I move the motion standing in the names of Deputy Bennett and myself:—
That the Dáil is of opinion that the prices fixed by the Government for cereals are insufficient and that, in view of the present prices of grain and feeding stuffs and the higher cost of production, increased prices are necessary to afford producers a reasonable margin and to encourage an expansion in production next season.
In considering this motion the House must bear in mind that, during this emergency and in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves with regard to supplies, the dominant consideration for the Government and for the country must be the production to our maximum capacity of essential food for our people and for the feeding and maintenance of our present live stock population. It is this major consideration, above all others, that has induced Deputy Bennett and myself to table this motion. In this national effort at food production people were compelled by the Tillage Order to grow all crops, with the exception of wheat and beet, without a guaranteed price. Since the commencement of the emergency the Government has been asked, both in this House and in the Seanad, by motion and otherwise, to guarantee prices to the farmers in order to stimulate production. The Minister's answer to that was that it could not be done. The Taoiseach told the House last week that in this food campaign they looked for a 50 per cent. increase in the amount of land under cultivation, and that they secured a 25 per cent. increase. To my mind, that was a confession of failure. I believe if reasonably attractive prices had been announced earlier last sowing season the position to-day would be much better than it is. The Minister said a few months ago that the question of guaranteed prices for cereals and other crops was impossible, but now we find him, after six months, adopting a policy of fixed prices. The farmers have been appealed to, on patriotic grounds, to produce food for the nation. While I believe that people living in rural Ireland are as patriotic as any other section of the community, they are only human; they have their financial and economic problems and they do not and cannot exist on patriotism alone.
The prices for this year's grain were announced, I think, on 12th July last. I know for a fact that farmers generally throughout the country were very grievously disappointed. They expected that, in appreciation of their efforts to produce the necessary food this year, they would be rewarded by a higher price, at least, than was announced for wheat and, certainly, a better price for oats and barley than has been announced. I want to make it clear that I am not saying that the present prices are bad prices. I do certainly say they are not good prices, and that they are not by any means attractive prices.
I believe if the Minister persists in these prices the stimulation necessary for further effort next year will be completely absent. In view of the likelihood of an almost complete absence of artificial manures next year, the incentive of a good price is a vital consideration. I think now is the time to adopt a policy that will ensure that the necessary incentive will be present for further production next year.
Viewing the whole supply position as it has been presented to us in recent weeks by the responsible Minister, one will appreciate the necessity for a further effort next year. For that reason I do not approve of the poor prices that have been announced by the Minister. On the other hand, I personally am not looking for prices that will leave excessive profits to the producer. I think we simply want fair prices that will compensate the farmer for his outlay, his time, his anxiety and his efforts. The Minister may say that he is carrying out the policy of the Government Standstill Order, No. 83, which fixes wages, and that a farmer is not more entitled to higher profits than a wage earner. I am not suggesting for a moment that he is. In fact, I believe that the profits arising out of the production of grain this year—taking the cost of production and everything else into account—will not be as good as they were pre-war.
Take the price of wheat. Immediately before the war we were getting 30/- as a guaranteed price, but we actually made 31/6 and 32/-. I believe that that left a higher margin of profit to the farmer than that for which he is attempting to grow wheat to-day —£2. I suggest only that the farmer is entitled to the pre-war level of profit: I am not suggesting that he should get any more, in view of the policy of the Government and the difficulties of the poor people of the country. At least, he is entitled to that.
The cost of production to-day is much higher. Take the cost of artificial manures this year as against last year. The ex-factory price of manure here is £8 a ton—that is, 100 per cent. increase over last year, while the pre-war price was about £3 a ton. The price of sulphate of ammonia last year was £10 a ton, and this year it ranges from £12— if you bought it very early—to £21 or £22 a ton, showing a substantial increase in cost. We all know the rise in the cost of seeds this year—particularly seed wheat, which costs as much as £3 or £4 a barrel. Ploughs and all plough parts are very much higher. On the mechanised farm the cost of kerosene has gone up considerably, and the cost of threshing will, no doubt, be very much greater. Wages, of course, are fixed much higher than pre-war. The cost of transport and delivery will be higher. In dealing with this matter, therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that, taking the costings into account this year as against a pre-war year, when the price of wheat was guaranteed at 30/-, that price in the net was better for the farmer than a guaranteed price of £2 this year.
