-, 25/- and 14/- per week for milkmen are excessive and indicating that women can be obtained at wages of 5/-, 6/- and 7/- per week.
The Minister knows that the farmers are in difficulties. He knows that the farmers are getting rid of their employees; that they are reducing their wages, and that they are in difficult circumstances with regard to the conservation of their capital. If the policy he is pursuing is a blessing, I think that at this stage, with the effect on the country, generally, that the farmers' difficulties are having, and are going to have, he ought, when dealing with the Estimate, at least remove the disguise and let the farmers see something of the blessing involved in his policy. Otherwise there may be too great a dislocation of labour in our agricultural industry; there may be too great a reduction of wages, and there may be too great an exhaustion of the farmers' capital. I suggest that it is an astounding thing that in a way absolutely without precedent, and in these unprecedented circumstances, the Minister should introduce this Estimate and make no statement on it.
Only one Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches has so far thought fit to intervene in this debate on the most important Estimate in the whole series. The Minister himself introduced the Estimate without making any statement whatever. I think that is almost unprecedented on the part of the Minister dealing with such an important Estimate as this, more especially when the Estimate for this year shows a reduction of, approximately, £100,000 as compared with last year, and when that reduction has been made by savings on very important sub-heads. I notice that there is a decrease of over £1,294 under sub-head (I), which provides for special schemes in the congested districts. The Gaeltacht was always the adopted child of the Fianna Fáil Party, and when they were in opposition they never ceased singing the woes of the unfortunate people in the Gaeltacht. During the lifetime of the last Government a subcommittee was appointed for the purpose of ascertaining what effective steps should be taken for the purpose of bringing some relief to these people. I was a member for a period of about 12 months of the Gaeltacht Economic Committee, which recommended quite a number of schemes for the approval of different Ministers. Practically all these schemes were approved of. I notice from the Estimate that the most important scheme of all, that providing money for the reclamation of land, has not been in operation for the last ten months. According to the Estimate only £10 was spent. I should like to know from the Minister what has happened that particular scheme. That scheme was approved of by his predecessor and, so far as I can recollect, a substantial sum of money was set aside for the purpose of enabling the small farmers in the congested areas to carry out works of reclamation on their own holdings. Everybody who knows anything about conditions in the congested areas, particularly in areas like Connemara, parts of Mayo and Donegal, will realise the importance of work of that character. I should like to know from the Minister if he has definitely abandoned that scheme, and if it is the policy of the Government not to proceed with that scheme, which was approved of, as I say, by his predecessor in office.
I notice also there is a very big reduction in the amount of money provided in the Estimates under the sub-head for the improvement of the creamery industry in this country. Whatever may be said of the Minister's policy in some respects and certainly in many respects—and I have nothing complimentary to say of it in those respects —I must certainly admit that the creamery industry is the one industry in the country which has held its own, and this is due largely to the subsidies which the State provides for the production of butter and for the export of butter. Yet the Minister has reduced that Estimate by £81,800. In the sub-head it is stated that this money is to be utilised for the purpose of providing "funds for the purchase of creameries and associated businesses; the extension of the redundant creameries; the reorganisation and sale of non-redundant undertakings to co-operative creamery societies; and the expenses of liquidation and carrying on business pending reorganisation and sale." I think it has been recognised for quite a long time that the creamery industry needs reorganisation and that it needs reorganisation badly. There are a great many redundant creameries in many counties. It was the intention of the Minister's predecessor to carry out schemes of reorganisation in many counties. The Estimates prepared during the time the Minister's predecessor was in office provided substantial sums for this purpose. The present Minister, presumably, has abandoned any intention of proceeding further with that very necessary work, if one is to judge by the huge decrease in the amount provided in this year's Estimate.
I have discussed on more than one occasion the reorganisation scheme in one particular county and the Minister is quite familiar with the circumstances to which I refer. But the circumstances of the creamery industry in that particular county are not peculiar to the County Sligo. There is a need and a very great need in many other counties as well as Sligo for a reorganisation scheme, and if the creamery industry is to be put on a safe, sound and firm foundation it seems to me that the Minister must spend money for the purpose of carrying out the schemes of reorganisation on which his predecessor embarked.
One more reason why some of the creameries in the country are in a bad financial condition is that they are not getting an economic supply of milk. There are not 25 per cent.—perhaps I should say 35 per cent.—of the creameries in the country at the present moment receiving an economic milk supply. Naturally when a creamery is not receiving an economic milk supply that creamery will find itself at the end of the year in, perhaps, an embarrassed financial condition.
This money to which I refer was provided for the purpose of relieving that situation and situations of that kind, and for the purpose of enabling the Minister in control of the Department of Agriculture to carry out a scheme of reorganisation in each county and to group two or three adjacent creameries into one, so as to ensure that the reorganised creamery would have an adequate milk supply. This decrease in the sub-head is altogether abnormal in the circumstances. As we have received no explanation and no reason from the Minister as to why he has decreased this Estimate, I can only assume that he is abandoning the scheme for the reorganisation of creamery areas and other schemes of a similar character on which this money was spent.
There are many other items in the Estimate on which savings have been effected this year, but these are the two principal ones. I do not propose to deal with the others just at the moment. The amounts in any event in the other cases are not very large, and the Minister may have some very good reason to offer why such reductions were carried out. It is customary in an Estimate of this kind to criticise the policy of the Department which the Minister administers. A great many debates have taken place in the past few weeks on the subject of agriculture——
Hear, hear.
Very little can be said on that particular subject that has not already been said. Judging by the speech which the Minister made last night it appears that it is the policy of the Government that the economic war is to continue, and that the farmers of this country would be asked to endure such accentuated sufferings as they are bound to meet from time to time while that economic war is imposed on them. It is interesting in the light of the Minister's statement to recall the efforts which are made by other countries to catch a foothold in the British markets, of which the Minister and his Government have deliberately by their policy practically deprived our farmers. A few weeks ago the Danes succeeded in making an agreement with the British Government by means of which that country is guaranteed a very big portion of the British market for a period of three years. She has been promised the allocation of not less than 62 per cent. of the total permitted bacon imports into England. She can send as much as 2,300,000 cwts. of bacon and 5½ million great hundreds of eggs into Britain, while any reduction in the quantity of a free import is to be made as gradually as possible. Under the terms of that contract the imports into Britain of Danish produce cannot be reduced, but these imports can at any time be increased by an arrangement with Great Britain.
A similar agreement has been made with the Argentine, and judging by the reports in the British Press it seems that similar agreements are to be entered into by Great Britain with other countries. We, as I say, have lost a very large share of the British market already. The Danes will not allow any sentimental nonsense to stand in their way to secure a still larger share of that market. If Great Britain pursues her present policy of extending her trade in return for an extension of trade with other countries and if she is prepared to make concessions to them in the same direction as she has already made to Denmark, what will be the position of this country in another two or three years? Is it not quite conceivable if this tendency on the part of Great Britain is continued for a period of two or three years that by the end of that time we may have lost the British market entirely?
If it is to be taken as a settled policy of the Minister and his Government to continue this economic war, and to go on saddling the people of the country with taxation for the purpose of enabling the farmers to get their cattle, other farm animals and farm produce into the British market, what will be the position at the end of another two or three years when the taxation will have reached such a point that the farmers will not be able to pay it no matter what subsidies are given to them? At the end of that time they will probably not be able to get into the British market at all with any of their produce. Whatever may be said about other aspects of the Fianna Fáil policy the Minister and the Government are certainly not justified in any circumstances whatever in making a plaything, as they have done, with the main industry of this country.
Surely it was their duty and their responsibility as well to take stock of the situation when they entered on the responsibilities of Government. It was their duty to pause before making any change. If they had taken stock of the situation, if they had paused and ascertained, as they should have done and as it was their duty to do, the full circumstances relating to the trade of this country with Great Britain and relating the trade of the country to the political ties which connect the two countries, the position would be different now. If they were possessed of commonsense at all they would have looked to these things before embarking on a policy of the kind they have embarked on, a policy which must inevitably mean an end of the export trade in agricultural produce between this country and Great Britain. The Minister's policy has impoverished the country. There is no doubt at all about that. The farmers are gradually becoming poorer and if the same policy is continued for another year or two I believe the majority of the farmers will be in such a state that it will not be possible for any Government, no matter how capable or competent they may be, to restore confidence and initiate it in them again.
