Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 4

Private Deputies' Business. - Relief of Rates on Agricultural Land: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following Motion:—
That the Dáil is of opinion that owing to the increasing distress of the farming community arising out of the continuance of the economic war, the Executive Council should take steps to relieve agricultural land of rates during the financial year 1934/35—(Deputies T. O'Higgins and T.J. O'Donovan).

This motion suggests that the agricultural community should be relieved of the payment of rates during the financial year 1934-35 because of the continuance of the economic war. There is abundant evidence of the increasing distress amongst the members of the agricultural community, whether we take as proof of that the huge amount of arrears outstanding either as rates or as land annuities. Another thing that illustrates that distress is the tightening of credit by merchants and shopkeepers in the cities and towns. Those engaged in agriculture are experiencing great difficulty in getting an advance of money from some of the larger banking institutions. Even those engaged in the selling of seeds and farm implements are demanding ready cash payments from farmers, who, for the reasons stated, are unable to make them. The Government's panacea for the relief of this distress, brought about by Government policy, is intensive tillage. The farmers are getting the advice to till more land and they hear the slogan "Grow more wheat!"

It is to be regretted that there was a tendency to allow much of the arable land of the country to go out of cultivation and to turn it over to the bullock. It was a tendency that should be stopped. But, the present Government, in their zeal to check that evil tendency, moved the pendulum too far to the other side. It was agreed that in order to have a balanced agricultural economy the area under tillage should be increased, but, as I have suggested, the Government, in their anxiety to carry out that very laudable idea, went ahead with their tillage policy without examining all the facts. The result has been that their policy has been a most disastrous one for the agricultural community with corresponding ill-effects on the working-class people of the country. It would be very useful for some members of the Government Party to look up occasionally the statistics provided for them by the Government Departments. Anybody who takes the trouble to look up the Census of Production for 1933-34, and who directs his attention particularly to page 23 will find most illuminating information. He will find that there is an average 600,000 acres of our land under oats. The average yield of grain per acre is slightly over one ton. That is calculated to give a ration of something like 36 stone of oats per annum to every member of the community, including young children and babies, or about 26 stone of oatmeal, 1 lb. per day. In that commodity, we have obviously a large surplus, which comes under the heading of "exportable agricultural surplus." We grow about 2,000,000 tons of potatoes which amount is calculated to give to each inhabitant, including young children and babies, about 28 lbs. each week of the year. Here, again, we have an exportable surplus. In nearly every department of increased tillage, we find that we have an exportable surplus. Assuming that we double, treble or quadruple our tillage, we shall certainly double, treble or quadruple our exportable surplus of these agricultural products. Assuming that we go in for increased tillage, the ordinary farmer will tell you that the produce must be fed to stock. Owing to the economic war, which is mentioned in this motion, the market for live stock and live-stock products has been restricted and made unprofitable. We all agree that we should not expect the farmer to grow crops which he cannot dispose of either in the home market or in a market which is already restricted and rendered unprofitable.

I remember well the guffaws and marks of approval on the Government side of the House when a Deputy suggested, in his speech, that the British had gone over to the Sinn Féin policy, that they were practising a policy of self-sufficiency and proposed to go extensively into tillage. Everybody should know that that state of affairs can never be brought about in Britain. She will never, unless she wishes to lose her position in the industrial world, be able to till sufficient land to produce food for her 40,000,000 people.

The failure of our special representatives at Ottawa is responsible, in my view, for a great deal of the trouble and the depression that exists amongst the farming community at present. I understand that the scheme for the regulation of meat imports into Britain will come to an end on the 31st March of this year. It is well known that the Dominions are watching the position in anticipation of what may happen when this agreement comes to an end. When the Minister gets up to reply, I hope he will have some suggestion to put before the House and that he will give some indication as to what he intends to do in relation to this agreement which comes to an end on 31st March. We have been told that agreements have been entered into with other countries. Here, again, I would recommend members of the Fianna Fáil Party, and particularly members of the Executive Council, to look up the census of production and to ascertain how much of our products will enter Germany and what the quantity and value of the imports from Germany into this country will be. I looked up the position in regard to Belgium and I find that we are buying from Belgium £9 worth of goods for the £2 worth they buy from us—about 4½ to one.

We have been told by Fianna Fáil spokesmen that, as a result of recent negotiations, an arrangement has been entered into which should ease the position somewhat for our farmers. The arrangement referred to is known as the "cattle-coal arrangement." Deputy Belton, I think, described it as the cattle-coalscuttle arrangement. That arrangement has not had the effect that many people anticipated. Already there are indications that the price of the imported commodity is to be increased, with corresponding ill-effects on the agricultural community, including agricultural labourers, and on the workers in the towns and cities. Under ordinary circumstances, we exported cattle to the number of about 700,000 per annum to Britain. That was before the economic war. There is no reason why that market should not be opened to us again. Even under present adverse circumstances. our only enemy—as Britain has been called by some of the Government spokesmen—has taken over £500,000 worth of cattle from us in a very short time. In the year 1934-5 she has paid us for our cattle something like £4,000,000, even with the economic conflict in progress. I felt, and many other people also felt, that there was a return to sanity on the part of the present Government when it entered into the agreement relating to coal and cattle. I regarded it as an indication that further agreements with our nearest neighbour were to follow. So far, we have not heard of these agreements from members of the Government or their supporters.

I was approached by a number of farmers in my own constituency who asked me, not alone to support this motion, but to support another motion on the Order Paper which suggests that the Government should undertake the running of two, three or more farms in the Free State and see if they could make a profit out of them. I do not know what will happen to this motion, but I want to press, as sincerely as I can, upon the responsible Minister that it is about time that we got away from a policy of prejudice and got back to a sane and ordered Government in this country. Let us, once and for all, make up our minds, as I said on a previous occasion in this House, that we cannot expect Canada, or the Argentine, to take our agricultural produce, neither can we expect the people of China or Peru to eat our beef. I would ask the Minister responsible to press upon the Cabinet the desirability, in the interests of the people in general, and of the agricultural community in particular, to get back to some kind of decent agreement with our neighbours and to get them to open their markets closed to us, in my view, by some contentious politicians and people actuated by prejudice.

Someone has said that every farm in the country was a factory. I do know it was at one time the policy of the President of the State to foster, as far as possible, small farmers in their particular industry. But since he became head of the Government the obverse seems to be the case, and everything he and his Government are doing, in so far as it relates to agriculture, at any rate, is the negation of the policy they preached in this country some years ago. I am in almost daily touch with farmers in my own area and I can assure the Minister, and the Government, that I have not heard one of these men proclaim, as was charged here last evening, that they would not, in any circumstances, pay their rates or annuities. I do not want to labour that aspect of the situation for certain reasons. I am perfectly certain that when the Minister and his Government were going before the country they put their policy and programme fully, and I believe honestly, before the people, but so far few of their promises have been fulfilled.

I disagree with what was said by one speaker last evening on this side of the House, when he apparently suggested that the farmers did not vote for the present Government. They did vote for the present Government, and if the farmers are in trouble to-day, to that extent, they deserve to be in trouble. I think it is useless to suggest that the farmers did not vote for this Government, because as the Minister for Local Government pointed out they got their majority in certain rural constituencies. He was careful to admit that one county did not support his policy, namely, County Cork. In that, again, Cork showed its wisdom. It is quite true Cork has frequently blazed the trail in this country. We all look forward to the next general election when, perhaps, the rest of the country will follow in the footsteps of Cork.

