In view of the development that has taken place since this motion was under discussion previously in the Seanad, and since I gather that other matters to which I intended to refer to-day are being kept in mind by the Minister, I do not wish to say any more on this subject.
Minimum Price for Wheat—Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion and amendment:—
That in the opinion of Seanad Eireann it is an urgent national necessity that the Government should increase the minimum price for the 1942 wheat crop to 50/- per barrel and should make an immediate announcement to that effect. —(Senators Baxter and McGee.)
After the word "barrel" to insert the words "and should amend the Compulsory. Tillage Order to make the production of wheat obligatory". —(Senator Byrne.)
Have we any knowledge that the Minister is coming? I think we might wait until he arrives.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister has already spoken in this debate.
In view of recent pronouncements is there any need to debate this matter further? If the House expresses agreement with the motion, surely that should satisfy the mover?
What I want to speak about when the Minister is here is something apropos of a proposal that he has now accepted. Arising out of the newspaper censorship, and the powers given to the Government, an express undertaking was given at the time that it would not use the powers given to it by the Legislature for Party purposes or anything else except the emergency arising out of the world war. The Minister, in the course of a debate, stated: "I am not aware how far the Censor has gone in this matter, but if the Censor has cut out any proposals for an increased price for wheat, I think he is doing his duty." That is the point I want to deal with and I should like the Minister to be here.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister's attendance is a matter for him. If the Seanad decides to adjourn now to give him an opportunity to attend, it can do so.
Sitting suspended at 5.40 and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
In connection with the resumed motion in the name of Senator Baxter, I wonder if somebody proposes to speak on behalf of Senator Baxter, who is not here?
Mr. Fitzgerald rose.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think the Senator has spoken already.
What happened was that, before we adjourned for tea, this matter came up and I asked if the Minister was going to attend. Nobody seemed to know and there was then this question of the adjournment for tea, but I did not say what I had to say.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator, I think, spoke when the motion was previously before the House.
No, I do not think so. I think you will find that your memory is at fault.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Very good; I am sorry.
This motion was before us some weeks ago, and in the course of the debate the Minister indicated that he disagreed with the proposal put forward by Senator Baxter, about which I had a perfectly open mind at the time. But he indicated more than that. He indicated that to suggest a change in something which a machined majority in the Dáil had voted for was of such a treasonable nature that the censorship should operate against it. Senator Baxter had referred to a letter, proposing, in the name of justice, a different price to the growers of wheat, which had been suppressed by the Censor and the Minister adverting to that said:
"I am not aware how far the Censor has gone in this matter, but if the Censor has cut out any proposals for an increased price for wheat, I think he is doing his duty."
Let us be perfectly clear at this point. We know that here in the Seanad and in the Dáil the majority of the Government Party do not bother to listen to what is being discussed, but merely walk in and vote as their Party is voting. That may be a perfectly desirable thing in many ways, but, in this matter of the price of wheat, in growing which the farmers are doing a necessary national duty, there is a question of justice, and justice is not determined by the Party Whip in the Dáil telling a machined Party that it has got to vote in a certain way. Justice does not mean, either, that people who are competent to judge as to what is a just price, by virtue of that machined majority in the Dáil, are never thereafter to have a thought in their minds upon which to form a judgment, or open their mouths as to what they think is a just price. That, however, is what the Minister takes for granted. I do not pretend to stand up here and say exactly that this sum is the proper price per barrel or per bushel of wheat, that this price is too low or that price too high, but from what I know of agriculture—I do not pretend to do a great deal, but I will say that, at least, I am not an unsuccessful farmer—it seems to me to be perfectly clear that if a fair price for wheat at a given time is 35/- per barrel, at a later period, as things are, it will not be a fair price.
We had, for example, a statement emanating from, I think, a member of the staff of the Department of Agriculture that wheat does not exhaust the soil. I know something about wheat-growing in other countries, and of the experiences of wheat growers here. If you start wheat-growing on a farm here under present conditions when you have not an unlimited supply of the appropriate fertilisers, and if one acre produces X barrels of wheat this year, and if in succeeding years you cannot open new soil—the ordinary economy of a farm does not allow of that—then that one acre will produce X minus 2 next year, and in the succeeding year X minus 4. Consequently, with the same amount of labour in ploughing and all the rest, the same amount of land will produce a less quantity of wheat in the succeeding years. Therefore, it seems to me to be natural that if, in present conditions, this war carries on for a number of years, the real price of wheat production is going to increase from year to year. The suggestion has been put to us that when the Government tells the members of its Party the price it wants to give for wheat, whether it be 40/- or 45/-, the members of the Party vote as they are told, and that thereafter the machinery of government is to be used to prevent anybody expressing a contrary judgment as to what justice requires.
