Wheat Levy—Motion.

Mr. Hughes

I move:—

In the absence of alternative proposals Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, as there is no surplus of home-grown wheat, there is no justification for the retention of the levy of 5/9 per barrel imposed to finance the losses on disposal of surplus home-grown wheat, and that any such levy collected in this cereal year should be refunded to the growers forthwith.

It may be no harm to remind the House of how this levy first came to be applied this year. In July last, this House passed a measure empowering the Minister for Agriculture to set up a board, known as An Bord Gráin, whose function it would be to collect the levy on all wheat. The purpose of the levy was to dispose of our surplus wheat. The fixing of the amount of the levy was to be arranged in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture. Early last August it was announced that the levy for this year would be 5/9 a barrel. Early in September, as a result of the very bad weather in the earlier part of the year and the continued bad weather right into the harvest, it was found that this year's wheat crop would be of very, very poor quality and that the yield would be very, very low.

It was found that the majority of millers were refusing to purchase the wheat that had been offered as millable wheat. A very serious situation arose early on in the harvest. As a result of that, negotiations took place between the millers, the Department of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Organisation who were speaking for the growers generally. An arrangement was worked out. The millers agreed to purchase all sound wheat and that any wheat which was not found suitable for milling would be transferred to the grain growers to be sold for animal feeding.

As a result of that arrangement, the millers were empowered to import wheat for every barrel of Irish wheat which they had on their hands. When this arrangement was made, it was discovered that it worked anything but satisfactorily because the millers rejected any wheat they liked. There was no inducement for the millers to buy the wheat and say it was millable. Practically all the wheat offered to the millers during that period was rejected as millable wheat.

Representations were made to the Minister at that time and to his Department with regard to what was happening. I am sure the Minister and the Department knew well what was happening. As a result of that the floor price was agreed at 63/6 and the wheat was to be purchased. The effect was that the millers saw to it that all wheat, no matter what the condition of it was, would make no more than 63/6. If it was found that wheat was in fair condition they found methods of getting the price back to 63/6. The levy was deducted from that, which brought the price back to 57/9. All growers knew that was the price that was being offered for wheat.

It had a very disastrous effect on the wheat position. The farmers never faced such losses or such a disastrous time on account of the very serious situation. The Minister should have come out and made the millers have a percentage of Irish wheat. If the Minister had insisted upon there being a percentage of Irish wheat in the mixture, whether it was 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., a market would have been immediately created for this wheat. The millers would find it necessary to buy Irish wheat and that they would have to have this percentage in their mixture but they were left with a free hand. If they found that the wheat they bought was not suitable for milling they could hand it over to the Grain Board and they would get in exchange imported wheat.

That is what happened as a result of that agreement. It was a very bad agreement because the millers just did what they liked. Every grower in the country is aware of that. That was a situation which need not have arisen. The result was that the amount of wheat taken over by the millers as millable is very, very low altogether. The Minister gave a figure of 20,000 tons up to the 1st November. That shows how the thing worked and how little wheat was taken by the millers as millable. They rejected practically everything that came along. It is only natural they would do that. I need scarcely go into the question of the losses sustained in the harvest this year.

This time 12 months, all the harvest was in and there were over 440,000 tons of millable wheat in the stores. This year we have 20,000 tons. Those figures make one realise the losses of the agricultural community this year. In this motion we are asking that the levy of 5/9 be refunded to the growers. We think it a very reasonable request. In the beginning the levy was introduced simply to deal with surplus wheat. We are far from having a surplus of wheat. The amount of imported wheat will be very large. Our request is that the levy should be returned.

It is suggested that the estimate in respect of the amount of all types of wheat, millable and unmillable, will be around 200,000 tons. The levy would work out at something like £500,000. To substitute Irish wheat, the millers will be importing approximately 250,000 tons of foreign wheat and there will be a saving to the country on that wheat over Irish wheat of something like £11 a ton. The Minister gave a figure here to-day. He said the price of imported wheat varied from £24 to £27 10s. per ton. Even if we take the figure of £27 a ton and take the price of £38 per ton for Irish wheat on the mill floor last year, there will be a saving of £11 a ton. On 250,000 tons, that will mean wheat the Grain Board will have to convert into animal feeding—around 150,000 tons. The loss, at £9 per ton, is estimated at around £1,350,000.

There is no problem as far as meeting this levy is concerned. It is not needed. The money is there to meet it without any hardship on anyone. Due to bad weather and low yields, the farmers have had tremendous losses. Every grower is expecting that, in the circumstances, this, and something more, will be done. The Minister has a duty to the growers. He has failed in that duty. He kept away from some of those conferences when he should have been there to see that the growers' interests were protected. As a result, the millers had a completely free hand. In such a disastrous year, there was a responsibility on the Minister to see to it that the growers were treated properly. They were not treated properly and they had very serious losses. We are asking the House to see to it that at least this 5/9 per barrel will be refunded to the growers. It is a reasonable request and I hope it gets the proper support here.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I second the motion. The motion says:—

"In the absence of alternative proposals Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that, as there is no surplus of home-grown wheat, there is no justification for the retention of the levy of 5/9 per barrel imposed to finance the losses on disposal of surplus home-grown wheat...."

The case put forward by Deputy Hughes is one put forward by a practical farmer who understands the enormous difficulties and the seriousness of the situation, as far as this year's harvest is concerned. The income of the farmer has been tremendously reduced because of the abnormal weather conditions, probably the worst weather conditions in 120 years. We do not put the responsibility for the bad weather on the Government, but we draw attention to the fact that the purpose of the levy of 5/9 per barrel was clearly indicated in this House. It was stated, and a guarantee was given, that this levy would not be collected, unless there was a substantial surplus of home-grown wheat. It is now clear beyond doubt that there is no surplus of wheat and there is a bounden duty on the Government to refund this 5/9 per barrel to the growers.

The Fine Gael Party do not put down this motion for fun or for the purpose of soliciting any additional support. They do not wish to take advantage or make propaganda of the deplorable conditions in which the farmers find themselves. The Minister and his Department should be aware that the losses the farmers have suffered this year are unknown to anyone except themselves. Those who have everyday dealings with the small farmer know quite well that he now finds himself in the position that he is unable to pay for the seeds and manures he obtains, that he is unable to pay his shop debts and that those who took conacre for crops now find themselves unable to pay for the conacre because the crops did not yield a sufficient financial return.

There is very clear evidence that for the first year many years, local authorities and county councils have had to give special concessions to rate collectors for the closing of the rates. In many areas throughout the country, rate collectors are finding it extremely difficult to get prompt payment of rates, not through any deliberate fault of the farmers themselves but because of the difficult position in which they find themselves. The fact that the Government now stick their hands down deep into the trousers pocket of every wheat grower and extract from it unjustly and unfairly 5/9 per barrel represents only a small proportion of the extraordinary embarrassment the wheat growers have undergone this year.

What have the Minister and his Department done to safeguard the small and big wheat grower alike from the highway robbery being carried on by the millers, as far as the moisture content of this year's wheat crop is concerned? Is it not true to say that this year has been a year in which the millers have taken extreme advantage, a year in which they have grown fatter and richer while those who supply the wheat have grown thinner and poorer? Is it not a fact that the farmer had no defence even though he knew he was being "done", even though he knew he was being fleeced and knew quite well that the millers had taken advantage of the bad year? The farmer knew he was not being paid for the quality of the wheat he was bringing into the mills, that he had no redress whatever, no sympathetic advice or guidance from the Minister and his Department, no question of a direction or an expression of sympathy.

An Ceann Comhairle

This seems to be an extension of the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We feel that the loss of the 5/9 per barrel, unfairly extracted from the wheat growers' pocket, is only a small part of the loss he has suffered because of the fact that the millers were allowed to hold a pistol to his head.

An Ceann Comhairle

The 5/9 is the only matter dealt with in the motion.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I quite agree that the only matter referred to is the question of the levy. There is not a single farmer here to-day who voted for Fianna Fáil in the last general election but voted in the full knowledge of the solemn pledge by Fianna Fáil that there would be a profitable and bountiful price per barrel for wheat. That is what we want to bring out in this motion, whether the Fianna Fáil Party were sincere in addressing the wheat growers at the last general election, whether they were sincere in criticising the wheat policy of the former Minister for Agriculture, whether they were sincere when they said the Fine Gael Party were out to destroy wheat growing and that the Fine Gael Party had no sympathy with the wheat growers. We want to show by this motion that we have.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to traverse the entire wheat policy of the Government or what he says is Government policy. There is a specific motion before us and I hope the Deputy will keep to it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I propose to keep to the motion and in asking the House to adopt it I want to issue a challenge, if I may, to the Fianna Fáil Deputies who represent my constituency and who have in the past expressed such great sympathy with the growers of wheat. This is a golden opportunity for them to support this motion if they are sincere in their expressions of sympathy for the wheat producer and if they are convinced that the Minister for Agriculture is not acting in accordance with his rights in standing over the fact that 5/9 per barrel is to be or has been taken unfairly and without any justfication from the pockets of wheat growers.

