With regard to the motion in the name of Senator Cogan, I regret that the Minister for Agriculture is engaged in the other House on the Greyhound Industry Bill and there seems to be no prospect of his being available. In those circumstances, I suggest that Senator Cogan should open the debate on his motion and we can then adjourn it and have the Minister here on the next occasion. Would that suit Senator Cogan?
Price of Wheat—Motion.
I take it that opening the debate means making a case in favour of the motion?
Whatever the Senator pleases.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is agreed to proceed without the Minister.
I move:—
That Seanad Éireann is of opinion that in view of the substantial decrease in the total area under tillage as a result of the reduction in the price of wheat last year and having regard to the increased cost of production it is essential that the price of next season's crop be increased.
I regret very sincerely that the Minister is unable to be present. It would be invidious, I suppose, to draw a comparison between the relative importance of the greyhound industry and wheat growing. Both are important, I suppose. It might also not be desirable to raise a question as to whether or not, on a motion of this kind, some Minister should be present, because, in matters of State policy, each Minister is responsible on the principle of collective responsibility, and, therefore, it would be desirable, if it were possible, that some Minister should be present when a motion of this nature is being discussed. Having made that point, I am satisfied to proceed. I recognise that the Government are ably represented through the Leader of the House and other members who are supporters of the Government, and I shall endeavour, therefore, to put forward the case in support of this motion, trusting that the facts which I state will be brought to the Minister's notice and will receive due consideration.
Twelve months ago, a motion somewhat similar to this was before this House, and, 12 months ago, this House decided, by a vote, to support the action of the Government at that time in drastically reducing the price of wheat. It may be that the House was influenced to a considerable extent by the views put forward by the Minister for Agriculture and by the promises then made by the Minister. In this House, the Minister referred us to his statements in the Dáil on a wheat motion that was considered there last year. Speaking in the Dáil on 2nd December, 1954, he said:
"This day 12 months I will invite this House to judge our policy by the results."
The 12 months have elapsed, and those of us who are still alive and hale and hearty can look back upon the effects of the Government's policy in regard to wheat and judge that policy by the results. The results are clearly set forth in the Irish Trade Journal which records agricultural trends, both in regard to tillage produce and live stock, and we find, as stated in this motion, that the acreage under wheat declined during the past year by 130,000 acres. A drop in the area under wheat of 130,000 acres is a very substantial drop, but, in addition to that, we have, as is also stated in the motion, a decline in the total acreage of tillage. The decline of 81,000 acres in the total area under tillage means that we have an increase in the total acreage of permanent pasture of 81,000 directly as a result of Government policy in regard to wheat. In that decline in the acreage under tillage, there is included a very serious item. It is a drop of 20,000 acres in the area under sugar beet. As we all know, the growing of beet and wheat go very closely together. Many farmers find that, while the gross income from the growing of beet is high, the net income, having regard to the costs involved, is relatively low. Farmers find that, if it were not for the benefit they get from crops the following year because of the improvement in the land after growing beet, it would not be desirable for them to grow beet at all. Therefore, we find that the decline in the acreage under beet is very closely related to the cut in the price of wheat.
That is, I believe, a matter of very grave concern, because, while wheat growing involves a very substantial amount of labour on the land and in the transport of the crop, as well as in the operation of the local mills, the sugar beet industry provides even greater employment for labour on the land, in the factories and in the transport of the crop. In striking at the price of wheat last year, the Government, in fact, struck at the acreage under sugar beet; it struck at the beet-growing industry; and eventually struck at the total agricultural output; for while the acreage under tillage is substantially reduced to the extent of 81,000 acres, there has been no compensating increase on the live-stock side of agriculture. We find that in the past year the number of cows declined by 24,000; the total number of cattle by 48,000; sows by 20,000; and the total number of pigs by 153,000. Therefore, we find that not only has there been a steep downward trend in the area under tillage, but there has also been a steep decline in the numbers of live stock. That means that the whole output of the agricultural industry has been seriously impaired.
