Vote No. 25—Supplementary Agricultural Grants (Resumed).

Debate resumed upon the following motion:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £450,489 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 an Deontas Talmhaíochta do mhéadú (Uimh. 35 de 1925 agus Uimh. 28 de 1931).

That a sum not exceeding £450,489 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, to increase the Agricultural Grant (No. 35 of 1925 and No. 28 of 1931).—(Minister for Finance).

Mr. Brennan

I think, as a member of a local authority, I ought at least to enter some protest against what might be described as the scant courtesy shown to local councils all over the country when the Government proposed to reduce the agricultural grants. As a matter of fact, we did have intimation previously that our grants would be the same as before, and the local councils, acting on that information, proceeded to frame their estimates. When they had framed their estimates, and made provision for the general expenditure, they were actually informed that the grant was to be reduced by a certain amount. Not alone was that a hardship upon the local authorities, and the farming community of the county who had already lost their markets, and were unable to pay their way, but it showed a great lack of courtesy to the local authorities that they were not informed in time of the situation that they had to meet.

I do not remember ever in the history of local government—at least during my connection with it—when local authorities were treated with the same lack of courtesy as they were treated during that period. The position of local authorities is not at all times, perhaps, a very happy one. They have to make provision for the general expenditure on the public services and, largely irrespective of the position of the people who have to carry on the public services, they have to strike rates and, sometimes, to take very drastic steps to see that the rates are paid. As I have said, the position is not always very happy, but to be shown such scant courtesy as we were shown on that occasion was something new. The local authorities were called upon to make their estimates and, having made them, they were told that the bases on which they framed the estimates were false. They were told, in effect, that the local authorities would be curtailed to the extent of £448,000 for the coming year. Not alone was that uncalled for, but I think it was discourtesy, particularly coming on top of the fact that the farmers had already lost their markets and that their resources were dwindling. I think it was a very bad step. As a member of a local authority, I certainly do not want to make any statement here, or in any other place, that might be construed as saying that the rates cannot or ought not to be paid; but certainly I do not look forward to the future collection of rates with very happy feelings. I hope that times will improve and that it will be possible to collect the rates, but I think that the cutting down of the agricultural grant by £448,000 at the present time is an act of which the Government ought to be ashamed and I am afraid that it will have disastrous effects on the country.

As I say, I do not want to create the feeling that the rates ought not to be paid. I want to stress that. I have never taken up that attitude. I know that the public services must be maintained through the collection of rates, but I am very doubtful as to the way in which the farmers at the present time will be able to pay them.

I was absent from the House yesterday in order to attend a local fair. I am sure that if the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Local Government and Public Health were present at that fair and happened to understand the prices offered, and which had to be taken at that fair, they would feel very pessimistic, as I do, about the future collection of rates in the country.

Mr. MacDermot

Hear, hear!

Mr. Brennan

I want to enter my protest against the action of the Government in cutting down the agricultural grant by that amount.

Mr. Morrissey

At the outset, I should like to protest against the absence from this House, both yesterday and to-day, during this debate, of the Minister for Agriculture, and, most particularly, of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, because, with all due respect to the Minister for Finance, I submit that he cannot understand the effect on local authorities and upon the ratepayers, which the action of the Government in reducing the grant by £448,000 has had, as well as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Agriculture should understand it. At least, one would not expect that the Minister for Finance, as he is not dealing directly with either the farmers or the local authorities, would know or be expected to know, so much as the other Ministers I have mentioned. I should like to deal with this matter from what might be called the parochial point of view as it affects my own constituency, because I take it that what is true of Tipperary is true of the rest of the country. In North Tipperary the action of the Government in reducing the grants meant an increase, I think, of 1/7 in the £ on the rates and, in South Tipperary, it meant an increase of 1/4, plus 2/3, of an increase which had to be put on to meet the abnormal unemployment and the abnormal demand for outdoor relief. I want to suggest that the Government are responsible for placing an increased rate of 3/7 in the £ on the ratepayers of South Tipperary; first, because of their failure to keep their promises with regard to the agricultural grant; and, secondly, because of their failure to put into operation a motion which was carried by this House last June twelve months, the effect of that motion being that if the Government were unable to provide work for the unemployed in this country it was their duty to provide maintenance. I am putting it, sir, that the imposition of that 2/3 strengthens the case as to why the grant should not be reduced. It means, so far as the South Tipperary County Council are concerned—and I am speaking roughly now of round figures—that last year the demands made by the County Council on the ratepayers was for a sum of £95,000, whereas this year it is for a sum of £138,000 in the same area.

