Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Feb 1941

Vol. 81 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Minimum Price for Wheat—Motion.

Mr. Belton

I move the following motion which stands in the name of Deputy Cogan and myself:—

While, recognising that the area under tillage, particularly the area under wheat, should be further extended in the present emergency, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that to induce and compensate the farmers for growing a sufficiency of wheat to meet the nation's requirements this year the fixed minimum price for good millable wheat should not be less than 50/- per barrel for the 1941 crop.

At the outset, I wish to draw particular attention to the phraseology of the motion, as play has been made with it in this House and outside, to the effect that its object is to increase the price of the loaf. May I say that the object of the motion is to lower the price of the loaf of good quality? I am sorry that when the House is about to discuss a motion like this, the whole Government Front Bench should be empty, and I refuse to proceed with my remarks until somebody representing the Government is here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy wait for a few moments?

Mr. Belton

Now we see what interest and sincerity there is in the wheat drive. There seems to be no Government—it has not abdicated, has it?

Mr. Allen

There is no reason why the Deputy should not proceed.

Mr. Belton

And talk to empty benches? I have more respect for my intelligence and for the importance of what I am going to say than to do that. Now that the Minister is here, I want to draw his special attention to the phraseology of the motion. The Minister and his colleagues are out on a campaign to get a sufficiency of wheat and on that point we ought to have agreement at the beginning. Is it 600,000 acres or 700,000 acres the Minister wants? Either acreage means a doubling this year of the area under wheat last year, and, to get that area under wheat, the Minister first offered a minimum price of 37/6 per barrel. Since our debate on 13th January on the original Tillage Order, that price has been increased to 40/-. Speaking with regard to price on 12th December the Minister said:

If we paid 40/-, we would probably get more; if we paid 50/-, we would get more; and if we paid £3, we would get more; but I am not sure that even £3 a barrel would bring us 100 per cent. of our requirements.

The Minister says we must have 100 per cent. of our requirements, but—I am not impugning the Minister's personal honour or honesty—is he honest in regard to this? He does not believe that we will get 100 per cent. of our requirements even if we pay £3 per barrel and the price he is offering is only 40/- per barrel. Our requirements are 600,000 or 700,000 acres. Both figures have been mentioned by the Minister and let us split the difference and say 650,000 acres, which would produce on an average crop 650,000 tons. That is what we want to accomplish this year.

That represents a sufficiency of wheat and we want to induce the farmers to grow that sufficiency. For oats, there will be a free market, and for barley, there will be a free market. It was stated here to-day that there would be a price of 30/- per barrel for barley. Does the Minister consider that in a free market this year wheat would sell at as low as 40/- a barrel? Does he think that it would sell at even as low as 50/- per barrel? He knows that during the last great war, when wheat was pretty freely imported into this country, Irish wheat sold for over £3 per barrel, and does he not know that if barley is to fetch 30/- per 16-stone barrel, wheat cannot compete at 40/- per 20-stone barrel? Last year, on the basis of a price of 35/- per barrel, we got 300,000 acres, representing 40 per cent. of our requirements, and we imported the balance. This year, we want more than twice that acreage, and, if we are to get it, are we not to offer a price or a free market in order to get it? I submit that, in a free market, for the coming harvest, the price of good millable wheat might reach £5 per barrel. The Minister looks up in surprise at that statement, but if there were a free market for wheat, if the millers were free to mill any kind of flour they wished and if there was a mill permitted to mill wheat on the basis of a 70 or 75 per cent. extraction, that mill could buy all the wheat it could get at £5 per barrel and sell all the flour milled from it. I challenge contradiction on that. Why? Because wheat growers are growing a crop this year that will fall short of requirements. I am not saying that that would be an equitable price to give but, when any commodity is scarce in the market, especially a commodity so essential to the human life as wheat, people will pay any price for it. I want to emphasise one point because I do not want a repetition of the cleavage that manifested itself in the recent debate on supplies. Every Deputy who represented an urban constituency spoke against any increase in the price of bread. The alternative is not an increase in the price of bread. The alternative is inferior bread or no bread. That is the alternative which is facing us.

When we put down this motion, with the approval of organised farmers, suggesting a minimum price of 50/- per barrel, we suggested a price about half that which the commodity would fetch in a free market next year. I want that to go home. Can the Minister expect to get wheat cheaper next year, following this year's crop, with a world in arms and a world at war, than it was obtained at when, on a previous occasion, we had a world at arms and a world at war? At that time, we had not a submarine menace half as intense as the menace of to-day. We had no aeroplane menace whereas we have a very serious aeroplane menace now.

We are told by the Head of the Government that we must go back and rely on our own resources. Even if it were possible to bring wheat into this country, can we imagine wheat coming in more cheaply than it did during the last war? We know that the standard which obtained in the last war was £3. In this motion, we are not asking for £3 per barrel. We are asking 50/- and we are satisfied that, at that price, foreign wheat could not be bought next year. We ask the authority of the Dáil to tell the Government that they should make the price of 50/- the minimum standard for the farmers who grow wheat. If that is done, you will be sure of the crop. I cannot emphasise too much that the object of this motion is not to get a price but to get the wheat. The Minister said that he did not expect he would get the necessary amount at £3 a barrel. If the Minister advances to 50/-, he may say that he will not get all the wheat he wants at that price. I would not guarantee that he would but I would guarantee that he would get a greater sacrifice from the farmers if he and his Government showed their sincerity.

When the Minister was speaking the last day, he mentioned about barley being withdrawn from the maltsters at 36/- a barrel and being mixed with the wheat. A price of 36/- for a barrel of barley amounts to 45/- for 20 stones. You are putting an inferior cereal into your flour and paying 45/- for it while you will not give more than 40/- for the real article—wheat. The Minister is a farmer and comes from, perhaps, the first farming county in Ireland. Owing to his environment, he ought to know this subject better than I do and I am not saying that he does not. He knows that, as a business proposition, the growing of barley at 36/- and the growing of wheat at 40/- cannot be compared. I challenge any farmer Deputy to get up and say that, as a business proposition, he would rather grow wheat at 50/- than barley at 30/-. I am not saying that 30/- is too much but that price has been accepted by the Government.

Why not make the drive necessary to get our full requirements of wheat? It may be good business, if you have no alternative, to take 90 per cent. extraction from wheat. Let us say there are 600,000 tons of wheat to give you flour of 70 per cent. extraction and we have a 90 per cent. extraction. That involves 120,000 tons of bran and pollard. I think I am right in quoting the Minister as saying the other day that 50 per cent. of our cattle feeding stuffs have to be imported. Here, he is going to turn back into flour, as if it were a windfall, 120,000 tons of animal feeding stuffs at a time when we are depending entirely on our own resources to provide food for man and beast. How does the Minister propose to make up for those 120,000 tons of animal feeding stuffs on top of the 50 per cent. of imports? Are we to slaughter our live stock as we slaughtered the calves? Shall we, this time, slaughter the stores which we cannot fatten? The situation is terribly serious. In a leading article in the Irish Press on the 1st January, it was stated that the Minister's policy was quite simple, that he merely says to the farmers: “Grow all the wheat you can to ensure bread for yourself and your families and then grow all you possibly can to feed the others.” If that is the national agricultural policy in this emergency, it is a blue look-out for the city folk.

Our view as farmers is that a duty falls on the farmers now to feed the nation. And they will feed the nation, but let the Government take them into its confidence and see what is an equitable price for providing bread for the nation. That has not been done yet and no moves have been made in that direction. It is time there were. No spokesman on behalf of the Government has claimed that a full supply of wheat will be grown in this country at 40/- a barrel. I asked the Minister on the day the House debated the question of supplies how much was sown. He could only reckon roughly by saying there were 300,000 tons of winter wheat in the country for seed. He knew that. I do not know how he knew it. No census was ever taken of my seed and I sowed 150 acres with my own seed. Nobody knew what seed I had. I did not know myself until I had finished my operations.

Why does not the Minister know exactly? I suggest that the Civic Guards should be taking a census every week. They should know what land is being prepared. They should know how much is sown every week, so that we may be sure we will have our requirements. It seems to me that the policy of the Government is to shout: "Grow more wheat." At the end of January, when there was a snow-storm on, to ask us to prepare to grow twice as much wheat as we grew last year is not cricket; it is not hurley; it is not playing the game. Why was it not done last September? It was not done, and nobody should be blamed for it but the Government.

I suggest that the question of wheat-growing should be taken up seriously. At all costs we should grow our requirements. The offals from the usual extraction are required for their own job, and that job is twofold. We have to feed livestock. We have to sell livestock. Why have we to sell it? I am not so sure that, if everything was told, the cause of the real crisis in this country is not a shortage of foreign exchange to buy our requirements. I am not going to discuss petrol here at this stage, but I am not so sure that if we had plenty of foreign exchange we would not have more petrol. How are we going to get foreign exchange? By selling in an outside market. If we do not produce the food here to fatten our livestock and prepare them for an outside market we will have no foreign exchange to buy the things we do not produce at home.

It is as important for the survival of this nation that we should have adequate food for our livestock as that we should have food for ourselves. The food for human consumption is wheat. I suggest strongly to the Minister and his Government that they should not think in terms of substitutes for wheat, but in terms of wheat alone. And the price? The price would not be more. Wheat at 50/- a barrel would be £20 per ton. Barley at 30/- a barrel would be £15 a ton, and oats at 26/- a barrel would be £15 per ton. I put it to the Minister that wheat at that price would produce as cheap a bread as he can get. The all important thing is that we will not get our requirements if we do not offer proper inducement, because the farmers cannot afford to grow it. It takes too much out of the soil. It is too late in the year. They have to sow it on ground that is not 100 per cent. suitable. The yield will be so much less. All these things considered, the farmers cannot grow wheat at less than 50/- a barrel.

If you leave the fixed price for wheat at 40/- with a free market for barley and oats to supplement wheat for human food and also to provide feeding stuffs for live stock, barley and oats will be the paying crops for the farmer this year, not wheat. I say that without fear of contradiction. Why not at least put wheat on a competitive basis with the rest of the crops? It is the crop that is most directly available for human food and, as I said before, all the offals are required to do their job. You cannot take them for human food because you will lose 50 per cent. of your cattle feeding stuffs as there will be no imported feeding stuffs. The Minister knows that quite well, better than I do, because he has at his elbow a Department. All he has to do is to press a bell to get most reliable and first-hand information. I suggest to the Minister that the cheapest ingredient he can buy for bread is wheat at 50/- a barrel and at that price he will get a considerable quantity of it, perhaps nearly all he requires. If he does not expect to get it all, the fault is his. He should offer such an inducement as will get for him all the wheat he requires.

I do not want to take up much time in opening this debate. I am sure there are many Deputies here who are interested in the subject who wish to give their views. But the Minister is the Minister for Agriculture. He is not the Minister for a wheat drive. When he asks a farmer to double his area under wheat he knows that, according to the ordinary rules of husbandry, he is asking that farmer to follow a rotation for four or five years. Instead of calling for a wheat drive for this year he should be putting up a five-year tillage plan, embodying rotation, fixing prices for that period. Farmers have a bitter recollection of the last war, when they had their land tilled to provide food and found they were undersold in their own market by Russian oats and German wheat. They got protection when they were wiped out. We know that the blisters put on Irish agriculture during the last war and during the aftermath of the last war are there still, and no Government relieved the land of this country of that burden. We are told now of little petty loans that will be given. I said in this House before that loans would get the farmers nowhere except into debt, and I am glad that a very distinguished writer has quoted that, a Cork man at that. The late John Mackey has quoted it in his "Rape of Ireland" and has supported it.

