Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Oct 1942

Vol. 88 No. 12

Supplies of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion by Deputies Belton and Cogan:—

That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the Government should inform the House of the present position with regard to food supplies for man and beast, and the steps now being taken to prevent the possibility of famine and the recurrence of the disaster of under-production of 1941.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister is charged with a very grave responsibility during this emergency and I do not want to minimise in any way the various difficulties that are bound to crop up in tackling a problem of such magnitude—the problem of producing to our maximum capacity food for man and beast. I did not happen to be present during the debate on the last occasion, but I read with interest what was said by the Minister and by the mover and seconder of the motion. Reference was made to the lack of fertilisers, and I am in agreement with what has been said by those who contributed to the debate, that the biggest handicap we have to face, particularly in the tillage districts, is the lack of artificial fertilisers. The Minister suggested that, although the price of raw phosphates was going up very considerably, they were contemplating bringing in a couple of boat loads of phosphates. He went on to say that he was not aware that potash was available anywhere. I do not think that our immediate problem is either phosphates or potash. Our big problem is nitrogenous manure. I urge the Minister that, if shipping space be made available for the importation of any artificial manure, that space should be utilised for the importation of nitrogenous manure— preferably, sulphate of ammonia.

I am aware that the British have imported substantial quantities of phosphate from America. I do not know how the price is worked out, but I think that it is subsidised. I am also aware that sulphate of ammonia is the only artificial which is not rationed in England, which suggests that ample supplies are being produced by Imperial Chemicals. I have argued before that every effort should be made to secure a quota of whatever production is available there. It appears to me that it might be possible to get a quota of sulphate of ammonia from Imperial Chemicals. If that cannot be obtained, I suggest that whatever space is available for the shipment of artificial manures from America ought to be utilised to bring in nitrogenous manure or a concentrated manure such as Imperial Chemicals produce. I agree with the Minister that the transport costs in connection with the importation of all manures are bound to be very high. However, the Minister must agree that if a concentrated manure can be purchased the relative cost of transport will be lower, because a more valuable product will be brought in. For that reason, it might be better to utilise shipping space to bring in a complete manure rather than use it for the importation of raw phosphate rock. I should be far more keenly interested if the Minister were to do something to secure a supply of nitrogenous manure. I agree with Deputy Belton that if we do not pay much closer attention, particularly in the tillage districts, to the preservation and restoration of fertility than we are paying at present, there will be a progressive reduction in the returns from crops.

The question of winter feeding was discussed. Comparing the British effort with our effort, what strikes me is the anxiety of the British to encourage their farmers to feed to their full capacity all the cattle they can. The British Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Hudson, has been going around saying that there are plenty of cattle in Éire, advising the farmers to stock up, that they had a huge fodder crop and a good root crop, and that they should keep the cattle in the yards to produce what the British farmer calls "muck". He told them that they could not continue producing grain without producing "muck". Here, our Minister seems not to be worrying at all about fertility. Our problem regarding the preservation of fertility is greater than that of the British because we are handicapped by the fact that we have no artificial manures worth speaking of. Yet, the British Minister for Agriculture and his officials are availing of every opportunity to encourage British farmers to produce all the farmyard manure they can and to convert all their available straw into farmyard manure to go back into the land.

The price arrangement is operating against the possibility of our farmers availing to the full of the fodder crops that might be used up and converted into farmyard manure. The Minister is aware that the discrepancy in the price of Irish fat cattle for immediate slaughter in England and the price of Irish fat cattle for slaughter after two months' stay in England is around 13/- or 14/- a cwt. The price of store cattle has been very attractive for the past few months. Keen prices were paid and men were encouraged to sell their stock. The price of store cattle to-day, against Lord Woolton's price for beef, gives no encouragement to farmers in this country to attempt winter feeding on a large scale.

For that reason I ask the Minister now to make representations again to the British Ministry of Food with regard to the price of Irish beef. I think some discussion took place some short time ago and, from the information I got, I understand that representatives of the British Ministry of Food suggested that no adjustment could be made until they had stocked up with stores and that when that stocking up was completed there was the possibility of an adjustment. I do not know whether that was correct or not, but I got it from a fairly good source. I am sure the Minister knows all about it. I suggest to the Minister that an early contact should be made with the British Ministry of Food on this important matter, and whatever price is to be paid for Irish fat stock ought to be announced immediately before it is too late, and it will be too late in another month.

Now, in conjunction with the feeding of cattle as a source for the production of farmyard manure, there is also the question of using pigs, so as to produce rich farmyard manure to preserve the fertility of the land. Of course, another and more vital consideration is the production of pigs for the bacon requirements of the country. There is no use in the Minister going around the country and trying to convince farmers that the present price is economic in view of the cost of raw material; that with potatoes at £5 10s. per ton, a ton of potatoes can be converted into a cwt. of bacon. That may be so, but there is another and very important consideration from the farmer's point of view with regard to the food that is available for animal use and that is, that the price of cattle at the present time is more attractive to the farmer for the utilisation of that food. The farmer who weighs the position must make a decision whether it pays him better to feed cattle than pigs, and I am satisfied that quite a lot of grain, and even potatoes, which would be fed to pigs in the ordinary way were fed to cattle.

I myself gave potatoes for the first time to cattle rather than to pigs. The price of cattle justifies that. Instead of trying to convince people that pigs can be produced economically at the present price, the Minister should make up his mind that if he wants pigs produced he will have to relate the price of pigs to the price of cattle. If the farmer is getting more for his cattle it will pay him to feed cattle rather than pigs and he will continue to do that until the price of pigs makes it attractive for him to utilise the food in that way. That is the problem which the Minister has to visualise, and he might as well make up his mind to that situation.