I, and I am sure every Deputy from a wheat-growing constituency who has his name to this motion, would like to hear from the Minister what justification he has for holding on to this levy. Will he tell us why he intends to hold on to it since there is no subsidy on home grown wheat. Now that the levy has been taken, what steps does he intend to take to see that it is refunded to the growers? I should like to know if the Minister is aware of the serious plight of the wheat growers and that the acreage of wheat is likely to be negligible next year because even though the Fianna Fáil Party put a heavy burden on wheat growers a few months ago I have a feeling that the last straw was this levy giving a free hand to millers whereby the farmers will be robbed right, left and centre as they have been this harvest.

I recommend the motion to the House in all honesty and seriousness. I recommend it because I believe there is a moral and legal obligation on the Government to refund this money that has been taken under false pretences. I hope that when this motion is accepted the Minister for Agriculture will take the necessary steps to see that the millers are ordered forthwith to refund the 5/9 per barrel which they have wrongly and unfairly extracted from the farmers.

Mr. Crotty

The Opposition would not be doing their duty if they did not put down this motion which states:—

"In the absence of alternative proposals Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, as there is no surplus of home-grown wheat, there is no justification for the retention of the levy of 5/9 per barrel imposed to finance the losses on disposal of surplus home-grown wheat, and that any such levy collected in this cereal year should be refunded to the growers forthwith."

It is a very reasonable motion and I am surprised that not one of the 75 members of the Fianna Fáil Party have offered to speak to it to-night. If they feel the Government are entitled to take this 5/9 out of the farmer's pocket we should like to hear their side of the argument. There is no necessity to go deeply into the position of the farmers. I suppose we have had the worst year in living memory, with the result that not alone had we reduced yields but practically no yield of millable wheat from this harvest. The Government estimated we would have 400,000 tons, but in reply to a question we have the information that the likely intake is only 25,000 tons of millable wheat. That shows that the wheat harvest is practically non-existent this year.

When the Bill proposing this levy was brought in we opposed it. The Government have been calling, and rightly so, for more production particularly from the agricultural community. It is agreed that the farmer is the man carrying the whole burden of the balance of payments. Without his exports we would have no money to pay for imports. The farmers have increased production in response to the Government's appeal and while they were doing so this year they got a very hard knock, not due to Government policy, or anything like that but to the weather. Several farmers asked: "Could it be otherwise?" Week after week we were discussing surpluses, whether they were surplus eggs, surplus butter or surplus wheat. The present Government have been talking surpluses since they came into power, and the present Minister instead of encouraging farmers to produce, has stated he is not in favour of guaranteed prices for any crop.

This year has proved beyond yea or nay that the farmer has to put up with many hazards from the time the wheat goes into the ground, between various diseases, pests and so on. It involves great trouble and care to bring his crop to the threshing stage. Everybody thought that, due to the extremely bad conditions this year, the Government would be sympathetic especially when they asked the people to produce a certain amount of grain. I do not think any farmer neglected his duty this year. The best farmer was in the same position as the man who was not too particular about harvesting and farmers were able to secure very little return. I met several farmers who told me during the harvest that they would be very lucky if they could pay for the seeds and manures they put into the ground.

If the Government thought there was to be a bumper crop when they brought in this wheat levy, the least they should do in present circumstances is to hand back the levy. A very prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party stated that it could be tested in court whether the Government were entitled to take this levy when there is no surplus. It was brought in solely for the purpose of disposing of the surplus wheat which it was estimated by the officials of the Department of Agriculture we would have this year. We had no surplus this year and therefore I ask why this levy is being retained.

In my county, this levy means a considerable amount of money, even to the average farmer. It means £50, £60, or £70 to a very normal farmer in my county, which is a very large wheat-producing county. I am not going back on the by-election or the general election, in which promises were made that the farmers would get not alone the same price as was given by the former Government but an increased price. The people feel that a little gesture would be the proper thing this year, that is, that the amount should be handed back. It was collected for a particular purpose. It is no longer required for that purpose and therefore it should be handed back.

As a matter of fact, not alone has the wheat crop been disastrous this year but the barley crop has been affected. I understand that in some parts there was a fairly reasonable yield in barley, but it is much reduced. We know that potatoes were practically non-existent. In my county, people growing wheat in order to fertilise the land went in for a great acreage of peas. It turned out to be a completely disastrous crop and the farmers did not get in, in most cases, to cut them at all.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Crotty

Is it not surprising that in an agricultural country like this, the Government Party cannot maintain even a quorum in the House on such an important motion? They are not interested in the farmers at all. Are they not interested in the bad harvest of this year? Every person, whether living in Dublin or elsewhere, has felt the effect of the bad harvest; yet the Government are not prepared to give even a quorum to the House to discuss this motion and hand back the money taken from the farmers by false pretences—false pretences in that this money was alloted for the purpose of disposing of surplus grain, of which there is none.

There is another question which I should like to ask now and which quite a number of people are asking. Why did we dispose of what was supposed to be surplus wheat in storage last year? Why did the Government subsidise the disposal of that grain to the extent of £250,000 or £500,000? Why did we export very good quality grain to England at £17 to £19 a ton, while asking our own farmers to pay £24 to £26 a ton? Of course, the answer will be that we had no storage. Was any effort made by the Government to find storage for that corn? I have never heard of any genuine effort throughout the country to find storage. That corn, which was very good quality corn last year, was all dyed by Fianna Fáil for export to Britain. At that time, there was plenty of storage. Even if it had to be made into flour or other things, they could easily have stored it.

The Government are very favourable to other interests, whatever about the farmers. As a matter of fact, I asked a question to-day about the importation of biscuits, the quality and value; and I got the answer. In a supplementary question, I asked whether the biscuit manufacturers were subsidised by the Government to the extent of 20/- to 30/- per sack of flour which they turned into biscuits.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that does not come under this motion?

Mr. Crotty

It does, Sir. After all, if they are prepared to subsidise the biscuit manufacturers out of the levy which they are taking from the farmers, I think it comes into this.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not come into this.

Mr. Crotty

Perhaps not, if you rule me out; but I feel that if the biscuit manufacturers are to be subsidised to the extent of £80,000 or £100,000——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may refer to any group and ask if they were subsidised, and it would have the same relevance.

Mr. Crotty

That is why I bring this up. Even last week, a question was asked about the amount spent on improvement of the marketing of farm produce. Such improved marketing would have a bearing on this question of levy and could be done out of the £250,000 which the Government earmarked when they first came in and out of which they have spent so far only a very small sum on the marketing of agricultural produce.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but clearly the whole question of Government policy on the marketing of agricultural produce does not fall for discussion on this motion. It is a very specific motion.

Mr. Crotty

I am pointing out what the Government have done for other people.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would take over four hours.

Mr. Crotty

I appreciate that, I feel that the Government were very offhand with other people and the least they could do now is hand back the money taken from the farmers. When the farmers sent in their miserable bit of wheat, after this terrible harvest, this money was abstracted from their accounts and shown on the bill. The Government had not the courage, in the first instance, to declare a price for wheat originally, so that the people might know where they stood. Then they came along in July or August and announced that a levy of 5/9 would be made on the price given the previous year.

I would ask the supporters of the Government, especially from the wheat-growing areas, to support the farmers now, to support us in our endeavour to give back to the farmers that which has been taken off them by the Government. The farmers got a raw deal everywhere, in every crop—and not alone in crops but in milk and in cattle prices. Everything they had to deal with was affected; yet the Government just sit there and do nothing. I heard from a member of a deputation that attended on the Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach, that the Taoiseach seemed to be very sympathetic but that the Minister was in no way sympathetic. I feel that the reverse should have been the case. The Minister should be the man to fight hard for the farmers, so that they might get a reasonable living from the land—the Minister, and not the Taoiseach—but I heard that the reverse was the case and I was very surprised.

