Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 1933

Vol. 17 No. 26

Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This is an amending Bill to the Cereals Act of 1933. It amends the Act in four respects. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are merely definitions. Sections 6 and 7 deal with the problem that has arisen of the small mills. Those who took a keen interest in the Principal Act will know that a licensed flour mill had amongst other things to mill a certain quota and if the quota were not filled, the mill was subject to a fine of £25 for the first offence and £50 for a subsequent offence. We had also a provision in the Principal Act for permitted mills. By permitted mills were meant mills that milled on commission throughout the country and also milled wheat for farmers' use. In practice we find that there are a number of mills that both import a certain amount of foreign wheat to mill for sale and also mill on commission. The principal business of these small mills is to mill on commission but at times perhaps they import say 100 barrels of foreign wheat and mill it for sale. They have a very poor idea of the amount that they might be able to dispose of in the year and they are very badly circumstanced to pay a fine of £25 for the first offence or £50 for the subsequent offence of giving a wrong estimate of what their powers in that respect might be. We propose under Sections 6 and 7 to exempt those mills which mill under 1,000 barrels of wheat in the year from the penalties for disobeying the quota. In that way they will be quite free to carry on as before, milling on commission for farmers and milling a small amount of wheat also for sale.

Section 8 deals with the case of farmers, wheat growers, who did not register in time. In the Principal Act it is laid down that every farmer must register as a wheat grower before 1st May in order to be eligible for the bounty or subsidy when the wheat of that particular year is sold. The Bill had not passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas until fairly late in the session and the farmers claimed that they had not got a sufficient warning of the date when registration was due. The result is that we had quite a number of applications coming in late. We think that it would be a great hardship on those farmers, particularly in the first year, to penalise them to the extent of 6/- or 7/- per barrel because they had not obeyed this particular regulation. We had about 8,000 growers registered up to the 1st July. Since that 2,000 further applications came in. We may take it therefore that practically one-third of the growers would be excluded from the bounty if this amendment were not brought in. We are only making the amendment for this year. In future years the date 1st May will have to be insisted on because it is very difficult to work a scheme like this in the Department if we have not got sufficient data early in the year to calculate the acreage so as to be able to fix the national percentage and the total quota for the year. As, however, this year the number affected is very large comparatively we can allow them to come in up to 16th December, as is provided here.

Section 9 deals with another matter that has arisen. It deals with a matter that was somewhat involved perhaps or overlapping in the Principal Act. The principle underlying the cereals legislation with regard to wheat was that no bounty would be paid except for wheat used for human consumption. It has been found in practice that, if a person is registered as a dealer and also, say, as a maize miller, he could, under the Act, pass some wheat on which the bounty is payable into his own maize mill and have it mixed with maize for animal feeding. That is a thing that we would like to have amended, because, having paid the bounty on the wheat, we would like to have it used for human food only. Section 9 brings in the necessary amendment.

Part III of the Bill deals with seeds. It is desirable, of course, to give power to wheat dealers and flour millers to sell the best samples of wheat which they get as seed. The dealers and flour millers buy their wheat in the open market at more or less the same price. They have this year adopted the principle in most cases of buying on the bushel. Most of the millers gave a fixed price of 17/6 for a 62 lbs. bushel. In some cases, they gave 2d. less for one pound bushel downwards and 2d. more for one pound bushel upwards. The people from whom they buy the wheat get the bounty. They could easily, as the Act stands, sell that wheat as seed and they would naturally charge the same for that seed as the ordinary seed merchant could afford to sell it at. The ordinary seed merchant has either to import the wheat or buy it from the farmer. He has to buy it from the farmer knowing that the farmer cannot get the bounty. The ordinary seed merchant, therefore, could not afford to sell the wheat at less than 23/6 a barrel. This would give a very unfair advantage to the flour miller or wheat dealer in regard to the seed if we left the Act as it is. It would enable them either to undersell the the seed merchant by 6/- or 7/- a barrel or sell at the same price and make a profit of 6/- or 7/- a barrel more than the seed merchant. We propose to give the registered dealers and flour millers power to sell the seed but for the seed they sell they must refund to the Minister for Finance the amount of bounty paid. They will then be paying say 23/6 for the wheat the same as the seed merchant. They will be on the same level and the State will get something out of it to which it is entitled.

Is there any check on the amount?