I would ask the Minister to consider what it means when he asks farmers to grow twice the area under wheat if the farmers are to follow a reasonable rotation. He is asking the farmers to double their area under tillage at a time when no provision whatever has been made for fertilisers. There we are in the dark. The increase in food production this year must come from the big farms.

The Tillage Order will not affect the small farmers, because they are tilling more than the percentage required by the order. The increased production must come from the big farmers; it must come from the tractor farmers, and I have very grave doubts as to what the tractor position will be when the harvest comes. If the Government are wise and prudent, and are going to take the necessary precautions to save the harvest—some may laugh at the suggestion I am about to put forward—they should make sure that there is enough scrap iron here to make reaping-hooks to cut the harvest. We may not have tractors; we may not have plough parts; we may be thrown back to the conditions which obtained 70 years ago in the period so often quoted by the Minister when we grew our own requirements of wheat. Yes; and we sowed it with the shovel, and we cut it with the hook. That is why we were independent of other countries. We cannot plough with the tractor, reap with the reaper and binder and thresh with the threshing mill if we have not got access to the outer world. What provision is being made for reaping-hooks? Is the scrap iron to make them going to be held in this country? Those are things that we must consider now. We were not considering petrol some months ago, a year ago. Tankers came into this city, discharged some of their cargo, and had to take away the balance because there was no storage accommodation for it, and responsible Ministers warned the country against hoarding of any kind when they should have been telling us to fill every tin can in the country with petrol. Now they wake up and say: "Boys, buy all you can" when we cannot buy anything.

There are labour battalions in the Army. I hope they will be trained to save the harvest if we cannot use our machines, and I hope those who are getting home assistance and unemployment assistance will be available to save the harvest and prevent famine, because it is famine we are faced with, famine for man and beast. Now is the time to guard against it, even at this late hour in spring. Of course, it is winter yet, because we are told to sow winter wheat. I suppose it is winter while we are sowing winter wheat, and when the last grain is sown spring will dawn. Anyway, let us sow some kind of wheat. It has been suggested that the price is a bit high. My answer to that is this: If the Minister can get up here and state that he is assured of our full wheat requirements at 40/- a barrel, I will withdraw this motion. If he stands over that statement, if he takes responsibility for the statement that he will get what wheat we want at 40/- a barrel, I will withdraw this motion and support the Minister. Our object in putting down this motion is to get the wheat, not the price. If it can be got at a lower price than 50/- and if the Minister says: "I take the responsibility and the Government will take the responsibility before the country; there will be no danger of famine; there will be no black bread; there will be a good loaf at 40/- a barrel for wheat," I will withdraw the motion. Further, I will add 20 per cent. to my present acreage under wheat—I have 150 acres under it—and so will my colleague here. But let the Minister take that responsibility. It is all very well to say: "We will not put up the loaf," but we will put up all kinds of stuff and say to the mob: "Here is cheap bread; those farmers wanted to increase the price." You may have cheap bread, but you will not have cheap wheaten bread. That is the proposition I put to the Minister on the question of price; if he is satisfied that he will get our full requirements at 40/- a barrel he would be foolish to offer a penny more. I do not think he will. I am sure he will not.

I am sorry that we are not dealing with the other motion, the motion on credits, and I have no doubt as to the reason why it is held back. We have been talking of starvation. We have been talking of the black forties when we had famine. The cause of that famine is still here. The cause of that famine was that this country did not control its credits. This country does not control its credits to-day, and the same danger is staring this country in the face, with this difference, that we are now on our own and cannot blame anyone else if we starve. Then we were able to blame it on the "famine Queen". We cannot do that on this occasion, and in order to save the honour of this country and the honour of the Irish race we should be up and doing. We should see to it that nobody will starve, and that we will not have to kill off all our livestock through shortage of food. This country can supply all the food necessary for twice the population, three times the population that is here, if it is managed properly. The people will rise to the occasion if they are taken into the confidence of the Government, and if they are told the truth. No matter what the position is, no matter how bad it is, tell us what it is, and you need not fear that the Irish people will not rise to the occasion.

In conclusion, I want to say that this motion is prompted by a desire to offer sufficient inducement to get our full requirements of wheat, and the provision of those full requirements of wheat will prompt the cultivation of other crops. It will start a four or five or perhaps six years' rotation, which means the potential doubling of the area under tillage. In return for that private enterprise, the community in general should say to the agricultural community: "Go ahead. Give us the food for man and beast during this emergency, and we will guarantee that for four or five years subsequent to the emergency the food which you produce for man and beast will be consumed here instead of the food sent by foreigners from the far ends of the earth, so that after this war you will be saved from the terrible aftermath from which you suffered when the last war ended. You do the job for the nation now and the nation will not let you down." But is the Minister saying that? Will he say it? If he does, he is on the road to success. If he does not, he will be disappointed, and his Government will be disappointed. I hope the country will not be faced with starvation, but we will be down to hard fare, and will surely be back to the hair shirt era.

Mr. Cogan

In seconding this motion I think it is hardly necessary to say that there is not a farmer in this country who does not realise the gravity of the emergency through which we are passing. There is not a farmer in this country who does not realise that it is his duty to do everything possible to co-operate with the Government in this drive to increase our supplies of wheat. But if the farmer is to cooperate with the Government he has the right to expect the Government to co-operate with him. He has the right to expect that the Government will take an intelligent interest in the farmer's costs and the farmer's progress. When the farmer is faced, as he is to-day, with the question as to how he will utilise his land, he has to consider the possibilities of other crops as well as wheat. No farmer can be expected to sacrifice everything he possesses, including the fertility of his soil, in order to save the nation. He is entitled to full compensation for his labour and risk, and that is all that this motion seeks. When the farmer contrasts the price of barley to-day with the price that he is to be offered for wheat next year, he is inclined to doubt whether it would be wise to grow wheat instead of barley. When he contrasts the price of oats with the price offered for wheat, he is also inclined to question whether it would be wise to go in extensively for wheat growing.

I do not think that the Government have ever made an accurate calculation of the costs of producing wheat per acre. On several occasions I have asked the Minister for Agriculture if he had made an investigation into the cost of production of grain crops and he replied that he had not. That is a serious mistake. Any prudent or practical farmer will acknowledge that the cost of growing wheat is far in excess of the cost of growing barley. I estimate that the cost of growing an acre of wheat would be £4 more than the cost of growing an acre of barley. You must take into consideration the deterioration in the soil which will result from the growing of wheat. It must also be remembered that barley-growing is more remunerative than wheat-growing. For the coming year we are offered £2 a barrel for wheat, or 16/- a cwt., and we are offered 35/- a barrel for barley, which works out at 17/6 per cwt.; that is, ? a cwt. more than the price guaranteed for wheat. There is no reasonable inducement being offered to the farmer to go in for the cultivation of a crop which is hardest on his land. That is one of the facts that may be adduced in support of this motion.

This intensive drive for increased wheat production was started too late in the year. I asked the Minister for Agriculture last October if he was prepared to offer some special inducement to farmers to expand the acreage under wheat; particularly autumn sown wheat, and he replied that he was offering an increase of 2/6 a barrel. That was not, in my opinion, a sufficient inducement to the grower, having regard to the enormous increase in the cost of production, and particularly in the cost of artificial manures. When it was too late to sow autumn wheat, the Government offered an additional 2/6. To-day, when the time for sowing winter wheat is almost exhausted, we are offered a price which is less per cwt. than the price which can be obtained for barley. These considerations should influence the Minister towards accepting this motion.

The farmers have an adequate answer to those who claim that our demands for an increase in the price of wheat will add a substantial burden on the people, increase the cost of living, and especially the cost of the loaf on the poor man's table. If we do not get a sufficient wheat crop the Government may find it necessary next autumn to purchase barley and oats at a higher price than they are now offering for wheat in order to mix them with the wheat crop and they will thereby provide an inferior loaf at a higher price than would be the case if they consented to the 50/-. As Deputy Belton pointed out, the world market price for wheat may be 100 per cent. higher than the price which is being asked by the farmers, as very little wheat may be obtainable. All these things should induce the Minister to reconsider his decision in regard to the guaranteed price.

It must be remembered that the land available for extending the acreage under wheat is mainly being utilised at the moment for grazing purposes. I believe that it is largely in areas where farmers concentrate on rearing cattle, leaving their lands under grass, and also in areas where farmers concentrate upon dairy farming, that the chief amount of land for our increased wheat production will be found. If the farmers in such areas, who are not accustomed to tillage farming, who have not the experience or the equipment necessary for tillage farming, and to whom tillage farming will constitute more or less a step into the unknown, have to decide between oats, barley and wheat, they will be more inclined to concentrate upon the safer crops, such as oats and barley, rather than on wheat. For that reason, and because the cost of production will be much higher on those farmers than on the ordinary tillage farmers, having regard to the fact that they will have to purchase their equipment and embark on an entirely new system of farming, justice, apart from expediency, would dictate that the Minister should offer a more reasonable price.

When we are told that we should consider the interests of the consumers, we are inclined to ask, have the interests of the consumers been considered in the past? Have the interests of the consumers been watched when the millers were making enormous profits and when one middleman, as Deputy Corry pointed out in a recent debate, could make £66,000 on a parcel of wheat? In view of what has happened in this country in recent years, I think the interests of the consumers have not been carefully watched. If those who are exploiting the farmer's produce and making exorbitant profits out of it were carefully watched, it would be possible to give the farmer a much more reasonable price without increasing the cost to the consumers. If the Minister will give careful consideration to those facts, I believe he will have no hesitation in altering the guaranteed price to 50/- a barrel.

Mr. Corry

I regret that I cannot support this motion and I honestly think it would be wise of Deputy Belton to withdraw it. I do not think that the agricultural community are prepared to hold the nation up to ransom. I believe that Deputy Belton threw out a challenge to the Minister a while ago. Is Deputy Belton prepared to state that, if the farmers were guaranteed 50/- a barrel for wheat, this country is going to get its full requirements in wheat? Is he prepared to stand up and guarantee that? He is not, for he knows he could not.

Mr. Belton

Could not do what?

Mr. Corry

He could not stand up here now and guarantee that if 50/- per barrel were paid for wheat, sufficient wheat for the country's requirements would be grown.

Mr. Belton

How, then, do you hope to get it at 40/-?

Mr. Corry

I do not hope to get it at 40/-.

Mr. Belton

Well, then, it is all a dishonest campaign.

Mr. Corry

I do not hope to get it at 40/-.

Mr. Belton

Go ahead and make your speech.

Mr. Corry

I am going to do my part, and I hope every other Deputy will do his part, in the campaign to produce more wheat but you are not going to get your full requirements. You could not get your full requirements produced in this country owing to the campaign against wheat-growing that was carried on in this country from 1932 to 1940. That is the reason you cannot get it. Face up to the problem and look it in the face. I have gone into the costings very carefully indeed. Men who grow wheat at 40/- are not going to become millionaires but neither are they going to lose anything at 40/- a barrel.

Mr. Belton

It all depends on how much they grow.

Mr. Corry

No matter how much they grow, they are not going to lose on any single acre of it, if they get 40/- a barrel and I know that. I have been at it long enough to know it. I am not a farmer who stands on the fence; I work myself. What I should like to see, and what I think the country and this Dáil should insist on, is the publication of the costings of that wheat from the time it leaves the farmer's hands at 40/- until it is delivered in the form of loaves of bread to the poor. Let there be an end to the £66,000 robbers, the leeches who are battening on the unfortunate farmer and on the poor of the country as well. Imported wheat which was bought last harvest in Britain at from 37/6 to 40/- per barrel was sold here at 60/- to 65/- per barrel—roughly about £10 per ton profit. Who got that £10 profit? How much of it went in freightage and how much went into the merchants' pockets? That is what the farmers of this country want to know.

