Essential Supplies—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that the Government should define the probable future situation in regard to essential supplies and indicate what steps are contemplated for their equitable distribution in the event of acute shortage developing.—(Deputy Cosgrave).

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

When I spoke last night, I reminded the House that petrol users in this country had had the advantage of a reasonably satisfactory supply of petrol ever since the outbreak of the war and that it was only on Christmas Eve that any dislocation occurred in the arrangements which up to that date had been effective in providing that supply. The dislocation was due, as I presume every reasonable person must be aware, to arrangements outside our control. The Minister for Supplies, nor no other agency, could at that stage have done anything which would have obviated the consequences which followed from action taken outside our territory; and yet this one occurrence, this one interruption in the accustomed ways of life of the petrol users—not of the community as a whole —has been held up here as an example of ineptitude which could not be condoned. I suggest to the House and to the country that this is not the spirit in which our present problems ought to be approached because, so far as petrol is concerned, I think there is no foundation for that charge and that no reasonable person would for a moment consider that the Minister for Supplies had been inept and ineffective in dealing with this question of petrol supplies.

As I said yesterday, while the war was raging around us, when the high seas were thick with the crews of shipwrecked vessels, when people elsewhere were looking enviously at our position, we had a supply of petrol, day in and day out, to meet the reasonable needs of our people, not merely for their business enterprises but even for their amenities, their enjoyments and their pleasures. I think there is no other community in Europe in regard to whom that could have been said. Accordingly, when this temporary curtailment in our petrol ration did occur, I should have thought that responsible people in this State should have come forward and, instead of painting the picture in gloomier terms than were justified, instead of criticising the Government and the policy which has been responsible for the maintenance of our supplies here in the unmeasured terms in which they were referred to by Deputy Costello and Deputy Dillon, they would have said: "Look here, we think this breakdown is due to such-and-such an arrangement and we suggest that in order to avoid a breakdown of this sort in the future you ought to consider this other way of dealing with the problem."

In present circumstances they ought to come forward—and I think that will be the view of the country as a whole —with more helpful, constructive suggestions. We could then have approached this debate in the spirit in which, I should like to say, it was opened by the Leader of the Opposition, and in the spirit in which, I think, it would have been conducted by Deputies who wished to be helpful at this juncture and anxious to assist us to deal with the problems of the country as a whole. Unfortunately, we have not got any such suggestions.

There was, in the course of the debate, a reference made to the question of storage. Deputy Dillon suggested that proposals had been submitted to the Government, by some interests whom he did not name, for the erection of storage which would have enabled us to hold reserve stocks in this country and so prevent this temporary dislocation. So far as I personally am aware—and I say it without qualification—no proposals of that sort have been submitted to me.

Mr. Belton

Could you not buy petrol and store it?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is unaware of the fact that one of the principles upon which the ration is based is that even if you had the wherewithal to buy your full demands, your usual suppliers may not give you your full demand.

Mr. Belton

Is that the situation?

Mr. MacEntee

That has been the situation since the war started. That is the reason why it was necessary to introduce a rationing system at all. Yet the Government is held up to odium, told it is inept and ineffective, because the arrangements made by our suppliers of petrol to deliver the ration of petrol to the country have broken down.

Let us get a little further back in regard to this question of storage. I should like to know what interests put up this proposal. What are the interests who have approached Deputy Dillon in regard to this matter? We do know that in 1937-38, the Minister for Industry and Commerce of that time was making every effort to have an oil refinery erected in this country which would have put us, in my belief, in a somewhat better position in regard to our supplies of petrol. I am not going to say that it would have wholly safeguarded us in that matter but, at any rate, it would have put us in a much better position. We know how bitterly his efforts in that direction were opposed by certain interests in this country and how they were ridiculed here in the Dáil. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, those who did not want an oil refinery here in this country have for the time being succeeded in their efforts to prevent it. I should like to know whether those people to whom Deputy Dillon refers and who, he says, were prepared to put up oil storage in this country, were the people who succeeded in preventing the Minister for Industry and Commerce erecting an oil refinery in this country, who opposed the erection of that refinery in order that they might keep control of the petrol situation? I should like to know whether it is upon the basis of a statement emanating from that quarter that Deputy Dillon virtually accused the Minister for Supplies of misleading the Dáil and the country? If these statements have emanated from the quarters which, as I have said before, prevented us from erecting an oil refinery, what guarantee have we that even if this proposition was ever put before the Government, and even if it had been accepted, that storage would have been erected and that even if it were erected, it would be any fuller than the existing storage is at the North Wall?

I am sorry the debate has taken this strain. I should have much preferred that it had been pursued in another way, but these utterances of which I complain are some of the statements that were made yesterday. The debate has been shaped by two or three speeches made yesterday and, unfortunately, since these allegations will no doubt be broadcast throughout the country we have the unpleasant responsibility—because it is unpleasant in the present circumstances—to reply in the strain in which I am now talking and to show how hollow were the criticisms which were launched against the Government yesterday.

Apart altogether from this question of storage, the underlying complaint in the course of the debate was that the petrol ration had been curtailed without due notice. It seems to me that responsible Deputies who talk in that way must be living, as I think Deputy Costello implied yesterday, in a fool's paradise. What sort of notice do you think the Minister for Supplies gets when a tanker is going to be sunk? Does anybody think that before these ships are sent to the bottom of the sea somebody wirelesses the Department of Supplies: "There is a ship going down carrying a cargo for your shores. You had better make other arrangements in order to ensure that supplies of that commodity will not be curtailed for your people without notice"? Yet, that seems to be the implication running throughout the whole of this debate, that when there is an interruption in the organisation which is bringing commodities to our shores, we ought to know about that dislocation before it actually occurs and that, only when it is impending, we ought to give the people notice that a tanker is going to be sunk and that they had better cut down supplies of petrol. Of course this is not the first tanker that was sunk, Deputy Costello will say. There were other tankers sunk. Are we to be told that we ought to have communicated to the people very much earlier, by curtailing supplies, that ships bringing commodities to these shores were being sunk and that it might be eventually necessary for us to curtail supplies even more drastically?

In that connection, I should like to remind the House again that the burden of Deputy Costello's speech was this, that by reason of the fact that the supply of petrol had to be restricted men were now going to be thrown out of employment. What I want to know from Deputy Costello is this: whether he suggests that, instead of waiting until it became absolutely necessary to curtail petrol supplies, with all the miserable consequences which he so strongly represented to the House, we ought to have started to curtail supplies much earlier and thrown men out of employment before it was absolutely essential to do so? Because that seemed to be his suggestion—that instead of waiting until there was nothing else to do except curtail supplies, we ought to have curtailed them earlier. If we had curtailed them earlier the same consequences would have followed. There would have been increased unemployment in this country. But then, as I said last night, I am certain we would have been told by the Opposition that we had cut down those supplies and thrown men out of employment before it was absolutely essential to do so. In the dilemma which confronted the Minister for Supplies I think the reasonable, the just, the humane thing to do was not to have curtailed supplies until it became absolutely essential to do so. It has become essential to do so now. We had better face up to that fact.

One of the unfortunate consequences of this debate about petrol and of the speeches made in this House in regard to this matter of imported supplies particularly, is that those who made speeches like Deputy Dillon and Deputy Costello are deceiving and misleading the people. They are making them forget that in regard to this question of overseas supplies we are in fact living from hand to mouth and that no system of rationing or reserve of stocks which you have built up will obviate that in a greater or less degree. We had a very substantial reserve of wheat—a full six months' supply for this country. Yet, in five or six months from the present date, we are looking forward to a period when, if we do not eke out those supplies and stretch them to their limit, it may be difficult for a number of people in this country to get a sufficient supply of bread. But we have started in regard to wheat a good six months in advance. Yet, in regard to this question of the essential supplies of bread for the people we are living, within that margin of supplies available, from hand to mouth. If the ships which are on the seas for us or the ships under charter to us reach us, the position will not be so bad. If by any chance the same fate befalls them as befell the tanker which was carrying petrol, the situation will be much worse. We can do nothing except to try to look forward in regard to this matter, make the best provision we can in relation to it, and endeavour in respect to these commodities which can be easily and equitably rationed to spread the inconvenience or the hardship over the greatest possible number of people and to minimise it for us all.

Now, as I say, it is unpleasant to have to make a speech of this sort in the present circumstances. But surely the bitterest things which could be said would almost be justified by some of the suggestions made in regard to the petrol problem yesterday. We were told, for instance, by Deputy Dillon that there was no need for having three services plying to Dalkey—the trams, the buses, and the railway. It was pointed out to Deputy Dillon that if he had that view in regard to this matter he might have mentioned it to the Minister for Supplies privately. It was also pointed out to Deputy Dillon that, even if you were to discontinue the buses running to Dalkey, you would not influence the question of the petrol supplies for the rest of the community one iota.

General Mulcahy

Will the Minister deal with Cork, Cobh and Galway?

Mr. MacEntee

They are being dealt with.

General Mulcahy

In what way?

Mr. MacEntee

By endeavouring to curtail the service of petrol-using buses there. I am confining myself to the question of the Dalkey buses. What benefit or advantage would it be to take off the Dalkey buses? It would inconvenience a considerable number of people, because those buses do not run by the same routes as the trains and the trams. Dalkey is no longer an isolated village. There might have been something in Deputy Dillon's suggestion in the days when Dalkey was altogether cut off from the City of Dublin. But, there are people living along every yard of the roads that stretch from the centre of the city to Dalkey, and living on the bye-roads and link roads that open off those roads. It is through these that the buses pass. It is to accommodate the people who live on these roads, who earn their living in the city, and who are compelled to live outside because of the fact that they cannot get living accommodation within the area of the old City of Dublin that these services have to be get into town to earn their living and to help to keep the community going and the country as a whole going, because the efforts of every one of us are interlinked in regard to that matter, are going to be inconvenienced if they find it difficult to get to town and to pursue their ordinary productive activities.

Apart altogether from that, you are going to have the drivers and conductors of the buses unemployed. You are going to have them thrown out of employment without any corresponding benefit or advantage being conferred on any other interest. The fact that buses using fuel oil are going to be put off the road is not going to make it any easier for the employees of the garages and the chauffeurs of private persons, about whom Deputy Costello was very much concerned, as we are all bound to be very much concerned. You are simply going to deprive one group of men of a livelihood without, as I said, giving others a chance to restore themselves to their old positions.

The other question mentioned in the course of the debate was the problem of our bread supply. Deputy Costello was again very emphatic in regard to the matter. I do not know why it should be necessary for Deputies to speak, as some of them did yesterday, in hair-raising terms about black bread. I know that people elsewhere have to eat bread of a colour and of a texture which does not appeal to the great majority of the people here, but they have to eat that bread because of the fact that it was not possible for them—perhaps, to some extent because of inherited tastes and inherited prejudices—but I think mainly because it was not possible for them to get the sort of fine, attractive, snowy-white bread that we are accustomed to. They managed to live, however, and to build up their national strength on that bread, and they managed to subsist as a people, and, if it becomes necessary for us to mix some cereal with our wheat, it is not a patriotic thing for Deputies, responsible representatives of the people, to go out and try, by creating or stimulating a prejudice in the minds of our people, to make the problem of securing a bread supply for all our people a much more difficult one. That is what was done yesterday.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is not giving way to Deputy Corry.

Mr. Corry

Very well.

Mr. MacEntee

That is the most serious development in the present situation. It is not a position which can be rectified by the purchase of ships. It is not easy to get ships in the first place, particularly when bidding against the most powerful buyer in the market. When you have got ships to the number you require, it is not easy to get crews for them, nor is it easy to build up the operating organisation for them, and lastly, when you have the ships you have no assurance whatsoever that they will be permitted to keep the seas. We must not in this connection forget that this island is in the midst of a blockaded area, that accordingly we may suffer, as we have suffered serious shipping losses from time to time. In the purchase of ships, therefore, we might be casting our bread upon the waters at some risk, the grave and serious risk that it might not return, and that risk will be a large one measured in millions of pounds.