Surely there is no member in this House who will suggest for a moment that the people are in at all as good a position to meet the demand for rates this year, even if they were only last year's rates, as they were last year. They talk of having to meet an increase of roughly 50 per cent. and this coming from a Government which at a time when this country was, comparatively speaking, well off, promised full derating to the farmers of this country and stressed that, if the farming industry was to survive, it was essential that they should have full derating. If it were essential that they should have full derating when they had a free market and were able to dispose of their stocks at fairly good prices and when they were getting at least 60 per cent. more for their produce than they are getting to-day, I submit that it is much more essential to-day.

There is another aspect of this matter to which I should like to refer. Many councils, when they were informed of the Government's intention to reduce the agricultural grant and thereby increase the rates, in order to minimise that increase as far as possible, cut down on services and, in many cases, reduce the estimates submitted by the county surveyors for road making and road maintenance. As a result of this action of the Government, there is very much less money available this year for the relief of employment by the way of road making and road maintenance than there was last year. To my mind, that is perhaps the most serious part of the whole matter. I should like to stress that, that in order to lighten as far as they possibly could the effect of this reduction of £448,000, county councils cut down the estimates submitted by their county surveyors for the roads—the estimates which would give employment. If you like, that was rather foolish, because to those to whom they cannot give employment on the roads they will have to give home assistance through the county boards of health. I do not know how the Minister will try to justify this action of the Government, particularly in view of statements made in the last two or three years by himself and his colleagues. Difficult as it will be for the Minister himself, it will be much more difficult for some members of his Party.

We ought to get a clear statement from the Minister as to whether there is to be de-rating or not, or whether there is to be partial de-rating, and that statement ought to be made on this Estimate. We had statements made during the week-end by certain prominent members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the country about Bills that are to be brought in in the Autumn Session dealing with de-rating. I would, however, prefer to hear a definite pronouncement in this House, because members of the Fianna Fáil Party are rather inclined, I am afraid, when a matter is raised in this House to run away from the speeches which they have made in the country. If we could get a statement made in the House and put on record in the Official Reports it would not be so easy to get away from it. The matter was discussed very fully yesterday. I do not intend to go into the by-ways that were gone into yesterday. I am trying to keep as closely as I can to the matter before the House. I hope, however, that the Minister will explain to the House and to the ratepayers of North and South Tipperary, particularly South Tipperary, where they have to pay an increase of 3/7 in the £. In view of the economic war, and the fact that they are getting 60 per cent. less for their stock than they got before the Government came into office, they are unable to meet that burden. Like Deputy Brennan, I am not preaching the non-payment of rates —I never did. I am as anxious that rates should be paid, if it is possible to pay them, as any Deputy. I am as anxious that the social services should be maintained as any Deputy. But we have to recognise that if the money is not there it cannot be paid, and then it is for the Minister to point out how it can be done.

Mr. J.M. Burke

The marked silence on the Government Benches during this debate in its mute eloquence proclaims, as no tongue could proclaim, the utter inability of the Fianna Fáil Party to excuse, palliate, and much less to justify the action of the Executive Council in reducing the agricultural grant in the present condition of agricultural depression in this country. On the eve of the general election people were told that the bells were ringing and the birds were singing, that the millennium was at hand, that the Golden Age was going to be restored, that the swords would be turned into plough shares, that every peasant would have a fowl in his Sunday pot, and that the Free State would be a paradise of perfect bliss.