On this matter of the censorship, if my memory serves me right, what happened was this. In view of the emergency arising out of the condition of a world war, which created a certain condition of emergency in this country, the Government quite rightly asked for powers of censorship. In present circumstances, in relation to the world situation, it is possible for serious harm to be done to this country in its international relations by unrestricted publicity on certain lines, but, if I remember rightly, a guarantee was given at the time by the Government that the power which we voluntarily voted to it would not be used except for the purpose of preserving the integrity of this State in the present condition of danger in the world. The Minister decides that a certain price should be given for wheat. That price might or might not have been fair when he proposed it. If it was just fair then, I am prepared to say it would be less than fair at a later stage. But the Minister now assumes that the Government is to be preserved from any contrary judgment, once it has a machined majority in the Dáil and Seanad to declare that a certain price is the proper one. That, to me, is an intolerable situation.
In England at the present time, in a country that is absolutely in the thick of this war and that is fighting for its life, what is the position of the Government there? I wonder do any members of the House read the English newspapers. The Government in England recognises, in far too generous a way to my mind, the right of unrestricted, indeed I will go so far as to say, irresponsible, criticism. But the Government here has seized the opportunity of this world emergency to impose silence upon the country in regard to any criticism of its own notorious ineptitude and fantastic incapacity. That is the truth of the matter. The Government here has not kept its word of honour. It does not seem to know what honour is. If members look back to the time when the Government was granted these emergency powers they will remember that the undertaking of the Government was this: that it wanted the bare minimum of power to restrain writings and publications that were going to be dangerous to this country in relation to the international situation. In present circumstances we are all agreed that there are certain facts which should not be stated because their publication would be against the public interest. The method for dealing with that situation was to set up a Defence Conference. In the Dáil last week a Minister referred to certain information which he did not feel disposed to reveal to the Dáil. He asked for special powers even though he said he could not give the relevant information to the Dáil. When the Defence Conference, a body on which there are representatives of the various Parties, was set up the Government said that body would be put in possession of information which it was not in the public interest should be made known. It was apparent from the discussion in the Dáil that the members of the Defence Conference were not given the information—the Minister refused to give to it. It was not revealed in the secret enclave of the Defence Conference.
Again, a Minister comes here and approves of the arbitrary act of a Government employee to prevent any attempt being made to get what people conceive to be justice for the farmers. That, to my mind, is intolerable in a number of ways, first of all by the fact that the Government does not recognise its bond of honour. It does not recognise its duty to keep the undertakings which it has given, and which, I suggest, it has broken. It has broken the undertaking it gave with regard to the censorship, as well as the undertaking that the Dáil should not ask for certain information since that information would be given to the members of the various Parties represented on the Defence Conference. We in this country are not in the war, but we are dangerously affected by it.
On a point of order. I have listened to the Senator as long as I could, and I now rise for the purpose of saying that I understood that, on this motion, the House was to deal with the question of wheat prices. Is the House going to allow the Senator to ramble over the whole ambit of Government policy?
If the Senator will excuse me, I want to say that I came here to listen to a debate on wheat, and that when the Senator has finished I will come back.
There are two ways in which the Government protects its intolerable incapacity. The first is by not letting the people know what is being said, and, secondly, by running away from, rather than by standing over, the statements it makes. Last week a Minister stated that, in his judgment, the arbitrary power given to the Government in relation to the present crisis is being properly used when it prevents anybody voicing a case for a certain price for the wheat grown by farmers. In spite of that members of the Government go around the country asking the farmers to produce wheat. I suggest that the person who ought to be suppressed is the Minister. The farmers are being asked to produce wheat. I want to put it to the House that the Government has no right to ask for a special service from any section of the community for which they are not to receive bare justice. Since the statements I have referred to were made, the Government has, by its own act, admitted that the proposal it suppressed, on the grounds that it was contrary to the well-being of the people of this country, was a just proposal. If it is more than a just price for the farmer who produces the wheat, then the Government had no right to fix it, because in that sense it is an unjust price, and the Government has acted unjustly to the taxpayers. I have never accepted the Government's idea of neutrality. The State is something specifically distinct from the members of the State. Not to be neutral in this country can only be achieved by an act of the Government declaring war. That is how we come to be neutral— the Government has not taken that act. The reason we are neutral, that we do not declare war, is——
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator is going a little bit away from the question.