When I look at the opposition which we had to face, in increasing the area under wheat from about 20,000 acres in 1932 to 300,000 acres in 1939-40; when I recall the opposition which we had to overcome when we were building three additional sugar factories, which have made this country independent of imported sugar supplies; when I remember the criticism which used to attend every effort which the then Minister for Industry and Commerce was making to get the cement industry established; and when I recall how the proposal to establish an oil refinery was opposed virtually by every section in the House, except those on the Government Benches, I shudder at what might have been said if we had come here asking for the millions that would be necessary to make us independent of foreign shipping.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Is this in furtherance of the unity campaign in the country?

Mr. MacEntee

We should have to say that the operation of deep-sea ships was a highly specialised business, a highly venturesome business, a highly risky business, a business which, as far as I can ascertain from the most searching inquiry, very few people in this country had any practical experience of. In these circumstances, I think we would very speedily have had Deputy Dillon adding ships to beet, wheat and peat, in the litany of his objurgations. I do not know either that, if we had taken all these risks in face of opposition, we would have any more thanks in the end of it all than we have got when, by our efforts, the country has been made wholly secure in regard to sugar, much better off in regard to wheat and perhaps not so badly off in regard to fuel.

I am sorry, as I have stated, that my speech had to take this tone. After all, the speeches of those who have to answer criticism are conditioned by the nature of the criticism. This Government, which has been accused of ineptitude, this Government which Deputy Dillon has told us tried to sell a gold brick made of the clay of deceit to the people, this Government which the Deputy told us dealt with the petrol position first in a spirit of panic and then in a spirit of fraud, has been responsible for increasing the wheat acreage from 20,000, in 1932, to 300,000, in 1939-40. It has been responsible for making this country independent in sugar supplies, independent in respect of an essential building material, cement, and virtually independent in regard to textiles; and the only inconvenience that our people have suffered through the whole course of the war, thanks to the organisation which the Minister for Supplies has built up, and the service he has rendered to the country, was that at Christmas, by reason of action outside our control, it was necessary for us to curtail supplies of petrol.

I think, in the light of these circumstances, it would have been much better, if, instead of Deputy Dillon getting up and putting the debate on that line, he had followed the example of his leader, and dealt with the terms of the motion on the Order Paper, which asks us to indicate to the Dáil the probable future situation in regard to essential supplies and to indicate what steps are contemplated for their equitable distribution in the event of acute shortage developing. Of course, if they had approached that, I presume they would have put to the people and to us their views as to how these problems should be dealt with.

I am not saying that the major responsibility is theirs; the major and primary responsibility in this matter undoubtedly is the responsibility of the Government and the Administration of the day. However, those who are members of this House, particularly those who have the concomitant responsibility of helping us out with their suggestions and of criticising us where we go astray, ought to come here and say: "This is how we think the petrol situation ought to be dealt with; this is how we think the problem of bread supplies had best be dealt with in the interests of everybody; and, having heard the statement by the Minister for Supplies in regard to tea, this is how we think the difficulties, which we understand exist, should be dealt with and remedied."

In that connection they would have had to take, perhaps, the responsibility of suggesting the rationing of certain commodities, or of outlining a scheme for such rationing, but those things could have been dealt with and discussed with us in a spirit of mutual helpfulness. The Minister for Supplies, who has examined this question, might have been able to show how a scheme for the rationing of tea might have broken down and proved inadequate. The Minister for Supplies might have shown how difficult it would be to devise a workable scheme for rationing bread if, as God forbid, it should become necessary to contemplate the introduction of such a scheme. He might have pointed out how we might eke out our bread supplies by supplies of other foodstuffs, and all this would have been of great public benefit.

If the debate had been conducted in that tone and developed in that spirit, it would have been of much benefit and advantage to the country as a whole; but, as it developed yesterday, I do not think it served any purpose except to enable members on both sides of the House to score off each other. Because we all love our country, I regret that very much indeed.

Mr. Hickey

That is just what happened.

Professor O'Sullivan

There were times, I confess, when my heart bled on account of the violence which the Minister for Industry and Commerce was doing to himself in making the kind of speech he has just made. Again and again he complained that that was not the kind of speech he would have liked to make: he would have liked to make a constructive speech. He condemned—quite rightly —in the closing sentences the speeches from his side of the House, though he imagined that he was condemning those from this side of the House. Though there were a number of things he apparently could have told us, if, as he put it, Deputy Dillon had not spoken, instead of giving us this information he preferred to do violence to his feelings, to make the speech he did not wish to make, to go away from the terms of the motion—a reasonable motion as he confessed, and a helpful motion. Instead of addressing himself in his hour-and-a-half speech to the motion, what did he do? He indulged in cheap debating points that might be all right in an assembly of school boys, that might be pardonable at another period even in this Assembly, but for which there was no excuse to-day.

None whatever?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Hickey

Because of the lack of shipping.

Mr. Morrissey

That is serious enough.

Professor O'Sullivan

I hope that, so far as the effort the Department is making to induce the country to grow more wheat, more foodstuffs, the country will respond to that effort. I hope they will take the situation more seriously than Ministers are taking it. I hope that, in the national interest, no effort will be spared to grow as much in this country as we possibly can in this crisis. I hope that on the part of the people there will be that full co-operation, but I put it to the House that, in return, there ought to be certain co-operation with the country on the part of the Government. We had no evidence of that, and I hope it is not too late to appeal to the Government to take this situation seriously, to set themselves down, and not wait until it is too late, to devise plans and machinery. I do not want paper plans. I want the actual machinery that will be ready to work when the crisis arises, as we have been told by the Minister that it may arise. We have been told that a desperate situation confronts us and that a more desperate situation may confront us, and I appeal to the Government not to let things slip from week to week, and month to month, until the more desperate situation is upon us, but to set about the drawing up of plans and the getting ready of machinery now.

I do not want, as I said, a paper plan. A very respected friend of mine, coming from a particular part of the country, told me with regard to another matter:

"We have a splendid plan in this particular area. Everything is worked out to the last detail, but, unfortunately, there is not a single man who knows exactly what he is going to do. The plan, however, is perfect."

I do not want that. That may be necessary as a preliminary, but I do want an effort now to get the machinery worked out and to get it as ready as possible to meet this contingency which is pointed out to us by the Government and by authorised spokesmen of the Government through the country. I think it would be fair to the Government themselves and to the country if they took that matter seriously and if they ask the country to co-operate, if they ask farmers and others to make sacrifices in certain directions, which I hope the farmers will make, the Government, on their side, should make their contribution to that effort. I was hoping that, as a result of the opportunity given to the Government by this motion, the country would be convinced of the necessity of making an effort, but I was also hoping that the country would get evidence from the Government that they were making a similar effort. That has to do, to a certain extent, with the past. Let us turn to the future.

Will the Government now try to do their part—every Department of Government? If they are asking the country to do all these things, the example should come from the heads of the different Departments. Leave aside the unfortunate speech we listened to to-day. Leave aside the speech of the Minister which we listened to yesterday, and let the Government really make an effort. No matter what lack of foresight they were guilty of in the past, they should not be incapable of making, at least, an effort to do something in the situation in which the country finds itself. We have helped the Government in every way on the question of national defence. We have not discussed in the House the money required for defence, although we could have discussed it. We deliberately refrained from doing so. We were fully alive to our responsibilities, but we think that the Government, on their side, should be alive to their responsibilities. That is why I was so profoundly disappointed when listening to the Minister for Supplies yesterday. I must say that the speech of his colleague to-day simply shocked me. I admit that, at times, a person could not help being rather amused at it until one remembered that this is not a time to be amused at anything concerned with the essentials of the life of the people.

I hope more foodstuffs will be forthcoming. It is quite true that in a situation such as that with which we are faced, it does not depend on the Government or on the people of this country whether or not ships come in here. The Government are now trying to get ships. Leave aside the question as to whether this is the proper time to try to get ships and the lack of foresight which is involved in that. Even if the Government got the ships, they could not guarantee that supplies would come in here. No matter what flag the ships sail under, they come in under protection which we cannot give and which Great Britain gives. Even with that protection, there is no guarantee that they can come in. Therefore, the country must make an effort. When we look at what has happened in the last couple of months— that means what was not being done in the previous months—we are uneasy and we should like some spokesman from the Government side to indicate to the country and to the House some reason for hope. I do not want the Government to paint a glowing picture. I want them to put before the country things as they are. I cannot say that the Ministers who spoke to-day and yesterday did that. I should like to have some indication from the Government that they were taking the situation seriously, and I hope it is not too late for some Minister to intervene in the debate and take up that particular line. It is with that appeal for a proper facing of the situation that I conclude my remarks. I put it to the House that the situation is much too serious—I may quote the words of a man speaking on behalf of the Minister and say: "Too desperate"—for the speeches we listened to yesterday from those responsible for the government of the country and for the maintenance of the normal life of the people.

Mr. Belton

This motion, which was expected to be of great service in disseminating information that the country needed, has not, in my opinion, come up to expectations, so far as the debate has proceeded. There is no doubt that, from whatever cause, the bombshell of a shortage of petrol around Christmas has subsequently alarmed the country. The matter has not been cleared up in this debate so far as it has gone. Commodities so essential to the economic life of the country as petrol and kindred products should be provided for, since we cannot produce them at home, by storing ample supplies to carry us over some fixed period. I accept the Government's statement that they cannot order or dictate the petrol position. But they should have made some provision by way of storage. If they could not do that, the country should have known the position before what happened at Christmas took place. What happened then was inevitable, judging by the small amount of information given here by Ministers. The Minister did not tell us what storage accommodation there is. He did not tell us whether, if that accommodation be inadequate, he is going to make it adequate for the future. To-day, it has come out that the petrol companies dictated the petrol position to our Government and that the storage we had was not filled to capacity.

If that is the true position, it goes a long way to exonerating the Government. But the country should have known that before. In one respect the Government cannot be exonerated. It should have regulated its supply to consumers so that even if the worst happened, some reasonable notice could be given to petrol users so that they would not be left on the road as petrol users were left on this occasion. I think it is inexcusable that the sinking of a tanker should have such immediate effect. I quite see that the Government could not prevent the sinking of the tanker. It is a contingency of war which nobody can prevent. They cannot foresee, but they must regulate their office so as to allow for such a contingency. That evidently was not done, and we have no assurance whatever for the future that petrol supplies will be any more certain than they have been. We are not told what the storage accommodation here is. We are not told why it has not been filled to capacity, if that is the true position. Is it because we had not adequate credits in the petrol-producing countries to pay for it, or is it that we had to pay through Britain and that Britain had enough to do to look after her own supplies? I think, even now, the true position should be stated. If that is not done what good is a guarantee now that essential services will get supplies of petrol, paraffin, kerosene, vaporising oils and lubricating oils? How can we rely on that? If steps are taken to produce all our foodstuffs for man and beast for the coming year, what guarantee have we that we can harvest them if we are depending on kerosene, paraffin and petrol to harvest them for us? The situation is very serious. I think it should be taken with more seriousness than has been shown in the political debate that has gone on here yesterday and to-day.

The other essential commodity is foodstuffs. In view of the motion that is to follow I do not intend to go into the details in regard to foodstuffs now. We are equally concerned with providing foodstuffs for both man and beast. If we are unable to keep up our exports of live stock and live-stock products we will not have the money to buy petrol or the other things that must be imported. Therefore, we have to produce the food for that live stock in order to keep up production. We are told that no ships are available. The Minister for Supplies admitted yesterday a shortage of credits. It has not been made clear whether it is the impossibility of getting ships or the shortage of credits to pay for those ships that is the real snag in the business. For the purposes of this discussion it does not matter which of them is the real cause. I accept the statement from a responsible Minister that we must regulate our economy now and for the immediate, and perhaps the distant future, on the assumption that we will get no ships to bring foodstuffs to this country. Therefore, we must ourselves produce them. We have to produce food for both man and beast in order to keep up our exports. It has not occurred, apparently, to the eloquent Minister for Industry and Commerce that in taking some of the offals and mixing it with the flour, he is reducing the supply of a very necessary and useful animal food. If we are increasing human food we are doing so at the expense of animal food. For those who perhaps are not so closely connected with the matter, this 70 per cent. extraction that has been spoken of means that out of roughly 100 tons of wheat 70 per cent. of flour was extracted prior to this crisis and, allowing for no waste—of course there is always a little waste—the remaining 30 per cent. came out in the form of bran and pollard that were not used for human food but were used for animal food. That was the 70 per cent. extraction. Now I think we are on the 80 or 85 per cent. extraction which means that out of 100 tons of wheat, 80 or 85 per cent. of flour, neglecting waste, will be extracted and only 20 or 15 per cent. will be in the form of offals. Therefore, we lose 20 or 15 per cent. of animal foodstuffs which, as I pointed out earlier, are absolutely necessary in order that we may keep up our exports. Having no ships to import that food, we have to rely entirely on producing it here. We are thrown back on our own resources. This debate should have concerned itself with how to utilise those resources in producing the food for man and beast which is necessary to enable us to live as a nation while we are so confined and besieged. It should not have been used as an occasion for making political debating points.

