Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Nov 1961

Vol. 192 No. 7

Wheat Losses—Assistance for Farmers: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following Amendment:
To delete "crop" in the third line and substitute "and other crops, such as barley, oats, hay, potatoes, etc."— (Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan.)

Before Question Time, we were discussing the dishonesty of the motion in so far as it wrongly states that due to the urgent exhortations of the Government the crisis we faced in the harvest of 1961 came about in the first instance. I do not believe anybody with an intimate knowledge of the conditions obtaining in tillage areas will seriously contend that that was the reason some farmers found themselves with wheat that could not be sold as millable wheat.

The position has been greatly aggravated since 1954 by what amounts to overproduction. We recall the various methods introduced, in collaboration with farming organisations, to restrict production to the figure at which we wanted it. The method now in operation is the levy. I do not know whether we are meant to assume on this motion that the Fine Gael Party wish to have the levy restored to the people who were unlucky in this harvest. I could not advocate any such measure at all. I believe the people from whom the 3/6d. was collected should get it back since they were lucky enough and diligent enough to be able to produce wheat of millable standard.

I am not at all satisfied with the set-up in regard to the determination of millability. I believe that as our production of wheat rose the demands of the millers rose accordingly. One of the biggest frauds they introduced was screenings whereby farmers were penalised twice for deficiencies in their crops. Under the old régime, the only things for which a wheat sample was tested were moisture and bushel weight. With the presence of what were alleged to be screenings, bushel weight and moisture content affected the farmer adversely and then he was penalised a second time. Luckily, that did not operate this year.

It is significant that none of the movers of the motion made any suggestion as to how the question should be dealt with next year or in future years or as to how the acreage of wheat might be controlled. It is a difficult question. I have a suggestion to make which is worth considering. I spoke about the matter in this House before. In 1960, we imported 207,000 tons of coarse grains. It would require about 160,000 acres of land to grow that amount, if that need were to be met by Irish farmers. We have a great need of home-grown feeding barley. At the same time, we have a varying overproduction of wheat which causes annual embarrassment to whatever Minister happens to be in office. I do not think it is beyond the potentialities of the Government or of the Department of Agriculture to devise a scheme under which some of the emphasis now being placed on the growing of wheat could be diverted to the growing of feeding barley.

Hear, hear; that is common sense.

They nearly killed me with stones for that.

It is not the first time I said that in this House.

It is diametrically opposed to the view of the Minister, all the same.

Not at all.

Indeed it is.

His policy has always been that we should grow our own requirements. Obviously, that means our own requirements and no more. If there is still tillage land to be absorbed, I submit it should be used for the production of feeding barley rather than importing it. It is the only suggestion of any kind that has been put up on this debate today. It is at least worth considering.

One particular class has aggravated this overproduction to some extent. They have been referred to as ranchers. They can be subdivided into various classes. There is the city rancher who has no land and who does his farming on the telephone. The Minister should take whatever steps are necessary to exclude non-farmers, in any event, from growing wheat. There are other types of people who could possibly be called ranchers. They might happen to be farmers' sons who are trying to build up the price of a piece of land for themselves. They are a totally, different kettle of fish.

I appeal to the Minister to turn some of his attention to the type of rancher to whom I have already referred—the man with a non-farming job who takes conacre land to do a little bit of speculation and who then floods the wheat market with an inferior product—or it need not be inferior. In any event, he deprives the smaller farmer of the market he requires for his wheat. If he were removed from the picture, it would lessen the aggravation that we have each year.

Deputy Donegan rose.

Is the Deputy concluding the debate?

Pursuant to the agreement arrived at this morning, the Chair must call on the mover of the motion or a Deputy nominated by him to conclude.

Am I allowed to give the Deputy five minutes?

The mover may waive five minutes of his time.

I shall not take all of the five minutes as I just want to say a few words. The farmers could not sow their grain in time last spring because there was a wet winter, and, while the summer was not wet, there was no sun, resulting in later ripening. Therefore, many farmers, through no fault of their own, did not succeed in having their wheat harvested before the disastrous three weeks' rain which resulted in damage to that wheat.

If the Minister says it was their fault, he should substantiate it. He did not do so today. I should like to say it was not their fault because there has not been any rationalisation of the growing of grain in this country, except for the effort made between 1954 and 1957, and prior to that, by Deputy Dillon, as Minister for Agriculture. He attempted to increase the acreage of barley. He attempted to start a new system for oats and if the farmer had a market, then he could no doubt reduce his acreage of wheat and at the same time, get the same cheque at the end of the year.

