Before Senator Baxter's motion is taken I would like to know at what hour it is proposed to adjourn to-night?
National Policy—Motion.
We shall see. We can go on until 8 o'clock.
Before the Senator moves his motion, I would like to know from the Chair if it is in order. It seems to me that the proposal is to supplant the Government.
I think it is quite in order.
I move:—
That a select committee consisting of nine Senators, representative of all Parties, be appointed to consider and report its opinion for the information and assistance of the Seanad on the national policy at present being pursued with particular regard to its consequences on the economic and social life of the people:
that the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to take evidence:
that the quorum of the committee shall be five.
I labour under two handicaps in moving this motion. In the first place, I have not engaged in a political debate for a number of years, and, in the second place I am genuinely anxious that Senators should have an open mind on this until they hear what I have to say. I am anxious that I should be able to convince the House that it is a wise, a right and a good thing that this motion should be accepted, but I realise that some strong points I could make from my point of view might have such psychological reactions that I would create an atmosphere that would really be unfavourable to the acceptance of the motion. For that reason, the case I have to make may not be as strong, controversially, as some, perhaps even myself, would like to make it.
I want to set the mind of the House at rest on one point at the beginning. I have no desire that this motion should give an opportunity, or open up a way, for a discussion on the recent agreement between this country and Britain. I have not put the motion on the Order Paper with that end in view. I realise, of course, that it is possible to have such a discussion on the motion. I understand, and appreciate as well, how very difficult it is for public men who address themselves to the current problems of this country to-day not to advert perhaps to this agreement. But, my feeling is that while there are points in favour of that agreement there are also points against, and those in this country—I believe they are the great majority of the people—who genuinely want to see an improvement in the relationship between this country and Britain will best serve that cause by saying as little as possible about the recent agreement.
[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]
I used to be an optimist about this country's future. I would like to remain an optimist, but there are certain disturbing factors in the situation at present, which I believe the Government cannot afford to ignore, and with regard to which I feel every thoughtful citizen has responsibilities. It is becoming increasingly clear that the art of government here is far from being well understood. We have evidence on all sides that the difficulties for the Central Government are increasing. They are arising from the most unexpected quarters, coming from what were, up to a short time ago anyhow, in the Government's estimation of things, the most friendly quarters. I urge that if we want to establish the fact that we have here a people possessing the qualities that are essential for success; that, in fact, we are fit to be a national entity, we should see ourselves as we are, looking on ourselves with a calm and steady gaze, neither with an inferiority nor a superiority complex, but with the attitude of mind that we are neither going to magnify nor minimise our failings, weaknesses or good points.
To me it seems that our people have changed little down through the centuries. We may say that we have had inflows of blood, but to me it appears that we still possess all the attributes of our early forefathers, good as well as bad. Looking around us in the country to-day at the problems that are facing us and the manner of our facing them, we have to wonder whether or not we have got sufficient of the concrete in us to hold together. To me it seems that history continues to repeat itself. Away back in the days before the battle of Clontarf, we had the warring factions that made it impossible to establish a strong central Government for the country. Our histories suggest that, had Brian lived, he would have brought the leaders of his time under his control and he would have established a strong central government. Who knows whether he would or not?
Coming down through the centuries to our own time, we can look back to 1918 and to 1921. The people united in 1918 separated in 1921 or 1922. Some went anti-Treaty and some pro-Treaty, and quite a number of the people who were pro-Treaty broke away and some of them are now on this side and some on that side. Then, we had the people who were anti-Treaty, and we can look back only a few years to the break there. Following that break, there have been at least three or four other breaks in the fragments that left the Party that was once Sinn Féin, when the great majority became Fianna Fáil. You have to-day the I.R.A., Sinn Féin, the Congress Party and fragments of the Congress Party and perhaps another. I think it is true to say that all those who were anti-Treaty supported the Government in the last election. I wonder if they are supporting them to-day, or would they support them if there were an election to-morrow? To me, at least, it seems to be very doubtful indeed.
Clearly, if the Government are to govern, they cannot retain the support of all these groups and if they do not govern, and cannot govern, I greatly doubt whether it will be possible to succeed them with a party who will be able to govern. Who would suggest in 1932, for instance, that inside two years' time, it would be necessary or thought essential for the Gárdaí Síochána to go into a Catholic cathedral in this country and remain there while a Bishop addressed his flock on a question of faith and morals? I wonder how many members of this House read in an issue of a patriotic journal last week an article headed "Sermons, Socialists and Souls," with another heading "Heard outside a Mountain Chapel"? Every member of this House ought to read that and I would respectfully suggest that every Catholic clergyman in the country ought to read it. To me it seems an astounding situation that there is an individual in this country capable of writing such an article, but it is much more astounding that it is possible to publish such an article in this country. In my view, the consequences of that sort of propaganda are clear and obvious. They will be disastrous and we are galloping apace in the particular direction in which these people wish us to go.
We come on then to the situation confronting the Government and the attitude of, say, the Kerry County Council only a short time ago.
On a point of order, I wish to draw your attention, Sir, to the wording of the motion proposed by Senator Baxter. Lest we forget it I should like, with your permission, to read it. (Motion read.) Is the Senator in order in raking up things from the Battle of Clontarf to the Kerry County Council and some article in a paper of which we do not know and are we to sit here all night listening to what is, in my opinion, not at all germane to the motion before us?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Baxter is a new member of the House and I thought that he was approaching the subject from a very great distance but he would come to the subject very soon. That is the reason I did not intervene.