I would ask the Government and the Taoiseach at least to restore this 5/9. We understood a fortnight ago that the Government were not alone giving back the 5/9 but they were paying 7/6 per barrel; and we were very disappointed that that was not the fact. In all fairness, the Government should do this. I do not say "compensate," as they could not compensate properly for the bad harvest this year; but they should give at least some little encouragement to the agricultural community by handling back the 5/9.

Coming from County Kilkenny, I know what was said in the by-election and in the general election about the price of wheat and I know what was said at every crossroads about these things. I am not dealing with them now. I know that no farmer in County Kilkenny ever thought that not only would there be no increase in price but the 5/9 would be taken from every barrel produced. Wheat was scarce this year; yet the Government were not prepared to soften the least bit; but we hope that, at the end of these four hours, we may have done an amount of good and that the Government will then hand back this money taken from the farmers.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There is nobody opposite interested in this.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I should like to support this motion. It is worthy of note that within this present harvest year, this is the second debate we have had on wheat. In both debates, we have been dealing with the deliberate actions of the Government. The first debate we had was brought about by the fact that they had not fixed the price of wheat. Now we find ourselves debating the point that the Government are taking off every barrel of wheat the farmers deliver or sell, the sum of 5/9.

It is no harm to trace to the House the simple origin of this levy. A Bill was introduced here solely for the purpose, as we were told at the time, of marrying the surplus wheat, which had to be sold at a loss, to the anticipated return of wheat from this harvest.

It should have been obvious to the Government, and to the Minister for Agriculture and his advisers, that the position this year would definitely be different from that of other years. Had the weather changed even within the harvest period it was likely that the yield of wheat would not be as big as anticipated. We on this side of the House understood the position to be— if we could understand anything from the information we got from the Government, who were in a position to approach their advisers and have intimate contact with all concerned in the industry—that the Government were budgeting for 400,000 tons of wheat, and anything over and above the estimated yield of last year's harvest, 370,000 tons, would mean a surplus of wheat of which they would have to dispose at a loss.

It should have been obvious to the Minister and his advisers in or about the month of July, that there would not be much of a surplus of wheat. In spite of that they carried on with the sales, selling this wheat on a foreign market at £18 a ton. It may interest the House to know that the merchants handling the wheat in Wexford were not allowed ship it from Wexford. They were told it had to go to Dublin because it would be exported in big ships and these ships could not get into Wexford Harbour. That meant that another 30/- a ton transport charges was put on to the loss. It was not exported in big ships but in small ships which could have gone into Wexford Harbour and saved that 30/-.

That was the mess created around the whole question of this 5/9 and An Bord Gráin, a body set up by the Government. I am sure the Minister has heard the old proverb: "It is the straw that broke the camel's back." This is the straw that is breaking the farmers' backs. The Minister, if he knows anything, knows about the tillage counties, or if he has forgotten them, he will find them on the record. They are the counties in which Fianna Fáil won the seats. If he has any interest in them and in the people who live in them he knows, or he should know, the condition they are in.

I fail to understand how one could open a paper during the harvest season when people were standing up to their ankles in mud and slush trying to save their crops and find that somebody in the Department of Agriculture had said that "things were not too bad after all and would turn out all right." Yes, they turned out all right for those running this body but the farmers are paying and paying through the nose for the muddle created by the Government. That is the sort of policy put before the country this year.

Let us be fair. Perhaps it was the most difficult harvest in 100 years, but has there been any realistic attempt made to meet the situation? Some years ago there was a difficult harvest and the people worked day and night; there was co-operation between everyone; there was no levy and no cutting down on the price. That harvest was cleared and the millers were forced to take the grain and mix it with a percentage of imported grain and they produced the bread because they were forced to do so. This year we have the ridiculous situation obtaining in which the farmers are getting 63/6 less the levy, less the price for sacks.

The man who takes the wheat finds it is unmillable. He has the final decision; he rules the destiny of An Bord Gráin and, I believe the Department of Agriculture and the Fianna Fáil Party and the town members belonging to it, while the unfortunate country members have to sit in silence. The miller gets a bag of wheat and says that it is unmillable and ipso facto he is allowed to import a barrel of wheat. He imports it; why not as he is going to get it cheaper? Who is paying for the cheaper wheat which the miller is getting? It is well for Fianna Fáil to brood on these facts and to remember them. When Fianna Fáil Deputies are going through their constituencies and are told that by the people who put them here they should think on these things. It is the truth. The millers can buy all the foreign wheat they want. This Government says to them: “You take the wheat and pass it to An Bord Gráin and we will give you the money. In return you have permission to import all the foreign wheat you want.” Is that the policy of this Government? Is it right and is it just? Is it honourable or, in fact, is it legal—I doubt it —for the Government to take 5/9 off the farmer?

According to a reply to a parliamentary question which I asked last week we shall import 375,000 tons of wheat and we have estimated for approximately 25,000 tons of millable wheat. When the Minister gets up to reply, and I hope he will reply, perhaps he will tell us who decided that there were only 25,000 tons of millable wheat in Ireland.

Mr. Hughes

The millers, of course.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

If the reply is the millers, then every Deputy, whether a dyed-in-the-wool Fianna Fáil Deputy or not, knows that is the truth. A further question I would ask the Minister is, if it is the millers, was there any check on the millers? The answer I think is no. There again, is that not crystal-clear proof of the setup at the moment, whatever tripartite agreement there is? I have a letter here from the Department of Agriculture, signed by a responsible official, which says that there is a tripartite agreement between the farmers, the millers and An Bord Gráin that they get 63/6 a barrel, less 5/9. Furthermore, I was told when I complained that the prices were less this year than last year, or any of the preceding years, that the prices were the same as when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture.

I wonder if some Fianna Fáil Deputies would like to speak. Mind you, I do not blame them for being silent. As I said in a previous debate they have my deepest sympathy. They went around the country and espoused a policy which suggested that all was to be lovely in the tillage areas and that there would be 82/6 a barrel for wheat. What answer have they got now? There is nothing for them to say. The simple, sad fact is that it is one of the most complete sell-outs there ever has been, that the Department of Agriculture, the Minister and his official advisers control the whole wheat arena. There is no justification in the world for this.

When the Minister rises, will he tell us what is going to happen to the 5/9? What is the 5/9 for now? Is it to balance the sales of wheat? If it is to balance the sales of wheat, An Bord Gráin, which was voted into existence by this House, must have a responsibility to the Irish public. The Irish public are the wheat growers, the wheat-growing farmers of Ireland. What test has there been that this wheat which they will sell at a loss is unmillable except simply that it is sent back to them by the miller? I should like to know these things from the Minister. If the Minister can get up and justify that, there is some justification for retaining this sum of 5/9.

We put down this motion and we had the sympathy of every wheat grower in Ireland; we probably have the sympathy of the Minister's colleagues because they must feel just as unhappy about the situation as those who grew the wheat. It is a sad thing to say that this year we have had two debates on wheat, one occasioned by the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party had not the courage to fix a price for wheat. It had not the courage, when faced with the situation, to reduce the price, if necessary. This Party, when in conjoint government with other Parties as an inter-Party group, kept the price of wheat 15/- above the world price. The Fianna Fáil Party had not the courage to do that; they produced this farcical Gilbertian situation in which nobody knows what is hap-on. Now nobody knows what is happening, except one thing, that the Irish farmer is being dictated to by the millers who are in complete and absolute control of the destinies of the farmers who grow wheat. Is it the function of the Minister for Agriculture in an agricultural country to allow that unhappy state of affairs to arise?

One last point I want to stress is the utter confusion that exists in transactions between merchants and farmers—in fact, I might almost say the breaking of relationships between farmers and merchants which have endured possibly for generations in my county. I am sure Deputies Hughes and Crotty will think no worse of me if I claim that we are the premier wheat-growing county in Ireland. At the moment, if independent grain merchants buy wheat from the farmers and give a fair price, the price according to this document which is supposed to represent the same prices as obtained when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, and if that price is about 63/6 these independent grain dealers find they are tied hand and foot. In other words, if they have not sacrificed themselves entirely to the millers, when they try to sell to the millers, they will be told: "You have given too much for that; all we can give is 63/6." If they try to deal directly with An Bord Gráin, they can get no information as to whether they can sell the wheat to them or not. The result is they have the wheat on hands and cannot sell it. The Government have not yet taken a decision.

