Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jun 1928

Vol. 10 No. 16

DENTISTS BILL, 1927. - WHEAT-GROWING IN THE SAORSTÁT.

Mr. LINEHAN

I move:—

That in view of the large and increasing proportion of wheat and its products at present being imported for consumption within the Irish Free State, the Seanad is of opinion that the cultivation of a greatly increased area of Irish-grown wheat for home consumption has become a matter of urgent importance, and requests the Executive Council to provide by legislation that all flour sold within the Irish Free State shall contain a substantial percentage of the flour of Irish-grown wheat.

According to the figures given in the very instructive report of the Statistics branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce recently published, the area under wheat in the Saorstát was 29,386 acres in 1926, the produce of which would not suffice to feed the population for more than three weeks, whilst it is calculated that it would require the produce of 563,070 acres to supply fully the bread requirements of the nation. This is a very alarming state of affairs that calls for immediate attention. The production of wheat in the Saorstát in proportion to its area is less than in any other European country, and there is no valid reason, in my opinion, why that should be the case, for it is a fact that in former years not only was sufficient wheat grown for home requirements but large quantities of that cereal were exported. In the year 1851, 671,448 acres were grown, since when the wheat area diminished, and the decline was not checked until 1915. In 1918 the area planted went up to 135,000 acres, but on the termination of the great war rapidly declined to its present figure. Now, if anything happens to prevent the free import of foreign grain, famine and starvation would result, as we have little or no home crop, and it behoves those responsible for the welfare of the nation to take such precautionary measures as may be necessary to ward off that calamity.

There is no doubt that this country can produce sufficient wheat of good quality to feed its people and the decline in the area of wheat is due to the want of a market, owing to the preference of consumers for foreign flour, and the reluctance of Irish millers to buy Irish wheat, a reluctance which is largely based on fallacious ideas as to its quality. It also appears the machinery in Irish flour mills is more suited for treating foreign than Irish wheat, as the latter contains more moisture.

If a market is provided for Irish wheat, I believe farmers would in a short time largely increase the area under cultivation, and the price need not exceed that quoted from day to day in the London market for British wheat. It is alleged that our climate is unsuitable for wheat-growing. I admit it is at some disadvantage as regards quality, but it must be acknowledged it has some compensating advantages, for instance, the yield of Irish wheat compares favourably with that of any other country. The disadvantage of high moisture content is not in my opinion of such a nature as to deter us from growing wheat. Owing to its strong straw no crop is better able to withstand, without lodging or damage, the rains or storms which sometimes come in the harvest season. Then other countries are not discouraged because their wheat crop is subject to attacks from various causes, quite as formidable as the difficulties with which we are faced.

There are still parts of Ireland such as West Cork and South Kilkenny, where the people have never given up wheat-growing, where Irish wheat is still the staple food of the peasantry, and any one visiting those districts would find those people in no way inferior, either mentally or physically, to those whose bread comes from foreign flour.

The yield of Irish wheat per acre is high, averaging about 1 ton, and in very few countries of the world is there a larger crop. According to the statistics issued by the International Institute of Agriculture (Rome) for the year 1924-25, on the world's wheat production, the yield in the Free State is only slightly exceeded by the yields in Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Great Britain, whereas the Irish yield is more than double that of Canada or of the United States. I quote the figures relating to the yield in some of these countries showing the number of "quintals" (220 lb.) per "hectare" (about 2½ acres):—

	Quintals per Hectare
Denmark	30.3
Holland	27.4
Belgium	26.2
Great Britain	22.6
Irish Free State	21.9
Germany	18.7
France	15.0
Austria	13.3
Italy	12.0
Canada	10.3
United States	9.9
Australia	8.7
Russia	7.0

Owing to recent work in Ireland in the production of suitable wheat varieties the yield has been increased, and to-day Ireland stands next to Denmark in respect of yield of grain. The promotion of wheat culture will bring other national benefits in its train. It will materially help to reduce our adverse trade balance, will give large additional employment in our farms and mills, and give a sense of security to our people against the contingent danger of famine. For a number of years the Research Branch of the Department of Agriculture has been engaged in improving the breeds of wheat suitable for cultivation in this country, and I believe this work has met with a large measure of success. This has been demonstrated by the exhibition at the Royal Dublin Society's shows of bread of excellent quality made entirely from the flour of Irish-grown wheat.

That any legislation introduced to promote the objects of the resolution would meet with sympathetic consideration, if not active support of the Opposition Parties in the Dáil, is, I think, assured, for the declared policy of Fianna Fáil was stated by the leader, Mr. de Valera, on August 22nd, 1927, in these words:—

I have said repeatedly that our guiding principle will be to make Ireland as self-contained and as self-supporting as possible. That is the only basis on which we can prosper materially. It is the only basis on which we can build up a spirited and self-reliant people. Whether Fianna Fáil is in a majority or in a minority that is what we will unceasingly work for.

The policy of the Labour Party on this question is clearly given in the minority report of the Agricultural Commission, 1924, signed by Senator Duffy and Mr. Thomas Johnson. It is as follows:—

That the policy of the Ministry should be to encourage home consumption of agricultural produce.

That wheat-growing should not be allowed to become obsolete in a wheat-consuming country.

That a guaranteed price should be paid for limited quantities of home-grown wheat.

That millers should be required to blend a proportion of home-grown wheat with imported.

That limitations should be placed upon the importations of flour... Milling machinery ought to subserve human requirements instead of which it appears that mankind must use the kind of flour which modern machinery is adapted for.

The question of wheat supply in a wheat-consuming country cannot be discussed without taking account of the wider question of national security in time of war. Whatever our political position may be now or in the future, if Britain became involved in a naval war the bread supply of this country would be in jeopardy. The town population especially might find themselves without food in a few weeks after an outbreak of war. Britain's own food supply would be the first care of her fleet.

Professor Whelehan, member of the Tariff Commission, in the Addendum to the report submitted by him on the application for a tariff on flour, has drawn particular attention to the helpless condition of this country in the event of war, and in reply to queries put by him to the millers, as to the percentage of home-grown wheat which could be used by Saorstát millers in blending, the latter stated that:

From a milling point of view there is no limit to the percentage of home-grown wheat usable in the blendings, provided the quality was up to the required standard, but that under present conditions, and particularly to existing provisions and facilities in the mills, 10 per cent. would be as much as we would care to deal with.

At the present time the millers only buy about 5 per cent. of the home-grown wheat, and their mixture contains only about one part of home-grown to 400 parts of foreign. Foreign flour required for special purposes might be admitted unmixed on licence.

In order to carry out the suggestion contained in the resolution it will be observed that no subsidy from the State is asked for, apart from administrative charges, in marked contrast to other schemes intended to benefit agriculture, such as the beet subsidy, forestry or the provision of money for agricultural credit, though I believe more benefit would accrue to agriculture and the nation as a whole by adopting the means of encouraging wheat-growing indicated in the motion.

