I was making some observations on this motion when the Dáil adjourned on last Wednesday evening. Beyond dealing with a few points raised by Deputy Brennan, for one, in regard to the maize meal mixture scheme, I have not very much more to say. It is true that I did give notice to the farmers that at the end of this cereal year, that is at the end of August, 1939, I thought it probable that the maize meal mixture regulations would not be continued. I gave as the reason for that that, first of all, it could no longer be claimed that wheat growing was in an experimental stage, that it was possible for any farmer who wanted to grow a cash crop to turn to wheat or oats, and that those who were growing barley for feeding, apart from farmers who were growing barley for malting, could turn to wheat if they wanted to grow a cash crop. I also pointed out that for the last two years we had not found it necessary to raise the percentage beyond 10 or 15 per cent. in order to absorb all the surplus grain available for sale. Taking all these things into consideration, we thought that the advantages which accrued to growers from the maize meal mixture scheme were more than counterbalanced by the disadvantage to the feeders. On that account it was decided that we might drop the maize meal mixture scheme at the end of the present year. I should not like, however, to accept Deputy Brennan's contention that the fact that we dropped the scheme proves that it was a mistake or a failure. I think Deputies who remember the conditions that prevailed when the scheme was first brought into operation in 1934 and 1935 will admit that some such scheme was required in order to absorb the barley and oats that were then on hands. At that time farmers who were growing a cash crop were largely engaged in barley-growing but now a number of farmers have turned to wheat and the same necessity does not hold.
There were a few other points made in regard to the motion but I do not think they need any further comment from me. I want to come to the amendment standing in the name of Deputy Dillon and moved by Deputy Brennan. Deputy Dillon, in effect, asks for a commission to inquire into the agricultural industry. That is a suggestion that has been made from various quarters in the last three or four years. In fact there was a motion before the Seanad some time in the beginning of the summer to the same effect, namely, that a commission should be set up. For a long time I was opposed to such a course, at first on general grounds, that to inquire into agriculture was such a very big task. You might as well ask a commission to inquire into what is wrong with the world or if there is anything wrong with it. It is a very big subject and it is almost impossible to expect any commission to report on it in a reasonable time. I thought that if we were going to agree to this at all it would be better perhaps to take some phase of agriculture, such as production, which is mentioned here, the improvement of the bacon industry or of the egg industry. It would be better to take the question piecemeal in that way and have, if you like, a commission to inquire into one or other of these questions rather than have them go into the big general question of what is wrong with agriculture.
Possibly, I might have been very much more opposed to this two or three years ago than I am now because it is quite obvious that, if a commission were set up before the economic war was finished, a number of witnesses would give as their evidence that what was wrong with agriculture was the economic war, whilst other witnesses might say something else. It would have developed into a trial by jury of the merits or demerits of the economic war. Conditions have now changed and I do not now see the same objections as I did then to the setting up of a commission. Although I am, perhaps, not as optimistic as Deputy Dillon or Deputy Brennan may be about the results of a commission, I cannot see that we can oppose it very strongly, and if there is a desire from any Party here or from the House in general that a commission be set up to inquire into agriculture, or all phases of the agricultural industry, all I can say is: Let us go ahead and set it up.
The amendment opens with the statement that it is essential "to increase the production and profitable sale of agricultural produce and to that end a loan should be made available to agriculturists at a rate of interest not exceeding 3 per cent." Then the terms of reference are to be "to recommend proposals for increasing the volume and value of agricultural production in all its branches and that, pending a report of the commission of inquiry, the rates on agricultural land as and from 1st April next be met out of the National Exchequer." I should like very much to agree to that in toto but I do not see that we can. It is all very well to inquire into the matter that is referred to there, that is, to inquire into proposals for increasing the volume and value of agricultural production. That is a question that I think might very well form the subject of inquiry. Perhaps we might get some very valuable information as a result of hearing the evidence of people who are prepared to give evidence, and as a result of the deliberations of the commission we might get some useful recommendations.