Now what has happened? Every prophecy has been falsified by events. We are calmly told that it is a good thing for the people to wear sackcloth and ashes and hair-shirts. It is much easier to tell 20 people what were good to be done than to be one of the 20 to follow your own advice. The times are lean and hard. There is no money in circulation. Take the small farmers of West Cork, my constituency. They work from early morn until late at night to wring a scanty livelihood from infertile and reluctant patches of land. They have striven and struggled; they have toiled and moiled, they have scrimped and they have scrounged to pay, as they always did, their annuities regularly and punctually. What is their condition to-day? They are crushed down by the weight of public burdens; they are unable to meet their obligations and they are deprived of the only valuable market that was open to them. This was bound to happen. Everybody with an ounce of commonsense knew that it would happen. The Department of Agriculture is under the presidency of a very courteous gentleman, and I most willingly and readily pay tribute to his courtesy, but he knows a great deal more about potions, lotions and motions than he does about potatoes or lentils or mangels. The sweetly smiling and soft-voiced gentleman who is in charge of the Department of Finance, the mildest mannered man that has lived since the time of Lambro knows, I have no doubt, a great deal about callipers, but I am very doubtful about his knowledge of calves. I cannot say I am sure, but I would almost make a bet that he would not know the difference between a scilán and a cailleach. I do not for a moment wish to throw any aspickawn on that gentleman. I only say in the words of the Latin poet: Ambitiosus et audax Naviget Anticyram. He is ambitious and he is daring. Let him take a trip to Anticyr and when he has taken a triple dose of hellebore perhaps on the return journey he will pay a visit to Canossa and do penance for his economic heresies.

It seems to me very unfortunate at the present time that of all the grants the agricultural grant, which is a matter of supreme importance to the greatest industry, the key industry of the country, should have been reduced. A great Irishman was asked once when did the Irish question start, and he said, "When Strongbow landed in Ireland. Then he was asked when it would end, and he said, "When Cromwell is released from Hell." Now the land question started when Cain, the husbandmen, slew Abel, the rancher, and so far as this country is concerned I believe it will never be ended until the Executive Council will learn the elementary principle of farming, and that will not take place until Lá Philip a chleite. I think it is time that the members in charge of the Government at the present day should give up their old cearrbheach policy of cutting and shuffling. They should face up to the facts of the situation, and realise that once agriculture is ruined in this country the Free State is absolutely finished. I do not wish to detain the attention of the House any longer; I have kept it already possibly too long. I am very sorry that so far no murmur has come from the Labour benches, which I see are at present graced by the presence of Deputy Corish and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, because the astute members of the Party must know that depression of agriculture means the lowering of wages for the whole of Ireland, and they must have already learned that one of the effects of the Government's economic policy has been that while the standard of living has been lowered, its cost has been raised.

Mr. Haslett

It is only natural that when any department of life suffers, either through a lowered grant or in some other way, they should give some expression to what they feel. What I want to point out is that the reduction of the agricultural grant in this case is no ordinary reduction. To my mind, the reduction of this grant is an impingement upon the right of the agricultural community. In the bad old days that we have left long behind, the farmer received half of his rate from the landlord. Successive Governments afterwards came to his relief to some extent, until last year we had reached positively the top of any effort towards the alleviation of the farmers' burden in that respect. Now this year we are faced with a reduction of £448,000 on the agricultural grant, and I think it is only natural that we should make our protest. Much has been said yesterday and to-day in regard to that matter. I wish to confine myself very strictly to a few of the points bearing upon it.

I think, in the very first place, we, as an agricultural community, should give voice to our despair, because however far we may have differed from the Government in power in many of its policies we eagerly listened to the promises that we were approaching the time when we would have full derating, and it comes as a terrible blow this year to find that instead of marching towards derating we are reducing this grant by £448,000. It is as an argument in favour of this reduction that some Deputies have pointed out that we are receiving benefit in regard to the land annuities. I respectfully point out that they are two distinct things. The proposed reduction in the land annuities has come about as a result of the economic war, or what brought on the economic war. I think it was the Minister for Finance who pointed out a couple of weeks ago that the money for that purpose has not to be found in the same way as other moneys. If by withholding payments under the Acts previous to 1923 we can meet liabilities under the subsequent Acts that has nothing whatever to do with the relief of the farmers' rates. The bounties are a legitimate help towards the relief of the burden which has been brought about by the economic war, but derating falls under a different category altogether. We are faced to-day with a demand for increased rates. The gross demand for rates in all the counties of the Saorstát is higher than it was last year, and, in addition to that, the amount of the grant is lower.

My friend here has been quoting Irish history and Scriptural history, and many other histories. I will recall now the time when we read with such sadness and perhaps such bitterness of the time when Pharaoh crushed the Israelites too hard in the land of Egypt, and when he exacted the toll of bricks though he would not supply the straw to make them. I think the Government has gone one better, because they are asking an increased toll when there is a decreased income to meet it. We have an increased rate to meet on a decreased income. That is burning the candle at both ends. On the one hand our Government has voluntarily surrendered the only market in which we could sell our produce, and on the other hand it is giving us less relief in rates. There is no sense that I can see in this policy of building up bounties against special duties.

