Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 1957

Vol. 47 No. 3

Price of 1957 Wheat Crop—Motion (Resumed).

Mr. O'Callaghan

Before the adjournment, I was adverting to the fact that I understood from the Minister the National Farmers' Association and the Agricultural Production Council were in agreement with the price which he had fixed for wheat in the coming year. The Minister corrected me and said they were not. Some time ago, there appeared to be general agreement, in this House and outside, that increased agricultural production would be the salvation of this country, that it would be the best means of righting the balance of payments problem.

Somehow or other that feeling seems to have evaporated, anyway as far as the farmers are concerned. The announcement of the new price for wheat damped the ardour of the farming community. I know that other people hold different views but I feel that if a plebiscite were taken of the rural community it would be found that a big majority of the people are in favour of an increased price for wheat. That would apply not only to the rural parts of the country but also to the urban districts—the villages and the towns. The cheques for wheat in the harvest time were a God-send to shopkeepers and other business people.

The Minister told us about the higher yields we were getting; he said that the yields appeared to be getting greater each year. That, I think, is due to liming for one thing, to better manuring for another and also possibly to the fact that people understand cultivation better now than they did some years ago. During the war period and afterwards there was a scarcity of manure. I think the greatest single factor responsible for increased yields is the use of the combined corn manure. It is generally used in my part of the country and people find that their yields have increased considerably from its use.

The Minister quoted prices which he said it would be possible for farmers to get for wheat. While he was reading out those figures, I was estimating in my mind that the average price the farmers are likely to get next harvest will be about 65/- per barrel. I have been growing wheat for a long time. I understand the ups and downs of it and that is my opinion of what the price next harvest will be. The Minister quoted probable prices of 78/- per barrel and 81/- per barrel but I do not think the farmers are likely to accept those figures at all.

Senator Burke gave us some fantastic figures. He is not in the House at the moment and I do not want to say that any figure he gave was incorrect. I believe his figures are correct but these things happen only once in a blue moon. There is something like a 3,000 gallon cow but we all know that you will get only one 3,000 gallon cow in 1,000,000. The figures Senator Burke gave would obtain only once in 1,000,000 also. I say that most respectfully. Senator Burke is a very successful businessman, I believe, and if he takes my advice he will keep to his business and forget about the land. Without any advice from me I suppose that is what he will do. I fee sure the Minister would give him the same advice if asked for it.

Senator McCrea is also a businessman. He quoted some fantastic figures also as regards conacre. Of course the story told to us by Senator Burke could very well be responsible for some poor man making a fool of himself for one year. Naturally he would not be such a fool to do the same thing the second year. Senator McCrea said that he was born on the land but that, like all the intelligent people, he had left the land and gone into business. I understand he also is a very successful businessman and I do not think it right that such successful businessmen as Senators Burke and McCrea should be cutting across the struggling farmers in their efforts to make a living.

Senator L'Estrange said he would like to see the farmers getting anything from £4 to £5 a barrel for their wheat. He said he thought it was a great pity we should be introducing politics into this business. I absolutely agree with him. I think that the cut of 12/6 a barrel in the price of wheat was a major political blunder. Beet production in this country is governed by beet costings. The costings last year showed that the farmers were entitled to an increase of 7/- per ton for their beet. There was a little dispute about that and the question was referred to a referee who decided in favour of the 7/- increase which the farmers will now get. I am not a mathematician but if there is any mathematician in the House and if he could relate that increase in the costings of beet to wheat it might work out at much more than what the Minister has given us.

Mr. L'Estrange

Is the increase in beet not more than offset by the increase that the factories are charging for beet pulp?

Mr. O'Callaghan

The price of pulp has been referred to arbitration and has not been decided on yet. One matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention is the common barberry bush. It is doing immense damage to wheat in certain parts of the country. I am told by a miller that in some cases he got yields of wheat of two barrels to the acre due to the ravages of the barberry bush. I have not heard the Minister making any pronouncement about it but I think it is something that deserves his attention. Any efforts we can make to eliminate the common barberry bush would be a step in the right direction and I would appeal to the Minister to look into the matter and see what can be done.