I frankly admit that the Government has done good national service by giving us a good jumping-off ground for increasing our wheat production to 100 per cent. of our requirements. It is a good thing that we are in a position to start from the point where we are producing 50 per cent. of our requirements. It is a good start, but it seems to me that the Ministers who have spoken are confusing the issue. They are afraid to face up to the real position. They are asking for a 100 per cent. production. Do they mean it? I do not think they do, because if they really want 100 per cent. production they can get it on terms. Those terms are not dictated by selfish interest but by the immutable laws of economy. If they face up to that position they will get it. The Government want not only to throw back the pollard and bran into the bread that we eat, but they want to tell us that it is better bread than we have been eating. A lunatic would not believe that. If it is better than what we have been eating, why have we not got the better bread when it could be got more cheaply than the 70 per cent. extraction?

Mr. Aiken

Because we were foolish.

Mr. Belton

The Minister can tell that to the marines. I know that in his heart he does not believe it.

Mr. Aiken

I do, of course.

Mr. Belton

If a white loaf and a black loaf were put in front of the Minister I know which he would eat.

Mr. Norton

Both?

Mr. Belton

I have not the least doubt as to which he would eat. I know which I would eat. Perhaps he would eat the white one and put the other under his arm.

Mr. Aiken

I have not eaten white bread for donkeys years. I am not so foolish.

Mr. Belton

The people of the country must be very foolish or the Government must not have looked after the interests of the poor if they have permitted a dear loaf to be handed out for the poor to consume instead of the cheap loaf which would contain more nourishment. There is something wrong somewhere. Those who can afford white bread buy it and use it everywhere, so there must be something to recommend it, and I take it that there is, notwithstanding what we are told by all those scientists who must have been hibernating up to now. They now come along and tell us: "Better have black bread than this white bread." I do not believe them, and the country does not believe them. I hope that the Minister for Agriculture or some Minister—it is more a matter for the Minister for Supplies— in fixing the amount of wheat that is required to be grown here, will say whether that is based upon the white loaf, the black loaf or the brown loaf. Different quantities will be required. Different areas will require to be put under cultivation. Which is it? We were told by the Minister for Supplies that we have plenty of sugar, and we have cement. Why have we not timber so that we can work the cement? Why have we not a store of petrol so that we can carry gravel to the building land that could be developed, as was foreshadowed in the Unemployment Act passed here before Christmas? Now we have cement, a surplus of it. Of course we have, because we have not the other commodities to use up the cement. What will it cost to bring gravel now to the point of using up that cement? The Government ought to know that the petrol position has thrown what we call the gravel men out of work, so that a surplus of cement really means that you have a surplus of that commodity because you have not enough of other commodities to use up the cement. That is really what it means. I should be glad to hear Deputy Dockrell on this matter, as I do not think many of those who have spoken about it up to the present are in close, actual, practical touch with the economic life of the country.

I would ask the two Ministers who are here—they are farmers—what they would think if they were farming in a big way, and were in a hurry to get through with their work, but in the morning they heard no noise from their lorries or their tractors, and the men they were paying came up to them and said: "Here, sir, we have no petrol. We have no paraffin?" What would they say? Would they not say: "Why are not the tanks full?" When the men replied: "There is none in the tanks, and we have got none to put in them," would they not sack them? Is not that the position in which the nation found itself in relation to petrol? When they expected to find the lorries ready, and everything buzzing, they found they had no petrol; the Minister for Supplies had shut it off. Why was there not some margin of security in storage, so that we would have a week's supply or a fortnight's supply on hand? The principle that applies to the simple workman—if he does not do his duty he is fired— should also apply to the Government if it does not do its duty. The Government is here on trial now to explain that. I have a perfectly open mind on this matter, but I would put it in that business way to the Minister. As I said a moment ago, the statement made by the Minister—when the Minister makes a statement I accept it, as I have no means of contradicting it— that the petrol companies would not fill all the storage that was here, has gone a long way towards explaining the position to me. If that is true, why did not the Minister tell the country that so that we would know the position?

We have plenty of cottons and woollens. I hope we have plenty of raw materials to keep the operatives going. We have glass bottles, aluminium goods and tyres. Yes; the position with regard to tyres has improved and is satisfactory, as I know from experience. Was it not frightfully bad business—I did not hear anybody touch on this—that around Christmas, when we were considering the retaxing of our cars for a year or six months or three months, this matter of a shortage of petrol should have arisen? Look at what it must cost the Government. After all, though wheat is an important matter and petrol is an important matter, I think to the Government that revenue is a still more important matter. Look at the loss of revenue that will be occasioned through people who will say: "Well, on account of this shortage of petrol I will not tax my car at all." That reduces the petrol consumption. Look at the loss of revenue on petrol tax, and, when we add to that the loss that must be occasioned on import duties, does it not create a very serious financial problem for the Government, and show the country that it is in a very serious situation? I think that the question of the increased amount of wheat required to be raised in the coming year, and in future years while this situation lasts, was quibbled about to a great extent. In the year just past we had about 300,000 acres of wheat. Experience has shown that about a ton to the acre is the average yield. From that, about 200,000 tons were delivered to the millers. In order to put us in a position of safety for the coming year, the Minister for Agriculture, I think, has put the amount required at 700,000 acres, that is, an increase of 400,000 acres, and I think generally it is accepted that we want 500,000 tons of wheat for milling. We will want 70,000 tons for seed to provide all the crop we want. In the case of ordinary wheat, growing it indiscriminately, it might not be too much to say that you would utilise nearly 100,000 tons in order to clean it down to 70,000 tons of seed. We can take it that we need to produce about 60 per cent. of our requirements in the coming year if we are to maintain the 70 or 75 per cent. extraction of flour. The task for the coming year is to increase the area under wheat by 300,000 to 400,000 acres, or a yield of about 300,000 tons.

There is no purpose served by Deputies getting up here or outside and making cheap points to the effect that the loaf must be no dearer or no cheaper. It will be a question of getting it at a certain cost or going without it. A Deputy here last night, speaking for a city constituency, said that the price of the loaf must not go up. Let him tell his constituents that then they must eat black bread. Let us have a clean, clear-cut issue on this. Are they going to accept barley meal or pollard or bran in their bread— sawdust, if you like? If they want a good loaf in the altered circumstances they will have to pay for it. We have started the year. There is a little breathing space left. Let us produce the loaf that the people require and that the people will pay for. We cannot blow hot and cold. We must make our plans. The finger must not be turned against anybody and no person must say: "There is the man who wanted to increase the cost of our loaf." All that sort of thing is cheap tripe and it is not good enough for such a serious situation. I do not want to go into the matter in greater detail because of the motion that is to follow.

A certain suggestion was made by a Deputy who will not face up to the situation. After being told that no ships are available, he said that the way to meet the situation was to go to England or elsewhere and say: "We want ten shiploads of wheat; will you bring it in for us?" When we know there are no ships available, there is only one way to fill up the wheat gap and that is to take off our coats, put the ploughs working and produce the wheat. The man who produces wheat has to be paid for it. We should settle the standard of the loaf that is required by the consuming public and a standard price should be put on it. The public must be told: "If that is what you want, it can be got, but there is a fixed price and will you pay it?" Let us make the bargain now.

When Deputies demand that the amenities of certain constituencies with which they are not associated should be curtailed, they should first be asked if they have consulted those constituencies or even consulted the Deputies representing them or colleagues in their Party from those constituencies. I should like to know if Deputy Dillon consulted Deputy Dockrell when he suggested that buses plying to Dalkey should be curtailed. I, as a Deputy living in that area, must protest against the ignorant intrusion of Deputy Dillon. Dalkey is part of a borough which is the second city in Eire. Dun Laoghaire Borough is larger than the City of Cork; it is not just one street like Drumcollogher, with the buses, trams and trains running up it. As was explained by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Dalkey is a big area and those buses go in and out through various streets. This morning I came in by bus from that area. One bus, which was filled, passed me. I had to walk about a mile before I got another bus. I thought of Deputy Dillon and prayed for him.

It would be very interesting and useful if a full report of the oil refinery business at the North Wall was placed before the House, giving us information why it was heralded with such a sound of trumpets, how much money was spent on it, why it was dropped and why there is such hush-hush over it. I have some information on the matter that I would not know if I did not happen to be a member of a certain board. I am not going to give that information here because it is the Government's job to put it before the House.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, playing his usual role and giving his usual apologia, said in effect that anybody who raised any question about the present emergency was making the problem harder for the Government. The Government must remember that there are people in the country who are equally concerned with its welfare as they are; there are people who have intelligence as well as they have, and those people should be consulted.

It was the wish of many of us in the days from our boyhood up to manhood to bring to reality the old cry which we can still hear ringing in our ears— having our own Parliament in College Green. We have not a Parliament in College Green but we have one at Leinster House, a Parliament that is scarcely ever summoned. Why is it not summoned? Why is it not in session every week in this emergency? Do the Ministers think they have a monopoly of the intelligence of the country? I am glad to see the Minister for Agriculture addressing Committees of Agriculture. I hope he is getting useful information there. He gave an interesting address at a meeting of a Committee of Agriculture of which I am a member. He was welcomed there and treated with the courtesy due to him and his office. Many people would like to know why this House is not in session every week in this emergency. What were salaries all round increased for? Is it because we were going to get longer holidays and we wanted more money to spend?

Look at the position revealed by the Minister for Supplies. He said that on the morning of Christmas Eve, if anybody had asked him what was the petrol position, he would have said "All right." That would have been his answer then, but if, on the evening of Christmas Eve, he were asked, the answer would be that it was all wrong. It is only the superior brains of Ministers that must know these things. We, who are out working the country, are not to know that until we ring the bell at a petrol station and we are told there is none available. Why does this House not meet more often? To me it is inexplicable that it does not. I am afraid that democracies, if this is called a democracy, are becoming more dictatorial than the dictatorships.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that to mention those matters is making the problem harder for the Government. I think our best course is to mention those problems while there is yet time so that we can perhaps ward off their greatest impact. When black bread was first threatened, the Government organ said in a leader: "Not at all; the Government have taken precautions and have plenty of supplies in." The Minister for Industry and Commerce here to-day went a bit further and boasted that they had a six months' supply. Of course, no man who really understands the position, would make such an empty boast because wheat cannot be produced in six months. It is a ten, 11 or perhaps, a 12 months' crop so that, even banking 100 per cent. on the next harvest, we should have at least sufficient storage to carry us over a 12 months' period. Even as a matter of business, why was not there more storage? Twelve months ago, we could buy good milling wheat in the world's market at 12/- or 13/- per barrel. That would hold good for milling for two years or perhaps longer. I am not an expert in this but I know that it would hold good long enough for our purposes. Will similar wheat, if it is obtainable at all to-day, not cost anything up to £2 per barrel? It cannot be got, however, because we have no shipping to bring it in. Where was the foresight in storing supplies shown there? Even as animal food, if you had wheat dumped all over the country, see what it would have been worth. The Minister who boasted about six months' supply, in the case of wheat, only reveals his own ignorance and incompetence. When I say that, it must not be taken as personal. Surely Ministers cannot laugh at that? Can the Minister for Agriculture produce wheat in six months?

Dr. Ryan

If you ask me that in April I shall say "yes."

Mr. Belton

Will April be the time for sowing winter wheat or spring wheat?

Mr. Everett

The time for showers.

Mr. Bennett

He means the 1st April.

