I move:—
That it is the opinion of the Dáil that proposals for legislation should be introduced by the Executive Council to provide:—
(a) for the establishment of a Wheat Control Board, which shall be a limited liability company, charged with the purchase of imported wheat for re-sale to millers and the fixing of a minimum price to be paid by Saorstát millers for home-grown wheat sold to them for milling purposes;
(b) for the prohibition of the importation of wheat by any person other than the Wheat Control Board and such persons as may be authorised by the Board;
(c) for the payment by the Board to Saorstát millers of such sums as may be necessary to make good the difference between the price paid by the millers for home-grown wheat and its market value compared with Pacific wheats, taking into account its higher moisture content;
(d) that the Minister for Finance be authorised to subscribe to the capital of the Company, and to make good any losses incurred by the Company in the administration of the scheme, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas;
(e) that the importation of flour be permitted only under licence issued by the Wheat Control Board, and subject to an import duty: provided that there shall be no restrictions on flour imported for biscuit manufacture.
The proposal is that a Wheat Control Board be set up, to be a limited liability company; that the Board would have the sole right of importing wheat; that it would have the right of selling that wheat at its own price to millers in Saorstát Eireann; that it would have the right to fix the subsidy on home-grown wheat that would be given the miller, taking into account the difference in value between home-grown wheat and imported Pacific wheat; that it would have the right to fix the percentage of home grown wheat to be used by millers, and, further, that it would have the power to regulate the import of flour. We have been asked why we have chosen wheat as the crop to be picked out for special mention. We believe that it is the primary purpose of agriculture in this country to produce human food, and wheat being the raw material of the principal item of human food, we believe that special attention should be paid to the production of wheat for our own use.
The import of wheat and wheat products is a very large item. In the year 1927 it cost this country £7,393,000, and in 1928 £6,043,000. Evidently the reason for the falling off in 1928 was that there were big imports towards the end of 1927 owing to the fact that the question of a tariff on flour was under consideration by the Tariff Commission. We may take the normal import of wheat and wheat products as being valued at about £6,500,000. We believe that it should be our purpose in our agricultural policy to provide the greatest possible comfort for the largest possible population on the land. From figures that were supplied at the Economic Committee we find that a larger population could be maintained on land under tillage than on land under pasture. The figures showed that a hundred acres of potatoes will maintain 418 people, one hundred acres of wheat 208 people, one hundred acres of the finest pasture devoted to the production of beef, 40 people, and of pasture devoted to the production of milk, 41 people. We find further, when we compare this country with one which has a much larger percentage of tillage, namely Denmark, from the table which is given in the Trade and Shipping statistics for 1928, page 13, Roman numerals, that Denmark maintains a population of 478 per thousand acres, as against 246 in the Free State. In addition to that we find that Denmark has a net export, that is exports of agricultural products over imports, of agricultural products of £5 10s. per acre while our exports are £1 12s. 8d. per acre.
If we look into the question of wheat and the production of bread stuffs alone, and take the production of wheat and rye in Denmark as against the production of wheat here, we find that Denmark actually produces sufficient wheat and rye to maintain her total population, while we produce enough to maintain 3½ per cent of our population. The Danish people, however, use a considerable portion of the wheat and rye produced for feeding farm stock, so that actually they import some wheat. We import £2 7s. 6d. worth of wheat per head of the population as against £1 8s. worth per head in Denmark, the difference being that Denmark tills 65.5 per cent. of her land while we till only 12½ per cent. We believe that increased tillage is necessary to maintain a larger population here if we are to follow the example of countries like Denmark, which has practically a completely agricultural population like our own. If we want to maintain a larger population and maintain it in greater comfort we must turn to increased tillage.