On a further point of order, is it in order for the Senator moving this motion to develop a line of argument that would seem to indicate that this was one of the primary concerns of the Fianna Fáil organisation? So far as I can gather, he is suggesting that a situation has arrived in which, if the present Government are to retain office, they must do certain things to strengthen their hand, rather than proposing a motion to set up a committee to enquire into matters affecting the economic and social life of the people. Is it matters affecting the economic and social welfare of the Fianna Fáil Party that are worrying the Senator?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think the Senator should be allowed to proceed. Perhaps he will come to the subject quickly.
On a point of information, do I take it that you are in agreement with my point of order, Sir?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am.
You are in agreement with my point of order, but, as Senator Baxter is a new member of the House, you are allowing him a certain amount of latitude?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am more or less in agreement with your point of order, but I did not wish to stop Senator Baxter.
Might I suggest that the terms of the motion keep Senator Baxter quite in order?
Might I suggest that the terms of the motion allow him to talk about anything?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Whatever the Senator's suggestion is, I have made no ruling on the point of order and I do not propose to do so for a little while yet.
I accept it that I am in order. If I am not, I am prepared to be ruled out of order. I want to say to the Senators, if I did not say it at the beginning, that I have not put down this motion in any controversial spirit whatever. I want the House genuinely to face up to problems which I think are here for all of us. They are here for Senators on this side as well as for Senators on the other side of the House and because of that, it seems to me that we ought not to come into this House, where we can be very calm, peaceful and dignified, as Senator O'Neill always is, and blind ourselves to things that are happening outside and growing apace every day. I submit that I am in order.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would say that you are not dealing with the national policy at present being pursued. You may be dealing with public evils at the present time.
The consequences on the economic and social life of the people.
I would suggest that you allow Senator Baxter to proceed.
I would have had a great deal said if they had not interrupted me. I come back to the Kerry County Council.
Do not be too hard on them.
I am not going to be too hard on them, but I want to point out this fact. This happened before the days of Fianna Fáil; it used to happen in the days of Cumann na nGaedheal. I had not any responsibility for that Party but I could look on. The Kerry County Council only a short time ago passed unanimously a resolution demanding the release of men in prison. The interesting point is that a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, a Deputy, was a party to the resolution. The Clare County Council—the President's own constituency—apparently are not in agreement on this matter with the policy of the Executive Council. They passed a similar resolution. They demanded a release of these prisoners.
Surely it is not in order for my friend, Senator Baxter, to go through all the county councils to which we are so attached and criticise them adversely. I ask for your ruling on that matter.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I expect the Senator will come in a minute or two to the policy pursued by the Government.
He has gone over only one or two counties already, but there are several other counties to be lectured. We have had lectures to the Bishops and lectures to the county councils.
I can assure the Senator and the House that I have no desire to be offensive to any member of this House nor to any county council outside nor to anybody else in the country.
Is not the Senator rather praising them?
I am stating facts.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not want to stop the Senator. What the Senator has to discuss is the policy at present being pursued by the Government.
Yes, it is the policy that is pursued by the Government with which I am dealing, and I am pointing out the great objections taken to that policy. Men are in prison. No one likes seeing men sent to prison. No one can contemplate with equanimity the sending of men to prison. I was a member of the other House when some people who are now in this House were in prison and they had a great deal to say about it at the time. For my part, on their behalf, I got a good many knocks across the knuckles and little thanks.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are not dealing with that matter now.
Things are different now. What I want to point to to-day are those occurrences down the country, those activities and propaganda and things of that kind. All these are doing a great deal towards weakening Central Government here. They are positively weakening it. I think that none of us can look on unmoved and undisturbed at these happenings. When you see what is happening in certain places it makes you feel that we are really trying to get back to the old clan system. Apparently that is the position in the County Kerry. They want to get back to the old kingdom there. These disturbances in themselves might not be taken very seriously if there were not running parallel with them the rather disturbed incidents arising as a consequence of the economic war.
I want to say right off, as far as the economic war is concerned, that frankly I am not looking for any victory for this country by the policy of the present Government or to the defeat of Britain in the economic conflict in which we are at present engaged. But it is not going to be any advantage for Ireland that the Government to-day would have to go out of office or that its power and influence would be so undermined that it was obvious it could not succeed. President de Valera may move his chess-men as easily and more easily than Mr. Thomas. But this is much more than a game of chess. We are dealing with human beings, men, women and children and the homes of the people are at stake. I am not going to enter into a discussion on the merits of the economic war at all.
What I am going to suggest in this House, and particularly to the members of the Government Party, is that they ought to remember that the terms signed by the Government at Versailles were not signed because their generals were out-manoeuvred on the ground; and not because their soldiers, man for man, were inferior to the allied troops, but because of the economic pressure on the German people at home. If this country is going to be saved from perhaps being forced to sign a treaty that would be as discreditable and as disastrous as the Versailles Treaty was for the Germans, it is absolutely essential that the Government of the day would see to it that our resources would be so organised and so husbanded, and that such a measure of justice would be meted out to our citizens, as would enable them to hold together as an organised social entity in spite of the difficulties through which we are passing. I put it to the Executive Council, through Senator Connolly, that they ought to remember that included in the minority in the last election was a very large section of the best farmers in the country—industrious farmers who were getting the very best yields from every type of farming. These men did not desire the economic conflict. They are much worse off since than before and from their present experience it is very hard to make them believe that their position is going to be bettered.
