Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1942

Vol. 26 No. 16

Minimum Price for Wheat—Motion (Resumed).

Liam O Buachalla

I fear I shall not be as comfortable in speaking on this motion as I was when speaking in Irish on the pension scheme with which we have just dealt. Nevertheless, the motion is one of very great importance and, arising out of it, there are a few points with which I should like to deal. For that reason, I must brace myself to the task and say what I proposed to say. In the first place, I want to declare that I agree with the main theme of the motion—that is to say, that the Government should encourage wheat production over a number of years. I should like to say, also, how glad I was to notice the names which were attached to this motion. I welcome those Senators into the ranks of those who believe in wheat growing as a national policy.

Three people have spoken already whose views are of outstanding importance. Perhaps I will not be blamed if I mention them—Senator McGee, Senator Byrne and Senator O'Callaghan. Each of them has wide public experience. They are known to us all as being very practical farmers. The pleasing feature of their speeches was that they agree on essentials—they agree especially that wheat growing in Ireland is feasible, that it is sound national policy and that is in the best interests of the farmers as individuals.

While I am in agreement with the proposal contained in the motion and in the amendment suggested, there are a few points with which I do not agree or rather about which I am uneasy. In the first place, I would much rather that the motion had been framed so as to avoid the idea of prescribing a restricted period over which the national wheat production policy should be pursued. I agree with Senator Byrne and Senator O'Callaghan that in this House we should unite in a declaration to the effect that this country should never again allow itself to get into the state of affairs similar to that which has existed in regard to wheat and flour supplies during the past two years. On that ground alone, we should make up our minds that wheat production should be a fixed, determined, long-period policy.

I find it hard to declare in favour of the price set down in the motion. That is not because I consider the price too low or too high, but because I believe it is unwise for us to declare for any definite price in respect of any term longer than a year, or say two years at the outside. I believe in an adequate price. I believe in a fair price. Anything more than a fair price to the farmer or to anybody else for the produce means inflicting on the general body of consumers an unfair burden, a burden which ultimately will involve the farmer himself in difficulties. When people find they have been mulcted unduly, they will rise against it and end it. On the other hand, we certainly should be determined not to allow the farmer to be put off with anything less than a reasonable return for his labour and services.

If it is true, as Senator McGee pointed out last night, that farmers are being deprived of what is their due, of what is the fixed price for millable wheat, I hope the Minister for Agriculture will pursue the people responsible with the same determination that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is showing in dealing with delinquents in other directions. There is no point in declaring for this named price—it is the weakness of the motion.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

Senator Crosbie suggested that there should be an annual price-fixing board, constituted of Government officials, Ministers and farmers.

Liam O Buachalla

My conviction is that once we get over the difficulties surrounding the initiation of a national wheat policy, once we get a wheat tradition established, the economic consequences will be so beneficial to the farming community as a whole that reasonably cheap wheat and flour will ultimately be made available to the community. Perhaps I should explain that idea in a little more detail. Senator McGee pointed out last night the need for great care in the matter of seed selection. He dealt with the advantage that must follow our going to the utmost limits to find out the particular kind of seed best suited to different soils and different districts. We can rely on men like Professor Caffrey and those associated with him to do all they possibly can to improve seed strains and develop perhaps new strains which will be particularly suitable to this country. The system of trial and error will have to be dominant for some time and, consequently, there is bound to be cases of loss here and there.

Senator McGee dealt with his experiences of seed failures. I am familiar with cases where seed has failed, but I am also familiar with cases where the crop has succeeded very well indeed. I am familiar with cases of growers, men who certainly did not vote for or support the wheat policy at the last elections, but who have been very enthusiastic wheat producers for some years past. As soon as we get over the initial difficulties, the production of wheat must tend to become more and more efficient and, consequently, more and more economic. Again, it is generally accepted that grass lands improve very much as a result of ploughing and as a result of their being put through proper rotations.

The eminent authorities—Hall and Stapledon across the water, and Caffrey and Twomey and others on this side—are agreed that that is so. There are practical farmers, members of this House, like Senator Byrne and Senator O'Callaghan, and there are also men outside the House, like Mr. Green, another well-known farmer, who are agreed also that it is sound policy to break up those grass lands, put them through a proper rotation, and then put them down to grass again.

It seems that in the train of a good wheat policy there must follow many decided advantages to the other branches of agricultural production. Good grass lands mean that stock will develop and mature quickly. Good grass lands mean lush and luxurious feeding for dairy stock, with improved milk yields; and what is very important, they mean much better general health for the stock, and what is still further important, a better chance of reducing the calf mortality which is such a very unpleasant feature of the stock-raising branch of agriculture. Now this must result in a great improvement in the incomes of the farmers, and this in turn must reflect itself, in my opinion in more advantageous prices being fixed for wheat and flour, from the point of view of the community. Further, I think it is agreed that the carrying capacity of our grass lands leaves a good deal to be desired. I am not going to trouble the House with comparative figures as between this and other countries, but I think if you take the figure for pasture alone, we carry only about 1¼ head of stock to the acre while, if you include hay, you will find that the figure is considerably less. That is hardly satisfactory. Senator Byrne raised the matter in the course of his speech and he pointed out that a large increase in live stock is quite consistent with an extended, and if necessary, a compulsorily extended, tillage area, including compulsory wheat cultivation.

In this connection it is interesting to recall that accompanying the expansion of wheat growing which took place during Grattan's regime as a result of Foster's Corn Laws of 1784, a very considerable expansion also took place in the numbers of live stock in the country. If that happened then, there is no earthly reason why the same thing should not happen now. A development of this kind from its beneficial effect on the whole industry, provided always of course that the market will be there for live stock and live-stock products, must contribute in its turn towards making wheat production more and more an economic possibility and must result eventually in wheat and wheat products being made available to the community at reasonable prices. In view of this, I think it would not be wise to fix a definite price for wheat as is suggested in the motion, that is a price to cover any period longer than a year or two years, because one can visualise the farming industry being in a position up to a certain point to provide wheat at decreasing prices once the initial difficulties are got over. Again, the factor of a decreasing fertility of the soil may have to be contended with though, as far as I am concerned, I certainly take the view of the authoritative evidence that has been put up to us that there is not much danger in this regard. That is, that given a proper approach to this problem, declining fertility of the soil should not cause any undue worry for many years to come.

Mr. Baxter

Whose opinion is that?

Liam O Buachalla

The Senator, I know, will not accept the opinion because he does not believe in accepting the opinions of experts, but I think it was Professor Caffrey.

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to interrupt the Senator nor do I want to say something that would be misunderstood, but I should like to get this clear. I am unaware of the fact that Professor Caffrey has given his opinion that wheat growing over a number of years need not cause us any concern, as far as the fertility of the soil is concerned. I do not know if he said that.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator must be allowed to make his speech in his own way and should not be interrupted.

Liam O Buachalla

I thank Senator Baxter for drawing my attention to the matter. All I can say is that if I have misquoted Professor Caffrey, I should like to withdraw what I have said. It has been put to me that the statement has come from the Department's authorities. These gentlemen I would consider as authorities whose word should receive every consideration. I put most of the officials of that Department in no position that would be inferior to that occupied by Professor Caffrey, and his is undoubtedly a very eminent position. Apart from that, it is quite possible that manures may not always be as scarce as they are at present. The war will hardly last as long as the period during which the reserve fertility of our soil can be relied upon to last. It could last as long or it could last longer, but I am inclined to the view that it will not last as long.

A further argument against declaring for a fixed price ahead, that is for a price for longer than a year or at the outside two years, is the possibility of a serious change occurring in the value of money. The tendency to inflation is there. Most Senators are familiar with the evidences of it. Remittances are coming in to poor families, and they are being spent almost immediately; they are being spent in full. At the same time, many other people believe that they should have a good time while they can, and so are spending all they can, as quickly as they can. In fact, "spending" is not the word; "dissipating" would be really the correct word. Those factors are there, factors which the Government is forced to battle against day in and day out. It is those factors that gave rise in recent times to a series of Orders of various kinds, all of which are proving very unpleasant and irksome. I may remind the House that we have heard advocated—I sometimes wonder whether it was advocated seriously or not—by Senator Johnston and Senator Tierney, for instance, that we should go in for something like an official inflation policy. As a matter of fact I think a figure of something like £4,000,000 was suggested. I cannot visualise the Irish people supporting such a suggestion, yet there is a real danger of inflation, whether voluntary or involuntary.

I am sorry for detaining the House so long on what might seem a very small point, that is of declaring definitely for a certain price, 50/- in this case. I do not intend to discuss it any further, except that I want to suggest this, that in view of what I have said I think it ought to be clear that we should be very slow to declare for the price mentioned or far any fixed price for longer than the period I have mentioned. If, as Senator the McGillycuddy has suggested just now, or rather has implied, the insertion of the figure of 50/- was merely to indicate a call for a reasonable price for each year's crop, then I for one would be prepared to let it go.

But even if, in the last analysis, wheat could not be produced in this country except at a price that would, apparently, compare unfavourably with that obtaining in other countries, we would still be justified in paying that apparently higher price, granted that there was no abuse.

Professor Johnston

Do you mean in normal peace times?

Liam O Buachalla

Yes. Granted, as I say, that there is no abuse, and that the prices had been kept as low as possible, we should be prepared to look on any difference that might exist as being in the nature of a national insurance premium for a steady and sure supply of a most vital commodity.

Professor Johnston

You mean a peaceful world when war is expected over night, like we had in the last 20 years.

Liam O Buachalla

If the Senator could convince me that wars were going to be a thing of the past, and that all nations were going to think not alone of themselves but of others in a true Christian co-operative spirit, we would not need to worry about a problem of this kind, but as long as human nature is human nature we will have to take precautions such as this Government sought to take during the past ten years, precautions which it will be very wise to insist on taking in the future with even greater vigour.

Professor Johnston

In another 25 years or so there will be another war.

Liam O Buachalla

If we paid a premium for 25 years for a sure and steady wheat supply, and, at the end, we were faced with a war anything like approaching what is being waged at the moment, we would consider we had come out of it very cheaply at the price we would have paid. The amendment put down by Senator Byrne appeals to me very strongly. It is not so very long since we were debating this subject before, and the arguments for compulsion were then fully stated.

In the case of the small farmer there is little need for compulsion. There is little need to compel him to till generally, or to produce wheat specifically. It may be, notwithstanding the appeals that have been made and the energy that was put into the campaign to bring home to the agricultural community as a whole the urgency of providing in full for our wheat supplies, that we may be short when this harvest comes to be reaped. I hope we will not, but I would say this, that I join with other Senators in appealing to the Minister to go into the matter immediately, and to consider whether he should not seek even far more drastic powers than he has at the moment to compel certain types of landholders in this country to do their proper share during this crisis.

