I move the motion standing in my own name and the names of Deputies Brennan and Browne, as follows:—
That, in view of the importance of stimulating the maximum production of cereals both for human consumption and for further agricultural production, and the necessity for leaving a fair margin to the producer as a means of eliminating incentives to illegal transactions, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the prices of oats and barley as fixed by the Minister for Agriculture are insufficient to meet the increased costs of production and the inevitable reduction in yields consequent on the scarcity of manures.
In considering the motion, the House must bear in mind that, during this period of emergency, the dominant consideration must be the maximum production of food for human and animal consumption from the soil of this country. We feel that, in order to stimulate production, the necessary incentive must be held out to the farmer. On the last motion, I referred to the question of control. I agree that control is objectionable where it can be avoided but, in this case, we must set a limit somewhere. We must have a ceiling to those prices. If the Government are to control wages and prices of other commodities so as to restrict the spiral in prices which must, inevitably, follow an increase in the price of other commodities, we must agree to some limit in this case. With the increase in the volume of money coming back into this country not only for live stock but because we have a credit balance of trade at present, and with substantial sums coming in from people who left the country to obtain work and are sending back money to their families, there is an inflationary tendency. The Government have, I think rightly, attempted to control that situation and keep prices within reasonable limits. For that reason, I think we must have a measure of control, particularly in the case of oats and barley, to prevent speculation. It might be all right to leave market operations in connection with oats and barley free if one were sure that no speculation would occur but, obviously, there are men with sufficient vision and foresight to avail of the opportunity to corner a certain amount of that grain and force up the prices. The sky would then be the limit. On the question of fixation of prices, I do not think that we can offer any criticism. It is necessary under present conditions.
A couple of evenings ago, the Taoiseach gave us first returns of this year's crops and they were, from his point of view, disappointing. He told us that the present acreage of wheat was 585,000, an increase of 26.2 per cent. on that of last year; that the acreage under oats was 881,400, an increase of 12.7 per cent. and that the acreage under barley was 180,600, an increase of 14 per cent. Root crops, generally, have decreased. Potatoes have decreased and there is a very substantial decrease under sugar beet. The Taoiseach informed us that the acreage he aimed to secure under cereals was 2,000,000. The aggregate acreage under cereals is 1,657,700, an increase of 17.3 per cent. on that of last year, but falling short of the 2,000,000 acres aimed at by 350,000 acres. That shows that our effort in this regard has not proved a success, that we are still short by a very substantial amount. Under present conditions, with the difficulty of securing supplies from overseas, that is a very serious matter. To secure adequate production, two things are essential. Prices must be sufficiently attractive to induce people to till the land. They must feel that the work is profitable and that the price is fair in the circumstances. The other essential is proper organisation and proper aid in the way of equipment of all sorts to help the agricultural community.
In the fixing of the prices, we must take into account the cost of production. One of the things on which I have criticised the Minister for Agriculture on several occasions is his arbitrary method of fixing prices. The consultations he had with agricultural interests were very few and far between. His consultative council were asked to meet only once or twice a year and the term "consultative council" is, I think, a misnomer.
They are simply told what the Minister intends to do and they listen to that and discuss the matter. Then they are dismissed and he does what he likes afterwards. That is a rather peculiar sort of consultation; it does not strike me as being consultation at all. The Minister's intentions are generally announced beforehand, and they are merely asked to express their views on them.
I complain not only about the arbitrary method of fixing prices without consultation, but also that the Minister has no costings of any sort in relation to any crops. I do not know how he arrives at his figures when fixing prices. Certainly, he cannot proceed on a costings basis. It is only fair and right that, in determining a fair price to the farmer for grain, he should proceed on a costings basis. Otherwise, I do not know how he can arrive at a figure to cover the cost of production and leave a fair margin to the farmer. It cannot be denied that the cost of production this year is higher. The cost of labour under the wages fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board is higher; the casual labour required for harvesting operations and general production is bound to be higher, owing to the numbers who have gone across to work in Great Britain; plough parts and implements cost substantially more; harvesting operations, twine, and the various things necessary, cost more; and threshing charges are higher. I do not want to go into the details of the cost of production generally, but there is no doubt that it has risen. On the other hand, the lack of artificial manure, and particularly the lack of nitrogenous manure, is a very grievous handicap from the farmer's point of view. That is particularly applicable in old tillage districts, on worn lands.
There will be a very substantial reduction in the yield on many lands where there has been constant cultivation over a period. In fixing prices, we must not overlook the important consideration that the more we extend the acreage under cultivation the more marginal land we are taking into the pool. Undoubtedly, that lowers the average output. As we bring more and more land into cultivation, we must be bringing in more marginal land. Therefore, the price must be fixed, not on the output of the best soil, but on the results obtained from these marginal lands. This raises a very important matter—how best to treat the man living on marginal land. This matter has given rise to a good deal of agitation in England in the last couple of years: while the prices fixed there under the present system of price fixing may leave a fair margin of profit to certain types, those living on marginal land, mountainy land, and the poorer and lighter soils may not be getting a reasonable margin of profit. The anomaly about the whole thing is that, invariably, the best farmers are to be found on the poorer land. They have to work harder and pay more attention to the crops in order to get the best results. If they neglect that, they are failures. Therefore, it is hardly fair to such men, who are the hardest workers, to tie them down to a price based on yield alone.
I think there is a lot to be said for a subsidy on acreage. It would ensure a common profit to all farmers, irrespective of fertility, whether growing on the rich soils of North Kildare and Meath or on the poorer lands of the West, or on the mountainside. That is an aspect of the problem of fair prices that should be taken into account. It secures that the profit arising out of the growing of grain goes in common measure to all. It helps to bridge the gap between the man forced to live on marginal land and the man living on rich land. There is a lot to be said for the operation of an acreage subsidy, though it would give rise, undoubtedly, to problems. At present, whatever price is obtained for oats, wheat and barley is a direct charge on the consumer, and the question of taxation does not arise. Obviously, if we introduce a subsidy on an acreage basis, money would have to be provided for that purpose; but I do not propose to go into that now.
