Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Apr 1958

Vol. 49 No. 4

Price of Wheat—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Seanad Éireann 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.— Senators Donegan and L'Estrange.

Mr. L'Estrange

The recent action of the Minister for Agriculture and the Government in reducing the price of wheat is a retrograde step and one which may have a far-reaching effect. We all know that, for the past ten or 15 years, the farmers have been called upon to increase production, to work harder and to produce more for the Irish nation. We know that they have done so and they deserved better of the Minister and the Government than a sweeping reduction of this kind.

The farmers find themselves in a difficult position at the present time. It was unfair of the Minister to wait until January, until the farmers had their land ready for sowing, before he made any announcement. We remember how often over the past few years Deputy Dillon was twitted in the Dáil about not making an announcement during October or November. We know that many farmers were unable to stock their land, due to the high price prevailing for cattle; and we know that cattle prices collapsed during 1956 on account of the glut of Argentine beef on the British market. Due to those causes, over which the farmers had no control, many farmers went in for increased tillage. The farmers should have been given at least a year's notice. The price for 1958 should have remained the same as for 1957 and the farmers should have been given a year in which to try to readjust themselves. The Government are to a large extent to blame for the present position.

Various speakers on the Government side of the House state that no promises were made. We all know that is altogether wrong. Promises were made. I myself attended Mass in Leighlinbridge during the by-election and the Minister for Agriculture addressed the meeting after Mass. He strutted up and down like a peacock from one chapel gate to the other; and, indeed, he warmed the farmers' hearts there that day, by promising them, as he promised—and I defy contradiction on that point—that if they were returned, they would give the farmers the price that Deputy Walsh gave them for wheat—a price of 82/6 a barrel. There was a definite promise to the farmers of Carlow and Kilkenny. The canvassers going round from door to door made the very same promise to the farmers of Carlow and Kilkenny, that if they were returned, the price of wheat would be increased to 82/6 per barrel.

The Minister for Finance in his radio address spoke about the cruel and unjust price of wheat. Can anybody who was listening to that say that it was not a definite promise, that if Fianna Fáil were elected, they would restore that price? Instead of that, they have reduced the price by at least a further 12/6 per barrel. In 1954, after the reduction at that time, Deputy Walsh, the late Minister, stated, and it appeared in the Irish Press, that the farmers of Ireland were losing £2,000,000, due to the drastic reduction in the price of wheat. We know that the farmers were fooled into voting for Fianna Fáil, believing that if they were returned to power, the price would be increased immediately. What is the position to-day of the farmer? Over the past few years, many of them went to the Credit Corporation and to the banks and went into debt to mechanise their farms as they were told by different Governments and Ministers to do.

Many of them bought their machinery on the hire purchase system. They bought extra tractors, combines, and combine drills, and now we find that those people are to suffer and suffer very heavily because of the Minister's action. I say that the Minister and the Government are to blame to a very large extent.

I quote from Volume 161, column 43 of the Official Debates in the Dáil. Deputy Corry had the following question down to the Minister for Agriculture:—

"If, in view of the absolute necessity for increasing the wheat acreage this year, and in view of the endorsement of the wheat policy by the people, he will state what steps he intends to take to secure by financial inducement an increased wheat acreage this season and if, in view of the lateness of the season, he will make an immediate statement on the matter."

Deputy Aiken had the full facts and he could have stated to Deputy Corry that he knew there was enough wheat being grown and there was no need for any further financial inducements to grow more wheat, but he allowed that question to be asked. The reply which he gave was:—

"No alteration of the price of wheat in these last days of March could appreciably affect the acreage of wheat this year."

We all know that that, in itself, can also be taken as a definite promise last April, because if the Minister wanted to face up to the situation, he would have stated at the same time: "We believe that the present price is high enough and sufficient wheat will be grown to supply our home needs." That is the answer that any Minister would have made, if he did not want to fool the people and make political propaganda out of this whole question. It is only right that we should expose the fraud, the dishonesty and the broken promises of Fianna Fáil regarding the price of wheat.

In 1954, the inter-Party Government were faced with a similar problem and they took courageous action. They told the people the truth. They told them exactly what they were going to do and they told the farmers exactly what they would get for their wheat. At the present time, the farmers have no stability. No farmer to-day knows what he will get for one barrel of wheat next September, October or November, when it has to go into the mills. We all know that Radio Eireann tried to fool the farmers by the announcement they made on the day the Minister made the Order. The announcement was that wheat prices were to be the same as during 1957. That was a misleading statement by Radio Eireann.

There are those who state that the Fianna Fáil Party made no promises. Fianna Fáil had a paper called An Gléas which was sent to Deputies and some of the Senators, and it was the official organ of the Fianna Fáil Party. Here is what that paper had to say:—

"A few days ago the Taoiseach received a deputation from the National Farmers' Association which put the case for restoring the price of wheat to the 1954 level. From every point of view it is to be hoped that the Government would overrule Mr. Dillon and accept the unanswerable case which has been made for a restoration of the Fianna Fáil price."

What did that mean? The Fianna Fáil price was 82/6 and was not that again a definite promise to give them 82/6, if Fianna Fáil were returned to power? The article continued:—

"It is now recognised by all that the slashing of the wheat price was a grave error of judgment by the Government...."