All the expedients which the Minister has been forced to resort to to bolster up his policy are bound to fail. The aim of any sane agricultural policy should be to stimulate prices, not to depreciate them. The effect of the Minister's policy has been to depreciate agricultural prices all round. After all, if the Minister compares the average price of beef at present on the British market with the average price on the Dublin market, he will find that there is a very wide disparity. For the week ending 18th May, the average price in the British market was 38/4½, and in Dublin the average price was 27/6—a difference of 10/10½. For the week ending 25th May, the average price on the British market was 37/9, and on the Dublin market 26/9—a difference of 11/-. For the week ending 1st June, the average price on the British market was 37/8, and on the Dublin market 26/3—a difference of 11/5. Some time ago, in a debate here on agriculture, the Minister said that there was very little difference between the price on the Dublin market and the price on the British market. I do not know whether the Minister was quite serious or not when he made that statement. In any event, if the Minister takes the trouble to compare the prices on the British and Dublin markets for the early weeks of this year, he will find that there was a much wider difference than the difference during recent weeks.
To offset the decline in the price of live stock, the Minister's policy is to encourage the farmers to go in extensively for the production of grain—for tillage. I wonder if the Minister has taken the trouble to envisage the conditions which such a policy will bring about. Surely, if our export market is lost to us, as, in my opinion, it is bound to be lost to us if the Government persist in their present policy, what is the use of encouraging the people of this country to till more? If the farmers are to embark on a tillage policy, surely they ought to have some guarantee that that policy will pay them. Under present circumstances, what possible guarantee can the Minister offer that tillage—the production of grain crops or even root crops—will be a paying proposition? The Minister must know—I am perfectly sure that his officials will have advised him—that, under present circumstances and under present world conditions, it is impossible to make the production of grain or even the production of most root crops, a paying proposition. If Deputies look up the price of grain in most of the European countries, they will find that these prices have been depreciating for the last three or four years and that they are still falling. At the present moment there is a very rapid decline. The only line of our agricultural economy that was paying was the production of live stock. The Minister and his Government have deliberately, by their policy, destroyed that line of our agricultural economy. As I said a moment ago, this whole question of Fianna Fáil policy with regard to agricultural has been discussed here on so many occasions recently that there is very little for anyone to say which has not been already said in a previous debate. But I want the Minister, when he is replying, to let the country know quite definitely whether it is the considered and definite policy of his Government that this economic war should be continued even at the risk of losing the British market absolutely. If that is the deliberate and considered policy of the Minister and his Government, what substitute for that market is the Minister prepared to offer the farmers? The farmers want an answer to those questions. The Minister has, so far, carefully refrained from giving any indication as to what his policy will be in the event of that market being eventually lost to us. What other line of agricultural economy are the farmers to follow? Can the Minister indicate any other line which can be made to pay under any circumstances and, particularly, under existing circumstances? The Minister toyed more or less with that question when replying to Deputy O'Donovan's motion. Deputies expect now that the Minister will give a definite and explicit answer to the question as to what his policy will be in the event of our losing the British market as, in my opinion, we are bound to do if this economic war is continued to the bitter end.
I wish to bring a couple of matters to the notice of the Minister for his consideration. The first refers to the creameries. In East Cork, where I come from, there is a great scarcity of auxiliary creameries. The one creamery which we have is in Castlelyons—a co-operative creamery. For the past month milk has been sent from within a radius of 20 miles to that creamery, with the result that they find it very hard to cope with the supply. Milk has been delivered there in the morning from 7 o'clock to 11 o'clock. The milk that cannot get through the creamery has to go back, sour and unsaleable, to the farmers At the last election the Fianna Fáil candidates in East Cork promised that, if they got back to power, auxiliary creameries would be established all over the constituency. So far, not one of these auxiliary creameries has been established. It is a great hardship on the farmers that they should have to send milk long distances to the co-operative creamery at Castlelyons. The establishment of a creamery in Lisgoold was in contemplation. That would be a very central situation and would take a lot of the work off those who have to go into Castlelyons creamery. Nothing, however, has been done. On one thing I have to congratulate the Minister. He has got the farmers' sons and daughters up very early in the mornings so as to get the cows milked and send the milk into Castlelyons. To early rising, I have no objection. If people rise early and work late, it shows that they are, at least, industrious. I hope that the Minister will take serious notice of what I have said, and extend assistance to those who are anxious to establish these auxiliary creameries.
As regards the sale of calves in the spring months, a lot of these calves are imported from outside areas and have been hawked all over the country from one fair to another. They carry a certain amount of disease into the farmers' places and it takes a considerable time to eradicate it. I think the Minister would be well advised to send a veterinary inspector to examine these calves before they are put into the market for sale. There is another matter: The best of the heifers at present are leaving the country. They are sold at prices from £1 to 30/- per head and it is a very serious thing for the milk industry that the best of our stock should be going across to English farms. We will be in a different position later on to supply the needs of our dairies.
As regards flax, very little has been done. In my opinion it is a very important industry to develop. There is a small sum in the Estimates, a couple of hundred pounds, to be devoted to the improvement of flax growing. Some years ago there was a flax factory in Cork, and the farmers around Watergrasshill district and other parts of the country derived great benefit from it. It does not require rich land to grow flax and the industry should be encouraged by the Department of Agriculture. The policy of the Government and of the Department of Agriculture has been debated here before, and I have very little to say about it, but I certainly hope that the outcome of the Economic Conference, to be held in London, will be satisfactory and will bring about a successful termination of our troubles. The Minister said last night that no proposals were put before him as to what was to be done. If I am in order, I would suggest one proposal at this stage: We do not want the Government, or President de Valera, to go hat in hand to the British Government asking for a settlement. I would suggest that there should be a round table conference of the leaders of all the different Parties of this House with a view to hammering out a solution that would bring this deplorable economic war to a successful and honourable end for all parties concerned. If it goes on for another 12 months I am very much afraid that the people will be on the verge of starvation and misery and ruin. I, for one, feel awfully anxious about the conditions that exist in the country at the present moment. They are becoming very serious and I sincerely hope that in the very near future the conditions under which the farmers are existing at the present moment will be completely changed, and that they may hope for something for their labour and their time. They cannot be satisfied with war for all time. Therefore, for the peace and prosperity of the country, it is up to all Parties in this House to do their utmost to unite in one effort to bring this economic war to a successful termination. There is one more matter that I object to and it is this: the huge sum of money spent on the Department of Agriculture. It is a staggering amount considering the position of the country at the moment. Salaries are paid to officials which the country cannot afford. I think they should be drastically reduced. The reductions that have taken place under the Economics Bill, at the moment, are not sufficient. If there are to be sacrifices, let every class make sacrifices as well as the farmers. We cannot carry on the economic fight unless we are supplied with the sinews of war. The farmers at the present moment are down and out. They are looking certainly with hope to the Economic Conference and I do trust that it will bring good results, and bring about an honourable settlement of which the Irish people would be proud and pleased, and one also that would be honourable to the English Government.