It is worth while noting that in certain parts of the country there is a very strong tillage tradition, while in other parts of the country there is little or no such tradition. For instance, I think of the people in the west of Ireland, placed on the inferior lands. I think of the people in some of the Ulster counties, who are in the same position, and I can recall the energy they put into their work and the extent to which they go in for tillage. I recall with a good deal of pride the success with which those people have ridden whatever storms beset their industry in recent years. I also think then of other holders, small holders in a way, in other parts of the country, and notice the lack of tillage tradition there; I notice the slowness with which they are prepared to take the advice that has been tendered to them. I wonder is there any reason for it? I often wonder whether the small men of the west and of other parts of the country who were driven off good lands, to Hell or to Connaught, are not, when all is said and done, in all truth the more really representative of the old Irish agriculturists. I think the influence of the large estate holders seems to have affected very strongly many of the men among whom those estates have been divided. I am not finding fault with them. They came into a tradition hundreds of years old, and it is very hard to break a tradition, but it is interesting to note that, where there are bad lands, you have no difficulty in the matter of getting the people to till or even to change over to something new, whereas, where the lands are good, there is considerable difficulty in getting them to do so. It seems to me that the influence of the landlord is still to be felt in various parts of the country.

That is all I have to say about the motion specifically, but there were a few further points made in the course of the debate to which I should like to refer. For instance, I should like to compliment Senator McGee on stating as he did his approval of the work of the agricultural instructors. That is what I would expect from a man of his experience and breadth of vision. He mentioned the advisability of articles in the newspapers regarding developments in agriculture, and I agree with that. I should like to see a stronger bias being shown in our newspapers towards agriculture, but at the same time I do not think we should overlook the fact that in the Press—that is to say in the Irish Press in particular—from time to time very good accounts have been given of particular farms and of the methods adopted to get good results. Articles appear, to my own knowledge, every week in the Irish Press and in the Irish Independent relating to agriculture. Again, there appears every year from each county committee of agriculture, an annual report which contains a first-hand account supplied by their agricultural instructors of the experiments they carry out and of their results. I wonder to what extent these annual reports are circulated and to what extent they are studied by the agricultural community. Anyway, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with the suggestion of Senator McGee that we should go in more and more for the publication of reports and accounts, such as he mentioned, in the daily Press as well as in the weekly Press and in periodicals. That is a very important matter, if we are to develop as quickly, as surely and as safely as we can a tradition which it now seems we all believe to be desirable.

He mentioned also a very important matter, and I think Senator Baxter underlined it for him. That was the advisability of an insurance scheme for crops. I remember I was not very long here when a Bill was introduced—I think Senator Counihan had a good deal to do with it—the object of which was to provide an insurance scheme for stock in certain circumstances, and I then expressed the hope that it might be the forerunner of a series of important insurance schemes to cover agricultural activities generally. We should consider it, but I think that the man who really might set the ball rolling would be Senator McGee himself, because I think I am right in saying that he is a man with considerable experience in insurance matters. Between himself and men like Senator O'Callaghan and those connected with the Beet Growers' Association, a scheme might be formulated and put up to the Minister, as Senator Counihan and his friends did in regard to the particular matter in which they were interested. I think if they did that there would be no very great difficulty in our getting an insurance scheme applicable to crops and, I believe, to other departments of agricultural endeavour.

Senator Sir John Keane made a point which was interesting, and that is that it would be a good thing if we had not exactly State farms but model farms, run by the people themselves throughout the country. Incidentally our aim should be to make every farm a model farm. Some years ago I was anxious to get a first-hand insight into the conditions obtaining in agriculture. I admitted here before that I would not be a good judge of land or of stock, and I took the very necessary precaution of getting help. I almost kidnapped one of our best-known Deputies, a man whose knowledge of stock and of soil and agriculture generally is above question. I made him come along with me. We came across some examples of well-run farms—farms, believe it or not, on which the owners declared they had made money. In one case, where the owner had come into business on the crest of the 1931 crisis and battled through what is now called the economic war, he had cleared himself of his debts, purchased some valuable machinery, and had something to credit over and above.

But I asked: "Do your neighbours come to see how you get on? Do they ask you questions, or do they take any great interest in your methods?" The answer I got was that they did not, they did not seem to mind. Our aim should be to raise the level of every farm to that of a model farm, but I mention this point only in order that Senator Sir John Keane might know that throughout the country there are excellently-run farms and that their influence, generally speaking, is not as great as might be expected.

I listened last night to a severe but unfair attack being made on the Taoiseach and on the Minister for Agriculture. I agree with the very vigorous and proper protest made by Senator O'Callaghan. I am glad that it was he who made the protest because he is a farmer, a man, as I said already, of wide experience and a very practical man. I think that that protest made by Senator O'Callaghan—I am sorry it did not get the publicity to which it was entitled—would be endorsed by every right-thinking Irish farmer. That classification would include every small farmer and a good sprinkling of the bigger men. On the other hand, it may be no harm that these attacks be made on Ministers and be made as vigorously as they are made. It may be that they do a great deal of good. We can remember the attacks hurled at the Taoiseach for a long time. These attacks had the effect of causing people to think. They had the effect of getting people to ask questions and that was just what was wanted. The result is that no man stands higher in the estimation of the Irish people to-day, both for his character and for his capacity as a statesman, than the Taoiseach. The same can be said of the Minister for Supplies. He has had a rough passage, but I doubt if his stock was ever as high as it is to-day. Why? Because these attacks cause the people to inquire more than ever: "Who is this man and what is the implication of these attacks?"

In Belfast the other evening I met some business men, men with a reputation for hard-headiness, and we talked about conditions in this country. I was interested to hear what was practically an echo of a remark I once made myself with regard to the same Minister for Supplies. That was, that his great fault was that he was too good for his job. If he had been less competent, if he had shown less ability in the early days of the war, those responsible for carrying on certain branches of the trade and industry of the country would have realised their own particular responsibilities earlier, and we might have been saved a good deal of what we were let in for. I think that the Minister for Agriculture would be wise to look at the attacks that are hurled against him in much the same way. The more he is attacked, the more people are asking: "Who is this Minister for Agriculture, and to what extent does he deserve these attacks?" The more they ask that, the more they will realise the service that man has rendered and the service he has attempted to render but which was sabotaged during this emergency.

During the debate, I heard a great many inconsistencies. We heard, for instance, the work of the last Government praised and the work of the present Government derided. No man would be more willing to compliment the last Government on what it did and what it attempted to do than I. I realise that the members of that Government did their best according to their lights. I wish they had acted differently but I, certainly, agree that the Minister for Agriculture of the time, Mr. Hogan, put his heart into his job, believed that he was right, and did all that a man could do to carry out his work well in the interests of the Irish people. I do not agree that he was right, but I must give honour where honour is due. But then to tell me that the work of the present Government has been to land this country into difficulty is just a little too much. It means treating us as if we do not see the advantages conferred by the present Government on all sides and as if we could not realise how much better off we might be if the people who charge them with incompetence had not played the part they did and had not acted as saboteurs in the work which they should have been helping and to which they should have bent all the energy they could.

Senator Crosbie made a speech last night and I wonder if he was in earnest or if he realised what he was saying. He suggests that our difficulty to-day in obtaining our full complement of raw materials is proof that nature did not intend that this country should engage in industrial activity, that it was decreed by nature that this country should just be a ranch or a back-garden for another country. I wonder if Senator Crosbie was in earnest. Does Senator Crosbie mean to tell me that it was nature decreed that the great cattle industry of the 17th century should have collapsed as it did? Does Senator Crosbie mean to tell me that it was an act of nature that the infamous ordinances of 1663, 1666 and 1668 should have been passed to cripple and strangle that great industry and throw the people of this country into the direst poverty, Catholic and Protestant alike, rob them of their national wealth and reduce them to the status of beggars? Does Senator Crosbie mean to tell me that it was nature decreed that the woollen industry should have failed, as it failed? This country whose people had been held up as master craftsmen——

Mr. Baxter

What has this to do with the growing of wheat?

Liam O Buachalla

It has to do with the speech made last night. It has to do, also, with the question of wheat production and industrial policy. Does Senator Crosbie mean to tell me that it was nature decreed that our linen and glass industries should have gone as they went? Does he mean to tell me that it was nature decreed that clauses should be inserted in whatever leases were granted during the 18th century forbidding tillage? Does he mean to tell me that it was nature decreed that tithes should be transferred from pasture to tillage? The only people engaged in tillage were the unfortunate people driven off the good lands on to the bad lands. They were faced with the terrible task of eking out an existence as best they could on those bad lands, with high rents, and these tithes on top of them. Was it nature decreed that our agricultural community should have been plundered as they were plundered by the imposition of higher and higher rents every time a man took his courage in his hands and attempted to improve any holding he was allowed to have? Was it nature decreed the infamous Act of Union, which it was believed would bring about the ruin of the Irish people economically and culturally?

I wonder if Senator Crosbie was sincere, or if he has considered it is better ultimately for the Irish people that we should export our men and women rather than import certain raw materials to give a living to as many as possible in their own country. He says we should not engage in industry, because we have not all the raw materials. I wonder if he knows anything about Irish economic history over the past 250 years. I wonder to what extent he would hold that other countries should give up their industrial activities because they have to import certain raw materials.

Nature has not endowed us with an undue proportion of the world's wealth, nor with a vast territory; it has, on the other hand, given us a reasonable share of natural resources, a small but fertile country, with a favourable climate. It has given us a good people, even though we may find fault with them when they do not do things as some of us would like or as rapidly as some of us would like. When one considers the treatment meted out to our people, and the terrible conditions under which Irish agriculturists had to live during the 18th century and during most of the last century, and when one considers that our people were denied every access to education —even to the language of their homes, for speaking which many were put to death—it is really marvellous that the men of to-day should be as good as they are. If these people get half a chance, if the agitators will let them alone, I believe they will not hesitate to accept the lead given to them by Senators McGee, Byrne and O'Callaghan, when those Senators, in the course of their speeches last night, agreed on the essentials necessary to the country's progress and well-being.

I hope the House will accept the motion and the amendment proposed by Senator Byrne. I believe that, as far as Senator McGee is concerned, he desires that we should push ahead with the wheat policy; and, as far as Senator Byrne is concerned, he realises there is a certain opposition which it may be impossible to get over in a voluntary way and for the overcoming of which we may have to adopt pretty severe compulsion. The acceptance of the motion and the amendment will give a most advisable lead to the country at the present time.

Mr. Conlon

I do not propose to cover anything like the ground covered by Senator O Buachalla. Notwithstanding his cool and collected manner, and his calm method of addressing the House, I consider him to be a very astute politician, and I think he has made a very astute political speech. I do not know that he was altogether in order when he went away from the subject of the motion and the amendment to give us a eulogy of An Taoiseach, of the Minister for Supplies and of the Minister for Agriculture, of course. From the statements he made, the rumours about the possibility of an early election seem to have something in them.

The Senator was not satisfied with the eulogy, without having a rap at the leader of the Opposition. Possibly I am not in order, but I think the Senator was not in order, either. However, he made a statement that Deputy Cosgrave made some speech somewhere last night. I did not see any record of it, and do not know anything about it; but to state that anything said by Deputy Cosgrave meant that he was in favour of this country being turned into a ranch must be regarded as having no foundation whatever.

Liam O Buachalla

May I assure the Senator and the House that the name of Deputy Cosgrave never once crossed my mind, nor am I aware of the speech that he is supposed to have made last night.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O Buachalla was talking about Senator Crosbie.

Mr. McGee

It is very difficult to distinguish down here what is being said. It would be better if the Senator could turn this way.

