Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1929

Vol. 32 No. 10

Private Deputies' Business. - Proposed Wheat Control Board.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
"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 resale 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 wheat, 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."—(Deputy Ryan.)

On the adjournment of this debate on the last occasion I stated that wheat can be successfully and profitably grown in this country. It is a mistaken idea and a nonsensical argument for any Deputy in this House to assert that the growing of wheat impoverishes the land and fills the ground with weeds more than any other crop. Now, the fact is that wheat is the easiest of all grain crops to grow. Any weed or dirt that springs up during the growing of the wheat crop can, in the following spring, be easily got rid of. When the land is cultivated for the growing of root crops, mangels, turnips and potatoes all the weeds that may spring up in the growing of the wheat can very easily be got rid of by the simple process of running a chain harrow over it. Wheat is the easiest of crops to harvest, for the straw of wheat stands up better than any other grain crop and it is easier to get it harvested than any other grain crop. The straw of wheat is most valuable for bedding purposes for cattle and horses. It is also used for the manufacture of mattresses and for harness-making. Wheaten straw is very much sought after by the owners of racing stables, for it keeps the horses clean and warm in the winter and in the summer it keeps their feet cooler. All race-horse owners and the owners of training stables find their principal trouble is to keep the horse right and in good condition, and so far as bedding is concerned, there is no bedding so suitable as the straw of wheat. In oats grown after wheat you have better results than after any other crop.

One of the most valuable foods for the rearing of young calves is the wholemeal made from wheat. It does not matter what agricultural instructors may say or what professors of agricultural colleges may say, these instructors and professors have yet to find a substitute for butter fat. To my mind, wheat, when crushed and boiled, is the best substitute for the butter fat taken out of the milk at the creameries. The principle reason why the cattle of this country are not improving is because the young calves are not properly fed until after twelve months old. A certain number of calves die during the winter months from such diseases as hoose and pneumonia, which are very prevalent amongst calves. This is because they do not get enough substantial and nourishing food from their infancy. Wheat for poultry is the most productive food, especially for laying hens. In the winter months, when the eggs are scarce and dear, laying hens fed with whole wheat will produce eggs in abundance, and I can assure the Deputies here that they will lay very few gluggers. The farmers of this country seventy or eighty years ago largely or solely depended on their wheat products to pay their rack rents. Wheat was then grown on lea land ploughed into ridges of sixteen sods. The land so ploughed was treated with a hand harrow, furrows were dug with spades and the wheat was sown with the hand and covered over with a shovel. It was reaped with a sickle and thrashed with a flail. That wheat was sold at 50/- per barrel.

You must understand that in those days, seventy or eighty years ago, men did the work which is done by horses and farm machinery at the present time. These were a healthy and noble race of people and they depended entirely for their daily needs on wheat made into bread. These people also used their own butter, eggs and milk. Meat was not allowed to them in those days, for if it were known that the farmers ate meat their rent would be raised. The landlords before the gale day would send round their rent warners. These jokers would drop into the farmers' houses at meal-hours to see if there was any meat on the table. Woe to the farmer who had a couple of flitches of home-cured bacon hanging up in the kitchen. He would be immediately reported to the landlord, who would increase his rent after the next gale day or throw him and his family on the roadside. But even with this food and without any meat you had a strong, healthy people. They used wholesome food. Meat was not then used by the farmers. However, the Land League days changed all that. As one who was a member of the old Land League and served several terms of imprisonment under Balfour's Coercion Act, I am glad to say that all that is now ended. I do not wish to boast about the fact that I was imprisoned under the Coercion Acts, but I am proud to say that the rack-renting persecutors of our race are as rare to-day as are the Red Indians on the shores of Manhattan. They are very few, at all events. Deputy Thomas Hennessy, in his opposition to this motion of Deputy Ryan, based his argument on this statement: "I know that the saving of one acre of old meadow hay gives far more employment than the sowing and reaping of an acre of wheat."

Every farmer Deputy in this House knows that the secret of wheat-growing is not altogether the saving of the crop. It certainly requires skilful labour properly to stock wheat and afterwards stack it. The longer it is left without being threshed the better the grain becomes. Any individual can go into a farmer's place and save an acre of hay. But continual cropping hay impoverishes the land more than any other crop which is taken off it. Any farmer is aware that hay makes farmers as poor as the proverbial church mouse. Deputy Hennessy also stated that there was more nourishment in three inches of grass than in a yard of wheat. I maintain that wheat is far more valuable for a dairy cow than any other cereal you will grow. I am sorry that Deputy Hennessy is not in the House, because I do not wish to criticise any Deputy in his absence. He seems to forget, however, that a cow has to be fed for five months in the winter. With Deputy Hennessy it is a case of live cow until you get three inches of nutritious grass grown in the months of April and May.

If we were to establish a winter dairying industry in this country wheat would be a valuable asset. Wheat imparts great milk-giving properties to the cow. You would have also richer butter fat by cultivating a more extensive area of wheat. You have an army in this country, a useless, worthless and expensive army. It is costing two millions of the ratepayers' money to keep it. We have unemployed in the cities and towns, and their maintenance is costing thousands of pounds. My advice to the Executive Council is to put the useless, worthless army back to the land, and turn all their war paraphernalia into plough-shares. Let us march the unemployed out of the cities and towns.

You would have to get the army to do that.

We could march the useless and costly Army out of barracks, not in military formation or anything of that sort, but in good agricultural formation. More extensive wheat-growing will give much-needed employment, and we will be in a position to produce the necessaries of life which this land of ours is quite capable of producing. The money now being uselessly spent can be successfully utilised by subsidising the growing of wheat, barley, flax, tobacco, sugar beet, and the other necessaries of life which can easily be produced in this country.

