Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1929

Vol. 32 No. 13

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 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 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).

Mr. G. Wolfe

When the adjournment took place the other night I had just said that, encouraged by the success of Mr. Neville, of Furness, in the years 1778 and 1780, and by the old account books that we had in our possession for practically one hundred years, I began growing wheat. I had been tilling it long before in another place, but when I moved from the place which has now become the property of the Land Commission to where I am at present—it was about the year 1909— I began the growing of wheat. I am sorry that although I grew it for about nine or ten years, from 1909 or 1910 to 1918—that was the last year I did grow it—I had, on the whole, no success. A couple of years were extremely good, but one year, 1918, which I mentioned before, was an absolute wash out, and for years before that the result was very indifferent. I was growing this for a cash crop—it was the only cash crop I ever did grow. I consume all the other stuff I grow on my own land. All the roots and the oats I require for my horses, and all that I grow for myself. This, of course, I grew to sell, because I thought the ground, having such a good reputation, and apparently it deserved it; so far as the crops were concerned they looked all right. But when it came to the saving actually that was quite a different matter. I believe a small amount can be quite successfully grown; that is, if you are content with what will do your own house. My nearest neighbour during the war grew a certain amount of oats. He would like to have it quite pure, without any foreign stuff in it, but he was told by the millers that that was quite impossible. I am bound to say that I admired his energy and determination to use his own stuff. I do not think it was quite satisfactory. I should not have thought it sufficiently good to use. I would much rather use oaten bread myself than that. I was rather misled when I undertook the growing of wheat. I was led to do it on account of the reputed goodness of the land, because I looked up my old ledgers and, as I say, I have them a very long time.

They are as clear as if they were written yesterday. The handwriting is quite a lesson to us in these days when we trust to typewriters and when our writing is so bad. I looked up for instance the year 1800. I employ all the men I can afford. I have a large garden to work and a lot of other things to be looked after. I work in one thing with another. I find that in the year 1800 for the same amount of land as I have got there were just ten times as many people employed. I could not afford naturally in these days to employ that number of people to save my crops or to carry on my business. Of course, I regret to have to say that the wages paid in these days were infinitesimal. The names of these people in my ancestors' employment were all given with their ages, their sex and what they got per week. The wages of this number, ten times as many as I have got at present, did not come to as much as I pay at present. Of course, that was a very disgraceful state of affairs and not one that we would recommend in these days, but that was the case and it was no wonder with that number of people that they were able to save their crops satisfactorily. As I conclude they were able or they would not have gone on with it.

Furthermore,, I think comparisons with other countries are very fallacious. Their conditions may apparently be somewhat similar to ours, but when you come to examine them critically it does not work out to the same extent. I had some property in Yorkshire; I had also some in Lancashire. The latter I have still. Round my place in Yorkshire was an excellent wheat-growing district. The climate was apparently very much the same as it is over here; the seasons seem to be very much alike. There was about the same amount of rain and the crops came in practically the same time, with the same lateness and one could see in the farms around splendid fields of wheat collected carefully into stacks in the farmyards and kept carefully thatched until spring when it suited them to thrash them out. I have always found over here if I am going to preserve them at all that the threshing has to be done instantly. The sooner the better. I was never able to keep my wheat for any time. The sooner it was threshed the better. I think all those in my neighbourhood who went in for it have had the same experience. There is nobody who does it now particularly. Of course I found the straw extremely valuable for my horses; there is no better straw for horse bedding than wheaten straw, for the very good reason that they will not eat it. I think it was Deputy Kent who said that wheat was excellent for calf feeding and that sort of thing, but it would be rather expensive to grow wheat especially for that when there are other forms of food much less expensive and quite as good.

Statistics prove that the growing of oats does suit the country. I think it was stated that six or seven hundred thousand acres of oats were grown last year. I think there is great room for development in the oats growing. A great deal more could be done in that way. There are too much Canadian oats used in this country, and it is not necessary to use them. Even the racehorse could be very well supported on oats that are grown in this country. We could practically do without seed oats except for a change, perhaps, every four or five years. What we are all anxious about is that there should be more employment. That is at the bottom of the whole matter with all of us. There is certainly a necessity for it. There was never more so. Of that there is no doubt. This present winter, unfortunately, one sees a great many of the most excellent working class men going about unemployed. I never saw before unemployment to the same extent. Only the other day I had occasion to fill up a vacancy and I could have filled it many times over. It is a very deplorable state of things, and it is necessary that something should be done to lessen it. The question is what. It is no use trying to force on the growth of a cereal that will not do well in the country, and that the people will not grow. You may bring a horse to the water, but you will not make him drink. I do not think that any reasonable subsidy that could be given—I say reasonable because, of course, you could give something that would be absurd—would induce people to undertake wheat growing to any large extent. As Deputy Brennan said, you would grow what you want for yourself if you could save it, and be sure of it, but to grow it in any large quantity is out of the question. I speak with a certain amount of experience. I have gone in for working with my own hands, and learning everything about the work, because I believe in understanding these things. I found it paid me more than once exceedingly well to be able to carry out any and every part of my farm business. I can do everything of that kind myself, from milking to stacking, and I think everybody who does it in these days is wise.