In order to increase tillage we believe if we deal with the question of wheat that we will be dealing with one of the most important items in that tillage programme. It would not be advisable, I believe, to deal with oats and barley, for instance, in the same way as we propose to deal with wheat. Those who produce wheat here at the present time, and they are very few, produce it principally as a cash crop. On the other hand, a big percentage of the oats and barley produced is not produced as a cash crop, but for use on the farm for feeding. If wheat is being produced at present as a cash crop, under this scheme no difficulty would arise, because the producer would naturally bring his wheat for sale to the nearest miller. On the other hand, if the scheme were to be applied to oats or barley a difficulty would arise, because the buyers of oats or barley would be feeders of live stock, and we would have farmers selling oats to one another in order to get the subsidy, and that might merely result in an exchange of grain between one farmer and another. In that way these two crops would not lend themselves to this scheme. There are, however, other proposals for these two crops, but I need not go into them now. Another reason why we consider that the growing of wheat would be a benefit to this country is the fact that it would give employment where employment is badly needed, because there are many people unemployed in the rural districts, just as there are in the urban districts, and many people are only partially employed in the rural districts.
Even taking the official figures that were supplied by the Department of Agriculture it is estimated that the amount of manual labour necessary for the cultivation of one acre of wheat came to £2 6s. 6d. per acre. If we were to produce sufficient wheat for our own needs it was estimated that we would require about 860,000 acres, so that on the figures supplied by the Department there would be a distribution of £1,999,000 in wages.
It might be argued perhaps, and it has been argued, that the amount of wages paid, for instance, for the production of milk is just as large as would be paid for the production of wheat. But why should one be incompatible with the other? There is no reason. I have already said that Denmark has 65.6 per cent. of her land tilled, while we have only 12½ per cent. Denmark is only a little over half the size of this country, and yet, taking the figures for butter and bacon alone, Denmark, in addition to feeding twice the population per thousand acres that we have, is able to export £48,000,000 worth of butter and bacon, which, of course are her principal exports of agricultural produce, while the Free State total exports amount to £30,000,000. So a country like Denmark, which has gone in so extensively for tillage, is not in any way losing her production of milk or bacon. Therefore, the argument put up to us that the wages paid in the production of milk are as good as the wages paid in the production of wheat does not arise in any way. These are some of the arguments which can be advanced why it would be a good thing for the country as apart from the farmer to produce more wheat or, in fact, to aim at the production of our total requirements in wheat.
Some time ago this question arose in the Dáil, and the Minister for Agriculture accused us of making wheat a patriotic crop owing to the fact that we tried to prove to the Dáil that it would be a good thing for this country if it were to produce sufficient wheat for our own needs. If we succeeded in proving that to the satisfaction of this House we would perhaps have proved that it was a patriotic crop. On looking back over some of the debates, I find we have no less authority for making wheat a patriotic crop than the Minister for Agriculture himself. He said in a previous debate, which I mentioned, on the Agriculture Estimate of the 4th June, 1925:
"They can produce wheat for 7/- or 8/- per cwt. cheaper than they can purchase flour. They can, if they wish, bring back the tillage and pasture land into good heart. They must think in this direction, and, if they do, it will be all the better for the country. If I am wrong in that, I want to be shown where I am wrong."
There was not a Deputy even in the Farmers' Party at the time that could show him where he was wrong. If, therefore, we advocate the growing of wheat, and try to show the advantages it would have for this country, there is no reason why we should be accused of making wheat the only patriotic crop, because, as I have shown already, it is quite possible to produce more bacon and more butter with increased tillage, and I hope before I am finished to show that it will be quite possible, and in fact almost necessary, to produce more of other crops if you go in for increased production of wheat.
To show that it would be an advantage to the country to grow wheat is not getting us perhaps any further. Until we can show the farmer that it is an advantage to him we cannot get the wheat grown. At the Economic Committee, when this question was fully discussed and gone into in detail, we were asked to suggest a figure that would induce the farmers of Ireland to grow more wheat. We suggested that we could base our calculation on the figure of 30/- per barrel. We have never held that we were in a position to say definitely what would be sufficient to pay a farmer to get sufficient wheat grown, because if we were able to tell all those things there would be no necessity for a Wheat Control Board. But we said we can base our calculations on that and see how they would work out.
