When the debate on this motion was adjourned the last evening it was before the House, I was debating the cutting down of the total grant by the Minister for Local Government for the Local Authorities (Works) Act. In the first year of its operation that grant was fortified by no less a figure than £1,900,000. That figure has been cut this year to £400,000, that is to say, it has been reduced by approximately four-fifths of what was given for it in one year. In other words, the present Government means to do only in five years at this rate under the Act what was done in one year under the inter-Party Government régime.
I want to remind the Minister of the reason the Act was brought into being. It was to facilitate the land rehabilitation project, first of all; secondly, it was to increase production on the land; and, thirdly, it was a genuine effort and a very successful one to restore to the farmers approximately 4,000,000 acres which at the present time is lying useless for the most part, either because it is subject to periodic flooding or subject to permanent flooding. We hear a lot from time to time from the Government Benches, from Ministers and others, urging that the only salvation is increased agricultural production. I am in full and wholehearted agreement with that. We want to see increased agricultural production. This is our main industry, the one industry that we can properly manage, with a certain amount of assistance from certain quarters. It is possible to expand and increase thisindustry to a considerable extent. I hold that at present it is on the upward grade. The present generation, particularly all young farmers, are very anxious to knock the most out of their land. As a matter of fact, they are taking a much keener interest than heretofore, they are desirous of using the most advanced methods and they are taking full advantage of the increased information which is available to every farmer who wishes to increase the production of his farm. These are great advances, and I find it very hard to reconcile the attitude of the members of the present Government and those supporting them when they ask farmers for increased production and at the same time cut down on such a scheme as this. Farmers, left to themselves, will utilise their land to the best advantage. They will fertilise it, till it, increase the production of grass on the portion of the farm under grass, and they will do that themselves, and are doing it very well themselves at the present time.
There is one particular aspect of life on the land that is completely out of the control of most farmers and that is drainage. The whole drainage system, in practically every country under the sun, affects not one farmer, but a number of farmers. If one farmer could drain his land and could not be held up in his drainage work or be impeded or stopped by the negligence of other farmers, everything would be grand; but it so happens that practically any main drain we know of, practically any small river, brook or watercourse, runs by perhaps 100 holdings or farms, and it takes the combined cooperation of all these farmers, if they are to do it themselves, before the job can be a success; hence the necessity for State intervention. The job is of such a magnitude that only liberal grants from the State can put our whole drainage network into the first-class condition in which we would like to see it.
Most Deputies and most farmers are painfully aware that, particularly since the coming into operation of the Land Acts, the drainage system has been falling very much into disrepair,with the result that watercourses which were once in good condition have been closed up for years, with the consequent ruin and flooding of lots of perfectly good land. For that reason, Deputies Finan and Beirne have tabled this motion, to bring that home to the Government and to give this House a chance to discuss the urgent necessity for the full implementation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That Act was brought before this House and was passed into law because the inter-Party Government realised that something had to be done if the land rehabilitation scheme was to be a success and also if we were to give back to the farmers the 4,000,000 acres which are attached— sometimes in small pieces, sometimes in big portions—to holdings and farms throughout the length and breadth of the country, over the 300,000 holdings we have in the country. If we can succeed in this generation in restoring that 4,000,000 acres to full production, we are doing an excellent job of work, and whatever other shortcomings we may have we can feel proud of it.
The Minister should not lose sight of the fact that attached to every holding and farm is some area—sometimes small, sometimes large—which is perfectly useless to the farmer. In some cases it is more a source of loss and danger to live stock than of benefit. The farmer must pay annuities and also rates to the local authorities, but he gets no advantage from it. That is the personal or individual side of the case. If we take the broad national view, we find that all these bits and pieces added together come to the astonishing total of 4,000,000 or 4,500,000 acres. It is to try to restore that land to production that this motion is put down.
This particular motion is one which should be accepted by the House without any political bias or rancour arising from the discussion on it. It is a motion which aims at doing something really worthwhile, something really solid. We should not forget that in order to preserve the balance of trade in a healthy condition the export of agricultural produce must be increased; but we cannot say we are very sincereabout increasing agricultural production when we calmy reduce such a useful Estimate as the Local Authorities (Works) Act Estimate from £1,900,000 to £400,000. It is one of the most useful Acts—and I say that as a farmer who realises the immense amount of damage that flooding is causing all over the country—yet apparently that Act is to be treated with contempt, as there is no other word but "contempt" to describe what the cutting down of this Estimate means. The Act was hailed by the farmers, regardless of politics, as one of the most useful measures they have seen for a long time. By the average farmer it was hailed as a much more useful measure even than the Arterial Drainage Act, which everyone must admit was very good and a very necessary Act and a very definite step forward, a step in the right direction.
In asking the Minister and the House to accept this motion and to devote for the coming year a greater sum of money than has been allocated already in the Book of Estimates, we think it is a very fair demand to make, particularly when we take into account that the original intention of the Act was to restore that vast acreage of land into production. According to the way in which the Minister treats this motion, so also will the average farmer treat the appeals made, particularly from the Government Benches, to increase agricultural production.
Every acre of arable land is at present in my opinion, with very rare exceptions, producing as much as it is possible for the owners to produce on it. If we want to increase agricultural production, the principal method by which we can do that is to remove the water from that huge area of land which I believe would be as good as the best arable land if the water were taken off it and the owners were given a chance to put it into production by the various methods of husbandry in the different localities. I ask the Minister to accept this motion and the implication in it that a larger grant should be made available than the £400,000 provided for this year. I will not take the increase of £350,000 in the Vote of the Minister for Agriculturefor land rehabilitation as an answer to this motion. It is not an answer to it. When that is added to the £400,000 in the Book of Estimates we get a figure of £750,000, which is £1,150,000 less than the inter-Party Government provided in one single year for the implementation of this Act. I ask the Minister to increase this grant and show the people of the country that he and every member of the Government mean what they say when they ask the farmers to increase production.