Deputy T. Walsh is authorised and requested by Deputy Cogan to move the motion for him.
Private Deputies' Business. - Loans and Grants for Farmers—Motion.
I wish to move the motion standing in the name of Deputy Cogan:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the loans and grants provided for farmers under existing schemes are inadequate and suggests to the Government that, in order to be effective for the purpose for which they are intended, loans for the erection or improvement of farm buildings, the betterment of land, the improvement of live stock and the purchase of machines and equipment should be made available to whatever extent is required at low rates of interest.
I have Deputy Cogan's permission to move the motion. I submit that it is a very important one as far as the farming community are concerned. In the first instance, there is the land reclamation grant, which is very beneficial, I admit. The scheme has been in existence for a number of years and under it very good work has been done. Then there are grants for farm buildings. That scheme also has been in operation for a number of years, and under that scheme very good work has been accomplished. The point about all the grants is that there has been no increase in the amount allowable under them. For instance, in connection with the land reclamation scheme, the grant allowed is two-thirds of the estimated cost.
The same condition obtained three or four years ago but costs have increased since then. Wages have increased and in the case of the land reclamation scheme the cost is largely a matter of wages. In the case of farm buildings, the grant three or four years ago was as high as it is to-day. For instance, the amount of money allowed for the building of a cowshed was based on the number of cows. The amount allowed per cow was £4. We all know that £4 could do much more work in 1946-47 than it would do to-day and, looking at it from that point of view, we must agree that the same amount of money is not being made available.
There is a significant thing regarding these farm grants. I am quoting now from Volume 121, column 1477. There was an answer given by the Minister for Agriculture to Deputy Childers. Deputy Childers asked the Minister if he would state, in respect of the years 1938-39, to 1949-50, the total expenditure upon the farm improvements scheme and the number of applications sanctioned. The Minister gave his reply in the form of a tabular statement. From that statement I am taking the years subsequent to the war, the post-war period. In the financial year 1945-46 the number of applicants was 36,121 and the amount of grants paid by the Fianna Fáil Government in that year was £311,988. Now, I will take the financial year 1949-50. The number of applications approved for payment was 22,928 and the amount of grants paid was £249,573. That shows a difference of over £60,000 given by way of grants and the number of applications was reduced. I might say the number of applicants in the post-war period has been declining consistently and the grants have declined. As a matter of fact, in 1948-49 the Government gave only £236,217. It was increased last year by £13,000 but, on the whole, the amount was £60,000 less than Fianna Fáil gave for the purpose of improving farm buildings.
We all know the cost of materials has risen, and wages, particularly in the building trade, have gone up considerably since 1946-47. I do not think it will be argued by anybody that you will build now as cheaply as you could then. The amount of money available for a cowshed is considerably reduced now as compared with what it was under Fianna Fáil. At the present time there is money being made available from America under the Marshall Aid Plan. We do not know for what purpose this money is being used, except it is for the big objective outlined by the Minister for Agriculture. His latest scheme is to put Croaghpatrick into Galway and convert Connemara, I suppose, into towns, etc.
So far as the people living in the dairying counties are concerned, they want to have improved cowsheds and he has not done very much for them in the way of increased grants. He has not given any grant for the purchase of machinery. It might be a wise thing if he gave a grant for the purchase of milking machines. We have heard many true stories regarding the difficulty of obtaining labour. People are running from the land and possibly it is because there are better wages and conditions to be had elsewhere. Agriculture is not the great industry that we knew it to be in the past and the people are leaving the land. As a result of labour becoming scarce, production will go down and the first thing we will see is a reduction in milk production. In order to keep up the production of milk it would be a good thing, if the Government are able to get money for nothing from America, to give first consideration to those producing our food requirements. The dairying industry is the foundation of agriculture and the people engaged in it should benefit first. We have grants for the erection of sheds for cattle and the Minister, in my opinion, should seriously consider giving grants for the purchase of milking machines.
There are many people in tillage areas anxious to buy tractors because of the scarcity of labour. They are anxious to become up to date and introduce mechanisation on the farm, but they are unable to buy tractors because they have not the money. They have no business going to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and asking for a loan, because the interest rate is 4½ per cent. and that is too high. If a farmer, big or small, goes to the corporation to obtain a loan he has to mortgage his farm. That mortgage ties the farmer up and that is a thing he does not want to happen. It means that if he wants further money he cannot go to a bank, because he has nothing to offer. He has given away the title to his land to the corporation and they hold on to it, no matter how big or small the sum.