Of course, they must make returns of the amount sold for seed. That will be already in the regulations. They must account for how they dispose of all the wheat they buy. Some goes to the flour miller, some may go to another dealer, some may go to the distiller and some, anyhow, will go for seed. It will all be accounted for, and we will be able to trace it in all cases. There was one other danger as things stood, and that was where a dealer buys wheat from a farmer say at 16/- or 17/-. He knows the farmer is going to get the bounty. He could re-sell that wheat to another farmer for seed, say, at 18/-. That farmer could re-sell the wheat to the dealer again, say, for 16/-, because he would get the bounty. The same parcel of wheat might go backwards and forwards several times at the expense of the State with neither the dealer nor the farmer losing. Even though we have fairly honest people in this country, both farmers and dealers, we would like to remove the temptation that there is for trading of that sort.

I do not rise to criticise the Bill. I am satisfied that the Bill is reasonable and that every section is necessary. It is quite understandable, when a new scheme of this sort is introduced, that there would be some little snags in it. I think the scheme will now be quite workable. The whole wheat-growing scheme this year has been fairly successful. Practically all the wheat grown has been millable wheat, and the farmers are getting a price that I think they consider pays them, namely 23/6. The Minister has been very fortunate in having an exceptionally good year. In a normal year we would not have nearly as much millable wheat. I have seen samples this year from the poorer counties, like Cavan and Monaghan, and it is not millable. We can picture what that wheat would be if we had a season such as we had two or three years ago. It would mean that not an acre grown in these districts would be millable. It all boils down to this: that we can grow wheat in the Free State in what I might describe as the barley counties. Outside of them, I am afraid that in a normal year, if we get back to the kind of years we had four or five years ago, when we had a wet back-end, they will not be able to grow millable wheat which will keep, because the wheat will be two or three weeks more in coming to maturity than in the barley-growing areas.

As to the question of mixing with maize, I thought the Minister would deal with that. Does he propose to do anything with regard to helping the market for oats? He has fixed a quota of 33? per cent. for mixing with maize. That has retarded the demand for the mixture very considerably. The increased proportion of oats and the low price at present ruling for livestock make it unremunerative to feed the mixture to animals. I saw in the Press this morning that it is alleged that the millers are charging £3 per ton for the admixture over the price which would otherwise obtain. I think that is not true. I think the price to-day would be about £1 per ton more as a result of the mixture. I do not think it is any more in the area I come from anyhow. The Minister puts on 33? per cent. The effect of that is that the people in the districts that do not grow oats are paying £1 per ton more for their maize meal and they are getting maize meal and that they consider is not as good for feeding as if there were no mixture. The people selling the oats are getting no better price. It is being sold at 7/- or 8/- per barrel still. I think a much better proposition has been put up to the Minister, namely, to put a duty of £1 per ton on the maize coming in. The result would be that the small farmer and cottier would be paying the same price as he is at present for maize, and getting pure maize meal instead of a mixture. That £1 per ton on the maize meal could go to subsidise or give a bounty for the export of the oats. I think that is reasonable. It would not bring the Minister for Finance into it, and it would have the effect that the oats would get away. There would be a market for the oats if we gave a bounty of 2/6 per barrel. I think we would get sufficient from an import tax of £1 per ton on maize to give 2/6 per barrel of an export bounty on the oats shipped. That would increase the value of every barrel of oats in the country by 2/6. If the Minister would do that, I think it would help considerably. It would not increase the price of maize meal more than it is at present by the system of mixing. There would be no penalty on anybody. Every farmer would have to pay extra for his maize meal, and have to contribute in that way to the people who are growing oats in the oat-growing districts.

An export bounty would not mean that 2/6 would have to be paid on every barrel of oats grown. It would only have to be paid on the oats exported. I do not believe there would be one-twentieth or even one-fiftieth of the crop exported. It would have the effect of raising the price. I put it to the Minister that after six or nine months' working of this admixture scheme, it would be much better to put in force the system put before him by the millers, of putting an import duty on the maize and giving an export bounty on oats, which would relieve the situation. At present, there are certain districts in the Free State which can hardly get a market for oats. If you had an export bounty it would give them a market. That would help the situation and help tillage. It is useless for the Minister to ask the farmers to grow more cereals and to go on tilling, and to say that they must break up the ranches.