I asked that question last week and the Minister for Finance, in the absence of the Minister for Agriculture, told me that no definite decision has been taken. The position is that an independent dealer who has been dealing with farmers for a long time and possibly whose father dealt with the same farmers, both parties finding the relationship satisfactory, with the farmers buying the manure from the merchants and the merchants taking their grain as a quid pro quo and giving fair prices—such a dealer is no longer in a position to give satisfactory prices because behind him stands the avenging angel—the miller—sanctioned by the Minister for Agriculture, I suppose, and the Department, and no doubt applauded by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The millers are the final arbiters of any prices given for wheat——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that three times.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I have said it in a different way and the oftener the Government hear it, the better. If the Fianna Fáil Party want to do the honest thing, the least they can do is give back the 5/9 they have unjustly taken from the wheat growers of Ireland.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Since this discussion began, it is rather extraordinary that four Deputies on this side of the House have had to rise one after the other to speak to the motion. In view of the flood of representations that came unanimously from very many county committees of agriculture throughout the country, we had expected that this motion would provide the Minister for Agriculture with an opportunity to come in early in the debate and say: "Very good. That is a reasonable thing. It is completely in line with representations I am getting that this levy should be refunded."

We had another fear that this matter would be held to be sub judice and that we would not be permitted to discuss it in view of the fact that a Fianna Fáil Deputy is engaged in court proceedings against the Minister for Agriculture in order to ensure that this levy will be returned. No matter what happens here tonight, presumably those proceedings will continue, but apart from that, we are dealing to-night with the imposition of this levy of 5/9 which was imposed under circumstances which warrant recounting. We opposed this levy and put down a motion because we vigorously objected to it from the first day. We were opposed to it in principle. We knew it was intended in the first place merely to cover up the fact that the Government wished to reduce the price of wheat, but wanted to create a situation so complex that it would be very difficult for the growers to know just how much they would be cut for their wheat.

We then had the flash announcement in the papers that the price paid in 1958 would be the same as for the 1957 crop and then there would be deducted this levy of an unknown amount. When the motion was discussed in the House, the amount of the levy was not known, but if we go back on the Dáil Reports we find that in practically every single line the Minister brought in the case for the levy. His was the major contribution on the Government side and indeed there was very little interest shown by Deputies representing grain-growing areas on that side of the House, just as is the case to-night. The Minister then said the levy was needed to save the Exchequer from the impact of meeting the cost of subsidising surplus wheat. There was no case made by the Minister or by anybody that there was any ground whatever for the imposition of the levy, except to meet the contingency of an exportable surplus.

We made it clear then, as we do now, that whether or not there was an exportable surplus of whatever magnitude, if we had been in office, we would not have resorted to this system of applying a levy and creating An Bord Gráin setting up administrative machinery which in itself would involve quite heavy expense. We claimed then, and we are now proved right in the event, that the board was a cover-up for the Government. They wanted to reduce the price of wheat. They wanted to save the Exchequer. The way in which they did it was by setting up An Bord Gráin and creating an atmosphere of confusion, telling the farmers they would get the same price as in the previous year but they might impose a levy in order to meet the cost of an exportable surplus. We also had the position that, if the levy was not sufficient, An Bord Gráin was given authority by Act of the Oireachtas to borrow to meet the cost this year. Next year, the levy would be adjudged to make up for the deficit incurred. We wrote that into the Statute Book.

Now there is no exportable surplus. There is a deficiency and, notwithstanding having written in that provision to guard ourselves against the possibility of the levy not meeting the cost of an exportable surplus, we have the extraordinary situation wherein the Government persist in extracting the levy. The wheat grower is given a price for his wheat. Then there is a little subtraction done and 5/9 per barrel is held back. For what purpose? There is no argument any more.

We are not putting the Minister for Agriculture in any difficulty with the Minister for Finance. He does not have to go to the Minister for Finance for one penny piece as a consequence of refunding this levy. On an analysis of the figures he gave here today at Question Time he will have a saving of over £2,000,000 on the cheaper, drier, imported wheat. Yet he persists in maintaining the levy. We said, when this levy was introduced, that the principle in it was bad. We are of the same opinion still; it is a bad principle to fine a producer for producing too much.

This is a strong Government. It cannot be said that it is being twisted this way or that, as would be said if there was an inter-Party Government over there. Surely this strong Government can make a decision. It made no decision. It hid behind the facade of An Bord Gráin. This strong Government insists on maintaining that expensive set-up. For what purpose? Is it in order to pass on to them responsibilities which would in the normal course, if they were not there, rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister? Are they to be the unfortunates to whom the millers will direct wheat that the millers consider unmillable? Let them hawk it around and dispose of it. The good imported wheat will come directly to the big mills and all the time the expenses will be mounting up. All the time the growers will be called upon to fork out 5/9 per barrel.

What encouragement is there to the farmer in this levy, the farmer who even in this year in the worst weather conditions for over 100 years grew and harvested wheat? In the past we have heard Fianna Fáil back benchers railing against the man who exploited the wheat price, who took conacre to grow wheat having never laid an eye on the land. It was said he was the man who brought all this trouble down upon us. They wept for the unfortunate small farmer who harvested and husbanded his own crop, protected it from the elements and from vermin, and brought it in good condition to the mill. To-day, we have that unfortunate small farmer called upon to contribute 5/9 per barrel on the wheat he harvested and saved under appalling weather conditions to create a fund to which all and sundry might have recourse notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has an unexpected fund by way of the saving made on imported wheat from which to draw.

Are we being unreasonable? We are not asking the Minister to give back anything special remembering the fractional return from his outlay under the appalling circumstances of this year. But even if we did, we would still not be unreasonable. In the past we have had experience of the State, local authorities and the people themselves coming to the rescue to alleviate the plight of others less fortunate. We had experience of that in the Shannon flooding.

Here, we have a situation in which our grain growers were very adversely affected. There are sections of our community—the rules of the House do not allow me to refer to them specifically—and when a crosswind blows upon them there is an immediate import levy. Steps are taken by way of Order here within a matter of minutes to protect them from the impact of this crosswind.

The people affected in this matter are those who actually elected the Fianna Fáil Party to Government. They are responsible for that Party being in Office. The people they elected are sitting over there. There are eight or nine Deputies who were elected to this House solely on the issue of 80/- to 82/6 per barrel for wheat, provided a Fianna Fáil Government were returned to Office. We had the spectacle of a Fianna Fáil Deputy, a shadow Minister, coming in here admitting that he had said during the Kilkenny by-election that Fianna Fáil would give 80/- per barrel; it was good policy on the platform: "Of course, we promised that. We are in office now and we do not have to give 80/-. We will put them in the situation where they will have to get out a pencil and paper and make calculations as to what they will get." The wheat growers did not know the last time wheat was discussed in this House what they would get. But they know now. The postman will call and present them with their little billetdoux in black and white. The small farmer, who never had a combine, will pay £30 or £40 by way of levy this year, and the people who supplied them with the seed are howling for their money.

In that situation how can those Deputies, who have as good, or perhaps a better, claim to represent these people than we have, sit mutely over there and allow one after another of those of us on this side of the House to get up and speak, without intervening and saying whether we are right or wrong? They have lost interest in the people to whom they should be so grateful. They represent these people who have been hit so hard by the imposition of this levy.

From the beginning we opposed this levy. Now, we are asking for only a fractional return of the millions coming in a result of our own bad harvest. The Government have these millions to play around with and the least the Minister should do—it should have been done weeks ago—is to allay the doubts, the fears and the unrest in the minds of the wheat producers. He mentioned that the price next year will be the same as the price this year. Let us hope it will not be the same as the price the farmers got this year.

Will the Minister persist in collecting this 5/9 per barrel although he never at any time suggested that there was any argument to be advanced in favour of the levy other than that it was needed to meet a situation in which there would be an estimated large surplus? The Minister produced facts and figures showing the difficulties he had to meet as a result of a large carryover of wheat, as if his predecessor had not to meet them.

Unfortunately, there is not a surplus of wheat. Yet, the Government persist, despite the fact that ordinary reason would indicate that removal of the levy is something that should be done without a day's delay. It is something that the section of the community affected deserve because of the losses they have had to meet. If any other section of the community suffered the reduction in income that unfortunate people are suffering in various aspects of agriculture, there would be riots in the country. The farmers are a reasonable body of men. At least, they are reasonable when Fianna Fáil are in office. From many quarters and from many people of different political opinions there is a united call to the Minister. That call came long before this motion was tabled. The farmers claim that there is no case for the imposition of this levy in the circumstances of this year and ask for a refund.