Some members have stated that in their constituencies there is no outcry. I would suggest that the reason why the outcry is not so great from the farming community is because they are the patient oxen. If this impingement was on the labour element, on the teachers or on the civil servants, we would have special meetings and uproars, but because the farmers are feeling their responsibility in the country, are not at all revolutionary, and are not perhaps making their cry as loud as they might, it is no argument that they are not suffering. It has been said that the economic situation is not such as to warrant any outcry, and that if anybody went into the country and attended the fairs they would see whether a volume of business is being done or not. I know several people who have not been able to cash their stuff yet, although it is now well into the month of July. The argument has been put forward several times in this House, although there are no grounds that I can see for it, that the price of cattle on the other side of the Border is worse than it is in the Free State. A Deputy from Sligo, I think, mentioned that at the Enniskillen fair there were some buyers from the Free State buying cattle because they could buy them cheaper than in the Free State.

Mr. S. Flynn

Store cattle.

Mr. Haslett

Store cattle. Well, of course, anybody who has studied the question of the export bounty can understand that that can be done. It can be done in this way, when cattle can be bought in Northern Ireland and a certificate of origin obtained from the customs coming in and these cattle can be re-exported free of duty. That is so. We have done it. I live on the Border and I know. For any responsible Deputy to ask this House to believe that cattle in bulk are cheaper in Northern Ireland than in the Free State is to ask us to believe something that cannot be so. On the face of it, one can see how unreasonable it is. A two-year-old beast has to carry a tariff of £6 export duty and then it is graded from that down to £4 and £2 10s.

On the question of prices, I should like to tell Deputy Flynn through you, Sir, this one transaction which will illustrate that and show that our ability to pay is reduced very much. In the town of Castleblayney, in the county in which I live, a friend of mine bought a litter of pigs for £10 10s. These were then smuggled across the Border and they were sold at Keady for £31. The price was made in the same market and by the same man. There is wholesale smuggling. I ask the Deputy is he asking us to believe that the people are running the risk of the loss of their cattle together with the penalties that can be imposed on them just because cattle are cheaper in Northern Ireland than they are in the Free State? I might ask, too, why is it, if that is so, that the fairs immediately across the Border are much larger than they were 15 months ago? It is because these cattle are smuggled across the Border for export.

I wish to register my protest on behalf of the agricultural constituency that I represent against this reduction in the agricultural grant. This is a reduction that is hard for the agricultural community to bear. Our livelihood has been taken away. Our responsibility to the boards of health and to the county councils have been increased and yet this agricultural grant, this contribution to our rates, is lowered by the Government. This has been done at a time when we were looking forward hopefully, no matter in what other respects we might differ with the Government in power, to the redemption of this promise made by them that we would have full derating just as our competitors in Northern Ireland have. We are now faced with the question of what are we going to do with our cattle. Our country is fast growing into a wilderness. Young stock is not being brought forward to eat the grass or hay or the produce of our tillage operations. We cannot increase our tillage operations except for the purpose of feeding the produce to live stock. When we are unable to dispose of our live stock we cannot go on doing this. I submit the whole situation is one of grave concern to the agricultural community. I am not one to be sounding a wail where there is no need, but I should like to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance, even at this hour, to the plight in which our agriculturists find themselves and to the inability of the farming community to pay the increased rate which has to be faced.

Mr. Finlay

I just want to make a few remarks with regard to the agricultural grant. As a member of the Leix County Council, I may tell the House how the matter affects us down there. In the last three weeks, I am sorry to tell the House, we had to dismiss a large number of labourers from our service in the County Council through inability to find money to pay their wages. I do not know if there is any county council representative here to-day whose county is in the same plight as we are in Leix, but I am sure every Deputy in this House will agree that it is a deplorable thing to see men thrown out of work, and unemployed in the longest day in the year. As the House is aware, this agricultural grant of £448,000 of which we have been deprived works out very drastically on the farming community. Down in Leix it means that the farmers are deprived of a contribution of 1/6 in the £. Deputies will see how that makes it difficult for the County Council there to operate. Previous to any notification of this grant being stopped, we in Leix had forced on us the necessity of striking a rate in excess of last year's rate of 2/- in the £. That means that the Leix County Council will be faced with a rate of 3/6 in the £ higher than we had to pay last year. I want to ask the Minister does he think it is right to deprive the farming community of this grant in this year of great depression? One would have thought that instead of reducing the grant the Government would have increased it in the present year. As a matter of fact, the farmers and ratepayers are clearly unable to pay these rates.