There are many farmers who would not go to the corporation for a loan; they could do equally as well in a bank, but the difference there is that they have to get their neighbour or their friend to act as surety and we all know that in this country—I do not know, why, but possibly there are good reasons—no person wishes to become surety for another. The result is that many people who might make their farms more up-to-date and possibly produce more food are unable to do so because they have not the capital. What is the difference between the Agricultural Credit Corporation and any of the joint stock banks? None. You have exactly the same rates of interest, the same terms. If the Government want to increase agricultural production, produce more exportable foodstuffs, they must make money more easily available, at a cheaper rate of interest.
There are people who are very anxious to mechanise their farms, for one reason or another. I do not know whether it is a good policy or not. Personally, I do not agree, even though I am a farmer, with complete mechanisation of the land. In many cases you cannot have it, particularly on the smaller farms, where even though they want it they are not in a position to have it, as they have not the capital. Neither can they go to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, for the reasons I have given—they do not want to mortgage their farms and the rates of interest are too high. Take a man buying a tractor and equipment for the production of cereals or for tillage. The tractor costs him about £500, fully equipped. He is paying £22 10s. 0d. per year interest on that, and that is interest alone. The period he gets to pay is seven years. It may be long enough, but on the other hand it may not. If the period were extended, it would reduce the sinking fund—the principal and interest payments to be made. Possibly, in the case of machinery, seven years is sufficient, but in the case of housing, where a man obtains a grant to erect a cow-shed and has to go to the Agricultural Credit Corporation for a loan afterwards, the period is not long enough and should be 30 or 35 years. Under the Housing Acts, when a council borrows from the Local Loans Fund, there is a period of 35 years; so in the case of a cow-shed that will last as long as the house, the Government should see that the period is extended.
Do you suggest they should do better than that?
I am leaving it to the Government to make the suggestion. I am only reminding them that it is necessary to do something. We have obtained grants from the United States and have had a lot of talk from the Coalition regarding increased production. I cannot see anything the Government has done about increased production, except the spending of money on land reclamation, and in many cases that was not spent wisely. Money has been spent on trying to drain bogs, and in five years' time the Government that spent it may go back and clear up the drains they made— even after 12 months one can see their condition—as if the farmer who owned the land could not drain it; he is not in a position to maintain the drains and the Government must do it. That money would have been far better spent by way of subsidy on fertilisers. During the war fertilisers were not available, and much of the land needed them even before the war. We grew wheat during the war. It has been argued here by many people that wheat takes a greater toll of the land than any cereal crop. I do not agree with that. Owing to the lack of fertilisers during the war, much of the land became impoverished, and many farmers, after the two bad harvests. 1946 and 1947, had lost money made during the earlier years of the war, and many of them even to-day cannot buy manures at £10 a ton for superphosphate, nor can they spread lime. However, we have that good land I mentioned, that produced wheat from 1939 down to 1945, 1946 and 1947, and which became impoverished. If cheap manures were made available to the farmers, to replenish that land with nutrients and bring it back into the same fertility as it was during 1940, the Government would have been making an honest attempt to increase agricultural production. That was one of the things that should have been done —and forget about the made schemes to throw the Twelve Pins into Galway Bay or some place like that. The same thing applies to smaller industries, for example, where small farmers went in for tomato growing. What help have they got in regard to that?
The Deputy is going into agricultural policy rather than the matter of loans.
The motion is that the loans and grants provided for farmers under existing schemes are inadequate. I think grants are made available for tomato growing in the Gaeltacht. That was done under Fianna Fáil and to a lesser extent it continues. I believe it would be good policy if those grants were increased. It would encourage more people to produce tomatoes.
Reduce the price of them.
Yes. The people of Donegal do not want excessive prices. What happened was that your Government took the market from them. You allowed the Dutch tomatoes in.
I did not do anything about tomatoes.
