I move:—
That Emergency Powers (No. 234) Order, 1942, made by the Government on the 29th October, 1942, be and is hereby annulled.
It is not intended, in moving this motion, to do what would appear on the face of it to be the object of the motion. This is the only way in which the House can have a debate on the Order. The Minister and the Government know that this motion was not put down in any spirit of hostility to the Order. It was put down in order that we may have a discussion which will reveal Government policy and in order to create an opportunity for the House and the country to understand the purpose and the operation of the Order. Deputy Cogan and I, who have done this annually since 1939, feel rather flattered that the Minister and the Government are now coming to realise the value of the suggestions we made three or four years ago. We are glad to see that, even though it is done in a rather clumsy and, in my opinion, not the best way, an attempt is being made to secure that the principal crop which we want to increase, namely, wheat, will get some attention.
Up to this Order there was no Tillage Order that made it obligatory on any farmer to grow wheat. Even this Order does not make it obligatory on a farmer to grow wheat, but it gives what I consider a very wrong power to an inspector, a power not definitely expressed in the Order, but a power such as he might suggest on his own, to tell a farmer how much wheat he is to grow, within certain limits, and where he is to grow it. I do not think that is right or fair and we would definitely oppose that section of the Order if procedure would permit us to do so. We have to take the whole Order and move its annulment if we object to any portion of it.
I think the Minister has adopted a very bad principle in that connection. We are satisfied that the Minister will do his best to get suitable inspectors, but we all know it is a very difficult thing to get suitable inspectors to go through the country for that purpose. There is a grave danger of abuse of power; there is a danger with regard to the selection of unsuitable sites for the growing of wheat. Even though that might be done with the best intentions in the world, such power should not be permitted. I think it would have been much better if the Minister had adopted the suggestion we have been making every year since the emergency arose, namely, that, realising we required a certain amount of wheat to give us a sufficiency of bread, and being aware of the area of arable land, it was merely a matter of arranging what percentage of that arable land would give us the necessary quantity of wheat. I think the Minister should have calculated that X per cent. of our arable land was required to give us a sufficiency of wheat and the owners of land to whom the Tillage Order applies should be obliged to till a definite percentage of their land and crop it with wheat. I do not think there is any more effective way of doing it.
I know that in generalisations of this kind one might class as arable land the type of land that might not be the best for wheat growers, and it might be better to get a little more wheat grown in some areas rather than have a flat percentage. Of course, the Minister will realise that it is well nigh impossible to attain perfection in any wheat-growing scheme. I think the only fair way would be to fix a flat percentage calculated to meet our requirements, and I would be inclined to go a little beyond the sufficiency standard and leave a margin to cope with a bad harvest—something in order to be on the safe side. I believe that 5 per cent. of the arable land under wheat would give us a sufficient quantity to meet our needs. If that is calculated to give us a bare sufficiency, I would not mind putting a decimal point or two on in order to safeguard the position.
That would be much better than giving power to an inspector to tell a man how much wheat he should grow and where he should grow it. Those who have grown more than any percentage would ever make it incumbent upon them to grow, and who will continue to grow wheat in large quantities, would resent such power, would resent being ordered out and told how much wheat they should grow and where they should grow it. I would not object so much to being told how much wheat to grow, but I certainly would object to being told where to grow it. I think such a position would be intolerable. The Minister must have some reason for that, and I would like to know that reason. I can conceive no reason sufficient to warrant such interference with the freedom of the citizen.
The Minister made no exemptions. I have asked him from the start to make exemptions with regard to dairy land. I think it is a pity that he did not do so. If the emergency continues very much longer, the milk position in the City of Dublin may become very grave. The arrangements for transporting milk to Dublin are, as the Government know very well, becoming more and more difficult. If the transport position becomes worse, I cannot see how supplies of milk can be brought to Dublin. As regards wheat, oats, barley and potatoes, they can be transported to the city at any time; but milk has to be transported at least once a day. I think the safest thing would have been to conserve the dairy land in close proximity to Dublin, so that there would be the Minimum of transport. That land should be conserved for dairying purposes rather than for tillage. As a matter of fact, instead of encouraging tillage on dairy land, it would be better business to encourage dairying on tillage land.
I notice that the Minister has adopted the principle of a motion we submitted a couple of years ago and which, of course, was rejected. He has adopted it only in the case of land entered on by himself or his representatives. That principle is that the crops produced on such land cannot be seized for annuities or rates. When we introduced the motion some years ago, our idea was to have a kind of standstill Order with regard to arrears of rates and annuities—just to seal up the debt and leave it there until the emergency had passed and allow the owner of the land to carry out his obligations under the tillage Order and pay his current commitments. The idea was that all arrears would be frozen until after the emergency. That was then turned down by the Minister. If he reflects for a moment, I think he will find that a better purpose would be served by clearing away the difficulties that certain farmers found themselves in by reason of their arrears, by freezing up their indebtedness for the time being and permitting them to till their land. That would save a good deal of trouble and result in the production of more food. I am quite satisfied that any land entered upon will not produce the same quota of food for the same outlay as land worked by a farmer—even by a bad farmer.
I would like to have some points cleared up by the Minister. In Part VII it is stated that if land is entered upon and used on behalf of the Minister, or for conacre, the buildings on the land can be used. I should like to know if that includes the farmhouse. Is a right given, for instance, to a person who takes conacre, to seize the dwellinghouse on the land, or to dispossess the occupier or owner? In reference to compulsory tillage, regard should be paid to what is being demanded. If pressure is exerted at one point, it will have other ramifications throughout the economic system. When the Minister made an Order for the tilling of a percentage of land did he consider the rise in the price of the goods that the farmer has to buy and the consequent increased cost of production? Did he take into consideration the high cost of living of agricultural workers? The Minister is part and parcel of a Government that made a standstill Order that was amended; varied, amended again, and further varied within the last few days. It was expressly stated that the object of the Order was to prevent a rise in prices and inflation. The Minister is handling the most important job in this country at the present time. It does not matter what manoeuvres we have, what war weapons we have, there is now really only one weapon of defence for the neutrality and the freedom of this country, and that is the plough.
The greatest soldier in this country is the man behind the plough. He is the greatest defender of our liberties and of our neutrality, as he is saving the State; yet he is the worst paid man in it. The price of the produce of that man's toil is not guaranteed by this Order or by any Order made by the Government. His price is controlled and, in reaching that controlled price, the Minister based his case upon the wage and general outgoings of farming. A price of 50/- a barrel was fixed for wheat last year, notwithstanding that imported wheat cost 65/10 per barrel. We were told to-day that it would not be in the national interest to say how much wheat was imported. I can say that, in the national interest, none would be imported if as good a price had been paid for wheat grown here as we had to pay for imported wheat. The 50/- paid for wheat last year was based on a wage paid throughout the greater part of the country—33/-. To a small section 34/- was paid, and to a still smaller section, around the City of Dublin—I do not think it applied to the City of Cork—39/- was paid, but broken time was deducted. Is there anybody working for such a wage except the unfortunate man who is producing food for the people and saving this country from surrender? An Order has been made, which is operative from February 1, of this year, increasing these scheduled wages by 3/- per week. In my area the wage payable is now 42/- per week, but broken time is deducted. On that wage and on other outgoings the Minister has fixed the same price for wheat this year as last year, 50/- per barrel. If 50/- was an equitable price last year, surely it is an inequitable price this year. I put this question to the Minister: what man can, on 42/- per week, feed himself so as to be able to do a day's work?