Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Feb 1951

Vol. 124 No. 2

Adjournment Debate—Sugar Beet and Wheat Acreage.

The subject matter of the debate is Question No. 54 on yesterday's Order Paper, which asked the Minister for Agriculture to explain why no appeal was made for an increase in the acreage of sugar beet and wheat and the matter therefore concerns only sugar beet and wheat.

I raise this matter to-night, not for the purpose of giving the Minister any additional information, but simply for the purpose of obtaining information and securing from him a clear and definite statement as to what is now his policy in regard to beet and wheat. I will not mention peat. I think the Government bitterly regret that they followed the Minister's advice in regard to this commodity. I want to get the Minister's present policy in regard to sugar beet and wheat. The Minister has a perfect right, as Minister for Agriculture, to seek to give leadership to the agricultural community in regard to what they ought to produce and to advise as to what is best in the national interest. Recognising that the farmer has a perfect right to select what crops he will grow and what type of stock he will maintain on his farm, there is the obligation on the Minister to advise the farming community as to what is best in the national interest.

The Minister went to the Sunday Independent on 21st January last. If I had the insulting type of mind that the Minister has long developed I would refer to the Sunday Independent as the Minister's “kept” paper. I do not believe in being offensive though I sometimes feel that it would be more true to describe the Sunday Independent as the Minister's keeper. I do not congratulate the Sunday Independent on the type of pet they seek to keep. I think they would be wiser to invest in some other type of pet, such as a skunk.

A major-general, perhaps?

Such as a skunk, I said. The Minister spent a great deal of time savagely attacking what he described as "a broken-down general." The man who thrashed "the Nazi beast" here on the floor of the House has nothing but redicule and contempt for an Irishman who merely fought "the Nazi beast" on the battlefield.

The direct relevance of this to wheat and beet is not immediately discernible.

If the Minister wants to interrupt, the Minister will be answered. The Minister went to the Sunday Independent on the 21st January and in the course of that interview he outlined what in his opinion were the crops the acreage of which needed to be increased. In outlining these particular crops, he was within his rights as Minister in advising the farmers as to what they should grow. He mentioned 200,000 additional acres of feeding barley, 200,000 additional acres of oats and 50,000 additional acres of potatoes, but he made no reference whatever to the acreage of sugar beet and that he desired.

I want to ask the Minister a straight question. If the Minister wanted an increase in the acreage of sugar beet, why did he not state that he wanted it? Surely the occasion of an interview to a widely circulated paper was a very desirable opportunity for stating Government policy in regard to the growing of sugar beet and for giving the farming community some idea as to what were the requirements, in the public interest. The Minister made no reference to beet beyond a casual statement that farmers could grow what sugar beet and wheat they require.

Having described that we required so much oats, so much potatoes, so much barely, the Minister went on to say:—

"Preparation for these crops must be undertaken now, in addition to such other crops as farmers may intend to sow, such as wheat, industrial barely, beet, and other root crops."

In other words, as far as the Minister was concerned, it did not matter a damn how many acres of beet, wheat or malting barley farmers decided to grow. That would be all right if it did not matter but, within a week of that statement being made, the Irish Sugar Company met the Beet Growers' Association and, in agreement, decided that the price to be paid for sugar beet should be increased and decided to launch a campaign to induce the farmers to grow, not the same acreage as last year, but 10,000 additional acres. There we have a State Company, a Government-sponsored company, undertaking a function which the Minister, if he had any sense of responsibility, should have undertaken himself and that State company has launched out on an advertising campaign in the Press to induce farmers to grow the additional 10,000 acres of beet. In addition, of course, they have offered the inducement of an increased price, thereby showing that the country does need an additional acreage of beet.

We had the sad experience of last year when we had to import the sweepings of Formosan sugar in order to supply our sugar needs. I think the Irish Sugar Company were quite right in offering the farmer an increased price and in joining with the Beet Growers' Association in calling on farmers to increase the acreage so as to supply our needs. I want an explanation as to why the Minister, as the responsible Minister, or as the Minister in charge of agriculture, failed to give a lead in this matter. Why did he leave it to a State-sponsored company to undertake that work?

With regard to wheat, no statement whatever has been forthcoming from the Minister as to whether an increased acreage of wheat is required or desired in the national interest. There is an obligation on the Minister to tell us whether farmers should get out of wheat-growing altogether or should maintain the acreage they had last year or should increase it. We imported last year something like 1,500,000 barrels of wheat from the United States, at a much higher price—I have not the figures at the moment—but a considerably higher price than we are paying to our Irish growers.

That is not true.

I understand the price is steadily increasing. I am sure the Minister will say that is not true also. The price of imported wheat is steadily going up.

Did you ever hear of the International Wheat Agreement?