I hope the House will pass the motion which Senator Cogan has proposed and if it does it will be in line with what the Agricultural Production Council and the National Farmers' Association have done.

Mr. Cogan

I am glad that this question has been debated without too much Party feeling. Like Senator O'Callaghan I would like to see questions of this kind removed from the arena of Party strife. I would like to see machinery introduced which would automatically settle prices without reference to Party policy. I know, of course, that in the final analysis the Government must have a say in those matters but with a certain amount of goodwill it should be possible to have them settled without Party strife.

I do not think there was any justification for the line taken by the Minister in regard to a previous decision of Fianna Fáil early in 1954. At that time, or prior to that, the wheat output of this country had been very much below 300,000 tons of dried wheat. The Government announced at that time their decision to fix a target for that year of 300,000 tons of dried wheat and to proceed to achieve that target and also to ensure that the drying facilities and the transport would be available to cope with that amount of production. At that time drying facilities and the transport were not sufficient to cope with that amount of production and arrangements had to be made to ensure that the target would be reached. That was the target for 1954 and in all these production targets it is the right, and in fact, the duty, of a Government to revise them from year to year, to step them up according as they are reached.

It was a sensible course for the Government at that time to aim at securing at least 300,000 tons of dried wheat, and they did secure it. They did also at that time step up immensely the drying and storage facilities. There is no doubt that during the years 1951 to 1954 the capacity of our grain stores and our drying facilities were increased enormously. That was in the main due to the continuous pressure brought to bear by the then Minister for Agriculture and to the facilities which he gave in order to encourage the provision of that accommodation.

It is idle for anyone to say now in 1957 that Fianna Fáil have been in any way committed to a maximum of 300,000 tons of dried wheat. If anyone reads that statement carefully—and I have read it carefully—he will find it looks far more like a minimum, but I think what it actually amounted to was an objective target aimed at for that year. That target was reached and passed, as industrial and agricultural targets are reached and passed from time to time. It is good Government policy to set an objective before them and try to reach it. That is exactly what the Minister's predecessor did and no reasonable person could find fault with him for so doing. There was no question whatever of pinning down the acreage or the production to 300,000 tons for all time.

In fact the policy of the time was an expansionist one in regard to wheat production and I am quite satisfied that if Fianna Fáil had been in power during the past two years they would have considered very carefully the question of enlarging the proportion of native wheat in our bread supply. I am quite sure they would have taken advantage of the investigation and experiment which have been carried out in that direction and that they would be able to increase the percentage of native wheat in our bread supply. Therefore, there is no point in anyone saying that Fianna Fáil were committed to restricting the wheat acreage in that way. If we reach, in the course of time, the maximum that this country is capable of using, then and not until then will it be time to consider ways and means of dealing with that situation. There are at least a dozen more efficient and more acceptable ways of dealing with the problem than the method adopted so ruthlessly by the Minister in 1954.

As I have said, prices are always relative and if it is found that the wheat acreage was too high, you could always reduce that acreage by offering incentives to people to produce some other alternative crop. That would have the same effect as a reduction in the price of wheat and it would be far more acceptable to the farming community.

There are at the head of the Farmers' Association a number of able young men who have given a good deal of attention to this problem and who are prepared to meet the Minister at any time and discuss with him ways and means of solving the genuine problems that may arise and do arise from time to time. In regard to wheat production I think their services should be availed of in this direction. I think the Minister is aware that the Farmers' Association expressed disapproval in regard to his staggering of the wheat price. The considered opinion of practical farmers is that whatever price is paid in the autumn should be the maximum price; that the giving of incentives to hold over their wheat for some months is not justified and that whatever price can be given should be given immediately after the harvest.