The imports of wheat and its products cost the nation £7,000,000 a year, which forms a large part of our adverse trade balance. A considerable portion of this sum could be saved in the immediate future, and perhaps the entire later on, if the encouragement to native wheat-growing outlined in the motion was put into operation. It would not be practicable for some time to insist that a large proportion of home-grown wheat should be blended in the flour mixture, as there would not be a sufficient quantity of wheat immediately available; but if the Government announce before October or November next, which is the most suitable time for planting, that they will provide a market for all wheat of good quality produced, I believe a large additional area of wheat would be sown which would be fit for milling about January, 1930, when the suggested regulation as to blending could come actively into force.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I have great pleasure in seconding the motion. Having been identified with agriculture all my life, I am aware that the decline in wheat-growing is due to the competition of foreign flour and foreign grain. The question is to devise means to get Irish farmers to adopt wheat-growing again. Senator Linehan has gone very exhaustively into the question, so that it is unnecessary for me to go over the ground. I am warmly in favour of the motion.

Mr. KENNY

The Fiscal Inquiry Committee into flour milling in its report made this note: "The preservation of flour milling is important in the national interests." We are up against the position to-day that because of overproduction in the mills in England the surplus is dumped into this country, at prices less than the cost price, amounting to something like 3s. or 4s. a sack. That brings us to the consideration of this aspect of the question: it may be contended that from the point of view of pure economics it is in the public interest to buy in the cheapest market. Supposing that argument is extended would it be contended, because of conditions such as prevail in England now with regard to the production of flour, or as regards some other necessaries of life prevailing in some other countries, that all the necessaries of life could be imported more cheaply than we can produce them? Would it be argued that that would be a sound proposition?

Supposing I am a hungry man without work, is it of very great benefit to me to know that I can buy a 4 lb. loaf for sixpence when I have not one penny? Supposing as I say, you take an extreme case—and I think you must test these measures logically by taking extreme cases—as to what might possibly happen from the upholding of such a principle as that which has been exploded, as many other principles of political economy have been exploded, the result would be found to be you would have little money to buy the cheap products of other countries. We would simply become a nation of distributors. The people who would not be required in the Saorstát as distributors would then have to seek a living in other countries. Owing to the position we have reached to-day with regard to the flour trade, the Government must approach it from the point of view of pure economics or national economics, as affecting the lives of the people who desire to remain in their own country and to be given some employment. Our population is diminishing, and the policy ought to be to hold them and give them employment in their own country by some well thought policy. These things are supposed to be regulated on the principle of supply and demand. It is contended that demand will always bring forth a supply and that supply will affect demand. That would be all right if the whole world were in unison as to the ordinary operation of supply and demand. The world is not a commercial unit. There are aggregations of people who set themselves up as States with certain territories over which they have jurisdiction. It has become a matter of necessity to these people to preserve their own people first and to let other nations look after themselves. They set up certain barriers and boundaries to the free flow of commerce and to the ordinary operation of supply and demand. By means of trusts, combines, strikes, lock-outs, bulls and bears, all these things tend to impede the ordinary flow of commerce in the matter of supply and demand. We are in a most unenviable position in this regard. As Senator Linehan pointed out, the position with regard to the mainstay of life —of the life of our people at any time is such that, within a few weeks, a war, a shipping strike, or something of that sort might find us in this position, with the vital food we require cut off.

I think that is a matter that no Government or public representatives could lightly afford to ignore. As to our capability for the production of flour, it is one of the cases where we produce the raw material and where our own people have sufficient skill and craftsmanship to manufacture the finished product—the 4 lb. loaf. We produce very little raw material in this country, and the little we do produce we export. As I mentioned at the last meeting of the Senate, we produce a lot of hides which give a great deal of employment elsewhere. The consideration for a Government is that industries spring from raw materials, and that these industries, and the possibilities of establishing, extending and reviving them, where we produce the raw material, are matters for a Government's consideration to order to stem the outflow of our population by emigration and to minimise unemployment. I think this is essentially a matter in which the Government should carefully intervene. It means organisation. Farmers are too widespread; they have not the clear business instinct of the city man in such matters. They are not trained in business and commerce, and are not qualified to set up an organisation which will adjust the position in which they find themselves. If a reasonable prospect was offered they would no doubt co-operate most heartily. There is an instance in the case of the organisation by the Minister for Agriculture for the sale of our butter, eggs and bacon from which immediate and very tangible results have flown. Although that position was there for want of organisation the farmers were unable to achieve it.

That is a case in point. Another case is where the Government have, by means of a little pressure, helped to revive an industry. I think that if they want to revive this industry they will also have to use a little pressure at some point or other, but I suggest that that pressure will be entirely laudable and proper, because it will be in the interests of those concerned. I might also instance the case of our woollen mills, which have adjusted themselves to present-day conditions. The manufacturers have risen to the occasion by converting woollen mills that were not a paying proposition for the manufacture of woollens into mills that are now utilised for the production of blankets. That is now quite a profitable industry. As a result of the change that was made, we find that there has been no appreciable rise in the price of blankets. The mills are producing as good, if not a better, blanket than the blankets that were formerly imported. As a result of legislation passed, a certain amount of pressure was brought to bear on the woollen mills that has now resulted in putting them on a paying basis.

As to the objection made with regard to the class of wheat that we grow in this country and as to its water content, the Department of Agriculture, a few years ago, set about propagating a class of wheat that would respond to the general requirements of the country. They succeeded in propagating a wheat called Yeoman wheat No. 1, and Yeoman wheat No. 2. The Department submitted a large bulk of this wheat to the firm of Messrs. Shackleton, the Carlow flour millers. They tested the wheat from various points of view, and their report was that it answered to the general requirements of the Irish millers, that it was of such soundness, quality and uniformity that they ventured to say the millers of Ireland would be prepared to take all of it that could be produced for years to come. They stated that it met all the requirements of the millers, and further that when all the requirements of the Irish mills had been catered for, that the surplus remaining over would find a ready sale in the international markets. It was also stated that it was a class of wheat that could be grown in any part of Ireland. The case made on behalf of biscuit manufacturers was also considered. The point at any rate is, that we have a market in this country for all the wheat that we can produce if we had the people to produce it. We have the land to produce the wheat, and really all that is required in order to produce here all the wheat that is needed for our purposes is some organisation that will be strong enough to bring all the various factors affecting the matter into action, and to draw up a scheme whereby the very laudable results outlined by Senator Linehan in his motion can be achieved. That is to say, that in time we would be able to do what our forefathers did. Surely that is not beyond the resources of the present Government. Some of the Ministers in the present Government have shown that they possess an organising genius, and surely it is not beyond their resources to make some effort to do a thing which will be productive of so much good.