The point was made by many speakers last year, supporting the reduction in the price of wheat, that, by reducing the wheat price and the wheat acreage, they would be establishing a better proportion in agriculture. They argued that agriculture had become somewhat lopsided, because of what they alleged to be the favourable price being paid for wheat, and that, therefore, something should be done to bring agriculture into balance. The amount of unbalance, however, in agriculture, as we all know, is, and has always been, the vast acreage we have had under grass as compared with the acreage under tillage. The figures for the past year show that we had a reduction of 81,000 acres under tillage, bringing the area of the total ploughed land down to something like 1,713,000 acres, out of a total of 11,500,000 acres of agricultural land. That means that we have now 9,800,000 acres under grass, as against 1,700,000 acres under tillage and surely that is not balanced agriculture. Surely the trend that took place during the past year which increased the area under grass and reduced the area under tillage is not calculated to restore, or to improve, the balance of agricultural production.
Last year, we deplored the fact that there was a reduction in the price of wheat. We all deplored it, particularly in view of the terrible season through which the farmers had passed at the time, and, on looking back over the past 12 months, everything seems to emphasise the injustice inflicted on the farmers at that time, and the injustice inflicted on them in the past year. In that connection, I might tell a little story. Recently, at a fair in Baltinglass, County Wicklow, I was speaking to a small farmer and asked him how things were going. He told me that he had a good crop of oats, but could not get rid of them, and that the wheat did fairly well, but that he would have got £50 more, if it had not been for James. I was surprised because I did not know what he meant, when he said he would have got £50 more if it had not been for James. I did not realise for the moment that he was referring to our distinguished and illustrious Minister for Agriculture, but that is the reaction of the average farmer to the recent cut in the price of wheat.
Every man who looks to his return from the wheat crop this year has been able to see quite clearly how much money he has lost because of the cut so savagely imposed on him during the year. The loss of that particular farmer who said that the wheat did fairly well was £50, but the total loss to the farmers of the country was something in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000. That £2,000,000 has been taken out of the pockets of the farmers by reason of the reduced price in wheat, but who has derived the benefit of that cut? There has been no reduction in the price of bread and, therefore, the consumers can have derived no benefit, because of the reduction in the price of wheat. The working farmer has been hit severely by that cut and nobody, so far as I can see, has received any benefit, except perhaps the Exchequer, to the amount of something in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000.
Was that cut justified? I hold the view, as I did last year, that it was not. The events of the past year have shown that it was not justified, because during the past year almost every section of the community, without exception, has put forward demands for increased remuneration and has had these demands met to a considerable extent, while the farmer engaged in the growing of wheat has had to meet a cut of 15 per cent., not in his net income but in his gross income. I think that situation could not, under any circumstances, be justified.
During the past week, representatives of the organised farming community met the Minister. The grain growers' committee, representative of the National Farmers' Association and the Irish Sugar Beet Growers' Association, have put before the Minister a very strong and well-reasoned case for an increase in the price of wheat this year. I hope that case is being very carefully and very sympathetically considered by the Government. Among the points which they stressed and which does support a demand for an increase, and support this motion, is the fact that production costs over the past year have increased by 5 per cent. Even if we were to forget everything said about the reduction last year, even if we were to accept that the price fixed last year was justifiable, an increase of 5 per cent. in production costs is something which must be taken serious note of and something which, in my opinion, the Government are bound to meet and to compensate the farmer for. In the sugar beet industry, which fortunately is not controlled by any Government Department but is under the direct control of a State company, an increase has. been provided to the farmers over the price last year.
And the acreage dropped by 20,000, despite the increase.
There was no increase last year. An increase of 3/6 has been granted this year. I think it is worth while to consider that, in the sugar beet industry, there is machinery which provides for a careful investigation of costings and the provision of a price based on costs. It is reasonable to ask that similar consideration should be given to the wheat grower.