I should like the Minister and his colleagues to go closely into the figures which the Department of Statistics publishes from time to time. If they do they can easily see who is our best customer and whether it is wise for us to open up again the markets we have got or to depend upon whether we might sell a few packages of eggs to Belgium. I said before that we were pursuing a dangerous policy in allowing too much of our arable land to go out of cultivation. I agree tillage should be the groundwork of that policy. But again I emphasise the fact that the present Government in its over-zeal to do the right thing, and to develop the industrial arm of the country, have gone a little too far, and that they have not shown the courage that they proclaim they were capable of showing, in grappling with this question and doing the big thing once and for all. It is more difficult to swim against the current than to float down with it. I ask the Government to take their courage in both hands, and as they have made an approach in the matter of trying to regain our market, to make a further approach. If they do that they will do so without any loss of dignity; they will act as men worthy of the trust and confidence of the country if they get rid of this economic war and the disasters that it has brought in its train.

When this Motion was introduced Deputy O'Higgins quoted from a speech delivered by the President at Ceannanus Mór on the 14th June, 1931, and tried to lead the House to believe that in that speech President de Valera promised full derating for the agricultural community. The President, on that occasion, when speaking of the amount of money that was being sent out of the country annually to Great Britain, and the magnitude of the amount sent away each year, did say that if that money were retained and some of it applied to derating, that quite easily £2,000,000 could be devoted to that purpose. I happened to be on the platform when that statement was made by the President, and I say I was not deceived by it, nor was anyone in the crowd listening to him.

Why was the statement made?

Mr. Kelly

To prove that by retaining £5,000,000—£3,000,000 for land annuities and £2,000,000 of other moneys sent to England—the farmers could obtain at least the benefit of £2,000,000 of that money. But we found that other services which were neglected by the last Government needed relief, and that these were services that would bring relief to the farmers. We found it would be more advantageous to the farming community to have their annuities halved and consequently legislation to halve the land annuities was introduced. Deputy O'Higgins asked us if it was a promise that President de Valera made to gull the farmers. I can assure him it was not and I can assure him that it did not gull the farmers, and if Deputy O'Higgins happened to be in County Meath when the next general election was held, he would behold the spectacle of the big ranching farmers sending out their six-cylinder cars to carry people to the poll, although I must say they were running practically empty all day. It does demonstrate the fact that the farmers were not gulled by any statement made either by President de Valera or by any of the Deputies or others who were present at public meetings down the country. The working farmers voted for us on that occasion. We were told by Deputy Anthony that the farmers voted for us. Yes, the working farmers did vote for us, but other gentlemen who own large tracts of land dismissed the few employees they had when they learned that they voted for the present Government, and, consequently, left them as a charge upon the rates.

It has been stated by Deputy O'Higgins that the action of the British Government was deliberately designed to crush the Irish farmer out of existence. Other speakers on this Motion stated that we could not get along without the cattle trade and that until we could secure the English market again there would be no prosperity in this country. It merely shows the perverted conception of the whole situation which these Deputies have. Supposing we could get the English market in the morning, would we not be faced with the problem of competing against the produce of the English farmers? A great measure of protection for the home market has been introduced in England. A subsidy of 5/- per cwt. for home-produced beef in England has been paid by the English Government in an effort to retain for the farmers of England their cattle trade, and, not alone that, but the farmers in England are at present agitating for a still further increase in the subsidy, and it is anticipated that up to 10/- per cwt. will eventually be paid to help the English farmers to secure a remunerative market for their cattle. Five shillings per cwt. for a 10-cwt. beast is £2 10s., and that is what we would be faced with at the present time, and if a still further 5/- is put on, we shall be compelled to compete against £5 on a 10-cwt. beast.

And a £6 tariff on each beast.

You are competing against £6 already.

Mr. Kelly

Less the bounty. It has been authoritatively stated that the English farmers are losing, even though they are now getting 5/- a cwt. subsidy, 5/- on every 10-cwt. beast they produce for the market in England. Do Deputies opposite suggest for a moment that if our interests clash with the interests of the English farmer, the English Government would give whatever benefits would be derived from the English market to the farmers of this country and allow their own farmers to have a market that would not be a paying proposition?

On the other hand, I wonder if the English market would be as open as it was heretofore. I am quite satisfied it would not, even though a settlement were made in the morning. The expansion in the home supply of meat in the English market last year was two and a half cwts., and a corresponding decrease was effected in the competing imports from all over the world. A further extension of the English home market was to be looked forward to, and a consequent tightening of the quotas, so that even though we could get into the English market in the morning, even though we could have what is called the economic war settled, and even though we could have the tariffs that are now imposed on the entry of cattle into the English market taken off, we would still be faced with the problem of the quota system and the still further question of the £5 per head. Surely no Deputy can visualise prosperity along those lines? We have had suggestions as to a way out of whatever difficulties may face us at the present time, but it would appear to me that the biggest problem which public bodies have before them at the moment is the question of defaulting land annuitants. Deputies who go out through the country and suggest that the people have already paid their land annuities twice over have a great responsibility.

They are telling the truth, which you cannot deny.

Mr. Kelly

Of course we deny it.

Well, deny it, then.

Mr. Kelly

It is not worth denying it now.

You do not pay any land annuities.

Mr. Kelly

Deputies who could pay their land annuities, and who would not pay them, also have a great responsibility. It has been proved that there are Deputies who have not paid their land annuities, or who did not pay them until they were compelled to do so. If they did not pay them, the position would be that people who had paid their rates would be called on to bear a share of what they had defaulted in. That is not a position which we can tolerate in this country.

Deputies have not told us where this money should come from. Deputy O'Higgins suggested that we get the money from savings and that we could at least save £2,000,000. I cannot at the moment imagine where Deputy O'Higgins would suggest we could effect this saving. Surely it is not to be got by a saving in the existing allowances to farmers. I am sure he does not assert that there should be any saving in the matter of the housing grants and I am sure he does not recommend any saving in respect of free milk, free meat, welfare schemes, unemployment assistance or bounties and subsidies, because all the money that is voted to these items goes, either directly or indirectly, into the farmers' pockets. With regard to the free beef, we heard Deputies on the Opposition Benches last evening complaining that there were certain families down the country receiving too much free meat. They were complaining, in other words, that the farmer had too big a market because certain people were getting too much meat to eat. Even the money that is devoted to free milk goes directly into the farmer's pocket. Deputies may laugh——

Why do we not give more away for nothing?

Mr. Kelly

If we give more for nothing, we could not effect the savings that would be required to give this money that is asked for. On the question of the derating of agricultural land, I cannot find myself in agreement with those who suggest that there should be flat derating of all agricultural land. The small working farmer has been derated to a certain extent. The man who is giving employment has been derated to a certain extent. He is receiving certain reliefs for each man he has employed during the year. So it has been with other small farmers who found that in one way or another certain reliefs were available to them. Then again the halving of the land annuities gave great benefit to those working farmers throughout the country.

On the other hand we have the large ranching farmers who do not receive any relief under the scheme for the halving of the land annuities. That is because it was generally found that many of these were freeholders and held their land free of rent. Any relief in the direction of halving the land annuities was of no benefit to these. Neither did some of them experience any benefit from the amount of money that was devoted towards the relief of rates calculated on the number of men employed by the farmer during the year. That was because it was usually found that the large rancher employed only one man caring or herding 200 acres to 2,000 acres of land. They received no relief under that heading. Hence the cry of derating from these men, who found that only by derating could they receive any benefit as they did not receive relief under the halving of the land annuities or under any of the other schemes introduced by the Government. I think no responsible Deputy could stand behind any agitation to derate people like that who hold large acreages of land and do not give any employment. Not only do they not give any employment but they do not even support the local needs.