What is the good of breaking up ranches or lea land at the present time, when your cattle or your pigs or sheep or fowl will not command an economic price? If you have to sell anything that comes off these ranches, you cannot get an economic price. It would encourage tillage very much if you could increase the price of oats by 2/6 per barrel. I submit that the scheme I am now putting to the Minister would have that effect to-morrow if put in force. The Minister has, I understand, power to do that under the Cereals Act and there would be no loss whatever. It would be a gain to Leitrim, Sligo and the poorer counties which do not grow oats for sale and have to buy all their feeding stuffs. These people grumble a great deal about having to pay an extra price and getting what they call inferior feeding stuffs. The farmers in the east of the Free State who grow corn for sale are getting no benefit under the Cereals Act. They are getting no better price for their oats than if there were no Cereals Act in existence. The price of oats is the same for them as it is in Scotland or the North of Ireland, while the Cereals Act was to give them a better price for their oats. In that respect, the Cereals Act is a failure and as long as the present prices obtain for cattle, pigs, fowl and live stock generally, the Cereals Act is bound to be a failure. The more oats and barley we grow, the less market we shall have and the less the price. There is no way of getting rid of the oat crop except by the aid of export bounties. The Minister will say that the Minister for Finance cannot afford to provide export bounties and we shall probably agree with that. If the Minister worked the other way and made the people buying imported feeding stuffs pay for the export bounties, it would be a solution of the whole problem.

I wish to endorse all that Senator O'Rourke has said. I come from the largest grain-growing county in the Free State. There, the situation of those who grow black oats is a terrible one. I can buy all the black oats I want for feeding at 5/6 per barrel. I do buy some oats. I grow a considerable quantity of oats but I have always bought additional oats because, in former years, the feeding of everything, from poultry up to bullocks, paid very well. The large farmers— those who fed—always bought from the smaller farmers, who grew grain and did not feed but sold their young stock. I can endorse also what Senator O'Rourke has said about the discontent of the farmers in not being able to get pure maize. The mixture is infinitely inferior to, and much dearer than, the pure maize. That is a great hardship indeed on those who feed— not that there is any great inducement to feed but one must do something. At the moment it is quite impossible to sell grass cattle. Fewer people than in former years are putting in their cattle to stall feed and those who are are doing so simply because they cannot sell them at any price off the grass. The feeding is costing them a great deal more, notwithstanding the very much lower price they are getting. Even in a county like Wexford, where practically every farmer grew corn, the amount of pure maize used was enormous. The more corn we grow, the more maize we bought to mix with it. From my own experience and from talking to other people, I can say that the mixture is infinitely inferior in feeding quality to the mixture they made themselves by buying pure maize and mixing their own oats and barley with it. I do not know that any purpose would be served by saying more. The situation with regard to grain is a very desperate one in the country and I am afraid the Cereals Act has been a failure. We prophesied on these benches that it would, and I am sorry to say it is.

When Senator O'Rourke and Senator Miss Browne speak on a question of this kind the Seanad is very likely to pay very close attention to what they say. Senator O'Rourke has put forward the proposal that, instead of mixing the Irish oats with maize, we ought to put a tariff on maize and give a corresponding export bounty in respect of our own grain. He says that that can be done without any intervention on the part of the Minister for Finance. In my opinion, that would be an impossibility. I also differ from him in his main thesis. I think that the object of this measure was to secure that grain should be grown in this country for the purpose of consumption in the country. The most effective way of securing that would be so to legislate that there would be a mixture of the imported maize with Irish grain. I do not think that that could be carried out by any other method than that provided for in the Cereals Act. I understood Senator O'Rourke to say that the mixture of oats and maize is inferior to maize itself. Senator Miss Browne stated positively that it was infinitely inferior. In the next sentence she said: "The more grain that is grown in my county the more maize we import"; or, to put it the other way, "the more maize imported, the more grain is grown for the purpose of the mixture."

I do not think I said that. That is not what I meant to say.

I stand corrected. Is it a fact that before this measure was enacted it was the custom of the farmers of County Wexford to mix maize with the corn they grew themselves?

To some extent and for certain purposes.

I should like to know from Senator Miss Browne what the purpose is for which whole maize is infinitely superior to the mixture.

A great many.

I think that the Senator should explain that, because I know a little about farming and I do not know of any object on the farm for which maize by itself would be superior to a mixture of maize and good oats.

I want an explanation of that.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid I cannot allow an explanation at this stage.

Inasmuch as no explanation has been given, I think that it is quite wrong that statements should be made on the authority of Senator Miss Browne or Senator O'Rourke that this Cereals Act has been a failure.

