Public Business. - Price of Wheat—Motion. – Seanad Éireann (9th Seanad) – Wednesday, 12 Mar 1958

Public Business. - Price of Wheat—Motion.

Mr. Donegan

I move:—

That Seanad Eireann deeply deplores the arrangements for the pricing of wheat of the 1958 crop as recently announced by the Government, and strongly recommends that the matter be reconsidered and that the price for the entire 1958 crop be not less than that for 1957.

First, I wish to tell the House that this motion specifically directs the attention of the House to the price of wheat in 1958. It does not lead on to any further year. We freely admit that nobody can guarantee prices for long periods. It is wise, however, when considering the price fixed by the Government and the arrangements made at the same time by the Government in respect of that pricing, to consider the whole lead up to the wheat situation at the present moment.

Up to December, 1953, there was no such thing as a surplus of wheat envisaged by anybody. The House will remember—I am not referring to the war period—the advertisements under the different Governments which appeared in various newspapers asking us to grow more wheat. When a Government or Government Department issues such an advertisement and takes such a step, it must of itself take responsibility for it. Up to December, 1953, it was a fact that the opinion of the Department of Agriculture and all the political Parties was that there could not be a surplus of wheat in Ireland.

In December, 1953—I state this for no political reason as it is now an accepted fact—the Government of the day asked its civil servants to produce the quantity of Irish wheat which we could consume in one year. Taking into consideration the amount that could be included in the grist, the amount of flour consumed by the people and the percentage of flour taken from the wheat which was milled, the answer given to the Government was 300,000 tons. The decision of the Government of that time was to aim at a harvest of 300,000 tons of wheat.

Prior to December, 1953, the then Government and the Department of Agriculture must have seen a surplus of wheat looming up on the horizon when they set about the task of finding out what were the wheat requirements of the country. It did so with the specific intention of so directing policy that the figure got would be 300,000 tons. In the harvest that followed, there was a great surplus of wheat based on the figure of 300,000 tons. In May of the following year, 1954, the Government changed. The succeeding Government found themselves with a colossal surplus of wheat and, finding themselves in that situation, took a decision to lower the price.

Following the succeeding harvest and notwithstanding the lowering of the price, there was sufficient wheat grown to feed the country. It was evident that agriculture in Ireland had departed from the traditional line of processing much of our cereal products that we produced on the farms. In other words, the walk-it-off the land policy had disappeared. Many factors must be taken into account when we look for the reason for this. Capital cost was one. Nobody except the commercial bank, provided you had taken out administration in respect of your farm, would help in the purchase of stock. On the other hand, if you decreased the level of your stock farming and increased the level of wheat farming, then you might get on the "never-never" system a combine harvester at possibly one-sixth of its market value. You could go, at spring—or winter, if you were sowing winter wheat—and avail of credit terms for fertilisers and seeds until the following harvest. It was then seen by the Government of the day that there had been a very great change-over. There were losses in capital investment by farmers in combine harvesters and machinery for the production of grain.

The price of wheat was increased and, even though it was not brought to its previous level, it went half-way. A line was taken by the then Opposition—the present Government—so that farmers were led to believe that, if they re-elected them to office, they would bring the wheat price to a figure such as 82/6.

I shall not handle this motion in a political way. I shall merely give a couple of quotations and then pass on from them. I may give a couple of quotations later on. I am not trying to score points but the quotations are very relevant. They are made to prove that the then Opposition—even though there was a surplus of wheat in 1954 and that the Department of Agriculture knew it, their Government having taken a decision as late as December, 1953, that the requirements of the country amounted to 300,000 tons of dried wheat—led the farmers to believe that if they were re-elected to office, they would most certainly raise the price.

My first quotation is from the Sunday Press of 23rd October, 1955— the harvest-time succeeding the drop in the price of wheat. A personal interview was given by that very decent man, the late Deputy Thomas Walsh, a Minister for Agriculture. The banner headline was: “Farmers Count Losses in Millions... Wheat, Beet, Potatoes. Incentive Has Gone.” In the entire article given the late Mr. Walsh, who was shadow-Minister for Agriculture of the day, there was no mention of stock farming, cattle, pigs or of anything but the production of cereal and cash crops for sale at harvest time. Therefore, we may take it that the Opposition of the day was suggesting to the farmers that all they had to do was to put them back in office and they would increase the price.

They were in office on the 4th May, 1957. The acting-Minister for Agriculture was Deputy Aiken, now Minister for External Affairs. I have here a quotation from the Irish Farmers' Journal of the 4th May, 1957, from the official page of the National Farmers' Association and from the report of the National Farmers' Association Committee:—

"The Minister could not see his way to increasing the price of wheat. At this stage, an increase, he stated, would not affect the amount sown. He said, however, that he would examine how Government action in recent months had affected the prices of granulated compounds and agricultural chemicals."

To wit, the acting-Minister there implied as late as the 4th May, 1957, after the last harvest's wheat had been sold and sowing was finished, that, but for the fact that an increase then would not increase the acreage, he would give that increase. Does that, again, not show that the present Government were quite prepared to lead the farmers to believe and, in fact, did so, that all they had to do was to vote them back into office to gain a rapid increase in the price of cash corn crops?

The farmers cannot and must not be expected to know the grain trade. They cannot and they must not be expected to be able to assess market trends and to know always what will happen one year, 18 months or two years later. There is a very grave responsibility on any Minister and his Party, and there is a greater responsibility on the Minister for Agriculture and on his Department than on any other Minister, to lead the farmers towards the right road, to get them on the right way so as to make sure that their economy and rotation is designed to bring them a greater profit irrespective of what political gain there may be for the Party which the Minister of the time represents.

To give the Seanad an idea of what was happening during those years when the Party of which I am a member was telling the farmers that they must revert, in part at least, to the old policy of not selling all their grain crops for cash at harvest time, of not creating a glut and that they must increase their farm stock, the Opposition were saying: "Put us back and we will give a greater price." The tragedy is that the Opposition was believed. As a result we had a drop of 19,300 in the number of in-calf heifers from January, 1957, to January, 1958. During the same period we had a total drop of 34,200 in cattle.

If the Opposition of the day had lived up to their responsibility of telling the farmers the truth about the grain trade, that they must now concentrate on a proper rotation, not on an over-production of grain crops for cash, but on the ordinary mixed farming which is a tradition in this country, then the farmers could now be said to be responsible for their dilemma of a decrease in the price of wheat as well as a surplus of wheat. However, the Opposition did not do so. Therefore, it is charged with the sin of allowing the farmers to be led astray and it is also charged with the reduction in the numbers of cattle which I have already mentioned. That reduction may seem small. Remember, which I have already mentioned. That reduction may seem small. Remember, however, that with increased production from farms—improved farm techniques, better fertilisation—our cattle numbers should be moving up year by year. The stock we can carry on the farms should be moving up. If our agriculture were suitably designed and bent toward the proper goal then our numbers of cattle would be increasing. A decrease at this stage, where there is good farming techniques such as short-term ley, much better methods of feeding cattle in yards, and so on, is catastrophic and something we cannot accept.

I will now address myself to the first part of the motion which deals with the arrangement that was made and I should like to refer to the disposal of a surplus which, as stated by the Minister for Agriculture in the Dáil recently on the wheat motion, amounts to 95,000 tons. In calculating the surplus, the Minister has taken into account a normal carry-over of 50,000 tons. He has also stated on that wheat motion, and on various occasions in the past six or eight weeks, that he is accepting liability for the surplus at the moment and that the Government is putting up the money for it. If there is a surplus, and if he is accepting liability for it, what is the point of carrying over 50,000 tons of wheat which is merely an assurance in a year when there might be a bad crop that you will not have a scarcity of wheat at harvest? At present, you are expecting at least a 10 per cent. increase in wheat. If the Minister is prepared to dispose of the present surplus, it is unfair that this 50,000 tons next year will be placed on the backs of the farmers, if the present arrangement holds with regard to the price of wheat. Secondly, the disposal of 400,000 tons at £26 a ton for compound milling, is, in my view, a price arrangement which does not leave the Government carrying the entire baby.

