Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 1939

Vol. 78 No. 8

Emergency Powers (No. 12) Order, 1939—Motion to Annul.

I move that the Emergency Powers (No. 12) Order, 1939, be annulled. This motion stands in my name and in the name of Deputy Cogan. Both of us wish it to be understood that the motion was not put down—I have so informed the Minister privately—to oppose the Tillage Order, as such, but to get information about it. This Order proposes to enforce cultivation of 12½ per cent. or one-eighth of the farm. As I read the Order there are a few exceptions more or less on personal grounds, but I do not think the Order circumscribes the extent to which they can apply. The Order does not provide for a percentage of tillage of the arable area of the country, and as I read it the owner of a swamp is bound to till his percentage of that swamp. Obviously that was not the intention, and I would like to hear the Minister on it. This is a very serious Order. I have sympathy with the Minister for Agriculture in the task that is before him and in the reasons that prompted him to make this Order. If due preparation were made by the Minister I think the Order would be justified. There is a war all round this country, naval warfare; we can take it that that war which is only three months old, promises to be a long and bitter struggle, and that as far as sea-warfare is concerned at the moment it is a question of no quarter on either side. Day by day neutrals are getting more and more involved, so that any prudent Minister for agriculture or any prudent Government would have very small sense of their responsibility if they did not provide at least sufficient food in this country for man and beast —to use a country phrase. What did the Minister require? He required to get as much wheat, beet and vegetables for direct human consumption as would sustain the whole population until the following harvest arrives. If there is a margin left over, os much the better. In fact the Minister would want to see the cultivated area that, with a low return, would provide a sufficient quantity of food for man and beast. In addition he would want to increase the production of barley, turnips and mangolds, and so on, for cattle fodder, and to a small extent, some of the latter for human food. The Order does not go into this aspect of the case at all. The Order says till one-eighth of the land, or, at least, one-eighth must be tilled. We can see a position in which that would be complied with over the whole country, and we would have a surplus of some commodities whilst we would have a scarcity of others. I think it is necessary, in order to produce for the nation, to use a bovine expression, a balanced ration for the people, that the Minister should take some steps, difficult I admit they are, to see that a sufficient balanced ration for the nation will be produced during these years while the war is on. Whilst it is easy for the Minister to sit in his office and make this Order, I am sure the Minister's mind was examining its implications.

This country this year is probably unfertile or probably less fertile than it has been during the lifetime of the present generation. It is well known that during the last ten years fertilisers were used sparingly, one might say increasingly sparingly, because of the financial position of the population. I do not want to synchronise that with any Government that was in office. I am speaking of the facts of the case. There is undoubtedly a shortage of fertilisers this year, though we are asked to till one-eighth or 12½ per cent. more than last year. I wonder has the Minister in his calculation worked out mathematically that that one-eighth more, added to the production of last year, will give sufficient quantity of food for man and beast in this current year? If that is the way he has arrived at his one-eighth, I am afraid he miscalculates. We may take it, generally speaking, that the land tilled in response to the ordinary farm economy in times past is more suited for tilling, and that it is the less arable part of a farmer's land will come under this additional tilling. The land that will produce the best crops is that part of the land that the farmer usually tills. But now, in the less suitable part of his land, which under this order he must till, he must use more manure and more fertilisers than he did in years past.

The Minister proposes to have one-eighth more land tilled this year with 25 per cent. less artificial manures available, and even these not certain. I have this afternoon got in touch with my own manure merchant and others, and from all these I have got the same information—that there is only 25 per cent. of last year's supply available to them up to the 31st of this month, and that they are sold out of manures. There is not a bag of artificial manure available in Dublin at present. That is the information I have got from inquiries made this afternoon. As well as that, they do not know what is to happen in the future. Not alone have they not any of these manures, but up to the present they have got no promise of having in future any artificial manures, except potassic super, xxx super phosphate and some basic slag. I asked for muriate of potash, sulphate of ammonia and Semsol, and I was told I could not get them, and that the manure merchants have not been allocated any of them so far. That is a very serious position.

I am not making a political speech. I am endeavouring to make an agricultural speech. I hope the Minister will appreciate that, and take it at its true value. I am not making the point that there is a shortage of all artificial manures, and a dearth of some of the most important ones in order to say that the Government are responsible. I want the Minister to take my points in that spirit. Every progressive farmer who uses fertiliser wants to have it mixed. Every progressive farmer knows the particular mixture that suits particular parts of his land. My information is that we cannot get the component parts of a balanced manure to mix ourselves. We cannot get muriate of potash, or sulphate of ammonia. No one would be more glad than I would be if the Minister is able to tell me that I am wrongly informed on that point.

Assuming that is correct, how does the Minister expect to have an increased return from the land? I am not finding fault with the Minister for requiring an increased return. It is absolutely essential, if we are to survive, that we must have an increased supply of food for man and beast. I am putting it to the Minister that the breaking-up of grass land without fertilisers is not going to increase the yield. If you break up an enormous lot of grass land, you will have more land tilled at greater expense, but with a considerably less average yield. I should like to get an assurance from the Minister on these points as to fertilisers.

There is another very important matter which has had its manifestations in the last few weeks. Farmers generally are probably the most conservative element in the community, but they are the least bellicose element. Whatever the Minister or his colleagues or anybody else may think of the strikes which we have had in the last couple of weeks, they are manifestations of something that is not healthy. I am sure the Minister will agree with me when I say that it was surprising to find farmers taking that step of striking—wisely or unwisely, right or wrong. There is something wrong there. It is a very dangerous thing for the farming community to go on strike. After all, as a class they are the people who own most of the fixed property in the country. They went out on strike and, as follows all strikes, whether those in charge wish it or not, there was a certain amount of violence, and that is associated in the public mind with something that is tried to be put over with violence. I am not concerned with that portion of it. The point I want to impress on the Minister is that it was done and that there must be something wrong that prompted its doing. What is that something? It is very serious for the Minister, considering it was done subsequent to this Tillage Order being made. I do not believe that this Order had anything to do with that strike, or that the strike was a reaction to the Tillage Order.

Is the converse true—that the strike had nothing to do with the Compulsory Tillage Orders?

It did not produce the strike. It had something to do with the strike, but not in the sense that the Chair means. The strike has a bearing on what the Minister requires from the Tillage Order. The Minister is aware that the financial and credit position of agriculture is not what we would like it to be at present. He knows that orders by the merchants who are importing, generally speaking, if not without exception, must be accompanied by cheques marked "good". These merchants in turn must get paid by the customers on a cash basis. Even if the fertilisers were there, is the agricultural community in a position to trade in those circumstances? I do not think they are. I concede that this Tillage Order is nothing more than the situation demands, but it should be accompanied by credit facilities for the people who are asked to till, to buy implements if they were not tilling last year, and to buy seeds and fertilisers if they can get them. That must be done on a cash basis. The Minister, of course, had to insert a provision for a penalty if the Order is not complied with; but he should give the people a chance. What has he done to provide credits? You cannot get blood from a turnip. If these people are not provided with credits, how can they comply with this Order? Perhaps the Minister has in his mind some way by which the situation may be met. That situation is more extensive than I thought it was up to recently. I had the privilege— it was a privilege—to be at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce recently, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who had just taken up office, told us, and from that sounding board told the country, that it would be his policy to endeavour to pay back to agriculture the debt which industry owed it. I said then, and I repeat, that that was a very good speech only it was some years late. I wonder has the Minister advised the Minister for Agriculture that he is going to co-operate with him to repay the debt due by industry to agriculture, and, if so, by what means is the payment to be made. I suggest that this is the opportunity and that they should find the means.