The Minister stated that so far as the service returns of premium bulls to the Department were concerned there appeared to be an improvement and that we were likely to have an increase in pigs in the near future. I am very much inclined to doubt that the figures are genuine. I am not doubting the Minister's statement that these figures were returned to the Department as showing an improvement; but whether the improvement is actually there or not is another matter. The Minister should realise when he comes to examine the figures that every man with a premium bull must have 30 services in order to get his premium of £10 or £11. If he has only 20 he will lose that premium, and the chances are that he will doctor the other ten. That is the position. The figures that the Minister is relying on, I think, are not so very reliable as he appears to think. One mistake the Minister is making is that he is ignoring the fact that it is more attractive to the farmer to convert food into beef or to feed it to store cattle than to give it to pigs. If he continues to ignore that situation this country will have to go without pigs.

On the question of what might have been done and whether the Minister and his Department failed in connection with food production, the Minister stated that he was sorry Deputy Belton did not go further and tell him where they had failed and what could have been done and should have been done that was not done. I propose to tell him something about that. The Minister has probably observed that in the midlands at present there is a considerable amount of grain in the fields, and a considerable amount of grain which was cut in October. That is an unnatural harvest. The reason why that corn ripened so very late in the year was because the grain was put in late, and the reason why it was put in late was because no provision was made for providing equipment in non-tillage districts, in vast grass districts where they have no equipment whatever. The Minister felt that his duty and responsibility ended by merely making a compulsory Order and sending out a horde of inspectors to compel people to cultivate a certain percentage of their land irrespective of whether they had the means to do it or not.

Time and again during the last two or three years his Department has failed to get results in these non-tillage districts from lack of organisation. The British were up against that problem in grass districts and they organised equipment, so that an inspector when visiting a farmer who complained that he could not hire equipment was in a position to say: "I will send you a tractor and a plough next Monday morning." I suggest that there could have been an organisation like that here and that it should have been undertaken.

During the last war I remember the Department of Agriculture here organised from the tillage districts of South Kildare and Carlow a number of young fellows with horse equipment, which was the only equipment available at that time as there were no tractors then, and sent 25 or 30 pairs of horses and ploughs to County Meath to plough the land there. That is the type of organisation which I suggest. That must be done if the work of getting in crops in time in non-tillage districts, where you have a big reserve of fertility, is to be carried out. At this stage we must rely on that reserve of fertility in order to get our requirements of grain. Because the crop has not been put in in time, because it has been neglected and no effort has been made to give any help to an individual who cannot provide equipment, who cannot buy it at any price, and because there is not sufficient equipment available in these counties to go round, ripening is too late. The result is that some of the crops are not cut yet in County Meath, and quite a lot of grain is in stooks.

Mr. Corry

It is time to change the farmers.

Mr. Hughes

There is no necessity to change the farmers. They cannot plough land without equipment. You must have the equipment to do it and you must organise that equipment if it is to be done.

Mr. Corry

Surely they could bring in the hay. It is still out.

Mr. Hughes

I have suggested that before to the Minister on several occasions, and now is the time to organise that in connection with our efforts for food production for the coming year. That is the position, and no matter what Deputy Corry may say you cannot get away from that fact. Take men with 400 or 500 acres who never tilled before, who have no experience of cultivation, and who have to till one-fourth of their land. There may be eight or ten or twelve such farmers waiting on the one tractor or plough. That is a situation which does not show any planning. To my mind it shows a complete lack of organisation, and the individual farmer is not to blame. This is a national problem and it ought to be tackled in a national way. There is no use in saying that the farmer is to blame all the time.

There is one important matter to which the Minister referred, and on which I disagree with him. He said that parts were available for tractors. Now, that is not so. I understand that there was to have been one day's release of Fordson tractor parts from the Dagenham works—and the vast bulk of our tractors are Fordson tractors—but that they did not arrive, and the position to-day is that there is a complete lack of parts for Fordson tractors, particularly ball-race bearings, gear-box pinions, and so on, and of course if the parts for a tractor cannot be supplied it means that that tractor will have to stand idle. For instance, I know of one farm which is mechanised on a large scale, and for want of ball bearings, gear-box pinions, and so on, all the tractors on that farm are idle. I think, therefore, that the Minister is not well informed when he says that we have a sufficient supply of parts for tractors. That is a very important matter, because we will be starting now to plough for next season's crop, and every tractor ought to be working to full capacity every day, but that can only be maintained by ensuring that any spare parts that may be required will be available. I think the Minister also indicated that he was satisfied that there were sufficient binders available. Well, on the basis of the prices that second-hand binders are making, it would not seem that the Minister is right there. They are making from £150 to £250.

Dr. Ryan

I did not say that I was satisfied.

Mr. Hughes

I think I could lay my hands on what the Minister said, but at any rate he said that they could be hired about from one neighbour to another.

Dr. Ryan

I said that the fact that the crop was so good was an indication that there must have been sufficient binders to harvest the crop. I also definitely said that there was a demand for binders last year which could not be supplied, but I certainly did not say that I was satisfied with the position.