To return to the unemployment question, I think if anything can be done to increase the consumption of oats and to increase the land under cultivation of oats it will be all to the good. People will do it in certain circumstances. It would not be difficult to induce them to do it, because they believe it can be done successfully. In the case of oats a bad season, in my experience, does not tell so fatally as it does in the case of other cereals. You may see a field swept down as if a steamroller had gone over it. When it is cut, threshed, and put in a proper loft where it can be turned and get plenty of air it is perfectly usable, although it may be slightly discoloured. It is quite good for horses. I do not know about racehorses. For that reason, I think it would be a much more sensible idea to foster oats than wheat. Of course, there are many ways in which an extension of tillage, which is so desirable, may be fostered. I quite agree that 12½ per cent. of tillage in the country is absurd. It ought to be increased. I do not see why by inducement it could not be done, but it will not be done by wheat. I am perfectly certain of that. There is now consideration going on before a Commission of a certain proposal. We have got to see if it will have the effect of increasing production. I hope, if it is proved that it will increase production, that effect will be given to it, because anything that will give employment to the men who are going about at present is all to the good. I have never seen it so bad in the country districts about me as it is at present. As Senator Johnson said last night at the National University—and I quite agree with him—we want more production of food and we want more industries. Anybody who can increase either one or the other is a person who is of service to the State.

Mr. Anthony

I do not propose to follow on the lines of many of the speakers who have preceded me in speaking to this motion by quoting statistics, but I just wish to re-state the position of the Labour Party in relation to this motion. We are supporting this motion because it embodies in its proposals the system of control. There are, of course, points of difference between the Labour Party's addendum to the Minority Report and the Minority Report itself which I shall quote later.

I want to point out that while we agree with the motion moved by Deputy Ryan almost wholly, we disagree with some of its details. In the addendum signed by my colleague on the Economic Committee, Mr. Kennedy, and by myself, we stated that we disapproved of the proposal that the suggested Wheat Control Board should be a limited liability company capitalised and partly directed by private stockholders subject to the veto of the Minister for Finance. In our view "any such Control Board ought to be a public body directed by people of experience in the business and in no sense ought it to be a private corporation." Deputy O'Connell, the leader of the Labour Party, asked, on a previous occasion when discussing this question, why a limited liability company. He asked also if it were a limited liability company where would the profits go when the profits were made. These questions have still remained unanswered. We of the Labour Party suggested that any such organisation should be controlled by the State. That, of course, may sound a little too much like socialism to certain members of the Fianna Fáil Party. At any rate, these questions have not been answered.

We have listened to many eloquent speeches from Fianna Fáil Benches and from other benches also. We have had very eloquent speeches directed to show the immense advantages that this Control Board, which would be composed just as a limited liability is composed, would be to the State. I have already indicated what our view on that matter is. We saw and still see in the proposals outlined in Deputy Ryan's motion a better means for putting the milling industry on its feet than say, for instance, a tariff on flour. We believe that by the control of the imports of flour as suggested again in this motion that more good would be done for one of our staple industries. But we do suggest that this Control Board should be under the control of the Dáil with a Minister responsible in the Dáil who should, of course, answer any question with regard to the activities of this particular Board.

Deputy G. Wolfe, who has just sat down, said that it would be useless to force on the country a cereal that would not do or that would not thrive. I have here a report from the County Cork Committee of Agriculture which is composed in the main of some of the most efficient farmers in the country.

They have carried out a number of experiments in the growing of wheat, small scale experiments and large scale experiments, and they said that in these experiments, which were carried out to test the capacities of certain varieties of wheat, they were very successful. In the comparative return which was given in this report we find that in 22 centres tests were made in the matter of black oats. They find that there was an average of 23 cwt. 1 qr. of oats which worked out at 5/3 per cwt. In 28 centres white oats worked out an average of 22 cwt. 1 qr., bringing in 5/6 per cwt. We had barley in the same district which worked out at 23 cwt. at 8/- per cwt. We had wheat, too, the matter under discussion at the moment. This was grown in ten centres, giving an average yield of 26 cwt. 3 qrs., and which realised a price of 10/6 per cwt.