If I do not get the interruptions, you will not have the replies. The grants for tomato growing could have been increased, but that has not been done. The Minister for Agriculture called them an exotic crop, but at Question Time to-day he told us how fond he had become of the production of tomatoes. If he is sincere and if the Coalition Government are sincere in their intentions to increase the production of food at the present time, they must do something about it. Read the papers every day and see the world conditions. We know the conditions at home and if war came in the morning we might depend on the foreigner for our bread, even though the Minister for Agriculture has stated that our stores are bursting wide open with wheat and that this country was never so well placed as regards wheat as it is to-day. We know what happened during the war years and that if it had not been for the production of our own wheat then our people would starve. If a war came at the moment and we had not more than 12 months' supply in the country, we would have to revert to the conditions that obtained under Fianna Fáil and produce our own wheat. Our land cannot produce our own wheat unless it is fed, and this Government has done nothing to feed that land. One of the ways to restore the fertility of our soil is to give a subsidy by way of grant and to give loans to our farmers at a cheap rate of interest to enable them to put more fertilisers on the land, particularly on the land that grew wheat during the emergency of 1940-46. At the present time, many people are leaving the land and we are hoping that by means of mechanisation the labour problems that we know are going to come will not react on the farmers. Should war come, nobody in this House can say that we have any guarantee that we will have either petrol or oil. What is going to be the position regarding production?
A general election.
A general election, is it? We hope to have one very soon. You are the people who would not like an election at the moment.
The vote did not look like a general election.
There is nothing you desire less.
The trouble is you are afraid there may be one.
We are not afraid— only hoping for it. The sooner, the better. The local elections gave you your answer all over the country and it is nothing to the answer you will get the next time. Deception and trickery will not work any more. You cannot fool the people all the time.
A Deputy
Have you found that out at last?
You will fool very few of the people a second time.
Cheap money is a very important problem at the moment.
Deputy Hickey may be able to help us now. He is in full sympathy with this motion. I believe the farmer should get help and I know Deputy Hickey believes also that he should get help.
You cannot get it until you have control of the credit of the country.
You have control of the £4,500,000 that came from the United States of America. What use was made of it? I hope the Minister for Agriculture is not going to claim half of it in order to change the face of Galway and Connemara.
The Deputy should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
What about Castlecomer?
In connection with this motion, all I am asking this House to do is to press the Government to decide, for instance, on increasing the grants where an increase is necessary. I believe an increase is necessary in so far as the building of cowsheds, piggeries and cattle pens is concerned. The provision was there under the Fianna Fáil régime. It has been said by an Englishman that we fed our cattle on beefsteak, which was largely true. Many of the outfed cattle, which are without shelter during the winter time, are losing condition and if we had a scheme whereby cattle could be impounded it would mean increased tillage. We would be able to manure more land with farmyard manure if grants were made available for that purpose.
As regards cowsheds, stabling and storage accommodation for grain, the grants should be increased in all those cases because building costs have increased appreciably in the last three or four years. The provision of £4 per cow for a cowshed is no more than sufficient to put in a floor at the present time. The same thing applies so far as the building of stables is concerned. A grant by way of subsidy should be made available for fertilisers and the grants should be increased as far as lime is concerned. The subsidy allowed is only 2/- or 2/6 per barrel, and there is no inducement held out to the people to put down burnt lime. There is no subsidy, of course, for ground limestone. In the County Kilkenny, when we advertised for tenders, the price was so low that we had only one tender, whereas during the war years we used to have ten and 12 people burning lime.
I have also mentioned cheaper fertilisers and to-day the price of fertilisers and superphosphates is 5/ per unit. That means that forty grade super costs £10. That is too high, and it could be reduced by way of subsidy. During the Fianna Fáil period in office, sums varying from £200,000 up to £300,000 were given by way of subsidy on artificial manures.
Provided in the Estimate. Were they spent?
They were not spent and for two reasons—first, because the manure was not available. Had it been available, the money was there to be spent.
Why then was money voted?
As Fianna Fáil made provision for everything that was coming, they made provision for that. The present Government must see a thing happening before they make provision for it; in other words, they put the cart before the horse.
The Deputy will have a lot of explaining to do before he can explain away the fact that £200,000 were voted for the subsidising of fertilisers and only £29,000 spent.
I gave one of the reasons—that the manures were not available.
And the voting of the money was therefore a bluff.
The price of manures was fixed at £10 per ton, and, when it exceeded £10 per ton, the subsidy came into operation.