That is the help the Government of that day got and they had to take action similar to the action being taken by the Government at the present time:—

"The result of this error will become still more serious should there be a further fall this year in the acreage under wheat. Only an immediate Government decision to restore the 1954 price can save Irish wheat growing from disaster."

And still, with the reduction of the price of wheat, this article and the people who wrote it have been proved completely wrong. Instead of an increase in the price of wheat, we have the very opposite. A glut of wheat went to the mills during the past two years.

In March, 1956, the same organ stated:—

"In 1954, the Coalition Government cut the price of wheat by 12/6 a barrel and so brought about a reduction in the wheat acreage of 120,000."

That was more lying propaganda. Perhaps we should not blame the Minister altogether for trying to throw the blame elsewhere because we all know that we have a "towny" Government and Cabinet at the present time. At the same time, I cannot understand the course taken by the Minister. I know he was in a difficult position and I suppose it was very hard for him, being the one lone farmer in the Cabinet, to put any argument up on behalf of the farmers. It goes to show what a strong Government can do and even if there was no opposition in the Cabinet to that price, we know that Fianna Fáil T.D.s and Senators throughout the country are at present lamenting the cut in the price of wheat.

If we turn to the Kilkenny People of April 5th, we see where Deputy Gibbons spoke at length about the reduction in the price of wheat and went on to say that this indication of Government policy was most disturbing. He was not satisfied about the reduction, but, of course, with the strong Government, the lone farmer who is trying to stand up for the farmers had got very little chance and his words were not listened to.

The Fianna Fáil Party state that we are growing too much wheat, that our agricultural policy has become lop-sided. Perhaps some of us would agree with that, but that nobody is to blame for that but themselves. As I stated before, when Deputy Dillon pointed out in 1954 that we were going to have a glut of wheat, Fianna Fáil told the farmers: "Not at all; we will restore the price, and instead of having a glut, we are not going to have enough." Fianna Fáil led the people to believe that if they were returned to power, the farmers would get 82/6 a barrel for wheat. We in Fine Gael remember the sneers and gibes when our first industries were started, when the beet factories and the Shannon scheme were begun, when they were supposed to be "white elephants." Were it not for the fact that the Shannon scheme was started in 1924, we could have had no industrial expansion during the 1930's and 1940's. I remember when the people on the Fine Gael side of the House were referred to as grass farmers, as ranchers, when they were supposed to be supplying beef to John Bull.

Mr. Carter

On a point of information, I understood the motion was dealing with the price of wheat. Is that not so?

An Cathaoirleach

It deals with the arrangements for the pricing of wheat.

Mr. L'Estrange

A similar motion was discussed in the Dáil and the Taoiseach had this to say at column 872 in Volume 165 of the Official Report:—

"It is obvious that what we ought to seek to export are the things which give the best returns. At the moment, it appears that cattle give the best returns."

It is a pity the Taoiseach did not see the light 20 or 25 years ago when he was telling us that the British market was gone, gone forever, thanks be to God, and instead of keeping cattle, the farmers should keep bees. We in Fine Gael always believed in a balanced agricultural economy and not in a lop-sided economy. We never tried to kill the cattle industry, though there was a time when one was not considered a good Irishman unless he went in for nothing but wheat. If a farmer was raising and selling cattle, he was referred to as a British agent, a rancher or a grazier.

An Cathaoirleach

I direct the Senator's attention to the fact that the motion deals with the pricing of wheat in 1958. Would the Senator now come back to that question?

Mr. L'Estrange

We in Fine Gael have always believed in a balanced agricultural economy. We have always believed that farmers should do a certain amount of tillage and keep a certain number of cattle. They should not go in for cattle or tillage alone. As Deputy Dillon, the previous Minister for Agriculture, pointed out, we should preserve the fertility of our soil. We have 12,000,000 acres of fertile soil and a population of 2,500,000 people. We have five acres for every person in the country and if our farmers were given fair play—they have got that to a certain degree during the past ten or 12 years—if they got a proper lead from the top, they could solve all our ills.

We were told in the past that Fine Gael were an anti-wheat party. It is extraordinary that it was during the term of office of Deputy Dillon that we had a surplus of wheat. It should be borne in mind also that we got the surplus from less than half the acreage of land which we had under wheat in 1946. We got that surplus from a little over 300,000 acres of land and that is something of which we should be proud. It is something we should encourage the farmers to do. These 300,000 acres were producing more wheat than was produced by 600,000 acres in 1946, and the other 300,000 acres were producing cattle. Now we all know the value of cattle to our national economy.

An Cathaoirleach

It is essential that the Senator come back to the question of the pricing of wheat for 1958.

Mr. L'Estrange

This has to do with wheat of the 1958 crop, because we have been told that the wheat price has been reduced, due to a glut of wheat at the present time.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair feels that the Senator has dwelt sufficiently on the history of wheat growing in the State.

Mr. L'Estrange

When the inter-Party Government were faced with a similar situation in 1954, when the price of wheat was 82/6 a barrel, they took certain action by reducing the price of wheat by 12/6 per barrel. They had to do that in the national interest and they got very little support or sympathy from the people who were in opposition at that time. However, the farmers knew what they were going to get for the wheat which they would produce during 1955 and 1956. In the present year, 1958, it is anticipated by people in the know that the price of wheat will be reduced by at least 12/6 per barrel. That means that, taking an average of eight barrels to the acre, there will be a sweeping reduction of £5 per acre for every acre of wheat the farmers produce. Taking a small farmer who has 30 acres of land, though it must be remembered that 70 per cent. of the farmers have less than 30 acres, if he grows four acres of wheat, he will lose £20 in his income by the Government action taken recently.