I gave the Minister a pamphlet some years ago containing a speech by Signor Mussolini to the Agricultural Council of Italy, delivered in Milan about 12 or 13 years ago. Speaking to the Italian farmers, Signor Mussolini said: "You have the maximum percentage of the arable land of Italy that can be allotted to wheat already allotted, but more wheat is required for bread for the Italian nation, and we require of you, by good farming, to increase the yield of wheat by a quintal per hectare. That is what I require of you. Anything by way of credit accommodation or otherwise you require to produce that for the Italian nation, I guarantee to you." I put it to the Minister—I am not saying that he is a Mussolini——

Do we not know it?

Can the Minister guarantee the farmers that if, this year and the years during which the war lasts, the farmers put up all the food required for human and animal life in this country, he will guarantee them adequate credits and financial security in their present position. If he can guarantee that to them, the farmers of Ireland will respond as the farmers of Italy responded to Mussolini's appeal. When the Agricultural Council of Italy met in Milan a year afterwards, Mussolini was there proudly to compliment the farmers on having increased the yield not by one quintal but by two. The farmers here will double the food supply required if the Government give the assurance to them that Mussolini gave to the Italian farmers 12 or 13 years ago.

On one occasion, in an organised effort, a few friends and I filled College Green with the biggest demonstration that ever assembled there. I guarantee that I will bring as many farmers to applaud the Minister if he gives them a guarantee similar to what Mussolini gave to Italian farmers. I am not appealing for special consideration for the agricultural population. I am appealing because I am satisfied that what we all want and what the nation requires in this emergency cannot be got in any other way. The farmers are not as great fools as many people think they are. They have done foolish things but we have all done foolish things. You will get a lot of horse sense from the farmer who has been communing with the soil all his life. He is looking at the prices which he has to pay during the present war for the things he requires that are not produced or made at home. He knows that the cost of these things is soaring to the war level of 1914-1918 and the time-lag following the war period. He finds that he has to pay high prices and that he is not getting correspondingly high prices for what he is producing. Price is, more or less, a relative matter. The difference between your income and your outgoings is your profit or loss. If one is high and the other high, it is much the same as if one is low and the other low. In present circumstances, the agricultural population find that what they have to sell is low priced and that what they have to buy is high priced.

They have learned a sad lesson from the last war. During the last war, prices were high. That is not so in this war. The bitter lesson the farmer has learned from the last war has to do with the terrible aftermath that more than swept away his war profits. That aftermath was followed by a lot of other things in this country. The Minister knows that the farmers, as a community, were always patriotic. When the Black and Tan war broke out, the shelter, the commissariat and, to a great extent, the transport for the flying columns were provided by the farmers. Their houses were open to feed the columns and I do not think they ever got compensation.

That internal trouble in the country was very costly to the economic life of the country, and the farmers lost considerably through that, but they did not grumble. That period was followed by civil war and they then lost again, on the double. When that was over they found that they were in the depths of financial and economic depression. Various things happened then up to 1932, when the economic war started and the farmer was left with practically nothing but his eyes to weep with. Just as that was concluded, this war started. You had debts accumulating all the time on agriculture in this country, and now, in those circumstances and in that setting, agriculture is asked to-day to obey this Tillage Order. It is prepared to obey it, but my appeal to the Minister is to give agriculture a chance and a promise of security.

What is the burden that agriculture has to bear to-day that it had not to bear in the last war? It has to bear a legacy, variously estimated at from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000, of what is called frozen debt. The farmer is blamed for having that, but the blame is not his. The root of the trouble goes back to the Treasury Minute of the 15th December, 1919. That produced the terrible aftermath of the Great War. It was then decreed that the £, which was lent to the farmer, was worth about 8/- or 9/-, while it appreciated until it was worth 20/-. During that period of appreciation, prices fell, and the farmers' debt increased. The net result was this: That the farmer who borrowed in that period and before that period,—the farmer who borrowed 100 paper £'s from a bank, got, in fact, only 45 gold £'s, and in 1925 and subsequently he was asked to pay back 100 gold £'s for the 45 gold £'s that were lent to him. In other words, he was asked to do the impossible. That is the origin of the frozen debts. I do not want to develop that in a debate of this kind, nor do I think I would be in order in doing so, and I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to go as far as I have gone in that matter, but the farmer is aware of that, and if he got the fat periods and the good prices now he could lay up a reserve that would tide him over the lean years that will be inevitable in the aftermath of this war. The farmer is not getting that. Can the Minister guarantee credits for the farmers now? I do not mean to say that the Minister should lend him £5 or £10, or anything of that sort, but can the Minister release ordinary bank trading credits to the agricultural community, such as existed in the last war? If not, why not? If he and his Government are not in a position to do it, why do not they get into a position to do it? It is not fair to hold the pistol to a man's head and tell him that he must do a certain amount of work, if he has not the wherewithal to live while he is doing that work, and what guarantee is there that, when agriculture produces all that is asked for in this Order and it is stored in our haggards or stores, and if the submarine war ceases and peace should come, and our ports are open to bring in cheap supplies of surplus agricultural produce from foreign countries, the farmer will get a remunerative price for what he is going to produce?

There is one thing that the farmer knows, and that is that he will have to pay the costs he will incur in producing this food. I do not think the Minister has treated the farming position fairly. I am not developing this for the farmers as a class. I have big farming interests, but I have bigger commercial interests. I realise, however, that for commerce and industry in this country our best market and our surest market is the purchasing power of agriculture, and now is the time for our Government to secure agriculture, not only during the time of the present war but, above all, in the aftermath of the war.

I just looked up this afternoon the key to the credit position of this country, as it is now and as it was during the peak inflation during the previous war. The note circulation in this country during the peak of the Great War was nearly £30,000,000; it is £11,500,000 to-day. That is the key to the bankers' credit available. The note issue in Great Britain to-day is slightly over £580,000,000—higher than ever it was during the previous war. These are all paper-inflated pounds; there is not a pennyworth of gold back of them. I ask the Minister to weigh this position very carefully. I have had experience of the Minister as a negotiator, as a receiver of deputations, and as a non-receiver of deputations, but I think it is up to him and his Government, if he wants to put this thing through, to take the farming population more into his confidence. They have grievances, not of their own making; they have grievances brought about by Government default. It is up to the Government to help the farmers now, when it is expecting of agriculture a supreme effort. The country is entitled to a supreme effort from agriculture, as it is from every other industry in the country. I am sure it will get it from agriculture if agriculture is given a chance—if the farmers get the raw materials for their industry, and if they get credit facilities. There is no reason why adequate credit facilities should not be available. This is a creditor country, and the surplus that we command as a creditor country should be used for the defence of the country at the present time. That defence must not be expressed in terms of chaser torpedo boats, coastal defence and five bombing planes, but in producing plenty of food to keep human and animal life going in this country. That is the defence to which the credit of the country should be devoted. I would ask the Minister to take a firmer stand in demanding a better share of public expenditure for agriculture than that Department has got up to now. Industry and commerce seem to get money any time they want it. Agriculture requires it now in order to make this supreme effort which is asked of it. I hope the Minister will succeed in getting those elementary facilities, which are absolutely essential if agriculture is to be able successfully to make the supreme effort which it is called upon to make during this time of emergency. I formally move the motion.

In seconding this motion I should like to say that I am not opposed to the idea of increasing the area under tillage, and increasing agricultural production generally, but I think that, before any attempt is made to increase production on the land, a real effort should be made to put the farmers in a position to do so. There is no use in disputing the fact that the farmer is not in a position to increase production at the present time. He has not the capital to do so. In addition to that, there is not a sufficient guarantee in regard to the price to be obtained for a considerable amount of the produce which it is necessary to get from the land. I may be asked why it is that the farmer is not in a position to go into production more intensively. Some people may be inclined to suggest that that is due to neglect on the farmer's part, or to want of thrift or want of care in the husbanding of his resources during the past few years, but anybody who has any knowledge of agricultural conditions, anybody who has given the slightest attention to the state of agricultural prices and agricultural costs generally during the last six or seven years, must admit that it is physically impossible for the farmer to have any store of capital to enable him to increase production at the present time.