Absolutely.

I believe it has not been a failure. I believe it has been a great success and that it ought to be continued for the main purpose for which it was introduced—namely, to increase tillage and employment in this country and to increase the use of Irish grain as against imported material.

This amending Bill deals entirely with wheat and flour. I did not think it was necessary or proper to deal with maize. When the Principal Bill was being introduced about this time last year I said we were going to provide for a guaranteed market and a guaranteed price for wheat, but a guaranteed market only for oats and barley, not a guaranteed price. I admit that has not worked satisfactorily, because there were a number of people in this country, merchants and millers, trying to take more than their share of the advantages to be derived under the measure. That Bill was mainly for the benefit of agriculturists. It sought to get a good price for the farmer with grain to sell and endeavoured to have grain sold as cheaply as possible to the farmer who wanted to buy. I am afraid the Bill failed largely because the merchants and millers tried to take more than their share, more than they got before the Bill was brought in.

Senator O'Rourke mentioned that some one put down the increased profit to the millers at something like £2 10s. or £3 yesterday. That was not my impression. My impression of what was claimed was that if the miller gets it at £5 a ton, he charges £7 10s. Formerly, if he got it at £5 a ton he sold it at £6 10s. 0d., and the point was made that millers were not justified in charging that for milling the mixture. Senator Miss Browne said oats are being sold at 5/6 a barrel in some places. It is being sold in other places at 6/- and 7/- and under our scheme the merchants are buying at 9/-. There is no doubt whatever the merchants are buying it and the millers are buying it. I think this will have to be followed by other proposals which will provide that the farmers will get the benefit of whatever schemes are in mind.

Some Senators are congratulating themselves that this is going to fail, but I think they ought to wait another year. Unless we safeguard the farmers who have corn to sell and the farmers who want to buy foodstuffs, the Bill will not be a success. I hope the Senators who declare that it will not be a success will support me later when I bring in a Bill to provide that the farmers get a fair share of the advantages. I must emphasise that the Bill has been a success. If you take up any list of market prices in England for foodstuffs you will find barley and oats are selling cheaper than they are here. At Liverpool market last Saturday barley imported from Russia and the Danube country sold at 4/5 a cwt. That would be 8/10 for our barrel of barley. If we were exporting barley instead of using it in a maize meal mixture the farmer would be getting 7/6 a barrel. The price of English barley used for brewing has always been much higher than feeding barley. If we were importing against Russia and the Danube country I hold that the farmer could not get more than 7/6 a barrel here. Senators may claim that barley is being sold at 11/- but that is 5/- a barrel better than if we had no Cereals Bill. Oats are being imported at 3/7 a cwt. or 6/6 a barrel. Freight and the merchant's costs have to be considered in that connection. If we had no Cereals Bill the best oats would not be more than 5/6 or 6/- a barrel.

There is great difficulty about black oats in County Wexford. Oats are being used more and more as a milling cereal. Up to a few years ago large quantities of oats were used whole for feeding horses. Black oats were then considered as good as white oats. Now when oats are being milled the black are found to be very inferior to the white. I asked some millers to give their experience in the de-hulling of black and white oats and the average reports show that good white oats will give a yield of 70 per cent. and the best black will be something under 60 per cent. The very best white oats against the very best black show a difference of 12 per cent., equivalent to one-eighth. There is no great future for black oats in comparison with white. There are farmers in Wexford and adjoining counties who have been in the habit of growing black oats and it is hard to get them to change over to another cereal. They would be well-advised to change.

Where are they going to get white seed oats?

We can help them this year in that matter, especially when oats are so cheap as Senators claim. There was another point made about the pure maize being better than the maize meal mixture. The Department and its instructors have been carrying out experiments for the last 15 years. I am sure it is seven years ago since I read about experiments being carried out by the county instructors and in the Albert College. In every case the home-grown grain was superior to or at least as good as maize, excepting in the case of small pigs. In many other cases maize was inferior to oats or barley. So far as experiments go the mixture is superior to maize. I have been in some of the bacon factories and I have asked other factories what they thought of the bacon. They say that the bacon is of much better quality since home-grown grain was used. The bacon fed from pure maize was not of such good quality and the present-day quality has been very much improved.

I would like to say a few words in reply to the Minister's remarks.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid I cannot allow the Senator to speak again.

Question agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 13th December.

Top
Share