I have practically nothing to add to what I said when this motion was being last debated. This is the third or fourth time that this particular question has been discussed in the Dáil and the presentation of the case on this occasion is exactly the same as the presentation on a previous occasion. I am quite convinced if we continue that procedure during the rest of this debate we will get no results of any kind—either positive or negative. For that reason I would like to come down to some specific points. All I am going to say now has already been said in the majority report on wheat growing. I would like to put the net points that have been made there, and if speakers are to follow me in opposition, I would like them to deal with these points, because it is better to deal in some detail with these points than roam or travel in a general way, or discuss in a general way, a number of very numerous and complicated issues.
It is contended, and arguments have been advanced to show, that wheat-growing for seasonal and climatic reasons is rather more unsuitable to this country than the growing of any other crops which are grown here now on a commercial basis. That is contended, and that is held by a very great number of farmers. That is the first point. The second point is a fact that can be established and cannot be denied, that the trend of prices has been more against wheat than against any other crop, not for a few years, but for at least half a century. That is a fact, and it must be admitted. I go this far, and I say that that establishes a prima facie case that wheat-growing pays—not every farmer, not any farmer, but the average farmer, less than any other crop he could grow. I say that prima facie conclusion is absolutely confirmed by an examination of the figures, which go to show that while there are something like 600,000 acres of oats, 300,000 acres of potatoes, 200,000 acres, odd, of mangolds and turnips, there are only 30,000 acres of wheat. These are roughly the figures. If you accept those admitted facts, then I say it is absolutely clear that so far as the average farmer is concerned, wheat pays him less than any other crop. If anybody in the Dáil disagrees with me, I would like him to examine that specific point and to show me where I am wrong.
Now, I come to the second point. Nobody contends that there is sufficient tillage in the country; there is not. There should be, and there could be more tillage in the country. In fact, Deputy Ryan made the case, so far as he made any case, for increased tillage rather than for an increase in a particular crop like wheat. I have never heard it denied that the farmer who is producing most, the farmer who is doing best for himself in this country, is the mixed farmer, who is doing considerably more tillage than the average farmer. I have never heard that denied. I would like to know whether it is now denied here that the farmer who is doing the best for himself, and for the country as a whole, is the mixed farmer, who is doing more tillage than the average farmer of the country. It is quite certain, and statistics prove it. The conditions under which that farmer works are exactly the same as those under which 75 to 80 per cent. of the farmers of the country work, and 75 to 80 per cent. of the farmers of this country are small farmers, and practically all their work is done by the family labour. It is the minority of farmers who are doing the mixed farming, and who are doing more tillage than the average farmer. In this respect of acreage they resemble exactly the majority of the farmers who are not doing as much tillage and not producing as much, nor making as much money for themselves or the country as the minority, who go in for more tillage, are making.
If these are the facts, surely the business of statesmanship and agricultural policy should be directed towards either compelling or inducing that large body of farmers that I have mentioned to do as much for themselves and as much for the country as the minority of the mixed farmers are doing. If Deputies are with me up to that point, I submit that one clear deduction can be drawn from these facts, and it is this—that there is no case—good, bad, or indifferent—for subsidising wheat as compared with a subsidy for tillage as a whole or for any other crop. I suggest, too, that Deputies who are in favour of a subsidy for tillage have first to show reason why they picked out wheat rather than any other crop, if in fact wheat pays less than any other crop. If wheat pays less than any other crop, it will take a larger subsidy to get a given increased area than it would take to get a given increased area of any other crop. That is obvious. I, personally, do not think that subsidies are desirable. I will give my reasons for that. I think that they are a wasteful and inefficient method of encouraging increased production, and for this reason—that all the subsidies are mainly paid by the farmers themselves. In the particular case of wheat, the subsidy would be, to a very great extent, paid by the poorer farmers to the farmers with the best land. I say that because, regardless of what agricultural experts in the Dáil say, wheat will be grown to a greater extent on good land than on bad land, and it will not in fact be grown to any extent in the Gaeltacht, in places like Connemara, Mayo, Donegal, Kerry, in the Gaeltacht generally, the poorer parts of the country.
My next reason is that subsidies, to a great extent, so far as we have any experience of them, bring about, not increased tillage, but the substitution of one crop for another. We pay £24 an acre roughly of a subsidy to the best growers. To a great extent that has brought about substitution.
I hold that a subsidy of £2 or £3 an acre for wheat—an absolutely negligible subsidy as compared with what we are paying for sugar-beet growing—in so far as it would bring about wheat growing at all, would be almost entirely substitution. It would only attract the farmer with suitable land, with a tillage tradition and who has land already under grain. For those reasons I am personally against subsidies as a method of increasing tillage. I am against them first for the reason that the farmers themselves would pay the larger part of the subsidy, and in that respect it would be merely taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another; and I am against them secondly for the reason that subsidies would bring about substitution. I may finally add that the whole thing would be very costly to administer and the taxpayers of the country as a whole would be affected thereby.
If there are people who think that subsidies are the best way to attain increased tillage, then it is up to them to show why the subsidy should be given and why the crop which undoubtedly pays the farmer of the country least should be selected. If they do not agree with the contention that it does pay the average farmer least, then I ask them to examine specifically the reasons that I have given to show that it does pay the average farmer least. I may be told, though it is not an answer, that we should encourage wheat growing because, in fact, we send about £7,000,000 out of the country for wheat. That point of view, simply stated like that, practically means nothing. So far as it means anything it means that we should encourage wheat growing in order to lessen our imports. Lessening imports as such is no advantage. You could lessen imports and at the same time lessen production. If you examined the statistics of imports and if you had equally available the statistics of production, and if you found both were going down, that would be a clear indication of bankruptcy. If you want to state the position properly, do not state it in terms of lessening imports, but rather in terms of increasing production.
I hope to see the imports into this country increasing. If we produce more I am firmly convinced there is no reason why economic laws which operate in every other country in the world should not operate here. The universal experience is that the more production there is, the more imports and exports you have. Denmark has been quoted by Deputy Ryan and, now that we are speaking generally, the particular phenomena which appear in Denmark are relevant. In Denmark they produce more than we do, but they import and export more than we do. The same applies to every other country in the world. It is no advantage to lessen imports as such. What is of advantage is to increase production, and that is what is wanted. There is ample room, as I have pointed out, and it must be admitted, if people admit my previous contention, that the majority of mixed farmers should be induced or compelled to attain the standard of those who have more oats, barley, mangolds and turnips.
If my contention is admitted, then there is plenty of room for an increase in oats. There is actually a choice of crops. There is room for an increase in oats and barley. The people who are constantly advocating the theory that barley is as good as Indian meal can scarcely deny that. There is room for an increase in mangolds, turnips, barley and oats and if these can be produced more economically, if the farmer can produce them at a profit—as he must be able to do or he would not go on producing them—then if you want to increase tillage, why spend the small amount that is available in this country either through taxation or in any other way—because there is only a limited amount available over and above the amount legitimately required by the businessmen and farmers for their own needs—why spend that limited amount on trying to encourage a crop which, on all the evidence that we have had before us, is a crop that pays least and consequently will require the largest subsidy for any given increase in acreage? If this debate is to come to anything, if we are to understand one another so as to disagree with one another, I would like these particular points dealt with.