As several speakers pointed out, we are in a difficulty in discussing this Estimate. It is in many respects much the same as that presented by the Government that represents the Party now sitting on this side of the House. But the procedure of the Minister reminds me somewhat of the procedure adopted, a year ago, by the then Minister for Justice, who assumed that because the items in the Estimate were the same as those of his predecessor, the policy was the same and, therefore, no explanation was due to the House. I suggest that in that way the House is at a disadvantage because the Minister must know, as the Minister for Justice must have known at the time, that in some respects there was a complete reversal of policy. There are many things, such as those mentioned by Deputy Roddy and Deputy Kent, that the country and the House want to know about before they can usefully discuss the general policy of the Minister. Having listened to some of the Deputies opposite, and having listened to and read some of the contributions from the Minister for Agriculture, I find it extremely difficult to know where, precisely, the Government stands so far as agriculture is concerned. They seem to me to be travelling along two divergent lines, and although that may be extremely uncomfortable for themselves after a while, they want to compel the country to do the same, and I am afraid that would be disastrous for the country. According to one account their frame of mind seems to be the following:—"We want economic independence, therefore get out of the English market." Getting out of the English market in practice means we are going to have no foreign market for our surplus agricultural produce, at least no foreign market with a price that will pay the farmers of this country to produce any surplus. It is no comfort to the farmers of this country to learn from the newspapers that prices of their surplus stock have fallen so low that it has induced some Continental countries to come into our markets as buyers. That is a practical demonstration that prices have fallen very low indeed. But the advent of these buyers, so far as I can make out, was not to be accompanied by an increased price for commodities.
As I say, that is one line of policy pursued by the Fianna Fáil Party and, unfortunately, it is the dominating line, so far as I can see. It is a line of policy dictated not by economic reasons, not by reasons of the interests of agriculture in this country but by politics in the ordinary sense— international politics, if you like. "Get out of the English market" and you may say "and thereby make yourself independent." That, I suggest, is the aim of the one definite line of policy pursued by Fianna Fáil. It is the policy that is dominant at the moment and it is the policy that often finds expression in the speeches of most of the members of the Ministry and of many of their followers. A great deal of the special pleading we hear in this House, a great deal of what I consider the cruel deception often practised on the people of the country about the alleged comparatively bad prices in Great Britain, is really meant to back up that particular line of policy—the line of policy that says "Get out of the English market" or, if you put it in another way, "We have got out of the English market; we have been driven out of it and we have lost nothing by that."
I suggest that all these misquotations of figures we have had, again and again, these suggestions that there is no reasonable or comparatively good price for agricultural produce in England, are solely dictated as an attempt to justify that policy—the policy that has driven us out of the English market. That is one particular line that the Fianna Fáil Party is going along but there is another line, and, though it seems, at first, to run parallel with the line I have described, it diverges after a short time. Again, starting from the desire to become economically independent, with that a priori fashion of reasoning so favoured of the Government, it proceeds to set out that, therefore, we must produce at home the basic food—wheat. Wheat means more tillage; more wheat means rotation of crops and rotation of crops means more cattle. The Minister said that was quite right when that was put up to him by, I think, Deputy Belton, and he was glad that we saw it at last. Why, then, he asks, do we accuse the Ministry of wanting to do away with cattle? We, again and again, put up to him that if this wheat policy is a success, he will have to have more cattle, but I suggest that an acknowledgment of that truth as merely a theoretical truth does not carry us anywhere, so long as he does not draw the practical inference from it, which is “Get the market for that increased cattle production.” What is the good of the Minister saying here that his policy means not merely more tillage but greater production of live stock, when, as I say, the general policy of the Government seems to be framed with the express purpose of seeing that we have no market not merely for the increased production of live stock but, even, for the live stock we have at the present moment? I suggest that a purely theoretical acknowledgment by the Minister and a mere statement that his policy means that, is simply playing with the country, unless he is prepared to put it into practice.
Does anybody suggest that, with the present policy of the Government, so far as our principal market—practically, our only market—for agricultural produce is concerned, it is going to pay to produce more cattle and other forms of agricultural produce unless that market is restored? We have here two conflicting lines of policy on the part of Fianna Fáil. They can play on whichever instrument they like as suits their particular audience. If it was a mere case of a verbal contradiction on the part of the Minister, I should pay no attention to it but it is a contradiction that strikes at the very root of the economic well-being of agriculture in this country. It is time the Ministry made up its mind as to what it wants and that is the reason why I think the House has a right to complain that, on this most important Estimate, the Minister has given no indication as to where he stands in that particular matter. Is he or is he not in favour of an increased production of live stock? According to one line of his reasoning and one portion of his policy, he seems to be in favour of it. Why, then, does he not take steps to see that we get that particular production of live stock made remunerative so far as the farmers are concerned, that, in other words, we get back the market for that surplus? You cannot have it both ways and, remember, it is not merely the general policy—we know what that is— but we have the definite statement. We had, very clearly, last November, I think, from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the definite statement that so far as that market was concerned
it does not matter whether England put on a tariff of 10 per cent. or 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. We cannot stay in that market. It may be that we may continue exporting these things at a loss to get credits abroad, just as happens in the case of Russia.
That is the policy as expounded last November by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the colleague of the Minister here. Now, I suggest that there is no good pretending that you are in favour of an increased live-stock production in this country so long as you take up that attitude. It can mean nothing except economic disaster for the country. Not merely that jumping from one foot to the other but trying to drive the country along divergent lines can only mean disaster and, therefore, that is why we feel that a mere lip service to the desirability, even, the necessity, of foreign markets is no good. It is simply the usual policy of the Government of extreme callousness to the sufferings of the farming community and to the destruction of the agricultural industry in this country.
I must say that I do echo the hope that was expressed by Deputy Kent that again an effort will be made at the coming Conference to reach some settlement on this matter and I trust that the hopes of the country will not be disappointed, because I fear very seriously, not merely the economic results of such a disappointment, but even more the moral results of such a disappointment. There is a certain point to which the callousness of the Government may drive the country; and if we confine ourselves to economic results the worst disasters may not be reached. But I trust that the Government are now wise enough to see that a settlement of this question is necessary and that they realise that every day that passes spells increased economic danger and other danger to this country, if a settlement is not reached. It was only the other day that we opened our Press and saw that even the bacon trade was threatened by a new development. It is threatened already, but it is further threatened by new developments. Let us hope that wiser counsels will prevail with the Government and that they will not be dragooned by the speeches we sometimes hear from some of their back benchers about not surrendering and not giving way in anything. What the country wants is a real effort at settlement. We hope, and I think every Party in this House echoes the hope, that there will be such a settlement.
As I said, you have the Government speaking with different voices, and one of these voices is in favour of more production. But what is to happen to the increased production when you have got it? No one suggests that the home market will be sufficient to pay the farmer, not merely for his wheat, but for the root crops and the beasts that he must produce to make that wheat policy thinkable. There may be certain difficulties inherent in the wheat policy, but, as an element in the general agricultural policy of this country, there are bigger difficulties. I suggest in that connection that the market is one of the principal considerations. As every farmer now knows to his cost, the question of the market is a prime consideration. What is the good of Deputies coming along here, or making speeches in the country, and suggesting that the English market is worthless? Figures were quoted by Deputy Roddy from different trade journals. I have one Scottish journal here, from which it is quite clear that there is a tremendous difference per cwt. between the price that cattle realise in 20 or 30 British markets, and the price realised in Dublin. Will anybody tell me that when a beast two years old, weighing 8 cwt. is bought in Kerry, and when £6 is paid on it in the way of duty when going to England, that there is still practically no difference between the price prevailing in the market here and the price prevailing on the other side of the Channel? Are the cattle buyers such extraordinary philanthropists that they are paying the duty out of their own pockets? The thing is practically ludicrous. It is the usual case of cruel deception, deception with no argument to back it up, or to justify the disastrous policy of the Government.
We have discussed the wheat policy of the Minister. Possibly in a couple of years we shall be in a position to decide whether it is or is not a failure. I suggest that any chance of success it may have is intimately bound up with the cattle trade that the Government so despises, with the export of the surplus agricultural stock, which very often they pretend to despise, and a market for it. But I always felt that there is this danger where a bounty is concerned, that a number of people who in their hearts feel that the experiment will not be an economic proposition may be induced to grow it by the bounty, and I am not aware that there is anything in the Act, notwithstanding efforts made on the different stages, to show that the wheat is of a useable quality.
A suitable strain.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy knows nothing about it. He has shown his ignorance of it.
I do not go to a doctor to find out the strain. I found it where the Minister never found it.
I am glad that the Minister has spoken in the debate at last. It is well to get something out.
Dr. Ryan
I am going to speak at length.