Mr. Hughes

Well, anyhow, I am certainly very pleased with the Minister's suggestion with regard to first-crop meadows—not for this coming season but for the following year. I agree that what the Minister has indicated could not be put into operation now, but I think it is a pity that that policy should not have been pursued all the time, because it would have encouraged the farmers to put in a good clover crop and have that crop ploughed in as a source of nitrogen for the production of grain crops. It is very essential, in my opinion, that our farmers should be given every encouragement to adopt that method, which has been found very satisfactory wherever it has been tried out in this country.

On the question of a subsidy on an acreage basis, I think there is a good deal to be said for it because, after all, in old tillage districts, where the yield is relatively lower than where you have plenty of fertility, a man may do his cultivation very well and may be a very keen farmer, but yet his return may be below the average. Now, if the price paid for his production is partly on a subsidy basis and partly on a weight basis, the subsidy will help him to some extent to average up his return, and I think that for that reason the Minister could help such people who have not these reserves of fertility at the present time but who are anxious to till and cultivate their land. I think that the Minister might consider helping such people by examining the possibilities of paying a subsidy per acre, plus a price on weight per barrel.

The Minister also referred to the Compulsory Tillage Order, and to the power that he has to send in inspectors to compel people to till a particular field. I think he suggested that this problem arises in certain districts where the people are not anxious to break old land. Now, that power may be necessary, and I do not propose to question it, but I do seriously object to the methods adopted by the Minister. I know that they have taken similar powers on the other side of the water, but the way in which they administer their scheme is altogether different. They have county committees over there, and the committee decides what a man wants to plough. That is altogether different from leaving this extraordinary power in the hands of an individual—a civil servant — coming down to a farm and telling a farmer that he must break a particular field. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. Belton

How has the Minister that power?

Mr. Hughes

He has that power. It is there in the new Compulsory Tillage Order—that you can be compelled to till a particular field.

Mr. Belton

And if I did not do so, what would happen?

Mr. Hughes

I presume that the field would be tilled for you.

Mr. Belton

Supposing I tilled a similar area?

Mr. Hughes

That will not do, if the Minister or his officers decide that it is not the right area. That extraordinary power is left in the hands of a man, a civil servant, from the city here, who has no sympathy with you or your problems. He may point to a particular field of yours—a field which gives you an early bite of grass, and one which you think a lot of—and say that you will have to till that field, and you will have to do so, and there is no redress. I say that that is going too far. Even in face of the fact that there are some men in this country who are trying to shirk their responsibilities by tilling inferior land, or by tilling the one piece of land over a number of years and getting no result, I would ask the Minister to consider the way in which they are handling this problem on the other side. I do not suppose it is practicable in this country, because our farmers are differently circumstanced from our neighbours across the water.

As I say, it may not be practicable to adopt the county committee system that they have over there, but I do suggest that the Minister should give a right of appeal to the individual farmer, and that where an inspector cannot get agreement with the farmer as to what particular field might be tilled, the farmer would have a right of appeal to the chairman of the county committee to arbitrate on the matter or, failing that, that the chairman of the county committee could nominate somebody to arbitrate. I think that that would provide a safeguard. After all, we must have some respect for the right of property and the right of ownership. I agree that the nation must be served first, but there are limitations beyond which you ought not to go, and I feel that you are going too far in this matter. I think it is grossly unfair to put that sort of power into the hands of an individual civil servant. If he enters on a farm, and if the farmer gets a bit hot under the collar, the civil servant will probably say to himself that he will make that farmer pay for his heat. He will probably say to himself: "I'll show this fellow that he will have to do what I tell him, and that he will have to till whatever field I say." Now, that is altogether wrong, and we do not want bureaucratic Government in this country. The people ought to do their part and I would like to see them do it, but I want to see that they are protected and that they get fair play in this matter. Good and decent men may be victims of this proposal, and I would ask the Minister to consider giving an opportunity to individual farmers to appeal against a decision of an inspector. If the farmer cannot agree with the decision of the inspector, he should have the right to appeal, say, to the chairman of the county committee of agriculture to arbitrate in the matter or, failing that, his nominee —or some such provision. I would appeal to the Minister to consider that matter because I think it is essential.

In connection with the removal of grain from threshing operations at the present time, I may say that it has been a difficult season. We have had a lot of rain, and some difficulty has been experienced in getting sufficient petrol to remove the grain, and sometimes where there was no housing accommodation for grain, it had to stand in the open, covered with straw, and there was danger of its being damaged. The Minister might request the Department of Supplies to ensure that no undue delays occur in supplying petrol for the essential work of delivering grain into the store.

I asked a question recently as to the number of licensed dealers of barley and wheat and I see there is a substantial reduction in the number. I think it is very serious for the Minister to reduce the number of licensed dealers in the country. I know Deputy Corry was very keen to eliminate these dealers and to give a monopoly to millers to buy wheat. I am absolutely against that because a good many of these dealers are very useful people from the farmers' point of view. They supplied grain and manures on a credit basis and the charge for the advances was purely nominal, on the understanding that they would get the crop. If you take from those dealers the opportunity of buying the product of the seed that they supplied, you take from them the opportunity of getting any profit, and it will mean that there will be a tendency to charge more for seeds. They have been a good source of credit to farmers for the purchase of seed and manures, and I do not think that it should be destroyed. It is possible that by refusing a licence to certain old firms that have been in the grain business for a number of years, the Minister may close down these firms for all time. I do not think that it is in the interests of agriculture that that should happen. If it is necessary to control the purchase of grain and to ensure that grain is used for intended purposes there should be the minimum interference. I agree that a certain amount of control is essential, but there should be the minimum amount of interference with the normal trade.