I was looking for a parallel in imported feeding stuffs to this Irish wheat which will be used for animal feeding stuffs. The best thing I could get, and in my view an exactly similar product, is what is known as German wheat middlings, for which import licences were granted over the last six months. German wheat middlings are German black flour, flour produced from wheat at a very high extraction rate, and they are excellent feeding; they are as good as the Irish wheat which will be released and in fact they are milled, so that will obviate the necessity of milling.

The Irish tradition, need I say, is that the price of feeding stuffs was always the world price. That tradition was preserved by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, in his two terms of office. He always opened the ports as far as bran and pollard and feeding stuffs were concerned and made the Irish product, even when bearing a subsidy, compare with the imported product. I personally have bought these German middlings at as low as £22 a ton c.i.f. Dublin in the last two months. It is totally unfair that this figure of £26 a ton should be charged to the feeders of pigs and the feeders of other forms of live stock, when the import price of the comparable product is £22 a ton and the Minister for Agriculture has stated he is bearing the loss in respect of the surplus in this year.

Lest anyone should jump to his feet to correct me, I want to say that in this £26 a ton, there is a figure of 20/- to 30/- —I quote the Minister's figure in the Dáil motion—for the haulage to the buyer's nearest railway station. Even still, the price is considerably more than the price for a good quality comparable product, ready milled, from abroad. The Irish pig feeder is as entitled, when the Minister makes a price arrangement in regard to any product, to get his product from abroad, as his competitor is, on the overseas or British market or where-ever he has to sell the end product. Now, 15,000 to 20,000 tons of this surplus wheat is to be sold to flour millers at £26 a ton. This arrangement was included in the statement that the extraction rate would be lowered by 8 per cent., that there would be an increase of a ½d. in the loaf, after the previous fixing of price, and that there would be an increase in the price of Irish bran and pollard of £1 a ton. Again the Minister has come out in public and has told the farmers—on whom all this eventually falls, no matter what arrangement he makes—that he will be responsible for the entire loss on the surplus wheat of this year.

Again, I refer to the practice of the previous Minister, in seeing that the Irish feeder got his feeding stuffs at the same price as that at which they could be obtained on the world market and I want to say that in small lots, on licence—not yet in Dublin but arriving—there is Argentinian pollard at £19 15s. a ton and the Minister has arranged with the flour merchants to charge £23 10s. a ton for the Irish pollard from this wheat—not, if I may correct myself, from this particular lot of wheat but from all the wheat the flour mills take.

Prior to this, when the Minister made an arrangement with the flour millers, he was dealing with Exchequer moneys. I think he was entitled at that stage not to give the exact details, but any arrangement he made with the millers would be, of course, subject to parliamentary question, if any Deputy thought fit to address one to him. But in this case the matter is one which affects the price of wheat to the farmers and the price of pollard and the price of feeding stuffs are prices which also affect the farmers, and he is dealing exclusively, in the future, in wheat, with the farmer's money.

I feel it is incumbent upon him, or whoever replies to the motion to-night, to give the exact nature of the arrangement with the flour millers whereby they get 15,000 to 20,000 tons of wheat at £26 a ton, they lower the extraction rate by 8 per cent., increase the price of flour by 4/6 a sack or a ½d. a loaf and increase the price of bran and pollard to a figure that now stands as much as £3 10s. a ton above the price of the imported product at a time when the pig feeders of this country are cutting sows' throats as quickly as they can get at them.

There is also an odd discrepancy in figures to which I would like to draw attention. It is in the Taoiseach's contribution to the wheat debate. I quote the Dáil Debates Volume 165, No. 6, column 868:—

"I think the Minister mentioned that we would lose up to £20 a ton by exporting it whereas, the other way, we would be losing something about £12 a ton. However, we had to meet the bill and, so, this £1,250,000 will be required. We could not continue that."

Yet, when I scrutinise the Book of Estimates, I find that the figure included in the book is £800,000. There is a discrepancy there of £450,000 and I would wish that whoever replies to-night to this debate should be armed with the explanation. Is it a fact that the Taoiseach, when computing these figures, was thinking of the 50,000 tons which, in my view, the Minister for Agriculture and his Department have placed on the farmers' backs and which will reduce the price of their wheat next year if the present arrangement stays. If you compute the loss not on the 95,000 tons surplus wheat, but on 145,000 tons you get a figure of approximately £1,250,000.

The Taoiseach spoke in Enniscorthy and he saw fit to refer to wheat. It may seem a small thing, but I quote from the Irish Press of March 10th, page 5:—

"The excess in the last couple of years in the output of wheat beyond the amount required for the production of bread and domestic flour has presented us with special difficulties."

Now, the Taoiseach is a very able politician and he is very good at choosing his words. I want to draw attention to the fact that the surplus of wheat which existed in 1954 was in fact of greater magnitude and a more serious type of surplus, than the surplus of wheat which this Government had to meet in this year. I give the figures for the deliveries to mill in 1953 and in 1954, in round figures. In 1953, wheat deliveries to the mills were 2,600,000 tons; in 1954, 3,250,000 tons; in 1956, 2,781,000 tons; in 1957, 3,250,000 tons. The only difference between the wheat in 1954 and the wheat in 1957 was that, in 1954, the quality of Irish wheat was such that it was found, with the milling techniques prevalent at that time, that you could not include as much of it as you could include at the present time. I want to state from my experience as a person in the grain trade that the wheat produced from last year's harvest now in store is surprisingly good. The quality of the wheat in store for milling is exceedingly high and the Government could, if it wished, raise the inclusion figure above 79 per cent.

The Taoiseach in Enniscorthy—he was referring to the Fine Gael attitude to wheat—said: "To the townspeople they said, it meant dearer and poorer bread, but at present, if it suited their book, they would be telling the townspeople that it meant an addition of something like £10 a ton for wheat to the mills with consequent increases in the price of bread." My approach is not too hidebound. I feel that the Minister, faced with the problem, not of the magnitude of the problem of 1954, because the quality is so much better, did not do enough, and if he behaved in the manner I now suggest —he and the Taoiseach have consistently said that no one suggested any way out of this difficulty but I am going to suggest one now—he would find himself enabled, with practically the same money, to pay the same price for wheat as last year. He would thus give the farmer the opportunity to reset his sails and to decide that he was told lies in 1954, 1955 and 1956 by the Opposition and told the truth by the Government, and that he must proceed to reorientate his farming and aim at having one more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough so as not to produce continuous surpluses but to gain the most profit for himself.

The figure for consumption of wheat is 300,000 tons. Last year, we produced 370,000 tons and in the meantime surpluses had become evident. Samples of wheat were handed to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards for investigation and that body has produced findings that an all-Irish loaf is possible. I am not foolish enough to think that any tests on relatively small quantities of wheat are sufficient for the Government to take a decision upon. But the Government has taken no decision on that. The biggest test that was taken so far was a two months test in the Curragh camp with an all-Irish loaf produced at 80 per cent. extraction of wheat. To my knowledge, the bread was excellent.

I would suggest to the Government that they should follow the example of a very successful firm in this country when it wants to test new barleys, namely Messrs. Arthur Guinness, who in the last few years have themselves done brewing and malting tests on units of 5,000 barrels of barley. I suggest that the Minister has the responsibility of setting up milling and baking tests on 20,000 barrels on a loaf of all Irish wheat or a 95 per cent. Irish wheat. If he does that, he will at least have the farmers on his side. They will see that he is doing something for them. The present situation is that he has thrown the situation to them like a bone to a dog and they can chew on it if they like or they can walk away from it. That is not of any value to a farmer who has been consistently told that the way to get increased prices for wheat and the way to allow himself to have a higher amount of corn crops for cash sale in his rotation was to vote Fianna Fáil back into office and to vote the other Government out.