Anyone who knows anything about growing wheat knows that there are genuine reasons for that. In October, when the wheat is in the sack, the farmer may be tempted to hold it over in order to get the higher price and in the meantime the wheat will have deteriorated; it will have gone mouldy and will be unsuitable for milling. The whole object should be to get the grain dried as quickly as possible after the crop has been cut. Anyone who knows anything about wheat growing knows that that is the best policy. Wheat is a very perishable commodity until it is properly dried and when we hear criticism, as we do hear sometimes, of native flour, it usually arises from the fact that something wrong has been done in regard to the handling of the wheat, either in the stook, in the stack or in the sack, but somewhere along the line moisture has been allowed to remain too long in it and it has deteriorated. What we need are the facilities for getting the wheat into the drier as quickly as possible without any undue delay and in planning for wheat it is desirable to plan to have adequate facilities available.

Senator Burke and Senator McCrea, two very able businessmen, set out to lecture us farmers in regard to facts on the farm. I can remember wheat growing during the first World War and wheat has been grown on my farm ever since. I can claim to know at least as much about wheat growing as any businessman. I do not entirely agree——

Mr. Burke

On a point of order, would the Senator give us the figures?

Mr. Cogan

I can. I do not agree at all with the idea or the practice of members of any legislative assembly bringing their own private business transactions into the House. I do not think it makes for the best type of debate and it often leads to suggestions on one side or other of the House that the facts might be coloured. That is why I refrained from doing so myself. I grew wheat extensively last year——

Mr. Burke

On a point of order, this is a vocational Seanad——

An Cathaoirleach

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Cogan

If Senator Burke thinks that is the best way to conduct a debate here——

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair is the judge of that.

Mr. Cogan

We can all give facts and figures with regard to our own farms. I grew 25 acres of wheat and I made a small profit but it was only a narrow margin. The yield was slightly over ten barrels per acre. It was not too bad but it was not too good and the average price was exactly the same as that with Senator Burke got, 67/6. I got 70/- for some and 65/- for another quantity and the average price was about 67/-. It was a very difficult year. If anyone tries to tell me that the cost of production per acre, as Senator Burke said, is only £10 I would like to go into the figures very closely with him to find out how he reaches that figure. Seeds and manures alone in my own case cost about £10 and I do not know how——

Mr. Burke

I said that the labour costs £10. I gave the figure for the seeds and manures.

Mr. Cogan

I am sorry. That bears out my suggestion that it is not altogether desirable to quote figures of this kind.

Mr. Burke

I gave the full facts.

Mr. Cogan

I misunderstood what Senator Burke said. The labour in my case cost that and add £13, which was the approximate cost for seeds and manures, and you get £23 to start off with. These are not the only items which come into costings; one must take rent and rates into account, although they would not be very much, but in addition there is wear and tear on machinery and the use of fuel oil. The consumption of tractor fuel and fuel for driving combines was enormous last year. Anyone who was dealing with land which was rather wet, as we had to in East Carlow, will know that the number of man-hours which it required to cut each acre was enormous last year. I do not know if every part of Ireland got as much rain as we got but a record which I kept showed that between August 1st and October 1st there was only one day on which it did not rain.

One can imagine the amount of labour it took to get in the harvest and the enormous amount of wear and tear which there was on machinery. The canvases on the reaper-binder and on the combine almost wear out in one season if the season is very wet. It will be seen that the price secured for ten barrels of wheat would be almost completely eaten up by this cost. I would not have referred to this but I wanted to make sure that all the facts are put before the House. It is very easy to overlook a number of items in costings, particularly if one is trying to make a case against the farmer.

I do not think that Senator L'Estrange added anything to the sum of our knowledge. He did not contribute very much to the debate by talking about fields of inspectors. I presume he was referring to compulsory tillage during the war period. We all remember that period. Senator L'Estrange and myself were both members of a Farmers' Party during that time and our Party agreed to compulsory tillage so that it was not introduced or enforced by the Fianna Fáil Party alone. It was supported by every Party of this State, even by the Farmer's Party, and I think that every fair-minded person will say that during the war period it was justifiable. If we had a similar period again I think Senator L'Estrange and myself would have no alternative but to support compulsory tillage. It is not right for people to criticise Fianna Fáil as being the only Party in favour of compulsory tillage. There was not one dissentient voice raised in the Dáil against compulsory tillage during the whole period it was in operation.

