Certain amendments have occurred to some of my colleagues. As we did not anticipate that the Committee Stage of this Bill would be taken so soon after the Second Stage, I wonder if the Minister would consent to their being submitted on Report Stage. There are only two or three amendments, but they should have been down for the Committee Stage.
Committee on Finance. - Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1935—Committee.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
That is a matter for the Chair. The Chair was asked in this case to make a concession and to allow amendments to be received up to 12 o'clock on Monday. That concession was made, but no amendments were received.
I regret that I addressed my request to the wrong authority.
The Chair gave a full week for the handing in of amendments.
I quite admit, taking the arrangement of business as it was, that every facility was made available. Perhaps I shall be able to arrange the matter at another time with the Ceann Comhairle, so that the difficulty will be overcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 1:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) For the purposes of Sections 28 and 30 of the Principal Act, as amended by the Amending Act of 1934, and of Section 61 of the Amending Act of 1934, the amount of wheat milled at a particular licensed mill during the preliminary quota period or any quota year shall be taken to be the sum of the following amounts namely, the amount of wheat at such mill at the commencement of such period or year (as the case may be) and the amount of wheat delivered at such mill during such period or year (as the case may be), less the sum of the following amounts, namely, the amount of wheat at such mill immediately before the expiration of such period or year (as the case may be) and the amount of wheat consigned from such mill during such period or year (as the case may be).
(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any period commencing before the 1st day of August, 1935.
It is not provided in the principal Act that wheat should be weighed at any particular stage from the time it is received by the miller until it is milled into flour. Difficulties have arisen, owing to this point having been overlooked, more or less, in the principal Act. Millers may take a certain amount of wheat under their quota. If it is imported wheat, it may be possible to add some water to it, and thereby make a greater quantity of wheat than they would be entitled to use under their quota. On the other hand, if they have taken wheat which has too much moisture, they may mill less than would be their quota in the ordinary way. The difficulty was to deal with that position. This amendment lays down the ruling on that particular point. The amount the wheat weighs at the time at which it is received will rule in all such cases in future, whether it has low moisture or high moisture. The amount received by the miller is taken as the amount for the particular quota allotted to that miller. The other provisions of the amendment are simple.
What percentage of moisture is the amendment based on?
Dr. Ryan
That does not matter. Whatever the weight of the wheat is coming in is to rule.
The case the Minister makes for this amendment is administrative difficulty?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
It is a rough and ready scheme. Supposing wheat is delivered to the miller with a very high moisture content, will that operate to increase the miller's cost of producing the flour? To make the matter clear, let us suppose that all the wheat came into the mill with an unduly high moisture content. It would be weighed with that moisture content, according to this amendment. The wheat would then be dried and a certain amount of moisture extracted. At the end of the year the miller's stock would be in the dried condition. The deduction at the end of the year to ascertain the amount of wheat used would, therefore, be a deduction of dried wheat from damp wheat. Does the Minister anticipate that assessing the miller all the time on the basis of damp wheat—I use that term for the want of a better one— will react unfavourably on the miller and make his cost of producing flour higher than it would be if a test were carried out and due allowance made for the condition in which the wheat reached him.
Dr. Ryan
I think that the Deputy does not grasp the point of the amendment. It has nothing to do with the cost; it has only to do with the quota. I can give an example of what cropped up. A miller had a quota of 10,000 barrels of wheat for a certain period. The home-grown percentage was ten. He got 9,000 barrels of imported wheat. to which he added certain moisture. He got 1,000 barrels of home-grown wheat from which he extracted certain moisture, and the general result was that he had more wheat than he was entitled to under the quota. It is not my Department which administers this part of the Act and it is extremely difficult for the Department of Industry and Commerce to come to an understanding with the millers who lose so much moisture in one lot and gain so much in another lot. The simple thing for the purpose of the quota is to take the weight when delivered to the mill. The quota is calculated in that way. The amendment has nothing to do with the cost. Indirectly, of course, if a person has a certain quota and mills less than that, his overhead charges would probably be the same and, in that way, his costs might be affected. But that would be a very small item.
If the Minister fixed the moisture at 15 per cent. he would probably find that the difficulty would be overcome.
Dr. Ryan
If you take it all-round it will give the same thing in the end.
There is a quota for the amount of wheat that may be milled?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
And for the amount of flour produced? Is there only a quota for the amount of wheat that may be milled? In the other legislation a miller is registered for the amount he will mill, and also for the amount of flour he may sell.
Dr. Ryan
No.
Only on the amount of wheat he will mill?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Minister would explain sub-section (4) (f). The Minister must admit that the section is a bit complicated. Why is there no relief in this particular case? On reading over the Bill it appeared to me that this section does not fit in with the rest of the structure. As far as I can gather, it is impossible for an undertaking miller to transfer his obligation to a liable miller.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Apparently he cannot transfer the storage or drying liability.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
I intended raising this matter on the Second Stage, but perhaps the Minister would explain it now. Take it in connection with Section 6 (2), where you are dealing with the provision of storage accommodation and drying accommodation. Though it is contemplated that a miller may transfer some liability, so far as actually dealing with wheat is concerned, there is no provision enabling him to do it for drying or storage. Why is that?
Dr. Ryan
The liable miller may get an undertaking miller to mill part of the home-grown wheat for him. That does not automatically get rid of the liability for storage and drying. When you come to the section dealing with storing and drying you will see that the liable miller is always liable——
That is the point I am making.
Dr. Ryan
——even though he gets someone to undertake it for him. There is a different procedure between the two.
The Minister has made precisely the point I made, that there is a difference of procedure. I simply asked "why." The Minister simply says "there is." I know that. Why? A miller could get a liable miller to undertake certain of his obligations so far as milling is concerned, but it is not a question of automatically transferring his storage and drying liability to a liable miller.
Dr. Ryan
There is nothing to prevent the Minister for Agriculture allowing a miller to do part of the storage and drying in other premises. It could be done by another miller, but we would hold him liable all the time.
There is provision for one thing, but not for the other, which suggests the difference.