The Minister is going to introduce his Estimate at length later. I cannot judge these Estimates, but an explanation may be given. I am not as familiar as some of my colleagues are with the details of the Estimates, but we have carried through the Oireachtas a Cereals Act. I think it passed through this House before Christmas.
Dr. Ryan
It has not passed the Oireachtas.
May I suggest to the Minister that when a Bill gets a Second Reading the Ministry is anxious to act on it, even illegally? We have had an illustration of that in the last fortnight.
Dr. Ryan
Not always.
Here is a case where nothing at all illegal need have been done, and I expected that, having got the assent of the House to the Bill, there would be some Estimate. Perhaps there is somewhere an Estimate for the bounty for the Cereals Act, or even for the administration costs of the Act.
Dr. Ryan
It will be a Supplementary Estimate.
I suggest that if the Government was keen on jumping at illegalities, even after a Second Reading—so far as the Economies Bill is concerned—that when the Dáil passed a Bill through all stages last December the Government could, at least, have done what was not illegal by providing an Estimate. However, apparently they have a conscience, but like their policy, sometimes, it is very difficult to understand. So far as that Act is concerned, even if it is a success in certain portions of the country, I feel that the poorer farmers and the poorer land, especially in the constituency I represent, will be paying very heavily for it in the way of the bounty that the State will have to give. As that is the point I made when the Bill was passing through the Dáil I do not want to repeat it. I say that by their disastrous policy of destroying our markets, and at the same time pretending to increase tillage—which ultimately means that we will have to find markets for the increased agricultural produce—they are bringing disaster on the country, and I can only re-echo the hope that the opportunity now offered by the conference in London will be utilised by the Government to bring about a settlement.
On this Estimate I want to pay a tribute to the Department of Agriculture for the very useful work it has carried out during its existence of some forty years. I remember when the Department was established, since when it has done useful work. For a short time I was connected with the Department in connection with a very useful commodity which is now extinct. I have listened to debates on this Estimate for the past ten years. There was very little criticism of the work of the Department until Fianna Fáil came into office. Then wheat schemes were started, and there was criticism of the policy of improving the cattle trade, the milk supplies, the agricultural stations, and the giving of grants. Fianna Fáil introduced their schemes, and also introduced the economic war, so that I cannot see what need there is now for a Department of Agriculture.
Hear, hear. Save the money.
Why carry on the farce any longer? What is the use now of improving the cattle trade, improving milk production, or giving grants to agricultural schools and colleges, where boys and girls are being trained under the best possible system and by the best brains? Some of them went to these schools in the hope that they would become professors. They did become professors, and would be bright stars at the moment were it not for the policy of the Government. I am certain that some of those who are professors of agriculture do not agree with the policy of the present Government, but I suppose they have to bow down and accept what President de Valera says must be done. We have sent our boys and girls to those schools. Some of them came back to the land, practised what they were taught in those schools, and practised it successfully. They improved their herds; they improved and increased their tillage; they improved every form of agriculture which they took up; yet by one stroke of the Government Party they have lost their market, and, after all the time and money that have been spent, they are now faced with what I call a stone wall. As I say, why carry on the farce any further? There is an Estimate of £415,450 to pay the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture in the year 1933-34. That is exactly the amount that the Minister for Local Government has withheld from the rates in this State, and if we were to stop this farce at the moment and give this £415,000 to the farmers of this State it would about compensate them for what has been filched from them by the Minister for Local Government. The farmers would be nothing worse off at the moment if the Department of Agriculture ceased to function.
They would not miss it.
They would not miss it. I take one item, the improvement of live stock. Representatives from my constituency went with me to the Minister for Agriculture to see if we could get one registered Clydesdale stallion for West Cork. The Department, in their wisdom, have decided that outside a ten-mile radius of Cork City no registered Clydesdale stallion should stand. The farmers of West Cork. Who are workers, want at least one registered Clydesdale stallion in order to give us bone in our horses to carry on the farmers' work, if we ever carry it on again. I suppose it does not matter to us now whether we have them or not. We put up this case to the Department of Agriculture, and the Department, in their wisdom, turned it down. They said: "It is not you in West Cork who have to deal with this; we in the Department have to decide." The Department decided, and did not give us the stallion.
There is another matter which the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to, I think, in his speech on the Budget, and that is that they had developed the linen industry in the Free State and made it an unqualified success. You cannot develop the linen industry in this State unless you have the necessary raw material, and that is flax. I see that in 1932-3 there was an Estimate of £490 for the improvement of flax growing. This year it is down to £137. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that we had developed the linen industry in this State and made it an unqualified success, but it does not look very like it as you cannot have linen unless you have flax. The Department here had developed the flax industry, had produced an excellent seed, had their instructors out and taught all about the flax industry, but to-day although this present Government say they have developed the linen industry they have cut down the Estimate for the improvement of flax growing from £490 to £137. That is a thing I cannot understand.
As to the improvement of milk production, I suppose the least said about it the better. Deputy Corry, speaking on this Estimate the other night, said that were it not for the policy of the present Government we would be getting only 2½d. a gallon for our milk now. I am satisfied that, no matter what is going to happen, the country will be in such a condition three months from now that the farmers will be very glad to get 2½d. a gallon for their milk, and I do not know where the 2½d to give them for it is to come from.
Another matter I want to refer to here is miscellaneous work, sub-head M.1. I see in the year 1932-3 honoraria to farmers for keeping and furnishing accounts, £410; in 1933-4 it is not mentioned. There were also supervising allowances to county instructors in agriculture and assistant agricultural overscers in connection with farm accounts, £260 in 1932-3; in 1933-4 that item is not there. I think the reason for that is that the Department and the Minister saw that if any farmer did keep accounts they would be on the wrong side, and would damn the policy of the Minister more than anything else has done. It is very significant that in 1933-4 there is no allowance for this important item, because accounts and costings form one of the most important items in agriculture. The Department and the Minister in their wisdom have dropped that item, because they know that the accounts would be on the wrong side.
I want to refer also to the question of bounties. The Minister for Agriculture denied that bounties were paid on net returns. I have here some cases which prove conclusively that the bounties are not paid on the gross value of the stock exported. It is not necessary for me to read them all, but I can give one case of a farmer who sold 21 pigs; he shipped them to Birmingham on the 17th April. There was 40 per cent. duty charged on the gross price, £117 16s. 9d., and there was 12½ per cent. bounty paid on the net price. The net price was £71 7s. 11d. That is only one of a good many cases I could mention. I hope that the Minister will even now acknowledge that the bounty system is wrong.
There is just one other matter I want to refer to, and that is the Department of Agriculture Report on "Agricultural Conditions in Saorstát Eireann on the 1st May, 1933." Dealing with flax it says: "In County Donegal portion of last season's crop is still unscutched and about one-fifth is unsold," so the Minister for Industry and Commerce has a little to fall back on in the Free State when there is some flax sown here to keep the Free State mills going. It goes on to say: "The cattle fairs held in provincial centres during the month were mostly of from small to average size. Conditions generally showed little change as compared with last month, store cattle being in slow demand except in the case of really first-class lots showing condition. Fat cattle met the usual inquiry for the home trade, but export demand continued weak."
This is the gem:—
"The following may be regarded as representing the average prices for the various descriptions of stock at provincial fairs during the month:—
Calves under 1 month, £1 2s. 6d. to £2 10s. 0d. Calves 1 to 9 months, £2 15s. 0d. to £4 0s. 0d."
I wonder where the Department got this information—calves from £1 2s. to £2 10s. per head. That was the 1st May, 1933. I would sell all the calves I have at the moment for £2 10s., but I would not get it. Then we have the following:—
"First-class stores, 9 to 12 months, £3 5s. 0d. to £6 10s. 0d. First-class stores, 12 to 15 months, £5 5s. 0d. to £8 0s. 0d."
I saw yearlings from 14 months old sold in Clonakilty last Monday for £3 10s. apiece, and here we have them from nine months to 12 months at from £3 5s. to £6 10s.
"Then we have first-class stores from 15 months to two years at from £7 5s. 0d. to £10 0s. 0d."