There is no necessity to produce figures to prove that these people are paying much more than the original annuity in the tax on their live stock and farm products which at present are being collected by the British. Little wonder that these people are restless to-day. We have been told that there are two ways of dealing with it. I would suggest that there is another. I would suggest that the Government would readjust its point of view in its method of dealing with those farmers. While the economic war lasts I would urge upon the Government to see that pure justice will be given to these farmers. They are human beings and they will react favourably to what they consider is fair.
In my view the first step the Government should take is to decide not to collect annuities during the period of the economic war. I believe myself that there would be such a favourable reaction to such a decision on the part of the Government that their position would be considerably strengthened in the campaign they are carrying out. I am positive that that is so. Remember, it is not so much against the unwisdom of what these people consider the continuance of the economic conflict that they are up in arms against, as because of the fact that they feel that they are being called upon to bear an unjust burden.
I know, of course that there are difficulties in the carrying out of such a policy as that on the part of the Government. Perhaps the most obvious difficulty is that the proposition comes from the other side. The proposition comes from the Opposition. That is why Executive Councils cease to be Executive Councils. They are always very reluctant to accept a suggestion from the other side. I believe when we have more wisdom in the art of governing in this country it will be found to be a very good policy indeed to accept such suggestions. In this case I think the Government themselves would have good reason to be satisfied with the result of any such decision if they were brave enough to take it.
I confess there are other difficulties. The attitude taken up in certain localities with regard to the payment of annuities is, perhaps, a problem, but there is no problem anywhere that cannot be easily overcome if the Government are big enough and bold enough to face up to the situation. The Minister for Finance may, perhaps, argue that such a decision is going to throw his Budget out of balance. I do not think it is going to have that effect to any considerable extent. If the money is there—and he urges and suggests that it is there—he is not going to lose it all. If this money is available in the country, much of it will be spent in the purchase of taxable commodities, so that it will come back to the Exchequer. If it is not there, the Minister for Finance cannot get it. If the economic conflict is to continue for any considerable time this decision on the Government's part is inevitable. It would be much better in my view that it would be faced up to at once, and you would find that these people treated like that by you, would readjust their point of view as you would have done.
I am not anxious to continue discussing that aspect of the case at any very considerable length, but there is ample evidence and you can ask any farmer you meet anywhere what the position is. I know my own position. My farm is very small. My annuity was £22 before it was reduced to £11. Since I came into possession of it 11 years ago, I have increased the carrying capacity of the farm by 100 per cent., but the yields of it to-day are less than they were then. My position at the moment is that I have 11 cattle to sell. There would be a tax on two of them of £12, on another £4, and on the balance £20. That is £36, and my annuity is £11. The bounty I would be able to get under the present regulations would be £2. That is the problem that many farmers in the country have to meet. If the rents and rates were to be met out of the returns of that farm—and there are many like it in my county—they could not be paid.
I want to say something on the general position of agriculture in the country, and it is with particular reference to this aspect of the national position, I think, most good can come from the setting up of this Committee which I propose. There is no denying the fact that agriculture is the foundation of Irish life. Any violent change of policy which upsets the general scheme of things on the farm is going to react unfavourably on the country as a whole and is going, in fact, to have violent reactions on the country's life. For that reason it must be regarded as unfortunate that it is deemed necessary to have a change of agricultural policy every time we have a change of Government. That should not be so.
It is essential, therefore, that the broad general lines of our policy, whatever it is to be, should be something on which our farmers would be in general agreement. Now in trying to ascertain what is soundest and best we have not to set sail here on any uncharted seas. There is ample evidence, there is data available, there is a great deal of experience, and there would be very little difficulty in determining what is best for the farmer and whether it is good politics or bad politics. If it is best for the farmer it should be the national agricultural policy. The question is: what are we aiming at? If I were asked, I would say that your objective should be to give the maximum employment on the land, to have the highest possible standard for the people on it, and to get the maximum yield from every acre. If that were generally accepted, the rest would be very simple, but at present there is such general confusion that our aim, if we have one at all, is completely obscured. When people wanted to speak disparagingly of the ex-Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Hogan, they called him "the Minister for Grass." Now, I suppose, some people would speak of our present Minister as "the Minister for Tillage," but the remarkable fact is that to-day we have 90,000 acres more under grass than Mr. Hogan handed over in 1931, and we had 50,000 fewer cattle on that grass in 1934 than we had in 1933. But whether it is to be grass or tillage, there is nothing discreditable about either. There are successful farmers engaged in both types of farming.
A great deal is being heard these days about tillage—in my view, a great deal too much. Ireland never adopted tillage generally as a policy. As far as the records indicate, the highest area under tillage was in the year 1851, when 29 per cent. of our total area was tilled. That was somewhere around 4,500,000 acres. In 1926 we had 12.5 per cent. When people talk about a tillage policy they sometimes think of what is being done on the Continent. Roumania has 72 per cent., Denmark has 65, Germany somewhere about the same, France 58 and Sweden 53. There is no doubt, I suppose, that if we were situated elsewhere on the Continent of Europe, our soil would be different, our climate would be different and we would have different neighbours. Perhaps they would have different views about conquest, and they would have, possibly, different views with regard to food. We have to take things as we find them, and I believe a great deal of the agitation about tillage is born of the conviction that tillage is going to give much more employment than any other type of farming. I am not going to weary the House with figures but no argument could be more fallacious. There is ample evidence of that already.