It is necessary, in the few moments left to me, to point out what the costings are and I am sure the Minister would give the Irish small farmer— and it was the small farmers who were caught—30/- per statute acre to plough the field; 30/- to harrow it and stretch it after sowing; 10/- to sow it; 30/- to spray it; £4 to reap it with a combine harvester; £6 for seed; £4 for fertiliser and 30/- rates; sacking and cartage, 30/- per year; general overheads on a 25 acre farm would amount to £75 at £3 per acre. If he gets nine barrels, which is the average yield in this country, of unmillable wheat at an average price of £2 per barrel, you will find he has a loss on that amount of £7.

I have not got a lot of time but I want to point out that the loss has been minimised but it can be explained in this way. The average quantity of wheat grown in this country year by year is three million barrels and we are told that 30 per cent. of it is unmillable. That quantity is greater than the total quantity of malted barley sold and grown in this country. Therefore, we are now facing a problem of a magnitude greater than the total malted barley sales each year in the country and it strikes one man. It is not spread over all wheat-growers. Most of these farmers are small farmers who had not any millable wheat.

My time is limited and I cannot develop the case as I should like, but the Minister might be interested to know that Johnstown Castle, that exalted monument of the Department of Agriculture, had its wheat rejected. Was that neglected farming or was it wheat ranching? Similarly, the Minister might be interested to know that Deputy Corry who waxed so eloquent here had a different tune when he spoke on the committee of which he is a member, the Irish Beet Growers.

I am glad the Minister has clarified the position—I think he has made it clear that next year the married price arrangement will continue. I regard it merely as a stepping stone. It is not of great value; it is not the whole answer and never will be, but at least it is an approach to the rationalisation of the growing of grain crops here. The Minister apparently does not know how to do that; we know how to do it and we shall do it after the next election.

I should like to thank everyone who took part in this debate on the motion which I had the honour to move this morning on behalf of Fine Gael. The fact that so many Deputies have spoken from different parts of the House shows there is interest in the problem and that it really exists. I should like to make clear that we put down this motion because we considered an emergency existed. The debate has ranged generally over the subject of wheat as a whole, but let it not be forgotten that our primary object in moving the motion was to have some assistance rendered to farmers who find themselves in critical circumstances. I do not think that anyone who has opposed this motion has been able to show that there are not people in the tillage counties in desperate circumstances as a result of the heavy losses they have sustained.

In the limited time at my disposal, it is only right that I should go through the speakers outside my own Party, having first of all, thanked Deputies in my own Party who spoke in favour of the motion.

Deputy McQuillan, who spoke first after the proposer and the seconder, suggested the motion should be extended to other crops. There certainly may have been losses in other crops this year; there is no gainsaying the fact that there probably were considerable losses in barley but this is a motion dealing specifically with wheat and it is a problem which we felt should be dealt with as an emergency situation. For that reason, we confined the motion to wheat.

Barley is harvested much earlier than wheat in 90 per cent. of cases. I am not fully conversant with the position in the west of Ireland but I believe that barley there is harvested earlier than wheat generally throughout the country. Therefore, it escaped in large measure, though not entirely, the severe effects of the weather on crops this year.

The next speaker was Deputy Corry who puzzled us on these benches considerably. We did not know whether he was for or against the motion. Truth to tell, I do not think he knew himself. One thing Deputy Corry said was interesting. Apparently, he is in direct conflict with the leader of his own Party, the Taoiseach, because he felt that some buffer should exist between the grower of wheat, the farmer, and the miller. We fully concur in that but Deputy Corry's leader does not. The Taoiseach is definitely against it. He said he thought the situation was all right as it is.

Further, Deputy Corry seemed to base his argument as to why something should not be given to these unfortunate farmers who find themselves in their present deplorable condition, on the fact that somebody in his constituency sold £30,000 worth of wheat. That is one isolated case. It is true that there have been ranchers in the past and we probably still have wheat ranchers, but not as many as we had before. The adverse weather and the losses they have suffered, plus the levy, have tended to drive these people out of production and the farmers themselves are tilling the land, using fertilisers and getting better production. To use ranchers as an argument and to say nothing should be done for those who are left in a deplorable condition is unadulterated nonsense because wheat ranchers today would constitute no more than 5 to 7 per cent. of those growing wheat—and that is a very generous estimate.

I do not think there is anything in Deputy Corry's argument except the one point, that he disagrees with his leader. This shows that there is not that complete unanimity of thought which we are led to believe exists among the ranks of Fianna Fáil.