I saw the best three-year-olds—and we have some good ones in West Cork still—sold in Clonakilty last Monday for £7. If that is the sort of information that is being sent out through the country, I do not know who are the originators of it or whether or not the parties who are sending this information are blind to he conditions of the country.
That information is more correct than yours.
I do not believe the Deputy has many cattle to sell.
As many as you have.
Well, you are one of the lucky ones if you were getting the price. We now come to some report here about corn—the oats that Deputy Cleary was talking about last evening:—
"It was reported from some districts that considerable supplies of last season's oats still remain on growers' hands."
I would not mind if we could walk our oats to the market but when we cannot even do that and it remains in the stores and the Cereals Bill will absorb 12 per cent. or 15 per cent. of it and still, during the continuance of the economic war, we will have to hold our oats.
It will feed the musk rats.
Another matter which is of importance in the present period of depression, and which the Department should take note of, is the egg and poultry trade. We have a number of egg distributing stations all over the country, and whilst at the moment, fowl, poultry and eggs are of very little advantage, still the thrifty housewife throughout the country will always have a few sittings of eggs and keep them going. While she has been selling her eggs for the past three months at an average of 4d. a dozen, if she wanted to get a sitting from the departmental stations she had to pay, for early sittings in February or March, as far as I remember about 2/6d. a dozen. She was selling her own eggs at 6d. a dozen. The price has dropped as the season advances, but it is grossly unfair that the departmental stations should be charging such an exorbitant price for sittings of eggs whilst the poor woman who has laboured hard can only get 4d. or 5d. for her eggs and, perhaps, 4d. or 5d. a pound for her chickens or ducks. It is grossly unfair that the Department should be charging these high prices for eggs. They could give the station holders some form of subsidies along with all the other subsidies they are doling out and give eggs at a cheaper rate to the poor people throughout the country who are inclined to be thrifty and industrious.
As I said, this Vote at the moment is a Vote that should be turned down. This £450,000 should be diverted into another channel. What I would suggest to the Minister is to give this money to the relief of rates and, while he is keeping on the economic war, give up all these foolish schemes which are being kept up by the Department, the experimental stations, seeds and manures, and all the other things that were right enough in their time. Their time has long gone by and it is about time that they should stop. If we have a return to normal conditions and good times and have our markets back again, I, for one, would be the first to stand for a Department that would give such useful service as this Department has in the past.
I should like to draw attention to the need for an increased bounty on farmers' butter. As far as we are concerned in Kerry, the position is very serious. A large percentage of the butter produced in the county is farm butter and the price at the moment is most unsatisfactory. Unless some system is immediately adopted by way of relief for the farmers I have mentioned their position will become very serious. It is all very well in some counties, where they are well organised and where the creameries are well developed, for the farmers in these areas to be satisfied with this matter of the bounty on creamery butter. In portions of our county, however, it is quite a different matter. There are no creameries and the hard-working farmers in those areas are open to being exploited by traders who have no scruples whatever about giving them what they like. I think that is most important.
Looking over the Estimate of 1931, when you see the export of creamery butter was £1,500,000 and the export of farmers' butter in that period was £600,000, it will readily be seen that the export of farmers' butter is by no means a minor matter and that is the reason that I put forward this point. It is an important factor and I think that, if one industry—the creamery industry—is to be catered for, the farmers should not be neglected and left, as I have said, to the mercy of exploiting traders.
Another important point in regard to Kerry is the bounty on cattle. That bounty is of no benefit whatever to Kerry because of the fact that the main export, in so far as cattle are concerned, from Kerry consists of two classes—the 1½-years-old Polly, which are open to a tariff of 50/- per head and on which there is no bounty available, and the two and three-year-old Kerry bullock, which in former years were purchased by the dealers from the midlands for the purpose of holding them and turning them out on the Dublin market or for export. At the moment, we cannot avail of the bounty in so far as that type of beast is concerned because of the fact that, even when fat, the beast could not reach the maximum weight. Such a beast could not exceed the 7½ cwts. which is the minimum in regard to the tariff, which means that on a beast from two years old onwards a £6 tariff is imposed and a dealer will not buy a beast that will not reach a weight over 7½ cwts.
When he can buy a beast that will reach 8 cwts. or 11 cwts. he will not touch the other type of animal. The result is that no one will take them off the farmers' hands in South Kerry. In Caherciveen, Kenmare and Killorglin there are hundreds of cattle of this type for sale, but there is no one to take them off the farmers' hands.
Perhaps the Minister would be able to devise some system whereby the farmers could get rid of this type of stock. If he cannot devise some such system the position will be very serious indeed. I suggest as an alternative that, in so far as this type of beast is concerned, there might be in increased bounty on live cattle going to England for slaughter, or a bounty for cattle slaughtered in this country. That may be difficult, but the position is pretty serious. So far as the hard-working farmers in Kerry are concerned, I stand up for them. It is evident to the whole country that they are hard workers, that they are industrious. We have gained practically nothing by this bounty system. As against all that, we have been purchasing and must purchase grain from the grain-growing counties. We have to adhere to the system of the admixture in the matter of pig feeding. Kerry is the greatest pig-raising county in the State and the Kerry farmers are buying produce from the Kildare, Wexford and other farmers and still we are getting nothing.
Hear, hear!
When the Cumann na nGaedheal Government were in power counties like Kerry were left out in the cold, and I am quite sure that no matter what Government is in power our county will still be left out in the cold.
It is kicked out in the cold now.
The system that obtained in the past and that obtains now is based more or less on centralisation. Whether it is that the glamour of the city has an effect on Governments, or on the people who run Governments, I do not know. Still we are in the position that our county has suffered in the past and I hope, if there is to be any justice meted out in so far as the farming community are concerned, that steps will be taken at once in that direction.
Before the last General Election the Fianna Fáil Party told us that we were on the eve of establishing a prosperous and a happy country. They promised that if they were returned to power they were going to set up industries everywhere. The first thing they did was to tackle the farming industry and they have succeeded almost in killing it, in breaking it up. They are out to make this a prosperous country and their first effort is to put the farmer out of existence. That is a thing that should not be allowed to happen in the Free State. They have practically killed the only market we had for our live stock. The 40 per cent. tariff imposed as a result of our Government's policy has not helped to improve our live-stock market. The Minister for Agriculture told us we were only 18/- a head worse off in the matter of live stock than the farmers in Northern Ireland. Where did he get his figures? At the time he spoke we were 40 per cent. worse off than the Northern farmers and now we are very much worse off. We have now a flat rate of £6 a head on cattle more than two years old; £4 a head on animals from 15 months to two years and £2 10/- a head on animals from six to 15 months.
Notwithstanding all that, we are told the farmer has nothing to grumble about. When Deputy Belton spoke here last Thursday, a Government back-bencher, who appeared to be in an excited condition, asked was there anybody in the country but the farmer. I maintain that in view of the fact that the farmers and farm labourers represent fully 75 per cent. of the population, the interests of the farmers should be first seen to. If the farmer is not prosperous the Free State cannot hope to be prosperous. You cannot make the farmer prosperous until you end the economic war. The Minister for Agriculture and I come from a county where the farmers work very hard, where they till a big proportion of their land and where they raise a lot of stock. They stall-feed the stock there during the winter months. In what way are they recompensed for all their hard work? I am aware of many farmers who fed stock for six months and then had to sell them for less than they originally paid for them.
Notwithstanding all that, the Minister says we have nothing to grouse about. He is going to make this a great country by growing corn. We will want a market for our surplus corn. Where is that market to be found? The only market we had is killed. Before Fianna Fáil got into power we had the British market for our surplus oats, barley and potatoes. Now there is a tariff against everything and our market is killed. The fact of the matter is that in our present circumstances we cannot continue producing. After the last election Fianna Fáil held a meeting in Wexford and the Minister for Agriculture, speaking there, said he did not give a damn if John Bull put 100 per cent. on Free State cattle. It meant nothing to him; he did not care.
It meant no loss to him.
Dr. Ryan
Maybe I lost just as much as the Deputy. However, the Deputy has lost enough. It is a mandamus he wants.
