Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Nov 1961

Vol. 192 No. 7

Wheat Losses—Assistance for Farmers: Motion.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

On behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I move:

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should take steps to help the farmers who through no fault of their own suffered crippling losses from the effects of storm and adverse weather conditions on their wheat crop, in the growing of which they were carrying out the urgent exhortations of the Government."

If the Government have any illusions about public opinion in relation to the wheat question, I should like to tell them at the outset that everywhere one goes in my constituency, which is perhaps the most prominent wheat growing county in Ireland, one hears the statement that the general election was four weeks too soon. The Government seemed to be totally unaware of the stress of public opinion against them with regard to their action to the wheat growers in the tillage counties.

The fact cannot be ignored that over the years the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government has been to urge and exhort the growing of wheat. Unmindful of the changing world situation in regard to wheat and surpluses of wheat, they still persisted in that policy and expended large sums of money advertising and exhorting people throughout the length and breadth of the land to grow wheat. This year, and it is not the first time, it happened that there was a major disaster for the growers who had a wheat crop available for harvesting. Every Deputy knows that the weather in the latter part of September and the early weeks of October was absolutely disastrous from the point of view of anyone with a wheat crop to harvest.

Apart from that there were high gales. There was one gale in particular, rejoicing in the name of "Debbie", the tail-end of the American hurricane, which came over here. As the Minister must know, people who are harvesting wheat by combine harvester have to leave it until it is very ripe to have it in a millable condition. That gale put paid to a good many crops because it removed the head of the wheat which was completely lost. I do not know if the Government accept the fact that there were exceptional circumstances this year in relation to wheat growers because the Minister's reply to a Parliamentary Question put to him by quite a few Deputies of this Party was to the effect that there was a definite wheat policy, that he would stand for that and there would be no compensation or assistance to offset the heavy losses which were suffered.

It has even been suggested in some cases that the farmers were responsible themselves for their losses. Let us cast our minds back over the past year. We had exceptionally wet weather, and exceptionally late wet weather in the Spring, so that it was impossible in many cases for tillage operations to be carried out and, therefore, the suggestion that the wheat growers themselves were responsible because they sowed late is nothing short of an outrage. If the Minister for Agriculture and the Government had given any fair consideration to the matter they would have known that it was quite impossible for farmers in many parts of the country to sow their crop.

Then again it has been stated, and stated at official level, that they should not have sown the crop. The Minister and his advisers are aware, or should be perfectly well aware, of the economic fabric in every tillage county. They know that the farmers buy the wheat seed dressed and ready to sow and no merchant will take it back again. The suggestion that they should not have sown wheat late is an outrage. What were they to do with the wheat seed? Were they to throw it out or feed it to the hens? They could not even feed it to hens because it was dressed already and contained a certain amount of abnoxious material which would have been injurious to hens. Only for the bad weather they would have been all right sowing it late as they did.

It should be crystal clear to the Government that this is a problem caused purely and absolutely by the weather. The farmers in the tillage counties, having arranged their husbandry for the year, had to do what they did and they are entitled to compensation. Why are they entitled to compensation? The Minister in his reply said if he were to compensate the wheat growers he would have to compensate everybody else. To start with, having arranged their husbandry for the land, there was a guaranteed price for the wheat. Circumstances at the moment are difficult for the farmers. It is very hard for them to be sure that they will get a fair return for anything they may do nowadays. That is evidenced by the butter crisis, the impending bacon crisis and the prices paid for livestock over the last 12 months and the low price for coarse grains which is probably the lowest guaranteed price practically in the world. They were forced to sow late and in no way can any blame be attributed to them in regard to the time they sowed the wheat.

Other Deputies will speak to this motion later on. I can speak for my own county where I know the circumstances. We have in County Wexford, right along the coast, a wet district in which wheat must be sown late. That wheat area, known as the Macamore, goes right across the centre of the county and spreads out in the New Ross and Wexford districts and south of Enniscorthy, where there are very wet areas. The losses, as agreed to by the Minister in his reply, were 30 per cent. all over Ireland. I want to tell the Minister that the losses in Wexford are 40 per cent. in spite of anything anybody may say, or any returns that may be made, because you can prove anything on paper, if you want to, with official statistics. Forty per cent. of the Wexford farmers have had their wheat returned as unmillable.

I should further like to direct the attention of the House to the fact that during the emergency when the Fianna Fáil Government were in power and asked for wheat to be grown the Wexford farmers responded. They ran out their land and practically nothing was left in it after the war. They stood by the country then and it is not very much to ask on their behalf that the Government now stand by them in the disastrous circumstances in which they find themselves.

For the benefit of Deputies who are not in tillage counties, and are not aware of the economic circumstances that obtain in a tillage county, I shall briefly recount the position. The position is that Wexford is a county of smallish farmers, or small farmers and smallish farmers, which is not peculiar to Wexford alone but is a condition that prevails throughout the country. The position there is that they buy their seeds and manures from the merchant and there is a long standing, friendly arrangement that these are given to them on credit because they have not got the funds at their disposal to pay for them. When they harvest the crop they pay the merchant and he takes the crop from them.

I want to say that I attribute no blame to the merchants whatsoever in regard to the wheat crisis. The blame lies elsewhere, a point to which I shall come presently. I just want to show the House that the whole economic fabric of rural life, and not only rural life, because it permeates into the business houses in the towns as well, has been upset completely as a result of this heavy loss of 40 per cent. of wheat in my county, and no doubt in other counties. Other Deputies will be in a position to state their own case later. I have spoken to buyers of wheat from all over the country, from the north, from the midlands, where the situation was not as precarious as in the north, and from the south. They told me they took in wheat on many occasions in the early part of the harvest, the wet period, in the belief that it would be millable. They sent it to the millers and it was sent back to them as unmillable. They had to defray the cost of sending it in there and sending it back again. That is what the buyers were up against, the ordinary merchants who dealt with it and whose relations with the farmers in my constituency, as no doubt all over the country, have been excellent all along.

The millers were the final and only decision as to whether the wheat was millable or not. Many buyers, men of repute who had stood the test of time and who had the confidence of the farmers, told me they took in the wheat believing it was millable, but it was sent back to them as unmillable. They had no redress. There is no protection for the farmer against that sort of thing, except the Minister for Agriculture. I want to tell this House that when we were in Government and when we were supposed, according to my friends opposite, to have done everything wrong, we had a parallel set of circumstances: a bad harvest and wheat being returned. My telephone was going night and day, as it has been since the recent harvest, and I got on to the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon. The situation was put right and the millers, who were throwing out the wheat as unmillable, took it because they were protected by the Minister for Agriculture. That is what I want to make crystal clear to Deputies. The only person who can protect the farmers against the millers, who have an absolute and utter monopoly—I challenge anyone to deny that —is the Minister for Agriculture.

That is the state of affairs that has prevailed throughout this harvest. Is it any wonder that farmers are going around saying that the election came four weeks too soon and that if they had another chance, they would get at this Government and give them their answer? I do not know what the financial position of this Government is, but I have reason to suspect it is a parlous one, judging from the fact that yesterday we had a Supplementary Estimate for £10,000,300, including a sum for last year's wheat when there was a fairly disastrous harvest as well. A state of affairs exists at the moment in which the whole economic fabric is taken out and nobody knows where he stands or where he is going to turn to get the money to pay his rates. These people are quite unable to pay the merchants from whom they bought their seeds; they are unable to pay for the manures; they are unable to have a few pounds to stock for next year. Many farmers, when finished with the harvest, have a few pounds in hand to buy sheep or to put on after-grass or that sort of thing. They have not a shilling now.

The price prevailing even before the election, when we were all busy, was fairly satisfactory. Immediately the election was over, the crisis started. The price was 45/- a barrel, no matter what sort of wheat you sent in, whether it was good, millable or otherwise. I have seen samples come in myself—I am not an expert and I do not claim to be one—but the merchants dealing with it knew that every single barrel was sent back as unmillable. If it comes back as unmillable, the farmer is supposed to get 45/- a barrel. Did he get it? Not likely. He lost on his moisture up and down, and it was always down. I know farmers who got 35/- a barrel for wheat. The Minister for Agriculture knows what they paid for their seed and he knows the expense involved in putting that crop in.

There is no protection for the wheat grower. Over the years we have listened to the jibes and taunts from those opposite that we were grass farmers, not tillage farmers, and they were going to put the agricultural community on their feet. There is less money in Wexford today, the premier tillage county of Ireland, which I have the honour to represent, than ever before. There is less money in the pockets of the tillage farmers there than ever before. I am glad to see the Taoiseach is listening to this debate. I hope he read the telegram sent to him by numerous Fine Gael Deputies. I hope he now will listen to the representations made to him by the Deputies sitting behind him from the tillage counties, who know that every word of what I am saying is the truth. In fact, I am stating the position conservatively, if anything.

Of course, the answer will be that the millers are the experts, that they have spent all this money setting up this machinery so they can give the flour to the Irish people. What about the farmers who bought machinery? What about the tremendous capital investment in machinery and so on? How are they to get the money? Many of these things have been bought on hire purchase in the hope that there would be a decent future for agriculture here. They have suffered more and expended more of the money at their disposal than the millers. The millers are simply in control of the wheat situation at the moment. I put it to the Minister in all fairness that it is not too late for him to say he realises this drastic situation exists and to give immediate help to the farmers of my constituency and of the other constituencies.

If the Minister replies to this debate, it is only fair that he should give the House some indication as to the future for those who take the hazard of growing wheat. No matter what anyone says, it is a hazard. Over the past five or six years, there have been two good harvests. This year was an exceptionally good year. It looked at one time as if we would have an absolutely bumper harvest. If we had had a bumper harvest, despite all these exhortations of the Government to grow more wheat, there would have been the difficulty of disposing of the surplus.

The Taoiseach, who is at the moment a student of international affairs, although he is a city man, must have his mind preoccupied with the outlook for agriculture. There is not a grain of Irish wheat to be got into the European market. There is a surplus of wheat in the world today. Let them consider their whole policy problem and come out and meet it. Perhaps it will be argued by some Fianna Fáil speaker when I sit down that I am trying to make political capital. They can say that if they want to. What I am trying to do is what I am sent here to do—defending the men in my own constituency who are in poverty and hardship and have no future, financially or otherwise. I am trying to defend the business people of my constituency and the working people, whom the farmers will not be able to pay. I submit it is the duty of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture to act because this is not only a crisis in some counties. It is an overall national crisis.

Mr. Crotty

I second the motion. In my county, the farmers cannot understand the inaction of the Government in this crisis. The people appreciate that this Government are mainly concerned with the interests of Dublin and the other large cities, but they also appreciate that certain Deputies throughout the country might have carried some weight with the Government, that their words would be accepted and recognition given to them. It was never felt that the Government would take action on their own, without telling any of these Deputies that action was being taken.

Last year, cereal crops had early on shown good promise—barley, oats and wheat. The people growing barley and oats were very fortunate that they were able to get the crops in in very good weather. It was not so with wheat. In the following season, there was a break of two to three weeks in the weather in April and that put back the remainder of the tillage and consequently the putting in of the wheat crop was delayed. This was the experience particularly in heavy land: people had to hold over until the land was fit for tillage. Then, coming on to August and September, people hoped they would be able to cut the wheat early, but the season turned out to be very slow for ripening, the result being that any wheat sown after the break in the weather in April was not fit for cutting till the end of October. We all know what came then—the storms and the bad weather in general.

After that break, the farmers got a chance to cut but when they presented their wheat, the merchants and the millers were not prepared to accept it because they felt that the Government would act in a very short time. The result was that the position in the wheat growing areas developed into a crisis. The millers expected the Government to step into the breach as they had done the previous year and as every other Government had done, when it became necessary every other year. After all, what was the difference between 1961 and 1960, two years when we had bad harvests? Would the farmers not need more help in 1961 after the bad harvest of the previous year? Apparently it was seen in 1960 that there was bound to be an election within the coming 12 months. That apparently affected Government policy, but, in 1961, we had the possibility that there would not be an election for two or three years.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy is optimistic.

Mr. Crotty

Several people called on me about this. On Monday, October 16th, I rang the Minister's office. His private secretary, or whoever it was answered, told me the Minister was engaged in a conference with his officials concerning wheat and that he was treating it as a matter of urgency. I was quite satisfied and I told anybody who came to me that he need not worry, that the Minister was dealing with the matter as one of urgency. As I say, I was quite satisfied. That evening, I attended a meeting of the county council in Kilkenny. A question of increases in salaries arose and somebody asked how the ratepayers could pay increased salaries to officials if the price of their wheat was to be cut. He said they could not be expected to pay if they themselves were not paid for their crops.

At that meeting, nobody anticipated what would happen. There was a general discussion and Deputy Medlar said that as the Government were the sponsors of wheat growing in this country against all opposition, the Government would deal with the situation. I would say Deputy Medlar made that statement in all good faith. At the same meeting, after the debate, it was proposed by Deputy Gibbons that a telegram be sent to the Minister for Agriculture urging him to direct immediate purchase, as in previous years, of all wheat being rejected by the millers. I bring this out for the simple reason that those Deputies are members of the Fianna Fáil Party and in view of the fact that the Minister, in reply to questions a fortnight ago— there were several supplementary questions—said: "You would think we have a problem with all the noise from the Opposition." He was insinuating it was only the Opposition who were raising any noise.

This is more than a problem: it is a crisis and one would think that the Minister, whose Party were the sponsors of wheat growing in this country, would regard it as a crisis. Is it on instructions from the Government that the Minister comes in here and tries to play down the wheat prices? Cannot he say decently: "We have changed our policy," instead of telling the people who are stuck to the land that there is no problem? I have quoted two of my fellow Deputies from Carlow-Kilkenny. I feel sure Deputies from every wheat growing area have the same experience.

During that week, the National Farmers' Association met the Minister and I, with four other Deputies, later attended a meeting of the Association in the Kilkenny mart. At that meeting, the chairman stated in public that he did not expect anything more from the Minister. I said to him: "Can you tell me why you made a statement like that in public"? He replied: "Judging from the reception we got from the Minister, that is the only statement I could make". Some time ago, my late colleague, Deputy Hughes, urged that politics should be taken out of agriculture for the good of all sections of the community. Nobody has any doubt that the N.F.A. represent a responsible body of farmers and that they deserve a better reception from the Minister for Agriculture. They are very responsible men. We all read of what the National President, Dr. Greene, said in Tramore about the way the Minister handled the crisis and that the organisation would go a long way with him. Dr. Greene has gone a long way with the Government and the Minister. Is that the way they are to be turned down when they make representations? I am surprised at the Taoiseach. Even though he is not a country man, he has a touch of business about him and I cannot imagine a businessman letting the Minister for Agriculture act as he has acted.