Yes. Apart from the price of wheat, the Minister knows that the cost of transporting wheat to this country has increased sharply over the past few weeks and that, of course, must affect the price. I do not know whether the Minister thinks it is desirable to keep on spending dollars for the purpose of importing the additional quantity of wheat needed. If that is the Minister's policy, then it requires a logical explanation.

There were 362,000 acres of wheat grown last year, and that is a fairly substantial acreage. I think the yield was something in the nature of seven barrels per acre.

On a point of order. Do I take it that Deputy Cogan is advocating compulsory tillage at the moment?

That is not a point of order.

I am advocating that the Minister should state clearly what is the Government's policy in regard to wheat. Do they feel that the farmer should grow more wheat, or that he should get out of growing it? I am asking also are the Government prepared to meet the wheat growers in the same way as the Irish Sugar Company are meeting the beet growers by giving an additional price? If the Minister says he does not care whether the farmers grow any wheat or not, then that is a statement of policy and we have to accept it; but if he says he wants an increased acreage, then it is only right and proper that he should meet the farmers fairly in regard to price.

The wheat price was fixed in October, 1947, at £3 2s. 6d. That price still operates, although the cost of production has increased enormously over the past three years. Since 1947 the wages paid to agricultural workers have increased by over 10/- a week; rates have increased by over 10/- in the £, and practically every requirement that the farmer must utilise in the production of wheat has increased in price. Within the last week we have seen a very substantial increase in the price of artificial fertilisers.

What has that to do with this question?

I am advocating that the Minister should state clearly his policy on this question. Does he require an additional acreage of wheat, and is he prepared to pay a reasonable price for it?

That was not in the Deputy's question.

I want an explanation from the Minister on this matter. He has stated his policy clearly and definitely in regard to feeding stuffs for live stock. It is difficult to understand why the Minister should seek to make us self-sufficient in regard to feeding stuffs for animals when he refuses absolutely to make us reasonably secure in regard to food for human beings.

There is no question of compulsion in this matter. I have no desire to advocate compulsion. I believe a reasonable inducement is all that is necessary—reasonable leadership and direction on the part of the Minister. I admit I am one of those who put the Minister into the position he occupies. I had hopes when he assumed office that he would adopt a responsible attitude in relation to agriculture, something along the lines he demonstrated when he was in Opposition. I had hopes that the burden of office would make him responsible. I hope that he will show some sense of responsibility to-night by approaching this matter in a fair and reasonable way, by giving a fair and reasonable indication of his attitude in regard to the growing of essential foodstuffs. There is no use in increasing the acreage under barley, oats, wheat or other crops until you are certain you are going to get a reasonable price for your produce. There is no use in converting root crops and barley into eggs——

That does not arise.

I would not be surprised if the Minister to-night announced a new slogan, that he will stuff England with chickens.

That does not arise, either.

If the Minister answers the straight and simple question that I have asked, I will be satisfied. Does he want more wheat grown and is he prepared to offer a reasonable inducement to the farmers to grow it? The question of compulsion has been mentioned. It was also mentioned by the Minister when he was speaking to the Sunday Independent representative. He did not actually say that there would be compulsory tillage——

I am not interested in the Sunday Independent, but I am in the question the Deputy is supposed to be raising on the Adjournment.

That is the one thing the Deputy is not interested in.

This question is mainly to ask the Minister to explain a statement he made in the Sunday Independent. I want him to explain further what he meant by saying:—

"If they do not do their part, either our live stock (cattle, sheep, pigs and fowl) must be cut down radically in numbers or the whole system of letting farmers run their own business be ended."

There is an ugly threat there in that, as ugly a threat as ever came from any Minister.

Hear, hear—that Fianna Fáil would come back to office. It was a horrid threat.

It carries with it the snarl of "the Nazi beast" and the hiss of the Communist serpent.

Deputy MacEntee is not as bad as that.

They will not accept compulsion, either, from the Minister or anyone else.

It is most unjust. I deprecate the description of Deputy MacEntee as "a Nazi beast". He is a mildly excitable man. The quotation Deputy Cogan has made did contain, I frankly confess, one of the most appalling threats that it was possible for a public man to issue in this country. It did say if the policy of the inter-Party Government, of trusting the farmers to do what is right on their own holdings, should fail, then the policy, the loathsome policy, of the Fianna Fáil Party would be vindicated and the appalling catastrophe of that Party being returned to power must be envisaged at an imminent date.

Perhaps the Minister would deal with the two points—wheat and beet.

I have been charged, Sir, with issuing one of the most shocking threats that could be uttered by any public man.

In the final sentence, by a Deputy who was asked not to refer to the matter again.