In the circumstances, we felt it desirable to pinpoint in the Dáil, the premier authority in the country, the case that is being made in so many agricultural circles. We are doing so without embarrassing the Government financially. We say to them that as time goes on and as growers realise how they were let down, despite the very good services that so many of them render in the election of this Government, and that the Government persist in exacting this levy, how will they react to future appeals for increased production? Will not they laugh in the face of any public man, any representative of the Department, who will say to them that it is in the interests of the country, as well as in their own interests, to produce more?

Production was secured to the point reached last year in wheat, bacon, milk and very many commodities only because the farmers knew in advance the prices they would get for their products. That was the incentive that secured the level of exports we enjoy. In face of that contribution from the basic producers, this Government pig-headedly persist in exacting a levy which was originally imposed to meet a situation which is very far from the existing situation. It cannot be suggested that there is now existing anything approaching the situation visualised by the Minister.

We opposed the levy then and we oppose under any circumstances the whole principle of the levy but, in the existing circumstances, is there any man on the opposite benches who would dare condone the action of this Government in persisting in exacting the levy at a time when they are getting a windfall of over £2,000,000 by reason of the fact that they can secure cheaper and drier wheat abroad?

In these circumstances, we have tabled the motion and appeal the House to pass it so as to bring home to the Minister, more forcibly than committees of agriculture have been able, that the minimum requirement of the people who are affected is a refund of this levy and that, in fact, they expected much more and were told not a fortnight ago by people who are sitting behind the Minister that not only would they get a refund of the levy but, in addition, 7/6 a barrel. They have been let down so many times that if the Minister persists in this matter he will be doing damage which it will be very difficult for anybody succeeding him to rectify.

Mr. Coburn

One of the reasons I participate in this debate is that I represent a tillage county, County Louth, which engages in mixed farming and, therefore, the question of wheat is of vital interest to the farmers there. I put my name to the motion because I recognise the plight of the Irish farmers and particularly of the Louth farmers at present. Every effort should be made to alleviate their lot and to make it a little easier for them in the present season.

In a normal year wheat production is about 450,000 tons, the value of which is about £13,000,000. Only about half of that yield is expected this year. There has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the yield. That means that we have produced 250,000 tons, to the value of about £6,500,000. That means a loss of £6,500,000 to the farmers this season. It is a very formidable figure. It behoves all of us to do what we can to redeem the situation. This year the acreage is up on last year's acreage by 12,000 acres. To offset that, the yield is down.

Previous speakers have referred to the legal position in regard to the imposition of the wheat levy. As already said, it is very interesting to recall the original functions of An Bord Gráin as it was when set up some months ago. Its function then was to impose a levy on the whole surplus yield of wheat, if there was an exportable surplus, but everybody must now admit that at present we find no exportable surplus. We have been told that there have been only about 25,000 tons of millable wheat accepted by the millers this year for conversion into flour. Therefore, it would seem that the Minister has gone beyond his powers in directing An Bord Gráin to deduct this levy.

Mention has been made of the recent action of the wheat growers in East Cork. It would appear that they are endeavouring, as best they can, to prove their case that the levy cannot be legally imposed. That question, of course, is sub judice and we cannot enlarge on that point. I believe that it was Deputy Corry who asked the Minister last week under what Act, and by what authority, did he get his powers to impose this levy. The Minister replied that he got his powers under Wheat Order No. so and so, which set up An Bord Gráin, to deduct the 5/9 per barrel on exportable surplus wheat. The Minister enlarged on his answer by saying he was confident he was in the right, that he had very good legal advice and was prepared to abide by that advice. I should have imagined that if the Minister needed powers to deduct the levy, in present circumstances, he would have to come to this House to get such authority. He had to come here originally to secure endorsement of the Bill setting up An Bord Gráin. I feel that the Minister must abide by the terms of that Act, and that board should not have power to deduct this levy, when, in fact, there is no exportable surplus.

It is very significant to observe the attitude adopted by the National Farmers' Association in this matter. When An Bord Gráin was set up, they had perforce to agree with the Minister's action in that regard. They said, in effect, that it was more or less the best of a bad bargain. They criticised the method of election of the board members, but they were prepared to carry on as best they could. However, they made it clear that they were by no means in favour of the levy being deducted this season. Their attitude has been made evident in a resolution which was passed some time ago at a meeting of the national council of that very important body. At that meeting, they condemned the action of the Government in the misapplication of the wheat levy which, in accordance with the wheat Order, should have been deducted solely for the purpose of disposing of millable wheat in excess of 300,000 tons. Again, they said all the farmers who have had wheat accepted as millable are adamant that the levy should not have been deducted when the quantity of millable wheat fell short of 300,000 tons.

Those views show conclusively that there is much discontent amongst the farming community, and this motion has been put down in an effort to persuade the Minister—if he can be persuaded—to do the right thing in this matter. I have not read or heard of any reaction on the part of the Taoiseach, the Minister, or the Government as a whole, to the attitude of the National Farmers' Association with regard to this wheat levy. It was stated by a previous speaker that a deputation from the National Farmers' Association met both the Taoiseach and the Minister and discussed this question. Beyond the Taoiseach assuring the deputation that he would give their views his most sympathetic consideration, we have heard nothing, and we await with interest some definite announcement.

There are many aspects of this matter which we could discuss all night. We could refer to the hardships suffered by the farmers as a result of the very bad weather which they experienced this year, but we would be going outside the ambit of this motion, if we were to mention such points. Therefore, I shall do my best to restrict myself to the terms of the motion. The motion, in its first phrase, reads: "In the absence of alternative proposals," and I am sure the Fine Gael Party would be agreeable if it saw any hope emanating from the Minister in the form of alternative proposals. They do not see any such hope from that source and they ask, therefore, that the levy be removed and not deducted this year.

As I have said already, the farmers in my constituency have suffered grievously this season, not only with regard to the deduction of the levy, but also in regard to the very small prices which they received for wheat before the floor price of 57/9 was announced on 7th September. Those farmers in Louth who harvested their wheat early in September had to sell it at prices, in some cases, bordering on 40/- a barrel and they have not been recompensed to the same degree as other farmers have. It is a fact that in the Ardee area, in particular, 12,000 barrels of wheat were sold at prices from 38/- to 48/- per barrel and I should like to know from the Minister if there is any likelihood, or possibility, of these unfortunate farmers being recompensed in some way.

This question was discussed at the recent meeting of Louth Committee of Agriculture, and it was stated that no records were kept by the respective buyers of this wheat. It is very hard to accept that explanation, or that excuse. It would be a poor businessman, or poor seller, who did not keep some kind of record of prices. Some time ago—I believe it was during the recent debate on the motion of no confidence —the Minister said that his scheme in relation to the floor price of 57/9 would be made retrospective for the stocks of wheat which were held in the mills. I would ask him to go a little further and try to do all he can to help the people to whom I have referred. The local N.F.A. are trying to do all they can to help these cases, and it would be helpful if the Minister could hold out some hope for them.

We have only to read the daily Press to realise the furore which is being created throughout the country at the present time. There is a reaction throughout each county, throughout the various committees of agriculture, throughout the local branches of the N.F.A. and other agricultural bodies, a reaction which augurs very badly for the agricultural industry during the coming season. Various epithets and descriptions have been applied to the position. It has been stated that the tillage farmers of Ireland are being thrown to the wolves, that the millers are dictating policy and that wheat is fetching a lower price than blackberries.

All these expressions of opinion are proof of an evident fact that there is much discontent throughout the country as a whole. It is the duty of the Minister to do what he can to ease the position. One alternative proposal which I think would meet with universal approval would be for the Minister to announce some scheme of loans in respect of the coming season whereby farmers would be in a position to pay their merchants the bills they incurred in respect of fertilisers, and so on.

Now that the price of wheat has been announced for the coming season—it seems it is to be the same arrangement as obtained during the present season—I would ask the Minister to make an announcement with regard to the type of wheat the millers will accept. I have in mind now one kind of wheat. This present season, most of the winter wheat was rejected by the mills. I do not know, if it was because of the variety of the wheat— it was mostly Capalle—that such action was taken by the mills. In my own county, practically all the winter wheat of the Capalle variety was rejected by the mills. Louth farmers are now very anxious to know whether that set of circumstances will recur next year. They have their land ready for sowing. The land has been ploughed on many farms. They want to know the best sort of wheat to sow this year so that they will not be caught napping next year when they come to sell their wheat to the mills.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion deals with the levy of 5/9.