The years from 1921 to 1929 were fairly difficult years for agriculture. During those years the farmer had no chance to accumulate savings; it was even difficult for him to make ends meet. But we have got to realise that in 1929 the value of agricultural output was £20,000,000 higher than it was for five or six years of the present Government's administration. When we remember that the farmers found it difficult to make ends meet during 1929 we will be forced to admit that, with his income reduced by £20,000,000 for five or six years, there can be no question whatever but that the entire resources of the industry must have been completely swept away. I think the total value of agricultural output in 1929 was roughly £62,000,000. In 1934 I think it was £38,000,000, while in 1933 it was slightly less, and in 1935 slightly more, but on an average the value of agricultural output for the five years beginning in 1932 was £20,000,000 down as compared with 1929.

There you had a loss of £100,000,000. Was the agricultural industry in a position to suffer that loss, and still have sufficient capital to carry on? That is the question which the Minister should ask himself to-day. I think if we look at the figures of national income also we will find that the income of those engaged in the agricultural industry was less by approximately £20,000,000 a year for five or six years. It is that accumulated loss over that period which has caused the state of poverty and discontent which exists in rural Ireland to-day. The farmer finds that it is impossible for him to make ends meet, and, although the prices to-day may be improving, the farmer is not in a position to take full advantage of that improvement. Therefore, if the Government is prepared to carry out the suggestion made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that something should be done to repay the debt due to agriculture, I think the first step that should be taken is to provide credit for the farmer to enable him to increase production.

It may be said that the farmer has at his disposal ample means of obtaining credit; that he has the banks, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and various other commercial institutions. But it must be remembered that the only farmer who can obtain credit from the banks or from the Agricultural Credit Corporation is the farmer who is in a thoroughly sound position. The farmer who is in financial difficulties, the farmer who, as a result of the years through which he has passed, is not in a position punctually to meet the demands for annuities and rates, will obtain no credit whatever either from the banks or from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. As that type of farmer is in the majority at the present time, some reasonable effort should be made to meet his requirements.

The Minister may say there is no use in attempting to finance the farmer who is insolvent, but I think the Minister should bear in mind that during the last century we had a very conservative British Government ruling in this country and we must remember that when the first Land Purchase Acts were passed the Irish farmers generally were in a very insolvent condition, yet, notwithstanding the fact that they were unable to meet demands for rates or rents, the British Government had sufficient courage and foresight to advance £100,000,000 to enable land purchase to be carried into effect in this country. If the British Government were prepared to trust the Irish farmers to that extent, surely an Irish Government should be prepared to provide at least sufficient capital to enable the farmers to get back into production. That is the first essential in connection with increased tillage. Without capital it is absolutely impossible for the farmer to increase production.

At the minimum, in order to till 12½ per cent. of 100 acres properly and to carry on the system of mixed farming and stock-raising—to do so economically and profitably—it would be necessary for a farmer to keep at least two men, and the wages of the two men —I assume the wages are now going to be increased—would be at least £150. How is a farmer, who has no capital, to meet such a demand? From what source will he be provided with £3 a week for two men while he is carrying on increased production? He cannot do anything unless the Government are prepared to do what the British Government did in the last century, provide sufficient capital for the farmer to enable him to expand his industry. If the Government have not the courage to take that step, courage which a very conservative British Government displayed on another occasion, then they are not fit to be the Government of an agricultural country.

There is widespread discontent amongst the farming community. That discontent was apparent last week when there was a spontaneous nationwide demonstration of protest. That demonstration would never have taken place over such a wide area unless the feeling of discontent was there, unless the farmers felt they were being ill-treated and they were not getting justice under the present Government. Farmers, just as any other body of citizens, are prepared to meet the Government fairly if the Government meet them in the same spirit. The representatives of the organised farmers met the Government at the outbreak of the European War and offered their fullest co-operation in any measures that might be taken to develop the agricultural industry, but it was stipulated that co-operation would be conditional upon the Government making a reasonable attempt to meet the farmers, to meet the minimum demands of the farming community. What were the minimum demands? The farmers demanded, first of all, that they should have security of tenure, a definite assurance that they would not be disturbed in the possession of their holdings.

The Government may say it is necessary to have power to acquire agricultural land in the national interest and to ensure that the land will be used to the best national advantage. That argument has been to a great extent swept aside by the introduction of compulsory tillage. To-day the Government wield two weapons over the head of the farmer. They have not only the power to compel him to till a certain portion of his land, but they also have the power to acquire his holding. There is no reason why the State should hold these two menaces over the head of any of its citizens. If the Government feel it necessary to have power to compel a farmer to till a certain proportion of his holding, they should in all justice relieve him of the menace of having his holding compulsorily acquired. If the Government have the power to see that a farmer carries on a certain amount of production, then there is no reason why they should have the power to take over the holding.

Having introduced compulsory tillage, the Government should accompany it with a guarantee that the farmer will be left in undisputed possession. That is one of the demands which the farming community put up to the Government, and it is a demand which the Government should have fairly met. You may have noticed that the farmers did not demand the withdrawal of the Compulsory Tillage Order. They were prepared to submit to that Order, provided they had security of tenure and that their other demands were met. Increased production can never be brought about unless there is close co-operation between the farmer and the Government, and that close co-operation cannot be achieved unless there is a feeling of confidence amongst the farming community that they are going to be fairly treated. The Government should meet the representatives of the organised farmers and secure from them a promise of active co-operation. They can secure that promise if they are prepared to meet just and reasonable demands.

The farmers also demand that something should be done in regard to the arrears of land annuities which accrued during the years when agricultural produce was unsaleable, when the farming community were selling their produce for £20,000,000 less than in 1929. I hold strongly that it is time the question of land annuities should be removed from the arena of political dispute. It was not the farmers who introduced this question into the arena of political contention; it was the present Government Party and it should be the duty of that Party before they go out of office—and they go out very soon—to put this matter right and to secure now and for all time that there will never again be any dispute in regard to the payment of land annuities. They can do that by meeting the farmers' request to fund all the arrears that accrued during the depressed years, over a certain period, so that the farmer will be in a position to meet his payments regularly in the future. It would be a very good bargain for the Government if they met the farmers in this respect and said to them: "If you give a pledge that your organisation will do everything possible to ensure punctual payments of annuities, we will meet the demand for the funding of the arrears and we will all start afresh and the whole question of annuities will be buried for all time." That would be a reasonable attitude for the Government to adopt, one that will probably secure greater revenue in respect of the land annuities than at the present time, because once the farmer is put in a secure position, once he has security that his stock may not be seized on the following month, he will be in a better position to go into production. He will do so more enthusiastically and in better spirits, and in this way he will be able to meet the current instalments of the land annuities that may become due. That would be better for the farmer, for the Land Commission, and for the country generally, and this question which has been brought into the arena of political disputes by the present Government, will, for all time, be laid to rest.

Again, farmers have suggested to the Government and appealed to the Government that the financing of local government be put upon an equitable basis. Everybody has agreed that agriculture is bearing more than its just share of the cost of local administration. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government to meet the farmers' demands in that respect, and to abolish rates upon agricultural land. The farmer is prepared to pay rates upon his other property, upon his buildings, just as townspeople are paying. He is not prepared to have his sole source of income excessively taxed as it is at present. We have been told that it was only the big farmers who would derive benefit from derating. I know of my own personal knowledge that the small farmers throughout the length and breadth of the country are more enthusiastic about this demand for complete derating than even the big farmers. For that reason I suggest, in order to secure the active co-operation of the farming community, that the Government should meet these demands fairly and honestly. By so doing, they will secure the active co-operation of the farming community, which they require in order to make agriculture a success.