Mr. Conlon

My principal reason for rising in connection with this matter is that Senator Ó Buachalla stated he was very strongly in favour of the amendment, and I am very strongly opposed to it. Some months ago a motion was put down by Senator Baxter advocating a minimum price of 50/- per barrel for wheat. Senator Byrne put down an amendment, similar to the one he has down to-day, advocating that compulsory powers be taken for the growing of a certain area of wheat by each farmer. On that occasion I and a number of others were opposed to that amendment. Having voted against it, we were in a very awkward position when the motion, with the amendment, was put to the House. As a matter of fact, Senator Baxter was so much opposed to the amendment that he had to vote against his own motion.

Mr. Baxter

As amended.

Mr. Conlon

Yes, as amended. I think this is within the Standing Orders, as being relative to the subject, but I do not think it is fair. Personally, I am in favour of the motion but I am against the amendment. On the last occasion, I voted for the motion as amended, because I was in favour of paying the 50/-, which the farmers got subsequently. I am in favour of the motion, however, and I think it is not necessary to say much in favour of it, as the case made by Senator The McGillycuddy is an excellent one. I listened to Senator Johnston and was not quite clear as to his attitude. I think he must be opposed to the motion.

At the same time I think that some of the arguments put forward by the Senator against the motion would seem to me to be arguments in favour of it. For instance he said there was likely to be a glut of wheat in several countries such as Canada, the United States, Australia and other places after the war, and that this wheat could be obtained very cheaply. I support the motion in order to prevent dumping of large quantities of wheat, in case the war ends quickly and in order to keep up the guaranteed price for a period. If Senator Byrne were present I would appeal to him to withdraw his amendment and to let the motion stand on its merits. It should be put to him that it would be fairer to the House that he should withdraw the amendment, because practically everybody is in favour of the motion. I know that Senator Buckley put up an argument in favour of the amendment but that is debatable. I want to hear the Minister dealing with the terms of the amendment. It could not be put into operation until there would be a survey of all the silos. That would take a considerable time and the cost of inspection would be expensive as a number of inspectors would be required. We should wait until we see what the result of the wheat return for this year will be. The farmers do not need compulsion to grow wheat. They realise the situation as well as anybody else. I am against forcing the farmers unless it is shown to be absolutely necessary to do so.

Mr. Crosbie

On a point of explanation, Senator Buckley, I think, misunderstood some of my arguments. Nothing was further from my mind than to attack the Taoiseach whose name I only mentioned once, or the Minister for Supplies whose name I did not mention at all. I consider the Minister for Supplies has sufficient to do without my getting up in this House or anywhere else and attacking him. I am sorry the Senator did not deal with the points of my remarks which made suggestions for the propagation of wheat. I did not suggest we should scrap the industries we have. We have many industries including one of the most important, the woollen industry in which the raw materials are native of this country.

Mr. Hawkins

In discussing this motion with regard to wheat production, it is only right that we should first pay tribute to those farmers who answered the call last year and produced sufficient wheat to meet our requirements, or at least to carry us over to the middle of July, and to those farmers who have increased their area under wheat. Also we should not let the occasion pass without paying a tribute to those brave men of our merchant fleet who are risking their lives day after day bringing wheat across the seas under very difficult circumstances. They deserve a high tribute from this House and from the people for saving us from a very awkward position in which we might probably jeopardise our neutrality. I am glad to hear from the Minister that our supplies are quite safe up to July or August, and I hope these men will continue to help the Irish people to pass safely through the period of the war. I am in the position of not agreeing either with the motion or with the amendment. I do not agree with the motion, because it does not specify the period over which this guarantee of 50/- a barrel to the farmer is to operate. We all agree that farmers must get and should get sufficient remuneration for their efforts on the land. At the same time, the motion is too vague. A period might be three, five, 15 or 20 years, and later on some Government might be accused of breaking faith with the farmers on the ground that this House passed a resolution guaranteeing a minimum price for wheat. But what is the period which Senator Crosbie and the other Senators asked us to guarantee that price for? That is one question I would like the Senators to deal with before we take a vote. One Senator suggested three years, but I would like to have it in writing. There is nothing as specific as what is put in black and white.

We would like to know exactly what is in the Senator's mind, so that any Government could not be accused of breaking faith with the farmers on the ground that a resolution had been passed guaranteeing 50/-. There are some politicians who are always anxious to avail of the farmers difficulties and who would tell them in later years that a resolution was passed guaranteeing this minimum price of 50/-, and that whatever Government might be in power had broken faith and violated the obligation that they undertook by the passing of this motion. Any motion we pass should be very specific and we should know exactly what the agreement is and what period it covers. So also should the farmer. We know that there are certain areas of land where it is not practicable to grow wheat. After all, we must have some respect for the resolutions we passed previously. There is no use in passing a resolution unless there is some hope of putting it into effect. Now if our decisions are practical, we must be definite about what we want done. I think we should specify in what type of land we want wheat grown. There are various ways of doing that. Probably the most practical is by the valuation per acre, because land is valued per acre for what it is worth.

If a farmer had a certain number of acres valued at so much an acre and he was compelled to grow wheat in proportion to his valuation, on the average you would find you were not asking that man to do anything that was a terrible hardship on him. We certainly must be more definite that the terms of this motion or of the amendment indicate. I do not pretend, as many Senators do, to be so terribly detached from political activities. I have attended several meetings in my county and I find that in the West of Galway where there are many very hard-working farmers they are entirely in sympathy with this amendment. They want to see the man with the large ranch, the man who has land that can produce wheat, compelled to produce wheat, and that those whose land is not capable of producing wheat, should not be asked to devote as large an area to a crop which would not give them the same return as it would to farmers on the rich lands of Meath, Westmeath, Limerick and other fertile counties. Senator McGee stated last evening that the poor tillage farmer never got sufficient remuneration for his work on the land, but if we examine the matter, we find that the tillage farmer is the man who is in the soundest position to-day. There is no tillage farmer who has to approach the Agricultural Credit Corporation for credit, nor is there any tillage farmer who finds it necessary to approach the banks for loans. There are no motions put down here on behalf of the tillage farmer asking for increased facilities for credit, because the man who is engaged in mixed farming is the man who can best live on the land to-day without any assistance from Government or other sources.

I have one grievance and it is a grievance which is shared by the people of West Galway with whom I have associations. That grievance is against the Land Commission for their failure to take over these large ranches from the people who, even at the present moment, are hesitant about providing sufficient food for the people of the country. There are many people in the country who are prepared to produce the necessary food, but they have no land to produce it.

Yet we have these large areas held by ranchers, by people who are looking for credit and every other facility, by people who say that 50/- per barrel does not pay them to produce wheat. We find that when the Fianna Fáil Government came into power there were something like 20,000 acres under wheat. That has been increased to something like 500,000 acres at present. Still, we have Senator The McGillycuddy getting up here and saying that "clever offensive verbiage may be all right for the cross-roads but it cuts no ice in higher debate."

The McGillycuddy

Might I explain that? I was drawing attention to the fact that people in other places used personal abuse towards the Minister for Agriculture and I said that I did not agree with that, that I deprecated it in every possible way. The Senator had better read some of the debates elsewhere and he might then understand what I meant.

Mr. Hawkins

Am I not entitled to quote from the report of the debates?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes, but the Senator had better give the reference.

Mr. Hawkins

The Senator, speaking on the last day, said:

"In this matter the Minister himself is not entirely to blame; this unfortunate position is the collective responsibility of the Government and of the Taoiseach, in particular, as its head."

The Senator, prior to that, gave details of the position as he saw it, and said that we were short of bread. He then went on to say that was the collective responsibility of the Government and of the Taoiseach as its head. "One and all, " he declared, "they must have been aware of the decline of our economy and collectively they should have taken adequate and drastic steps to settle it." Does the Senator not admit that he accused the Taoiseach and the Minister of being responsible for what he termed in the debate "our shortage of bread"?

The McGillycuddy

I was drawing attention simply to the principles of democracy, that is, that the Government as a whole are responsible for anything which goes wrong and are also responsible for anything that goes right in the country. That is all that it amounts to. There was no attack on anybody.

Mr. Hawkins

The Senator might get away with that on a point of debate, but facts are facts. Surely the Government which by its policy of guaranteeing prices increased the area under wheat to such an extent, at a time when we could import wheat into this country, is not to blame? The matter was even raised in the Dáil and, if my memory is correct, the leader of the Opposition put down a motion or a question asking why the Government should pay a subsidy for the storage of imported wheat. Some time later a member of the Opposition—he has since left the Party; he was asked to leave and did not like to refuse—stated all over the country that he would not be found dead in a wheat field. That was the kind of propaganda that was carried on. I am glad that even at this eleventh hour we have members of the Opposition taking their courage in their hands and recognising that the Fianna Fáil policy was the right policy for the country. I am glad that they are coming along and asking the Government not alone to go ahead with that policy during the war, but to continue it after the war is over. Surely that is what they mean by putting their names to the motion?

Senator McGee, I understand, is a large farmer, and when he was speaking last night I began to ask myself which side of the House was which and on which side of the House he was speaking. To my mind if there was any vindication needed for the Fianna Fáil policy, Senator McGee, as a practical farmer, a man who had a large experience of growing wheat on an extensive scale, has provided that vindication and has proved that the Government policy was right. He asked also that instructors' of agricultural committees should be given an allowance of petrol to enable them to carry on their duties. If I am not mistaken they are already getting that allowance.

Here, again, I think there is a question which will have to be dealt with. While the officers and members of county committees of agriculture are very efficient and very fine men, I am convinced that the ordinary farmers do not follow all their instructions or avail of their assistance in the way they should. I am further convinced that that situation will exist until such time as we create in our schools, particularly in the rural national schools, some co-ordination whereby we can bring into line those agricultural instructors and the local youths, the sons of the local farmers, so that they will recognise the advantages of the instructions given by those people. For that reason I should like to see an allotment attached to every national school in a rural area, for the growing of vegetables, fruit trees and so on, and I should like to see the agricultural inspectors and instructors going around from time to time, taking out that class, and instructing them. I think, if you started in that way, the young farmer would grow up with the instructor, and when he in turn became the owner of a farm he would be inclined to look with some faith and confidence on the advice and confidence of the instructor; otherwise, I am afraid that their activities are wasted in many areas. In this tillage campaign, we should make more use of our county committees of agriculture. In the case of a large county like Galway, one or two inspectors cannot be expected to see that every farmer in the county complies with the Tillage Order. If the matter were handed over to the county committee of agriculture there would be a chance that the different members of the committee would be representative of the different areas, would be interested in them, and would report the slackers in the area to the county committee of agriculture. In that way, you probably would get more efficient enforcement of the Compulsory Order.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and that is in relation to the petrol and kerosene made available for threshing and other forms of agricultural work. I have no hesitation in saying that amongst no group of people in receipt of any fuel oil, either paraffin or petrol, is there more abuse than there is amongst the people who are supposed to be engaged in agricultural work.

To my own knowledge there are people who have got supplies of kerosene and petrol to enable them to carry out tillage operations, ploughing or threshing, or whatever it may be, but that fuel oil was not used for the purpose for which it was allocated by the Department of Supplies. I think it would be very interesting if the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Supplies would tell us the number of gallons of fuel oil issued in respect of ploughing tractors. I should not be surprised if the number of gallons so issued exceeded entirely the amount necessary for the acreage under cultivation, allowing for the area cultivated by means of the ordinary horse-plough. In order to rectify that position, I think there should be a check-up. In regard to threshing in particular I would suggest that, where an allocation of fuel oil is made available, the owner of the threshing mill should be compelled to get the man for whom he has worked to sign a declaration to the effect that on a particular date he threshed so many barrels of wheat for him, and that that be countersigned by the local Civic Guards or L.D.F.

