Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1965

Vol. 218 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Tipperary Flour Mill.

58.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is aware of the acute anxiety and difficulties being suffered by farmers in the Cahir area, County Tipperary owing to the failure of Messrs. Going and Smith, flour millers, Cahir, to honour their contract obligations for the milling of wheat; that only a very small amount of wheat has been accepted by the mills; and that even that amount has not been paid for; and if he will take immediate steps to arrange for alternative outlets with payment guaranteed for the farmers' wheat crops.

Messrs. Going and Smith, since they surrendered their licence as flour millers, have acted as agents for the purchase of wheat on behalf of another firm of flour millers. I am assured that all wheat purchased on behalf of this firm has been paid for. Apart from Messrs. Going and Smith there are many firms acting as wheat agents in the County Tipperary area, and I am satisfied that alternative outlets for the sale of wheat are available.

Can the Minister say by whom the farmers will be paid?

I do not know that it is my business to go into this sort of detail. Once the farmers are paid, I am satisfied.

Will the farmers who deliver other types of grain be paid?

I hope so.

Can the Minister not so undertake?

No, I cannot.

But the Minister can so undertake in the case of wheat?

All I have said is that I have been assured that all wheat purchased on behalf of the firm will be paid for in full.

Is the Minister aware that the farmers experienced great difficulty in having their wheat accepted. that great delay ensued before they were paid and that they were only paid when the liquidator was called in?

(South Tipperary): Is the Minister satisfied that the farmers will be paid for their barley.

I am not asked about barley.

(South Tipperary): I think the Minister is.

The question refers exclusively to wheat, but I would point out that there is a difference here. This firm acted as agents for another firm in the purchase of wheat but in so far as barley purchases are concerned I understand that they were acting on their own behalf.

Does this mean that the barley is caught in the receiver's net?

If the Deputy wants to put down a question to that effect, he may.

Top
Share