I have already said that the decline in the sugar beet acreage has been, in great measure, related to the reduction in the price of wheat. Farmers cannot justify the growing of beet in the hope of getting a good price for wheat in the following year. I made that point already. It was also stated last year that there was a decline in the world price of wheat and that we here could not in conscience—not even in a farmer's conscience—expect to maintain the price for wheat here. The fact of the matter is that, during the past year, the world price of wheat, as delivered in this country, has been on the increase. I understand that during the last harvest in many parts of the country Irish native-grown wheat could be purchased at the mills cheaper than the imported wheat. That was due to a variety of circumstances, but it is true. The case that was so eloquently made by the Minister that the existing guaranteed price for wheat represented a subsidy to the farmer has very little substance in it. I hope the Minister will not turn down, without the very gravest consideration, the strong case that has been made by the farmers' association for an increase this year.
It will be recognised that only within the past 48 hours—by a remarkable coincidence, it happened only after the ballot boxes in West Limerick had been closed—was it publicly announced that the price of fertilisers is being increased by 15/- per ton. That increase of 15/- per ton represents a very substantial increase in the cost of production, particularly for the farmer whose land needs fertilisers. I think it does strengthen the case for this motion, although this motion was put down before that increase came into operation.
There has also been, over the past year, an increase in minimum agricultural wages of 5/- per week and a very substantial increase in rates. Therefore, it will be agreed, from every angle, that, even if we were to accept the fact that the price last year was fair, an unanswerable case exists for increasing the price now, having regard to the costs of production.
I think it is desirable now, once and for all, to dispose of the arguments that were put forward in favour of the reduction in the price of wheat last year. They have been dealt with by other people, but I think, however, they have been repeated over and over again, ad nauseam. The case for cutting down the price of wheat in 1954 was based on four great falsehoods— and no other word can describe them: (1) it was stated that there was a danger of a wheat surplus in this country; (2) it was stated that there was an agreement which bound us to import 270,000 tons of wheat; (3) it was stated that Fianna Fáil, while in power, agreed to a reduction at least in the acreage under wheat, and therefore it was implied they had agreed to a reduction in the price of wheat; and (4) there was the most fantastic and despicable of all the falsehoods, that is, that there was widespread speculation in the growing of wheat—as if anyone on earth could speculate successfully with regard to the growing of a crop in this country.
On the question of a surplus—it is as well to dispose of that completely— I put it first because I would regard it as the most serious of the points made in favour of cutting the price of wheat last year. It was dinned into our ears for months before the cut was announced that there was a danger we were going to be overwhelmed with supplies of wheat in this country. It was suggested in inspired articles in the Press, prior to the announcement of the cut, that we might have to seek external markets for our wheat. What are the facts? The facts are that, according to the Trade Journal for September, which is the latest one I have at my disposal, during the first nine months of the present year, we imported into this country 2,466,000 cwt. of wheat and we paid for that wheat £3,602,000. £3,600,000 went out of the country to import wheat at a time when it was being dinned into our ears that we would have to send our trade officials all round the world to the five Continents to look for a market for our surplus wheat. The effect of that enormous import of wheat may be considered in relation to our trade balance.
During the first nine months of the present year, the adverse trade balance reached a figure of £70,000,000. That is a very substantial amount, and at least we should try to see if a portion of that could be used for growing our own wheat, but £3,600,000 had to be sent out to import wheat. I assume that wheat was imported, in the main, from the dollar area, and our adverse trade balance in the dollar area, for the first nine months of the present year, was £16,000,000. We do not know how much it will be for the full year. It stood at £16,000,000 in September.
Surely it was fantastic for the Government and their supporters to claim that there was a danger of a surplus, having regard to those facts. We need 450,000 tons of dried millable wheat to provide our bread needs in this State. In the present year, up to the present, I think the intake to our mills was 274,000 tons.
That is up to the first week of November.
Yes. But in the last year, when we hear so much about the terrible production of wheat which threatened the State, as it was said at the time, with an unsaleable surplus, the total amount of dried wheat supplied to the mills was 354,000 tons, whereas we need at least 450,000 tons, so that we were far short of the surplus. The talk of a surplus in those circumstances is fantastic.