Mr. McGee

I do not like to interrupt the Senator in any way, but the statement which he has made, if allowed to go uncontradicted, is exceedingly serious, and one that many of us feel should receive the fullest consideration. He states that something should be done by each individual who receives kerosene to prove that he has devoted it to the service for which it was intended. Such is already the case in marked detail. For my own part, those whom I have accompanied to Ballsbridge, or on whose behalf I have written, have received remarkable courtesy, and, to my certain knowledge, fair play. That there are others who have not had the same consideration extended to them may be due to the fact that they did not present their forms in proper order. Every gallon must be signed for, and I am sure that, if the Ministry demanded an affidavit, that system would be equally well implemented. The matter is of such tremendous importance, and so many difficulties arise, that I think it is the duty of any Senator who knows of an abuse to supply the name of the person concerned to the Ministry, instead of branding the whole tillage scheme and the allocation of kerosene as a subject of abuse. The officials concerned are very painstaking, and have a difficult job.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Seanad, perhaps, will excuse me for intervening, but this debate has become alarmingly discursive. I do not see what the question of kerosene has to do with a minimum price for wheat. I have been unwilling to intervene because I have not been in the Chair through the whole course of the debate, and I do not like holding up Senators. I would ask the Seanad, however, to try to keep the debate within the terms of the motion, which specifically asks for a minimum price of 50/- per barrel for millable wheat, and the amendment.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not like to go too far outside the bounds, but I cannot agree with what Senator McGee says. I have found that the Department of Supplies are helpful at all times, but, surely, the mere fact that the farmer who gets a supply of kerosene or petrol signs a return that he will use it for ploughing or threshing only is no guarantee that he used it for the particular purposes for which it was granted by the Department. It is only his word.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Could the Senator not keep to the motion? I do not like to interrupt again, but I have to point out that the question of kerosene has nothing to do with the motion. I would ask Senators to keep as strictly as they can to the terms of what is before the House. If we are to have a debate on kerosene, let some Senator put down a motion on the subject.

Mr. Hawkins

I certainly accept your ruling, but I submit that the allocation of kerosene has a great deal to do with the production of wheat, because if land has to be ploughed by a tractor kerosene is necessary.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The motion does not deal with the production of wheat; it deals with a minimum price.

Mr. Hawkins

But there is no point in a minimum price if we cannot produce the wheat.

Professor Magennis

On a point of order, I submit that the motion is that further steps require to be taken to encourage and increase production of wheat. That is the main and substantial proposition according to my interpretation. The further clause: "In particular the House recommends that the minimum price of 50/- per barrel for millable wheat ... be assured to wheat growers over a period of years" is merely an illustration of one respect in which the movers of the resolution consider that further steps should be taken.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not wish to restrict the debate in any way, but I should like to ask Senators to keep it within some reasonable limits. Since I have been in the Chair, it has covered almost every conceivable subject from the question of licences to the late Minister for Agriculture, the Taoiseach and several Ministers, and I do not know what the bounds of the debate are. I do not like to interrupt Senators, but a brief reference to a subject like this would, perhaps, be enough.

Mr. Hawkins

I submit, of course, but the terms of the resolution are so wide that in order to produce wheat we must plough the land, and in order to plough the land we must have tractors. In order to run the tractors we must have kerosene. I think it is very important that fuel allocated to tractor owners should be used for the purpose for which it is given, and it is with that in view that I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to something that is happening in the country. No matter what anyone may say about the statement made by a man who gets kerosene for a particular purpose, such a statement is not proof. He may make a return to the Department of Supplies that he did use the kerosene, but that is no use.

I could give the name if necessary in one particular instance where there was a farm of 300 acres, a certain proportion of which had to be tilled to comply with the Tillage Order. The owner said: "How can you expect me to till the land when the Government will not make kerosene available for me?" I investigated the case and found that together with his usual allocation of kerosene, the man concerned had already got an additional supply for the particular work concerned. He had been allocated 80 gallons of kerosene, and had not done the work for the farmer concerned, and the Government was blamed. If that farmer were taken into court by the Minister for Agriculture for not putting the necessary acreage under tillage, his excuse would be that the man he had employed did not get the necessary allocation of kerosene although, according to the return of the Department, he had got it. It is to try to stop that kind of thing, and to ensure that kerosene made available for agriculture is used for that purpose, and that purpose only, that I have brought up this subject.

I believe that if the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Supplies—it would be necessary for the two Departments concerned to meet— added up the number of gallons of petrol allocated to different people who have tractors, and tried to relate that figure to the total number of acres of land put under tillage, there would be a surprising result. I would not be at all surprised if there were more acres of land cultivated by tractors than the total number of acres there are entirely under the plough, although at least one-third was done by horses. I hope something will be done to check these abuses, and to see that kerosene is made available and kept in reserve for essential services.

I suggest that where a man has a tractor, the farmer who employs him for ploughing or threshing should be compelled to sign a certificate that he ploughed so many acres or threshed so many barrels of wheat, and at the end of the week or the month the form, countersigned by the sergeant of the Guards, would be sent to the Department of Supplies. That would have two effects. It would stop this traffic, this black marketing in kerosene allocated by the Department of Supplies for agricultural purposes. There may be some collusion between the farmer and the local tractor owner, but it could not be on the big scale it is at present. It would have another effect, that the farmer would be cautious, knowing the Department was aware he had tilled so many acres or threshed so many barrels on a particular day, that the Government would have the knowledge that John Brown threshed or ploughed so many barrels or acres for John White, because there was a possibility that the Government might ask John Brown what he did with his wheat. In that way, you would probably do two things at the same time. You would probably counteract the feeding of wheat to animals and I think that it would be well worth considering.

I know in the County Galway, that while there are people in possession of lands who comply in a half-hearted manner with the Tillage Order, the last thing they want to grow on their farms is wheat. They probably have the idea that it takes more out of the land than any other crop. This land is quite capable of growing wheat, and I think it is to meet cases such as this that Senator Byrne has put down his amendment. I think the country at large would welcome such a decision, but it may be asked how is it going to be carried out? It would take a lot of inspectors, and while every motion and Bill we pass here calls for the appointment of more inspectors, when it comes to finding the cash to pay them, we all grouse and say that the present Government have increased the Civil Service and the number of inspectors yet at the same time we are continuing to cry out for still further increases.

We could do it, I believe, without much increase if we transferred the duty of having the Tillage Order carried out to the county committees of agriculture. When we were faced with the terrible problem last year of providing sufficient fuel—I am not going into the fuel question—the Government, in its wisdom, transferred the responsibility to the only people who had the organisation—the county councils. They were very wise in that, I think, even though lately we had some people who did not agree with their wisdom, complaining that they produced bad stuff, and so on. Since the Government did transfer that terrible responsibility, as it was at the time, of producing 4,500,000 tons of turf to the county councils, I do not see why the responsibility of carrying out the Tillage Order which, of course, would be less responsible than the production of turf, should not also be transferred, because, after all, I do not believe that in any county there would be more than three or four farms which the council or committee of agriculture would have to take over and till themselves, unlike the number of turf banks they had to acquire.

When we gave the responsibility to the county councils, they produced the goods. The goods might not be the best we would all like to see but, at any rate, the councils produced sufficient fuel. If you gave them the power to enter into lands to enforce the Tillage Order, even if the return from the crop they produced would not be in proportion to the same acreage cultivated on an ordinary farm, they would, nevertheless, produce a certain amount. The job of one or two inspectors in a county is almost impossible, because they have to concentrate on the large holdings. I hold no brief for people with large farms, because I believe the right thing to do is to take the people who are willing to cultivate the land and put them on the farms which other people are not prepared to cultivate. While the inspectors are looking after the large holdings, where they will get the greater production, 10 or 20 or 30 people on holdings of from 25 to 30 acres may be overlooked. They would make their contribution if the matter were left to the county committee of agriculture or some such body. If left to the county committee, it might be found that, in a number of counties, the members could not be said to be capable agriculturists, while they might be very good landowners. There, again, we would probably be up against a difficulty. We are often accused of looking to the other side for guidance and the enforcing of the Tillage Order on the other side is left to the county committee of agriculture or some local body. I think that these bodies could do the job here better than any inspector appointed by the Government.

I am not in favour of either the motion or the amendment, because I think it is asking too much to ask the Government to guarantee a price for wheat over a period of years. A very able Senator, a Senator with whom I should not like to cross swords— Senator Johnston—told us last night that there was a possibility that, after the war, the millions of bushels of wheat lying in Canada and other countries would be dumped in here and they would be asking us to take it for God's sake. Whatever Government would be in power, whether Labour, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, would be in a very awkward position if there were a guaranteed price of 50/- per barrel for wheat while boats in Galway and Dublin were offering it at 10/- per barrel, as forecast by Senator Johnston. I should not like to see a Labour Government in that awkward position.

As regards Senator Byrne's amendment, we are at the same disadvantage. If we are to compel the farmer to grow a certain number of acres of wheat, we must be more specific about the type of land on which we expect him to grow it. What I suggest is that regional committees be set up. We had a discussion some time ago on the Agricultural Wages Board, and this board is based on regions. The amount of wages they decide to pay is based on regions and on the ability of the farmers in these regions to pay the wages.

The McGillycuddy

Would it not be better to keep to the counties?

Mr. Hawkins

It would not be fair that the people of Connemara—very few of them would come under the Order—should be compelled to grow wheat on land unsuitable for wheat-growing. I do not want it to go out that these people do not grow wheat. The majority of them do grow sufficient wheat to do them over a period on any patch of land which is suitable but, when you come down to a regulation, a different question arises. The terms of the motion are too broad. The period is not specified. While I welcome the conversion of the Senator to wheat-growing, the best thing we could do would be to give him an opportunity to state more specifically in a motion in the near future what number of years he wishes to cover rather than pass a motion which could be extended, more or less, on the Kathleen Mavourneen system—"it may be for years and it may be for ever."

The McGillycuddy

Would the Senator give us a constructive suggestion as to the length of time he thinks desirable? That is the reason we left the matter as wide as we have done.

Mr. Hawkins

I should like to be as helpful as possible and I think it would not be unreasonable that this guarantee should be given for, at least, two years after the cessation of hostilities.

Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7.25 p.m.

Mr. Cummins

I have advocated before that, in regard to wheat, regional areas should be specified for its compulsory growth. I voted against compulsion for the farmers on the last occasion, and did so because I had in mind many places along the seaboard that were not suited for the continuous growing of wheat. I exclude those areas where they have supplies of seaweed to help them out. I know parishes in Kerry and Cork where wheat has been tried and found impracticable and uneconomical. I voted against compulsion for the farmer. For the most part, the farmers have done their duty loyally, but, as far as I can observe, it is those who have always done their duty, who, for the most part, have been using the by-products of their land for the feeding of poultry and pigs. If I am convinced that compulsion is necessary in this matter, to provide wheat for the people, I will vote for it, but I have no information on the point and I shall await the statement of the Minister in this matter.