I now come to Deputy Tierney, the only Labour Deputy to speak. I thought he made an effective and factual contribution. He produced facts and substantiated them by citing actual cases. What he said is perfectly true. What happened in North Tipperary, a tillage area, is exactly what happened in my own county and in every wheat-growing county in the country. The Wheat Order was not adhered to by the millers—that is the root cause of all the trouble from beginning to end. Had the millers adhered to the Wheat Order we would not find ourselves in the condition in which we are today. There were many cases in which wheat bushelled 54, 20 per cent. moisture, good, clean wheat in good condition, for which the grower was justified in getting the price provided under the Ministerial Order, about which the Minister talked so much today, and he did not get it.

That situation obtained not only in North Tipperary, as Deputy Tierney so ably demonstrated, but it obtained in my county and other counties as well. The wheat dealers who bought that wheat in and tested it found it bushelling right; they found the moisture content right; they sent it to the mills; it was sent back again; they had to pay the cost of carriage there and back. Subsequently, because their clients were really friends, they had to offer them a price of 45/-. That is what we are really complaining about on these benches. It is a justifiable complaint. It is an outrage that that state of affairs should exist. As I said this morning, the only person who could protect the farmers against that was the Minister for Agriculture. I am afraid he had not very much consolation to offer the farmers of the tillage counties when he got up here to speak today.

Deputy Gibbons says we are taking political advantage. I wonder now if we were in Government and Deputy Gibbons were in Opposition, and Deputy Gibbons's telephone was ringing from morning to night and his door knocker going day in and day out because people he knew and lived beside were coming to tell him about the set of circumstances I have just been speaking about having arisen, circumstances of wheat bushelling right and with the right moisture content sent back again, what would his reaction be? Would he not have a motion down, with his name to it? In fairness, let him admit now that he would. Not only would his name be to that motion but the other Fianna Fáil Deputies in the tillage counties would have their names to it, too, and they may not all be farmers.

We had Deputy Cunningham and Deputy de Valera on it the last time.

Deputy de Valera spoke here for two hours on the Estimate for Agriculture, and he is no farmer. I do not suppose he knows anything about farming. But any Deputy is entitled to sign a motion like this. It is a fair guess that such a motion would have been signed by Fianna Fáil Deputies. We have the proof of that in what Deputy Dillon said here this morning; in the 1956 election, it was wheat all the time and we were accused of trying to stop the growing of wheat and do the farmers out of their rights. What is the position today? Opposition is reversed and Fianna Fáil Deputies come in here full of sweet reasonableness; they are trying to do the best they can. So they say. They have too much wheat. That is a position they themselves have created over the years.

I want to come back again for a moment to a very good point Deputy Tierney made. He said that, when you get a letter, you still see stamped on it "Grow more wheat." I advise Fianna Fáil Deputies to take a look at their correspondence in future. I do not say they will find the slogan on all their letters, but they will find it on some. That stamp is put on by Government direction. Perhaps, as a result of this debate, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs will get a fresh order to say nothing more about wheat growing.

I am glad the Taoiseach intervened in this debate. I am glad the Head of the Government took an interest in an important motion like this, a motion introduced by the principal Opposition Party. I am glad he intervened even though the motion is supposed to be a piece of political chicanery or political expediency. His intervention shows that the decision taken in regard to wheat was not entirely the decision of the unfortunate Minister for Agriculture, who is the subject of abuse throughout the length and breadth of the country among the farming community. The decision was a decision taken by the Government, a Government headed by a man who lives in Dublin and who has no knowledge whatsoever of farming or rural conditions. That bears out something I have stated here before; you have in Fianna Fáil a Dublin-minded Government and problems affecting the farmers do not matter. When the farmers find themselves in difficulties, in many cases almost on the verge of bankruptcy, that does not matter. Their problems are not vital to a Dublin-minded Government. A Dublin-minded Government have more vital problems than that. They like to spend money on jets. According to yesterday's Irish Press, they intend to spend £2,000,000 on locomotives but they have not got a few pounds to keep from bankruptcy the men who played their part when this country wanted food, who produced the food and carried out the directed policy of the Fianna Fáil Government. When they find themselves in difficulties now and come in here, they have no consolation to get from the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach says it is not the policy to grow wheat other than the quantity necessary for our requirements. He says those who grew the wheat knew what they were doing, and took the risk. He did not say one word about the weather. I wonder does he know the sort of weather we had down along the east coast, with the farmers up to their ankles in mud trying to save what they could? I do not suppose he realises these things when he gets up here and talks about over-all policy, 280,000 tons of wheat and 25,000 tons of seed. He said quite definitely it would be a bad thing for the farmers if they had any check between themselves and the millers. In other words, when the millers refused the wheat sent in by the tillage farmers as unmillable, it would be a bad thing for the farmers to have someone to check and defend their rights. The innuendo was that the millers who chucked out wheat wholesale, wheat known by experienced dealers to be sound and millable, were really taking in wheat that was not millable at all.