Let us take the position with regard to Limerick and Wexford. I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture is not in the House. Limerick had 4.8 per cent. of its area tilled—this was in 1912— and Wexford 23.3, but they had a more dense rural population in Limerick than in Wexford. They had a much more dense population of agricultural workers in Limerick than in Wexford. They had 83 acres tilled in Wexford against every 100 agricultural workers as against 398 acres in Limerick against every 100 agricultural workers. That is one answer with regard to the value of tillage as a means of employment. Wexford stands very high from every point of view in respect of tillage— in its output and in the way it handles its tillage when taking it from the fields. Sligo can be quoted against Louth. Sligo has 8.9 of its area ploughed as against 24 for Louth. Yet, there is a more dense population of agricultural workers in Sligo than there is in Louth. I do not want you to decry tillage, but I do not think that its importance ought to be magnified. We should try to assess its true value. The situation with regard to tillage is that the eastern counties are best situated for and adapted to that type of farming. Any encouragement from the Government of a tillage policy is bound to react much more favourably on the eastern counties than on the midland counties or the counties of the west. You will have a much more extensive area under tillage in the eastern counties than you can have anywhere else but the number of people employed will not be at all in proportion.
I now come to the position with regard to wheat and beet. Wheat is being put forward, rather unfortunately, as a sort of political agricultural policy. Its possibilities here are well known. Hundreds of thousands of acres of wheat were grown here before we were born but, if you look at the areas where wheat was grown, you will find that they were the counties of bigger farms and best land. Any efforts to subsidise or encourage wheat-growing as a policy will be chiefly advantageous to the people on the best lands—the men who ought to be able to stand on their own feet if any agriculturist can do that to-day. The tragedy about this policy of wheat-growing is that it is so much involved in the political policy of the present Government. If you regard it as such, wheat as a policy has been a failure. One ought to look for its success in those parts of the country where Government support is strongest. But there less wheat is being grown than in other parts, the reason being that the soil is not suitable. Wheat cannot be successfully produced as a political policy as against other types of farming of which the people have experience and which proved very successful even when they had to meet intense competition from foreign countries. I believe that we will never be able to determine whether the growing of wheat or beet will be satisfactory as a policy until normality in agricultural conditions is restored. When we are able to test the value of one crop as against another, we shall be able to decide rightly whether wheat-growing and beet-growing are types of farming which should be advocated as part of national policy or not. I urge that the aim here for all of us should be to encourage such development on the land as will enable the greatest number of people to be employed.
In trying to visualise what agriculture can do to provide employment, we have to take stock of the position with regard to the industrialisation of the country. There is talk these days about new industries springing up everywhere. It would seem to me as if we were to have a boot factory in every town. I presume there is a plan, but I do not know of a certainty whether there is or not. We have had speeches—rather able speeches, I should say—recently from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One would gather from some of the statements he made that there is a plan. Are any of our boot factories going to be on the lines of the Bata factory or are they to be merely little industries which will survive only behind high tariff walls—factories which will provide the boots we require here at home, but which, if the tariff walls are removed, will not be able to withstand the withering blast of intense competition? How many other factories are necessary to produce the goods which, we are told, home consumption demands? How many people are to be employed in those factories? If there is a plan for the reconstruction of our industrial life, the Ministry ought to be able to indicate to us the number of factories essential to the production of the goods we require and the approximate number of people who will find employment in those factories. Recent returns show that the number of unemployed is about 138,000. I do not want to make any capital out of that very high figure. I realise that there are people on the register now who were never on a register before— people who will stay there as long as they are kept there. But there they are. Many years will elapse before these people will be absorbed by the new industries which, we are told, are being or about to be established. It ought to be possible for the Ministry to indicate the possibilities of employment in industry. The question will then arise—what are we to do with the balance? Apparently, they are not to be permitted to leave the country, and the only possible source of employment is the land. What are we going to do with them on the land? I do not think that either wheat-growing or beet-growing will provide work for many of these people. The problem will have to be faced in another way. Let us take the position as it is. There is a great deal of talk about economic self-sufficiency. The facts are that 4,000,000 acres of land are more than ample to provide us with the 700,000 or 800,000 acres of wheat and the 60,000 acres of beet and all the grain required for home use. Four million acres would more than meet our grain requirements for human and animal use, and there are 12,000,000 arable acres in Ireland. It seems to me that it is much more important to the life of the country to determine how we are to handle these 8,000,000 acres than to decide what is to be done with the 4,000,000 acres. Our people are scattered all over these lands to-day. They built up for themselves prosperous, happy homes. Until recently, they were paying high rents and rates but, in spite of these difficulties, they accumulated considerable savings.
Now I urge that if all our people are not to be brought into the province of Leinster, which is approximately 4,000,000 acres, our Executive Council and the people associated with them should ask themselves how are we to manage the land in future so that every acre will earn something for the owner and enable him to pay his way.
Recently we have had statements both from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said:—
"In the agricultural sphere Fianna Fáil's aim was to change the basis of the agricultural economy, to concentrate upon the production of the agricultural goods required for their own people many of which they were importing from abroad in very great quantities, and at the same time to effect such changes in the production of other classes of agricultural produce as would limit the exportable surplus to the extent for which the external market could be found."
That was rather a careful statement, more so than the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture to his own constituents. He said:—
"Any increase in cattle production would be ruinous. To maintain our present production is a doubtful economic proposition, certainly risky, and therefore not desirable."
Later on he told them:—
"They had reached practically the limit of the available markets for eggs and bacon, and they had been maintaining their exports of milk products at great cost to the taxpayer and the consumer."
