I should like to ask the Minister if he has made any provision for checking the weights of the millers and corn buyers who will buy the corn and pay on the basis of so many lbs. per bushel. I have heard many complaints in that regard. In my own experience, in several loads of wheat delivered to the same merchant there was a discrepancy of from 1½ to 2 lb. between wheat out of the same land and from the same threshing. Something must have been wrong with the machine for testing the weight or there must be something wrong with the honesty of the miller or corn merchant when such a discrepancy occurs. I have heard of many cases of a similar type. The Minister should provide some means of checking the weighing by corn buyers and millers and see that they carry out their part of the bargain.
Public Business. - Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1935—Committee.
My experience is that you bring in your sample and the wheat is put into a little scale like a cocoa tin which registers the number to the bushel. You can look at it and, if you are not satisfied, you can have another "go," but he will not allow you to pack the wheat into it. I think that any farmer could follow up his wheat and see that it was properly dealt with.
This section is intended to provide for some sort of apparatus that will be absolutely reliable. If there is anything wrong with the present apparatus, it is that it is too small. It holds a very small percentage and we should like to have it so arranged that it would hold, perhaps, a quarter of a bushel. Then there would not be these discrepancies. If you rub off three grains in this small measure, it makes a big difference. If they are compelled to use a large measure, it will be more reliable. We intend to provide for some sort of automatic register so that the farmer himself can read off the result. I am afraid it would be impossible to do that this year because we should have to give a few months' notice to the buyers to instal this apparatus. We could not do that now.
Could not the Minister arrange for a surprise visit by a departmental officer?
Naturally, that will be done to test the apparatus.
I move:—
Second Schedule. To delete the Schedule and to substitute therefor a new Schedule as follows:—
Second Schedule.
Minimum Prices for Home-Grown Millable Wheat for Sale—(Wheat) years 1935-36, and 1936-37.
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
|||
|
Minimum Prices per Barrel of 20 Stones |
|||||
|
Ref. No. |
Classes of Home-Grown Wheat |
September, October, November, December |
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August |
||
|
s. |
d. |
s. |
d. |
||
|
1 |
Wheat having a bushel weight not less than 64 lbs. |
27 |
6 |
30 |
0 |
|
2 |
Wheat having a bushel weight less than 64 lbs., |
||||
|
but not less than 63 lbs. |
27 |
3 |
29 |
9 |
|
|
3 |
Wheat having a bushel weight less than 63 lbs., |
||||
|
but not less than 62 lbs. |
27 |
0 |
29 |
6 |
|
|
4 |
Wheat having a bushel weight less than 62 lbs., |
||||
|
but not less than 61 lbs. |
26 |
9 |
29 |
3 |
|
|
5 |
Wheat having a bushel weight less than 61 lbs., |
||||
|
but not less than 60 lbs. |
26 |
6 |
29 |
0 |
|
|
6 |
Wheat having a bushel weight less than 60 lbs., |
||||
|
but not less than 59 lbs. |
26 |
3 |
28 |
9 |
|
|
7 |
Wheat having a bushel weight less than 59 lbs., |
||||
|
but not less than 58 lbs. |
26 |
0 |
28 |
6 |
|
|
8 |
Wheat having a bushel weight less than 58 lbs., |
||||
|
but not less than 57 lbs. |
25 |
9 |
28 |
3 |
|
|
9 |
Wheat having a bushel weight less than 57 lbs., |
||||
|
but not less than 56 lbs. |
25 |
6 |
28 |
0 |
The object of this amendment is to raise the price of wheat by 3/- per barrel. I am sure everybody will agree that an increase of 3/- per barrel, raising the price to 26/6, is not very exorbitant for millable wheat. When we consider the cost of producing an acre of wheat, I am sure the Seanad will agree that 26/6 is not an exorbitant price to seek. It will hardly be argued that £1 12s. 6d. is sufficient profit for a farmer out of an acre of millable wheat. Wheat growing is precarious at any time in this country. I have had experience of growing wheat for a great many years and I do not remember, for a considerable time, when wheat could be harvested with so much ease as during the past two years. I remember when I bought wheat for 10/6 for 20 stones for cattle feeding owing to the fact that it had been destroyed by the weather. That may happen to a large percentage of the wheat which we grow in this country. Consequently, the farmers, in growing wheat, are taking a big risk and they require an economic price by way of insurance against the loss of their crop.