I am not one to advocate the non-payment of rates or annuities. I have never done so, but I can tell this House that I sincerely believe it will be impossible for the people down in my county in the coming year to meet either rates or land annuities. I may be in the position like other farmers that to-morrow I may have ten cattle for sale. It is very hard on me to take out these ten cattle to the fair and sell five out of the ten because that is all I can sell. I am giving the other five for luck. In such circumstances, it is hard for me to go home from that fair and try to maintain the expenses of my farm, pay rates and land annuities on the farm. All the farming community ever wanted was to live and let live. The farmers never had any large ambitions, or extensive ways of living, or anything like that. All they wanted was a living wage for themselves.

Some years ago if it were a thing that I had ten cattle, and if, as a matter of fact, I went out in the morning in the field and found five of my cattle dead in the field, would not the countryside come to my assistance in some little way so as to try to help me in the way people had of helping a neighbour? But to-day it is not my fault if I have lost five cattle and that it is what it means. Every man in the farming business knows that half of his cattle have been lost. He owns at present only 50 per cent, of his live stock. That is exactly the position and I think every farming Deputy here will agree with me. That being the case, I put it to the House to press on the Government to relieve the agricultural community. In this matter instead of helping them they are taking away roughly £500,000. As a matter of fact, instead of that contribution being reduced by half a million, what the Government should do would be to double it, so as to meet the cases which are pressing so hard upon the Free State farmers at the present time.

I am not an advocate of the non-payment of rates, but at the same time, I can almost promise the Minister that it will be practically impossible to collect rents, rates and taxes during the coming year. Farmers always paid their way and they would be only too willing to do it now if they had the markets. But our markets have been taken from us and there is no great likelihood that they will be restored in the near future. I was at the fair of Kilkenny about a month ago and I happened to have a fairly useful colt. A man asked me what I wanted for the animal and I said 100 guineas. He asked me if I would not be prepared to take 50 guineas and I replied that on other occasions I got 100 guineas for a worse animal. Then he pointed out that if he gave me 50 he would have to pay another 40 guineas across the Border. He did not know if I understood the matter sufficiently, but I assured him that I understood only too much about it. It is just the same with all live stock. At the moment, it is almost impossible for a farmer to exist. I think it is the duty of the Government to make every effort to relieve the farmers in their present condition of distress.

Mr. Bennett

If there is one estimate that the people expected to be increased rather than reduced it is this Estimate in respect of grants to local authorities. One of the things the electors were definitely promised was, if not the total abolition of rates, at least something tending towards that desirable consummation. It came as a bombshell when this Estimate was reduced by £448,000. The proposal was particularly objectionable coming as it did when most of the county councils had prepared their estimates. They made provision for the agricultural grant and they had arranged the rates on that basis. This proposal is also objectionable because of the existing depression in agriculture. No Deputy who honestly represents agriculture could let this Vote pass without making some protest. Like other Deputies from my side, I do not wish to imply that the people should not pay their rates and provide for local services. We have never made that statement in this House or outside it. As a representative of the agriculturists, however, I am bound to say that I believe many of them, if not the majority, will find it impossible to meet their demands in the way of rates this year, taking into account the declining prices for agricultural products. Every Deputy on the Government Benches must be as well aware of that as we are.

The Minister for Agriculture was in my county during the week and he made a very strong speech, his usual speech, attacking members of this and another Party. He was in the town of Kilmallock. I wish he had waited in County Limerick until the following Monday morning instead of undertaking the long journey to Clonmel. If he remained in Limerick he would have learned much a distance of four or five miles from where he had been speaking. There was a fair held in the town of Hospital. It used to be one of the greatest fairs in County Limerick for the sale of fat cattle. On Monday morning it was more in the nature of a funeral procession than a sale of cattle. One had only to look at the long-drawn faces of the farmers and the melancholy expression of the shopkeepers to realise to what straits agriculture has been reduced.

There is an increasing demand on local councils for the provision of relief for necessitous people. I observe from statistics that there are 143,000 people in receipt of poor law assistance. That was the case up to the end of May and that showed an increase of 31,000 people over the previous year. It means an increased expenditure of £3,500 a week in the payment of home assistance. That is an excessive demand on local councils at a period when the farmers find it difficult to pay rates and when the Government have reduced the grant in relief of rates by £448,000. That reduction is indefensible.