I should like to know if the Government think that farmers' profits are too high. We know that during the past ten or 12 years a certain amount of progress has been made by the farmers, but the majority of our small farmers, who are the backbone of the nation, are the hardest worked and the worst paid section of the community. These are the people who will be asked to bear a further loss of £5 per acre on every acre of wheat they sow this year. The profit on wheat, even in the past, has been small. Senator Lenihan, when he was speaking here on 12th March, as reported in Volume 49, column 79, stated:—

"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."

I do not know whether they have taken all sections of the community into account, but I do know that the heavy hand of this Government has fallen on the farmers. The trade unionists have got a 10/- increase in their weekly wages. Civil servants have got £1,200,000 extra during the past week. Industrialists have been allowed to get increases for any commodities they are producing or selling of 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. and the millers got a gift of £130,000. Biscuit manufacturers are now getting flour at the export price of £20 a ton, £70,000 of the taxpayers' money being devoted to supporting the biscuit manufacturers.

If, as Senator Lenihan said, the Government are trying to be fair to all sections, what have the farmers got? The price of wheat is cut by at least 12/6 a barrel. There is a reduction of 5/- per cwt. in the price of pigs. There is a 9/- reduction in the price of barley, taking the 1956 price. Farmers' rates are still increasing throughout the country and the farmer's wife has to pay 6d. extra for a loaf and 3/- extra for a stone of flour. I do not think it can be said that the Government are treating all sections fairly. The farmers have always been prepared to pay their fair share of the burden. They did it in the past and any time they were called upon to increase production or help the nation, they did so.

I should like to say to the Government that they cannot have one policy for the industrialist, the miller, the civil servant and the non-agricultural consumer and another for the farming section of the community. The farmers will not become hewers of wood and drawers of water. No Government—I do not care who they are—will stay long in office, if they attempt to make the farmer the pack mule for the non-agricultural interest in this country. That is what is being done at the present time and very few can deny that.

The farmers have been in the front line trenches in every war in this country in the past, national, social and economic. They saved this country during the emergency. Despite the fact that they were short of machinery and fertilisers, they produced enough wheat for us in this country. Instead of getting a pat on the back or a little encouragement, they get a drastic cut in prices. No other section of the community has been asked to work harder and produce more, and having worked harder and produced more they find that, instead of getting increased remuneration, they suffer a decrease in their income. That is very unfair.

We may be asked what we would do. As far as we are concerned, at the present time, it is the Fianna Fáil Party who are in power. It is they who made the promises to the people and told them before they were elected what they would do. Now, having been elected, they are not living up to the promises they made to the people in 1957. I would say that if our Party were in office, they would tell the people the truth. If the price of wheat had to be reduced, they would say they were reducing the price of wheat by 5/-, 6/- or 10/- a barrel, or by whatever sum they thought it right or necessary to reduce it.

Nobody can tell what the price of wheat will be next September or October, or whether it will be 60/- a barrel. I see a Senator smiling. Is a farmer not entitled to know just the same as any other member of the community? If a man goes to work in an industry, he is not told at the end of the week that he will get £8 or £10. He knows, when he is going in, what he will get. Farmers are asked to work in the dark without any stability and without any knowledge of what they will get next October or November.

Mr. Carter

On a point of information, does the Senator not know that wheat is 82/6 a barrel? Will the Senator say what exactly the cut will be? Can he give us an indication?

Mr. L'Estrange

I should like to enlighten Senator Carter. He does not even know the price of wheat. It is not 82/6 per barrel, but the sum of 82/6 is in his mind, as a result of the promises made in March, 1957. The price of wheat is 76/6 per barrel.

Mr. Carter

I am sorry; I should have said 76/6 per barrel.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator L'Estrange to continue.

Mr. L'Estrange

Nobody knows at the present time. Surely the farmers are entitled to know. There are many, indeed, who say that the farmer may have to sell his wheat for as low as £3 a barrel. The cost of living has increased; his rates have increased; his overhead expenses have increased; and the price of fertilisers has increased since 1954. What would happen to the farmers if they had to sell their wheat next harvest at 60/- per barrel?

If we are relying on a quota of 300,000 tons of native wheat, it means we must import 125,000 tons of wheat this year, at a cost of £3,500,000 to the taxpayers, at a time when we are told that money is scarce. I remember we were told by a certain Party which stood for self-sufficiency and self-support that if all the ships were sent to the bottom of the ocean, we would do without the rest of the world. Now, when farmers are producing all the wheat we need, we are not prepared to take it from them. We are taking only 70 per cent. of our needs. We are going to import 125,000 tons at a cost of £3,500,000. The present quota means that only 70 per cent. of native wheat will be used.

I would suggest that 95 per cent. of Irish wheat be used in the grist, with an extraction rate of 75 per cent. On all available evidence, this would produce a first-class loaf. It would mean that about 390,000 tons of native wheat could be used for flour making. The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated yesterday that the biscuit manufacturers were getting 8,000 tons for biscuit manufacture. The 390,000 tons, plus the 8,000 tons, would mean that the millers would be using 398,000 tons or, roughly, 400,000 tons of native Irish wheat.