As I have said already, it was agreed that some Deputies would meet the Taoiseach and kindly enough, one of our Fianna Fáil Deputies promised to get in touch with him. The following week when I came up here, there were five Deputies representing the Parties that went up to the polls in Carlow-Kilkenny, two Fianna Fáil, one Labour and two Fine Gael. The Taoiseach said it was not his place to receive us and sent us down to the Minister for Agriculture, who, I must say, received us very kindly. He said they would meet the situation for 1962 but not this year. I could not understand it. I do not think his own colleagues understand the action he took.

Do the Government realise the seriousness of the situation? I doubt if they do even today. The price of wheat is going from 37/- to 45/- and if they went to the ports during the dock strike, they would have seen shiploads of Russian pollard that could not be unloaded while our farmers' wheat was brought in at 37/- a barrel. A farmer has shown me samples of wheat which bushelled 61½, with a moisture content of 18½. He brought it to the merchants who said: "It is really good wheat but we are afraid to touch it. It may go to the mills and be returned but we feel the Government will come in. They have always done so before."

If there is a bad harvest one year, the second one is even more damaging. The great majority of the farmers who were caught were the small farmers because they had to wait till their bigger neighbours with combines brought in their wheat, and even those with combines were also caught. I heard one young small farmer at that meeting in Kilkenny saying: "To any farmer employing one man, that price reduction means the difference between his keeping that man in constant employment for 12 months, getting an abatement of rates for him, and having him for only a month."

This is creating a new cause of emigration because if these men cannot be employed on the land, what alternative have they? The small farmers are fighting a hard battle and they cannot pay their bills unless the Government give them a fair crack. Farmers are always anxious to pay their way. Though they may be a bit slow at times, they are anxious to pay every year but when they get this blow, especially any farmer who is not in a very strong position—and these small farmers rearing families cannot be in a strong position—they find it almost impossible to recover. A large farmer in a good financial position will be able to take this rap but the small farmer cannot.

Emigration has been heavy enough —215,000 people over the past five years. It may be easing down but this is a new source tapped by the deliberate action of the Government. The Minister told us this was a Government decision. That may be but have the Government not changed their decisions before? Has the Taoiseach not changed a decision of the Government in regard to the E.S.B.? He brought in a Bill here and even while the Bill was going through the House, the Taoiseach changed completely the policy in that Bill of forcing people to work against their will. Did he not change the decision of the Government in relation to the civic guards? The decision to dismiss eleven civic guards was changed. Decisions of the Government can be changed for every section of the people except for the unfortunate small farmer who is trying to keep his head above water.

It strikes me that the policy of the Government is that agriculture is no longer a way of life, that it is an industry. We talk about the Common Market, and, in line with that, agriculture must be made one big industry. Have the Government decided that the policy on agriculture must be that we are to blot out every small farmer in the country, because the Taoiseach, whether he knows it or not, is going a long way towards blotting them out? That would seem to be the policy that emerges from statements by the Minister and other front bench members.

I ask the Taoiseach to look into this position again. We have had two other crises arising in relation to butter and bacon. The Government have to make arrangements with somebody outside in regard to butter and bacon. Here is one crisis that the Government have created for themselves. If this decision stands, it will form the basis of further emigration. I would ask the Taoiseach to change his policy, to change it even before the Minister gets in this evening.

Mr. McQuillan

I move amendment No. 1:—

To delete "crop" in the third line and substitute "and other crops, such as barley, oats, hay, potatoes, etc."

The motion, if the amendment is inserted, would read:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should take steps to help the farmers who through no fault of their own suffered crippling losses from the effects of storm and adverse weather conditions on their wheat and other crops, such as barley, oats, hay, potatoes, etc., in the growing of which they were carrying out the urgent exhortations of the Government.

I am sure the Deputies whose names are attached to this motion will understand that the small farmers who are not wheat-growers suffered catastrophic losses. I am sure they will forgive me for attempting to widen the scope of this debate and to include other very deserving farmers if any steps are to be taken to compensate the farming community. I think it should be a case of all or none.

Deputy Crotty mentioned that in his county the growers of barley, and I presume, to a great extent malting barley, were able to save their barley crop. If that is the case, he is concerned solely with wheat. In my constituency and in part of the West where malting barley is grown, many of the small farmers lost their entire crop of malting barley this season. Is it fair to suggest that because a small farmer grows wheat, he should receive compensation and that the small farmer who grows malting barley and whose livelihood is at stake should be left out? I do not think that is fair or just.

The Taoiseach should examine all aspects of this matter before agreeing to compensate a limited group. The exhortations of the leaders of this Government to the farmers to produce more were not confined to the wheat farmer. Those exhortations were aimed at the farming community all over the country, outside the wheat belt. They were directed to the small farmers who produce crops other than wheat.

I feel that when the words "urgent exhortations" are used in this motion, they should cover the farming community in general. Let me give an example of hardship imposed on small farmers in County Roscommon by reason of the bad weather and the storm this year. Very near Ballinasloe, I recently met a farmer with a valuation of about £22. He had four acres of malting barley. The first big storm scattered the four acres of malting barley into the next five parishes. That man and his family were dependent on that crop. Deputy Esmonde said, and rightly so, that the system in Wexford is exactly the same as in this area. He got his seed and fertiliser on credit from the local merchant at Ballinasloe. He was in debt to that merchant, a very decent man. Not alone had he that debt on his shoulders but he then had the loss of his crop. That man does not know what to do today. I am sure Deputy Esmonde will be the first to agree with me that that man is just as much entitled to compensation, when compensation can be made available, as the grower of wheat.

To my personal knowledge, over the years prominent members of the Fine Gael Party have criticised in this House the conacre telephone wheat farmer. I know of such gentlemen myself. I have the greatest sympathy with the small wheat-grower. I do not think any Deputy seriously suggests that the 500-acre wheat-grower is entitled at this stage to compensation. The limited liability company, the amateur farmer, the telephone farmer, with from 100 to 500 acres of wheat on conacre are, I presume, included in this motion as deserving of the utmost sympathy from the rest of the community. The small farmer and the medium farmer in the wheat-growing areas have my sympathy.

I find it very hard to know how to segregate the wheat from the chaff. Of course, the real solution to the wheat problem is the nationalisation of the milling industry, for a start, and the issue of contracts to the farming community for the growing of wheat on the sames lines as operate for the sugar beet industry. If the Government were in a position to control the milling end and issue contracts to the farmer and ensure that no farmer would have over 20 or 50 acres of wheat or whatever the acreage decided upon would be, and that he would not be paid for producing over a certain amount, then, the position would be logical and sanity would be brought into the situation. The Government, the farmer and the public would be satisfied that there was no exploitation from the time the seed was put in the ground until it finally appeared in the form of bread on the consumer's plate.

The one way to solve the wheat question is to take over the milling industry and to put wheat growing on a contract basis. The Sugar Company is one of our most successful nationalised ventures. I cannot understand why the same system would not be successful in relation to wheat growing. We know what happened when this question was discussed here. The milling interests spent almost £20,000 in advertising in the newspapers to try to counteract the case made in this House against them. If they were in a position to spend money in such a generous manner on publicity in order to build up their case, it shows what guilty consciences some of these people have with regard to the way the farmer is being exploited.

I do not think the ordinary farmer expects compensation. However, when he brings wheat to a miller, he has the feeling that the miller is exploiting him. I am inclined to believe the farmer because, when investigations were made into a number of complaints, the miller was found to be in the wrong. The miller is perfectly entitled, as a private individual, to carry out his business as he likes. However, until we control him, there is no good in criticising him. To Fianna Fáil Deputies from wheat-growing areas, I would say that their best solution to the problem is to urge, within their Party councils, the necessity for the nationalisation of the wheat industry.

I do not object to this motion. It is very useful as it gives us an opportunity to pinpoint our views and to suggest desirable methods of solving a problem of this nature. In my amendment, I made reference to other crops such as barley, oats, hay and potatoes. Let us consider the position this year in County Roscommon and in parts of Galway, Longford and Sligo with regard to hay. Most of the farmers around the River Suck in County Roscommon are small farmers with a valuation of £8 to £25: the majority would be around £13 10s. To farmers in the south of Ireland, as a Deputy here once described them, they are merely hen-roosts. They are very small. The land in many cases is not of the highest quality but those holdings rear as seems to be the case all over the world, the largest families.

It is a terrible struggle to rear a family on such a small holding at present. This year along the River Suck every bit of hay that those small farmers had was swept away in the floods. Not alone that, but the land was rendered unsuitable for grazing afterwards. That had a twofold effect on the finances of the small farmers concerned. It meant that he had no place to graze his few cattle and that the hay he should have for the winter feeding was no longer available. What was his solution? At the fairs of Ballygar and Roscommon or other local fairs the small farmers had to sell their cattle at depressed prices to pay the high rates. They may not be big in the eyes of the big businessmen but are very big in the eyes of a small farmer. Those people are nearly "out the door." If there is a question of compensation—and I hope there is— the welfare of that type of small farmer must be considered.

I shall not delay the House. This is a motion sponsored by the main Opposition Party and I feel sure all Deputies are anxious to speak. If the Taoiseach is prepared to look at it in a wide context there are a number of ways in which he can help to relieve the distress of farmers who suffered losses through storm and prolonged bad weather. One suggestion I would make to the Taoiseach, who is present, is that he should see that the Minister for Local Government takes immediate steps to restore the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I can think of no more immediate or satisfactory way of bringing about a certain measure of relief for small farmers. They will be able at least to see their land again if steps are taken immediately to drain the land under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

My second suggestion is that much of the red tape attached by the Department of Local Government and the Department of Agriculture to the examination of buildings, whether farm buildings or dwelling houses, should be cut, and grants given generously to repair such buildings as have suffered damage in the recent storm. Thirdly and finally, the Government should this year increase—I do not care how they do it—the agricultural rebate grant to offset the hardship imposed by the ever-rising rates on the farming community. These are three practical steps that should be taken and, if taken, they will not confine compensation to one section of the farming community. The relief would be felt all round. I hope the Government will be prepared to look sympathetically upon that aspect of the proposal.

The Taoiseach

I decided to intervene in this debate primarily to make it clear that the decisions taken by the Government in regard to the problem of the disposal of this year's wheat crop were not the personal decisions of the Minister for Agriculture taken on his own responsibility as has been suggested. Every decision taken was a Government decision. I understand from personal experience the difficulty of Deputies in Opposition in refusing to support a motion for the paying out of public funds to anyone and particularly, I suppose, to farmers. I suppose that is what the motion submitted by a number of Fine Gael Deputies is intended to suggest, although, if Deputies read it, they will note that it is so ambiguously phrased that it could mean anything.

Apparently, the combined wisdom of the 16 Fine Gael Deputies whose names are appended to the motion and who, we assume, must have met together to decide on the proposals they were going to make to the Dáil, resulted in the suggestion that the Government should take some steps. Deputy Esmonde and Deputy Crotty who spoke on the motion were careful to avoid giving any hint of a suggestion of what these steps should be. They were not prepared to contribute to the discussion on this matter one single concrete suggestion of a practical kind and that convinces me that their concern is to exploit the Party political advantage of the situation rather than do anything practical for the farmers who are affected.

I am aware also that some Government Deputies have both personal and constituency problems in supporting, without reservation, the line which the Government are taking in this matter of unmillable wheat from this year's harvest. I had many discussions with Fianna Fáil Deputies from the constituencies in the wheat belt whose interest in their constituents requires no emphasising and I fully appreciate the concern they have displayed in this connection.

When the Government were considering the proposals which were made to them by the N.F.A. and others for special measures to aid some wheat farmers whose crops had been found to be of unmillable quality, we were very well aware how much easier it would be for us, from a purely Party political point of view, just to accept those proposals and put them into operation, regardless of their merits and closing our eyes to the probable consequences of so doing.

May I say that I expected we would receive some such motion here in the Dáil? In the circumstances now prevailing, the temptation to use political pressure to support proposals of this character is, I am sure, difficult to resist and arising out of that prospect of the continuous use of political pressure, which it is thought might have effect on a minority Government, I am equally aware that the whole situation contains the possibility of a Government defeat and a consequent political crisis, as the newspapers would describe it.

When I was elected Taoiseach here last October, I said that the Government would proceed in all matters in precisely the same way as if we had a secure, overall Dáil majority; that we would do what in our judgment was right in any circumstances and let the political consequences look after themselves. Again I want to emphasise that we will not submit to being pressurised by party political considerations into doing something that we consider to be unwise or inequitable merely to avoid the possibility of a political upset. That is how we dealt with these proposals which we received from the N.F.A. regarding the problems arising in connection with this year's wheat crop.

We examined these proposals very carefully and indeed with the utmost sympathy because there would be a natural desire on the part of a Party such as ours, a Government such as ours, to help the farmers affected, if we could do so in a way which would be fair to everyone and which would not produce still greater problems in the future. But, because we did not believe that these proposals were justifiable or supportable on their merits, we rejected the idea of buying for ourselves immediate relief from political pressure by adopting them. May I say, however, in all frankness, that we did not overlook a probability that if we had accepted them we would have created perhaps still greater difficulties of a political character at other times and in other sectors.

The statement contained in this motion that in 1961 farmers were urgently exhorted by the Government to grow more wheat is untrue. During the past ten or twelve years, since the termination of war-time scarcities, the main problem in this country in relation to wheat has been that we are getting too much of it, and nobody knows that better than Deputy Dillon because, when he was Minister for Agriculture in the Coalition Government, he tried to cope with that problem.

Mr. Crotty

The Government are getting too much, or the farmers are getting too much. Which is it?

The Taoiseach

Getting too large a quantity of wheat, more than we need for our requirements of flour and bread. Before the war, indeed, in accordance with the general policy of the Government at that time to prepare so far as possible for the post-war situation, we set up a committee of inquiry into post-war agricultural policy. That committee published its report in 1945, a few months after the termination of hostilities. The majority of the members of that committee recommended that post-war policy should be directed so far as wheat was concerned to the production of 180,000 tons per year and that the guaranteed price should be manipulated and adjusted from one year to another so as to keep the production of wheat in this country around that figure.

Deputies know, however, that we did not accept that majority report and that instead we fixed a target of 300,000 tons of wheat and made it clear that Government policy was designed to secure a yield of that amount, and no greater, in any year. Because of the fall in the consumption of flour, due partly to the decline in population, but mainly to the rise in the living standards of our people, which has reduced their reliance upon bread and spread as a staple feature of their diet, that figure of 300,000 tons of wheat should now perhaps be reduced to 280,000 tons to give the same percentage of usage of native wheat in the flour millers' grist. However, whether the figure should be 300,000 tons or 280,000 tons, Government policy is directed towards the production of that quantity of good millable wheat. Deputies who study the figures will realise that in many years during the past decade we got considerably more than that quantity and the surplus of wheat produced, the quantity passed to millers in excess of the tonnage needed to meet the millers' requirements for the production of flour and bread, had to be sold at a very heavy financial loss either for export or for animal feeding.