With the declining price for agricultural produce farmers ordinarily would have found it difficult to pay even last year's rates, but they will find it much more difficult, in fact practically impossible, to pay this year's increased rate. An increasing number of people, because of the existing depression, are in need of outdoor relief and other forms of assistance from local councils. The prospect that faces local councils is not a happy one. I do not like to adopt the role of a bad prophet, but I think it is my duty to say that I believe the local councils will find it extremely difficult to get the people to meet their obligations this year. In the majority of cases the people will not be able to do so.

Mr. Davis

Many things have been said in the course of this debate, and one would imagine sufficient had been said to convince the Government that the situation is very serious. I think too much could not possibly be said in order to impress on the minds of the Government the serious nature of the situation that has been created for the farmers and the position of responsibility into which the Government have put themselves. The farmers were promised total derating, and I am sure Deputies recollect that there were times when the Government had every intention of being most generous, if not actually extravagant, with regard to the manner in which they were going to assist the rates. I recollect that a proposal was placed before this House by the Cosgrave Government to give £750,000 for the relief of rates. On that occasion the Opposition said the amount was not sufficient and it should be made £1,000,000. That matter was put to a vote. What do we find now? The Government, in order to make good their promise, went through the farce of passing an additional sum of £250,000 for the relief of rates, and this additional sum brings the total amount up to the £1,000,000 originally promised.

As was pointed out by many other Deputies, we have here the astounding fact that despite the political promises of Fianna Fáil, which ought to have deceived nobody, the people are now suffering the results of the action they took in sending that Party into power. The evils are now coming home to their doors and to their pockets, and they are seeing too late the consequence of their action. We are now sustaining a reduction of £448,000 in the agricultural grant, at a time when the farmers of the country, owing to the economic war through which they are passing, and other causes of depression, are unable to pay their rates. I speak on behalf of a county whose ratepayers I have represented for the past 25 or 26 years on the county council. I can claim to represent on that council a body of farmers who always met their obligations promptly and paid their rates and annuities regularly. In 1928 the rate was 3/2 in the £. An additional rate of 1/4 was imposed and the rate to-day is 5/9. In dealing with a matter of this kind, as a result of the reduction of £448,000, it is most difficult to exaggerate the trying circumstances through which the farmers are passing. We hear about reductions of the annuities. Let us contrast the advantages and the disadvantages. The reduction of annuities is 50 per cent. of the yearly payment, but in addition to his share of the annuities the farmer has now to bear his share of an additional £2,000,000 taxation. The annuities amount to £3,000,000, but the farmer now, even with reduced annuities, has to bear his share of a burden of £5,000,000 and he is called upon to do that at a time when he is deprived of the advantages of free access to the English market. He is told that there is no profit to be made out of that market. Yet we had the Minister for Agriculture, and even the President stating in this House, yesterday, that they are seeking for alternative markets and that by spending money on keeping representatives abroad in other countries, as these representatives are assisting to find markets, that money is not spent in vain. These are the hopes held out to us. The farmers are told to live in hopes. We were told how worthless the British market was for the general farmers of the country. Yet notwithstanding that fact we have now, staring us in the face, the tragic circumstance that the farmers who are on the brink of ruin will have to bear a loss of £448,000 in reduction of their agricultural grants. That sum is being taken away from the farming community at the time when, in the whole history of the country, they never needed it more.

We are told that the British market is not worth keeping and is no loss to the farmers of this country, yet notwithstanding that, we see that the action of the Government with regard to this matter contradicts these things. They are prepared to send the farmers produce into the British markets at a loss of 40 per cent. They are prepared to accept £60 for every £100 worth of produce they send into the British market. I am mentioning these things in the hope of impressing upon the Government the necessity of taking into consideration the circumstances through which the farmers of the country are passing to-day, and how necessary it is that they should do something in the interest of the farming community.

