Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Dec 1932

Vol. 16 No. 9

Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1932—Second Stage (resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Bagwell

When the House adjourned last evening I was speaking on the farming aspect of this Bill. I think I have said enough on that aspect, and I only wish to reaffirm that the real economic crisis which this country is up against at the present time is the stoppage of the export trade in live stock, the profits from which exceed the value of all other exports. That trade is now being conducted largely at a loss, and no economy in imports is ever going to meet that loss. A very useful figure in that connection as to the gauge of national prosperity is the trade per head of the population. Compared with that trade, enthusiasm about growing wheat and about the advantage of mixing home grown grain and maize for food is simply childish. It is like the ostrich burying its head in the sand, or like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Turning to the milling trade, as regards that aspect of the Bill, although the millers are not officially opposed to it, which is quite understandable, they were given marching orders some time ago and were told by the Government what they were to do in certain circumstances. They have to make a certain mixture which is prescribed for them. Why are they kicking against that?

The millers did not ask for the Bill as they considered that their position was sufficiently safeguarded against outside competition by the agreement which they had voluntarily entered into as a commercial matter with English millers in the spring of last year. Of course, that arrangement is now obsolete because of the subsequent action of the Government here. What the millers say is that the mixture of home grown wheat with foreign wheat for bread making will make both bakers' bread and home-baked bread heavier, less digestible, less palatable, and in fact, not as good bread. As far as my personal experience of bakers' bread is concerned, I say that it is extremely good in this country. I have been in many countries in my time, and I do not know any country where bread is better than in some parts of this country. It is a most important item in the national diet when taken with butter. This Bill tends to alter that state of affairs to a considerable extent. The gratification of the palates of three millions of people is no small thing. We are told that we are going to have that trade but the millers who know most about it say that the bread will not be so digestible.

As regards an increase in employment in the way of milling there is no great fault to be found with that feature. I believe there are 1,600 people employed in milling and that there will be some additions. But there will be also displacement, and in that connection I will quote from the public proceedings of the Minority Report of the Economy Commission which says: "We admit that the number of new workers which would secure employment is practically negligible." The first signatures to that report are E. de Valera and S. Lemass. In my opinion if the Bill is an attempt to deal with the economic crisis it will not put things right. On the merits I hold that it does a great many things which are positively harmful. I am opposed to the Bill in no Party spirit because I am not a Party man. Probably I should be a better politician, and perhaps a more useful Senator if I were a Party man. I started too late for that. I remind the House, as evidence of my bona fides in opposing this Bill that I also opposed the Wheat Subsidy Bill. There was less reason for opposing that Bill but I did so. I find myself so often in opposition in this House that it is a great pleasure to me when I come across something I can support. I dislike this Bill and I disbelieve in it. I am not alone in that view. In Opposition we may be looked upon as less responsible for a Bill like this than the Government, but I believe that we have also a responsibility to revise the legislation that goes through. We must do the best we can with it. The question is, what ought we to do in a case like this? There is considerable opposition to this Bill in the House, and many people who know a great deal about its various aspects are strongly opposed to it, as being exceptionally harmful. The special reason why I look upon it as harmful is that it tends to start many things which cannot be easily withdrawn from if they are found not to be a success. We are committing ourselves to a certain course of action which I believe is a mistake. That is a very grave feature of the Bill, because we cannot get away from what we decide now as quickly as in other matters. They cannot be dropped. This Bill affects the country years ahead and creates vested interests.

What are we to do? Should we oppose it or let everything rip, simply saying that it was not our fault if the Government had a bee in its bonnet and that the Bill must be left to work itself out and to show itself up? I do not like that way of looking at things, because it has to be done at a cost to the country. That is a very expensive way of finding out if things are right or wrong. We have a responsibility here. I would like to give the Bill a Second Reading. I will not divide the House at this stage as there are reasons against that course and it has seldom been done in practice here. In the next place, there is in some degree a mandate for this Bill. Although it was never proved, this Bill is an afterthought, something brought up to deal with the present crisis and that in the main originated out of the crisis. It was talked of by members of the Government and by the President to a certain extent — although I do not believe that the Government was put into power in any appreciable degree because of their views regarding wheat. The reasons were the contrary. In a sense there is a mandate. Taking the debate right through, I do not think there has been sufficient opposition shown to it in this House to justify its rejection on Second Reading. Very special opposition would be required before taking that step. I am not going to move the rejection of the Second Reading. I think we must do the best we can in Committee. It is a very difficult matter. I conscientiously object to a Bill like this. If the whole principle of the Bill is wrong all we can do is to try to reduce its operations to the extent of what is in our minds.

Mr. Linehan

As a farmer and wheat grower, I desire to give my cordial support to this measure. It marks a most important step in the policy of making this country as self-supporting as possible. This policy was before the electorate at the last election and, in my opinion, it contributed in no small degree to the success of the Government Party. It has met with the approval of the electorate. I regard it as the most important measure which was ever placed before the Seanad, marking the beginning of that policy of making this country independent of other countries in the matter of the support of our people. The development of wheat-growing should be a matter of special interest for the Seanad. I find that, on 6th June, 1928 — that is four and a half years ago — we unanimously agreed, in this Seanad, to the following Resolution:—

That in view of the large and increasing proportion of wheat, and its products, at present being imported for consumption into the Irish Free State, the Seanad is of opinion that the cultivation of a greatly increased area of Irish-grown wheat for home consumption has become a matter of urgent importance and deserves the careful attention of the Government.

That Resolution was unanimously passed in this House on the 6th June, 1928. It was an amended form of the original Resolution which sought to ensure that flour sold in the Free State should contain a certain proportion of Irish wheat. But to ensure unanimity, I, as the mover of the motion, agreed to it in the amended form, which I have just read out.

On that occasion, a very interesting debate took place in which was ventilated the views of different interests. We had the farmer's the miller's and the economist's point of view to consider. We had, also, the opinion of a well-known medical man of the Seanad who pointed out that the natural and proper colour of flour was yellow—not white — and that flour whitened by artificial processes was injurious to health and was responsible for many diseases. A loaf of bread was laid upon the Table of the Seanad which was made from wheat milled into flour in a Dublin mill and baked by a Dublin baker. That afforded proof that Irish flour could be converted into a wholesome and proper loaf of bread; and when the Seanad had sampled that loaf there was nothing left.

In the matter of wheat growing then it may be said the Seanad anticipated the policy of the Government. We sometimes hear attacks made upon members of the Seanad to the effect that they are no use and things like that. I think we can point out that the passing of this Resolution, in June, 1928, is a very good proof of the usefulness of the Seanad. Now, as has already been pointed out by the Minister, most other countries are taking steps to encourage wheat growing in their areas. I did not hear any reference to that fact in the speeches of Senators who opposed this Bill. They did not even mention that in Great Britain the farmers have been agitating for a considerable time to have their bread produced from wheat grown in Great Britain. I am very glad that they have succeeded in inducing their Government to provide that a certain proportion of British wheat shall be milled into British flour.

This year, the Cork Exhibition Committee, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and the County Committee of Agriculture, grew twenty-three different varieties of wheat upon their ground. It was the most interesting part of a most interesting exhibition. The ground is not by any means ideal wheat ground. It was rather moist and rushy in very many places. It was grassland, not land that had been manured and tilled for wheat; it was ordinary grassland, broken freshly. The planting of the seed did not take place until February, which was rather late for people, if they aimed at having a bumper crop. The results which will be shortly published in full detail, were very remarkable, showing that the yields ranged from a maximum of 36½ cwts. to a minimum of 16¼ cwts. per statute acre. In only two crops was the produce below 20 cwts. per statute acre and in these cases, exceptional circumstances, due to inferior seed, accounted for the low yield. Seven varieties gave over 30 cwts. per statute acre and the average of the twenty-three crops was 27½ cwts. I suggest that the Minister should furnish each member of the Oireachtas with a copy of this report when it is available. The produce of these crops of wheat was placed for public inspection in the Department's hall of the Exhibition. They can be seen by everybody and the wheat can be examined. It was examined by a great number of people including experts— millers and so on — and, I think, in no single case could the produce be described other than as millable wheat.

As can be inferred from the discussion on this Bill, and especially, from articles in the Press, there are people who still do not believe that we can grow wheat. They believe that even if it is grown the grain cannot be saved, and, finally, if it is saved that the flour cannot be converted into bread. I think the Minister for Agriculture should avail of the reopening of the Exhibition in Cork next year to demonstrate again the feasibility of growing wheat in this country and making Irish flour milled from it into bread.

I am afraid much of the opposition to this Bill is due to the feeling in the minds of some people that any article, or product, manufactured, or grown in Ireland, is not as good as the foreign. That idea is not borne out by the facts and should be got rid of. Belittling the resources of our own country is to be deprecated. I have heard it said here that if this wheat scheme is carried out the number of cattle in the country will be diminished. I cannot follow that argument at all. I think it is well known that countries that have an amount of tillage also have a very large number of live stock. The present system of feeding cattle on grass during the summer leaves nothing to feed them on in the winter except some dry hay which may keep them alive but, certainly, will not keep them from falling away in condition. I cannot see any difficulty whatever in having the cattle business and the tillage business going on hand in hand. Somebody said it would not be desirable that we should have all our eggs in one basket; but I see in this Bill an opportunity of giving the people another means of providing a livelihood and nothing to upset the cattle trade. Another point is that in the case of cattle we have got to look for markets outside and in the case of wheat there is a market in every household in the Free State. I am very glad to be here in this Senate to see such a Bill as this being brought forward. As I pointed out already, I tried to induce the late Government, four and a half years ago, to take some steps in this matter, but without any success.

I will conclude now by quoting an extract from the advice given some years ago upon the subject of the desirability of supporting home industries and products by the Bishop of Kildare. The following is the extract:—

"If people utilised the food that is grown and the clothes that are manufactured in their own country, there would be less room for pessimism. Providence has given a special type of fertility to the soil of every country, and it is reasonable to suppose that what the soil of a country produces is suited to the needs of its inhabitants. If this truth were realised and acted upon, there would be little evidence of depression. The present-day tendency is to ignore the products of our own country and to look to another land to supply our needs. Such a practice is contrary to self-interest as well as to patriotism, and will eventually lead to national disaster. What sympathy can there be for a nation that plans its own destruction? People are convinced, or should be, that the home-grown product can serve their purpose as well as the foreign article, and yet they ignore their own, which has been grown by native labour, in favour of an article, no more suitable, which has been grown on foreign soil and by foreign labour. The inevitable result will follow: land will go out of tillage, unemployment will increase, the emigrant ship will be filled and in due time people will talk of the Irish nation that was. There is no use in overlooking the consequences of cause and effect. If people want to prevent the effect, they must remove the cause. The people have the remedy in their own hands, and if they wish to use it, no one can prevent them. Furnish your table and your farmyard with the products of your own country; never touch the foreign article when its place can be supplied by the native one."

Mr. Johnson

I am inclined to agree with Senator Bagwell in saying that this is a very important Bill and deserves very close examination. During the last few years it has been my experience to meet observers and students from other countries, and often I have been asked by such observers and students what I thought were the distinguishing marks of the legislation of the Government during the last ten years. No matter how much I may have been in the habit of criticising the acts of the late Government, in speaking to strangers from other countries, I was always inclined to give the highest credit to whatever legislation was brought forward and, as far as I possibly could, to show the bright side of things. I indicated to numbers of these people that I thought the most significant items in the legislation from 1922 to 1928 might be the Compulsory Purchase Bill — the Land Bill of 1923 — the Shannon scheme, and the buying out of the proprietary creameries and the prohibition laid upon farmers from selling their milk wherever they wished. I thought that those were very significant items of legislation which noted a departure from the old methods, the non-State interference methods, and the individualistic economy of the last century.