I should much prefer to have a price per acre, even if it was guaranteed by the Government by way of bounty. It would ensure that the farmers who grew wheat and, through no fault of their own, were not able to harvest it, would not be at the loss of their crop. The Minister turned down that proposal, and I think the least we can do is provide an economic price for farmers who produce a millable sample. I have before me costings by the Cork Committee of Agriculture in connection with the production of an acre of wheat. With a few of the items I do not agree. The Minister has already got a copy of the costings, and I am prepared to argue against him in respect of any item which he says is too large. There is one item which is over-valued in the costings. The return for straw is given as £1 5s. 0d. per statute acre. In my opinion, straw was not worth that price, even in Dublin, where there is always a better market than in any other part of the country. Straw did not return 25/- in County Dublin in the last two years. This year, I do not think, we will be able to dispose of wheaten straw at any price. The greater part of it will, probably, have to be burned, as stall feeding is practically knocked on the head now. The stall feeders who stall-fed for the last two years are not going to continue the process, which was an absolute loss. In that way, straw will be useless, and the allowance of 25/- in the costings will have to be taken off. In the costings, the production of a statute acre of wheat was given as seven barrels at 23/6, which made £8 4s. 6d., with straw at 25/-. The cost of an acre of wheat came to £7 10s. 0d., and the total price to £9 9s. 6d. The profit is worked out at £1 12s. 6d. Under my proposal, the profit would be advanced to £2 12s. 6d.
I do not think that that is an exorbitant profit for a farmer who produces an acre of millable wheat. It would not go very far to meet his outlay for the rest of the year. Wheat is now one of the principal crops which, according to the Minister, the farmer must depend upon for his revenue and the price I suggest is not too much. The amount which I propose would mean very little in the cost of bread, although some Senators may say that it will raise the price of bread to the poor. I have gone into the matter and I find that an additional price of 3/- per barrel would mean 1/15th of a penny on the 2 lb. loaf. I do not think that even the poorest person would grudge the farmer an economic price for his wheat even if he had to pay 1/15th of a penny extra for his loaf. We hear a lot of talk of sympathy with farmers, but when a proposal is put forward in this House to give the farmer some return for his labour we find that the people who are very loud in expressing their sympathy are prepared to go into the division lobby and vote against the smallest concession for the farmers. They will down the farmer every time. That is the policy.
I have a good deal of sympathy with many of the arguments put forward in this House by Senator Jameson, but I was surprised at his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, because he seemed to think that it was a monstrous proposition that the general public should be taxed one-fifteenth of a penny to compensate the farmer. It surprised me that Senator Jameson, whom we all look up to as our sheet anchor when we need help, should be the first to turn me down. Senator Johnson wants help when he is out to get increases in wages for workers, and when he is pleading for widows' and orphans' pensions. The position is that the farmer-Senators have the Labour Senators up in arms against them. The Fianna Fáil farmer-representatives always answer the crack of the Party whip. I would like to see a little more independence displayed by the farmer-representatives in this House. I want to get support for the proposals I am putting forward to help the farmers of the country. The farmers are entitled to receive this help, and for that reason I hope the amendment will be passed.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with Senator Counihan's suggestion although I am a farmer-representative. In saying that I am showing some of the independence which he has spoken of. Since this wheat question was first mooted I have always held the view—I am not against wheat growing in any way—that to subsidise the fellow who has got the type of land on which wheat can be grown is a great injustice to the men whose land will not grow wheat.