This point also arises. Is there any objection in principle in one miller getting another miller to do part of his work? Would there be any objection categorically in agreeing to the transfer of liability for storage and drying to the undertaking miller? Certain milling companies are in a position not only to store and to dry the wheat that they require for their own quota, but to store and to dry some more as well. Supposing a miller had an excess for storage accommodation and made an agreement with an undertaking miller, not only to mill his proportion of the wheat, or part of it, but also to store and to dry it, would the Government have any objection to the transfer of the liability for storage and drying of that part of the quota of the undertaking miller, and make him liable to the Department to carry out the terms of the Bill under the penalties not of the contract but of this Bill?
Dr. Ryan
There is a difference between the two, in this way, that we want to have storage and drying facilities provided in advance. That would be sufficient difference, to say nothing of the release of the liable miller from liability to store and to dry. There is nothing to prevent miller A doing a certain amount of storing for miller B, if the Department is satisfied. If the inspectors are satisfied that there is sufficient accommodation for wheat not only for B but that there is room to spare for the other miller, it will be allowed. We would still hold miller A liable for storage. He has to satisfy the Department that the accommodation is there.
That is what I pointed out.
Dr. Ryan
The reason is that we want to have it before the crop comes in which we consider, perhaps, the more important point. In the other case the person takes in the wheat and there is not the same urgency about getting it milled. If a man comes along and says that he got someone to undertake to mill home-grown wheat for him, we want to have time to look into it to see if it is all right. He is compelled to acquaint us of the agreement.
I cannot follow the Minister in saying that he could agree so readily as that. I want to point out that the word "liable" is a rather misleading one to use. The miller is liable for the accommodation. That means that the accommodation must be actually in existence. It is not like being liable in other cases. If A does not do the thing B is caught, as the accommodation must be there. If B says: "You take half of my stock and store it for me," he must have full accommodation for himself from the start. That is what "liable" means there. The Minister grasped that at the beginning of his last statement when he said the accommodation must be there.
Dr. Ryan
We hold them responsible.
All you can say is: "You need not store it in your store. You can store in A's store, but you must have storage. It is not a question of ordinary liability. There must be storage."
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Whether it is used or not, and even though another person could be got to do it.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I asked the Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill if he had any idea of the cost involved here. Although I do not know what type of apparatus will be necessary for drying, this is an increasing cost. Supposing a miller has to get this accommodation, or a certain amount of it, next year it will cost another 50 per cent. Year after year the miller will have to add to his storage and drying apparatus. Is not that so? Unless he wishes to take a jump and say I will look five years ahead.
Dr. Ryan
That is what we expect.
There is a danger that he may not have the same belief in the automatic increase that the Minister has, and will doubt the wisdom of making a jump to deal with five years ahead. It seems to me that, if he does not, there will be considerable costs involved, added on to these things. Has the Minister any idea as to the costs that will be involved?
Dr. Ryan
I could not say definitely how many acres of wheat we would have to grow before there would be a big expenditure necessary for additional storage. It appears that there is sufficient storage available this year. Of course, there have been a few silos constructed by millers and dealers which, I think, would have been constructed in any case before this Bill was thought of. In that way, I think that there will be sufficient storage available. Of course, additional drying plant will be required, but it is difficult to forecast the requirements at the moment, because we do not know what the requirements of the millers will be. It is possible that a miller may be able to say that he will not need any drying plant at all for this year because he has been able to make arrangements with dealers or factors. I think I may say that we would be inclined to agree in such a case, because, although we had a meeting with the millers so far back as January last, and even though they had had warning so far back as that, still we would not feel inclined to be as hard on them as we would be, say, next year, in the matter of providing accommodation. In other words, if they provide alternative accommodation in a dealer's premises or anywhere else, I think we would be inclined to accept it.
Has the Minister any idea as to the general costs?
Dr. Ryan
I could not say really.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(2) Where a purchase percentage order has been made in relation to any cereal year, the Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order (in this section referred to as an amending order) amend such purchase percentage order, in respect of any month or months in such cereal year commencing after the date of such order, and references in this section to a purchase percentage order shall be construed, in the case of a purchase percentage order amended by an amending order, as references to such purchase percentage order as so amended.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), line 20, to insert after the word "order" the words "by increasing or reducing the purchase percentage for such month or months or, in respect of any month in such cereal year current at the date of such order, by reducing the purchase percentage for such month."
As this section stands, Sir, we would have no power to vary an order during the month referred to in the order. For example, suppose we asked the millers to take 30 per cent. of their quota in, say, the month of October, we might find, during the month of October, that we had gone a little bit too high. This amendment will enable the Minister for Agriculture to reduce the percentage during the particular month concerned, but it does not give the Minister power to increase the percentage. If the Minister wants to increase the percentage, the increase cannot come into operation until the end of the month during which that order is made. I think that that may be necessary because the first order is made before the 1st September giving the various months and the percentages. It would be difficult to forecast what the millers would be able to take in November and December because weather conditions and so on enter into it.
I would strongly advise the Minister, with regard to the percentage which this section gives him power to fix by order, to insist that the percentage will be something over what would be required up to the present. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that those who were in the business up to this year had a wheat quota announced at a certain percentage—I think it was 8 per cent. —and that, after a while, it was put up to 10 per cent., and that then it was increased by ¾ per cent. The result of that was that, despite the best efforts and intentions of the officials concerned, there was absolute upset and confusion among the people in the milling trade and among those factors who were storing wheat in the ordinary harvest time. I trust that the Minister will arrange that the percentage will be a little more than what would be required up to the present. If that were done, it would be far more satisfactory than it has been up to the present.
A case has been made to me that, under this section, an obligation devolves on millers to buy a certain amount of wheat, which amount shall be fixed from time to time by the Minister, and that, if they fail to buy that amount, a penalty, under paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) is imposed for their failure to buy it. I should like to know whether or not the Minister would consider the incorporation in that section of a provision that, if a miller were in the position of being able to demonstrate, in conditions such as might be prescribed by a High Court Judge, that he was unable to purchase the wheat at the price, that he would be exonerated from blame and not made subject to the penalty imposed under this section.