This Government has increased the local services during its term of office. It has embarked upon wonderful improvements. I do not think that will be denied by any Deputies on the other side of the House. Wonderful improvements, of course, had to be effected, because when we took over office we found the position was such that no Government with a Christian outlook could tolerate it for a moment.

Mr. Kelly

Mark you, that was in the time of the unrestricted English market for our cattle. Hence it was that those schemes were introduced. In the first part of this motion we find it set down: "That owing to the increasing distress of the farming community arising out of the continuance of the economic war..." steps should be taken "to relieve agricultural land of rates." I cannot agree that distress is increasing. If there has been distress in any particular area in the country, or if there has been distress in individual cases, it is amongst those who devoted their farming economy to the rearing of cattle. I acknowledge that they may have found much distress but I cannot agree that distress is increasing. As a result of the various agreements that have been made the volume of trade has improved. It has been much enlarged.

For example?

Mr. Kelly

For example, as a result of the recent agreements to have cattle sent out of the country.

In exchange for 5/- a ton tax on coal.

Mr. Kelly

We find that farmers are generally more favourably disposed towards adopting the agricultural programme laid down by the Government. I find that is the case even though Deputies on the opposite benches may smile.

We may as well smile as cry.

Mr. Kelly

Farmers have been receiving improved prices for all their agricultural produce during the last year; the cattle trade is the only exception to that. Perhaps those farmers who have been adversely affected by the cattle trade will find it will be more remunerative for them to change their farming economy and have a mixed system of farming rather than pin their faith to the rearing of cattle. Farmers have, of course, the remedy quite at hand in the growing of wheat, oats, barley, fruit and other remunerative crops rather than producing sheep, pigs, and poultry.

The Deputy wants us to grow bilberries.

Mr. Kelly

If you happen to go down to our county we will show you how to grow fruit. It is pathetic to see some farmers still persisting in their ignorance, fostering an industry that is completely out of date, an industry that is no longer a paying proposition. It would be much better for those farmers to accept the good advice tendered to them by the Government. If they do accept that advice I think that instead of relief of rates on agricultural land, as suggested by the Deputy with its consequent upsetting of local government administration and the centralisation of all local government control, they will adopt an up-to-date system of farming. We hear oftentimes that there should not be any centralisation of local services. But if this resolution were passed, as it stands on the Order Paper, we would certainly have a centralisation of local government services against which we hear an outcry on all sides.

We have at all times believed that the local people should have an opportunity of electing their own representatives to safeguard local interests in the local councils. That is a method of administration that we should be very chary about upsetting. If this motion were to be passed I foresee centralisation coming. To the Deputies on the opposite benches I would say that, perhaps, they may be inclined sometimes to become despondent because they have a generally perverted outlook. They have been for the past couple of years trying to get Fianna Fáil out of office. Unfortunately they have studied one side of the situation only. It would be very well before they go down with their ship to stretch out their hands for the life belts within arms' reach.

I think the most pleasing feature about the speech which was begun last night by the Minister for Local Government was that, on mature consideration, he decided to-day he would not continue that speech. He moved the Adjournment last night and I was very glad to see that he was not in his place to continue his speech to-day. I hope that the reason was that, on mature reflection, the Minister was thoroughly ashamed of the speech which he had partially delivered. Certainly if you come to consider the ineptitude of that speech as a defence of the Government position, if you consider the insolence with which the Minister addressed various members of this House, and if you consider also the most extraordinary statements of fact which he made in the course of his speech, I do hope that, light having brought counsel, he was too ashamed of his speech last night to continue it further to-day. We in this House, impelled by Christian charity and by the laws of the House, must attribute certain things to a strange loss of memory which, I am afraid, people outside the House will not attribute to loss of memory; rather, will they apply a very much more severe word to it. We may think that the poor Minister for Local Government is suffering from that disease, amnesia I think the doctors call it, by which somebody's memory completely and entirely goes—he forgets his own name. Where he comes from and he forgets everything about himself.

When the Minister for Local Government, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, declared that Fianna Fáil did not make it a plank in their election that they would give derating to the agricultural community of this country, we in this House may attribute it to a strange and abnormal loss of memory. But I am afraid the people outside will not so attribute it and it is not good for the reputation of this House or the reputation of any political party here for the Vice-President, knowing, as I suppose he does, how desperately defective his memory is, to omit jogging that memory before he makes statements of that kind.

The Minister might have thought out an answer to President de Valera's speech in Kells. These were President de Valera's words, as reproduced in the Leinster Leader:“£2,000,000 of the £3,000,000 would give complete derating to all agricultural holdings, big and small, and to the farm buildings as well.” That was after he talked about the £3,000,000 in respect of land annuities. That was what the President said, but now we are told that the people who believed Fianna Fáil would devote £2,000,000 to derating were deceiving themselves. The President was only like a fraudulent company director putting out a fraudulent prospectus with a little loophole through which he might escape.

In the election advertisement of the Fianna Fáil Party we were told that with £2,000,000 of the £3,000,000 involved "the farmers can be relieved completely of the rates of their holdings and another £1,000,000 is available for the relief of taxation or for such purposes as the Dáil may determine." Is that not an undertaking by the Fianna Fáil Party? Again, the people are only deceiving themselves. Again, it it only a fraudulent attempt to get votes by false pretences. How about this which you will find in the Irish Press of the 18th February, 1932—it is a speech by President de Valera:—“The overhead charges of the farmers are too heavy for them and must be lightened. One of the heaviest of these charges is the burden of local rates. We propose to derate agricultural holdings. They are derated in Britain and in the Six Counties. Two of the £3,000,000 unjustly taken from us every year in the land annuities will suffice for this derating.” Is that definite enough for the Minister for Local Government? Is that definite enough for Deputy Kelly, who has just spoken? No words could express President de Valera's meaning more clearly than those words. It is not often that President de Valera is willing to express his meaning quite so clearly as he did on that occasion. We have here what every person in the country knew and what was shouted off Fianna Fáil platform after Fianna Fáil platform—that Fianná Fáil, if they were elected, would give complete derating. We have here a responsible Minister of State, the Vice-President of the Executive Council, suffering so much from a strange loss of memory that he has forgotten what was the main policy of his Party a couple of years ago before they got into office.

The Minister thought he would be very clever at Deputy Broderick's expense last night. He said that Deputy Broderick was on the Derating Commission and the Deputy did not believe in the policy of derating. Deputy Broderick's speech last night was that in his opinion this motion should be carried and acted upon, but he put it forward that it was in his opinion only a temporary measure necessitated by the impoverished condition of those who are endeavouring to live by agriculture, an impoverished condition which in one part of his inconsistent speech the Minister for Local Government admitted and in a subsequent part denied. That was Deputy Broderick's attitude. The Minister says: "What an awful thing it would be if there was derating now? There would have to be derating for all time, and there would have to be a change in the system of local government." If it becomes necessary, when this terrible incubus, the Fianna Fáil Government, has been removed from the shoulders of the Irish farming community—if it becomes necessary to put the Irish farming community back in a sound and solvent position, I see no reason on earth why they should not have complete agricultural derating. If this country is going to thrive— indeed, if this country is going to live —it is necessary that our farming community should be rescued from the terrible condition in which the incompetence of this present administration has plunged them and, if derating is necessary for them, I know that, so far as I am concerned, complete derating would have my support.