I think that in the year 1927 we imported into this country 560,000 tons of flour. You get on an average a ton of grain from every acre of land, so that if we were to grow all the wheat we require for our own requirements we would have 560,000 acres of land under wheat. Our present wheat contribution to meet the requirements of the country is only 3 per cent., or a miserable 34,000 acres. In times past we cultivated wheat to the extent of over half a million acres. The demand for a big wheat supply is there. All that is required, in order to produce at home all the wheat we require, is some organisation and co-operation, and possibly a little pressure at some point in order to revive the industry. Various inquiries have been held from time to time with regard to the import of flour. I wonder whether any of the Commissions or other parties who have gone into this question have ever figured out what proportion of the 10½d. that we pay for our 4 lb. loaf is spent in this country or where the benefits of that 10½d. go. If the wheat from which that 4 lb. loaf is baked is grown in Australia, then in that 10½d. you have first the cost of the seed originally to the Australian grower, you have the cost of the sowing and the tilling of his land, the payment of his workmen's wages, the cost of the reaping and harvesting of the crop, the cost of the transport of the resulting grain to the port for shipment, the dock dues, the wholesale importers' commission, the cost of the freight across 14,000 miles of ocean to the wholesaler in England, the commission which the wholesale man receives when selling to the miller, the cost of the conversion of the wheat into flour by the miller, his profit on that, the cost of the ultimate transport of that sack of flour until it is dumped on some Irish hearth perhaps in the West of Ireland. It is only after the sack of flour has given that amount of employment to foreigners and comes here that we begin to derive any benefit at all from it. A charge is made for the carting of the flour from the port either by river or horse-car to the wholesaler's grain store, and then for the transfer from the stores, the importer's profits and the baker's profits for his outlay in converting the flour into the loaf of bread and in its distribution afterwards in a horse and car eventually to the consumer from the shop.

I wonder if anybody has ever considered what it would mean to the people of this country if the whole of that 10½d. was spent here? I do not know what proportion of that 10½d. is sent out of the country, but I think it must be considerable. The proportion, whatever it is, would mean that the ordinary working man would be in a much better position than he is in to-day to buy the 4 lb. loaf at 10½d., or even at 10¾d., if it were spent here instead of being as it is sent out of the country. The point that I want to make is that the general profit to the community as a whole which would result from the production of the raw material here and the spending of the whole, or nearly the whole, of the 10½d. here would be such as to enable people, without feeling the extra burden, to pay perhaps an extra farthing or even a halfpenny more for the 4 lb. loaf than they pay at present. At any rate, our people would be earning something that would enable them to buy the loaf. I read the Report of the Tariff Commission very carefully, and the conclusion I have come to is that full consideration was not given to this great issue as a whole, and that their decision was not justified.

Mr. JACKSON

I am glad that Senator Linehan has brought forward this motion. It is one of the most important matters that could be introduced here, and the discussion on it may lead to far-reaching results. The Senator made a few points in his statement that I cannot quite agree with. He suggests in his motion that legislation should be passed providing that all flour sold within the Free State should contain a specified percentage of Irish-grown wheat, and that this legislation should take effect at a comparatively early date. I am afraid that, if the Irish mills were compelled to use flour grown from certain qualities of Irish wheat, they would have to deal with a form of competition from across the water that would be much more intensive than it is at present. There is one thing that I do not think many people are quite aware of, and it is that the consumers are really more to blame for this than either the farmers or the millers. In many parts of the country, especially in the West of Ireland, the people must have white flour. About 40 years ago a great many mills were working and doing quite well in this country. The people were then satisfied with the flour ground from the stone mills instead of the flour now produced by elaborate machinery. Of course, the colour of the flour at that time was not white. About 40 years ago the Americans commenced to send in here some very large cargoes of flour. The colour of it was very white, and the consequence of it was that mill after mill had to shut down, and in many cases they remained closed for years until means were discovered, by electrical process or otherwise, to whiten the flour. That had to be done in order to compete with the flour shipped from across the water.

After all, you have to please the people, and unless you can alter their taste they will continue to ask for the white flour. If the Irish mills were to be handicapped by being asked to use something which they might not like to use, it would not make their flour saleable. It rather would make matters worse for the Irish millers. If the motion were agreed to, one of the first things that would have to be considered is the establishment of a tariff. Otherwise, the Irish millers would be squeezed out of existence. I do not know that the millers here have any objection to grinding Irish wheat wherever it can be found suitable. In a great many cases the Irish wheat is of a rich colour. The bran coming from it is red. There you are up against another difficulty, that the majority of farmers and other people have a dislike to buying red bran. Red bran has been proved by analysis to be better, in many cases, than white bran, and that it contains more nourishment, but then the people object to its colour. These are facts that you must take into consideration. That is why I would welcome very much an inquiry being made by the Government from one or two points of view. The first point that might be considered is, that land differs so much in many counties. There are little strips of land along the shore near Enniscrone in my own county that would be splendid for the growing of wheat. People twenty miles distant will tell you that wheat would not grow on their land at all.

We have seen, in the case of Messrs. Jacobs, that the special wheat they require for the flour that is used in the manufacture of their biscuits is grown on a comparatively small portion of land in Suffolk, on the east coast of England. It has been grown there for centuries. If the Government were to take the matter up it would mean that an exhaustive inquiry would have to be made, in the first place as regards land that would be suitable for the growing of wheat from which flour suitable to meet the requirements of the trade could be milled in Ireland. I know myself that the millers in Ireland would gladly welcome any proposition that would enable thousands of acres of wheat to be grown in the country that would be suitable for their purposes. It would be much easier for the millers, if all the wheat they required could be produced at home. They would have, in the first place, their supplies on the spot, and would not be dependent, as they are at present, on the import of flour, much of which has to be brought a distance of many thousand miles. There are a great many questions arising out of the motion to which the Government might give very serious consideration.

Mr. COUNIHAN

While I am in favour of any reasonable proposal to increase the production of wheat or to increase the area under tillage in any shape or form, I cannot support Senator Linehan's motion. I think it is far too drastic. It is a proposal such as only the most extreme protectionist could advocate. What it amounts to is this: that all flour milled in this country must contain a certain percentage of Irish-grown wheat. The motion would compel all the people of this country to eat bread produced from wheat grown here. You could carry this matter very much further, and extend it to several articles which we produce here. I think it could be said in a more reasonable way that all boots sold here should be produced from leather tanned in the Free State. The question of producing more wheat and increasing tillage is a matter certainly of first-rate importance for the country, and should have the consideration of the Government, but I do not think Senator Linehan's motion will meet the point. The fact is that tillage is not paying. That is the reason why we are not producing more. Our climate is unsuitable for the production of grain-crop. During many years I have seen beautiful crops growing which were afterwards destroyed by the climate. When the harvest time arrived these crops could not be saved, and the result was that the return from them would not meet the cost of the labour employed on them. That is not the sole reason why more tillage should not be encouraged.

We can produce a certain quantity of wheat and other grain crops. In view of the large amount of money expended on the importation of maize and other cattle feeding stuffs, I think the Government should give some consideration to the question of the production of more wheat. I suggest that one of the big reasons why there is a slump in the price of grain crops in this country is this: that the farmers are so short of money they are compelled to market the crop immediately it is harvested. I think it would be well if some provision were to be made whereby large granaries could be established all over the country so that farmers could be placed in the position of being able to put their grain crops in them, and on the security of the crops raise, say, two-thirds or three-fourths of their value. If the farmers could get that amount of money when they delivered their grain-crop to these granaries it would facilitate and help them to dispose of their crops at a reasonable price. At the present time, owing to the lack of such facilities, they are obliged to dump their crops on the market as soon as they have them thrashed. I think the Senator's motion might possibly do some good by bringing the attention of the Government to considering the question of increasing the production of more wheat and oats.