There is no doubt whatever that agriculture in this country for the past 50 years has been a failure. But it has been a particularly disastrous failure for the past five or six years. Nobody can deny that every branch of agricultural production has gone down. The area under tillage at the present time is less than one-third of what it was in 1851. The entire agricultural production has declined. Nothing has been done by the present Government to improve the position. The prices which farmers have been obtaining for their live stock and tillage products are £20,000,000 less than in 1929. We know that in 1929 it was barely possible for the farmer to exist. Having regard to that fact, one would expect that all the energies of the present Government should be directed to securing the active support and co-operation of the farming community in increasing production. I do not think that anybody will contend that the present Government has made any reasonable attempt to secure the co-operation of the farming community in their policy of increasing production. We do know that the representatives of the organised farmers met the Government at the outbreak of the present war. They offered the Government their support and their help in promoting increased production. To what extent has the Government met their demands? As I have said, their demands have been turned down completely. We were offered an agricultural consultative council. That council was thrown to the farmers as a sort of sop. But on this council, the Irish Farmers' Federation, which is representative of the entire farming community——

Representative of what?

Of the entire farming community.

Representative of 5 per cent. of them.

They were representative of the entire farming community.

The Lord have mercy on you!

I am surprised at Deputy Corry interrupting, because he is one of the people who recently tried to crash into that organisation.

The Irish Farmers' Federation has been given one or two representatives out of 32 on the Agricultural Consultative Council. Getting away from that we have the provision that since the council was established, or immediately before it was established, this Compulsory Tillage Order was introduced. This Compulsory Tillage Order is a very far-reaching measure, and one which concerns agriculture intimately. Surely if the Agricultural Consultative Council is to be of any use it should in the first instance have this matter of compulsory tillage submitted to it.

So it was.

I think the Order was in force before the council was set up.

It was not in force. There was no objection to the Order by the council.

It would be hard to see why there would be any objection from the council on which the Government had 100 per cent. representation.

The advisory council was selected on political grounds.

Does Deputy Belton say they are all political?

I would like to ask the Minister if the price fixed for wheat was submitted to the Agricultural Council?

The beet price was mentioned and met with applause.

The beet price was not fixed at the time.

What has the Agricultural Consultative Council to do with it?

It is treating the agricultural community with contempt to limit them to the representation they have on the Consultative Council.

If the Deputy goes on feeling around he may say something to the point in the end.

I have said that it is treating the agricultural community with contempt to set up a council of this kind and claim that it is an agricultural consultative council. It would be desirable to have a representative agricultural council. It would be an asset to the Minister if he had a council truly representative of the agricultural community to assist and advise him on agricultural matters.

It is truly representative.

I deny that.

The Farmers' Federation have one Deputy in the Dáil out of 153, and they have two representatives on the Consultative Council. They got more than they deserve.

The Minister must realise that the Farmers' Federation is an organisation which has only grown up during the last 12 months. It has grown more rapidly perhaps than the Minister would desire.

It does not trouble me much.

It is an organisation which, no matter what the Minister may think, will continue to represent agriculture. At present, as I have said, the agricultural community feel that they have been cheated and betrayed by the present Government. The sacrifices which they made during the economic war have been completely ignored. No recompense whatever has been given to the farmers for those sacrifices. No recompense has been given to them for the sacrifices which they had to bear to finance the establishment of new industries, many of which are unproductive and unprofitable. The Minister claims a considerable amount of credit for the fact that agricultural prices have increased slightly since last year. But agricultural prices are still comparatively low.

What has this to do with the Emergency Powers Order?

The fact has to be faced that the farmers have suffered through a period of five or six years when agricultural prices were little more than half the cost of production. The accumulated losses of those years are pressing heavily on the agricultural community and preventing them from playing the part which they would like to play in increasing production. There is no doubt that production can be increased. We have a position at present in which there is an increasing demand for such products as pigs and poultry. There is an export market for those products, and there is no reason why production on those lines could not be expanded, provided the farmers had sufficient capital to go into production.

A farmer cannot hope for increased production in any line at the present time, without growing the greater part of the food-stuffs required on his own holding. Therefore, in order to increase production in pigs and poultry, it will be necessary to increase the acreage under potatoes, oats, barley, and other feeding-stuffs. What chance has the unfortunate farmer with inferior land, who perhaps had his last crop seized, and who has very little stock, to increase his acreage under oats, potatoes, and the other crops required? He has not the capital to do it. He has not got the stock to enable him to carry on increased production. No attempt is being made by the Government to meet that farmer fairly and honestly. It is no use for the Minister to go down to Rathdrum and tell an audience of rate collectors and sheep-scab inspectors and people of that kind——

They are farmers who are paying their way.

The Irish farmer has always paid his way.

I was speaking to farmers who were paying their way.

I do not think there is any citizen who is as anxious to meet his demands and pay his way and be independent as the farmer. It is the policy of the present Government, the policy of destroying the agricultural industry, of destroying the basic stock of the farmer, the policy of requiring the calves to be slaughtered, the policy of compelling a farmer to sacrifice his stock at less than one-quarter of their value, which has put the farmer in a position that he is not able to pay his way. The farmer would like nothing better at present than to get back to a position in which he would be able to meet the demands for land annuities, and the fair and just demands of the State in regard to taxation. He would like to be able to meet the business people who provide him with credit. At present he is not able to do that, and because he is not able to do it, you have widespread discontent. As I said, the Minister went down to Rathdrum and tried to make this a sectarian matter. He tried to represent that the farmers who were agitating were members of the Protestant minority in this country.

I never mentioned religion.

By implication.

What implication?

At the last meeting which he addressed in Rathdrum the Minister stated that the people who were agitating at present were people who were always opposed to him.

And you are making that a religious question?

At a meeting in Rathdrum, two years before, he stated that the Irish Farmers' Federation was composed of members of the old ascendancy class who came to this country during the various confiscations. I think the Minister cannot deny that. His last speech was taken as being a repetition of a former statement. The Minister must realise that the Protestant minority in this country, or the old ascendancy class-call them what you will—are citizens of the State and may be very useful to the State.

I have no objection to them.

It is desirable that they should take their part in the national life of the country and should be members of any organisation established in this country; that they should play their full part as citizens; and anybody who tries to prevent them from doing so is doing a very serious national disservice. After all, we all hope that sooner or later this minority will help to bring about a national re-union in this country provided they are allowed and encouraged to take their part in the national life of the country. These people cannot very well become members of political organisations. But there is a natural tendency for them to join economic organisations, such as the Farmers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Manufacturers, or any of these organisations. There is a natural tendency for them to join these organisations, and they should not be discouraged from doing so, and I think the Minister is not serving a useful national purpose in discouraging them from doing so.

I should like the Deputy to come back to the motion.

This policy of increased tillage depends entirely for its success on the amount of co-operation which the Minister will secure from the farming community. The Minister will not secure that active co-operation unless he is prepared to meet the farmers fairly and decently, to meet the reasonable requests of the farmer, and to respect and treat fairly any organisation of farmers. If he provides the necessary capital for increased tillage and guarantees that the price of agricultural produce as a result of this increased tillage will be fair and just there will be a market for this increased production. We had an example——

Non-stop.

When Deputy Corry interrupts, he always reminds me of a cock crowing on a manure heap. It makes a certain amount of empty noise, but we know what is underneath. We know that certain vegetables were produced during the present year, and that it was found there was no market for them. That may arise in connection with other tillage products. It would be well if somebody would advise the Minister and ensure that he would meet the farmers fairly and provide an adequate market for any increased production. These are, briefly, the requests these farmers have made to the Government: They want the Government to provide sufficient capital to enable the farmer to increase production. The British Government was willing to provide £100,000,000 for agriculture during the last century. The farmers want a fair system of taxation by abolishing the rates on agricultural land, as the Government Party promised to do when seeking office. They want a fair settlement of the land annuity question. When the Minister does that, I am sure he will have the active co-operation of the farming community in promoting increased agricultural production.