Mr. Belton

I know it is the 1st April he is talking about. The 1st April occurs more than once a year for the Minister. Surely the wheat combines were not operating as the petrol companies were operating and refusing to give us supplies? Was not the position that all the wheat for which money could have been found, could have been bought 12 months ago for 12/- or 13/- per barrel? Yet, there is not even a six months' supply now. We have to put barley into the flour we have, barley which is now worth 30/- a barrel, in order to carry us over until next harvest. We have no margin of security at all, if there is anything like a failure in the harvest. Suppose our supply of vaporising oils fails. We are relying on our big farms for a wheat supply next year. It must be tractor-produced and tractor-harvested. If the motor power for these tractors is not available, if kerosene or paraffin cannot be found, what provision is being made for the harvesting of this year's crop? A new factory which made binder twine was started in Newbridge a few years ago but it was burned down. Has it been replaced?

Dr. Ryan

It has been replaced.

Mr. Belton

Nobody is more glad than I that it has been replaced. Will the Minister for Supplies, when he has done talking—I shall wait for him— guarantee us all the parts for agricultural implements and all the spare parts for tractors? I am not making a debating point; I am talking very seriously now even though some people may think it is a matter for fun. Will the Minister be in a position to guarantee spare parts for all farm implements? If not, I would suggest that he should schedule the tractors for which he is able to provide parts so that we will be sure that when the harvest is ripe, we shall be able to utilise machinery to reap it. Further, I understand labour battalions have been formed in the Army. Suppose the worst happens; suppose we have a wet harvest, that the corn lies down, that we are not able to cut it with tractors or even mowing-machines, and that we have to use scythes and sickles. Will the Minister give a guarantee that there will be sufficient scythes and sickles in the country? Will he in consultation with the Minister for Defence see that this labour battalion in the Army will be trained to harvest the corn and that if necessary they will go out and harvest it? The harvest must be saved and if it is a wet year, it will be very difficult to save it. Deputy O'Reilly raised a somewhat similar question in regard to Meath, whether the Minister would guarantee labour to save the harvest in Meath in districts that are very thinly populated. That is the point that worries certain farmers in isolated districts. It will affect the whole country if we have not sufficient skilled labour and primitive implements, such as scythes and sickles, to harvest our crops in the case of a bad harvest.

I wonder has the Minister for Justice been consulted about taking special measures to protect the crops when growing? After all, a field of wheat is of more importance to the defence of this country than, say, the "Muirchú," the five-motor or torpedo boats, or even the Army. Special protection should be afforded to all lands producing food during the coming year. Trespass is treated very lightly by many district justices, and there should be a tightening up in regard to that. Wheat lands especially should be protected. It has been said here that we have artificial manures. There are no artificial manures worth putting out available. There is no potash, for instance. We might as well face up to that fact.

I wonder have we all the seeds that are necessary? What steps is the Minister for Agriculture taking to propagate agricultural and horticultural seeds? He must be aware that there is a shortage of horticultural seeds—some cannot be got. We have to a large extent to depend on our seed merchants for these. Is the Minister for Supplies not aware that many of our seed merchants are left without seeds while big British houses are carrying on what you might call a retail trade here? There are a few pounds being paid in customs duty for packages coming in. Are the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Supplies not aware that many horticultural seeds were bought by the half-cwt. and are now selling in packets? There is not sufficient of them to sell them by the ounce. We do not raise these seeds here. We have been talking about what we have been doing in regard to agriculture and horticulture, but is not this the position: that if we do not get in any of these seeds from England we cannot grow anything? We have nothing to sow only what we get in from abroad after all the millions that have been spent on our Department of Agriculture. Is not that the position? I defy contradiction of that statement.

Even at this late hour I think the Albert College should be put to work at propagating seeds. Is there not a definite danger of a shortage in the mangold crop this year owing to that? Is not the turnip crop in danger also? Some seeds are coming from America. They are not here and cannot be got in Europe. I would be glad to be contradicted authoritatively by the Minister as to that, but I would want proof with that contradiction because I have been in the closest touch with seed merchants and I am very intimately interested in getting these seeds. That matter is very relevant to this motion. There is hardly anything more essential than seeds for food production. It is very important to know what provision has been made for our seeds. There is no use in trying to fix a price for a product for which there is insufficient seed. The price of onions went up to £60 and £70 a ton because a year ago you could not buy onion seed. I wanted 1 cwt. of seed but I could not get an ounce. I could not get carrot or parsnip seed to buy. By accident I picked up some from a friend. But I could not get it from any merchant in the City of Dublin. The position with regard to seeds is alarming. Is it not an extraordinary state of affairs that in an agricultural country like this we do not raise agricultural seeds? I think I am right in saying that all the sugar factories will be idle if we do not get imported beet seed. Is not that the position?

Dr. Ryan

No.

I want to say that the speech that impressed me in the debate yesterday was that made by Deputy Maguire, in which he asked for information as to what we were doing to plan for the future and what would be the position here after the war. Does the Minister seriously suggest that 1941 is the time to talk about getting ships for this country? I saw an announcement that a Departmental Committee was to be set up to deal with the question. Would the Minister tell the House who was responsible for that committee and who are the members of it? Have they any financial interest in shipping that is controlled outside Ireland? Does he suggest that managers of shipping companies with head offices outside Ireland are going to advise him that this country should have ships of its own? I discussed this matter with people such as the Minister has in mind. It is not a financial proposition. While we can broadcast to America and broadcast to our own people the fact is that we are helpless because we cannot get ships. Deputy Keyes pointed out yesterday that there were two ships in the Shannon for the past seven or eight months with cargoes of phosphates. I understand that there are seven ships in the Port of Dublin. Is it suggested that something could not be done by a neutral country such as this to negotiate the buying of eight or ten ships?

I suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that if a Departmental Committee is to be set up he should be able to assure the House that the people on that committee are anxious to procure ships that will serve this country independent of outside influence. I am not satisfied that that has been done up to the present. I know that men who have gone into the shipping business and established direct services between France, Belgium and other places after some months were pushed out by big financial interests. I know people who established direct trading relations with Spain and France who were eventually bought over.

There has been talk about the position in Norway and Greece. Here with all our patriotism and pioneering we have not been able to buy a dozen ships for our trade. I suggest to the Government that if the shipping question was tackled our position regarding supplies would not be so serious. Even if we lost some ships, is it not better to go down fighting than to be in the present powerless position? I know of a schooner that was to bring a small cargo to Cork and it was commandeered by the British Ministry of Shipping. They said that they wanted it for their own use.

I am aware that large numbers of people at present are worried because raw material for industries cannot be got. I suggest to the Minister that a serious attempt has not been made to get ships to bring raw materials to keep our industries going, especially in view of the people he has around him and from whom he accepts advice. I saw in the newspapers recently that a certain organisation had sent a memorandum to the Government and had appointed two gentlemen to supplement it, one of these being manager of a shipping company that trades with the Continent and elsewhere. Does the Minister seriously suggest that that gentleman would advocate the purchase of a dozen ships to bring cargoes from elsewhere? Is there any reason why the Government should not send some responsible man to America to negotiate the sale of six or 12 ships to bring requirements to this country?

Is there any reason why there should not be negotiations with Spain from which ships at one time regularly traded with Cork, bringing phosphates and other things? I have noticed that a couple of companies are still anxious to have direct shipping with Ireland if there was any kind of co-operation on the part of the Government. The Minister and his colleagues know that there are interests in this country anxious to establish such services, and if he is going to set up any committee he should have on it men who are interested in the shipping trade here.

Agreed.

Mr. Aiken

Statements and broadcasts of Ministers within the last few weeks, culminating in the now famous letter of the Minister for Supplies to Deputies, resulted in our Party putting down this motion and in Parliament being called together for the purpose of considering it. This debate will have served a very useful purpose if it will make clear to the people what our position is, whether that position be good or bad, remove the confusion and allay the panic in the public mind as a result of the Government, deliberately or otherwise, refraining from giving full and honest information with regard to the existing and future supply of food and other essential commodities. I am glad that we have been called here for the purpose of reviewing the whole situation, and I join with other Deputies who have referred to the necessity for Parliament meeting much oftener than it does. In the very serious times we are passing through, it is absolutely essential that the people should be consulted regarding whatever plans are being made by the Government for the future and that we should come here to discuss and criticise these plans and suggest anything that we think should be done in the national interest. We talk about the preservation of democratic institutions and of democratic government, but the action of the Taoiseach and of the Government in recent months is bringing the Parliament of the people into disrepute. We are aware that there is a feeling antagonistic to this institution at present. If that is permitted to grow, it will be the responsibility of certain parliamentarians in this country.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce waxed indignant at what he considered was a grossly unfair attack by the Opposition with regard to the petrol position. I have no ambition to score any political victory over the Government or anybody else but I suggest that, if the manager of any business were responsible for the bungling done by the Department of Supplies in handling the petrol situation in the past few weeks, he would be immediately "sacked". If it happened in any other country in the world, the Minister would have to hand in his resignation. In discussing a matter of this sort, we must always bear in mind that there is a vast amount of information at the disposal of the Minister. As regards petrol, he has daily contact with the petrol and shipping companies and has continuous information from outside. That puts the Government in a better position to lay plans regarding that essential commodity than the man in the street is in. We are entitled to be very severe in our criticism because the Government are in a better position to foresee difficulties, dangers and shortages than the ordinary man who has not that information available to him. The Minister for Industry and Commerce asked if we wanted the Government to take precautions earlier and reduce the amount of petrol available to consumers rather than do what they did—let the petrol situation remain until a crisis had developed and a complete close-down was necessary.

That is the kernel of our case. I presume that the Minister for Supplies gets, every few days, information from the petrol companies as to the exact supply in the country. We have been asked to be constructive. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in a rather jocose way, tried to make a skit at the expense of this Party, asking if we expected the Government to get a wireless message that a ship was about to be put down and to make their arrangements accordingly. We all know that no such notice is given, but so many ships are going under at present that we expect the Government to know that any ship at sea is liable to go down, and they should not be banking up to the last moment on a particular ship arriving. In other words there ought to be a critical level as far as petrol supplies are concerned, and when we reached that level the value of the coupon should have been reduced. At the present time it is reduced, drastically reduced, to one-fourth of the original value. We suggest that if that level was reached early in December the coupon should have been reduced to some extent. At all events, the value of the over-stamping should have been removed first and the value of the coupon generally should have been reduced at least to one-half before the situation that did develop was allowed to develop. What actually happened? We were pursuing our normal life in this country as far as transport was concerned without any warning from the Minister or the Department, and quite suddenly there was a complete stoppage; a crisis developed in a few hours and the whole transport of the country was completely dislocated because petrol supplies were cut off. People who were away from home were left stranded down the country without any warning. Is it suggested that that was the proper course to pursue? If the supply was low a week or a fortnight earlier the value of the coupon should have been reduced to some extent. I know for a positive fact that there was no anticipation by the Department of Supplies of a crisis occurring. The Minister even admitted it here. People were actually getting extra coupons a week before the crisis occurred. There is no such thing as a critical level or any particular reserve earmarked so that when we reach that level of reserve we are going to reduce the ration. It is absolutely essential that that level ought to be determined. What I call a "critical line" ought to be determined and, when we reach that, the reduction in the ration ought to take place immediately. In face of the present situation the Minister came in here yesterday in his usual brazen style to try to bluff it out in this House. Deputies are inclined to resent very much the attitude of the Minister for Supplies.

The question of storage has been raised. It has been suggested, and I suggest again, to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that provision should have been made to accommodate a reserve supply of petrol here. Apart altogether from the fact which is denied by the Government that proposals were put up to provide extra storage here some time ago—leaving that aside altogether—it should have been the business and responsibility of the Government and particularly of the Minister for Supplies to arrange for that storage, to see what could be done as regards providing extra storage. What attempt did the Minister for Supplies make in that regard? As far as I am aware, none whatever. As a matter of fact, there was quite an amount of storage in the country that was not availed of at all at any time. There are many small garages down the country, that have two or three tanks, owned by men in a small way who are unable to finance heavy purchases of petrol, who never filled those extra tanks at any time. They could only buy 200 gallons at a time. That went into one pump. I know plenty of men who had three pumps, which meant that they had storage capacity for 1,000 gallons of petrol or even more. They were never able to buy more than a couple of hundred gallons and the rest of their storage space was empty. That was happening when part cargoes had to leave the port of Dublin because there was no accommodation at the docks, and we were not pumping that petrol back into the tanks in the country or never attempted to do it at any time. The Minister cannot deny that part cargoes did leave the City of Dublin during the last year and a half since the war started. Then the Minister for Industry and Commerce comes here to tell the House it is unfair criticism to suggest that the situation has been badly handled. It has been badly handled.