From time to time many plans have been discussed as to how best to go about the task of reducing the acreage sown to wheat so as to keep it in or around the target figure set by Government policy. In 1955, after the record post-war wheat harvest of 1954, Deputy Dillon, who was then Minister for Agriculture, tried to meet that problem by reducing the guaranteed price of wheat, but even that had only insufficient and temporary effect. There was, it is true, a decline in the acreage sown to wheat in 1955 and 1956, but it had risen again in the following years, 1957 and 1958.

Many of the proposals which were considered and discussed in regard to this problem, the means by which the acreage sown to wheat could be related to our actual requirements of native wheat for the production of flour, were not publicised, but some of them were. There was this idea of a contract system, to which Deputy McQuillan has referred, an arrangement under which the millers would contract with farmers for the required quantity of wheat, and no more than that. That suggestion for a contract system is, as many Deputies know, very strongly opposed by the National Farmers' Association. The present levy system which was designed to discourage the sowing of an excessive acreage by reducing the actual price realised by growers in years in which an excess acreage was sown, and which was also designed to provide a means of meeting the cost of the disposal of surplus wheat at a loss, has not proved very effective either.

It is against that background of excessive wheat production and a need in many years to dispose of surplus wheat at a heavy loss to both wheat growers and taxpayers, that we considered the proposals we received this year from the National Farmers' Association in regard to the unmillable wheat produced by some farmers from this year's harvest.

Their suggestion was that the levy which had been imposed in order to help to dispose of an anticipated surplus of wheat should not be given back to those who paid it, when it was clear it would not be needed for that purpose, but should be used, together with the revenue to be obtained from a tax upon imported wheat, in order to give to the farmers who failed to produce millable wheat the same price for their crop as if they did. I take it that the fact that this Fine Gael motion refers to "some steps" is an indication that they are not now prepared to stand over these proposals of the National Farmers' Association.

We have, every one of us, and indeed everybody in our community, sympathy with any farmer who in relation to his wheat, or his oats, or his barley, or any other crop, of which he took good care and was not taking a gamble in regard to it, either in respect of the time of sowing or the time of harvesting, failed nevertheless to secure a good crop. But the effect of the proposals which we received from the N.F.A., the effect of the idea, if there is an idea behind this motion, that a farmer who produces unmillable wheat should nevertheless be paid for it as if it was first-class wheat, would be to say to farmers that they need never again take care with their wheat, that they can sow when they like and harvest when they like, that so long as they go through the motions of growing wheat, irrespective of the quality of what they produce, they will nevertheless be paid for it in the same way and on the same scale as if they produce a good well-cared crop.

In the Government's view such a policy would mean the end of wheat growing in Ireland. It would arouse such public ridicule that the reaction amongst the public against wheat growing, against the whole policy of supporting the growing of wheat here, would be almost inevitable. A tax on farmers who grew good wheat to help farmers who did not, a tax on flour to compensate further the growers of bad wheat, are proposals which are unjustifiable and in my view completely indefensible.

It is true that many farmers sowed their wheat late in 1961 because of the weather conditions. Whatever compulsions were on them to do so—and Deputy Esmonde referred to some of them—every one of them knew they were taking a risk.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

What were they to do with the seed?

The Taoiseach

When they sowed the wheat late, they knew that they were taking the risk that they would not gather a good crop and those who waited for the combine before harvesting their wheat also knew the risk that was involved in that gamble. Is that a reason why the great majority of wheat growers, whether they were just good farmers or lucky farmers, should be asked to underwrite that gamble and bear the losses which arose for those who took it?

Let us be clear as to the dimensions of the problems we are discussing. This affects only a minority of the wheat growers. I do not know if it is practicable to distinguish between those affected by it, as to those who are genuine small farmers and the conacre men, the wheat contractors, to whom Deputy McQuillan referred. I do not think it would be practicable to do so. The total intake of millable wheat from this year's harvest will be 280,000 tons. That is the full quantity of native wheat that we will require for milling purposes in any future years. In addition, there were 25,000 tons of good wheat purchased for seed. There can be no serious attempt to make a realistic comparison between the circumstances of this year and those of 1960 and 1958 in which, because of weather conditions, there was an almost complete failure of the wheat crop.

It is, of course, true that wheat farmers are not the only people who are affected by the adverse weather that came in early October. Some barley and some oats were also damaged. Most of the barley or oats grown in this country are produced for use on the farm and it would not be possible to attempt to measure that loss but, if there were to be compensation arrangements made to apply to farmers only, it would be impossible for any rational man to attempt to defend that discrimination in their favour because amongst the wheat farmer, the man who produced unmillable wheat, was, nevertheless, able to sell it at its true market value.

We are well aware that there are frequent disputes between farmers and millers as to the grading of wheat. These disputes arise every year, good and bad. I suppose they are almost inevitable. It seems difficult to devise a system of independent checks which would work with sufficient speed and which would be acceptable both to farmers and millers. I am very doubtful that if such a system of independent checks had operated this year it would have worked for the benefit of the wheat growers. Of this I am convinced that if it were known at the time, when wheat was being delivered to the mills, that the Government was intervening to ensure that the grower of unmillable wheat would get the same price as the farmer who produced a good crop of millable wheat, probably a very much higher proportion of the crop would have been rejected by the millers and the merchants.

Nevertheless, I say that if some workable and acceptable system of devising an independent check at the point of intake can be suggested by anybody, the Government will be prepared to receive it, consider it and implement it if we are convinced that it will prove satisfactory. If there is any other method of limiting the acreage sown to wheat and of providing the maximum inducement to farmers to produce only high grade wheat than is operating, we shall also be prepared to consider that. Any proposal of a constructive kind that comes to the Government from any member of the Dáil, or anybody outside the Dáil, will be very sympathetically examined, but the present levy system is the best that has yet been devised to meet the problem of the surplus. That levy system must not be destroyed, until we have something to replace it, by diverting the proceeds of the levy to some purpose other than that for which it was collected.

All this relates to circumstances prevailing in any year. There is no arrangement which can guarantee farmers against the possibility and the consequences of a bad harvest experience. That can be no more the case for wheat farmers than for any other type of farmer.

The Government cannot accept this motion. In our considered judgment the circumstances do not justify acting along the lines suggested by the National Farmers' Association and if that is what the Deputies opposite have in mind, then our objection applies to them also both because we consider the proposals themselves were inequitable and unjustifiable and also because in our view the future consequences to the wheat policy would be catastrophic.

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of explanation, may I tell the Taoiseach that when I referred to the question of contracts, I did so on the basis that the contract would not be controlled by the millers. The same thing applied, I understood, to the N.F.A. proposition. They are completely opposed to the contract system being operated and controlled by the millers. If the milling industry were taken over by the State, there is not the same objection to the contract system.

Mr. Dillon

Our motion is quite simple. There is no use in the Taoiseach trying to tear a passion to tatters. He is a very shrewd old political operator but I notice today that he was not prepared to trust the Minister for Agriculture to handle this proposition. He came in to lend a hand himself and he is very well advised. There is no man better skilled in the art of erecting an argument in order to knock it down and then shaking his gory locks saying: "If that is your argument, I will have nothing of it." Our proposal is perfectly simple. It is:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should take steps to help the farmers who through no fault of their own suffered crippling losses from the effects of storm and adverse weather conditions on their wheat crop, in the growing of which they were carrying out the urgent exhortations of the Government.

I appeal to Deputy Gibbons as a member of the Party. I do not know if Deputy Medlar is here. I will not embarrass Deputy Allen by appealing to him. There is a hardened old warrior there, Deputy Egan——

Mr. N. Egan

The Deputy did not put his name to the motion.

Mr. Dillon

Did you not believe it was the policy of Fianna Fáil to grow wheat?

Mr. N. Egan

The Deputy did not put his name to the motion.

Mr. Dillon

Did the Deputy not stump the country at that time telling the people it was the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party to grow more wheat?

Mr. N. Egan

Certainly, to the amount required.

Mr. Dillon

Now listen. I am asking the Taoiseach to listen. There is that old warrior up there who has been trotting after him for the past 20 years. He believes it was Fianna Fáil policy to grow wheat. He has been stumping the country telling the farmers that it was the Taoiseach's policy to grow more wheat.

The Taoiseach

300,000 tons.

Mr. Dillon

I am not talking about what the Taoiseach knows; I am talking about what he taught the boys to go down the country and tell the people. There they are—a whole row of them. They have been preaching that doctrine for the past 10, 15 or 20 years—all except the young man, and he has not started preaching it yet. I suppose after today he will be saying the same thing in County Wexford.

Mr. Allen

Not a bit.

Mr. Dillon

He will want to watch himself or he will get a severe check at the next Party meeting. The farmers of this country, instructed by the Taoiseach's supporters, believed it was Government policy to grow more wheat. The Taoiseach has referred today to a discussion which took place on one occasion in this House when I reduced the price of wheat from 84/- to 72/6 a barrel. Deputies would have to have very short memories to forget Deputy Nicholas Egan on that occasion. I thought he would have a stroke—the roars of him could be heard in the next world: this was a felon's blow struck at the farmers of Ireland, an attempt to put an end to the glorious Fianna Fáil policy of growing more wheat.

Mr. N. Egan

I never compared it to boot polish, as the Deputy did.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Moher also nearly had a stroke at the thought of it. I remember the occasion when the Minister for External Affairs wept, and wet the whole House with crocodile tears about the cruel thing being done in reducing the price of wheat. I admit that the Taoiseach, being a cute operator, was out of the House. There was not a whimper out of him; he was as silent as the grave. He knew what I had in my hand. He knew I knew what others did not know: that there was in existence a Government decision to reduce the total output of wheat to 300,000 tons per annum.

The Taoiseach

That was published.

Mr. Dillon

It was never published. It was a Government decision. I would not have mentioned it in this House if it had been merely a consultation between Fianna Fáil Ministers, but it was a Government decision. It was never communicated to the public——

The Taoiseach

It had been published years before.

Mr. Dillon

——until I published it in this House to the consternation of the poor weepers who lamented my iniquitous action on that day. There is a limit to what the Taoiseach can get away with. The welkin was made to ring in this House by every supporter the Taoiseach now has in the House, the day we reduced the price of wheat. They solemnly promised, in the presence of God, that if given the opportunity, they would restore the price of 84/-.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is true.

Mr. Dillon

I remember Deputy Corry coming in, in November, 1957, and saying: "When are we going to increase the price of wheat?" Deputy Aiken was Acting Minister for Agriculture at the time, because the late Senator Moylan had not then been appointed, and he brushed him aside and told him: "Wait and see. There is no use talking about changing the price now; we will talk of it later on." I remember Deputy Corry complaining that he had told the people it was Fianna Fáil policy to increase the price of wheat. I heard him say in Killeagh in East Cork, when he was seeking votes, that it was Fianna Fáil policy to grow more wheat. When he raised the matter here, he was treated like an old shoe in a bag and told he was expected to go into the Lobby and vote with the Party, and God help him, he did. I pitied him because I believed that he believed what he was saying. I do not believe the rest of them believed it, but Deputy Corry is a simple man and he believed what he was preaching as Fianna Fáil policy when he spoke in Killeagh.

The Taoiseach cannot get away with the proposition he put forward today that there was no Fianna Fáil policy to grow more wheat and that they never told the people to grow more wheat. The record is there for each Deputy to read. Look at the embarrassed countenances of the Taoiseach's supporters. Look at Deputy Gibbons. Is Deputy Medlar here? There he is. Look at Deputy Medlar. Yet he will go into the Lobby today to repudiate what he himself has said in Kilkenny ever since he came into public life. There is no need for the Taoiseach to shake his head. I know all the problems.

The Taoiseach

I am admiring the Deputy's performance.

Mr. Dillon

I know all the problems and difficulties in relation to this matter far better than the Taoiseach does. He would not know an ear of wheat from an ear of barley if he saw them.

Mr. N. Egan

The Deputy has a lot of farmers behind him.

Mr. Dillon

I have, and I suppose that causes the Deputy some distress. We will argue this business on its merits. I am simply coming before the House on this proposition: if the farmers of this country meet with a loss, a crippling loss, because of storm and adverse weather conditions, we should do something to help them. We are told now that the Taoiseach is bracing himself to resist political pressure, that he will not submit to political pressure of this kind. Was it political pressure when the E.S.B. workers said they would not work if they did not get the wages they wanted? There was no talk of political pressure then. Is it political pressure when the agricultural machinery workers ask for tariffs? When we left office, I asked the Taoiseach to honour our undertaking that the tariff which had been in operation on machinery would be reviewed in consultation with the N.F.A. and his answer was: "The N.F.A. know our policy and I will not honour any undertaking you have given." Was it political pressure then?

Is it political pressure when the chamber of commerce demand this tariff or that tariff, this protection or that protection? That is never political pressure. The only people who are charged in this House with bringing improper political pressure to bear on the Government when they seek vindication of their own rights are the farmers. I can never understand that. No other section of the community are charged with political pressure, if they seek to have their rights vindicated in this House. I am not speaking for the N.F.A.; I am not speaking for the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association; I am not speaking for any organisation at all. I am speaking for the Fine Gael policy and it is a very simple proposition: if the farmers, through no fault of their own, suffer a catastrophe, it is not unreasonable for them to come to their own Parliament and ask for help.

When the people in the Shannon Valley were flooded out of their homes, I did not think it was remarkable or unreasonable of them to ask Deputy MacEoin and me—I was Minister for Agriculture and he was Minister for Defence—to go to the Shannon Valley, get the people out of their flooded homes, get accommodation for them, compensate them for their loss, and put them back on their feet. Was that political pressure? I think it was a natural, human and decent reaction on the part of the Legislature which was considering a section of the community who had suffered a catastrophe and were unable to protect themselves from the results.

I agree that our resources will not extend to insure everyone. I agree with the Taoiseach when he says it is not physically possible, with our resources, to say to everyone who engages in the agricultural industry: "We will provide insurance for your crop." First, it is not within our resources; secondly, it is not practicable to do it.

I do not deny for a moment that there are careless farmers and careful farmers. If I believed that the only farmers who suffered loss this year were careless farmers who had got involved in loss through their own idleness or lack of diligence, I would not raise my voice for them at all, but I know that is not true.

I am not very much concerned for the big contractor; Fianna Fáil are concerned for the big wheat contractor. I think the man who goes into it on that scale ought to carry his own insurance. The man I am concerned with is the ordinary farmer who plants wheat in the ordinary rotation at the urgent instigation of the Fianna Fáil Government and in pursuit of a policy urged and pressed on this country by the Fianna Fáil Party that an essential part of a good rotation in certain parts of this country should be a wheat crop.