We must, at whatever cost, if this country is going to survive, restore agriculture to what it was. We must undo the deadly work which the Fianna Fáil Party have done since they came into office. The Minister for Local Government at one time declared that the farmers' condition is admittedly bad. It is admittedly bad. It is worse than it has ever been in the memory of living man. If you go back to the worst times you can remember, if you go back to the years 1879 and 1880—those desperate years— you will find that there is more poverty in Ireland at the present minute than there was then, and worse prices for cattle.

I wonder whether Deputy Kelly owns any cattle, or knows the first thing about them. All I can tell Deputy Kelly is that if he went to some western fairs he would discover that, far from improving, they are getting worse. The worst fair held in my constituency in South Mayo was held in Ballinrobe this week.

Mr. Kelly

It is too early to purchase yet.

The Minister for Local Government knows nothing about agriculture, but Deputy Kelly comes from Meath and ought to know something. The Minister for Local Government says that poultry are very excellent. Why do not the Minister and Deputy Kelly pay some attention to what the poor Minister for Agriculture says? The Minister for Agriculture says that the poultry trade is desperate, and that you must limit your supply of eggs. Of course, Deputy Kelly and the Minister for Local Government never heard that. They know nothing about the condition of the egg industry which, in my constituency, is the most important next to the live stock industry—far the most important source of income that we have got.

Sheep are flourishing. Are they? There is only a little more than half the sheep population in the country now that there was a couple of years ago, and the price of sheep is nothing like what it was then. The Minister, having admitted once that the farmers' condition was desperately bad, and then having changed, came along with two illustrations which I must say were astonishing. The farming community is in a splendid way in Westmeath. Why? Because £10,000 was collected in the town of Mullingar for the building of a cathedral. It seems to me rather strange that you would find farmers living in the town of Mullingar. If there were merchants and professional men in Mullingar in a position to pay £10,000 towards the erection of their cathedral, I do not see that that reflects in any way upon the financial position of the farmers in the county. We all know that there were good times and that this country was getting on quite well until Fianna Fáil got into power. We all know there were savings, and if the merchants and professional men in Mullingar, Kells, or any other town in the diocese of Meath, are able to pay £10,000 in subscriptions towards the cathedral fund, that is no evidence that that money came directly or indirectly out of the pockets of the farmers.

It is a credit to them.

It is a credit to them to have paid it, but it certainly does not show that the farming community is flourishing in Meath or Westmeath. The Minister for Local Government has another great argument. He met a parish priest who told him that he had losses for one year only and that after that he made a little money as he has been buying so cheaply. He has not made very much but he has made a little money. That is to say, I suppose, that the parish priest has got, possibly, 10/- or 15/- a head more than he paid for his cattle after keeping them for a year or so. But will the Minister for Local Government consider the position of the real farmers, the men who produce these animals? Will the Minister consider the position of a man who is compelled to sell a three-year-old bullock for £4 10s. or £5, even though he sells it to a parish priest? These unfortunate persons, who have reared cattle, who have spent their little substance in trying to get cattle into proper condition, when they turn them out to market discover that they can get very little for them. In some instances they will not get more for a three-year-old bullock than they paid for the same animal when a suckling calf. Anybody who knows the fairs in my constituency knows that what I am saying is an absolute fact. These are the people who are suffering and who require relief.

The Minister produced the most extraordinary figures and said they had given £8,000,000 to help agriculture. Here and there, in some small and favoured areas, such as those where beet factories have been established, it is probable that they have benefited agriculture. But over the vast area of this country the Government's policy has been to do one thing only, and that is to ruin agriculture. They say they have helped the dairy industry and given money for that. That is untrue. They have not given one halfpenny. That money is taken entirely from the pockets of the persons who buy butter and there was no necessity for a Government measure for that at all. They took that scheme unaltered from Australia, where the butter ring, without any Government intervention, had succeeded in introducing a similar scheme on its own behalf. The Irish dairy people are being no more helped by the Government, as far as that is concerned, than are the people of Australia where, without any Government intervention, an exactly similar scheme is in force.

Then we have the Minister for Local Government saying, and his faithful namesake, following him dutifully along the path, re-echoes him: "There would be poverty in any event." Granted that there would be a fall in prices; granted that prices in England are not the same as they were a couple of years ago, but far higher than they are at present in this country. If Irish agriculture were in a flourishing condition, in the condition it was, say, during the height of the Great War, it would possibly be in a position to bear the burden of £6 per head upon exported cattle. But, if prices are down, as you say they are down, then the £6 per head bears more heavily. The more depressed the condition of Irish agriculture is, the less able it is to bear this added burden. The Minister says: "You will be poor in any event." If the Irish farmers will be poor in any event and, if superimposed upon their necessary poverty, there will be this extraordinary outside burden, then surely that is an overwhelming reason why this motion should be accepted, not a reason to the contrary. The poorer an industry or an undertaking in a country is, the less it is able to bear the burden. You cannot take a man with an income of £1,000 a year and a man with an income of £100 a year and substract the same sum of money from them and have precisely the same effect upon them. The man with £1,000 a year can bear to have a large sum of money taken from him, but the man with £100 cannot. Because this country is in a £100-a-year condition you want to treat it as if it were in a £1,000-a-year condition, and you want to pass off that in this House as statesmanship.

There is another point which the Minister completely and entirely ignored. This motion deals with the local rates. On the local rates the entire social services in the counties rest. Outdoor relief, public health, and the whole local services rest upon them. If there is a breakdown in the rates position, if there is inability to pay rates, if the county councils cannot collect the rates owing to the inability of the people to pay, social services will come to an end. When the Minister states that there is an organised campaign against the payment of rates in this country, or that there ever was, the Minister is drawing on a very vivid imagination indeed. There is no organisation and there never was an organisation in this country against the payment of rates. I believe that 99 per cent. of the people of this country who can pay their rates are paying them willingly, but there are any number of people who cannot pay their rates and it is useless for the Minister to shut his eyes to that fact. It is useless for anybody to shut his eyes to the fact that there are large numbers of people who cannot pay their rates. That number is being augmented day by day and will be augmented day by day until there is a change of policy on the part of the Government. If the fast-coming result of the Minister's policy does arrive— it will arrive very soon unless there is a change in policy—and if we have bankruptcy in the local councils, if we have inability to pay the poor rate, and we have in consequence inability to give poor law relief in its various shapes, you will have this country in a very desperate state indeed. Yet the Minister says: "I can do nothing. I have to keep back various sums because by law the Guarantee Fund must be kept in existence."

I am not going to argue whether the Guarantee Fund under the law must be kept in existence or not. But I will say that this motion here requires legislation to implement it, and if the Guarantee Fund must be kept in existence by the existing law, then your remedy would he at once to change the law.

You have got a choice between legislation on the one hand and the ruin of the local bodies on the other hand. Wherein lies your reluctance to legislate? Do you hate legislation? We get Bill after Bill of the most unnecessary kind from day to day. If legislation is necessary in this instance, by all means let us have legislation. The people have now become impoverished owing to the policy undertaken by you, by this carrying out of the Fianna Fáil pre-general election policy, the policy of non-co-operation with England, which President de Valera announced when he was leader of the Opposition. By carrying that policy into effect you have brought the farming community down into desperate poverty. There is no part of Ireland which you have brought into greater poverty than the poor districts in my own constituency. It is necessary that this relief should come to them, and that, and even greater relief, will have to come and come quickly, or you will have the burden on your souls of having brought to starvation some of the best people in the State.