One could discuss Deputy Belton's motion with, perhaps, a good deal of assistance and information to the agricultural community, but it is my candid opinion that those who talk as Deputy Cogan talked here to-night are doing a great disservice to the farming community—one of the greatest that could be done at present. I do not think I ever listened to anything more demoralising than the Deputy's statement. He knows as well as I know that if it were possible to operate these fantastic credit schemes the Government would do so at once. Is it not an overdose of credit and falling markets that the farmers are suffering from? They are suffering in Denmark, too. If credit is the golden key, I am afraid it is one of the most dangerous things anyone could preach to the farmers. Deputies talked about credit to farmers when even the late Government had to subsidise agricultural products in the years 1929, 1930 and 1931. The reason we got into power so rapidly was because the farmers were up against an impossible situation. Their prices were rapidly falling. That was quite natural. There was no way out of that difficulty.

Derate agricultural land and reduce taxation.

These are some of the nonsensical things——

You are giving us more of the nonsensical things.

This nonsense, in which the people who preach it do not believe themselves, is causing unnecessary unrest amongst farmers. Credit depends entirely on the price one can get for one's produce. If prices improve during this war, I have no doubt there will be plenty of credit for farmers who are credit-worthy. Unfortunately, we have to abide by these rules and regulations—which is most objectionable at times. At other times, it is a good thing they are in existence. If, during the late war, these rules and regulations were more strictly observed, I do not think we would have the many difficulties we have to-day amongst the farming community.

Deputy Cogan would like the public to believe that all the difficulties arose because we got into power or because the late Government did not do something in their last three or four years in office. It is entirely wrong to ask farmers to believe that. Farmers know perfectly well that the price of the products they sell on the British market depends entirely on the price British manufacturers can get for their products. Agricultural produce from here, Denmark, South America or any other country is nothing more than raw material. Its price regulates the wages and the wages regulate the price at which the British manufacturer can sell his products all over the world. We may have here, if it is allowed to take place, a profusion of credit at a later stage. The more the submarines are active, the more likely we are to have a monopoly of the British market for the time being. It is very unfortunate that the financial system is as it is and that it has collapsed in that way, but there is not a bit of use in holding out hopes to the farmers that they will get credit ad lib and that it is going to put them in a paradise. The majority of farmers know that that is not the case. They know that if they could use their credits economically and profitably, they might be of benefit to them. If farmers get credit this time, many of them will watch the last day and they will see that whatever money they have will be in the bank and not in stock. When such gambles as this go on, it is entirely wrong to raise an agitation for something that cannot be got. Is there any member on the opposite side who believes that credits for farmers would be a good thing at present?

You are the grazier's friend. You want the 11-months' system.

You should stop that sort of nonsense.

It is better than the tripe we have been listening to.

The best thing you can do is to think these matters over, and do not dance on both sides.

I would not like to be dancing with you.

So far as this question of credit is concerned, it depends entirely on what the prices on the British market are.

What regulation price?

The sale of industrial products.

Go to school.

If their trade is good, the prices will go up.

What have we a Government for?

To do what the British Government did, if you like. You are subject entirely to that position so long as you have an exportable surplus.

As long as we have that Government.

At the present moment are there not subsidies on bacon, and, until recently, on eggs and on butter?

I am talking of credit.

Is there not a subsidy on butter and, until recently, on eggs and on bacon?

I never mentioned subsidies.

Deputy O'Reilly must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Does not that indicate that prices are so low that farmers could not continue in production without these subsidies? Now, with regard to Deputy Belton's motion which, I suppose, is the real motion we are discussing.

Mr. Brennan

It is time the Deputy came back to it and said something about it.

Give it a knock now and again.

I do not think that anybody will disagree that, in the conditions under which we may have to live, there should be production enough here to feed our people and to feed our animals and have some surplus to export, if necessary. If there was not compulsion, I do not believe that we would have sufficient food produced here in this country, and I believe that, if there were a run on live stock, it would be extremely difficult here to get sufficient produced. Consequently, compulsion was not introduced without due consideration, and I am quite sure that many members of the Government were not satisfied that that should have been done. I was one of those who did not believe that we should have compulsory tillage, but as time went on, and as I saw the war situation developing, as it did develop and as it is likely to develop, then I believed that it was the right thing to do, and I am quite sure that anybody who realises what the position may be here in a month's or two months' time would agree that there should be a definite amount of agricultural produce here. We hold an enormous amount of live stock—pigs, fowl, horses, cattle, and so on—and it would not be possible under present production to feed all those, and, in all probability, if prices for live stock suddenly improved, we would not have sufficient the following year to feed the young live stock in this country. It is essential, therefore, that a certain amount of compulsory tillage should take place here.

Now, in order to do that, I admit that capital is necessary, and I am not going to agree with anybody here who says that farmers do not want capital. It is quite obvious that farmers want capital. It is quite obvious to every one of us that the bulk of the farmers of this country are not sufficiently capitalised to meet any extra production or to be able even to feed the present population of this country. There are certain difficulties there, however. We have a section of the community here, quite a number of whom were rather vocal a week or two ago about having guaranteed prices for certain of their products, and who were joining with another section of the community on all these fantastic things about de-rating, credits, and so on. The point is this: What type of credit would Deputy Cogan, if he were a member of a Government, be prepared to stand over? What type of credit would he be prepared to give, or what type of assistance could he give, and where is the money to come from?

Sack a few soldiers.

It is all very well to say: Do this, do that, and do the other thing, but I think it would be much more sensible if people really faced up to that situation and told us where the money is to come from to provide for all these things, such as de-rating, a moratorium on land annuities, the forgiveness of land annuities, and all the other things.

Where do our salaries come from?

If all that were done, what would be the result? Where is the money to come from?

Reduce your salaries. Put the salaries back to the £30.

Some people are not worth 30/-.

Supposing that you had all the credit and the other things you talk about so much, would you not have the same result that you had after the last war, which resulted in frozen debts and loans; would you not have all the same old thing, and would not the capitalists and those who have the money get control again of all the land?

What would the Government be doing?

As I said before, there is nobody on the opposite benches or in any part of the House who does not know perfectly well that the Government would do all it could to give credit facilities, but the Government must proceed along the usual lines of rigid rules and regulations which Governments must follow in connection with such matters. Deputy Cogan and other Deputies know that just as well as I do, and they know that there must be security before credit can be given. I said already that I know that the bulk of the farmers here are short of credit and short of capital, and that they have not the security with which to get capital. The main part of the security is entirely a question of better prices and a market for their produce. Let us hope that they will have that market. That might not be a good thing for some other countries, but let us hope that our farmers will get that market, and if there is that market you will find that the credit problem will solve itself and that there will be sufficient credit for those who are in any way credit-worthy.

I am in agreement with the necessity of increasing land under cultivation in this country during the emergency, but I am not in agreement with the methods adopted by the Minister for increasing profitably the land under cultivation in this country. There is a big percentage of land in this country that undoubtedly will produce more food in cultivation than out of it, but I am convinced—and I think that anybody who knows anything about the country, and particularly certain districts of the country, must admit— that there is a considerable amount of rich grass land that would not be profitable under cultivation, and that, in fact, would show a dead loss the moment it was put in cultivation. I suggest that it is in the national interests that land should be kept in such a state that it will show the greatest profit to the nation.

If the Minister was looking for increased production for human food and for animal food, I think he should have looked to the tillage areas for that increase. I, personally, come from a tillage area and I am a tillage farmer, and I believe that it is only in the tillage districts and only on tillage farms, where you have a tradition of tillage, that you are going to get really good and profitable results. On the tillage farm you have the farmer who knows his job and who is skilled in the work of cultivation, and the agricultural worker there knows how to produce the best results. You have all the equipment that is necessary for tillage in those areas, and it is not going to cost very much extra to increase production in those areas.

