The next item on the Order Paper is a motion in the names of Deputies Belton and Cogan. It is down for to-morrow, but there is nothing to prevent its being taken now.
Private Deputies' Business. - Provision of Food Supplies—Motion.
I move:—
That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the Government has failed to make adequate provision of food supplies for man and beast in the coming year, and that the Government be requested at once to make a full and detailed census of land cropped and to be cropped in the present season. That any shortage revealed by the census should be at once made good by the Government taking such action as it deems necessary to provide an adequate food supply so as to dispel the remotest possibility of famine, which now seems inevitable if extraordinary measures are not taken forthwith.
This motion has been on the Order Paper for about six months. It is a pity that it is not out of date and that we are not back to normality. Unfortunately it is still in date, inasmuch as it applies to any coming year as well as the original year. We now have proof of the anticipation of six months ago. We had an interesting debate for two or three days on the Supplementary Estimate for the Minister for Supplies and that showed us the difficulties which are ahead. Let us look at the statistics for the last normal year, namely, 1938. These are taken from the Agricultural Statistics published by the Minister for Agriculture for the year 1938-39. I think the Minister will accept these as basic working figures. Pre-war, we imported about half the feeding stuffs we required for our live stock. We milled all our flour. We had from our flour, which was a 70 per cent. extract from wheat, about 200,000 tons of feeding stuff. Starting this cereal year we had none of these. The food position in this country is, and has been since the war started, a question of providing the nation with sufficient wheat, oats and barley. The problem before the Minister for Agriculture was primarily one of calculation. He required 500,000 or 600,000 acres of wheat to give us sufficient for our total needs. He required oats and barley not only to fill the position that they had been filling pre-war, but also to stand against the 50 per cent. of the live stock feeding stuffs that could be imported no longer. He had also to provide an extra quantity of oats and barley for feeding stuffs instead of the 200,000 tons, or very nearly that quantity, of offals which, owing to the increase in the extraction of flour from wheat from 70 to 95 per cent., would be no longer available for feeding stuffs.
That was the problem that confronted the Minister and I do not think he approached that problem in any reasonable way. It is true that in 1939 he made an order fixing the minimum amount of arable land that should be under tillage. In 1940 he increased that minimum amount and for the present year he has increased it still further. But he has not tackled the problem in anything like a scientific way. As a matter of calculation, what was required? He wanted, as I said, 500,000 acres of wheat. Let us assume that a normal crop would give us the quantity required.
That wheat can only be procured in one way, that is, by putting 500,000 acres under the wheat crop. The Minister's tillage order has no relation whatever to the production of the wheat we require. We want that amount. We want that 500,000 acres of wheat. I think it will be accepted by the Minister that about 5 per cent. of the arable land if put under wheat would give us our requirements. I think the Minister will accept that. Why did the Minister not seek 5 per cent. of the arable land for wheat? Any order he has made since the war started could be complied with 100 per cent. without one grain of wheat being sowed. I do not think that was tackling the situation as it should be tackled. That and similar considerations in regard to other cereal crops prompted us to put down this motion. We are short of oats and barley for feeding stuffs. In this year we had 778,900 acres of oats. In 1938 we had 570,000 acres of oats. That represents an increase of 200,000 acres, but I do not think the Minister will argue that that increase in oats will give us sufficient animal feeding stuffs to compensate for the feeding stuffs that we imported pre-war and also for the loss of flour-milling offals, not to say anything about the necessity which may or may not arise of having to mix some of those cereals in the grist for our bread flour. The barley grown went up from 117,000 acres in 1938 to 169,000 acres in the current year. I do not think that is at all adequate to meet the deficiency caused by our inability to import barley. The loss in maize is a very considerable item against which we have made no set-off here. Another matter that aggravates the live-stock position is that in 1938 we had 3,600,000 acres of hay whereas in the present year we have only 1,983,900 acres. In the present year we have 4,178,000 cattle whereas in 1938 we had only 4,000,000. We had nearly twice the amount of hay in 1938 and we had considerably less cattle. In every item of agriculture that matters there is a shortage and that creates a very serious situation for the country. This is not a farming matter; this is a national matter. It creates a very serious situation for the country when we permit a condition of affairs to go on without making any attempt to provide sufficient food for man and beast. I think the Minister will agree that in the present season, stall-feeding time, there is very little stall-feeding being carried on. There is not sufficient hand-feeding being done to produce milk on account of the loss of fodder. The position is further aggravated by the increased cattle population due to restrictions during the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. The existence of foot-and-mouth disease in the spring should have spurred the Minister to action and he should have foreseen that, even with the most expeditious handling of the scourge that he could possibly hope for, there would certainly have to be over-holding in cattle. Cattle that would in the ordinary course be marketed in the fairs of March and April had to be held over in the store cattle raising areas. That, perhaps, more than anything else, has occasioned the great curtailment in the area under hay.
It would be a very difficult matter to estimate how much barley and oats should be grown here to make up the deficiency caused by the non-importation of feeding stuffs, but there is no need for finely-cut arguments. On the face of it, there is a large discrepancy and, as in the case of wheat, there is only one way to produce substitutes and that is by growing them. I would suggest to the Minister the only safe way of dealing with this situation, which is now perhaps aggravated more than in any of the previous years of the war, and that is by growing food. If we want, say, the produce of 1,000,000 acres of oats there is no way on God's earth of getting that except by growing 1,000,000 acres. I am not one who would advocate compulsion. As a matter of fact, I am an absolute believer in individual freedom in every way but, up against it as we are now, there is no way of meeting the situation except by laying down the amount that must be cropped, not in the aggregate, but in the crops that we are short of—wheat, oats and barley.
I submit—I do not mind whether it pleases or vexes farmer friends of mine—there is only one way of meeting the situation, and that is by ascertaining the percentage of home-grown wheat that is necessary to give us bread of an agreed standard, not counting at all the overseas trade. Similarly in respect of oats and barley. If we do that, we shall be safe; if we do not do it, we may look out for squalls, and the squalls will be of our own making, and made by us with our eyes open. It is the Minister's duty to tell us how he arrives at this 25 per cent. This motion overlaps another motion. I have to mention it in dealing with this point. The Minister must have some figures. I am sure that it was not as a result of just a chance shot that he prescribed 25 per cent. In looking for the figures, he felt, I am sure : "There is not enough this year, and we shall have to do a little better next year", and I want him to tell us how he built up that percentage. If it meets the case and he can prove it, I shall be one of the first to admit that he has made proper preparation for the coming year, but if an order is to be made, I suggest that the Minister must have an order or orders within an order. We must have enough of these feeding stuffs if we are not only to maintain the human and the live-stock population, but to have something to sell in a foreign market which will buy, on foreign exchanges, the things we want here and cannot produce here.
I shall not deal any further with the live-stock angle, but I propose to deal with the wheat position. I thought the debate of the last few days on the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Supplies was very interesting. It put the case very clearly for anybody who wants to understand it. The Minister made his case in tabloid form, and it is handy that it has come at this juncture. I think it a pity that he does not come to the House with an estimate in advance and ask for £2,000,000 or £2,500,000, or whatever the subsidy may be which he wants next year. If he did so, we would talk to him, but he came to us with a fait accompli in the last few days and, when cornered, said:
"What are you to do? This is the present position. You cannot go to a mine and mine wheat. We are dealing with the cereal year which has to carry us over to next year's crop."
We could do nothing but give the Minister what he asked, but if he were dealing now with next year, and if he said: "We expect so many acres of wheat to be grown this year and so much produce. That will fall short of our requirements by so much as will make it necessary for us to import so much, and the prices to be fixed will aggregate so much above what we think fair that we shall have to throw in £2,000,000, or whatever the sum may be, to keep the loaf at its present price", we could talk to him on a business basis and could tell him: "You are banking too much on supplies from abroad, and paying too much for the foreign product. We will produce it at a price and the subsidy will be only so much."
It is up to the Minister for Agriculture to protect the agricultural arm of this nation, and to put it to the Minister for Supplies that he, representing agriculture, can guarantee a certain quantity of wheat, but that the price must be so much, and let them between them arrange what the subsidy should be and how it should be distributed. I will make a suggestion to him. To start with, I think this situation should be handled now in a businesslike way, and he is no businessman who banks for his breakfast on flour which has to cross the Atlantic. We must start off on this basis, that we must grow this coming year sufficient wheat to give us bread of whatever standard you like. We must pay for that wheat. I am not going to argue prices now, but I may quote them to illustrate my case. The Minister dealt with £2,000,000 of a subsidy, and he wants 370,000 tons of wheat. That quantity on last year's price cost the country £5,800,000, and this year a similar amount cost the country £7,800,000. He has got in 80,000 tons of wheat, and he banks on 290,000 tons from the native crop. He says we cannot alter these figures, that this is the wheat we have on hands, and that the cost is so much. "If we charge all the cost to the bread, the bread will be 1/2 per 4-lb. loaf," he said; "but I am asking the Dáil for £2,000,000 to stabilise the price of bread on the basis of the present extraction, so that there will have to be no increase in the loaf."
I suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that he set himself the task of raising sufficient wheat here for our own requirements and that he holds on to that subsidy of £2,000,000. For his consideration, I put forward a method of using that subsidy and meeting all claimants under the scheme. I will not argue whether wheat should be £3 per barrel or not, but, for the purpose of argument, I anchor my case to that price. Instead of subsidising all the bread, let us subsidise half of it. Let us throw the £2,000,000 into half the bread we require on a 95 per cent. extraction, and let us not subsidise the other half. Let it be a 70 per cent. extraction and sell the flour at cost. I suggest it would work out something like this:—95 per cent. extraction of wheat would represent 185,000 tons for half flour, and at £3 a barrel that would amount to £4,440,000. For a 70 per cent. extraction you would want 265,000 tons of wheat for half our flour requirements. In the aggregate, under this scheme, you would want to produce 450,000 tons of wheat instead of 370,000 tons. You need not follow any further the 265,000 tons required for flour of a 70 per cent. extraction, because I suggest that the people who can afford it will pay the extra price for white flour. Very well, let them have it and give them the opportunity of paying for it. We need only follow the 185,000 tons of the 95 per cent. extraction. That will cost £4,440,000. Let us deal with the basic price that the Minister for Supplies wants to anchor himself to, namely, the cost of flour to the nation last year. That amounted to £5,800,000. Half of that would be £2,900,000. If you throw the £2,000,000 subsidy into subsidising half the flour, you have this position: that you have the cost of half the bread required for the nation at £2,400,000 instead of £2,900,000. You therefore save £500,000 which you can put into the Exchequer or utilise it for the purpose of reducing the cost of the 4lb. loaf by another penny, and give the producer £3 a barrel for his wheat. It may be asked who is going to pay the increased price for the white bread. I suggest that if my proposal is put into effect, more of the dark bread that we have at present will be left unsold than the white bread. I am satisfied that the farmers of this country, if they get the price, will do their part. I am not going to labour the question of price. I simply refer to it to illustrate my point. I am afraid the Ceann Comhairle thinks that I am sailing close to the wind.
The Deputy evidently realises that he is anticipating a later motion.
The Minister for Agriculture should give careful consideration to my point. We are not living in a fool's paradise. The Minister knows that what I have said is the case, and I know it. I could take him to shops where the bread is not only sold but baked, and where the half-pound loaf, baked from white flour, is selling at 4½d. I know that within the last week £74 a ton was refused for white flour in the City of Dublin. That would run to £6 or £7 a barrel for wheat. If we have people here who will pay that price for flour, and other people who will grow the wheat, why are we not giving that price? Why do we not grow the wheat and provide the flour when, with the 95 per cent. extraction, we could put up the flour at a cheaper cost to the State than we are doing it now. I think I have stated the bare bones of the case, and that there is no need for me to say more on the matter. I think the House understands the case I have made. I am anxious to hear the opinion of the House on it.
With regard to the interesting scheme which the Deputy has put forward, may I ask him if he has made any estimate of what the price of the white loaf would be?
I did not because, I am satisfied, with regard to the loaves which are being sold at present—as a matter of fact I had one for my supper when I went home last night—that the prices work out at about 3/- for the 4lb loaf.
At present?
Yes. I do not know what the price would work out at if you had to pay £74 a ton for the white flour. I know, as I have said, that that price was offered for white flour last week in the City of Dublin, and it would not be sold at that price. I can tell the Minister this, that nowhere in the City of Dublin is there such a demand for this white flour as in the working class districts where the corporation has carried out its new housing schemes. I think an effort should be made to provide it. If we cannot provide the white flour generally, because the price would be too high, let us provide the other flour.
We are told that the bread we have is good bread. I am not saying anything against it, but the majority of people would prefer the white flour. I say, give it to them and let them pay for it, but do not ask the taxpayer to subsidise it. Even if you continue to do as you are doing, to subsidise 50 per cent. of your flour, I am quite satisfied that in spite of that there would still be more of the white flour bought. It would be bought at nearly any price that you put on it. It is quite easy to calculate what a ton of flour would cost if you are paying £3 a barrel for the wheat. It certainly would not be 74/- a cwt. or for 2 cwts. either.
I formally second the motion.
Deputy Belton has stated that this motion has been on the Order Paper for a long time. I do not agree with him that the Government have failed to make adequate provision with regard to food supplies. I take the position as we found it in 1931. For a generation, one might say, the farming community were reared up to and followed a certain system of farming. To change them over to a different system takes a long time. In 1931, there were 20,000 acres of wheat grown here. That would not give Deputy Belton many white loaves. It would not provide the City of Dublin with bread for any extended period.
It would give bread for a fortnight.
Starting in 1933, the acreage grew each year, principally because this Government was prepared to pay the country more for wheat grown at home than for imported wheat. That was the condition of affairs up to the outbreak of the present war. In 1940, 305,000 acres of wheat were grown, against 20,000 acres in 1931. In 1941, the acreage under wheat was increased by 186,000 acres to 491,000 acres, or practically 500,000 acres after this year's harvest. That is a record that any Government might well be proud of, particularly a nation that was absolutely dependent on foreigners when the present Minister assumed office. In order to provide our daily bread the nation has now practically reached a state of self-sufficiency. That is a big feat considering the odds and remembering that Deputies were depending on this, that and the other argument in the campaign that was carried on for three years against the growing of wheat; and that our daily papers day after day attacked the Government for advocating that policy. In my opinion the Government performed a great feat. We grew 662,000 acres of oats in 1931. That was before motor cars took the place of "nags" and when there was a market for horses. At that time we grew 115,000 acres of barley which was sold for about 13/- a barrel. In 1940, we grew 680,000 acres of oats and in 1941, 778,000 acres. We increased the acreage of barley from 115,000 acres in 1931, to 132,000 acres in 1940, and to 169,000 acres in 1941. In fact, we doubled the acreage under grain crops. The acreage rose from 775,000 in 1931, to 1,438,000 in 1941. I am not saying that we did sufficient but it was a big effort.
Agreed.
We may thank the farmers for doing that despite the codology that was preached by the deputy leader of the Opposition. He stated that it was codology to grow wheat and that he would not be found amongst those who grew it. We should remember that if the present war started in September, 1931, instead of in September, 1939, within a month we would have to turn to the British asking: "What do you want from us, or what can we give you in order to get bread for our people? How many hundred thousand men do you want as cannon fodder for Flanders so that we may get bread for our people?" We would have to pay the price whatever it was or starve. That would be the conditions of affairs existing here now had this war started in 1931. Despite that we have a motion suggesting that the Government did not take sufficient steps to make provision for the food supplies of our people. I hold that the Government did take sufficient steps in that respect, and that the acreage grown proves that, considering all the difficulties, and the fact that the farmers were not told until April of this year to till more land. I say that this motion is not justified. Nobody in this House could justify it. What about the future? What is going to be the position of this nation in November, 1942? That is the important point.
I suggest to the Minister that he should issue an advertisement in the Press immediately, notifying farmers who cannot till the required 25 per cent. of arable land this year that they should so inform the nearest Gárda barracks on or before December 15. That would give them time to make up their minds; otherwise these lands could be entered on on December 16th and tilled, because there will be a big difference between land ploughed on December 16, and land ploughed in May, as was the case this year. In the case of any farmer who does not notify the authorities, or who does not till his land, it is not 25 per cent. should be taken. The whole of it should be divided up amongst those who are prepared to till, because we have to look to the future, and from present appearances this war is going to last, perhaps, a number of years. We have to be in a position in 1949, if necessary, to be able to say that we have food enough for our people even if all the ships are sunk. With the present fixed prices of crops I believe there is going to be an enormous change in the acrerage under grain during the coming year, and that instead of getting 491,000 acres of wheat at 41/- a barrel, we will be lucky if we get from 200,000 to 300,000 acres grown. We must face the situation as we see it. In mid-November of last year there were over 100,000 acres of wheat growing in my constituency. I do not believe that if you go through the country to-day there are 100,000 acres. Farmers when asked if they are tilling reply that it is time enough to do so after next March, and that oats will do next year.
Then this motion is right.
It is not right. That is the attitude that is taken up. This motion was put down six months ago and finds fault with the Government for not making adequate provision for food supplies.
We have not enough feeding stuffs now.
The motion suggests that the Government did not make sufficient provision for this year, but the figures I gave prove that they did. That is where this motion is wrong, and where the Deputy is mistaken. If the Deputy had put down that motion last week he would be able to say something in its favour, but he put it down at a time when the Government had made provision and had increased the acreage under wheat from what it was in 1931, to 491,000 acres. I say that the acreage next year, with fixed prices, will be roughly 300,000 acres of wheat. I doubt if we will get that acreage as well as 1,250,000 acres of oats, and between 300,000 and 400,000 acres of barley.
Why did we not get enough wheat?
Because the Government did not give the farmers an economic price for it.
And the Government has thereby failed to make provision. The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
The position is being managed nicely.
I think the Deputy is paying a compliment to the vision of Deputy Belton.
Unfortunately he had not vision when he put down the motion. It would be all right now.
Anybody could see that last week.
The position is more serious than many Deputies realise. It is too serious for jokes. We have to do something now. We may have to get compulsory powers and to tell every farmer with 100 acres of arable land that he must put ten acres under wheat as against other cereals. If a farmer is compelled to till 30 acres of land at least 15 acres should be under wheat. We have either to go on that principle or to offer an inducement to farmers to grow wheat as against oats and barley.
I suggest to the Minister that there would be far better results if he offered an inducement to farmers now. It would be a cheaper and better economic proposition. I have made a study of the matter and I say frankly that it has caused me some sleepless nights. I come from a district where there never was any necessity to ask farmers to till 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of their land. They generally till 40 per cent. of their holdings every year without any compulsion, so the Minister need not bother sending inspectors to that district, except to a few hardheaded sinners of the Deputy Dillon type. We will see that the acreage is available and if we find that it is not that need not bother the Minister, because we will get the work done. I prepared some rough data, but I find that my figures are not exactly what they should be. From 490,000 acres under wheat, allowing seven barrels to the acre, we should get 430,000 tons of grain. I allowed 62,500 tons for seed wheat for the coming year and that left me 367,000 tons of wheat roughly for delivery to the mills, at seven barrels to the acre. Now, the Minister for Supplies, speaking here yesterday, told us that he banked on 290,000 tons only, and that out of that he had got up to then only some 200,000 tons. That makes the position far more serious than I thought it was. I gambled roughly that he will be short 132,000 tons of wheat. Imported at the price he informed us he was paying for it, that would be roughly £4,000,000. That must be paid in foreign securities and not in Irish currency. It must be paid in American dollars. That would be roughly about £2,500,000 more than the Irish farmer would be paid for the same quantity of wheat grown here. I took a bonus of £3 an acre as a rough calculation. If we offered that £3 for every acre of wheat grown, as against oats or barley, it would be £1,800,000, for 600 acres of wheat, and you would get it.
Pay on results.
You would get it. You would save £500,000, you would save all your foreign securities, as the money would stop at home; and we would see what the change would be. You would save £4,000,000 first of all in foreign securities, and then the freight space in the ships, and all the cash would remain here travelling around amongst the agricultural community and going from them into the pockets of the civil servants and the others who get a hold of it in the end. Also, we would not be depending on whether Herr Hitler had a submarine out or not, or whether the Japanese were watching for any freight coming from America. All the stuff would be at home and we would be independent of outside supply. Then, if we wanted anything in the shape of luxuries for the people, there would be freight space for 100,000 tons, and we could bring in something else—and I would suggest that that space could be very well used in bringing in artificial manures, if they can be obtained.
Will the Deputy deal with Deputy Belton's motion?
I am dealing with it. I have dealt with the first portion and I am dealing with the second portion. I have dealt with the portion where he stated six months ago that the Government had made no provision for this year, and I have proved that they have made provision. No man will be short of bread in the present cereal year, and I hope there is not going to be a shortage in regard to animal food either; but the serious position will be that of the coming year and it is with that I with to deal principally. Apparently, there is a divergence in policy—there is the policy of paying an uneconomic price for wheat to be grown from now on. If the present fixed price prevails, we will have to import somewhere around 200,000 tons of wheat, at whatever price the foreigner cares to charge, and at whatever price the ship owner will bring it in for. Then there is the hope —and, to my mind, the very faint hope —that any ships will travel across the Atlantic without interference. That is too much of a gamble for my taste, and I do not think we should gamble on what means the lives of the people, namely, our daily bread.
On the figures I have given—which I believe to be correct—there is not only a saving, but there is a definite assurance of growing 600,000 acres of wheat at home. I would be prepared to stand up here openly and pledge our farmers to grow it, and I believe they will. I believe the farmers this year will do that, if they are told: "You can grow oats if you like, at the fixed price; if you grow wheat, we will pay you £3 an acre bonus on it." If that is too difficult for the Minister to arrange, let him give the equivalent of that £3 an acre in the price.
We are coming along.
Let him give that equivalent in the price and let us judge on that. I would be prepared openly here and now to pledge that the farmers will grow the 600,000 acres of wheat.
I will support you.
That is £1,750,000 which it will cost over and above the present fixed price. That is a far better insurance for Irish public money than trusting to the price the foreigner wishes to ask and to hope that the ships will bring it across the Atlantic without being sunk. There are two ways of doing it. One way is by compulsion. Go down to the rich lands of County Limerick where they tilled last year 5 per cent. of their holdings and, if they do not know how to till, bring down a bunch of Corkmen and they will do it for them.
They might not come back.
Or let the Minister go to his own County of Wexford, which is a good tillage county also, and bring a few of the boys there to Limerick to till the lands that Deputy Bennett's constituents are failing to till. It is an awful scandal, in an emergency year, that oats to feed the hens of Limerick has to come from Cork. That is the present position.
The Deputy would sell it to a licensed trader.
Deputy Belton was looking for white flour in a black market a while ago.
On a point of order, what are we talking about? Are we talking about Deputy Belton's motion or not? Somebody is out of order.
I am dealing with Deputy Belton's motion on the Order Paper— for fear Deputy Ryan would not know exactly what I am dealing with. I am sorry he came in late for the lesson, but it is useful.
The Deputy is perfectly in order.
For Deputy Belton to put down a motion of this description six or 12 months ago—I am not sure how many months exactly it is, but it is on the Order Paper as far back as I can remember in the names of Deputies Belton and Cogan—may have been all right, but there is no justification whatever for that motion as matters stand at present. If it were freshly on the Order Paper this week, there might be some justification for it——
It would be dealt with next year, in that case.
——unless the Government are of opinion that oatmeal would be fairly good feeding for the people. I believe they will get plenty of it. As prices stand at present, and as the black market Deputy Belton was talking about a while ago has been working out in regard to oats, even in regard to Cork and Limerick they would pay anything for it.
You know.
They would pay £16 a ton and take it out of the haggard, and not a bit of trouble in it—down to feed the Limerick hens.
It is a better price than £16 for wheat.
It would pay the Limerick fellows to grow it themselves, but they would not grow even oats. Deputy Bennett can get up to defend the Government for not consulting them. Perhaps he is right. I condemn the Minister for not seeing that the acreage of land that was to be ploughed in County Limerick was ploughed last year.
What has this to do with the motion on the Order Paper? I appealed to the Chair before, and I appeal again, that the Deputy should be asked to speak to the motion. He is talking about something else altogether.
Deputy Corry is quite in order.
Will someone present Deputy Ryan with an Order Paper and let him read the motion? For his benefit I will read it out again—I have already read it twice for the Deputy. That is the motion that was put down by Deputy Belton last year.
This year.
It was 12 months ago.
It was tabled on 2nd April, 1941.
Or was it April 1st?
Someone must have slipped it over on Deputy Belton. I never thought the Deputy would be an April fool. I ask Deputies to consider the position as this Government found it in 1931.
Deputy Corry is going back too far. There was no war then.
There was no war in 1938 or the best part of 1939.
It was very near us.
The first time I met Deputy Belton was in 1926, when we were on the one platform shouting that this country should make itself independent in regard to bread.
Are we not on that platform to-night?
That was a long way back.
I again appeal to the Chair. We are not dealing with last year, and why should Deputy Corry talk about what happened in other years? What we are mainly concerned with is what will happen next year. The Deputy has not talked to the motion and he should be stopped.
That is entirely a matter for the Chair. I want to impress on Deputy Belton the situation as the Minister for Agriculture found it in 1931. In that year there were 20,000 acres of wheat grown in this country. I am certain, if I got the files of the Irish Independent, or a little glimpse at the Irish Times or the Cork Examiner for 1937 and 1938, or even 1939, that I would find side by side with the advertisement encouraging farmers to grow more wheat an article against the growing of wheat in this country.
We have to remember that there are certain ways in which this nation can be reduced to subjection. Wheat is one of them, perhaps the principal one. It is very hard to expect a man to watch his family die of starvation. If this war had started at the end of August, 1931, our neighbours across the water, instead of begging for ports and facilities of any description, could have said: "Give us 500,000 men, the sons of Erin, for cannon fodder out in Flanders and we will give you six months' supply of bread for your people." They could have said that in the absolute certainty of being able to starve us into compliance.
That is what the Minister for Agriculture had to face and he had to build up the nation against it. And that is what he did. Take the wiseacres on the opposite benches. We find that inside and outside this House they were shouting about the "codology" of growing wheat. We increased the wheat acreage from 20,000 acres in 1931 to 305,000 acres in 1940 and 491,000 acres in 1941, the year Deputy Belton is complaining of.
Did the produce per acre increase very much?
It did, up to the present season, which was an absolutely unfavourable season. In this country we grew roughly one ton of wheat to the acre. That was the acreage over the last six or seven years.
Did the produce increase or decrease from 1931 to 1939?
It increased. Every man ploughed his bit. There were Deputies on the opposite benches who condemned the deputy leader of the Party for being a false prophet.
Sit down and do not be making a mug of yourself.
Deputy Dillon talked about wheat growing and referred to it as "codology". Then he talked about getting ships to bring in wheat. He did not get one man out of his Party to support his policy of being dependent on the foreigner for our daily bread. Despite that type of preaching and all the manoeuvres that were worked for a number of years to prevent wheat growing here, the wheat was grown. It was grown because this Government paid a few shillings to the farmers over and above the price of foreign wheat. That was, in plain language, an insurance policy and it bore good fruit this year, because we grew 491,000 acres of wheat, which is sufficient to meet the country's requirements for practically 12 months. At any rate, nobody will die of starvation here, nobody will die for want of bread.
What I really am afraid of is the coming year, and it is with that position I am principally anxious to deal. In my opinion, the Government have made a pretty fatal mistake, which must be immediately rectified. It will not be enough to rectify that mistake after Christmas. The time to rectify it is now. The Government should mend their hand in regard to the fixed price of wheat for the coming year. If they do not do so I, for one, will have very little hope of seeing a sufficient supply of wheat in the harvest of 1942. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.