Dr. Ryan
Of course, this particular amendment is going to meet, partly, that case; that is, if there is not enough wheat in the aggregate to supply all the millers, then it will be possible to reduce the order. I think, however, that it would be very inadvisable to allow any particular miller to make a case, because we want to create a situation that the miller must go out and look for his quota. It might be possible that a miller, in a part of the country where there was not much wheat growing, would make the case that he found it impossible, or almost impossible, to get the wheat, and I feel that unless we compel such a man to go out and get his wheat this section would become unworkable.
Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed—"That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 11, Sir. Obeying a him from the Ceann Comhairle, I did not take part in the discussion on the Money Resolution, because I felt that most of what I had to say on that matter could be said here. I shall endeavour to make it as brief as possible, because I do not want to reiterate what I have already said on the Second Reading. In some respects, this is really one of the operative clauses—in fact, the operative clause—for one particular purpose of the Bill. Practically, it is the clause that transfers the cost of the assistance for wheat-growing from the taxpayer to the consumer. It is proposed to tax bread. I do not think there can be any denial of it—call it political to say so, if you like, but the fact is plain that it is a proposal to tax bread. There is no doubt about it, and the only defence of that which I have heard to-day is the defence put up by Deputy Smith and it was: “As we have taxed people's butter, the people's bacon and the people's tea, why not tax their bread?” That seems to me the most extraordinary kind of argument but that is the argument he put up. To back that up, he indulged in the argument that bread is an essential thing to tax because it is essential. He took up the phrase used by Deputy Dillon, who pointed out that it was a staple article of food. It is essential and, therefore, it ought to be taxed.
That was the extraordinary argument put forward by Deputy Smith and it is well to realise that he is not alone in doing that, because that is the purpose of the Bill. There is something very serious involved in this in two ways. On the one hand, as I have more than once pointed out, there is an effort to conceal the real purpose. It is no longer put on as a tax at the time of the ordinary Budget. It is not put on as an ordinary Budget tax, but it is a tax on bread. There can be no disputing that, and I do not think it has been disputed by any Party in the House. This particular Bill—and I am dealing with this Bill and this particular section—is a proposal to take the burden off the ordinary taxes and to put it on bread. You cannot get away from that by saying that the consumer and the taxpayer are the same. They are not. They are becoming that, I will admit, very quickly under the present regime, but that is not necessarily so. If the Minister for Agriculture, for some reason or other, made a commercial treaty with France, he might be anxious to help and to subsidise the drinking of champagne, for instance, in this country but I suggest in that case, as between the ordinary taxpayer and the consumer, there would be a very big difference.
It is the same in this case but in the opposite direction. What you are doing here is taxing an article that particularly hits everybody and, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, hits the poorer classes harder. You are deliberately taxing that. As to the amount of that tax, let us get the gross amount of it. It is £250,000 this year, according to the Minister for Finance. We took the liberty on the last occasion of questioning that figure and I do not think the Minister himself was particularly keen on standing by the figure of his colleague. I do not want to exaggerate, but it would certainly be anything from £350,000 to £450,000. Let me put this to the Deputies of the Labour Party, whom, through you, Sir, I am now addressing and who, I was interested to notice, voted for this particular thing in the Money Resolution. Supposing the Minister for Finance had come here and openly and plainly said: "This year I propose to raise £350,000 by means of a tax on bread," even the Labour Party might revolt, but there is no getting away from the fact that that is what is being done. There is also the promise that it is not going to stop there. Let that also be quite clear because the Minister has pointed out that he expects this to increase year by year.
Hear, hear.
Therefore, the tax on bread, according to the Deputy who said "Hear, hear," is to be increased year by year until, according to the Minister, it reaches £1,500,000.
Hear, hear.
"Hear, hear," says the Deputy again. He will not be satisfied until it has reached £1,500,000. If the Minister's figures can be relied on, it will reach more than that. In this particular section of the Bill you are therefore inaugurating the policy of putting a tax on bread. You say that it is preferable to getting it out of ordinary taxes, but no effort has been made to show why it is preferable. Why is it preferable? The Minister pointed out on the last day that one advantage of this Bill was that the farmer could get his money more quickly. I asked him could he not pay the farmers as quickly under the subsidy system as under this Bill, and was this change introduced here and in subordinate sections of this Bill necessary for the earlier payment of the farmers, and he answered me out straight: "No." Therefore, so far as the main advantage of this Bill to the farmers is concerned, namely, their getting the full payment—it was a question as between full payment and partial payment—more quickly, it could be done as well under the bounty system as it can be done under this. As I say, there is the other matter not involved in the change from the taxpayer to the consumer, because when you tax, as a rule, except in the case of these indirect taxes such as tea, sugar, bread, butter and so on, you tax a man very often according to his wealth. Here you tax a person according to the kind of food he eats, the cheaper food and most necessary article of food. That is what you are doing.
As I say, I can understand the Government's reason for doing this. It is an effort—I hope, not a successful effort—on their part to conceal the essential thing—that the Government, which did not hesitate openly to come into this House and put a tax on tea, sugar and tobacco, did hesitate openly to come in and propose a tax on bread in order to subsidise wheat-growing in this country. They hope by means of this procedure—they will meet with a certain amount of success, but only with a certain amount—to conceal the fact that that is what they are doing.
And why not?
Because I object to that tax. I object to a tax on bread just as I object to taxes on tea and sugar.
Why object to having wheat grown?
I am not objecting.
That is what the Deputy is doing.
The Deputy has not followed my argument at all. The Minister agrees that you can help wheat-growing by bounty. Why then change from the system you have at present?
Because you are developing.
Why not increase your bounty?
Then why not have all protective tariffs by bounty?
That I have nothing to do with. I say that there is a tremendous difference as to the article you tax, and I think that one of the worst articles that could possibly be taxed is bread. I think there is no excuse for it.
Deputy O'Sullivan wants it both ways.
You must pay them the cost of production.
Certainly. Let the taxpayer pay.
23/6 will not pay.
27/- will.