We hear talk about tariffs and that the sum of £6 per head is to be paid in the way of tariffs on cattle, but a bounty of £1 15/- a head has to be paid. I want to know who pays these bounties and who gets them. I have heard it said by Deputies in this House that at no time in this country were the farmers ever able to make their farms pay. I am sure if the farmers were not able to make their farms pay, despite their industry in the years prior to the economic war, they must be in a very happy position now, indeed, and must be making a great amount of money. If they were not able to make their farms pay before the economic war, I wonder how they stand now, with a duty of 40 per cent. against them. I am sure they must be very comfortable and putting a lot of money aside, especially when we consider the prices they are getting for live stock and for farm produce like potatoes. I know a man who sold potatoes last year at £8 a ton. This year that same man sold his potatoes at 10d. per cwt., practically 15/- a ton. These are matters that ought to appeal to the Government. It is unnecessary to remind them where the responsibility lies. They have been reminded of that many a time. But I look forward to the day when they will be reminded of these facts by the people who have to bear the burden, and when that reminder will bring home to them that they ought not to proceed lightly, and in a gambling fashion, to deal with the livelihood of the farmers of this country. The day will come when the farmers of this country will make them realise that, as they made the farmers suffer they have lost the confidence of those whom they made to suffer.

Mr. MacEntee

This debate reminds me very much of Muggleton's dinner; it is a re-hash of the fag-ends of Cumann na nGaedheal propaganda of 12 months ago—propaganda to which the country has had an opportunity of listening and judging for itself in the course of the general election which took place in the beginning of this year. We are told about the miserable condition of the farmers. Deputy Haslett depicted the earthly paradise, which, according to him, the farmers in the Six Counties must live in, because a litter of pigs, which some omadhaun at Castleblayney sold for ten guineas, brought 21 guineas when sold in the Six Counties. I know as much about the Six Counties as Deputy Haslett, and about the farmers' condition there and I know this much: Seven or eight weeks ago I was in the centre of one of the greatest potato-growing districts in Ireland and they told me they could not get 6/- a ton for their potatoes, not to speak at all of 15/-. They told me that 80 per cent. of the farmers were so submerged in debt that they had no hope of being able to clear themselves.

General Mulcahy

What did they tell you about the pigs?

Mr. MacEntee

I was going to say that Deputy Haslett must have given up reading the Irish Times recently. But for the condition of affairs pertaining to this particular transaction and prevailing generally throughout the Six Counties, and throughout Great Britain, we should not have this appearing in a leading article of the Irish Times yesterday. Talking about the condition of the British farmer and of agricultural prices in Great Britain, generally, that newspaper, which cannot be accused of being a Party organ, or at least of being an organ supporting the present Government, said this:

"Prices in England have fallen and are continuing to fall, very heavily. During the month of June the index figure for agricultural products fell by two points to 100, showing that the average price was identical with that which ruled during the month of June, 1913. At Leicester, a fortnight ago, large numbers of fat cattle were returned unsold to their feeders, and last week the prevailing price was between 17/- and 35/- a cwt. Breeders and feeders alike must lose at this rate and they are demanding that steps shall be taken to protect their interests."

There is no increase in the agricultural grant in Great Britain, notwithstanding the fact that it is generally admitted that the conditions described in this article have prevailed universally throughout Great Britain during the past 12 months and that you have responsible Ministers—even Mr. Baldwin himself—admitting that the steps which they took to restrict the import of live-stock into Great Britain, and the policy they had pursued of imposing tariffs upon Irish live-stock imported into Great Britain, had failed. It seems to me that that statement, coming from responsible members of the British Government, is a complete refutation of the canard that has been spread up and down the country by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to the effect that the present condition of the Irish farmers is mainly due to the economic war.

Mr. O'Leary

What about the £6 a head which we have to pay them for selling our cattle to them?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. The Minister is in possession, and the Deputy may not interrupt him without the permission of the Minister.

Mr. Smith

We will give the Deputy another day next week.

Mr. O'Leary

There is a fair in Blessington to-morrow and I suggest that the two of them should go out and discuss it there. It is only about 15 miles out of Dublin.

Mr. Keating

They promised us an alternative market but we have not got it. Are not prices better in Britain than here?

Mr. MacEntee

I am sorry——

Mr. O'Leary

Are you going to Blessington? Answer that question.

The Deputy will now withdraw from the House.

Mr. Keating then withdrew from the House.

Mr. O'Leary

I hope you will act in the same way with regard to those on the other side.

Mr. T. Kelly

You ought to go too.

An Ceann Comhairle

There must be no interruptions from either side of the House.