The figures supplied to us from the Department of Agriculture at the Economic Committee showed that the profit to be derived by farmers in this country from one acre of pasture when that pasture was put to the production of milk was £3 8s. 9d., and when it was put to the production of beef, £3 9s. 3d. per acre, and when it was put to the production of wheat, £2 18s. 7d. an acre, and oats, £1 16s. 6d. That was on the basis of wheat being sold at 24/- per barrel. If that were changed to 30/- per barrel there would be a profit of £5 3s. 6d. per acre, and that would compare very favourably even with the profits on this acre of pasture. I think some of the members here who have read the report will recollect that there were certain points made on this acre of pasture. For instance, the acre of pasture was supposed to produce 3 cwt. of beef in one particular year —that a bullock of 7 cwt., I think, going in would come out at the end of the year at 10 cwt. on the one acre of pasture. I think there are very few Deputies here who would be able to stand by that figure and would be able to say that, as they know the land of this country, it would be capable of that production of 3 cwt. of beef in one year Further, this bullock was to be bought at 36/- per cwt. and sold at 38/- per cwt. It is a most unusual thing in this country for the graziers, who usually buy their cattle in April or May and sell them at the end of the summer, to get a higher price per cwt. when selling them than they had to pay when buying. The case for some years past has always been the other way about. Then we find that the cow just taken into calculation was a 600-gallon cow, which is not the average cow at all, and the 600 gallons were sold at 8d. per gallon. I am not sure if it is the average either, but Deputies from the creamery districts will say that they are not getting 8d. per gallon, even taking into account the value of the separated milk. This cow which is producing 600 gallons of milk at 8d. per gallon is to be fed for the whole winter at £4 15s. 3d. If she gets hay and turnips to keep her for the winter, that is as far as £4 15s. 3d. will go, and it is not a proper way to treat a 600-gallon cow.
Some of the departments of agriculture in the various universities have been working at the accountancy of various farms, and I have read the report of two of them. One of them was from the Department of Agriculture, Cambridge University. It is a book entitled "Four Years Farming in East Anglia," by R. Carslaw, a member of Cambridge University School of Agriculture. He states: "On holdings where the production of fat beef and wholesale milk were the chief pursuits loss ensued." The average profit over all the farms which were accounted for by him was 8/- per acre. The profit from wheat was £2 per acre. There is a similar report from the University of Leeds by A.G. Ruston, accounts kept from the years 1921 to 1927. There were 55 or 56 farms. The last paragraph in his report is:
"Although the animal products represented 67.7 per cent. of the output on the successful farms, the profit derived from the stock was only 51 per cent. of the profit made. On the other hand, the profit made on the crops was 49 per cent. of the total profit, though the total crop products only amounted to 32.3 per cent. of the total output. From this it can be understood that the farmer who relies mainly on the rearing and feeding of cattle may easily find himself in an unsound financial position."
In this particular case where £2 per acre of profit was made on these 55 or 56 farms over a period of six years, wheat was produced and sold at the prices which ruled for these six years. It may be held that the price of wheat was higher then, that it was high enough to give a profit, and that it has not been so high since 1927. I saw, however, on the 23rd October—a few days ago—an interview in the "Daily Express" with the Secretary of the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants, Mr. Herbert Smith. He said that if the farmers got 48/- to 50/- a quarter for their wheat they could give good wages and would be encouraged to develop. That would be 28/- or 29/- per barrel. Some of the Deputies here will be able to bear me out in this statement. A few weeks ago we were down in South Wexford, in a co-operative store. A number of farmers were present and were explaining to us how they were disposing of their grain to this co-operative store. The question of wheat arose, and one farmer told us that he had grown 20 acres of wheat for several years up to last year. Last year was the first year he ceased to grow it. He told us that so far as he personally was concerned he would be prepared to go back to the production of wheat if there was a guaranteed price of 25/- per barrel. He said he believed that would pay him better, or pay any farmer better, than 16/- per barrel for barley. So that we are still, at any rate, within the 30/- per barrel mark.