I do not know what Senator Johnson thinks of that doctrine of restriction of output. Taking into account the fact that there are a great many people in our own country who have not sufficient quantities of butter, bacon, and eggs and meat, it seems to me that that is an amazing attitude for the Minister for Agriculture to take up. But there is another aspect which might be for us to-day really disastrous. I would urge that that attitude of mind on the part of the representatives of this country in future negotiations with Britain, when they are to come—perhaps they are going on now for all we know—the attitude of mind that no more goods should be sent to the British market than we sent in the past, is absolutely wrong. It certainly is an attitude we ought not to take up. It may be true that the taste of the people of Great Britain is changing and that they are not as fond of meat as they were, but the figures do not prove that. Anyhow, for a long time to come, assuming tastes are changing, there is going to be a very considerable market in Britain for meat. Last year they imported bacon to the value of £23,000,000; of that we sent them £798,000; Denmark sent them over £13,000,000 worth. They imported butter to the extent of over £25,000,000; we sent about £1,000,000 worth of that and Denmark sent £7,000,000. They imported eggs to the value of £4,000,000; we sent them £800,000 worth of that and Denmark sent them £1,700,000 worth. I suggest that these figures show the way we should turn if we are really to keep our people in a comfortable way and if we are to realise that there is dignity in labour on the land and that the return for that labour should be good.
(The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.)
In these days, and in this House, we hear a great deal of talk about the Commonwealth of Nations, and our association in the Commonwealth with Britain. It seems to me, if this association is to continue, there are a great many people who believe that its continuance will be contingent on the cash value that is to be found in it. There are people for whom the British Crown may have sentimental attractions; they are a small number; but they are here and they have their rights. But there are a great many others who differ from that point of view. There are those who hold the firm conviction that there is in the Commonwealth of Nations and in association with Great Britain, something that is of value to them in the economic sense, and that was worth keeping. That ought to be the test to be applied by our representatives when facing up to British statesmen on this question, as they will have to do some day. What they ought to fight for is much bigger sales in the British market for what the men on the land can produce, and for what can be produced by men who cannot grow wheat or beet, and whom the State cannot subsidise to the extent that it would pay them to grow wheat or beet. These people ought to get the chance of producing in the country according to their capacity what is most suitable for them to produce.
The attitude of mind of the Minister for Agriculture is the wrong attitude if he is to meet British statesmen in regard to their markets. There are poor farmers in this country and on the western seaboard who lived decent lives and enjoyed comparative comfort for 20 years. We ought to realise that 700,000 acres of wheat and 600,000 acres of beet is not enough for people to get a living out of compared with 12,000,000 acres of land worked heretofore. Agriculture is in great difficulty to-day. There is no desire on my part to exaggerate these conditions. My desire is not to exaggerate them, but to get people to realise and know they exist. There are people in this country who were brought up on the land. Some were wise enough to get away from it; others were not. I see no difficulty in the problem confronting Senator O'Maille whose farm I pass every day, and the problems I have to face myself. These difficulties are known to Senators on all sides of the House. There are a great many supporters of the Government Party in the country who are as anxious as we are for the reorganisation of industry and for a position that will give the people a decent chance of living such as they enjoyed before.
There are one or two other things I would like to say. In the temper and spirit that is abroad to-day it is not easy to do constructive work. If one has to speak the truth one can only say that it is the desire of every Irishman to decry the efforts of every other Irishman. We have been like that, I think, all through the ages. We have not changed one jot or tittle. Things are being said of the most responsible men in this State that ought not to be said. We are more uncharitable to one another and more unfair to one another than, I believe, any other race or nation. You hear statements with reference to Mr. Cosgrave, with reference to President de Valera, that are a disgrace to a Christian people. But the great tragedy is—and perhaps none of us is faultless—that this very bad example is being set by people in high places and in every walk of life. It is little wonder that we have so much bitterness and so much that is vile away down through every artery when some of the most intelligent and exalted of our people have such a desire to speak ill of one another.
Some of us are charged now and again with sabotage, with being Imperialists, and with all sorts of things that are thought to be evil. I doubt if there is one Imperialist in this country to-day in the sense that the word was understood and used in the days gone by, but it has been used about other men in this country in our own day before, and the great tragedy for us is that great leaders are dead and in their graves now of our own generation and that it is only when these men's bones are long enough in their graves to be mingled with the dust that we discover the good that was in them. We know well many of the things that were said of the late Kevin O'Higgins. We know of all the charges of being an Imperialist that were levelled against him. I was wondering the other day, when I listened to the President here, whether he had readjusted his point of view—I do not think he ever said it and I have no recollection that he did—I was wondering what he thought when he looked through the achievements of that man and when he studied the Statute of Westminster, that leading British statesmen declare broke up the British Empire, and whether he did not see him as more of a different type of Imperialist from the type of Imperialist he was referred to as in 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927. It is, however, when men are dead that sometimes the good that was in them is discovered. It would be much better if the good could be discovered while they lived. We have another example. Who would have thought, when Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald, Mr. McGilligan and the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins were working for the registration of the Treaty at Geneva, and when it was suggested and urged by other leaders elsewhere that such a deed was wrong, that they were carving out a chair for President de Valera at Geneva from which he would be able to rise to speak to the nations of the world? Neither they thought it, I am sure, nor did President de Valera.
These are merely indications of the injustices we do one another, and there is a great necessity for a change in this country to-day. There are many difficulties abroad. We have made a number of them ourselves. We ought to try to lessen the evils. I feel myself that the position nationally, particularly with regard to the policy of our agricultural industry, is such that what has been done is slap-dash and not well thought out; that there is not a plan. I feel very strongly that, no matter what Government rules in this country, there ought to be a continuity about our agricultural policy and it ought to be acceptable to the majority of thoughtful farmers as the policy that is soundest and best. I do not believe that you can get from a political party, acting as a political party with as the main consideration the political reactions to its acts, the wisest policy that our farmers ought to pursue. I know that this Government had to face many difficulties, and possibly a great many difficulties that they had not the vision to realise they would be confronted with. They are wiser than they were, but the country is poorer than it was. The country can be held together and can be made to pull together, but an effort has to be made and a spirit displayed of which we have not much evidence yet.