I am sorry for interrupting anybody. Is Deputy Belton finished?
He did not begin yet. He will when you are finished.
What this Bill does is not to help wheat any more than it was helped in the old Act but to change the method of taxation. This is what this Bill does. That is the principal purpose of this Bill. Instead of taking it out of the ordinary taxation, as was done up to the present, it is putting a tax on bread, and on bread alone. That is what this Bill is doing, and that is the purpose of this Bill. You are doing it in this Bill in order to conceal that you are doing it. That is the second purpose of this Bill. I can see the advantage, from the Government point of view, that it will help—and apparently, judging from the way in which this Bill has been received by the House, it has already helped— to conceal the fact that you are taking it out of the ordinary taxes and putting it on to the most necessary article of food, bread. I do not think—I repeat this—that the Government would dare to come into this House and do that openly. I do not think any Deputy on the Labour benches, or on some of the other benches, would support them if they said: "We will put a tax on bread to the extent of £350,000 this year; to a greater extent next year and, finally, to the extent of £1,500,000." I do not think that, if that proposition were fairly and squarely put before the House it would receive any support outside those who are bound by Party allegiance to support the Government. I am not discussing the wheat policy of the Government. That, I understand from the Ceann Comhairle, is completely outside the relevancy of this particular section, and even of this Bill. I have confined myself to what this Bill proposes to do, and especially to what this particular section proposes to do. We have had references here this evening to what Governments elsewhere are doing— irrational Governments. There are some people subsidising the growing and some the destruction of wheat. The fact that Governments elsewhere have indulged in irrational policies of that kind is no reason why we should follow them. But there is one thing exceptionally rational from the purely Party point of view of the Government, namely, the question as to why the Minister for Finance wanted to get it off his Budget and on to a Bill of this kind.
Before I start on the section, I want to confess to a mistake which I made in going into the wrong Lobby in the division on the Financial Motion.
Force of habit!
I want to make that correction, because it was inconsistent with the speech which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill.
I saw the Deputy smiling over there.
I saw the Deputy frowning, but he did not explain.
The Deputy knows you to be a wild and turbulent spirit.
Deputy Dillon was very surprised when he saw you.
I entirely agree with the closing remarks of Deputy O'Sullivan, namely, that the Minister for Finance has got rid of a burden, but that is a purely budgetary or financial matter, and has, I think, nothing to do with this section of the Bill. Deputy O'Sullivan, in my opinion, argued against wheat growing in this country. The provision for a percentage of home-grown wheat in the flour to be milled here of course carries with it an obligation on the millers to put in that percentage, and that percentage is regulated roughly or substantially by the supply which is produced by the farmers. The millers will have to pay round about an economic price for that wheat. Now, surely Deputy O'Sullivan, a Professor in the National University, does not want to work for slave wages in the National University. Does he want the farmers of this country to work for slave wages? What does he mean by saying that to get an economic price for home-grown wheat is putting a tax on bread? You might say that to pay any price for wheat is to tax bread, but we must be consistent. We should either say: "We will grow wheat in this country" or "We will not grow wheat here." My view is that we should. To anybody who says that we should not I give a challenge here and now to contradict me when I say that there is not a wheat-growing country in the world getting wheat as cheaply as wheat is being sold, or rather dumped, on the world market at the present time. Every wheat-growing country is paying more than what we term the world price for wheat, that is about 13/- or 14/- a barrel at the present time. I challenge Deputy O'Sullivan to mention one wheat-growing country in the world that is getting wheat at that price at the present time. I follow the prices. I follow all the manipulations of the principal wheat-growing countries—there are about 20 of them—who have tried to restrict the growing of wheat and apportion the market for themselves. Outwardly, they all agree, but then behind the scenes they all disagree, and try to grow a little bit more. Then there is economic nationalism arising. Some people agree with it and some do not. Several of the countries that are not termed wheat-producing countries are continuing to grow more, and generally have a little surplus. That surplus is dumped on the world market. We here are endeavouring to lead up to the point when we will be self-supporting in the matter of wheat, and we want the consumer to pay an economic price for that wheat.
Why do we want to be self-supporting in the matter of wheat?
It is good national policy.
Why?
That is travelling far from the section.
I would recommend the Deputy to read my speech on the Second Reading, and if there is not enough information in that I will give him all the information at my disposal.
Not now.
Not now. I am only just indicating——
He is only threatening it!
Anyway we have 16,000,000 acres of land in this country, and we must make some use of it.
The Deputy is going into a question of general policy.
I suggest that that is one use for the land. I do object to the way Deputy O'Sullivan put it—that this is a tax on bread. I represent a city constituency, and I would be the last in this House to advocate or support a tax on bread. That is not what I am doing in supporting this section; I am supporting the getting of an economic price for an article produced in this country, and in that I am not advocating a principle which is not observed in every wheat producing country in the world. I did intend to put in amendments to this Bill, but pressing business since the Dáil adjourned kept me away from home, and I had not sufficient time.
He was down in Galway!
No. I was not in Galway.
That was a cake walk. There was no necessity!
I did not go so far away. I kept nearer to the Deputy's constituency. I had intended to table amendments to the section by way of an addition. I made certain remarks on the Second Reading about the culture of strong wheats, and the Minister in his reply spoke favourably of that. I did intend to put in an amendment here, which would be in the nature of an experiment to offer, say, about 30/- a barrel for strong wheat—something like that, so as to see what effect that would have. The Minister would, perhaps, want to do that now or very soon if he intends to work on that for next year, because there is no use in offering that price now as an inducement for this year's crop, as the crop is in, and no matter what he offers he cannot induce any new types of wheat to be grown. Perhaps in the later Stages of the Bill he might add a new sub-section by way of experiment. The Department of Agriculture carried out experiments before and found them successful. It would help also the cultivation of Marcus wheat over wider areas. Perhaps if the Minister did it in this way, offered by way of experiment 30/- a barrel for acre plots such as was done with the Yeoman No. 2 in 1925-26 and in 1926-27, it would show the potentialities of various parts of the country for strong wheats and particularly for the Marcus wheat that has been introduced here lately. I would like the Minister to take that matter into consideration.