The Minister for Agriculture would be well advised to withdraw his opposition to this motion. I assure him by doing so that he will get every assistance from the Fianna Fáil Party and from the backbenchers of Fianna Fáil in particular. We will be then prepared to assist him to round the agricultural corner which he has been so blindly groping for during the past seven or eight years. He can then blossom forth like the rose of Jericho and be proclaimed the greatest Minister for Agriculture that the world has ever seen. I do not wish to hurl bouquets at the Minister for Agriculture, but with all due respect to him I must give him credit for being one of the greatest political acrobatic jokers of modern time. He knows as well as I do, and as well as every other Deputy in the House knows, that wheat can be successfully and profitably grown in this country for a dual purpose, as a cash crop and as a crop which can readily be converted into food both for man and beast. That is the food that is capable of producing bone and substance.

Mr. Hogan

Quite true.

I appeal to Deputies on the Labour Benches and the Independent Benches to support this motion. As I am scattering this precious wheat seed of Deputy Ryan's to-night, I hope that when it reaches the benches of Cumann na nGaedheal it will not fall on barren soil and that eventually they will support this motion. As far as I can see, the Deputies of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party are politically blind and deaf to everything that is in the interests of the community. What does it matter to what political party a Deputy belongs when he brings in a Bill or a motion such as Deputy Ryan's for the welfare of the people of the country? Our duty is to support such a measure. Are we not sent here by the people to safeguard their interests and promote their welfare and prosperity? Deputies on the Opposition Benches forget that.

Hear, hear!

They forget that they are the servants of the people. They indulge in jeers and taunts which have been flung across the House with lightning-like rapidity from the razor-edged tongues of the front benchers of Cumann na nGaedheal. This important motion proposed by Deputy Ryan is the first stepping stone to the solution of the unemployment problem. It will be the first stepping stone to putting a stay on emigration and so saving thousands of healthy young men and women who are leaving our shores as if it were a veritable plague-stricken country. It will be the first stepping stone to the rearing of a healthy people. Above all, it will be the first stepping stone towards relieving the farmers from the deplorable plight in which they find themselves now. It will be the means of extricating them from the shifting quagmire of economic ruin and placing them on the solid road along which they will march industriously to regain their former state of prosperity.

Not within the memory of the oldest inhabitants were the farmers in such a deplorable plight as at the present moment. To substantiate my statement I will read for the House a copy of a resolution sent from the Midleton Urban District Council, County Cork, on the 6th October, 1929:—"Proposed by Mr. E. Carey, T.D., seconded by Mr. Connors, and resolved: That owing to the general depression in agricultural produce during the past four years, together with the bad prices prevailing, a great many farmers find it impossible to clear their annuities up to date in the constituency of East Cork. We, the members of the Midleton Urban District Council, hereby request the Minister for Agriculture to devise some means whereby outstanding arrears can be collected, without undue hardship on the farming community; for instance, spreading them over a number of years at the old rate of 3½ per cent. until the debt is cleared."

I am not a pessimist by any means. Bad and all as the farmers are at present, I hope they will change their system of farming. When the sun will shine on this fair land of ours in all its brilliance in the near future, and on an industrious and prosperous people, I hope to see the farmers change their system of farming and grow more wheat, which will be a means of giving more employment and a bountiful supply of food for the country.

How would it be if there was another world war? What position would we find ourselves in? The Minister for Agriculture would be the first to scratch his head and say, "I was not a wise man when I opposed the wheat motion of Deputy Ryan. Now I will have to bring in a compulsory tillage Bill to compel the farmers to grow wheat." There is every sign of another world war. It does not matter what the angels of peace preach at the League of Nations, nor does the Kellogg Pact matter. These people are only preaching peace to bluff the world. They tell us that the world is at peace and that we shall have no more war. The world was never at peace and never will be. War will go on until the end of the world. Now is the time to prepare for war. I hope this angel of peace will not pull the wool over the eyes of the President and the Executive Council. The opportunity is offered by this motion to prepare for war by growing plenty of wheat. It will mean abundance of food, and that is the mightiest weapon of warfare.

Deputy Ryan has proved his case up to the hilt and has left no shadow of doubt that wheat can be profitably and successfully grown here as food for man and beast. I hope that as a result of the interest which Deputy Ryan is taking in the farming community he will be crowned with the golden grain and be acclaimed the wheat king of Ireland. I hope the flour which is used to manufacture Jacob's biscuits will be manufactured from home-grown wheat and that the special brand used for the manufacture of these biscuits will be known as Deputy Ryan's snow-flake flour. I hope that the motion will be left to a free vote of the House, but I doubt very much if it will.

Notwithstanding all the speeches that have been made by Deputies opposite, I am afraid I am an unrepentant opponent of any attempt, by a subsidy or tariff, to revive wheat-growing. I am particularly opposed to the present resolution or set of resolutions, because they combine the two things. Indeed, I think it would have been wiser if Deputy Ryan had left out paragraph (e), as we discussed that matter before and took a division on it. I do not propose to go into the question of the growing of wheat or to enlighten the House, as some Deputies did, as to how it should be grown, or as to the uses to which it might be put—whether it should be fed to calves or other animals. Every farmer knows to what uses it can be put and he knows that he can use wheat for these purposes if he wishes. He can grow wheat for these purposes if he wishes, without any subsidy or resotion, such as the one before the House.