This motion was put on the Order Paper on the 26th January, 1934; it is now 7th March, 1935. The motion suggests that owing to the increasing distress of the farming community, arising out of the continuance of the economic war, the Executive Council should take steps to relieve agricultural land of rates during the financial year 1934-35. We saw, when we tabled this motion, the result of the policy of the present Government and the impossibility of getting any rates from the agricultural community. We had gone through a year or two of the economic war and we know what the results were. We had a decline of £25,000,000 practically in our export trade in the year 1933-34, which we saw at that time-that is a decline since 1931. That decline was entirely due to the fall in the quantity and value of agricultural produce exported and the farming community must have suffered as a result to that extent. We also saw that the income of the individual farmer was lowered by at least 50 per cent. more than in the worst year from 1921 to 1931. We saw further that the cost of living of the average farmer was not less than that estimated by the Department of Industry and Commerce. That would be 57 per cent. higher than in 1914 and 12 points higher than in 1931. We also saw that the prices paid for farming requirements, and for essential commodities on the land, were from 60 to 100 per cent. higher than in 1914 and the prices obtainable for farm produce would be 30 per cent. under the standard of that year. On these facts, we raised the question that it was impossible for the agricultural community to meet the demand for the rates and, hence, we tabled this motion.

I am sorry the Minister for Local Government treated this question with a degree of levity last night of which I thought he was not capable. He tried to show a sense of humour last night but I do not think he has one. His reference last night to the Cathedral at Mullingar and to the £10,000 that was collected, was I think, very small coming from a Minister for Local Government. It was very small also to hear the Minister talk about the parish priest who is making money now although he lost it some time ago. I think it was very small for him to suggest that people should not collect or subscribe money towards a Cathedral but that they should subscribe money to keep him here in his office. He made a further reference which I thought he was not capable of. When he was tackled and refused to answer the case put up by Deputies here on this side, he made a reference to a decent Deputy who has the confidence of his constituents down the country and he said: "Would that dumb fool shut up?" I suppose it is what we must expect from him. The remark is worthy of him and he of it.

I was in the Chair when that remark was made and I did not hear the Minister use the expression "dumb fool." If I did I should have asked the Minister to withdraw it.

I am taking the words from the official report as taken down last night.

I want to make the position of the Chair clear. The word "dummy" was what I heard.

I shall leave it at that. It is thrown from the Minister's umbrella, so to speak. I suppose it might be ineffective at that, but I will let that go. I thought that the Minister's reply would have made some attempt to refute the statements made by Deputy Broderick. Deputy Broderick put up a case and the Minister did not answer the Deputy's statement. He was not able to answer it. The Minister and all his Party went out in 1932 with promises of derating and no annuities. They were going to improve the social services, reduce unemployment, and reduce taxation by £2,000,000——

At least.

——and all the rest of it. They have improved social services, probably. They have given free meat and free milk and doles, but how does it affect the rates? In the West Cork Board of Health district, where there is free meat and free milk and doles, and where they promised that unemployment assistance would be in force and that home assistance would go down by 50 per cent., I doubt if home assistance is down by 5 per cent. at the moment. Who is to bear the brunt of all this? The ratepayers have to bear it. It is the ratepayers who have to pay for the free meat, the free milk and the doles. That is the kind of social service that we have been given. The Minister always has the cry that they are doing all this in order to help the poor, but he has created a new poor. As a result of the Minister's policy people who a year or two ago were able to carry on and able to meet their annuities, their rates and their ordinary debts, to feed and clothe their families and pay their way generally, cannot do any of these things now. They are faced with misery and bankruptcy. They cannot meet their rates or their annuities, nor can they pay their shop debts.

I should like the Minister to come down with me to a fair in West Cork and see what is happening there. They talk about the markets created here for us for bacon, butter, pigs, and all the rest of it. Let the Minister come down to a fair in West Cork and see what is happening. Last Monday, in my native town of Clonakilty, I saw people who could paper all the rooms in their houses with bills from the sheriff for their annuities and from the rate collector for their rates. They could paper all the rooms in their houses with bills. Then, after feeding their pigs and bringing them to the verge of perfection, they find pigs down 10/- last Friday, and there the unfortunate people are left wondering how with those pigs they might be able to meet some portion of their annuities or rates. Instead of the pigs enabling them to meet these liabilities, they find that the price would not even cover the cost of production or anything like it. The same thing applies to the cattle fairs. All over the country they keep telling us each month that the next month's fair will be better, but the next turns out to be worse, and so on. But then they say: "We thought it could not be getting worse," but now it is worse. That is the situation. That is the situation the people in the country are up against.

The Minister, in his reply to Deputy Broderick with regard to County Cork, says: "I will see that the rates will be paid in County Cork." Deputy Broderick told him why the rates in Cork and other counties were not being paid; that it was because they were withholding the agricultural grant, and he went on to say that the Minister for Local Government, at the instigation of the Minister for Finance, is now finding himself the victim of circumstances and is compelled to go on a marauding expedition to take away that grant. That is the situation. We have Deputies in this House talking about bounties and so on. We had Deputy Ben Maguire talking about a bounty on beef in England, and saying that because things are done in England they should be done here also.

He said that the prices are bad in England. No matter how bad they are in England, however, our cattle have to pay £4 and £6 a head. If you stopped that foolish economic war and gave us that £6 a head, there would be no need for tabling a motion such as this, and no need for the Minister to have out his sheriffs to collect the rates. Deputy Maguire went on to say that prices in England are bad and that prices in the North of Ireland are bad. According to the Guards, as far as I know, the greatest industry that has been established in this State is the smuggling industry which has been established along the Border. If there was not money in it—and I would not be at all surprised that the Government knows that there is money in it—that smuggling would not be carried out. The Government's policy is an incentive to smuggling and to dirty work. That is what this Government has done. It has provided an incentive for everything that is demoralising since they came into office, and they are continuing that policy.

I notice that Deputy Corry did not speak with his usual amount of "jizz." I remember Deputy Corry going out in my constituency of West Cork and openly advocating derating. I remember him saying at Drimoleague, at a date that I could mention, that the annuities were not going to be paid and that when their Party came into office they would not be paid. When his Party came into office he changed to derating. That is the mentality of Deputy Corry and it is the mentality of the whole of those on the Government Benches. They think from their own narrow parochial viewpoint. They cannot see from the point of view of a number of individual members in their own constituency. All they think about is how they are going to save themselves, and that is the policy of the Government. Deputy Corry says, "We halved the annuities," but he forgot that as a result of the nonsensical policy of his Government we have an economic war on and that England is collecting the annuities off the people of this State. They are paid. That must be acknowledged by everybody. Then Deputy Corry's Government comes along and collects half the annuities, which is another form of land tax.