I think this Bill is a significant Bill — more significant than seems to have been appreciated, and perhaps more significant than some of its supporters would agree with. It embodies an idea which, I think, is an essential idea if one has regard to the future of the country — the idea of national development as against merely individual development. That is to say, it is looking at industry and is endeavouring to determine the ends for which industry is operated. It is endeavouring to organise to some degree the economic effort and to ensure the proper consummation of that economic effort in consumption in the country. Embodied in this Bill is that principle —a principle which will inevitably, I think, have to be extended if the country is to survive as an economic entity. I am speaking here as one who is not a farmer, nor a farmer's son, nor the grandson of a farmer, and it is of some interest to listen to the various views of the representatives of the farming community. As much as I have tried to assess the merits of the arguments for and against what is called the wheat policy, it is difficult to reconcile the conflicting views in regard to the technicalities of wheat growing and the like. But there is unanimity, even amongst the opponents of the Bill, in the assertion that agriculture must be the foundation of this country's economy. We are all familiar with the slogan of the late Minister for Agriculture: "One more cow, one more sow, and one more acre under the plough," and I am sure that those who have criticised this Bill will agree with the desirability of extending tillage following the advice of Deputy Hogan. I may be wrong in that, but I am going to assume it to be a fact that it is, in the view of the critics of the Bill, desirable to extend agriculture and, included in that, pastoral development. Under the régime since 1922, however we found a curious decline, and a very difficult problem arises out of the tendencies in agriculture in this country during these few years.

The late Ministry relied a great deal upon education — the educational policy, the propagandist policy amongst farmers and agriculturists—and trusting to the improvement of quality and the development of a market across the water. What has been the result? Let us take the figures of corn crops and green crops and cattle population, and, in each case, there has been a rather heavy decline. If we take the total acreage under corn, root and green crops between 1922 and 1932, there is a steady decline almost without break until 1932, when the figure is 18 per cent. lower than the 1922 figure. The cattle population, coincident with the decline in agriculture proper, has declined by 8 per cent. Now, if that is the consequence of the "leave the farmer alone" policy, what are we to look forward to? At least some reconsideration has to be given and, in view of the prevailing tendencies, some new system or some new policy is necessary to be inaugurated.

Somebody reminded us — I think it was Senator Counihan — and it is fairly common knowledge, that the agricultural policy in Great Britain is changing its character. A great deal is going to be done, from all accounts, to encourage agriculture in Britain and particularly, notwithstanding the encouragement to corn growing, there is a special effort being made to develop the home production of live stock and live stock products and, in some parts of the country, special attention is being directed to the development of the dairying and store cattle trade. Take that fact into account, along with this tendency of the last ten years in this country, and it seems to me, as an outside observer, outside the agricultural community, that some new orientation — to use a backneyed word — is required in regard to the future of agriculture in this country. The Government appear to have come to the conclusion that the development of wheat growing is a desirable change, and one, I think, vital reason for that is that if the farmer can produce wheat of millable quality there is a market at home for that product. The market for these other goods, whether oats, barley, butter or live stock, has obviously been, not within this present year but for some years past, a declining one. I am speaking now of the foreign market, but the home market for wheat is a steady one. That is to say, the home demand for wheaten products is a steady one and is controllable. That is a very important fact touching the question whether this new effort to grow wheat for home consumption should be made.

Then a great deal has been said about the technical difficulties of wheat growing of the kind that is suitable for flour milling and that will fit in with the milling economy. Well, I am quite satisfied that the development of a home wheat policy will necessitate some change in the milling policy and I do not think that is going to be a net loss to the country. I do not believe that it is a desirable thing that the people's appetites should be controlled by the demands of the machine, of the particular type of mill that has been found commercially economical in recent years and I suppose for fifty or sixty years. The tastes of the people have been made to conform to the technical requirements of a particular kind of flour mill. I think the speech of Senator O'Rourke yesterday, which was a most valuable contribution to this discussion leading me to a conclusion different from that which the Senator would have desired, showed that in all parts of the world wheat growing had been adapted by special cultivation and the propagation of special breeds of wheat to suit the climate and the land of these countries. The Senator told us about the new breeds of wheat in Canada and about the various breeds of wheat in different parts of Europe. I have a recollection of Professor Drew at Glasnevin telling me that they had been, and were for some time, endeavouring to breed types of wheat that would be specially suitable to the climate of this country. Senator O'Rourke told us that these developments were not possible of fruition within a year or two years. They took some time. But I am confident enough that modern agricultural science will be able to produce wheat suitable for growing in this country that will withstand the peculiarities of this climate.

I have a fancy that when we compare wheat growing in recent years with wheat growing in the 'forties, the 'fifties and the 'sixties it will probably be found that the wheat that was grown then was capable of withstanding the climate, and that the wheat grown now and said not to be capable of withstanding the climate is because the breeds grown have not been adapted to our climate. Quite conceivably, wheat that is adapted to this climate might not be as prolific. That is a matter that the experts will have to deal with, but I feel very much reassured by Senator O'Rourke's reminder that breeds of wheat can be adapted to the climate and conditions of the country where it is intended they should be sown.

I am not inclined to agree with the very high estimates given of the future possibilities of wheat growing in this country. I think it is a desirable crop as far as I can judge between the various arguments, but I do not see this country producing the 100 per cent.—the figure on which I think Senator The McGillycuddy based his calculations — or even 50 per cent., but I do see the desirability of encouraging the farmers of this country to at least maintain and increase the acreage under tillage and of ensuring them a market for what they grow. I see no better way of doing that than the prospect of wheat growing and of providing them with a sure market for what they grow. I am not very much impressed either with the arguments that wheat growing is going to have an immense influence on the labour market. To the extent that tillage of any kind is increased the demand for agricultural labour will increase for a time, but the more scientific the agriculturists become, the more efficient they become as farmers will, I am inclined to think, tend to reduce the number of men engaged per acre.

While I do not desire to enter upon a new theme, I cannot but remind the House that this policy is inevitably related to an industrial development policy, and the more successful this country is as an agricultural-production country the more important it is that there should be at the same time an industrial development policy. I happen to have some figures relating to Australia, which are significant in this connection. In 1911, 472,000 persons were engaged in the pastoral and dairying industry. In 1928 the number had fallen to 423,000. The population during that time had increased by 39 per cent., but the number of persons engaged in primary industries had decreased by 10½ per cent. Yet this lesser number of persons produced 55,000,000 more bushels of wheat; 14,000,000 more gallons of wine; 200,000,000 more lbs. of wool; 77,000,000 more lbs. of butter: 312,000 more tons of sugar; and they cultivated 9,000,000 more acres of land, an increase of 75 per cent. over the acreage of 1911. The following is a quotation from a speech of a one-time Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. W. M. Hughes. He said:—

"We have a population of a little over 6,000,000 people — many now in sad trouble — yet we shall produce this year — that is 1930 — enough wheat to feed 30,000,000, enough wool to clothe 100,000,000, and meat, butter, dried fruits, sugar and other kinds of food, raw materials, including minerals and metals, sufficient for double or treble our present population."

I mention these figures to show that there is a necessary relationship between the agricultural and the industrial economy. It is no use thinking only of wheat production as a matter concerning the economy of the individual farmer, it is inevitably related to the general scheme of national development, and unless with an increasing agricultural production, an improvement in the cultivation and growth of wheat, as the case may be here, and the provision of a further market for that wheat, we co-incidentally encourage and develop industrial production there is not going to be any very sure improvement in the volume of employment.

I am not going to deal with the plan of this Bill in detail. The wheat growing side is connected up in the Bill with the milling side. I think that is a very necessary and very desirable policy to have followed. I am not sure of the merits of the maize mixture policy and I am not quite sure whether all the equities are being met. I would like, for instance, to know on what principle the figures of the standard price have been arrived at and how they are to be arrived at in the future. For my own part, I think the just and proper course to adopt would be to guarantee a price which would cover the average cost of production of the particular commodity on a well managed farm. I am prepared to give the agricultural producer a minimum wage. I doubt very much whether the figures here will suffice to cover the costs of production, but that is a matter that the agriculturists can deal with better than I can. I think, too, that the incidence of this policy of wheat subsidisation and the purchase of barley and oats for feeding with maize will specially favour certain counties and will specially affect detrimentally certain other counties. I think that it ought probably to be provided that the transport costs of the corn that is going to be mixed in the maize consumed in the pig and poultry counties should be met so that they would not have to be borne by the pig and poultry counties. These are matters that cannot be dealt with in this Bill. I do think, however, that there is a reasonable case made for meeting some of the objections that the incidence of the cost will fall too heavily upon certain parts of the population.

The main plan of the Bill, I think, should be supported, and I commend it especially because it does introduce a constructive principle into our national economy. I do not think that the Bill is to be examined simply from the point of view of its economic results, using the word economic in the narrow sense of commercial economy, but must be related to a general policy of national conservation and national development, and not simply as it affects the individual farmer in any part of the country. It must be related to the general policy and, because of that, I think it is desirable that the Seanad should give hearty support to the Bill.

Mr. Dowdall

I support this Bill. At the present time, we import in wheat and flour goods to a value of approximately £7,000,000. We export other agricultural products to pay for that £7,000,000. We send to a market and for every pound we realise for our goods on that market, we get only from 13/- to 15/- in the wheat growing countries from which we buy our wheat. I think that that point has not been considered by any of those who spoke on this Bill from the economic point of view. We are compelled, at present, to accept from 13/- to 15/- for our £ in the countries in which wheat is produced. Some of those who have spoken in opposition to this Bill seem to be strangely ignorant or forgetful of what took place in this country within the last five or six years. A firm came over here, a very well known firm in the milling trade, and secured approximately one-third of the milling capacity of the country and to those who took any pains to inquire into the facts it is clear that every miller in the country knew that his milling policy was dictated by that firm, so much so, indeed, that some independent and relatively affluent millers were very readily bought up and absorbed by that very powerful combination. Without doing any injury to that firm, which has invested a considerable amount of capital in this country, this policy of the admixture of flour made from home-grown wheat will, at least, prevent the millers in this country from being absorbed or compelled to trade on the lines that that powerful organisation would otherwise be capable of doing.

This question of the admixture of flour has been forced in on the people of England with whom agriculture is not nearly such an important factor as it is with us here. Even before that measure was taken in England — I think it was taken only last year — Mr. Baldwin, who was Prime Minister then, in 1928, I think, made an order insisting that flour supplied in public contracts, such as to the Army and, I think, to public institutions, should have an admixture of English flour, so that really we are only doing here, where agriculture is far more important, what it was deemed politic and expedient to do by our friends across the Channel. Listening to some of the speeches made here, one would be disposed to think that the farmers were being compelled to grow wheat. No one is compelled to grow wheat under this scheme. It is being made a more attractive crop than it hitherto has been, inasmuch as, at least, an assured market at a price is offered for it but nobody is compelled to grow wheat if he does not care to do so or if his land is not suitable.

I cannot forget, in regarding this matter, that the diminution of population in this country has proceeded step by step with the reduction of tillage, and, again, one listening to the speeches would think that, if wheat is grown, or if tillage becomes more general, it is in substitution for and to the detriment of the live-stock trade. In 1930, 65 per cent. of the land in Denmark was cultivated. Area for area, Denmark had three times as many cattle as we had — I think the figure to be exact is 3 1-7 times. Their number of pigs then was, I should say, 20 times as great as ours and it continues to increase, so that with a wide extension of tillage, it seems to me the probability will be a very great expansion in our cattle and pig production also.