I believe that if this House agrees to this motion of mine and sets up this committee good will come from it and good work will be done by this committee. I think I have indicated on broad, general lines the kind of considerations that ought to weigh with this committee and the problems that it has to face. I might have been much more general and much more specific, but I will ask people on the other side not to dismiss this proposition lightly. If the statements I make are untrue, they can be disproven. If they are true, there is a reason for the proposition that I put on the Paper. I tried to put it in as reasonable a way as I could, but I believe that there is very good reason for the setting up of such a committee and that great good would accrue from it.
I beg to second the motion. Senator Baxter, however, has left little or nothing for me to say, and, as a matter of fact, I do not intend to say very much. There are a couple of things, however, to which I should like to refer. I should like to bear out Senator Baxter in saying that there is probably more of disquiet and unrest in the country at the present time than there has been for many a long day, and I think it would be a good thing that this motion should be passed so as to give an opportunity of inquiring into that. I suggest that this disquiet is caused mainly by two things: first of all, by the Government's national policy, and next their industrial policy. In connection with their national policy, I would mention that they took office and authority under the Constitution and Treaty, while at the same time their spokesmen, official and otherwise, all along have declared that they are aiming at a republic and separation from the Commonwealth. These matters in themselves are enough to cause a good deal of disquiet and unrest, because they show first of all that the Government themselves are disaffected to the Constitution under which they pass and administer their laws.
The other major matter to which I should like to refer is their industrial revival. The industrial revival itself that the Government aims at is one that has the approval and support of everybody.
It has to be remembered that to prop up this industrial revival which is pushed forward in such a hasty manner, they have to utilise an extreme measure of protection and in many cases a prohibition of imports. That matter of high protection and prohibition inflicts tremendous loss on the export trade and affects especially the farmers trade. It has been estimated by experts that the loss of income to the country is something like a minimum of £15,000,000. I would like to comment as an ordinary person viewing that tremendous loss. I think that loss can be connected with the 135,000 or 140,000 unemployed. If the income becomes short in such a way as that, it follows that there must be a tremendous number of men put out of employment. That has happened both in the case of agriculture and in the case of the industries that have been established.
Again, there is no measure of selection in the industries established. I will give one instance. I am interested in the co-operative meat factory in Waterford as a member. Three years ago they slaughtered and dressed 100 cattle per week. The policy of the Government on the annuities question brought about prohibition in the case of the dressed meat trade so that it has been actually put out of commission. When selecting or discriminating between what industries would be suitable, I suggest that we should select something absolutely indigenous to the soil.
There has been a good deal of talk about reorganising and developing agriculture. So far as I can see, it is now becoming impossible to keep farmers' sons and daughters on the land. Instead of trying to develop and organise agriculture it is now a question of whether he will be able to retain the young people on the land. The rush seems to be towards the towns and cities, whether because of the amenities or amusements there or because of the economic pressure it is difficult to say. I believe the economic pressure has a big influence on the matter. The social policy of the Government with regard to housing and expenditure in towns and cities seems to be driving the young people from the land. I desire heartily to support the proposal put forward by Senator Baxter.
I want to intervene at this stage because I may not have an opportunity later or this debate may peter out or it may be adjourned, and I feel that as this was, as far as I know, Senator Baxter's maiden speech in this House, it would be only reasonable that I should say something in regard to his motion. I have listened with great interest to all that Senator Baxter said, and I could not help reflecting that his speech would suggest that we had been living under normal conditions for the last three years, and that the type of opposition the present Government had to meet was very cool, calm and deliberate, without any political passion or without any feeling of bitterness. I regret to say that was not the case, and I think it is pretty well known throughout the country and to us all here that the very calm, dispassionate attitude which Senator Baxter very rightly took on this question bears no relation whatever to the type of opposition that the members of his own Party have offered to the present Government.
One thing seems to emerge from his statement here this evening, and that is that he seeks and would welcome and desire a national outlook on national things. But he does not serve that purpose very well by instancing the divisions that have taken place in recent years. He has gone to some trouble to explain the differences that emerged out of the Treaty split, if I might call it so, and later out of the Sinn Fein movement, and dealt with the I.R.A. and the different sections that he claims have broken off from that organisation. He mentions the Congress Party and the rest. I would like to point out also that the Republican forces in the country have had no monopoly whatever of the split forces that occasionally occur in Irish political parties, and if Senator Baxter had applied the atmosphere and the attitude that he is applying here this evening to the national issues eighteen months or two years ago, things might have been very different in many respects to what they are to-day.
I am all in favour of the atmosphere which he introduced. I do not think that anyone can, with any national pride or dignity or goodwill, look back on the different forces of opposition that were introduced to the present Government when it took up office and which have persisted up to the present in a quarrel, not to call it a war, that existed on certain very fundamental things with the people across the water. We pledged our word to the people on certain issues. We went to the country on that and were returned. I do not want to go into all the details, but we went to the country on that again and again we were returned. That, to me, was an indication of the will of the people if there was ever any indication possible, and it seemed to me that it behoved those people who accepted the rule of the majority to stand in with the Government of the country and back it to the limit in what were its just rights. Those just rights were claimed at that time; those just rights still stand and those just rights will be adhered to and maintained in spite of any opposition, either internal or external, so long as we have the majority vote of the people of this country. That is the policy that is definitely fixed.