The price of oats is from 21/- to 25/8. I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture is not present at the moment, as I am not sure whether that is a seasonal or a quality price. I do not suppose the Minister for Supplies knows anything about it. I take it that it is a quality price. It is right that we should recognise that a man with good quality grain should be paid for quality. In dealing with home consumption, we must remember there might be as much as or more than a stone of oatmeal in the difference between good oats and oats of poor quality, so I am glad there is a differentiation there, which, I presume, refers to quality.
Probably the Minister would agree with me that the bulk of the oats is sold from marginal land, where it is not profitable to grow wheat. Those people find it difficult at all times to carry on. They are forced to cash the crops immediately after the harvest, and the only crop that can be cashed is the oat crop. The House should remember that only about one-sixth of the total production of oats is offered for sale. I suggest that most of that comes from the poorer and marginal lands, where farmers are forced to sell immediately after the harvest. For that reason I feel that the present price is not fair. In considering this whole matter the Minister must remember he had the Cereals Distribution Committee controlling prices last year. The price fixed was ignored to a great extent.
There were vast quantities of oats sold that did not come under that committee, or were not sold by a licensed dealer. In fact, a great many merchants, all through the country, who were dealing in oats, paid far more, and charged far more, than the controlled price, and the reason for that was that the controlled price was far too low. It was unreasonable, in the circumstances, and no one was prepared to pay any attention to it. Because the price was so low, there was no inducement to sell at that price and, as I said before, with a good deal of black-market operations going on, that set of circumstances, to my mind, forced up the price above what would have obtained if a fair and reasonable price had been fixed in the first instance. So that the result—and I know that many people agree with me—of fixing an abnormal price last year was that prices were forced up; many an illegal transaction occurred, and prices were forced up to a level that would not have been reached at all if a more reasonable price had been fixed in the first instance.
We suggest that 28/- would be a fair price for oats. I understand that Deputy MacEoin says that he would not take it. Well, he can make his own case. Personally, our intention— and, of course, it is the Minister's intention too—is to try to relate the price of oats to the price of wheat so that the growing of oats will not be more attractive than the growing of wheat, but there are certain marginal lands, as I said before, in this country where you cannot grow wheat under any circumstances, and as the bulk of our oats is consumed on the farm where it is grown, and not offered for sale, most of the oats that is offered for sale is sold off marginal land. That is an aspect of the case that should not be overlooked, and even if it is off marginal land, I think the price of 28/- would be reasonable. We are trying to avoid making exorbitant demands. We want to be reasonable in the present circumstances, but we feel that the price the Minister has fixed is not justifiable in the circumstances.
Now, with regard to barley, I agree with Deputy Dillon when he talks about getting more and more barley grown. I think that in the circumstances we ought to try to get far more barley grown than we are growing at the present time, because it is our only salvation if we are to continue in pig production.
It is very good pig feeding and we have any amount of land in this country which is suitable for barley production but is not able to grow wheat—poor land, again—and we should induce those people to grow all the barley they can on that type of land. I think that a price of £2 a barrel is not an unreasonable price for barley, and, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, malting barley is commanding a price of £3 10s. in England, and that is the price in England not only for malting barley, but for barley generally. That means that Messrs. Guinness here are willing to pay £3 10s. for barley in England for the production of stout here, and yet the Irish farmer is expected, according to the prices fixed by the Minister, to supply barley at 35/- for the same purpose, and some of it, at all events, to be sold in the same market. I think it is unreasonable and unfair to ask our people to produce barley at half the price that the English farmer is getting for his barley when our barley is going to be used for the same purpose, the production of stout for export.
I asked the Minister to consider this matter last year. I am satisfied that Messrs. Guinness are quite willing to pay more for barley than the price fixed by the Minister. I know that there is a difficulty in adjusting the matter. I was inclined to suggest that brewers should be put on a quota, that a quota should be fixed for brewing and distilling purposes; in other words that oats, barley, or anything that is required for brewing or distilling should be put on a quota and that those people should be permitted to operate without any price control, because, of course, you control their operation by the quota. If Messrs. Guinness are permitted to operate under a quota, I have not any doubt whatever that they will pay much more than 35/-. That might give rise to difficulties, as between one farmer and another. I know that there is a difficulty there. If a man has got good-quality malting barley and gets it on the market early, he might get 10/- more for it from Messrs. Guinness, and as a result the other man might have a grouse.
Whether it is possible or not to get over that difficulty I cannot say, but in any case, if we took the broad view of it, it would mean that these people who have been selling to Messrs. Guinness in the past and who always supplied the firms which malt for Messrs. Guinness with barley, would get a better price for that barley, because it is of good quality, grown on suitable land, is of a bright colour, and is generally suitable for malting purposes, and I think it would be unreasonable for farmers who have not grown barley in the past for malting purposes to grumble and complain if their neighbours benefited by the fact that Messrs. Guinness, and brewers generally, were permitted to operate here without restriction except in so far as they were restricted to a quota.
What I am anxious to secure is that some of the profits that are going to the shareholders of Messrs. Guinness might be beneficially diverted into the pockets of certain farmers in this country. I am not saying that in any spirit of criticism at all in regard to the firm of Messrs. Guinness. I think that in recent years they have treated their grain or barley growers very reasonably, and we have nothing to complain about them in that regard. With regard to this matter of quality, and the fixing of the price for oats, I should like to know from the Minister whether that differentiation between 21/- and 25/8 is a quality difference or a seasonal one.