Last harvest those of us who sold wheat to the merchants were paid only 37/6 for it. Recently when we ran short of wheat for seed purposes, we had to pay 65/- to the merchants for the same wheat. If there is to be a fixed price at which the farmer is to sell wheat, let there be a fixed price at which the merchant will sell it—a squaring up in the profits and a prevention of the fleecing that is going on in this country without any consideration for the general interests of the people. There is supposed to be a Prices Commission operating in this country. Who are they, where are they and what are they doing? Are they paid public money?

Let us know where we are, and let the Minister under his emergency powers step in to prevent profiteering. Unfortunately he did not step in in time. He had a right to step in last October when he fixed the price which the farmers were to get for the wheat they sold. That wheat was bought by the merchants at 37/6, and he had a right to say then that they would not be allowed to sell it at any price higher than 40/-. He would then be getting nearer the mark. If the farmer was to get only 37/6, the thief inside the counter should not be allowed to get £10 or £12 a ton profit on that wheat to put into his own pocket. That is where the trouble lies. If there was anything that would induce me to support Deputy Belton's motion, it is that mismanagement on the part of the authorities here. I cannot call it by any lighter name. It was mismanagement that allowed wheat for which the fixed price was 37/6——

Mr. Belton

35/-.

Mr. Corry

37/6 for seed wheat. That was the price fixed for wheat that had been re-winnowed and re-cleaned, special samples. It was taken in by the merchants at 37/6, and sold a few months afterwards at 65/-, allowing them over £10 a ton for throwing it into a loft for two months. If a farmer wishes to buy a ton of superphosphates he has now to pay about £8 10s. for it. It has jumped up recently from £6 odd. If there is to be a restriction in profit for farmers who grow wheat, then I think these farmers are definitely entitled to demand that the costings of that wheat should be provided on a printed form from the day it leaves them until it is handed out again to the poor in the form of loaves of bread. We shall then see who is getting exorbitant profits. Let those inspectors who are overpaid and underworked in this country get into the mills and into the merchants and see what their costings are. If there is a Prices Commission in existence, let the members of that commission get out and get to work, and let the fleecing stop.

Deputy Belton alluded to a certain matter here to-day, and I give him every credit for it. I do not expect that all the scrap-iron of this country should be turned into reaping hooks, but I do know that there is lying in Haulbowline since before the war started machinery for turning that scrap-iron into billets, and for making plough-shares, etc. It is lying there idle. Why? Because the owner of that plant is the sole person who has a licence to export scrap-iron out of this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy debated all that during a recent debate. It has no relevance to the question before the House, namely, the price of wheat.

Mr. Corry

The relevance is that if that scrap iron is not kept in this country, if we cannot get our billets and our plough parts, there is little use in talking about the fixing of prices because you will not get the land ploughed.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not a general debate on agriculture. It is a debate on whether the price of wheat should be 40/- or 50/- a barrel.

Mr. Corry

If we cannot get plough parts the price may be 100/-.

An Ceann Comhairle

And if the Deputy cannot get back to the motion he will have to desist.

Mr. Corry

I am not going any further into that question. I think it has got sufficient exposure.

Mr. Belton

On a point of order, before you came in, Sir, I made the point that the object of this motion was to secure our full requirements under wheat by whatever would be the best inducement. That is the real point we had in putting down this motion: it is not a question of whether the price would be 40/-, 50/- or 100/- a barrel.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have the motion before the House, and I interpret it as being a contention that the price should not be less than 50/- per barrel.

Mr. Belton

I am not going to say you are wrong, Sir, but the object of the motion is as I have just stated.

Mr. Corry

I am not concerned with the object of the motion: I am concerned with getting all the wheat we can grow in this country.

Mr. Belton

Quite.

Mr. Corry

I am also concerned with the means of harvesting it and that is why I alluded to the other matter. If the farmers of this country are to be tied down definitely to a price, if we are to be told that next harvest we are to get 40/- for our wheat and other gentlemen can come along and get 43/- for last year's wheat, it is a bit of a joke. At the last meeting of this House I had occasion to call attention to that. In fact, one gentleman had demanded 43/3 for last year's wheat which he bought from the farmers at 35/-. If the farmer is to be tied up in strings and told he will be paid a price made up of the cost of production plus a very small profit—if that is to be the position of the agriculturist—then let that go on. The bread of the poor is not a thing for profiteering in. Let the middlemen be taken out of it this time and let it go direct from the farmer to the miller. Let profits be watched strictly and controlled. Let it go from the miller to the baker and from him to the people. Let there be the same watching and control over the profits of others as there is over the profits of the farmer. That is not an unfair thing to ask. We are entitled to that.

The position to-day is ridiculous. I grow wheat and when I am ready to harvest it I go to the local publican, who knows nothing about it, but who will get sixpence or a shilling more. If the price is fixed at 40/- for the ordinary farmer, I will get 40/6 because instead of selling myself I get the local publican to do it and he puts sixpence in his pocket.

Mr. Belton

The Deputy will not get that sixpence next year.

Mr. Corry

Well, I am quite satisfied to get 40/- and let the wheat go straight to the miller. These leeches are sucking the blood out of this country. They can get a shilling more. I believe two shillings can be got by the man who is a little bigger in the trade than the local publican. One of those can get 2/- a barrel for the loan of his name on Corry's wheat going to the mill. That is the way the game is worked until you come to the high priest—the fellow who buys at 35/- and sells at 43/3. He is the high priest of the thieves. They come along, they drive about in their Rolls Royces and smile at the man sweating in the field with his coat off to the harvest. They say: "When it is threshed we will send the bags around."

Let us have no more of that. This House to-night should put its foot down and say there is to be an end to it, and that nobody is coming between the poor and the price of the loaf. If that is done, I maintain that the 40/- wheat could be sold to the consumer at 1/- per 4-lb. loaf in the same way as the 35/- wheat was sold last year. The only thing that prevents that is that the locusts must be fed. Is this House going to stand by the locusts against the poor who sent us here?

I consider that the Government are to blame—and definitely to blame— for allowing wheat to be bought up by merchants at 37/- and sold now at 65/-. I consider the Government definitely is to blame for allowing wheat imported from Britain and Scotland last harvest at somewhere between 37/6 and 41/- to be sold here at 65/-. That is £25 for the seed alone of every eight acres in the ground. I do not blame Deputy Belton and others like him for coming here and— seeing that others are getting all the fat—asking for a slice of the fat for themselves. I consider it unfair and do not think the agricultural community as a body will stand over profiteering in the poor people's bread. That is the sole reason why I shall not vote for Deputy Belton's motion. I believe this motion must be put through fairly quickly and will not delay the House. I have gone into the cost and know we will not make any money.

Mr. Belton

Will we grow enough?

Mr. Corry

I would grow as much at 40/- as I would grow at 50/-.

Mr. Belton

Will the country do that?

Mr. Corry

Yes.

Mr. Belton

They will not grow the full requirements.

Mr. Corry

No; they would not, even if they got 100/-.

Mr. Belton

That is my point.

Mr. Corry

I give great credit to the farmers of this country, who grew 300,000 acres last year.

An Ceann Comhairle

These matters are not relevant.

Mr. Corry

We have no hope of getting our requirements of wheat this year. I cannot see where it is going to come from, but if last October we had looked for 600,000 acres of wheat and if we had told the farmers of this country: "You can get your seed on credit, you can get your manures on credit, to be deducted out of your wheat cheque next harvest," you would get not alone 600,000 acres of wheat but 1,000,000 acres of it, grown on the derelict land of this country, on the land of the unfortunate down-and-outs.

Mr. Belton

The Deputy is not far wrong.

Mr. Corry

I know it. I am a farmer, walking around amongst them. I saw what happened when, about a month ago or less, we brought in a scheme in the Cork County Council for credit for seed wheat and seed barley. I saw the poor devils of down-and-outs with smiles on their faces that night, thanking God that they were going to get the seed from someone somewhere and that they would be able to sow it. Now, one matter I want to touch upon is the position in regard to a Government Department, namely, the Department of Lands. That Department are leaving some of the farmers in this position, that we go around to our neighbours, to a man with 40 acres of ground and with 15 acres of it tilled and tell him that he must till four more acres, and the same man can look across the ditch and see Government land not being tilled at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not a vote of no confidence in the Government.

Mr. Corry

This is a motion, Sir, to get our full acreage of wheat.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair must be guided by the terms of the motion. It has no reference to acreage.

Mr. Belton

As an inducement to grow our full requirements of wheat, Sir.

Mr. Corry

Why did you not put that down, Deputy?

Mr. Belton

It is here. The motion says:

"to induce and compensate the farmers for growing a sufficiency of wheat to meet the nation's requirements this year the fixed minimum price for good millable wheat should not be less than 50/- per barrel for the 1941 crop."

The Deputy must not have read the motion.

Mr. Corry

If the inducement was there previously we might have got the required acreage.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair must have regard to the motion. The only inducement therein held out is 50/-. The Deputy must deal with that.

Mr. Corry

I am showing that the Department of Lands are getting out of growing the wheat, and that tilling the land at 50/- or even 40/- would pay them. A great deal of land was taken by the Land Commission, and that land could be tilled.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter is not relevant. It was all discussed some while ago at length.

Mr. Corry

Well, I hope to get another opportunity of dealing with the matter, but it will then be too late, and I hope I shall have the pleasure of reminding the House of what the position is. I am sorry that I cannot vote for the motion, but I will not make the agricultural community out as the body that are going out to fleece the people. I think Deputy Belton would be well advised to withdraw the motion and to go on the lines of seeing that the wheat the farmer grows for 40/- will go to the consumer without anybody being turned into millionaires as a result of it.

Mr. Hughes

Speaking as a farmer, my first reaction to the demand for an increase in the price of any article produced by the farmers was that it should be supported, but taking the time and the circumstances in which we live, and the very serious national problems that confront the country, into account, we cannot risk thinking individually or even sectionally on any matter at the present time: we must think for the country and the community as a whole. No person of vision will dispute the fact that we are facing in this country a period of grave economic difficulty and danger. Apart from the normal number of people who are unemployed in this country, and that is a very considerable number, many more men, through no fault of their own, find themselves to-day in the unfortunate position that they are without any employment as a result of the petrol situation and other difficulties. From information available through a memo. published by the Federation of Irish Industries, many more people who are engaged in industrial occupations will swell the ranks of the unemployed as a result of the diminution or exhaustion of raw materials for industry in the next three or four months. Those people are going to find it exceedingly difficult to live and they are facing very serious times for themselves and their families.

In our demand for an increased price we cannot lose sight of those facts, and I must say, judging by the attitude of the Minister and of the Government, from an agricultural point of view, I think it is not likely that the Government are going to agree to the demand put down in this motion, but I do suggest to the Minister, who has a very serious responsibility to face up to at the present time, that there are several factors that must be taken into account in assessing what price will induce the farmers to grow the maximum crop of wheat to meet our national requirements for the coming year. For that reason, I say that I do believe that an adjustment of the price is necessary, if you take into account the fact that barley to-day is worth 35/- and oats worth 25/-. In mentioning those two prices I might also refer, in passing, to the fact that there is a good deal of grumbling in the country by a number of people who feel that they have got a raw deal this year with regard to the price of barley and oats. The Minister was pressed time and again in this House to make some attempt to control the prices of barley and oats, and he knows that a big number of farmers sold barley at from 18/- to £1 per barrel. We were also informed to-day that barley was being taken over for milling purposes and paid for on the basis of 30/- per barrel, and if a quantity was bought at 18/- to £1 per barrel it is obvious that some profiteering is going to take place and the farmer is not going to get anything out of it.