Deputy Dillon asked why should we grow wheat here. We have already decided on the principle of growing wheat. I want to emphasise that if it puts up the price of bread, which it will, from its present mark it will only be put up because the economic price must be paid for the wheat we have decided to grow. If we are not getting that this year, why should we object to a section in the Bill which provides for the maximum of 27/- a barrel? Every practical farmer knows that no one will become a millionaire growing wheat at 27/-, but surely he has less chance of becoming a millionaire if he accepts less? Having accepted the principle of this Bill, I think it is only just to seek a fair price for the article and I see nothing wrong with the section. It is a better method than spoon-feeding by bounties. Bounties are all right to a certain point for experimental purposes. I am in favour of bounties in many cases where we have protective tariffs. Bounties to a certain point are acceptable, but there is only one way to produce and that is by machinery of this kind, on a percentage, guaranteeing what would be considered an economic price for the wheat.
If I had any substantial support I might feel inclined to oppose this section, but the angle from which I would oppose is that the price offered is not enough. I would like Deputies to develop an argument from that angle. I presume the Minister has in mind that 27/- must be for wheat that will be stacked and threshed late, not stored wheat. However, as nobody has indicated opposition to the section because of the inadequacy of the price, I am not going to make the lead in that direction. If there is anybody sufficiently courageous or just enough to oppose the section on the ground that a sufficient price is not offered, I will support him, but on no other ground will I oppose the section.
Precisely the thing which I forecast on the Financial Resolutions has already begun to happen. Within one half hour Deputy Belton is pointing out that the price for wheat is too low, and if anyone will join with him he will insist on it being upped to 30/-. Can Deputy Belton imagine that Deputy Donnelly, the shrewdest electioneer in this country, if there is a by-election in Leix-Offaly to-morrow, will allow himself to be outbid by Deputy Belton in the price of wheat? If Deputy Belton says 30/-, Deputy Donnelly will say 35/- and if I say 37/6 you will not see Deputy Smith from the dust of the road going down to bid 40/-. What is going to happen is this, that the price will be upped and upped through the pressure of a variety of political influences until we will all grow wheat because, not only will we be able to pay the best agricultural wage owing to the inflated price of wheat, but we will be able to make the biggest profit out of the land, not by prosecuting normal agricultural industry, but by mining the land.
You will not grow it anyway.
We will plant wheat and keep getting it until the land becomes valueless. We will take all the good cut of the land in the shape of wheat, grab as much as we can, and let the future take care of itself. In every other country that is precisely what happened. Deputy Belton has said 27/6 is not enough. Let us make it 30/-. Deputy Donnelly in Upper Mount Street says that the 30/- business will be as bad as the land annuities.
And then Deputy Dillon will come along.
If I do, Deputy Smith will make it even money, and that is precisely where this legislation is tending. That is going to be the end of it, and the whole thing will collapse as it has collapsed in France, but not without great suffering, great loss and injury to the agricultural community.
When did it collapse in France?
It collapsed because they reduced the price.
Yes; because they had a surplus.
And when I bid 40/- in this country you will also have a surplus and the whole thing will collapse. What exquisite Fianna Fáil logic! The method of providing free bread for the people is to put a tax of 2d. on every loaf! If you keep it on long enough you start providing free bread for the people out of the tuppences you collect on the loaves you do not sell. That is Fianna Fáil economics, Fianna Fáil agricultural policy, and all that is comprised in Section 13. I quite agree with Deputy Concannon that in the dim and distant future the thing will turn out to be pure tripe and a fraud. Deputy Concannon has the perspicacity to foresee that. Its immediate repercussion is going to be that the present grossly inadequate price for wheat is going to raise the price of flour in this country by a considerable figure. It will raise it by a figure between 13/6 and 14/6 per sack as compared with the price of flour in Liverpool. An increase of 13/6 to 14/6 per sack means, on the annual consumption of 3,000,000 sacks of flour in this country, about £2,000,000 sterling per annum. How many acres of wheat have we got this year?
One hundred and eighty thousand acres.
Let Deputy Donnelly do a bit of arithmetic. Let him divide 180,000 into £2,000,000 and see what is the cost per acre for wheat. Mind you, there would be something to be said for it even still if Deputy Belton or Deputy Smith could get up and say: "In the wheat-growing counties we are paying a decent wage to agricultural labourers and acting as a kind of draw to the rest of the country—we are giving the rest of the country a lead." What are the wages paid in the wheat-growing counties? Do I exaggerate if I say that the average is about 21/- a week without any perquisites? That is what the 23/6 wheat is producing for the farmer who is growing wheat and for the labourer who is working at it. I met spalpeens going to England to-day and they can get a wage of from 33/6 a week, a free house and overtime——
For harvest work.
No; they are getting 33/6 per week, free house and overtime from now until December 20th.
What will they have after December?
Let us compare that with what we are paying for the summer months for the same labour. We are paying 21/- a week and I defy anybody to grow wheat at the price adumbrated in the Schedule to this Bill and pay a labourer 1/- more per week than that and make a profit out of it. Make up your minds that 23/6 a sack is not going to be the standard price of wheat. If you subsidise wheat so as to pay a wage to the agricultural labourer, then, indirectly, the Government becomes the employer of the labourer. If that happens this Government will be forced to pay a living wage, and no person can stand over a wage of less than 30/- a week for a labourer if he is a married man. God knows that wage is low enough. The consequence will be that you have to work the price of wheat up to a point which will give every farmer who is growing wheat an opportunity of paying his labourers a minimum wage of 30/- a week. If you do that you will have to pay £2 a barrel for wheat, and if you pay £2 a barrel for wheat and produce all the requirements of the country the 2-lb. loaf is going to cost the people of this country, not 4d. or 5d. but very much nearer to 10d. You have to make up your minds on that. I say that economics of that kind are pure moonshine, a fraud, and a swindle. I object to the powers conferred by this Bill. You know this thing cannot be done, and unless you are going to ask the people on the land to work at slave wages the production of home-grown bread cannot go on. It cannot be done.