The Taoiseach's arguments are all in favour of the millers. He knows nothing about the farmers. I do not blame him for that. What could he know about them? But, at least, he could listen to the Deputies behind him. No matter what Fianna Fáil Deputies said here today, no matter what the Minister for Agriculture said, I know perfectly well that there were strong representations going into the Taoiseach's office, and not just for one day or two days but continuously over the period of bad weather we had then, asking him to take some action to protect the farmers. There was no protection for them. That is the reason why we put this motion down.

Is that political expediency? Is it political expediency that I, elected to Dáil Éireann from a tillage county, a county that grows more wheat than any other county in Ireland, should come in here to fight for the rights of those who sent me here? It is not political expediency; it is democratic Government functioning as it has the right to function. The Government do not like being told these things. They try to blanket them down by saying this is the Fine Gael Party acting for the sake of political expediency. Every one of us who put his name to the motion is prepared to stand over it. We did not put our names to the motion on behalf of the N.F.A. This is a Fine Gael motion, signed by Deputies from all over the country and tabled by Deputies acting upon the representations they received, not one day but every day. I was no sooner returned to Dáil Éireann than I had the representations pouring in to say that the wheat which was being sent back was millable.

I did not come in here without making preparations. I have taken care to go round and discuss the matter with those who know whether the wheat was in good condition or not. They were absolutely satisfied that wheat was being sent back to them that was millable. They told me that as far as they knew from their long experience, the wheat was as good as any they sent in any other year and it could have been taken.

What has happened to the money which the millers have on hand for the purchase of wheat overseas—wheat which they could buy cheaper than home-grown wheat? What has happened to that money? There was not a word from the Taoiseach or from the Minister for Agriculture as to what happened to it. Where has that profit gone to? Has it gone into the overfull pockets of the millers already? I suggest that, when a body of men such as the millers in Ireland have an overall monopoly such as they have, they have a duty to the public at least to show where the funds are going. It is only one arm of a big economy. They may have built up their machinery. They may be experts in the milling of wheat but at least they owe a duty to the Irish public to show where the money is going.

The Minister for Agriculture should have dealt with those facts today. We were given the old cry all the time that they did not ask the people to grow wheat since 1950. How could responsible Deputies accept such a futile statement? They put advertisements not only in the national but the local Press. The Minister did not give us any vital facts as to what happened to the millers' profits or the profits that will accrue from buying outside wheat. He should have given us those definite facts.

While the Minister was speaking, he was looking at me all the time and saying that the motion was put down by those who were not farmers. I do not know whether or not the Minister thinks I am a farmer, but for his information, I am a farmer and I grow wheat. Further, for his information, I got the millable price for wheat this year, so I have no personal bias whatever in this matter.

In conclusion, let me say that we have done our best and we have done it on our own initiative. We would do the same again, if it were necessary, because it is our duty and democratic right to fight for people who are not getting a fair deal. Fianna Fáil argue that if they did this for one, they would have to do it for others. We are asking them to deal with people who are literally facing an emergency. If they do that, they will save the whole economic fabric from falling into disorder. Surely they could accept this motion or give us the satisfaction of knowing that they intend to do something about it, instead of presenting us with a stone wall resistance which is all we have got from them.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Vótáil.

Will Deputies who ask for a division please rise in their places?

Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan rose.

Amendment declared lost.

The big man can always depend on plenty of support in here.

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Do I not?

Not a bit. The small farmers got the knock and if the Deputy was here, he would know it.

Wheat ranchers!

Order! I am putting the main motion.

Question put.
The Dáil divided : Tá, 54; Níl, 68.

Tá.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Jack.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Michael.
  • Burke, James J.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Byrne, Patrick.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Everett, James.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Connor, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Desmond, Dan.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Murphy, William.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Thomas G.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
  • O'Keeffe, James.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.

Níl.

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Dan.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carroll, Jim.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Hillery, Patrick.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Con.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • ÓBriain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 6th December, 1961.
Top
Share