I do not, however, see that we could, without due consideration, agree to the latter part of the amendment—that rates on agricultural land should be met out of the National Exchequer. That would mean providing a sum of £1,500,000, roughly, for that purpose. If I were to favour that course and recommend it to the Government, naturally the Government would ask me, "How is this money to be got in another way?" I do not know how it could be got. However it might be got, the farmers would have to pay their due share of it in whatever type of taxation might be levied. I have expressed the view here already, and I should like to express it again, that if we had money available for the benefit of agriculture I am not so sure at all that the best way to spend that money would be on derating. I think if we had money available and if we could spend it for increasing production it would be very much better. Therefore I do not want to have the whole position prejudiced by having rates remitted or dropped while this commission is sitting. As I say, I do not think the Government could agree to that. I have not asked them to agree and I do not think they could agree to the motion in full. I am prepared to agree, however, to the setting up of a commission to consider and make recommendations as to the measures to be taken to increase the volume and value of agricultural production. Of course it will be understood, naturally, that the methods should be practicable or feasible methods, measures not only to increase and promote agricultural production but also to maintain agricultural production.
All these things have to be considered, so that I think we could set up a commission more or less on the lines of the terms of reference set out here—that is wide terms of reference, a commission that would be empowered to enquire into anything practically. Naturally, if a commission is asked to consider the method of increasing agricultural production, well it is quite free to consider derating because the commission could say: "It is within our terms of reference to say whether derating is or is not against agricultural production." Give them wide terms of reference and let them consider all these matters as best they can.
With regard to the personnel, I do not know if what is set out here on the order paper is the best method of approaching that. As a matter of fact, I think that Deputy Brennan said, when speaking, that his Party was not tied to the method laid down in the amendment as regards the personnel, and that as far as they were concerned they were quite willing to leave it to the Government to set up the commission and select the personnel in the ordinary way. I think myself that is much better. I think, if you were setting up a commission, it would not be wise to go to one body for one nominee, and to another body for another nominee. If you were to do that, you might not get the sort of balanced commission that one would like to get. On a commission of this sort I would like to have, first of all, a number of farmers. You would want farmers on it. Every Deputy knows that farming is such a very big industry that there is no farmer who could claim to speak for all phases of agriculture. You would want at least four or five farmers to deal with the different phases of agriculture—live stock, tillage poultry, eggs, pigs and so on. Then you have another very big body of farmers, the smaller and the poorer farmers living in the mountain districts. They would have to be represented, so that to start off with you would probably want to have at least five farmers on the commission. Other interests, of course, would also have to be represented such as agricultural labour, people with the financial view and economists, if possible—that is theoretical economists—so that when you had given representation to all these interests you would have a commission consisting of 11, 13 or 15 people.
I think it is much better that the whole commission should be nominated in that way rather than on the lines set out here. You will get a better balanced commission. On the other hand, if you were to ask different bodies to nominate representatives you might not get the balance that you required. That means that the Government would be prepared to set up a commission roughly on the terms of reference set out—that is very wide terms of reference—nominating the personnel on the Government's own responsibility so as to try and balance the commission as well as possible, taking into account all the different interests that should be represented.
I do not know that I have anything more to say. I do not think there should be a long delay about setting up the commission. Deputies understand, of course, that we will have to think about the personnel. People will have to be written to and asked if they are prepared to sit on the commission, but taking everything into account it may be two or three weeks before the personnel of the commission is announced. After that, the members will be called together and asked to go on with their business.
I had thought of another matter, and perhaps I had better mention it now, and that is of having a tribunal instead of a commission. I do not know if Deputies are familiar with the difference between a tribunal and a commission. I confess that I was not until I went into the matter. A tribunal is a more expert body: in other words, you appoint a body which will take evidence and report on the evidence without giving their own views at all. That might be a very useful thing, but under our legislation we would have to set up that tribunal to inquire into a matter of urgent public importance: into a particular matter. This is not a particular matter: it is a very general matter. I suppose we might say that it is urgent and public, but on the other hand those who criticise us would say, I suppose, that it was just as urgent and public five years ago as it is now. On the whole, I think it is better to have a commission than a tribunal. A tribunal would be a smaller and a more expert body. The members of it would be more impersonal. They would hear the evidence and report on the evidence. On a commission you usually put people who know more about a subject and who give their own views, perhaps. On the whole, I would be in favour of a commission in our present circumstances, taking into account the subject and the wide range of material the members will have to go through. We will keep the numbers on the commission as low as we can, and set it up as soon as possible.
In view of the fact that the Government is prepared to accede to this part of the resolution, I do not think there would be very much use in my talking about the other parts of the resolution, because anything that I or anybody else might have to say had better perhaps be put to the commission rather than to this House.
