Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1929

Vol. 32 No. 6

Private Deputies' Business. - Proposed Wheat Control Board.

Debate resumed on motion by Deputy Ryan:—

"That it is the opinion of the Dáil that proposals for legislation should be introduced by the Executive Council to provide:—

(a) for the establishment of a Wheat Control Board, which shall be a Limited Liability Company, charged with the purchase of imported wheat for re-sale to millers and the fixing of a minimum price to be paid by Saorstát millers for home-grown wheat sold to them for milling purposes;

(b) for the prohibition of the importation of wheat by any person other than the Wheat Control Board and such persons as may be authorised by the Board;

(c) for the payment by the Board to Saorstát millers of such sums as may be necessary to make good the difference between the price paid by the millers for home-grown wheat and its market value compared with Pacific Wheats, taking into account its higher moisture content;

(d) that the Minister for Finance be authorised to subscribe to the capital of the Company, and to make good any losses incurred by the Company in the administration of the scheme, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas;

(e) that the importation of flour be permitted only under licence issued by the Wheat Control Board, and subject to an import duty: provided that there shall be no restrictions on flour imported for biscuit manufacture."

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. P. Hogan)

I have practically nothing to add to what I said when this motion was being last debated. This is the third or fourth time that this particular question has been discussed in the Dáil and the presentation of the case on this occasion is exactly the same as the presentation on a previous occasion. I am quite convinced if we continue that procedure during the rest of this debate we will get no results of any kind—either positive or negative. For that reason I would like to come down to some specific points. All I am going to say now has already been said in the majority report on wheat growing. I would like to put the net points that have been made there, and if speakers are to follow me in opposition, I would like them to deal with these points, because it is better to deal in some detail with these points than roam or travel in a general way, or discuss in a general way, a number of very numerous and complicated issues.

It is contended, and arguments have been advanced to show, that wheat-growing for seasonal and climatic reasons is rather more unsuitable to this country than the growing of any other crops which are grown here now on a commercial basis. That is contended, and that is held by a very great number of farmers. That is the first point. The second point is a fact that can be established and cannot be denied, that the trend of prices has been more against wheat than against any other crop, not for a few years, but for at least half a century. That is a fact, and it must be admitted. I go this far, and I say that that establishes a prima facie case that wheat-growing pays—not every farmer, not any farmer, but the average farmer, less than any other crop he could grow. I say that prima facie conclusion is absolutely confirmed by an examination of the figures, which go to show that while there are something like 600,000 acres of oats, 300,000 acres of potatoes, 200,000 acres, odd, of mangolds and turnips, there are only 30,000 acres of wheat. These are roughly the figures. If you accept those admitted facts, then I say it is absolutely clear that so far as the average farmer is concerned, wheat pays him less than any other crop. If anybody in the Dáil disagrees with me, I would like him to examine that specific point and to show me where I am wrong.

Now, I come to the second point. Nobody contends that there is sufficient tillage in the country; there is not. There should be, and there could be more tillage in the country. In fact, Deputy Ryan made the case, so far as he made any case, for increased tillage rather than for an increase in a particular crop like wheat. I have never heard it denied that the farmer who is producing most, the farmer who is doing best for himself in this country, is the mixed farmer, who is doing considerably more tillage than the average farmer. I have never heard that denied. I would like to know whether it is now denied here that the farmer who is doing the best for himself, and for the country as a whole, is the mixed farmer, who is doing more tillage than the average farmer of the country. It is quite certain, and statistics prove it. The conditions under which that farmer works are exactly the same as those under which 75 to 80 per cent. of the farmers of the country work, and 75 to 80 per cent. of the farmers of this country are small farmers, and practically all their work is done by the family labour. It is the minority of farmers who are doing the mixed farming, and who are doing more tillage than the average farmer. In this respect of acreage they resemble exactly the majority of the farmers who are not doing as much tillage and not producing as much, nor making as much money for themselves or the country as the minority, who go in for more tillage, are making.

If these are the facts, surely the business of statesmanship and agricultural policy should be directed towards either compelling or inducing that large body of farmers that I have mentioned to do as much for themselves and as much for the country as the minority of the mixed farmers are doing. If Deputies are with me up to that point, I submit that one clear deduction can be drawn from these facts, and it is this—that there is no case—good, bad, or indifferent—for subsidising wheat as compared with a subsidy for tillage as a whole or for any other crop. I suggest, too, that Deputies who are in favour of a subsidy for tillage have first to show reason why they picked out wheat rather than any other crop, if in fact wheat pays less than any other crop. If wheat pays less than any other crop, it will take a larger subsidy to get a given increased area than it would take to get a given increased area of any other crop. That is obvious. I, personally, do not think that subsidies are desirable. I will give my reasons for that. I think that they are a wasteful and inefficient method of encouraging increased production, and for this reason—that all the subsidies are mainly paid by the farmers themselves. In the particular case of wheat, the subsidy would be, to a very great extent, paid by the poorer farmers to the farmers with the best land. I say that because, regardless of what agricultural experts in the Dáil say, wheat will be grown to a greater extent on good land than on bad land, and it will not in fact be grown to any extent in the Gaeltacht, in places like Connemara, Mayo, Donegal, Kerry, in the Gaeltacht generally, the poorer parts of the country.

My next reason is that subsidies, to a great extent, so far as we have any experience of them, bring about, not increased tillage, but the substitution of one crop for another. We pay £24 an acre roughly of a subsidy to the best growers. To a great extent that has brought about substitution.

I hold that a subsidy of £2 or £3 an acre for wheat—an absolutely negligible subsidy as compared with what we are paying for sugar-beet growing—in so far as it would bring about wheat growing at all, would be almost entirely substitution. It would only attract the farmer with suitable land, with a tillage tradition and who has land already under grain. For those reasons I am personally against subsidies as a method of increasing tillage. I am against them first for the reason that the farmers themselves would pay the larger part of the subsidy, and in that respect it would be merely taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another; and I am against them secondly for the reason that subsidies would bring about substitution. I may finally add that the whole thing would be very costly to administer and the taxpayers of the country as a whole would be affected thereby.

If there are people who think that subsidies are the best way to attain increased tillage, then it is up to them to show why the subsidy should be given and why the crop which undoubtedly pays the farmer of the country least should be selected. If they do not agree with the contention that it does pay the average farmer least, then I ask them to examine specifically the reasons that I have given to show that it does pay the average farmer least. I may be told, though it is not an answer, that we should encourage wheat growing because, in fact, we send about £7,000,000 out of the country for wheat. That point of view, simply stated like that, practically means nothing. So far as it means anything it means that we should encourage wheat growing in order to lessen our imports. Lessening imports as such is no advantage. You could lessen imports and at the same time lessen production. If you examined the statistics of imports and if you had equally available the statistics of production, and if you found both were going down, that would be a clear indication of bankruptcy. If you want to state the position properly, do not state it in terms of lessening imports, but rather in terms of increasing production.

I hope to see the imports into this country increasing. If we produce more I am firmly convinced there is no reason why economic laws which operate in every other country in the world should not operate here. The universal experience is that the more production there is, the more imports and exports you have. Denmark has been quoted by Deputy Ryan and, now that we are speaking generally, the particular phenomena which appear in Denmark are relevant. In Denmark they produce more than we do, but they import and export more than we do. The same applies to every other country in the world. It is no advantage to lessen imports as such. What is of advantage is to increase production, and that is what is wanted. There is ample room, as I have pointed out, and it must be admitted, if people admit my previous contention, that the majority of mixed farmers should be induced or compelled to attain the standard of those who have more oats, barley, mangolds and turnips.

If my contention is admitted, then there is plenty of room for an increase in oats. There is actually a choice of crops. There is room for an increase in oats and barley. The people who are constantly advocating the theory that barley is as good as Indian meal can scarcely deny that. There is room for an increase in mangolds, turnips, barley and oats and if these can be produced more economically, if the farmer can produce them at a profit—as he must be able to do or he would not go on producing them—then if you want to increase tillage, why spend the small amount that is available in this country either through taxation or in any other way—because there is only a limited amount available over and above the amount legitimately required by the businessmen and farmers for their own needs—why spend that limited amount on trying to encourage a crop which, on all the evidence that we have had before us, is a crop that pays least and consequently will require the largest subsidy for any given increase in acreage? If this debate is to come to anything, if we are to understand one another so as to disagree with one another, I would like these particular points dealt with.

Mr. Aiken

I think there is no doubt, as the Minister said when he started answering Deputy Ryan, that he is tired of wheat. I certainly think it would be a great job for the country if the Minister went to bed for a while, because he is not alone tired of wheat but he seems to be tired of the whole economic situation in this country. We heard him on the last night and we heard him again to-night and what has he offered to the country to cure it of the economic evils from which it is suffering? He talked a lot about the difference between cutting out imports and increasing production. He talked altogether away from the vital factors that entered into this discussion. He left out of the question the big number of unemployed that exist here and also the large amount of land that is unemployed. The Minister may throw up his head, but we have to examine this proposal for the growing of wheat in the light of the situation in which we find ourselves. The fact of the matter is that in this country we are faced with the position of the farmer who has 100 acres of land and four sons. The whole family is in a bad way and half of the land is idle. Bread and foodstuffs have to be purchased when, under proper conditions, the land should be made produce all that would be required in the home.

I agree with what the Minister has said about increasing production. We want to increase production, but what are we going to concentrate on? Are we going to increase the production of cattle and dump more cattle into the one market that we have for them and so further reduce the prices which we are obtaining there for our stock? The Minister says that he is weary and tired. He has done something to benefit agriculture during the last seven or eight years; he brought in a Dairy Produce Act and he has tried to do what he could to abolish scrub bulls, all of which things are a benefit to the community as a whole. If he would apply to the wheat and tillage situation the principles upon which he went when he was introducing that legislation he would, I am sure, find himself driven to support Deputy Ryan's motion.

Eighteen months ago the Minister said that our present system of farming was the result of five hundred years of accumulated wisdom by the Irish farmers. We all know, and the Minister knows, that our present system of farming, our whole economic situation, is not the result of five hundred years accumulated wisdom but is the result of five hundred years of British rule—British rule in the interests of Britishers and of British shipping companies and not in the interests of the Irish farmers or the Irish people. No matter what problem we have to examine here we must examine it with the full knowledge that the system under which we are operating is not one that was developed by Irishmen in the interests of Irishmen, but one that was developed by England in the interests of her own people. The fact of the matter is that we are sending on an average £6,500,000 to foreign peoples for produce which we could produce here. At the same time our land is idle and large numbers of our people are idle.

We maintain that the best thing to do in the interests of the country is to give our people employment on the land that is idle, and to get them to produce what we require. As Deputy Ryan pointed out, we are tilling only 12½ per cent. of our arable land, while Denmark is tilling 65 per cent. If we tilled only an additional ten per cent. we would be producing all that we required, and if we increased our production our overhead charges would not fall so heavily upon us. At the present time the rates, the rents and the taxes are crushing very heavily upon the people as a whole, all because their production is so very small. We have an enormous burden of about £24,000,000 in taxes, another £3,000,000 or so in land annuities, and another couple of millions in rates, all falling upon the agricultural population that has only 12½ per cent. of its land under food production. I do not hold any brief for the farmers who are not producing all that they could, but we have got to realise that it has been only within the last twenty or thirty years that the real science of farming has been taken up throughout the world, and that scientists have gone into agriculture with a view to benefiting it and putting it on a firmer basis.

We have got to do things for the farmers that they will not do for themselves, that is the long and short of it, and the Minister has done things for the farmers that they would not do for themselves. Although it was quite apparent to intelligent farmers that the scrub bulls were ruining our stock, as a whole, they did not combine to eliminate them. It was only when legislation was passed that the scrub bulls were eliminated, and it was only when legislation was passed to eliminate dirty eggs and inferior butter that the farmers accepted the fact and started to produce cleaner eggs and better butter. We have got to bring in legislation which will encourage the farmers to grow more wheat, to grow all that the country requires, and if the compulsion is to take the form of increased taxation on some of the farmers we cannot help that.

I doubt very much whether in the long run, over a period of years, Deputy Ryan's scheme would add anything to the general cost of taxation. The Minister himself cannot be very sure, because on the last night, referring to Deputy Ryan's statement, he said: "Irish wheat fetched 30/- a barrel for some years, but the area remained about 30,000 areas." Where on earth did the Minister get that figure of 30/- a barrel? He certainly did not get it out of the publications of his own Department, because they say that in 1927 wheat fetched, on an average, 28/1½ per barrel, or 11/3 per cwt., and that in 1928 it fetched 9/6 per cwt., or 24/9½ per barrel. This year it is very well known that the average will be around 25/-.

Mr. Hogan

The average for 1925, 1926 and 1927 was 30/-. That was the evidence given before the Economic Committee.

Mr. Aiken

I have not the 1925 and 1926 figures here. But I believe that if the farmers were assured of a price they would grow more wheat. There are many farmers who say that 26/- a barrel would pay them better than barley at 16/- a barrel, and it is well known that the most progressive farmers throughout the country are growing a good deal of wheat for their own consumption; they are feeding it to their own cattle, pigs and fowl, and if they got a little encouragement, if they were guaranteed a price for three years in advance, they would be encouraged to put more land under the plough, and they would have the inferior wheat for feeding their stock.

The Minister and his Department have certainly done nothing for the encouragement of wheat. The Louth Committee of Agriculture this year proposed to spend £50 to encourage the growing of wheat in that county by giving free seed to farmers of under £30 valuation. As in the case of most other counties, most of the farmers who grew wheat there have gone out of it, but the Minister's Department refused to allow the Louth County Committee of Agriculture to spend that £50. The most they would allow them to spend was £10, and another interesting fact is that in the same week in which they refused to allow more than £10 to be spent in the encouragement of wheat-growing, they allowed £7 10s. to be spent in prizes for a ploughing match. I think that anybody but a tired Minister would know that the farmers are more in need of being taught how to grow wheat than of being taought how to plough. There was £7 10s. spent in prizes in one little village—Dromiskin—and they were allowed to spend only £10 for the whole county for the encouragement of wheat-growing.

When the Minister rose to speak the other night it was quite apparent that he had not troubled to listen to Deputy Ryan, or if he had listened to him, that he was too tired to take in what he said. He said that he gathered from Deputy Ryan's speech that wheat is the least exhausting of all crops. I did not hear Deputy Ryan say that, and I do not know whether anybody else in the Dáil did. I have read his speech, and unless the reporters are incorrect, he did not say that. The Minister said, secondly, that Deputy Ryan had stated that wheat cleans the gound more than any other crop. I did not hear Deputy Ryan say that. Another allegation by the Minister was that Deputy Ryan said that it is an ideal nurse crop for grass. I did not hear him say that either, and another, that the ideal way to sow wheat is after oats or barley, that wheat suits a wider variety of soil than any other crop. Deputy Ryan contradicted him immediately, and if the Minister could support these statements he should have come back to-night, after several days in which to prepare his speech, to drive home these allegations. They were contradicted by Deputy Ryan there and then, and I challenge the Minister to support these statements on anything that Deputy Ryan said. The Minister said: "I say that wheat impoverishes the land more, and requires a choicer soil than any other crop." Of course, wheat impoverishes land. So does oats, so does barley, so do potatoes.

Mr. Hogan

I said "more than any other crop."

Mr. Aiken

More than any other crop.

Mr. Hogan

Yes. Deal with that now.

Mr. Aiken

I will not deal with it at all.

Mr. Hogan

Do not misquote me, then.

Mr. Aiken

I will quote it for you:—"I say that wheat impoverishes the land more, and requires a choicer soil than any other crop."

Mr. Hogan

Exactly.

Mr. Aiken

Well, it impoverishes the land——

Mr. Hogan

More than any other crop. That is what I said.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister has produced no figures to prove that. I would like to see it proved.

Mr. Hogan

That is the point I want the Deputy to deal with.

Mr. Aiken

But everything impoverishes the land.

Mr. Hogan

Agreed.

Mr. Aiken

Unless we allow the 1,200,000 acres that we till at present to go back into grass, we will have to impoverish the land to the extent of growing the crops we require. After all, the land of this country has stood for thousands of years, and although impoverished by growing crops of wheat it still produces it, and, with modern methods of farming, we can put back into the land what wheat takes out of it. On the comparative price of oats, barley and wheat for a number of years recently, it is believed by most farmers that out of the profit from wheat, even at the prices we are getting, it would more than pay them to put back with artificial or farmyard manure what it takes out of the land.

Mr. Hogan

I suppose that is the reason they do not grow it.

Mr. Aiken

The farmers in this country do not grow wheat because they have no security in price.

Mr. Hogan

I thought you said they were paid more for it. They have no security in any crop.

Mr. Aiken

They have no security in any crop. Certainly if the Minister remains in office much longer they will not have any security for any crop. Farmers got a certain amount of security for one crop recently, the oat crop, owing to the imposition of a tax of 2/6 per cwt. on oatmeal. The result is that the production of oats has gone up. If farmers got a little security for the wheat crop, the acreage would increase, and we would be retaining in this country a large proportion of the £6,500,000 that is now sent out to foreign farmers. That is our object. When we come to examine the economic situation of this country, we should concentrate on putting more land under the plough and giving employment to the people we are sending out of it. There was a most alarming statement in the "Irish Times" the other day. Obviously, it had reference to the speeches that some Fianna Fáil Deputies made about emigration.

The "Irish Times" went to the trouble of interviewing the American Consul here to find out how many people were going out of the country and it found that fewer people had obtained visas up to June of this year than in the corresponding period of 1928. Further down, the interview showed that, apart from the 20,000 people who had been granted visas, 4,053 people had been refused visas because, as the American Consul said, a lower type of person had been coming up lately. The result of the policy of the Government, and of a half-million acres going under grass, has been that we are sending the best of our people, the young men and the young women, away. At present, there are not enough left here to fill the American quota. If we go on like this for another twenty years, we will have done what the British failed to do—what the British deliberately set out to do— that is to reduce this country to a grass ranch, so that the least possible number of people will be able to obtain a living in it. The reason the British wanted the least number of people living here was to secure that there would be no military endeavour to free the country. If we allow present conditions to continue, there will certainly be no one left in the country but old people, and who will take care of them?

I was reading an English paper recently and there is another aspect discussed in an article in that paper of which we should take cognisance. An English gentleman was discussing the wheat problem and the problem of agriculture in England. He said: "Unless something is done for agriculture, we shall soon be dependent entirely on overseas wheat for our bread. That is where a grave national danger might arise through hostile action by enemy submarines and air-craft."

Mr. Hogan

What paper was it? Was it the "Morning Post" by any chance?

Mr. Aiken

No, the "Daily Mail." I might get something in the "Morning Post" that would be useful too. This is what this gentleman says: "That is where a grave national danger might arise through hostile action by enemy submarines and air-craft. We must always bear in mind that there is never more than six weeks' supply of bread stuffs in this country." We are dependent at present on British shipping companies to keep our people alive.

Mr. Hogan

No, not so far as wheat is concerned.

Mr. Aiken

Most of the wheat that comes into this country comes in British ships. Supposing a war arose between England and another country—and England is hardly ever at peace—we would be dependent on the bounty of the British for bread, but the British themselves have only six weeks' supply of bread stuffs, and certainly they are going to feed their own people first, as is natural to expect. We would only get what is left over. From that point of view alone, it is of the utmost national importance that we should produce the wheat we require in this country. The Minister made a note of the fact that I was quoting from an English newspaper.

Mr. Hogan

I did not.

Mr. Aiken

You asked what I was quoting from?

Mr. Hogan

I was interested to know if it was the "Morning Post": that is all.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister was also interested to know the other day that Deputy Ryan was quoting from foreign agricultural experts regarding the wheat problem. The fact of the matter is that if we do not do something we will soon have no data of our own to go on; we will be dependent altogether on foreign agriculture, because there will be no agriculture left here. It is no wonder that Deputy Ryan has to quote from foreign agricultural experts, because the Minister is altogether opposed to the growing of wheat, and is giving practically no encouragement to his own experts to experiment.

Every other country in the world is devoting a lot of its time and attention to the production of its own foodstuffs and to the improvement of agricultural crops. You had recently agricultural experts in Canada who produced wheat that ripened a fortnight earlier than anything they had. It enabled them to go two hundred miles nearer the North Pole. Without much attention being given to it here, we have in seventy years increased the average amount of wheat per acre from something like 12 cwts. to 19 cwts. What could be done if there were a few thousand pounds spent in the development of proper seeds here for our country? I hope that, even though the Cumann na nGaedheal Party may be compelled by the Whips to vote against Deputy Ryan's motion, they will make themselves active within the party in forcing the Government to adopt his motion afterwards or some similar scheme. They can see as well as the ordinary person throughout the country that if we are to continue that adverse trade balance of £15,000,000 this country is very soon going to go bankrupt. We had an adverse trade balance of £15,000,000 on an average during a few years past. In one year it was £19,000,000, and at the same time we were importing almost £25,000,000 of foreign agricultural produce. Surely, on the face of it, there is need for something to be done. Surely, when you take into consideration that during that same period half a million acres went back into grass, there is a growing need apparent for doing something to keep the land from going back into grass, for keeping our people employed producing what we require in their native land, instead of sending them off to foreign countries.

Mr. T. Sheehy (West Cork)

I would not get up to address the House or take up its time if the Deputy who has just sat down confined himself to the motion before the House. He started with insulting the Minister for Agriculture by stating that he was asleep and remained asleep. In answer to that taunt, I wish to say he is very much alive and the Saorstát is very glad that he is. The Deputy took a dive into the ancient history of our country with regard to agriculture and farming. I will ask him to go back in spirit to the time when Strongbow first landed in Ireland. What brought him into the country? —dissension and disunion and with fourteen mail-clad warriors I am sorry to say he captured our country for the English king. From that down to this the history of the farmers of Ireland has been a sad and miserable one. I am not as extensive a farmer as the Deputy nor have I such an immense knowledge of farming, but I have a sad story in connection with it. In the year 1805 my grandfather with nine children was evicted out of a small farm in Castlehaven in the County Cork. There was no mercy for the farmers. My father was then five years of age and when we were beginning to grow up as boys he told us that sad story of those times, when half-a-dozen Sheehy families, occupying an entire townland, were thrown on the roadside simply because the little naked children running about were a disgrace to the lords of the manor living near by.

That was a policy that operated over the thirty-two counties as far as landlordism could go. It was a sad history for the farmers and those who followed, but in 1879 the flag was raised, the flag of the land for the people, and then for the first time after a struggle of centuries we faced landlordism, and we never ceased until we wiped it off the face of this land. I wish to ask the Deputies how could those brave farmers who struggled on from the centuries till their soil with any advantage? If they put a slate on their roof, their rent was raised. How could they go on with a system of agriculture that would be of advantage to the country? Thank God, times are changed; we are now a free and independent nation, and thank God that nation can produce a Minister for Agriculture who will show the way, in a practical and solid fashion, to the tenant farmers of the present day to increase their exchequers and pull down the adverse balance of the country. I think with all due respect that in a debate of such vital consequence, where we are trying to work out what is best for the benefit of agriculture in our native land, those little, petty strokes are too contemptible, and I sincerely hope that the remainder of the discussion on Dr. Ryan's motion will be on broad and practical lines, and that we will drop the trash of Deputy Aiken.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister for Agriculture asked us whether we agreed that the object should be increased production. We do agree with that, and he asked us if we agreed that the object was to increase tillage. We do, and the purpose of our motion is to see that there will be increased tillage, and we think this is a most practical way of getting about it. The Minister for Agriculture did not indicate himself how he proposed to get increased tillage and increased production. We have here in this motion a definite way in which it can be done. There is coming into this country between wheat and wheat products on an average something like £6,674,000 a year. Now the fact that we have here a market will give us an incentive to production. We have a market there to supply the products that are coming here to the amount of £6,674,000 a year, and the Minister will find it very hard, I am sure, to show us where we have got a market to the same extent available for any other agricultural product. We regard the encouragement of wheat as the key to an increase of tillage. We are interested in it because it fits in with the general programme which we think ought to be the economic programme of this country, that is, that we ought to set out to make ourselves as self-contained and as self-sufficing as possible in all the essentials. Food is the primary essential.

What and flour are the chief articles of food, and here we have this big market for them open for us if we only go and take it. The Minister for Agriculture asks us if there are to be subsidies for this crop, which, he says of all others, pays the farmers the least. I am not sure that the Minister for Agriculture has at all proved that it pays the farmer the least. The figures which were given to the Economic Committee do not prove that it pays the farmer the least. What we do know is that on account of the uncertainty of the market and the fact that you have this country flooded with foreign wheat—

Mr. Hogan

Does not that apply equally to the other crops?

Mr. de Valera

It does not, to the same extent. Take the case of oats. Dr. Ryan gave figures here on the last occasion and the Minister for Agriculture did not say that they were not in accordance with the information we got. We have questioned these figures that were supplied to us, but, even taking them as a basis, an acre of wheat gives a profit to the farmer of £2 18s. 7d.

Mr. Hogan

Pardon me, I was on a different point. Did I understand the Deputy to say that the reason the farmer does not grow wheat is because this country is flooded with foreign wheat? This country could be flooded with foreign oats, but it is not, because the farmer finds that at the world price he can produce oats in competition with foreign oats, and the oats do not come in.

Mr. de Valera

There may be a question of that very soon, if the present policy of the Government is going to continue.

Mr. Hogan

That is another question.

Mr. de Valera

It is not. It is the same world question again. As far as this question is concerned, suppose we grant that wheat is not as profitable a crop to the farmer it may be as profitable to the community, and that is exactly what our figures prove. They prove, as regards the individual farmer, that he is affected by these other factors, the uncertainty of the market, and the conditions in the past—that is all. But if it were a fact that this particular crop was not as profitable for the individual farmer as other crops, and that we proved that it was a more profitable crop for the community as a whole, that would be the very justification for the community giving a subsidy.

Mr. Hogan

Agreed. I made that point myself.

Mr. de Valera

Let us come along and examine the figures. Take the figures as far as the community is concerned. The figures given officially to the Economic Committee show that for beef the net profit per acre to the community is only £5 12s. 5d., whereas for wheat the value would be £7 3s. 5d. That is a difference in value to the community between an acre of grass and an acre of wheat of £1 11s. 0d. I think the Minister for Agriculture agrees that the number of extra acres we would have to grow would be something like 830,000 to supply all our needs. That shows you at once that substitution there would mean £1,286,500, and if the community as a whole profit to the extent of one and a quarter million pounds it would be good business for the community to distribute a quarter of a million to the individual farmer in order to produce the one and a quarter million pounds.

Mr. Hogan

Apply that now to potatoes.

Mr. de Valera

Yes, but can you get a home market for potatoes?

Mr. Hogan

Why not?

Mr. de Valera

Can you get an increase that will mean £1,600,000? In so far as you do we will help you in that scheme. As a matter of fact, the growing of wheat would lead to the growing of potatoes also, because as we know potatoes and wheat go very well together. The Minister for Agriculture has told us that if we increase our wheat crop we will have to increase our root crops, and potatoes might be a very suitable increase. Therefore, as far as this is concerned, there is no antagonism whatever between our proposal to meet our requirements in wheat and any other proposals that may be made for the increase of tillage. Our case for giving a subsidy to wheat is that the community would be justified in doing so on economic grounds. They would be justified in giving every penny of the resultant profits to the community by way of subsidy to the individual farmers, but, in fact, the amount of subsidy that we are asking and that would be sufficient on the basis we have taken—and I think it is a fairer basis than the basis the Minister for Agriculture has put up —in order to bring that profit to the community, a net value of one and a quarter millions, would be only a quarter of a million. For every five pounds that the community would gain we would only have to give a pound to the farmer. We think that would be good business apart from any other consideration.

Mr. Hogan

What was the increase you mentioned?

Mr. de Valera

At present we have 30,000 acres. The total number that would be required would be 860,000.

Mr. Hogan

You think you would get an extra 800,000 for a pound an acre?

Mr. de Valera

I will give you all the figures in a moment. They are worked out in the report. The Minister for Agriculture knows just as well as we do that the subsidy is not based on the acre.

Mr. Hogan

I missed that point.

Mr. de Valera

Our subsidy is based on the amount of milling wheat that would be tendered for sale, therefore, in this particular case, if we do not get the production of wheat there will be no loss to the State, as it is only going to pay for goods received. As I was about to say, look for a moment at the present economic position of this country.

Mr. Gorey

The Deputy made a comparison between the value of oats and wheat to the community. He dealt with wheat and grass. I would like him to deal with oats.

Mr. de Valera

I gave the relative figures for wheat and grass. I did not work them out for oats and grass but I gave you the worth to the individual farmer per acre, and it is considerably less per acre than for wheat. The profit to the individual farmer per acre of wheat was put down as £2 18s. 7d.; that is all costs paid, whereas for oats it was £1 16s. 6d. That is considerably less. We were interested in proving this case as far as wheat is concerned. There is a difference of opinion as to whether land used for wheat production would be of more use to the community than land used for the production of beef or milk. The Minister for Agriculture asked if the farmer was such a fool that if it was a more profitable way of employing his land to put it under wheat he would not employ it in that way.

That is a sound argument and an argument that will have to be met, but I say that for our case that is not essential, though we do differ from him as far as the figures are concerned. As a matter of fact, I saw recently where it was stated in England that 30/- per barrel would pay the farmer. Every time I have met people since we were last here, who have grown wheat, I have put that question to them—whether they would or would not, under present conditions, grow wheat if they were guaranteed a fixed price of 30/- per barrel—and I have never yet met one who, if he got a fixed price of 30/- per barrel, would not revert to wheat. Deputy Ryan, on the last day, gave the statement that was made to us in Wexford recently, that they would grow it for 25/- per barrel.

But that is beside the question. What I want to have considered is this: what is our present economic position as a whole? The position is this. If you analyse our imports at present you will find that we are importing 60 per cent. manufactured goods. We are exporting only 40 per cent. manufactured goods. If we examine that fact, it indicates to us clearly that our whole economy is wrong. When we import manufactured goods we pay for the cost of foreign labour. When we export our own unmanufactured goods, the raw products of the soil, what we are doing is, we are making a present of the natural gifts of this country to the stranger. Every country tries, as far as possible, to retain its own natural resources—the things that spring up without labour—and if they have to export things they export the things on which the greatest amount of labour is spent, because it is the labour spent on them that gives them their exchange value. Sixtynine per cent. of our imports are those things on which considerable labour has been spent abroad, and we are getting a very small proportion of the natural gifts, so to speak, of other countries. We are, on the other hand, exporting goods on which there has been very little labour spent. It is on the amount of labour that the exchange value is based. Therefore, we are really making a present to the other people of these natural gifts. As I say, every country tries as far as possible to keep for consumption at home all these natural gifts—the things that come directly without appreciable labour—and to give to the stranger the products on which they get value for the labour which they expend upon them.

If we want to right our economy at all we must begin at that end, we must try to get in—if we have to get in anything at all for production —as far as possible the raw material for production, not the things that the stranger expends labour upon. We here are allowing to go partially to waste all the land that could be put into wheat for which we would have a home market—a market that could be relied upon—and instead of having it in wheat we are using it in a less profitable form, in grass. We want to change this kind of economy. We believe that by becoming self-supporting as far as food is concerned we are working in accordance with the best ideas of economy. The Minister tells us that we need to increase production. In what direction are we going to increase it? We are showing one definite way in which we can do it, where there is a market that can be relied upon, where the conditions are not against us and where rings cannot control. The Minister for Agriculture will tell us "Let us increase butter and eggs and so on."

Mr. Hogan

No.

Mr. de Valera

It would be better put into butter and such products, because they require more labour for the finished product than beef. Let the Minister look at the results. We were discussing the marking of eggs to-day, and we saw what the results were. Here is the position of some of our agricultural products in the British market—this world market in which we have to compete. Take eggs. In 1928 the average market price for Free State eggs in Great Britain—this is extracted from the British returns—was 12/6½ per 120. The average market price of eggs from all countries was 13/6. That is, we are far lower for 1928, with all the work which the Minister has been doing in that direction that has been so much spoken of here. We are actually getting only 12/6½, whereas the average price for all countries was 13/6. That does not show that we are going altogether in the right direction in dealing with foreign markets. During the week ending 16th October the average price of first quality Free State eggs at the London Egg Exchange was 23/- per 120; of first-class English, 34/- and 35/-; Danish, 21/6 to 22/-; Dutch, 20/- to 23/-. Then take butter. On 17th October, on the London Provision Exchange, the highest prices for butter were:—Irish, 179/-; Danish, 200/-; Dutch, 196/-; New Zealand, 190/-; French, 184/-; Australian, 188/-; Argentine, 180/-. Irish was the lowest of all these, lower than the Argentine at 180/-, lower than the French at 184/-, than the Australian at 188/-, than the New Zealand at 190/- and the Danish at 200/-.

Mr. Hogan

What is the Deputy quoting from?

Mr. de Valera

These were taken from the English trade returns.

Mr. Hogan

What paper is the Deputy quoting from?

Mr. de Valera

These are statistics taken from the returns available. I have given the highest price for butter. In the case of bacon it was substantially higher than that of any other country. The prices for bacon in Great Britain were:—Free State, £4 19s. 5d.; Danish, £4 14s. 1d.; and the average price of all bacon imported, £4 9s. 4d. It seems to me that the reason that the Irish bacon is able to hold its price—it may be its intrinsic value—is probably due to the fact that there is a limited supply.

Mr. Hogan

Wrong.

Mr. de Valera

Taking the supply of Irish bacon in the market as a whole, it is comparatively small. As I say, with us the position is this— that we believe that this question of the production of wheat is the key to the development of tillage in general. The Minister for Agriculture on one occasion admitted that our whole policy in that particular respect stood or fell by wheat. We believe it. We believe that in this particular case wheat is the centre of the development of tillage in general, and is the centre of this whole policy of producing for ourselves the things that we can produce and have our own market for ourselves. Let me give an example of what it would mean. In some of the figures given to us, I think it was in the interim report of the Agricultural Commission in 1923 the labour involved in the cultivation of barley was set out at 85½ hours per acre. Suppose we were to grow wheat, and put into cultivation the acreage required to grow wheat for our own needs, then, if you go on the basis of a 50-hour week you would provide the equivalent of full-time employment for 27,000 persons. I have shown that the net gain to agriculture for the community as a whole would be one-and-a-quarter million pounds— as a matter of fact, that is the minimum. If we were to calculate the price at 30s. it would be much nearer to one-and-a-half millions. The Minister in fact has put no alternative forward. He has been working for a number of years to increase tillage. I wonder has he done it. Statistics do not seem to indicate that. He has been talking about stimulating production. If you have a world market, it might well happen that if you increase your production your total return will not be increased. As I say, the figures I have given in the case of butter and bacon, seem to indicate that if you go on increasing your supplies of butter and eggs you are not going to increase your price; you may have the opposite result.

I showed, also, there was a more fundamental way of looking at it, and that was looking at the question of the whole nature of our economy. We hold that if we are to export— and we must export if we are to have the necessary imports—the goods we should try to export are finished products, as far as possible, and that it is ridiculous for us to import, as I pointed out some time ago, something like £23,000,000 under the head of food, drink and tobacco, and to export £21,000,000, if we are an agricultural country. Now, as to the objections that have been put up. The first objection is to the amount of the subsidy. In that report, to which I have referred, it has been calculated, on the average price that obtained over a number of years, that 30/- per barrel would be a price that, at present, would induce farmers to grow wheat. The Minister for Agriculture says no. He then tells us he will not predict. Well, let us put it to the test. We do not fix it definitely and say it should be 30/- per barrel. What we say is there should be a Board in control, which should examine the whole question as to what would be a fair price that would induce the farmers to grow wheat. The Minister tells us, as I have said, that a subsidy would not be justified. We have proved that it would be. As I say, if the community is going to benefit by one-and-a-quarter million pounds, it is good business for the community to give one-fifth of that which is the sum we calculate by way of subsidy. It will not come on all at once, because we do not expect we are going to get in a year or two years the 830,000 extra acres of wheat. We know that time would have to be taken for that, and our proposition was proposition to cover about 50 per cent. of our requirements for a period of 10 years, I think.

The Minister, although he does not want to predict, is predicting a number of things. I believe that anybody who is not going to be convinced by the arguments put forward by us will only be convinced by putting it to the test. The test will be whether the Board fixes prices that will induce the farmer to go into wheat-growing or not. The Minister says there are certain areas which will not be benefited. As a matter of fact, experts have stated that wheat is a crop that can be grown in practically every county in Ireland. Though we know that Kerry and Clare are not the big wheat-growing counties at all, the best samples of wheat for our purpose—"Red Stettin"— came, according to the Department's Report, from those counties. Therefore, it is possible to grow wheat in every county.

The Minister did not hesitate to give a subsidy for beet growing, and the subsidy for beet was confined to a fewer number of counties than the subsidy we propose would be. We hold that growing our own corn here, and giving the employment it would give, and being of general value to the community is just as important as beet, and if a subsidy is justified in the one case, a subsidy would be justified, at least, as much in the other. Therefore, it cannot be any question of principle that is in the Minister's mind about subsidies. That is the position as far as we are concerned. Now the Minister for Agriculture talks as if this was some new proposition never mentioned in any other country. I have here a few facts about what is done in other countries with respect to wheat. In Bolivia there is a system of import duty under a law of 15th May, 1929——

Mr. Hogan

This is not Bolivia.

Mr. de Valera

It is not, but the fact that other countries all over the world think it worth while to protect in order to keep the home market for themselves is relevant. These facts will prove the fundamental thing that I have been talking about, that every country with any common sense in its governors attempts to be self-supporting in these vital matters.

Mr. Hogan

They grow oranges in Bolivia. You might as well say that we ought to grow them here because that is what it comes to.

Mr. Moore

Do they protect oranges in that country?

Mr. Hogan

No. It is a question of soil and climate.

Mr. Moore

There you are. We are only talking of countries where wheat growing is protected.

Mr. Hogan

To be candid, I do not know the first thing about Bolivia.

Mr. de Valera

I am giving these facts so that Deputies may realise that what we suggest should be done to protect the home market for our own wheat growers.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy did not deal with the one point that I thought he would come to, and that is why not protect oats instead?

Mr. de Valera

Because of the fact that in the case of oats it does not need protection.

Mr. Hogan

But there is a market for twice as much oats.

Mr. Moore

Where?

Mr. Hogan

Here.

Mr. de Valera

If the Minister can get a market for an increased consumption of oats we will be very glad of it. That is not excluded in our proposition at all.

Mr. Hogan

First things first.

Mr. de Valera

That is precisely why we have taken the question of wheat. We believe it is the first thing that should be dealt with. As far as we are concerned, we believe that wheat is the key to the situation. If what we suggest is done, it will give direct employment to 27,000 people. It can be proved that it is better for the community as a whole if wheat is dealt with first. It will lead to a general increase in tillage, and it is the most suitable crop for protection, because of the fact that it is going to be a cash crop. Wheat differs in this from some of the other crops: that it would be a cash crop. To a certain extent, barley and oats are not so much cash crops, because they are generally used by the farmers themselves for feeding purposes. I am now going to indicate what the position is in other countries in order that Deputies may have evidence that the question of protecting the home market in vital matters like food—in this case wheat—is in the minds of other people than ourselves, and is actually in operation in other countries. Surely, it should at least make us think when we find that being done. If we are going to stand out in these matters we ought to have a very good reason for it, and ought to know the reason. We contend that no reason has been put forward by the other side either in the Dáil or at the Economic Committee. In Bolivia a law was made in May, 1929, under which a system of import duties on wheat, gradually increasing for four years, was adopted. After four years the importation of wheat, will be prohibited. The law there also provides for yearly increases up to a fixed maximum of duties on flour. There you have protection. There is going to be final prohibition because the people in that country realise that it is to their interest to grow their own essential food articles.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

In Bolivia?

Mr. de Valera

Yes. In France last May the import duty on wheat was increased from 2/10½ per cwt. to 4/1 per cwt.

Mr. Hogan

But there are military reasons for that in France.

Mr. de Valera

We are not advancing military reasons as the basis of our proposal at all.

Mr. Hogan

But that is the reason for it in France.

Mr. de Valera

That is not the reason given for it by the Minister for Agriculture there, but that the money which was being spent abroad is now going to be spent in France.

The Minister there has definitely given the reason for it: that it was going to give employment to Franchmen, whereas if they did not do that they would be paying for the employment of strangers. In Germany, in July 1929, the duty on wheat was increased from 2/6 to 3/8½ per cwt., the duty on imports from countries enjoying most favoured nation treatment being increased to 3/2 per cwt. In Italy, in June, 1929, the duty on wheat was raised from ? to 5/7½ per cwt., while the duty on flour was increased from 6/8½ to 8/2. In Roumania, in June, 1929, the duty on wheat was raised from 9d. to 2/- per cwt. In Norway, on August 9th, 1928, the State monopoly in grain and grain products which was in force there from 1917 to 1927 was restored. Under the Act restoring the monopoly the State buys all Norwegian grain as well as any imports of grain and grain products necessary to cover the country's requirements.

Mr. Gorey

But that is not wheat.

Dr. Ryan

Wheat is grain.

Mr. Gorey

Other things are grain besides wheat.

Mr. de Valera

We are also anxious that we should have the home market protected as much as possible for oats and barley, but oats and barley do not lend themselves to the same treatment as wheat. We are keeping them quite separate. As far as Norway is concerned, the position there is that under the Act restoring the monopoly the State buys all Norwegian grain as well as the imports of grain and grain products necessary to cover the country's requirements. That is to say, Norway has gone much wider than we propose in this particular case. Grain and grain products in that country may not be exported without licence. That is also a proposition which we should carefully examine—that of preserving the offals and the smaller grain that may not be suitable for milling, so that these would be available as feeding-stuffs for farmers. In Norway they take care of that. They say there that grain and grain products may not be exported without licence, except in the form of ships' stores.

Provision is also made there for expropriation by the State of all desirable commercial mills, compensation to be fixed by a valuation commission. In other words, in Norway they are taking over the whole question of grain supplies in the country. Control of the monopoly is vested in a director under the supervision of a council, while the selling prices are fixed for monthly periods. They keep grain reserves approximately equal to one year's requirements on the basis of the smallest ration. That would be a war time ration. In Austria, on July 15th, 1928, a sliding scale of duties on grain and wheat was replaced by a duty on wheat fixed at four gold crowns per 100 kilograms. The position of Switzerland and Norway is very interesting. In Switzerland, following a referendum, a corn monopoly was established under the new system which came into force on 1st July, 1929. The State is to maintain a reserve of corn and to buy the home grown wheat at a guaranteed price in excess of world prices; to sell it to millers and to pay milling premiums to protect the national milling industry against foreign competition.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.