I do not think anything can be done about it now, but if it were possible at all some compensation should be provided for the unfortunate people who suffered from the inability of the Minister or from the lack of willingness on the part of the Minister to step in and intervene in the matter and secure, for the man upon whom the nation is now depending to put his back into the job, the fair price for oats and barley that was available immediately after the harvest last year. These men would be facing the situation now in a more cheerful frame of mind. I suggest that 35/- a barrel for barley and oats leaves a small gap which, in the case of barley, amounts to 5/- a barrel, and in the case of oats to 15/-. The guaranteed price now is scarcely sufficient to warrant the maximum effort on the part of farmers to produce wheat for the coming year. We have been assured by the Minister for Supplies that from now until the end of the year there is no possibility of chartering any boat to bring cereals here, and that there is also no hope of any animal feeding stuffs reaching our shores. Bearing that in mind, barley and oats in a free market will not command lesser prices than at present. Any keen agriculturist with any business capacity will appreciate the fact that present prices are bound to remain, and that barley, after next season, will be worth the price it is commanding to-day unless there is a complete change in the shipping situation, or Germany invades England and the war is at an end. If that does not happen in the next few months, there is hardly any likelihood of any change in the war situation for the next two or three years. That is the position concerning oats and barley which faces the Minister.

There has to be taken into account also the fact that there is a serious shortage of artificial manures. Any farmer who has had any experience of wheat growing realises the necessity for liberal, if not heavy, dressings of artificial manure in order to produce any kind of decent crops. It must also be remembered that a great deal of our land, especially in tillage areas, is what I call marginal land, with very poor quality from the point of view of fertility. That land requires a liberal dressing of farmyard manure as well as whatever quantity of artificial manure is available. Lacking sufficient artificial manure as a necessary adjunct to farmyard manure, I am satisfied that there will be a diminution in the yield of wheat for the coming year. From statistics that are available about yields during the last war, we know that they flopped considerably. The reduction is going to be greater now if the present situation continues, because we have been using artificial manures more extensively than was the case previously. Consequently, the loss resulting from a shortage of artificial manure will show a greater diminution in yield.

We are facing this position, that the campaign for the extension of tillage, and wheat-growing in particular, started about a month ago, and that we have to look to the big farmers to provide the extra acreage. At this late hour in the season, turning up old grassland with deep turf, land that has not been exposed to atmospheric conditions for years, land that has not been properly aerated, that physically is not in best condition for any cereal crop without being exposed to the air for some time, the majority of farmers agree that the return from that type of soil, seeing that scarcely any artificial manures will be available, will not be satisfactory. Another factor is this, that when that type of land is turned up, the distribution of artificial manure this season is to be based on the quantity that was purchased last year. As the people who made the market for artificial manures are those who are entitled to whatever proportion is available, that may leave much of the land to which I am referring without any supplies. It has been stressed by the Minister that that type of land does not require artificial manures. I would agree with him if it had produced a second lea crop, or if it was old grassland turned up and exposed to the atmosphere but, speaking as an agriculturist, I would be doubtful about the yield.

It would be different if that land had been turned up last autumn and properly aerated and consolidated by the reactions of the weather. Then a fairly good return could be looked for. It is doubtful what sort the wheat yield will be when that type of land is turned up now. I would put the yield as low as 25 per cent. below normal. That will be taken into account by agriculturists when they are making their arrangements, and they will probably produce oats. I want to remind the Minister that he should bear in mind the difficulties that are going to be created as a result of a shortage of materials for industry, such as petrol, and that we are going to have a huge volume of unemployment. While I would be in agreement with Deputy Belton in his demand, surely the farmers have suffered long enough, as a result of the economic war and other unfavourable conditions, without being asked to make sacrifices now. We must seriously face up to the present position. The 50/- a barrel would be of very little use to farmers if, as a result, we had an upheaval, turmoil or revolution. It would be better for them to have a price that would tide them over their difficulties, and also to have peace and order.

Mr. Belton

Will there be enough wheat?

Mr. Hughes

I do not think we will have enough wheat, and I suggest to the Minister that an adjustment of price is necessary to encourage farmers to make a supreme effort in food production at this period of national danger. I agree about that. I also see the danger, from the Government point of view, of going too far there. I have no use for men who say that it is necessary always to appeal to the patriotic side of agriculture to do the job. There is sufficient of the materialist in me to say that it is necessary also to appeal to the farmers' pockets.

In discussing this inducement to farmers to put forward their best efforts, that type of land which has to be sacrificed in the national interest at present, possibly excellent grazing land that produces first-class cattle and which is to produce food for the nation, after the first year will have a big reserve of humus and plant food. In inducing farmers to break up that land, whether by compulsion or otherwise, some attempt should be made to compensate them. One point that strikes me is that the farmer is entitled to an assurance that if he puts land of that sort under the plough he will get a profitable price for any crop he produces over a period of years. I think we would not be far wrong if we adopted the British policy in that respect and guaranteed our people a good price for two years after the war.

I should like to ask the Minister a question on the matter of yield generally, because I am doubtful that we have got the right figures about it. We are told that last year the yield generally was one ton to the statute acre. I have no doubt that many people did grow a ton of wheat to the statute acre. Last year we grew 305,000 acres of wheat, and we are informed that so far the amount of wheat which has reached the millers is 200,000 tons, leaving 105,000 tons to be accounted for. Let us assume we grew one ton to the acre. Allowing for 50,000 tons of wheat held in reserve for seed, and I am doubtful if there is that amount held in reserve, there are still 55,000 tons to be accounted for. It appears to me that the yield with which we are crediting this country last year is more than we got. There is a considerable discrepancy to be accounted for, and I should like the Minister to give us some information as to how he accounts for the discrepancy between the 200,000 tons which the millers have received so far from last year's crop and the estimated yield of 305,000 tons.

I agree with Deputy Corry that if agriculturists are asked in the coming year to grow wheat at a modest price we certainly ought to look after the handling costs of the wheat from the time it leaves the farmer until it reaches the consumer. If we examine the balance sheets published by milling interests, we begin immediately to worry about their profits. There is no justification for the profits shown in all these balance sheets. It is time to get after that end of it if we want to keep the price of the loaf down.

The farmers are quite willing to make this national effort to produce food for the nation. They realise their responsibility in that respect, but they want certain help and assistance which ought to be forthcoming immediately from the Government. I do not want to go into the question of petrol and oil again, but it is causing a good deal of trouble and irritation. I am satisfied that the Minister for Agriculture is making every effort in regard to that. I think his Department and himself must find it very difficult to impress the Department of Supplies with the gravity of the situation. It would be unfortunate if the Department of Supplies found that by saving a gallon a week per tractor they left tractors idle for one day in the week during the busy time that is approaching. No risks ought to be taken about that.

I suggested to the Minister before, and I now suggest it again, that some effort should be made by him to control the price of seed wheat. If the Minister under his scheme licensed certain dealers to assemble Irish wheat and fixed the price they were to pay the farmer for wheat fit for seed at 37/6, surely the Minister has a basis there for fixing a fair price at which they should sell that back in seed to the farmer. Even in my area I know there are certain people licensed under that scheme who are looking for well over 50/- for seed which they bought at 37/6. In the non-wheat growing areas, where seed wheat is difficult to procure, I believe the price demanded for seed is far in excess of that. There is no justification for that. The Minister has licensed these people, he knows the quantity that is bought under his scheme, he knows the price that he agreed should be paid to the farmers for wheat suitable for seed, and he has the basis there for allowing fair handling costs, for taking out small grain, dressing, and that sort of thing. He has the basis right away on which he can fix a fair price for that seed. He ought not to lose sight of that, because there is some profiteering going on and it ought to be stopped.

Deputy Corry made a very severe attack on middlemen. Middlemen are very useful people in the community. Personally, I would not be inclined to rule middlemen out of the trade. They are generally big merchants who are the only people to provide credit for the farmers at present. To talk about credit for farmers through county councils is all eyewash. There is no volume of credit provided in that way. A considerable volume of credit is provided for farmers by big merchants who buy what is produced on the farm and provide anything that the farmers require. They provide the seeds and manures, and they generally extend credit for these until the harvest. If you cut them out from buying the wheat back from the farmers, how are they to collect their money from the farmers? They have extended credit to the farmers all over the country by giving them artificial manures, seeds, etc. Obviously, if you use them for the provision of that credit, you must not deny them the opportunity of buying back the produce so as to recover their money.

There is another consideration, and that is, that I would not be inclined to reduce the element of competition that may be there as a result of leaving a number of individuals in the trade. I know very well what would happen if you cut out all that competition and left it to the millers to buy the wheat. They would get very particular about the quality and the bushelling, etc. Except you had an excellent sample of wheat, they would tell you that it was not up to standard or in proper condition and would cut you 1/-, 2/- or 3/-. If you maintain the element of competition that is there as a result of letting the middlemen operate, you will not be faced with that problem, because owing to the competition these people will not be nearly so particular as they might be if they had a monopoly.

There is just one point that struck me about Deputy Belton. He said that we should think in terms of wheat and wheat alone. I see a real danger of this country thinking in terms of wheat and of wheat alone. We have a certain standard here at present, and it ought to be our effort to try and preserve that standard for our people. We can only do so by preserving our volume of exports. We must make a determined effort to preserve that volume of exports and, if possible, expand it, although, with the situation that is now facing us, that does not seem likely. At any rate, we should try to preserve our present volume of exports until the termination of the war, because in the post-war period there will be a scramble to get into the market where we sell our exports.

The Dominions will be looking for trade there because they may feel, and feel rightly, that they have helped and participated in the war. The only argument we will have in that period for the preservation of our quota of trade with Great Britain will be that we maintained that trade during the war period. At least we can say to the people at the other side: "You people were damn glad to get whatever food we were able to provide you with during the war period, and now, during the post-war period, we, at least, are entitled to get that quota of trade." I feel that if our export trade diminishes between now and the termination of the war, we will have no real argument at all for an expansion of that trade in the post-war period. No matter what people may believe or say about a self-sufficiency policy for this country, there are a great many things that, as a civilised country, we must import. We are not in a position to produce them ourselves, and the only way to pay for those imports is by what we export.

Deputy Corry said that the reason why we cannot produce our national requirements in wheat for the coming year is because of the campaign that operated against the growing of wheat from 1932 to 1940. I do not think that is so. Rightly or wrongly—perhaps I am wrong—I am of the opinion that the Government have not made sufficient use of our position, as a food supplier to Great Britain, to bargain for alternative cargoes of raw material for the production of food in this country. We should have put it to them, that every cargo of raw material— of animal food—landed here meant the production of essential food for export from this country. Every cargo of wheat that could be landed here during the coming year would mean releasing a certain amount of animal food for the production of essential food which eventually would reach their shores. Therefore, I say that I do not think sufficient use was made of that bargaining weapon. I do not think it ought to be lost sight of now. I have tried to impress on the Minister for Agriculture the importance of making full use of that bargaining weapon in the interests of agriculture and in the national interests generally.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I am glad that Deputy Belton opened this debate by saying that we are all agreed that we want a sufficiency of wheat grown here to meet our requirements in the coming year. I take it from that that anything that has arisen in this debate is only by way of criticising the means that have been adopted.

Mr. Belton

Yes, keep to that.

Dr. Ryan

The first question that Deputy Belton put was, whether we could visualise wheat being sold here on a free market at the end of the next harvest at 40/- a barrel. I do not know what exactly he means by a free market. If we take what would be regarded as the world price for wheat. I do not think that wheat, in say Canada or the Argentine, is going to be any dearer next August or September than it is now, because we know that at the moment there is quite a lot of surplus wheat in both countries which they would be very glad to get rid of. The question, of course, is whether we can get it across or not. The reason why we are anxious to get all the wheat we require grown here is because we may not be able to get that wheat across. If we are not able to do so, then we cannot compare the world price with the price that our home-grown wheat should be. If we could get that wheat across, and if by that time the shipping position is a bit better than it is now—if it is as good as it was, say, three months ago—then I am quite sure that wheat would be landed here at less than 40/- a barrel. The last cargoes of wheat that arrived here were landed at less than 40/- a barrel.

Mr. Belton

How much less?

Dr. Ryan

I am not in a position to give the exact figure, but I do not think it worked out at more than 33/- or 34/- a barrel. I am not giving that as a firm figure, but I do not think it was higher than that. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to take the world market price.

Mr. Belton

What I meant by a free market was a free Irish market.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton also said that, in all probability, we would be in the position next harvest of not having the wheaten loaf made from a 70 per cent. extraction of flour. That is on the assumption that there is no wheat being imported. Now, what Deputy Belton says is possible. Suppose some mill were permitted to buy all the wheat that is required and to mill all the flour that is required, with a 70 per cent. extraction, I do not believe that it could pay anything like 100/- a barrel, because I am sure it would not sell any bread if it did. The price of bread in that case would be ? per loaf instead of 1/-. The loaf that is going to be produced from the 90 per cent. extraction is quite a good loaf.

I think that Deputy Belton, or any other person in his normal health, would just as soon have the new loaf as the white loaf made from the 70 per cent. extraction. It is only people who may have been reared in glasshouses that would yearn for the old white loaf. The new loaf is not going to be a bad loaf. It is not black. It is a bit brown, and some people do not object to brown bread. As regards the growing of wheat on barley land the price there is, of course, a factor. Every farmer has his own ideas with regard to that. I know farmers myself in the very best barley-growing districts, in districts where they are accustomed to get a very good yield of barley, and I think they would prefer to grow barley at £1 a barrel rather than wheat at £2 a barrel, certainly some of them would.

Mr. M. Brennan

They are good judges.

Dr. Ryan

Those men have very good barley-growing land and you could not induce them to change over to wheat growing. I would not try to induce them to do so, because if those barley growers can produce 30 cwt. of barley to the statute acre where they might only produce 20 cwt. of wheat, it would be a mistake to try to persuade them to change over. It would be a mistake for this reason, that they are doing better for the country by growing good barley and getting a good yield than they would by changing over and getting just an average yield of wheat. That is the extreme case—the very good barley grower who is almost certain to get a very good yield. There are, then, the border-line cases, men who live on the rim of this barley-growing area, who have grown barley in the past but who have not grown wheat in the past, but who probably could get as good a yield of wheat as of barley. They will compare the prices, stone against stone, and will make up their minds as to which crop they will grow. It is a matter for them to make up their minds, taking into account the guaranteed price for wheat and the guarantee that all their wheat will be taken by the miller, as against a certain amount of instability so far as the barley market is concerned. Deputy Belton said that if we fixed 50/- as the price, he could assure us of our full requirements.

Mr. Belton

I did not say exactly that. We would be much nearer to it than we will with a price of 40/-.

Dr. Ryan

Maybe we would, but we will see what other speakers have said on that point. Deputy Belton has always protested here that he is an advocate of wheat growing.

Mr. Belton

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

I do not like to see an advocate of wheat growing using such words as "compensate the farmer for his sacrifice," because if a person is an advocate of a certain crop, he will not talk of the sacrifice of the man who grows that crop. Surely Deputy Belton could not be a logical man and, at the same time, be all his life an advocate of wheat growing, if he thought he was thereby asking the farmers to make a sacrifice. I do not like to hear words like "compensating the farmer for making a sacrifice"——

Mr. Belton

Has he not to pay his debts?

Dr. Ryan

——by growing wheat rather than barley or oats.

Mr. Belton

At a price.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy says that wheat takes too much out of the soil. That is one of the things said against wheat growing, but I thought that Deputy Belton, instead of using these old arguments against it, would have put forward some new argument in favour of it which could be put to the farmer and which would satisfy him that he was not doing anything wrong with his land by growing wheat, but that he was really doing good for his country and himself. I am sorry to say that Deputy Belton's speech was not helpful in that respect. The Deputy said a good lot about the danger of the farmer growing barley rather than wheat, and I must assume from that that what he had in mind was that if we gave a better price for wheat, we would have a turnover from barley and oats to wheat— a turnover and not new tillage.

Mr. Belton

That assumption is wrong.

Dr. Ryan

Maybe it is, but I have to assume that when the Deputy compares the price of barley and of wheat. If he had based his speech on what would induce a man to break up more land for the growing of wheat——

Mr. Belton

That is what I meant.

Dr. Ryan

——then, I think we would be on better ground because that is what we want. We do not want any man to grow less barley, oats or potatoes. We want every farmer to grow more, and, at the same time, we want them to grow much more wheat.

Mr. Belton

Come another bit up the road and we will meet you.

Dr. Ryan

I thought the Deputy was illogical, but now I am going to prove that he is logical, because he talks of the pity of taking some of the offals hitherto available for the feeding of animals and putting them into flour. It is true that when we have not enough wheat to get a sufficiency of flour on a 70 per cent. extraction, we must take more from the wheat. We must raise that extraction to 90 per cent., and on that account we have only 10 per cent. of pollard and bran left for animals instead of the 30 per cent. we had hitherto. Deputy Belton deplores that, and he is right, of course. Naturally we must wait and see what acreage we get. If we have sufficient acreage, we can go back to the 70 per cent. extraction, and if we have not got altogether sufficient, we must make the extraction somewhat higher, and we may be in the position that we will not get as high an output of offals for animal feeding as we had in normal times. Wherever I have talked to farmers, I have tried to impress on them that not only must they replace the imported feeding stuffs for animals, but also the loss of offals for animal feeding brought about in that way. As I say, if we get sufficient to go back to a 70 per cent. extraction, it will be all to the good, because we will be back to normal again, so far as offals for animal feeding stuffs are concerned.

Mr. Belton

Is not that the goal— a sufficiency of wheat?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, on the basis of 70 per cent., if we can. I do not think the Deputy is right about foreign exchange. I do not think the Ceann Comhairle would allow us to go into that subject because I would certainly become irrelevant if I did. I would probably become irrelevant so far as foreign exchange itself was concerned, but I cannot see that it has anything to do with the want of petrol or wheat in this country.

Mr. Belton

If you have not got the money to buy an article, you will not get it.

Dr. Ryan

No, but our exports at present do not affect that position in the least.

Mr. Belton

They are going to Britain, but that will not give you dollar exchange.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Corry and, to some extent, I think, Deputy Cogan, talked about the profits of the farmers. I think the farmer is going to have quite a good profit out of wheat growing at 40/- per barrel. I am not going to give costings because that is altogether too contentious a subject, but I ask Deputies to look at what the South Dublin Union are getting wheat grown at.

Mr. Belton

What?

Dr. Ryan

It is costing so much to till the land—50/- an Irish acre. It is costing so much for seed and so much for manure, and then let us say that the land is costing, if you like, 30/- an acre, where the farmer pays his own rent and rates, £2 an acre, or, if you like, what I know at least one man in County Meath paid, £12 an Irish acre for land to grow wheat on and make a profit. You will find the profit quite a decent one, and that of the sum total the farmers will get, if they grow a full wheat crop during the coming year, they will have about £4,000,000 profit which is not a small item, after paying all outgoings, rent, rates, wages, seeds and everything else, and not counting anything for wheaten straw. We will give him that for nothing.

Mr. Belton

I am surprised at the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

I am not going into the contentious subject of costings. I am only talking of what the South Dublin Union are getting it done at.

Mr. M. Brennan

What case is the Minister building on that?

Dr. Ryan

If the farmer can do it as cheaply himself as the South Dublin Union can do it by contract, the farmers in the aggregate will have a £4,000,000 profit on the wheat crop in the coming year.

Mr. Broderick

The South Dublin Union can take risks which the individual farmer cannot take. There is no personal risk in their case.

Mr. Belton

Does the Minister not know that if they incur a loss, we, the ratepayers, will have to foot the bill, whereas if I have a loss on my farm, I have to get out?

Dr. Ryan

How does a loss come into this? I am talking about the South Dublin Union getting a contractor to do tillage for them. He obviously is not going to lose on it because he is not doing it for love of the South Dublin Union. They pay a certain price for seed wheat which any farmer can pay and they pay a certain price for manures. They are not paying rent but any farmer can calculate his own rent. Adding all these together and taking a normal yield of wheat, the farmers, on that basis, will make a £4,000,000 profit.

Mr. Belton

They are only ploughing the land yet. How can the Minister make a profit out of it?

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton wants to add on £2,000,000 more in the way of profit.

Mr. Belton

He wants the full requirements of wheat, and the Minister has acknowledged now that his campaign has failed.

Dr. Ryan

I will give my opinion on that in a few minutes. I do agree with Deputy Belton, although it must appear a truism, that if a farmer contracts a loan, he goes into debt. Is that not what the Deputy said?

Mr. Belton

Loans will only lead us into debt.

Dr. Ryan

That is obvious.

Mr. Belton

Cut out the small edition of Montague Norman here, and we will get credit, but not otherwise.

Dr. Ryan

I say that what the Deputy said is quite obvious and that is why, at some county committee meeting I attended, I pointed out that I would much rather see the farmers going through this war and paying off what they owe, than to owe more at the end of it, as was the case after the last war. Somebody said he was very disappointed with my statement, but I think it would be a great thing if we kept our farmers from going into debt, if we could enable them to pay what they owe and enable them to face the peace, which will be a difficult problem for them, at least out of debt. I do not think that we need go back to the reaping hook. I cannot imagine our doing that. In the harvest, we may meet unexpected difficulties. But we have a number of reapers and binders. They can be worked by tractors. If the tractors cannot be driven, they can be worked by horses. If we have to go beyond that, we have the mowing machines which were used 25 or 30 years ago and which are still used, to some extent, in the country. If necessary, it would be better to cut down the corn with the bare blade of the machine than go back to the reaping hook.

I am asked if I will take responsibility for having a sufficiency of wheat at the present price. I have been around the country quite a lot and not a single farmer — Deputy Belton included—would say he would grow an extra acre if we made the price 50/-. I should like to know if Deputy Belton or Deputy Cogan would tell me that they know a farmer who would grow more wheat if we offered 50/-.

Mr. Belton

Every farmer in my constituency would grow more and I would grow more.

Dr. Ryan

It is a pity the country cannot afford this sum of £2,000,000 in order to ascertain whether Deputy Belton is right or not. We shall never know now.

Mr. Belton

That is a flippant way of dealing with the matter.

Dr. Ryan

It is not. How can we ever know? I do not want to say, because it would not be in order, that I do not believe the Deputy, but I disagree with him.

Mr. Belton

If you think that a farmer would not grow more for 40/- than he would grow for 30/-, you must have a curious idea of a man's idea of his own interest.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Corry spoke about cleaned wheat for seed being bought in the last harvest at 37/6. A farmer like Deputy Corry—he said he did it himself—would take a certain amount of wheat by a second winnowing out of the seed he gave to the seed merchant. Whatever they took out of the sack by winnowing went to the miller and that was profit.

Mr. Fagan

We sent in wheat and not two stone of small stuff was taken out of it.

Dr. Ryan

By the miller?

Mr. Fagan

Yes. You made the statement that the farmers threw in all the small stuff. You should withdraw that.

Dr. Ryan

Why should I withdraw it when the men who went around threshing for the farmers told me that that was done and that no miller objected to it? The merchants are not objecting to small wheat.

Mr. Fagan

It would be a fraud.

Dr. Ryan

There is no fraud about it. The millers asked for wheat and they got it. If we are to live up to the standard of morality preached by Deputy Fagan, we shall have to give up farming.

Mr. Fagan

I sold as clean a wheat as I could give him.

Dr. Ryan

What did you do with the stuff that you took out of it?

Mr. Fagan

I have it on the loft at home.

Dr. Ryan

You did not bury it.

Mr. Fagan

I did not.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Corry says that he sold that wheat at 37/6 to a merchant and that the farmers are now buying it back at 68/-. The Deputy asked what the Prices Commission were doing. Were they asked to do anything? I said several times that if anything like that were reported to them, they would deal with it. Deputy Corry will talk about these things, but he will not write a letter to the Prices Commission on which he would not have even to put a stamp. Yet, he comes here and talks about it.

Mr. Everett

What are the Guards doing?

Dr. Ryan

Why do not Deputies write to the Prices Commission if such a thing is happening?

Mr. Brennan

The Minister cannot rid himself of his responsibility.

Mr. Fagan

You will not get spring wheat at less than 68/- to-day.

Dr. Ryan

I was around certain parts of the country addressing county committees of agriculture. I asked them what price seed wheat was and in one county I found it was as low as 47/6.

Mr. Fagan

Three weeks ago?

Dr. Ryan

Ten days ago. In most counties, the price was around 52/6. In no county was I told that they were paying 68/- for home-grown wheat.

Mr. Fagan

It is being charged.

Dr. Ryan

If it is being charged, I say Deputies are not doing their duty if they do not write to the Prices Commission about it. It is wrong to say that it is late to do that. If there has been an unfair charge, it can be investigated and the Commission can compel the merchant to give back the excess. Let them not say that it is too late to have the matter investigated.

Mr. Hickey

You have an exaggerated notion of the Prices Commission.

Dr. Ryan

A number of Deputies talk about these things but they are not able to give specific cases. If they do, the Prices Commission will act fairly.

Mr. Fagan

I was quoted £3 by merchants last week.

Dr. Ryan

That is too high.

Mr. Brennan

Why did not the Minister fix a price?

Dr. Ryan

I advise the Deputy to take the seed at £3 and report it to the Prices Commission.

Mr. Fagan

I was getting six barrels as a favour. I was only entitled to three barrels.

Dr. Ryan

Take the seed wheat and, when it is taken and paid for, you will have a better case for the Prices Commission.

Mr. Fagan

I was too glad to get it.

Dr. Ryan

It is all very well for Deputy Brennan to ask: "Why not fix a price?" I explained that matter some weeks ago. Some wheat was imported from England at as high as £3 per barrel. That could not be sold at 50/-. Some wheat was brought in at lower prices and the price went down to 37/6. If wheat is coming in at all sorts of prices and is being bought at all sorts of prices by the seed merchants, how can we fix a price? In the case of winter seed wheat, the Prices Commission stated that they were prepared to investigate every single allegation of overcharge and see what the origin of that particular wheat was and what a fair price would be. There is no use in Deputies coming here and making complaints when they will not go to the trouble of writing to the Prices Commission and getting them to investigate these complaints.

Mr. McGovern

They move too slowly; they will not act promptly.

Dr. Ryan

They cannot act promptly when they are not asked to act. That is the position. Why does not Deputy Corry, who makes all these allegations, do something definite instead of coming here and talking about the matter? I know Deputy Corry will come here and mention cases in the Dáil or to me outside and again and again when I ask him for specific figures, evidence, and so on, I do not get them. There was one case he mentioned here at a previous meeting of some particular merchant who had bought wheat at 35/- and who was trying to get 45/3 for it. I pointed out here on that occasion that I am not concerned in the least whether he gets it or not because the miller, at whatever price he buys his wheat, will have to sell his flour at a fixed price. It is his own look-out if he did not get the wheat in time and if one miller is looking for wheat now it is because he was not prompt enough at the proper time and, if he has to pay a bit more to this particular dealer, whoever he may be, it is the miller who is going to be at the loss. The consumer is not going to suffer.

Mr. Bennett

Is it fair to give a man of that kind an opportunity to forestall the market because it is eventually the public must pay? The miller is not going to be at a loss. The case was made that £60,000 was paid for wheat that was forestalled. The profits out of the whole ramp must be extraordinary when they could afford to give £60,000 for wheat that was forestalled.

Dr. Ryan

Dealing with that particular case, I pointed out also that if the miller thought he had a grievance he could apply to me to fix a price for that particular parcel of wheat and I could fix a price at which the dealer must sell to the miller. I have not heard from the miller about that.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Might I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Deputy Corry has made a misstatement of fact when he referred to this question of the Burnside Granaries demanding 43/4 per barrel? I investigated this matter since and I find that Deputy Corry has been misinformed. I think it is a rather serious thing that a statement of this kind should go unchallenged. The price paid by those people was 35/-.

Mr. Norton

What about the balance of the Minister's speech?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the whole discussion has gone outside the terms of the motion.

Mr. Walsh

This is to clear the air.

Mr. Belton

We have been allowed three hours for this debate and I ask you to allow no foreign matter into this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What the Deputy is raising is not a point of order. It is a point of correction.

Mr. Walsh

Which vitally affects the price of wheat.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not opportune at the present stage of the discussion. I would like to point out to the House and to the Minister that the House is going outside the scope of the motion. This is dealing with the price to be fixed for next year's wheat crop. The question of the price of seeds does not at the moment enter into it at all.

Dr. Ryan

That is quite right. The case was raised so I referred to it, but I may pass on. Deputy Corry said that other things were more important than this fixation of price. He mentioned the question of credit. I am not going into that at all. Deputy Corry spoke for quite a long time and quite glibly about the Government and the Civil Service not doing their duty. He went on to say that when the Cork County Council brought in this scheme of credit he saw smiles on the faces of all the down-and-outs. Why was it not brought in three months earlier? Why should Deputy Corry come along and talk about the Government not doing their duty? Why do not the Cork County Council do their duty? Why did they not bring in the scheme earlier?

Mr. Bennett

We passed our scheme last November.

Dr. Ryan

He said it was too late.

Mr. Bennett

No; he said yours was too late.

Mr. Belton

We made a request to the Government and they never answered our letter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy was speaking about foreign matter a few moments ago.

Dr. Ryan

Foreign exchange.

Mr. Belton

No; I am speaking about agricultural credit.

Dr. Ryan

I want to say this, for Deputy Corry's benefit, that the Land Commission are doing their duty with regard to the Tillage Order. Deputy Hughes referred back to a thing that is often referred to in this House, that the farmers are disgruntled because they did not get the price they might have got for their barley and oats for last harvest. Nothing is to be gained by going back over that. I could turn up Parliamentary Debates and could show that I was being pressed by Deputy Hughes and others all that time to allow all that stuff out of the country. I was asked for export licences. But look at the position now. I tried to impress on Deputies that we would be short of feeding stuffs and that I could not let it out. Every time I spoke—I could turn up speech after speech in the Dáil—I said, let the farmers hold their grain and they will get the price they want later on.

Mr. Broderick

Was the Minister aware the farmers were not in a position to hold their grain?

Dr. Ryan

I was aware of the farmers' difficulty, but I tried to encourage them to hold their grain while the other Deputies were asking to have it exported.

Mr. Broderick

Where were they going to hold it?

Dr. Ryan

They are able to hold it now when there is a good price.

Mr. Broderick

I think those men should be compensated.

Dr. Ryan

I think it is unwise for Deputy Hughes or anybody else to forecast that the price for barley and oats will be as good for the next harvest as it is now. I would not like to say that. Maybe it will. Maybe it will be better, but I would not like to say that to any farmer because the farmers of this country may think that Deputies in this House have more knowledge of the world situation than they have. They may think that when Deputy Hughes says that, he is talking from greater knowledge than they have. I think it is a dangerous thing to say to the farmers they will get 36/- for barley or 26/- for oats for the next harvest, because they may not get that or anything like it. The price is there for wheat which is a good price and guaranteed for any amount they may have.

I am asked by Deputy Belton and others what the Government thinks about this price and what I think. I think definitely we can get sufficient wheat for an all-wheat loaf in this present campaign of appealing to farmers, not altogether on the price basis but on the basis of their sense of duty to the nation. It is my firm belief— I think every Deputy here will agree with it too, because they all know the farmers as well as I do—it is my firm belief that by appealing to the farmers that it is their duty to grow this wheat rather than by appealing to them to come in and make plenty of money we are more likely to get the big acreage than by announcing a bigger price. I think we will get quite a decent acreage, as I say. I do not think we will be able to go back to 70 per cent. extraction, but I think we will be able to get an all-wheat loaf and I think we will be able to get that at the present price of 40/- a barrel.

Mr. Belton

What is the acreage?

Dr. Ryan

To go back to the 70 per cent. extraction, 600,000 acres. I think we should get over 500,000 acres at this price. Every place I went—and I travelled quite a lot—the farmers said that they would do everything possible to put down more wheat. They did point out certain difficulties. Some of them talked about credit. Some of them talked about the difficulty of getting their tractors out and some of them talked about other things but in no instance, in all my travels through this country, did any farmer ever say 40/- a barrel was not sufficient. They all appeared to be satisfied with that price. If you like, I put it up to them, because in my speech in any one of those places I never omitted to say that I thought 40/- was a good price, and I was never contradicted.

Mr. Belton

Did any of them tell you that they would double their acreage?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Belton

You want to double the acreage for the whole country.

Dr. Ryan

Not one of them said that they would plant even an acre more if the price was increased. It is not really a big matter at all. Last year we grew wheat on 2.6 per cent. of the arable land of this country. The arable land is computed to be about 11,500,000 acres. We grew 2.6 per cent. of that in wheat. We have to double that in order to be comfortable about wheat for the coming year—that is 5.2 per cent. of our arable land. I do not think that all the land classed as arable in this country would be wheat growing. On the other hand, take a county like, say, Donegal; in those returns we get 428,000 acres as arable, while the county contains 1,193,000 acres. There is a little less than one-third of County Donegal put down as arable. Take a county that might be better known perhaps to a number of Deputies, the County Tipperary. There we have 843,000 arable acres out of 1,051,000 acres, that is four-fifths of Tipperary is put down as arable. Those figures show that it is only the land which can be tilled that is classed in those returns as arable. If we take as wheat growing even two-thirds of what is regarded as arable, it means that we need not grow wheat in this country on the same land more than once every 13 years, so all this talk about the fertility of the soil, or the difficulty about artificial manures, and so on, does not really deal with very serious matters in the growing of our wheat requirements.

Mr. Belton

All that is a long way from the practical.

Dr. Ryan

I am really very sorry to hear Deputy Belton talking like that. I told him here before that once, many years ago, I heard him making a splendid case for wheat growing in this country.

Mr. Belton

Yes, and I will show you as fine a crop of wheat as ever you saw grown.

Dr. Ryan

That is why I wanted him to be helpful——

Mr. Belton

I am.

Dr. Ryan

——instead of being unhelpful about this wheat campaign. As I say, I am only talking from my own experience. First of all, as I mentioned already, if we go on the experience of the South Dublin Union, taking their costs of working the land and their costs of seeds and manures, adding the average rents and rates which the farmer has to pay and adding the cost of harvesting the crop, the farmers of this country growing all the wheat we require are going to have £4,000,000 profit. Why should we add another £2,000,000 by accepting Deputy Belton's motion? That is the first point. The second point is that I have not heard any farmer in this country saying he will grow another acre of wheat if we give 50/-. But suppose we did get a number of farmers to do that, and suppose we were to push up our crop by, say, 50,000 acres—from 500,000 acres to 550,000 acres—by paying this 50/- a barrel, look at what the extra 50,000 acres is going to cost us. It is going to cost us £2,000,000 in addition——

Mr. Belton

It is going to increase the loaf 25 per cent.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think it will do anything like it. In my opinion—I am prepared to give this as my honest opinion—after the next harvest the loaf is going to be an all-wheat loaf, because I think the farmers are quite alive to the situation; they are quite prepared to do their part as far as they can, and will see to it that it is an all-wheat loaf. Whether it is going to be a 70 per cent. or an 80 per cent. or a 90 per cent. extraction, I would not like to forecast. I am hoping it will be well below the 90 per cent. extraction.

Mr. Belton

Would the Minister stake his reputation that it will be an all-wheat loaf?

Dr. Ryan

I am saying it is my honest opinion.

Mr. Belton

I would set more value on your reputation than on your honest opinion.

Dr. Ryan

My reputation is too precious for that. I recommend the Dáil to reject the motion.

Mr. Bennett

I do not think the Minister would put me in the same line as Deputy Belton as having been a persistent advocate of wheat growing in this country. I certainly was not, but I have been prepared, whatever my views were in previous years, to do my part in helping the Minister in this very critical situation in which we find ourselves. Wherever it has been possible for me, I have advocated that in this emergency the people should follow the advice of the Minister in growing what wheat is necessary. Speaking a moment ago, the Minister asked us to face up to the real problem, and concentrate on what would induce a man to break more land to grow wheat. He said that was the kernel of the matter. The Minister said that whatever extra acreage of tillage we are going to get will mainly come out of the large farmers' land, the land in the counties where they had not tilled much before. I agree; it will come from my county and other counties like it. What is going to be the inducement? At this late hour of the day, with probably a fortnight available to put in winter wheat, the farmers are being asked to make this effort. The Minister spoke of sacrifice, and said we ought not to mention the word in connection with wheat. I am going to mention it. It will be a sacrifice for some of those men to put in wheat in mid-February, because if they were left to themselves, having being compelled to till, they would grow mainly oats, in my county at any rate.

If some of us appeal to them to put in wheat instead of growing oats, we have got to point out the advantages. Three or four difficulties will occur to Deputies who know anything about growing wheat at this hour of the day. First of all, since the seriousness of the emergency was pointed out to the people nine or ten days ago, very little could have been done because of the weather. Most of the south of Ireland is at the moment covered with a coat of snow. It will be possibly another ten days, or perhaps in some districts 14 days, before the wheat can be put in. It will then be on the border line of danger as far as winter wheat is concerned.

Three or four factors will militate against the farmer putting in wheat instead of oats. First, there is the possibility of a late crop, which means a light crop and probably a risky crop, because there is the danger of its eventually not ripening. We have, as the Minister said, a guaranteed price for millable wheat. I do not think anybody asked the Minister to say definitely if he would even go as far as making the price a guaranteed price for any wheat, because the farmer is going to take the risk that some of it may not be millable. If we are to engage on the dangerous operation of growing winter wheat into March, there is a danger that much of it is not going to be millable wheat. I want some intimation that the guaranteed price of £2 is going to apply to that; I am not at the moment talking of the extra price. The Minister said also that he personally would like to give the farmers such a price as would leave them, after this emergency is over, in a position to face the world clear of debt.

I am at one with the Minister there. I would welcome whatever advantages can be got out of growing wheat, even outside of the emergency, and I would like to see a desire on the part of the farmers to grow wheat. I hope that the members of our farming community will emerge from this emergency free of debt.

I spoke on this particular matter on the debate on supplies and I told the Taoiseach that I did not consider £2 a barrel a fair price considering the nature of the emergency, the risk the farmers had to run and the chances they were taking with regard to other crops. I said that if we are to produce all the wheat that is required there should be some adequate inducement. I suggested a price inducement and I am again suggesting it to-day. I do not suggest that we should go as far as Deputy Belton wants us to, but we ought to offer some inducement. The Government should arrange that the guaranteed price will apply to whatever wheat is grown, whether or not it turns out to be millable. The Minister gave some comparisons relating to the cost of wheat-growing. One instance he gave was that of the Dublin Corporation. I do not know how they are going to grow wheat cheaper than anybody else.

The Minister said that the present guaranteed price would give the farmers a profit of £4,000,000. I do not agree with his calculation. A profit of £4,000,000 would mean, roughly, that the farmer is going to get a profit of £1 a barrel on his wheat. A profit of £4,000,000 on 600,000 acres of wheat works out, roughly, at a profit of £7 an acre. The return from each acre would be about seven barrels, so that on the Minister's calculation the farmer would get a profit of £1 a barrel.

On the Minister's calculation it would appear that the expenses attending the growing of wheat, the expenses involved in the tilling, seeding, ploughing, rolling, cutting, stacking and threshing, will not exceed £1 per acre. I do not believe all that work could possibly be done for £1. I will leave it to other Deputies to argue whether £1 would be a reasonable figure. If any Deputy believes that the Minister's calculation is a fair one—that there is going to be a profit of £1 an acre—then my argument must fall. I do not believe that the Minister's calculation is a correct one.

When we ask for an increase in the guaranteed price for wheat the challenge will immediately be thrown at us —and perhaps it is a reasonable one —to indicate how the price is going to be borne. We are told that it will increase the price of the poor man's loaf. Any farmer who seeks an increase in the guaranteed price does not desire that ultimately the burden will fall on the unfortunate consumers. The original intention when the bounty on wheat was introduced was that the cost would be borne by the State. We departed from that idea and the cost ultimately fell on the consumer, through the miller. I am against the burden being placed on the consumer.

So far as the wheat position is concerned, we are facing an emergency. We are making preparations to meet whatever contingencies may arise through the international conflict that is proceeding around us. One might argue that a strong defence force is necessary now and that the cost must be borne by the ordinary citizen. I suggest it could equally be argued that there is a great necessity for the growing of wheat by certain farmers who would not otherwise grow it, and whatever extra cost is involved it should be borne by taxation just the same as in the case of armaments or whatever else arises through this emergency.

One does not like to say much about profiteering, but I think the farmer should be protected against the profiteers. However glibly the Minister may try to get out of it, the fact remains that there has been profiteering. Last March I forecast what was going to occur in relation to another crop. The oat crop was bought from the farmers at 8d. and sold afterwards at 2/6. I warned the Minister to take precautions that that would not occur again, but it did occur. I sold oats for 10d. and 11d. a stone and I saw some of my own oats being sold subsequently at 2/4 a stone. It was sold for seeding purposes to farmers. I am sure other cases of a similar nature could be quoted. Then we are told that there has not been any profiteering.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing about oats in this motion.

Mr. Bennett

I believe the price of wheat as seed has gone up to £3 or more. I should like the Minister to submit a case to the Prices Commission in relation to the price that is being charged for seed wheat. A stone of wheat cannot be got in Limerick under 3/-. One of the best known farmers' organisations in the county is charging £3 3s. 0d. for seed wheat and, when asked why that should be, the explanation was that they could not get any profit even at that price. I believe they are telling the truth.

Dr. Ryan

There is no profiteering, so.

Mr. Bennett

There is profiteering somewhere when you compare 37/6 with £3 3s. 0d. I do not say that that particular co-operative is profiteering, because I believe they cannot buy it now at a lower price. If they cannot buy at a lower figure, with all the machinery at their disposal for purchasing, what chance has the ordinary farmer of buying it at a reasonable figure? It just cannot be done. I understand that as much as £4 a barrel has been charged for wheat seed and those who are selling it feel themselves entitled to charge the £4. Just imagine the position in which the average farmer finds himself. Very little time is left in which to sow winter wheat.

There is every possibility that the farmer will have to rush the crop and put it into land which may not be in a reasonably satisfactory condition. All farmers will have to take a risk. There may be a late crop, there is the possibility that the crop will not ripen and farmers cannot be sure that the wheat when it is grown will be millable. Again, we have no guarantee even if it is millable that it will be taken. In view of all these things we might reasonably expect that some adequate inducement will be offered by the Government.

Mr. Fagan

I do not believe that the Government are handling the situation in the right way. I am not in favour of a minimum price of 50/- per barrel. I believe the wheat crop will pay the farmer all right, but the question is, will we be able to get enough wheat sown at the guaranteed price of £2 a barrel? Take the position of farmers in the midlands. I know quite a lot of them who are prepared to grow oats and barley instead. Oats will make £1 a barrel and they will get at least 17 or 18 barrels off an Irish acre. That means £17. If they have eight barrels of wheat off an Irish acre that will amount to £16. I do not think that anybody will contradict that. Again, the farmer will have the oaten straw, which he can feed to his stock and it is much better for the stock than wheaten straw. In addition to that farmers, for the purpose of growing wheat, will have to do a lot more with the land. If they till a lot more it will mean a reduction in meadow land.

The farmers will sow oats from which they can obtain fodder to replace hay which they formerly got off meadow land which has now to be tilled. These are points the Minister should bear in mind if he wishes to be in a position to deal adequately with the crisis which is upon us.

A number of farmers will sow as much wheat as possible but then there are many farmers in the midlands who are financially in a very bad position as the returns from the sheriffs' offices will show. Many farmers who want to maintain their stocks would prefer to grow oats instead of wheat. There are a number of other things which will militate against the growing of more wheat. One is the price of seed wheat. The Minister may say what he likes but the price asked down in my county is as high as 68/- for spring wheat and 55/- for winter wheat. One would be very lucky to get seed wheat at £3. To mention a personal experience, I tried to purchase a quantity of Squarehead Master and I was told by certain merchants that they might give me some Squarehead Master at 55/-. I approached a merchant in Mullingar. He told me to see him on Tuesday, the fair day there. I saw him on that day and told him that I wanted 12 barrels. He said he would be able to get only six barrels from the millers but the price, which he stated on Friday would be 55/-, on that day was raised to £3 per barrel. I took the six barrels and was glad to get them. That is the position with regard to spring wheat. In many cases a price as high as £3 8s. per barrel has been charged. If the Minister says it is the duty of Deputies to report these increases in price, I say that it is the duty of the Government to look into the matter themselves to find out the cause of these increases and to control the price. Give the merchants a fair profit. They are entitled to a fair profit, but they are not entitled to profiteer at the expense of poor struggling farmers. If you happen to be a poor struggling farmer, who has to go into a merchant without having ready cash to pay for the seed, you are very glad to get it no matter what the charge is. If there were a controlled price, the farmers could not be victimised in that way.

Take again the case of oats. The Minister says that he advised people to keep their oats, but if he and the Government were doing their duty, they would have made it possible by paying a subsidy for poor men who had to sell their oats, to keep at least sufficient for seed purposes. As it was, the poor man had to sell his oats.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Bennett is not a poor man.

Mr. Bennett

Deputy Bennett is a poor man if the Minister wants to know, and he is not ashamed of it.

Mr. Fagan

There is no use in sidetracking the issue by saying that farmers were told not to sell their oats at 12/- a barrel. What could they do when they were being harassed by the sheriff's men? Farmers who could afford to do so, kept their oats in their lofts but it was the small man and the poor man who had to part with it and who has now to pay an exorbitant price for seed. The present Government were supposed to be a poor man's Government, but at every opportunity they have allowed the poor man to be squelched. They are allowing the poor man, who has to go in begging for credit, to be squelched at present. We are all anxious to help the Government in this tillage campaign, but at the same time we are anxious to see fair dealing between man and man. We cannot forget that we have passed through seven or eight very lean years as far as the farmers are concerned and when, to-morrow, I get an answer to a question on the Order Paper, the number of sheriffs' warrants awaiting execution in my county which that question will reveal will open the eyes of some people.

I should also like to refer to the question of vaporising oils. The Minister for Supplies said to-day that tractors were getting a certain quantity of petrol. I know that that is correct but at the same time there is a ramp being worked in the case of vaporising oils. These oils are being used in lorries all over the country and the tractor men are not getting much of it. A man is supposed to get a certain amount of vaporising oil in proportion to the area which he had under tillage last year, but the required quantity is not being supplied because lorries are using it. I think that the Government should look into all these matters and try to help the people who are endeavouring to help them. They should control the price of seed wheat right away and see that everybody concerned gets a fair deal.

Mr. Broderick

The purpose of this motion is one of inducement—to induce the farmers of the country to produce sufficient food. I shall not concern myself with any interpretation of the wording of the motion. I take it that its main purpose is simply to ensure that, in the national interest, a sufficiency of wheat will be grown.

Mr. Belton

That is the whole point of the motion.

Mr. Broderick

The Minister, alone in this House, has committed himself to the statement that, in his opinion, a sufficient quantity of wheat will be grown. I feel that the Minister has a greater responsibility than any other individual in this State at the moment and as I say, he has committed himself to the statement that he believes that sufficient wheat will be grown. I, for one, do not think so, for a variety of reasons. I am not going to refer to the grain situation, but I shall state that in the last four years people have been growing wheat on land that was best adapted for that purpose and they have practically exhausted the potentialities of the land so far as wheat-growing is concerned. They have now practically no reserve of such good land on their farms and any extension of wheat-growing will largely have to be carried out on land that was formerly regarded as unsuitable for the production of wheat.

We must also allow for the human element in this question. Every farmer faced with the problem of engaging in more tillage will consider the question of the production of wheat by relating the price of wheat to the price of oats and barley. He will ask himself: "Which is of greater advantage to me, wheat, barley, or oats?" Personally I should say that it would be far better, in his own personal interest, leaving out any question of the national interest, to grow either barley or oats. I have been growing wheat for the last few years and if there were no question of national interest involved, I certainly should not grow wheat this year. I feel there are a good many other farmers in the same position. For any extension of wheat growing you will have to depend, therefore, on people who have not yet grown wheat and on land which has not yet produced wheat. The people who are going to break up the lands are, to a large extent, inexperienced. The Minister says that, of all the difficulties he has met, this is one of the greatest, as it is very hard to control them. I am not going to refer to administrative difficulties, to the things which have been put as an imposition on the consumers of bread. Nor am I going to deal with the references here to the enormous profits made by some sections and the difficulties of tillage. I say, however, that the Minister expects an increase in tillage from men who have neither the appliances nor the knowledge to give that increase. The Minister has made one very strong point. We cannot increase the price of wheat because we increase the price of the loaf on the poor person! It is extraordinary how that argument always is brought up when it refers to any assistance to agriculture.

I think it is far more essential to secure the food of the people, to make certain that there will be no such thing as hunger or privation if it can be avoided. That was the reason why I referred to the Minister as holding to-day the most responsible position in the country, because he is responsible for the averting of any such danger. When we come to contrast the Minister's attitude with making sure that there is no privation, then all the difficulties of finance are invoked and the great difficulties of putting up money of any kind. However, if it comes to a question of defence, of protecting the people, millions can be passed in this House without criticism for that. I hold strongly that it is far more important to make sure of overcoming the difficulty that will certainly arise—that of feeding the people—than to spend millions on what may or may not arise. I do not wish to delay Deputy Belton's opportunity to reply to the Minister's points, but I feel intensely for the position of the Minister. I say quite clearly that he has the greatest responsibility in the State and is clearly entitled to the assistance, not only of this House but of every well-disposed person. In that matter the Minister has his responsibility, too, to give the people every assistance, to see that they are not exploited by any other section, to see that the production of their land goes directly from them to the consumer. Above all, he has no right to censure anyone who cannot comply, unless he gives them assistance in seeding and tilling the land.

Mr. Belton

This motion was put down for discussion in consequence of a circular issued by the Minister for Supplies on the 7th January last:

"I am writing you to request your active assistance in an effort to secure a substantial increase in the acreage sown with wheat in your constituency during the present season. The need for a considerable expansion in the quantity of wheat sown is very real and urgent.

"Present indications are that our available reserves of wheat will be completely exhausted by the time the 1941 harvest is garnered and that thereafter we will be wholly dependent on home-produced wheat. Efforts to secure shipping for the importation of wheat during this year have not been successful and it appears probable that no improvement in the position need be expected.

"I need not point out to you the hardships that would result, particularly to poorer classes, if flour and bread supplies should be seriously curtailed. I feel sure you will agree that this possibility must be avoided at all costs.

"My Department will, of course, take every course which may result in the importation of wheat from abroad, but our main hopes after August next are based on the expansion of home production to yield 100 per cent., or almost 100 per cent., of our requirements. This involves an increase on the 1940 acreage of 300,000 acres."

That is the problem—300,000 acres extra. The Minister believes that he will get it through the inducements offered. I believe he will not. The Minister said that he once listened to me making a great speech in favour of increased tillage and of growing wheat. I practise it to-day to a greater extent than ever. I have over 300 acres tilled and I have over 150 of wheat growing green now.

The problem is whether we will get this 300,000 acres, or has the Minister abandoned hope of it? Deputy Corry said he could not support the motion for 50/-. He does not believe that we will get our requirements here. Deputy Fagan said that he does not believe we will get our requirements, but he is against 50/- a barrel. Are the farmers thinking rightly at all? Deputy Fagan said that £2 a barrel will pay the farmer. If that were true, and the farmers of this country said that, I would say to the Minister that he should make them produce 600,000 acres.

First of all, if 600,000 is sufficient for our requirements, get it at all costs. If £2 a barrel is enough, and if the farmers acknowledge that it is enough, they should be made produce it at that price, but the Minister has unequivocally stood over the statement that with the present inducements he is satisfied he will get the 600,000 acres. I do not believe he will. He spoke of a loaf at ?. Calculate it any way you will, a loaf produced from wheat at £2 a barrel, as compared with the loaf produced from wheat at 50/- a barrel, would make a difference of only 25 per cent. If he can produce a 2 lb. loaf at 6d., at £2 a barrel, it cannot be more than 7½d. at 50/-. There is no use in trying to delude the people by talk of an inflated price for bread. What is all the talk about putting barley into it? Is the Minister satisfied that he will not want barley, that he will have a wheaten loaf of 90 per cent. extraction? We have not seen that loaf yet.

I do not want to go over the ground I travelled in introducing this motion. The question of credits enters into it and it is a big one. The Minister has said quite unequivocally that we will get sufficient wheat to give us bread, on the inducements offered. The campaign has been started for another 300,000 acres. Is the Minister able to tell us how much is sown now? If 500,000 acres will give us a wheaten loaf of 90 per cent. extraction, is he able to tell us how much we have sown? He should be in a position to do that. He has the Guards at his disposal and they could take a census every week of what has been sown at a certain date and how much has been sown each week. Then he could work out his returns and see from week to week how the position stands. That could be done if this matter is taken seriously, but I am afraid it is not.

I have been asked if I would guarantee that the full requirements would be grown if the price were 50/- a barrel. Certainly I will guarantee that more than 25 per cent. would be grown at 50/- a barrel, and with proper co-operation, which this would bring, between the farmers and the Minister, generally, looking after and securing the credit position and also securing the return of that land to its original state when the emergency is passed— if confidence were given to the farmers on those points and 50/- a barrel offered I am satisfied that the 300,000 acres would be secured. Will the Minister leave the matter open and go into conference with the farmers on this matter? If not, I am going to challenge a division on this, and whether I can get four or five to stand up with me I do not care—if only the two of us stand up we shall do so, because we want to show the country that in putting down this motion we were inspired with the idea of securing a sufficiency of wheat to give a wheaten loaf to the people of this country at the lowest possible cost. Nobody has got up and made a case against the case we have made. Even though some Deputies said they were against an increase, yet their whole case was for an increase of the minimum price. Will the Minister leave the matter open and confer with the farmers on this?

Dr. Ryan

No. We had better have finality.

Mr. Belton

The Minister wants finality? Is he satisfied that he will get the 600,000 acres this year?

Dr. Ryan

I gave my views on that.

Mr. Belton

Well, they are not satisfactory for the country because, if we do not decide now, there is no use in thinking after a month or two that we were wrong. We are wrong enough now since we are tackling this matter so late in the season, and if we do not get the 600,000 acres the fault will not be that of the farmers; the fault will be on the shoulders of the Minister. The day may come when the Minister will have to dump barley into the flour and give the people inferior bread, and that will mean taking from the feeding stuffs pool the feeding stuffs required for our live stock. That will be the case if the necessary precautions are not taken now to secure that an adequate amount of wheat is sown. The Minister for Supplies, Mr. Lemass, stated at a meeting of the County Committee of Agriculture that he wanted 400,000 acres. Surely, the Minister for Agriculture was not serious when he told us here in the House to-day that, on the costings of the Dublin Board of Assistance, £4,000,000 was to be made by the farmers? Will he mention one individual, controlling this scheme on the Dublin Board of Assistance, who would know even how to tackle a horse?

Dr. Ryan

They know how to get estimates.

Mr. Belton

I had a talk with a certain man who had responsibility in that particular matter, and I advised against it. The reason I advised against it is that I know every inch of the land concerned. I had bought it at one time and I know every inch of it. This gentleman told me that they were going on with the scheme, and he said: "I am sorry to hear you say that, because you are the one man to whom we were looking to advise us on this matter." I should be glad to know from the Minister how these people, knowing nothing about this matter, are going to make it a success?

Dr. Ryan

That has nothing to do with the cost.

Mr. Belton

We would all be millionaires if amateurs like these people can go in for such schemes and pick up millions.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is on his first million now.

Mr. Belton

Well, call around and we shall have a good night when I am on my second million. Nobody will be more welcome than the Minister, particularly if he is right in saying that we will get the required quantity of wheat at £2 a barrel. Neither I nor my colleague backed this motion in order to increase any price on anybody. I will admit that a certain acreage of wheat, in your ordinary rotation, fitting in on nicely-nourished land where you are sure to get a good crop and be able to master it within your economy, can be got at that price; and provided overheads do not go up too high, £2 a barrel is a good price, but it is one thing to do what you have planned out to do, and another thing to come around, when the clock is striking 12, and say that in the national interest you want double the crop and that you want it produced on land that has not been properly nourished or encouraged for the growing of wheat. As the time is nearly up, Sir, I shall not say any more, and we will leave to the Minister the responsibility he is taking of giving us a black loaf.

Dr. Ryan

No. It will not be black.

Mr. Belton

Very good. We shall call it the Ryan loaf when it comes.

Question put.

Mr. Belton

Division.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputies challenging a division please rise in their places?

The required number of Deputies having risen——

An Ceann Comhairle

The division may proceed.

The Dáil divided:—Tá, 9; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Cole, John J.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Keating, John.
• Reynolds, Mary.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Carty, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Fuller, Stephen.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Hurley, Jeremiah.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Martin.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Mullen, Thomas.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Belton and Cogan; Níl, Deputies Smith and S. Brady.

Motion declared lost.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until Thursday, 6th February, at 3 p.m.