A gigantic bluff— voting £200,000 and spending £29,000.
I am making a factual statement and the Minister knows it, but will not accept it. However, he will not bluff me.
I am telling you what happened.
Why is it that there is now no subsidy available for artificial manures? Does the Minister consider that the price is low enough to enable farmers to buy these manures?
The farmers are better off.
Are we? The Minister for Agriculture came to Kilkenny recently and talked about manures. He told us about the manure coming in at £7 1s. 6d. per ton, and he said that farmers down the country who were paying £8, £9 and £10 per ton were fools. He said he was not going to allow it, but I have not heard of any manure merchant selling manures at £7 1s. 6d. per ton yet. I should like the Minister to tell me where such a merchant is to be found. I should like to hear from him also where the new factory that was to be established to give us cheap manures is.
In Deputy Corry's area —Cobh.
Not at all—nearer home. This new brand was to carry the lady, the harp and the greyhound, but we have not seen it yet. He was to provide these cheap manures, just like some of the other hare-brained schemes that he has in mind for the country. I want the Minister to consider the advisability of making manures available for the people at a cheap rate. I can see no reason why he should not do it. It is not a question of increased taxation on our people. It is a matter of dividing equally and with equity the money the Government are getting for nothing. The American people, in order to bring about increased production in this country, have given the Coalition Government a certain sum of money for nothing, a grant. What use have they made of it? One of the uses they have made of it is the purchase of wheat from America, wheat wihch could be produced at home. Another use they have made of it is the purchase of sugar in the West Indies when we could produce the beet at home. A further use they have made of it is the purchase of machinery for draining bogs which will give a very doubtful return.
The one thing that was sticking out for the Government to do was the restoration of the fertility of the soil which fed the Irish people from 1940 to 1946, but that was completely neglected. Nothing so far as I can see was done for the farmer who is inclined to work, the man who is inclined to produce. Who are, in the main, the people who are benefiting from the land reclamation scheme? They are the big ranchers, the men with hundreds of acres who allowed most of their land to become waterlogged because they would not clean up the drains or give employment in clearing away the bushes. These are the men with the one man and a dog. I know many farms in my own county, and in other counties, where land, good fertile land, good grazing and fattening land, good tillage land, has become fox coverts—bushes, briars and furze growing on them, with drains waterlogged. These people are availing of this money, which could be better spent in giving cheaper manures to the small farmers who are unable to pay the high prices charged for artificial manures.
If the Government are honest in their desire to keep the people on the land, there is another way in which they can help, that is by making grants available for the repair and maintenance of cul-de-sac roads. Where a group of farmers come together grants are made available under minor relief schemes and rural improvement schemes for the repair of such roads.
There is not a word about these roads in the motion.
There is a word regarding grants and loans.
"Loans for the erection or improvement of farm buildings, the betterment of land, the improvement of live stock, and the purchase of machines and equipment."
I suggest that the farm improvements scheme must be included.
The Deputy is saying that the scheme is not in operation.
I have said that a scheme is in operation whereby a number of farmers come together to have a cul-de-sac repaired, but they must make a contribution. In the case of cul-de-sac roads, the grants should be increased.
Are they not?
Yes, they are increased under valuations of £12, but all our people do not live in laneways and cul-de-sac roads where there are £12 valuations.
Would they not swop with the other men?
That is another question and it has no bearing whatever on the matter I am discussing. There is plenty of land available in my county for the Land Commission, but the Minister has not taken one acre of it since he came into office.
The Deputy is going rather wide of the motion now.
The Minister does not require land.
If the Minister's colleague, Deputy Commons, will keep quiet, I will keep quiet and will not remind him of these things. In the case of cul-de-sac roads, the grant is 75 per cent., except in the case of valuations of £12. There are many farmers living on cul-de-sac roads, bad laneways or boreens, who are unable to put up the money necessary for the repair or widening of these boreens. We have heard a lot about increased production, but I am sure the Minister and Deputy Commons will agree that there are many boreens, even in Mayo—we have them in Kilkenny—where one could not bring a binder or tractor, and I suggest that the Government grants be increased so that a good job can be done on such laneways and so that these people will not have to contribute anything. When the Government are getting money for nothing, they should spend it in such a way that it will be of some benefit to the people who are living out of agriculture.
Debate adjourned.