If the Government or the Minister are to accept their moral responsibilities, they must give some rock to the farmer to which he can cling. I suggest that if the Minister would now set up this 20,000 barrels milling test, he would find that he could include 95 per cent. Irish wheat from this harvest in the grist and if he did, he would be enabled to use 385,000 tons of Irish wheat. I am in a position to say that the National Farmers' Association have also decided that the deliveries of wheat to the mills next harvest will be in the region of 400,000 tons.

Let us say that if the quota was fixed at 380,000 tons, there would be two results. There would be a drop of 3/- approximately per barrel in the price paid to the farmer for wheat. I would suggest that the Minister could pay that from the Exchequer rather than have to pay further large subsidies on surplus wheat for feeding stuffs. As well as that, there would be some increase in the price of the loaf, but the increase would be very small. As far as I can make out, it would be in the nature of ¾d. on a 4 lb. loaf, less than ½d. on the ordinary 2 lb. loaf.

The farmers are entitled to provide as much wheat as possible for Irish consumption. If they are in a position that they have to pay prices for protected goods produced in Irish industries, then they must be entitled to the whole of the Irish market. I believe that the Minister would be perfectly enabled by the Government, if he put that question to them, to raise the figure to 380,000 tons, to bear the difference of 3/- a barrel himself and the suggested increase of less than ½d. in the price of the 2 lb. loaf.

All that is not sufficient. The present Government, when in opposition, led the farmers astray. The Acting Minister for Agriculture on May 4 this year implied that there was still a ready market for all the wheat that could be grown. Decent hard-working farmers living down the lanes, perhaps not buying daily papers every day of the week, have been led astray. I am not making that as a political point; I am merely making it as a statement of fact. The Minister must now face up to his moral responsibility and say to them: "Look, here is the situation; here is what I will do for you." Following that, he must say to them:—"Here is your agricultural policy for the future."

In the long term, I would suggest a few things to the Minister. One of them would be a complete reversion to the policy announced by the ex-Taoiseach in October, 1956. I would like to remind the House that on that day a scheme was announced for giving small loans to small farmers for the purchase of stock. That was the result of the obvious situation in which, if things proceeded as they were going, the farmers would produce too much grain and cash crops. That would mean that more oats and barley could be produced on the farm fed to the cattle and walked off the lands.

At the present moment, the farmer has bought his combine harvester and his implements. He has gone into wheat growing in a big way and he has used the capital which he got from selling his cattle to buy this new machinery and these implements. He cannot suddenly change now. The only way he can change is if capital is provided and injected into the agricultural economy to provide him with enough money, not to sell the heifer, but to mate her and to sell the calf, not to reduce the number of cattle on his holding, but to increase it and to wait two and a half years to make the profit. He will need to wait two and a half years to sell a calf, to share in the first fruits of a change in his farming policy.

What has been announced for farmers in 1954 and 1955 is responsible for their dilemma in 1957 and, from 1957, there must be a new starting-off point. The basis of that new start must be an increase in the stock on the farms of this country. I suggest to the Minister he should advise the Government that, as well as having national loans, they should try to float a national agricultural loan and then bring the people of Ireland to believe that, if there is not investment in agriculture, then, without doubt, the whole country is doomed and its economy must stagnate. If the Government did that, they should also make it quite clear that those loans would be given to the farmers only in fluid capital, and that in them there would be some future for the farmers and some starting-off point at which they can emerge from their present unfortunate position.

In conclusion, I want to say that I have endeavoured not to handle this motion in a political way. I have endeavoured to show that there are various aspects of the present price arrangement for wheat which require specific and explicit explanation. I hope the Minister does not regard it as a political motion. I should like him to say what he thinks of the present dilemma in which the wheat farmers find themselves. Does he accept responsibility for the statements made by former Cabinet Ministers in 1955, 1956 and 1957? I know he did not say much, but other members of his Party did, and I suppose every member of the Party must be responsible for the deeds of everybody else in it. Is he now prepared to produce a proper agricultural policy for this country and even though such a policy cannot stand forth as a shining light and as something which will bring Cadillacs to farmers in 18 months, it will be a sound basis on which they can proceed, not towards surpluses, not towards goals dictated by political considerations, but towards a sound goal on which they can build their future.

Mr. L'Estrange

I formally second the motion and reserve the right to speak later.

Mr. Tunney

I support the motion up to a point, but I do not support it in full because I am not in favour of the present system in connection with the price of wheat. I think it is all wrong as it stands to-day. To listen to the previous Senator speaking, one would think that this was the richest country in the world. He spoke about combine harvesters and so on. I would like to ask the Senator where could one use a combine harvester in my county? The present system is altogether wrong for the reason that you have a certain number of unscrupulous people, people who would not know the difference between a blade of wheat and a blade of oats, who took conacre at abnormal prices. People who gave the conacre thought they were getting an abnormal price, but, in fact, they were not, because when these gentlemen ranchers had finished with it, the land would hardly grow grass.

I am in sympathy with the Minister, so far as the growing of wheat is concerned. My idea is that we should have a system of wheat growing in this country. My heart goes out to the genuine farmer who grows so much wheat each year, to the farmer who grew it before there was any compulsion. These men looked after their land and put fertility back into it. We were blessed with the possession of thousands of acres of land, a bank of fertility, but now a certain clique have been utilising that land to make themselves rich. They may make the country richer for a time, but they will eventually make it poorer, because they are leaving the land poorer after them.

I would ask the Minister to consider the small farmer who has always done an honest day's work, given employment to his own family and in North County Dublin, and in some portions of Meath, has employed three or four workers constantly the whole year around. The employment which those other people have given, with a tractor in the spring and a combine harvester in the autumn is not worth counting. As compared with them, the practical farmer who grows so much wheat and oats, who has so many dairy cows and who puts fertility back into the land should get special consideration.

I would suggest to the Minister that if there is to be a reduction in the price of wheat, it should be made on a quota system which would enable the farmers who grow ten or 12 acres of wheat to get the full price for it. Is it not too bad that, under the Minister's present method, they get the price up to a certain point, but when that point is reached, the price is reduced? Under that system, the farmer in Kilkenny, North County Dublin and Meath who always grows wheat is the person who suffers. He will not be able to get his wheat in as quickly as the fellows with the combine harvesters.

I am in entire agreement with the Senator in what he has said—that we should have an all-Irish loaf. Were it impossible to get wheat from foreign countries, we would have to do with an all-Irish loaf, and I believe the people would be very glad to get that, but the position is that we can get in foreign wheat at the present time. I am in full agreement with the idea of an all-Irish loaf, if possible.

I would go so far as to congratulate the Minister for stepping in to prevent this wholesale taking of conacre at prices the ordinary farmer could not afford, abnormal prices which these unscrupulous people are giving for the rich lands of this country in order to get rich quick. It is too bad that the people amongst whom I was reared, good practical Irish people who served Ireland and were willing to do their best for it, have to subsidise those fellows for getting away with the wealth of the country. It is not once that they are subsidised, but twice. They are subsidised by the Government and subsidised again because of the steaming of the fertility out of the soil of the country, which should be left to the ordinary practical farmers who always gave employment and were honest and had the interests of the country at heart.