Mr. Coburn

I appreciate that. I did not think the Chair would allow me to go as far as I have gone. I should like again to emphasise that we here are of the opinion that the Minister has no legal right to deduct this levy. An Bord Gráin was set up specifically to deduct a levy if there was an exportable surplus of millable wheat.

Last week, the Minister referred to the effect of the climatic conditions which were so terrible this past season. We do not blame the Minister for that. It was an act of God. We cannot control that. However, the Minister can control the matter of the levy. In this year, above all years, the Minister should be munificent. He should extend a generous gesture of goodwill and genuine help to the farmers.

Deputy Corry's name seems to be cropping up in this House, but we must refer to him because it was he who asked the question as to why the levy was deducted. I forget the Minister's reply, but he did not give the reason why the levy was being deducted at the present time. Now that we are about to have a wonderful plan from the Government involving the spending of over £200,000,000, surely the Government cannot give as an excuse for not deducting this levy that they would have no money. They are talking not in millions but in hundreds of millions, and surely the farmers could get a little piece of that huge sum.

We must remember that this year there will be a grave shortage of fodder. There will be a grave shortage of hay as a result of the bad weather. In turn, that will mean that many farmers will have to sell their cattle. They cannot hold them if they cannot feed them. They will have to sell their cattle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is enlarging the scope of the debate on the motion which deals specifically with the levy on wheat. The whole question of agriculture may not be discussed on this motion. The Deputy should keep to the motion, as well as he can.

Mr. Coburn

I suggest that the imposition of the levy has had an adverse effect on farmers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would widen the scope of the discussion on the motion very much if the Deputy were allowed to proceed along those lines.

Mr. Coburn

Very good. I would ask the Minister favourably to consider this motion and to follow the example of merchants and local authorities throughout the country. These merchants and the local authorities realise the plight of the farmer. They are prepared to be lenient with them with regard to bills and the collection of rates. I add my voice to the many heard here to-night and I ask the Minister to accept this motion.

Mr. Fagan

I support the motion. First of all, I want to draw attention to the awful weather we had this year and which had a certain effect on wheat. It was said in the beginning that, in respect of the first 300,000 tons of wheat put into the mills, the farmers would get back 5/9. Every farmer was considerably surprised at this thing.

There has been much talk about ranching wheat, and so on. Early on in this campaign, it was stated in the papers that the millers would pay so much and that the farmers would do their best to have the wheat in good condition, would try to cut it with binders where it was not suitable for the combine, and so on. Large numbers of farmers suffered terrible hardship. People in the cities do not realise how the farmers suffer. Just think of a binder and an ordinary tractor going through the land. Then you would need two or three tractors to pull it around. The hardship was cruel and the wheat was not fully developed.

Farmers who went to all that trouble to get their wheat into stacks and to have it threshed in a good condition were cut not only 5/9 but were cut up to 7/- a barrel for screenings. I have three cases of wheat that went through that state. The moisture content was 20.4. Can anybody say that that is bad wheat? The screening was 10 per cent. It was bushelled at 57. That farmer should get 71/6 and, with 5/9 taken off, 65/9. However, the miller came and cut 3/- off it for screenings. What is meant by "screenings"? It is small wheat which is sound. The stuff they are selling back to farmers at £24 a ton is good sound wheat and therefore they are robbing the farmer of that 3/-. It is clear daylight robbery where that sound wheat is concerned to cut the farmer by 3/- a barrel for small wheat which can be used for animal feeding and which is sold back to the farmer for £24 a ton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not clear how that reduction is relevant to the motion which deals with the levy of 5/9 on wheat.

Mr. Fagan

And the price of wheat.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The price of wheat is not mentioned in the motion.

Mr. Fagan

I have had a lot of cases brought to my notice of 22 per cent. moisture and so much was deducted for screenings. That means that 7/- a barrel was cut in respect of small wheat and that deduction of 7/- a barrel was daylight robbery from the farmers. Small wheat is small wheat. It happened because of the weather. Small sound wheat is perfectly good for feeding to animals. It used to be sought for feeding fowl. The mills are committing daylight robbery. My point is that a small farmer with 67 barrels of wheat is cut 7/- a barrel for wheat of 22 per cent. moisture. The 5/9 is bad enough. The Government are in justice bound to give that 5/9 back to the farmers. The farmers were quite willing and happy to stay with the 5/9 because they would have a bigger and better yield and have a better return. The farmers were cut for screenings. That is sheer daylight robbery. The whole thing is a racket.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the motion. There is no question of wheat. The motion is——

Mr. Fagan

It is daylight robbery to cut the farmer for screenings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that three times already.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is notable that in this debate which has been in progress for some considerable time already and in which a number of Deputies have participated sitting silent in this House is, first of all, the Minister for Agriculture who is quite obviously afraid to speak in this debate. Behind him are the silent cherubs of his own Party who were very vocal about wheat during the last election but who are sitting here mute of malice.

It is noteworthy that in this House now, behind the silent Minister for Agriculture, there does not appear to be even in the Fianna Fáil ranks sufficient interest amongst Deputies representing wheat constituencies to induce them to come into the House. Where are the Deputies from Carlow-Kilkenny? Where are the Deputies from Laois-Offaly? Where are the Deputies from East Cork? Half of them only are here. Deputy Moher is the only brave man in Fianna Fáil, but, unfortunately, he is not vocal.

We in the Fine Gael Party put down this motion as a reasonable proposal, expecting that it would be met by the Minister in a reasonable manner and that it could be discussed on its merits. As Deputies have pointed out, this Party opposed the Minister's proposal to impose a levy on wheat. We were interested to note that when the Minister announced the intention to impose a levy on wheat, he himself said that he did not quite agree with it.

In any event, we opposed it. We opposed it, first of all, because we regarded it as a tax upon production and as an agricultural country concerned to build up our resources and to increase our production, we felt that any step taken by a Government which would clamp down on production was wrong, unwise and not in the national interest. In any event, our opposition to this levy, when it was announced first, was because it represented a tax on production. The Minister rather shyly and shamefacedly met our opposition by saying: "Look; the position is this: The necessary tonnage of wheat in this country is 300,000 tons." Leaving aside any argument as to whether we could or should produce all our own requirements of wheat, he took as the target figure 300,000 tons. Deputies will remember that the figure of 300,000 tons represented the Fianna Fáil target when last there was a Fianna Fáil Government in office.

The Minister said, before the harvest that the position might arise that from the land of Ireland we might produce more than 300,000 tons of native wheat. He said that if we did, there would be a domestic surplus problem to deal with. "Accordingly," he said, "the object of this levy is to deal with that kind of situation." I want no Deputy, no Fianna Fáil Deputy particularly, because it is extraordinary how easily Fianna Fáil Deputies get the wrong end of the stick, to be under any misapprehension before they vote on this motion to-night as to what it involves.

Last July, the silent Minister for Agriculture had a tongue and he used it in this House. Speaking on 15th July, as reported in the Official Debates of that date, the Minister explained the reason for this levy. He said, speaking on the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Bill which apparently gives him the authority to impose the levy:—

"According to the scheme in this Bill, the producers will be called upon to pay a levy to meet the cost of the disposal of any wheat produced in excess of 300,000 tons of dried wheat."

There, in the Minister's own words, is the reason he gave, on behalf of the Government of which he is a member, for asking the Dáil to empower him to impose a levy on wheat. The reason he gave deals with an excess on 300,000 tons of dried wheat. There can be no two ways about it. This levy was imposed to deal with a situation involving a surplus. What is the present situation? It appears now, on the information available to the Dáil and to the country, that this year the total production of wheat will be something around 200,000 tons. Of that, the millable intake of wheat is scarcely 20,000 tons.

I want Deputies to realise what is involved. This year, respecting all wheat, there are only 200,000 tons produced—100,000 less than our target figure—and out of that total production to date, in the middle of November, scarcely 20,000 tons of millable wheat have been taken into the mills. That means that, as far as the wheat farmers are concerned, this years adds up to a national catastrophe. This year has seen almost a total loss of the wheat crop. It is in those circumstances that we in the Fine Gael Party, who had to meet onslaughts from the Government Party in the last two years on wheat, come into this House fairly and reasonably and say to the Minister for Agriculture— and we will get him to speak yet—that three months ago he said he would impose the levy in order to deal with the surplus. There is no surplus; there is no wheat; there is a loss on the part of every tillage farmer in the country; and, therefore, we say to him that he should not seek to tax those who have lost so much. That is not unreasonable. It is meeting the Minister's own proposal produced here last July on his own terms: a levy to deal with a surplus. No surplus; therefore, no levy.