Mr. MacEntee

Having disposed of that argument, we have to consider whether there is any ground for the complaint that the Government are not treating the Irish farmer, as one section of the Irish community, fairly and generously, in making the allocation which they propose to make in this present year of the Supplementary Agricultural Grant. I think the year that should be taken and could fairly be taken for comparison in this case is the last year that the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in office. In 1932 the total amount voted—and I should like to emphasise the word voted because of what I am going to say later—for the relief of rates upon agricultural land was £1,948,000, but that was not the total amount paid over by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government to the local authorities in the year 1932. Not at all. They voted that sum, but when it came down to a question of payment they withheld £211,000 from the local authorities on account of land annuities not collected, so that the net payment to the local authorities in the year 1931-2 by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was £1,736,000, and that figure is to be compared with £1,750,000 which will be not merely voted but given to the local authorities in the present year.

There is nothing being withheld from the local authorities in respect of land annuity arrears. On the contrary, whenever arrears do come in, arrears in respect of the years preceding our advent to office, they will be given out to the local authorities from whom they had been withheld previously. Therefore the local authorities in this year— the local authorities as distinct from the ratepayers—will this year, notwithstanding all the trying circumstances of the time, be very much better off than they were in the year 1931-2 when, according to the statements we have heard from the benches opposite, the then Government was in a much better position to deal more generously with them than we are. So much for the local authorities.

What about the farmers? They are going to receive £2,450,000 by way of bounties and subsidies, which, as I have already argued, and as Mr. Baldwin and other responsible members of the British Government have admitted, are counteracting the effect of the import duties imposed by them. In addition to that the farmers are to receive a permanent reduction in the annuities payable by them of over £2,000,000 per annum, going to the individual farmers. What is the position therefore? We find that the local authorities—corporations which are maintained not merely by the farmers—one would have thought that the farming community are the only section to be considered if one were to listen to the speeches that have been made from the benches opposite—and which are representative not merely of the farmers, but of the farm labourers, merchants and shopkeepers in the towns—are going to be not less better off than they were in the years 1931-32. The farmers themselves, that special, select section of the community, are going to be better off by £2,000,000 in the year 1933-34 than they were in 1931-32. I think the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that we have not been unfair to the farmers, if we have not been unduly generous towards them. World prices have declined. Economic conditions everywhere are depressed. Every section of the community is affected, but every section of the community must contribute to the Exchequer, and must contribute to that £1,750,000 which is being spent on the agricultural grant in relief of the rates upon agricultural land. Every section of the community must contribute directly or indirectly. In order to make possible the reduction of the land annuities every section of the community has to contribute to that £2,000,000 which is inuring to the direct and immediate benefit of the farmers.

In no other country at the present moment is so much being done for agriculture out of the public purse as is being done here. In no other country is every section of the community contributing as much as it is contributing here. I know very well that every self-respecting farmer of this country—who looks at the position of everybody around him; who sees people with nothing to sustain them, not even a half acre of land and a labourer's cottage, having to pay out something when they buy tea, sugar or tobacco, to help to make up this grant; who has a sense of civic duty; who realises that he is a part of the nation and does not wish to stand apart from it—feels that as much is being done for him by this Government as could be done for him by any Government that would have to hold, as a Government is bound to hold, the scales evenly between all sections of the community. We are not insensible, as the Minister for Agriculture has stated, to the sufferings which the farmers are going through at the present moment, but neither can we permit ourselves to lose sight of the fact that when this dispute is settled and when an agreement is reached it is the farmers who will retain for all time the splendid fruits of victory.

Mr. O'Leary

I should just like to put one question to the Minister. He has made a statement that cattle were 17/- a cwt. at Leicester some time ago. He tried to persuade the House that the farmers are in as good a position to-day as if there were no economic war. I will just take a ten cwt. beast at 17/- a cwt.—£8 10s. On that the farmer is paying a levy of £6, leaving a balance of £2 10s. on which he gets a bounty of £1 15s., making £4 5s. in all, less expenses. Would not that farmer be getting £8 10s., less expenses, if there were no economic war? Let us take the poor parts of my own constituency and the County Kerry. An eight cwt. fat beast in Leicester at 17/- a cwt. would realise £6 16s. After deducting the tax of £6 the farmer would actually get 16/-. Adding the bounty of £1 15s. to that sum, he gets a total of £2 11s., less expenses. Does the Minister want to convince the people of the country that they are better off than if there were no economic war? That is a fair question. I will write it down for the Minister if he wishes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 12 Jul 1933

Vote No. 25—Supplementary Agricultural Grants (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jul 1933