Senator Bagwell said that, in this matter, the Government had a bee in its bonnet. Nevertheless, he admitted that they had a mandate in the Bill. As one who has at times the sometimes amusing habit of taking some interest and some active part in by-elections, I can assure Senator Bagwell that, for at least three or four years before the last Government went out of office, what attracted the people in the country more than anything else was the advocacy of a reform in the tillage and cereal production of this country. I am not referring to the meetings at which there was a great deal of the paraphernalia and pomp of party demonstration, but to the small meetings held at the cross-roads up and down the constituencies at which there would possibly be not more than 50 people, mostly people of the farming community. That was the most attractive item that was put before them. This measure, I consider, is a very useful one. With Senator Johnson, I do not think it will bring about a very great increase in employment, but it will give some substantial increase in the number of persons employed on the land and for those reasons I support it.

Mr. O'Connor

As one who has been a life-long farmer identified with the agricultural industry, I wish to contribute my views on this measure. I am sorry that I cannot share in the rosy statements put forward by Senator Linehan, because my experience of wheat growing is that it is a very doubtful matter. I have grown wheat and have never missed a year without growing some, but I agree with Senator O'Rourke that, until there is a class of wheat given to the people to sow, which will stand up to the weather, we will not be in a position to encourage it to any great extent. I would be very sorry to see the growing of wheat abandoned but, from a practical point of view, and from my experience, oats is a much more useful crop generally. Climate, to my mind, is one of the chief obstacles to the encouragement of the growth of wheat and to its successful growth. I listened with interest to the statements made by the Minister in relation to the statistics from the weather bureau in the last 50 years, showing that the weather in that period has not changed very much and I am sure that he will not object if I contradict some of his conclusions.

The figures suggest that the rainfall has been more or less the same and that I will not contradict, but what I can contradict from my own knowledge and experience, is that the period of the rainfall has changed and now comes at a time when it proves a real disappointment to farmers. About ten years ago, I had ten Irish acres of wheat. It was a splendid crop and gave indications of being a great success. It was grown in the year in which we had compulsory tillage, I think, and everybody remarked on how lucky we were to have such a good crop. The weather broke, however, in the first week in August and rain fell for about a fortnight. The wheat, as a result, never ripened but got small and black and we had to thrash it and use it for cattle food and it was even unsuitable as grain food. This year, we have had a very good crop and there is a good prospect of turning it into first-class wheat.

My advice from the experience of a lifetime engaged in the cattle trade is that you cannot substitute anything better for that industry. No other country can produce any better live stock than we can and, for that reason, it would be a mistake to depart from the position which has been built up in the country in the matter of the live stock trade or to accept the amiable advice of members of the Government who ask the people to make a sudden change from what they have been accustomed to. A feature of the present position is that our live-stock trade is in a deplorable condition and the losses suffered in respect of this year will scarcely ever be recouped in our lifetime. Even to-day, in the Dublin market, prices were never as bad and the cattle are not making anything like their first cost of a year ago. In that sense, it is a cruel fate that we should be placed in a position in which we do not know to whom to turn. We all hope, however, that matters will be remedied in the near future and that the situation is not likely to endure for all time.

When we come to examine the position we find that we can rely very little upon statistics. The definition of a lie, we are told, is lies, damned lies and statistics. In my opinion we cannot safely rely upon any statistical return. It is much better in the long run to depend upon practical experience. Practical knowledge will more than hold its own with even the most advanced theories. The people have suffered too much dictation from those who have derived the bulk of their knowledge from reading books. My opinion, and I offer it with all earnestness and sincerity, is that it is a grievous mistake on the Government's part to endeavour to change the economic policy pursued by the farming community for generations. It would be a disastrous thing for the country people to upset their present mode of living. I would not hesitate in changing my methods if I thought the results would be beneficial or that I would be financially better off in the end; but I do not think that will apply in the present instance. The farmers have been accustomed to a definite method of existence for many years and I think it is undesirable that that should be altered.

I am prepared to support the Bill for the simple reason that I am anxious to give this experiment suggested by the Government a fair trial. At the same time, I do not think it is going to improve matters amongst the farming community. I think it is a foolish thing to go against the convictions of men who have gained a wide experience over a long period of years. To some extent I think I can identify myself with the success that has been attained in our live-stock industry. I think the legislation enacted within recent years in relation to live stock, and particularly with respect to the licensing of bulls, was very commendable. It will be a very difficult thing to alter the outlook of people who firmly believe that the country's chief industry is centred in the rearing, breeding and fattening of live stock.

Corn growing is, no doubt, a very desirable thing, but I doubt that it will attain the proportions the Government anticipate. No doubt also it would be desirable to see the milling industry revived. I have a pretty large acquaintance with millers and I do not think they are in favour of the proposal to mix certain quantities of the home-grown product. It should be remembered that wheat as a crop is suitable only in certain localities. As a rule the people send their grain to the local mill and there it is ground into wholemeal. I do not believe that the wheat ground in this country would bear comparison with the foreign flour and it would be difficult to replace the bread that is generally used in the country at the present time.

I think there is every likelihood of failure in the operation of this measure and the Government are running a grave risk. I think the millers have a decided objection to the Government's proposals and I regard the task that is being imposed on them as almost an impossible one. It will be practically impossible to carry out a mixture of a certain quantity of native wheat with foreign wheat to the extent of satisfying the requirements of the people. This Bill will mean there will have to be an inspector in every mill. It certainly will necessitate a whole army of officials if the Bill is to be properly put into operation. If the people wish, let them alter their present economic policy and turn their home-grown corn into flour; but why should it be made compulsory on them? My experience is that tillage has become unpopular because it has not been profitable. Take the case of labourers who have got cottages and plots of land. There is hardly one of them who has not a couple of calves or other live stock and there is absolutely no tillage on those holdings. The labourers have been offered every encouragement, but very few of them will till.

At one time wheat growing was profitable and successful. I speak now of a great number of years ago. I remember that at one time August was the harvest month. In that month all the corn was more or less ripened, stacked, and put into the haggard. Now the corn is not sufficiently ripe until September. The fact is that the climate has changed. At Clongowes Wood, where my sons are at school, the authorities provided an artificial lake for the use of the pupils during the winter time, for sliding and skating. The skates have not been utilised for the last ten or fifteen years. The fact is there has not been ice of sufficient thickness to permit of skating or sliding. In my young days that used to be a great pastime and at Christmas time we used to look forward to three weeks or a month when the ice would be sufficiently strong. Not for many years have such conditions been experienced. Some twenty years ago I remember in Kildare we would have what they called a fine summer; May, June and July would be perfectly dry and then when the weather broke in August we could always rely on having a field full of mushrooms. I do not think I have seen a mushroom there for fifteen years. The weather conditions have changed tremendously and that change must have some effect on the prosperity of the country.

I thoroughly agree with Senator O'Rourke that unless we have a special wheat that will ripen under the existing climatic conditions here we cannot hope for success. The harvest is now fully three weeks later than it was forty years ago. I must congratulate Senator Miss Browne upon her practical knowledge of tillage, and farming operations generally. I think it is foolish to expect the people to follow up a tillage policy enthusiastically. One could almost regard the proposals of the Government as a reflection on the intelligence of the farming community. People have been accustomed in the country districts to live in a certain way and it will be difficult to make them alter their habits. For the most part the people are intensely sober, intelligent and industrious and they should not be compelled to do things they do not want to do. If a farmer considers a certain line of action profitable he should be allowed to follow it up voluntarily. Why, for instance, should the people in County Limerick, where there is rich grazing land, be asked to grow wheat? Such a proposal, to my mind, is impracticable. Rich land is not suitable for successful corn growing. I remember two years ago seeing one of the best fields of oats I ever looked on flattened one night in a rainstorm.

Mr. Johnson

In that respect is an oat crop similar to a wheat crop?

Mr. O'Connor

The crops are somewhat similar in that respect. Wheat is a more delicate crop.

Mrs. Costello

They both suffer from lodging after heavy rain.

Mr. O'Connor

Of course there would be, up to this, one thousand acres of oats for every hundred acres of wheat. I do not oppose this Bill but I have very little hope that it will be successful in its operation. Of course, if there are people anxious to cultivate wheat they are welcome to do so. I am sure the Government are well disposed. Only time will tell whether or not their proposals are going to be beneficial for the country. I would appeal to the Government to make a determined effort to bring the cattle industry back to its normal position. At the moment the live-stock industry is in a very deplorable condition and the losses so far have been exceedingly heavy. The pity is that all these losses are quite unnecessary. The farmers generally have lost heavily and I would like the Government to make an effort to remedy the existing condition of things.

I hope there will not be any necessity for causing trouble because, owing to unemployment and to a lot of things which are happening in the country at present, one feels a certain sense of responsibility. The endeavour of everybody should be to bring things to a better state rather than allow them to go from bad to worse. When the farming industry is not in an affluent state, it is a bad sign. I never believed in subsidies or in those other aids for the farming industry. Any industry that is not able to stand on its own feet without these artificial aids is in a bad way.

Mr. Duffy

As an agricultural worker and one closely in touch with the agricultural workers of the country, I should like to say that we are entirely in favour of this Bill. The agricultural workers have been, for the past ten years, idle to a great extent. In this Bill, they see hope of a remedy for that state of affairs. It has always been held by the agricultural workers in the area from which I come that they were not originally wage-earners at all in the sense of having a wage-earning tradition. They are the descendants of those who were moved off the wheat-growing lands of Leinster to make way for the cattle, about which we hear so much to-day. If the Minister succeeds, by this wheat-growing policy, in putting back those people on the land to grow food for themselves, their families, and their fellow-workers in the towns, he will have done a good deal to remedy the state of affairs which has existed for the past sixty or seventy years. All those workers with whom I am acquainted believe that it is quite possible to grow wheat if it is gone about in the proper manner. If the ground is tilled properly and if the crop is sown at the right time, we are all convinced that wheat can be grown successfully in this country. Not alone can it be grown successfully but we can get much heavier crops than are got in any other country without exception. It was quite customary in County Meath, when wheat was grown there, to get about 20 barrels to the Irish acre—that is, 15 cwts. to the acre, equivalent to 13 cwts. per statute acre. We have had it stated here that the average yield of wheat all over the world is only 9 cwt. per acre. Senator Miss Browne states that the best wheat comes from Manitoba and that it is the best wheat-growing area in the world. But, there, they only get 12 cwts. or 13 cwts. to the acre.

The Minister has stated that this country can produce, on an average, 21 cwts. to the acre, taking every county in the Free State into consideration, as against a world average of 9 cwts. Having regard to that, I cannot for the life of me see the sense of the argument that we cannot grow wheat successfully in this country. In 1846, 740,000 acres of wheat were grown in this country. The greater portion of that was exported to England and it must have been both millable and marketable when it was bought by the English people. As a result of the repeal of the Corn Laws of 1846, the landlords of this country decided to abandon corn growing and to go in for live-stock and live-stock products. The country as a whole has been committed to that policy since 1846. In 1846, in the area of the Free State, there were 6,000,000 people and to-day, after the operation of this so-called successful and profitable economic policy, we have 3,000,000 people. We had 2,000,000 head of cattle in 1846 and to-day we have 5½ million head of cattle. The wheat area has been reduced from 740,000 acres to 23,000 acres, while the cattle population has gone up from 2,000,000 to 5¼ million and the number of people has gone down by 3,000,000. It is extraordinary that ours is the one country in Europe or, perhaps, in the world where this state of affairs or anything like it has taken place. Nobody can point to any other country where the population has decreased, where the number of live stock had increased and where people said that theirs was a most satisfactory system and that they must continue it.