Mr. BAGWELL

I did not know when I came here that I was at all likely to speak on this subject, of which I have no special knowledge. In Ireland bread is the staple food of the people. The system of protection advocated would increase its cost. For every man who grows wheat a great number live by eating bread. For everyone who would grow wheat under this system of protection, very many more are interested to see that the best possible and most palatable bread is on the table three times a day. I am not a miller, and I do not claim to have studied the economics of this subject, but I think there is a fallacy in the idea that you can make everything right by artificial means in this way. We ought not, I suggest, to give approval to a motion of this kind unless we know exactly what we are doing. The cost of importing foreign flour has been instanced as one argument for protection of this kind, but what about the cost of producing wheat in Ireland, a country which is not economically suited to the growing of wheat? I suggest that there are a good many reasons for the small amount of wheat that is grown here. The possible big yield in Ireland is the surest proof of this, that it is not grown more largely because it does not pay. The allegation that it is owing to the shortcomings of millers is not sustainable. I am not a miller, and I hold no brief for millers. I know, however, from experience that there is no difficulty in getting the millers to take the Irish wheat which is grown. The millers are supplying what the people want, and under conditions of acute competition, which is the surest guarantee of good quality and low price. I am not convinced by the arguments advanced in favour of protection of Irish wheat. I consider it most unsuitable that the Seanad should pass such a motion affecting the principal food of the people without knowing a great deal more about it. I think that to pass the motion, in default of other information, would be a mistaken move, and I do not think we should pass it.

Mr. O'ROURKE

I desire to support the motion. If the terms of the motion were put into effect I believe they would stimulate increased tillage all over the country. Farmers are being abused for not tilling more. There has been a great decline in tillage since the war. During the war the prices were such that there was a larger area year after year put under tillage. It is not the fault of the farmers that tillage is declining. The real reason is that it is unproductive. That the area under tillage has shown a reduction during the last four or five years is due to the fact that very poor prices were obtained for the crops grown. If the farmers were given a guaranteed price for their wheat, more of it would be grown. If, for instance, they were guaranteed an extra 2/6 a barrel, it would encourage them to grow more of the crop. I might point out that since the introduction of beet-growing farmers want an additional grain crop and wheat would be the ideal one. In the past the farmer did not get the value of his wheat crop because the system that obtained was that he had to give it over to a dealer to handle it. The dealer stepped in between the miller and the farmer. I think that if the farmers were guaranteed an extra 2/6 or 5/- for their wheat, and if the millers were compelled to take delivery of it at the nearest railway station, as is done in the case of the beet crop, you would have a largely increased area of land put under tillage. If what is done in the case of beet-growing were done in the case of wheat, you would have more of that crop grown than there is at present. It would be an inducement to the farmer to grow more.

Some who are opposed to this motion have claimed that ours is not a good climate for growing wheat. In the famine years we tilled over 600,000 acres of wheat, and if we had done that last year we would have produced as much wheat as would have made us independent of foreign countries as regards flour supply. In addition, we would be producing 60,000 or 70,000 tons of offal for feeding our cattle. Had we that much offals last year, it would reduce the price of offals at least £1 per ton, which would enable the farmer to feed his pigs at 4/- less than it costs him at present. All these things would have an effect on pig and cattle-feeding, and on the unemployment question. If a tariff were put on flour and properly administered so as to bring about the growth of 600,000 acres of wheat which would feed the people, that would mean giving employment on the land to nearly 100,000 people. It has been suggested by Senator Counihan that owing to the dampness of the climate we are not able to grow wheat, but we have been growing wheat for centuries, and the climate was no worse in the past than it is now. The climate here is very little damper than in England, and of the grain crops grown in England 25 per cent. is wheat, and in this country the percentage is only 3.

There is no reason why we should not grow as large a proportion of wheat as the English farmer. The English farmer is increasing his growth of wheat and reducing his crops of oats and barley.

When the Australian Colonies were first established they could not grow any wheat as the climate was too dry. Wheat was brought from India and Egypt, but it would not mature. After years of research in Australia they succeeded in producing a new breed of wheat, and it now commands the highest price in the London market. There is no reason why research work by the Department of Agriculture would not result in producing a more suitable breed of wheat for this country than the present sort. Up to the present research work has been devoted towards producing a class of wheat that will suit millers, and not a class that will mature early so as to be able to be taken off the land in August before the wet season comes in. In Canada they grow a type of wheat that will ripen early before the frost sets in. There is no reason why the professors in the Model Farm at Glasnevin could not produce a breed of wheat that would meet the requirements as regards early maturity. I am not a flour miller, but I know something about milling, and I know that if some of those who condemn the Irish wheat saw the wheat this beautiful white flour is made from they would be surprised at all the chemicals used in the making of it. They make it from inferior wheat, certainly from wheat much inferior to the Irish product.

During the war it was proved that the more we till the more cattle we carry, and the reverse also holds good —the less we till the less cattle we will be able to carry. During the war years tillage increased, and at the same time we were able to ship more pigs and cattle and we were importing no grain for feeding these cattle. It is essential we should not let tillage go down further. From 1922 or 1923 it has been gradually going down. We have been growing less oats, potatoes and barley. If we let this continue we will reach a point where it will affect our exports of cattle and pigs. The effect of this decrease in tillage is beginning to affect the towns. If the suggestion contained in the motion were acted upon it would be an inducement to the farmers to put on the reverse gear, and to plough more extensively. This is a very abnormal country. The people in the towns are crying out at the high cost of living, and the people who are producing the food, the farmers, are crying out about the low price they got for the food they produce. While this complaint in the towns as to the high cost of living is general, anyone acquainted with agriculture knows that the prices obtainable for agricultural products are not sufficient to provide a living wage for the farmers. I would suggest that Senator Linehan should add to his motion something that would make it more understandable to the ordinary man. If the millers had to provide ten per cent. of flour from Irish-grown wheat, as Senator Counihan and others hold that Irish flours are inferior the general public will begin to take the same view, and will not buy Irish flour but foreign flour.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is not quite right. If the Government gave effect to Senator Linehan's motion it would mean that no matter what quantity of foreign wheat was imported it could not be sold or used for mercantile purposes in this country unless and until it was mixed with a certain proportion of Irish wheat.

Mr. O'ROURKE

It could be read that way.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is what Senator Linehan means by his motion.