I understand from the papers recently that at the present time the question of the importation of some maize and oats is being considered. I suggest to the Minister that it would not be good policy to use shipping space for the importation of oats at the present time. If there is any shipping space available, it should be used for the importation of wheat.

Mr. Belton

At £4 a barrel?

Mr. Hughes

At any price per barrel.

Mr. Belton

Why did not the Minister give you £4 a barrel?

Mr. Hughes

It would be better to have bran and pollard produced here. The Deputy will find that the oats will cost a fairly high price too.

Mr. Belton

We will not get that for growing it.

Mr. Hughes

If, as a result of importing wheat, you have a surplus of wheat, you can reduce the extraction from 100 per cent. to 85 per cent., if necessary. That would leave a certain amount of bran and pollard which would be more useful for the production of bacon than oats would be. I think, from that point of view, it would be more in the national interest to import wheat rather than to import oats. I notice from the statistical returns that root crops have fallen generally. That is a rather serious matter from the point of view of producing farmyard manure. It is absolutely essential to grow sufficient roots if we are to feed cattle on a large scale. It is not a healthy sign that root crops should fall because the root crop enables the farmer to put back farmyard manure. Every encouragement should be given to the production of root crops.

There is one other point with regard to the production of sugar beet. In regard to the price of sugar beet the Minister stated—column 1268, volume 88, No. 3, 14th October, 1942:

"I must say that I did not hear very many complaints from growers when the price was announced last year."

I think the Minister has a very short memory if he says that he did not hear many complaints, because I am well aware of the fact that the Beet Growers' Association made very strong representations to the Minister to have a higher price announced. The price this year is the same as last year, and our price for some years past was more or less on the same level as the British price for sugar beet. In Great Britain the price of sugar beet for this year, on our basis of sugar content, is about £4 10s. against our £3 here. When you take into account the fact that we have attempted to grow beet in this country with little or no artificial manure for the purpose, the price of £3 could not be justified. Hence the fall of 20,000 acres in the area of land under beet. It is going to be exceedingly difficult to produce beet, and it cannot be produced at anything like £3 a ton. The Minister had better make up his mind that that is so. In fact, I think it would be very wise, if the Minister is anxious to encourage production next year, to announce at the present time some bonus on this year's crop.

On the question of the supply of nitrogenous manure, I might say, with reference to the production of beet more than anything else, that if the Government and the Minister are anxious to encourage production next year, even on the same scale as last year, they should make every effort to get a supply of sulphate of ammonia because, I think, even where it is sown over farmyard manure in drills, it is essential that it should get some dressing of nitrogenous manure to give the plant a start. We have had a good many failures all over the country this year because we lacked nitrogen. For that reason, if we want to maintain our present acreage of wheat, the price must be increased so as to make the crop more attractive. If possible the Minister should try to get two or three cargoes of nitrogenous manures, even at a dear price.

Mr. Fagan

A good deal of wheat has been returned to farmers from the mills because it is wet, and under present circumstances the owners will not be allowed to feed it to pigs. Deputy Corry may laugh at that, but I say that the wheat is not really bad. Owing to the heavy rain in the Midlands a good deal of grain in the fields became unsuitable for anything but animal feeding. Something should be done to have that wheat used for animal feeding when it is useless for milling purposes. That happened through no fault of Midland farmers. It was due entirely to the wet weather. Even where the corn was in stooks, grass is now growing in the fields. Deputy Harris knows Co. Kildare, and he will find that there are 40 or 50 acres of oats still in the fields in the vicinity of Kilcock. That was not due to negligence on the part of the owner, but to inability to get labour or implements. I know people who were unable to hire binders this season. It is a great loss to farmers that they cannot make use of wheat that has been returned to them from the mills. Deputy Corry mentioned that he saw hay out in the Midlands still. That was not the farmer's fault. It is due to the bad weather. I know farmers who, for that reason, were unable to get their hay saved. I do not know much about beet, but I tried to grow it for two years. I did everything possible to grow it, and had a good yield to the acre, but the sugar content was only about 50 per cent of what it should be. It cost me 13/- a ton to deliver it, of which I only got back 2/- a ton from the factory. That left me about £2 a ton for the beet. Those who live beside the beet factories want to try to grab all. People at a distance from the factories should get a flat rate. Much more grain would be grown in the Midlands if the results were more attractive. The inspectors said my beet was one of the best crops they saw.

A good deal of discussion has taken place about the reduction in the number of pigs in the country. I think the Minister should allow the extraction from wheat to be lowered in order to make more bran and pollard available for pig feeding. The bread would also be better. I bought some bread for a threshing recently, and at least one stone of it was wasted in the cutting up. I consider that there would be a great saving in food if the extraction was reduced to 85 per cent., while there would be more pollard and bran available. If the amount of wheat in the country permits, that should be done this year. Great loss was caused farmers by a shortage of implements. The Minister for Agriculture should have some squad available to help farmers to save crops in fine weather. Several farmers lost crops this year because they had not sufficient labour. If military had been available the corn might have been saved.

It has been stated that the Government is going to ration mutton. The Minister should be very wary about doing anything of the kind. If the position is left as it is mutton will find its own level. If the Government intervenes it might only do harm. There is sufficient beef for the people to eat. If mutton becomes too dear it will finally come down in price. The Minister should be slow about rationing. I think he should make some statement about it because the present position may tend to disorganise the trade. Farmers might rush their sheep to the market if there was a rumour current that there would be rationing of mutton. There is a visible shortage of mutton at present but, in my opinion, the position will right itself. At the last market sheep prices were gradually going back to the level. For that reason it would be well to have a statement that mutton is not going to be rationed.