After a year's experience and with the limited information that comes my way, I think compulsion will be necessary. Those who, for the most part, always tilled their lands, are giving loyal service to the State. There are large tracts of the best wheat-growing land, not alone in Ireland but in the world, as yet unexplored. There was a time when County Meath supplied all the northern mills and the whole of Ulster: one county alone, about 1850, I think, was able to do that. In the adjoining Counties of Westmeath, Kildare and portions of Longford, not to speak of Minister at all, there was excellent wheat growing.

It should not be a difficult thing for the inspectors of the Department to tabulate the types of land we have in Ireland. They know them. An analysis of the elements of the soil suitable for wheat, which is not a difficult process, would show them, at very small expense, what lands are capable of wheat growing; and it is on these lands that it should be grown. We need not be a bit afraid about those people on the seaboard in small holdings. For their own self-preservation, those farmers will have to cultivate, and do cultivate those lands. We talk about lush grass, but lush grass is not a food. Grass ceases to be a food when it is not cropped regularly; it becomes so useless that it is a fibre. Any amount of land is covered with fibrous material that is of no use for anything except coarse feeding for horses or bronchos.

I support wheat growing, and if I find from the statement of the Minister that compulsion is necessary to bring those rich lands under cultivation, I will not hesitate to vote for it, though a short time ago I was not in favour of it. I dare say the Minister cannot make a statement on that matter until this year's supply is cut. The only difficulty is the period for which the price should be guaranteed. The farmers will not be too exacting about the period. The Government could state that it would be for the period of the emergency, and that would be a matter for legislation by the Oireachtas. If that period were specified there would be no difficulty in guaranteeing that 50/- to the farmer. I do not think the farmer will hoard that 50/-; he will make good use of it and will pay wages. On the subject of wages, I wish to express great disappointment with the decision of the Wages Board in regard to the wages for agricultural labourers. That matter may be ruled out of order if I refer to it, but the agricultural worker is part of the agricultural machinery and he should be considered in this scheme.

There is no difficulty about feeding the nation with wheat if we have some plan of scheduled areas of the kind I mentioned. The county committees of agriculture can easily give the information required. Senators on the other side of the House said that those committees should play an important part in this work. Another educational institution is the vocational schools. They are, for the most part, situated in the towns, and, strange to say, it is the boys and girls from the rural districts who are the principal elements in these schools. The programme in these schools is not sufficiently agricultural in its bias. The agricultural committees should be more closely linked with these schools. I am not speaking of the schools in the large towns such as Cork, Limerick and Dublin, but of the schools in the small towns of 4,000 or 5,000 inhabitants which are rural in their nature. Their bias should be more agricultural.

Instead of spending portion of the day hammering iron, leather work and fancy work, garden plots and the land should be cultivated, and there should be instruction in the preservation and cooking of the various products of the soil. Attached to every vocational school should be a plot of land where the various farm crops should be cultivated. Horticulture by itself will never be a great source of production of food. The production of food will come from the broad acres. When the vocational schools are being set up in the country, a reasonable plot of ground, perhaps an economic holding of 15, 20 or 30 acres, should be attached. Some people will say that this is a big problem, and that this is not the time to enter upon it. I say it is the time. Why postpone it when you will have to do it sometime? While the fever of wheat-growing is upon us, I think there is no better time to undertake it.

I am alarmed at the disappearance of rural workers from the land. Something should be done to take the position into consideration. Not only are they disappearing, but the heirs of the land, their sons and daughters, are disappearing, because farming is not paying. I am not going to blame the Government for that. We do not know who is to blame. Perhaps it is world conditions, or what is happening between here and England. We have been treated badly by the English people in regard to the economic life of this country. There should be some system of barter for the tea and other things we want, and even for the bread we want. The men working on the bogs are short of bread; they require bread if they are to carry on production. If there is any wheat to be released, much more should be released to these people.

There should be a balanced system of agriculture. The Minister says he has advice on agricultural matters. That advice should be related to the growing of potatoes, wheat and other crops, and the rotational work necessary to keep a balanced system of farming. I cannot agree with the speakers who say that wheat is not hard on the land. Wheat is a unique crop in many ways. Other corn crops are generally sown in the month of April, they become ripe in July or August, and they are cut down before the weeds have shed their seed. It is different in the case of wheat. Wheat is sown early. Weeds grow up with the wheat, and you have winter weeds as well as those that germinate in spring time, and they have eight or nine months' growth before the wheat is cut. They have shed their seed, with the result that you have scutch grass. It is not the wheat that is hard on the ground; it is the ravenous feeding power of this nine months' growth of weeds.

I believe that it has been suggested that some farmers actually mow the wheat crop at an early stage—Senator McGee can tell us if this is done in his county—for the purpose of getting rid of the weeds and that then the wheat crop develops again into a much stouter and better crop. Whether the practice is scientifically approved of I do not know, but I am informed that it is generally followed in certain areas for the purpose of getting rid of the weeds. I should like to ask some information from the Minister on that point. Wheat is hard on the land in that way, not that the crop in itself is hard on the land, but that the weeds which grow along with it combine to exact a heavy toll from the land. I think that the experts who examined the constituents of the wheat crop should also have examined the elements containing the weeds which grow with the wheat crop. For that reason farmers are loath to grow wheat on their lands, and those who let land in conacre would prefer to let it for potatoes or any crop other than wheat for the reasons I have stated. If one goes to an auctioneer to ask him to let land in conacre, he will say: "Do not let it for wheat." It is not that he is antagonistic to the growing of wheat, but he will tell you that after a few crops of wheat have been taken off land, it will be left in a debilitated state and that it will be very hard to restore it to its former fertility. I am not, of course, speaking on this matter as an expert, but I speak from observation and to some extent as the result of experience.

Another point I wish to make is that the Land Commission's functions should not cease when they take over land. The Land Commission should have done more when they entered on these large ranches that at present are howling wildernesses in the midst of a fertile country. I think these lands should be brought under the plough and that instead of making inspections to see if small farmers have done a half-acre of tillage here or a half-acre of tillage there, the Land Commission should go in on lands that are known to be rich in food producing qualities and see that they are devoted to food production. It is true that the wheat crop has not been so successful when grown for a second year without manure. It would seem that manure of some kind is necessary and unfortunately farmyard manure is no longer available, owing to the decline of dairying in the south of Ireland, to the extent which it formerly was. That is a very unfortunate aspect of the problem but it has to be taken into consideration. Senator Johnston has pointed out that with an 85 per cent. extraction from wheat, a very valuable offal of 15 per cent. would be available for the production of pigs and the promotion of dairying which is the foundation of all our agriculture. These sidelines are very much neglected.

In regard to artificial manures, my information is—and it is information which I have for some years—that we have got in this country the raw materials for superphosphates as rich in content as anything that came from North Africa or Central Europe formerly. The difficulty I understand is that it has not been found possible to supply these materials in the form required by the manufacturers to enable them to produce superphosphates. If these materials are available in such generous quantities, as I understand they are in more districts than one, I submit that the possibility of exploiting them should be explored. Possibly it has been explored but I have never heard any announcement from the group that has been set up to inquire into the possibility of utilising alternative raw materials to help us over this emergency. That is another point on which I should like to have some information from the Minister.

I understand that in order that this material should be capable of being utilised by a certain firm in the South of Ireland, it must be reduced to a size that will enable it to pass through a ring of a certain cubic content—that is, that the pieces must be reduced to a certain thickness. The difficulty was that the rock was found to be very hard, and that machinery could not be found to crush it into those fine pieces. I do not know whether that is true, but I should like to have some statement on the matter. I think that if fertilisers could be made available that there would be no difficulty—not alone during the present emergency but in the time to come—in supplying us with all the food we require at an economic rate without imposing a burden on anybody. I am in favour of the motion, and I would be also in favour of the amendment if I had an assurance that certain people—a small percentage I belive—who own large tracts of land were not doing their duty in this crisis.

Mr. Campbell

I do not wish to prolong this debate which has already occupied a considerable time. Even if I had any desire to be alarmingly discursive, I am afraid that my profound ignorance of agricultural matters would deter me from embarking on that course. I do not want, however, to give a silent vote. I wish to say that I am in favour of the motion and also in favour of the amendment to it, and I should like to explain in as brief a manner as possible why that is so. I do not think that, in this period of emergency, I should consider any effort too drastic or any price too high to ensure an adequate supply of food for our people. Statements have been made that there is no food shortage, and when I refer to a food shortage I mean mainly a shortage of bread. Now, there is a shortage of bread in this country. While I do not like the idea of compulsion in regard to any matter, I think that, notwithstanding the efforts made by the farmers during the past season to provide us with wheat, even yet some form of compulsion is necessary during the emergency. I do not believe that after the period of emergency has passed it will be necessary to concentrate so much on the compulsory growing of wheat, although personally my own association with particular movements in this country would urge me, at any rate, to advocate the growing in this country of sufficient food for all our people. I just want to say that that is the reason why I am in favour of compulsory tillage.

I agree with Senator Hawkins in his statement that where the motion is defective is in fixing a price of 50/- per barrel for millable wheat over a period of years. I think it is defective in this respect, that it may probably cost more next winter to grow wheat. I think that the promoters of this motion are stultifying themselves in stating that it should be merely 50/-. Of course, I know it is supposed to be a minimum price, but I do not see that they are making any provision for an increase in the price of wheat. I understood Senator Hawkins to say that the farmers in the country had grown sufficient wheat last year to meet the needs of the country up to next July. Of course, the fact is that considerable quantities of wheat have had to be imported, and the fact that it has been imported has made it possible to space out the supply up to the end of July. In that connection I want to advert to another matter. I know that in this House mine is probably a lone voice in referring to it. Most Senator come from agricultural districts and have no great interest in the industrial arm of the country. Some Senators, judging, at least, by their statements, did not seem to regard it of any great importance, but many of our secondary industries are languishing at the present time; others are in a very parlous condition and are on the point of closing down because shipping space is not available to bring in the raw materials to keep these industries going. I think it is nothing short of a crime against this country, a country which, I understand, has sufficient land to supply all our needs, that in those times some drastic steps are not taken to ensure an adequate supply of food, and to release that shipping which is available to bring in the raw material necessary to provide employment for those people who purchase the products of the agricultural community.

I am not too keen on compulsion, but I understand that it takes 750,000 acres of wheat to supply our needs in flour, and I think it is not beyond the wit or the competence of the Government, in conjunction with the farming community, to evolve some scheme whereby that could be done. I am not well enough informed to know the type of lands suitable for the growing of wheat or other crops, but if it is necessary to till 750,000 acres to produce wheat, I cannot see any reason why the Ministry, in conjunction with the farmers— without having perpetual motions in this House—cannot devise some scheme whereby that 750,000 acres will be made available for our people. From my four years' experience in this House, listening to experts like Senator McGee, Senator Baxter, Senator O Buachalla and others, I know that the lot of the farmer is not a happy one. I think that the farmers, when they claim a fair price for their products, are only doing justice not only to themselves but to their families. They are entitled to a fair price, and I think they should get it. They are fulfilling a great task at the present time, and I only hope that any remarks I make here will not be misinterpreted by the farmers. I am all out for giving the farmers a fair price not only for wheat but for any other commodity they produce. Following that, I think the agricultural labourers should receive a fair wage for the work they do. I do not want to enter into that, but my colleague, Senator Crosbie, made reference yesterday to the wages endured by the agricultural labourer, and contrasted them with the wages enjoyed by the Dublin Corporation labourer. In that case, I think, comparisons are odious. He suggested, of course, that the agricultural labourer was a producer, and that the corporation worker, who has the very distasteful and dirty job of producing a condition which maintains the good health of the people, was not a producer. I think those comparisons do not prove anything. I am in favour of the motion, and I am reluctantly compelled to vote also for the amendment moved by Senator Byrne.