I wish some of us had the land on which wheat could be grown, because if so we would be in a much better position than we are. Let me give some figures. Under Griffith's valuation, you have five counties with a total of 5,000,000 acres of land where the valuations are under 10/- an acre and three counties where the average valuation is under 5/- per acre. In the remaining 21 counties, with 11,000 acres, you have valuations varying from over 10/- up to 22/-. These valuations, as we know, were based on the capacity of the land to grow wheat. When you take the statistical abstract it shows what is actually happening. Taking a proportionate figure, in the five counties of low valuation you have one acre of wheat grown, to the 12 acres in the highly valued counties. What does that mean? A subsidy is paid on all wheat grown, and it means that the poor counties are paying a very large proportion of it for the 11,000 acres grown in the highly valued counties, in those counties where it is definitely easier to live and where the people are nearer to a market. In other words, it means that I and my neighbours in Kerry are paying for the wheat grown by Senator Counihan and Senator Wilson, and surely they do not want that help. I maintain that to add another 3/- to the present subsidy is going not only to perpetuate the injustice of which I have complained, but to make it very much greater than it has been. Over and above that, the increased subsidy will mean for the people living in the low valued counties that they are going to have to pay this one-fifteenth of a penny of an increase. That will amount to 4/2 extra in the consumption of a 1lb. loaf per day. I have always objected to the principle of giving a bounty for the growing of one type of grain. I do not see why it should be given to one type of grain and not to the others. I think it is an unreasonable thing to do.
In view of Senator Counihan's references to me I suppose I had better make a few remarks. He completely misunderstood, I think, my opposition to one of the essential features of this Bill. What I object to is taking the bounty off the backs of the whole community and putting it on to the backs of the people who eat bread. I did not deal with the question of the 24/6 except to point out that it was going to raise the price of some of the things we make without giving any consideration to the industry. I think the Senator should have given some more consideration than he did to the bread eaters. His sole concern is for the wheat growers, those who get the bounty. Has the Senator considered what his proposal is going to mean to the bread eaters when the policy of the Government with regard to wheat growing is put into full effect? The Senator gave us an estimate of what his proposal is going to cost the community. That, I take it, is based on the proportion of home-grown wheat that is now used in the bread we eat, but the Senator's calculations will, I think, be found to be entirely wrong when the Government's policy of using nothing but home-grown wheat comes into effect. I think it is a dangerous thing to put up the price by 3/- in present circumstances, and I think the Senator should give a little more attention to the needs of the poor.
Does the Senator want the farmers to work for nothing?
I think the Senator should be more careful about some of his remarks. He was telling the Government that this whole experiment of theirs is an extremely risky experiment. From his experience of wheat growing in the country he has never known wheat, he said, to be grown economically except in the last three years, and then only at the price of 27/-. I do not know whether this experiment which is being forced on the country is a wise one. It is going to be a very serious one for the bread eaters. I think myself that this is running a very grave risk of inflicting very serious injury on some of those people. Taking the cost of this experiment on top of all the other taxes that have to be borne, there is great danger that the fanners themselves may find themselves in a precarious position. What are we going to do if we have not enough good millable wheat to make ends meet? I believe that the farmers themselves are running a great risk in rushing into a large production of wheat. It is going to lead to a further increase in the price of bread.
The whole burden of Senator Jameson's speech was that this proposal is going to raise the price of bread. It happens that we are in a period when the price of wheat is abnormally low. Five or six years ago the price of wheat in the world market was a good deal higher than it is to-day, so that if Senator Counihan's proposal were brought forward then the price of bread would not arise at all. Suppose that the trouble between Abyssinia and Italy, which is threatened, comes to a head there will be a rise in the price of wheat, so that if the world price of wheat goes up farmers here will probably be producing wheat under the terms of this measure at a figure that will be below that world price. Some years ago the price of wheat was 38/-. Then it fell to 32/- and to 30/-. Since 1931 the world price, has been abnormally low. Therefore, why the price of the loaf should be fixed according to that low standard is more than I can understand.