That goes to show that in the districts from which these returns were taken wheat growing at any rate has proved to be a success. It has proved to be a very useful cash crop, and from what I know of the sound common-sense of the farmers of East Cork they would not put that large area under wheat unless they knew they could turn it into cash at the earliest possible moment. In the large scale experiments we find according to this report that the average yield was 23 cwt. per statute acre. The average moisture content in the case of the samples sent to the State laboratory was 19.4 per cent.

This matter of moisture content was one of the things that was stressed both by the Economic Committee and from time to time by Deputies in this House opposing the motion. A report on the samples from each plot area submitted to the Irish Flour Millers' Association for examination says:—"Six samples graded A were reckoned to be of first-class milling quality, while the remaining 11 were graded B and were considered to be of fairly good quality." None of the samples submitted was returned as inferior from the milling point of view. Now I could go on to quote from this Report, giving you very excellent extracts from it, but one or two others will, I think, suffice, and will go very far towards strengthening the case for the motion standing in the name of Deputy Ryan. There is contained in one or two sentences in this report a warning note so far as this country is concerned, and one to which I would like the Minister responsible to give ear. It is rather interesting to learn that 8,658 acres or roughly one-third of the total area of wheat grown in the Saorstát, was grown in the Cork county. Here is an extract from the Report:—

The fall in the wheat area is chiefly attributable to the opening up of virgin soil in the United States of America and Canada in the sixties of the last century, and in Australia and in the Argentine at a later date. The Irish farmer found it was quite impossible under the conditions obtaining here to produce wheat in competition with these new countries.

This was the point that has been stressed, and I want you to bear in mind the ensuing sentence:

Now, however, as a result of the increased consumption of wheat in countries such as China and Japan, where it was formerly little used as an article of diet, as a result of the steadying effect of the American Wheat Pools upon prices and the increased cost of production abroad, the outlook for wheat cultivation is much brighter than heretofore.

As regards wheat growing in our own country they say:

The combined imports of wheat, flour and offals amount to nearly £7,000,000 annually. To eliminate our imports about half a million acres would require to be placed under this crop. After consideration of all the factors, we are of the opinion that a considerable portion of the half million tons required annually to feed our population could be profitably produced at home.

In addition to the depression in agriculture that exists here, and to a greater extent across the Channel, we are faced with the fact that German wheat, bounty-fed, has been poured into England within the last couple of months. The price for German bounty-fed wheat was from 48/- to 50/- a quarter. In one or two cases it went to 39/6 a quarter. Germany has placed import duties on wheat going into her own country. We might easily suggest that if Germany has seen fit and wise to protect her grain industry, at least some measure of protection should be adopted here.

There are other ways in which this country is being made a dumping ground. We know that in or about last April or May the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board declared that they would exempt goods exported coastwise from harbour dues. This of course, represents a very big advantage to the flour-milling trade going out of the port of Liverpool, in addition to the relief that this industry is getting from de-rating. We feel that unless something is done to encourage the growing of wheat in this country we will be faced one of these days with a very grave crisis, not alone in so far as unemployment is concerned, but in very many other ways. We support this motion because it aims at some kind of control; it aims at restricting some of the imports of wheat. Because of these things we support this motion moved by Deputy Dr. Ryan.

Mr. Gorry

I feel it my duty to raise my voice on this motion. I have been classified as a silent member of this House, but on this occasion, please God, my voice will carry some argument with those who are prejudiced against this motion. It might, at least, make them reconsider their attitude in the light of the interests of the Irish nation and the Irish people, and it might induce them in fair play to give this motion the consideration it deserves. I ask you not to approach the matter from a Party point of view; approach it rather from a national point of view. I have figures here which will help to prove my case. The figures have been supplied by the Department of Agriculture, the Department for which Deputy Hogan is responsible. He is its spokesman in this House. The Department of Agriculture has been set up and is being paid by the State to investigate matters that concern the biggest of our country's industries, agriculture. In this industry 60 per cent. or more of our population are engaged, but their interests seem to claim the least attention and their position to-day in Ireland is the worst of all.

As a past student of the Department of Agriculture's College at Glasnevin, as one who during the last 16 years has supported the agricultural industry consistently, and as one who has tried to emulate what I was taught by the Department, I propose to read significant portions of a report of the Department with regard to its wheat propagation scheme carried out in 1925-26. I leave it to the common-sense of each individual Deputy to come to a reasonable decision on that report. I will ask every member in this House to examine it and to make up his mind whether he is doing right or wrong when it finally comes to a question of deciding on this important issue. I will now read portion of the Department's report: "The wheat variety experiments which the Department have conducted annually throughout the country for a period extending over 20 years have demonstrated that in practically every county in the Saorstát there are large areas where heavy crops of wheat can normally be successfully propagated. Moreover, as a result of the work of the Department's seed propagation division in connection with the propagation and testing of Red Fife it has also been shown that wheat possessing high quality for milling and baking purposes can be grown in this country. Owing, however, to the adverse climatic conditions frequently experienced during the harvesting and saving of the wheat crop, the moisture content of the grain is high as a general rule, and in this respect Irish-grown wheat does not compare favourably with wheat imported into the country from wheat-producing countries."

Let us examine the moisture content that we hear so much about. I will quote for you from the same source extracts about the samples of wheat taken from that extensive survey of this wheat problem in 1925-26, and that were submitted to the millers for their report. In Mr. Claude Odlum's Report—one of the most successful millers in this country, and a man who is an authority on the subject—there is important information. It is worth while going through all the Report, but I will come to it on some other occasion. What we want to get at is, can we produce a milling quality wheat in this country good enough for the Irish people? Here is the answer in regard to flour produced from Irish-grown wheat in 1925-26, examined by the millers in this country: "The flour was very bright and granular. It was an excellent sample of flour." Now, with regard to banking qualities: "The loaf made from the yeast fermentation of the flour was good for this type of flour. It was small in volume, very clear and bright in colour, and of unusually fine flavour." And, by the way, I think that to-day we get a lot of bread that has no flavour at all. "The scone made by using soda and buttermilk was very satisfactory. The colour and flavour were both excellent." I think that is the important point, the home-baking question, not minimising the importance of bakers' bread. It is said that "the scone made by using soda and buttermilk was very satisfactory. The colour and flavour were both excellent." I would like to quote further to the House, but time is limited, and I would advise anybody interested to get the Journal of the Department of Lands and Agriculture, Vol. 27, No. 2, and study it for himself. This is a quotation from the same source:

"During recent years, owing principally to the steadily increasing world demand for wheat flour and to the operation of the large wheat pools, which have now been set up by farmers in the great wheat producing countries, the price per bushel of wheat has shown a tendency to become stabilised at a figure which makes the cultivation of the crop in this country a proposition well worth consideration."

I want to emphasise that—"which makes the cultivation of the crop in this country a proposition well worth consideration."

This is a summary of the Department's wheat scheme for 1925-26. There were 286 plots laid down that year, of which only 24 were said to be failures. The weight was determined from 197 centres out of the 286, and the average yield from the whole country turned out to be 23 cwts. 3 qrs. to the statute acre, or approximately 38 cwt. to the Irish acre. That is the return from 17 counties in 1925-26, and similar yields are returned from over 200 plots grown in 25 counties in 1926-27. These experiments were undertaken to obtain useful information for the Irish farmers and were carried out by the farmers themselves. The Millers' Association undertook an examination of some of the samples in respect of milling quality, and as a result of that examination, 51 samples were graded A quality, 54 graded B quality, and 18 C quality. It is mentioned in the report that both A and B quality were fit for milling purposes. These are not my words. They are the millers' own words as given in the report. This is valuable information, to my mind, because I look upon the work done by the Department in a great many spheres as very useful work. I believe the instructors of agriculture, on the whole, are sympathetic towards the work in which they are engaged. I believe that the men put in charge of the plant-breeding scheme of the Department are sincere in their endeavours to find out the best varieties of seed and to advance wheat growing.

These are the figures of the results of the experiments, and I put it to any honest man in the House that he can agree with me that the matter is worthy of consideration and that, therefore, it should not be approached from any prejudiced point of view. I submit in all sincerity that the Minister for Agriculture has not met this motion fairly in the sense that he has come here to oppose this motion with his mind made up. In a speech made before the summer recess he said definitely that he was opposed to this altogether. I would refer the House to his own statement as reported on page 286 of the Official Report of the proceedings on 23rd May of this year. I am only taking the quotation, and I ask in fairness to the Minister that Deputies should read again what he stated. Do not say that I am treating him unfairly if I quote him here in this debate. What he said on 23rd May satisfies me that now in this debate he has not faced the position as he should as the Minister for Agriculture. I want to qualify that statement by saying that I mean that the Minister for Agriculture, or any other Minister, should be in this House, above every other man, unprejudiced in regard to a motion coming from any part of the House until he hears all the pros and cons. Here is what the Minister stated:—

"We do not believe in this policy and we are not going to make experiments. If other Parties believe that experiments should be made, let them make them and let them take all the credit or all the blame attached to them. I have no faith in that policy. I do not believe in subsidies, particularly in regard to wheat, and we do not intend to subsidise wheat. As I have said before, I do not care what your protestations may be, there never will be a subsidy for wheat except, perhaps, for one year. We may get away with it on political issues, but when we get down to hard practical facts and try to get the farmer to do certain things we have to stop talking in generalities and we find that we are up against insuperable difficulties."

I submit to the Minister as a young Irish farmer, as one whose sole means of livelihood, if I were at home, is on the farm—please God, I will always remain a farmer —that he is not playing fair with the Irish farmers to make a statement like that. I submit that no one deserves as much consideration and fair play as the Irish farmer, because Irish farmers and agricultural workers, as the Minister himself stated last night in University College, represent 60 per cent. of the population. There are over 60 per cent. engaged in agriculture. It is because of that fact that I chose, although I remain silent in most other debates, to raise my voice on this occasion in this matter which vitally affects Irish agriculture.

I propose to go back as Deputy Anthony did. He quoted from the report by the county instructor in Co. Cork, and I should like to let you know what occurred in Co. Leix, the county from which I come. I shall summarise the words of our agricultural instructor, a man I am glad to say who was well selected for his position, a man who is a practical man, who has sufficient theoretical knowledge to face any agricultural subject. I am summarising his report or his deductions from the cultivation of wheat in Co. Leix. He says that wheat does best on rather strong heavy soil with well-drained subsoil, but satisfactory crops can be got on lighter soil, if proper attention is paid to sowing, dressing and manuring. Wheat should preferably follow a manured crop, but if necessary it may be grown after stubble. In this case the ground should either receive a light dressing of dung or a dressing of superphosphate or kainit before sowing.

It is said that wheat is the worst paying crop for farmers. In that connection I propose to give some figures in regard to experiments conducted in my county by Mr. Tynan, the agricultural instructor. I made my own deductions, and every Deputy is entitled to make his. I contrasted the prices with this year's average price which the farmer has to accept. The experiments in my county showed that barley yielded 19 barrels, wheat 14 and oats 27. These are the average yields.

Mr. Dwyer

Is 19 the average for Leix?

Mr. Gorry

It is the average from the experiments conducted there.

Mr. Dwyer

Perhaps it is 19 cwts.

Mr. Gorry

I wish to make a correction. I am quoting in terms of Irish acres, and that makes a difference. That gives a return of £15 4s. per acre. Wheat, 14 barrels at 25/-, gives £17 10s, and oats at 11/6 per barrel, which is a high figure, gives £15 10s. Thus you have wheat giving £17 10s as against oats at £15 10s. and barley at £15 4s. I am prepared to reduce average figures down as low as 15 barrels for barley, 12 for wheat, and 20 for oats, per Irish acre. On these figures wheat would be on top, showing a return of £15 as against £12 15s. for barley and £13 10s. for oats. I will not take into consideration the extraordinary statement made by Deputy Brennan as to the possibility of getting 5/-, 6/- and 7/- a cwt. for straw. I would like to be able to get that figure, and I think it would be well if we could get farmers in other districts to send a few loads into Roscommon, where such high prices are available. On the last occasion, last night at University College, when the Minister for Agriculture was speaking on this problem he mentioned a figure of 18 cwts per acre. I would call his attention to the fact that in the 1925-1926 and 1926-27 experiments, conducted under his own Department, the average yield from over five hundred plots was 23 cwts. 3 qrs.

Summarising the results of the 1926-27 experiments, we find that there were eight plots out of every nine successful. We have heard how precarious the wheat crop is but that is not in accordance with the evidence of farmers generally. These returns have been collected and summarised by agricultural instructors and they say that eight out of every nine plots were successful. In connection with that report I think that County Clare deserves special consideration from the point of view that a certain amount of play was made here against the leader of our party, Deputy de Valera, as to why he should interest himself in this question. He had every right to interest himself in it and to speak upon it as leader of our Party. He was in a position to get from his constituency in County Clare a more rosy report as to the possibility of the development of wheat growing than could be got from other districts. I find that all the plots in Clare gave an exceptionally high yield and that the majority turned out "A" quality flour. They got to the statute acre as high as 2 tons 3 cwts., 1 ton 15 cwts., 1 ton 13 cwts., 1 ton 10 cwts., 1 ton 9 cwts., 1 ton 13 cwts., and so on. I think it is unworthy of any Deputy here to attack another, no matter who he is or what constituency he comes from, in order to try and score mere political points in a debate of this kind. It is unfair to the nation that expects us to legislate for it. We are expected to come here, put our heads together and formulate the best policy for the people. I now turn to what is being done in outside countries and, again, I take my source of information from the present issue of the Department's journal. I am satisfied to take the figures contained there because I have some faith in the Department. I have a knowledge of its inner working and my sympathy is with its work. I always have been sympathetic towards experiments carried out by the Department because I realise that they are conducted in the interests of Irish farmers. We find that wheat growing is engaging the attention of the Italian Government, the Swiss Government, and the Governments of several other countries.

Let us consider why these other countries are taking such a great interest in it. I will give a short quotation from the report of the Department, Volume 29 (1), and I advise Deputies to study it closely. It says in regard to the wheat growing campaign in Italy:—

"Owing to the appreciation of the lira and the great drop in international prices, the price realised for their crops was not sufficient to compensate the farmers for their outlay. To alleviate the distress the Government immediately took the following steps."

The steps which were taken are then set out, and I hope that members will study them for themselves. But it says that to alleviate distress amongst farmers the Government were prepared to take certain steps. So far so good.

Let us come to Switzerland. We are often told to take an example from Denmark and other countries in connection with what should be done for Irish agriculture: I am prepared to look around and see what is being done in other countries, to see can we fit in any part of the agricultural policy of other countries into ours. If we can it is our duty to do it. What is occurring in Switzerland?

"The Referendum taken in Switzerland on 3rd March, 1929, resulted in a majority of over two to one in favour of the acceptance of the Federal Assembly's Scheme for maintaining the country's wheat supply and controlling the import grain trade. The whole farming community, both the wheat growing lowlander and the stock breeder in the higher Alps, stood solidly for the measure, which found considerable support also in the towns."

I note that the question was submitted to the people of Switzerland by a Referendum, and I am sorry to say that the Executive Council thought fit to remove the Referendum here, because a big issue of this kind could be submitted by means of the Referendum to the farmers for decision. I feel that if it were submitted, and if we had a guaranteed price and a guaranteed market, both of which are possible under certain conditions, the farmers would rise to the occasion, as they rose in 1917, when they were asked to produce more food, and when the area under wheat rose to about 100,000 acres. The Swiss scheme contained three main proposals, the first of which was "With a view to ensuring the national food supply, the Confederation shall maintain a sufficient supply of wheat."

Some people here are inclined to think that we cannot be cut off from our food supplies—that we are always sure of our wheat supplies. Every Deputy knows what has occurred from time to time here. Even if we were sure of the control of our wheat supplies, in so far as getting a sufficient supply for the people, or nearly sufficient, we are not sure, when the wheat and flour get scarce here, that the millers and other importers would not take advantage of the position, as has often been done, and force up the price of flour by 4s. or 5s. per cwt. before the Government could take action. That is only one aspect of the question. It is to the interest of every nation to look after the food supplies of the people.

Some Deputy asked: supposing this scheme is a success what will occur to our surplus? Let me point out to him that in Switzerland they have taken precautions against that:—

The Confederation shall promote the home cultivation of bread-corn and shall support self-supply. They shall take over good home-grown grain suitable for milling at a price which will render possible the home cultivation of cereal crops. The Confederation shall take steps to maintain the native milling industry, while protecting the interests of the consumer of bread and flour. To this end, they may impose import duties upon foreign flour, or reserve to themselves the right to import flour. They may, if necessary, grant special facilities to mills in remote districts with a view to equalising the higher costs of transport, and may help to defray the cost of transport of flour supplies in mountain districts.

If it is useful that the Department of Agriculture should go to the trouble and expense of carrying out experiments with a view to submitting reports, breeding material to guide our farmers, surely when the results are published in the Journals of the Department they should receive consideration, and I hope that every Deputy will take an interest in these matters. It is suggested that the Irish farmers would not rise to the occasion and cultivate more wheat if they had a guaranteed price and the possibility of a steady market for a marketable quality of wheat.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

Nobody said that.

An Ceann Comhairle

resumed the Chair.

Mr. Gorry

I do not propose to follow any red herrings drawn across the track. Red herrings are too often drawn across the track when important matters are being discussed here. It is time for us to approach this question seriously. As to whether Irish farmers will rise to the occasion, I can speak on behalf of farmers of the type that this will interest in the tillage districts, where they will have to continue in tillage because the quality of the land is not generally suitable for grazing or other purposes. In these districts the production of cereals as a cash crop is vital to the farmers. No matter what the Minister for Agriculture or any other Deputy may think as to changing the position in the country, and getting farmers, who of necessity are selling their corn as a cash crop, to change over and accept a new policy of feeding all their grain, such a sudden change is impossible. I am in agreement with the Minister for Agriculture or anyone else who advocates the progressive and increasing use of our Irish grain in the feeding of live stock or the production of poultry or butter. I do believe that we can reach that stage, but it must be reached gradually. I do believe that everyone would be comparatively better off if we did, but we cannot do it at once. We might as well face the facts. At present, half the population of the country have not the wherewithal to do that. Speaking for the midlands, I would challenge contradiction when I say that almost fifty per cent. of the corn—barley and oats— produced there must be sold as a cash crop in the harvest. I will make every allowance for farmers who are reserving sufficient for their own needs. There are farmers, to my own knowledge, who have kept this year a ton or more of barley, and afterwards had twenty, thirty or even fifty to seventy barrels of surplus corn for sale. I shall quote now from a letter which I have received from one farmer, giving his views on wheat growing. I am sorry that I am not free to give his name, but if any Deputy wishes he can see the letter in confidence.

I wrote to a number of farmers in my own constituency to ask them if this proposal went through would they be prepared to grow wheat and would they think it good policy to encourage wheat growing and gradually get back into wheat growing again. Of course I believe it would take probably ten years to reach the stage when we could grow sufficient quantities of wheat to meet, say, 60 or 70 per cent. of our requirements. I should not wish the farmers to rush headlong into it, because wheat growing like beet growing requires a certain amount of knowledge, and it is lack of knowledge of its cultivation that prevents the farmers taking it up more extensively. It was lack of knowledge and encouragement that prevented the farmers when wheat was selling at 30/- a barrel here in Ireland taking advantage of the situation and putting in the crop at the right time. They were not interested in wheat growing and their attention was not called to it. They were principally concerned in sowing oats or barley. But if the Department of Agriculture had made it worth their while and if we had as much propaganda in favour of wheat growing as we had in other things I submit that the farmers as a whole would rise to the occasion.

Here is a sample of what one farmer thinks and I would pit his knowledge as a practical farmer against that of any other farmer in Ireland. He says: "During 1929 I sowed four Irish acres of wheat, seeded at the rate of twenty stone to the acre; grass seed sown—looks splendid—after cutting the wheat, and it is so still. The chief reason for sowing wheat was the fear that barley would rot and destroy the seed. The yield was 16 barrels to the Irish acre and sold at 25/- per barrel at Goodbody's Mills, Clara. Comparing this year's prices of grain crops I believe the farmers if they have suitable land for wheat would be far better paid at 25/- a barrel than with any other grain crop, but as other years may not be as favourable as this it would be well to advocate a guaranteed price of 30/-. I believe that a person who can get winter wheat properly sown would get a far better yield than from spring-sown wheat, but very often it is found impossible to get it properly sown."

I agree the difficulty of getting winter wheat is there, but I submit as against that if the farmers knew that the wheat crop was going to be profitable, if they had a guaranteed price for it, and if they believed that they would have no trouble marketing it so long as they produced good quality grain, the difficulty of getting wheat grown at the right time would be minimised very much. It is well worthy of note that in the experiments conducted by the Department in the years 1925-26, 1926-27 almost 600 plots had been cultivated, scarcely fifty were classed as failures, and of these fifty classed as failures fifteen or sixteen were failures due to the depredations of rooks, and another 15 per cent. of them was due to heated seed which failed to germinate, so that it will be seen that a very small percentage of the crops failed when we examine the whole thing. As a farmer, I put it to any farmer if it is not a fact, that almost every season on every farm some portion of the barley or oat crop can be classified almost as a failure. Any farmer who looks at the latter fairly will admit that on his own farm year after year he has met with some degree of failure in both oats and barley in regard to yield and to its condition at harvesting. Too much importance is placed upon these things. It is very easy to raise an argument in order to prejudice things. Our duty as Irishmen and our duty as farmers in this country should be to point out the difficulties that exist, but not to discourage the farmers further. The farmers of the country are discouraged enough. Heaven knows at the present time it is encouragement they want. Therefore, I say it is bad for the agricultural industry to do anything that will depress the farmers more than they are at the present time.

I say that this motion of Deputy Ryan's should receive fair consideration, and by fair consideration I mean that Deputies should agree that the motion is of first-rate national importance and that, as has been done with regard to the matter of the mixture of barley and maize, they should agree to submit it to the good sense of all parties in the House, and that they should refer it to a committee that would hear evidence for or against it. I am perfectly satisfied that if you go to the farmers of this country and put things before them in an unprejudiced manner, and if you could give them a guarantee that 30/- per barrel would be paid for wheat—it would be better if the price were higher—but if you do that, and also guarantee them a market, the farmers will rise to the occasion both in their own and the nation's interest. Then there is the question as to how it would affect beneficially other people than the farmers. It would affect several people in this country. It would affect men on half time in our Irish mills. It is an unfortunate thing that the ratepayers here in Dublin or anywhere else are called upon to pay taxes for the relief of unemployment. I say deliberately there is no need for it if we explore, as we could with advantage, these things, and by helping the farmers they could find employment for a large percentage of the unemployed, a big proportion of whom were reared in the country and found employment in the fields of this country before coming to the cities, and who are only waiting to return to work in the country if a proper policy were adopted to give them employment.

I have other letters here, but I do not want to take up too much time by quoting them. I have a letter even from a man in a labourer's cottage who sowed this year half a statute acre of wheat because he saw a neighbouring farmer growing wheat successfully. What has he done with his half acre of wheat? He wisely brought it to the local mill and had 4 or 5 cwt. wheatmeal ground for the use of his household and the balance ground for pig and poultry feeding. Please God, in time we will see most of our derelict mills working again throughout the country, milling our wheat into wheatmeal for consumption in our Irish homes, and also grinding our oats into oatmeal.

This labourer from his half acre plot of wheat produced for his family besides having a little surplus for feeding to his pig, five or six cwts. of wheat meal, and as I say had a surplus for other purposes, I suppose for his fowl as well. Is not that worth while considering? We can grow wheat for the millers and to supply our own needs and also grow it to supply wheat meal ground in the local mills for our Irish people. Unfortunately at the present time many of them have closed down. But I say, please God, many of them will start rolling again in the future.

We have often heard statistics quoted in this House on less important subjects than this. Therefore I submit it is well worth our while considering this in all its implications, and giving fair play to the motion before the House. I intend quoting to you from the report on large scale wheat experiments, 1926 and 1927. Of the 176 samples examined and classified by the millers' representatives; 85 were graded into Class A, 83 in Class B, and 8 in Class C. Therefore over 95 per cent. of the samples were, in the opinion of the judges, suitable for milling purposes, and, mark you, the judges were very prominent millers, Messrs. Odlum and Odlum and Mr. Shackleton, Carlow. It was also found that first quality samples of grain were produced in almost every county in the Saorstát. These results are satisfactory, especially when it is considered that the weather which prevailed during and prior to the harvest of 1927 was unusually wet and unsuitable for the development of good quality grain. The best quality samples examined were grown in East Clare; every one of the samples from those plots being graded as Class A. Again, after the experiments had been concluded, after an examination of the wheat had been made by the millers, and after the flour produced from grain grown on these plots had been submitted by Mr. Odlum for baking tests, "Mr. Odlum also made arrangements to have the properties of the flour produced in the milling test further investigated by Mr. G. S. Kirby, of the Dublin Port Milling Company, and to have sample loaves baked from the flour in the Dublin Port Milling Company's experimental bakery. Subsequently these loaves were exhibited in the Department's Educational Exhibit at the Royal Dublin Society's Spring Show, where they attracted considerable attention."

I want you to note that. It was thought well worthy of their consideration by the Department to bring to the notice of the thousands and thousands of people who visited that progressive show the fact that satisfactory quality bread could be produced from Irish wheat. Mr. Claude Odlum submitted the following report on the milling and baking tests:

"This wheat was quite a fair average sample, although the moisture content was greater than the average of the previous year. It was prepared for milling as follows:—

"Firstly it was dried on a tiled kiln and 5.6 per cent. of moisture was dried out, leaving the wheat to contain 14.2 per cent. moisture. This was then washed, screened and milled in the ordinary way, and the milling yield on this dried wheat was as follows:—Flour, 69.7 per cent.; bran, 17 per cent.; pollard, 11 per cent.; tailings, 7 per cent., and loss (on the milling) was 1.6 per cent. The flour produced was quite a fair sample, but not so good as in 1926."

Again the final part of the report is worth nothing. It winds up by saying:—

"It is therefore evident that whilst the Yeoman types of wheat produce good crops when sown on soil in good condition they cannot be generally recommended for cultivation on all soils, and consequently it is recommended that prospective growers should consult the local agricultural instructor before deciding on the variety of wheat to sow on any particular soil."

The point that I want to make is that we have too many farmers in the country who think they know everything about agriculture, and think that the work of the agricultural instructors is not worth considering. I am satisfied that we can improve matters by active co-operation between the agricultural instructors and the farmers. It should be our ideal to build up close cooperation between the Department of Agriculture and the farmers rather than that we should do anything to lessen confidence. We should get the farmers of the country to take an interest in the work of the Department of Agriculture. I am very sorry, and I make a good deal of this point, that both the Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Brennan of Roscommon belittled the work of the Department of Agriculture to a certain extent the other night when they were referring to certain statistics compiled by the officials. As to the average farmer reading the Department's report, what would he think when he hears the Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Brennan, who claims to be a practical farmer, saying that the statistics compiled by the officials of the Department of Agriculture are not worth the paper that they are written on? Surely there is something wrong and if we are to effect economies and, God knows, a lot of economies want to be effected, we should call upon the Minister for Agriculture to tell the Minister for Finance that this money is wasted on compiling statistics which are all wrong.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.