I want to say a few words on the question of expanding the wheat acreage. Representing a country constituency it might be said that a person like myself was not able to judge in detail what farmers required in order to carry out the Government programme, but if you take the advice of the right people and go around the country, you will learn what regions or areas of any particular part of the country are equipped for wheat growing, and when you talk to people generally and study comparative reports, perhaps it is almost easier for a person who is not himself immersed in the work of farming, at least to make a comparison between the situation as it actually exists and as it might be under better circumstances. I should like to submit to the House that this country is far from being adequately equipped to face a rapid growth in our tillage, to face an enormous ploughing up of land, and that the steps the Government have taken in the way of offering grants to farmers for land improvement are excellent, but require a great deal of expansion, if the ideal is to be achieved.
We are now about to extend further our tillage. We have a very small and negligible supply of artificial manures. We have certainly a considerable number of farmers who are improperly equipped to produce farmyard manure. We have at least 500,000 acres which, in the past 20 years, have gone back to rough grazing from being arable land. We have literally thousands of miles of choked drains and thousands of miles of hedges that have grown beyond their normal confines, and we have a vast area of old pasture land which, according to any modern definition, is unfit to take its place in a proper rotation of crops. I should say that, without any exaggeration, only 5 per cent. of the farms in Athlone-Longford were fitted, from the standpoint of modern agricultural technique as it exists to-day, to face a war situation; that about 45 per cent. were fairly well equipped; and that 50 per cent. were grossly lacking in the elements of ideal farming equipment, both as regards farm equipment and the condition of the land.
This is not a debate in which we need do any post-mortems. For 20 years, we have discussed matters of importance superior to that of developing intensively our agriculture, and we now have to see what we can do to remedy the situation when it requires remedying. We know that we cannot get artificial manures, but we know that we can encourage the agricultural community to improve the land, to put rough grazing land back into cultivation, to clean land, to clean out drains and to take every step possible to make the land we have, even without artificial manures, produce as much as possible. I heard Deputy Fagan in a recent debate—I think it was the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture—say that the headlands and uncut hedges in his constituency were in such a bad condition that if they were properly cut and if the headlands were cut back, there would be a sufficient area for production to feed the people living on the farms on which these headlands existed. That perhaps was rather a dramatic statement, but it certainly had an element of truth in it. Further, as we know from the last war, the yield of all cereal crops rapidly declined about 1917, as a result of a heavy tillage programme without sufficient artificial manures. We are bound to face that situation, so that even if we were able to grow a sufficient quantity of wheat, of animal feeding stuffs, on a given acreage this year, by 1942 we should have to have a still greater acreage in order to make up for the lower yield in the crop. That is a serious circumstance. We also know that the fact of cleaning land, drains and hedges provides a certain amount of humus which can be thrown back on the soil and which, while not sufficient to rehabilitate land that requires artificial manures in addition, is of great assistance to the farmer.
I submit that the land improvement scheme has not been sufficiently advertised and that it is just as well that it has not been, because if it had been properly advertised and explained, there would be an insufficient amount of grant to provide farmers with the necessary facilities. I think it is the beginning of a magnificent scheme, and I think the Government are to be congratulated for having devised it. I am aware that the officials in the Department of Agriculture took immense pains to think over all the difficulties that immediately arise when you have any form of scheme involving subsidised labour.
I hope and trust that the Department is considering an extension of the scheme and I shall be glad to hear from the Minister that he has this in mind. According to the figures given by Deputy Maguire of the amount allocated to a certain area in his constituency, it would appear as if increased funds were required. It has also been represented to me that there is a certain class of farmer who has not the capital to finish the work himself without receiving an instalment of the grant paid by the Department of Agriculture. I admit that that involves great administrative difficulties. I can see that it is much easier to pay a farmer the grant when he has performed his own part of the task than to give him portion of the grant during the course of the work. But if it is possible to get over the difficulty in certain areas where these grants are most urgently required, it would be an excellent thing to do.
In connection with this land improvement scheme, the question of finance arises. Assuming that it is not going to be so easy as it was before to obtain finance for such schemes, I submit to the Government that there are certain Departments of State spending money on relieving unemployment in a way which was, perhaps, good enough in peace-time but which is not sufficiently co-ordinated during hostilities. I refer to money spent on minor relief schemes, bog roads, pass roads, bog drains, money spent by county councils, and money granted by the Central Government, to the county councils for road work. At the same time as money is being spent in this way, we have this growing need for land improvement, and we have a certain fund already allocated to that purpose by the Department of Agriculture. We shall have to make alterations in our manner of life during this war and, if petrol is not going to be available, there is not so much need to repair the roads. There is certainly no need to straighten corners at which, so far as one can ascertain, no accidents have ever taken place if the roads in question go through country urgently in need of land improvement.