Deputy Corry made some reference to farmers in the Midlands. The Deputy would want to live there to understand the conditions under which tillage is carried on. We are not near the sea and our grain does not ripen as early as in other parts of the country. If you have a dripping season it tends to keep the grain green. That does not mean that the farmers in the Midlands are bad farmers, and if they have lost their crops it was not due to any fault on their part, but rather to the weather conditions.

Mr. McGovern

This motion will have served a useful purpose if it results in an examination of the position in regard to food supplies. Should that examination reveal defects, we hope that steps will be taken to trace the causes and remove them before next season. There is one thing the Government could do to encourage food production for man and beast, and that is to establish some correlation between the prices of certain raw agricultural products and manufactured articles, such, for example, as the prices for pigs and bacon and oats and oatmeal. I do not see how the Minister can justify the present price for pigs when one compares it with the price charged for bacon, and the same holds good in regard to the prices obtaining for oats and oatmeal. The producer should be fairly dealt with. He should get the highest possible price for what he produces, consistent with giving the consumer a fair deal. Instead of that, we have the position that both the producer and the consumer are being harshly treated, while the middleman is being rewarded out of all proportion for the trifling service he renders. His profits are unreasonably high. The Minister should take steps to safeguard the agricultural producer and not allow the industrialist to get away with so much. I would ask him to have the figures examined, and not to be misled by statements made by those people.

There is another matter that I would like to call the Minister's attention to. This year there is a threatened famine in potatoes. I do not expect there will be a famine, but at least one can say that potatoes are going to be very dear. How far has the Minister's policy been responsible for that position? The threatened scarcity is an aspect of the question that should be examined. Is it due to the diversion of people from the growing of potatoes to the growing of grain crops? The potato crop is the most profitable and useful one that can be grown. If you have plenty of potatoes there can be no danger of a famine ever occurring in the country. The shortage of them this year is due to the fact that last year, when there was an abundance of them, there was no sale for them. In the County Monaghan the people had to throw them in the ditches. It would not pay them to feed them to pigs. The people got out of producing pigs when they knew what the price for them was going to be. If the Minister had fixed a decent price for pigs the farmers would not have got rid of their sows, so that there would have been plenty of pigs in the country to-day to use up our surplus supply of potatoes to advantage. There was a surplus last year, but for the reasons I have indicated, the people could not dispose of it. I pointed all this out to the Minister last spring, that his policy of refusing to fix a decent price for pigs would not only kill the pig trade but the potato trade as well. The people who grow potatoes for sale always have a surplus which can be used for pig feeding. On the other hand, the people who grow potatoes for their own use do not put potatoes on the market, and hence their production has nothing to do with controlling the price. Last year, instead of putting up the price for pigs, the Minister pulled it down, and now he finds his mistake, that both the pig trade and potato growing have been killed, so far as this year is concerned. I am simply pointing to these mistakes so that we may avoid them in the future. I would again ask the Minister to fix a decent price for pigs. If he does, it will have the effect of encouraging pig production and the growing of potatoes. That would be one sure way of ensuring adequate food supplies for the people. But the Minister's policy has had the very opposite effect. It tended to discourage the production of two valuable human foods.

I would also like to direct the Minister's attention to the question of wheat and wheat seed. The weather during the autumn of last year, unlike the autumn of this year, was very favourable for the sowing of seed, but there was not a word said about the sowing of seed until we ran into the depth of the winter. Word then was sent out on the radio to sow the seed. That was a period when the land was unfit for the sowing of it. There was not a word said about the sowing of the seed during the good weather in October. That again was a mistake. This year the weather has not been so good, but, nevertheless, the sowing of the seed should not be delayed too long. The people should be encouraged to get the land ready, and sow the seed at the right time. I would like to know if the Department have taken any measures to provide the farmers with supplies of suitable seed. Last year the wheat crop, especially in the Co. Cavan was, on the average, only a half crop, due to the bad seed that was put in. In certain parts of the country it is impossible to grow any winter wheat. The people were put in the position that they had to do the best they could. They grew spring wheat which gave only about 50 per cent. germination. I believe steps have been taken this year to see that the seed on offer will be of a higher germinating quality. I am not sure where this seed can be got. I know a man who made application to a branch of the Department for seed. The reply he got was that the seed they had for sale had all been booked since August. The Department are not able to give any definite instructions as to where seed of a guaranteed quality can be had. That is a very important point. The people should be able to get seed that they can rely on, and that can be recommended by the Department. I hope the Minister will take a note of these points. They may not seem important to him, but I can assure him that they are the most important points of all. Unless they are attended to we are not likely to have good crops of wheat, or of anything else. A lot will depend on the encouragement which the people get as to whether they will go out with a full determination to produce the highest quantity of food that the country requires, and especially of pigs and potatoes.

If they believe it will not pay them, they will not go in for it. A man who had been in the habit of planting ten acres of potatoes will cut that down to five. If he is "had" one year, he will not let it happen the next year. That is why people have not grown so much this year. Of course, I admit that it is due, to a great extent, to the unsuitability of the season and to the shortage of manures, but at the same time it is due to the discouragement the farmers got. With regard to manures, I think it would be more profitable to utilise whatever shipping space is available for the importation of manures, such as nitrogen and potash, rather than for the importation of wheat, because by that means we would not only ensure additional production, but we would at the same time preserve the fertility of the soil. I think that, wherever possible, the shipping space should be availed of for the importation of nitrogen and potash, because there you get a great amount of fertilising ingredients in a small bulk and weight.