On the other hand, I feel disappointed because, if the price of wheat is going down, the price of the loaf is not going down correspondingly. These things should go with each other. We are all aware that bread is now at a price which was never approached before in this country, and it is just too bad that we have to lose so much money on the growing of wheat. Years ago, everybody was out for the growing of wheat, and is it the position now that we have not the population for it? Surely it could not be possible that our population has gone down so much in a quarter of a century, since we were all advocating the growing of wheat. I feel that the cause of the situation is these persons who would not know the difference be-between a blade of oats, a blade of barley and a blade of grass. Their only interest is the amount of money they can take from the Irish people.

I suggest that the price of wheat should be on a quota basis, that the man who has grown it consistently for the last ten or 15 or 25 years should get the full price for his wheat.

I would give one advice to the Senator who has spoken—do not take too much heed of what this Minister said at one time or another Minister said at another time. The position now is that the country is more or less at the crossroads and we should all combine and do our best to help one another. It does not matter what Minister or Deputy or Senator may say it, if a thing is for the good of the country, we should support it. It is time we forgot what one side or another said in election promises. Many people have made queer promises at election time which they did not fulfil. Some of ourselves were foolish enough to go on to platforms and make promises that if the Party we favoured got in, certain things would be done. Fortunately or unfortunately, they did not always get in, so you cannot blame us too much.

I would suggest to the Minister that the farmers in Kilkenny, Carlow, North Dublin and all those other places who have consistently grown wheat should continue to grow it, but the gentlemen who are so anxious for conacre should go in and grow potatoes, which are retailing at 3/6 a stone here in Dublin. I can guarantee that if one of them were compelled to grow potatoes and to depend upon the growing of potatoes, he would die from hunger within 12 months.

Mr. J.M. Sheridan

I do not take part in many of the debates in this House, but I am almost provoked into taking part in this debate by the very old saying: "Touch my pocket, touch my heart." Being a farmer myself, and growing wheat rather extensively, I consider that the price of wheat laid down by the Minister this year is unjust, and I say that not in any political sense. I think that the price is uneconomic, especially now because of the increased cost of production. Seed wheat is costing 5/- per barrel more, machinery parts are dearer, wages have also gone up, and some types of fertiliser are slightly dearer. Wheat is an expensive crop to grow. I am sure everyone knows that growing wheat in Ireland is not like growing coffee in Africa where you do it once and it goes on for 15 years. The farmer here cannot keep growing wheat year after year on the same land. He must have an intermediary crop if he is to be fair to his land and to himself.

You can grow wheat one year, but if you are growing it extensively, you are forced to grow some catch crop such as rape or kale, or some other green crop. I am merely trying to point out that if the farmer is fair to himself and to his land, he must keep up the fertility of his land and can only get two years' wheat crop in three years. In 1956, the wheat acreage was 339,600. In 1957, it was 395,400. Therefore, we had an increase of 55,800 acres or 16.4 per cent. In the yield, which we have obtained in recent years, 330,000 acres would produce sufficient wheat for our food requirements and for seed.

Further, the price laid down by the Minister came very late this year. It came at a time when a lot of the land for wheat was ploughed and a lot of winter wheat was sown. This would result in an increased acreage. I would direct the minds of Senators back to the harvest of 1957. The farmers had the most trying time in their experience —appalling weather conditions, sprouting wheat, and one thing worse than another. And the worst was to come when they went to the millers with their wheat, for they were turned back time and time again. The daily papers published photographs showing queues of lorries some of which went from the mills back to the farms as often as three times. Some wheat was left in the fields in a deplorable condition and when it reached the mills, the price was anything but fancy. If that was the case in 1957, the outlook is more than gloomy indeed for 1958, with more wheat grown and the price worse.

I am sure that every Senator will agree that money spent on wheat or any national product is money well spent. It is hard to expect the farmer to take a decrease in price or a lower standard of living when increases in price are being sought all round by every section of the community.

Like Senator Tunney, I do not approve of a man going out and growing conacre wheat and leaving the land in a poor state of fertility. There is an old poem which is known to most members of the Seanad in which it is stated that the farmer has to feed everyone. I think the farmer is the last man upon whom the Minister should use the axe and I would ask him to reconsider his decision and give the farmers fair play by restoring last year's price. This year has been a very trying one for the farmer. He has been hit in more directions than one. Pig prices have gone down very low. I am not blaming the Minister for that. The small farmers are getting it very hard also. I would ask the Minister to be good enough to reconsider his decision and give the farmers last year's price at least. I am sure he will be good enough to do that.

Mr. Tunney

I want to assure the Senator that it is a disgrace to classify the persons to whom I referred as farmers. I am with the farmers, but not with the ranchers.

Mr. Lenihan

Most of us here must agree that this is a blatantly political motion, inspired by the Fine Gael Party. Some weeks ago, a similar motion was put down in the other House, in the following terms:—

"That Dáil Eireann condemns the Government for their repudiation of the specific undertaking given to wheat growers during the election campaign, as set out in their official election literature, that only an immediate Government decision to restore the 1954 price of 82/6d. per barrel could save Irish wheat-growing from disaster."

Members of Seanad Eireann will notice how the Fine Gael Party has drawn in its horns considerably since it put down its motion in Dáil Eireann. The terms of that motion are to the effect that the Fianna Fáil Party, in its official literature in the general election campaign 12 months ago, gave the people a specific guarantee that it would increase the price per barrel of wheat to 82/6d. The terms of that motion were to indict the Fianna Fáil Government on the basis of the promise which the signatories to this motion said was made by Fianna Fáil.

Anybody who peruses the debate, as reported in Volume 165, No. 6 of 27th February, 1958, will see that the Fine Gael speakers in that debate were singularly unable to point to one item of election literature or one specific promise from which it could be construed that a guarantee as to the price of wheat was made by a single Fianna Fáil speaker. That is the singular thing which emerges from that debate.

The terms of the motion before the Seanad now are:—

"That Seanad Eireann deeply deplores the arrangements for the pricing of wheat of the 1958 crop as recently announced by the Government, and strongly recommends that the matter be reconsidered and that the price for the entire 1958 crop be not less than that for 1957."

There is no mention at all there of a promise. There is no mention of the guarantee which was supposed to be given by the Fianna Fáil Party before the last general election. In Dáil Eireann, they set out to prove that such a promise was made. Right through that debate, there was a singular lack of evidence to sustain the point. They now come into Seanad Eireann and draw in their horns and present the House with a motion milder and weaker. They do not now imply that any promise was made. We can take it that they now agree with us that no promise was made by Fianna Fáil in contesting the last election— that no such promise was made either in the official election literature or by any Fianna Fáil speaker in the election campaign.

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to interrupt the Senator. I had nothing to do with putting down the motion. That motion was on the Order Paper for a month before the motion was put down in the Dáil. I do not know why the proposer and seconder of the motion did not tell the Senator that.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Senator knows that.

Mr. Lenihan

A lot of propaganda is being made. It is being alleged that we are an anti-farming Party at the moment and an anti-rural Party. That particular point, made by some Fine Gael speakers, can be discounted very easily by a perusal of the Statistical Abstract as published in 1957. The House will find set out therein on page 99 the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture in each of the past five years. In 1953, the net expenditure of the Department of Agriculture was £7,042,142; in 1954, it was £4,440,128; in 1955, it was £7,161,498; in 1956 it was £7,581,960. In 1957, taking into consideration the recent additional Estimates, the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture in the past year will be in the region of £14,000,000. That, taking the recent additional Estimates which have had to be made in the case of subsidies on butter and bacon, will show that the total expenditure of the Department of Agriculture in the past 12 months will have been in the region of £14,000,000.

In 1956, it was £7,500,000; in 1955, it was £7,000,000. The expenditure in the coming year will be in or about £12,000,000 to £14,000,000. I also think that a simple perusal of those figures will show that more money has been spent by the Fianna Fáil Government in the past 12 months on agriculture than was spent in the previous five years and that more money will be spent in the coming year than in the past five years. The figure for agricultural services in 1957 was the highest since the formation of the State. A further perusal of the Statistical Abstract will show a similar picture in regard to county committees of agriculture.

