asked the Minister for Agriculture if, in view of the greatly increased cost of production and the withdrawal of the artificial manures credit vouchers scheme, it is intended to increase the price of wheat.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Price of Wheat.
Before fixing the price of wheat for the 1947 crop full consideration was given to all the relevant factors and it was considered that a price of 55/- per barrel for wheat of the highest grade was fair and reasonable. In the circumstances, it is not intended to increase the price already fixed.
Notwithstanding the experiences which the Department and the country have had, as well as our present position?
How can the Minister justify a reduction in the price as compared with last year? The withdrawal of vouchers for artificials is undoubtedly a reduction. Having regard to the experience of growers last year, and the exceptionally bad year, it is very discouraging for the growers now, particularly in view of the higher cost of seed for the coming year.
Of course, a subsidy of this nature must come to an end at some time, and surely the Deputy will realise that the availability of artificial manures and the price at which they are available must have a bearing upon whether or not it would be justifiable to pay such a subsidy? Surely, these are considerations that will be taken into account in the fixing of a price by the Government?
Surely the Minister will appreciate that it is more essential for the coming year than at any period during the war to make the growing of wheat as attractive as possible for the farmers?
I am not denying the importance of making the growing of wheat in the present circumstances attractive, but this subsidy was provided by the Government at a time when artificial manures were scarce and very costly and surely it is not unreasonable to say that, in the changing circumstances, with more artificial manures available at a different rate, since the subsidy must be brought to an end, as a subsidy given for that purpose, that it is in these circumstances that it should come to an end?
I have no desire to press the Minister, who is completely new to this Department, unduly on this matter, but may I point out that this 2/6 subsidy per barrel on wheat sold to the millers was made at a time when manures were not only dear, but they were scarcely available at all? Manures are still dear and are available only in limited quantities — scarcely sufficient in relation to our requirements. Has the Minister for Local Government something to say on this matter?
I am merely regretting that Deputy Morrissey was not so concerned about wheat in 1937.
That is ten years ago.
In reply to the Minister's interruption, may I say that Deputy Morrissey was concerned, and was doing something in connection with the growing of wheat even before 1937?
Discouragingly.
Discouragingly? The Minister is as accurate as usual, and if the knowledge of the other members of the Government on the wheat situation is on the same level as that of the Minister, it is no wonder we are in the mess in which we find ourselves to-day.
This subsidy was provided for the purpose of building up fertility depressed during the emergency. Does the Minister consider it wise to withdraw it at this stage, in view of the necessity of producing the maximum quantity of wheat this year and in view of the falling acreage and yields we have had in the past two years?
As a subsidy for the purchase of artificial manures I would say that since it must come to an end the natural time to expect it to come to an end would be on the coming into the market of a greater supply of artificial manures at a cheaper rate.
Regardless of the lack of fertility of the land?