I wish to support this motion. This is not a Party question; it is a national question. In my view, the best case that one can make this afternoon in support of this motion is that which has already been made by the persons most concerned, that is, by the deputation who waited on the Taoiseach and put the importance of the subject matter of this motion before him. The result was that, having heard their arguments, the Government decided to make a somewhat belated and very small increase in the price, regardless of the fact that, when the Minister brought about the reduction of 12/6 per barrel, we were told in this House that the price then fixed by him would be in operation for a period of two years. The Minister said on that occassion that his action was not because he was not in favour of the growing of wheat. All the old arguments were abandoned. No longer did we hear that the soil of this country was not capable of growing wheat; no longer did we hear that it should not be encouraged. The reason advanced by the Minister was that he was taking that step in order to discourage people who took conacre in a very extensive way in the Midlands and who, by availing of the then price, made somewhat large profits. I do not know whether such a large number of persons of this type engaged in the production of wheat.
I am not one of those people who have a terrible disregard for the conacre system, such as the Minister seems to have. In some circumstances, the conacre system is an essential part of Irish life. It has saved many a holding and maintained it during a difficult period. Many things can happen to a family and the conacre system can then be availed of. For instance, the head of the family may become ill and may not be able to attend to the farm for a considerable time. Again, he may die and his widow and young family may not be able to look after the farm. In such circumstances, it is a great relief when somebody comes along and takes that land in conacre for a number of years. I have known quite a number of farmers in my part of the country who farm conacre in grassland, that is, for the raising of live stock, and there is no serious objection to that type of conacre although it is not at all as beneficial as the type of conacre under which the land is taken from the landowner because the landowner may not be able to undertake the tillage at the particular time.
The action of the Minister was, no doubt, effective inasmuch as it did bring about a reduction in the acreage of wheat and of tillage in general. If it had the effect the Minister desired, and which he expressed to us here, of reducing the then acreage of wheat and having the farmers change over to the production of barley, oats, potatoes or any other farm crop, the picture might not be so black, but the result of the Minister's action was not alone to reduce considerably the wheat acreage, but also to reduce the acreage devoted to crops of practically every kind. Once the farmers felt that the Government did not advocate a policy of going ahead with tillage, it seems that their reaction was to slacken off in production in general, and the aim the Minister had was not achieved and will not be achieved while that seems to be his approach.
Arising out of my earlier remarks, we have the position that the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and practically every member of the Government are now engaged in a campaign of drawing our attention to the national necessity of cutting down imports and of trying to even up our balance of payments. As a result of the action of the Minister for Agriculture, we have been compelled to import wheat, maize and other feeding-stuffs that could have been produced here in Ireland, if the inducement had not been taken away from our farmers. The direct effect of that is not so much the effect it had on the farmers as on production in general.
During the worst period for farmers in our lifetime, 1947, when all the other cereal crops were beaten to the ground, everybody will admit that wheat was the one crop that stood up best, which proves that it was not the nightmare to the farmer which many speakers up to then had suggested it was. All these old slogans as to the land of this country being unable to produce wheat were dropped and then something new arose. We were told about the difficulties of making a good loaf from Irish wheat, but I was pleased recently to see that that has also been blown to the winds by experiments carried out in Sweden, so that, one by one, we have got around to the idea that it is good national policy to encourage our farmers to grow food for man and beast in this country. You cannot do that in the face of actions of the kind taken by the Minister, when, after the bad year the farmers had, he reduced the price of wheat and reduced it as drastically as he did. If the evil which the Minister sought to eliminate was there, it could have been dealt with in many other ways rather than in the way the Minister approached it.
This motion has been on the Order Paper since last November. I feel that this question of wheat, like many other questions, should, if at all possible, be taken out of the realm of politics and out of the realm of discussions of this kind. I should like to see set up some organisation—and I think it could be set up, with the assistance and goodwill of the Minister—now that the farming community have been organised as they were not previously organised, somewhat on the lines of the Beet Growers' Association, so that agreement on prices and so forth could be negotiated between it and the millers, and so that some facilities could be made available in the way of the provision of essential fertilisers, as is done by the Sugar Company for the people under contract with them. Now that we have agreement—it may have taken a long time, but it is worth it— that it is a good thing to grow our own foodstuffs, we should set about having an organisation of this kind set up.
I quite agree that, where the general community interest is involved, Parliament must at all times, play a very prominent part in negotiations on prices that may arise as between the bodies concerned, but these are matters which have been very satisfactorily dealt with by the Sugar Company, as between it and the beet growers. If we had an organisation similar to that to deal with this question of wheat, it would be a step in the right direction.
I hope the Minister will hold out a hope that some arrangement will be made for giving a greater increase than he has given. If the price was justified in 1953, having regard to the increase in rates, in wages and in general farming costs, but, in particular, the increase in the price of fertilisers, a more substantial increase in price should be offered than has been offered. It has been stated by many of these people that the offer made by the Minister to them is more of an insult than an encouragement, in view of the many increases which other sections of the community, except the weaker sections who have no means of fighting for themselves have secured over the year. The farming community, particularly in regard to this question of wheat, are the only section who seem to have been picked out for a reduction rather than an increase.
The Minister not so very long ago gave a guarantee that there would be no such thing as an increase in the price of fertilisers. The reason advanced by the Government when they gave the increase of 2/6 per barrel quite recently was that it was to counteract the increase in the cost of fertilisers; but that 2/6 would not meet the increased cost of fertilisers, and nobody—not even the Minister— can argue that it would meet the increased cost the farmer has to meet in every other item of his expenditure. It would not meet the increased cost of labour or the increased costs that every section of the community have to meet and in respect of which they have got advances in remuneration of one kind or another.
When we talk so much about encouragement and having more production, the Minister would be wise if even at this stage he recognised that the action he took last year in reducing the price—it may have got rid of the spivs and others who, he said, came in here and took conacre—had the very drastic effect of reducing the acreage of tillage and also reducing the acreage of every other crop in the production of which farmers are engaged.