Mr. J.M. Sheridan

Tell the national farmers that.

Mr. Lenihan

The figures in respect of expenditure of county committees of agriculture for the past five years show a similar pattern. In 1953, the figure was roughly £421,000; in 1954 £495,000; in 1955, £484,000; and in 1956, £503,000. In 1957, £550,000 was spent by all the county committees of agriculture in Ireland on encouraging agricultural education, in providing agricultural advisory services and the other services which facilitate agriculture provided by our county committees of agriculture. The highest sum ever spent by our county committees of agriculture since the formation of the State was spent last year upon encouraging agricultural services. They are the two prongs of agricultural development in this country.

Those two State-encouraged organisations have spent more money in the past 12 months on agricultural services than was ever spent since the formation of the State. Those figures are proof positive in themselves of the stupidity of this blatantly political motion which is a waste of the time of the Seanad and is put forward here only to gain political kudos.

It might be no harm to go back a little on the history of wheat-growing in this country. It might be no harm to refer to the year 1932. I am a young man and I had no connection with the Fianna Fáil Party of that time.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Senator was in Fine Gael.

Mr. Lenihan

The history of the development of Irish politics since fully vindicates the attitude taken by the Fianna Fáil Government which took office in 1932. In that year, 20,000 acres of Irish wheat were grown. In 1932, not enough wheat was grown in this country to feed us for a fortnight. We made it one of the first principles of our policy to make ourselves as self-sufficient as possible and as practicable in regard to wheat. We proved that that policy of self-sufficiency was right during the war when we were able to rely on our own wheat to supply the flour for our bread. The experience of the emergency period fully justified that major policy decision of the Fianna Fáil Government in 1932.

I have no need, and I do not intend, to go over the various matters in the 1930s and 1940s about our wheat policy. It is the same as happened with our industrialisation policy. There were the same sneers and jeers as we built our industries at that time as were given to our efforts in regard to wheat. However, we survived the sneers and jeers such as the one that a person would not be found dead in an acre of Irish wheat—a statement which was made by a one-time Minister for Agriculture who is now in the Fine Gael Opposition in the Dáil. The position now is that we are approaching self-sufficiency in respect of wheat.

The target of 300,000 tons has been achieved and exceeded. The position now is that the Minister for Agriculture has decided that three-quarters of our flour needs will be met from Irish wheat and that that amount can be supplied by 300,000 tons of wheat. That is the plan for the coming year. However, last year, in addition to the wheat that was harvested and to the carry-over of wheat, there were about 445,000 tons on hands. Some of that has been disposed of. However, there is a net problem of 95,000 tons to be disposed of, the Minister for Agriculture sees fit to dispose of it with as little loss as possible to the Irish taxpayer. The loss has been minimised to £1,250,000. That is considerable, but it is what it will cost to dispose of the 95,000 tons.

That is the net problem facing a Government which has to take all sections of the community into account in making a policy decision—farmers, trade unionists, shopkeepers, industrialists and so on. The net problem is that we now have an excess of 95,000 tons of wheat which must be disposed of either as feeding compounds at home or exports, dumping abroad, but which will cost the taxpayer £1,250,000. That cannot continue. In the U.S.A. in recent years, they have actually been subsidising a soil bank in an effort to get farmers to move out of tillage and into grass. It was never the intention of our Party to do that. Our only ambition was to step-up the measly 20,000 acres in 1932. We have stepped that up now to the point at which 300,000 tons can be grown in the current year to supply three-fourths of our needs. The remaining 25 per cent. has to be imported for the time being—but only for the time being.

The mover of the motion referred to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, which is actively perusing the question of an all-Irish loaf. We are all agreed that that is desirable. Instead of utilising only 75 per cent. Irish wheat we shall be utilising 100 per cent. Irish wheat in the making of our loaves. That is the ultimate objective and I do not think there can be any conflict about it. Experiments are going on at the Curragh in the production of that loaf for the Army. There are problems there. The millers will have to adjust their milling techniques and, possibly, their machinery. I am certain that when we leave office in four years' time, we shall have achieved an all-Irish wheat loaf. It cannot be done over-night, but it is well to know that the institute is working on it and that experiments are being carried out. We shall work towards it.

In 1954, it was estimated that two-thirds of the flour for an Irish loaf could be milled from Irish wheat. In 1958, the proportion is three-fourths. We hope that, by 1962, it will be 100 per cent. In the meantime, we must face the problem that we have a surplus of 95,000 tons of wheat on hands from last year which must be disposed of and we must guard against a similar or a greater surplus in the coming year which might cost the country up to two or three million pounds. I would remind the farming community that they are taxpayers as well. We would hear many complaints from Senators Donegan and L'Estrange—and quite another story—if the prices of cigarettes, beer, and so forth, went up. That would be the net effect of imposing a greater burden on the Irish taxpayer in the way of subsidising the disposal of wheat over and above that which is required. That fact will have to be faced.

The thing to remember in any policy decision by a Government is that, in a democracy, a Government is elected not to take a sectional stand, not to pay heed to what the farming section may say or to what the trade union section may say or to what the property-owning section may say, but to put into operation policies which benefit the national well-being as a whole. No Government would be worth its salt if it gave in to any particular pressures or any particular directions. However, we are glad to say that, in the present instance, the National Farmers' Association have shown themselves to be a responsible organisation. They have come in with our Minister for Agriculture and hammered out a solution in the form of a married price arrangement. That means that, if we do not have a surplus, we shall have the same price this coming harvest as the last harvest, but, if there is an undesirable surplus, the price will be toned down by marrying the price with the economic price on the world market. I am certain the reduction will not be more than from 4/- to 6/-, probably, per barrel. That is only theorising now.

The decision to adopt the married price arrangement was taken after full consultation between the Minister for Agriculture and the representatives of the National Farmers' Association. There was very full consultation and eventually they agreed on the married price arrangement as being the most equitable. I examined other arrangements. I have heard others trotted out here to-night—the contract system adopted by the beet growers and the malting barley growers of Messrs. Guinness. The contract system appears very attractive, to limit the acreage to the needs of the home market and grow only so much, each farmer being rationed to a limited acreage. That appears attractive in theory, but the result would be a whole army of inspectors, as the Department would have to send them out to see that the ration was observed on the wheat acreage of each individual farmer.

I have heard another solution offered which appeared all right at first view, that is, that for the first 50 barrels of wheat the full price be given, as the small farmer would benefit by the full price under that arrangement. While that is grand in theory, there is the difficulty in administering it. I do not have to remind Senators that the scope for fraud in such arrangements is limitless, as there can be two or three people acting as a cover for one man.

I personally think that one rather simple remedy might be considered. I do not know whether it has been brought to the notice of the Minister for Agriculture before. I can see obvious difficulties in it also. It is this —an absolute prohibition, a Government Order prohibiting conacre wheat growing. I can see obvious difficulties. I can see that a man could take conacre in the name of the man who owned the property, but I do not think that it would require great investigation to deal with that. If the Garda Síochána were alerted, a simple Government Order prohibiting conacre wheat growing could be administered and I press it on the Minister for Agriculture to consider it. It is a very simple and very effective remedy and it could be done by a Government Order in the morning; and if the Garda Síochána were given instructions I think it would cut out a lot of this undesirable conacre wheat growing.

There is no doubt that it is undesirable. I know conacre in my country taken on two- and three-year lettings by men who grow wheat on it for two or three successive years; and they get out of it then. Undoubtedly the heart has been taken out of that land and it is an undesirable system. I do not know whether this prohibition could be enforced, but I recommend it as a possible remedy for that undesirable type of farming. I do not mind the big rancher or the farmer who owns his land growing wheat on it, because he will have an interest in replacing it with proper manures. Conacre wheat growing is a menace and might be curtailed by some such Government Order.