I do not want to go beyond what is immediately relevant to the statement of the Minister.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
This matter has been raised now because it was referred to in the course of the previous debate, but my personal opinion is that it would be much wiser and more proper to raise it on a separate motion. It is rather unfortunate to turn a debate on wheat prices into a debate on the censorship in the way it is being done.
I am quite prepared to deal with it on a separate motion. What is the position? The Government, by its own act last week, has agreed to 50/- as a just price for wheat. Prior to that it had used the special powers it was given to prevent a case being made before the public with a view to getting what the Government now admits is justice for the farmers. I think that is implicit in what the Government has done and what the Minister stated here. He has not the guts to face up to a revelation of what is implicit in the Government's statement and action, and I have the same contempt for his character as I have for his utter incompetency in his job.
Luaidhtear linn annseo nach labhramaoid go leór ar an taoibh seo de'n Tigh; go bhfuilmíd balbh nuair budh cheart dúinn labhairt amach. Mo fhreagra ar sin go labhartar barraidheacht ar an taoibh eile, agus cuid mhaith de ar bheagán céille. An bhfeadfamaois connradh, nó margadh do dhéanamh leo go labharfadh siad a leath-oirid is labhrann siad agus sinne an dá oiread is labhramaoid, bheadh an méid ceana cainnte againn agus abhfad níos mó céille sa chainnt. Ní'l me a'maoidheamh go labhrann gach Seanadaidhe ar an taoibh sin barraidheacht, ach abair fá thuairim leath-dhoiseine aca a bhfuilmíd bodhar leo.
We all welcome the Government's decision to increase the price of wheat and we trust that that decision will have the desired effect of producing a sufficiency of wheat to meet the country's requirements.
I do not want to go into detail in relation to the matters mentioned by Senator Fitzgerald. He accused the Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil and in the Seanad of being merely a voting machine and he said they had to vote for the 45/- per barrel for wheat because they are in the Party. I think on examination it will be found that the majority of the Fianna Fáil Deputies and also the Fianna Fáil Senators are farmers, good, solid, sensible farmers, and, whatever about their Party affiliations, it must be recognised that human nature is human nature and those men are going to see that their views will be heard as regards the price to be given for wheat or live stock or any other section of the industry in which they are engaged.
When the announcement was made that the Government had decided to give an increase of 5/- per barrel for wheat a statement was issued indicating that it might be necessary to increase the price of flour after next harvest. A similar statement was made with regard to sugar, in view of the increase in the price of beet. I think before next harvest some scheme should be thought out in connection with continuing the subsidy on flour, such as we have at the present time, because, owing to increased unemployment and a falling off in a number of ways of the people's earnings—people in our towns and cities—I am afraid that if the price of the loaf has to be increased as a result of the increased price of wheat, what will be given to the farmer on the one hand will probably be taken away from him on the other hand in the shape of home and other assistance in order to keep the poorer people alive. If we do not consider some such scheme before next harvest when the increase in the price of flour will come into operation, there will be a considerable amount of distress.
We hear a good deal about compulsory tillage, but when we examine the situation, when we consider the amount of propaganda, the speeches that are being made and the inducements that are being held out in the form of increased prices, one wonders is there any such thing as compulsory tillage or whether we are really enticing people to supply us with food by reason of the inducement of good prices. We know now that we had not the return we expected from our acreage last year and I believe that that was due entirely to the fact that we had not correct statistics as to the amount of land tilled or the amount of wheat returned. I suggest to the Minister that, when the next threshing season arrives, before oil is made available for threshing purposes the mill owner or the threshing-machine owner should be compelled to keep a record of the quantity of wheat threshed for each farmer. Those returns should be forwarded to the appropriate Government Department and in that way we will be able to get a much better idea of the amount of wheat that is in the country.
As regards compulsory tillage, we all know that one or two inspectors cannot satisfactorily cover an entire county, and I think that duty should be allocated to the Guards. When anybody suggests that such duties should be handed over to the Guards the retort is that already they are over-burdened with various duties. With that statement I do not agree. The Guards are acquainted with the various districts in which tillage operations are carried on; they know the large landowners and they know where the Tillage Order has been complied with. Senator Johnston endeavoured to show us here that the larger the number of large holdings in the country the better from the point of view of wheat production, and also the production of other crops. I suggest that if it is at all possible we should this year have a record kept of all the large holdings and the amount of land cultivated on each large holding, on the conacre system or in the ordinary way. In that way we will know exactly the amount of land cultivated by the large landholder and the amount cultivated by small farmers on the conacre system. A large owner may get credit for making a contribution to the State which he is not really making. That credit should go to the person who takes conacre from him, sometimes at an exorbitant rent.