Last year, the production of Irish wheat was in the region of 370,000 tons. According to estimates that are being made, we may produce at least 400,000 tons or perhaps 405,000 tons of wheat this year. If the Minister agrees to the suggestion, it would mean that there might be a reduction of only around 2/6 or 3/- per barrel in the price of wheat. That would be fair to everybody in the country, and I would say that it would not be too hard on the farmers. The Institute of Industrial Research and Standards has shown that a 100 per cent. Irish loaf can be produced, even with an 80 per cent. extraction. I think it has been produced by some of our commercial bakeries, and for a lengthy period, it was used in the Curragh Camp, and the quality of the bread produced there was excellent. There have been very few complaints about it. Even if the Minister was not satisfied with an 80 per cent. extraction rate, we could reduce it to 75 or 72, which would still make a loaf of very high quality and almost all Irish.

Sweden is a country similar to ours and grows the varieties of wheat which we grow, and it can produce a loaf made 100 per cent. from flour from its own wheat. The Swedes say that they have no complaints and that it is a first-class loaf.

I have not very much more to say, except this, which I know will arouse laughter—that the Party politicians should stop threshing wheat and the whole question should be taken out of the realm of Party politics. Perhaps Senator Carter might remember when he was in the other House in 1954, 1955 and 1956, when the price of wheat was reduced and he was listening to the former Senator Cogan and others who were Deputies at that time speaking about what had happened. It was a very different story then that the Fianna Fáil Deputies had to tell the electorate. In any case, I think that there should be a wheat board set up something similar to the peat board. It should be comprised of representatives of the producers, the millers and the Department. If we had that, perhaps it would be better for everybody in the end. The farmer might get a fair crack of the whip and we could have stability and a fair price for all.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I rise to express my amazement with the sponsors of this motion, who seem to have lost all sense of amusement, not to mind all sense of the ridiculous. We have been for two days discussing a motion from representatives of a Party who decried as far as they could any effort to increase the wheat acreage of this country. When Fianna Fáil came into power in 1932, we had one fortnight's supply of the wheat needed for making bread.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is this in order?

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Surely I have not gone very far out of order yet, compared with the ridiculous display from Senator L'Estrange in the last half hour.

Mr. L'Estrange

You do not grow much wheat.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I am pointing out that Fianna Fáil were the first Party to guarantee prices for various commodities. They guaranteed the price of wheat, and by the time the world war came in 1939, this country was saved by the fact that they induced the farmers to grow sufficient wheat.

Dr. O'Donovan

That was a long time ago.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The Fianna Fáil Party succeeded, despite all the opposition from the other Parties, especially Fine Gael. Every disease that could affect wheat was said to be affecting it in this country. The soil of the country could not grow it; the climate was against it; there was bunt, smut, rust and everything possible that would make the growing of wheat out of the question.

Dr. O'Donovan

On a point of order, whatever about Senator L'Estrange's incursion into the price of wheat, I want to know whether the Senator is in order in talking about the history of the growing of wheat.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will not be allowed to indulge for too long a period on the history of wheat growing.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I am confining myself to the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party, against all the opposition of the sponsors of this motion, guaranteed the price of wheat and induced the farmers to grow sufficient of it to save this country when the war broke out.

Mr. Donegan

And they were the first to remove a guaranteed price for wheat.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The country was saved by the guaranteed price offered for wheat, despite all the opposition, and the reduction was brought in by the man who said he would not be found dead in a field of wheat. A person who used an expression like that seems to be very lucky when he is able to define for himself where he will be found dead and that he will not be found dead in a field of wheat. What amuses me is that those people must have lost all sense of responsibility to come in now and speak about the price of wheat. At the end of Senator L'Estrange's tirade, he said that nobody knew what the price would be next year.

Mr. L'Estrange

Nobody does. It will be down by 10/- or perhaps 15/- a barrel but nobody can say exactly what it will be.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The same price is there standing for next year's wheat as there is at present, and yet the motion says that all the wheat grown should be paid for at the same rate. That is all I wish to say in this debate, but I am amazed that the people sponsoring this motion in this responsible House have lost all sense of responsibility or of the ridiculous.

Mr. Brady

I do not rise very often in this House, but I rise to speak as a farmer. I have listened to the tirade of Senator L'Estrange. I can call it nothing but a tirade of abuse of the personnel of the Cabinet and of everything else. To my mind, it would be amusing, if it were not so serious, to listen to the whole thing. We all know quite well that we would not be discussing the price of wheat here this evening, were it not for the attitude of Fianna Fáil.

As far back as 1928, a commission was set up to discuss the growing of wheat in this country and they rejected it, and said that wheat could not be grown. There is a minority report there, and the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, Deputy Ryan and others, can be found on the files in the Library down to 1932. We advocated that policy off the public platforms and we are proud of it.

In 1932 we had, as Senator Ó Donnabháin has mentioned, only 22,000 acres of wheat. It would have been very easy to define the price of wheat at that time. It would not cost the Exchequer very much. Fianna Fáil advocated the growing of wheat and when the war was thrust upon us, we were able to feed ourselves. Not alone were we able to feed ourselves, but the people who despised that growing of wheat and everything else found they were able to eat it, that it was highly nutritious and produced good bread. We regard the growing of wheat in this country at present as the fruit of Fianna Fáil policy.