However, these are only variations on the theme, which is this: How could the Government get down to the problem of reducing the wheat acreage so as not to have this undesirable surplus which had to be dumped abroad or had to be sold at a loss on the home market? The married price arrangement was eventually worked out and arrived at after full consideration between the Minister for Agriculture and the National Farmers' Association. That fact cannot be pressed home too often and it is the simple truth of the matter.

In fact, further to that, a council will meet next summer, next July, and I take it that on that council there will be representatives from the National Farmers' Association and from the Department. That council, on which the farmers' interests will be fully represented, will decide or plan the wheat acreage. They will decide on the acreage and on the output; they will decide how much that output is over and above the home requirements and will arrive at a price. I can think of no more equitable or more fair way of doing it. I would like to emphasise that.

I should like to congratulate the National Farmers' Association for coming in with the Department of Agriculture on this price arrangement in regard to wheat and I would compliment them on their intelligence and foresight. I should like to deplore the antics of Fine Gael Deputies and Senators who seek to make political capital out of a very serious national issue, which the Department and the National Farmers' Association have overcome by a very successful price-arrangement.

Mr. Burke

Senator Lenihan said we were introducing a political aspect into this debate and then proceeded to introduce a much more political aspect himself than any of the speakers who had gone before him. He is very much more näive than I expected him to be as a man engaged in politics. He said he never heard anyone suggest, from the Fianna Fáil Party, that the price of wheat would be increased. I am sorry he was not a member of the Seanad in the year 1955 or the year 1954, as he would have had an opportunity of listening ad nauseam to the former Senator Cogan, who spoke for I suppose about two hours on each occasion and lamented the deplorable attitude taken by the then Minister for Agriculture with regard to wheat.

Mr. Smith

When did he say that?

Mr. Lenihan

Did he make a promise on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party?

Mr. Burke

He may not have got the Parliamentary Draftsman to write in the type of promise, but he certainly was able to get it across to all the farmers in Ireland that he meant what he said. This is the motion he put down, as given in the Seanad Debates, column 96, Volume 45, on 15th December, 1955, on the price of wheat:—

"Mr. Cogan: I move:—

That Seanad Eireann 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."

Is that not advocating in no uncertain manner an increase in the price of wheat?

Mr. Lenihan

There was no surplus then.

Mr. Burke

He said later that he had proposed the same motion the previous year. He spoke about the then Minister for Agriculture and the man he met at the Baltinglass fair who said he would have been all right only for what "James" did to him. I do not intend to go any further into this, as I think it is ridiculous. I said in the Seanad on several occasions that what we want in Ireland is an agreed policy for agriculture.

Mr. Lenihan

We have it now.

Mr. Burke

Have we an agreed one or have we an imposed one? During the debate that went on that year, the then Minister for Agriculture produced a minute which was on the files of the Department showing that his predecessor in office said that about 300,000 tons of wheat would be all that would be required. When the Minister mentioned that, he was taken very grossly to task about it. I believe we ought to have a policy to grow the amount of wheat that we require in this country, but we ought not for some years previously to convey to the people that if you change the Government, you can get whatever price you like for a larger quantity of wheat. I want to hear less about that in future.

I believe our wheat quota should be based on the total tillage in a holding. The reason I suggest that is that if a man has, say, 24 acres of tillage, he would be able, with good husbandry, to grow each year about eight acres of wheat. He would be able to grow sufficient roots and beet and other crops and would keep the land in good heart, and would also be able to lay down short-term leas and bring the land back into heart. These would be farmers who would be genuinely engaged in good husbandry and that would be far better than trying to limit people because they were conacre holders.

I agree in large measure in that respect with what Senator Lenihan said. The Minister knows, as he comes from a county with a number of small-holders, that it would be easy to have some way of getting over that. However, one could see who was the rated occupier of a holding and see what tillage he had on the farm and his quotas could be assessed in 15 minutes by the officers of the county committee of agriculture, an authority which is to be given more power very shortly. I believe they could deal with it.

I object to the reduction at the moment because the people were led astray about it. I would much prefer the Government to have said: "We will pay a fair price for wheat, but we will limit the acreage". I believe what they should have done was to pay last year's price for wheat this year and next year, base it on the total tillage of each holding, rather than let the farmers proceed with arrangements to grow wheat and then reduce the price in the way it was done. I hope for the future that will not be done. I know that the Government cannot grow wheat for export.

Senator Donegan said that you can bring in black wheat from Germany for feeding purposes far cheaper than you can get the feeding here. If the rest of our exports are going to succeed like poultry, eggs and bacon, we will have to get feeding at more economic levels. I believe that the Government will have to set themselves to this task. We are criticising them and we are right in criticising them for leading the farmers astray for the past two or three years. The records of this House show that they have led the farmers to believe that if they changed the Government, they could grow all the wheat they liked and that they would get an increased price for it.

Mr. O'Quigley

I merely intervene in this debate to say something about those who have been referred to as conacre men. It may be that Senator Tunney and Senator Lenihan are acquainted only with business people who can keep hundreds of acres of land and can have their combines and tractors in order to rob the land of its fertility. My experience in relation to the conacre system, and the people who go in for it, is that the growing of wheat under this system is merely a reflection of the shortage of land, the general land hunger.

There are always the widows who are left with young children who cannot till the land as they would wish it to be tilled. They must let the land in conacre, if they are to live. There are also the aged and the people who are not very adept farmers and who prefer to let the land on the conacre system. On the other hand, I know that there are large families where there are quite a number of farmers' sons who do not want to emigrate and who see in wheat growing a profitable livelihood. I think it would be very wrong if any action was taken against that sort of person who has taken, at great risk, land on the conacre system and who is growing wheat.

I feel that perhaps some people think it follows that because there are those who are growing wheat on the conacre system and who are able to make profit out of it, the price of wheat must be profitable. It is by reason of the big turnover that a man is able to make a profit and able to make a fairly good thing out of it. It is in the same way as some small shops where, if there is a good turnover and a quick turnover, the shopkeeper is able to make more profit. It would be a very bad thing for farmers' sons if any action were taken to prohibit them from trying to make a livelihood in their own country.

In regard to the motion, the only thing I have to say is that it need never have been put down, any more than the motion in the Dáil need have been put down. The Seanad deploring the arrangements is merely an echo of the wail that has gone up since the new price of wheat has been announced. It merely sets the seal on the general disquiet that has arisen. The thing that disturbs me, as I think it must disturb most people, is that the farmers feel that there is no continuity in agricultural policy. They have the uncertainty of the weather to contend with, which comes from God, and now they have the uncertainty of changes in political arrangements to contend with. It is certainly making life very difficult for them.

I should imagine that when in future there are appeals to the farmers for greater production they will think twice about what they will do. That seems to me to be the greatest damage done in relation to the price of wheat —that farmers, when urged to increase production from the land, will not take any heed of what is said to them and if they do not and if the general economy suffers, it will be very difficult to leave the blame at the door of the farmers.

Mr. Lahiffe

When I first saw Senator Donegan's name down as mover of this motion, I wondered why he allowed his name to go down. On listening to him, one must admit that he himself was convinced that he had a weak case. He himself knew that the Minister in fixing the price of wheat did the best he could in an awkward situation. After listening to Senator Donegan, one must admit that he had not his heart in this motion. If one continued to listen to him, one wondered whether he advocated an increase in the price of wheat for human consumption or an increase in the price of offals for feeding stuffs. As yet, I do not know what Senator Donegan meant.