Now, what is the position in the non-tillage areas? First of all, you have a complete lack of equipment. You have a complete lack of the knowledge required to handle the land properly and to till the land properly so as to give the best results, and I do not think you have the will to do that either. That is completely lacking, and the will to cultivate is very essential if you are going to produce good results. There is no doubt about the fact that there is a big percentage of the land in this country on which, if it is put into cultivation, since it is so rich and rank, the cereal crops are going to fall and rot. There is a good deal of old grass land which, when the cereal is sown, will undoubtedly suffer from very severe attacks of wireworm. I do not think there is sufficient knowledge amongst the people to deal with that sort of pest. As I said before, I do not think you are going to have the will to deal with that sort of pest. For that reason I am impressed by the methods adopted by the British Government in dealing with their Compulsory Tillage Order. They obviously learned something from their experience during the Great War. Evidently we did not profit by the experience of the Great War. The British are setting up committees to decide whether or not it is in the national interests to put the land into cultivation in certain districts. If there is rich, rank grass land, which is more profitable under grass, it is the policy of the British Government at the present time to leave that land in its present state. I think that policy is certainly a very wise one, and it would show wisdom if the same policy were applied to our problem here.

I admit that there is a necessity to increase the production of animal food here. I agree that it will probably be exceedingly difficult to import animal foods, like maize and so on, and that we must provide for that difficulty. As I said, in the tillage districts you have practically all the equipment that is required. In those big tillage districts most of the ploughing and cultivation of land is done by mechanised methods, and the equipment is all there. In the non-tillage districts at the present time you have people buying tractors and trying to get the equipment that is necessary. I am aware that there has been a big number of tractors sold to those people, and that the necessary equipment is not there, and cannot be got. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that it is impossible to get tractor ploughs at the present time. People who have bought new tractors have been waiting two or three months to secure ploughs, and they have not yet got them. The time is getting on; it is necessary to have the land turned up, so that the weather would react on the soil and make it mellow; so that the soil would become compact during the winter period, and settle down of its own accord. If the necessary implements are not made available immediately, the valuable effects of weather conditions on the soil are going to be lost. Has the Minister made any attempt to secure those very essential implements—tractor ploughs, harrows, disc harrows, rollers, and all the up-to-date implements that are necessary if the farmers are to be properly equipped for the cultivation of their land?

Another thing which strikes me about this Compulsory Tillage Order is that in districts where you have not even the ordinary equipment—outside of tractor equipment altogether—sufficient horses may not be available. Remember, the number of working horses in the country has fallen off enormously. They have been replaced by tractors in the tillage districts. I believe it will be very difficult to secure enough horses. Those are problems to which I do not know whether or not the Minister or his Department has paid any attention. I suggest, first of all, that, in order to get the best results, you must have the people willing to co-operate. You will only get that co-operation in the tillage areas where you have all the necessary equipment, all the necessary knowledge, and a tradition of tillage. Where that does not exist, I do not think it is going to be in the national interests to use any compulsion. If the will is not there you are not going to get results. A man will go half-heartedly about the job; in fact, he will have no heart at all in the job, and will simply comply with the Order to the very minimum. He will be careless about the attention that a crop may require at a particular stage, especially in old grass land.

Any man who has experience of tillage knows that it requires a good deal of rolling, especially at certain periods. Under very dry weather conditions, when you have east winds and when there is a great possibility of wire worm attack, you can practically lose a crop in a week. With the necessary attention that crop can be saved. If you have the necessary equipment, the right type of roller, and if continuous attention is given to it, you can hold the crop in the land. That is the type of technical knowledge which is necessary for proper tillage. I believe that in the dairying districts and in the grass districts that type of essential expert knowledge is completely lacking. In the long run it would be more profitable for this country to have that land under grass, producing something for which we are bound to have a good market during the emergency period, a market with a progressive price. I am not worried about the attempt that is being made by the British Government to control prices. We were told by Deputy O'Reilly that what really fixes the price in the British market is what the industrialist gets for his output. We all know that, if the present situation continues, supply and demand will fix the price. If there is a real scarcity of the necessary commodities, then they will have to pay.

Hitler's submarines.

Exactly; not that we are anxious to see the submarine very active, but we must realise that that position is possible. With Denmark practically cut away from the British market, you must have a good market there for breakfast commodities, bacon, eggs and butter. I suggest to the Minister that the land in this country which is more suitable for the production of that type of article is going to be more profitable in the long run if it is allowed to produce that type of article.

While I have no desire to curtail the Deputy's speech, I should like to point out that this motion is to conclude at 9 o'clock. Deputy Belton may wish to conclude the debate, as mover of the motion. The House might desire to hear the Minister if he intends to participate in the debate.

The Minister will follow Deputy Hughes.

I think I made it fairly clear what my views are. The Minister knows my opinion as to how the matter stands. As regards this question of artificial manures, which was raised by Deputy Belton, they constitute a raw material that is absolutely essential, probably more essential in the areas where you have old tillage land, worn land, where you will not get a decent crop without a very liberal dressing of artificial manures. My information is different from Deputy Belton's. I understand there is a possibility of getting potash salts, and that is the particular constituent that we were worrying about a month or so ago. We were more or less agreed that there was a reasonable quantity of superphosphate and possibly nitrate, but the supply of potash was doubtful. I understand now that it is possible to get potash salts through Belgium and we are actually getting some in at the moment. We are all glad to hear that, because we cannot carry on tillage without artificial manure.

With regard to seed barley, oats and wheat, I referred to this matter yesterday and the Minister told me he thought there would be sufficient seed barley available. I called the attention of the Minister to the fact that there has been an enormous fall since last year in the acreage of land under barley. The area was 117,000 acres in 1938 and it has gone down to 71,000 acres this year. When you take into account the amount of barley Messrs. Guinness want out of that production, it leaves a very narrow margin for seed barley. There must be a fairly big percentage of that barley not suitable for seeding purposes. We know that Messrs. Guinness get the best barley offered and the percentage that is suitable for seed must, in the circumstances, be small. I think the quantity would be narrowed down very considerably. If we want a reasonable amount of land put under barley, I think it is a matter that should be immediately inquired into. I suggest the Department should ascertain what barley is available for seed.

In the matter of oats, my experience is that in my part of the country there is little or no oats available for seed purposes. It would be an extraordinary situation if we had our people starting to plough the land, getting it ready for sowing in the Spring, and then find that there is a scarcity of seed and that some of the farmers might not be able to secure seed.

I come again to the question of credit. I understand that there is available, through the Minister's Department, a certain amount of credit for purchasing equipment under this Tillage Order. The maximum is £100. That is no good; it is very little good, anyway, for a man who wants to buy modern equipment, such as a tractor and implements. It is less than one-third of what would be required to buy equipment. It would be very little use at the present moment, even for the purpose of buying a pair of horses, a plough and other equipment. Anyway, you will not get the money for the purpose of purchasing horses; you will get it for implements only. The amount is not sufficient. If you want people to till one-eighth of their land, you must provide them with credit facilities. There are a good many farmers who have not the necessary capital, and tillage requires capital. It means investing a certain amount of money in implements, working and seeding the land, and all the other operations that are normally required in order to produce a crop. There is no return for the farmer until he sells his crop.

What is the farmer to do who has not the capital to buy the necessary equipment and seeds? There is very little use in passing compulsory orders if you do not provide the necessary finance. Farmers who have not capital cannot carry out this order. That aspect of the case ought to get the Minister's closest attention. The work cannot be done without some assistance, the provision of capital, and some serious attempt ought to be made to provide that capital. I think the Minister will agree that £100 would be very little use to the people on the larger farms if they have to cultivate one-eighth of their land.

It appears that the Compulsory Tillage Order is not contested, and the points raised by Deputy Belton and others are points of detail. Some Deputies may hold that there are certain provisions that are not as they should be. Others hold that the Government should make it possible for farmers to till. There is no necessity to go into the order, but I would like to tell Deputy Belton that the order does not compel any farmer to till land that is not arable. If the Deputy looks at the definition of a holding he will see that. A holding is defined as the land which can be cultivated. Any land on the holding that is not fit for cultivation is not taken into account in making up the one-eighth.

Will the Minister say how it is to be decided whether the land is arable or not?