Were not 150,000 tons of the unmillable wheat due to the bad year?
The case was made by the Minister that there was only about 3 per cent. of the wheat proved to be unmillable. We may take it that a very substantial amount of the wheat produced reached the mills, but let us take a five-year period and we will see that at no time did the wheat growers ever threaten to drown the consumers in Ireland with wheat. In the year 1951/52, the total amount we produced was 168,000 tons. It rose in 1952/53 to 182,000 tons. It rose still higher in the year 1953/54 to 296,000 tons. It went up to 354,000 tons in 1954/55. It never went within a measurable distance of reaching the total we require to supply our needs.
Instead of there being any danger of a surplus, the worst the wheat growers could do to the community was that they might produce almost 100 per cent. If they did, we would have to adjust the imported admixture. There never was a danger, or a possibility in fact, at the time, that we might exceed the requirements of the State. Why all this panic about the surplus? After all, is it not a good thing that we should be able to be at least reasonably self-sufficient in the matter of supplying the most essential of our foodstuffs and the raw materials for those foodstuffs?
I think I have said enough to dispose of the suggestion that there was any possibility of our producing a surplus. Yet that case was made throughout the State. I suppose that to a certain extent people were influenced by the picture which was presented of Irish ships laden down to the water's edge with surplus wheat carrying it across the Atlantic to try to sell it in the United States and Canada. That was the fantastic future painted for us last year by the Government. I hope we will hear no more about this surplus.
It may be well to refer to the fact that the high acreage last year was due to very exceptional circumstances which I think have been set forth by the farmers' association in their case to the Minister. In the spring of 1954, there was a guaranteed price for wheat. We knew that that guarantee might not last beyond a year, because we knew it was very likely—almost certain—that Deputy Dillon would become Minister for Agriculture and that the Fine Gael Party would become the Government and they had always been historically antagonistic to wheat. Therefore, farmers were naturally anxious to sow as big an acreage as possible, saying to themselves that wheat would be finished after that year because Fine Gael would come into power.
How did the people know that in February?
At the time when wheat was sown in March and April, it happened that the results of the by-elections had been declared. It was quite clear that the propaganda in regard to the cost of living was bearing fruit, particularly in the urban areas. It was quite clear that the present Minister for Agriculture would, in all probability, ride back into power on the top of the loaf which was being carried on the top of the stick.
Good farmers do not plough in March; they plough in December and January.
The Senator is surely making prophecies after the event. He is being a prophet after the event.
There were a lot of prophets before the event.
I was one of them.
In addition to that, we had a situation last year in which live stock were about to be decontrolled in Great Britain, and many intelligent people anticipated that decontrol would lead to a collapse of live stock prices and said this was not a good time to invest too much money in cattle; that it was better to put the land that would be under cattle under an additional acreage of wheat for which there was at the time a guaranteed price. Those exceptional circumstances did influence the acreage of the wheat. I stated last year and I now repeat that, even if the price of wheat had not been reduced last year, there would be some reduction in the acreage, but not a sufficient reduction to bring down the total acreage under tillage, as has happened because of the cut. There would have been some reduction of wheat and the wheat acreage would have settled down, at a price of £4 per barrel, at a reasonable acreage which would meet our needs and which would not provide any possibility of a surplus.
I have dealt with the question of a surplus and we can go on from that to another argument, which I would call falsehood No. 2. It was that, by the wheat agreement which had been in operation for five or six years and which will remain in operation until next year, this country undertook an obligation to accept 270,000 tons of wheat from the wheat exporting countries and that at any time the wheat exporting countries could compel us to accept the 270,000 tons of wheat. Now the facts are that there was no such provision in the wheat agreement. There was a provision that, if the wheat exporting countries offered us the wheat at what was the minimum price, which was a ridiculously low price, they could compel us to accept it; but there was no likelihood that they were going to do such a foolish thing.