Let us be serious about the whole situation. Let us ask how did the Minister arrive at the price of wheat for this year? Did he just, as a previous Minister did not so long ago, fix the price without consultation with any agricultural body? He did not. He called together an advisory body of agriculturists with a big representation from the National Farmers' Association and they themselves suggested to him the possible steps which he should take to remedy this situation that developed in the creation of a surplus of wheat last year. Senator Donegan is aware that the National Farmers' Association suggested a marrying of the two prices, the price of wheat for human consumption and the price of wheat and offals for stock foods. It was the National Farmers' Association which agreed to these terms and their members who were present were responsible wheat producers and were responsible farmers down through the years who produced wheat and beet and other crops.

Would they not know what suited the practical farmer in the country or were they just talking through their hats? They knew what they were talking about and they knew the situation which must be overcome and they were determined to lead the farmers into the position where they would be determined to overcome that situation. What has happened since then? It is to be regretted that the National Farmers' Association allowed some of their members to repudiate the agreement their members made in that advisory committee. We hope that the National Farmers' Association will not be allowed to wreck itself as other farming organisations allowed themselves to be, by such motions planned solely for political propaganda. I am sure the National Farmers' Association will prove themselves bigger than to allow such a thing to happen.

The Minister was advised by these representatives and went a long way to meet their wishes. As a small farmer in the West of Ireland, I regret that the Minister did not see his way to increase the price of wheat or to maintain it at last year's price, but there is an old story which we all learned when we were going to school: "Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch her poor doggie a bone, but when she went there the cupboard was bare, and so the poor doggie got none." We know the Minister would be anxious to fetch the doggie a bone, to give the wheat producers the maximum price possible, but he found the cupboard was bare.

Senator Donegan knows very well who was responsible for leaving the cupboard bare. Why do they not let the people know what the position is? The farmers are content to produce wheat at the prices fixed at the moment. There are some gibes at that statement, but we remember a time not so long ago when the whole future of this country, both politically and economically, depended on whether the farmers were prepared to produce sufficient wheat to keep the country alive.

We were told that land in certain areas in the Midlands, and on into Dublin, was not fit to grow wheat and that it could not grow wheat. What happened then? The Minister for Agriculture at that time, in certain cases, had to make some people do their duty so that the people who had no land, the people in the cities, got sufficient bread and wheat.

Mr. L'Estrange

You were a good Blueshirt.

Mr. Lahiffe

The Senator will withdraw that statement.

Mr. L'Estrange

I will not.

Mr. Lahiffe

You should make sure of your facts.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Lahiffe is in possession.

Senator Tunney has said that the farmers have gone into wheat in a big way. They have. Why? Was it because they accepted the advice of a Minister for Agriculture on a previous occasion when he said the production of wheat is all cod, a rotten fraud and a waste of good land? They did not accept the advice of that Minister and that is why they went into the production of wheat in a big way. Machinery has been brought in to deal with wheat in a big way. While I cannot for one moment condemn the use of combines for the harvesting of wheat, if the farmers who are practical agriculturists will give a reasonable time to the wheat to mature before it is harvested by combines, then the resultant wheat can be sold and milled in as good a condition as wheat harvested by the older methods.

Unfortunately, we have a number of people who are not farmers and who do not even see the land on which they grow wheat. They have employed contractors to sow, harvest and place on sale wheat from conacre land. I have seen some of this myself on the roads to Dublin. I have also seen some of that wheat being taken away in lorries and I was not sure whether the bags on the lorries contained grass or wool, but certainly a growth of grass was to be seen through the sacks, which would indicate that the wheat had sprouted in the sacks. That wheat was being conveyed to the mills in Dublin. On inquiry, I discovered that that wheat was harvested, that the bags were left on the field where they fell off the combine, lying flat for three weeks exposed to the weather. Is it any wonder that the millers would entirely object to Irish wheat in their mills? The Minister and the Government must combat that kind of farming, if farming it can be called.

The question of producing an all-Irish loaf has been mentioned. I know from experience, having been on bodies which approached the millers on the question of wheat and other cereals, that the millers are hostile to the production of an all-Irish loaf. In fact, I have heard millers state that they would much prefer not to get one pound of Irish wheat, if they could manage it.

We are discussing wheat.

Mr. O'Leary

The farmer produces wheat and beet and almost all we consume comes from the land. The present Government at one time threatened us with an inspector in every acre. The present Minister for Agriculture said he would bulldoze the farmers in order to make them grow wheat and beet. Deputy Dillon had not to do that to secure results. Were it not for the change of Government in 1948, we would not be boasting to-day about our balance of payments. If Fianna Fáil had been left in office, there would not be a bullock or a cow left in the country.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Let us keep to the wheat motion.

Mr. O'Leary

Mr. O'Leary

A small loaf would not do the Senator. He would want more than a pound of bread. A very small loaf is being given to the workers in the towns and villages of Ireland—the smallest they ever got. They are unable to buy enough bread. I spent 25 years in the mills and unloaded Irish wheat and foreign wheat. What is the mystery in relation to flour? Farmers are put on moisture content by the millers, but before the wheat is manufactured into flour, it is damped with water. That is a thing I could never understand. It is all humbug and codology. In the Twenty-Six Counties, we have only 26 mills which give employment to about 2,000 people or more. The millers at the moment are importing machinery for mass production, with consequent less employment.

I remember coming to the Department of Industry and Commerce away back in 1934 or 1936. A certain milling company was looking for a port mill. The small mills in the rural areas were on half-time. The Minister's Secretary told me there was no secret, but it was a secret, so far as the workers I represented were concerned. We had mill workers unemployed while people were applying for licences in order to mass produce at the ports. They are heading for mass production at the ports, with the result that the inland mills will be closed. That is what I should like the Minister for Industry and Commerce to keep his eye on because they will tell you that it does not pay to keep a small plant running in these areas.

What has happened since Fianna Fáil came back into office? Two mills have closed down. A lovely mill in County Wicklow has been closed down and the men thrown out of employment. Are there any Corkmen present? The men in the Midleton Mills are under notice because the mills are to close down. Why does the Minister not take action here? We are talking about bringing over foreigners for our industries. There are two Irish industries lying idle.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must relate his remarks to the price of wheat.

Mr. O'Leary

If the mills close down it will be easy to deal with the wheat. Where shall we be, if the mills close down, from the point of view of the manufacture of wheat into flour? It is time sensible men stopped talking about what this man or that man said, because a lot can be said on all sides. Let us try to do good. Let us try to improve the position and not make too much political capital out of food because that is something I should not like to happen.

I do not get all Labour votes in Wexford; I get some farmers' votes. I like to see farmers get a straight deal. They are good, hard-working people who give employment as far as they can. If they reduce their production of wheat because of a reduction in price and no guarantee, then it will mean less employment on the land. That is the danger which I see. Farmers have spoken to me since the cut in wheat prices first became known. I appeal to the Minister to try to have the price brought back to the level which was being paid and which was responsible for this great abundance of wheat. You will not get any results unless there is a good and a fair price. It is the same in industry. If a man is not paid a fair day's pay, he will not work. It is the same with the farmer; you must give him a fair average.

The farmers have thought of what the Taoiseach said in the Dáil in relation to a cut of 6/- a barrel in the price. That should be reconsidered carefully. There is great unrest in the farming community because of that statement and I do not want to say that from the point of view of Party politics. The farmers are angry with the Taoiseach and with the Minister because of the statement that, after 300,000 tons, the price of wheat will be reduced by 6/- a barrel. That is something which should be reconsidered in relation to this great industry on which we would be dependent, if war came.