Dr. GOGARTY

The last speaker has made an unanswerable case in support of the motion. I am ignorant of economics. They are a great bugbear to people who have practical experience, like Senator Jackson and Senator O'Rourke. People are largely to blame for their preference for white pap which is sold as flour, and is judged by its colour scheme. Children should be taught in the schools what good flour is and what good food is. Pressure, which is the only thing a government will react to, should be brought to bear on the Government to see that the public are educated in these matters. People should realise that the proper colour of flour is yellow. It is a monstrous condition of affairs that a great food-producing country like Ireland should be importing meat from the Argentine, and peas from God knows where. In the West only potatoes are produced and that reduces wages to a minimum. I think it is a matter for the education authorities to teach the children, not all about ranges of mountains and rivers, but what flour is. It may seem a paradox, but it is a fact that since the tax on furniture you can get home-made furniture here cheaper than you will get furniture in Tottenham Court Road, London. In other words, those who are protected by a tariff have not taken any undue advantage of it. Italy which is supposed to be a go-ahead country has gone into the question of corn production, and it has so altered the ear of corn that it now yields forty per cent. more food than when they commenced the experiments. It would be well if we could have the bread produced whole from Irish flour.

It is an extraordinary thing that people who can produce nutritious food should have it turned into a patent. There is an amount of adulteration in food that is unsuspected by the public. One in seven die from cancer, and if these victims could unite and speak it would be to say that a lot of this cancer could be traced to tricks of chemistry in food. This white bread has no reaction on the intestines. I am not suggesting it is white bread which produces cancer in every case, but depriving natural food of its freshness is probably one of the concomitants of this scourge. There are arguments also against preserving meat by freezing it. As Senator Jackson said, the old stone mills disappeared because the Americans produced white flour. A lot of the flour which is dumped here comes through the port of Liverpool without any tariff. We could order the flour to be delivered in Ireland direct from the original place of shipment. That would be a tariff. In times of war every part of the world becomes the frontier of England, which controls the seas, and in such event we would be involved, and in a few weeks we would be starving if England did not send us any flour. If you put a slight tariff on the price of food the wages would go up a little more than the tariff represents. I think that is true. That is coming back to economic considerations, which I do not pretent to be able to discuss.

Sir JOHN KEANE

If there were no other effect, I think these debates enable Senators to exercise their imaginative faculties to the full and to play in many ways on the great complications and many permutations possible in this extremely complex subject. I shall confine myself to one or two, and they are by no means all, of the difficulties that would arise immediately if this motion were passed. Presumably, in the first place the percentage of Irish-grown flour has to be defined. We say it is to be ten per cent. Supposing the Irish grower says it does not pay him to grow flour at the world prices, then in order to carry out the obligations of this motion the millers will have to pay whatever price, presumably, the Irish farmer likes to ask. I do not say it would be unreasonable, but he would want an increase in price, and then again the Irish miller may quite rightly say: "This flour presented to us is not suitable; only a certain percentage is suitable," and that again will bring in an element of scarcity and an increase of price. What happens then? Is the miller going to work at less profit? No, he is going to pass on the increased cost to the consumer, and the price of bread would go up. That is one result. There are dozens of others, unseen factors in a motion of this kind, which makes it entirely unsuitable for a sort of casual vote such as would be given to-day. It is a question that should be gone into on its merits, and it must be subject to the closest inquiry, in a deliberate atmosphere, and you must have skilled evidence and the examination of witnesses in order to discover the obvious effects. I am always stressing these unseen factors and fallacies that lurk behind the tariff nostrums Senator Gogarty wants the children taught what flour is.

I think they have very much more important things to learn. He wants to teach the children advanced chemistry, which is a subject for adults. Flour is a generic term for a certain product of wheat. It is a thing that is capable of the closest examination. Why should we not apply the suggestion made by the mover of the motion to other imports? Why not prohibit the import of maize, or say that there must be a tax on food, or that all pigs must be fed a certain proportion of Irish-grown barley, and then say a certain proportion only of Irish-grown bacon must be consumed by the citizens of the country? The thing lends itself to endless complications. I suggest there is every bit as good a case for regulating the import of maize and stimulating the increase of barley as dealing in this manner with an essential foodstuff of the people.

Senator O'Rourke drew attention to the stimulus given during the war to tillage. Of course, it is perfectly obvious there was a stimulus, and there would be a stimulus to-morrow if you restore war prices, and if you put a price on wheat that would make it an inducement to the farmer to grow it, he will do so. I would do it that way rather than by a lot of complications such as the motion suggests. If you give a bounty on wheat it will be grown, but it will be at the expense of the general taxpayer. Senator Kenny drew a picture to which we are accustomed from the advocates for protection, of the extraordinary position that would result if we import everything, and that we would be a nation of distributors. But nobody ever deals with this side of the case: How do you pay for imports? Australians or Canadians are not going to give us wheat for nothing. We have to pay for the wheat in goods. We cannot buy that wheat except we produce the goods with which to pay for them. Any import in the long run involves a corresponding export, visible or invisible, and you pay by the interest you derive from investments, home or foreign. The extraordinary statement was made that in the famine year Ireland was producing an enormous quantity of wheat. In these years there were high prices, and because there were high prices for production that stimulated tillage. If you carry that argument to its ultimate conclusion you have only to re-create the famine to be thoroughly prosperous. On the question of a blockade, there is a danger if there is a world war, or a war in which England is involved, that we may suffer a shortage of food supplies. I do not see how we are going to get over that difficulty by any form of previous protection, except at enormous cost. If we say this thing is so serious that we can run no risk, let us put our hands in our pockets and establish a system of national granaries and store two or three years' supply of wheat in the country. That is a matter that was gone into before and the proposal was rejected. If we are to have a blockade it will affect our exports and imports. I do not see how you can deal with the matter any other way than by having closer relations with our best customer, and encouraging the closest intimacy so that we may stand or fall together when a crisis arises. It can be done no other way except by a better Imperial understanding especially with Great Britain so that we may enjoy the protection of her defences if the freedom of the seas be threatened.

Mr. O'HANLON

I would like to say a few words in reference to some of the arguments in support of the motion. Some of the speakers referred to the proposal in the motion as being a type of protection. I have not been able to get a definition of what protection is, but the opinion which has been growing with me recently was rather more or less confirmed to-day. The attitude of certain Senators who spoke on this motion was very amusing to me. I am beginning to think that the definition of a protectionist in this country is a man who stands for protection of a particular item in which he is interested. Boot manufacturers want protection for boots only; manufacturers of shirts, for shirts only; and so on; and there are millers who want protection in respect of milled goods only, while there are cattle men interested in the slaughter of cattle who want a subsidy in respect of slaughtered cattle, but when it comes to giving a subsidy to the grower of grain they are opposed to it. We had that to-day, and it tends to give confirmation to my opinion that the term protection involves something like the economic application of the term Sinn Féin in our national life, and that is, every man for himself. Senator Sir John Keane dealt with a statement made by Senator Kenny. We had from Senator Kenny the old worn-out statement that other countries were engaged in dumping their surplus goods into this country under cost. One would infer from the repetition of these repeated statements by economists that the eyes of the world were on Ireland, with a view to getting a market here and dumping goods.

I do not know what the interpretation of the word "dumping" is, but it is an extraordinary thing to me that for years past, as we are told, we have been subject to this dumping and that in all likelihood we will be subject to it for years to come, that other countries will send their manufactured goods and sell under cost price. We all realise that that cannot be a fact. Senator Linehan said that our imports of flour were worth something like £7,000,000. Seven million pounds is no small sum, even in the turnover of any of the great wheat-producing countries, and to try to induce us to believe that any country in the world was sending in flour to the value of £7,000,000 under cost price to capture the Irish market and was keeping on, year after year, exporting flour to this country under cost price, is to expect us to believe what is a sheer fallacy. Even if other countries did export a surplus, sufficient to meet our needs, into this country at under cost price and, if we get certain items that we require from other countries under cost price, that would be absolutely good for the country. If there are certain products which we cannot produce in competition with other countries let us concentrate on the things which we can produce in competition with other countries and sell them in the world market against other countries. If other countries can produce goods which we cannot economically produce, let these other countries dump these goods here and let us enjoy them at under cost price. The result will be that our cost of production will come down and we will be better enabled to meet the competition in the world markets of the countries against which we are competing. There is nothing at all wrong in that. There is no use in anyone putting it forward that the result of any such line is that the population will decrease and that a man will not have four-pence, sixpence or eightpence to buy a loaf. What will happen is this: If we get our flour and certain other items into this country at under cost price we will concentrate upon producing more butter, bacon and eggs, and we will be in a better position to capture the foreign market; we will have more workers, greater concentration, more extensive cultivation, more exports and more money, and that is the end at which we should aim.

Senator Linehan deplores the circumstance that the area under wheat in this country has been growing gradually less. If Senator Linehan wants the farmers of Ireland to grow more wheat there is one way to get them to grow it, and that is by securing a better price for their wheat. If you want the farmers to grow any article they will grow it, provided the return pays, and if it does not pay they are going to concentrate, like sensible men, if they have any sense at all, on the production of some article that will pay them. That is sound economics as far as the farmers are concerned. If the farmer is to be paid more for his produce somebody has to pay that increased price, and if the farmer gets an increased price in this particular case the public pays. If you are going to give an increased price to the farmer for certain of his products, and if the public pays it simply means that we go back to the old worn argument of the cost of living, that on account of the cost of living wages go up, then again we have the same old vicious circle which, if it is perpetuated, leaves no one the better.

Some Senators have stated that there is a reluctance on the part of Irish consumers to eat Irish-produced bread. That is exceedingly regrettable, particularly when we have eminent medical authorities, like Senator Gogarty, deprecating the food values of white pap. It is certainly regrettable that the people's tastes are in these directions, but we have to deal very patiently with these matters, and I do not think that we should want to restrict the liberties of our people too much, particularly when they do not sin against the maxims of good taste. I do not think we should interfere too much with their tastes and with their fancies in certain respects. In my opinion, it would be all wrong, and the result would be worse in the long run, if we did interfere too much. Senator Linehan stated—and he puts this forward more or less in support of his contention—that the yield of wheat in this country was double that of the great wheat-producing countries—Australia, Canada and the United States.

If the yield here is double that of these countries and if these countries can successfully compete against us there is only one deduction to be drawn from it, and that is that these countries enjoy certain natural advantages over us in the production of wheat. That must be perfectly obvious. If I can produce twice the amount of an article that another man can produce, then if my article is as good as his, I wipe him out of the market. But the fact that must be deduced from Senator Linehan's statement is that these countries enjoy certain natural advantages over us; they have more sun, great open spaces, and certain other things which we have not got, and these people, paying very high transport charges, high wages, high handling and commission charges are, in respect of wheat, able to compete with us and beat us in the market. If we do admit that, then is it not logical that we should concentrate on the things that we do better than they do, and in which we have a natural advantage over them? But it comes back very nearly to the same thing. From this motion I deduce that it would be a hardship on Irish mills to compel them to use a certain percentage of Irish flour and that, instead of producing the result which Senator Linehan said it would produce, this motion, if carried into effect, would actually bring about more unemployment in Irish mills. But on the other hand, in regard to the fact that the home-produced flour would have to be mixed with foreign flour dumped here, or else the foreign manufacturers would have to import into their own countries Irish-grown wheat, I wonder would they do that. How could they prove that they had done so? How could you investigate it? They would be quite likely to refuse to do it, and that would give rise to considerable economic complications, because if we are going to interfere with the business of people in other countries it is a pretty logical conclusion to draw that if these people have any sense they will interfere with our business in their country. It would be an absolutely unwarranted interference, and I think it would not be justifiable under any circumstances.

Senator O'Rourke referred to the necessity for more tillage, and said that we should give 2/6 a barrel to the producer of wheat. Why not? And if we want more tillage why should we not give a half-crown a barrel to the producer of oats? Why should we not give 5/- a barrel to the producer of barley, and why should we not subsidise people like myself who keep milch cows? You would get more tillage by all means. But if you get more tillage by these means is that going to be sound and economic, and where is the subsidy going to come from? This cannot be dealt with piecemeal; it will have to be dealt with on a broad national basis, and we have to consider all the lurking factors, as Senator Sir John Keane termed them, as well as the factors that are perfectly obvious. We should remember where this is going to lead and who is going to pay. Somebody said that in this matter we should proceed by means of greater research. If there is one section of the Department of Agriculture which I would like to commend it is the branch which is dealing with this matter in the Model Farm at Glasnevin. That branch is doing excellent work. Along these lines we should proceed, and there is every hope that in this country we can produce flour in time which will compete with foreign flour. We should do what they did in Australia. Senator O'Rourke was absolutely right in that. The production of wheat in Australia was for many years a failure, and it was only by bringing in Egyptian and Indian wheats and by crossing them that they produced flour which was able to overcome their difficulties, and they are now fast becoming one of the great wheat-producing countries of the world. So also we may hope to produce wheat which will overcome our difficulties in respect of climate, but until that day we should not proceed along lines which, in my opinion, would lead us to adopt a course which would be absolutely unsound. If we want to proceed along these lines the sooner we start to erect a glass house and stop throwing stones the better.

Mr. BENNETT

I do not think it will be necessary for me to say very much. There are one or two aspects of the question which I would ask the House to consider. I agree very largely with Senator Sir John Keane on questions of buying and questions of selling. It seems to me that the time has come for us to try to set our house in order. We import, according to the latest statistics, £7,000,000 worth of wheat and flour. One part of the statistics makes it £8,000,000, but whether it is £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 I would ask you, how are we to pay for it? We have to pay for it by exports, as Senator Sir John Keane very wisely said. If you take our exports of porter, spirits, biscuits, machines, cotton, motor cars, and the rest, you will find that they fail by £1,000,000 to pay for the flour that we import. That gives us food for thought. A time will come when we will not have money to pay and when these people from outside will not be dying to rush to us to accept the commodities which we have for sale. It is up to this country to consider whether it should not, as Senator Linehan very properly suggests, so to speak, arrange that the cost of living would be simplified in some manner. I think that a case for a very careful and stringent inquiry has been established. If we compare our position with the position of Denmark, we find that Denmark, with a population of 3,470,000 people, imports £3,800,000 worth of human food stuffs —wheat, flour and rye. We, with a far smaller population, import 80 per cent. more. That requires consideration. Whether it be by the education of the people, whether it be by tariffs, or whatever it be by, I think the case has been established for an inquiry and for consideration, and I would ask Senator Linehan to agree to the establishment of a Committee of this House, from among the people interested in this matter, to give it thorough consideration, put up to the Government what they consider essential, and try to direct the whole mind and the whole thought of the country, educationally, industrially and agriculturally, towards setting our house in order, so that we can pay for what we buy, because we are drifting into a position where, in my view, we will not be able to pay. Four, five, six or seven of our industries which are called great industries are not capable, by £1,000,000, of paying for the flour we import. That is a serious state of affairs, and one that calls for a remedy. I would ask Senator Linehan to agree to an addendum to his motion that a Committee be set up to consider the matter in its widest implications, because in my opinion we are drifting to disaster in this matter.

Mr. MacLOUGHLIN

I have every sympathy with Senator Linehan's proposal which, after all, emanates from the natural thought of making this country as self-contained as possible, by using our native produce, but I am very sorry that I cannot support it, and sorrier still after hearing Senator O'Hanlon and Senator Sir John Keane, when I find myself ranged with rabid free traders. I cannot support the motion for two reasons. First of all, I do not regard it as practicable, and, secondly, I am not aware that there is an insistent demand for such a proposal from the farmers of Ireland, who should be principally concerned and who are constantly telling us that they pay 80 per cent. of the expenses of this country. I am in favour of moderate protection. I am not a whole-hogger and I am not a protectionist of the type outlined by Senator O'Hanlon, one who stands for protecting something that he himself produces. I am a manufacturer of a certain article that happens to be favoured with a fifteen per cent. tariff. I never asked for that tariff nor have I benefited from it, because 95 per cent. of the output of the article I produce is sent to the English market where, I am glad to say, I am able to compete successfully with the keenest competitors there without a tariff.

I am prepared to support any proposal on the merits that is put forward by those engaged in any industry, if they can show that it means an increase of employment or an improvement in the condition of the industry, and especially if it does not involve too much cost on the rest of the community, but I am not prepared to force protection or a tariff on any industry that does not want it and that has not asked it. Accordingly, as the object of Senator Linehan's motion is to encourage wheat-growing and to benefit agriculture, I think the Senator should have brought that proposal, first, before an agricultural congress, or even before a meeting of the Cork Farmers' Union, practical men, who know what they want, and if they endorsed it, it would be time enough then to bring it before such a body as the Seanad. I am sure if Senator Linehan came here with the unanimous endorsement of the Farmers' Union he would get a great deal more support, and have a much stronger case to go before the Executive Council in asking them to give legislative effect to his motion. This is a matter of great importance to the farmers and I think that we should have some pronouncement or mandate from the farmers concerning it. To-day we find them speaking with two voices. They do not seem to agree on the subject, and it is rather remarkable that in the case for the tariff on flour out of the entire body of farmers in the Free State not more than 200 could be cited as being in favour of a tariff of 3/- a sack, a proposal that, I think, was moderate in comparison with the proposal that we are now discussing. This is certainly a very far-reaching proposal, one which will automatically stop the importation of flour into the Saorstát.

In my opinion that is too drastic a method of encouraging the growth of wheat. One knows that the country is not prepared to stand that, especially as we are told that wheat growing is only in the experimental stage here, and that in some counties it cannot be successfully grown at all. I understand that we only produce at present 18,000 tons of home-grown wheat available for flour, which is only about 3 per cent. of our requirements, and that it would take years to produce the substantial percentage which Senator Linehan aims at by his proposal. If such a proposal became law in the meantime, before we could produce the substantial proportion that is required, what is to happen? I do not think Senator Linehan has fully considered the effects of his motion, especially the effect it would have on some of the poorer counties where wheat cannot be grown at all. Take County Donegal as an instance. Unfortunately we have no flour mills there and, unlike Cork, we have neither the soil nor the climate for growing wheat, except in some sunny patches such as Senator Jackson said exist in Sligo. Besides, owing to our geographical position, lack of proper pier accommodation, transport is both difficult and expensive, so that I am afraid if Senator Linehan's proposal was in operation poor farmers living on uneconomic holdings, almost on the verge of starvation, would have to pay more for their flour, while at present they are hardly able to pay the existing price. These considerations somewhat damp my enthusiasm for the motion, much as I would like to support it. No doubt the motion has certain merits, but I am afraid that on examination the merits would not outweigh the demerits. If wheat-growing is so essential to the national economy, and that the farmers of this country, not knowing their business, will not grow wheat, then I think a much simpler remedy would be to introduce a small Bill making wheat-growing compulsory on farmers with a certain valuation and with land suitable for growing it. What they could not sell they could use themselves, so that they would have the cheap feeding that we hear is so profitable for the feeding of pigs. Before we adopt a motion of this kind I think we should provide legislation such as I have outlined. We could first try the experiment of growing wheat on farmers and see how they would like it.

The most striking thing that emerged from the report of the Tariff Commission on flour was the fact that those who were millers and at the same time bakers had to import grain as they could not use their own flour. They had to import a high grade flour from England in order to make bread that the people would eat. That was put down to the fastidious tastes of the people. We know that the people have developed a fastidious taste for bread and that they will not eat bread containing a substantial amount of Irish flour. I take it that the proposal to go before the Executive simply means that we request them to change by legislation the taste of the people, to prescribe by statute the kind of bread they should eat. That may be highly desirable, as no doubt our tastes have become too fastidious, and we would have better men and women, physically and mentally, if we reverted to the type of bread which our forefathers eat one hundred years ago, which I understand was oatmeal bread. We would certainly have better teeth; as I am informed by the most eminent authorities that the high grades of fine flour used in this country are accountable for the decay of the teeth of the people. Look at the contribution that would be to national economy if we did away with the dentists. I suggest to Senator Linehan that instead of a percentage of Irish and Manitoba wheats he should advocate the provision of bread 100 per cent. Irish and get back to the oatenmeal flour. If we start at this business of controlling the tastes of the people there is no knowing where we will end. I think it is only a Corkman and an optimist that would attempt it. While I cannot support the motion I certainly congratulate Senator Linehan on the courage he had to bring it forward.