Senator Baxter, I think, will be the first to admit that right from the word "Go" we at least were not helped in our conflict with an external force by either the leaders or the rank and file of the Opposition. I would like to draw a little contrast with what exists elsewhere. There was recently a most violent, vigorous and offensive attack on a leading statesman outside this country. Many of the papers in that statesman's own country are bitterly opposed to him in policy; they attack him daily on his idiosyncrasies and weaknesses as a leader of the people. It was noteworthy that the foreign Press, the Press across the water, religiously abstained from making any quotation which would have been derogatory to that statesman. I would say it is an object lesson for some people in this country. They might take advantage of it and try to follow the same line.
With regard to the motion itself, the Cathaoirleach has ruled that it is in order and I am quite satisfied with that ruling. But let us realise what the motion means. It really means the establishment of a super-Government or super-Cabinet which will decide what is right and what is wrong in regard to economic policy in this country. It is not in terms a condemnation of the existing Government, but it clearly indicates that not only is the present Government inefficient and incompetent, but that it should be superseded by a super-Cabinet very much on the lines, I am afraid, of the new proposals of Mr. Lloyd George. In any event, while the Government is in office, and while it has authority from the people of this country, such a proposition as this cannot be contemplated. It could not be contemplated by any Government claiming to govern and we do claim that we are the Government and that we are governing.
Senator Baxter has given us a considerable number of references to the Church in Ireland, to the attitude of the Bishops, and to the attitude of different county councils—the Kerry County Council, the Clare County Council, and so on. He proclaims that these are significant indications that the present Government has lost support. I do not agree that the present Government has lost support. There is a period for testing that and at that period the Government's attitude, its policy and whole activities, will come under review. If Senator Baxter and his Party are able to make a right appeal, to put the right programme before the people, and are able to show that we are entirely discredited by the people of the country, there is a method whereby that can be put into force, and the people of Kerry, the Clare County Council and the rest can all have their opportunity of returning the people that they want.
Senator Baxter dealt with such a variety of subjects, and he spread himself in such an irregular way, if I might say so, over the whole position in this country, that it was rather difficult to keep pace with him and to follow intelligently what exactly his whole argument was. It might be summed up by saying that he is of the opinion that the agricultural economy, the social economy and the social policy of this present Government are all wrong; that a group of Senators could evolve something much better than and much different from what is going on. It seems to me that, like most Senators who have been addressing themselves to this question of the economic and social conditions of this State, he overlooked quite a number of factors which should be and I believe are obvious to most intelligent people.
I have gone to some pains to explain in this House various factors that are operating not only here but elsewhere. If Senator Baxter believes that the British market for cattle exists as it did in 1929, 1930 and 1931, then I believe he is wrong. I think an analysis or a superficial study even of the position as existing there would clearly indicate what the position is. He also asked for a continuity of policy. I presume he means by that that there should be a continuity of policy in regard to the agricultural production for our export trade. I would remind him that there cannot be any continuity of policy in regard to export trade, because your policy depends entirely on what your purchasers abroad are prepared to buy from you. We have concentrated in regard to policy on the market that we do know exists and that is beyond yea or nay available. We argued and still argue that the cattle market which did exist, leaving aside for a moment its economic value or otherwise to the people of the country, was a diminishing quantity. It is still a diminishing quantity; it is a rapidly disappearing quantity. I would refer to Mr. Elliot's statement in the House of Commons a few days ago when he was asked if he understood and knew that the cattle trade in Great Britain was in a ruinous condition and that only ruinous prices to the farmer could be secured. Mr. Elliot in his reply stated that he was well aware of it and that all the protection possible for the British producer of beef would be given.
I know something about the conditions in various other countries. I know countries that have been ruined because they were entirely in wheat. I know countries that have been ruined because they were in wheat, cotton and beef. One would think, to hear the statements made here, that we were living in the pre-1929 period. We are not. I showed here not very long ago how world trade in agricultural products had decreased to about 40 per cent. of what it was in 1929. Does Senator Baxter think we are immune from that? Does he think that any continuity of policy could afford to ignore the existing conditions and the market that is available?
He raises various questions with regard to the use of land. He puts it to us—can we use all the land in this country to feed our people? Is it necessary to use all the land of this country to feed our people? I do not know; we do not know. We know this, however, that the policy that was being pursued before we came into office was heading straight for ruin and that it would have been infinitely more ruinous to-day if that policy had been continued, leaving aside the economic war altogether and the big national issue of this claim of Great Britain which we will not admit. That policy would have been ruinous and has been ruinous. We are overlooking the fact that this policy, in these prosperous days that members of the Opposition refer to, meant the continued emigration from this country of about 25,000 people per year who are not now able to go out. I think that that ought to be kept in mind and that since we came into power there must have been an increase of the non-emigrants by about 75,000 people in three years and that those people cannot get out.
Now the logical thing to do is to expand our industrial policy to the limit of what we can do; to expand our production of those commodities which are of daily need to our people, and to try to get that harmony between the two that we can best get and can best afford. No responsible person in any country to-day is going to claim that he is going to solve the unemployment problem. What we have done and will do is to work to the limit to get the maximum of production for our own needs and for which we know there is a definite market. Those people who cannot now be assimilated, until they are assimilated in the development of the country, will be taken care of to the maximum extent which has been provided in the various Assistance Acts and the rest. More than that, no statesman can do at present. To try to argue as to the present position on the basis of 1928 or 1929 is neither fair nor realistic.