It can be done.
Deputy Belton asked: "What will we do with the land?" My answer is that every acre of our land can be used more profitably than any acre of agricultural land in the world.
Now, now.
Very well. I will get away from that. I will have an opportunity of discussing it on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. Let us confine ourselves to the price of wheat. Wheat is going to cost the public of this country £2 a barrel. Deputies should face up to the inevitable consequence of what is enshrined in this Bill—that what actually is going to happen is that the price of wheat is going to be forced up and this will be followed by a terrible increase in the cost of bread. I warn Deputies that great evils will ensue for the most defenceless section of the community.
Who?
The bread consumers— the people who are the poorest in the community.
Are not the farmers the poorest in the community?
As they say in the theological thesis secundum quid. The people who will pay more are the people who depend most on bread for their food, and the Government having forced up the price of bread——
To an economic level.
An economic level is the price that will have to be paid to enable the grower to make a profit after paying a decent wage.
It is going up to an economic level.
Stop a minute. When that comes everybody in this country is going into growing wheat. When the Government gives an economic price the people of the country will all go into growing wheat, because they can get an economic price for nothing else. That is, a price that yields them a profit and that will enable them to pay wages. Everybody will go into wheat-growing then, and you will have an enormous surplus which the Government will have to dispose of, and the taxpayer will have to find the money for the loss. Then you will have the position Deputy Smith rejoices in now in the case of butter. We will be charging our own people 10d. for the 2lb. loaf in order to provide the English people with the same class of loaf at one penny. That is what is happening now in the case of butter. We are charging our own people 1/5 a lb. in order to supply the English people with butter at 10d. a lb.
Nonsense.
Is it not true?
It is the height of nonsense.
There is nothing about butter in this Bill.
No, but you are going to do precisely the thing that is being done in the case of butter. You will charge the people of this country a big price for the loaf and you will be shipping the surplus to England to provide a cheap loaf for the people of England. That is what you are going to do.
If we cannot grow wheat what can we do?
There are means whereby we could make this country the richest country in the world. There are means whereby we could pay the labourers of this country at least as good a wage as they are paid in Worcester, Leicester and the English shires. Until we change our outlook altogether we will not be able to do that. Do not imagine that you can do to-day something that may be foolish but which will have a kind of feather-headed appeal to some silly prejudice that the people nurse in their minds. Do not imagine that you can do this sort of thing without later on reaping the whirlwind. We know that Fianna Fáil hopes to gather to itself some popularity in more ways than one. Those who will come after them will have to clean up the mess. I do not imagine I will move the Fianna Fáil Party by an appeal or exhortation not to make this mess too great. But I do say this: "Do not make such a mess that one day we will not be able to clear up."
Why say "we"?
Eleven thousand votes lost in Galway. That is why I say "we," but I will not go into that matter now.
We were well able to afford 11,000 votes.
Some farmers in Galway were being ruined by Cumann na nGaedheal.
I would like to see this measure considered on the merits. I would like Deputies would consider to where this is going to lead. I know there is very valuable work being done in the way of producing best grade seed for wheat, barley, oats and other crops in Glasnevin. Does the Minister now think that the time has come——
Dr. Ryan
On this section?
Does not the Minister think that the time has come when his powers under this section might profitably be used to guide the people along to the most profitable class of cereal to cultivate? I invite the Minister to consider that aspect of the matter.
Dr. Ryan rose.
Is the Minister to conclude?
Dr. Ryan
No. Deputy Dillon has suggested that we will charge 10d. a loaf here to our own people and send the loaf across to John Bull for one penny. The Deputy is more optimistic about wheat growing in this country than I am. If I thought that we could produce enough wheat in this country to satisfy our own wants, I would be satisfied. I do not know whether we might exceed that. I think perhaps the position held out was that we should only grow wheat because it would pay its way, wages and so on.
Why not grow pineapples?
Dr. Ryan
Yes. We could grow many things: "If we do," says Deputy Dillon, "great evils will ensue for the poorer classes of the community.""Great evils will ensue," says Deputy Dillon, "if you grow wheat instead of going back to the bullock and the ranch and farm-yard manure." Why does Deputy Dillon hold that wheat is an uneconomic crop grown in this country while, in other countries, farmers can grow it and get an economic price for it when they sell it? I never can understand from the Opposition what they mean by an uneconomic crop. I suppose they mean something that can be grown cheaper by another country. If that is the case we should grow nothing, because nothing that we can grow will be economic and give economic results according to Deputy Dillon's standard.
We are getting 12/6 for calf skins.
Dr. Ryan
Yes, and we could get them cheaper from other countries. We could get mutton, beef, cattle and so on cheaper from other countries.
What brings the German buyers here then?
Dr. Ryan
We brought the German buyers here by a trade treaty we made with Germany. The Deputy knows, or should know—and I am sure he will claim he does know, because there is nothing that one could mention that he does not claim to know—that beef could be got for a penny a lb. from another country.
There is not a word about beef or meat of any kind in this section.
Dr. Ryan
Let us get back to the section then. This section does not prevent the bounty being paid to the miller if the full price will be given to the farmer for what he supplies. I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill that there is nothing to prevent any Government, either the present or any other Government, from paying the bounty to the miller instead of to the farmer. I said in the debate on the Second Reading that we were not going to do that. Even so Deputy O'Sullivan says we are trying to conceal this tax. I am pointing out that we are going to make the consumer pay the full price of the bounty. Still we are told we are trying to conceal it, which seems to me a most extraordinary thing, and a very extraordinary position.
This Bill would have been brought in no matter what the Minister for Finance would have done with regard to the bounty being paid, because it was felt that when the farmer brought his wheat to the miller and got only two-thirds or three-fourths of the price of his wheat, and had to wait three or four months for his money, it was a hardship to the farmer. This Bill was brought in to ensure that the full price would be paid to the farmer when he sold his wheat. Apart from that, the Minister for Finance took the decision of having the bounty on wheat passed on to the consumer in the future. There is nothing to prevent this Government or any other Government from paying the bounty to the miller instead of having it paid as in the past.