Mr. L'Estrange

The war was over in 1946, 1947 and 1948, the years in respect of which I gave the figures. The war was over in 1945, if my memory serves me aright.

Mr. Kissane

The war is not over yet.

Mr. Burke

Maybe it is only about to start.

Mr. Cogan

It is well to make it clear that emergency conditions prevailed at least to the middle of 1947. Supplies were not freely available on the world market at that time.

Mr. Burke

We take it that the Senator condones the methods that were used?

An Cathaoirleach

We need not go back to that period.

Mr. Cogan

If Senator Burke wants to make an attack on the particular civil servants or the Department, he may not be entitled to do that but I am not going into that question. The Minister tried to make some capital out of the fact that there has been a progressive improvement in wheat yields over the years. I am quite well aware of it. During the war period, which includes the period immediately after the war when supplies of fertilisers and other commodities were affected by emergency conditions, it was impossible to secure fertilisers for wheat growing.

If we had low yields during the war, there was no way out of it. There was no chance of getting the necessary fertilisers. The Government at that time heavily subsidised home-produced lime, burned lime, to the extent of 25/- per ton. That was as much as they could do in order to meet the situation. Nothing else could be done. We had to await the lifting of restrictions on shipping and the availability of fertilisers. When fertilisers became available, the farmers proceeded to utilise them very extensively. Not all of us have the rich lands that exist around Clonmel and to a certain extent around Carnew. Some of us have to do with less fertile land and we have to use fertilisers very extensively, even to the extent of £6 per acre. We have no alternative, if we want to get a yield out of our land.

I am not raising this matter in any Party spirit. This House, as Senator Burke says, is a vocational Seanad. We have a number of farmers and a number of reasonable people in other walks of life, I hope. I think we could all agree in regard to fundamentals. The fundamentals are that we ought to get the last ounce of productivity out of our land and seek as far as possible to eliminate imports, particularly imports of the various essential foodstuffs. We can do that if we are reasonable in regard to those matters. The reasonable approach in a matter of this kind is agreement between the Minister and the farmers. If that cannot be reached, there should be some form of arbitration.

We saw an incident that occurred in the past few weeks in which there was sharp disagreement between the Sugar Company and the growers. That was settled—at least it was brought towards settlement anyhow by a reasonable attitude on both sides and afterwards the growers' representatives were able to go out and advise farmers to sign their contracts and try to grow the maximum amount of beet. The same thing could be done in regard to wheat and barley. Cooperation can be established between the Minister, the Minister's Department and the working farmers, provided there is a reasonable spirit.

Let us not have any of this misrepresentation of the position during the emergency and idle boasting. If farmers have increased their output or their yields per acre, the credit goes, in the first place, and in the second place also, to the farmers themselves and all we can do is to hope they will continue to increase the output per acre. They are capable of doing that if they get encouragement and if we have stability, and not through the deceit by the kind of propaganda that has been used in regard to conacre letting. I think it is misrepresentation to suggest that because certain people are prepared to pay excessive prices for land, therefore, the land is very productive.

During the Land War, some landlords boasted that there was an immense income to be made out of land because farmers were paying them rack-rents. They said that if they were able to get those rack-rents out of the peasantry, it meant that there must be tremendous wealth in the land. They did not go on to comment on the standard of living the unfortunate tenants had to endure in order to provide these rents.

In the same way, the small farmers— the uneconomic holders—will go out and compete against each other for land, particularly for very good land when it comes on the market. Farmers are an optimistic body and when they are taking good manured land, they will be counting upon getting 12 or 15 barrels per acre, but there is another feature in regard to conacre lettings. It is, in the main, on a credit basis. There is such a thing as borrowers' optimism. When a man borrows, he is inclined to colour his view of the future and hopes to get a little more out of the investment. I have known very few men to make money out of high prices for land for tillage purposes.

I ask the House to accept this motion. It has been fairly well discussed and I would recommend the Government to accept it.

Question put and declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.40 p.m.sine die.