It will be decided by the inspector, if there is any dispute.

What particular qualification will he have to decide that?

The inspectors on this job are all Land Commission inspectors, who have had a certain amount of training.

They have had practical experience as inspectors in the Land Commission?

They know what good land is like, anyway. I agree with Deputy Belton that we should have an increase of wheat, beet, oats and barley. There are certain other crops that Deputy Belton thought we should specify a little more, but there does not seem to be any great anxiety over an increase in mangolds and turnips, because I do not anticipate that there will be any more animals in the country in the next couple of years than in the last few years. So it is to replace maize and imports of wheat that we grow our crops. Therefore, we should aim particularly at cereal crops like wheat to replace imported wheat and barley and oats to replace maize. Deputy Belton asked if one-eighth additional was enough increase. One-eighth would not be enough to feed the amount of live stock Deputy Belton spoke about. But we visualise that there will not be a complete blockade. If there is a complete blockade we will have plenty of meat. We will have more meat than we can dispose of. We can eat meat three or four times a day if we like. But I do think it would be difficult to bring in a tillage Order that would make us absolutely safe, even if there were a complete blockade of such produce as wheat, sugar and so on. Barley is to replace maize coming in, and the amount of additional tillage necessary to replace the wheat, sugar and maize that would ordinarily be coming in would be about 1,000,000 acres. It would be impossible in one year to get that much of an increase, but we may aim at it in two or three years.

With regard to manures, the position is, if you like, somewhat improved since I spoke on this matter the last time in this House. I think we will have sufficient nitrogenous manures. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that. We will have a fair quantity of potash in some form or another, but it looks as if there will be a scarcity of potash. It will not be coming in and so there will be less potash than last year. With regard to phosphates, which are less important, the position is that if shipping facilities can be got, we will have phosphates. But so far phosphates are not coming in very rapidly because it is difficult to get the shipping. If they are brought in at the present cost of shipping the increased charges would make the prices very much higher than last year. On the whole, I would say that the position looks better than it looked some time ago.

Would the Minister say what is the percentage of potash as compared with last year?

We may reach somewhere between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. of last year's supply. I would not say that was too bad for potash if we have a sufficiency of nitrogenous manures and phosphates.

In what form do you expect to have the potash?

It may come in as muriate of potash. At the moment potash is going into compound manures because it looked at the beginning as if the quantity would be so small that we could not divide it amongst the farmers and it was thought better to use it up in compound manures. If we could let the farmer make his own compounds it would be much better. I agree with Deputy Belton in that, but when the quantity was so small we thought it better to use it in compound manures. Deputy Belton has spoken of the financial position of agriculture. He says the position is not as we would all like it to be. I agree with that. We would all like to see the position greatly improved. Deputy Belton says there is a stringency along the lines that the importer has to pay cash down and he demands cash down from the wholesaler who demands cash down from the retailer, who in turn demands cash down from the farmer. I do not know if that is altogether true, but I think Deputy Belton is right to some extent, that there is more stringency with regard to finances in the last five or six years. That is a matter about which we must see that something is done.

As regards seeds and manures, the best system is that system of the merchant giving credit because the merchant knows his man. I do not think any honest Deputy—and all Deputies are honest—would seriously propose that every farmer should get money handed out to him to buy seeds and manures. We all know that great numbers of them do not require it. It is hard enough to get money, and we should be as careful as possible with the money we get. Therefore, if we could get the old system working, get the merchant to give credit to the farmer for his seeds and manures, that would be the ideal system. Deputy Belton says that if I can guarantee the credit and return to the farmer for his crop, that he will put up a statue to me in College Green. That part of it is all right, but there is no use in putting up a statue to me when I am dead. We will manage this matter as best we can. As regards prices, I think the farmer need have no worry about prices. Very good prices are fixed for the crops used for human food—wheat and beet. As far as food-stuffs for animals are concerned, I think the farmer can reasonably look forward to fair prices for our live stock and livestock products. If he feeds his corn and other crops to his cattle and poultry, he is certain of getting good prices, and, so far as I can see, he is not probably worrying about prices. I did not follow Deputy Belton fully in his discourse on currency, credit, and so on. It appeared to me that his argument led to this conclusion: that it is not good to give credit, because we would be giving credit to an expanding market and that there would probably be a tightening of credit, so that if the farmer borrows now he will, after the war, pay more than he borrowed.

That is what I want the Government to take steps to correct.

Yes, so that it should not happen this time as it did the last time. Very well, if that can be done. Before he finished, Deputy Belton said that agriculture should get its fair share of Government expenditure. I never said in this House that farmers have been too well treated in any way. In fact, the farmers deserve a good time, if they can get it within the next few years, and I do hope that they will get it. If we had speeches like those of Deputy Belton's speeches which are reasonable and show evidence of trying to get at the real position, we could achieve something.

But when one comes to Deputy Cogan's speech we can get nothing that will achieve anything for the farmers. It must be remembered that a good deal of money has been handed out for agriculture. The farmers may not have got enough, but halving the annuities was a benefit. Money was paid out on export bounties even since the ending of the economic war. Money was paid out in the present financial year and in the last financial year; after the economic war was settled we were paying £750,000 a year.

To the exporters of butter, eggs and potatoes.

The people who fought the economic war got little of it.

Who are they?

The farmers who grew beet and wheat.

The consumer in this country is paying an enormous bill on account of our wheat. I do not know whether the figures mentioned are right, but even if they are cut by half they are enormous.

How much of that is going to the farmers?

They have been getting 30/- a barrel for wheat. The price of wheat coming in was little over half that, so that the farmer was getting a good subsidy for wheat growing. It is another matter whether he made a profit or not.

What is the figure given in the Irish Trade Journal for imported wheat?

I do not know, but before the war started Australian wheat was about half the price the Irish farmer got for his wheat.

The Australian wheat was less than half.

Yes, that is right, less than half. As to what it costs to grow wheat, a farmer may hold that he was not getting a profit out of wheat-growing, but the consumer, on the other hand, can claim that he paid a very big subsidy to the farmer for growing wheat, and the same applies to beet. These are very big items of finance. Even though Deputies opposite may say that we did not do enough for the farmers, at least let them not say that we are doing nothing, because the taxpayers and the consumers are doing a great deal for agriculture. It may not be enough, but they are doing a great deal. Let us at least deal with the facts as they are, and not make rambling speeches with no point in them, like the speech Deputy Cogan made; because there is no point that Deputy Cogan made that you could not drive a coach and four through about 17 times. Deputy Cogan, of course, I admit when making his speech had one eye on the polling booth at the next election. It is a pity he did not keep the other eye on the clock, because, if he did, the rest of us would have more time to talk.

There is no use in the ‘Farmers' Federation saying that they represent the farmers. They may represent 4 per cent or 5 per cent. of them, and the other 95 per cent. are going to cooperate in this tillage policy, because they are reasonable. First of all, if they think they are doing a good thing from a national point of view, they will do it; and, secondly, if they think they are doing a good thing for themselves by getting a reasonable price, they will do this tillage. When you listen to a speech like that of Deputy Cogan's, naturally you must have compulsion for the 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. who are represented by the Farmers' Federation.

The Deputy accused me of making a sectarian speech in Rathdrum. I talked about the ascendancy. The ascendancy are not all Protestants. There are some Catholics in the ascendancy. As a matter of fact, there are some Deputies opposite and I do not know whether they are Protestants or Catholics. I am not interested in that sort of sectarianism; Deputy Cogan may be, but I am not. I do not go to Rathdrum or anywhere else to talk about Catholics or Protestants. I never did it. I talked about people being anti-Irish and pro-Irish, or pro-English and anti-English. As far as that goes, we have as good Irishmen amongst the Protestants as amongst the Catholics.

You will not go to Rathdrum again.