At the present moment we have thousands of lambs in Wexford not worth the wool on their backs, and that is worth very little. They would not pay the expense of their transit to Britain. They are not wanted at home because there is no market for them. In view of all these things how are the people to pay their annuities and their rates? Fianna Fáil told us that the November, December and May and June annuities were to be funded. They will ask for only half the annuities next November and December. Will they tell the British not to collect the annuities in the way of taxes, because in that way we are paying them, too? What is the alternative for the poor farmer? He is told to smile and pay up as long as he is able.
Tighten his belt.
If the Fianna Fáil Government love Ireland as well as they say they do, let them show their love by getting back the means of livelihood of the bulk of the people. There is no alternative for this country but to raise live stock. Some people talk sneeringly about the bullock and the rancher. The Minister for Agriculture knows quite well that we have no 200 or 500-acre farmers in Wexford. He is aware that the more stock we raise the more employment is given and the more land is put under tillage, because the stock have to be fed. If stock are not properly fed they are no use. I ask the Government seriously to show their professed love for their country by working for it.
It was rather refreshing to hear the views that were expressed by a Deputy on the Fianna Fáil benches a few moments ago. It is the same old song that has been sung over and over again since I came into this House. I am very pleased on this occasion to find that even one member on the Fianna Fáil benches had the pluck to tell the Government what the position really is and what are the consequences of the economic war. I asked the Minister on a recent occasion what the farmer could produce that would leave him a profit, and he mentioned pigs. Possibly at the moment pigs would pay, but if the Minister casts his mind back to last September, October or November, he ought to know the condition in which the pig industry was at that time. I told the Minister on that occasion that the Cereals Bill was one of the causes why the pig producer had gone out of production. The situation referred to a few moments ago by Deputy Flynn is not peculiar to Kerry. There are counties which are not suitable for the growing of barley, but the Government have succeeded by their policy in penalising the hardest working farmers we have in the country—the small farmers who are our principal pig producers, and they have gone out of production. As to the Government's wheat policy, I want to say that I am no novice in the growing of wheat. I have been growing it for years and probably would be growing it still if I had not gone too far along experimental lines. I know I can grow wheat, but what kind of wheat can I grow?
That is the point.
Yes, that is the point. I can grow it and get a good return. I have grown wheat and ground it, and for years I have fed it to pigs and calves. I have grown some this year. I will say this, that it might be advisable for the farming community to grow a little wheat for themselves, because at the prices now offering for pigs they will not be able to buy any other food for them. I see in the Estimate for the Department this item: loss on resale of stallions, £1,750 for 1932-33. The figure for this year is £1,000. I would like to know how that occurred. It strikes me as being a rather serious item. There is also this item: purchase of stock bulls, £1,500. What are they for? The policy of the present Government is simply to ruin the cattle industry, and still we see this item of £1,500 for the purchase of stock bulls that they evidently do not want. I want to know what these stock bulls are for. These are questions that must arise in the mind of every honest man who thinks about the present situation. There is no member of this House, I do not care from what bench he speaks, who can challenge this statement: that no Government can produce a substitute for the live stock industry of this country which is being absolutely ruined by the present Government.
I am not one bit adverse to increased tillage. I think it is advisable. That, I think, would also be the opinion of most farmers, the working farmers who give a lot of employment and produce everything they can. What can they produce at present that will pay them? Oats is the great cereal crop. It can be grown in practically every county. What is the price of oats at the moment? The position is that it is absolutely unsaleable. Black oats at the moment would not fetch 6/- per barrel. I know farmers who have on their hands good white oats which they cannot get 8/- per barrel for. They would not have it but for the fact that they go in for the growing of oats and of keeping some over for seed purposes, but there is so much of it in parts of my county that it is absolutely unsaleable. I agree with the other Deputies, who said that until such time as the economic war is brought to an end the money asked for in connection with this Vote could be much better expended in some other way than that proposed here.
I have been listening for the last three or four weeks to a lot of talk about the economic war, the effects of it here and to the good results that would accrue if it were ended immediately. The people who talk in that way have not told us how it is going to be ended.
By reason and goodwill.
By surrender.
There is no necessity for that at all.
Do Deputies mean to say that the English farmer has not got something to say now as to how it is going to be ended. Is his position as good as yours or worse?
Much better.
I am not going to say it is better or worse, but you are certainly in the same position. That is putting it in a moderate way.
We are 40 per cent. worse off than the English farmer, and Deputy O'Reilly cannot get out of that.
The English farmer is going to have something to say to it, and the British Government is going to see that he has something to say about it. The tariffs imposed have unquestionably increased the price of beef in England. They have had the effect of keeping it up to a standard that I believe it would not otherwise hold. Deputies may shake their heads. During the last six or seven years I have been listening to Deputies telling us here that the moment a tariff is imposed prices must go up. I believe that to be the case. I wonder has the English farmer anything to say to this?
I wonder is the Deputy playing England's game by pointing out the benefits of the economic war to the English farmer?
We will leave that to the Opposition.
Would Deputy MacDermot have a little patience? The only settlement I can see is to continue to retain the full amount of the money we are retaining here—the £5,000,000. This economic war did not start 12 months ago. As long as I can remember, and as long as my father and grandfather could remember, and his grandfather could remember, this economic war has been going on. What did the 1916 insurrection indicate? There are Deputies on the opposite benches who before and after 1916 went out, and the main reason for the insurrection was because of that economic war and the economic position that existed in this country. Is there any Deputy who will tell me that economically this country was not pressed and hard pressed? Thousands and millions of people had to leave this country, for what? In the last 20 years, and even in the last seven years, what was the reason why they had to leave? To earn the money to pay the rates and the annuities on the farms of this country. No Deputy can deny that.
It is too ridiculous to attempt to deny it.
The Deputy knows well that people left his own county of Longford. They told me so them selves.
How will they do now when they have to be fed at home, plus the 40 per cent. taken off what they produce?
They can be well fed at home now, what they were not before. Everybody knows that. They had to leave this country to earn the money to pay the rents and the rates exacted in the past. We are in a different position now. The land annuities are halved. That is the position we have got to now.
What about the 40 per cent. confiscated from our produce? Is that not paying the whole of the annuities? Face up to facts.
Dr. Ryan
Listen to the speech.
The Deputy tells us that we should make an effort to relieve these people but he did not say how that was to be done. One would say by goodwill and perhaps something else, but the other chap has something to say to that. He has some reasonable argument to make. Unquestionably he has. No one mentioned here in the course of the debate that this economic depression is confined solely to the Twenty-Six Counties. Fianna Fáil is supposed to have brought it all on, but the strangest part of the whole business is that on two occasions the people gave us a definite order to do this.
To settle.
No.
Dr. Ryan
To keep the others out.
If we went to the country to-morrow we would get a greater order. If we went down to County Meath we would get a bigger order to carry on. People are not fools at all. They know perfectly well that some great effort has to be made to get this country into the position in which it will be able to hold the market that is there. We have been losing that market since 1921. I sat here in this House listening to members on certain benches, making statements against the Opposition Party to this effect: "If you did not get that Treaty we could sell our cattle. It is the Treaty that is doing it. We cannot get any price." I think that statement is quite correct. It was the usual political dodge—the damned insincerity of it. Those men knew perfectly well that the position was that the British markets were rapidly failing. That is the real cause of the trouble. Even if this economic war were ended the British markets, like other markets all over the world, are not in a position to buy our produce and pay the price they once did. I believe that that fact must be realised. We must face up to it if we want to hold the British market. We have not been doing it and it is not because we got a form of independence that we are not doing it. The Englishman is purely a business man. It does not matter what difference of opinion we may have had. Even if a moment before we had come to blows, it makes no difference to him. As long as there is business to be done he will do it.