Mr. Meaney

While listening to this debate, one thing struck me very forcibly, and that is that members on the Opposition Bench, Deputies Fagan and Hughes, have now ratified the Fianna Fáil tillage policy. Their complaints about the crops being badly harvested all over the midlands showed that the farmers concerned were new to tillage, and prove that you cannot convert a grass country overnight into a real tillage area. The policy of the Government from 1932 up to the start of the emergency has been to encourage tillage, particularly the growing of wheat. That was a very sound policy for this country. To my mind, it is because of that foresight on the part of the Government and to their long system of planning that our people have now got enough to eat.

Dr. Hannigan

Some of them.

Mr. Meaney

I myself saw those crops of wheat still out in fields. The farmers concerned did not know how to handle tillage.

Mr. Fagan

The Deputy does not know our climate.

Mr. Meaney

It was a case of sharpening their swords after the drums beat to battle. To my mind, that condition of affairs would not be so widespread were it not for the advice given from the Fine Gael Benches in the past. Deputy McGovern gave us a rather novel reason for the falling off in the potato crop this year. He thought it was due to the fact that there was an abundant one last year. We all know that any shortage of potatoes this year is due to the fact that the yield was not as heavy as that of last year's crop; it is not true to suggest that the acreage is much less, taking the country generally.

There is one thing which I should like to bring to the Minister's attention, and that is, that he should impress on the Department of Supplies and any other Department that may be concerned, the wisdom of including in this year's contract between the Sugar Company and the beet growers a clause giving the beet growers a preference in the allocation of sugar. The country has to depend for its supply of sugar on the farmer who grows beet, and I think it is only right that the man who does his bit should be entitled to retain for his own family and his own staff sufficient to meet their needs. I also believe that, if that clause were included, it would popularise the growing of sugar beet. To my mind, it would go a long way towards giving us our full sugar requirements.

Mr. Fagan

Would the Deputy agree with the flat rate for carriage?

Mr. Meaney

I am not discussing the flat rate for carriage. Deputy Fagan mentioned the Beet Growers' Association, and tried to hold them responsible for not having a flat rate. As a matter of fact, I do not agree with the flat rate, and a good many other members of the Beet Growers' Association are with me in that respect. The majority of the members are not in favour of a flat rate.

Mr. Fagan

You have a monopoly——

Mr. Meaney

I do not see where the monopoly comes in. We cannot be said to have a monopoly any more than the man who has cattle to sell and who lives convenient to the Dublin market. It cannot be said that one man has a monopoly because he is nearer to the market than the others. I should like to know if Deputy Fagan would consent to pay the carriage of our cattle to the Dublin market?

Mr. Fagan

I would not be so foolish.

Mr. Meaney

And I would not be so foolish as to do the other thing either, so we are quits. I do not think there is anything further that I wish to say, but I should like again to impress on the Minister for Agriculture that he should seriously consider the suggestion about giving a preference to beet growers in the matter of sugar supplies. That suggestion was put up to him by a deputation from the association, and I think he should give it serious attention. I think it would be to the national advantage as well as to the advantage of the individual grower, because at the present time there are farmers who could grow beet just as well as those who are doing it, but they prefer to go in for an easier crop, and I do not think it is fair that the farmer who does not go to the trouble of growing a beet crop should get the same facilities, when it comes to the distribution of sugar, as the man who undertook all the trouble and labour and risk of the crop.

An Leas Cheann-Comhairle

This debate must conclude at 9.30, and Deputy Belton must be allowed some time to reply.

Mr. Linehan

I was rather surprised when I first heard about this rather revolutionary proposal to give the farmers who grow beet a certain amount of sugar in return. I can quite understand the anxiety of the man who grows beet that he should get sugar in a nice easy way as compared with the rest of the community; it would be very nice for him. I do not know what other members, even of my own Party, think, because I have not discussed the matter with them, but I think it is a completely impracticable proposal. If we once start selecting people to get extra supplies of various commodities because of certain services they render to the community, one can never know where it is going to end. We may eventually come to the point when a person in the poorer districts of West Cork may say to us: "If I produce so many pigs, will you arrange to have the factory give me so much bacon at a cheaper rate than anybody else?"

Mr. Meaney

There is no question of a cheaper rate.

Mr. Linehan

You will probably end up by having a person who may be in a position to obtain a certain amount of rationed commodities from England putting up the proposal: "If I am in a position to bring in so much of these goods, will you allow me to retain 20 per cent. of them and you can distribute the rest among the remainder of the people?" If this proposal were adopted, probably some people would grow beet in order to get a little bit of sugar, but I doubt if your total acreage would in any way be increased. Everybody knows that the principal reason that beet is not being grown is that there is a shortage of artificial manures, and if you are going to give way to a suggestion of this kind, I believe that it will ultimately react on the poorer sections of the community, the people who are unable to buy artificial manures. You are going to put people who can grow a considerable quantity of beet into a position of advantage as compared with those who cannot grow beet, but I believe that the total quantity grown will not be any greater than would normally be the case.

I am very glad to know from Deputy Meaney that the attitude of the farmers, however much they agree with the Fianna Fáil policy, is governed not so much by patriotism as by the fact that they will get more sugar if they will grow more beet. It is no harm that we should know that. He is quite convinced that despite the fact that everybody is now in agreement with the Fianna Fáil policy the way to get the farmers to grow more beet is to offer a bribe to them. I submit that this is an utterly ridiculous and irresponsible suggestion. I doubt if anyone could conscientiously say that even if farmers are producing a commodity of this kind at certain hardships to themselves, they should be put in a privileged position when other weaker sections of the community are in a far worse position than they ever previously occupied. Everybody knows that it is the poorer people in the smaller towns who are particularly hit by the lack of sugar. People in the country, particularly those who are fairly well off, have alternative foodstuffs.