A good deal has been said about the policy of changing over to wheat and beet. The peat policy has been dropped. It was killed as a result of the coal-cattle pact. Wheat will be grown while the subsidy lasts. The wheat policy is no good to small farmers. In the South, at any rate in my constituency, they would be foolish to change from a system that has been established for will-o'-the-wisp and wild cat schemes like those the present Government are trying to carry on. They should know that the live stock industry is the main industry in this State. It is the main branch of agriculture. When the live stock industry has been killed the agricultural community will be deprived of the means of getting the wherewithal to pay rates or annuities. A tillage policy is all right in its own way. I know what tillage means. Invariably for the past 20 years I had 40 or 50 per cent. of my land under tillage. I can grow wheat, oats, barley, potatoes and roots. I always had a better market than I have now for all that I produced. I had not to go into the shops to buy feeding stuffs. I fed my own produce to my cattle, and I brought these cattle to the market and was able to realise satisfactory prices. That is all changed now. I am still trying to continue in tillage, although I find it is not paying. I have no market for my potatoes. I have no market worth talking of for other things. There is no money in wheat for me. If I can grow eight or ten barrels of wheat to the acre, and sell it for £1 a barrel it costs practically every penny I receive to produce it. When I was able to grow it and to feed it to my stock, and to sell that stock in a good market, it paid me to grow wheat better than it does now. I have no market for anything else I produce.

There is talk about developing our industries and about the establishment of new ones. If I could see an extra penny a day for eggs, bacon, beet, or any part of the industry, or if I saw any hope in the home market developing on lines that would benefit me, I would be whole-heartedly with those on the opposite benches in their industrial campaign. I say they have killed the main industry, because every homestead and every farm was a hive of industry. They have developed some industries in which cheap juvenile labour is employed at wages varying from 6/- to 10/- weekly. That kind of labour cannot afford to give me a price that will cover the cost of production and a little more. There has been no increase in the prices I receive for anything I produce. It is obvious that the new industrial policy is a hopeless failure. The first thing that should be done should be to put the big industry on its feet, by making a decent agreement with our best neighbours for what was our best market. Put agriculture on its feet by giving farmers an opportunity to get into the market that always purchased our produce and then the farmers will always pay. The Irish farmer was always honest, always hard working, and always paid his way until demoralisation set in when this Government came into power.

The cost of social services can be met only from three sources: savings from prosperous years; moneys withheld from payment of bank or shop debts; and a reduction in the number of essential live stock kept on the farm. Those are the three sources from which money can be got to meet social services. As these three sources have disappeared nothing is left. The Minister stated yesterday that he would see that the rates would be paid not only in County Cork but all over the country. When Ministers send out the bailiffs, as has been done by the Land Commission, the land will be depleted of stock. What will then be left from which to get money for these services? How will the State be kept going? The Minister went through a whole litany of what had been done for the farmers by the Government. He said that the arrears of annuities had been funded at a cost of £4,000,000; that bounties on agricultural produce amounted to £3,100,000; that the beet subsidy amounted to £800,000; the butter subsidy to £1,100,000; the wheat subsidy to £200,000; and that additional old age pensions represented £750,000; unemployment assistance, £1,500,000; minor relief schemes, £250,000; and that there was a saving on land annuities of £1,860,000, making a total of £8,000,000. When I asked the Minister the source from which these £8,000,000 came, he said they came from the taxpayers. When I asked the Minister who were the taxpayers he answered: "Everyone in the State." I say that the one source from which the £8,000,000 came was from the representatives of the main industry—agriculture — because while practically every other person in the State is able to pass on the cost, the farmer, who is the last man, cannot do so. No matter where the money comes from, and no matter how it is paid, there is really only one source from which it comes, the farmers. When Ministers make speeches down the country one would think, when they say they are giving so much for free beef and for old age pensions and other things, that the money came out of their own pockets. Very little of the money for these services comes from any source but from the men on the land, and the sooner the Government realises that the better.

In view of facts that have been pointed out from these benches, there is no reason why the Government should not accept this motion. If such a motion was necessary previously it is 100 per cent. more necessary to-day, 24 days from the end of the financial year. I hope wise counsels will prevail, that the Government will see the error of its ways, realise that agriculture is in a very bad way, that it is down and out and needs some assistance. The one way to assist it is to give it the relief now asked for, I think about 37 per cent. of the rates have been collected in Cork and we are now within 24 days from the end of the financial year. I know the county well, and I know that the people who could pay always did so. There are people there now who cannot pay and who are being forced to pay. They asked that the rates should be taken in instalments, and they offered £1, £2, or £3, but these offers would not be taken.

This motion is intended to help people who are honest and have always paid their way. They have pigs and other stock on hands that they are unable to dispose of for the reason that their credit is gone. I know farmers in West Cork who have pigs, and because they are unable to get further credit from the shopkeepers they are not in a position to finish these pigs and put them on the market to make the money required for the payment of rates or annuities. It is no exaggeration for me to say that there are people at the moment who have not salt to eat with their potatoes. I submit that the Minister should step into the breach and assist these people. They are the poorest of the poor at the present time, and they deserve to be helped out of their difficulties until such time as a brighter and a better era dawns on our country.

I have listened to a lot of talk this evening about the distress that exists amongst the farmers of the country. I am a farmer and I am in close touch with the farming community. I realise what their difficulties are and the causes of them. I have the greatest confidence in the agricultural policy that Fianna Fáil is endeavouring to get adopted all over the country. In fact, it is being adopted each year to a greater extent by farmers, because they see it is their only salvation and the only way in which the distress amongst them can be relieved. Their distress will be relieved when there is a wholehearted change over to the new agricultural system. If one were to judge by the speeches delivered here this evening, then one could only come to this conclusion: that agriculture and the cattle trade were wonderfully prosperous prior to the period when Fianna Fáil came into power.

I have been a long time associated with farming. I was born and reared on a farm. All my relatives and friends have been in the cattle trade. I remember that in 1911 or 1912, when there was a very big outbreak of foot and mouth disease in England, the cattle trade of this country was completely paralysed. Every port in the country was closed. During the Cumann na nGaedheal régime, despite what Deputy O'Donovan has said to-night about the bad prices that are being paid for pigs, I saw a situation here when farmers could not sell their pigs. I remember reading in the newspapers at the time that young pigs were being given away practically for nothing. Under the same régime I saw periods when barley and oats could not be sold, and while that was so the people had to pay their rates and annuities, the full annuity and not in instalments as at present. During all that period the position of the farmers was becoming worse. The difficulties that farmers are labouring under to-day are, in my opinion, due to the neglect of the last Government over a long period.

Put out your hand and see are you dead.

We were told to-night that the cattle trade is everything. But if the country were to be wholly dependent on the cattle trade, and if you had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, as occurred years ago, look at the position we would be in. I say that conditions are not as depressed as they have been represented here. I mix a lot with the people of Kildare, and I have observed that those who have adopted the agricultural policy of the Government are very hopeful. I admit that they have to work hard and that conditions are pretty hard, but they realise that the success of that policy is going to bring them through. They are sowing more wheat this year than last. It is a fact, too, that the price of grazing land has gone up in the county this year. I have been told by auctioneers that in parts of the County Kildare uneconomic holders are giving from £4 to £5 an acre for conacre land to till and grow wheat.

The poor mugs.

Order now. We listened to you.

You are not the Chair.

Mr. Kelly

We had to listen to a lot of stuff from you on that side.

I was told, too, that they are giving from £4 to £5 an acre for land to grow oats and wheat on. Last year during the hay season, the uneconomic holders had to give up to £4 and £5 an acre for conacre meadow. The type of farmer from whom we hear complaints is represented here by Deputy Holohan and Deputy Fagan with their 300 and 100 acres of land.

I till more land than the Deputy ever did.

Who are the people who gave the £4 and £5 an acre for conacre meadow?

Uneconomic holders in the County Kildare.

What did they do with the meadow?

Order, now, give the man a chance. We listened to you and did not interrupt.