If the petrol position is as desperate as it would appear to be something should be done to economise and preserve essential services. There is even still a good deal of wastage going on by way of parallel rail and bus services. One would not mind parallel services operated by different companies in competition with each other but it is an amazing situation to find parallel bus and rail services run by the same company, and starting at the very same hour. That is an extraordinary situation. Then there is overlapping of services down the country. There are bread vans overlapping each other for 30 miles. I think the Army is not beyond a certain amount of criticism in that respect because we are all passing Army lorries careering around the country with one or two men. I do not see what purpose it serves except to burn up fuel that is so scarce.

Again at the inception of the war a point was raised in this House about the lifting of the tram tracks and overhead wires when the electric cars were being taken off the streets of Dublin. A request was made to the Minister for Supplies at that time that if the electric cars were going off the streets the tracks and overhead wires should be left so that if we were forced at any time to go back to the electric cars there would be nothing to do but to drive them out. We know that within the last couple of months these tracks and wires have been torn up all over the city.

I am not suggesting that these overlapping services and parallel services that I spoke of should be drastically curtailed because we are all most anxious that a situation that would create further unemployment in this country should not be rushed into. Far from it. I do not want to be unfair in that regard. It is essential that every effort should be made to keep men in employment as long as it is possible, but there are certain services that must be preserved. For instance, Deputy Maguire said last night that petrol is a vital commodity, but not by any means the most vital commodity. That is right to some extent but it is incidental at the present time to the production of the most vital commodity because I can assure you, Sir, that in the production of that vital commodity, especially in eastern counties to-day, if we have not petrol and vapourising oil for the tractors we will be actually at a standstill and we will have arrived at a most critical situation. I think I am not exaggerating the position if I put down 60 per cent. of tillage operations in the eastern counties as done by mechanical power to-day. That vital industry—it has always been vital to this country—is more vital to-day than ever it was before in the production of food. We cannot get seeds, artificial manures and feeding stuff for live stock on to the farm to-day except by lorry. We have scrapped any other means of getting it in. There are not sufficient horses to do it. The extra horses that we had to take in the seeds, manures and other requirements for production on the farm, and to take out the food produced on the farm, are no longer there, so that at all costs we will have to keep a reserve of essential fuel to produce the food and take out the supply. Remember, in talking about vapourising oil, that, if the petrol supply goes off, the supply of vapourising oil goes off as well, because it comes as part cargo with petrol. You never get a complete cargo of vapourising oil, so that if petrol disappears as a cargo vapourising oil disappears as well.

Reference has been made to the private car. There is one important private car, and that is the farmer's car. It may appear to the city man that the farmer can get around freely without his car—that he can get into his pony and trap and drive around. That is not the position at all. As a matter of fact, the farmer who had a pony and trap a few years ago scrapped it when he got his car. If we were all to come to the market to-day to replace our motor cars by buying a pony and trap, we would find that they could not be bought at any price. They are not on the market. If the farmer is going to produce food, if he is going to get around and speed up his business, and put more effort into his work, his car must be kept on the road. He must be able to go into his market town, to attend fairs and pursue his normal avocations. It is absolutely essential that his car should be kept on the road, and that his tractor should be kept going as well.

There is one point as regards the question of petrol which a garage proprietor has asked me to raise, and that is to direct the attention of the Minister for Supplies to the fact that at the present time, if a small garage owner wants to get a minimum supply of 200 gallons of petrol, he has got to have 800 coupons, because of the stepping-down of the value of the coupons. It is practically impossible for him to have those 800 coupons, and it has presented a problem in many cases. I should like the Minister to go into that matter. I want to say a few words about vapourising oil, and this is a very important and very urgent matter. An order has been made within the last few days that future deliveries of vapourising oil, and in fact deliveries for this present month of January, are to be based on the November deliveries. It is inconceivable how the month of November was arrived at. The matter was raised here yesterday by Deputy Dillon, but unfortunately he used the word kerosene instead of vapourising oil, and the Minister assured Deputy Dillon that the November deliveries are the peak deliveries for the year. Kerosene is ordinary paraffin oil burned in lamps, and we can all understand that the month of November, that is, the first winter month, one might say, is naturally the month during which the heaviest deliveries occur. But the oil on which the tractor runs is vapourising oil, and November is a particularly bad month to go on, because many tractors are laid up during the month of November.

I think the Minister who is representing the Government here at the present moment will understand this point, and I will ask him to get the matter put right straight away. There are many farmers all over the country who did not take any delivery in November, and because of the order to which I have referred they do not now qualify for any delivery. I am glad that the Minister for Agriculture has returned to the House, because this is a very important matter which I want him to put right immediately, this evening or to-morrow if possible. I spoke to the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, on the telephone some time ago, and he told me that he had made representations to the Department of Supplies on this matter, but they had not yet made a decision. It is a matter which should be put right immediately. In my own constituency there is a number of tractors standing idle at the present time because of the order that future deliveries of vapourising oil are to be based on the November deliveries, and that even the deliveries for this present month are to be on that basis. The Minister for Agriculture will understand that November is a particularly bad month to pick on, because it is the month during which farmers in the beet growing areas are very busy lifting the beet crop, and the farmer with a plough and tractor may have his tractor laid up altogether for the month of November. Apart altogether from that, a man may have got a delivery of vapourising oil during the last days of October, and may not want any more in the month of November. There are many farmers to-day who, under the order, do not quality for a delivery of any vapourising oil. On Tuesday last and on Wednesday before coming up here eight or ten farmers spoke to me and complained about the position. They were not able to secure any vapourising oil, and were very low in stocks. There are other farmers who had been getting vapourising oil from companies like Munster, Simms & Co., who had a depot at Baltinglass. That depot closed down recently, and the farmers are in a difficulty about procuring future supplies. The man who made the decision—the civil servant or the Minister, or whoever it was—that November should be the basic month, knew nothing about the position at all. Obviously, he thought that a man takes deliveries of oil for his tractor just the same as a man takes deliveries for a car, and that like a car consuming petrol one week with another the supply required for a tractor averages out more or less the same. That is not the position at all. While the tractor may be working full tilt in one month it may be laid up during the next month. I want an assurance from the Minister here and now that he is going to put that matter right immediately. Am I getting that assurance? Will the Minister have that matter attended to immediately?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister will appreciate the fact that the matter is very important, because there are tractors standing idle as the result of that order. On the question of petrol to start tractors, that has been reduced to two gallons. The Minister knows very well that, if you are to start a tractor every morning, two gallons will not cover the month at all. Two gallons are not nearly sufficient. They would probably do about a week, and no more.

I will now get on to what is a very important matter, food production. First of all, with reference to arrears of land annuities, I should like to say that now is not the time for the Land Commission to be putting the screw on some unfortunate farmers who are not able at the moment to meet their arrears. Now is the time to give them a chance to do something in the national interest. If they are going to produce extra food and bring more land under cultivation, they want all the finance on which they can possibly put their fingers. While they should try to meet their normal half-yearly instalments, I think some arrangement should be made whereby they can pay something off the arrears. I suggest that rather than keep sheriffs' messengers travelling all over the country, piling up costs, some arrangement ought to be entered into by which the arrears will be spread over the next few years. I know the Land Commission are not unreasonable about that and I am aware that where representations are made the Land Commission are prepared to meet those cases. But in all cases the unfortunate tenants have not that information. They are not aware that reasonable arrangements can be made for them. It might be well if the Minister would make it known that it is not the policy of the Government— it ought not to be at the present time —to put on severe pressure. You could tell them you are prepared to make arrangements so that the arrears can be spread over a number of years.

There is then the question of credit. In some tillage areas where you have big merchants, credit is not such a problem because those big merchants are prepared to advance credit and give seeds and manures to farmers where those farmers are credit-worthy. But there are some areas where the people have not those advantages, where they have not local merchants prepared to give them seeds and manures on credit. In such circumstances an arrangement ought to be made so as to provide some sort of credit facilities by way of chattel mortgage or on some other basis. The County Council scheme is not sufficient and it is not much good. You will have to go much further if you want to produce 100 per cent. of our essential requirements in the coming year.

Next comes the question of seed wheat. If we are going to have this big wheat programme that we are contemplating we must make every effort to facilitate the producers. I am aware that the Minister has authorised certain firms to assemble Irish seed wheat. These are the only people who are licensed to import seed wheat. I know that the policy behind the assembly of that wheat is to try to promote a scheme that will give us a better and surer type of wheat than we have had in the past. They are acting more or less on the system that has been adopted in regard to the barley seed that is handled in this country by the barley people. I think there is something to be said for that policy. There were many people prepared to assemble wheat in the wheat-growing areas, but they did not get a chance of doing so. They are men who have always dealt in wheat, men who have supplied seed wheat to farmers in other years but they are out of it at present. I think they have not been treated fairly. They have all the necessary accommodation and finance to carry out the scheme. Many of those people are merchants who deal in all the commodities a farmer wants and they could probably handle seed wheat—and they were prepared to do it—in a cheaper manner than a man engaged in the seed line solely.

I am sure the Minister is aware of the quantity of Irish-assembled seed that is available and the amount of imported seed wheat that has come in. Is there a sufficient quantity of assembled and imported wheat in the hands of the licensed people to give us a sufficient supply of seed? If not, has the Minister made any attempt to draw samples from wheat in stores outside of the stores owned by the licensed people and have it tested for purity in germination? If we have to draw for seed on wheat stocks outside of those under the control of persons licensed to assemble the seed, then we should sample that wheat in order to see if it will give us good germination. Now is the time to draw these samples and have them tested.

There is another matter that is creating a certain amount of panic in the country, and that is the question of price. Different areas present different problems in that respect. I do not think that in my area there is very much cause to complain. The seed wheat under the scheme was bought at 37/6, and the price charged by these people runs from 45/- to 48/-. It is not too difficult to buy Irish-assembled wheat at 45/- and imported wheat at about 65/-. I understand that is the price recognised by the Minister's Department. I want the Minister to insist that that wheat is disposed of to the farmer at that price, and that no profiteering will occur. If a man is licensed to deal in seed wheat, and pays 37/6 for it, by all means he is entitled to handling charges and to a reasonable profit, but the Minister should see that it stops at that. If there is any panic about seed in the next few weeks, no one should be permitted to go out and rob. I do not think there is any likelihood of that in my area, but I have heard other Deputies quoting alarming figures. I have heard them mention a figure of £4. You cannot apply any other term to a charge of £4 for seed wheat than robbery—that is, if that price is being charged.

As regards manures, at the moment we have 25 per cent. of the basic manure, phosphate, delivered to merchants all over the country. They have no information as to future deliveries. Indeed, merchants are very slow to make any deliveries of the phosphate on hands until they know what is going to arrive. I put it to the Minister for Agriculture that the sooner the position is made known to the merchants and, through them, to the farmers, the better. They should be informed of the total amount of manures that will be available in the coming year. The farmer is in the position that he cannot plan with regard to his crops, and he cannot arrange the amount of manure that is going to be available for each individual crop until he knows the total delivery of manure that he is going to get.

If I want to dress wheat to-day, and if I want to know how much manure I shall have to reserve for wheat, I should be in a position to know what the total deliveries are to be for the year. The sooner I am supplied with that information, the better. We have been informed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we shall have a 50 per cent. supply. He hoped to have a 75 per cent. supply. However, on the last day we met here, he told us that that hope had receded to a great extent but that we are assured of 50 per cent. of last year's supply. We should be told exactly what we are getting. We want to know that immediately so that we can decide what amount we can devote to wheat production and what amount we can reserve for the beet crop. The farmer cannot plan wisely the distribution of the manure available if he does not know how much is coming to him for the year.