I want to make one point here. I do not believe the Taoiseach has suffered himself to be adequately informed and, quite honestly, I do not believe the Minister for Agriculture knows the difference. I do not think he gives a damn and I do not think he bothered to find out. There is no strict analogy between the wheat crop and the oats crop and the barley crop and anyone who has any understanding of this problem realises that. If an oats crop or a barley crop runs into bad weather, you can pick it up and salvage it and use it for animal feed. I have seen a crop of feeding barley flattened on the ground and rained on for a fortnight or three weeks and yet if you got a week's fine weather and put a combine into that, it was astonishing what you could recover. It was discoloured and did not look good but you could grind it down and feed it to livestock. It could be salvaged and used on the farm.

It is quite a different story if you are dealing with malting barley or wheat. I shall not go into the essentials for a satisfactory saleable malting barley crop, but you are up against an entirely new peril in regard to wheat and this has only emerged in the past two or three years. In the old days, if you could save the wheat crop and thresh it in a reasonably dry condition, and presented it to the millers, even if it was damp, they dried it and milled it, but, suddenly, some genius discovered in the course of the past three years that there was not only a maltose complication but that there were two maltose complications—two different varieties of maltose that could develop in a head of wheat in certain climatic conditions. So far as the farmer is concerned, he has no means on God's earth of checking as to whether that condition is present or not.

Heretofore, we always knew that if wheat sprouted on the stalk or in the stook, it contained a constituent which made it virtually unfit for milling, but I want to remind the Taoiseach that in 1954 we had one of the worst harvests in the history of the country. I remember on that occasion sending for the millers and I was told that they could not touch it. I remember saying to them: "Listen, gentlemen; it is not a question of whether you can touch it or not. It is a question of whether you do your job or we take you over and do it for you. Your business is to handle this crop. Let us dispose, first of all, of the question of whether you can take it or not. You are going to take it. Now, the question is how are you to go about it." Once they made up their minds that the Government were quite resolved to pursue that policy, it was all right. Then they said: "We will do it." Then the problem was how to do it and we segregated the wheat into what was directly millable and what had a maltose content and we ultimately determined that they should use about a varying percentage of that defective wheat in the total grist. It took 18 or 24 months to filter into the grist the inferior type of wheat resulting from the bad harvest but, to my recollection, not a single barrel was rejected ultimately except what had gone mouldy and that could not be handled. Except for that, they handled it all and converted it all into flour. It took time and it took patience.

Since that time, the millers introduced a new preparation, that is, there is a new variety of maltose, the exact name of which I have forgotten, which occurs in wheat even when it has not sprouted but when it is threatened with sprouting. Two things happened this year. There was a wild storm. In so far as the storm is concerned, farmers lost a lot of grain off the head of the wheat by the wheat knocking together before it was ever cut at all. That was immediately followed by a period of a fortnight's rain, followed by a warm spell. They were suddenly informed that even that which survived the storm was now unfit for milling into flour. Whether that is true or not, I cannot tell you.

I would have argued with the millers, if I were Minister for Agriculture, that it might not be ideal wheat for milling into flour but that it could be converted into flour if it were used in small quantities in the grist but the Minister for Agriculture decided that he was not prepared to press that view on the millers. He accepted the proposition that if this particular type of maltose was present in the grain as a result of the wet weather, he would not press the millers to use it for flour and would authorise them to reject it and buy it at not more than 45/- a barrel. In practice, a great many of the farmers never got the 45/- because when there were superimposed upon the 45/- deductions for moisture and other deductions, a great many of them get only 35/-, 36/-, 39/- and 40/-.

I do not think you could meet that situation by any detailed or elaborate plan to redress every docket that every miller got but if you acknowledge that a group of farmers have suffered a heavy loss that they can ill afford, that their preparations for the wheat crop involved them in heavy capital commitments and that they are really, many of them, substantially crippled by their loss, then you ought to come to their aid. You cannot do absolute justice but if you gave £1 per barrel to any man whose wheat was rejected as unmillable, I admit some fellows would suffer heavier losses than others but it would be a rough and ready way of helping them in getting them out of a jam. It is not going to cripple anybody and the money is not going to leave the country but it will mean that many small farmers, otherwise faced with acute difficulties, will be relieved of their situation and at least put back on their feet again, although I doubt very much if they would get a profit on their year's work. All I am concerned to ensure is that they are not absolutely wiped out.

Now, the Taoiseach throws emphasis on the contractor and so forth. That is what irritates me with the Minister for Agriculture because here, I am sure, his advisers have told him and, what I blame him for, he does not seem to have passed that information on to the Taoiseach, that it is not the big fellows who got caught because what has happened is this: where there are combines for hire in rural Ireland, naturally, the combine owner will go to the big fellow first because all the fellows who are competing for contracts naturally want to get the big areas of wheat and the man with the big area of wheat has the first option on the combine. The fellow with the small area is the last on the list. It is quite true that a farmer coming from the West of Ireland or, indeed, coming from Cavan or Monaghan, is inclined to say: "Why did he not cut it himself?" The answer is that he has not got the labour. They have got out of the habit of that practice in the West of Ireland.

In the West of Ireland if we cannot get a reaper and binder, we go out with a scythe and cut it by hand if necessary, but you want a lot of labour to do that and you want skilled labour. It is not easy to get a man in Kilkenny, Kildare, Carlow, or Meath who is able to go out and cut seven or eight acres with a scythe and take it out by hand and bind it by hand. It is frightfully expensive to do that in any case, even though the agricultural rates of wages which we have are not as high as all that. It is the small fellows who suffer—I mean the fellow with five, or six or ten acres of wheat as compared with the man with 100 acres. It is these people who cannot do it.

I agree with Deputy Crotty, and I think Deputy Esmonde also said it, that the man who is farming on a large scale must take one year with another. He has a good year and he has a bad year and so on. If he is on a substantially large scale he must take the rough with the smooth, but the man in a small way can get wiped out. In our part of the country with which the Minister for Agriculture is personally familiar, and I am familiar with County Mayo, if a man loses three or four cows and happens to be a small man, he is out. Unless he has friends or neighbours to make him a present of cattle to put him back on his feet he will be chronically poor.

In these parts of the country where this catastrophe has stricken the people a lot of these fellows could be put in the position that they could not get back on their feet. They have borrowed money; many already owe considerable sums to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and to the seed merchant and to the shop. Unless they can get at least enough to put them back on their feet they cannot get back. I am a Deputy for Monaghan and part of Louth. So far as Monaghan is concerned, it does not affect them at all because no wheat is grown.

Mr. Smith

Some.

Mr. Dillon

Where?

Mr. Smith

Around Inniskeen.

Mr. Dillon

That is around Dundalk, at the Louth end, where there is wheat grown, but I am a Deputy for Monaghan and it is my home town politically. There are a lot of people in Monaghan who take the Minister's point of view: "Let them go to blazes. Why should wheat farmers be looked after any more than the man who grows grass seed?" I understand their reaction, but it is the duty of the Minister for Agriculture to look at these things from the point of view of the country as a whole and not only from that of Monaghan and Cavan. I have heard people say: "What about the wheat farmers? Why not compensate us who grow grass seed?" The bottom has fallen out of grass seed this year. It was a very wet year and the growers have not done as well as they thought they would. Some of them would say: "Why not compensate us because we lost oats and barley in the storm?"

My answer is quite simple. Those are hazards they have all got to meet in farming. The ideal would be for us to insure every crop but it simply is not practicable to do that. The wheat proposition, however, is a different proposition because they have not only the storm hazard, which is a very rare occurrence, but the extraordinary situation that if the crop passes through this period of damp and subsequently through warm weather just as it is ripening, then, although it looks all right, and when it is threshed, there is no visual evidence of any deterioration, they are told by the millers that it contains this particular type of maltose and all that they can give is 40/- and so much less as the moisture content demands.

Now we are engaged in a battle with the British over a tariff on butter. That seems to me to have been caused by both sides getting their heels in the ground and beginning to square off to each other. I hope and pray that both sides will abandon that attitude and recognise that we both have difficulties and should be able to compose them and recognise each other's difficulties and meet them instead of the Taoiseach saying that he is being submitted to political pressure and a conspiracy. Some of the most eloquent supporters of this view come from his own benches, but they are afraid to talk today. That is the plain truth.

I must say to Deputy Gibbons' eternal credit that when he was talking in Kilkenny and praising the farmers he was asked if the matter was raised in Dáil Éireann if he would raise his voice in support of them and he replied: "Oh no, I am a politician before I am a farmer and I shall speak with my Party."

Mr. Gibbons

Who told the Deputy that?

Mr. Dillon

I heard it from a bird, from a fly on the wall when the Deputy was talking.

Mr. Gibbons

There were a lot of birds talking to the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

I like a fellow who is loyal to his Party. There is something admirable in that and I like a fellow who will face unpopularity and follow his Party through thick and thin, but there he is in that dilemma and he is not concerned to bring political pressure on the Government.

Mr. Smith

What about Deputy Corry?

Mr. Dillon

There he is, look at him. He is as faithful as he can be and he will follow the Party through thick and thin. He hates the sight of the Minister for Agriculture but yet he follows him. He makes no——

Mr. Smith

Repudiate that.

Mr. Dillon

He will follow loyally into the lobby on this or any other motion by his Party and if there was a motion brought in to convert men into women, and women into men Deputy Corry would be first man into the lobby provided Fianna Fáil introduced the motion. I like him for that; he is a loyal supporter and has nothing to be ashamed of. I think people in this country should pay tribute to others who have their political opinions. I want to put it to the Taoiseach that he is mistaken when he says he is being subjected to political pressure. A section of the community have suffered crippling losses through no fault of their own and we think something should be done.

The Taoiseach

What?

Mr. Dillon

That out of the Exchequer you should pay £1 a barrel to those whose wheat has been rejected as unmillable. I do not suppose that that will please everybody. I do not give a fiddle-de-dee. I know the difficulties of dealing with the situation. I have had to deal with it for long enough. We cannot be 100 per cent. just to everybody. My sole concern is to ensure that a group of hardworking farmers will not be wiped out. I believe if we give them £1 a barrel on their rejected wheat we would not leave them any profit from their year's work; they would have suffered a loss but I believe it would prevent them from being wiped out and would put them back into business next year.

I think we have a new departure. I think if the Taoiseach said to the farmers as of today: "Now, take notice, you know the dangers of growing wheat; you know it is a hazardous crop; you know we have enough wheat growing; let nobody who is not prepared to take the risk grow wheat in the future", then the Government is entitled to say hereafter: "If you lose crops hereafter, that is your own funeral, you went in with your eyes open."

That is a new situation but certainly that was not the impression up to now and I do not think you are entitled to penalise certain people who have no desire and no anticipation of growing rich but simply want the right to rear their families and maintain a modest standard of comfort in their home. That is a simple proposition we make to the Minister. In the light of what the Taoiseach said here today, we can assume it is a non-recurring charge. This is the first and last occasion this case will be made because now the Taoiseach warns all farmers it is no longer the policy of Fianna Fáil to grow more wheat; it is their policy to grow less wheat because the farmers are growing too much, and anyone who wants to continue to grow wheat does so at his own peril. If he loses any part of his crop through weather conditions or maltose development or any of the other hazards that attend the crop, he will have to stand the loss and if he does not want to take a risk like that, he can market something else. If that is the new situation, we have ample notice of it; but it was not the situation until the Taoiseach spoke today.

Our sole proposition is that steps should be taken to help those farmers who, through no fault of their own, suffered crop losses through storm and other adverse weather conditions. We cannot do that with the precision of a calculating machine. We in this Party fully recognise that. We cannot fully compensate them and treat the farmers whose crops have been rejected on the same basis as the people whose crops have been accepted at the fixed minimum prices under the Wheat Order. But we can do a great deal to mitigate the severity of the consequences of the losses they have sustained. That is what we are asking the Government.

I repudiate that this represents political pressure or any other kind of pressure in the pejorative sense of that word. It simply means we are doing what it is our duty to do, that is, to bring before Dáil Éireann a case that is analogous, though not identical, with the farmers in the Shannon Valley who were flooded out. Nobody thought it queer that we should appropriate special moneys on that occasion to go down and help them. We did it and presented Dáil Éireann with the bill, and it was paid. We are asking the present Government to do the same for these farmers. But whereas we gave no indication that if subsequent flood conditions precipitated further crises we were not prepared to meet that crisis again, the Taoiseach gives full notice now that, even if on this occasion the Government are prepared to meet this particular situation, hereafter it is no longer the policy of Fianna Fáil to grow more wheat. Deputy Gibbons note that.

Deputy Medlar is here. He is listening attentively. He is learning his lesson. But Deputy Nicholas Egan from Laois-Offaly has fled. He must learn his lesson, too. He must never say again: "Grow more wheat." Now he must go and say: "Grow less wheat." Furthermore, he must bring a message from the Taoiseach and say: "If you grow it, you grow it at your own peril." That is fair. Everybody knows now henceforward where they stand but unless and until that notice is given, I think we have a moral obligation to help the people who thought they were doing what the Government wanted them to do and have suffered losses they could not have avoided by their best endeavours.

I suggest to the Taoiseach that he might give the British Government a good example by not sticking his heels in the ground on this occasion with our own people and saying: "I have spoken and therefore further argument is irrelevant." I have now made a proposal to him, which I think is fairly reasonable, although it is only a rough and ready suggestion. But it might be no harm to set an example to our neighbours that flexibility in meeting our day-to-day problems is a better system than announcing that face and prestige are involved in every matter that is discussed between two parties who have a problem to resolve. If the proposal of the N.F.A. is not acceptable to the Government and the Government have committed themselves not to accept that, we will not press them to accept it. But cannot a middle way be found?

Our proposal, I think, suggests a middle way. It would remove a great deal of the upset that exists in the country and its acceptance would mean that the Government have some understanding of the day-to-day problems of the people. I think it would rebut what is at present, in my judgment, a legitimate assumption—that any section of the community who makes representations to the Government in defence of their interests is listened to with respect and patience, except the farmers. If they dare to approach them, they are told they are bringing to bear upon the sovereign Government of Ireland illegitimate political pressure. I object to that and I do not think the Minister for Agriculture should sit silently by while that allegation is made. I do not think it is true.

Of course, the farmers seek to put their side of the case. Why should they not? I asked the farmers to do it. Let us be clear on that. Before there was ever an N.F.A., I went down to Robertstown in County Kildare and told them that, in my judgment, the vested interests in this country were so powerful that the farmers ought all combine and form an organisation which would speak on their behalf. I think they were right. It is a useful thing from the point of view of the community as a whole that the farmers should have a body to speak for them. But I am blowed if I can understand why they represent any more political pressure than the Trades Union Congress and the Federated Union of Employers or the industrialists' national organisation. If any of these gentlemen give a dinner or banquet or entertainment, the Taoiseach is breaking his neck to get there and to make a speech. For the Associated Chambers of Commerce he wears his white tie and tails and is prepared to deliver an oration at the drop of a hat. But if the N.F.A. dare to say a word to him: "Ah, ha! Political pressure! I will never surrender to it. I am prepared to die on the battlements."

I do urge on him that this is not a problem. Of course they exert pressure. I had a thousand of them marching up and down outside my Department— the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers led by their president protesting because he had not got the Milk Costings Report, I knowing he had a copy of the report in his hip pocket while he marched up and down at the head of the deputation. I did not say in Dáil Éireann that this was a most iniquitous attempt to bring political pressure to bear; I merely said an "ould daftee" from Cavan was cod acting up and down the street outside the Department of Agriculture.

There has been no political pressure brought to bear as far as I know. I want to say quite categorically that I am not speaking for the N.F.A. The members of this Party who put down this motion are not speaking for the N.F.A. We are speaking for our own Party and I believe we are speaking for a number of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are afraid to speak themselves.

Mr. Gibbons

We are not afraid to say anything at all.

Mr. Dillon

I shall not say "afraid" but they are kind of nervous. They will say it down the country but not here. I am not without hope that we made some impression on the Taoiseach's mind. I would urge the Minister for Agriculture, after he has given up yawning at the tedium of the discussion, to bring his modest influence to bear and suggest to the Taoiseach that the Government might be persuaded to adopt a middle course and thus, perhaps, provide the key to the solution of other problems which are at present being complicated by the adoption of an attitude similar to that adopted by the Taoiseach here today.

Mr. Corry

I should like to tell Deputy Dillon I find something likeable about him, too. He had not the courage to put his name to this motion. I must admire the man who can go so far as to do that.

Mr. Dillon

I did more; I spoke for it.

Mr. Corry

Let Deputy Dillon take his mind back a bit and remember the happy day when he declared here that wheat was gone up the spout as the beet and the peat had gone up the spout already. Thank God it has not gone up the spout yet, apparently. Let me remind Deputy Dillon of what he said:

When the time came in the spring of this year, when our people were no longer able to get Canadian wheat for the first time since the Emergency, we had the enthralling, stimulating and surprising experience of eating bread made out of Irish wheat. Before you ate it you had to hold it out in your hands, squeeze the water out of it, then tease it out and make up your mind whether it was a handful of boot polish or a handful of bread. If it was boot polish you put it on your boots or shoes and if it was bread you tried to masticate it if you were fit.

And his colleague, Deputy Oliver Flanagan, after I had said we did not die through eating it, interrupted to say: "It is a pity Deputy Corry did not get a good feed of it." Deputy Dillon said that on June 18th, 1947, as reported at Column 2050 of the Official Report, Volume 106.

Mr. Smith

He was speaking as a baker then.

Mr. Corry

That was just before my dearly beloved friend became Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

And there was a great change.

Mr. Corry

That was Deputy Dillon's opinion of the bread made out of Irish wheat.

Mr. Dillon

Was there not a great and mighty change made when I became Minister for Agriculture?

Mr. Corry

Do not interrupt. When I said on that occasion that we did not die through eating that bread, Deputy Oliver Flanagan said it was a pity I did not get a good feed of it. I take it Deputy Oliver Flanagan is anxious to get a good feed of it now in view of the fact that he signed this motion. However, that was the very definite opinion given by Deputy Dillon who said on another occasion that he would not be seen dead in a field of wheat.

Mr. Dillon

Not to enrich the millers. Would the Deputy read it in its context?

Mr. Corry

And the Deputy is now up on his hind legs defending wheat growing after telling the farmers, in 1948, that if they were lunatics enough to grow wheat they could grow it but they would not grow it at any extra cost to the Exchequer.

Mr. Dillon

Rubbish. We increased the price of wheat by 5/- a barrel the first year we were in office.

Mr. Corry

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, would you keep that child quiet and if you cannot will you kindly remove him?

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is not in the fair at Killeagh now.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Corry was here before the bold James and he will be here a long time after him.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Deputy Corry had a narrow squeeze the last time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry might be allowed to get on with his statements.

Mr. Corry

I do not want to be drawn out on those things at all.

Mr. Dillon

I can well imagine that.

Mr. Corry

I had the honour to be a member of the negotiating committee on wheat for a long number of years as a member of the Grain Committee of the Irish Beet Growers' Association. When I hear all those complaints now I take my mind back to a time when we prepared a scheme which would allow farmers' representatives to have a member at the mills at every wheat intake. We had gone to the Flour Millers' Association and had got their consent to the scheme. We then went to Deputy Dillon, who was Minister for Agriculture. He had a look at the scheme and said that we would have to consult the millers. I said we had done so and had got their consent. Then he said: "You are going to deduct one penny a barrel from the wheat growers to finance this scheme. You cannot do that without legislation". I asked him if he was prepared to introduce that legislation and he said he was not.

Mr. Dillon

Blatherskite. This is a pure fantasy of his imagination.

Mr. Corry

We had got the millers' consent but when we came to him he said the farmers should not have any representative at intakes of wheat, that he was not prepared to introduce the necessary legislation to enable us to deduct one penny a barrel from wheat so that farmers would have a representative at intakes in the mill in the same way as we had had a representative at the beet factories since beet was first grown in this country.

Mr. Dillon

There is not a syllable of truth in the story told by the Deputy.

Mr. Corry

I will produce the minutes of the meeting.

Mr. Dillon

Minutes, my left foot.

Mr. Corry

If that scheme had been put into operation we would have had a very definite liaison between the producer of wheat and the buyer of it and this, to my mind, is one of the most essential points in that connection, particularly on occasions like this. Take this year's crop.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Deputy for the motion or against it?

Mr. Corry

Will the Deputy conduct himself or did he ever learn or go to school? Did he ever learn good manners?

Mr. Smith

He is only the Leader of the main Opposition Party in this House and he does not know——

Mr. Corry

He will conduct himself in this House or I will make him.

Mr. Dillon

Is he for or against the motion?

Mr. Corry

I do not like to propose a motion to make him conduct himself. I remained silent while Deputy Dillon was speaking and though he referred to me several times I did not stand up. I learned that much in the old national school. Evidently what Deputy Dillon learned at the University was not anything like that.

Mr. Dillon

That was not all the Deputy learned in the national school.

Mr. Corry

Up to the 14th October last, 186,372 barrels of millable wheat were accepted by the mills and since October 14th, 448,168 barrels more of millable wheat have been accepted. That means that about 80 per cent. of the total wheat produced was accepted. The question is: should those who grew the 20 per cent. be compensated out of the money that was deducted from the ordinary tillage farmer who carried out his rotation and delivered the decent wheat into the mills? I have consulted some of the farmers in Cork County on that question. I know that one alleged farmer, a wheat grower, received a cheque last year from one miller for over £30,000 for wheat. There are several others ranging from the £5,000 mark up to that.

The whole aspect of wheat growing is changing. The fellow who took my calf and reared and fattened him up in the plains of Meath and Westmeath is now a wheat grower and he has no more interest in Corry's old calf. The gentleman who received the £30,000 does not even reside in this country. He has his agent taking land and growing wheat for him. A quarter of a barrel of wheat profit per acre will pay him. The ordinary farmer in my constituency who has grown his rotational crops and who grew 5, 6 or 10 acres of wheat this year is supposed to sacrifice 3/6 a barrel, to which he is entitled, in order to pay compensation to that merchant. When Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture I remember him telling us the headache he had considering what to do with the surplus of wheat. Is that correct or not?

Mr. Dillon

It is true.

Mr. Corry

What year was that?

Mr. Dillon

I am afraid of interrupting the Deputy in case I hurt his feelings.

Mr. Corry

What year was that?

Mr. Dillon

Will I hurt the Deputy's feelings if I tell him?

Mr. Corry

I suggest to the Deputy it was 1954.

Mr. Dillon

I think it was 1955.

Mr. Corry

In 1954, 1955 and 1956 that surplus was allowed to accumulate until Deputy Paddy Smith came in to get rid of it. Is that what you did with the baby, passed him along?

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy asked me a question. Does he want me to answer it?

Mr. Corry

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

I insisted that the millers should accept the wheat and filter it into the grist gradually, and they were doing that when the present Minister came into office and sold it for feed abroad.

Mr. Smith

Nonsense. Your Government could not provide the money to sell the wheat you left behind you at feed prices. You had not the money to pay. It cost us £2 million to do it.

Mr. Dillon

How would you want money to sell wheat? You sell wheat for money.

Mr. Corry

The then Minister for Agriculture had that surplus of wheat that gave him a headache in 1954, a bigger headache in 1955 and the biggest headache of all in 1956. Did he provide any cash for getting rid of that wheat or any method of getting rid of it, or did he leave it to accumulate there for the incoming Government to get rid of it?

Mr. Dillon

It was all being milled into flour. Why did the millers give you £25,000 in the last election campaign?

Mr. Corry

Deputy Dillon has made his speech.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy was asking me to interrupt him.

Mr. Corry

I asked him and he gave me a lawyer's answer.

Mr. Dillon

Why did the millers give you £25,000?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry without interruption.

Mr. Dillon

They did not do it for the love of your lovely blue eyes.

Mr. Corry

I am interested in the Department of Agriculture and the Government doing their duty as regards the unrestricted growing of wheat very largely by foreigners. There were very easy ways of restricting it. I see no reason why farmers who grew wheat for this country right through the emergency should not be protected now as against those foreigners who are growing anything from 200 to 1,000 acres of wheat, and in one case, 2,000. There is no justification for that state of affairs and it should not be beyond the brains of the Department of Agriculture to devise a means to end it.

I suggest to the Minister that if he studies the figures for each county in regard to their production of wheat during the emergency period he will have a good idea what the position is. For the last emergency year taking into account the quantity delivered at the mills plus the 50 per cent., you would just about reach the 300,000 tons that are required. That is the scheme the Minister should bring into operation. I would like to be reasonable but I am not prepared to ask the farmers of Cork County at any time to contribute to fattening the cheque of the gentleman who got £30,000 from the millers last year for wheat.

Mr. Donegan

That is not the proposal.

Mr. Corry

That is the proposal—"....to help the farmers who through no fault of their ownel" I do not know how that will be dealt with. In my work and travelling through my constituency during the end of September and early October, particularly after the storm, I came to know of and I saw the devastation. I saw whole fields of oats without a grain left in them. The crop was dragged completely out of the ground. Those people are as much entitled to compensation as the men engaged in wheat-growing. I saw those men and they are the poor sorts of farmers up in Glenville and Carrignavar. What should be done? They had to suffer their loss.

Down in my own country at present, within a mile of my house, there are two farmers. One man spent over £4,000 in the past ten years on 40 acres of land. It was marshy land and he had brought it to first-class production.

Mr. Dillon

Through the Land Rehabilitation Project.

Mr. Corry

Today, that unfortunate farmer is looking at five feet of water washing over those 40 acres.

Mr. R. Barry

Is he entitled to compensation? Did you not tell him he would get it?

Mr. Corry

His neighbour, alongside him, has 120 acres in the same condition. Is he entitled to compensation? Very well. Are they all, then, to be compensated? Why pick out the gentleman who will have his £5,000 cheque lessened? This matter came up for discussion before an organisation. I proposed, there, to ask the Minister to pay the wheat-grower a price up to the first 300 barrels, which would be 30 statute acres of good wheat, 10 barrels to the acre. I could not get a seconder. That showed me the sort of farmer I was dealing with. They had no room for that man. They were concerned only with the gentleman with the £30,000 cheque.

I want to be as fair as I can in this matter. I am looking at it from the point of view of all the other sections of the community. Take the farmer with five acres of potatoes. When he dug them up he found that 80 per cent. of them were black. I do not see Deputy Dillon making any suggestion that that man should be compensated for the black potatoes although he is as much entitled to compensation as the man who put 2,000 acres of land under wheat—the land having been got for him by a Dublin auctioneer and then tilled by a contractor—and who now finds himself with a crop of unmillable wheat.

We are being asked that this money, which is the property not of the Government, not of the State but of the ordinary farmer, should be used to swell the cheques of gentlemen, some of them up to £5,000, more of them up to £10,000 and then there is the odd gentleman with a cheque for £30,000. A sum of 3/6d. a barrel was stopped on our wheat and we are now asking our tillage farmers to contribute towards swelling the cheques of those other gentlemen. That puts it all in a nutshell.

I freely admit that we shall have to deal with the wheat problem, one way or another. We could deal with it, for instance, under the ordinary contract system, like the beet, and thus ensure that contracts will be given to farmers who grow wheat as a rotation crop. Then we would see whether the gentleman who is now getting £30,000 would consider it worth his while to take the acreage that would be allotted to him, as in the case of beet. Certainly, something will have to be done in this country in regard to what Deputy Dillon told us had gone up the spout 20 years ago but which apparently has continued to grow and continued to expand. We are brought to the point where steps must now be taken.

I seriously suggest to the Minister that the ordinary tillage farmer in this country, growing wheat on a rotational basis, with a tradition of tillage behind him, will see to it that his crop is properly saved and is in good millable condition when it is brought to the millers. Any man who grows a thousand acres of wheat is a gambler and I say let him pay for it. I want to be reasonable. Now that this matter has been raised I trust the Minister will ensure that in future wheat will be grown under the quota system or by contract.

I admit that, under our scheme for the supervision of wheat at the intake point, we have not taken into consideration a game that the millers have found very useful in the past couple of years. Some means should be found to deal with the problem. Some outside neutral body should be able to decide whether or not wheat is millable. I had occasion a few times to look into this matter. I well remember the difficulty we experienced last year when we went over and spent a week with the millers on this question.

The Minister has in his Department, in my opinion, the most competent official I have met in regard to wheat. He is a man who received his training and experience in the flour mills in Cork. I know he is there. Why not put him in charge and give him the deciding voice on whether or not wheat is millable rather than have the matter a kind of dog fight as between the millers on one side and the growers of wheat on the other side? It is time the present situation were ended and that our growers of wheat had some competent neutral person to decide on the state of their wheat. We are lucky that there is such a man in the Minister's Department. I suggest that the Minister should place his services at the disposal of the farmers and the flour millers of this country. I am sure both flour millers and farmers would heave a great sigh of relief if that were done. We would have somebody to go to when our wheat was rejected. Let us have that.

I have my opinion on this matter and Deputy Dillon has his. I am sorry he has gone away because he was an inspiration to me when he was here. I suggest that in his spare time he should go back and read his opinion of wheat and of the lunatics who were growing it and what should be done with them and his opinion of the bread made from Irish wheat.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is rather difficult to say whether the previous speaker is for or against the motion. In no part of his speech did he indicate whether he agreed with the motion or not.

Mr. Corry

Had you any doubt?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The fact remains that he had the courage to address the House on wheat and I feel that when there is at least one Fianna Fáil Deputy with the courage to defy the orders of his Party and stand up here and make a speech about wheat, a subject which is banned and debarred from public discussion by Fianna Fáil, I think it is something on which the Deputy should at least be complimented.

This is a very reasonable motion. It is a commonsense one. It asks the Government to do something for the wheatgrowers who have suffered heavy financial losses through no fault of their own, bearing in mind the fact that last spring and the spring before and every other spring farmers were advised by Fianna Fáil members of every committee of agriculture in Ireland to grow wheat; they were advised by Government announcements in the public Press, advised by the Minister himself and it was recognised as the main plank in Fianna Fáil agricultural policy.

In my constituency, there are none of the extensive wheatgrowers to whom the previous speaker referred. They are all small farmers. I have seen them growing wheat because they considered their land was suitable, because the counties of Laois and Offaly, like Kilkenny, Carlow, Wexford and elsewhere, are good wheat-growing areas. They felt when their land was suitable they should grow wheat and they were advised to do so by the Government. They felt that they were reinforced by Government confidence in the production of wheat and they decided to grow it in the full knowledge that when they produced it, the Government who asked them to do so would at least see that they would not suffer disastrous losses. But we find that this year people who sowed wheat suffered tremendous losses. I know from my own knowledge, not as a farmer but as an auctioneer dealing with wheat growers, that many of them in the midlands are unable to pay their conacre bills.

Those farmers who have to take conacre cannot be described as men who get the £30,000 wheat cheques to which there was reference this morning. They are small farmers and the man who resides in a smallholding who has three or four sons to help him and who has not sufficient land to keep the family at home in productive work must enter into public competition in the market and take land at a high price by conacre into which to put wheat. This year, such farmers are unable to pay for the seeds, the manures and even the conacre. In all seriousness, I say that the harvest through which we have just passed has been the worst, the most disastrous, I remember and I have been in this House for the past 20 years.

Mr. Smith

Nonsense, complete nonsense.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I have never remembered a harvest which brought more crippling losses to the community.

Mr. Booth

The Deputy has a very short memory.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is no harm to consider for a few moments the real background to wheatgrowing in this country——

Mr. Smith

Hear, hear.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is no harm briefly to reflect on that background in discussing a motion such as this. In the past few days, the Minister for Agriculture addressed the general council of committees of agriculture. He never once referred to the wheat policy of the Government and when, as a member of that body, I asked him to make a statement in relation to wheat, in relation to the losses——

Mr. Smith

It was in regard to next year's crop you asked me to speak.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

——he said an announcement would be made in due course, and in good time.

Mr. Smith

For next year's crop.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

For next year's crop. The Minister was careful not to refer to this year's crop. I felt that in the general council of committees of agriculture—and many of them are the main support of the Minister's Party—he should at least have availed of that opportunity to deal with the seriousness of the wheat problem this year and to warn them of the difficulties that may arise next year if something is not done, or at least to advise them, or tell them of the recast, reviewed or renewed policy of Fianna Fáil in relation to wheatgrowing.

I presume the new Fianna Fáil policy in regard to wheatgrowing will be announced in due course and that no longer shall we hear the old catchery, "Grow more wheat," from every Fianna Fáil supporter throughout the country. People have grown wheat this year at very great loss. They have faced disaster and ruin, and we put down this motion, not for the purpose of political propaganda but in the full knowledge that it would be a good job if agriculture in general were taken out of politics. It is too important to be made the catchcry of any political Party.

We realise fully that the agricultural industry is the backbone of the country and the primary concern of everybody. It is very easy for people in large towns and cities to comment unfavourably on farmers but where would they be if it were not for the farmers, particularly the small farmers? The incomes of every section of the community have risen considerably while the income of the farmer has dropped steadily and he was faced with zero-point of ruin, bankruptcy and disaster during the harvest we have just come through. Despite that reality, the Minister has given the deaf ear and the blind eye to heart-rending appeals from farm organisations, from the farmers themselves. We felt it our duty, as the main Opposition Party, to ask the Government to realise their responsibility to the small farmers in their present serious plight.

Reference has been made to the fact that some time ago when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, the price of wheat was reduced but I remember the constant flow of deputations that came at that time to lodge their protests. I can remember farmers in my own constituency calling constantly to me at that time when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and lodging serious protests in regard to the price of wheat. I can remember distinctly at the general election which followed that not alone were there posters, loudspeakers and speeches but from every platform throughout the length and breadth of the country, even in areas where there was no interest at all in wheat production, it was proclaimed that it was Fianna Fáil policy, if they got back into office, to give the farmers 82/6d. a barrel for wheat. There were farmers who tore up the paving stones in their race to the polling booths to cast their votes for Fianna Fáil so that they would get 82/6d. a barrel for their wheat.

Some members of the Fianna Fáil Party believed that promise. I am sure Deputy Donegan remembers the sincerity of one member of the Fianna Fáil Party who laid a bet with him that the moment the election was over and Fianna Fáil returned to office, the Government would increase the price of wheat. Deputy Donegan will give the details and, if he likes to name the Deputy who made the bet with him, I am sure that he will inform the House. What happened? Deputy Donegan won the bet. No sooner were Fianna Fáil back in office than they turned the deaf ear and the blind eye to an increase in the price of wheat. They merely used that promise as a lever to attract votes, to gull the wheat-grower, to fool the farmer with any catchcry at all to gain votes so that they might get back into office once more. They were not concerned whether or not the farmers would get an increase. Certainly the Front Bench knew very well that there was no notion of giving the farmers 82/6d. a barrel.

I remember a fair in Ballycormack. I remember a constituent, and the muscles of his neck were expanding with his determination and anxiety, waiting for 9 o'clock, the hour when the polling station opened so that he could rally every supporter in Offaly. I remember the farmers saying: "We always voted for you, Deputy Flanagan, but, after all, we cannot vote for you on this occasion. There is a matter of principle involved. We are wheat growers. Wheat is an essential crop. You are not paying us and Fianna Fáil will give us 82/6d. a barrel. Would we not be fools to make a stick to beat ourselves with? We want £ s. d. We want 82/6d. a barrel." It is time the farmers woke up. They voted then for Fianna Fáil and they got no 82/6d. a barrel. If they sow nettles, surely they cannot expect roses. They sowed nettles then, a very fine crop; they grew, they bloomed, and they stung. Fianna Fáil nettles never stung so quickly or so deeply as this year.

This motion asks that something be done for the people who were promised 82/6d. a barrel, who were subsequently refused that, who were disappointed, and who still grew wheat years after at the instigation of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Smith

And who supported Fianna Fáil all the time.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

They had their crops seriously damaged this year. They have sustained serious losses through no fault of their own. There is a duty on any Government who tell the farmers to get out and work, to till and sow, skilfully and industriously, putting in manures and fertilisers to produce wheat, to come to the rescue when danger threatens. The farmers have suffered through no fault of their own. There is a clear duty on the Government to ensure that these farmers are not driven into bankruptcy. In practically every county, the rates have gone up steadily. The rates of pay of agricultural workers have gone up, and rightly so. The price of seeds and fertilisers is as high as ever. The price of flour was never so high. Bread was never so dear. Yet, we are asking the farmers to produce wheat under these chaotic conditions. Responsibility in this matter rests with the Government.

There was a general election on 4th October. The results began to come in on 5th October. In the midlands, no wheat was refused or rejected before 5th October. The moment the millers knew on 6th October that there was a prospect of Fianna Fáil coming back there were wholesale rejections. Wheat was declared unmillable. Is it not a strange coincidence that the day after the results of the general election were made known, wheat was suddenly discovered to be unmillable? It has been revealed by the Laois County Committee of Agriculture that after the day of the hurricane, wheat was declared as unmillable by the millers despite the fact that the Donoughmore creamery carried out certain tests with regard to bushel weight, moisture content, and so on, and proved beyond yea or nay that the samples they examined were perfectly sound millable wheat. Identical samples taken to the millers were declared unmillable and all the farmer would be paid was the unmillable price.

The attention of the Agricutural Institute has been directed to the seriousness of this "highwayism" on the part of the millers by the Laois County Committee of Agriculture and others interested. I want to pay special tribute here to the officials of the Minister's Department who so actively interested themselves in this matter. It would be a good thing, I think, for the Minister to hand out masks and six shooters to the millers and let them loose to rob the people. If they were out on a campaign of public looting, they could not have been more successful than they have been this year.

The millers gave dinners last year to the members of the county committees of agriculture. Members of all Parties attended the dinners. I did not go; I left that to my Fianna Fáil colleagues in my constituency. Those who attended the functions were taken on tours of the mills. Not only will the millers be able to give dinners this year but they will be able to give the members of the committees bed and breakfast as well because this year they have grown fatter and richer while the wheat-producing farmers have grown thinner and poorer. This has been a bumper year for the millers.

The one reason the millers did not refuse wheat wholesale before 5th October was they were afraid there would be a change of Government. They had been taught a lesson in 1954 when Deputy Dillon sent for them—a somewhat similar problem had arisen because of bad weather—and told them they would have to take the wheat. The millers replied that they could not take the wheat, that it was not suitable to handle, that it was not fit for milling. They thought the wheat should not be taken. Deputy Dillon again said: "Gentlemen, you may make up your mind on it; you will be made take the wheat." That is the way to talk to those lads. That is the proper way to talk to them. Why should a group of millers be allowed to hold the small farmer dependent on wheat growing for a living in the hollow of their hands and squeeze the lifeblood out of him?

Could any Deputy give me the name and address of a poor miller trying to pay his rates, rents and taxes? Could anyone tell me of a miller who is up to his neck in the Agricultural Credit Corporation? Could any Deputy give me the name of a miller trying to meet his hire-purchase instalments on his tractors, combines or reapers? Can anyone tell me the name and address of a miller who cannot obtain seeds, fertilisers and manures for his land, if he has such?

The majority of the millers make sure to keep away from the land. It is only the old slave who stays on the land—the old humbug, as he is often described in milling circles. He stays on the land. He is the slave who works from sunrise to nightfall for nothing while the miller reaps the benefit.

The moment the millers saw on 5th October that Fianna Fáil were back in the saddle again, they said: "Begor, we are right. There will be no trouble this year. Deputy Dillon will not be there to dictate terms to us. He will not compel us to take the wheat and pay for it this year." The national outlook of many millers is that they would not take an ounce of Irish wheat grown on Irish land if they could avoid it. They do not want Irish wheat grown. The millers knew quite well that there would be no dictation from Deputy Smith and that they had a free licence in acknowledgment of the £25,000 they gave to Fianna Fáil to fight the elections.

Mr. Smith

Is that all? Did they not give us more than that?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

They gave £25,000.

Mr. Smith

I think they should have done better.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Perhaps the Minister is throwing out the bait for next year but the Government are not in such a very strong position. Maybe this is a start off by the Minister in this House of a little bargaining so that they might be able to increase the sum to £35,000 or £40,000 for this year, if there is an election after next June. The Government were never in a weaker position. The Minister may go to the millers and say: "You see the position we are in. A couple of Independents can put us out. Elections are costly and expensive. You are only giving us £25,000. You had better make it £50,000 so that we can get back with a bigger majority and stand by you."

Mr. Smith

If they do not take the hint I give them, I will approach them no more.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister will approach them no more. Anyone who hears that story knows that, when the Minister says he will not approach them any more, they were approached. It is neither here nor there whether they were approached or not. The millers acted in a generous way, so far as Fianna Fáil were concerned. It is very bad for Fianna Fáil to criticise the millers too severely. Very few farmers in the N.F.A., the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, the Beetgrowers' Association or any other agricultural interest in this country could afford to hand over £25,000 to Fianna Fáil to fight the election as the millers have done. Human nature being what it is, Fianna Fáil policy has to be swung towards the millers from whom the money is coming

That is why I feel that this year has been a year in which Fianna Fáil have allowed the millers not alone to mill wheat but to mill the small farmers completely. They did it very successfully. Everybody who has a knowledge of the wheat-growing areas knows that is a fact. I myself examined wheat dockets giving details of the bushelling, moisture content and so on. I am absolutely satisfied from expert knowledge that wheat was rejected this year as unmillable and that certain information came from certain mills to say that the wheat was good but they already had enough good wheat. When we see wheat refused and rejected at one mill as unmillable and brought to the next mill and taken in as millable, surely there is something terribly wrong? Could the Government not at least examine that aspect of the wheat-growing policy in order to see that somebody will be at the mill, apart from the man with the white coat, scales and microscope whose job is to side with the millers and who will always side with the millers because they are his employers? Until such time as there is an independent deciding factor in regard to moisture content, bushelling and the decision as to whether wheat is millable or not, there will be a problem and injustice done to many small farmers.

I have often wondered whether the Minister for Agriculture was a man of reality or whether, since we are in this age of space, he was in space because there is no connection whatever between the realities of life on the land and the policy he is pursuing. Is it not true to say that there are huge numbers of our farmers to-day unable to meet the demands of the Agricultural Credit Corporation for the payment of instalments? Is it not true to say that there was never such a volume of applications to the Agricultural Credit Corporation as there is to-day, which proves beyond yea or nay that there is a shortage of money on the land, particularly in tillage areas, because the people have been driven into bankruptcy by this wheat policy, due to the failure of the Government to compensate them and see that justice is done and due to the licence to rob given to millers? In view of the shop debts, bank debts, hire-purchase commitments and other commitments which the small farmers have to meet, is it any wonder that they are putting padlocks on the doors and emigrating in whole units? If they are to be treated in that manner, there is no alternative for them but to leave the land in search of an existence elsewhere.

Those of us who know the land know that it is the toughest and hardest life of all. Life on the land my be an independent life, but it is a life of hard work where you have to use caution and care. You have to depend upon the weather and on the Minister. Farmers are, particularly, at the mercy of capitalist vested interests, of monopolies like millers who are out to fleece them in every possible way.

Oats and barley can stand up to tough, bad weather. After the hurricane and the very heavy wet weather, I saw reasonably good crops of oats and barley in my own constituency, but I have also seen crops of wheat completely and entirely destroyed. I have seen the cheques received by farmers for crops of wheat which would hardly pay for the seeds and the manures.

We are asking the Government to step in in this matter of urgent public importance, in order that these people will be kept functioning and be given an opportunity to sow something for next year. Deputy Dillon has made the suggestion of giving them £1 a barrel to help in some way to compensate for their losses. We know well that £1 per barrel would not go near to making up their losses, but at least it would be some gesture on the part of the Government who are always clamouring for increased production: "Grow more; sow more; work harder and for longer hours." What encouragement is there to the wheat grower or the tillage farmer in my constituency, or elsewhere, to answer the calls that have been coming recently from both Church and State for longer hours, harder work and increased production, if they are treated in the fashion in which they are being treated by the Minister this year?