My summing up of the situation is this: that what is wrong with a lot of the people who are complaining is that they have too much land. If they were relieved of some of that land, instead of relieving them of their rates, and it was given to the uneconomic holders, that would help to solve the problem. They could then by adopting the policy of the Government work the land left to them in a more intensive way. That, I think, would solve the whole situation. Amongst the majority of the working farmers of County Kildare who employ labour, there is no demand for derating. As Deputies know, farmers who employ labour get relief of rates under the legislation introduced by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and passed by the Oireachtas. That scheme, which has been in operation for some time, satisfies the working farmers and the men who till their land in the County Kildare.

I must state that there is great dissatisfaction amongst the uneconomic holders and the industrious small farmers of the county, who would work the land if they got it, at the delay and slowness of the Land Commission in acquiring and dividing up the big estates.

Some of the Deputies who spoke from the Government Benches referred to this as a more or less political motion. It is not a political motion. It is put before the House so as to give it an opportunity of knowing the facts as they affect the farmers. The debate has gone on for a very considerable time and I think that the motion deserved full consideration. If Deputies regard the position as it is and compare the living farmers are getting now with what it was a few years ago—when we had sufficient to pay our rates and meet all our demands—they will find that the income of the farmers has been reduced by about 50 per cent. That is during the period from 1931 to 1935. If there is any difference, our overhead charges are greater than they were in 1931. A strong case for derating was made at that time. Surely, if there was a strong case for derating in 1931, the case for derating in 1935 is immensely stronger. I am moving amongst farmers up and down the country every day. I know that they are decent, hard-working, honest citizens. They are always prepared to work hard in order to meet their obligations. We foresaw the position at which we have now arrived long before this motion was put on the Order Paper 12 months ago. We knew that, under the policy advocated by the Government, farmers would find it almost impossible to make ends meet, especially since the Government wanted to bring about their big change in a year or two years. The live-stock branch of our industry was the principal branch. When I speak of live stock being the principal branch of our agricultural industry, I do not want members on the Government Benches to take me as saying that we were depending altogether on the live-stock or the cattle trade. The more cattle a man could keep, the more tillage was necessary. The farmer who carried on a system of mixed farming—dairying, the rearing of young cattle and the tilling of a considerable acreage so as to feed all his stock—would give more employment in one year than would the policy advocated by the Government give in many years. Not only that, but it is quite evident to any farmer and it is evident to most Deputies, whether they be on the Government Benches or on these benches, that to continue growing beet or wheat or any species of corn crop, it is necessary that a certain number of cattle should be kept and fed on the farm in order that there may be sufficient manure for the crops. Everyone of us could grow corn to a great extent for two or three years, but at the end of that time we would find that there would not be sufficient manure for the land. Without manure to bring it back into fairly decent good condition corn growing would end.

The killing of the live-stock branch of our industry is responsible for the present depression in agriculture. Let us consider the losses in the live-stock branch. A farmer with say 50 or 60 acres would have 14 or 15 yearlings to sell. That man's rates would be from £15 to £20 and his land annuities would be in or about the same amount. He would lose more at present on the 14 or 15 yearlings than would pay his land annuities and rates for two years. There is that degree of difference in the price. A tillage policy is not objected to by many farmers. I myself agree with a tillage policy, to a certain extent. But there is a limit and we must have regard to that limit unless we are going to run out our land and leave it practically useless. I do not want to introduce the personal element into my remarks but I till about 50 acres on an average and I give considerable employment. I rear practically all the young cattle on the farm from the time they are dropped until I finish and sell them. I do my utmost every year to produce sufficient to keep the stock in good condition with what I grow on the land. All the time I was able to get more out of the corn I grew on the land by feeding it than I was by selling it. We can grow more wheat for a few years and we can grow more corn for a few years but, after growing, every year for a few years, 10 or 12 acres more than we can manure, we will find ourselves with a lot of old, stubble land which will be practically useless. Wheat is a hard crop on the land. It takes a good deal out of the land and requires a good deal more labour and a good deal more attention than either barley or oats. It is in the land for practically 11 months. If you continue growing all that wheat for a number of years, you will find that practically half of the farm will not be able to grow anything unless you are able to manure the same number of acres every year as you till. To do that, it is necessary that the live-stock branch of our industry should be retained. We are told that there is not a market available to us in England, that that market will be closed in a few years, and that the English farmer is going to produce all England's requirements in that respect. To that, I would say that, at any rate, the market should be made available to us until then and let us have a few years to consider the position and see what we are going to do and how we are going to do it. The amount of money lost on the live stock branch of our industry since this policy was adopted two years ago is much more than the rates and the land annuities put together. That is what is responsible for the depression in agriculture. The farmers are accused of organising for this and that purpose. We ought, at least, to have liberty to voice a grievance when we have a grievance and God knows we have a grievance at the present time.

I know farmers who are trying to pay their rates and their land annuities. They are borrowing the money to help them to do so and they are asking their neighbours who have a few pounds to spare to help them. I know there are shop bills that are unpaid by the farmers. If many farmers were to sell out to-morrow they would hardly realise as much as would meet their debts. These men were in fairly sound positions a few years ago. These men would not take up the attitude they have taken from any political point of view but from the honest point of view, and it is from that point of view that the assistance of the Government is required. If the agricultural industry and the farming industry are closed down in this country other industries will go down with them.

I wonder what purpose Deputies opposite think they are serving when they pretend that there is some course open to the Government of this country by which it can secure for them, or for the farmers generally, an unrestricted market for their cattle. Whom do they think they are deceiving? They are not deceiving anybody in this House familiar with the position. We have repeatedly demonstrated to them, at elections, national and local, that they are not deceiving the farmers. Are they deceiving themselves? I do not think so. They are all talking with their tongues in their cheeks. These statements made by Deputies opposite who have just spoken, about the market for cattle that exists in Great Britain, are made with the intention of deceiving somebody, or else they are made in ignorance.

Deputies opposite must not have taken the trouble to find out, from obvious sources of information, what is the truth concerning the market for cattle in Great Britain. Only in this morning's paper there was published a White Paper, circulated at the instance of the British Government, to the members of the British Parliament, about the market for cattle in Great Britain. Did Deputies read that White Paper?

Yet having read that they have the audacity to come here and make speeches this afternoon like that which we heard from Deputy Holohan. The British Government published a White Paper to the effect that the depressed prices for cattle in Great Britain were producing such a serious situation for the British farmers, that, in the interest of these farmers, they had been compelled to take drastic action.

To limit the importation of frozen beef.

If Deputy Dillon would try to stop talking for ten minutes I will promise not to interrupt him when he comes to make his sixth speech upon this subject. The British Government, having referred to the position of the cattle market in Great Britain, and the seriousness of that position to the British farmers, announced that they are going to take drastic action——

By raising the price of meat.

How? By two specific methods, stated in their White Paper: by imposing duties on all imported meat into Great Britain or, alternatively, restricting these imports in quantity in a drastic manner; not imports from this country, for this year they entered into an arrangement with us which determined the number of cattle to be imported. These duties which are going to be imposed in the interests of the British farmers or those quantitative restrictions are not designed against us. They are designed, as the White Paper expresses it, against other members of the British Commonwealth—Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. It is against members of the British Commonwealth, none of whom, except ourselves, are engaged in an economic war with Great Britain, that these restrictions are intended.