It might be that, if the Minister finds his tongue and his courage and gets up on his feet, some kind of case could be made that the national Exchequer could not afford to give back to the battered farmers this year the amount of the levy. I do not believe that case can be made. The levy on 200,000 tons of wheat amounts to roughly £500,000. This year, in order to meet our national flour requirements, millers will import 250,000 tons of foreign wheat under the authority, and with the approval, of the Minister. They will import that at £27 a ton. As a result, the Exchequer will be saved the difference between the imported price and the Irish price of £38. In other words, this year, the Minister's colleague in the Government will make £11 per ton on every ton of imported wheat. Could there ever be a more amazing situation? The State makes money this year out of the catastrophe that has befallen the tillage farmers of the land. Because there has been a total loss of the wheat crop, the Minister for Agriculture imports wheat to the extent of 250,000 tons, and on every ton he imports the State makes £11.

There is a loss on the part of An Bord Gráin in disposing of unmillable wheat this year, amounting to 150,000 tons, of about £9 per ton. As I make out the figures, even assuming that the levy is given back to the farmers and taking into consideration the loss in the disposal of unmillable wheat, there will be a net gain to the Government this year of £900,000. Retaining the levy, this year the Government makes out of the bad harvest £1,500,000. There it is. Those are the figures; those are the facts. I hope they will be clearly understood by all the Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party who 18 months ago wept crocodile tears for the wheat farmers of this land. This year, because there was a bad harvest, for which the Minister for Agriculture was not responsible, the Minister and his colleagues, representing the State, make £1,500,000.

All we say to them is to have regard to the wet and flooded lands of the tillage farmers, the unfortunate men who this year find that what they produce from their storm-battered fields scarcely pays the costs of the seed and the labour of the spring. All we say to the Government is: share the profit you have made this year. Do not retain the £1,500,000; give back 500,000 as some sort of solatium to those who lost so much this year. I think that is a reasonable proposal. It is put forward in a reasonable manner. If this were a House in which Deputies on the Government side were permitted to act, vote and speak according to their consciences, I am quite certain that one of the first people to support this motion would be Deputy Moher of East Cork, and I am quite certain that the absent Deputy Corry would ably assist Deputy Moher and would make sure that Deputy Moher did not get too much publicity in the local papers in East Cork.

I want Deputies to imagine what kind of debate would be taking place here if the Government had not changed 18 months ago, if sitting over there in the place of the silent Minister was Deputy Dillon and if over here behind me were the cohorts of Corrys Mohers, Medlars and all the rest of them. What would be said by Fianna Fáil on such a subject as this? We would have the drip of the rain in every farmer's field counted out amidst the tears of Deputy Moher and Deputy Corry. An assault would be made on Deputy Dillon if he were Minister for Agriculture seeking to tax the unfortunate impoverished farmers in such circumstances and, forsooth, making money out of their trouble. But that is not the situation. The friends of the farmers, moryah, the supporters of the tillage farmers 18 months ago, are now in office. Deputy Corry got a pain in his stomach and he has gone home, all these other wheat Deputies of Fianna Fáil have fled the House and the Minister for Agriculture has not a word to say.

I hope the people outside will duly note not only what is said in this House but also what is not said and who has not spoken. I hope they will realise that here in this motion a reasonable proposition has been put forward, one that commends itself to the sense of fairplay of any reasonably-minded Deputy, and that they will realise the manner in which they have been codded by those who talked so much on their behalf a short while ago.

I do not know whether what I have said will have urged the Minister to climb to his feet. I do not know whether the Minister may now feel that, as Minister for Agriculture, he has at least a duty to give the views of the Government on this important motion. Last September, when the farmers were in real trouble, the Minister was hard to find. I want to warn him that if he does not talk to-night, he will certainly walk with the rest of his colleagues who vote against the farmers.

Captain Giles

While I come from a county where wheat growing has been destroyed by speculators and opportunists of all types, I strongly support this motion, because I believe it is a very reasonable motion and one which should have the support of farmers on all sides of the House. Wheat growing is a national necessity. It is something we are all proud of and we hope that in the future we will have balanced wheat growing, as we had in the past. Before we ever formed an Irish Government, our farmers grew wheat and grew it well, but in the long years of wheat growing, this has been the most disastrous year farmers ever had, their losses being enormous.

I did not put my name to this motion for political reasons; I put my name to it as a wheat grower and a farmer, and on behalf of the farmers I represent. I would ask the Minister to make a reasonable statement on this matter before the discussion concludes. I know the Minister has a duty to be loyal to his Government, but I want him to pull his weight because I believe there is a good case for refunding the 5/9 levy to the farmers. That levy would have been all right if we had a surplus. The National Farmer's Association themselves agreed to it as a way out. It is very difficult to have the happy medium in regard to price. If you have too big a price for wheat, the growing of barley and oats goes down and there will be too much wheat. It is only right to have a reasonable price for wheat and barley, thus achieving a balanced economy.

I do not want to see this motion debated politically as it is being debated at the moment, with one side of the House having all the say while the other side is silent. Democracy is hypocrisy if Deputies from both sides of the House who represent farmers cannot speak on behalf of the farmers in a national crisis. We should be allowed to speak out and get away from a lot of the tomfoolery which has been going on here for a number of years.

It is not the Government's fault or that of their back-benchers that the farmer's had a disastrous year. The hand of God was responsible for giving us the worst weather we have had for decades. Our losses are not in thousands, but in millions, and it will take the farmers many years to recover from it. In those circumstances, it is the duty of the Government to refund the 5/9 levy. It is a small thing and the Government can reasonably well afford it. We should be knocking at an open door and the Minister should be receiving this motion with open arms.

It is time wheat growing was put on a proper basis. It is bad for the economy that it should be bedevilled by Party politics. There is not a farmer Deputy here who has reasonably good land who will not grow wheat, whether it is Deputy Dillon or the present Minister who makes the price. If it pays us, we will grow it. At the same time, I do not want to see a big price for wheat. I come from a county which perhaps has the best land in Ireland, land which has been destroyed by bad tillage. Speculators have come from goodness knows where, some of whom never owned an acre in their lives, who were taking up to 1,500 acres of conacre by telephone and who never saw or never will see some of this land. At the same time, there were other good farmers in that county who grew wheat and saved it in a fairly good manner this year. The price they got was the same as the speculators got. It made no difference whether the wheat was wet or dry. The speculators got as much as they could into the mills, whether by fair or foul means. The Minister has a heavy task in front of him to put that situation right. We do not want speculators or racketeers to destroy the livelihood of the honest farmer.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling far from the motion.

Captain Giles

I wanted to get that out.

An Ceann Comhairle

Having got it out, the Deputy will please keep to the motion.

Captain Giles

The Minister comes from a county where there is very little wheat growing, but in my county there is an enormous amount of wheat growing by the wrong type. We good wheat growers—and I claim to be a good wheat grower—can hardly get into a mill, but these warriors can glut our mills and they are more welcome there than we are because the bill they owe the mill is not in hundreds of pounds but in thousands.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is keeping at it all the time.

Captain Giles

The Minister has a difficult task running agriculture. If the farmers would co-operate as they should, the Minister would have an easy task, but we are a set of individuals who cannot be educated to co-operation. If the farmers would co-operate, there would be no need for motions or anything like that. I would ask the Minister to make a reasonable statement on the position and to do justice to the farmer. I believe that if he gives this 5/9 back, the farmer will be well pleased.

The farmer wants nothing back for the damage the Lord Himself caused; he will accept that as he always did and always will; but where the Government put a levy on him for surplus wheat and there is no surplus, the farmer has a case for the return of that levy. I do not want to see farmers going to court, or Deputy Corry leading them there. That is not the thing to happen while this House is here.