The plea made by Deputy Dillon is a good one, and I would ask the Minister to take the necessary steps, having regard to the fact that there is now a levy on wheat which did not exist when Deputy Dillon was in office. The wheat grower now has to pay 5d. for the sack which he did not have to pay when Deputy Dillon was in office. There are other commitments and other deductions which did not exist when Deputy Dillon was in office. Flour also was almost half the price it is to-day and the same applies to bread. That cannot be understood by the majority of wheat growers but the answer is the huge profits given to the millers.

All of us know that there is a moral obligation on the Government to save people from disaster; all of us know there is a duty on the Government to do so. The reason we raise this matter by way of motion is to direct attention to the seriousness of the situation. Not only in tens and twenties, but in hundreds, people are being driven out of this business completely and entirely. We are asking for something to be done for such people. We are asking for steps to be taken in order that they will at least be in a position to rehabilitate themselves next year.

Where will they get the seeds and manures next spring when they cannot pay for the seeds and manures they got last spring? The Government tell us that the finances are there, that the Agricultural Credit Corporation is there. What good is the Agricultural Credit Corporation to the farmer who already has a loan and has not paid it back? What good is it to the small farmer to seek aid from the banks when he is already working on an overdraft? I should like the Minister to explain to the House where he expects the small farmers to get seeds and manures this year when they cannot pay for what they got last year. What trader can carry a loss for two years? What merchant can carry a double loss? What bank will help a man who already has commitments? Where will the small farmers get the money to help themselves?

When I hear the speeches, which have been referred to by Deputy Dillon, made at banquets and dinners—where tall hats, tails and white ties are the order of the evening and the night, worn and displayed prominently by the Fianna Fáil Party—in which they say that the country was never better off, that we are around the corner, that there are great times ahead, great times coming, that prosperity is only a stone's throw away, it always seems to me that so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, there was jam yesterday and there will be jam to-morrow, but there is never jam to-day. How long are we to listen to Fianna Fáil saying that good times are coming? When can we expect the good times to come from Fianna Fáil?

All we are asking in this motion is confined to a particular section of the agricultural community, the wheat grower, that is, that he will not be driven out of business, as he is being driven. I appeal to the Taoiseach and the Government to do something about this matter, because it is very serious. Really what is wrong is that the Government have completely lost touch with the people, and that Fianna Fáil Ministers are meeting no one but their own supporters who do not give them the facts, but paint a picture of everything being well and rosy throughout the country. If they were good mixers and mixed with every section of the community, if they met their opponents as well as their friends, they would at least then have an idea of the trend of the conditions of the small farmers.

May I tell the Minister that times are bad for the small farmers? This year has ruined, crippled and destroyed them, and driven them out of business. This motion asks that something be done for them. I hope and trust the Government will give it their fullest consideration, that the serious conditions now obtaining for the agricultural community will not be allowed to continue and that those who have suffered losses through no fault of their own will be amply compensated. I feel that after due consideration of the merits of this case—and it is a case of great merit—the Government must in justice, and in the light of the Seventh Commandment, attend to the call that is being made on behalf of the wheat growers to-day.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I thought this motion would rise to an interesting discussion and, in fact, I was looking forward to it. I have enjoyed the antics of some of those who contributed to this debate, and I enjoyed the reminders addressed to them by my colleague, Deputy Corry. I have been long enough in this House to trace, even from memory, the history of wheat growing. I was a member of the House from 1927 to 1931 during which time a committee was set up, representative of the Parties in this House, to examine the question of wheat growing. I remember the gist of the reports and I remember the years which followed. I remember, as Deputy Corry has said, how the policy that has now been pursued for a number of years was castigated from those benches.

It gives me a tremendous amount of pleasure to sit here and listen to the speeches I have heard—and I am sure further speeches will be made from that side—which indicate the tremendous conversion that has taken place and demonstrate so clearly the influence and the impact Fianna Fáil and Fianna Fáil policy have had on this small country over all those years. When we think of the violent language used here in relation to this one item and then realise the wonderful changes that have taken place, it is no wonder indeed that one such as I who has had the honour of serving here in many capacities for so long should be delighted. Indeed, it is a fact, and it is no harm to mention it, that if what I am saying or have said was not correct, we would not as a Party have retained for so long the confidence of the majority of our people, and especially the confidence of the majority of our farmers.

When the weather broke and the harvest broke with it, we were keeping a very close eye on what was taking place and what the day-to-day position was. Of course, I was keeping a close eve also on the telegrams, to which Deputy Esmonde has referred. We received a number of telegrams from Deputies. They wanted the Dáil summoned in an urgent fashion. The tactic of the telegram was resorted to by others also. Certain organisations must have had official advice conveyed to them that they should storm my Department with telegrams. They did not seem to respond. The reason the response to the invitation to send telegrams was poor was that there was a realisation that the position was not at all as bad as some people would have the public, who were not informed, to believe.

I had to laugh at the loyal centres from which these telegrams came. I received one from a branch of the N.F.A. in Sligo-I think it was Easkey. I would not object to people taking an interest in a national question, if it were a national question or a national disaster or anything approaching it. I do not see why farmers in any place should not take an interest in farmers elsewhere who were affected but you could see all through this, since the weather broke, this attempt to build up a problem. Having heard the statements made by the previous Deputy, it is clear, of course, that there is not the slightest effort being made to treat this matter as it should be treated, if we are to take cognisance of the assurances we are given that this is not being made a political matter. Of course, it is a political matter, pure and simple.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Not at all

Mr. Smith

I admit that some wheat of the 1961 crop has been treated as unmillable but take the returns from the 1961 crop as a whole. In 1960, the area under wheat was 366,000 acres and although it was a bad year, it was certainly not a bad year from the point of view of yield. In fact, it was one of the best. That wheat was purchased and paid for as sound and sweet. In fact, all the wheat that was harvested and presented was paid for.

In 1961, the acreage under wheat was 15,000 less and I am in a position to say that those who grew that 350,000 acres in 1961, which is described as the disastrous year, will receive an income from it as large as, if not larger than, the 1960 income.

I prefaced these few remarks by saying that I know some people for one reason or another were caught out and perhaps had all the wheat they grew rejected, but, from the national point of view, the facts I have given are correct. Surely nobody could say that it is a disaster in relation to any crop or in relation to any activity in which a man is engaged where he is paid the full market value for what he produces which would represent 80 per cent. of the production in the best yielding year that we have had. I do not know if there is any year on record to compare with it. Is there any national purpose to be served by attempting to feature that position as a disaster? Of course, there is not.

I have to enjoy not only the wording of this motion but the speeches that have been made suggesting that even last year we asked the farmers to grow more wheat, that in fact we have done so all down the years, since we forced everybody to accept the policy of wheat-growing. We have not achieved our purpose of bringing home to Fine Gael that there was no way out of their acceptance of that in 1948, that there was no way out of it for them but to make declarations and, because of the kind of conscience they knew the public would suspect them of having, they tried even to over-reach themselves in giving assurances under that heading, and I would not blame them, because the public did suspect and, therefore, they should have a bad conscience. But, since it became obvious that our farmers were prepared to grow wheat, what we wanted at all times was enough wheat, and no more, to satisfy what was determined to be the national requirement and grow it at a fairly decent price.

We had no reason to advertise or exhort. In fact, of the last two advertisements that appeared on this subject, one was in 1953—when apparently we had not reached the stage of getting the national requirement—and the last was in 1954. To tell the truth, I am not sure and, therefore, I will not say, whether or not we were in office in 1954. I know it was the year of the general election. In 1953, an advertisement appeared asking farmers and land owners to grow wheat and in 1954, an advertisement appeared asking the farmers to grow wheat and beet and the exhortation was "Tillage Pays".

Since then, there have been no exhortations, no publicity and no advertising, simply because by the pressure we were able to exert, through the influence we had as a Party on public opinion, we forced everybody to accept this as good national policy. There was no need to talk about exhorting people any more. We had reached the stage which would be desirable in quite a lot of other lines, that there was general acceptance of the wisdom of a particular course. Let us come to prove still further the complete and absolute falsehood of the statements that are made. They are not made, of course, for political purposes. When a Deputy gives us the assurance that he is not raising a question for a political purpose, then the most innocent child in the country knows that is exactly what he has in mind. But none of these misrepresentations are resorted to for political purposes.

Let us come now to the Wheat Order of last year, but before we do, think of the history tracing the growing of wheat given by the Taoiseach this morning. As a result of the unanimity that existed in this House as to the wisdom of growing wheat to satisfy our national requirements, and the wisdom of trying to devise some intelligent system by which we would not grow more than we required, it was realised that growing wheat at the price at which it was being paid for, and used for the purpose of animal feeding, would not be wise. Even the farmers themselves, the growers, and even the N.F.A., realised in 1957-1958 that there was no wisdom or merit in growing in excess of what we required. Of course it was, as the Taoiseach said, pointing to all the steps that had been taken in order to control the acreage. Notwithstanding all these steps and notwithstanding the imposition of the levy in 1958, we still had the problem to contend with.

In addition to that problem, we had to consider that even the wheat levy, although designed to contribute substantially to a solution of that problem, could be effective in achieving that end only when we had a good harvest. When we have a good harvest, it sometimes can occur that the yield may not be so heavy and as a result, the levy is not required, as was the case in 1959, for the purpose of marketing at feeding prices the wheat grown in excess of 300,000 tons. But we had 1958 thrown in and comparison is made between 1958 and 1961, and comparison is made between 1958 and 1960 and 1961. In 1958, only 10 per cent. of the wheat was millable; yet all wheat was paid for on the basis of an arrangement of which members of the House and the public are aware. In 1960, about 30 per cent. of the wheat was used, for milling, of one of the heaviest crops we had, and under a fairly large acreage, too, as I have indicated.

Deputies and the public at large will understand what I am going to say now. It is all very well to talk about giving a State blanket cover to wheat growers. What I mean by blanket cover is not only giving them a guaranteed price which is reasonable for millable wheat but following that reasonable price by saying to them: "Well, the year is bad; the crop is poor as a result of weather conditions, but anyhow it will be classified as millable and you will be paid for it on that basis." Is it not obvious to anybody who looks at that position objectively that if we were to continue to do that, there is no incentive for anybody to try to have good wheat? Why should anybody try to have good wheat or to save it and handle it properly? I am not saying nor am I making the point, that even if you tried, it is possible in some cases you might not fail, but can people not see a position in which the acreage is too large, the position in which you may have two bad years or even three bad years out of five, and in these bad years, those who grow it will not only get the promised guaranteed price but will get it irrespective of the condition it is presented in? Will people who are able to make any kind of intelligent examination of this situation not agree that that could not be allowed to continue?

As I say then, the wheat levy although designed and recommended by the National Farmers' Association did not meet the situation because it applied only or should apply only to a good year. A wheat levy should be used only for the purpose of disposing of millable wheat grown in excess of the requirement and which had to be used for feeding purposes. Let me go on further to this year. The allegation is made——

Mr. Dillon

Could you not give them £1 per barrel and have done with it?

Mr. Smith

——that notice was not given to the growers of how they were to be treated. I do not know any way in which we could make it clearer to them than through the notice I have in my hand. I shall read it and, when I have done so, I think that will be clear to the House. It was clear at the time to the public and, in confirmation of that, farming and other organisations approached me about it and discussed the wisdom and fairness of it. In proof of the fact that they knew what that was intended to convey, they accepted the scale reductions provided for in the Wheat Order, but they made one plea. They said: "If you are going to scale the prices down on bushel weight and moisture content as proposed, we suggest you should give the savings effected above that limit." That was not conceded to them, but it proves they took an intelligent interest in what this Order intended to convey and that they came to me and discussed these matters with me.

Surely it is not seriously contended now that that warning was not given? Of course, they had got blanket coverage in two previous years, 1958 and 1961. Having got that, at tremendous expense to the taxpayer and the consumer, they said: "That Wheat Order will not matter. We will take a risk. The Government will not really enforce it should circumstances develop that would be unfavourable to us." Therefore, even though this Wheat Order was quite clear in its aims, we had people with that kind of reasoning. Here is the Wheat Order.

Mr. Dillon

Might I ask the Minister is there any reference in that Order to maltose?

Mr. Smith

I shall read it.

The following statement has to-day been issued by the Government Information Bureau on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture. The prices payable for millable wheat of the 1961 crop will be the same as for the 1960 crop for wheat bushelling 57½ lbs. or over. The following prices will be payable for millable wheat with a bushelling weight of less than 57½ and the moisture content of 22 per cent. or less: Bushelling weight 57 lbs. but less than 57½, 70/- per barrel; bushelling weight 56½-57 but less than 57, 68/-; 56 but less than 56½, 66/-; 55½ but less than 56, 64/-; 55 but less than 55½, 62/-; 54½ but less than 55, 60/-; 54 but less than 54½, 57/6.

The arrangements for the imposition of a levy on all millable wheat sold to meet the cost of the disposal of any surplus wheat which may be produced will be continued.

That would mean, of course, that in the case of wheat bushelling 54 to 54½ and paid for at 57/6, as indicated in this Order, 3/6 per barrel would be deducted, giving the grower a price of 54/-.

The Opposition Party are asking me to take steps—I love that expression— to meet a situation. Apparently, they have given little thought to it, because, when I asked them to say what steps I should take, they suggest a price of £1 per barrel. That would mean that those who received 45/- per barrel for unmillable wheat would get 65/- for millable wheat, while a range of wheat already classified as millable would have been paid for at much less than that figure. It is all very well for irresponsible political Parties to come in here and say: "Why not do this now and say it is going to be the last time? Why not give them £1 per barrel? That would settle the whole matter." That demonstrates clearly that no thought whatever has been given to the proposal.

No reference has been made to the fact that even the N.F.A. and the growers never at any time suggested that in respect of this 20 per cent. of unmillable wheat, or any of it that will have to be sold at feed prices, there should be compensation from the taxpayer, as apparently Deputy Dillon has suggested here. Just as in the case of the Fine Gael Party here today, the organisations and individuals outside who have been denouncing me, when challenged to produce evidence to show the willingness of those who paid this levy to have it seized for the purpose of achieving what is recommended in this motion, could not say a word about seizing the levy for that purpose, although they put that up as a proposal in the early stages. They know that 80 per cent. of the farmers who grew this year the heaviest wheat crop we ever had would not tolerate it at all and that it would be entirely unfair in the circumstances I have outlined.

It would not be right to accuse me of wishing to neglect even a small section of producers, simply because they represented only a small percentage. I would not be the sort of man who would turn my back, whether the case was a popular one or not, if I were satisfied it was a just one. Nor would I want to hide behind Government approval for what I recommended. If the Taoiseach came in to say that the decisions were decisions made by the Government, I would say they were decisions of which I approved wholeheartedly.