It has been said that to increase the price of bread is a crime against the poor. I do not see that at all. Our argument is that if it is a good policy to produce wheat, it is an equally good policy to pay the man who produces it a living wage. Everyone knows that the price of bread does not depend entirely on the price of wheat. On the Finance Bill I dealt with milling costs and how high they are, due to the monopoly that exists in that industry. I pointed to the fact that there was a difference of 10/- per sack in the price of flour here as compared to Northern Ireland. We have to meet that additional cost, and I would like to know why Senator Jameson does not protest against it? Does not the policy of milling all the wheat in this country increase the price of bread? In my opinion all these charges should be Central Fund charges. My argument is that this, like the other charges involved in the production of bread, should be a Central Fund charge.
That was my argument.
The Senator's argument was that this proposal was going to increase the price of bread to the poor, and that this charge should be taken off the Central Fund.
No. I want it to go on the Central Fund.
If all the other charges, the cost of milling and the extra cost of bread, are on the Central Fund, then there is a very good case for putting this on the Central Fund. Why should not the people who are growing the wheat get an economic wage as well as all other classes in the community? I know that the Minister will not agree to this proposal because he has said that when he was giving 23/6 a barrel he was able to get 200,000 acres of wheat grown. He also said that if he did not get the wheat he would have to raise the price. Next year, if the acreage is not increased by 100,000 acres he will raise the price. That is his policy. There is reason in that because there is a market here at our own door for the wheat—for 3,000,000 sacks of flour a year. Our policy is the raising in this country of everything we need. It applies to our manufacturing industries, and why not let it apply to our food? If it applies to our food, let us see that there is a reasonable return to the men who enter on it in the expectation of getting a living out of it.
I am glad that Senator Wilson mentioned that point about an economic price. I think it is very difficult to know what are the costings in respect to the growing of wheat or of any other farm product. It is very hard for any farmer to get costings for one crop alone. We do not know, for instance, whether the land is more valuable after a crop than it was before. Several other considerations come into it. Quoting individual figures, as Senator Counihan did, is apt to mislead. Senator Counihan said that he bought wheat on one occasion for 10/6 a barrel because the wheat was not fit to mill for human consumption. I could give an instance, from my own experience, but I do not think it would prove anything. After I had disposed of the 1933 crop I found that I overlooked a very small quantity of wheat. I sold it afterwards at 24/- a barrel to a maize miller who happened to require it for chicken meal, while I had only got 23/- for the mill wheat. That does not prove anything any more than Senator Counihan's figure does. Quoting individual figures does not lead us very far. I do not know about these costings that were procured by the Cork County Committee of Agriculture, but they do appear to me to be very high. Also, I think the price of straw is quite justified. Surely £1 5/- per statute acre is not putting it high. You would have more than a ton of straw on a statute acre and even if it comes down to 17/6 per ton, you will at least get £1 5/-.
Will you guarantee it?
No. I do not agree with the Senator, on the other hand, that the farmer should depend on wheat for his total revenue, because I know quite well that the farmers' total revenue from wheat could not exceed £5,500,000 even if they grew sufficient to meet the total requirements of our population. We do not mean to export wheat. It is only a small item compared to the total agricultural output, but still it is an important item and, from the point of view of price, it is dependable. We know what the price is to be even before the crop is sown. It has many advantages, but it is not going to form the farmers' total revenue, because, even if we have no exports, we have a very big market here for certain commodities. For instance, we use two-thirds of the bacon we produce and 90 per cent. of the potatoes that we grow. Our home market is very considerable and there is no question whatever, therefore, of wheat supplying our total revenue.