The question of getting our full requirements of wheat for bread for the coming year is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture. Very many factors will govern the success or failure of his plan. He must fix a price that will induce farmers to put in sufficient wheat to produce the quantity required to meet the present emergency. The shortage of artificial manure is going to have a disastrous effect especially on poor land, as far as production of wheat is concerned. We shall have a big reduction in the quantity of imported seed and the seed generally may be poor. Another factor that must be taken into consideration is the very doubtful returns from old grass land with a big depth of turf which has been turned up late in the season. That soil, ploughed up now, will be practically barren because it has not been aerated for many years—50, 60, or maybe 100 years in some cases. It is a very doubtful proposition to expect any sort of decent return from land of that description when only a small quantity of artificial manures is available. Farmers are no fools in that respect; they know what they are tackling. In the non-tillage districts, where the land is more suitable for grass, farmers know that they are simply asked under the scheme to cash in on the fertility brought about by the good husbandry of many years.

The Minister must also take into account the present price of barley, which is up to 34/- and the present price of oats, which is over 20/-. I do not suggest for a moment that there are many farmers who want to blackmail the people at the present time. I do not think it is a time for the farmers to put a pistol to the heads of the Government to try to force an exorbitant price for wheat produced for the coming year. It would not be right or proper, or in the national interest, that that should be done, and I do not think there are many farmers inclined to do it. For that reason I am not going to mention any specific price. The responsibility is on the Minister to decide what price will induce the farmers to produce sufficient for our national requirements. The various factors I have mentioned must be taken into account if you are going to assess that price accurately. You must look to the big farmers for the increased production which you expect for the coming year. The Minister himself has mentioned that fact down the country. One thing which the people generally, and farmers particularly, resent very strongly is the arbitrary method adopted in fixing prices for agricultural products at the present time—without consultation with any representatives of agriculture and with a threat that if the farmer does not do the job, the land will be taken from him. That attitude on the part of the Government compares very unfavourably with the attitude adopted towards industrialists in this country. Industrialists are frequently invited to put their proposals before the Government, to state what price they can produce an article at and what terms they want in the way of protection, etc. They generally get these terms without question. The people who are the real backbone of this country and whose work is vitally essential to the national welfare at present, are not consulted in any shape or form. The terms are put down to them and threats are used to whip them into line. I do not think that is the proper way to treat them; they deserve to be treated better.

Appeals have been made for an extension of the allotment scheme. I should like to join in that appeal. I think it is hardly fair to confine the schemes to urban centres and to exclude the smaller towns and villages throughout the country in which it would not be a difficult matter to secure fields for allotment purposes and put the unemployed in these areas to work to produce food for themselves and the nation generally. The scheme should be extended to any area where there is a demand for it, and that should be done immediately.

In the non-tillage districts, if the Minister expects to get a decent return of crops, he should make available for the people experts who would instruct them in the handling of old tillage land. Some of the people in these areas because they have not much experience of cultivation do not know very much about tillage. As I have already pointed out, where you are turning up a depth of turf that has not been ploughed for many years, it is very difficult to handle the soil properly and the best returns can only be secured if the soil is cultivated under the direction of a person with knowledge of the work. Such an expert would show the people how to deal with wire-worm and how to handle the soil correctly in the months of March and April when we have severe east winds and when the lack of contact between the top soil and sub-soil destroys the capillarity in the soil. These are all matters that the farmer who has no experience of cultivation should have expert advice upon, and that ought to be provided. We have a large number of young fellows who have studied agriculture in our colleges and I am sure that a sufficient number is available to put them into those areas to help the farmers in this difficult period.

There is one other point I should like to refer to before I finish. It has been stressed by some Deputies that some effort should be made to purchase ships. The Minister for Supplies told us not so many hours ago that the position at the moment is that we are facing a situation when there will be no shipping available to carry any cereals to this country for the remainder of the year. That is a very serious position. I know very little about shipping. I think no great effort has been made to purchase ships and I think ships could have been purchased. If we did purchase ships, I admit that the difficulty of getting them kept over water is another proposition. But, at all events, other nations are taking risks, and if we could have picked up at any sort of a reasonable price eight or ten or a dozen ships we should be prepared to take the risk as well.

This shipping problem could also be dealt with in another way. If we want vapourising oil and raw phosphate rock from North Africa, could we not say to the British that if our people are going to produce essential food for them, beef, bacon, eggs and butter, we want to exchange cargoes with them. We have been told that any shipping we have procured up to the present has not been secured through British interests. We have been told by the Minister to-day that it was absolutely on our own that we secured that shipping, generally from neutral countries. I admit that that is a position I was not aware of.

I am afraid that the bargaining weapon of food for our next-door neighbour, good food that we can produce, has not been used to the extent that it ought to have been used in securing other cargoes that we require, especially raw material for the production of that food. I think if that had been put up to the British in a proper manner that some headway would have been made in securing those cargoes. The Minister made no reference to-day to any efforts being made in that respect, but it may not be too late to make that effort.

The danger that I see in this drive for 100 per cent. production of our requirements in the coming year is that, it is carrying out the policy of the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party of self-sufficiency and complete and absolute isolation from the rest of the world. If we develop that position, what will be our position in the post-war period? In this drive for self-sufficiency and complete and absolute isolation, if our export trade goes, where are we going to be? Is it not essential in the national interests that we should preserve as far as possible our export trade? There are many very essential things that we cannot produce and we must make every effort to import them. If we cannot import them at present, we expect to import them in the post-war period. If we let our export trade go now and our livestock population falls off because we are so concerned with the fulfilment of the Fianna Fáil policy of self-sufficiency and isolation, then the position that may develop in the post-war period will be a major disaster for the country.

Mr. Moran

I think, after the Minister's statement, that we in this small State should be in a position to congratulate ourselves when we find that the only complaint that can be levelled at the Government is about the regulation of petrol supplies. Notwithstanding the fact that we have not a mercantile marine, and that our resources are very limited, the only inconvenience our people have been put to in the matter of supplies is due to the scarcity of petrol. I was amazed to hear in this House that it came as a surprise to anybody that petrol was scarce or that the supplies of petrol to the consumer would be curtailed. Surely Deputies remember the time when the petrol rationing system came into force here, when you had people in every country town running to the local garage with all kinds of containers, collecting as much petrol as they possibly could. Why were they doing that? Because they realised that petrol was an article which it was quite likely we would not be able to obtain. We can also recall that a feature of practically every district court in this country for several months was the number of prosecutions brought against people for having barrels of petrol in their backyards or stored in all kinds of containers. The reason why these people were keeping petrol in that way was that they realised, as the community in general realised, that petrol would be scarce and that supplies were likely to be stopped at any moment.

It would be very interesting if we had figures as to the number of motorists who have taxed their cars this month for one quarter only. In my own county I would say that 60 per cent. of the motorists have taxed their cars for one quarter only. By taxing their cars only for one quarter, it cost them about 12 per cent. more than if they taxed them for the whole of the year. Those people taxed their cars for one quarter because they knew that supplies of petrol are not normal and that we are likely any day to find ourselves in the position that there will be no petrol supplies available. The fact that petrol is the one commodity that has been rationed here goes to show that nobody should have been taken by surprise when the scarcity occurred, as everybody was anticipating a scarcity. Motorists down the country to whom I have been speaking all believed that we would not be able to maintain our supplies of petrol, and I was very much surprised to hear that the scarcity came as such a terrible shock to the general public as Deputies would have us believe by their statements in this House.

I am not satisfied that petrol is of such importance to this community during this emergency as we have been led to believe. It is certainly important as a commercial factor, and I agree that a number of people will be thrown out of employment as a result of the scarcity of petrol. But we do not eat or drink petrol, and 20 or 25 years ago our community got on without any petrol. I think it is much more important that we should direct our attention to what is really important during this particular crisis, and that is providing foodstuffs for our people; the production of foodstuffs in our country sufficient to keep our normal agricultural community, the amount of stock produced in a normal year by our agricultural community, and to keep the food provision as normal as possible.

Now, it has been suggested that there may be three meanings to anything the Minister or the Taoiseach may say, by the other side, but there is one thing clear, and that is that there can be no three meanings or no two meanings to the statements of the Opposition in this House on the question of the production of wheat and beet in this country. It has been clearly stated here and elsewhere on several occasions by responsible leaders of the Opposition, that wheat was a "cod" and that beet was a "cod".

We now come to a situation in which we realise that the only policy for our people in this country, if we are to survive this crisis, is to produce sufficient of those commodities to meet our own needs. We might find ourselves in the morning in a position in which we will not be able to import anything that we may need in this line, and if we are not able to get shipping for petrol or to import sufficient to meet our normal needs, surely we may find ourselves, and probably will find ourselves, in the same position in connection with such vital supplies for our people as wheat, perhaps in a month's time.

There is one complaint that I have to make in connection with this Compulsory Tillage Order, and that is in regard to the question of wheat. My complaint is that the Minister has not differentiated between the different areas in this country and their capacity for wheat production. The Minister cannot expect counties like Donegal, Mayo, Galway and similar counties in this country, to produce wheat, or at any rate to produce it in any large quantities, because, firstly, the populations of these counties are producing much more than is required from them under the Compulsory Tillage Order. Secondly, in these counties, the land, to a large extent, is absolutely unsuitable for and incapable of producing wheat. In my own county, Mayo, various experiments have been carried out by the agricultural committee on the production of wheat, and it is rather interesting to note the yield that was produced in County Mayo on demonstration plots taken over by the county committee of agriculture. In connection with winter wheat, certain experimental plots were taken over in 1939 by the Mayo County Committee of Agriculture, for the purpose of seeing how wheat would do there, and four experiments with spring wheats were carried out on the farms of Joe McHale, Faldfadda, Ballyvary; Michael MacHale, Carrownarlaur, Breaffy; Michael Clarke, Foxborough, Killala; and Anthony Walsh, Culleens, Ballina. The varieties tested and the average yield of grain per statue acre are given in the following table:

Variety	Average yield
Red Marvel	14¾ cwts.
April Bearded Red	19¾ cwts.
Atle	18¼ cwts.
Aurore	18½ cwts.
Diamant II	19 cwts.

Now, that is a very low average, and that average was produced on land that was manured and manured well. These were plots that were picked in various parts of the county, and it is impossible to expect the people in areas like that to produce wheat in any large quantities. There are places in this country that will produce wheat, and there are places that will give a large yield, and those are the areas upon which the Minister should concentrate. I would suggest that the figure of one-fifth, in areas such as Meath, Westmeath, parts of Limerick and Tipperary, is too low a figure for the farmers of these areas, and that such areas should be confined to growing wheat, while counties such as Mayo, Donegal, Galway, and similar counties, should be required to produce sufficient potatoes and oats for the community. In the Midlands they can produce and grow wheat without manure. They have the land there and they can do it. In counties like Mayo and similar counties we cannot produce wheat in the same way as the Midland counties. The soil is different, and, if we were to produce wheat, we would have to manure the land intensively. At the same time, the wheat will not ripen, or you will not have anything like the yield you would have in the Midland counties. I have some figures here of the acreage under certain crops in County Mayo in 1938. In 1938 we produced 28,722 statute acres of potatoes, 2,596 statute acres of wheat, 32,300 statute acres of oats 1,141 statute acres of barley. In 1940, our people in Mayo increased that to 34,945 acres of potatoes, 41,491 acres of oats, 3,667 acres of wheat, 2,401 acres of beet, 1,389 acres of barley, 457 acres of rye, 3,449 acres of turnips, and 1,693 acres of mangolds. The total for 1938 was 64,759 statute acres, with those yields, and in 1940 the total was 89,492 acres, or an increase of 24,733 acres.

Those figures show that, in County Mayo, with all the appeals we had for wheat-growing, and with our community being sincere in their endeavour to produce wheat, and realising that it was a most important article for them, the increase in potatoes and oats was very much more than the increase in wheat, and our total acreage under tillage shows that our farmers grow as much as, if not more than, any other group of farmers in this country, taking the size of the county into consideration. As a matter of fact, the position is this: that most of our people in Mayo—and I am sure the same goes for similar counties such as Donegal and Galway—till a much larger percentage than is tilled on the farms in the Midlands. They have got to do it in order to live—in order to exist. According to the last census there were 21,300 of our population in Mayo existing on farms of from one to 50 acres. All those people till intensively, and if they do produce wheat in counties such as Mayo, they must produce it at the expense of some other crop. If they produce more wheat, it means that they must produce less potatoes and less oats, and at the same time their land is unsuitable for the production of a wheat crop.