What stage have we been reaching in recent years? We have been reaching the stage which has been lamented in this House, that we were simply summer producers. We were unable, possibly because of the high cost of production or the low price on the other side, to maintain ourselves with any degree of continuity in that market. It does not matter what market you get or how friendly the people in that market may be, if you are not able to ensure to them a supply of any commodity the whole year round, you are bound to fail in that market. Our position since 1921, for many causes—one may be the decline of trade in England, the other may have been the financial results of the Great War—is that we have not been able to keep up our supplies and the result was that prices gradually fell. Undoubtedly members on the opposite benches will have to agree that when prices were rapidly falling, year after year, and when the quantity we exported was decreasing, it was gradually coming to the point when a position such as the present in this country would have to be faced. Huge sums of money, amounting to £5,250,000, for which we held we were not legally liable, were being paid annually to England. It was recognised by members on the opposite side as well as on this side, and by people generally in the country, that it would become absolutely impossible to meet that payment in the near future. These moneys were eventually retained and the idea in retaining them was that we believed we had a legal right to them. A settlement came from England and was accepted here on the occasion on which they had imposed tariffs, in fact, total exclusion. Did that settlement do us any good? The settlement did not do us any good because the home market we had here was rapidly declining. Until we reach a certain stage here, until we have a home market of sufficient volume, we will not be in a position to export surplus produce with any degree of success. Our effort should be to develop our home market to such an extent as that it will be able to consume a reasonable amount of our produce.
How many years will that take?
At the rate we are going in one and a half or two years.
Will you give us any help in building up that market instead of criticising us?
Why did you not ask for it in time before you got into the soup?
There are more than Deputy Hales in the soup.
There are and they are deeper in the soup than he is.
There is more than soup on the horizon; there is skilly, I believe.
I do not believe all the lamentations we hear are sincere. People who pretend to lament this position turn round and say: "It was a very lucky thing it happened; I will vote the other way. I will tell my neighbours when I go to the poll." What does such a person think when he goes to the poll? What did they think in County Meath when they went there? We were told that the Opposition Party had 10,000 votes there. They got 4,000 when they went to the poll, just the same as they did five years ago. What was the reason of that? Because these people just before voting said to themselves: "We have no duty to ourselves perhaps, but we have dependants. We have children. It is to these people we owe a duty. We cannot emigrate them now. There is no country in the world to which they can go. If we cannot develop something for them to do here, what is going to happen?" Immediately they decided: "Because of the future of the country we will vote for no party except Fianna Fáil." They did so and that is how we got an overwhelming majority.
I had not intended to intervene in this discussion and I shall only do so for a very few minutes and in consequence of the remarks that have fallen from Deputy O'Reilly in whose constituency I have at present the honour to reside. We heard in this House at the time that the economic war started that it was likely to prove a blessing in disguise. While I resented intensely these utterances at the time, I have begun to think just lately that perhaps that statement was true, but true in quite a different sense from the sense which was originally intended. I have begun to feel lately that the economic war is now doing a great deal for the economic education of this country and that, perhaps, we might be learning wisdom more quickly by that process than we could have by any other. But, if the speech we have just listened to were really representative of the economic outlook in this country at the present moment, I could not console myself with such reflections as this. I do not think, however, that it is typical of what men are saying and thinking at the present time.
Deputy O'Reilly says quite frankly that he would regard a compromise settlement of the economic war as a disaster; he would go into mourning to-morrow morning if he heard that such a settlement had been arrived at. I absolutely deny that that represents the feeling of the country, or even the feeling of the bulk of Fianna Fáil supporters. I am quite convinced that the larger proportion of people who voted for Fianna Fáil at the last election did so with the expectation that a settlement would be arrived at. They had been induced to believe that the best way to arrive at a settlement was by strengthening the hands of the Government.
Fianna Fáil orators, when they are in any difficulties over contentious matters in this House, are always able to cheer themselves by referring to election results. Whatever else they are not experts in, they feel they are experts in electioneering. I agree that there is a good deal to cheer them up, if they are not too scrupulous, in thinking about how they do at elections. They will, however, be making a big mistake, even about the lore of elections, if they imagine that the result of the last election, or the election before it, means that the people welcome the economic war. They were told in the 1932 election that there would not be any economic war; that there was not the slightest chance of the British taking any punitive steps as the result of retaining these moneys. They were told at the 1933 election that if the Government were returned to power there would soon be a satisfactory settlement. I am optimistic enough to believe that, after all we have gone through, a settlement cannot be much longer delayed. I hope, and I believe, that a settlement is coming, and coming in the near future. That is why I was unable to sit silent and not intervene when I heard what I considered a thoroughly mischievous speech, misrepresenting the views of the people, and giving extraordinarily bad advice to the Government as to the attitude they should adopt at the coming Economic Conference.
That is the main part of what I wanted to say. I shall just refer, because I am a little tired of this particular point, to the stress that has been laid once more by Deputy O'Reilly on these vast sums that are alleged to have been going out of the country; the plea that we have been bled white for so many years by all these moneys going out. Does Deputy O'Reilly maintain that there was a net payment over from this country to England every year of five and a quarter millions? I say that is an absolute fallacy. I pointed that out before in this House and I do not hesitate to point it out again. It is not just and fair to say a thing like that. We have to remember, in the first place—I have forgotten the figures now; it is a long time since I quoted them—that something in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000 out of that is coming back to holders of Irish land stock in this country; that something like three-quarters of a million of that is coming back to people enjoying police pensions in this country. That is a big hole in the £5,000,000 to start with. Though I admit it is not so strictly relevant as the figures I have given, we might incidentally bear in mind that further large sums have been coming, year by year, into this country from England in the shape of war pensions. I have been told on good authority that they are in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000 per year. I do not want to stress these figures to the extent of saying that no effort should have been made to reduce the burden of the payments we were making—not at all. But I do say that it is describing the case wrongly and unjustly to talk as if we were being bled of a net payment over to England every year of 5¼ millions, and that that was something so desperate and so oppressive that it drove us into this gigantic gamble of the economic war. I submit that it is not fair to use figures in that way.
I certainly would be one of the last to take a favourable view of the whole policy of the Government with regard to the land annuities. I have said over and over again that I would have been glad to support them to the utmost if they had proceeded on normal lines to try to get a revision of our financial arrangements with England. But I did think, I do think, and I shall always think, that the way they went about it was an unbusinesslike way, and I do not hesitate to say it, although it is unpopular, that the way they went about it, was a dishonourable way.
Nevertheless, I do not think that any of us will feel inclined to harp upon the past, or to cast reproaches upon the Government, if only now, at this eleventh hour, with the Economic Conference in front of us, with the general spirit throughout Europe making for peace and goodwill, with the view being preached by all men who count for most in the world, that the time has come for international friendship and international co-operation, and that without these things the world will perish, the Government now take their courage in their hands and act in the interests of the Irish people, what they know to be the interests of the Irish people themselves, and not according to the catch-cries of their more benighed followers. We shall all be grateful to them and congratulate them so far as the making of a settlement is concerned.
I was very glad to hear the sentiments expressed by Deputy MacDermot. Certainly, in a crisis like this, I am proud to hear the Leader of one Party in the House say that our private feelings should be made subservient to the national interest. I shall go as far back as 1926, if the House will excuse me for going into what is perhaps ancient history. Since 1926, from all our platforms, we told the people that we would retain the land annuities.
There may be certain repercussions from that attitude. We knew we would have to suffer a little through that attitude, but at the same time we went before the people two, three and four times on the policy or principle of the retention of the land annuities. The people returned us in 1932. Standing then on the Fianna Fáil platform I told the people as a farmer and a candidate that we would retain the land annuities. I am a farmer Deputy representing perhaps the majority of the farmers in Limerick. I told them that no matter what the consequences were we would retain the land annuities and the farmers voted for us twice. That is at the General Elections in 1932 and 1933. A year ago we were told a fortnight before the British imposed a tariff as a result of our retention of the land annuities, that cattle prices had gone down. These cattle prices had gone down this time 12 months before the imposition of the British tariff. We hear this growl here about the result of the economic war. I will ask the House to go back to the time before the economic war with the British—to go back to the time when the British deflated the £1. That was in 1921 and farmers were losing in their cattle then. We lost from £10 to £20 a head that time on cattle. As a matter of fact I lost it myself.