Mr. O'FARRELL

For much the same reasons as those stated by Senator McLoughlin, I feel that I cannot vote for this motion. In the first place I think it is impracticable of operation and, secondly, I have to consider the fact that of the 34,000 acres of wheat grown in 1927, as far as the records to hand are concerned, there should be no difficulty whatever in selling that wheat at a reasonable price, or at least at as good a price as that obtained for wheat grown in England. In 1926 the average all over price per cwt. in all Ireland for wheat was 12/2: for barley the price was only 8/- a cwt., and for oats 7/11 per cwt. Investigations that have been made go to show that the cost per acre of growing wheat is not very much more than the cost of barley, and slightly more than the cost of growing oats. One wonders why Irish farmers have not turned more to the growing of wheat than they have It is true that in 1848 670,000 acres of wheat were grown, and that it has now dropped to 34,000 acres. The question is: if it is insisted upon that a certain percentage of Irish wheat will be included in the flour consumed in Ireland, and if it is found that there is not enough wheat to comply with that, then a rather peculiar and ridiculous situation would arise. If farmers are not inclined to grow wheat we would have to resort to compulsion to make them grow a crop that they are not inclined to grow, for some reason or other. A great deal of talk has taken place here and elsewhere regarding dumping. In my opinion Irish manufacturers confuse the terms "dumping" and "competition." They always look upon competition as dumping. The Tariff Commission report states that while repeated charges were made of dumping unfortunately no attempt was made to prove the truth of such statements. If there was any evidence available regarding the allegation that flour was being dumped into Ireland at less than the cost of production surely it would have been produced. We heard the same arguments regarding furniture, bedsteads, and ready-made clothing, and one wonders, if all this dumping is going on, how is it the cost of living is so high in Ireland compared with any other country? We do not get bread cheaper because of this alleged dumping. It is a popular thing when applied in the patriotic sense, but I am afraid there is very little foundation for the statement. The amount of wheat grown in the Free State last year, and used for flour milling, only represented about five per cent. of the total flour milled in Ireland. That is not. I think, because the millers had any great objection to using it, but possibly because there was no more available, and there does not seem to be any great inclination on the part of farmers to grow it.

Personally, I feel that if one has got to encourage the growth of wheat the better way would be by a bounty for flour milled from Irish wheat. There again there is the danger that farmers might turn from growing oats in order to grow wheat. I think we grow about 600,000 acres of oats, and, if by paying a bounty, or by similar means, farmers turn to wheat instead of oats, I fail to see that there would be any gain in national prosperity. Certainly the amendment, if capable of application, is more sensible than the proposal for a tariff on flour. A tariff on flour merely means giving the Irish millers an opportunity of capturing the market, as against millers from across the Channel, but the millers themselves are against a tariff on imported wheat. The people who have been asking for a tariff on flour do so on the ground that we should be prepared for emergencies arising out of war conditions. I see no great advantage in keeping alive by a tariff mills for grinding foreign flour which would not be available in time of war any more than foreign flour would be available. Anything that would go towards increasing tillage in a country that is running into grass would be infinitely more acceptable, and would make more for national prosperity than a tariff on flour grown from wheat from other countries. I think our policy should be directed along the lines of the amendment, but I am afraid the procedure suggested there is impracticable. It is true that the subsidy in regard to growing beet has had a beneficial effect from the agricultural standpoint, but the subsidy to the farmers' price will soon expire, and we have yet to see whether they are going to continue growing the crop after the guaranteed price has been withdrawn. I think it would be well to wait and see the result of that experiment. Seeing that agriculture is the one industry in which we are supposed to specialise, and to be able to hold our own, I think any bounty given should be only of a temporary character. We have embarked on that in regard to beet, and I think it should get some chance of showing results before embarking on any expensive bounties elsewhere.

Regarding the Irish taste which is said to be so fastidious, unfortunately we seem to have developed tastes in other directions too that do not keep in step with the development of Irish manufactures. We have developed a taste for foreign-made boots, foreign-made clothing, and for the various kinds of stockings the ladies wear. Should it not be put the other way, that while there are changes in the tastes of all people, the manufacturers in other lands are keeping pace with them, while the manufacturers of Ireland are not. Must we have for ever the same tastes, the same customs, the same practices, as our forefathers? Can the Irish people not change their manners or customs at all? The whole position is that the manufacturers here, for one reason or another, have stood still while mankind and civilisation have advanced. It may be that mankind is not improved, but nevertheless the changes have taken place and manufacturers have gone on and changed too. The trend of policy here is to encourage the slow march of manufacturers and damp down any change in the habits and customs of the people. That may be quite a desirable policy, but I am afraid it is not practicable, and we shall have to turn our attention to speeding up manufacturers, rather than slowing down what is supposed to be the extravagant tastes of the community.

Mr. FORAN

Would I be in order in suggesting an amendment to delete all words after "importance"?

Mr. LINEHAN

If a Committee of Inquiry were asked for I would be satisfied.

Mr. FORAN

The reason that I suggest this special amendment is that there are many other ways of developing the growing of wheat and improving the milling industry. My amendment leaves it open to the Executive Council to go on experimenting and trying to develop the growing of wheat. I happen to know that a certain body of County Dublin farmers are very enthusiastic about this. Yeoman No. 1. and Yeoman No. 2 is, I am told, a very hard winter wheat, and if it was brought to a further stage of perfection it might be adopted by the farmers of this country with great benefit to all concerned. We know that the farmers will have to develop on some lines owing to the passing of the horse and a decrease in the demand for oats. The decline in taste for beer and spirits is also decreasing the demand for barley, and if we could stimulate a case for Irish grown wheat we would be doing a great service to the farmers of this country. I know something about milling. The baker has to resort to many different brands of flour in order to please the public, and it is almost impossible for a small miller to produce the flour the people want, because of the number of mixtures required to make that flour. I know one of the biggest bakers in the city of Dublin who was patriotic enough to erect a modern mill, which we all believed would be a great success, but because of the difficulty in obtaining mixtures necessary to produce flour that mill is idle half the time, while the bakers are working full time. These are some of the reasons that are operating in my mind when I suggested the deletion of the latter portion of the motion. I believe that the Department of Agriculture is working hard to produce a wheat that will grow in this country, a good hard winter wheat that would be free from the moisture from which, undoubtedly, Irish wheat suffers. Irish wheat has to be kiln dried which increases the cost, but if we could produce a hard winter wheat a great deal of the difficulty would be overcome.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Perhaps it would meet the views of the House if we put it this way: To add after the word "importance,""and deserves the careful attention of the Government."

Mr. KENNY

That is rather indefinite.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is the beauty of it, I think.

Mr. KENNY

Something more concrete than that, I think, would be required. It might, I think, be well to say that the matter was worthy of further investigation by the Tariff Commission. My contention is that the Tariff Commission did not explore every avenue.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is rather a reflection on the Tariff Commission.

Mr. KENNY

I plead guilty to doing something of that kind.

Colonel MOORE

The amendment that has been suggested, in my opinion, cuts the heart out of the motion, and leaves it so indefinite that anyone could vote for it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

As there is a difference of opinion on the matter, it is of course rather difficult to get the assent of the House to the motion, and that is the reason why an amendment of the motion has been suggested.

Colonel MOORE

Let us try it out.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is a matter for the Senator who moved the motion. Are you willing, Senator Linehan, to accept the alteration suggested?

Mr. LINEHAN

Yes.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The motion, as altered, then reads: "That in view of the large and increasing proportion of wheat and its products at present being imported for consumption within the Irish Free State, the Seanad is of opinion that the cultivation of a greatly increased area of Irish-grown wheat for home consumption has become a matter of urgent importance, and deserves the careful attention of the Government.

Motion, as altered, put and agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until Wednesday, 13th June.