I will go to Rathdrum as often as I like and Deputy Cogan will not stop me. I was there before he was heard of in public life. As to County Meath, there is some grass land in Meath which would not be as profitable under crops as in grass, but here is the point. I asked for technical and expert assistance on that point before we brought in this Tillage Order. I was told that that question was carefully considered in 1917. It was again considered very carefully this time, and it was considered by people who are not swayed by anything except just the point put before them, that is, whether it was reasonable to ask the people to till. They said that there is not a farmer in Meath one-eighth of whose land could not be ploughed profitably. That is the answer I got.

You do not know all the farmers there.

Then we are asked why we did not give £2 on the acre of wheat. If we gave £2 on the acre of wheat as they are giving in England, will the farmers take the English price for their wheat? It would work out perhaps the same. If we give the higher price here, we do not give the £2. Then they talk about derating in England and in Northern Ireland. If we give derating, will they pay the whole of the annuities, as the farmers do in Northern Ireland? It would make the farmers worse off.

It cost the farmers £100,000,000 to get the annuities halved. There was £5 paid on every beast that went out of the country.

I cannot follow the Deputy at this time of the night. As to the point raised by Deputy Hughes about tractor machinery, the position has very much improved as far as that is concerned. I do not know if the Deputy has made inquiries lately, but the position has certainly very much improved. I expect that we will get in quite a good quantity of tractor machinery of all kinds.

What quantity of ploughs has the Food Controller in England actually released?

I could not give the number.

Is there a duty on agricultural machinery?

Not on tractor machinery. With regard to horses, that is one point that we went into before we made the Tillage Order. From statistics we found that the number of horses in the country has been fairly constant during the last ten or fifteen years. There has been practically no change in the number in the country. We also got the opinion of our various inspectors who told us that there were quite sufficient horses in the country to carry out this Compulsory Tillage Order.

Will the Minister extend the £100 loan to cover horses?

I shall come to that. With regard to seed, I explained yesterday that I thought there was quite sufficient barley seed. I verified that since and I think we need have no fear about seed barley. With regard to seed oats, there is probably a lot of seed oats on farmers' hands. On the other hand, there was a fair amount of oats damaged. Deputies, especially in the eastern countries, will remember that there was a very bad week at the end of August which damaged a good deal of oats. In spite of that I think we should have a fair amount of seed oats in the country.

There is no oats in the wheat-growing districts.

The biggest trouble we have is with regard to spring wheat seed. We have not enough spring wheat seed, probably, if there is a very big drive for the sowing of spring wheat. We are trying to get some in. I cannot say for certain yet that we will succeed in getting a big quantity. That is why we are appealing to the farmers to sow winter wheat, because there may be a scarcity of seed for spring wheat. I do not think there need be any fear about the others. As to the £100 limit for machinery, the Department of Agriculture will give up to £40 on the old conditions; that is, that a person writes in, giving two solvent securities, an inquiry is put through, and if the man is a decent man and his securities are all right, the loan is granted.

If he is a man who does not want it, he will get it. I know men who wanted it badly and they did not get it.

There must be something against them. I got a table as to the time taken to grant these loans and I found that some loans are actually settled up within a week, so that it does not take very much time. Then from £40 to £100 will be given by the Agricultural Credit Corporation in the same way. The application comes in to the Department, the applicant is asked for two securities, an inquiry is made, and if the report is all right, the Agricultural Credit Corporation is asked to issue the loan, and they do so. There is no delay. We have not any loan scheme for sums over £100, because I considered that any farmer who wanted to spend more than £100 on implements was a big farmer. He was probably going to buy tractor machinery or to buy a reaper and binder. It would be very hard to make up £100 in machinery, apart from tractor machinery. The cost of the whole outfit would scarcely come to £100. It was, therefore, a case of tractor machinery, and I considered that it was really a matter for the Agricultural Credit Corporation in the ordinary way, or for a joint stock bank. I think a farmer who is in the position that he would want tractor machinery must have a big farm; that he has probably a fair reputation with his bank, and should be able to go to them and get what he wants.

I am glad that this motion was put down. We have had the position fairly well clarified, but I should still like if the Minister would endeavour to provide the credits necessary. I do not want "credits" used in this sense to be confused with loans. It is far more beneficial to this country for the farmers to be able to go into the banks and get loans. Why does not the Government, and particularly the Minister for Finance, meet the bankers and ask them what they want in order to restore banking confidence in the agricultural industry? The greatest curse to farmers would be to give them too much money in the shape of loans. I never mentioned the word "loans" or "subsidies" in my speech proposing this motion. I did refer to the expansion of credit. We should have the same expansion of credit here that they have in Britain. Why does not the Government look after our credit? Why does it not utilise to the full, for the benefit of this country, our creditor position? I do not want to go into this matter in the few minutes left, but the Minister should concentrate on it. Has the Minister considered protection or compensation for the agricultural community who invest money in increased tillage if peace breaks out? Suppose peace broke out in Europe in the morning and we have all this winter wheat in, does the price of 35/- per barrel stand good?

That is right.

How will the Minister be able to pay 35/- a barrel with 125,000 persons out of work? The Government whirls round. If the farmer gets that 35/-, he has to keep the 120,000. What I visualised in an expansion of banking credit was to put at work not only in agriculture, but in industry, these 120,000, and take them off our backs. It is no use giving us big prices for our products if we have to keep those people idle. I have often said to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he is more concerned with agricultural production than the Minister for Agriculture, and I say now that it is the concern of the Minister for Agriculture to get these residents of the towns working, and not have agriculture carrying them on its back. I should like the Minister for Agriculture to consider that, and to tell his colleague, the Minister for Finance, that it is of some concern to him to have the bank rate either raised or lowered. As a matter of fact, it should not be raised or lowered without his authority. That is what produced frozen debts, and that is what will bring us another crop of frozen debts if we do not take control of our own housekeeping. I do not want loans to help farmers. When the seed oats loan and the heifer scheme loans came before the committee of agriculture of which I was chairman a few years ago, I could nearly tell who the applicants would be. They got the loans and they did not pay when the gale was due. You have these hardy annuals coming along. What we should do is extend the nation's credit through the ordinary banking channels. We should create conditions of confidence in which that would be done. The first thing the Government should do is sit down and talk to the bankers, and ascertain why agriculture does not command credit. They will tell the Government very quickly. That is the responsibility of the Government—to put agriculture in such a position that it will be credit-worthy and enjoy the confidence of the banking institutions. At present, that is not so.

Is it not a terrible commentary and judgment—I am not speaking politically—on the present Government that after almost eight years of office, agriculture is not credit-worthy and will not command ordinary banking facilities? Is not that a terrible indictment of the Government? It is up to the Government to rectify that position, and not be handing out doles at 6 per cent. When the searching inquiries are completed, the horse will have left the stable. Spring will be reached before the Agricultural Credit Corporation will have dealt with all the applications, whereas, if you restored confidence in agriculture, the bankers would be only too glad to accommodate their customers, because that is what they are there for. I should like the Minister to consider that aspect of the matter. If he does so, and does it quickly, then this motion will have served a useful purpose.

As I said when I rose to propose the motion, I did not get up to oppose tillage or compulsory tillage. I always stood for tillage. My view of agriculture is that, if tillage is not a paying proposition, we should not abandon it, but should investigate and ascertain why it is not a paying proposition; then, do whatever is necessary to make it a paying proposition. If we do not work the land, how can we carry a rural population? As proof that I am not opposed to this Tillage Order, and that it will not affect me personally, I may say that I have over 60 per cent. of my land—about 300 acres—under the plough. I am not opposed to tillage, and the Minister knows that. I put down this motion and Deputy Cogan seconded it for the purpose of getting information on the Tillage Order. I hope the Minister will look after the sinews of war and see that the industry is restored to its rightful, premier place as the most credit-worthy industry of this country.

Deputy Belton had not an opportunity of developing what he referred to as "banking credit." I do not profess to understand what he meant but, in so far as I do understand it, he speaks for himself.

That is quite right.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Barr
Roinn