We have a surplus of wheat. Senator L'Estrange talked about the mechanisation of farms, what they have put into it, and so on. It is significant, however—as Senator Tunney said here the other evening—that men can be found who will pay £20 to £25 per acre for land on the 11 months' system for the growing of wheat. I suggest they are growing wheat for what they can get out of it and not from national or any other motives.

I should like to see some system such as the sugar beet system in relation to the growing of wheat. I believe there will have to be an acreage allocation in the future. We are faced with the problem of a surplus of wheat. Can the Opposition suggest what we should do with that surplus? We know what it has cost the Exchequer to dispose of it. Not alone have we a big surplus of wheat on hands, but, as Senator L'Estrange said, we may have an even greater surplus after this year's harvest. People have gone in for wheat growing now because there is money in it. In 1932 and in succeeding years, there was a great prejudice against wheat growing. It was decried from the housetops by certain Parties and there was no secret about it. Despite all the prejudice, it has been proved that wheat can successfully be grown in this country, just as it was grown in the past.

In discussing a matter such as the price of wheat, we should endeavour as much as possible to come down to fundamentals and leave out personalities. Fianna Fáil brought the growing of wheat to its present high standard. Senator L'Estrange said that we had the highest yield in 1954. Our people got into the growing of wheat. They forgot their prejudices and, apart altogether from the national aspect of the matter, they found wheat growing remunerative. That is the reason why many people who knew practically nothing about wheat went into its production on a large scale.

I believe there will have to be a quota system somewhat on the lines of the sugar beet crop production. In that way, the real farmers, who have always produced wheat, can live by it and rear a family. In doing that, the Government would be doing a good thing and they would not then be faced with the terrible problem with which we are now faced, namely, the disposal of the surplus.

Mr. Donegan

Senator Lenihan said that this motion was a watered-down version of the Fine Gael motion on wheat growing in the Dáil. If he takes the trouble to go to the Seanad Office, he will discover that this motion was put down long before the Dáil motion. It was put down in the normal parliamentary way in the workings of democracy. The Fine Gael members in the Seanad decided they would put down a wheat motion and they gave to Senator L'Estrange and myself the task of wording the motion. The wording of that motion is exactly similar to the wording of an earlier Fianna Fáil motion and it was put down long before the Fine Gael Party in the Dáil decided to put down their motion.

Senator O'Reilly stated, among other things, that my history, as he put it—I did not know I had any history—as regards wheat growing was not very good. As reported at column 103 of Volume 49, No. 1, of the Official Report of Seanad Éireann, Senator O'Reilly is reported as saying:—

"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."

For Senator O'Reilly's information, the time allowed and agreed for the motion on that occasion was four hours. I sat for the four hours, but I was not able to get speaking. If the Senator will go back to that Dáil debate, he will discover that, when making his statement in this House on 12th of last month, he was relying not on that debate but on his imagination. If he wants to know my history as regards wheat growing, he can go to County Louth and find out whether or not I have done anything for wheat growing in that area.

The Minister, in his speech, would have been expected at least to address himself to the various questions which were raised. The pricing of wheat and the very complex arrangements in relation to wheat are not easily understood and, while the general framework has been made known, the minor details which, in truth, can very often become the major details, were not made known. Various questions were raised by me and other speakers, but the Minister totally ignored them.

I think Senator Brady is the first Fianna Fáil Senator who suggested a means by which wheat growing can be regularised. I may say that I disagree with him, as I do not think it could be done, but the fact is that he suggested a means. I suggested a means by which it could be done; I suggested a means by which matters could be improved; I suggested a means by which an investigatory procedure could be set in motion now which would help the Irish wheat grower and make him believe something was being done for him with regard to his future crops. It was unfair of the Minister to ignore my remarks. His absence to-night is also unfair. He is in Leinster House, as I saw him. He is not occupied and I feel he should be here.

In his speech, the Minister said the Louth County Committee of Agriculture expressed disparaging views and views which were not fair to our producers of milk and butter. I want to refute that statement. The Louth County Committee of Agriculture discussed the price of milk and butter. At no time did one member on any side of that assembly make one statement which was in any way selfish, in the interests of the Louth people or injurious to the producers of milk or butter. The entire discussion was devoted to the subsidy on butter and whether or not it should have been removed. That is a completely domestic matter which has nothing whatever to do with the price of milk or the price of butter. It is wise to put that on record. It was totally unfair of the Minister to make that statement.

I also drew attention to a discrepancy in figures and I mentioned— there is no point in quoting it again —the statement by the Taoiseach in the Dáil that the losses of the Exchequer on the disposal of surplus wheat would be £1,250,000, whereas the figure included in the Book of Estimates is £800,000. The Minister saw fit completely and absolutely to disregard my question about that discrepancy. That discrepancy is very important. If there is to be another £400,000 spread over the loss to the wheat grower next year, it is going to mean shillings per barrel. No one knows where it is to come from. The Taoiseach says it is £1,250,000; the Book of Estimates says it is £800,000. Are we not entitled in this Assembly to an explanation by the Minister for Agriculture in relation to a sum of that magnitude? It is most unfair that we have not got it.

Senator Carter challenged Senator L'Estrange. He asked: "What is going to be the price of wheat?" He knows perfectly well that no one can say at this moment what the price of wheat is going to be. The asking of unanswerable questions by politicians is a very old practice indeed—it has been done since the year one. I will refer Senator Carter to a relevant figure. If the amount of wheat delivered to the mills is 400,000 tons, the reduction in the price will be approximately 11/3. If Senator Carter is inclined to be a little sporting, I lay him 1/- or £1 per 1,000 tons up or down, on 400,000 tons. He is half way out now and he can have it in shillings if he wishes. I am sorry that he has left.

Grave exception was taken by Senator O Donnabháin to Senator L'Estrange's contribution. We all make our contributions to Assemblies such as this in different ways. I think Senator L'Estrange was perfectly fair and honest in his way of doing it, and if Senator O Donnabháin did not like it, that cannot be helped. I do not like many contributions I hear here, and I am sure no one else does, but it is the right of a member to make a contribution in his own way, and I do not think there was anything wrong with the way Senator L'Estrange did it. If Senator L'Estrange's very measured contribution—I use that word with intent—is to be considered as Party-political, it is of great interest to read what happened in relation to the 1958 price of wheat at a Fianna Fáil convention in County Tipperary. I quote from the Nenagh Guardian of 1st March, 1958:—

"Killbarron cumann moved a motion expressing dissatisfaction with the wheat price arrangement for 1958 owing to the injurious effects on the small farmer and that the full price should be paid on the first 200 barrels submitted by the farmer. A Killbarron delegate said they had been told at the last general election to produce more wheat and they put in a Government that docked the price by 10/- or 11/- per barrel."

He agrees with me. This continued:—

"The more they produced, the less they were paid."

Mr. L'Estrange

It was not Senator L'Estrange who said that.

Mr. Donegan

It continues:—

"The same argument applied to the price of pigs and poultry."

That is outside the terms of the motion, so I will not deal with it. It continues:—

"Mr. W. Brennan said the general public was dissatisfied with the price of wheat and the present arrangement hits in the first instance the unfortunate poor small tillage wheat-grower whose livelihood was going to be reduced. Mr. Brennan referred to a statement said to be made by the Minister for Agriculture that the sooner the small farmer goes out of the country the better. Mr. Fanning, T.D., said that the resolution should be accepted by the Minister.

Mr. P. Ryan, M.C.C., at the same convention, said they could not stand up to the Opposition because it was actually promised from the platforms at the election that the price of wheat would remain as it was, and it was coming bad from a Fianna Fáil Government to reduce the price of wheat, barley and oats. He did not know how they could face the country and something would have to be done to counteract it."

I tried not to make that sort of contribution. Maybe I am not doing half as bad a job as someone who was. There has to be a sting in the tail, but there is a queer old sting in the Killbarron tail.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You did not read The Kerryman last week.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Kilkenny People this week is better.

Mr. Donegan

The Leader of the Government side of the House had the opportunity to produce The Kerryman, and he did not do it. He had the opportunity during this motion. In 1955, a situation developed where the farmer produced more wheat, at the then inclusion in the grist, than could be absorbed. The farmers have a fundamental right to the market for the maximum amount of Irish wheat that can be included. In 1954, the then Government were faced with this surplus of wheat, foreseen by their predecessors when they decided by Cabinet decision in December, 1953, that 300,000 tons was the amount that could be absorbed. There was no test by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards to which they could have recourse; there had been no samples sent by the National Farmers' Association to Sweden; there had been no large-scale test in the Curragh; and the Government of the day were faced also with the fact that there were farmers growing 1,000 acres of wheat. It took a decision.

In the years that followed, two things happened. It became completely apparent that wheat farmers all over Ireland had sold stock and had purchased large amounts of tillage machinery—valuable machinery depreciating fast, at the rate of perhaps £400 or £500 a year—and they had also gone to their bankers and had got bank overdrafts for that purpose. Therefore, the opportunity of these men to revert to the old policy of "walking it off the land" was interfered with. These men just had to continue to grow wheat. The surplus which existed in 1954 has now become a permanent surplus.

Mr. Ahern

And the mill workers are idle.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

And we will be exporting to the Six Counties and to Britain at £20 per ton, and the pig producers of West Clare will buy bran and pollard.

Mr. Ahern

And the mill workers will be idle.

An Cathaoirleach

If there are any further interruptions, the Chair will have to take serious notice of it.

Mr. Donegan

A permanent surplus of wheat has developed. I told the Minister here that, in my opinion—and I do not err in very bad company, as the National Farmers' Association and other farming bodies and many men inside the trade and outside the trade are of the same opinion—that it is the duty of the Government now to do what Messrs. Arthur Guinness Son and Company did with regard to malting barley many years ago, that is, set up large-scale milling and baking tests on Irish wheat with a higher inclusion than is at present in the grist. There is no reason in the world why the Government could not have arranged, for the expenditure of a comparatively small sum, to mill 20,000 barrels of Irish wheat at 90 per cent. inclusion in the grist and perhaps 82 or 72 per cent. extraction, put the bread or flour on sale and see what the quality was like.

The Irish farmer has a fundamental right to that market. There is a market worth £3,000,000, which is represented by the import of foreign wheat. The farmer is entitled to know whether or not he can supply that market. On the present motion, the Minister came in here and when that suggestion was made to him, he spent 35 minutes speaking about other things, including what the Louth County Committee of Agriculture said about butter, and he deliberately ignored that suggestion; and then he did not come in the following night.

I put it to the Minister in my opening speech that his figure for the sale of surplus wheat to compound millers, farmers and others, at £26 per ton at the nearest railway station in six-ton lots, was unfair and too high.

I quoted imports over the past six months of flour middlings, which are, in fact, black flour, and I baked a cake to find out if they were. They were exactly like the flour here during the war, possibly 90 or 95 per cent. in flour middlings. These were available in this country, c.i.f. Dublin, at £22 10s. and later at £24 per ton. They were milled and ready for inclusion in compound meals for hens and pigs.

The Minister says, at column 106, Volume 49 of the Official Seanad Report, in reply to me:—

"That is really the confusing and bedevilling aspect of the fixation of barley prices, barley that is intended for animal food, or, indeed, for oats. When I was dealing with this matter in the Dáil, I made it clear there that the fixing of £26 per ton for any of that surplus disposed of for compound purposes was determined by me in order that grain importers and the Government would keep their word with those commercial interests that were driven into giving the price I have referred to back in the harvest of last year. These matters are all bound up together. The price of wheat, the disposal of surplus wheat, our attitude towards the fixation of barley prices, whether we should have fixation or not, whether we should have a policy with regard to the growing of oats, whether we should have regard to the price for oats—all these are matters to which attention and consideration had to be given, because in the circumstances as they exist, or have existed or having regard to the position as it existed inside the last number of months, they are all interconnected in some way or another."

The Minister was completely incorrect. The position with regard to barley last year was that in order to see to it that there was a floor of £2 per barrel on the farm, for barley of 20 per cent. moisture content, he put Grain Importers in the market to appoint agents and purchase that barley and put it in store. In fact, those agents dried it in store. Grain Importers' instructions were that if they wanted to sell any of this barley before March 31st, or not so very long ago, that they must include full storage and financial charges up to March, to see to it that the barley of ordinary commercial interests was used first. There is not as much barley held by ordinary commercial interests as would keep this country going for a fortnight. The Minister was completely free to fix the price of surplus wheat, which will eventually find its way to the unfortunate pig feeders and poultry breeders, at whatever figure he likes. The price is £22 or £24 per ton, but it certainly is not £26.

Coming back to the fundamental rights of the farmers to the entire wheat market, I would refer the House to the reply given by the Tánaiste to Deputy Dillon in the Dáil yesterday and reported in to-day's Irish Independent. I quote:—

"Mr. Lemass told Mr. Dillon (F.G.) that wheat for the production of biscuit flour was issued to millers at the animal feed price, on the basis of one barrel of native wheat for each sack of flour supplied to a biscuit manufacturer. The flour requirements of biscuit manufacturers amounted to about 70,000 sacks a year, so that, on the assumption that the arrangements remained in force throughout the financial year 1958-59, about 8,750 tons of native wheat would be utilised in that way.

The price to be paid for biscuit flour was a matter for negotiation on a competitive basis between the biscuit manufacturers and the millers, so that it was not possible to indicate precisely the differential per sack in price between the normal price of such flour and the price at which it was supplied by any particular miller, but, normally, it would be of the order of 20/- to 30/- per sack."

There is plenty of leeway there. The quotation goes on:—

"Mr. Lemass said the Deputy would understand that the biscuit manufacturers would not be given any increased protection against imports from abroad, because the rate of duty appointed was very low and was fixed under the Trade Agreement with Great Britain and could not be changed. Therefore, unless they could get flour at the same price as their foreign competitors, the result would be the importation of biscuits and the loss of markets. There was no question of a subsidy; the use of the term ‘subsidy' was completely misleading."

Firstly, I want to say there is a subsidy. Of course, there is. Take the framework of the subsidy when flour was at the cheaper price. The losses of the Irish mills on native wheat were made up, plus 6 per cent. for profit. This was computed on the average loss of the then 31 mills. Is there not a complete and absolute parallel there, when you think that Irish wheat is being given to the biscuit manufacturers at £26 per ton, or in the form of flour based on £26? In other words, the price of the flour to the biscuit manufacturers is subsidised by the Exchequer. Is there not an absolute parallel? Of course, there is a subsidy, but the difference is this, that here we have no guarantee that the price of biscuits will be reduced. That is the first thing wrong. The second thing is that the Irish farmer is now being deprived of a further portion of the market which he should enjoy. There are 8,750 tons of wheat to be sold this year to the biscuit manufacturers at the cheap price. The precedent has been created.

It has been a fundamental principle that the pig feeders and the poultry feeders got their offals, no matter what the price of wheat or bran was, at world prices. There were, in fact, accusations during the term of the previous Dáil, notably by Deputy Corry, to the effect that this practice had been discontinued. Seeing that the margin is so small which poultry breeders enjoy, it has been a fundamental principle that they got their bran and pollard, outside their compounds, at the same price as the foreign competitors in the British markets got theirs. The ports are open and if a man wanted to bring in a shipload of bran or pollard, he could, and he could sell it here, and the mills had to reduce their price to meet that competition. This meant a loss to the Exchequer, but at times when there was not a subsidy it would mean some fluctuation in the price of flour or bread.

The price of pollard has been fixed and, strangely enough, ten days before it was fixed, it was increased by £1 per ton. It was fixed at the increased price. That price is £22 10s. The S.S. Floria is docked in Dublin to-night with a cargo of Argentine pollard and the price of the pollard, brought forward, is £19 15s. That is the last licence that has been issued for the importation of foreign pollard. When that is gone, the Irish pig and poultry feeder will pay £22 10s. for Irish pollard, whereas his foreign competitor on the British market will be able to buy pollard at something less than £19 15s., because there is also the cost of transhipment from Liverpool to be taken into account, and the Englishman has the pollard cheaper, anyway. That is not fair.

It has been stated that the Government are bearing all the loss this year. Of course, they are not bearing all the loss; the unfortunate pig and poultry feeders are bearing the loss, a loss amounting to £3 per ton. The Government are only trying to blind people's eyes in that respect, and, if evidence of that is required, I can lay it on the Table of this House inside a week. I have mentioned the fact that the Minister saw fit to ignore completely the suggestion regarding milling and baking tests. That slows up the whole procedure and maintains the status quo with 79 per cent. Irish wheat in the grist.

In the two or three years prior to 1955, and after 1955, to a lesser extent, there was a movement of Irish farm capital from stock into machinery in the wheat areas. The Government placed large advertisements in every paper in the country urging the farmers to grow more wheat and to speed the plough, and these are responsible for that movement of capital into machinery. The road back for the farmer is a hard one, but he is able to recognise the road back. He has to get back to a self-contained herd, with a high level of tillage, selling some of his cereal crops for cash and feeding the remainder to his stock, or walking it off the land in the form of various agricultural products.

The Government might be forgiven for their previous action, if they were prepared to announce some scheme which would give the farmers capital to enable them to walk that hard road back. Instead, the members of the Government have spent their time since 1954 in telling the farmers that, if they got back to power, the price of wheat would be increased. To a certain extent, I think the farmers did put this Government into office, and now they know that the more they grow, the less they will get, and they also know that there is no agricultural policy forthcoming to help them out of the unfortunate position in which they find themselves. The Government must meet their responsibilities. They must produce some form of an agricultural policy that will give the farmers hope.

I suggested, in my opening contribution to this debate, that there should be a scheme of loans for farmers and, where a farmer was growing too much wheat, it should be made a condition of a loan that he would reduce his wheat or grain acreage, and that he would not sell all his barley or wheat for cash, that he would keep some of it to walk off the land in various forms of agricultural produce. However, the Government have done nothing.

To give an idea of what the Government now feel about wheat, I refer to a report in the Irish Independent of 14th April under the heading “Wheat Scheme Not Very Attractive”. It reads:—

"The wheat scheme which had been decided upon for 1958 was one which he personally did not find very attractive, but it was the only one that could be decided upon under the prevailing circumstances, said Mr. Smith, Minister for Agriculture, at a Meath Fianna Fáil Convention in Navan.

Mr. Smith said that since 1955 there had been a surplus of wheat grown in this country and no serious effort was made to deal with the problem. It was not a sound national policy to produce wheat for export at a price of only £20 a ton.

In the course of drafting the announcement for the 1958 crop he had gone out of his way to have it phrased in such a fashion that it would bring home to every grower what to expect at harvest time.

Unfortunately, there was a considerable swing this year towards wheat growing and so far as he could gather it would appear that the acreage would be higher than heretofore.

If the arrangements for the 1958 crop did not work out satisfactorily, he would do everything in his power to devise a more suitable scheme and would consider any constructive suggestion that might be put to him."

I put a constructive suggestion before the Minister in this House and he saw fit to ignore it and, furthermore, he did not come into the House the following night.

Before sitting down, I should like to nail one statement that has been floating around the country for the past 20 or 30 years, that is, the general statement supposed to have been made by the ex-Minister for Agriculture, "that he would not be got dead in a field of wheat". Every statement has its context and I would like the Fianna Fáil Senators to know the exact context in which that statement was made. If they want to, they can read it for themselves in the Official Reports in the Library. The statement was made at a time when a certain very wealthy combine, which also owns a film studio, opened the most modern mill in Europe, at that time, in Limerick. They were importing more than 95 per cent. of their wheat. Boats came to Liverpool and discharged three-quarters of their cargoes into a mill owned by this wealthy combine and then they came to Limerick and discharged the rest of their cargoes there. Only 5 per cent. Irish wheat was used in Limerick and a sack of flour costing 20/- in Liverpool cost 30/- in Limerick. In those circumstances, in a small country, it is fair to say that the statement appears to be an altogether different one.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Surely that statement has nothing to do with the motion?

Mr. Donegan

It was raised here and it should be answered. Let the Fianna Fáil Senators read the Dáil debates of 1933 and they will find that for themselves. I charge that the Government have not lived up to their responsibilities, if only for the reason that the Minister for Agriculture did not answer the things he should have answered on the last night. This country will definitely support an honest man. An honest man can come in here and say what he believes, but the Minister did not come in here and make any statement.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the motion being pressed?

Mr. Donegan

No, Sir.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjournedsine die at 8.45 p.m.