Would that be in addition to the fixed price?
Dr. Ryan
No. The miller would pay the fixed price. We could give the miller part of that by way of bounty if it was considered that the consumer should get bread from wheat grown at an uneconomic price as Deputy Dillon wants. Three or four years ago wheat was imported at 33/- a barrel. Now it could be imported at 13/- or 14/- a barrel according to quality. We feel our farmers cannot grow wheat at 13/- or 14/- a barrel and we have put down a minimum price that must be paid; whether that minimum price should be increased or not I do not know. So far as I am concerned it will have nothing to do with the elections such as the promises given by the Party opposite had four years ago. The people can see through that kind of thing as they have seen through Deputy Dillon.
To the tune of 11,000 votes in Galway!
And to the tune of 78 Deputies here in this House, for Fianna Fáil.
Dr. Ryan
The position when this legislation was brought in first was that a bounty was offered for the growing of wheat more or less as an experiment, although I think we were convinced that the experiment would succeed. It was quite obvious that if a big amount of wheat was grown it would have to be financed in a different way. Surely no one can object to paying the Irish farmer what he is entitled to get for the wheat he grows, and no one can object to that being passed on to the price of flour and bread. If people object to that they must object to everything that occurs in that way—to the price of butter, bacon, beef, eggs, cabbage. You can get cabbage abroad cheaper than here, and potatoes too.
We could do with a potato subsidy now, and on cabbage too.
Dr. Ryan
If we were to follow the logic of Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Sullivan, we should confine all these things to taxation. If we did so, then eventually the figure would reach £1,500,000 if the present prices remained. I do not know what it would reach if all the things—vegetables and so on—were included, but it would be something like £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, maybe more, and that would have to be raised by taxation. That is suggested by a Party who object to the present taxation. They are going to give old age pensions at 65—at least during the Galway elections they said they were. They are going to derate agricultural land. They are going to bring down taxation and yet finance all this out of taxation instead of putting it on the consumer. It is no wonder they are getting on in the way they are, when they try to fool the people with that sort of stuff, because everybody knows it is the grossest nonsense.
Eleven thousand people in Galway did not seem to think so.
Dr. Ryan
What is this 11,000 he is talking about?
Ask Deputy Donnelly. He knows all about it.
We could afford to give you 20,000 and beat you. That is the important point.
People are learning.
They are getting to know you.
Dr. Ryan
The fixed price works out from 23/6 to 26/-. That is the average price. It is higher or lower according to the bushel weight. The highest possible price is 27/-.
What was the average bushel weight last year?
Dr. Ryan
60 lbs.
There were some 64 lb. weight.
Dr. Ryan
The average is something over 60.
Will the Minister say what is the weight of the wheat for which 23/6 will be paid?
Dr. Ryan
Has the Deputy got the Bill? 60 lb. per bushel. I was making the point when I was interrupted that we are fixing as the average price 23/6 to 26/-. That is not an exorbitant price as far as the consumer is concerned.
What is the average bushel weight over the last ten years?
Dr. Ryan
We have not got that.
It would not be 58 lbs.
Dr. Ryan
We have only got two years' experience under this scheme. If I might be allowed to proceed, I want to point out that 23/6 to 26/-, the average price, is not an exorbitant price for the consumer. Up to about two years ago we were importing wheat at a minimum of 33/- per barrel. As a matter of fact, a few years before that it was up to 50/- per barrel. At the time this question was considered by the Economic Committee it was held by some of the experts who came before the Committee that wheat was at the lowest level it could possibly reach at that time and that it was bound to go up again. Of course, the experts were wrong.
How much was grown here then?
Dr. Ryan
Twenty-one thousand acres.
At 30/-?
Dr. Ryan
Not at 30/-. What we held at the Economic Committee was that they should be guaranteed 30/- and that they should be given a guaranteed market. We wanted to get a guaranteed price and a guaranteed market in order to get wheat grown. There is no doubt that that is all that was required. I have said that this is not an exorbitant price to the consumer. On the other hand, Deputy Belton and other Deputies have raised the question as to how that price could be considered with regard to the grower. Costings were made out at that time and later on, and I think that the average yield of wheat per acre was made out at the time to be something like 14 cwt. of millable wheat and that on that yield there would be a profit on the growing of wheat. I have not got the figures but I know that the average yield was returned at 14 cwt. of millable wheat at the price stated here. The experience during the last two years is that the average yield has been 20 cwt. of millable wheat to the acre. The profits therefore must be considerable because there is at least six cwt. representing a profit according to the calculations made at that time.
These theoretical figures, however, are not much use. The farmer, his labourers, his sons may be out ploughing, harrowing and working so many hours in producing the crop on one day and then a wet day comes and he cannot do anything. Yet he must be paid for that wet day if he is to live. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to give the costings for any particular crop because of the time that is lost—the long evenings in winter, the wet days and the free days that a man may take off to attend a ploughing match or something of that kind. All these things must be covered and they are not covered in the costings. The only real test of the price which should be paid for wheat is whether we can get the crop grown. If we do not get the crop grown, we will have to raise the price so that farmers may get more quickly into it. I think Deputies will agree that the only real test as to whether the growers are getting a sufficient price is the fact that they will or will not grow it. I hold that it is extremely difficult to get your costings in a theoretical way. If they grow it at this particular price, this price will be continued. If they do not grow it at this price, we may have to increase the price. Whatever Deputy Dillon may say about the pressure that is going to be brought to bear on them, these things are not going to count in the least. If we do not get our full requirements grown, the price will have to be increased.
The Minister says that the Government are going to pass the subsidy on to the consumer. Will the Minister deny that he said in this House in 1928 that the farmers of this country produced 80 per cent. of its wealth and that, therefore, they paid 80 per cent. taxation?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Is it not a fact that the farmers are paying 80 per cent. of the subsidy now?
Dr. Ryan
We are taking it off taxation now. The Deputy must realise that.
That is all humbug. The people are actually paying it.