I may say, in passing, that I like wheat. It is a very nice cereal, and I would be very glad to grow wheat in the quantities I did grow wheat at another time in another country. But I mean to confine myself to the question: Will the subsidy that Deputy Ryan inferentially suggested, of 30/- per barrel, have the effect of reviving wheat-growing to any extent in this country, and if so, is it desirable even? Will 30/- per barrel have the effect of achieving any great increase in the acreage of land under wheat? I doubt if it will. If it would, farmers within the last four or five years would have been growing wheat, because there have been various occasions when wheat has practically touched 30/- a barrel—at least if it did not, it went very near it; and the prospect of 30/- per barrel was not a very far distant prospect. I doubt if even double the subsidy suggested by Deputy Ryan would have the effect of increasing to any extent the growing of wheat. Some Deputies argue that because wheat was grown to a very great extent in this country ninety or a hundred years ago it should be grown to-day. The comparison is irrelevant—I might say it is almost odious. It was even suggested that, not alone should we grow wheat to a greater extent than we do grow it, but that we should grow it to the extent it was grown here a hundred years ago. By inference, Deputies have suggested that we should increase the population to what it was eighty or a hundred years ago by wheat-growing. Even then the comparison would be irrelevant. One hundred years ago we were largely a wheat exporting country. We exported very considerable quantities of wheat. I might say that we also exported considerably larger quantities of other cereals than wheat. I ask Deputies where is our export trade to-day? Where is the possibility of our exporting one grain either of wheat or any other cereal? One hundred years ago we were not faced with the opposition of the great wheat-growing countries, east and west, producing cheaper and better wheat than we can produce. The repeal of the corn laws doomed wheat-growing in this country, and, if it were not doomed then, it would have been doomed fifteen, or twenty, or twenty-five years afterwards by the advent of these countries I have mentioned.

We had a population of seven or eight millions one hundred years ago. Does any Deputy seriously suggest that we maintained seven or eight millions of people in this country then? We did not maintain them. It is true that they existed, but they existed under conditions that would be revolting to the mind of any Deputy at present. They grew wheat in large quantities and sold it at forty shillings or more per barrel. They did not consume large quantities of it. They sold the wheat to provide themselves with other necessities and to pay their rents, and they lived mainly on potatoes in a state of semi-starvation. I do not say that we should not have a larger population. We should have a larger population. There are, however, other ways of arriving at a larger population than by wheat growing. Wheat growing one hundred years ago became so profitable that the farmers could not grow it in sufficient quantities. The land was split up into small divisions. Labourers got two or three acres, and absolutely burned the land in order to extort a bushel or more of wheat from it. Did that make their circumstances better or would they be more profitably employed in other directions than producing wheat? All the wheat we produced at that time was exported, and I saw a reference that in one or two years at that time we exported more than two or three million bushels of grain, and yet the farmers were not able to eke out enough money to provide themselves here with the necessaries of life. Are we to be told that what we could not do then with no external opposition in growing a better and a cheaper wheat we could do now under infinitely more adverse conditions?

I admit that we could induce farmers to grow wheat again if the inducement is big enough. We could persuade them to grow anything if the inducement was big enough. We could induce any set of people in this country to grow anything or to do anything if the inducement was big enough, but does any Deputy suggest here that the inducement that should be offered or would be offered if it was to achieve anything in the line of wheat-growing in this country would be a reasonable inducement? Even if the state of affairs desired by Deputy Ryan and other Deputies was brought about, and even if the number of people growing wheat satisfied the desires of Deputies on the benches opposite, and even if the people were persuaded to use only Irish wheat and its products wholly or in part, and we will assume for argument's sake that they were induced to use it wholly, what would happen? There would be six hundred thousand acres of wheat, or whatever the figure is, largely substituted for other crops. When that was grown what would become of the surplus? If Deputy Ryan's idea and other Deputies' ideas were actually carried to their logical conclusion there would be a very big surplus. If the inducement was big enough the farmers would fall over one another in their eagerness to grow wheat. Then when our demands were met what would be done with the surplus? Deputies opposite cannot get over that bitter word, that bitter pill, "exportation." There would have to be exportation. When Deputy de Valera was asked why he selected wheat he said: "We selected wheat because there will be a big market." But if there was this great production there would be a surplus that would be unsaleable, because that portion would not be governed by the subsidy. After the demands of the people, whatever proportion that would amount to, we would absolutely find ourselves in the position that, having provided for a certain proportion, there would be a big surplus to be disposed of. The subsidy would not apply to it, and it would be unsaleable for human consumption, and it could only be used for the purpose Deputy Kent suggested, of feeding pigs and calves and other animals, but the farmers can use it for the feeding of their pigs and calves at the present moment. The subsidy would not apply, but it would be sold as a cereal to feed cattle and other animals. The farmers do not grow it because they believe that other cereals pay them far better for feeding stock than wheat. If the farmer believed that wheat was the better crop than oats or barley he would grow wheat. Like every other member of the community, he would grow what is profitable to him. The subsidy, if it was big enough, would certainly have the effect of providing enough wheat to make the bread of this country. But you would have to pass a law prohibiting the farmers from growing one acre more of wheat than was necessary for bread because if my neighbour is making big money selling wheat at a subsidy to make bread I naturally would follow suit.

You cannot get out of your mind the question of surplus and of the necessity for exportation for that surplus.

As I said a moment ago, the farmer selects other things than wheat because they are more profitable to him; for instance, such things as cattle and milk, and butter and eggs, and even the despised potato would pay him better than the growing of wheat. I believe the more we confine ourselves to doing these things which we can do economically the better it will be for the farmers and for the country as a whole, and the better the effect will be for tillage. The more these things are developed —the rearing of cattle and calves, and the raising of butter and eggs and such things—the more tillage there will be, and more than could be found by any resolution asking the farmers to grow wheat under subsidy. The extension of tillage will be achieved, I believe, on these lines. No subsidy that I could dream of would have the effect of adding very many acres to those under tillage already in this country. If the subsidy was big enough—bigger than the country could afford—there would still be a surplus, and I have not heard any Deputy on the other side say how, if that state of affairs was brought about, we are going to dispose of that surplus. I am against subsidies; I do not believe in subsidies. But if we had money to spare in this country, and if we had money to throw away—if we could spare one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand, or one million of money, that money would be much better applied developing transport for the farmers of the country than in developing the acreage under wheat in this country. I am as opposed now as ever I was to any subsidies on wheat growing, and I do not believe any subsidy that could be reasonably given would have any effect upon the acreage in this country under wheat, and if it had any effect it would be minimised by the over production.

I think it is rather a pity that we should break the charm of a few moments ago, when Deputy Kent gave us to understand that we were on the eve of the millennium and that wheat growing was to make the country blossom like the rose.

This debate has lasted for a considerable time, and I think that the deplorable thing about it is that we have wandered so far from wheat-growing during a great deal of the time occupied by this motion. I do not wish to digress from the question of wheat-growing further than to take notice of a few remarks made in respect of it. There are many questions that occupy the time of the House of which I have very little knowledge and in which I can consequently take very little interest. I hope that on those occasions I am sufficiently wise to be silent, but I can claim that on this question I have some little knowledge. I have been a tillage farmer all my life. I have been a wheat-grower to a limited extent, and I know a good deal about the conditions under which wheat must be grown in this country. Deputy Aiken in prefacing his remarks rather attacked the Minister for Agriculture for what he had said about this particular subject and described him as being asleep, a tired man. I have been in this House for some time and if there is any man here who could be called less asleep than the Minister for Agriculture I have yet to meet him. He has at times shown considerable liveliness, and I think he can be lively still.

Mr. Hogan

Not on wheat.

Yes, on wheat too. Mention was made of alternative things or of things which the Minister for Agriculture had tried or had brought into being, such as the inspection of bulls for breeding purposes, the Eggs Act, and other measures. I think it is very bad reasoning to condemn these things and to put in their place the alternative of growing an increased acreage of wheat. Deputy Aiken has had the advantage which a great many of us have not had. I have seen by the newspapers that he was abroad in the great wheat-growing districts and he should surely realise that to put our island home with its moist climate up against those broad acres with their sunshine and ideal conditions is surely showing oneself to be blind to facts.

It is not all sunshine over there.

No, but there is sunshine at the time for growing and reaping and at the time for maturing the wheat.

European countries must be mad.

Deputy de Valera in speaking in much the same strain talked about the failure of Irish eggs on the English market. I thought when he made that statement that it was a very lame argument, for if there is any Deputy in this House, since I came into it, who has gone to great lengths to assert that this is a foreign country, foreign to the British market, it has been Deputy de Valera. If we are taken at our own estimate we cannot surely complain, and we know that therein lies the key of the whole situation. Coming to the question of the growing of wheat, my experience of it as a crop—I live in a district where we have as good wheat land as can be found in most parts of Ireland—is that the only place to grow it successfully is after potatoes or, possibly, roots. It must be grown on manured land. That limits the area under wheat. We can grow oats or some other cereals to a greater extent than that. To grow wheat successfully it needs to be put in in October or November, and there are a great many farmers this year who could not get it in because of climatic conditions. When it is in for ten months of the year it is, no doubt, a very exhausting crop, and anyone who has grown it can see that a field in which it has been grown has been robbed of its fertility and is mostly under weeds. Such a field must be broken up to restore it to its original fertility.

The first point to which I would refer in dealing with Deputy Ryan's motion is our ability to carry out its terms. As I tried to show from my own experience, we are not able to compete in the world's market for that particular crop. The suggestion has been made that it could be done by way of subsidy or by controlling the import of wheat. There is no stability whatever nor can any prosperity be brought to any country simply by debarring stuff like that from coming in. Artificial prices are not stable. If foreign wheat is to be kept out of the country in order that we may grow wheat here to sell it to our neighbours at a higher price, then I submit that that is not going to benefit the country as a whole. Another factor to be considered is whether it is, after all, the best crop on which to concentrate. Even if we grow it, can we have an assured market for it? Anyone starting in business, whether commercial or agricultural, naturally wants to know where he will have his market. For many things exported from this country there is an unlimited market. There is an unlimited market for our farm produce. For beef, pork, butter, eggs and other things which we can grow, there is an unlimited market, but if we read the newspapers a week or two ago we would find that around the shores of the British Isles there has been a real glut of wheat, within a few hours' journey from this country. If there is a glut of wheat there, how can we hope to get into the market, even if we could export wheat, when it costs double the price to grow it? It has been pointed out by other Deputies that even at the price contemplated, namely, 30/- a barrel, or 1/6 per stone, it would not pay to increase tillage in other directions in order to accommodate wheat. If we increase the area under potatoes in order to get a larger area for wheat, what would be the result? Fields upon fields of potatoes are, we are thankful to Providence, full, but there is no export trade, with the result that the farmer cannot profit from that crop. We cannot go on producing it if there is not a reasonable hope of a market for it. We are trying to get too many scapegoats and to blame them for these things. A number of Deputies blamed other influences for the decreased area under wheat.

We all came to a time, the time of the world war, when there was no trouble in getting people to increase tillage. There was an unlimited market for anything produced. It is different now, but if the farmers of the country can be shown that there is a market for particular produce there will not be a bit of trouble in getting them to grow it. We grew a great deal of produce before, when it was wanted, and if there is a demand for anything and a place for it, we will grow it.

Some Deputies, in speaking to this question, spoke of it in the light of another war. Surely at this stage we ought to get away from the atmosphere of war. Surely this country has seen enough of the world war and of civil war, and surely every Deputy in the House and every citizen of the State ought to address themselves, not to the subject of war, but to the very reverse.

We may not be consulted.

The best way to safeguard that is to go on and pursue the path of peace.

A platitude.

It may be a platitude, but I think that we all, perhaps Deputies on the other side too, are tired of war. We will never reach anything by that attitude of mind, and I think that at this stage of the world's history we should set ourselves to outlaw war. I have tried to point out that we can grow wheat to a limited extent. I grew it personally, and it is a very useful crop to use as wholemeal. That is what Irish wheat is best suited for, in my opinion. We cannot grow it economically to make into flour; it is a different class of flour. It may be argued by some that our own wheat may be a stronger wheat and may make stronger flour, but we have got to take into consideration, not alone what it costs to grow, but also the moisture content and the cost of extracting that moisture. The whole thing will be bound to raise the price of food in this country, and surely we do not want to add to the difficulties of living or the cost of living. This attempt to solve all the troubles of the country in itself will relieve nothing, I am afraid.

It is said that the growing of wheat will relieve unemployment. What is the experience of the farming community in the past season in regard to employment? Though there was a great cry about the number of people unemployed in the country, I know several farmers who had the greatest difficulty in getting anybody to work on the land. People have got an idea of flocking to the towns. It is like bringing them to some place of confinement, though it should not be, to ask them to do agricultural work. There is a great amount of work which can be done on the land, but I do not think that the growing of wheat would be very much of a factor in the relief of unemployment. Farming in this country, in a great many places, is being carried on at the moment under very difficult conditions. The tillage farmer is being hit unless he is able to feed his stuff and to turn it out in that way. There is no use in treating the farming community as if farmers were in a state of infancy. The farmers with whom I have come in contact are quite anxious and quite keen to try to earn a decent living. They work harder than any other people in the State as far as manual work is concerned, and work longer hours. You have only got to show them where they have a market and I promise that they will rise to the occasion and produce any stuff that they can produce economically for that market.

Although a member of the Committee at which these proposals were first formulated, it is with considerable hesitancy that I rise to take part in this debate, because I am not, never have been, and probably never will be, a farmer, and I am certain to be reminded of that fact by a number of Deputies on the other side.

A Deputy

That is your luck.

In fact, quite recently the Minister for Agriculture told an astonished audience in Longford that I never saw a field of oats except from a motor car.

Mr. Hogan

Was I right?

I am quite prepared to say that that statement, although not absolutely correct, was much nearer the truth than any other statement made by the Minister at that meeting. However, I promise Deputies that I will not attempt to offer any opinion upon the purely farming difficulties that may arise in the growing of wheat. I am going to confine myself exclusively to the economic and financial aspects of the problem with which we are concerned. The minority report of the Economic Committee starts off with the assertion that it is the primary function of agriculture to produce human food. I think that any Deputy who is prepared to admit that statement will, if he is logical in the conclusions he draws from it ultimately arrive at the position that it is necessary to take steps to encourage production of wheat in this country. The contrary statement has been made, I think, by the Minister for Agriculture, certainly by one of the members who sat on the Economic Committee, in an article in the Press—that it was the primary function of agriculture to produce nothing in particular but profit for the farmers. It is between these two ideas, as to what is the function of agriculture, that the division of opinion lies.

We had a very long experience of the fruits of the policy of allowing the farmers to do what they liked with the land regardless of its effects upon the community provided they themselves were satisfied with the livelihood the land gave them. That is the policy which is in operation at present and has been for quite a large number of years, and since it came into operation we have seen our population go down by over fifty per cent. and the general level of prosperity in the country considerably reduced. The exportation of men and women has become our most profitable industry and there were a number of other serious economic consequences. Quite recently I was in the Minister for Agriculture's constituency and had an excellent opportunity of watching in operation the effects of this policy of allowing the farmers to do what they liked with the land provided they were satisfied with the result themselves. I travelled from Galway to Oughterard and Clifden. In the hotel in Galway I saw a number of young men and women carrying in their hands bags which were labelled North German Lloyd. When I walked out I saw on the streets a number of people with trunks labelled North German Lloyd. In Clifden I saw standing in the hotels and standing in the streets waiting for buses a number of fine young men carrying handbags all labelled North German Lloyd. People seemed to be flying out of the country as if there were a plague in it. They were going away to get a livelihood or perhaps to see their friends in America. It seemed to me, however, that the economic conditions were the main causes of their going. I may be wrong. I am not going to base any argument upon that conclusion.

The fact is, however, that the results of this policy which the Minister for Agriculture advocates and which has been in operation for a period of half a century has been altogether disastrous for us. If we are going to continue our policy in the light of the assertion that the main function of agriculture is not to produce anything in particular but to provide for the farmers then inevitably the consequences which we have seen flow from that policy in the past will also continue to flow from it in the future. We, on the other hand, assert that the function of agriculture is to produce human food, that the community in its own interests should take steps to see that the land which it gives to the farmers to be used is used in the manner best suited to the production of the food which the community requires.

We have advocated and urged here in this House the adoption of a scheme for the promotion and encouragement of wheat-growing. Various arguments have been advanced against that scheme. We have had the commonest argument used twice by Deputy Bennett and Deputy Haslett; they asked us to visualise wheat-growing countries to the east and west of us, and ask ourselves can we possibly go in for competition with those countries. Why did these Deputies, the Minister for Agriculture and the other members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party confine their argument to the matter of wheat and wheat only? There are countries in Europe, the Baltic countries, which have recently gone in on a more extended scale than heretofore for the production of dairy produce, who can produce butter which can be marketed at a price which enables it to compete with margarine. Can we in this country produce butter at that price? Let us look at the great butter-producing countries and ask ourselves can we produce butter in this country in competition with these.

Mr. Hogan

How can we export six million pounds' worth and sell it at an international price if we do not?

I am quite prepared to let the Minister have the point he gets by asking that question. If we are going to use that argument, if we must not produce wheat because other countries produce wheat cheaper, I say we should not only apply it to wheat, but to every other commodity we produce. You have a tariff on boots. Do you think you can produce boots cheaper than they do in Nottingham? You have a tariff on furniture. Do you think you can produce it here as good as they do in Czecho-Slovakia?

Or as good.

Or as good. Is there any single commodity being produced here which can be produced better and cheaper than in any other country in the world?

Mr. Hogan

There is only one, that is beef.

We are told we can produce beef cheaper and better than it can be produced——

Mr. Hogan

When I say produced I mean produced and marketed.

That is another matter. But the question is whether we can produce beef cheaper than it can be produced in the Argentine.

Mr. Hogan

No.

Obviously we cannot. The question for this Dáil, if it is facing up to its responsibilities as a legislative assembly, is not whether we can produce wheat cheaper than in Canada, but whether it is in the national interests that it should be produced here. I assert it is. I assert the necessity of having a balanced agricultural economy, the necessity of being self-supporting, of reducing our adverse trade balance, of getting employment for our people and stopping the trend of emigration. All these interests combined make it essential for us to formulate some scheme that will ensure production here of at least a large portion of the wheat which we consume. We are told that the scheme which we formulated will prove utterly useless. Deputy Bennett asks would thirty shillings a barrel induce the farmers to increase the acreage under wheat, and he answers that question in the negative. Other Deputies have done the same. The question, however, which he should have asked is an entirely different one. It is not whether thirty shillings a barrel will induce farmers to grow wheat, but whether a guaranteed market for three years at thirty shillings a barrel will induce them to grow wheat. We think it will. It does not matter a jot that the fact that wheat was at thirty shillings a barrel four or five years ago did not produce increased acreage in the following year. If there was somebody who could go to the farmers in November or December and say: "I can guarantee you thirty shillings" there probably would have been an increase in the acreage under wheat. The essential thing in the scheme for getting increased acreage is a guarantee of the price and of the market for grain. Of course Deputy Bennett wants to have it both ways. Not merely does he tell us that this scheme is not going to produce an increased acreage under wheat but his main argument is that it will produce a surplus which we will not be able to sell.

If it succeeded.

If it succeeded. It is going to succeed so well that there will be a surplus which we cannot possibly dispose of. We will have 800,000 acres under wheat to supply our own requirements and the balance we will have to throw away in order to get rid of it, according to Deputy Bennett. We can deal with the problem of the surplus when it arises. We have a very long way to go before we are able to supply one-tenth of our own requirements. We can leave it to the next generation to deal with the problem of the surplus when it arises. The point that I want to put to the Dáil is this: If the scheme outlined in Doctor Ryan's proposal does not produce the results we think it will produce then it will cost nothing. The proposal is that this guaranteed price will be paid for milling wheat delivered to the millers. If no wheat is grown then obviously no subsidy will be paid. If the wheat is grown and fed to live-stock no subsidy will be paid. It is only when the wheat grown is delivered to the miller that a subsidy will be paid. Unless such wheat is grown in excess of what is grown at present the scheme cannot possibly have all the dire effects upon the national finances which the Minister for Agriculture pretends to believe. I believe, however, even on the narrow issue of its profitableness to the farmer, Dr. Ryan's proposal is worth considering. He, I think, proved that the growing of wheat is as profitable as the growing of any other crop. Agricultural economists in England who have been studying this problem in a scientific way, taking the costings of a number of farms over a number of years, have arrived at the conclusion that the growing of wheat pays better than the growing of any other crop.

Mr. Hogan

On a free market, I presume that is what you mean.

Mr. Hogan

Why do not they grow it then?

I have here a number of cuttings which I took from various journals containing information given by prominent agricultural economists in England, Sir Rowland Biffen and others. Sir Rowland Biffen is described in an article in the "Sunday Observer" as the world's greatest wheat breeder. He stated in an interview:

"If I were to engage in farming to-morrow in England, what should be my mainstay, my principal crop? Nothing in the price fluctuations and other difficulties of the past few years has altered or even modified my opinion ... Slowly but surely men are beginning to understand where their profits lie. You read J.A. Venn's Report, or rather the one to which he wrote the introduction? Well, you remember that he commented on the costs of twenty-six farms, the carefully-kept accounts of four years on all soils save the lightest, and under all conditions of cultivation. Corn-growing showed a profit, the figure was about £2 per acre. No other act of husbandry showed better results."

Other quotations are of a similar class. I do not propose to read them all. The point I want to stress is this: that wheat-growing is, even on the narrow issue of its profitableness to farmers, a proposition worth considering. I maintain that on national grounds it is in the interest of the State to make it profitable, even if it is not under normal conditions. If we set out seriously to solve the various difficulties that will arise in ensuring the production of an adequate supply of wheat in this country we can overcome these difficulties. While, however, we have in charge of agricultural administration a Minister who is thoroughly prejudiced against the wheat crop we cannot possibly make any progress. I assert that the Minister is prejudiced. I do not think that it is possible to convince him, even though he is obviously in error. His whole outlook on this is displayed in the remark he made here once in which he put wheat-growing on the same level as tobacco-growing. He seemed to think of both of them in the same light. When we are considering this question of the profitableness of the wheat crop to farmers, we have also to consider the profitableness of other agricultural products to the farmers. It is not merely the profitableness at the moment, but their prospects in the future. As I said, I am not a farmer. I do not pretend to know anything about husbandry, but I do claim to know something and to have learned something about the general trend of production throughout the world. I know, however, that Deputies will not take my view or my opinion upon matters of that kind. So I propose to refer them to other authorities which they will be less inclined to question. I have here, for example, a cutting from the "Statist" of July 27th, 1929, dealing with the agricultural prospects of the Irish Free State. It reads as follows:—

"The past four weeks show a substantial decline in cattle exports through the Port of Dublin, the number being 33,387, as against 49,080 in the corresponding period of last year. Prices are still substantially below last year's level, and, indeed, the low prices obtaining at English markets offer very little encouragement to speculative buying. As a slight compensation, however, fat sheep and lambs are being exchanged for prices at about last year's level.

"There is thus nothing particularly encouraging at the moment in the farming position, and, in the near future, there is a prospect of accentuated competition for the British market in dairy produce and live stock. Arrangements have been made for the amalgamation of the marketing services in London of Australian and New Zealand co-operative dairy producers, and this is expected to strengthen their position against competitors. The American Tariff Bill will, if passed, have a serious effect on Canadian producers, and probably Canada will look again to the United Kingdom for a market for butter, cheese, bacon and cattle. Hitherto, Canadian stores imports into the United States have been duty free, but henceforth it is proposed to subject this class, like fat cattle, to a heavy duty. That the British market will be able to absorb larger supplies of agricultural produce without difficulty is unlikely, in view of the general trade position there, the June trade returns being distinctly disappointing. Some little satisfaction will, however, be felt by Irish farmers at the recovery in oats and feeder barley prices from their recent low level, although much may happen in this connection before the harvest here is available for disposal."

The belief which I hold is that the concentration on the production for export of live stock and live stock products is going to prove much less profitable in the future than it is proving at present. I do not think it is proving very profitable at present. The figures quoted here show Irish butter at a lower price in Britain than the butter of any other country. The same applies to eggs.

Mr. Hogan

It is absolutely absurd.

They are at lower prices.

Mr. Hogan

That does not apply to eggs. There is one general rule that Deputies should remember when they are quoting, that they should not give summer prices as against winter prices.

Does the Minister assert that we are getting a higher price for our butter than other exporters?

Mr. Hogan

I do not want to argue this, but the prices which are quoted as a rule for other countries are winter prices or winter and summer prices. The prices quoted for Irish produce are summer prices, which are, of course, always lower.

I think the prices quoted by Deputy de Valera were for a particular week.

Mr. Hogan

I was not referring particularly to Deputy de Valera's statistics.

I think it is unwise for the farmers in their own interests, even thinking of the mere matter of the profits which they are going to get for their labour, to contemplate increased concentration upon the production for export of livestock and livestock products. They would be very much wiser to vary their production and to endeavour to supply to a larger extent than they are doing at present the home market which is available for them here, the principal part of which is for wheat and wheaten flour. We have had arguments of every kind advanced against this project of Deputy Ryan. We are told that failures of the wheat crop are not unknown. I think this is a favourite point with Deputy Brennan. In fact, in his experience there was one failure in twenty years, and because wheat occasionally fails farmers should not be encouraged to grow it, as it might involve them in ruin.

What I said was that there was one complete failure of wheat and several partial failures. That is quite a different thing.

It can be contended that failures in other crops are not unknown. If Deputy Brennan's argument be pushed to its logical conclusion, it could be used as an argument for abandoning tillage altogether. But I want to point out that farmers in the great wheat-producing countries that we hear about have to cope with failures of the wheat crop. There was a partial failure in Canada this year. The "Economist" for the 3rd August, 1929, says:—

"Under such conditions the whole grain crop of Western Canada has been steadily deteriorating, and only optimists will now predict a yield of 300,000,000 bushels of wheat for the prairies; indeed, many sober authorities think they will be lucky if they now reap 250,000,000 bushels of wheat, which will not be more than half the yield of 1928. The straw is unusually short and the wheat is ripening prematurely. In many districts the damage done is reported to be beyond repair, and thousands of struggling homesteaders will have to face a very difficult winter, as their crop returns will be negligible. From Saskatchewan the reports are almost uniformly gloomy, and in the southern and south-eastern regions many farmers have simply ploughed their wheat into the ground to make summer fallow land for the crop of 1930."

The farmers in Canada are not going to run away from wheat-growing. As I have said, wheat-growing, even at present prices, is a profitable crop for the farmers here.

The farmers themselves do not think so.

It is the duty of the State to make it a most profitable crop for the farmers.

Deputy Lemass said that it was already a most profitable crop for the farmer. His leader also said it.

I have not said that.

Deputy de Valera and Deputy Ryan said it.

What I say is that it is the most profitable crop for the community. Whether it is the most profitable for the individual farmer, I do not know. That is a matter upon which practical farmers can have their own opinion. I say that it is the duty of the State to make the wheat crop sufficiently profitable so as to induce the farmers to increase the area under wheat. I say that though the crop may occasionally fail in consequence of bad weather that cannot be advanced as an argument against wheat-growing. An occasional failure is not going to drive farmers in Canada from wheat-growing and out of tillage altogether and into the production of live-stock. The wheat crop fails from time to time in Canada. But they simply plough the crop into the ground to prepare the land for the coming year. On these occasions they lose everything as a result of the failure, they lose their year's labour; but they are still sticking to wheat because it happens to pay them, as Deputy Brennan very wisely remarked. The argument is also advanced, and it was advanced in the majority report of the Economic Committee, that the cost of the project outlined in Deputy Ryan's motion would be prohibitive. In fact, they arrived at a certain enormous figure as to the possible cost in certain given circumstances. Of course, the Minister for Agriculture on all occasions based his calculations as to the cost of this scheme upon the figures of the prices of wheat prevailing in 1928.

Mr. Hogan

I did not. I gave alternative figures.

We will deal with the alternative figures. The position in 1928 was that the world's wheat crop was very considerably in excess of the wheat crop for any previous year for a considerable number of years. There was in fact I think a greater yield of wheat throughout the whole world in 1928 than in any previous year in recorded history. The figures revealed that not merely was that the case, but the portion of the 1928 crop which was carried over to 1929 was also much larger than is usually the case. In fact, it exceeded in extent the carryover for the previous three years added altogether. It meant that there was available for sale in this year an extra large supply of wheat, which fact of course helped to depress the prices. I think, however, that the comparative failure of the crop in Canada, together with certain other considerations, justifies the prophecy given before the Economic Committee by one expert witness whom we examined, that in future a general rise in wheat prices might be expected. The fact that the Canadian Wheat Pool is at present withholding its wheat from the market and the fact that the United States Farm Relief Board has made available a subsidy of one hundred million dollars in order to enable farmers to withhold their wheat from the market, indicates that in those countries at any rate the authorities in control are taking steps to insure that that rise in prices will in fact be effected.

Mr. Hogan

They were never lower.

But as Deputy Ryan pointed out, we do not have a crisis in Wall Street every year. If the Minister has any doubt that the present low price prevailing for wheat is a direct result of the Wall Street collapse, I am prepared to read him another quotation from those journals that I have been reading.

Mr. Hogan

We have had sufficient quotations.

I know that my opinion is bound to be contested by the Minister.

Mr. Hogan

I do not think anyone could say that.

If the Minister will compare the trend of wheat prices, the day to day prices, during the last three months with the fluctuation of the general prices on the Stock Exchange, he will find a direct connection between the two. It is a fact that because the present price of wheat in the United States is much lower than the agricultural authorities think it should be, that the Farm Relief Board stepped in to place at the disposal of the farmers the necessary credits to enable them to tide over the difficult period. The cost of the scheme as calculated by us, taking as the price of foreign wheat the average for the past five years, does not come to anything like what the majority of the Economic Committee assumed it would. In fact it is not unlikely that on the average the total amount of the subsidy, required in any one year in which the entire wheat requirements of the country would be grown within this country, would be about £250,000. There are certainly years in which it is possible that the amount of the subsidy would have to be larger. There will be years in which it will be less.

Mr. Hogan

That would be 5s. an acre. I imagine that!

Why does the Minister always think of subsidies in terms of acres?

Mr. Hogan

It is a rough and ready way.

Five shillings an acre is your subsidy. I do not know what yield per acre the Minister is working on.

Mr. Hogan

Your own figures— 900,000 acres at 5s. an acre.

That has nothing to do with it at all. The farmers are prepared to grow wheat if they are guaranteed a price of 30s. a barrel, and the market for it. Whether they will always grow it at 30/- is a matter no one can say. We propose that a Board be established which will control the importation of wheat, and it is for that Board to fix the price which should be guaranteed to the farmer.

Mr. Hogan

At 5s. an acre, that would get us a million acres. Now, if I thought that would get us an extra million acres of land under wheat, I would have a Bill here in the morning.

The Minister can produce his Bill. Let him on this occasion take his chance, for he is in the right and he can lose nothing. I assure him we are right this time.

Mr. Hogan

I do not want to be laughed at.

Who is going to laugh at you?

Mr. Hogan

Everybody, if I accepted those figures.

If the Minister is right, and if that scheme is not going to produce an extra acre of wheat, then it will cost nothing. If we are right, and if the scheme is going to produce an increased acreage, then it is going to cost us the figure which I have mentioned and which relates to the 800,000 acres of wheat.

Mr. Hogan

Then that would mean six shillings an acre.

I do not care how the Minister plays with that figure. He can play with it to his heart's content. I believe, and practical farmers whom I have consulted believe, that a guaranteed price of 30/- and a guaranteed market will get the wheat grown. I believe, also, that the trend of world wheat prices will be such that the average cost of the scheme per year will not exceed £250,000. I believe that figure will get the entire acreage required. We are not going to get immediately the entire acreage required; it will be ten or perhaps twenty years before we will be called upon to expend the £250,000. There will be a gradual growth, and if we succeed in ten years' time in getting half of the total acreage required I think we will have done very well indeed.

Deputy de Valera indicated the nature of the steps taken in a number of other countries to protect the home market for wheat. Deputies who talk about the great wheat-growing countries, and who declare that it is unwise and foolish for us to go into competition with them should realise that they are not doing their duty by humanity when they merely tell us about these things. The Minister for Agriculture, if he is right in his contention, has the duty devolving upon him of instructing our representatives in Berlin and Spain—if we have one there—in Portugal, Italy, Poland, Norway and France that he has made a great discovery, and that the policy adopted in those countries of protecting and developing wheat production is economically unsound.

Mr. Hogan

I did not make that discovery. I did not state that.

Surely there must be truth somewhere. The policy cannot be economically unsound in this country and sound everywhere else. If the Norwegians, the Germans, the French, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Portuguese, the Poles, and other European countries think it is good policy to protect and develop wheat production within their shores, why should it not be good policy here also? If the Minister for Agriculture thinks that these countries are proceeding towards economic disaster, and if they are friendly States, he should at least give them a friendly warning. Of course, in these countries they are not blessed with the services of the greatest Minister for Agriculture in the world, because there can be only one and we have him. Personally I would have no objection whatever to lending him to another country in order to put the people of that country upon the right track economically. It would benefit them possibly—the Minister himself would certainly think so—and I have no doubt whatever that it would benefit us. There has been a lot of nonsense talked——

Mr. Hogan

Hear, hear!

——from the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches concerning this matter of wheat production— quite a lot of nonsense. I think the nonsense spoken by the Minister for Agriculture was easily the worst, because he happened to have the ability to disguise it under the guise of sense. He talks the kind of materialistic cynicism that appeals to the average farmer in those days. He tells us that our best representatives abroad are our eggs, our cows, our pigs and our chickens, and things of that kind. It all sounds very well, but it means nothing. He talks here as one practical farmer to another, mar eadh! He talks about the futility of Deputy de Valera's scheme for the growing of wheat, but he has not been able to produce one solid argument against it. Deputy Corry, who knows more about agriculture than the Minister, exploded his whole contention in the speech that he made here. The Minister's whole attitude was: "The farmer knows best; leave him alone." That was because somebody suggested that the farmer should be induced to grow more wheat. Deputy Corry pointed out that it is only in relation to wheat that the Minister will admit that the farmer knows best. In almost every other sphere of agricultural activity the Minister has interfered, and directly interfered, with the farmer, compelling him to do what he does not want to do—and all because he knew best.

Mr. Hogan

I never told the farmer to go in for cheese. I have never said to him: "Give up butter and go in for cheese."

Are you threatening to do that now?

Mr. Hogan

No; the farmer knows best in that case.

He knows best, no matter what the price of cheese is.

Mr. Hogan

Under present conditions.

Yes, under present conditions. Apparently the farmer did not know best about scrub bulls or eggs or quite a number of other matters. It is only in relation to wheat and cheese that he knows best.

Mr. Hogan

That is not an analogy, but cheese is.

I will resist the temptation to say "cheese it." I am quite clear on this point, that the Minister's idea that the chief function of agriculture is to produce nothing in particular, but to provide a profit for the farmer is the root cause of all the economic evils that are hitting our people; the root cause of emigration, of unemployment, of agricultural depression and industrial decay. Until we can get a majority in this House to declare the land of this country is to be used in the most economic manner for the production of food required by the people living in the country, we will not be able to hold with any degree of certainly that an improvement in our economic conditions is being brought about. It is because the community interest must predominate over the private interest of the individual that we believe the State should take action in the manner that we propose in order to induce the farmer to grow wheat. We do not propose to compel him to do it; we propose to induce him by making it profitable. I now move the adjournment of the Debate. I intend when we resume to deal briefly with the kindred problem of flour.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn