I am very glad that this measure which provides superannuation for these people is welcome to all who have spoken on it even if the welcome is tempered with questions of a nature that may or may not be relevant in this category. Some Senators have asked about retrospection. From the wording of the measure retrospection is capable of being included but the pension scheme will be a contributory one and will be formulated by negotiation between the Board and its employees and then only will it come to me. Whatever initiation may take place will be initiated at Board and employee level. There is in section 1 (4) an opportunity for devising methods possibly for retrospection if this can be agreed to and put up to me.
So far as provision for widows is concerned, this is not provided for specifically in the Bill but the wording does give an opportunity to make provision for widows, orphans and other dependants who may be left behind after the death of a contributor. Again, this would be a matter for negotiation and arrangement in the setting up of the scheme although how they would arrive at these provisions I do not know. The possibility of making these provisions and other such provisions is arranged for in the wording of the section.
Then we come to the Board itself. We have had a lot of talk about wheat and that is only right because when the Board was set up originally its specific purpose was to deal with wheat. This was agreed upon by the farming organisations of the day and the fact that it has never been capable of being operated since then does not take away from the agreement itself but rather indicates and highlights the lack of thought which was given to the scheme and the fact that it became unworkable. The original scheme was that in July of each year this Board and other advisers would meet and determine how much extra wheat they were going to have after the following harvest. While the intention was good the working of the scheme was impossible because, short of God, there is no man alive in this country who in the July before the harvest could give any reasonable forecast of what the millable wheat output would be. That scheme could never work.
However, I have found a way in which it can work. Instead of taking money by way of levy at an impossible time in July, we will now hold back part of the payment due to the farmer for the wheat sent to the mills after the harvest. If, at the end of the intake of wheat, we find we have sufficient millable wheat to supply the 75 per cent grist, or 240,000 tons as it is now estimated, the farmer will get back his full price. If we find we have more, the amount in excess has to be funded and made capable of being used as animal feed at feed prices. If we take a levy on 270,000 tons we have to make the price of the excess 30,000 tons capable of being operated for animal feed at feed prices. If there is no levy it simply means that there has been a good wheat harvest.
There is no farmer who would prefer a bad wheat harvest with unmillable wheat in preference to a good wheat harvest such as we had in 1968 when we had lashings and leavings of excellent wheat. Would a farmer not prefer to have a year like last year and take a good, heavy cut rather than have a bad year with little millable wheat or, perhaps, no millable wheat at all? This is the sense of the 1958 agreement which was subscribed to and arrived at at the suggestion of the farming organisations. It is that scheme that I am applying today and nothing else, except that I have found a way of implementing it.
I would say to those who are saying that there will be a 13/- levy next year that no one can say that the out-turn next year will be over and above the 240,000 tons. The people who are making those calculations do not know what they are talking about and they are inciting the farming community to the point where they will intimidate them into not growing wheat. We only want net imports of grain into this country. We are capable of growing a large amount of wheat ourselves.
To those farmers who have been impressed by the talk of this 13/- levy, I wish to say that they should grow more wheat; that we need more wheat and that it is to their benefit and to the benefit of the whole economy to have more wheat. If we have the blessing of a really good harvest, then there will be a levy but if the harvest is not good, there will not be any levy. There will be more wheat for animal feed at animal feed prices and the amount of wheat imported will be less. It must make sense to all that this is to the good of the farming community and to the good of the economy as a whole. I say to the farmers not to pay any heed to those who talk about a 13/-levy because these people do not even know at this stage if there will be any levy on wheat.
Mention has been made to the effect that we were not generous enough to the farmers last year. I should like to point out the extent of our generosity The State is, in fact, contributing almost £4 million to the growing of the 240,000 tons of wheat and last year, because of the unworkability of the levy system which was introduced in 1958 and approved of by the farming organisations, there was a gift made to the farmers of another £½ million— a gift which, in fact, they should not have got. Taking all that into consideration, if anybody can still say that we are not generous, I can only say that he needs to have his head examined.
It is said that the Board could ensure greater usage of Irish wheat and also that they could make sure that wheat was not being imported over and above the needs of our community. These are things which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, whoever he may be at any given time, has a great deal of control over. The Board is merely an extension of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries doing a specific job for the Department which otherwise the Department would have to do themselves. Therefore, this idea that the Board should be given these controls and powers is, to say the least, a bit high-winded because the controls are within the realm of the Minister and the Department. Freedom in that sense can only be assigned from the Department to the Board and, of course, with the liaison and control that a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries must and does exercise in regard to the general policy under which the Board operates. This, therefore, is an unreal sort of requirement. To give this power to the Board would be completely superfluous because the power, the responsibility and the usage are there at the moment.