I do not do so with any degree of pleasure, but, circumstances being what they are, no other option is open to me. If it is necessary that compulsory methods be employed, let them be employed in some less harsh fashion. I suggest that the Ministry and the agricultural representatives of the country might get together and try to solve that problem, without dragging it up in this House every few months and devoting to unnecessary discussion here a lot of time which might be more profitably employed. I think the whole matter is one for organisation, and I agree with Senator Baxter when he said that we ought to have some long-term plan for dealing with agriculture. As he rightly said, after this war there will be a scarcity of food in Europe, and I think every effort should be made here in this country to see that we at least will not make any demands on the food supply available to feed the starving peoples of Europe. We have the land available to produce the necessary food for our own people, and we should develop that land to the full. I do not think I have anything more to say. I think this debate has gone on long enough, and, as the Chairman has said, it has been alarmingly discursive. I am in favour of the motion, and I will vote also for the amendment.

Dr. Ryan

Although Senator The McGillycuddy commenced his speech by a declaration that he was unlike the rest of men inasmuch as he did not intend to indulge in personal abuse, I think the other speakers more or less proved that they too are unlike the rest of men in that way. As far as that is concerned, we had a very pleasant debate, and although I will show, perhaps, that I do not agree with everything which was said, I think that the debate took place in very good part, and may have good effects one way or another. Senator The McGillycuddy pointed out the shortage of bread here and the shortage of flour and so on as a justification, I suppose, for an argument in favour of the motion which he put down on the Paper. As I listened to Senator The McGillycuddy I said to myself: "Well, if the Senator had made that speech in 1933 when I came in here with the Cereals Bill, I would have got the surprise of my life." But he did not make it at that time, nor indeed, I think, anything in line with it. In the year 1929, the Senator himself said we were feeding and exporting at a very high figure. We produced 1,800,000 cwts. of offals and we were importing 470,000 cwts.

We have had those figures quoted both here and elsewhere over and over again. We pointed out at the beginning of the war that we needed 1,000,000 acres of extra tillage. We may be blamed by Senator The McGillycuddy and others for not being more vigorous, but I felt at the time and I advised the Government that we could not possibly, by compulsory Order such as the Compulsory Tillage Order, get that 1,000,000 acres in the year 1940, because it does take some time for the great majority of the farmers in the country to organise their economy and get into tillage. It would take a few years before they would be fully into tillage. There will probably be more tillage this year than last year; there was more tillage last year than in 1940, and there was more tillage in 1940 than in 1939, but it had to be a gradual process. If I had come before the Seanad in September, 1939, and told them that I was going to see that there would be another 1,000,000 acres of tillage in the year 1940, I should not be surprised if Senator The McGillycuddy and others told me that I was being unfair to the farmers in expecting that, so it is not very clear to me what steps we should have taken to see that there was more wheat; it has not been pointed out very clearly by Senator The McGillycuddy or anybody else. I am quite prepared to say that, if we have not got it, it is the Government that is responsible, and the Government must take the blame. The Government is prepared to take the blame, but we should like people to be helpful to us. It is not enough to say that we are to blame; if people want to be helpful they ought to point out to us how this matter is going to be remedied, or how it should have been remedied in the last couple of years. I was rather appalled, I must say, when I heard the Senator here speak about the feeding of wheat to animals.

I waited until I got the Official Debates, and I think it is rather disappointing, to say the least, to have any responsible person saying here: "I must say I find it extremely hard to blame those farmers who have fed wheat to their animals." I think it is a criminal thing to feed wheat to animals when we are informed in the same speech that human beings have not enough bread or flour. Yet we are told by the Senator that he finds it hard to blame the farmers who feed wheat to animals. If people in responsible positions take that view, it will be hard to blame the farmers in future, but I think it is an appalling thing to say.

I would not think it so bad if the Senator said that human beings had plenty of bread, and, therefore, he did not blame the farmers for feeding wheat to animals, but he did not say that. He did say that it was his belief that human beings were not getting enough bread or enough flour, and yet he says that he does not blame the farmers for feeding wheat to their animals. "It is in the present situation rather like jailing a woman for stealing to feed her starving child.... The very thing that is going to cause the starvation among children is the thing the farmers are not being blamed for. None of us would have this anxiety about the feeding of wheat to animals if we were not afraid that it would leave starving children on our hands. Some other Senator expressed the opinion that we had no drastic powers in this connection. There is a Bill coming before the Dáil in which I hope we will be given much more drastic powers in this matter of feeding to animals, that is, if the wheat is necessary to human beings.

The Senator said, later on, that the obvious thing was to put under cereals a sufficient acreage to meet all our requirements without considering recourse to imports. He said: "Instead, we have had a half-hearted policy of voluntary tillage...." First of all, it is not voluntary. We have a Compulsory Tillage Order. I do not know if it is half-hearted. I think that everybody, as far as the Government is concerned, as far as my Department is concerned and as far as everybody in my Party is concerned in the other House —there are no Parties in this House— has done everything possible to push this scheme of wheat-growing. I do not see how anybody could refer to it as half-hearted.

There may be others who did not look too favourably on our policy of wheat growing. I was never half-hearted on the question of wheat-growing. I have been in favour of wheat growing for a number of years, and there is nothing I agreed with more in the Fianna Fáil policy than that part of it relating to wheat growing, and to refer to our efforts as half-hearted, is I think, very much away from the mark.

After talking about half-hearted methods, the Senator goes on to speak of our failure to produce the wheat that was necessary for the people. He then explained to us why there should be a period of years as set down in this motion and says this further period is to allow for readjustments in the event of post-war conditions calling for a change of economy. Reading the speech up to a point one would become convinced that the Senator had been converted into an advocate of native wheat, but I see the Senator says, by way of implication, that when the war is over he will revert to the policy of imported wheat again. He foreshadows a change of economy when the war is over, which can only mean to me that the Senator believes that it may be good policy to allow foreign wheat to come in, and, naturally, if that occurred, and goes on for some years to come, we will find ourselves, if another war comes along, in the same position, and some Senator sitting in Senator The McGillycuddy's place will attack some Minister sitting in my place for not taking enough steps to ensure a sufficiency of bread and flour for the people of this country.

The McGillycuddy

The words: "in the event of" cover that sentence, and, possibly, one day you might be glad of it.

Dr. Ryan

I hope not. There is only one other point in Senator The McGillycuddy's speech to which I wish to refer. It is a thing that has been said very often by Deputies and others. He says:—

"As a matter of fact, we are asking no more than the security of the capital invested in what amounts to a new undertaking on a large scale, and only on terms similar to those which have been accorded broadcast to a very large number of industrial concerns which have been born, and have lived, and died—some of them, not all of them—in this country during the last few years, and which the agricultural community have paid for in toto.

That is a thing which is very commonly said, but I want to know what precisely is the security accorded to any industry which has not been accorded to agriculture. I think that is the sort of statement made by Senators and others which is repeated over and over again without any foundation. I do not think this Government has ever given any security, protection or help of any kind to industry that has not also been given to agriculture. Wherever we had hoped that an industry would make itself self-sufficient—take, for instance, the leather or boot industry—we have given very full protection. Whenever we have believed that the agricultural industry can give us self-sufficiency, we have also given full protection. For instance, there is a tariff of £28 a ton on potatoes. I do not think you could beat that in any other industry—it is about seven times the value, in other words, a 700 per cent. tariff. There is 6d. per lb. on mutton, 6d. per lb. on beef, 6d. per lb. on bacon and something like 1/- per lb. on vegetables, because we realise that we had enough of those things here and we did not want anything to come in. Have we done better than that for any industry, or have we done as well as that for any industry where we did not expect to get self-sufficiency—as I mentioned already in the case of leather and boots where we realised we were going to fulfil our requirements?

The case of grain is different. We thought, and we were right in thinking in 1933, that we would not grow enough wheat for our requirements. If we thought we should grow enough wheat in those years, we would have put a prohibitive tariff on imported wheat, but we came to the conclusion that we could not grow enough, and we dealt with it in a different way. We said the price of wheat would be so much, and in fact, 30/- per barrel was paid for Irish wheat when foreign wheat was coming in at 13/- per barrel. There again, if you like, it amounted to a tariff of over 100 per cent. in the case of wheat. What industry has Senator The McGillycuddy in mind where we gave more security than that? After all, if he has not got some industry in mind that got more security than wheat growing, why make the statement? He says he is only asking for the same security as we gave to a number of other industries. Somebody may say we went further for industry than tariffs by putting on quotas. So did we put on quotas where they suited for agriculture as well.

There were certain commodities in agriculture like onions and tomatoes, which we were growing on a small scale and we came to the conclusion that the only way to deal with them was to regulate the imports by quota so that our home products would get a good market. That was done in their case. It is also being done in the case of root seeds. There was a quota on wheat coming in, if I may put it that way, because the flour miller had to buy a certain proportion of Irish wheat. In that way, he was limited in the amount of foreign wheat he could bring in and that constituted an indirect quota. Therefore, we had extremely high tariffs, quotas where they were suitable and subsidies when they were suitable. I do not know if the Senator could name any industry for which we did more in the way of protection, quota and subsidy than we did in the case of agriculture.

The McGillycuddy

Take the cement industry, as one example. They can pay 10 per cent. on their ordinary shares. Taking the whole farming complex, and not confining the matter to wheat, can the Minister say that the industry is now paying 10 per cent. or 17 per cent., as the Kilkenny boot factory is paying?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think that the Senator has quoted a very fair example. If, in the province of Munster, we could get no farmer to take up a certain crop and if we had to rely on Belgians or Dutch, who would only come in on the understanding that they would get 10 per cent., we might very well agree. The cement industry was a very big proposition. These people were prepared to come in on a certain tariff. We did not think that that would be good business. We wanted to limit profits rather than give protection and we limited their profits to 10 per cent. They cannot make more. We have not put any limits on farmers' profits, so far. I think that exaggeration in the case of agriculture, not by farmers but by their advocates, is very hurtful to agriculture in general. I meet farmers every week. They come to me or I go down to them.

I do not receive any very unreasonable complaints. I did not hear any farmer say that the price of wheat was too low. They are all satisfied with it. No farmer said to me that he wanted a guarantee that this price would last until the war was over or for a period after the war was over. Those who come here, and to assemblies like this, and advocate the cause of the farmer are very often inclined to exaggerate the case.

I pass on to the speech by Senator Sir John Keane. I do not at all agree with the Senator that, if you cleared a certain area here of Irish farmers and their families, and replaced them by Danes, you would obtain a much better return. I have been in other countries and have seen how farmers work. I have never seen farmers work harder anywhere than our farmers work. I was in Germany under the present regime. Everybody is supposed to work very hard there. I stayed in a farming district there the year before the war. If you stopped at a ditch to look at a piece of land, the farmer would come over and talk to you as long as you would talk to him —very much the same as our farmers do here. I never saw the farmers there worker harder than they work here, and I do not believe that Danes, Germans or Dutch would do a bit better here than our own farmers are doing. I may be asked how it is that the Danes have beaten us in the British market. In passing I may mention the case of butter. They were in the market before us, unfortunately. They had worked up a taste for their particular form of butter. We cannot get the price that they get. We may in time get it, but it will take a long time.