He managed to refer to it again in the last sentence and then sat down, before you could rebuke him. However I shall pass from that. The Deputy yearns for leadership and direction. Why cannot the Deputy get it out of his mind that our people are similar to the natives of the Gold Coast and of Sierra Leone? Is it his frequenting the company of Pucka Sahibs that leads him to yearn for leadership and direction? If the Deputy, by his vote, contributed to my election as Minister for Agriculture, I sincerely hope he was not induced to do that by the illusion that I was a Pucka Sahib. That variety of fossil is more at home in Wicklow than in Mayo and the barnacles that adhere to that kind of fossil have no place in my county.

Or, no relevance to the debate.

Are there any fossils in Wexford?

I have spared Deputy MacEntee. I beg him to leave me to deal with Deputy Cogan.

You do not want to leave him with the Orpens—is that it?

No; nor with the military man who missed the bus.

The matter under discussion is beet and wheat—not Pucka Sahibs. I think that, in the interests of good order, Ballymore Eustace should be forgotten.

A Deputy

Baltinglass.

How short is the glory of this world! The Deputy has apparently overlooked a relevant paragraph in the statement I made in connection with the programme which I hoped the farmers of the country would undertake because, having set out the urgency of the situation which dictated the desirability of sowing other crops, I went on to say that preparations for these crops must be undertaken now, in addition to such other crops as farmers may intend to sow such as wheat. W-H-E-A-T—these five letters spell wheat when printed in that order. I then referred to industrial barley and beet. B-E-E-T—these four letters spell beet when printed in that order.

Is this a spelling bee?

There was also a reference to other root crops. I do not know if the Deputy overlooked that paragraph in this statement of mine.

I quoted it just now.

I do not know if the Deputy felt that these words were not sufficiently commanding to justify his willing obedience but then I was not addressing West African natives. I was addressing my neighbour. I am in the habit of proceeding on the assumption, when in conversation with my neighbours, that I am in conversation with rational, independent, self-reliant men.

They may have their doubts.

You doubt their self-reliance? Well they have been free from the blight of Fianna Fáil for three years. Their confidence is quite restored. Goodness knows, we all nearly despaired before we got rid of you. Lest the Deputy might fear that this performance of our people last year gave any grounds for apprehending that they would fall short of what was expected of them this year, will he allow me to refresh his memory? He hopes, I gathered, to appear in this House after the next general election as a faithful supporter of Deputy Smith. I understand that Deputy Brennan is now being pushed to the edge of the bench and that Deputy Cogan aspires, with the assistance of Major-General Dennis, to become the spokesman of the Fianna Fáil Party in Wicklow in the Oireachtas.

The Minister might move on from Major-Generals.

He is a very important man in this context. The Deputy will have to look to his false prognostications as to what the acreage under wheat was to be, because his Leader put it on record in 1947, and his Leader advised the Government of the United States in the autumn of 1947, that he planned to have grown in 1950-51 247,000 acres of wheat in this country. That was to be the patriotic effort of the Deputy's Leader and that was what the Fianna Fáil Government intended to have. It was endorsed by every individual member of that Government which the Deputy now so eagerly yearns to follow. In fact, we produced, not 247,000 acres, but 366,000 acres of wheat and they were not Fianna Fáil acres of wheat either, because out of the 366,000 acres we produced as much wheat as Fianna Fáil had been able to produce out of 670,000 acres.

Does the Minister still refuse to find himself dead in a field of wheat?

Let the Deputy be sure that he will not die of starvation so long as this Government is in office. Might I say just this last word? I do not mind the Deputy exercising the rights of a free member of this House, the indefeasible right of the least worthy member of the Dáil, to compel the Minister to remain here from 10.30 to 11 p.m. to answer whatever question he wishes to raise. But I did not expect to see Deputy Cogan wagging his head at me, to wonder if I had forgotten how the price of wheat has gone up, when wheat is the one cereal grown on this earth, the price of which has been stabilised by the International Control Board at 180 cents. It is the only cereal in the world, the price of which is controlled. The Deputy knows that the price of maize, rye or any other cereal produced on this earth varies, but the price of wheat is fixed.

My advice to the farmers of this country to-night is this, and I have given it to them for the last 30 years: Let every farmer produce from his land the maximum quantity of those crops that will pay him best, and secure for himself, his wife and his family the best living that he is capable of producing, always provided that he leaves his land in autumn a little better than he found it in spring. So long as I am Minister for Agriculture, no bailiff or inspector will have the right to cross his threshold to dictate what he should do, unless there is a situation in this country which demands that similar dictation should be permitted for every doctor, lawyer, tradesman, trade unionist, and every other type of citizen. If other people are to be free, the farmers should be free also, and if the farmers are compelled to adopt any particular policy, Deputy Cogan and his Fianna Fáil colleagues will be compelled at the same time.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Wednesday, 21st February, at 3 p.m.

Top
Share