Senator Baxter put forward a suggestion which I am glad he put forward for the simple reason that I have been anxious to deal with it. His suggestion is that we should not collect the annuities. I wonder does he appreciate just what that means. Does he realise that the one security of tenure, the one right the farmer has to his land, the one justification to hold on to his land, and to establish and maintain his title, is the payment of the halved annuity? Remember if he does not pay resumption will take place. It is his security of tenure. I think the greatest crime done by an Opposition in this country was the preaching of the doctrine of non-payment of liabilities.
Senator Baxter referred to the fact, and did it very rightly, and in very good terms, that we may be here to-day and that some other Government may be here to-morrow. It is well that that note should be struck. I think that it is a very desirable thing to emphasise, that a Government and the people in it are only birds of passage. They are there for a few years of torture, and going through as much work as they can day and night. Then another Government replaces them. Remember, if a political Party is to preach a doctrine of non-payment of annuities, when they come into power they are going to be faced with the same gospel. Apart from policy it is a serious thing, from the moral point of view, if they are going to create a situation, that any group or any individuals can get by without meeting their lawful liabilities. There is the all-important consideration, that if we do not collect the annuities what is going to happen? I ask Senators to consider that. Assume the hypothetical position, that a Government was defeated in the collection. Now what is going to follow? Do you think the people of this country are going to sit down and to allow land to be held without fee or reward, simply because there was a squatter's right, or because they held under Land Commission agreements which they are not honouring? No such thing. There will be other methods. Civilisation and ordinary order will demand other methods. It may be one thing or another. It may be a land tax or what you will. I emphasise, that the only claim for a man to hold his land is by paying the annuities and keeping in good standing with the Land Commission in the settlement of them.
Senator Baxter went into various figures with regard to the use of the land and the production of wheat, beet, etc. It is not within my province to deal with these matters. The Minister for Agriculture is not here. If we had had any idea that these particular matters were going to be brought up we would be in a position to deal with them. At all events I am satisfied of this, that it is sound economic policy to produce 100 per cent. of the wheat needed for the people of this country, and similarly with every other commodity, whether agricultural or industrial. It is a policy of self-sufficiency. We know that there is considerable controversy in economic schools of thought with regard to the value and the disadvantages of a policy of self-sufficiency. We have got to be realistic, and to realise that we have got to live, and we have accordingly to teach that when a people are not prepared to buy certain commodities from us while we have got to purchase from them, the only proper method of balancing our trade is to reduce our imports, if our exports are reduced by foreign purchasers. I say it is sound policy, taking the world as it is, to produce these things for ourselves. I do not think Senator Baxter was cynical, but he may have been when he mentioned normalcy in agriculture. Can anyone imagine normalcy in agriculture? Can anyone conceive normalcy in the near future? I cannot, and I have studied the reports and have heard people from different countries speaking at various conferences. In every branch of agriculture from wheat to tobacco you find the same thing. People who have a certain crop are glutted with it, because of the world's lack of capacity to purchase and because of the rotten economic system that has been in existence. If Senator Baxter brings forward a proposal to look into the root causes, then I say he will be on very good ground. It is only tinkering with the matter and only begging the issue to talk about economic normalcy in agriculture. Such a thing seems to me very far off and it does not help.
He referred to the number of unemployed. I think I dealt with that question last week, or the week before, when I pointed out the number of people now registered for employment, and the number of people registered for unemployment assistance. I had one case, following that statement, in one district in Donegal. I got figures showing that at one time there were 78 people registered, in the matter of paying unemployment stamps, and that at present there are over 2,000 in that end of the Gaeltacht alone, registering for unemployment assistance. I am very glad they are, because they were living in a state of penury for 12 or 14 years, under the last Administration, and for many years before that. It is the first time that there has been any cognisance of the position of the small struggling landholders in the Gaeltacht, and along the western seaboard, numbering many thousands, who are at present, at least, being preserved in some state of living which is compatible in a Christian community.
Senator Dillon referred to various matters dealing with the keeping of the young people amongst the agricultural population on the land. Agriculture like everything else is providing us, and providing the people of all countries like ours, with what is known as technological unemployment. New methods are being introduced into the factories. Even since my time in industry I have seen a machine doing what it used to take 20 men to do, and a boy will watch it and get better results. The same thing will apply to some extent in agriculture. That will go on. Like other people, we will have to face the position as regards what we are going to do about it. We are a small country and we will not influence the economic outlook of the peoples of the world, but we will have to concentrate on the problem we are facing ourselves, to see how we can evolve some system for the distribution of the day's work according to the necessity for production. I have often said here that we should not glorify work qua work. I think we should work to live, to bring the highest standard of living and the highest standard of development to our people. There is no reason why we should be entirely wedded to the idea that it is going to be essential for a man to work six days a week for eight hours daily. I believe if we were an intelligent people in this world, which we are not unfortunately in economic thought, we could work down to a basis which would give us all the production we need; give us a much better standard of living than we have, and minimise work to a certain extent.
With regard to the motion itself, it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept it. It would simply mean that they were accepting the doctrine that they ought to be superseded by a super-Cabinet. We do not feel that that position has arrived and is not likely to arrive for a long time.
It was suggested that the House should adjourn at 8 o'clock. I do not know if the House wants to continue now or to adjourn.
I propose that the Debate be adjourned until the next day the House sits.
Debate adjourned accordingly.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.10 p.m. sine die.