Senator Byrne said, very truly, in his speech that there was traceable here, in some cases, almost a distaste for tillage. That is true. There seems to be a prejudice against tillage in certain quarters. People are afraid to till. That is a prejudice against which we have to work and it is a big handicap in the campaign to get sufficient of our own food grown. Senator Byrne referred to the price of wheat, oats and barley in 1931. Prices were very bad at that time and there had been a continuous decline in tillage. It is quite possible that, if that policy of allowing tillage to take care of itself, had continued until 1939, even the knowledge of tillage would have disappeared from a great part of this country.

I agree absolutely with Senator Byrne when he says that more tillage means more and better cattle. That is obvious to anybody who thinks over it. People talk about the good pasture land of the midlands which is such an asset to this country for taking the cattle from the smaller men and finishing them off before they are exported. We must remember, however, how these cattle are treated before they go to this pasture. Unless these graziers, if we may so describe them without offence, get well-bred and well-fed cattle, they are not going to be such an asset to them or to the country. In the other parts of the country where these small cattle are bred and reared up to the age of 15 or 21 months, they cannot be properly cared for unless there is tillage. There must be roots and oats if we are to look after these cattle properly unless we are to go back and depend on imported feeding stuffs. There is hardly any necessity to make the case that more tillage, instead of being an injury to the cattle trade, will help it.

Deputy McGee made the point that the 50/- fixed this year should be paid for all millable wheat. He said that, last year, when the price was 40/-, some farmers whose wheat was taken and which, therefore, must have been millable wheat, were paid less than 40/-. I do not think that could be avoided. One thing we are doing this year is to fix the same price for all wheat down to 57 instead of 59 lb. bushel-weight. Senators will realise that, if wheat is saved in a bad condition and if there is a lot of moisture in it, it will be poor in bushelling. If a dishonest farmer—and there are dishonest farmers as there are dishonest people of other occupations— has wheat that is not very well saved, and if that wheat is going to bushel poorly, he will not go to much trouble to dry the wheat if, by drying it, he will get less for it, as would be the case if the same price were to be paid for all wheat. In fact, we tried so to arrange that the farmer would get the same price for his wheat, leaving the water out. That is how the prices are fixed this year.

Mr. McGee

Can the Minister say what the bushel weight would be?

Dr. Ryan

Anything over 57 is first-class wheat and will be paid for at the full price.

Mr. McGee

Was it not that last year?

Dr. Ryan

Last year there was a cut, between 57 and 59. There is that difference—the penalty will be smaller. Senator McGee also said that every creed and class can get petrol but that agricultural instructors cannot get it. That is not quite correct. The fact is that every creed and class cannot get petrol but the agricultural instructors are getting it. If the Senator thinks over it, he will see that he is wrong in both statements. Some classes get it, and the agricultural instructors are in one of the classes.

Mr. Baxter

It is very little.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, it is very little.

Mr. McGee

Is the Minister satisfied that they are getting enough?

Dr. Ryan

I am not, but no one is getting enough. Another question the Senator asked was wheather we are getting enough for our wheat here as compared with foreign wheat. The point is whether we should be influenced by the price of foreign wheat at all. We did not take any account of it when fixing the price of Irish wheat from 1933 to 1939. When speaking to the city people and the city consumers—some Senator here represents them—we tried to convince those people it was a good insurance. We said: "When the war comes, we will have Irish wheat for you, but in order to give you that insurance you must pay the premium, you must pay a bit more for your wheat in peace times." Supposing we were foolish enough to let the farmers take the war price, when the war would be over the city people would say: "Why insure against another war? When it comes, you will not give us wheat at a fair price—in fact, you will not grow it for us." The farmer has to keep his bargain now with the city consumer, by giving him wheat at a fair price.

Senator Crosbie commenced his speech by saying that the policy of the late Government was vindicated by what we find now. If what he finds now satisfies Senator Crosbie that the late Government is vindicated, I can understand why Senator Crosbie and others believe in that policy, but I cannot see how it vindicates them. That is what puzzles me. It would be extremely difficult, for instance, if the policy of the late Government had been pursued, or if the late Governmnt were still in office. With 20,000 acres in 1939 under wheat, I do not think it would be up to 460,000 acres in two years, as there would not be enough seed. My experience, through the technical men of the Department, was that there were many farmers who started growing wheat in 1934 and 1935 who did not know how to grow it. They made some very big mistakes and had to be taught the business. It was well that they were taught before the war commenced.

I agree with Senator Crosbie that it is very inadvisable to have these annual impasses on the price of wheat every autumn. We must try to avoid that. We must try to see that the farmer is given a fair price, and that he will be satisfied with a fair price and will go on growing wheat. At the moment, we are trying to see how that can be done.

I agree also with the Senator that the germination of seed wheat was unsatisfactory in many cases. We have found that the cause of that was often improper drying and improper storage. We are taking steps to see that every licensed assembler of seed wheat next year will dry and store his wheat under proper conditions. Unfortunately, we cannot store all the seed wheat that is required in the country through these licensed assemblers, but, at any rate, farmers will be told that fact, and they will be free to buy their seed from one of these people if they are not satisfied that the seed they are offered locally is in good condition.

Mr. Baxter

Before the Minister leaves that point, would he explain if it was discovered that the germination was bad in the harvest or if it was considerably lower in the spring, in January and February, than in the harvest? Do I understand that the germination was all right actually in the harvest, as far as we know it, but that it fell considerably in the spring?

Dr. Ryan

I need hardly tell the Senator that it varied a lot. In a great number of cases, it germinated fairly well in February but got very bad by April. I am now talking of the late varieties. There were causes of that— it was stored under bad conditions.

Mr. Baxter

Was it not actually all right in October and November?

Dr. Ryan

That wheat was threshed the following month. In the case of winter wheat we need not be so particular, as it does not go wrong so quickly from moisture and bad storing. Another thing the Senator mentioned was rye. We have been attacked in the Department for not developing rye cultivation. In fact, we have been developing rye for many years in certain districts. I admit we have not gone outside those districts, considered by the Department to be more suitable for rye than other districts. Rye is not a great success. We have not got a very big acreage under rye: only about 2,000 acres last year, I think. We would find difficulty in getting a large amount of seed now. The Senator appears to have some doubt, but I have no doubt, from the reports I saw, that rye is, for some reason, much more liable to disease here than it is in the North European countries. It may be that the particular virus that attacks rye thrives better in our mild atmosphere than it would in Northern Europe. At any rate, that is true.

Senator Crosbie also went back to the point of this Government favouring industries rather than agriculture. It is a pity that anybody should think you must favour one or the other. I do not see why we should not favour both. Senator Campbell talked about his associations with certain movements. I came into the Sinn Féin movement myself many years ago, when very young, but principally I think—if I could bring my thoughts back to it—on the economic teaching of the late Arthur Griffith. He thought that the country should have two arms —the industrial arm and the agricultural arm. That teaching was generally accepted. It does no good, either to agriculture or to industry, to try to persuade the farmer that, if he is to be prosperous industries must close down or, vice versa, to try to persuade the industrialist that, if he is prosperous, agriculture must be in a bad way. I think they should go hand-in-hand, and that both could be made prosperous in the course of time.

Senator O'Callaghan made the point —as did other Senators—that it is a pity that the ships which we have must be used in the carrying of wheat and that, if our own wheat were there, they could be used in the carrying of agricultural manures, agricultural machinery, and so on. I am not sure that we could bring in manures, even if we had the ships, but I think that we could get agricultural machinery. We hope we may be in a better position, as far as that is concerned, next year— that is, if we are able to spare the ships for other things than wheat.

We may want to bring in some wheat, of course, but I hope we will not need to bring in as much as in the present year. Senator Johnston was very inconsistent. One might excuse a Senator who has not been trained in economics for being inconsistent, but one would imagine that a man that gives his whole time to thinking upon these subjects would reconcile his theories. For instance, he said that what was ruining agriculture has been the unsatisfactory relation between live stock and cereals, meaning that the cereals were too dear; and then he said that he would deprecate any scheme that would raise the price of raw materials—that is, the raw materials for feeding poultry, pigs and so on —and in the same speech he said he would advocate a higher price for barley and oats. I do not see how he can reconcile these things at all, although I admit that they are all desirable— that is, that we should get a better price for live stock, a better price for barley, and should do nothing to injure the small farmer. But Senator Johnston wants to raise the price of barley and oats at the same time, knowing that we cannot improve the price of live stock because live stock are being exported. He blames the Government for being pro-British because they have not exposed the British policy of low prices for live stock.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is a new one, all right.

The McGillycuddy

I think he put it differently.

Dr. Ryan

Well I used to go to the fair and if I got a bit less than I expected, I did not go about talking about this blackguard who would not give me my price. Nobody said I was pro-Counihan or pro-anybody else because I did not act in that way. Why we should be called pro-British because we do not go around complaining about them I do not know. What is more I do not think it would rectify the position. We told the Minister of Food on the other side that his price was too low. He replied—and these are practically his exact words—"I am a business man; I will buy where I can buy cheapest." I said: "You are going to put us out of the market." We have gone out of the market as far as bacon and butter are concerned, but we have not yet gone out of the market as far as cattle are concerned.

Mr. M. Hayes

In fairness to Senator Johnston, I think Senator Johnston has written that himself in some English papers. He said so.

Dr. Ryan

Maybe if he told them we are pro-British it might help. I do not think another thing said by Senator Johnston is true. He said that it was waste of good food to take out 100 per cent. of flour from wheat because the human being can only digest 85 per cent., but the remaining percentage taken out could be digested by pigs, chickens and so on. I do not think that is right. I think the human being is capable of digesting just as much as the pig or chicken, so that whatever one cannot digest the other cannot. Senator Baxter said that wheat is the most fickle of our crops and that much of the technical advice which is given is wrong.

Every technical man may vary his advice sometimes, and every technical man in agriculture, which is such an inexact science, has to give a lot of advice which is his own opinion. He cannot be dogmatic and say: "That is the teaching." He can tell you that that is the teaching to a certain extent. He can say: "If I were doing it, that is what I would do." He will admit he may be wrong in it. He can just tell you what he would do if it was his own case. That is all you can expect in the case of agriculture. That being so, wrong advice may have been given at some time. The yield last year was low but not altogether due to the continuous cropping of wheat. There was a very unsatisfactory yield in Great Britain, where they had any amount of artificial fertilisers. Therefore, the unsatisfactory yield must have been to some extent due to the bad year. We can only wait and see what is going to happen this year. We can only hope that it will be better. Senator Ó Buachalla spoke of reserve fertility. His point was that we should not be discouraged by the plea that we have only a certain reserve of fertility and that when that goes we are finished as far as wheat growing is concerned. I think the Senator is right and that too much is being made of this reserve and of the suggestion that, as years go on, we will get less and less of a return. It has been said already that if we take the arable land and take the full acreage we need for human food it will be found that no farmer need sow wheat in the same field more than once in 12 years. In other words, we have 12 times as much arable land as we need for growing wheat.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is assuming that all the arable land is suitable for wheat. Does the Minister accept that?