There is an open case for this repayment and I ask the Minister to accept the motion. It is a reasonable and honest one. It might look to him like a political one, coming from this side of the House. I did not sign it as a political motion. I always speak with my own mind, although I am always loyal to my own Party. I state things as I see them down the country and I understand the farmers. I speak for the Fianna Fáil farmers as well as for the Fine Gael farmers and I never give two hoots about that. I speak fairly and squarely. I would like to see, on this type of motion, all the farmers of this House coming to a meeting beforehand and seeing how we could have a happy medium and be able to put before the Minister our case from all sides of the House. Then the farmers would get what the industrialists here in Dublin get. When there is anything coming up about industry in this House, we find that the Deputies who represent industry are united on both sides of the House. When it comes to a farmers' motion, however, we fight like tigers. Why should that be? Agriculture is the most important industry in the country. Why should we be so divided?

There is really very little dividing us. We all believe in wheat growing; we all believe that the best Minister for Agriculture for wheat growing was Deputy Dillon, the former Minister. He was bedevilled by politicians and they hounded him down for the purpose of gaining votes. That is the wrong method. I could try to hound down the present Minister and say terrible things to him, but I will not do it. He is a man of the people, coming from the people; he was elected as Minister and is entitled to be Minister. I hope that when there is a change of Government, we will get away from all the nonsense. The farmers are sick and tired of it—and sick and tired of us as well.

I would ask the Minister to do the right thing, to give the farmers back the 5/9 to which they are entitled and in the coming year to try to step in and give clean wheat growing, honest wheat growing, national wheat growing and make some effort to cut the the speculator who takes conacre. I do not mind men setting land for part of the year, if they are down and out. I do not mind how much wheat a farmer grows on his own land, so long as it is his own land; but I do not want to have speculators taking conacre and destroying it, leaving nothing but dirt, thistles, weeds and scutch, instead of leaving it the way they found it. There will be a lot of talk in two or three years' time, if the best land is allowed to become destroyed. If that goes on for years and a national crisis or a third European war arises, we would not get even two barrels an acre, if the people are able to grow wheat at all. That is an important thing the Minister should consider and I ask him to consider it. He can see across the border into my county and see what happens and will happen, if he does not interfere. He should give the farmer back the 5/9 to which he is lawfully entitled.

Mr. Manley

Were it not for the fact that we had a surplus of wheat in 1956 and a greater surplus in 1957, we would have had no wheat levy imposed this year. Therefore, we are perfectly right in assuming that the sole reason for the wheat levy was to enable a fund to be built up that would help the surplus wheat to be exported. There is no surplus wheat this year. We were amazed to learn to-day from the Minister that only 20,000 tons of Irish wheat of this year's harvest were accepted and paid for by the millers for conversion into flour. Therefore, the volume of opinion of all farmers, of all shades of political thought, is that there is no justification for the retention of the levy this year.

The return of the levy does not compensate the farmers in any sense, but at least it would be a gesture of goodwill by the Minister and the Government, an indication that they appreciate the farmers' efforts and have sympathy with them in their losses on the recent harvest. Nobody but those who participated in the harvest activities or were associated with them can conceive the agony that the farmers suffered, physically and mentally, in the recent ten long tortuous weeks. It is a great tribute to the farmers that they were able to salvage so much of the harvest and the extraordinary thing is that there was very little sympathy with them.

The farmers were not the only people concerned. The millers were there; the hauliers were there; the agents were there; the sack lenders were there. They all had their profits guaranteed, but there was no such guarantee for the farmer, who suffered the entire loss and the main brunt of the adverse weather conditions. It is most extraordinary that, compared with other years, the hiring charge for sacks this year was rather savage. There was 5d. per sack for one day up to a week, and if the sacks were returned in wet condition there was a fine also. The farmers had no facilities this year, or in any other year—but this year, particularly—to return sacks in a dry condition.

Then we have this extraordinary farce associated with wheat, that we pay agents for every barrel of wheat delivered to the millers. I know that custom grew up in the early years, when the millers, in order to ensure they would get some volume of native wheat into their mills, paid agents for that purpose. Some of those agents have no land whatever. If there is any payment to be made for agents, I think the agents should be the farmers themselves; and let whatever little things go to the agents go directly to the farmers. Whenever there is a loss, it should be shared equitably and generally amongst all those associated with that activity. It is inconceivable, therefore, that the farmers this year should have to bear all the loss themselves, and that there should be so little sympathy for them. That is the least one should expect, if wheat growing is not to be killed.

This is not a political matter any longer. We have to admit, of course, that there was a good deal of politics associated with wheat in the past. The Party opposite were the great protagonists of wheat—I give them all the credit they can take for that—but I hope they are not the people now who are going to kill this national industry, which means so much to production in this country. There is no doubt that our national production will be down considerably this year and that our national income will be down as a consequence. We all regret that, but nobody is to blame, as responsibility for the weather conditions cannot be placed at anybody's door. We all know from our experience—and the figures actually corroborate it—that this was the worst harvest within living memory. Right through the year, from May onwards, there was difficulty in saving the hay, which was a prolific crop and very promising. Quite a big percentage remained uncut. If one travels between Dublin and Cork by train, one sees to this day fields of hay still left uncut, left to rot, because of the impossibility of drawing it in. With regard to root crops, mangolds were the smallest I ever saw; and potatoes were a failure in many areas and not as big as marbles in some places.

All this loss, combined with the loss on wheat growing and combined with the levy now being retained on wheat makes it all the more nauseating and disgusting for the farmers. They have got very little sympathy from the Government and we are asking now that the levy imposed on them should be repaid to them.

There was one year in my experience —I think it was 1954—when the conditions which obtained were comparable with those of this year. As a matter of fact on 16th December, 1954, I saw from the train, in County Kildare, three fields of wheat standing uncut in mid-December—seemingly good crops—and I was told afterwards that that wheat was cut on St. Stephen's Day. I doubt if there is any wheat uncut at this moment in the country, but there was more sprouted wheat in 1954 and the then Minister insisted that all that sprouted wheat be bought, and it was bought.

This year the Minister for one reason or another did not seem to be in a position to deal with the millers. They could have been compelled to help the farmers and take more wheat than 20,000 tons. It is extraordinary to find that only 20,000 tons out of 200,000 tons is fit for milling and the remainder unfit for milling. Where did the 20,000 tons come from? In what parts of the Twenty-Six Counties was that wheat grown and in what condition was it harvested?

I have met farmers who had one lorry load of wheat accepted for milling and another lorry load, harvested on the same day, from the very same field and from the very same farm was said to be unfit for milling. Nobody can understand that. I am sure Deputies opposite are familiar with such circumstances. I shall not quote documents or quote names but I can show the Minister for his own information that people were paid as low as 32/9 per barrel. If the levy were returnable to these people they would at least get something more commensurate with their efforts. The sum of 32/9 would not compensate any grower for his work, for the seed, fertiliser and lime put into the production of a crop of this kind.

The great difference between the present Minister for Agriculture and his predecessor in 1954, Deputy James Dillon, is that Deputy Dillon did meet the millers. He met them regularly and he held a commanding hand over them and let them see that they had a duty to the public just as the farmers had, a duty to share equitably in the losses and face the position as it then was and help towards a solution of the difficulties. I agree that we have had many debates on wheat growing and we shall continue to have them until more realism is displayed towards this whole question. In all earnestness I suggest to the Minister that he should have a committee of the whole House, composed of farmers and others interested in wheat growing. That committee would be there to advise him in a realistic way and we would not have these recurring difficulties year after year. It would no longer be a question of politics.

I remember a debate in 1954, which is the year most comparable with this year. A case was made then when the price of wheat was drastically reduced because of the peculiar circumstances, but nobody in this House believed it, or if they did they pretended that the situation did not exist. If you go back on the arguments used then from this side of the House you will find how unrealistic they were in the light of events since then. I hope that this matter will be dissociated entirely from politics. The motion is a reasonable one and is not making any undue demand in view of the fact that the Government will be making a profit on wheat imported this year.

If this levy is not returned no one will be more disappointed than the farmers who supported the Government. They will have the greatest reason for being disappointed because they expected an increase in the price of wheat for next year's crop which they did not get. That is bad enough but it is worse when after their efforts of last year a levy was imposed on them, a levy which will not be returnable even when the whole motive for it has disappeared because we have no surplus of millable wheat for export.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rooney.

Mr. Sweetman

Is the Minister mute of malice? On a point of order, may I inquire whether any member of the Fianna Fáil Party, ministerial or otherwise, proposes to speak on this motion?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a matter of order.

Mr. Sweetman

It is a matter of disorder that they are not speaking.

Mr. Blaney

Is it worrying the Deputy?

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 12 Nov 1958

Wheat Levy—Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Nov 1958