It seems to me that there is one factor which should be considered by the Department of Agriculture: it is an undesirable thing to be able to go along a road in the country in the middle of this war, when there is an urgent need for increased tillage, and see men actually straightening a road which does not require straightening from the standpoint of accident, because there has been no accident on it, while alongside that road there are fields one-fourth or one-fifth or one-third of which are going back to rough grazing, with choked drains on either side. It may be said that road schemes are an easier way of spending unemployment relief moneys, because the labour-content is greater and the work more simple to supervise. Therefore, we mend the road and neglect the fields and drains on either side. Again, I submit that the time has arrived to reconsider that matter and, before any road is straightened with State finance, the lands in need of improvement around that road should be considered. If we put some of those 500,000 acres, which have gone back to rough grazing, into cultivation, it will enable the farmer to get over the difficulty of rapidly increasing the tillage area. At the same time, as I have mentioned before, extension of the grants for land improvement will make available humus which will be some kind of substitute for the artificial manures we need so urgently.
A question also arises as to the definition of "arable land" by the different inspectors who go around the country in connection with the tillage scheme. I notice that in areas where there is a number of good tillage farmers—people who, so far as I know, have done tillage simply because they found it possible to do and who had no special means whereby they carried out tillage—some of these inspectors take a rather lax attitude in defining arable land. In the midst of this great crisis, you find an inspector defining a field which is a perfectly good field but a few perches of which at the top may be a little bit rough and may want cleaning badly as non-arable land. I realise the difficulties of farmers in putting land into cultivation but there, again, it seems to me as if it would be necessary in the future to have sterner standards as to what is, in fact, arable land.
Turning from the question of agriculture to that of industry, I think it would be a good thing if the Minister for Supplies could say a little bit more about the future of industry—about industry not as it is now but as it will be from four to six months hence. It is absolutely true that at the present time there is no sign of any great or extensive unemployment in virtually any branch of our manufacturing industries. We still possess raw materials in most of these industries. It is, however, well that the country should be made aware of the probable position. Our industries may be divided into three categories—(1) those in which there is absolutely no sign of a shortage of raw materials; (2) those in which there is a sign of very evident shortage, from three to six months from now, unless shipping is made available; and (3)—I am glad to say a small category—in which, already, an acute situation is arising. Luckily for our own economy, an industry which is at the moment progressing most satisfactorily is the clothing industry. As far as one can ascertain, as mentioned by the Taoiseach, there are no raw materials in connection with the clothing industry we cannot obtain either in this country or in England. Even in connection with that industry, it is well to warn the public that we have no very large stocks of cotton yarn in this country—about three or four weeks' supply—and that if air bombardment should become very intense in a certain area in England, our cotton factories would, in a few weeks' time, be out of business. Even although the material is there, it is material that would, naturally, be vulnerable in war time and we cannot rely on continuous delivery from England even in respect of an article like that. It is well, too, that the country should be aware that we have a heavy kind of wool used for making worsted cloth, but due to the war the factory which makes worsted yarn here was not able to complete its equipment and the wool has to be sent to England to be made into wool tops before coming back here to be made into yarn. One stage of the manufacture here is missing—the combing part. It would not be fair, if war becomes more intense six months from now and if a certain portion of the clothing industry is adversely affected, if the people were to say: "You told us everything was right about the clothing industry and look at what is happening now." It is well to make the country aware of these things.
When we turn to a second group of industries in which it would appear that there is still plenty of raw materials available we find that in some cases the manufacturers have no idea of where the raw materials are to come from in six months from now if no shipping can be obtained. In certain of these industries 80 per cent. of the raw materials may be available but 20 per cent. may not be available which may make the use of the 80 per cent. ineffective. In other words, if you want to make a certain kind of brush, you may have the fibre and the wood, but if you lack the stitching wire you cannot make that kind of brush. You can possibly make some substitute, but that does not help employment in the brush industry. I merely mention that as an example of an industry where materials may be available to a certain degree but where shortage of one material may hold up the industry.
Again, take an industry which uses a certain kind of solvent. White spirit, for example, is a very important commodity with very precarious delivery in this country and white spirit is used as raw material in a number of industries. It is used in the production of paints and polishes. The delivery of white spirit has in fact been held up on occasions. It is rationed strictly by the British Government. There again is an industry which looks perfectly all right at the present time but which may become serious later on.