We all realise that wheat is vital to this community and that it will take a very large effort on the part of the farming community to increase the production of wheat by, say, 300,000 acres; but if we are to achieve that figure—and we must do so—I would ask the Minister to take into account the wheat belts in this country and the wheat-growing areas here, and to leave counties such as Mayo and similar counties to produce the crops, such as oats and potatoes, which are suitable to them, and compel the people with the good land—the land that is capable of producing wheat—to grow wheat. Balancing the position in that way I have no doubt the danger of being short of wheat will be averted.

Another matter concerns the difficulty that some people have regarding supplies of manures. I should like to see an order being made, so that the available supplies would go to areas in which they are required, and that areas that can do without manures would not get them. There are large tracts of counties within reasonable distance of the sea that should not be allowed to reduce the stock of available manures, because seaweed can be had and, with very little trouble, could be used for the purpose of producing a crop. If the Minister varies the order, and confines wheat growing to suitable areas where it can be produced, I am sure the scarcity of manures and fertilisers will not give the community any great trouble. There is also the question of credit for farmers to which reference has been made. In areas that I have in mind for wheat growing, I am not satisfied that the lack of credit was an effective cause for not producing wheat last year or in previous years. I am speaking now of the Midlands, where there are farms averaging 100 acres and over. If there is a genuine question of credit involved and if the Minister is satisfied that it is needed in order to ensure bread supplies and have a crop, I suggest that some system should be adopted by the Government, similar to that adopted by the beet factories, who give both seeds and manures to those who require them, but own the crop. Wheat could be sold in the same way as the beet crop is sold to the sugar company. That would get over any difficulty about credit that is said to be responsible for not tilling more land.

I should like to call the Minister's attention also to the question of conacre lettings. If we are to increase production on the land, large numbers of people, particularly in the congested areas, have to rely on taking conacre to produce a crop each year. That is the position in particular this year, when numbers of people are returning to congested areas from countries that are involved in the present war. The sowing of the annual crop has consequently become more important than ever. I suggest to the Minister that an order should be issued immediately controlling the price of conacre, and that people who are letting land that, in the ordinary course of events, they would not let, but are doing so in order to avoid prosecution under the Compulsory Tillage Order, should not be allowed to profiteer, and charge high prices to small farmers and agricultural labourers who are forced to pay any prices demanded for a piece of land on which to produce a crop. I am sure the Minister will have the goodwill of the House in endeavouring to have as large a crop of wheat as is possible produced this year. I am sure each Deputy will do his utmost in his constituency to get farmers to grow more wheat. In my constituency I will do my best in that respect, and I am sure the people will do their best to sow even a small patch of wheat by endeavouring to have in each household a couple of bags of wholemeal flour to relieve the demand on shop flour and bread. If we are to meet the huge demand that the State is making on farmers to provide 300,000 acres for the community, the Minister will have to insist on those who have land that is capable of producing wheat, doing so and leaving constituencies like the one from which I come to produce other crops such as potatoes, oats and barley.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

What Deputy Corry stated about wheat is true of the other grains as well. I understand that it is true of barley. Upon that I cannot speak definitely myself but I do know that exactly the same type of profiteering is going on in oats and I think that, when the farmers of this country are being asked to increase their tillage area and being appealed to to provide food for the people, there should be no war fortunes made with the help of the Government. I think that the first duty of the Minister for Supplies would be to see that that profiteering stops, to set to work in his own office and to know something about it, and not to be ignorant of the wheat situation, as he showed himself to be plainly ignorant of it yesterday. One of the first things to be done when he gets to work is to prevent profiteering in grain.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy know by how much the price of bread has gone up?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It is of the utmost importance that we should make as much flour as possible, but it is equally important that we should have flour available at a price within the compass of the poorer members of this community. If these gentlemen are going to make their £60,000 out of wheat, out of whose pocket is that going to come? It will be out of the pockets of the consumers of bread, which is an essential food of the poorer members of the community.

Let me pass away from that subject to deal with the question of food production generally. An assumption has been made in this House which I hope will be justified, but can we guarantee that it will be justified? We have had, for the last five or six years, a succession of extremely good harvests, and it must be the hope of everyone that we will have an equally good harvest this year; but we cannot count with certainty upon it nor with certainty that the added area of wheat, with the old area of wheat last year, would produce anything like the quantity of millable wheat upon which our present calculations are based. Everybody hopes that it will, everybody hopes for an abundant harvest, but our hopes will not of necessity be fulfilled. For that reason, I believe we should make preparations so that if the wheat harvest happens to be a bad one and if the amount of millable wheat falls entirely below our hopes, at the same time the country will not be left short of food. It seems to me that that can be achieved if farmers and others are encouraged to grow more potatoes.

Potatoes are in every way a complete substitute for wheat. If you set up mills for the extraction of potato flour you will find, I understand, according to the agricultural chemists, that the flour made out of potatoes is as valuable a foodstuff as the flour made out of wheat. The farina made from potatoes is as valuable as the flour made from wheat. I do not know whether there is any such machinery or mill available in this country for the extraction of flour from potatoes, but I would urge the Minister for Agriculture to consider that matter and that while he is talking "Wheat, wheat, wheat", he should also talk "Wheat and potatoes".

That brings me to another point. In the non-wheat-growing areas—and the Minister can segregate them without much trouble—his Order to till one-fifth will not, in my opinion, prove a national advantage but a national disadvantage, and I will tell the Minister why I have come to that conclusion. As I have already stated, in my opinion, in the non-wheat-growing areas the crop which is of first importance is the potato crop. If you increase the area under tillage, I believe you will decrease the area under potatoes. That might seem at first a paradox, but to anybody who knows farming conditions it will appear as a self-evident proposition. If a man has to do a tremendous amount more tillage he has got to get a certain number of horses and can employ a certain number of men, and the easy way of doing it is to put in grain.

Grain requires practically no labour. You plough, harrow and seed, and then you go away. You come back in the harvest for a couple of days and you cut the crop. If you are a large farmer, with a reaper and binder, all the labour you want is simply to stook and stack, and finally to thresh. The potato is quite a different crop. You have not merely to plough and harrow, to open your drills, to spread your seed and to close your drills, but you have to come back and mould your potatoes, and to spray them two or three times during the year. Finally, you have the long and tiresome job of digging. If a person is going to put a large area under crops, the easy and only practical thing for him to do is to grow oats, but if he grows potatoes on a large scale, his job will be a difficult one. Potatoes are also an unattractive crop as far as marketing goes. I live nine statute miles from the nearest railway station. If I want to send a ton of potatoes there, I must use a horse and car, and that will cost about 15/- for the day. If the potatoes are going by rail to Dublin, the charge will be something like 30/-. That makes £2 5s. 0d. out of the price of a ton of potatoes worth, say, about £4. For that reason I say potatoes are not an attractive crop to grow, except for persons situate near a market, or who have been in the habit of tilling on a very considerable scale. Of course, many persons will grow potatoes for their own home use and for feeding stock.

My suggestion to the Minister is that he should amend his Tillage Order so that in the non-wheat areas—if he likes he may apply it in the wheat areas as well—one acre of potatoes should count as two acres of tillage. In my opinion it would be much better for the country to have one acre of potatoes grown than two acres of oats. I strongly press that suggestion on the Minister. For feeding the people of the country, and even for the production of food for animals, there is more feeding stuff in an acre of potatoes than in two acres of oats, and there is far more trouble in tilling one acre of potatoes than there is in tilling five acres of oats. I hope the Minister will adopt my suggestion. There will be no difficulty in putting it into operation. The non-wheat areas can very easily be segregated for inspection purposes, and what I suggest will cause no trouble to the inspector in making up his calculations. If there is a failure of the harvest next year, and if the country is driven to eat more and more potatoes out of necessity, it will be a very bad thing indeed if the potato crop is short as well as the wheat crop. The Minister should have no difficulty in amending his Tillage Order in the way I have suggested.

There is one thing about that Order which I cannot understand, and it is, why rape should be a forbidden crop. Under it you can grow almost any variety of crop except rape. It would seem to me that, in the case of land which has been exhausted by having two or three crops of corn taken out of it, the very best way to restore the fertility of the soil would be to fodder sheep on rape, and why that should be prohibited at the present time I do not know. However, that is a small matter. What I want to impress on the Minister is that if his real aim is to produce food to feed the people of the country he will achieve that aim very much better if he makes a distinction in favour of potatoes as against the corn crop. I do not know whether he will accept the suggestion or not. It seems to me that if he does not he is simply following out blindly a rule of thumb. It is always easy to make an Order requiring people to till one-fifth or one-eighth of their land—a universal order for the whole country—but it requires work to make different Orders suited to the needs of different parts of the country. I hope that, because the suggestion I have made will entail a little more work on the Minister and his Department, he will not, for that reason, turn it down.

Mr. Cogan

The debate on the motion before the House has been very prolonged. I think that perhaps too much time has been devoted to the question of petrol. In my opinion the question of food supplies is infinitely more important. With regard to petrol, my only complaint is that the Minister for Supplies did not take steps to restrict its consumption during the past year, and thus make provision in advance for the emergency caused by the sinking of tankers coming here. The Minister would have averted, to a great extent, the difficult position in which the country has been placed, due to the shortage of petrol and the consequent serious and sudden unemployment which has arisen, if, during the past year, he had taken steps to prevent the waste of petrol to the extent to which it was being used for pleasure and amusement purposes, as well as the substitution of trams in this city by buses, and by restricting bus competition with the railways, through the country, particularly on routes catered for by the railways.

On the question of food supplies, I do not know that very many helpful suggestions have been made to the Minister, neither do I think that Ministers have given very useful information to the people in general as to what is needed from the country, and as to what is the exact position in regard to food. They certainly have not given an indication of any carefully prepared plan for dealing with tillage products other than wheat. I suppose it is correct to say that last year 75 per cent. of the tillage area of the country was devoted to crops such as oats, barley and potatoes. In regard to oats and barley, we know that the position last year was very unsatisfactory, and there is no indication that, for the coming year, the position will be any more satisfactory.

The Minister for Agriculture and other Ministers have repeatedly urged farmers to increase not only the acreage under wheat but also the acreage under barley, oats and potatoes. Have they offered any real inducement or any security to the grower of barley, oats or potatoes? In 1939, farmers sold their oats at a price of about 14/- or 15/- per barrel. That oats was subsequently supplied to consumers and also to farmers themselves who required it for seed a couple of months later at 35/- per barrel. One would think that having regard to that experience in 1939, some plan would have been worked out in regard to the oat crop for 1940, but when the position in 1940 was that farmers were compelled to pay 35/- and, in some cases, £2 for their seed oats, one would imagine that some provision would be made in regard to the marketing of the oats. No provision was made and the result was that farmers had to sell their produce at 12/- and 13/- per barrel. That produce sold at 12/- or 13/- two or three months ago is now worth more than £1 per barrel and the probability is that by the time the farmer requires to purchase his seed, it will be worth nearly £2 per barrel. Here we have a state of affairs in which the unfortunate producer has been deliberately robbed of more than 50 per cent. of the value of his produce and no steps have been taken by the Minister for Agriculture or any other Minister to regulate that position. Therefore, when we ask farmers now to grow more oats during the coming year, we should at least take some steps to assure him that he will get a reasonable price for at least some of the oats he produces.