The existence of that system was made possible by the fact that we had two markets for our products. For our live stock and live-stock products we found a market in England. We had also a surplus population, under this system, of from 25,000 to 30,000 a year. We had a market for that in America and in the British Colonies. That market has disappeared—let us hope for ever. It is no longer possible to send our emigrants to the Colonies or to America. The other market to which we sent our live stock and live-stock products is, in the words of Senator the McGillycuddy of the Reeks, if not dead, deadly sick. Senator Miss Browne, Senator O'Connor and several other Senators would have us go on in the same way, catering for a market which is dying and taking no cognisance of the fact that we have this year 25,000 or 30,000 extra people to provide for. They imagine that we can go on buying £7,000,000 worth of food, in the way of wheat or wheat products, from Canada or elsewhere without selling to those other countries anything whatever in return.

Mrs. Costello

What about the loss of a £30,000,000 market?

Mr. Duffy

You might lose £50,000,000 to-morrow if you continued that policy. According to Senator Counihan and Senator the McGillycuddy, they are starting to breed cattle all over England and our store cattle trade is a thing of the past. I do not believe that. I believe that we will have more store cattle to send to England than ever and that they will require them. But sending store cattle to England does not provide food or work for our own people. Our experience during the past seventy years has been that little or no work is provided for the men or even for the children on the farms by the production of store cattle for England. It is only by increasing the cultivation of the soil and developing our industries that employment can be found for these 20,000 or 30,000 extra people. This Bill attempts to do both things. It encourages agriculture and it makes provision for the manufacture of the wheat produced on the farms and the imported wheat into flour in our own mills. If the economic system of which we heard so much had been followed out, we would not even mill the wheat here. It would be milled in Cardiff or Liverpool because, with the bigger mills and the bigger output there, it could be done more cheaply than here. We hear a lot of talk from time to time that it is not economic to do this or to do that but the people who are such wonderful exponents of economics cannot see anything wrong in a system which brought about a decrease of population in this country amongst all the countries of Europe, which deprived us of almost every shred of industry and which left our rural workers the most depressed and ill-paid in Europe.

Surely it is time that we had a stocktaking of our affairs to see if we cannot make an earnest attempt to remedy the condition of things that has existed here for the past fifty years— to see if we cannot concentrate on the development of our own industries and the cultivation of our own soil instead of expecting Canadians and Australians and others to grow wheat for us and the people of China, perhaps, to grow bacon for us. I have no doubt that to-morrow or next day we will have somebody telling us that it would be cheaper to get our cattle from the Argentine than to rear them ourselves and that we should go to England for our manufactured goods, as we have been doing up to recently. This system of economics seems to me to have been devised for their own purposes by people who are no friends of ours. It seemed to suit their policy up to recently. How it is panning out at present is another matter. It never suited this country. This country, should, first of all, whether it is economic or not, grow the foodstuffs required for its own people. When Ireland grew its own wheat, Irishmen were the best athletes, boxers and soldiers that the world produced.

Mrs. Costello

And they still are.

Mr. Duffy

I am sorry to say that our rural population is deteriorating because of the want of natural food. Take the creamery districts we hear so much about.

Mr. Counihan

Are you going to do away with those too?

Mr. Duffy

We heard a lot about the successful economic system in the creamery districts but in the midst of thousands and thousands of cows a poor man cannot get a drink of milk in these districts. It is not economical to keep a drink of milk in the house. It has all to be sent away to the creameries to be made into butter. The farmers themselves buy back the butter from the creameries. The result is that there is not a single bit of butter available for the child, the poor man, the workman or anybody else.

That is the sort of economy we have attempted in this country. I say that an agricultural country like this, with a prolific soil and the splendid climate it has, in spite of what Senator O'Connor says about it, should be overflowing with all the food products required by the people. If that was so, if food were as plentiful as it ought to be in the country one would not see the spread of consumption and one would not see children with the emaciated appearance that one sees to-day. You would not see children having all the appearance of being under-fed nor the people having the appearance of——

Mrs. Costello

Not at all; the standard of living has very much improved in the country.

Mr. Duffy

It is all right for those who have a decent standard of living, but take it from me that in the case of hundreds and thousands of workers in the country to-day the standard of living is a very poor one. It is not by looking at thousands of acres of grass around them, as the workers in Kildare and Meath have to look at to-day, that you are going to bring up sound men and sound women. I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that the poorer counties in Ireland to-day feed their people the better; that where the land is divided into small farms, as is the case in Mayo and Cavan where the people live and produce food on the land, the people are better fed. The people are better fed in the poorer parts of the country than they are in the Midlands. The people have more money in the poorer parts of the country than they have in the richer portions of the country where the land has been devoted almost entirely to the production of cattle for the English market.

Mr. Wilson

If this country is going to produce wheat at all it has become necessary in view of the world prices of wheat to provide some means or method by which the cost of production will come back to the grower. I have been a continuous grower of wheat all my life. I grow it for sale, not for home use. Growing it as a marketable commodity, the result of my experience last year was that in face of the market conditions I could not make it pay. Russian wheat was landed at the North Wall in Dublin at 13/- a barrel and that very nearly made me discontinue growing it. Is it right for an agricultural country like this that that particular cereal, so necessary in every country, should be permitted to die? Whilst some people may quarrel with the methods of this particular Government in connection with this Bill, the fact remains that unless something is done there will be no wheat grown in this country in the future. I do not need to go into the question of whether it is possible to grow wheat or not, because it is absurd to argue on these lines. I know it can be grown and I know that every small farmer in Ireland can grow wheat sufficient for his own family if he likes. There are over 400,000 of such farmers and if each of them put in half an acre of wheat you would have very nearly the whole population of this country fed on home-grown wheat.

It is very easy to understand why the acreage under wheat has fallen. If one looks back to the year 1800 and compares the prices of the different articles of farm produce with the prices paid to-day one will find that wheat has fallen very much below the basic price. Then the price of store cattle went up by 200 per cent. Naturally any man engaged in business is going to produce what will give him profit. That is the sole reason why people have gone in for cattle and have given up growing wheat and it is not, as Senator Duffy said, that the landlords preferred producing cattle off the corn land. It was chill penury that forced the farmers to give up the growing of wheat. That is all that is to be said on this matter about the discontinuance of the growing of wheat. If the growing of wheat is made a paying proposition then wheat will be grown.

I will not go into the question of the price offered now for growing it. The price is very much less than the market price two or three years ago when wheat was 30/- a barrel. That price was easily obtainable within the last few years. But remember we are now in a time of depression and 23/- a barrel to-day is probably as good a price as 30/- a few years ago. I think that would be about a fair ratio of the prices of farm commodities to-day as compared with the prices a few years ago. I suppose, however, it is the necessities of the financial situation that forced the Government to fix the price now at 23/6. It is not what one could call a very good price. In fact as far back as 1890 we used to get £1 a barrel for wheat. In 1890 £1 a barrel was worth much more than 23/6 to-day. That is not a good price at all. At the same time we are aware that at present we are in the position that we have no market for anything produced on the farm. I know we can sell our cattle. Yes, but we cannot get a paying price for them. I know we can sell our butter but we cannot get a paying price for it and the same applies to other things. In a situation of that kind when the Government brings in a measure which offers a low but an assured price, well, there is a good deal to be said from the farmer's point of view in favour of such a measure.

Of course it is ridiculous to argue that livestock can be done without. Senator Dowdall showed that in Denmark you had the position that where the tillage was greater the live-stock population became higher. Where there is abundant tillage in a country there is plenty for everybody. The trouble is that the tillage farmer is not making a living. This Bill perhaps will be a means which will help to make tillage profitable. Now, the present year is a bumper year and it may be peculiar to say this, but it is nevertheless a fact—a bumper year is one of the worst things that can come to the farmer. One may say that is a strange statement. This year I had 20 acres of potatoes and though I have had a very heavy crop, still it hardly pays me to take them out of the ground. Potatoes are being brought in lorries from the Northern counties and from Wexford, where the wages paid are lower than in Dublin. What Senator Duffy said about the standard of wages for labourers is pure nonsense. The Senator said that the conditions of the labourers were the lowest in Europe. It is quite evident he knows nothing about the conditions existing in Central Europe to-day or in Russia, where the State is working the land under labour conditions about which he knows nothing. When the Senator says that our labourers are working under the worst conditions in Europe he is making a statement of which he has given no proof.

Mr. Quirke

What wages are you paying them?

Mr. Wilson

The wages paid the labourers in the County Dublin is 35/- a week, but these wages are not giving a return to the farmer. Now, I said already that a bumper crop was not a blessing to the farmer. That is because a bumper crop reduces the price and one gets very little for the commodity. The greater the production in this country so much the worse for the farmer. Last year the potatoes were a failure, but we were getting 8/- and 9/- per cwt. for our crop and as a matter of fact the crop paid us much better than the bumper crop is paying us this year, with 20 tons to the acre. It takes a great deal of the money received for the sale of the potatoes to take them out of the ground.

I will not go in very fully into this question of the admixture of maize because there are differences of opinion about it. I believe that any farmer is competent to mix his own maize and I believe there was a reservation made in favour of farmers enabling them to buy plain maize and mix it in any way they liked. I do not know whether that will obtain now in the Bill. In any case the addition of 10 per cent. of home-grown cereals to the maize will not make a great deal of difference. Senator Johnson spoke about a reduction of 18 per cent. in the acreage under tillage in ten years and a reduction of 8 per cent. in cattle. That is due entirely to the post-war conditions and to the post-war depression in Europe and all over the world. The cattle population may be 8 per cent. down, but it is caused in this way. If one looks at last year's statistics one will see that we raised about 1,000,000 calves. That is about the average number we raise every year. Some years we raise less. We had 1,200,000 milch cows and there should be 1,200,000 calves raised whereas we only raised one year 900,000 and 1,000,000 another year. That is a decrease of 200,000 or 300,000 in the number of calves that we ought to have. If there is a decrease in the price of store cattle a lesser number is raised.

Mr. Johnson

If that continues what will become of our agricultural industry?

Mr. Wilson

It will not continue because if there is any improvement in the price of anything raised on the farm more of that commodity will be produced. What determines production is the question whether it is a paying proposition. If it pays to produce any commodity it will be produced in superabundance. The prices are the index figure of the work of production. When the price of pigs falls the farmer gets out of them. When the price rises the farmer gets into pigs——

Mr. Johnson

Can you blame him?

Mr. Wilson

I cannot blame anyone. I do not quite follow Senator Duffy when he speaks about the people looking out over the land in grass. If he went over to England he would see more grass than here and still they are feeding 40,000,000 people there.

Mr. Dowdall

By importing.

Mr. Wilson

But still they are able to provide for them in one way or another. There is a lot to be said on both sides of that question and it is one that really turns on what is best for the people. If we had an industrial population here and if that industrial population were able to provide us with a market, then of course we would have tillage and there would be a market for the things we produce. But where there are only 3,000,000 people to be fed it is a different matter. In my own case here in Dublin I had for a long time the advantage of the proximity to the market, but the lorries now are bringing the produce of cheap labour here to Dublin competing with what is grown on my land. Every day lorries are coming in with farm produce from Wexford and from the Northern Counties and our proximity value to the City of Dublin is entirely knocked on the head. We are paying heavy rents and rates and very much higher wages than the farmers are paying where these goods are raised. If it continues green crops will not be raised around Dublin in a few years' time. The best tillage area in Ireland was between Baldoyle and Swords but one of the things brought about through the development of the motor traffic is that the advantages that we had here are knocked on the head.