Dr. Ryan
The subsidy was taken out of taxation up to this year, but now it is not going to be paid out of taxation. I have met the Deputy's point on that.
You had the same argument with regard to the coal-cattle pact. How can you say in this House that it is England pays the tax?
Dr. Ryan
I never spoke on it.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said the other day that it was a tax for the purpose of getting revenue.
That does not affect the question of who is to pay it.
Will the Minister deal with the question of a small increase in price for stronger wheat?
Dr. Ryan
That can be postponed until next year.
This section may be opposed on different grounds. One ground is that of the cost it entails and another is that it does not offer any additional advantage to the producer. The Minister thinks that the consumer cannot legitimately object to an increase in the price of flour. If there is any reason why anybody should not object, it certainly should not apply to the consumer. He has more reason to object than anybody because this additional impost is put upon him in regard to one commodity, when he is getting no relief to compensate for that from any direction. This is an additional impost on the most vital commodity which he consumes. One might derive some little satisfaction from this section if it offered any pecuniary advantage to the producer, but there is none whatever. In fact, if anything there is going to be some little reduction in the price, because the bulk of the wheat is going to be taken before the Christmas period and there will be very little of it taken afterwards. The price will work out, as far as I can see, at an average of about 23/6 per barrel, the figure mentioned, and that certainly is not more than the producer got last year. Deputy Belton seemed to be under a misapprehension as to the objects of the Bill. He said that if the price of bread was put up it was because an economic price must be paid to the producer. That is not the reason it is being put up. It is not to pay an economic price, because the farmer is not getting anything nearer an economic price under this Bill than he was getting before.
What is the reason?
The reason is definitely to change the system by putting on to the consumer what he was not bearing previously in order to relieve the Exchequer of the sum which it was contributing. In other words, it is to camouflage the fact that the people are paying in some way or another. The farmer is certainly not going to get any advantage out of this. Let us see what disadvantage it will be to the consumer. It is putting directly on to him something which he paid in part indirectly before. It is going to make him bear the full cost of the subsidy and also any extras outside the subsidy which the millers will have to bear and which the Exchequer bore last year.
Perhaps the Exchequer was very wise in getting out of it this year because there are additions to the burden which had not to be borne last year. The millers will bear the full burden now and they will pass it on to the consumer. Under Sections 6 and 9, and amendment No. 1 which the Minister introduced to-day, there will be additional costs put on the millers outside of the direct subsidy which they will have to bear and they will pass these additional costs on to the consumer. We have, first, the provision of storage accommodation, drying plant, etc. Are the millers such philanthropists that they are going to bear the whole cost of these? Of course, they are not. They are going to make the consumer pay.
That is another matter.
It will be included in the price to the consumer. Our objection to this is that the consumer will have to pay not only the minimum price, whatever it is, with the subsidy included, but the costs imposed by these other sections of the Bill. I did not speak on these other sections because I thought these matters could be more aptly discussed on this.
Even if you retain the subsidy system these costs will have to be borne by the miller.
These costs might possibly have been borne by the miller, but the subsidy would not have to be borne by the miller if this Bill had not been introduced, but by the Government. They now enter into the question of what the extra cost to the consumer will be.
They are quite apart from Section 11.
They are not. Our objection to this Bill is the additional cost imposed on the consumer. The Chair can rule me out of order if necessary. It is immaterial to me whether I raise this matter on this section or later on. There is an additional impost put on the millers in connection with the provision of additional storage. I think that will not be disputed by any Deputy. There will also be an additional cost put on the millers by reason of the fact that they will have to purchase the bulk of the wheat before December. In other words, they will have to pay for a certain amount of moisture. The wheat will be lighter when dried out, and the loss caused by the extraction of the moisture will again be put on to the consumer. Then there are the costs incidental to the amendment introduced by the Minister to-day. I am not speaking as an advocate of the millers. Like all the rest of the manufacturing community they are well able to take care of themselves. It is because they are so well able to take care of themselves that I know they are going to pass on all these costs to the unfortunate consumer.
The Minister said that some Deputies on this side predicted that wheat could never be grown here—that there was no possibility of a surplus. When these proposals were first brought before the House I was the first to use the word surplus. I was vigorously attacked by several Deputies when I suggested that there might possibly be a surplus of wheat if the inducement offered was big enough. The inducement has not been big enough yet. In fact, the inducement would not have materially affected the amount of wheat grown but for other circumstances. There are two possible ways by which you might make people grow wheat. One is to make the subsidy big enough to induce people to give up something else and go into wheat. The other is to make the production of other agricultural products so uneconomic that people will grasp at wheat growing as the best way out of a desperate position. That is what has happened, and that accounts for the extra wheat grown. Everything else was so far away from being produced economically——
It seems to be far away from the section under discussion.
I was answering the Minister on that point. Certainly nobody can argue that 23/6 is an economic price to give to the producer for wheat.
Now you are getting to it.
The Minister mentioned something about 30/-. We all know that the price of wheat reached 30/- in this country within the last ten years. That is a proof of what I have been saying, that we have grown wheat now because it is more economic to grow it than other things. The farmers did not grow wheat then to sell at 30/- because they could grow other things which would pay them better than wheat at 30/-. Other things would pay them better now than wheat at 30/- if they were allowed to develop them as they should have been allowed. Deputy Belton said that this might perhaps lead up to bidding. I hope there will not be any general bidding amongst the different Parties —that the Parties will combine to see, if wheat is to be grown at all, that the farmers will get an economic price for it. I hope this section will be opposed and that Deputies of all Parties will oppose it. I hope the Labour Party will oppose it because of the additional cost which it will put on the unfortunate consumer, particularly the consumer who is least able to bear it.
What about butter?
We will come to butter next week. I hope it will be opposed by those people who are anxious to see wheat grown, so that the farmers will have an opportunity of growing it at an economic price, because 23/6 is not an economic price.
Who is going to pay the economic price?
That is a matter for those who are advocating the system. It is a ground, if you like, for opposing the section. There are various grounds on which this section should be opposed and I hope other Deputies will speak on one side or another. So far no Deputy on the Government Benches has spoken.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 26th June.