In so far as imports of wheat are concerned, there is control and the amount of imports is related to the deficiencies in various types of grain that may arise. One of the roles played by the Board is that it co-ordinates and correlates the various elements, the imports of the various types of grain and the transfer and resale within the country from merchant to merchant. These, then, are some of the functions of the Board and there is, therefore, no need for any further powers.
Reference was also made to uniformity of remuneration. While this was mentioned by quite a number of people, it has only been strenuously objected to by Senator Murphy. He seems to be making a big thing out of this. Quite simply, this is Government policy and there is every good reason why it ought to be so. The only pity is that it was not always Government policy because had it been so, we would have avoided some of the pitfalls brought about by the giving of the right to fix remuneration to the Board at a time when, perhaps, they, like us, were young and inexperienced in their setting up.
I should like to remind Senator Murphy that he, as a Member of this House, approved of the same principle in the very recent past. He approved of it when we were introducing legislation concerning An Chomhairle Oiliúna. He may not be aware of having done so but, in fact, he agreed to the same principle. He also agreed to this principle in connection with an Foras Tionscal, the very recent legislation on the dumping and subsidies measure, the medical research bureau, driving offences and he agreed to it on my last visit to this House when I dealt with the legislation providing for the setting up of An Chomhairle Olla. He has agreed to this principle on five occasions and this is now the sixth occasion on which he is being asked to agree to it.
I would suggest, therefore, that he is being rather inconsistent. Having accepted five, it is somewhat inconsistent to come along now and object to the sixth, particularly objecting to it on the grounds that it is something new. Far from being new, it is very much needed. Some of these boards, particularly this grain Board — and I do not want to talk about anybody else's responsibility — this Board or agency, call it what you will, is a mechanism set up by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with the authority of the Government to act in a special way with all its functions being the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. It is quite all right for the Minister to control this body. In fact, he should be the overriding influence in regard to this body because in a sense it is merely an extension of himself and his own Department which is carrying out in a special way another part of his responsibility, by doing it in a more detailed way than could normally be done.
It is a sensible and logical thing for control to be exercised. There is nothing wrong with it, nor has there ever been anything wrong in past cases. There is nobody in this House who will not remember some of the big State boards who started off not so many years ago in a lamentable way by trying to obtain more remuneration for their people than their production justified. This was started by one such State board that has enjoyed, used and abused the authority that was given to it under this legislation.
It is Government policy that as and when we come to any such new boards this matter of uniformity will be brought into being, and if and when opportunity arises in relation to existing boards where we have not this control at present, when the appropriate time comes appropriate legislation should be moved through the Oireachtas. It is our intention to bring this about in order to bring into proper perspective these particular bodies which are, as I say, merely an extension of various Departments to do a specific job in a very detailed and specialised way. It is only right and proper that this should be related to and controlled by the elements in the Government that have particular responsibility for them, and that they should not be allowed to run riot and to make their own running in so far as their perks or the perks of their staff are concerned, which in turn will be taken up by others outside as a pattern which others then think that they are entitled to get. Why should they not be entitled to get them when they find that semi-State organisations are making the running? It is only natural for them to say "Those fellows are doing very well, why the hell should not I?" It is quite obvious that this is happening and should not happen. In my estimation it was started by one such large semi-State Board without the controls we now seek in regard to this little Board, which is doing a very good job in its own right.
So far as discussing this with the trade unions and Congress and the rest is concerned, I do not think that Senator Murphy is really serious when he says that I should do so. I do not think that it is in this realm that this sort of discussion now lies or, indeed, at any time lay. It is our Government's intention, it is Government policy which we are applying in the best way we can, to have this control. We are applying it to the new Boards and will rectify the situation in the old Boards as opportunity arises. This is a proper thing to do, and every right thinking person in the country will recognise that it is the proper thing to do so that we can avoid some of the difficulties we got into in the past with a whole lot of satellites chasing each other around into outer space to the detriment of the whole economy.
Senator Cole mentioned that as this is not being subscribed to by the Exchequer, then undoubtedly this will be followed by an increase in feed costs. Undoubtedly, if these costs fall somewhere and they do not fall on the Government they must fall on the actual out-turn of the product, which in the end event is the feed costs, and to that extent the Senator is probably correct to some degree, but is it not right that they should carry it, because these people and their staffs are serving this Board which in turn is serving amongst others the compounders of feeding stuffs, the manufacturers and the farmers, and so this additional cost may have to be borne, but the amounts would be negligible and it would be infinitesimal in relation to the cost of a bag of feedstuffs? For what it is worth it does come back to this, but it is very small and this little burden will not be begrudged in the long run.
So far as Senator Murphy is concerned with this allegation of interference with the employer and employee relationship, far be it from me to interfere with anybody's relationship, and I do not think that he is really serious about this at all. We are not really interfering. This Board has to do a job for me as the Minister responsible in the Government for agriculture at the moment. The fact that I have some control over the employees does not mean that I am interfering with the employer-employee relationship.