With regard to this amendment, in the first place it refers to this year's harvest and next year's crop. Wheat is almost ready for harvesting this year. I think if the farmers were prepared to sow wheat on a certain understanding with regard to price and if it is almost fit to reap now, it is hardly necessary to say that we should increase the price for next year's crop, at this stage, at any rate. There is only another year, therefore, to go as far as Senator Counihan's amendment is concerned.
Senator Wilson has interpreted my attitude correctly. I think it is impossible to know what is paying the farmer for wheat. We are getting a big increase at the present price. I am inclined to think it will be necessary in three or four years' time to increase the price, because we probably will reach a bridge beyond which we cannot go at the present price. We shall, of course, increase it at that stage. Senator Wilson's statement that the world price of wheat is very low is, of course, true. He said that if the world price went up to what it was in 1928, we will have our farmers growing wheat at less than world prices. If that were the position I think we would have a different attitude towards an amendment like this. At least we should see that our farmers would get the world price if the world price went higher than ours. That would be a different position.
With regard to the price of bread, I am not sure if Senator Counihan is right that it means one-fifteenth of a penny on the 2 lb. loaf. I think that a 3/- increase in the price of wheat— using 25 per cent. of our own wheat or even 100 per cent.—would not mean more than a farthing in the 2 lb. loaf. It is not a big thing, I admit, but it is the principle of whether we should fix the price; it is not that we should give the farmer a farthing more in the loaf or a farthing less but what is the fair price. I think the only guide to getting a fair price is whether we are getting the wheat grown or not. I might mention that it would be extremely difficult to deal with this amendment if it were passed. However, it is only a matter of administration and I suppose this matter can be got over in the Department if it is carried. I think, taking the amendment on its merits, the Seanad should not agree to it because, as I say, there is no known way to find out whether the farmer is having a reasonable profit or not in present circumstances.
The Minister's sole contention is that there should be no greater price than 23/6 because of the fact that the farmers are producing double the quantity this year that they produced last year, and that he is going to get sufficient wheat. I do not think that that is any justification for keeping the price of wheat below the economic level. We must take the circumstances into account and consider the economic conditions at the present time and why farmers are going in for the growing of wheat. I do not want to labour that now. I referred to it on the Second Reading. I say it is because of the Government policy. That policy has killed other forms of production and has forced the farmer to grow wheat extensively. Would Senator Johnson and the other Labour Senators agree if circumstances arose in the labour market that employers should take advantage of the fact that so many labourers were offering themselves at any price that the farmer or employer would be justified in cutting down the price of labour, when he was able to get sufficient labour at the price he was offering? That is the line on which the Minister is arguing, that because he is getting sufficient wheat grown at 23/6 per barrel, he would not be justified in giving a higher price.
Senator Jameson says that he does not object to giving a higher price to the farmer. What he objects to is that the individual bread eaters are being made to pay. Farmers and wheat growers will be satisfied if that provision is made. We have no objection as to who will pay the price, but the Minister says that this must be the way and this is the only way in which we can get it. I suggest to Senator Jameson that if he considers there is no other way that he should vote for the amendment if the Minister does not accept it. I am sure the Labour Party will be losing one of their strong arguments if they agree with the Minister's contention, that because the farmers are growing wheat at the price he is offering, and which I contend is not an economic price and is keeping the farmers working on slave labour, there can be justification for keeping the price of wheat at 23/6. If Senators believe that £1 12/6 per acre for straw is a reasonable return, I am misjudging their sense of justice and fair play. As regards Senator Wilson's statement about the price going above the price of foreign wheat, we can never hope to compete with foreign producers. We could never hope to compete with Canada, Australia, or any of these countries in the production of wheat. If we are going to grow wheat in this country, in justice and fair play we should get an economic price for it. The farmer should be assured of a living wage. Senator The McGillycuddy talked about subsidising individual farmers in certain localities and putting a tax on other parts of the country which are not in a position to grow wheat. In many cases we are going in for this big quantity of wheat because of choice. We are compelled to do it to exist. It is not fair for