Not altogether; sometimes we give back part of the profit. With regard to potatoes, the potato question, as I explained earlier, is rather involved, because, if the factors had done what we asked them to do, that is, to build up a reserve, I feel that they could have used these potatoes towards the end and nobody could find any fault with it. If a merchant is supplying potatoes to the City of Dublin and buys them in February, bringing them into the market in May, nobody can have any grievance; but it is a different matter when the Government finances a scheme of this kind. If we had ordered the merchants to sell these potatoes in May, we would inevitably have created a slump and in that way would have destroyed the market of those who legitimately kept their potatoes to supply the city in May. We would be making trouble in two ways: (1) doing an injustice to the legitimate supplier, and (2) possibly making it uncertain that suppliers would keep their potatoes this year or next, because of the fear of the same thing being done and possibly creating a worse shortage this year or next year by competing against them in that way, so we had to face the loss. Deputy Hughes mentioned that it might have been a good thing to give cheap potatoes to the poor. We did consider whether we could not bring these potatoes, or some of them, up last year and give them cheaply to the poor, but we found that it was nearly an impossible scheme, or at least it appeared impossible to us at the time to administer such a scheme, and we did not attempt it. I do not know whether we might not consider a scheme of the kind for this coming year, but it is the difficulty of doing it, and not the will to do it, which stopped us.
Deputy Norton and, I think, Deputy Byrne also, referred to the price to the consumer. We have regarded this recent shortage as due to weather conditions, and I am advised that the potato supply will probably be all right this week or next week, now that the frost and snow have disappeared. If the present partial shortage continues and potatoes continue to get dearer, the matter will have to be dealt with, but I think we had better allow a few weeks and see if it will settle itself. The less interference there is with a trade of this kind the better. We should try to let things take their course; if we can.
A matter dealt with by a number of Deputies was the question of wheat-growing above a certain contour line. Again, that is a question which was considered. In many of these matters, such as the distribution of potatoes in Dublin and the growing of wheat above a certain line, there are always the two points of view, and I think Deputies may take it that the views they expressed here have been very fully considered in the Department and that, on the whole, the arguments for and against having been examined, the present policy was adopted because the arguments appeared to be in favour of it.
First, Deputies know that we are not getting as much wheat as we would like. We are getting a very good response from the farmers, no doubt, but we would like to get a greater response, so that we cannot afford to drop any wheat at all. If we do, therefore, exempt any particular class of farmers or any particular district from wheat-growing, we shall have to try to make it up somewhere else, and I do not think the farmers of Leinster and part of Munster would welcome a decision by us to increase the present 10 per cent. of arable land under wheat, because 10 per cent. is a fairly high percentage on the ordinary mixed farm. It is not so easy for a farmer to go higher, if he wants, at the same time, to grow the necessary potatoes, roots, and perhaps beet, and also a certain amount of oats and barley for his own animals. If we say that the percentage must be higher than 10, we may create a certain difficulty in his ordinary economy and I am afraid the raising of the percentage would not be very welcome. Deputy Cogan made the point that we should have had the same percentage for the whole country, with exemptions in certain cases. I shall deal with the question of exemptions in a moment. If we were to fix the same percentage for the whole country, we, certainly, could not go above 10 per cent. I am doubtful that we could go so high as that, because, whatever justification we may have for requiring the Leinster farmer to grow 10 per cent., it would be very difficult to justify the same percentage in the case of the Donegal farmer, who has equally good land but not land which is equally suitable for wheat growing. I am speaking of the lowlands and the arable land in east Donegal. Deputies will agree that it would not be fair to ask the east Donegal farmer to grow the same percentage of wheat as the Carlow, Wexford or Dublin farmer. It is not so easy to see where we would get more wheat if we dropped certain areas.
Let me come to the difficulties of giving effect to the proposition which has been put before the House. As regards exemptions in general, I gave a great deal of consideration to the proposal put up to-day by Deputy Cogan. It was the first idea that struck officials in the Department and myself: to make wheat-growing compulsory, fix 7 per cent.—that was the figure we had in mind at the time— for the whole country and then consider applications for exemption. There are 240,000 farmers in the State and a fair percentage of those farmers would apply for exemption. Even if only 5 per cent. applied for exemption the number would come to about 12,000. It would be a very big job to deal with 12,000 applications. They would have to be dealt with within a few months, because if you asked farmers to put in applications by 31st December they would have to be dealt with by the end of February if the growing of wheat was to be insisted upon. It might be necessary to deal with them earlier in order to give them an opportunity of growing winter wheat. In any event, they would have to be dealt with very rapidly and that would mean a large number of tribunals of some sort—much more than one tribunal in every county. The tribunal could hardly decide a case without inspection of the farm concerned and that would mean a large number of inspectors. The job was so appalling that we dropped it. We decided that we could not work this system of exemptions satisfactorily and that the best thing to do was to make wheat-growing compulsory all over the country.
The next point we considered was the division of the country into districts, making 10 per cent. compulsory in some places and bringing the percentage down as low as four in other places. It might have satisfied Deputy Hughes and Deputy Cogan if we had proceeded on that line, taking a map of Carlow or Wicklow, painting the 10 per cent. part red, the 7 per cent. part green, the 4 per cent. part white and the part where no wheat would be required black. Again, the task would be exceptionally difficult. I have not gone to a county during the past three or four years to ask farmers to grow more food in which it was not urged that parts of that county should be exempt. I remember distinctly that requests were made in that connection in Meath, Laoighis, Carlow, Wicklow and Tipperary. Then, it was said: "We will drop that line of approach, take-a contour map and see what we can do". We found that the contour line would not correspond with townlands, as Deputy Hughes suggests. Deputies will, I think, find that townlands run from as low as 400 feet to as high as 800 feet. What one should do with townlands circumstanced in that way, I do not know. Take a contour line in connection with a farm and you will find that one part will go well above and the other well below the line. Between one part of a farm and another, there may be a variation of from 120 to 150 feet. If you were dealing with a farmer half of whose farm was above the line and half below it, it would be difficult to say how much wheat you would require him to grow. The difficulties were very great and we had to fall back on the present scheme.
Farmers are asked to sow wheat on only 10 per cent. of their arable land— not on their total acreage. That does not amount to a great deal. If a farmer is doubtful as to his arable acreage, he can ask the tillage inspector to come along and give him his opinion. I gave that advice to some farmers and they found that the inspector was more reasonable than they expected, that he put the amount of arable land lower than they thought he would. They were able to reduce the amount of wheat they were sowing but I do not think they reduced their acreage of tillage. In those areas, they usually tilled as much as they are now required to till under the Order. The fixing of the line is very difficult. I saw reports from inspectors on this point and I think Deputies will agree that you will get a number of farmers above the line who are doing better in wheat growing than some below the line. In other words, you have more efficient farmers or better land above the line than below the line, so that drawing a contour line will not settle the matter there either. I know two farms where wheat is being grown successfully at a height. One is that of my colleague, the Minister for Finance, who showed me his wheat, growing 800 feet up, and it seemed to be a very good crop. I do not say that it was up to the 12 to 14 barrel standard but it looked as if it would produce six or seven barrels to the statute acre.