The present issue is a national one and I have better faith in the national spirit and in the national outlook of the Irish farmers than to believe that they would have been influenced by such a cry as we are hearing now. I believe the national spirit to be more firmly planted in the Irish farmers. Personally I dislike intervening in the debate, but I do intervene because I resent the farmers being trotted out in this House by doctors, lawyers, shopkeepers and everybody as people who are suffering in the fight. They are trotted out on every occasion, and as a farmer and on behalf of the farmers I resent it. I say that the farmers of the County Limerick are absolutely and entirely behind President de Valera in this fight.
Does Deputy Ryan want it settled or not?
I want to say a few words in connection with this Vote, seeing that it is costing the country so much, and that it is one of the most important Votes that come before the Dáil. I think it is only right and proper that I, as representing a county nearest the Six Counties and recognising the sufferings of the farming community should say something on this question. It has been stated by many speakers on the Fianna Fáil Benches that the farmers are as well off to-day as they were a year or two years ago. It has been actually asserted by members of the Government that the prices prevailing in the Free State for size stock are very little below those prevailing in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. Commonsense tells me, although not a farmer, that when a cattle dealer goes into a fair the first thing he has got to reckon with is— what will be his expenses and what is the price that he can afford to pay for the cattle which he buys. If my information is correct, the very first thing and the first expense he has to meet is the £6 tariff which he has got to pay before he can land those cattle in Great Britain. I put it to the members on the Fianna Fáil Benches that the man who pays that £6 is surely the man who is selling the cattle.
We will assume for the moment that the other expenses on the cattle are stationary. They do not change very much. There are expenses by way of rail and steamer and so it is that for cattle on which there are tariffs of £6, £4, £3 and down to 25/- on calves, the amount of the tariff will have to be paid by the farmer. It is the same with the pig industry. We had it trotted out here the other evening by Deputy Corry that the price of pork was 2/- per cwt. more this year than last year. Agreed. But that is not the issue. That is not the position as far as the farmer who has to dispose of his pork in the Free State is concerned. The issue is that the North of Ireland farmer is to-day receiving from 7/- to 8/- a cwt. more than the Free State farmer is receiving for his pork.
Question!
Deputies representing Southern counties know nothing about what is happening in the North. They have shown a clean pair of heels to the North. They have deserted the North. As one who has experience of what is happening over the Border, and knows the prices quoted at fairs as we can all see from the Press, what affects the position there is that the Free State farmer is selling his dead pork at 6/-, 7/- or 8/- per cwt. less than the price at which his neighbour across the Border gets for it. That is a fact that cannot be contradicted and there is no use in Deputy Ryan saying: "Give us this or give us that." I am not here to tell anything that is not true. It is seldom that I intervene in discussions at all, but knowing the position of the farmers at the present time and seeing the hardships they endure, I would, I think, be failing in my duty if I did not get up here and state what I believe to be the truth. The facts that I am stating are true and cannot be contradicted.
It is the same way with every section or department of the agricultural economy of the Free State farmer at the present time. He is suffering all round. The irony of the whole situation is this, that he can get no reward and no return for his sufferings. It is the same in the matter of his potatoes as it is with his pigs and cattle in the County Louth. There we have an extraordinary position, especially in the Cooley area. The farmers of that district are the most hard-working and industrious section of the farming community to be found in this or any other country. During the past 12 months they have been compelled to sell their potatoes at 15/- a ton. That is less than 1¼d. per stone. Then you have what I might call the extraordinary policy of the Minister giving a bounty of £2 on an article for which the farmer receives only 15/-. In other words, according to the Fianna Fáil policy, the British market is no earthly use to the Free State farmer but yet, in the opinion of the Minister for Agriculture, it is so important to the farmers of Cooley that he is prepared to give £2 bounty for every ton of potatoes exported from that area to the British markets.
The irony of the whole thing is that the farmers there are only receiving 15/- per ton. What is more, owing to the policy of the Minister's Department, the farmers in that area cannot dispose of their potatoes in any market other than the British market. The only consolation those farmers received was 12 or 18 months ago when they sent a deputation to the then acting Minister for Agriculture—the Minister for Defence. That Minister's solution of their difficulties was that they should grow strawberries.
The Minister is your bête noire.
Dr. Ryan
They are growing them.
That is the position so far as the farming community is concerned. Although it was said during the last general election that, after all, the Irish farmer is always complaining, yet as one representing the urban areas, I have always held the opinion that the agricultural industry is essential if the cities and towns of this State are to prosper. It is a well-known fact that the agricultural community absorb a very large percentage of the products of our factories. If the Government continues its present policy, does not commensense tell us that in the ordinary evolution of affairs with the present prices prevailing for agricultural produce the farmer will find it impossible to buy the products of the factories which we all hope to see set up and some of which have been set up during the past year or two. Are not the interests of the farming community and the interests of the people of the cities and towns interdependent and mutual? You cannot legislate for one without taking into consideration the position of the other. At the moment the policy of the Government is rendering the position of the farmer more hopeless and more confused each day of the week. That policy is weakening the farmers' capacity to make purchases. If he is making any purchases they are of a very attenuated nature. I do not pretend to know very much about the agricultural industry. At the same time I have eyes to see and ears to hear. I do not want statistics. I can go out and get any information I want from observation. You can count more on the information you receive from observation than on the information you receive through books. I can safely say that the farming community, whether they support Fianna Fáil, Cumann na nGaedheal, Labour or any other Party, are hoping that a settlement will be arrived at whereby this economic war will be ended and they will be allowed to pursue their ordinary tasks—that they will be allowed to dispose of the products of their farms, whether in the form of cattle, sheep, pigs, or any other part of their agricultural economy to the best advantage.
In other words, the position is that the majority of the farmers of this State would much prefer to have the state of affairs existing previously— namely, paying their annuities, paying their debts as they always paid them, and having their market restored. It has been stated here that it will be necessary to pay £5,000,000 for that market if a settlement is effected. Does it ever occur to Deputies on the Government Benches that we are at the moment paying much more than £5,000,000.
How?
Have Deputies on the Government Benches read the statement of Mr. Chamberlain, Chancellor of the British Exchequer, in which he stated that in the coming Budget they expected to receive, as a result of the duties on our cattle, our pigs, our butter, our eggs, and our poultry a sum of almost £3,000,000?
That is not £5,000,000.
As a result of the policy of the Government in taxing many of the commodities which the farmers, in common with other sections of the people have to import, the Government have extorted from the people a sum in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000. That is almost £4,500,000. All that is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the Free State. Not one penny of that £3,000,000 which Mr. Chamberlain hopes to get this year is coming out of the pockets of John Bull. It is all coming out of the pockets of the farmers and of the other sections of the people of this State who have occasion to buy those articles which have been tariffed and which are necessary to enable the people to carry on. That is the position as I see it at the moment, and no amount of camouflage and no amount of this big, wild talk about not surrendering to England will be of any avail. The fact is that deep down in the hearts of the Deputies on the Government Benches and of many of their chief supporters in the country is the hope that this settlement will come. The only difference between them and others is that they do not want to say so in public. But it is a well-known fact and Deputies opposite cannot hide it Deputy O'Reilly referred to our young people having to live in the country. I am listening to that talk for the past forty years. Irishmen will roam and emigrate no matter what the condition of affairs is here. The sooner we recognise that fact the better. If emigration were open to-morrow 250,000 Irishmen would show a clean pair of heels to this country. There is no use in this camouflage and bluff. There is no use making the pretence that young Irishmen are going to stay here and starve. If the policy of Fianna Fáil is to continue, we shall be back to the Stone Age when people were living on yellow Indian meal three times a day.
Dr. Ryan
In the Stone Age?
That is the standard of living secretly advocated by Fianna Fáil. It is only last week at a meeting——
Dr. Ryan
I rise to a point of order. The Deputy is only supposed to deal with a year's expenditure. The Stone Age is too far away.
Perhaps Deputy Coburn would move to report progress now?
I move to report, progress.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again to-morrow.