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.