Why was it that we were able to carry on growing wheat in the County Dublin? How is it we were able to continue? Simply because we had conditions here that enabled us to sell our straw. We grew wheat here and we sold it to the distillers or the millers. We always got a better price from the distillers than from the millers. We got at least 1/- per barrel more from the distillers and then we had a chance of getting £2 or £3 a ton for our straw owing to the number of racing establishments around Dublin. Last year I got £4 5/- a ton for wheaten straw delivered in Dublin and the growing of wheat paid me though I got only 13/- for the grain. I got more for the straw or at least it paid me better than did the grain. This year the price of wheaten straw is down. If I get the subsidy that is guaranteed in this Bill it will pay me to continue growing wheat. I am supporting the Bill but I want to say this that the flamboyant posters that were published before the election caught my eye. We were promised 800,000 acres additional under tillage. That caught my eye and it surely caught the eyes of the electors. What are we to expect under this Bill? An acreage of 60,000 of land under wheat is a very poor answer and a very poor materialisation of all that we were promised in those posters. The Government in these posters made huge promises about changing the economy of the country and to enable the people to live within their own means. Of course it is a beginning. Let us hope that the beginning will be successful. It has a great chance of success because trade is bad in other lines, but if trade were good in cattle you would get very few farmers, without compulsion, to grow wheat.

Mr. Counihan

I do not think there is very much that is new to be said on the wheat-growing policy of the Government. It has been threshed and winnowed over and over again and I hope the Government are satisfied with their samples. I have always tilled without compulsion or without subsidies. I grow wheat but not for milling purposes. I could never produce a millable sample. I grow wheat because I find that it is the best stand-up crop after tilling the ground. I would very much prefer to grow oats if I could grow it successfully but even in the case of wheat, in three years out of five, it costs nearly half the value of the crop to harvest it. That is my objection to wheat. Grain growing in this country does not pay. The only possible way that grain growing could be made pay would be to turn the grain into beef, bacon and mutton and walk it off the farms. It appears from the present policy of the Government that that condition of affairs is no longer to exist, that we are to have no live-stock trade in this country, no live stock for export at all events. Senator Duffy and many of the Government speakers told us that the export live-stock trade is dead. I do not believe it is. The Government by their present attitude are doing all they possibly can to kill it but we have a country that is the best in the world for producing live stock of all descriptions, a country that is very much more suitable for that than for producing grain crops. For that reason I think that when the Government come back to their senses and realise the foolishness of their present attitude the country will again revive the live-stock trade and will again revert to the flourishing condition which it enjoyed while that trade prospered.

If the present state of affairs continues for very much longer farmers, even tillage farmers, will be in a sorry plight in the endeavour to find money to pay wages. I till a considerable amount of land and I pay £1,000 a year in agricultural wages. I should like to know from the advocates of wheat growing, if we have no cattle trade, where am I to get that £1,000 a year to pay in agricultural wages? How many acres of wheat will I have to grow to meet that amount, and if the wheat I produce is not of a millable quality, what am I to do with it if I am not still to feed cattle or produce pigs or beef? What am I to do with the amount of wheat I produce to pay even my labour bill?

The only way, as I say, in which tillage can be made a success and in which this country can obtain prosperity, is to have tillage and at the same time encourage in every way the live-stock trade, for more tillage will certainly mean more live stock. If this country is to prosper they should both go hand in hand. I said at the outset that there was very little that is new to be said on the subject and I do not want to discuss technical points with regard to milling and mixing, but I am convinced that the farmer would very much prefer to mix his own oats, wheat or barley with maize and do it in his own proportions, without any dictation from the Government or without having to buy his sample from the millers. He would get it very much cheaper, if allowed to do his own mixing.

Mr. Quirke

I am not perhaps as old in years as some of the farmers in the Opposition, but I am pretty old in experience and I am not suffering from the inferiority complex of my fellow-county man, Senator Bagwell, who apparently felt that he was not wholly competent to speak on the matter. I have been a farmer, a practical farmer. I worked on the land in this country and in Canada, about which we heard so much, and on that account I should like to say a few words on the question of wheat growing. Senator Miss Browne gave certain figures in regard to production of wheat per acre in Canada.

Miss Browne

No, the price of Canadian wheat in Liverpool. I gave no other figure.

Mr. Quirke

Somebody else stated it then and the Senator did not contradict them, for a wonder, because she is generally contradicting somebody. The figures given were that the average production in Canada was 9 cwt. per acre and the average in this country 21 cwts. per acre. In my opinion that is a very fair comparison. If anything, the comparison is favourable to the Canadian producer — inasmuch as I believe that we produce at least four times the amount of wheat per acre in this country that it is possible to produce in Canada. As I have said, I worked in the wheat fields in this country and in Canada. I have been there when the wheat was set. I pitched it on the threshing engines and carted it to the railroad stations. When I was doing that work I often thought what a shame it was that here were Irishmen—there were more than I there—carting the produce of the Canadian prairies to the train to be shipped to our own country, where we could produce far more wheat per acre than we could in Canada.

Senator Bagwell went on to say that the Bill was the most objectionable measure he saw since he came into the House, that it was demoralising and so on. If Senator Bagwell thinks it demoralising to make it possible for the people of any country to support themselves, if he thinks it demoralising to make it possible for people to work on the land, to produce the necessaries of life for themselves, then I am afraid he will find very few to agree with him. As a result of the various speeches we have had during this debate it is fairly evident that in the Seanad, as well as in County Tipperary, and in every other county in Ireland, there are two kinds of farmers. One kind is the farmer who thinks that if this Bill goes through there will be terrible consequences. An old man who happened to be a personal friend of mine for a long time, but who was of a different way of thinking, said to me "If this Bill goes through, there will be terrible consequences in this country." He went so far as to say that the local mountains would go into eruption. There is a mountain near Clonmel which people call Bagwell's Folly. This Bill looks like going through. Bagwell's Folly still looks as solid as ever but Senator Bagwell has gone into eruption and several other Senators with him.

Senator Bagwell went on further to throw some bouquets at himself. He said he believed he was the very best type of farmer or something to that effect, that he produced all the food on his own farm necessary to feed everything on the farm. I think that Senator Bagwell will admit that most of the things on his farm are fed on grass. It does not take an awful lot of labour to feed things on grass. One would imagine that some of the Senators who spoke in opposition to the Bill — several of them apparently sensible men—would at least make an alternative suggestion. If it is not a good policy to go into the production of wheat, if it is not a good policy to feed people on the produce of their own country, I am surprised that they did not make some alternative suggestion. Does Senator Bagwell or the other Senators who spoke against this Bill suggest that the people of this country should continue to be supported on charity?

Miss Browne

What charity?

Mr. Quirke

Has the Senator anything to say?

Miss Browne

Any amount to say, if I got a chance.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator cannot get a chance at this stage.

Mr. Quirke

Would Senator Miss Browne be more in favour of having people live in abject slavery? Of course, as everything can be proved by statistics, I am sure that Senator Miss Browne and other Senators of that mentality could quote cases of slaves in this and other countries, who refused to take their liberty when it was offered to them, who went back to the slavery in which they had been before, and who said they were prepared to live there for the rest of their lives. I think I know the people of this country and I say the people of this country have decided that they are no longer going to be slaves. Senator Bagwell or Senator Miss Browne or some of the pillars of the Church and of the State —it used to be the State, now it is the Church—would perhaps suggest the system that obtains in Communist Russia.

Miss Browne

So that is what we are coming to.

Mr. Quirke

Would Senator Miss Browne think that the people would be better off if they were totally managed by the State, if the State not alone controlled their meals, their clothing, etc., but that the State should dictate to them as to whether they should be allowed to get married, that the State should dictate to them as to how their families should be brought up, fed and so on? I do not think the people of this country would stand for any such doctrine as that. I think the people of this country have shown their determination, time and again, that they are prepared to rule in this country and that they are not going to be dictated to by any people who would suggest that they should be ruled as slaves or anything of that kind.

Again we have heard a considerable amount of criticism about subsidies. Several Senators talked at length about the foolishness of giving a subsidy on wheat. All round the country we have heard similar statements. The phrase was "feeding the dog on his own tail." Perhaps it was getting a little bit too old to be used in the Seanad, but it was used at every cross-road. The Fianna Fáil Government is feeding the dog on his own tail, and the people who were loudest in their criticism of that policy were the first to grab a piece of the tail. The dog was handed over without a tail. It was left to a Fianna Fáil Government to put on the tail. While the dog has a tail there will always be people— those who howl loudest against the Government—ready to grab a bit of it. Most of those who spoke against this Bill are, I suppose, free traders. They would hardly agree with Arthur Griffith, when he said that there were people in this country who preached the doctrine that Ireland could do nothing for herself; that she must fawn and cringe in the hope of being thrown a bone from the table that she supplied.

Most of those who are opposed to the Bill would like us to believe that we are incapable of doing anything for ourselves, and incapable of producing food. Every sensible man knows that in the past we produced sufficient wheat to feed four times the present population. Sufficient wheat was grown in black '47 to feed a population of 12½ millions. At that time the wheat was shipped away under armed escort in order to pay the landlords, and to their eternal disgrace the people died of starvation on the roadsides. That state of affairs must never happen again while the people have any say in government. I am sure that while the Fianna Fáil Government is in power they will never allow such a thing to occur. It is a revelation to observe that some Senators in the Opposition have at last been converted to a tariff policy. Though they fought against that for a considerable time they seem to have come over to our side. From some of their statements one would imagine that they were just reconciled rather than going to carry out the policy of the Government. There is no necessity for anyone to look at the matter in that light. The Bill does not make tillage compulsory. The intention is to encourage the production of wheat. There is no compulsion whatever.

As a farmer, very closely in touch with working farmers, I have no hesitation in saying that this Bill will be received with a céad míle fáilte, despite all the organisation of the Opposition and the vile propaganda of the most prominent supporters of Cumann na nGaedheal. Farmers are going into the production of wheat. They are doing so because they believe it is a good paying proposition, and because they heard that wheat had been grown here before. If one were to believe some of the statements made here one would be inclined to think that this was some new type of crop that the Minister for Agriculture was trying to force on the country, perhaps canary seed or something that was never tried here before. I know several farmers in my part of the country who boast that they have the same breed of wheat on their farms for the past fifty years. I would like to disillusion Senator Bagwell, as he seems to be worried that the stomachs of three millions of people are going to be ruined by eating brown bread. I can assure Senator Bagwell that I have been brought up on brown bread made from wheat which was grown on my own farm. I have not eaten any bread but whole-meal bread for years. I have sampled more brands of brown bread, probably than any other Senator. That is a big boast. I have been in as many different houses as any other Senator. I never felt a bit the worse of eating brown bread. I am in perfect health, thank God. Senator Bagwell can make his mind easy about the health of the people, in that respect. People may die from eating bad bread but they will not die from eating brown whole-meal bread.

Mrs. Costello

That is a different thing. We are not talking about whole-meal bread.

Mr. Quirke

Perhaps I should examine my political conscience. I know many people in perfect health who use the produce of this country, and who have never eaten anything else. Perhaps some of them did not get quite enough of it. Bread made from brown flour out of wheat grown on their own land, and milled in this country, has made these people as fit as fiddles. I think they will stick it out.

Apart from the fact that it would be very desirable to produce the necessaries of life here, does it not strike Senators that it would be a very good way of putting people who are at present unemployed into work? I know that it is the policy of a section of the Opposition—the Left Wing —the Farmers' Party, or the alleged Farmers' Party, to create rather than to reduce unemployment. Is it not reasonable to expect that people living in this country should think it a good idea to put the unemployed to work by producing food for themselves? In the past we have been continuously sending money away to buy food. Even Senator Miss Browne knows that the people will have to be fed; that they are not going to starve. The farmers that Senator Miss Browne represents should know that, in some way, they will have to pay for the support of the unemployed, either in home assistance or in jail—where the Cumann na nGaedheal Party put any of them who kicked up a row—or in lunatic asylums. I would not be surprised if some of them went to these institutions. In the past some of them had to go there and they had to be supported. Now that emigration is stopped it must be evident that we will have to provide for an increasing population. Are we going to continue feeding some one else's dog with his own tail by paying out money indefinitely, and until we become bankrupt? That is what will inevitably happen.

Mrs. Costello

It looks like it.

Mr. Quirke

Only for the change of Government there is no knowing what would happen. The people cannot emigrate now and they will have to be supported here. It is the business of every Government to provide for an increasing population. Even if the people could emigrate it is not a very desirable thing to see the flower of our race standing shivering in the bread lines in the cities of the world, scraping in the garbage heaps of New York or Melbourne, and gathering up the few crumbs, while the land of their own country was only producing beef for the English market. That policy has been tried out here for hundreds of years to the detriment of the Irish people. I repeat that this Bill will be received by the real working farmers of the country with a céad míle fáilte, and I wish to support it.

Mr. O'Doherty

Not being a farmer, practical or otherwise, it is with some diffidence that I intervene in this debate. At the same time consideration has been given in the past, and during this debate, to the opinions of those who have not been identified with farming, to this national question of economics and, accordingly, I make no apology for a little contribution. It would appear that those who oppose this Bill based their arguments under several heads. They stated that this country cannot grow wheat. They moved from that and said that if it can grow wheat it cannot do so economically. They moved from that again, and stated that if wheat could be grown economically it was not suitable for the production of bread and further that if it does produce bread the bread cannot be eaten, as otherwise the people would suffer from indigestion. The first argument has been well nailed by practical farmers like Senator Linehan and Senator Wilson. In regard to the suggestion that we cannot grow wheat successfully, and the dread that there is, lest we should grow it, there seems to be a big difference of opinion amongst farmers as to the consequences. "Bumper crops," says Senator Wilson, "mean a bad year for the farmer.""We cannot have bumper crops of wheat," say other farmers, "because the climate is not suitable." What does all this mean? It is hard for a non-farmer to get at exactly what is the farmer's mind in regard to this. But as an ordinary layman who has read some little thing about the growing of wheat it seems remarkable to me that people of Irish birth and Irish extraction should hold that this country cannot produce wheat while every other country in Europe from Scandinavia to Italy can produce it. Not merely are they producing wheat but practically every country in Europe is securing its own markets and consuming its own wheat. But we, according to those who are opposed to the Bill, must be dependent upon the foreigner for the production of our food in this regard. Like Senator Johnson, to me it is immaterial from the point of view of argument in favour of the Bill whether the production of wheat places more people on the land or gives more employment. The fact is that so long as this nation and people are dependent for their basic food on the production of other countries, then the people of this nation will continue in a most precarious state. It seems also to me that sound national economy dictates that the first and chief duty of the Government of any country is to see that in any crisis the country may be faced with, it can support itself within its own frontiers. That is exactly what the present Government is attempting to provide for. I believe this Bill will go a long way towards securing that end.

It is interesting to note the remarks of some Senators during the debate referred to by Senator Linehan, which took place on the 6th June, 1928, and to correlate those views of four years ago with the views expressed in this debate to-day. Senator O'Rourke's main argument in to-day's debate was that Irish millable wheat could not be produced, and milled into flour, that would compete with the flour from wheat grown in other countries; and he drew a comparison between bread manufactured from Manitoba wheat and from Irish wheat. He said in June, 1928:

"I am not a flour miller but I know something about milling, and I know that if some of those who condemn the Irish wheat saw the wheat this beautiful white flour is made from they would be surprised at all the chemicals used in the making of it. They make it from inferior wheat, certainly from wheat much inferior to the Irish product."

Surely Irish wheat, in the four years that has elapsed since that statement, has not changed very materially in its composition? We had references to the weather, to the damp climate, to the Gulf Stream, to the likeness of our latitude to Labrador, and from all this it is deduced that our climate is not suitable for growing wheat. But Senator O'Rourke in that debate in 1928 said we have been growing wheat for centuries and "that the climate was not worse than in England and of the grain crop grown in England 25 per cent. is wheat." Our climate has not changed so very considerably in the last four years. I have not the slightest doubt that wheat can be grown in this country. Even if I had doubt about whether wheat could be grown in this country I would still support this Bill. The only possible way to demonstrate that it is wrong nationally and economically, at the moment, for us to attempt to grow wheat, is to put this Bill into operation and induce the farmers to put wheat into the ground and then at the end of twelve months we will know whether we can grow wheat, millable or otherwise.

Senator Duffy referred to the standard of existence in several counties and compared the standard in Donegal, Mayo and counties along the western seaboard with the standard in counties like Westmeath, Meath, Kildare and other grass ranch counties. It surely should be obvious to any person passing through those grassland counties that the people — and there are many of them — not directly interested in the raising of beef for sale on the hoof, have a standard of living that is lower than anywhere else in Ireland:

"Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates and men decay."

Goldsmith had in mind when he wrote those lines the development of the industry that we are supposed to look upon as our basic economic policy, that is, the production of beef for England. No man in the ranks of Fianna Fáil deprecates the raising of beef, but everyone who has the interests of Ireland at heart deprecates the raising of cattle to the detriment of the Irish people, and the increasing of the bullock population in the Midlands and the decreasing of the population of Irish men and women. I go further personally. Assuming we can grow millable wheat and assuming that millable wheat can be made into Irish bread for the Irish people, and assuming further that those present on the land do not bring wheat into cultivation on the inducements offered to them by the Government, I personally would be glad—call it by whatever "ism" you like — that the Government would see to it that the cultivation of Irish land is carried on in the interests of the Irish people and in the interests of the Irish nation.

I am glad to see that Senator O'Connor approved of the Bill, but I regret that he did not do so more heartily. In 1928 it was he who seconded Senator Linehan's motion calling upon the Cumann na nGaedheal Government to increase wheat production in this country, and he did so in the following words:—

"The question is to devise means to get Irish farmers to adopt wheat growing again. Senator Linehan has gone very exhaustively into the question so that it is unnecessary for me to go over the ground, but I am warmly in favour of the motion."

Here now is the opportunity for every person who believes that economically we should be independent to take a step forward to help the present Government in their effort to bring about wheat production. Whether the Seanad as a whole is going to approve of this Bill or not the small farmers and large farmers like Senator Linehan and Senator Wilson approve of it, and, I believe, the Irish nation approves of it, and I hope that the farmers will be given an opportunity of putting a large measure of wheat cultivation into operation at the earliest possible moment.

Sir John Keane

As one who does not believe we should be economically independent, I should like to make a few remarks. My disapproval is not prejudice, but is the outcome of the recognition of the fact that nations cannot now live apart and that they must live by the interchange of goods with one another. When I say live, I mean live a full life. I have no doubt you could devise an economic system whereby you would be virtually independent, and my complaint is that that is so and that the Fianna Fáil Party are trying to devise an economic system whereby we will have no immediate connection with the outside world. I appreciate their motives, but I do not agree with them. I think their policy is altogether wrong national sentiment, and that the effect would be this: that we would be imposing upon the country that slavery from which Senator Quirke wishes we should never again suffer. All through their policy as we have heard it announced there is implicit such things as that if we dance we must dance Irish dances, and if we play games we must play Irish games, that if we wear clothes it must be Irish costume, that if we eat we must eat nothing but Irish food. That, of course, can be done in a synthetic and artificial way, but with the sacrifice of better living and of all the things that matter in the enjoyment of life. That is where we are. I think His Holiness the Pope has condemned this intensive nationalism, yet, if we are to adopt a Fianna Fáil policy we are to get ourselves away from the world, and whatever inconveniences that may mean we have only to grin and bear them. But there are people in this country who do not approve of this national complex and who have not this national philosophy or national mindedness. I would rather live under conditions of fuller and freer life. No doubt the Executive Council will say, "We do not want you. You are Shoneens and we do not want Shoneens." But does the Minister for Finance not want those people? Does he not like to get their taxes? How is he to get on without them? If you want the fuller life and if you want richer people to remain on living in this country you will have to dilute this national philosophy and give people a certain amount of freedom.

With regard to this particular measure I am prepared to admit it is an appropriate way of doing the wrong thing. If we are to have this policy of economic isolation then this should have been done first. You should first of all try to stimulate a primary industry and as a bad piece of work this is much better than the indiscriminate tariffs from which we have been suffering and continue to suffer. As far as the stimulation of primary industry goes I think the principle is right. But when you come to examine it in terms of wheat I believe it is wrong. I believe there are many ways, and better ways, in which you could encourage tillage, assuming that that is your policy. I would far prefer the simpler method of bounty per acre than your present form of stimulation. Then let the farmer exercise his choice and let ordinary practical experience come into play. I think it is rather sad that Senators at this time should speak in a war spirit or in terms of war when our own statesmen are presiding in the temple of peace, but if the object of this wheat policy is that we should be self-contained when the next war arises, I should be very sorry that, in the case of war, we should have to live on what we can produce.

With regard to this question of wheat itself, I should like the Minister for Agriculture to explain exactly how it is going to work because, as far as I can see, the average farmer expects that he is going to get 3/6 or whatever it is the miller gives. Instead of that, as I understand it, he is only going to get the difference between what the miller pays him and the average of what the millers will pay all over the country. In other words, suppose that the average is 18/-, and the miller has only paid the farmer 15/- he only gets the excess 3/-. If that is so, I think a lot of farmers will be sadly disillusioned. I should like to know from the Minister is that correct? I want to know because it was said to me by a person prominent in the milling trade that the farmer only gets the difference between what the miller pays him and the average the millers all over the country will pay.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister says that that is wrong, Senator. He will explain later.

Sir John Keane

Could I be told whether everybody will get a guaranteed price whatever the quality is?

Mr. Johnson

No, only provided it is millable.

Sir John Keane

My information is from a very eminent person in the milling trade.

Mr. Johnson

Has he read the Bill?

Sir John Keane

Very well. I wanted information on that because, otherwise, I can see a person with a larger farm and better facilities getting a better price than the small man, the quality of whose wheat was inferior.

As regards the numbers that are likely to be employed as a result of this policy, I do not believe, unless the subsidy is very much increased, that there is going to be very much in the way of extra employment, but merely substitution. It will be interesting to see how much new land is going to be brought under the plough as a result of this policy. All I can see is that, with the prospect of a cash crop in these hard times, the farmers will give up other forms of tillage and grow wheat instead, and there is a danger here of pressure being brought on the Government to increase the subsidy and to bring this whole question of wheat growing on to the hustings and into politics generally. That is entirely undesirable, but it is the natural consequence of Government interference in trade.

To my mind, the most objectionable part and the most unnecessary part of this Bill is all this policy of regulation. We have not been shown why it is necessary. At one time it was said that we were going to revive the sort of idyllic conditions of the last century and that all the picturesque old mills with broken-down wheels on the river banks were going to be revived and set in motion again. I understand now that nothing of this sort whatever is going to happen, and that all that is going to happen is that we are going to have two or three more highly specialised mills in the hands of the big powerful interests, and that none of this picturesque revival, about which at one time the Minister for Industry and Commerce was so eloquent, is going to happen. Why is it necessary for the Government to take under their wing and under their control the whole of this important industry, with all the elaborations contained in this Act, of clauses upon clauses, and regulations, licensings, registrations and all the rest of it? Surely, if it is only a matter of growing wheat, it would be quite possible without in any way controlling the milling industry, to arrange with the millers to take whatever home-grown wheat was in the country and allow them to develop their industry on natural trade lines? Why should the Minister, now that he is free from that foreign domination of which we hear so much, have to grasp the trade by the throat? I understand that the increased employment under the new quota system is going to be negligible — only about 150 — and that all this talk about increased employment is so much more political bunk.

I accept for what it is worth — or rather, I accept, not for what it is worth, but in the right spirit — Senator O'Doherty's assurance that Fianna Fáil is not thinking of industrial revival purely in the terms of increased employment. I am afraid, however, that whatever Fianna Fáil have in their hearts or in their minds and intentions, a lot of people believe that you cannot return to a system of corn and cereal growing, in substitution for cattle raising, and at the same time bring about increased employment. I can imagine no greater fallacy than that. Anybody who has had experience of Canada, or who knows anything about Canada, knows that the prairie farmer puts in his crop in the autumn and then, if he can afford it, he goes away to the coast and spends the winter there, and comes back in the spring to attend to his crop. There never was a greater mistake than to think that you can get full employment by a cereal system only. Full employment can only be obtained by a system of mixed farming, and that could be better stimulated by the encouragement of whatever crop the farmer wants to grow in the economy of the farm, than by the tillage of a selected article which is only taken on what we may call the war principle, and on the principle that the country could be as economically self-supporting as any other country. Nobody denies that you can grow wheat, but the whole argument is that you should not produce or buy an article when you can get it better and cheaper elsewhere. The Government says that, whether it is better or worse, you should put up with it because it is good Irish stuff. That, I think, is utterly wrong and will place the chains of slavery and stringency on the country.

In connection with this whole matter, I should like to suggest to the Government that they should read from the work of a very illuminating Irishman, Edmund Burke. I admit that he was Anglo-Irish, but from reading various works and correspondence on the Anglo-Irish, I think it will be admitted that a cross-breed is a healthy breed, and even the most patriotic of us can not say that we are of purely Gaelic stock. This work by Edmund Burke, to which I have referred is entitled Thoughts and Details on Scarcity, where he says that “a Government can do very little for the people, but the worst thing it can do is to meddle with the subsistence of the people,” and that is what this Bill does.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I noticed that there was one thing very general about the farmer Senators who spoke in this debate, and that was that every single one of them stated that they had grown wheat themselves, and every one of them — at least of those in opposition to the Government — said that we should not grow it. That is rather a peculiar thing, and two of them in particular were quoted afterwards by Senator O'Doherty as having been in favour of the growing of wheat in 1928 and opposed to it now, but in the meantime growing it all the time. It makes me feel that a great deal of the opposition is artificial opposition, and that it is opposition to anything the Government may bring in. Measures which they may have favoured when brought in by a Cumann na nGaedheal Government would be absolutely opposed if introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government.

However, apart from this, I do propose to take some of the arguments put forward very seriously. One of the chief arguments, I think — and it was also stressed by the last Senator who spoke — was that wheat can be much better grown in Canada than here and why should we trouble with it here? I think Senator Duffy dealt with that argument sufficiently. He said that there was hardly a single thing we could take, against which the same argument could not be used. Up to 1930 we were driven out of the growing of oats by the Russians and the Germans, and we would still be so only for the tariffs. We should certainly be driven out of barley this year had it not been for the tariff policy. The acreage under barley had reached 103,000 acres, or half what it was during or at the end of the war. Had that policy continued, we would probably also have been driven out of potatoes and other things, and eventually have been driven altogether to the production of live stock and live-stock products. Take these live-stock products. Suppose we had a Cumann na nGaedheal Government here, out for free trade, does any Senator here think that farmers would continue to produce butter and sell it on the British market under the same conditions as Australia and New Zealand do to-day? Suppose we had those conditions, do the Senators, who are opposed to us and applauding Cumann na nGaedheal, believe that the farmers would continue to produce butter and sell it at 85/- per cwt.? It would be absolutely impossible for our farmers under such conditions to maintain even the present standard of living, low as I admit it is. Having been driven out of the production of butter, the farmers would give up cows. What would be left? Sheep! Our whole country would be given over to sheep, and perhaps eggs, so that we would have a country of sheep and poultry. Take sheep, then. We would have to sell our sheep on the British market, also on the free market — we will assume that we would have the friendly Cumann na nGaedheal Government, that is, friendly to Britain and the free market—we would have a country of sheep selling our mutton on this free market in competition with Australia and New Zealand — this market where farmers are prepared to take one shilling per head for their sheep and lambs, and stay in production as well. We would be driven out of all tillage and also be driven to the production of sheep alone. That is what the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, with its policy of free trade, would have brought about if it was still here.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Do you believe that?

Dr. Ryan

Can you deny anything I say?

Mr. O'Hanlon

Of course I deny it.

Dr. Ryan

Is it not a fact — will the Senator deny it — that butter is being sold at 85/- a cwt. by New Zealand, and is it not a fact that we always got just as good and no better price than New Zealand for our butter on the British market? If that policy had held, we would be getting 85/- or 90/- per cwt. for our butter. The farmers will not produce butter at that price and they would go out of cows. That is what we would have had with a Cumann na nGaedheal Government in power. I say that all those arguments about wheat being produced better in Canada than here could be used against anything one likes to take that we produce in this country.

Miss Browne

Certainly not.

Dr. Ryan

Every Senator who spoke in opposition to this argued as if this was an alternative of ours to the raising of live stock and live-stock products. It is not an alternative. Senator Johnson gave figures to show that tillage was declining here for the last ten years. Live stock also declined in numbers. Senator Dowdall, I think, gave figures for Denmark. In Denmark, per thousand acres, they have 65 per cent. tilled. We have 12, while the number of cattle in Denmark is about three times what we have. Most people who think seriously on this believe that if you increase tillage you will also increase your live stock. In any case, as I have already pointed out, we cannot be accused of being in favour of a policy of doing away with live stock because we saved the cattle and the butter industry with regard to numbers when we brought in our Dairy Produce (Stabilisation) Bill. If it were not for the introduction of that Bill farmers would have sold at least a large proportion of their cows this year rather than stay in the production of butter. When that Bill was before the Seanad I stated that it was introduced primarily and entirely with the object of keeping farmers in production, to help them to keep the number of cows that they had in the hope that better times would come in two or three years, and that better prices would rule again for butter, milk and other products. This was never thought of as an alternative policy. A number of Senators have admitted that it has been our policy for several years.

Three or four years ago we brought a motion forward in the Dáil for the growing of more wheat, as well as a motion for a mixing scheme for the growing of more oats and barley. At that time, there was no suggestion that our object was to substitute live stock or live-stock products. It was that we might produce what we required for ourselves in these matters. Now of course, it is part of our general policy of self-sufficiency. I still believe in a policy of self-sufficiency although there are Senators in the Opposition who, I remember very well, were 20 or 25 years ago strong supporters of that policy, but who are no longer supporters of it.

Mr. Wilson

Experience teaches.

Mr. Dowdall

Some people.

Dr. Ryan

We are going to look for a little experience, anyway. I would like to say a word on the theory advanced as to the amount of work that tillage gives. Senator Sir John Keane, Senator The McGillycuddy, and others mentioned that you give two or three days' work in the sowing of the wheat and two or three days' work in the reaping of it. They said that is all the employment you give. That, of course, is all theory. It may be so in Canada. What is the position here? A lot of Senators who spoke on this Bill are practical farmers. I am a farmer myself and I do some tillage. It is not my experience that you hire a man for four or five days in the spring for the sowing of the crop and then tell him to go away and come back in August for the reaping of it. That is not my experience nor is it the experience, I think, of any practical farmer. You have the men working the whole year round. We started the ploughing for wheat about the 10th October this year. When the wheat is sown they have to plough again, and now they are starting to plough for other crops. There will not be a single hour's idleness amongst the men on a tillage farm until the sowing of the farmer's crops is completed next May. Then you have the hay and other work to be attended to. The result is that the men are kept going the whole year round. It is not a case of employing men for eight days in the spring and eight days in the harvest. Every tillage farmer knows from his own experience that that is not so.

Mr. Counihan

With a rotation of crops?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. Surely the Senator does not think that we are so silly as to advocate the sowing of wheat and nothing else in this country, that we are going to make the farmer sow his whole farm under wheat year in and year out for the rest of his life or as long as Fianna Fáil remains in power, whichever is the longer? I gave figures in the Dáil on the question of employment. I will tell the House how I made them out. Senators will remember than an Economic Committee was set up about three years ago on which there were members of the last Government as well as members of the Fianna Fáil Party. I was a member of that Committee and so was the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We asked for figures from the Department of Agriculture as to the costings of the growing of wheat, oats and barley. Amongst the costings, they gave the average number of hours of manual labour for the growing of an acre of cereals as 80 for the year. That is not a very big amount of manual labour on an acre when you take everything into account —ploughing, harrowing, rolling, sowing, manuring, harvesting, putting the corn into stack, drawing in, threshing and everything else. I worked on that figure and I do not think it is less than that. I also said that if we were to provide ourselves with wheat, oats and barley, the oats and barley to substitute the imported feeding stuffs and the wheat the imported flour, we would require to increase our tillage by an extra 1½ million acres. If you multiply one and a half million acres by 80 hours you find that it gives fulltime employment for 50,000 men. It may be, of course, that 100,000 men would be employed at one period of the year and 25,000 at another, but it is the equivalent of 50,000 men employed the whole year round. Taking the ordinary agricultural wage paid at that time as 6d. per hour, it meant that £3,000,000 per year would be distributed in wages. These are my figures.

In theory, it may be said by Senators that wheat growing will only give employment for four or five days in the spring and for the same number of days in the autumn. That is perhaps all right on the prairies in Canada, where you have 16-horse teams harvesting 100 and 200 acres at a time, but in this country, where you have fields of one acre or two acres, it is not the case at all. Wheat growing in this country will give employment practically the whole year round. I admit that tillage alone would not give that, but that is not the way farming is carried on. Naturally you must keep a number of cows, even for the requirements of your own house. You can hardly have tillage unless you produce live stock. The straw has to be disposed of and is used to make manure for the tillage. Mixed farming gives employment the whole year round.

Senator The McGillycuddy, Senator Counihan and others have said that the British farmer is changing his economy: that he also is going in for increased tillage and for an increased number of live stock. If that is the case, surely we are adopting the right attitude? We are preparing this country to be self-supporting in five or six years' time instead of waiting until the five or six years are up and then, when we find ourselves up against the situation that would have arisen, saying what are we going to do to meet it. If they are increasing their tillage and number of live stock in England, that will mean that there will be less supplies required from the Irish side. The same Senator said that the cost of growing wheat was £9 per acre independent of rent or rates. I would not put it as high as that, but if it is £9 per acre, independent of rent and rates, you can take off a certain amount for seed and manures. The most you could take off would be £3 per acre, and that would be doing it well. You have £6 left. What is it left for? Practically all for manual labour, so that the Senator who speaks against the scheme from the point of view of not giving employment admits, according to his own figures, that it gives up to £6 per acre in manual labour alone.

The Senator also said in his speech that we import wheat and maize from countries that take nothing from us. Later, when he had evidently forgotten that point, he said that we may lose more in our international trade than we will gain by saving nine and a half million pounds in imports. Imagine any intelligent Senator saying that — and everyone must be intelligent to get in here. He made these two statements in the one speech. First of all, he said that we buy wheat and maize from countries that buy nothing from us, and then, later, said we might lose more in our international trade than we would gain by saving this nine and a half million pounds in imports. How could we lose anything in our international trade by cutting out the people sending us wheat and maize who take nothing from us? The Senator also spoke about the difficulty of getting implements to work this scheme. He wanted to know if we had any scheme by which the supply of implements could be guaranteed. The Department of Agriculture have had a scheme for years. They give loans to farmers to purchase implements up to £50. The Agricultural Credit Corporation give loans from £50 up. That has been the position up to the present time. They will probably make a change now and lower their limit to £30. The Department of Agriculture may also lower their maximum to £30.

Mr. Counihan

Would the Minister give the name of the Senator who made those statements?

Dr. Ryan

Senator The McGillycuddy.

Mr. Counihan

Because my neighbour here, Senator Wilson, says I made them.

Dr. Ryan

He is only pulling your leg. Senator O'Rourke said that wheat is no substitute for live stock. Senator Johnson gave the figures for the last ten years. If Senators wish we can go back two centuries. From 1750 to 1850 tillage was prosperous in this country. It commenced to prosper about 1750, and that continued up to 1850. During that period, while tillage was on the increase, live stock also increased, but, in particular, there was an increase in population. The population went up rapidly. Therefore, so far as this is concerned there must be something in the employment argument. From 1850, tillage went down and population went down. Live stock increased from 1850 until some time after the war, and from that time the number has been decreasing.

A lot has also been made of the bad seasons and the bad climate. Very interesting figures were given recently by Mr. Caffrey, an expert on the growing of wheat in the college at Glasnevin, who is also an expert, of course, under the Department of Agriculture. He holds that the varieties of wheat grown in this country are suitable to the climate of the country and that they do better in an average year than in a really dry year. He proved that in 1926 and 1927 when very large scale experiments were carried out. Although 1926 was a much drier year than 1927, the number of samples of wheat declared to be of good millable quality in 1926, a dry year, was only 80 per cent. The figure for 1927, a wet year, was 96 per cent. Mr. Caffrey went on to quote English authorities on this subject who had experience. They said that a year that was much drier than the average in England or Ireland was not good for wheat growing. As a matter of fact, you want an average amount of moisture in this country to grow wheat because the varieties we have have become acclimatised to a certain rainfall. To a certain extent, at any rate, we have varieties here that are suited to the climate. I think it was Senator Counihan who said that wheat was the best stand-up crop we had. That was my experience also. In 1929 and 1930, which were two very wet years—at least, 1930 was a very wet year—I found that the only crop that stood up with me was wheat. We had to cut the barley and oats with the scythe but the wheat could be cut with the machines as in any other year.

Senator O'Rourke seems to attach great importance to the definition of millable wheat. We had much discussion on the subject in the Dáil and I read out the British definition. I would like to read it also for the Seanad because I think it is very interesting. I hold that the defining of millable wheat in words is not very much use. The best way to define millable wheat is to see what wheat will be taken by the flour millers as being suitable, in their opinion, for making bread. We may, I admit, try to persuade them to take a little more than they would be willing to take themselves but, by agreement, the wheat that is fit for making bread will be taken and the wheat that is not fit for making bread will be left behind. No good purpose can be served by defining millable wheat somewhat as follows:—

"Millable wheat for the purposes of the Wheat Act, 1932, shall be wheat which is sweet, and in fair merchantable condition, commercially clean as regards admixture and tailings, and commercially free from heated or mouldy grains or objectionable taint, and capable of being manufactured into a sound and sweet flour fit for human consumption having regard to the customary methods employed in the milling industry for cleaning and conditioning wheat."

Does anybody hold that that definition would be any use? If that definition were put before a farmer and a miller, would the farmer admit on that definition, that his wheat was not fit or could it be said that the miller must take it? You must have somebody to determine what "merchantable condition" means. You must also have a definition of what "commercially clean" means and we must have a definition of what "commercially free from heated or mouldy grains or objectionable taint" means. What is objectionable taint? Some people get hay fever if they smell wheat dust, and a miller, if he is addicted to hay fever, will not take any wheat at all because it would have an objectionable taint, so far as he was concerned. I do not see that a definition in words brings us any nearer to the point at all.

Senator O'Rourke told us that the maize millers rejected the mixing scheme that we have in this Bill by 74 votes to one. That is quite true. He also said that the millers were speaking in their own interests and also in the interests of the farmers, but a rather interesting thing was said by the one man who stood up against the 74. He said that he did not believe that the maize millers were there in the interests of the farmers and he gave a reason. He said that when the tariff was put on maize meal coming into the country it helped the maize millers and not a single maize miller in the country objected in the interests of the farmers. Senator O'Rourke said that they put up an alternative to us that would be preferable. What was the alternative? He mentioned it here in the Seanad — tax maize and give a bounty on barley or oats exported. What was their objection on behalf of the farmers to this scheme — that it would put up the price of feeding stuffs to the farmer and they would have to buy barley or oats at an enhanced price, because that is the object of the Bill, to give the farmer a better price — and that they would have to pass that on to the consumer, that is, the farmer, and that, therefore, it is objectionable to the farmer. He says that he gave us a better alternative — tax maize. If we put a half-crown tax, as was suggested by the maize millers, on maize coming into the country, and if we let the maize miller pay that and pass it on to the farmer, do we not all know that he will pass it on, if not a little more, to the feeder? I do not believe that the alternative was anything like as good so far as the farmer was concerned. He said that I used the word "misleading" about the maize millers in the Dáil. I have already explained that to the maize millers and I do not want to bother the Seanad about it.

Senator Bagwell said that he knew very little about farming but I had already gathered that before he mentioned it. He said that subsidies raised the idea of something for nothing. Generally speaking, there may be something in that but how can we keep people in production at the present time? He made a remark, as well, that, generally speaking, he was in favour of tillage but both these remarks are generalities with which one cannot deal. Other Senators also said that they were in favour of tillage but they went on to say that they did not favour this Bill. I should like to know in what way they would encourage tillage in this country if they are in favour of it and are against the Bill? I should be very glad to get a better method of dealing with the matter, so far as wheat growing and the mixing scheme are concerned, but no better suggestion has been made. I do not think it is adding anything whatever to the debate to say that they are in favour of increasing tillage while saying that they are against the Bill and to leave it at that, without giving us a scheme that might, at least, appear to them to be better and seeing what we might think about it.

I was asked by Senator Johnson how is the standard price arrived at and why we fixed on 23/6 and 25/-. Senator Sir John Keane also asked me as to whether the farmer got the standard price or not. The standard price was arrived at in this way: we circularised every county instructor in the Free State and we put him the simple question — what, in your opinion, would induce farmers to grow wheat if the price were guaranteed? We got replies from every county instructor in the Free State and we took the exact average of what they sent in. Some of them were not a lot above 25/- and others were very much below. As a matter of fact, one was, I think, as low as 18/- and the highest, so far as I remember, was 35/-. There were only a few who were, as I might say, a long piece away from the centre and most of them hovered around 25/-. We took that 25/- and said that their opinion was perhaps the best that could be got and we put it in the Bill. As to how the price will be altered in future, the standard price must be fixed two years in advance. The Executive Council in this case has the altering of it and they have no power to lower that standard price unless they give two years' notice. We have given notice of the price for the 1934 crop and we could not now legally reduce that within two years from 1st August last. We could however raise it if we wished, and, if we find that the inducement is not sufficient to grow wheat, if the price is too low to get sufficient wheat grown, we would be inclined to raise it in order to get a bigger quantity grown.

With regard to the manner in which the farmer will be paid, Section 70 and 71, if Sir John Keane has read them, are very explicit and clear and explain exactly how it is done. Section 70 sets out the method by which the average price for the whole Free State is arrived at. There are three periods, and the average price at which all farmers sold their wheat to flour millers, distillers, dealers, and others is taken, and the difference between the average price and the standard price is the subsidy. Suppose the average price is 15/- and the standard price is 23/6, the subsidy will be 8/6, and 8/6 will be sent to every farmer-grower from the Department of Agriculture in respect of every barrel of wheat that he has sold during that period. Senator Wilson told us that he got 22/6, and he may have it again next year, because he may have a particularly good customer who is anxious to keep Senator Wilson on his hands because he has particularly good wheat. If he gets 22/6 next year, and, if the average price is 15/-, Senator Wilson would get 8/6 like everybody else, so that his price will be 31/-. There will be differences of that sort, but they will be very rare. The lowest price will be in or about 23/6. Some farmers may drop 6d. below or 6d. above, but there is the inducement to farmers to try to get the best market possible and to put their wheat on the market in the best possible condition in order to get a little more than the average price.

I must say that I cannot agree with Senator O'Connor that the statistics with regard to climate are wrong. He says that the rainfall may be the same, but that the season had more or less changed. Going back thirty years, I can remember working in the wheat fields myself, and many a time I came in wet through and had to change my clothes or dry myself at the fire, as the custom was at the time. We had to leave the machine in the fields, taking the horses from under it, and leave the field of corn for, perhaps, two or three days, and then go back to it when the weather got fine again. I would say, therefore, that for, at least, thirty years there has been no great change in the climate, and if Senator O'Connor goes back further than that I think he will find very much the same thing when he was a boy and he had to leave the harvest field and dry his clothes at the fire at home.

Senator Wilson assured us that wheat can be grown; that he has grown it successfully all his life and that, if it is made a paying proposition, it will be grown. That is the idea in this Bill—not to compel anybody to grow wheat but to try to make wheat-growing a paying proposition. A rather strange thing I noticed about many Senators here is that they refer to the present Government as having destroyed their trade with Great Britain. I was a little inclined to interrupt the first Senator who made the remark because I thought it rather unfair, but I noticed then that all the Senators who are in opposition to the Government made the statement without a blush. It never occurred to one of them that the other Government might be a little at fault. I think that if I went over to the English House of Lords, I would hear the very same thing. Every Member of the English House of Lords will say that the Irish Government has brought this on between the two countries, so that we have unanimity between the Upper Houses in both countries that it is the Irish Government that is at fault and not the British Government—the British Government has no share at all in this trouble; the Irish Government brought it all on.

Mrs. Costello

You began it, anyway.

Mr. Douglas

Has the Minister read Lord Parmoor's speeches?

Mr. Comyn

He was only a solitary bird.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with Senator Counihan that you cannot make tillage pay as a cash crop and that you must walk your grain in as bacon, mutton or beef. That is going to be the ultimate fate of all grain grown in the country, I suppose, whatever may happen, apart altogether from wheat. That is what we mean to do with oats and barley. We are going to grow it for feeding-stuffs for the production of more cattle, pigs and sheep in this country and for turning out butter and eggs and so on. That is what we are growing these feeding-stuffs for. I would not take such a pessimistic view of the whole thing as some Senators take. For instance, if you take our pigs in this country, we are consuming within the country at least four-fifths of the whole supply, so that if we use another one-fifth of the pigs, we will be consuming all the bacon produced in the country. There will be some pigs, some sheep and some hens left in the country, even if we do succeed in destroying this British market— even if we, as apart from the British Government, are entirely at fault in destroying this trade with Britain.

I am sorry if the policy of this Government is going to drive Senator Sir John Keane's friends out of the country. It would be too great a sacrifice for us to change our policy in order to keep them here. The Minister for Finance may be glad to get income tax from them and to have them here consuming luxuries out of which he may get additional taxes; but, after all, they are a very small number and we are legislating, in Bills like this, for the big masses of the people who, to us, are very much more important than the few for whom Senator Sir John Keane and others may speak.

Sir John Keane

Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me as to how the subsidy works. Apparently, I was all wrong about it.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister explained it thoroughly already.

Dr. Ryan

Under Sections 70 and 71 the matter is fully explained. Section 70 explains how the average price is arrived at. At the end of each period we will get the returns of the prices paid to every farmer by flour millers, dealers, distillers or whoever may have bought the wheat. The average is then taken for the whole country. The difference between the average price and the standard price, which will be 23/6 for the first period, will be the subsidy. If the average price is 15/- and the standard price 23/6, the subsidy will be 8/6. It does not matter what price the individual farmer gets from the miller, distiller or dealer; he will still get the 8/6 subsidy. One farmer may get a shilling less than the average price and another farmer may get a shilling more than the average price, but they will both get the same subsidy.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 11th January, 1933.