If I were asked my opinion as to a fair price for the three cereals, I would say in round figures, 20/-, 30/- and 50/-. Deputies will observe that I am leaving a considerable margin between the price of wheat at 50/- and the price of oats and barley at 30/-. I think that is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that the food produced for home consumption will be so used. We must take into account the present cost of the meal mixture, which is round about 22/- or 23/- a cwt. On the figures that I suggest for both oats and barley, the cost of that mixture would be considerably less, even on the Minister's own figures as announced. The margin left between the price of oats and barley and the price of wheat is not sufficient to ensure that there be an inducement left there for farmers to keep wheat for animal feeding. There is a great danger that that may happen.
With our present position with regard to the supply of wheat, and assuming that we will get an average yield again next year, we certainly have a very big gap to make up between what we hope to produce this year and our normal consumption. Any arrangement or price fixation that might tend to induce farmers to use wheat for feeding purposes would be disastrous to the country. In order to ensure that that danger will not exist, I suggest that it is necessary to leave a considerable margin between the price of oats and barley, on the one side, and that of wheat on the other side. If that is not done, there will be a good deal of illicit traffic in grain between farmers, and there will be all sorts of blending and mixing going on. A certain amount of wheat will be kept back and mixed with oats and barley to make a better food. I am convinced that that is bound to happen if the Minister does not take the precaution I suggest, to ensure that there is a decent gap that will be attractive and that will make certain that farmers will deliver for milling purposes all the wheat they produce. There is no method by which you can ensure that except by making it sufficiently attractive for the farmer to deliver the grain for that purpose rather than keep it for the feeding of animals.
I understand that the Minister has taken the advice of the Consultative Council in this matter. The method of doing that does not justify its being called a Consultative Council. The Minister presents his prices to the council and permits them to express an opinion and, no matter what they say about it, he does not appear to change his mind. Before the Consultative Council is informed as to what prices the Minister intends to fix, he and his officials already have made up their minds definitely about them. I hope that will not apply to what has been said in this House. I believe that this is the proper place to have this matter discussed and to have the various views expressed and a decision taken.
Again on the question of the price of wheat, when I suggest a price of 50/- the Minister may say that, in fixing a lower price than 50/-, he has to take into consideration the purchasing power of the people—particularly the poor people—but that is not a logical reason why the farmer should be asked to produce at an uneconomic price. If the price that I suggest is so high that it will result in what the Minister or the Government may term a prohibitive price for the poor, then there is no reason why we should not subsidise flour here as they are doing in other countries.
If that is necessary, it should be done. We ought not to overlook the paramount consideration—to ensure maximum production. Even a subsidy that would reduce the cost of the loaf to poor people would not cost an enormous amount of money when one regards it from the point of view of what we are spending at present on the maintenance of the Army and on other services of the State. We have been considering a Bill this evening under which it is proposed to pay compensation for damage done by bombing. That, in itself, will involve a considerable sum, but suppose that one of the main thoroughfares in this city—say O'Connell Street—were bombed, the cost of compensating for that damage would be much more than the subsidy which would be necessary on bread or flour to bring it within the purchasing power of poor people. If necessary, that consideration should be gone into.