The position in regard to oats and barley has, I think, never been properly tackled by our Government, Our Government does not seem to realise that oats and barley are commodities much the same in many respects as gold. They are commodities which can be hoarded and stored, and which can be easily cornered by a few individuals for the purpose of making tremendous profits. Because of that, it is the duty of the Government to take steps to regulate and control the entire marketing of grain. That will have to be done sooner or later, and the sooner it is done, the better. We cannot allow a condition of affairs to continue in which a small group of active people can jump in and seize the entire profits of the farmers' hard labour. Deputy Moran referred to the large acreage of oats grown in County Meath. That oats was grown mainly by small farmers on poor land, and we can imagine how hard these farmers had to work in order to produce that grain. We can imagine them working on poor land, with, in many cases, inferior implements and inadequate quantities of manure, and we find that, having produced that grain, a quantity of which they must market, they are robbed of half the value of the crop, or, in other words, other people who have nothing to do but sit in offices are able to make a profit of 100 per cent. out of that produce. Deputy Corry also gave us some very useful information with regard to the ramp which is taking place in respect of wheat.

When we farmers ask for a better price for wheat, we are sometimes told that we are trying to increase the price of the loaf, but I think that if these profiteering sharks were eliminated, it would be possible to pay the farmer a decent price not only for wheat but for other grain products, without increasing the price to the consumer. Surely the price of oatmeal sold to the poor in our towns and cities is not the price which the farmer gets for his oats. If it were, oatmeal could be supplied at a very cheap rate in our towns and cities, but because there are a group of individuals in the corn trade who are out to make big profits and who have always been out to make these big profits at the expense of the farmer, we have a state of affairs in which tillage farming has never been as profitable as it could have been. If tillage farming is to be continued in this country, not only during this emergency but in the future, one co-operative organisation, let us say, of some kind must be formed to handle not only all the grain produced, but also any grain which it may be necessary at any time to import. If that were done, we might be able to arrive at a position in which we could have a planned economy and a planned acreage of oats, barley and wheat and in which the acreages of these different crops could be related to each other.

When the question of the price of oats is raised, we are often met with the answer that a good price for oats would militate against the growing of wheat. The same would apply to barley. If the handling of the oats crop were controlled, it would be possible to segregate certain areas in which wheat cannot be grown and to confine the growing of oats for sale to these particular areas. One industry was established in this country in connection with agriculture which has been fairly well planned—the beet growing and sugar producing industry. In that industry, the exact acreage of beet to be grown each year is determined before the crop is sown. By so determining the acreage of beet, we have a position in which sufficient beet is grown to keep the factories in operation, and, at the same time, there is not left on the hands of the farmer a huge surplus of which he cannot dispose.

There is now a certain market for a certain quantity of oats, apart from what the farmer may use on his own farm, and it would be possible for the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Supplies to calculate in advance the extent of that market. It would be possible for the Minister for Agriculture in advance to have a certain specified, predetermined acreage of oats grown for sale to supply that market, and it would be possible also for the growers who grow the oats to be assured of a fixed guaranteed economic price. If that were done, it would relieve to a great extent the position of the people in the poorer areas who cannot grow wheat, owing to the inferior nature of their land. It would also eliminate the profiteering sharks who have made such enormous profits out of the oat crop. Surely, if oats is worth £1 per barrel to-day, it should have been possible for the State to guarantee the grower of oats £1 per barrel when he was sowing the crop, instead of paying that £1 per barrel to the people who store and corner our grain crops.

This is really the most important aspect of our food supply question. My suggestion is that the Government should plan the exact acreage of oats, barley and wheat that should be grown, in consultation with the farmers; that is to say, they should plan the proportion of the land under tillage which should be set aside for the different crops, and in the areas which are not suited for wheat or barley, the farmer should be guaranteed a remunerative price for oats. In other areas which are specially adapted for barley, a similar guarantee could be given. We had a position last year in which the maltsters guaranteed the farmer an economic price for a certain limited quantity of barley, but the Government did not consider it their duty to guarantee the farmer a decent price for the remainder of his barley, with the result that half the barley growers of the country were compelled to sell their barley at a price ranging from 17/- to £1 per barrel. Less than a month after the farmers had disposed of their barley, the price began to soar, until to-day barley is worth considerably more than the price which the maltsters guaranteed the farmers. Surely, any intelligent Administration could so arrange matters and so plan ahead as to assure the farmer for his barley at least the price it is worth now to the profiteering middleman.

Again, also, the example of sugar beet may be quoted in regard to the management of other crops, such as oats, barley and wheat. In the sugar beet industry, the grower is provided with seed on credit, with credit facilities for manures and with a small cash advance during the summer months which enables him to attend to his crop while waiting for his payment on delivery of his crop to the factory. It is possible, though not quite a simple matter, I admit, to make similar provision in regard to all the wheat grown in the country, and in regard to a limited acreage of oats and barley. It is by such a planned system on a permanent basis that tillage farming is going to be made a success in this country.

If we had, as I say, a central organisation, having control of all the grain produced, it would be possible for that organisation to regulate the acreage of such crops to be grown during each year. If it happened, for example, during the coming year or during any particular year, that yields were so high that a surplus was created in one particular grain crop, the central organisation would then set about limiting the acreage of that cereal. In that way, I say that the farmer would always be assured of a guaranteed economic price for such grain crops as he had to sell. I am not suggesting that there should be a guaranteed price for an unlimited acreage of any crop. It may be possible to guarantee a price for an unlimited acreage of wheat at the moment, because the wheat acreage is much below what is required, but it is not possible to guarantee a price for an unlimited acreage of oats or even barley. With regard to those crops, it would be possible to guarantee a price only for a limited acreage in areas where wheat cannot be grown successfully.

I think there have been some suggestions that farmers might be inclined to take advantage of the present situation to demand or to claim excessive prices. There is no such intention on the part of farmers, and neither is there any intention on the part of any organised body of farmers to withhold their support and encouragement from the increasing of the acreage under tillage in order to force up the price of any particular grain crop. The farmers, whether as individuals or as an organised body, will do everything possible to increase and extend the acreage ploughed during the coming year, and since they are not prepared to let the country down in respect of food supplies, it is their hope that the country will not let them down and that whatever price the consumer pays for his requirements, the farmer will get that price, without being robbed by the middlemen.

There are just a few matters in regard to increasing the acreage under tillage to which the Government's attention should be directed. We know that urgent appeals are being made to individual farmers throughout the country to increase the tillage area, but we should like to see an example in this direction set by the Government itself in respect of the land it holds. I know from personal experience that the Land Commission hold a considerable amount of land in the country in respect of which the tillage order is not being fully complied with or, if it is being complied with, it is only barely complied with. I do not think that the Government is doing its duty to the community if it only barely complies with the tillage order. I think it is the duty of the Government to set a headline to the rest of the farmers by tilling the largest possible percentage of the land they hold. The same applies, I think, to the banks and to the Credit Corporation. The Agricultural Credit Corporation is a semi-Government body and I think they should set a headline also in regard to farms which they hold throughout the country which are at present being set for grazing. I think that is a matter to which the Minister for Agriculture should direct his attention. I know that the banks hold a considerable number of farms throughout the country. Those farms have been set for years for grazing. In many cases they are farms which are suitable for tillage and I think the banks should be not only compelled to comply with the law but they should also be induced by some means to set a headline to the farming community. They have the finance, if anybody has it, which the farmers have not and they should be able to go "all out" to cultivate not 20 per cent. but at least 75 per cent. of those lands. In this connection also I think it would be only reasonable to ask that while farmers might continue to pay the current annuities they should not be unduly pressed for arrears, at least not until the grain crops which are being set at the present time have been harvested.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does not the Deputy think he has dealt sufficiently with motion No. 7?

Mr. Cogan

Yes, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the opinion of the Chair also.

Mr. Cogan

We have been told by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures that this country can carry on without any import or export trade of any extent. I do not think the Minister has considered in this connection the importance of artificial manures and fertilisers. If we are to get increased production from the land and to maintain an increased area under tillage, we require very large supplies of artificial manures. I think there is general criticism of the Government that they have not laid in sufficient raw materials for the manufacture of artificial manures. I do not think sufficient effort has been made to provide shipping to import our requirements. I have been told that in some neutral countries, such as Spain, there are large quantities of artificial manures or the raw material for artificial manures, which could have been imported but which have not been.

Unless he disposes of it by agreement. It does not matter to me what the miller pays, because the price of flour is fixed as if the miller bought his wheat at 35/-, and if he pays more it is out of his own pocket.

Yes, that is right.

Mr. Lemass

We have received some additional supplies since that announcement was issued but we still have to control it.

I have already stated that we will assure farmers that kerosene for tractors will be available to them.

Mr. Belton

All the year round?

Mr. Lemass

Until the harvest is in anyway. What will happen after that, I do not know. That applies also to the petrol which is required for the starting of the tractors.

Mr. Belton

That is good enough.

Now, when you are talking about giving examples of the price that was given last year for oats, barley and so on, and what was paid by the farmer afterwards for seed, it is not a very convincing argument when you take the very lowest that was paid to a farmer for his oats and the highest that he had to pay back afterwards for seed. For instance, I know that, this time next year, we will be told that they sold their oats for 11/- a barrel and their barley for 18/- a barrel, but at present the farmer is getting from 20/- to 24/- a barrel for oats and 34/- a barrel for barley.

Mr. Brennan

But he is not the needy man.

Dr. Ryan

No, that is quite true. At any rate, the price for barley is 34/- a barrel. Now, when we are considering these questions it is well to consider them on the basis of the truth, as far as we can see it, and try to draw a picture of the position. It is true that the farmers did sell oats for 11/- after the last harvest, and barley for 18/-. It is almost impossible, however, for any Government to get these things right, and the only example I can think of that would give a true indication of the solution for these problems is that, in areas where you had co-operation between the farmers themselves for buying and selling, these things did not occur. Deputy Cogan is quite right in saying that co-operation is the only cure for this, and if the farmers would co-operate with one another in the matter of the buying and selling of these particular commodities, there would be no question of the selling of oats and barley at low prices and buying them back afterwards at high prices.

Mr. Brennan

We have had three or four speeches from Ministers and, with the exception of the last speaker, we had not much information. I must say that, as far as the Minister was able, I think he was informative and did not leave us in doubt, so far as his Department was concerned, as to what he was doing and as to the possibilities and probabilities of the future. Now, I should like to say that, generally speaking, I was not impressed by the debate. I was rather surprised last night to hear Deputy O'Reilly and, I think, Deputy Maguire saying that this debate had cleared the air and that it had removed doubts and rumours. Well, that was rather bewildering, because, as a matter of fact, when we heard the Minister for Supplies the situation appeared to be much worse than anyone thought. While the information given by the Minister for Agriculture this evening was as full as he could give it, it amounts practically to the same thing. We know where we are now. If the farmers are going to be asked to produce—and they must produce—I am all with the Minister and with the Government in endeavouring to get production, but if they are to produce from one-fifth of their land, with only half of the manures that were available last year for one-eighth of their holdings, the outlook is very poor and bleak.

The Minister for Agriculture referred to black bread and to complaints that were made regarding the mixture of barley or oats. I am not concerned whether the bread is black or white. I should like to see white bread, but what I think is of importance is the production of bread of some sort. If we go in for a campaign of growing more wheat, and yet more wheat, the manure position being that stated by the Minister for Agriculture, we are possibly going to land ourselves in a very bad jamb. There is no use in advising people to grow wheat where possibly they will get a return of only one ton while they could get two tons of oatmeal or barley meal. We will have to be careful that we do not bankrupt the soil of the country in our efforts to have white bread. Wheat will only grow on good land and there will not be a decent return unless there is manure for it. If manures are restricted, and we are assured they are from what the Minister stated, then the outlook for a bumper crop is very poor indeed.

It was rather bewildering to listen to the Minister for Supplies yesterday when he was telling us the position with regard to wheat, particularly when we remembered the statement about supplies he made in the House shortly after the war started in September, 1939. Putting the ordinary interpretation on the statement made then it would appear that the suggestion was resented by the Minister for Supplies that he was misleading the House and the country. I am afraid the statement the Minister made in September, 1939, bears that out. It was made on the 27th September, 1939, and appears in the Dáil Debates, volume 77, column 333. Speaking on the wheat position he said:

"I can say with confidence that, so far as flour is concerned no matter what happens next year or next year's crop, there will be no difficulty in respect of the supply of flour for two years ahead."

I distinctly remember that statement being made by the Minister for Supplies, and I remember feeling very assured about it.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 17 Jan 1941

Essential Supplies—Motion (Resumed).

Mr. Morrissey

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 17 Jan 1941