Dr. Ryan

Not exactly. If I had taken all the arable land it would have been 18 to 1 and I am allowing a rough margin and making it 12 to 1. Under the Compulsory Tillage Order they take the arable land. As far as we can make the calculation the arable acreage is about 11,000,000. We want about 600,000 or 700,000 acres of wheat so that there is the sum to be done. Apart from that altogether there is the fact also that we have 600,000 or 700,000 acres under root crops, potatoes, mangolds and so on. Practically all that land has been manured, and generally, if our farmers would—I do not say all, because some farmers must continue to grow root crops—sow wheat after the manured crop, we would have quite good crops of wheat on manured land. We are not speaking of this great reserve of old pasture which has such a big reserve of fertility. Looking at it in various ways, we can afford to be a bit more optimistic than we should be if we thought we were facing in four or five years' time a period in which we could not possibly grow wheat for ourselves. I do not think that is going to happen.

Some Senators talked about an insurance scheme. Senator Ó Buachalla mentioned it in his speech. I think an insurance scheme is not going to do a whole lot of good. I suppose the idea is to insure the farmer against partial failure through bad seed or bad germination of seed or from a bad season. There would be a lot of claims under a scheme like that and of course where the claims are high the premiums also are very high. Administration is very costly and there would also be a good deal of inspection necessary.

The farmer would really be paying a high premium, a great part of which would go to the upkeep of the company or whatever organisation would administer this scheme. Taking it over the years, he would get back part of the money but only part of it. It is not like insuring bloodstock where the risk of accident or death is small, the premium being accordingly small while if such an accident occurred it would be a very serious thing for the farmer concerned. On the other hand it would scarcely ever happen that there would be a total failure of a crop. There might be a failure of four acres out of 24, or some small percentage of the total acreage and it would be much better that the farmer in such a case should carry his own insurance.

Senator Hawkins also spoke of the desirability of getting the owners of threshing machines to make returns. The Senator, I take it, had two points in mind in making that suggestion— firstly, to ensure that the owners of such machines were using their paraffin in a proper manner and secondly, so that we might have a return of the amount of wheat threshed. That is a matter we have had in mind, to ascertain whether it is practicable. It would be a very good thing if we had returns which would give us a rough idea of the amount of wheat threshed in each case. If the farmer did not account for all that wheat, either by showing that he had sent it to the mill, kept it for seed, or used a certain quantity for his own family, we could at least ask him what became of the quantity which he had not accounted for.

Senator Cummins asked two questions. The first was in regard to phosphates. I do not think the position is as good as Senator Cummins appears to think. There are raw phosphates in this country but they are very hard to get at—to quarry or to mine as the case may be. They are very hard and insoluble. They are more difficult to manufacture than the imported phosphates and they are not as high in phosphate content as the imported article. Taking one against the other, if we were to assess their relative values, a ton of raw phosphate at the mine ready to send to the factory would be worth less than a ton of raw imported phosphate at the port. I could not say exactly what the difference in value would be. Of course we are doing everything possible to utilise the native material. As the Senator stated, a company was set up and that company is trying to get as much as they can of the native material because it would be well to have it, even though it is lower in phosphate content than the imported material. Of course, by the time it reaches the farmer it does not matter to him how hard it was to quarry it because he gets his analysis and he can compare it with the imported phosphate. That is all he is concerned with.

Senator Cummins also asked for my opinion about the amendment. The last time this amendment was before the House I remember saying that if I were a Senator I would vote against it. Although I say to the Seanad that I still think Senators should turn it down, I quite admit that in a month's time I might have to come to the House and say that we should have compulsory wheat growing. The difficulty I see about it is that there are many farmers whose land may be arable, but all of it may not be suitable for wheat growing. You would therefore have to provide for some sort of appeal in a scheme of that kind. That would be an enormous job because you would have an enromous number of appeals and the machinery would have to be very elaborate. If we could get over that problem it would be on the whole fair to have a scheme of this kind.

Mr. O'Donovan

The amendment does not make it compulsory; the Government would have to take the necessary steps themselves.

Dr. Ryan

I recognise that, but I take it that anybody who votes for the amendment votes for it on the assumption that the necessary adjustment will be made to make the scheme practicable. With regard to the motion itself, if I may take it as a measure of the anxiety of Senators with reference to the policy of wheat growing, I can only feel gratified that we are all so united so far as wheat growing is concerned. It is at least one plank that is common on every platform now, but I do not see what further encouragement is necessary. The price is satisfactory. I do not think that there is a single farmer in the country who has been complaining of the price. That being so, I cannot see that the putting down of motions like this in the Seanad or the Dáil, or having debates of this kind in either House, is going to improve the position. After all, there are farmers in the country who have a great respect for an institution like the Seanad and I am sure a great respect—I might add, deservedly so—for the intelligence of Senators. If they read that Senators think that they are not getting a fair price for the wheat, it is going to have a very bad effect on them. I do not see how it could have any other effect.

If things are well enough as regards price, etc., —and every Senator seems to think that the price is all right— then why not leave well enough alone? All this debate, in my opinion, is not going to do a bit of good. As regards the question of a guarantee, I do not think a guarantee is necessary. Surely to goodness any farmer in this country, whether he voted Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or Independent at the last election, realises one thing at least —that, as far as the Fianna Fáil Party is concerned, it spent years in pushing this policy of wheat growing. The farmer will say to himself: "That Government, at any rate, will surely do everything possible to see that there is no diminution in the quantity produced either during the emergency or when it is over." I do not think any assurance at all is necessary as far as the farmers are concerned on this question of wheat growing.

The McGillycuddy

One thing in which the Minister was extremely successful is that he has completely by-passed the main suggestions which were made in moving this motion, in regard to the decentralisation of the machinery to bring about increased wheat production. Although the Minister finished his speech on a high note— he said that the price was all right and that nobody was complaining—it is abundantly clear that ships are still bringing in wheat, that we still have bread queues in the cities and towns, and even in the villages, and that people are sometimes forced to go away without getting bread. The Minister has also told us that in my case, as in the case of many others, there has been a change of heart. I admit that for years I thought that a grass policy was better than a wheat policy, but anybody who is not prepared to alter his opinion, according as circumstances alter, and to give credit, as I do, to the present Government for having raised the acreage under tillage to the present standard, is no more than a fool.

Unfortunately, there are numbers of people whose opinion does not change whatever be the circumstances. I am not one of those. Various Senators have made certain suggestions on what were thought to be constructive lines in order to encourage production and get the full amount of wheat which the Government, in spite of their efforts— let me put it that way—have not been able to get yet. One of them was made by Senator Crosbie and was also dealt with by Senator McGee, and that was, that the county councils should deal with this question by personal effort. Senator Crosbie was more concrete in his proposals than Senator McGee. I do suggest to the Minister, in spite of his not having dealt with it here in the House, that he and his officials should examine whether the best could not be got out of the British tillage system; whether he should not decentralise the work and have it done in the counties instead of in Merrion Street. The local people can pick out the land that is not arable, and avoid the numerous exemptions which, notwithstanding what the Minister says, still exist all over the country. I am quite convinced that there is a great deal of arable land which is not being scheduled as such by the inspectors. I could go a bit further and refer to a complaint to a county committee of agriculture in session by a county instructor that in certain parts of his district the inspectors were classing a lot of land which should come under the plough as not being suitable for the purpose. I think a lot of those exemptions would be done away with if you appointed small committees, reinforced by the most active members of the county committees of agriculture, give them each a district, and see what they can do. If compulsory tillage is not wanted, there could be, at any rate, advice given as to the different types of cereals to be grown.

Senator Crosbie dealt with another point to which the Minister did not refer and that is the absorption of labour after the war. That question is bound up with the suggestion we have made that there should be a definite price for wheat for some time after the war. You will have some 150,000 persons coming back here, people who have been earning a very high rate of wages, people who have been sending money home, and whose services will no longer be required abroad. Some employment will have to be found for those people. They will have to be fed. They have been accustomed to a higher standard of living, and, if there is dissatisfaction at a lower standard, that passive dissatisfaction may quite easily turn into active revolt, which in its turn might easily disturb the peace of our country just as it is beginning to progress. All that Senator O'Callaghan said was very true and very sound. I regret that he thought I made an attack on the Government and on the Taoiseach. I had no intention of doing anything of the kind, and I am sure he understands that now. Senator Johnston's contribution was entirely destructive. Some of his remarks, in my opinion, were irrelevant, some were misleading and some were positively harmful. He was prepared, at a moment's notice after the war, to import cheap wheat and leave the farmer absolutely stranded. Imagine the inconsistency of that. Would he have said the same thing about cement, boots, or the other things which we are protecting and the manufacture of which is giving employment to our people at the present moment?

Mr. O'Donovan

He does say those things.

The McGillycuddy

I am just referring to his inconsistency. I think remarks like that are extremely harmful. He suggested co-operation with the British. Well, anybody who has read British political history ever since the industrial revolution must know that the volume of votes in the towns returned to the House of Commons so many members who demanded cheap food that they were able to outvote the country representatives. They will always go on outvoting them, and after this war you will have in England exactly the same drop as regards agriculture, in spite of the prophecies now, as you have had on every occasion after a war. That is what we are trying to make our Minister guard against for a period of years. We did not mention a specific period because we wanted all the Senators here to make constructive suggestions during the discussion. Not one of them, until we pressed Senator Hawkins, could make any suggestion as to whether it should be two years or three years or anything else. Finally, Senator Hawkins differed from us by only one year. The period is very small; there is very little difference between us.

If I may return to Senator Johnston, he criticised the British because they would not buy our cattle. It is quite obvious that the British would have bought our cattle if they wanted them, and if the prices were right, particularly now when their situation as regards shipping is so serious. Finally, he referred to the movers of this motion as racketeers. That was the manner in which he referred to the people who came here to try to do what they considered best to increase the amount of bread available for the poor of the cities. I think that was monstrous and grossly unfair to all of us who are doing our best in this matter without any political bias. The Minister must admit that we are advocating exactly the same policy that he himself has been advocating for a number of years.

I should like to refer to some of the remarks which Senator Ó Buachalla made at very great length. A great deal of his speech was merely a repetition of what had been said by the movers of this motion. In fact it appeared to be a speech delivered quite regardless of what all the other speakers had said. He began by talking about the question of what the price was to be and how long it would continue. Senator Crosbie had already elaborated the matter at very considerable length. I should say that he quoted Professor Caffrey in a way which I am perfectly certain Professor Caffrey never intended. He generalised about land and its value. You cannot generalise about land, or even about the four or five fields of any one farm as regards wheat growing or anything else. In conclusion may I say I regret that in spite of the efforts we have made that, at present, at any rate, the Minister has not seen fit to deal in any way with the suggestions we have made about decentralisation, but we have put our proposals on record. We know that at present there is a shortage of bread, and that there will probably be decreasing yields, nor will there be anything additional for feeding to animals, and we hope that from whatever we have been able to say, the Minister may pick out a few items which may seem good to the country possibly in the future.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided:—Tá, 25; Níl, 6.

Tá.

• Blaney, Neal.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Campbell, Seán P.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Crosbie, James.
• Cummins, William.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, James.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• McEllin, Seán.
• Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar.
• (Oú Uladh).
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• Magennis, William.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Tunney, James.

Níl.

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Doyle, Patrick.
• Hayes, Michael.
• McGee, James T.
• Tierney, Michael.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Goulding and Hawkins; Níl: Senators Conlon and Doyle.

Question declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 17.