I welcome the decision of the Government to increase the price to 50/- and I trust it will be sufficient to induce farmers to do their duty. It is a very serious matter when people hold up property vested in them and refuse to make a proper use of it in the interest of the nation. We had landlords who tried that game and we know what happened to those landlords when they did not carry out their duty. The first duty of the owners of land and other property is to utilise it so that it will be of the greatest possible benefit to the nation. I suggest that the best wheat-growing lands have not been utilised to the fullest extent. There was a time when the lands of County Meath supplied not alone the requirements of that area but of mills of many other counties. That wheat was exported in large quantities. I suggest that the contention that the lands of Meath are too luxuriant to grow profitable crops of wheat is not borne out by the facts of history. I think the mistake is in not scheduling wheat-growing lands. The lands of the Midlands, Meath, Westmeath, portions of Longford, Kildare, and portions of Louth, are capable of giving the highest return in wheat produce. In the poorer lands, in the congested areas, only small patches of wheat can be grown, except, perhaps, around the Listowel area in Kerry. Perhaps those lands do not count in the nation's economy, but the Government should make a long distance plan for the growing of wheat so that they will never again find themselves in the position in which they found themselves recently. Wheat-growing lands should be scheduled, taken over in large areas, and worked co-operatively. That should be done in the coming year, if it can be done. Most of these lands are in the hands of the Land Commission and they could easily be taken over under the Emergency Powers Act. In the coming year the Government should concentrate on these lands, because the poor lands will become exhausted by lack of farmyard manure, which is the best of all manures. The others are only stimulants and they cannot be got now. Unless you have on these lands an abundance of farmyard manure, they will cease to grow wheat effectively. The return throughout the country has been about seven or eight barrels to the acre.
Five and a half barrels.
That is a meagre return and is understandable only on the hypothesis that wheat is grown on the poorer lands. I have known some of the rich lands to give a poor return for the reason that those who cultivated the lands had not the slightest idea of how the crop should be treated. They simply scraped the ground, and it was a waste of energy, and in many cases a deliberate evasion of the Act. The people who have grown most wheat on this occasion are the people who have always tilled. I have sympathy with the big land owners and graziers who had not the outfit, the mental equipment, the knowledge or the hands available for the work. There is a gold mine in the wheat-producing areas which would employ thousands of men. It is a mistake to think that the farm labourer is an unskilled workman. Unless he is a skilled workman, he cannot do his job. He is an exceedingly skilled workman, although not looked upon by urban workers as such. Unless he is a skilled worker, he is a very unprofitable investment.
It was rather surprising to me to learn a few days ago that some men who got a training in agriculture in our principal college in Glasnevin, and who had their practical degree in agricultural science, had failed to find a place here. These people have got their passports for England, although they were trained, in many cases, at the expense of the State. That is a matter into which the Minister should inquire—whether the services of the products of these colleges, educated in some cases with the aid of public scholarships, are being utilised in giving instruction to people who need it. The procedure in the country is for a person who owns grass lands and has not equipment of his own to depend upon a contractor, who is generally a farmer himself, to do the sowing and reaping for him. He has not the men of his own. I say that the men should be made available. I know that the great difficulty at the moment is in procuring machinery. Because of that lack of men and machinery, these people cannot sow or reap when they like and they cannot market their crop properly under the present disorganised and haphazard system in regard to the cultivation of wheat.
I add my voice to that of the previous speaker in favour of a well-organised plan for the cultivation of wheat. I am not thinking merely of having instructors running about and telling people that they will have to do this and that. Every agricultural committee, on which you have, in nearly every case, practical farmers, should be made responsible for its own county or area, in the same way as a county surveyor has been made responsible for the production of a certain amount of turf. It is futile to have a number of inspectors, whether they come from the City of Dublin or some local centre, running about to see what has been done. It would be much more effective if these people who propose to grow cereals were brought together and given proper instruction. More use should be made of the agricultural instructors whom we have in every county.
The way in which farmers have ignored the great advantages to be derived from courses by skilled agricultural instructors is deplorable. Farmers are very much to blame in that respect. As I have said, there is a gold mine in wheat in the areas which should be scheduled. The lands in the poorer districts and the lands which have been cultivated for the last three years or so should get a rest. The larger ranches should be gone in upon and worked directly by the Government, if necessary, or by some form of co-operative movement.
Perhaps Senator Cummins, who seems to be such an expert, would tell us the number of barrels of wheat per acre grown in County Meath 100 years ago. That would be very interesting.
It is sufficient to say that it supplied many of the mills of Leinster and kept the mills going on every rivulet and stream in that county. I do not know what the production was.
Would you be surprised to know it was four barrels per statute acre?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are not discussing the County Meath now.
What is proposed in the motion has now been done and why waste further time debating it?
Senator Baxter has got up several times to conclude but he was not allowed.
I did not intend to speak at all, but Senator Fitzgerald's speech would get anyone on his feet. The speech was unworthy even of Senator Fitzgerald. He criticised the Government for increasing the price of wheat to 50/- when, as he said, the Government believed it was unjust. I do not agree that the Government held that it was an unjust price at any time. I can see the reason for the Government's attitude. The welfare and the well-being of the people are more important than an extra 5/- or 6/- or 10/- per barrel for any particular crop. If the Government were convinced that to get the requisite amount of wheat to provide food for the people it was necessary to increase the price to 50/-, then they were justified in increasing it, although there are plenty of farmers who were quite satisfied with 45/-. In fact, there were farmers who were quite pleased with the results they got from the price of 40/- last year. Again I wish to state very distinctly that, in my opinion, if it were necessary to increase the price to 60/- in order to save the people from the danger of actual starvation, the Government would be justified in increasing it to 60/-. I was rather struck by Senator Cummins' speech. I think he was quite right in saying that the lands that could best grow wheat should be growing wheat. It is most unfair that poor lands should be used year after year to endeavour to produce a crop that could be far better grown on other lands. Many of the smaller farmers have produced more than their share of that crop, although it may have done some injury to their land. Senator Fitzgerald spoke of a machined majority. Every Government must have a majority.
In a Second House?
Not necessarily in a Second House. I entirely disagree with Senator Fitzgerald when he speaks of a machined majority. Members on this side of the House have not always acted as a machined majority. Some of them have voted against the majority of the members on this side of the House, and they have not incurred any censure.
More power to them.
I dislike this sort of attack. Senator Fitzgerald is so bitter that he can never miss an opportunity of attacking the Government. As I said, it is not necessary to waste much further time in debating this matter, as the object sought has been achieved. I will not be tempted to answer Senator Fitzgerald further. I was very much inclined to speak more strongly, but it would be unworthy of the House to allow the debate to be lowered to such a level.
As to the point raised by Senator Fitzgerald, it seems to me that the action of the Government on that occasion was quite logical and was in the interest of the community. The House should remember that at the beginning of this crisis the Government set out to achieve two things: (1) to have sufficient food to supply the wants of the country; and (2) to maintain the stability of prices at a reasonable level. They fixed the price of oats, barley, wheat and other commodities, and we must all agree that if the price level of agricultural products and all other products and commodities could be maintained, it would be better for everybody. But the fact was that the price of other articles which affected the farmers went up. The price of oats and barley went up in spite of the Government's endeavour to keep it down. Because of the increased price of barley and oats, the position in regard to wheat became serious, and it was necessary that the price should be increased by 5/-. Then a strong agitation developed with regard to the price of wheat. There was an agitation, in fact, to have it increased to £3.
I am strongly in favour of the 50/-, and was impressed with the necessity of giving it. I realise, however, that in the present situation it was not easy for the Government to increase the price by 5/- a barrel. But the danger was that the time was passing when the seed should be sown, and if a general agitation continued to have the price of wheat increased, that valuable time would pass when the seed should be sown. The position was that it was better for everybody that the wheat should be sown. The main thing for the Government was to see that wheat should be sown, and that there should be no opportunity for propaganda or agitation which would have the effect of preventing the sowing of wheat. I am glad the Government have seen their way to give the 50/-, because everyone knows that it will result in an increased acreage of wheat.
The provision of seed is so urgently necessary that the Government should give special facilities for the procuring of seed wheat. Seed wheat is very costly. The great majority of the farmers, especially in the new tillage districts, have not any capital to spare. At this time of the year in the dairying districts money is very scarce, and most of the farmers are not in a position to purchase any quantity of seed wheat. Therefore, I think the Government would be well advised to guarantee the merchants for any seed which they may supply to the growers. I think it is only common sense, when a man is willing to sow wheat and has no money to buy seed, that he should be in a position to get whatever seed he requires and pay for it when his harvest comes in. If that were done, I feel confident, and I am told by those who are in a position to know, that there would be many thousands extra acres of wheat sown that will not be sown if these facilities are not available.
I also agree with what Senator Cummins said that there should be more co-operative effort in regard to the growing of wheat. I urge that the resources of the county councils should be utilised to assist in ploughing the land. There is a scarcity of tractors, especially in the new tillage districts. There is also a scarcity of reapers and binders and there was a scarcity of threshing mills last year. I know of one district where thousands of pounds worth of wheat went to loss for want of threshing machines. I think that all the machinery and labour facilities of the county councils, and even of the Army, should be made available for the purpose of helping these people to till their land.
I wish to refer to a few matters in connection with wheat growing. I understood some Senators to refer to the soil and to say that the growing of wheat was robbing the soil and that if we continued to grow wheat for a number of years there would be no return. In the majority of cases, however, the small farmers generally sow their wheat in ground that grew potatoes the year previous, and that ground would have sufficient farmyard manure to produce a good crop of wheat the following year. There is a large number of counties in Ireland which have small farms that are not in a position to grow a large amount of wheat. They grow sufficient to supply food for their own homes and for the animals on the farms, but to say that they would have wheat for sale in the spring months or any other part of the year would be ridiculous. It would be impossible for them because they have not sufficient with which to carry on. I sometimes feel amused when I hear some farmers speaking on this matter of tillage and an increased price for farm produce, because I myself know that they have nothing to sell. As a matter of fact, they are out in the market in the spring months, to use a common phrase, with the bag under their arm, looking for a few stone of oats or wheat, and a few stone of potatoes very often. I could understand farmers, having large farms and raising a big amount of wheat, oats and barley, looking for an increased price for their produce. I would say that they are practical farmers and men who are entitled to speak for the farming community, and I could certainly understand their looking for an increase in price.
We must consider also that the poor people, for instance, who will have to buy the flour that is milled from the wheat will have to pay an extra price for that flour. They have no land and are not in a position to grow wheat. We must also consider the small farmers, the men with ten, 12 or 14 acres of land, who perhaps also have to go to the market or to the miller and buy wheat or flour at a very high cost. We should not try to assist the large farmer at the expense of the small farmer and the labourer. A uniform price should be fixed and, in my opinion, the 50/- that has been fixed for wheat is a reasonable price. There is no doubt whatever that if any farmer tried to exert himself and was serious about the position, he could grow at least sufficient wheat for his own home and, if he has a couple of acres of land, he certainly could grow some wheat for sale. He would be what I call a practical farmer and would be really in earnest about his work.
I am not going to delay the House. I think I can express my pleasure at the turn events have taken. After all, when we listened to the Minister for Agriculture on the evening that I moved my motion, the position seemed rather hopeless and one felt that we were running up against a stone wall in view of the attitude he was adopting. Now, while the Minister, perhaps, felt called upon to address himself to the motion in that particular fashion, I had the idea that at the back of his mind he believed there was a good deal in the arguments we were advancing. I always felt that the Minister's own view about it was that what the motion contained was reasonable and fair, and when the Government have gone the length of conceding that 50/- to the farmers for wheat grown this coming season, my line is to compliment them on their decision. I will go further and say that by that decision they have created very favourable reactions. I have spoken to a number of people, and I know that members of this House and of the other House have discussed the position with farmers, and all these people have indicated a completely changed attitude towards the growing of wheat.
Now, that is all to the good. I am, however, convinced that now that the Government have done this, all of us have got an obligation upon us to press upon the farmers, both by example and by word, to put every possible acre of wheat in that they can manage. Other speakers here on a previous occasion—and I heard the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures say it in my own county—have said that we could easily do it, but I think it is a mighty task. We are going to do something that we have not done for many generations in this country. Now, we want the wheat, and I think the Government have behaved reasonably. I am not going to comment on the time of their decision or on their altered point of view or anything like that. I think that is not the line to take at this juncture. I think it is better to say that they have done what is the right thing and we must all help to get the wheat grown. As far as I am concerned, or as far as anybody with whom I have any contracts is concerned, whatever help I can give I am giving. I am glad the Government have given us this chance and I believe that the whole attitude will be changed. The Minister for Agriculture knows as well as anybody else that the farmer, like other people, always does what pays, and you cannot expect him, any more than anybody else, to engage in something that will lose money for him, and if there is money in wheat the farmer will grow it.
I realise that the necessities of the situation raise all sorts of problems and difficulties with regard to the land on which wheat can be grown. Senator Cummins raised some questions in regard to the growing of wheat in certain parts of the country, but this is not all so simple at all. I should like to compliment Senator Hawkins on his approach to this matter this evening. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, because his approach is always intelligent and fresh, and he made one point on which I should like some information or to which I think some consideration should be given. None of us wants the poor to pay more than they are able to pay, and we know that for most commodities, such as food, clothing and so on, the poor to-day have to pay much more than they are able to pay. Now, the statement has been made that this is going to mean an increase in prices. I am not quite clear how that is going to come about. It has to be recognised that we are subsidising the millers to the extent of £2,000,000 for the production of flour in the present year. Some of our wheat cost 40/- and more of it cost, I think, 80/-, or perhaps a little more, and we understand from the Minister for Supplies that if what we have been trying to get from abroad arrives here it is going to cost 60/-. I cannot see how, if we can get enough wheat at 50/- in our country, the price is going to be raised, but even if it is to be raised as a result of paying the farmers 50/-, in the first place it is better to have flour to buy at 50/- than to have none at all. When you come to making it possible for the poor to buy it, I think we will have to face that question also, and it is mere piffle to be talking about the price being too high when you know that you are creating a situation whereby neither the poor man nor the rich man will have the money to pay if you do not raise the price to a certain level. If we have to face a situation in which we have to make a further contribution so as to keep the price of flour within reach of the poor man, the State and the community must provide the means.
There is a certain attitude of mind on the part of some people in regard to the growing of wheat, and the more quickly they disabuse themselves of that the better. Senator Cummins in discussing the growing of wheat in Meath and Kildare talked about people scratching the ground. There may be one or two farmers in Meath, and perhaps one or two in Kildare, who do that, but I do not know of any farmer who scratches the ground to grow any crop. When a farmer goes to the trouble of paying labour to put in a crop, he is very anxious to do his best to get the best return, and I think the Senator's point is one that should not be stressed. There are, perhaps, some poor farmers badly equipped with poor machines, or with equipment of a character that is not capable of doing the work efficiently, but on the whole I do not think there is much justification for talking about farmers scratching the ground or for saying that it is due to that that wheat yields are so low. It is a phrase that should not be used, because it is a slander on farmers generally.
The Senator went on to talk about making county committees responsible for getting certain things done. I am a member of a county committee for a great many years. I think our committees would be happy to assist but I do not know they would like to have that obligation put on them. To demand that service from men who on the whole are hard workers on their own farms, to ask them to accept the responsibility to see that wheat is grown and that the farmers work up to a certain level, is I think asking too much. Many of those to whom they would go might be very hard workers and might be much better able to do the job than those who went to teach them. There might be some foundation for the Senator's other suggestion that the farmers have ignored the technical advice given them in various counties but my experience is that the technical men are run off their feet trying to serve the farmers. That is our experience anyway. The truth is that the farmers are making such very heavy demands on the technical men that the present staff is hardly able to cope with them. I do not want to advocate an addition to our staffs because there are limits. To talk about imposing obligations on men who grow wheat—and that suggestion was inherent in the motion of Senator Byrne—if you even talk about Meath and scheduling certain areas, is to ignore the real point at issue. What the Minister should set about doing is what has been done in other countries, what should be done here on a scientific basis, namely, to get a really proper soil survey. I think that the future of agriculture is bound up with the getting of such a survey made. It may be that we shall have to divide our country into zones and to mark out certain areas in which we shall cultivate certain crops in accordance with the quality of the soil —its texture, its composition from the point of view of fertility, and other factors of that kind, but you cannot do that on any sort of sensible basis unless it be purely scientific. If you make an order that wheat is to be grown in certain areas, there is not an area to which you will make that apply in which you will not find farms on which wheat could not be grown. I think that most of this rule of thumb method in determining what farmers are to do is very unwise and ill-advised.
There is just one point to which I want to refer particularly arising out of what I had to say on the last occasion—that is, my reference to the advice given by a technical expert as to the amount of fertility extracted from the soil by the growing of wheat. I know quite well it is very difficult for a politician to attempt to deal with a matter that has been dealt with by an expert, because the politician's way of putting it may be somewhat different from the way the expert would put his case and that might make all the difference in the world.
Is a politician never an expert?
Some of them are, and some of them think they are. In my references on the last day to this matter, I made the point that when Professor Caffrey indicated that wheat was one of the lightest crops, in so far as the amount of fertility absorbed from the soil is concerned, that was not related to the facts as farmers understood them. No one has drawn my attention to this matter, but looking at the problem since and at what I said on that occasion, and considering the approach of Professor Caffrey to this question, I think I should say in justice to Professor Caffrey that I am prepared to concede that if you take a sample of wheat, submit it to chemical analysis and discover its composition, you may discover that the quantity of certain constituents which it has extracted from the soil would be smaller than that extracted by certain other cereals. That may be true, and on that basis the expert is quite entitled to say that wheat will not extract any more from the soil than certain other cereals, but I think in justice to the farmer I should say that that is not our experience. It is not my own personal experience nor is it the experience of a great many people with whom I have discussed the matter. The fact is that after the growing of wheat, the soil is in an entirely different condition from that in which you find it after the growing of oats or barley. I know that in the case of my own soil after a crop of winter wheat, nothing I could do would prevent the growth of scutch.
What about winter oats?
I have no experience of the growing of winter oats. I think the growing of winter oats need not be cited because of the extent to which it is grown. I think you have to take crops with which we are generally familiar. My experience, and I think it is the experience of farmers generally, is that after a wheat crop the condition of the soil is certainly inferior to that in which you find it after the growing of oats or barley. You cannot grow a crop of wheat or a crop of scutch, which has family associations with it, without leaving the soil in a considerably worse condition than the condition in which you find it after growing oats or barley. Whatever a chemical analysis may indicate, that is the practical experience of the farmer. I am not contradicting what has already been said on this matter. I am rather attempting to clarify the position, and I do not want to do any injustice to Professor Caffrey as I might appear to have done in my speech on the previous occasion. I think it is true to say, however, that there is evidence up and down the country that the effects of the growing of wheat on our soil are not satisfactory.
I was rather surprised the other day to hear a farmer like Deputy Hughes, a man whom most people recognise as being an efficient, competent, and capable farmer, say that his wheat yield was only 5½ barrels to the acre. One must be struck by such a statement coming from a man of the type of Deputy Hughes—an intelligent man, physically very competent, a man who knows his job and who does his farming well. He has been cultivating beet and in fact has engaged in every type of tillage. He is a man of practical experience and he told us that was his yield last year. When you get low yields like that, you are really up against the position that you have to admit that the growing of wheat is not at all simple, that we were expecting too much, too high a yield.
I know for a fact that on the best land in Meath last year the yield was only four barrels to the acre. As against that, I know that Senator McGee reaped 15 barrels and some of his neighbours 16 barrels to the acre. That is much higher than the average. Whatever the effect on the land, or the consequences with regard to raising the price of flour, what we are all after is to get the wheat, to get the farmers to do the job to the best of their ability. Some of them will do it well, some not so well. There will be a few who are inefficient, and there will be some to grumble about the price. Some will want 60/- and I know that a few, if they got 70/-, would not be satisfied. I never subscribe to that point of view. As a nation we will never get anywhere by making extravagant demands on the community. We have difficulties and problems. There is no use in men like Senator Cummins telling us that we can order people to grow wheat anywhere. In my opinion, the more we order the people the less we get done. Farmers were hard hit, but they are independent and can make up their own minds in these matters. A great deal will not be done by ordering them.
Farmers can stand a great many kicks, but if dealt with in a reasonable way that will have more effect. In my opinion, there is reason in the decision of the Government with regard to wheat, and it is my belief that farmers will rise to the occasion to the best of their ability. Despite the attitude of the Minister on a previous occasion, I am glad that we may be able to get the House to accept this motion.
Is the motion being pressed?
Yes.
Is Senator Baxter accepting my amendment?
The amendment must come first.
Has the debate not concluded?
Is Senator Baxter pressing the motion?
Yes, and I hope the House will agree to it.
Is Senator Baxter accepting my amendment?
The motion comes first.
No, the amendment.
Then I am not entitled to say anything now?
No, the debate has concluded.
Question put: "That the words set forth in the amendment be inserted in the motion."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 11.
Tá.
- Byrne, Christopher M.
- Campbell, Seán P.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Goulding, Seán.
- Hawkins, Frederick.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Johnston, James.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kennedy, Margaret L.
- Lynch, Eamonn.
- MacCabe, Dominick.
- McEllin, Seán.
- Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar
- (Cú Uladh).
- Magennis, William.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- O'Neill, Laurence.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Stafford, Matthew.
- Tunney, James.
Níl.
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Butler, John.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Counihan, John J.
- Cummins, William.
- Douglas, James G.
- Doyle, Patrick.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Johnston, Joseph.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Goulding and Hawkins; Níl: Senators Baxter and Conlon.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 7.
Tá.
- Byrne, Christopher M.
- Campbell, Seán P.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Cummins, William.
- Goulding, Seán.
- Hawkins, Frederick.
- MacFhionnlaoich, Peadar
- (Cú Uladh).
- Magennis, William.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Johnston, James.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kennedy, Margaret L.
- Lynch, Eamonn.
- MacCabe, Dominick.
- McEllin, Seán.
- O'Neill, Laurence.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Stafford, Matthew.
- Tunney, James.
Níl.
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Butler, John.
- Counihan, John J.
- Douglas, James G.
- Doyle, Patrick.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Johnston, Joseph.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Goulding and Hawkins; Níl: Senators Baxter and Doyle.
Question declared carried.