representatives, say, from, Kerry, Cavan, or Dublin, because this policy does not suit their localities, to object. Senators should be more broadminded. They should remember that they are legislating here for the whole country and not for individual counties. I have as much sympathy and regard for Kerry as Senator The McGillycuddy, but I must at the same time recognise that farmers who grow wheat on land that is able to produce 12 or 15 barrels to the acre have to be considered. Senator The McGillycuddy mentioned Senator Wilson and myself. Senator Wilson is paying his labourers 33/-, 34/-, 35/- or 36/- a week. The price of labour in Kerry, Cavan, and other places, to which Senator The McGillycuddy referred, would be only 14/- or 15/- a week, and if we are to grow wheat we have to consider the cost of labour, the cost of our rates and annuities, and we must remember that the whole cost of our upkeep is very much more than in the case where the land is not suitable for the growing of wheat. I think that the Minister has established no case for the rejection of this, and I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
I desire to support this amendment. I think that there is not much to be added to what the proposer of the amendment has already stated, but I should like to add that the farmers are paying all the tariffs. Let us take the non-producing class as against the producing class. I say that the farmers have a right to make this claim for an increased price of wheat. They are paying an increased price for practically everything they have to use on their farms. They are contributing all this to the urban classes and I have not seen that the Minister has made any estimate of the income of the rural districts as against the income of the urban districts. I think it can be shown that the income in the rural districts is very small and that they have to cut down. If they go into such. things as wheat production, it is because they are sure of getting something for it. There is one provision in this Bill which will show how things are going. There is a section here which shows that those who provide manures or seeds for farmers will have to provide these through the Government. That shows that there is no stability for the farmers, and it adds to the case that can be made for an increased price. In considering the question of the wheat itself, I made the remark before that I believe that wheat cannot be grown at an economic price on small holdings in these modern times. If the small farmers grow a few acres of wheat, as they always did, they will have to use a great deal of modern machinery, and the result of that will mean that they will require more than 26/- a barrel to make it an economic proposition. Considering the standard that obtains in other classes of the community in the country—standards of inflation which still remain, standards of wages, and especially standards of taxation— I say that we have to adjust the claims of the rural districts to an increased price, not alone for wheat but for everything else.
In saying that, I do not say that I support the policy of bounties and subsidies and so on; because I believe that that is only pursuing a vicious circle and because I believe that these bounties and subsidies have to be paid, in the end, by the producer. Even taking this extra charge for wheat: all that has to be paid out of the farmers' production. We heard a good deal, about a month ago, about economic production on the part of the farmers. I think that the Minister for Finance complimented them on their economic production. It must be remembered, however, that all these charges come out of the farmers' pocket in the long run. We all know that, and accordingly, I think that the farmers are entitled to a little relief. I think that these matters should be considered, especially such matters as standards of labour, standards of wages, and so on, as against our claim to an increased price. I think that there is a very good case for this increased price.
Everybody knows that I am totally against this policy of forcing increased wheat-growing in the country as against the legitimate business of the farmers which the Minister has destroyed. However, I shall not say anything more about that at the moment. I shall have more to say about it on the final stages of the Bill. As Senator Dillon has pointed out, however, since we are in this business and we cannot get rid of it for the moment, I will vote for Senator Counihan's amendment. However, that action of mine is not to be taken as meaning that I approve of this wheat-growing policy. I do not approve of it. I believe it is the greatest piece of humbug that we have ever had in this country.
Tá
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Counihan, John C.
- Dillon, James.
- Milroy, Seán.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- Staines, Michael.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl
- Boyle, James J.
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, Michael, K.C.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Fitzgerald, Séamus.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Keyes, Raphael P.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- Lynch, Patrick, K.C.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O'Neill, L.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Robinson, Séumas.
- Ruane, Thomas.