asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will take steps to see that farmers who sell their wheat to firm wheat dealers have the same rights of appeal in the event of rejection as those who trade it to flour millers or their agents.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Appeals Against Wheat Rejections.
16.
Farmers are not compelled to sell their wheat to a licensed wheat dealer and any farmer whose wheat is rejected as unmillable by a licensed wheat dealer may offer it to a flour miller or his agent and exercise his right of appeal, if necessary. I may add that the Central Wheat Laboratory was established under an agreement between the Irish Flour Millers' Association and the National Farmers' Association in which licensed wheat dealers did not participate.
If a farmer tenders his wheat to a licensed wheat dealer, is there any procedure of appeal he can adopt if the licensed wheat dealer says he can only accept the wheat as unmillable wheat?
In my reply I stated that he is free, if the licensed wheat dealer rejects it, to offer it to an agent or a miller and, should rejection be repeated, he has the right of appeal. I have no control over the decision of the wheat grower as to whom he will offer his wheat, and I do not want that control.
The Minister will, I think, appreciate that there are geographical considerations in certain parts of the country which impose on a farmer the burden of drawing his wheat a long distance, if he is to find an authorised agent or a mill to which to tender it, and it would be a very great convenience if the same machinery were available in the event of his selling his wheat to a licensed wheat dealer. After all, the problem is exactly the same. Is there any means whereby licensed wheat dealers could be linked up with the general arrangement which exists at present between millers and the NFA to provide this appeal machinery?
The wheat dealers decided, apparently, not to come into this arrangement. I appreciate a grower deciding to offer his wheat to a wheat dealer on the ground that the wheat dealer's premises are more convenient but, since he has the right to do so, plus the further right, should his wheat be rejected, of offering it to a miller or his agent, I believe the grower is fairly well protected.
Surely the matter is worthy of investigation?
It has been investigated.
A licensed wheat dealer is, after all, in receipt of a considerable advantage through his licence to engage in this business. Surely, if it is in the interests of the growers that he should become part of the appeal machinery, it should be reasonable for the Minister to say to the licensed wheat dealers that, if they want to stay in this business, they must participate in this appeal procedure in exactly the same way as the miller or his agent?
When this right was established, the scheme designed made it clear that outside samples would be tested on the payment of a fee. That is provided for in the scheme. Naturally these outside samples would not be tested to the detriment of those participating in the scheme itself. The licensed wheat dealers did not come into this scheme and, as I have said, it is a natural thing that the grower should have the right to offer his wheat to the firm, agent, or mill that he selects. Should he decide to offer his wheat to a wheat dealer, and have his consignment rejected, he then has the right to approach an agent or a miller and, should his wheat be rejected a second time, he has the right of appeal. I think he is safeguarded to the extent that one can reasonably expect to safeguard him.
I suggest to the Minister that he should review the matter.