asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the tonnage of dried native wheat now required for human consumption; the tonnage represented by last year's average yield on the acreage planted, as available in agricultural statistics; and the levy that would be necessary to finance the surplus at last year's prices for the disposal of such surplus.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Native Wheat Needs.
70.
The milling requirement in relation to the 1970 harvest has been fixed at 230,000 tons of dried wheat. On the basis of seed sales, my Department's provisional estimate of this year's wheat acreage is approximately 231,000 acres as against 203,600 acres in 1969. On the hypothetical basis suggested by the Deputy, that is the same yield and moisture content as in 1969, the tonnage from this year's acreage could be in the region of 370,000 tons dried. After deducting seed and other requirements amounting to about 25,000 tons, a surplus above milling requirement of the order of 115,000 tons and a levy of the order of 12s 6d would be indicated on the assumptions stated by the Deputy.
The actual levy required will of course depend on the out-turn of the 1970 crop and the cost of disposal of any surplus, which could be larger than last year's. It could vary in one direction or another from the figure mentioned. In deciding on the amount of the provisional deduction from the price, it is essential to ensure that it will, in fact, be sufficient to cover whatever levy is found to be necessary.
Does the Minister not consider the Government should do something towards subventing this considerable cost to the farmers which will be quite catastrophic in a time of rising costs? Should not the Government pay some of this 12s 6d levy?
I do not understand the Deputy's question. My answer was comprehensive and it was based on assumptions made by the Deputy—not by the Department. The fact is that it is not possible to say what will be the out-turn of the 1970 crop and, therefore, it is not possible to say what the levy ought to be. I do not understand the Deputy's suggestion that there will be a serious loss to farmers as a result of the levy.
The sum of 12s 6d is a serious loss. It was meant to be profit.
The Deputy is well aware of the provisions for the making of the levy and the purpose of the levy. The levy is for the purpose of controlling the acreage of wheat grown. The original arrangement was made by the farmers' organisations and it is appreciated that the arrangement is working well and has worked satisfactorily in the past. I appreciate that wheat growers might well prefer to get all the payment together but with the levy system it is not possible to do this. The levy has to be withheld until its size is determined and afterwards farmers are repaid whatever is due to them.
If the levy is of the order of 12s 6d, will the Government come to the aid of the farmers?
That is a hypothetical question.
It is a good one.