I do not want to shelter behind Government coverage on that point but it is the duty of the Minister, whatever his feelings or beliefs may be—especially if it is for agriculture— to place before his colleagues in the most detailed fashion he can a certain course of action in case that, as a result of their lack of contact with such a Department as that of Agriculture, they might be misled by anything he would suggest to them. Before any action was taken, I said to myself and to my officials: "What about the wheat that would be rejected as unmillable and who is going to purchase it?" We had considerable discussion on that subject because we did not want to leave, in the hands of those who would be critical, a weapon they would use against us and say: "What will happen to a farmer who grows wheat and who has maybe 25 to 30 per cent. rejected for milling purposes?"

I therefore wanted to provide such growers with a market of some kind so that, whatever the condition of his wheat, he would be paid for it on the basis I have referred to—that if it were unmillable it would be taken from him at a price. That was a further clear message to certain growers as to what Government policy and the Government aim was. This was a year, as I have said already, in which, if there were any people in doubt as to whether this policy would be implemented or not, we could bring it home to them without imposing too much hardship upon them. When 80 per cent. of the best crop is paid for in accordance with the Order, when the income received from the farmers this year, which is described as disastrous, is as large as last year, which was one of the best, there is not a great deal of substance or of sincerity in what some of the Deputies said here today.

At Questions here the other day one of the Deputies on the Fine Gael Benches took exception to the fact that I drew attention to what was to me significant—that the three Opposition Deputies who seemed to be most concerned about the wheat problem were people who were not farmers. It does not matter to me what interests a man has; every man in this House has a right to concern himself with the interests of every section of the community, but I say that if this year's bad harvest precipitated the disaster some Deputies would have us believe there would be farmer members of this House who would be seen and heard in it along with those Deputies who are not farmers but who, as I have pointed out, also have a right to speak on this or any other subject.

One must look at those simple indicators of the position. Today, as Deputy Esmonde was proposing this motion, I had a look at the attendance. It was not bad, but then I examined the personnel in the background of the Opposition Benches. I was amazed to find that behind the mover I could see only two people who had any interest in land. As I have been seeing things down through the years in this House, if there is a genuine case to be made here, those interested in the subject would be here to make that case. If they were not able to make the case they would be here to support those making that case. I can see, therefore, through those tactics—the telegram and the approach to the public man at the corner asking him for this attitude to this or that problem. I have no objection to these antics, as I would call them, but I must say that there was not the slightest element of genuineness behind this motion. The names of the Deputies who have put down the motion are really indicative of the truth of that. If you analyse it you will find it is the really political element of the Party opposite, who would make politics out of anything, breakfast, dinner or supper, who have shown themselves off in an attempt to make the case——

Mr. Norton

Is the Minister going into a monastery or what? I do not know him today.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy used to be friendly enough with me.

Mr. Norton

He is angelic today.

Mr. Dillon

It is not a monastery but a nunnery.

Mr. Smith

I heard of one of those down the country when the Deputy was looking for votes, but I heard they were not voting.

Mr. Corry

What about the sugar——

Mr. Norton

The Deputy was sitting there for three years——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry has already spoken. The Minister might be allowed to continue.

Mr. Norton

Butter and sugar. Deputy Corry is brilliant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If this conversation is concluded we will hear the Minister.

Mr Norton

This is the year of achievement. The ten little nigger boys lasted longer.

Mr. Corry

Give him a lollipop.

Mr. Smith

I believe what the Taoiseach has stated here in connection with this matter. I believe it is a wise policy to continue to grow a stipulated amount of Irish wheat even if it costs considerably more than the price at which wheat could be imported. I see no merit whatever in growing more than is required. I see every reason for giving a fair price for what is grown and whether we represent in this House areas that are wheatgrowing or otherwise should not affect the situation. Whatever constituency I represented, that would be my attitude, and a man who would not have a more broadminded outlook than simply to cater for policies that would represent the interests of the people he knew best should not be in the Department of Agriculture.

I believe in growing the required acreage determined as national policy. I believe the conditions should be clearly laid down, that the price should be clearly stated and once the price is stated that, in the interests even of wheatgrowers, they should not be given any other protection over and above what farmers who grow other crops and feed them to animals are able to secure. They are already a privileged section of graingrowers inasmuch as they have a guaranteed price for a stated quantity. Surely they do not expect the community to continue to give them blanket coverage whether the crop is good or bad or whether it is usable for the purpose for which it is grown and paid for at a high price. I do not mind who hears me say that because I would say it at any time.

Mr. Corry

Take the ranchers out of it.

Mr. Smith

If you want to know broadly what will be the policy for wheatgrowing next year, that will be the policy, the policy that is enshrined in the Wheat Order I have read out. If anybody thinks political capital can be made out of that declaration of policy I will make a present of it to Fine Gael or any other Party that wants to use it for that purpose.

The contract system has been mentioned by Deputy Corry. That question of a contract system has been examined several times. As recently as the last couple of years, I have examined the ground that was covered by that committee. I would like to produce a scheme whereby you could just say: "Here is the acreage. We will contract for that and pay for it on that basis", but even if you had the contract system and even if you could confine the acreage to the acreage that would be required to produce the national amount and you run into a bad harvest, is it the contention of Deputy Corry and others who advocate the contract system that somebody ought to take the wheat and pay for it at milling prices whether it is of milling quality or not?

The contract system or no other system meets the problem that is here. I believe Deputies are right to support wheat growing as a crop that is profitable but I am convinced that the policy that is enshrined in that Wheat Order and which will be continued in the future is a policy that should have the full support not of those who want to play around with wheat for political purposes but of those who are genuinely interested in it because it is a crop that is profitable to them and gives a further opportunity to them to improve their living standards and increase their income.

There is not very much else I want to say except to emphasise that taking the acreage for 1961, and the total amount produced both of millable and unmillable wheat and comparing it with 1960, a year in which we had a very good yield, the income this year will be as high. This is not a year that can be described truthfully as a year of national disaster, as far as wheat growers are concerned. It may be that odd farmers here and there, maybe one or two in a district, were hit a little harder than their neighbours.

Mr. Crotty

It is more than the odd one.

Mr. Smith

I am giving you the figures and you can toss them around in your political head until the cows come home and make what you like of them but they cannot be refuted. I am saying we should stand by the Order that was made in the form in which it appeared for policy reasons. It was fully and clearly understood by those for whom it was intended. It is along those lines we will continue in future and it is along those lines any Minister or Government should continue in the interest of the public as a whole. The taxpayer and the consumer come into this picture as well as the farmer and if all those interests are to be taken into consideration that policy is the right one and the one I intend to pursue.

Mr. Tierney

Down the country, especially in the south of Ireland, small farmers in particular have suffered from the bad harvest. The big farmer has modern machinery such as the combine, but the small farmer either has to pursue his own small way of working or wait until the big farmer is finished. I know it is not the Government's fault that the weather turned out this year as it did, but it is ridiculous for anyone to state in this House that the farmers suffered no damage in respect of their crops this year. Anyone connected with farming knows that, due to the storm and bad weather, a lot of people were at a very grievous loss.

I have intervened in this debate because I feel this year has proved that it does not matter whom the people elect to this House or what Government is in office. We have to admit that a Government have no say, good, bad or indifferent, in relation to our wheat crops.

This year has proved that Ranks say to the Minister and to the people what price they will give for the wheat crop. In spite of the fact that the Minister in his Order made the bushel roughly 54, as millable wheat, the flour milling industry have refused good wheat. Wheat bushelling 57½, 57¾ and 62½ was refused by Ranks of Limerick this year. How, then, can a Minister make an Order saying that wheat bushelling over 54, under a certain moisture content, is millable and should be accepted? I can give the Minister figures. I can give him the names of people. I have samples of the corn still in my possession.

Mr. Moher

The Deputy will fill the place with mice.

Mr. Tierney

I went to Ranks of Limerick on behalf of a group of North Tipperary farmers. I produced one sample which bushelled 67¾, under 27 per cent. moisture. The price offered to me was 43/- per barrel.

Mr. Moher

57, not 67.

Mr. Tierney

I meant 57. The price offered to me was 43/- per barrel. A farmer, alongside me, had a sample which bushelled 57½ and he was offered 42/6d. I was there when the samples were being tested. I started to go through them with a pencil for sprouted grains. Out of a fairly good sample they got roughly 11 or 12 sprouted grains. When I asked the man in charge what percentage of sprouted grains was in that sample he refused to answer my question.

We had another case in regard to wheat. Deputy Fanning was at this meeting in Cloughjordan. A farmer produced a sample of wheat which bushelled 62½ and which had been rejected by the millers. Since that, those samples were sent in through other people, under different names, and were accepted as millable wheat by the Millers' Association.

I would point out that for the past few years people have been getting letters by post every day and stamped across the postage stamp is the slogan "Grow more Wheat". That being so, we grow more wheat. Then the Minister fixes a stable price for millable wheat. However, certain vested interests in this country do not want any Irish wheat or as little of it as they can possibly take. They would sooner have the imported wheat.

The Minister should be straight with this House. He should tell us that he has no control whatsoever over the price the farmer will get for growing wheat. I remember a by-election in Carlow-Kilkenny a few years ago. The Fianna Fáil Party won that by-election on the wheat question. Outside every church gate they harped on what the inter-Party Government had done regarding wheat prices. They promised over and over again to every one of those tillage farmers in Laois-Offaly, in north and south Tipperary, and adjoining those counties, that if they were returned they would settle the wheat question and do away with those people who were going in for wheat-ranching.

We were told this year that the wheat-ranchers are doing all the damage. If the Minister believes that, why does he not give a contract to the real wheat growers? In Tipperary, we are told that the wheat-ranchers are in Laois. In Laois we are told they are in Carlow.

Mr. Crotty

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tierney

They always seem to be in some other county. I believe that there are very few wheat-ranchers in this country at present. There may have been a few around County Dublin some years ago who took land on conacre and ploughed up every arable acre and put in one, two, three and four crops of wheat. I believe we have no wheat-ranchers at present in this country. We have farmers who are growing a vast amount of wheat, and rightly so. Why should they not grow it when even the stamp on their letters about their rates, or anything else, bears the slogan "Grow more wheat"?

If we are to get in control of wheat or if our people are ever to have any control over agriculture there is only one way in which we can do it. The Government must take their courage in their hands. They must take over the flour-milling industry in this country and run it on the same lines as Bord na Móna or C.I.E. Then the Minister can stand up in this House and guarantee the price for the following crop or for bushelled wheat that would be accepted. While Ministers presume to have power over wheat prices and the people handling that particular item are pulling in the opposite direction the position will remain unsatisfactory.

We must face facts. We all claim this is the best country in the world and I believe it is, but we must pull our weight in some way to help the country. Yet we are told we cannot eat an Irish apple as it is not ripe enough, that the foreign apple is better; we are told we cannot feed an Irish horse on Irish oats, that foreign oats is better; we are told we cannot brew ordinary stout or whiskey from Irish barley, that there must be a certain amount of imported barley in it also. If this country is really as bad as those vested interests maintain, that we can grow nothing of any benefit, I am wondering how they have managed to dig themselves in so far.

I shall conclude by saying that there is no use in anyone on any side of the House saying that no harm has been done to the farmers this year. The harm was done by an act of God but it is not the fault of the Minister or the Government in power. It is wrong for the Minister to say that every crop of barley or wheat was damaged through the neglect of the farmers. The Government must be very far moved from the average tillage farmer who has a vast amount of corn to handle in a very short harvest. I know many hard-working farmers in my own area who, through no fault of their own, suffered severe damage not only in wheat but in barley. I saw acres and acres of barley uncut this year where the storm cut the head completely off it and you could scoop up the grain from the stubble. It is wrong for the Minister to say that it was the fault of the farmer and that he was not entitled to any compensation.

If we have flooding in a particular area and heavy damage is done, the Government usually give some compensation to the people concerned. I am not too much concerned about that. I admit it was not the Government's fault that the weather turned out as it did but I blame the Government for not moving in and compelling the flour millers, Ranks and the others, to pay the price that the Minister maintained in this House should be paid for the crops those farmers produced. The Minister is an honest and straight man but he would be twice as good in my opinion, if he stood up at the conclusion of this debate to say that he has no control, nor has the Taoiseach any control, of the price of wheat or any other commodity that the Irish farmer grows and that it is the vested interests that really exercise such control.

Mr. Gibbons

I do not share the glee which the Opposition did not quite succeed in concealing when they spoke on this motion, the delight they could not conceal that circumstances had arisen in the 1961 harvest that gave them the opportunity of putting down a motion such as this. In a sense, I suppose it is normal that a Party with such weak representation from the farming community should see nothing in this situation except the political advantage it contained for them. I realise, as well as many of the Opposition speakers, the results that 1961 weather conditions have had for a great many farmers in my own constituency and in the south generally. I should have welcomed any move by anybody to alleviate the situation but I deplore this motion and the completely false wording of it. I deplore the effort it makes to place the blame for this situation squarely on the shoulders of the Fianna Fáil Government. The motion refers to the urgent exhortations of the Government to the farmers to grow wheat. I am speaking as a farmer—something which a great many of the Opposition people who signed the motion cannot do—and I can say without fear or contradiction that for ten years I have not heard any exhortation from any Fianna Fáil spokesman to anybody to grow wheat.

Underlying all the hot air that has been talked here by the Opposition all day is the real kernel of the problem. It is that since about 1950 wheat has tended to be over-produced. The reasons for that are revealed very clearly when you refer to the figures, and compare the acreages and the produce in the years 1950 and 1960. It is remarkable that between 1950 and 1960 there is practically no difference in the acreage, but from 366,000 acres in 1950 we got 5,360,000 cwt. of wheat, while from the same acreage in 1960, we got more than 8,500,000 cwt. On a unit area of land that produced five barrels in 1950, we now produce eight. That is a very significant figure but what it entails for farmers is that we can produce our requirements of wheat on a much smaller acreage, on five-eighths of the acreage required in 1950. It is to that question of over-production that the Fine Gael Party and everybody else should apply themselves.

It was suggested here this morning that Fianna Fáil Deputies representing tillage constituencies would not dare to speak about the situation that has arisen in their constituencies. We have never laboured under any fear of that kind. We are always able to face problems objectively and examine the causes from which they come and try to evolve solutions, if possible. When we come to examine the present situation, as other Deputies have said already, we realise it arose from the peculiar weather conditions that obtained in the month of May and from the inability of anybody farming heavy land to do any farm operations in that month. As a consequence of that and of the slow ripening season that followed, when the middle of September came, we discovered that on the very heavy land, the corn had not yet ripened. By the time it had ripened, through the intervention of a wet fortnight followed by some mild, throaty weather, a great deal of the corn that yet remained to be harvested was in a somewhat sprouting condition. The degree of sprouting was something of a matter for general debate.

One of the contentious matters that arose out of this situation was the question as to who should determine the millability or by what means it should be determined.

Debate adjourned.