In announcing the prices the Minister informed the farmers that the price of wheat at 40/- is the price delivered to the nearest dealer or at the nearest station. It includes the cost of delivery and it includes the cost of sacks. To my mind, the Minister has worsened the position from the time the price was originally announced. When the price of 40/- was announced, the country understood that the incidentals to the price—delivery and that sort of thing—would be allowed for, same as last year or previous years. The price announced in previous years was the ex-farm price, so that the Minister in recently announcing that the farmer would have to pay for sacks and for delivery, has definitely worsened the position. When I suggest 30/- for feeding barley, I make a very modest demand in the present circumstances. Thirty shillings per barrel means 15/- a cwt. If that barley be put up alone without mixing in oats—the Minister has not informed us whether he proposes to continue the mixture or not— and if it is sold back to the farmer in a dry state, made up in cwt. bags, it will cost around 18/- per cwt. delivered to the farmer. That allows for the shrinkage, milling and merchants' profits.
Wheat at £2 amounts to 16/- a cwt., so that the farmer, in buying back barley at 18/—even at its present price, which I believe is not sufficient— will have to pay 2/- per cwt. more for feeding barley in its dry state than he is getting for his wheat. The tendency on the part of any intelligent farmer who goes into costings will be to keep a portion of his wheat back and feed it, with oats, instead of buying barley. That point must weigh with the Minister when considering this matter.
The Minister also fixed the price of malting barley. I do not know why he interfered with the price of malting barley at all. He is aware that Messrs. Guinness and the Beet Growers' Association negotiated the price of malting barley in recent years. More or less the price of barley was anchored to the price of wheat. If the price of wheat went up, the price of barley would automatically go up. The price of wheat was 35/- last year and, in relation to that, a price of 30/- was fixed for malting barley. It is unfair to those people who have always been producing malting barley that the Minister should interfere and fix a price of 30/-. That applies only to a limited quantity of malting barley, grown on light, sharp land, which will produce barley of excellent quality, the yield being very often low. Farmers know that they cannot grow an excellent sample of bright, malting barley on rich land. Such land will grow too much straw and produce poor grain, dark in colour. You will not get from it that excellent, bright sample that you get on other types of soil. If you grow for quality, you must sacrifice to quality. That sacrifice to ensure quality must be made good somewhere. The people who are buying that barley are prepared to pay for the quality, and I think it is unfair that the Minister should interfere at all. If the people who represent the barley growers, those who have looked after the interests of those who grew malting barley in the past, are able to negotiate a better price with Messrs. Guinness, I do not think that the Minister should interfere.
I believe that Messrs. Guinness would be prepared to pay a higher price. What is the Minister doing in effect? He is simply taking money out of the pockets of the farmers who grow malting barley and putting it into the pockets of the shareholders of Messrs. Guinness. I have nothing to say against Messrs. Guinness. They are a very useful firm to this country and, in recent years especially, I think they have behaved in a decent way and paid a decent price to the people who grew malting barley for them. On reconsideration of the whole matter, I think the Minister will have to agree with me that there is no necessity whatever to interfere or fix a price for malting barley. I do not know whether the Minister may think it necessary to fix a quota in respect of the malting barley that will go to Messrs. Guinness, but at all events the amount of barley that will go to Messrs. Guinness will be of first class excellent quality, and the people who load that type of barley are, at least, entitled to the price that Messrs. Guinness are prepared to pay. They are entitled to the price that the people who represent these growers are able to negotiate with Messrs. Guinness.
As to the price of oats, what strikes me as rather peculiar is that the Minister in fixing the prices of all grain has fixed one price only. Take the price of oats at 1/4 a stone or 18/8 per barrel. Irrespective of quality, the Minister fixes a maximum or, if you like, minimum price. Is the man who grows a sample of oats of excellent quality that will bushel well, that will bushel 42 or 43 lbs., to get only the same price as the man whose oats will bushel 37 or 38 lbs.? I do not think it fair to suggest that the man who grows a good quality oats, or indeed grain of any description, should be asked to accept the same price as a man who grows a poor quality and who possibly saves it at a bad time, in wet weather. The man who gives his grain the attention necessary to ensure that it will be in good condition, and that it will bushel well, is not going to get any credit for that work when it comes to fixing the price. If the Minister is afraid that prices will go too high and wants to prevent that—after all that is the meaning of fixing a price for anything——