There is just one other point which I should like to bring to the Minister's notice. Is he satisfied that there is sufficient oats going into the mills at the price paid now to yield a supply of oatmeal and flakemeal? My information is that people are not selling their oats at the fixed price. They are not satisfied with the fixed price, and I doubt if the Minister will find that there is any considerable quantity of oatmeal or flakemeal being put on the market at present despite the fact that this would normally be the time when flakemeal and oatmeal should come on the market. I am satisfied that if the Minister wants to get such meal on the market, he will have to do something about the price of oats.

Mr. Belton

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the terms of the motion:—

"That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the Government should inform the House of the present position with regard to food supplies for man and beast and the steps now being taken to prevent the possibility of famine and the recurrence of the disaster of under-production of 1941."

Much that has been said on the motion would be interesting in regard to other matters, but I do not think that it had reference to the motion. The object of this motion was to get the Government to put its cards on the table and to tell the country what the food position confronting the country now at the beginning of winter is. The Minister analysed the position in a short speech which I considered was only the preamble to the speech which he would make, but did not make, to-day. In that preamble he admitted that we were short 720,000 tons of feeding stuffs as compared with prewar.

Dr. Ryan

As compared with the last war or as compared with 1917.

Mr. Belton

We should be able to carry as much feeding stuffs now. We are short 720,000 tons of feeding stuffs, we have no bacon, we have not enough butter, our production is going down, we are short of manure, we have no fertilisers, and the Minister instead of getting a committee together of the best practical brains in this country to consider what the position now is, got a committee of bookworms for post-war planning. The war is only in its beginning, and our production is below requirements. The keystone of our agricultural economy is manure and fertilisers, and these are getting scarcer every year. I read a speech by the Minister the other day in which he said that we cannot feed pigs on food required for the human population. I agree, but why has the Minister not provided food for pigs and for other live stock that we require? Therein he has failed. Will he now even at this late hour get together a committee of farmers, even of the farmers of this House? I am sure all would lend a hand in helping, not the Minister or the Government, but the country out of the danger it is in. That would be much better business than the political speeches, squaring up for a general election, we read every day in the Press. It will be of very little moment to this country what kind of Government we have if we have not enough to eat. The important matter is not what Party will have the reins of government, but rather to have enough food for the people of the country.

Mr. Killilea

Why not make a few useful suggestions across the House?

Mr. Belton

I gave a useful suggestion last year. It was that we should pay the farmer £3 per barrel for wheat and that we could maintain the four-lb. loaf at 11½d. on the subsidy given last year. Now you have increased the price of bread to everybody, while everybody is asked to subsidise the rich man as well as the poor man. The time is now too short to go into that aspect of the matter, but I did it last year. I think I supplied the Minister and the Taoiseach with a copy.

The Taoiseach

You did not say you could produce the amount at any price. That was the trouble.

Mr. Corry

We have got the amount, anyway.

Mr. Belton

Surely, it is not quite correct to say that you could not secure the amount at any price?

The Taoiseach

You could not guarantee it.

Mr. Belton

There was one thing I could guarantee—I could get more wheat produced at £3 per barrel than at 45/- per barrel which you were offering. You know that in the nature of things the more land you put under wheat, the more you have to go down to second and third grade wheat land. The yield on that land will not be as good as on first-class wheat land, and consequently a bigger price must be paid to cover the cost of production on the poorer wheat lands of the country.

Mr. Corry

And the complaint made by Deputy Hughes was that Dr. Ryan was taking power to go down to the Limerick farmers who grow half a ton of oats to the acre on scratch land and make them grow wheat. Deputy Hughes objected to that.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Hughes was quite right.

Mr. Corry

Of course he was.

Mr. Belton

Wait a moment and listen to what Deputy Hughes said. To send an inspector down from here to force any farmer——

Mr. Corry

Question.

Mr. Belton

The inspector would say: "You must not break that field but must break the other one." I am assuming that both fields were arable ones. Does the Deputy stand over an inspector coming down to say things like that, when both fields are arable?

Mr. Corry

There were two dozen farmers travelling down with me in the train every week, and in the County Kildare and parts of Dublin we have seen land growing five cwt. of oats to the acre cut with a mowing machine and thrown in heaps.

Mr. Belton

Come to Dublin for a week and I will show you how to farm.

Mr. Corry

Go down and show your constituents first.

Mr. Belton

My constituents are second to none in Ireland as farmers.

Mr. Meaney

The Deputy was not in South County Dublin.

Mr. Belton

I am living in South County Dublin. You will not beat them in Cork.

Mr. Corry

Of course we will.

Mr. Belton

I am glad of this rivalry in production, as it is healthy and as it is carried on in good spirit.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy will do it and I will do it, but the rest of the farmers will not do it. Not 10 per cent. of them will do it, but we will make them.

Mr. Belton

The trouble is that we are short of animal feeding stuffs—it does not matter where they come from. Are we satisfied with that position? I am glad that the Taoiseach is here. Are we satisfied, although we have not enough food for the live stock—and live stock is the cornerstone of our agricultural industry?

The Taoiseach

We certainly are not satisfied.