If the exporting countries were to offer us the wheat at £20 a ton, it would have meant that they were selling us the wheat at a price less than the price of maize and other coarse grains. Therefore, there was no danger whatever from that source and every intelligent person who studied the facts was aware of that. Yet it was a very good argument to use in favour of the cut in the price of wheat. It was a very nice thing to say that the Fianna Fáil Government had agreed to that provision in the wheat agreement. In actual fact, it had been agreed to both by the previous Coalition Government and by the Fianna Fáil Government and it will remain in operation until next July.
It did not, however, present any serious danger of our being flooded with wheat because it must be recognised that, if the exporting countries were foolish enough to sell us wheat at less than the price of coarse grains, we would refrain from importing the coarse grains and use the wheat as a feeding stuff instead; but there was no likelihood that they were going to disrupt the market in that way in normal times, so that that argument was simply put forward as an excuse for this felonious act of reducing the price of wheat.
The third great falsehood which was so frequently stated in support of the reduction in the price of wheat was that Fianna Fáil had, in February of 1954, agreed to a reduction in the area under wheat, but anyone who gave the matter any attention would have seen that the decision taken by Fianna Fáil in 1954 was to aim at a target of two-thirds of our requirements. We have not reached that target this year so far, and, even if we do, there is no danger in regard to it. As we all know, an agricultural target is a very flexible thing. You cannot have a precise figure of the amount you are going to get from agriculture by any settled policy of the Government. We must remember that a Government, in dealing with the farmers, are dealing with 350,000 very independent and individualistic people, and if every farmer in the country decided of his own volition to grow only one extra acre of wheat, it would mean an increase of over 300,000 acres, so that, in fixing an agricultural target, one has to allow for a wide margin of error.
The Fianna Fáil Government very properly set out a target of two-thirds. They knew it was possible to have an error of 50 per cent. above or below that, but, in either case, no very serious danger would arise. We have got to face the fact that, in a free enterprise, every farmer has free will and can do what he wishes with his own land and rightly so, and, therefore, it is wise to set up a target which, if reached, will be desirable; which, if it is exceeded, will not be any great danger; and which, if it is not completely reached, will not create any great embarrassment.
Therefore, in fixing this as an ideal to be aimed at, the Fianna Fáil Government were taking a wise and practical step. In making the provision they made, they knew it would have to be flexible, inasmuch as they could never be sure, to the exact ton or even 50,000 tons, what amount would come in. But, at any rate, there was a definite declaration at the time that we were to aim at growing a very substantial portion of our requirements and that was the decision taken, which, as the former Minister stated, would have permitted the wheat acreage to fluctuate somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 acres.
It must be remembered, of course, that, in the growing of a crop of wheat, provision must be made not only for the millable wheat supplied to the mills, but for reseeding in the following year, so that the former Minister, Deputy Walsh, was quite right in saying that what he was aiming at was an acreage somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 acres. Remember that that is a reasonable proposition. It represents only less than one-twentieth, less than 5 per cent., of the total area of agricultural land, and there could be no question of excessive ranching, or huge wheat belts, or anything of that kind under such a programme.
I think it was clearly recognised by the Minister, when making his case last year, that he was on very weak ground, that he really had no case, that the legs he was trying to stand on were rather rotten, that there was no real danger of a surplus, that there was no real danger that the Americans would flood this country with cheap wheat and that there was no substance whatever in the suggestion that Fianna Fáil had agreed to reduce either the acreage or the price of wheat. Therefore, the Minister perhaps wisely decided to create a sort of diversion, so he started this cock and bull story about speculators.
Could anyone imagine how it would be possible for a person to speculate in the growing of a crop or to racketeer in the growing of a crop? You can racketeer in goods and in grain, when it is harvested, because you can buy it up and hold on to it until you get a better price, but when it comes to putting in a crop into the land and battling against climatic conditions for five, six or seven months, the scope for racketeering is very limited. Let it be clearly understood that, in almost every case, when the Minister for Agriculture has attacked some national enterprise in this country, he has always accused some particular people of racketeering. I remember that, when the present Minister for Agriculture was attacking the industrial policy of Fianna Fáil, he introduced into the debate on various occasions descriptions of gangs of racketeers. I remember his attacks on the wheat-growing policy when he made the case of racketeering flour millers who, he claimed, were exploiting the Fianna Fáil wheat-growing policy.
Again, seven years ago, in 1948, when the present Minister came into office, he turned down the request of oat growers for a fair price for oats. He then—and I think I had a conflict with the Minister at that time—put up the argument that there were racketeers holding large surpluses of oats at that time who wanted the price raised, so that they could get a substantially increased profit. It is always easy, when you want to put forward a case you cannot defend, to raise a hue and cry against some section of the community. Adolf Hitler in Germany raised an outcry against the Jews and started an agitation amongst the people for his particular purposes. In the same way, on another occasion, Oliver Cromwell, I think, used the same tactics to arouse mass hysteria against sections of the community for his own nefarious purposes.
In the same way, the Government decided to cut the price of wheat, and, having no reasoned case to put forward in support of that reduction, decided that it would be a good thing to create an outcry against a section of the community. It is always an easy thing for an unscrupulous politician to attack a section of the community which appears to be wealthy, and so an attack was made on the large wheat growers, people growing wheat extensively. Was there any sense or justification in that attack? The Minister gave figures of a number of large growers, but if you totalled the figures together, you found that they represented less than 2 per cent. of the total acreage under wheat.
The large wheat growers of this country are found under two headings, those who are large land owners, and those who take land by conacre and grow the wheat on somebody else's land. With regard to the first class, the large land owner, was he doing anything wrong? Could anyone seriously say that it was a crime for a man who owns a large acreage to put a considerable portion of it under wheat? Was he not doing an essential work for the community, if he has good land, in utilising it for the growing of the raw materials for the bread for his neighbours? Is it not also true that the man who has a large acreage of land is doing a better service to the community by putting a large portion of it under wheat, thereby giving employment on the land, in the mills and in the haulage of the crop, than if he were to have the land entirely under permanent pasture, and perhaps poor quality pasture? Is he not, by putting it under wheat, doing a good service to the community generally?
Then we have the other section, the people who take land by conacre and grow wheat on it. I know several of these people who have 200, 300 or 400 acres and who grow a considerable amount of wheat on that land. I know of one case of a man who is growing wheat by conacre to the extent of several hundred acres. That man started as an agricultural worker and went to Britain during the war. He saved enough money to buy the machinery and to operate as a tillage contractor. Then, finding it very difficult to make much profit at that business, having regard to the increased mechanisation of farms around him, he proceeded to take land by conacre and to grow wheat himself. His profits, I would say, were small, but at least he was making a living in this country and showed initiative and enterprise. The Minister and others have attacked foreigners for coming in and taking land by conacre to grow wheat. It is rather strange that this storm of denunciation was set up last year about foreigners coming in here and spending money on productive enterprise, and yet, during the present year, we have the Government appealing to foreigners everywhere to come into our country and develop our resources.
We have the Minister for Industry and Commerce going through Europe with a roll of red carpet under his arm ready to lay it at the feet of any speculators who will come here and develop our resources. Is there anything more objectionable in foreigners coming here and cultivating certain acreages of land and giving employment to workers than in foreigners coming in and taking over the mines and employing a certain number of workers there?
There is no difference between the two?
There is not; of course not.
We do not mind what we say sometimes.
I think it would be a much more serious matter to allow foreigners to come in and develop industries on a large scale than it would be to allow them to come in and take land on the 11 months system.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think the Senator should come back to the question of the increased cost of production.
I was dealing with the case that was made for the cut last year and I think it is well to dispose of that case, which is certain to be repeated now. I am making the case for an increase in the price of wheat, and it is absolutely essential that the case made for the reduction last year should be completely and finally demolished. If you take the very worst example cited by the Minister, the foreigner coming in and taking land on the 11 months system, before he would get one acre of land on which to grow wheat, he would have to pay dearly for it. Irish farmers do not part cheaply with their land. Let us assume that this man were to take 1,000 acres of land: he would have to pay down at least £25,000 in hard cash before he would get possession——
On the 11 months system?
——while it costs at least £25 per acre to produce wheat. That is another £25,000 expenditure incurred. How much profit would he expect to make on that? No racketeer, no speculator in the objectionable sense, would embark on an enterprise of that kind where he would have to spend £50,000 and he might hope, if he had an exceptionally high yield, to secure £50,000 in gross return—because I think the average output per acre over the past three or four years has been somewhere in the region of one ton per acre. The value of that would be even at last year's prices £32. There is an expenditure of £50,000 with a return of £32,000, so there is not very much for the speculator in that. Of course, if he were a very wise man and a good business man, and succeeded in getting the very best type of land on the 11 months system, he might get a yield much higher than the average and in that way might recoup himself, but there is a very big "if" in it, and it is not the kind of enterprise that would appeal to the speculator or racketeer who is out to make easy money. It is, however, a type of enterprise that should appeal to the man to whom I refer, the hard-working man who has invested his money in agricultural machinery and is anxious to get some return out of it, even though it might be of a problematical nature.
This whole case that there was racketeering, speculation and fraud in regard to the growing of wheat was completely and absolutely without any foundation. Therefore, we find that every excuse that was offered for the reduction of the price last year was without validity, and it is right to advocate that we should at least go back to last year's price. I sincerely hope the Minister is considering this matter seriously, and that he is being, and will be, influenced by the reasoned case that has been presented to him by the representatives of the farmers. I hope he will also be influenced by the views which have been expressed, not only by the farmers' associations but by the duly elected county committees of agriculture in practically every county.
I have before me a report of a discussion which took place in County Offaly. It was reported in the Leinster Leader of October 29th. In that report, I read that, by a unanimous decision, the members of the Offaly County Committee of Agriculture called on the Minister for Agriculture to fix a guaranteed price of £4 per barrel for wheat. The resolution was proposed by Mr. C. Kelly, Fianna Fáil, and seconded by Mr. R.J. Hume, Fine Gael. It also asked that 1/- per barrel should be paid for wheat bushelling over 60, with a similar reduction where it was less than 60. In the course of his remarks supporting that resolution, Mr. Hume, a prominent supporter of the present Government, said:—
"It may seem strange for me to second this resolution, but I feel it is my duty to do so. I know, and my sons know, what it is to work on a farm and to try to make a living out of it."
Congratulating Mr. Kelly on the sincere and unbiassed way he proposed the resolution, Mr. Hume said he knew that many farmers like himself found it as much as they could do to live after paying their way.
"I call," said Mr. Hume, "on every supporter of Fine Gael in Ireland to support this resolution and to press for it. I consider that an injustice has been done to the farmer."
These are strong, firm and fearless words, and they reflect the opinions which have been expressed at many more meetings of county committees of agriculture throughout the State. The county committee of which I am a member passed a resolution recently unanimously calling upon the Government to increase the price of wheat, notwithstanding the fact that a prominent Deputy of the Fine Gael Party is a member of that committee. He joined in that unanimous appeal.
The Government, if they adhere to the decision which was unwisely taken last year, will be flying in the face of farming opinion and of public opinion. A very worthy and distinguished member of this House, who is also a member of the Fine Gael Party, expressed his views with equal sincerity and with equal force. As reported in the Drogheda Independent of the 26th February last, Senator McGee said:—
"I am afraid that there is an anti-agricultural bias being taken up by the Government."
He said that at a meeting of the County Louth Committee of Agriculture on February 21st, 1955, and he went on to say, referring to the Government: "They are going mad." I hope that opinion was exaggerated. I hope the Government have not gone completely mad, and that they will listen to the reasoned case put up by the entire farming community for a better price for wheat, and that they will recognise now, in the light of 12 months' experience, the evil results that have flowed from this policy.
I also think it would be very relevant at this stage to quote a few words spoken in all sincerity by a member of this House during the debate on a wheat motion here.
It is interesting to read some things you said about wheat during the war.
As reported at column 682 of the Seanad Reports for 16th December, 1954, Senator McGee said:—
"I should like to tell the Government that, for one who has spent 40 years with them, it takes a very considerable grain of salt to help to digest the present position and I am only digesting it, because I believe that, in order to bring down the cost of living, some sacrifice must be made. In this instance, the sacrifice is being made by the farming community."
There was a sincere expression of opinion on the part of a supporter of the Government, that the sacrifice the farmers were being called upon to make at that time would be imitated by other sections of the community—that the farmer, having sacrificed 15 per cent. of his gross income, was setting a headline in self-sacrifice that other people might follow and that there might be a general reduction in living costs, and perhaps a stabilisation of our economic position. That was the hope that was sincerely expressed by Senator McGee here in this House when this matter was debated last year. Has that hope been fulfilled?
For the past year, every section of the community has demanded and secured an increase in income—every section, except the farming community. Instead of having a reduction in the cost of living over the past 12 months, we have had a very steep and substantial increase. The farmers' sacrifice has been completely in vain. The money that was extracted from them has ultimately gone down the drain. It has not reduced the price of bread. It has not benefited the community generally. It has not prevented a sharp upward trend in the cost of living. Therefore, I think it is time for the Government seriously to consider the position as it stands now— not, perhaps, as some of them thought it stood last year, but as they realise the position to be now.
The reduction in the price of wheat has brought about a steep reduction in the area under tillage and a grave unbalance in our agricultural economy. There has been a sharp decline in our live stock and in the general output of agriculture. In the light of these facts, surely the time has come to take serious notice of this reasonable request? A Senator asked me what I said about the growing of wheat during the war.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That question does not arise.
I thought the time had come to make a request to the Government. Surely the time has come to make the request and stop?
I object very strongly to the remark by Senator Hayes that I should stop.
I am sorry; I apologise.
I think it is somewhat overbearing and arrogant on the part of any Senator to suggest that there should be a closure on this debate on an important issue.
The Senator knows I am suggesting no closure. I made the arrangements for this debate and it will continue after Christmas. All I said was that the time does appear to me to have come when the Senator might make his request to the Government in good and set terms, and finish with the request: he can make the rest of the speech after Christmas. He can adjourn the debate now and make another speech lasting three-quarters of an hour after Christmas.
I take it the Leader of the House has given an undertaking that the case I have made will be seriously considered by the Government during the next few weeks and that, in addition, the case made by the county committees of agriculture and the farmers' associations will also be seriously and, I hope, sympathetically considered. I think, however, I should not allow the suggestion to pass that I was at any time antagonistic to the growing of wheat. That suggestion was made here now. It should not be on the records of the House that at any time in my political life I was opposed to it. I was always an enthusiastic advocate of it in this country before I became a member of the Oireachtas and all during the time I have been a member.
I am concluding now with an appeal to the Government, having heard all the arguments put forward in support of this motion, not to allow themselves to be swayed by any feeling of petty pride or by any feeling that they would be retracing their steps. It is always statesman-like for a Government to take cognisance of the facts as they find them and to admit occasionally that they have made a mistake and, having made the admission, to rectify the mistake as speedily as possible. There is no danger whatever that this community will be flooded with home-grown wheat or that imported wheat will be run into this country under the terms of the wheat agreement which, by the way, will expire before the next harvest. Having regard to all these facts, the Government would be well advised to meet this case in a reasonable way.
I am thankful to Senator Hayes for giving us the assurance that, during the next few weeks, the matter will be considered. I hope, as appears likely, the Minister will come into this House when this debate is resumed on 1st February next and will announce that the terms of the motion have been met in full.
I formally second the motion. I am reserving what I have to say until a future occasion.
Debate adjourned until 1st February, 1956.