There is no need for me to make a very large list of these industries. I merely wish to indicate that there is a great region of industry where there are likely to be difficulties after a certain time. There is no doubt that, as the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures said, we can create extraordinary substitutes in time of war. Obviously you could make shoes without metal eyelets. You could make shoes of rough leather which you would not use in peace time. You can maintain industry to a certain degree but there is no question that if the normality of our production is disturbed it will affect employment even though people may have clothing and the other articles they may require for their ordinary needs.
Then there are three commodities where there really will be a very great scarcity shortly. One of them is paper. One factory I know for a fact has only one week's supply of pulp left. The whole of the metal industry, except a very few categories in which the English have a surplus, will be absolutely depending in six months time on supplies from America and the shipping that is available from America. In certain cases a certain number of factories using metal have had to go on short time. We may be able to get ships. It is possible the British Government may release for export certain things they have restricted because they have a sufficient number of them for their war effort, but at the same time let us not delude the country into believing that the metal situation is entirely satisfactory, which it is not. The third article is timber.
As far as I can gather, timber stocks vary from six to two weeks' supply. Although certain companies may have timber for a greater period, I know one of the largest companies in Dublin has very little timber left. The timber is waiting on the other side of the Atlantic, just as the wood pulp is waiting and just as the metal is waiting. A very great deal of it is lying on the quays of the United States' harbours, but cannot be got here until we have ships. I trust the Government are taking steps to go into the native stocks that may be available. Sooner or later the decision to use native timber, instead of imported timber, will have to be made in view of the approaching shortage.
I do not wish in anything I have said to exaggerate. I am merely pointing out that the situation is not satisfactory, as the Minister himself has said, and I want to enlarge a little on the various items of industry in order that the public may have some conception of the position. We do know what the import position in this country is, generally speaking, from the figures that were given in the last number of the Irish Trade Journal, which I think every Deputy should be aware of. The volume of our imports is clearly indicated in the last number of the Irish Trade Journal in this way: the imports have been equated in the Department's statistics on 1930 prices in order to give an idea of volume as compared with value. In August, 1937, at 1930 prices, we imported just under £4,000,000 worth of goods. In August, 1940, the figure was £2.79 millions, already showing a very distinct reduction. In October, 1937, the figure was £4.03 millions. In October, 1940, it was £2.16 millions. In other words our imports were very nearly half as compared with 1937, making a revaluation in price in order to allow for the situation that prices have increased for most articles. I merely mention that because there is the absolute proof of our difficulties.
Then it is just as well that the country should be aware of the list of articles published in the papers the other day as being subject to licence for export by the English Government, articles which we were previously able to import quite satisfactorily without obtaining a licence. Those articles include a great number of miscellaneous machinery and tools of the kind which we do not need very much at the present time, but they also include very important raw materials which the public may have missed sight of through not having read the list in detail, such as cocoa butter, glucose, dried peas, coal, the raw materials for polishes, iron and steel, raw silk, cotton and jute yarn. Of all those articles the British Government had evidently a large export surplus before, and although they may continue to export them to us they evidently think it is important to regard each shipment as being worthy of study and that a licence should be given in connection with each shipment. There, again, one can see we are entering into a difficult position.
In fact, regarding the situation as a whole, as far as industry is concerned, we are once again up against the difficulty of shipping. There is almost nothing that we could not import from the United States for our industries if we had the shipping. I would like to submit to the Minister for Supplies once more the suggestion to him that has been made from other quarters, that we are rather lost on this side of the Atlantic so far as American purchases are concerned. Many of our manufacturers have no experience in dealing with American manufacturers. Nearly all the goods have to be paid for when they leave the factory in America before they arrive at the port or before they are put on the railway to come to the port in America for shipment. In other words, instead of paying for goods as we used to in the old days on their arrival here or on their being placed on board in New York, they have to be paid for the moment they are manufactured in the United States, in the factory there. That creates very great delays in delivery. It creates delays in payment and creates delays even in the ordering of the goods and I would like to suggest to the Minister for Supplies that he should consider whether some sort of committee in America could not be of assistance to us in expediting purchases and in obtaining what shipping is possible and even in obtaining supplies of shipping. I know there is no ideal remedy. I know it could not make the difference between an entirely satisfactory situation and the present situation, but even if it would increase the available importations from America by 10 or 20 per cent. it would be justified, particularly in the case of materials which are required to maintain very important types of employment in this country. I would like to ask the Minister for Supplies whether he has given consideration to that suggestion.
As far as the shipping situation is concerned, it would appear, in discussing shipping, one immediately initiates a post-mortem: it would have been better if we had a mercantile marine. We have not got one and, therefore, all we can do is to negotiate for ships that are available and to use them for our necessary importations.