If the British Government feels compelled, in the interests of its own farmers, to take that action against those other members of the Commonwealth, do Deputies opposite think they are going to take an entirely different course with this country if, as Deputies opposite suggest, we grovel in the dust in asking and begging for some concession in their market, so that the great industry of cattle rearing can be re-established in its old prosperity in this country? Do they think they are fooling the British by these speeches? If the circumstances in the British market are such as the British Government describe them, is it not obvious for us that if we are to have an agricultural policy it ought to be a policy that will not leave us dependent for prosperity upon the chance of selling cattle in the British market? That is common sense.

It is not farmer sense.

The one advice Deputy Fagan and his colleagues should give the farmers they represent, who are talking about relief and more relief, is to stop talking and to start working.

That's the stuff to give them.

All this complaint about the necessity for relief of agriculture comes from a small minority of farmers who prefer to talk rather than to work.

That was said by a farmer on your side who does not till his own land.

Deputies opposite are speaking as if the farmers of the country as a class were trying to escape from the obligation of their annuities and their rates. Ninety per cent. of the farmers have paid——

Yes, three times over.

Ninety per cent. have paid. And the 10 per cent. who have followed the advice not to pay are the particular type to whom advice should be given to spend less time in the office of bookmakers and more time on their land.

Every bookmaker in the country supports them.

We have now a new agricultural expert.

And a new agricultural policy.

I do not pretend to have any technical knowledge of agriculture at all, but I do pretend to be able to read, and I read this morning the official declaration of the British Government about the British cattle market.

I never saw a picture in the papers of a farmer making a bet. I did see a ministerial picture of that nature.

There is, perhaps, some point in that remark which does not strike me at the moment. I should like to put a sensible question to Deputies opposite, and I hope they will try at some time to give a sensible answer to it. If the condition in the British market for cattle, and agricultural exports generally, is as described by the British Government, and if, because of this condition, the British Government takes the action it says it is going to take, is it good policy for Irish farmers to concentrate again, solely or mainly, upon the production of cattle for that market?

Where will we send them?

Let them formulate another policy based upon the production for home consumption of agricultural goods that formerly were imported into this country to the value of millions of pounds. The proposal which Deputies opposite ask the Dáil seriously to consider is that there should be complete derating of agricultural land for this year. Do they think that if there was complete derating of agricultural land this year that it would be possible to reimpose a rate charge next year? Does Deputy Cosgrave think that? Deputy Cosgrave, as President of the Executive Council, gave serious consideration to this question of derating agricultural land and he decided against it. He decided against it for very weighty reasons, all of which were stated here in the Dáil when the matter was discussed. Has he changed his mind?

Circumstances have changed.

Oh, I see.

Completely.

Does Deputy Cosgrave remember the arguments which he used against the policy of derating agricultural land? Were they economic arguments?

Yes, in the circumstances.

I do not think they were. These arguments had no relation whatever to the economic conditions of the farmers.

We will tell you all about it.

They related to the social consequences that would follow if the local government of this country was conducted mainly on grants from the Central Fund.

Under normal conditions.

Under any conditions.

The arguments which weighed most with the Derating Commission that met in 1930, and the arguments which influenced the Government of that day, some of whom are sitting opposite, to decide against a policy of derating, were not arguments that had relation to the economic position of the farmers in that year or in any year. They were arguments which related to the machinery of local government in this country, which is maintained out of the rate charges.

But the President of the Executive Council, at the present moment, did not subscribe to that in the General Election of 1932.

And the Minister's policy has burst more than the machinery of local government.

The Deputy sends in two of his colleagues to propose a motion, and that motion appears to indicate another change of policy opposite. I think it is up to Deputy Cosgrave, as one of the few responsible people in the Party which he leads——

The Minister is becoming courteous.

——to tell us exactly the reasons which induced him——

I will tell you them all.

——to advocate in 1934 a policy which he turned down in 1931.

And induced you to renounce it.

And if he can think of any other reason except the depressed condition of his Party and their urgent need to get votes by any means, it will surprise not merely members on this side, but a number of members on the opposite side also. What exactly are the conditions of the farmers? The Minister for Agriculture indicated here a number of the measures that were taken in order to improve the position of those who were engaged in agriculture. I am not saying, and no member of the Government or of the Government Party has ever said, that the position of the farmers is as we desire it to be. Quite the reverse. Agriculture, not merely in this country but in all countries, is passing through a period of considerable depression. The fall in the prices of primary products which commenced in 1929 and continued during the subsequent years has not yet been arrested, and in every country the farmers are depressed.

In every country Governments are subsidising agricultural exports and it is these very subsidies, given by different Governments to try to tide their farmers over the crisis, that are in turn aggravating the crisis. Look at the price of butter on the English market. Would it pay the Irish farmer to produce butter at that price?

Look at the Danish prices.

Does it pay the Dane to produce butter at that price?

He is getting more than we are getting, anyhow.

Why is he getting more? Because for ten years in this country the creamery industry was mismanaged and it is only now that an attempt is being made so to organise it as to give the continuity of supply and uniformity of product which the consumer demands.

And yet the price of Irish butter exceeded that of Danish butter at one time.

During the régime of the late Government.

It never did.

I defy Deputy Dillon to produce here any documentary evidence to support what he has said. He has blundered into another statement which he cannot substantiate.

No, sir.

Look around you. There is not a man on the Opposition Benches who knows anything of the butter trade who will support it.

It certainly did, and evidence can be produced.

Deputy Bennett promised to produce figures here and he did not do it.

Deputy O Briain ought to make a speech sometime and not to interrupt.

That applies to many in this House.

The prices of agricultural products are unduly low. The world prices for most of them are below the cost of production of any country. Not merely is butter being subsidised, but practically every other agricultural product is being subsidised by one or more countries, with a consequent depressing of the world market price. Is there a single agricultural product which we could produce for export with a profit at the present time at the world price?

Is the Deputy satisfied with the price of cattle in Great Britain?

Stop the economic war and we will produce them.

The British farmer is not. Again, I refer to the statement of the British Government this morning.

If we got the English price, or near it, we would be quite satisfied.

Indeed you would not.

Yes, we would.

The policy of the Government here has been to turn farmers, in so far as it is practicable to do it, into the production of those products for which a substantial home market is available, because it is only in that market that prices can be so regulated that the farmer can be guaranteed what Deputy O'Donovan wants—the cost of production and a little more. Over the great range of agricultural products, the farmers are getting here prices substantially higher than the world prices.

Where are they getting them from?

From the Irish people, the home consumer.

Are they? Are you sure? I do not see those great prices going. I see plenty of inspectors but no prices.

Deputies opposite spend a lot of time here pretending to criticise the Government's agricultural policy, but we have not heard their own.

Stop the economic war. That is the whole thing.

Is that the whole of their policy?

A good part of it.

Get back to the conditions which for the ten years during which that Party was in office denuded this country of its wealth and sent a quarter of a million of our population out to the United States of America hoping to find there the livelihood they could not find at home.

If they could go now, they would go.

They are coming back now.

They are, because they have to.

The running commentary on the Minister's speech must cease.

If Deputies opposite think they could attempt to formulate an agricultural policy without again splitting their Party, I invite them to do it.

Will you give us the chance?

When they come in here on this campaign of criticism, they should make some pretence at producing an alternative programme. What is their alternative? Deputy Fagan speaks the mind of the Party.

I speak my own mind.

He is the only member of that Party who has the courage to put forward his policy, the particular programme he had—stop the economic war on any terms and anyhow.

I did not say "on any terms."

And the surest way to get a good settlement of that is to go to the British Government and say: "Our policy is to settle this war and we cannot go back until we have settled it."

Put in writing what you want and I will go over and settle it myself.

I move the adjournment.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn