I am, definitely. I know it is true because I have seen it. But, quite apart from that, as regards the sections of the scheme where the work is done by farmers themselves, and for which they get a grant from the Government, the experience of many of them, in regard to the payment of the grants, has definitely acted as a brake in their areas. I am referring now to delays in the payment of grants under the land project and also in connection with the farm improvements scheme, but to a lesser extent in the latter case.
As regards the payment of the grants under the land project, you had in the first six months of this financial year— that is to say, from April to September —delays which were scandalous. Cases that came to my notice have now been cleared up, cases where I knew the farmers had their work completed and passed in March of this year. Yet they had not received payment of their moneys when they came to me in the beginning of September. There can be no excuse whatever for that. The work had been passed by the outdoor staff of the Department and, therefore, there should not have been this delay in making the payments. I know that the position probably was that it was not in the Minister's Department the hold-up occurred. It probably arose in the Department of Finance. What I am suggesting is that the Ministershould not stand for that type of obstruction from the Department of Finance. The position was that substantial sums of money were due to many of those farmers. That was talked about and became a subject of common gossip in the areas in which those farmers resided. The delays that occurred in the Department concerning the making of these payments became a byword. I hope that the Minister will now give us an assurance that during the remainder of this year there will not be similar delays. I suggest that it should not be necessary for a farmer who had done the work—and work passed by the outdoor staff of the Department—to have to go to a public representative with a view to getting payment of the grant to him expedited. The payments should have been made to farmers within a reasonable time.
One other effect of the sale by the Department of this machinery is that the Minister has deprived himself of the use of a lever against a contractor or group of contractors from any area who do not tender for work at a reasonable figure. It is common knowledge that these people are going to work in groups, and that they are going, so to speak, to swop information about the tenders that they may put in for work, or something of that kind. If one contractor decides that he is going to tender at a certain figure, the others are not going to undercut him. If the amount tendered is excessive, the Minister has now no lever to deal with that situation. Heretofore, he could always take the line of saying to such contractors: "The figure that you offer in this case is an excessive figure; I am not going to accept it, and I am going to put in my own machinery to do the work." Now the only remedy he has is to say that the figure is excessive, and that he is not going to do the work. The farmers, therefore, are going to be the sufferers because of the Minister's action.
I should like to refer to the position that has arisen in connection with the collection and storage of grain, particularly in the southern end of myconstituency. The Minister knows that South Kildare is a substantial grain-growing area, and always has been. It is an area in which, like many other parts of the country, the combine harvester has come to stay. I feel that more and more of them will come in there. It was lamentable to see during the difficult weather conditions the manner in which farmers were unable to get rid of their grain because of the lack of drying and storage facilities. I agree at once that any question like storage facilities is not one that could be remedied overnight. When Deputy Dillon became Minister for Agriculture he found that the storage facilities in this country were entirely inadequate and he formulated proposals by virtue of which that storage would be increased.
I do not think that the Minister will ever be able, by expansion of central storage, to solve the problem. By expansion of central storage he may be able to make the position infinitely better but it will never really be solved except by some method of storage on the farmer's own premises, or, at least, on the larger farmer's own premises. You cannot turn back the hands of the clock; you cannot reverse the wheels of progress; and the combine harvester on large farms, perhaps even by hiring on small farms, is going to be the method of the future. It is inevitably going to bring with it a much more difficult problem in the handling and storage of grain, particularly in a year that threatens to be any way wet.
I cannot understand why it is not possible to encourage drying by the farmers themselves to a degree much greater than exists at present. As I understand it, there are a very limited number of wheat buyers—I think that is the technical term; I do not mean agents—who get 11/6 for drying. Surely it would be possible to widen that sphere. It should be possible to ensure that in regard to wheat prices there would be a price inducement to the man who installed his own electric dryer to cope with his own crop. If he got the additional benefit that otherwise went to the buyer, it would at least have the effect of withholdingthat amount of grain from the buyer and from the limited facilities that are available. To try to deal with the entire problem of drying grain in any year that tends to be wet by means of central drying plant will never cope with the situation. Unless deliveries are staggered substantially by passing on some of the buyer's margin to the farmers, I do not think the Minister will ever get a the root of the problem.
We had, too, in Kildare this year considerable difficulty in regard to barley. There is a perennial problem in regard to the manner in which a certain firm or firms—I know of one firm—are quite clearly refusing barley for malting even though satisfactory and going in and buying at feeding prices malt barley for malting later. Needless to say, that did not arise with Messrs. Guinness. It is only fair, when I say this, to make it clear that I am not referring to them nor am I referring to Messrs. Power, in respect of whom I have no complaints whatever. It is felt that throughout South Kildare, which is a barley county, a great deal of barley nominally for feeding has been bought at feeding prices and is being turned in for malting. The only way of dealing with that situation ultimately is to have for all malting barley grown a contract system such as Messrs. Guinness have.
There has been some uneasiness amongst farmers about grading at the various buyers' premises both in regard to wheat and barley. It should be possible to arrange some system by virtue of which there was somebody nominated—preferably by a farmers' union if there was such a union, but if not by the Department—for the purpose of ensuring that the farmers would get a fair deal particularly in the assessment of moisture content. While it is possible to strike a measure for bushelling, I do not think any farmer is in a position to gauge the moisture content of his crop. There has certainly been very considerable dissatisfaction in parts of North Kildare as regards moisture content. An agent there who also happens to have another premises in Meath and who isagent for different buyers is not allowed by the Department to switch deliveries from one buyer to the other.
I do not know whether that is so but the story I am told is that in respect of his Meath contracts there was no deduction over a certain period for moisture content and that in respect of his Kildare deliveries there was a very substantial deduction for moisture content. I do not think it is likely that there was all that difference between the deliveries in the one place and the other; in fact if anything I would imagine that since the climate must have been more or less the same the heavier Meath land should produce a heavier moisture content than Kildare. In Meath, however, there was no deduction and in Kildare there was a very substantial deduction. I understand that the matter has been taken up and that the Minister's Department are making some rectification in regard to it. Nevertheless we would like a little clarification as to exactly what the position was, how far agents, as distinct from buyers, are at liberty to switch their deliveries from one mill to the other and whether the Department enter into that at all or whether it is entirely a private transaction between agents. It may be so and if it is I would like the Minister to confirm it.
Recently we had an event which takes place in regard to all political Parties. This time it was the Ard-Fheis of the Fianna Fáil Party which was held in the Mansion House last week. I have here the Irish Pressof the 14th October, that newspaper to which Deputy Dillon always so adequately and so directly refers asPravda.I note from it that certain statements were made, particularly by the Taoiseach, and I was rather amused when I read that the Taoiseach took great credit for the Fianna Fáil policy in regard to the proposal for the regional elimination of tubercular cattle. We all know that the first step taken in that regard was the step taken by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture with regard to Bansha.