It is strange to see the price of wheat going down and, at the same time, the price of flour and of the loaf going up. People are talking about it and asking questions. They are asking how it is that the price of the loaf has gone up while the farmers are getting less for their wheat. I suppose it is a two-mark question. The Minister may make a case for it. However, it is the wrong attitude, considering that the last Budget raised the cost of living so much. It is a reflection on a Government which, in former years, boasted so much about the growing of wheat that, in 1958, they decide to reduce the price and not to control the price of flour and bread. I am with the Minister if he will mend that matter, in co-operation with the Department of Industry and Commerce. Bring down the price of flour and bread. Then the farmers will not growl, as they are growling, because the reduction is not passed on to the consumer. That is the whole difference.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

At the last election, the farming community got a chance of supporting the various political Parties and I am sorry to say, for themselves, that a lot of them supported Fianna Fáil and, if they did, they are getting the results now. I think we should discuss this matter without any heat or redness under the collar. It has been debated in every county committee of agriculture for the past eight or ten years. Nearly everybody who is on a county committee of agriculture has heard various statements about the price of wheat. I am sorry that some of my colleagues in the Cork County Committee of Agriculture are not here to-night to listen to or join in the debate.

I do not intend to address myself to the question of the price of wheat because no Senator can tell what the price will be next year, nor can the Minister. Nobody can give an accurate forecast. The price of wheat is governed by circumstances outside the control of the Department or the Government. One of the things which I think will increase the acreage under wheat this year is the feeling of pig producers and barley growers that it is even safer to chance an acre of wheat than to chance an acre of barley. Every farmer in this House will agree with me that that is the position. I believe there will be a steep increase in the wheat acreage. People had arrangements made before the price was announced. Farmers had made arrangements to grow a certain acreage of wheat. A good portion of that acreage had been sown and a great portion has yet to be sown, but it will be sown.

An even worse feature will affect the wheat growers next spring. There is a grave danger that, once the millers have their quota, they will refuse to accept the surplus from the farmers. It has happened this year. I have been informed that, in parts of this country, millers have refused wheat in the springtime. If that has happened this year, what chance will we have next year?

I am very sorry my friend, the former Senator Cogan, is not here to-night. He was always in the forefront of the fray in the past three or four years on this question and he used to speak not for five or ten minutes, but for hours. I do not know what can have happened to him this evening. He must be sowing wheat down in County Wicklow or perhaps he felt he should be sitting on this side of the House for this motion, joining in and giving a bit of advice to the Minister and the Department to accept the proposals he so ably enunciated on this matter last year.

Unquestionably, an acre of land at the present time could nearly double the output of wheat or any other crop in comparison with the year 1936, say, or 1939. That has been and is being proved and nobody can deny it. It is the result of the policy of the former Minister for Agriculture. No one can deny—whether he agrees or disagrees with me—that he introduced the land reclamation and the ground limestone schemes and everything else beneficial to the land. Whereas we could not produce eight barrels of wheat in 1934 and 1935, that same land is producing 12 and 13 barrels of wheat now. That is one of the reasons why we have a surplus of wheat.

I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision, in view of the promise given to the farming community. As Senator Lahiffe said, although the N.F.A. had been with the Minister, they are now disagreeing. As a matter of fact, we see in the papers during the past week that they are not at all satisfied with the price of wheat at the present time.

This is a very serious matter for the farming community, coming at a time when the prices of other agricultural products are falling. The price of grade B pigs is down £2 a cwt. for the past couple of months and the price of grade A is coming down in June or July. These things will affect wheat growing. Where are we to sell the surplus wheat for animal feeding, if we have not the pigs to consume it? What are we to do with it? I would advise the Minister and the Government to reconsider this decision and to stand by what they said last year and the year before, and give us at least the price we got for wheat last year.

Mr. O'Reilly

I am beginning to wonder what the purpose of the motion is, or even what motion is being discussed. None of us seems to direct his arguments to the motion on the Order Paper. In regard to the motion itself, it has occurred to me that if some of the more sober-minded members on the opposite side, like Senator Burke or Senator Baxter, took the motion seriously, urging on the Minister to examine the possibilities of increasing the amount of Irish wheat in the grist, I could see some useful purpose being served by a number of people pooling their ideas in that regard, just as a very valuable contribution in that matter has been given by Senator Lahiffe.

I suggest, further, that the intention of this motion is to repeat loudly enough and often enough that the price of wheat is being deliberately reduced, even if the production does not gross 300,000 tons. It is intended to confuse the people and create doubt and confusion among the farming community. I suggest that is why this motion has been put down by Senator Donegan. I listened fairly carefully to what he said. He did not give any particular price, even for last year's harvest. He did not refer to that price at all, so I take it that the proposer of the motion was not very serious at all in regard to this price fixing.

It occurred to me then that Senator Donegan's history in this matter of wheat is not very good. I recollect reading a Dáil debate when the previous Minister reduced the price of wheat. One of the people who defended most ardently the reduction of 12/- a barrel was the then Deputy Donegan from Louth. If any Senator thinks back or gets the Dáil debates, he will find my statement is correct, that the most ardent defender of the reduction of 12/- a barrel, which was introduced by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister, was the then Deputy Donegan. I agree there was a motion on this matter before the House here and I think I can claim I did not speak on that at that time.

Mr. L'Estrange

You did. You spoke after me.

Mr. O'Reilly

If the Senator says so, I will accept it. Is it not grand that I am not speaking after the Senator now because I might be tempted to say things which I should not say? I am inclined to argue that there is something unreal about this motion, that its intention is not genuinely to examine the possibility of raising the price of wheat or increasing the amount of extraction of Irish wheat in the grist to the mill, but simply to make political propaganda. I know it has been stated that Fianna Fáil promised to do this and to do that, and I wish the people who are claiming that would produce the documents.

In regard to the price of wheat why is there a surplus? I suggest the reason for a cumulative surplus each year is that people found wheat growing more profitable than other branches of farming. That is why more wheat is produced. It was never intended by the Government that we should have a surplus of wheat or engage in exporting it, or dumping it on a foreign market, or having a surplus for animal feeding.

The Fianna Fáil policy was intended to ensure that as much native wheat as possible would be used. If the tendency is for a greater surplus of wheat every year, it should be obvious to any person that the reason why that is so is that so many people—some of whom are not farmers at all—found it a profitable transaction. I do not consider that the Minister for Agriculture is very much in love with the system of disposal of the surpluses. I believe that the method of marrying prices was suggested by the National Farmers' Association. Perhaps it might be possible to suggest a better method and if people can think out a better method, it is only reasonable that it should be proposed to the Minister. Other systems have been suggested in this debate and it struck me that some had merit but also disadvantages.

I claim that it is very hard for people on this side of the House to take this motion seriously because I am convinced that the only purpose it was intended to serve was to make political propaganda for the Fine Gael Party and to level an attack on the Minister for Agriculture regarding the Fianna Fáil wheat policy.

There are only five minutes left.

Mr. Smith

Well, I think we will be able to cover those five minutes.

Professor Hayes

Senator L'Estrange is really a great help to you.

Mr. Smith

I was telling you of my meeting with those people who were interested and of the discussions we had and the difficulties we encountered, and the fact that this 300,000 tons was the amount that this Government has always stood for as the minimum to be aimed at for national purposes. I really got a tremendous kick out of listening to Senators and Deputies who campaigned all down the years against almost everything at one time or another, and I am delighted to be here in order to find them now campaigning for a wheat policy that would result in our exporting wheat. Is it not a wonderful business? It is a change that has taken place not only in regard to wheat but in relation to a tremendous lot of other things in the last 30 years, and it is all to the good.

Even if I have detected both here and in the Dáil a certain amount of the playboy mentality behind this motion, I do not resent it in the least, because, in the end, it all adds up to this conclusion—that those who plodded along the lonely furrow, to meet with criticism, ridicule, misrepresentation and abuse, have finally reached the stage where they can just lie back, as I have for the last two hours, and enjoy what I have heard, and what is to come when next we meet here, from Senator L'Estrange.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m.sine die.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 12 Mar 1958