Mr. Belton

Very well. What has the Taoiseach to offer? Has he nothing to suggest? Last year an Order was made to say that so much must be tilled and that we would have enough. Are we to be short next year again?

Mr. Corry

Forty-five per cent. instead of 75 per cent.

Mr. Belton

Percentages are not worth this piece of paper. One acre of well-manured crop will produce more than ten acres otherwise.

Mr. Meaney

And it is there that the inspector comes in.

Mr. Belton

The inspector is looking for a job: that is all. Good luck to him if he gets it. The man on the land wants to be able to pay his bills and does not want an inspector to tell him where he ought to till. Make it a profitable proposition for the man on the land to pay a proper wage to his workers and produce the food, and he will do it without any inspectors

Mr. Corry

The Deputy should look after his own pals.

Mr. Belton

If you want an inspector to shove you on in Cork, you can have one. Do not try to keep up a running fire like this, for "time up, boys" to get away. We are short of this food for our live stock. On our live stock depends our human food. One need not go round the circle. The Taoiseach is not satisfied—he has said so; he could not be satisfied. Neither can anyone with responsibility for the position. Will the Taoiseach and the Minister get a committee of practical farmers to give them advice on ways out of the difficulty? Or are we going to carry on with inspectors and committees for post-war planning, while starvation is facing the people of the country? That is the issue.

The Taoiseach

Everyone who has advice to give can send it along to the Minister and he will consider it. The Deputy, or any other Deputy, or any outsider, who has any advice to give on the methods by which we can increase the amount of produce from the land—cereals and everything we require for man and beast—can send in suggestions, which will be considered. Therefore, the whole country is a committee.

Mr. Belton

I put up a scheme last year to the Taoiseach and I will stand before any critic and back it up. That scheme was for wheat production—£3 a barrel to the grower, giving a sufficient amount of wheat to give a 70 per cent: extraction of flour—white flour. I would stand before any tribunal the Taoiseach suggests and prove my case. The Taoiseach has the details of it. Will he form a committee?

The Taoiseach

In answer to that question, I can say there is no necessity to form committees. Any person who has any suggestions to make as to how we can increase the produce of the land can send them along and they will be examined carefully.

Mr. Belton

Who will examine them?

The Taoiseach

People as well competent to examine them as anyone.

Mr. Belton

The Taoiseach must know that no practical farmer would waste his time putting up suggestions to a committee that, as far as farming is concerned, you would not consult about the weather.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy knows that there is a great deal of nonsense of that sort talked, and that there is no foundation for it. The people who are in charge know what practical farming is, and know the requirements of the country. They are well able to take any scheme that is put up and to weigh it to find whether it will or will not work. General common sense will decide a question of that sort. The Deputy says £3. Why not say £4: you will get more farmers to till then? Or why not say £5?

Mr. Belton

Is the Taoiseach not aware that, through relying on the Department for our crops, we were left high and dry? What could we do? We had to produce our own beet seed, mangold seed and turnip seed. The Department neglected that. Only for the initiative and enterprise of the farmers, we would have no crops.

Dr. Ryan

How does the Deputy make out that the Department neglected that? Does he want the Department to dig the land?

Mr. Belton

Was any mangold seed produced at the instigation of the Department—or any turnip seed?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Belton

Where?

Mr. Meaney

Down in Cork, anyhow.

Mr. Belton

There is no use in mixing politics with it. The Deputy is only drawing the wool across it. The farmer had to produce his own mangold seed, turnip seed, cabbage seed and beet seed, and got no help from the Department.

Dr. Ryan

And who else would produce it?

Mr. Belton

Up to this war we were dependent on England for seed.

Dr. Ryan

Why?

Mr. Belton

Because we had no Department of Agriculture to foster that essential portion of crop raising.

Mr. Killilea

It is farmers that do a job like that and not any Department.

Mr. Belton

That is all the Deputy knows about seeds.

Mr. Killilea

I raise as much as you do.

Mr. Belton

I do not pretend to raise seed, as there is the greatest art in seed cultivation. As regards foodstuffs, we have no reserve in wheat: we have to mill the whole of our wheat to get flour, whereas we should have a reserve of 30 per cent. for milling white flour. We are short in animal feeding-stuffs and, as a consequence of that, we are short in bacon and butter. Our food production is gradually contracting, so that, if the war lasts another three or four years, with the fertility of the soil going down and with less production, I do not know where we will be with regard to human food. I would appeal to the Minister to call together a committee of farmers of this House, or of farmers outside this House.

Mr. Corry

They would not agree.

Mr. Belton

They will agree; or, if they will not, it is a shame. In the terrible circumstances that confront this country now, the committee could examine the food position for man and beast and advise the Minister. He need not take that advice. He can consult his inspectors afterwards and have their considered opinion as to what should be done now, in the beginning of the cropping season for next year. I would ask the Minister to accept that suggestion. If he will not, I take it that he refuses, on behalf of the Government, to put the food position clearly before the country. I do not know what the Taoiseach is laughing at.

The Taoiseach

I am laughing at the conclusion that the Deputy has drawn: if he does not set up a committee, then he is not prepared to tell the country.

Mr. Belton

Perhaps before the year is out, we will see the conclusions— and that might not be laughable. Anyhow, the motion asks that the position be stated clearly. If the Government does not do that, we have at least registered our protest.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy putting this to a division?

Mr. Belton

I am not asking for a division, but am not withdrawing the motion.

Dr. Ryan

Are we all agreed on this?

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 29th October, 1942.