Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Dec 1956

Vol. 160 No. 14

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Millable and Unmillable Wheat.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state (a) the amount of millable wheat of the 1956 crop delivered to the flour mills up to 31st October, and (b) the amount of wheat rejected as unmillable because of sprouting or excessive moisture content; further if he will outline the arrangements made by him to ensure that the unmillable wheat was milled only for animal feeding.

Purchases of millable wheat by flour mills up to 31st October, 1956, were approximately 2,172,000 barrels, and I can now add that, up to 24th November, the amount was 2,507,908 barrels. Statistics are not available as to rejection of wheat as unmillable. It is clear, however, that the percentage of wheat finally classified as unmillable was very small and I can tell the Deputy that, as compared with 1955, the smaller 1956 acreage is likely to produce a larger total quantity of millable wheat.

There is no official control over the disposal of unmillable wheat, which may be purchased by any person. I have no reason to believe that such comparatively small quantities of wheat as were finally classified as unmillable were used for any purpose other than animal feeding.

Is the Minister not aware that quantities of wheat delivered to merchants and subsequently sent to the mill were classified as unmillable, but the sellers could not be told, until it went to the mill for moisture content testing, whether it was millable or unmillable? As a result, wheat of 56 and 58 to the bushel was rejected and it was several days before the owner or seller was notified and was given an option by way of notification to go to the mill to inspect his wheat. Has the Minister taken any action to safeguard the farmer's interest in that way, or does he propose to take any action?

I would direct the Deputy's attention to the fact that we have received into the mills as of today a greater quantity of millable wheat in this year than was ever received into the mills of this country in any period.

That is not answering my question.

The Minister would not be seen dead in a field of wheat.

If the Deputy has a case in mind which comes within the definition of his supplementary question, I would ask him to furnish me with particulars of it.

What is the good of furnishing any particulars? The Minister was the gentleman who always held millers up to public odium in the House. He is now their bosom friend.

If the Deputy is seeking help from the Department of Agriculture, we are at his disposal. If he is seeking to insult the Department of Agriculture, he can go and take a running jump at himself.

Is it not a fact from these figures that, notwithstanding what has been said in various places by members of the Opposition, we have had as much Irish wheat since 1954 as we could eat, and that consequent on the Minister's decision that 50 per cent. foreign wheat, if necessary, will be supplied to the mills, we will have more wheat than we can eat up to next harvest?

I am happy to inform the Deputy that, in our opinion, it will not be necessary to incorporate 50 per cent. of foreign wheat into the grist, that a very much smaller quantity of foreign wheat will be requisite, and that the supply of domestic wheat which is coming forward will enable us to use grist containing at least 66? per cent. of Irish wheat, if not more, and give us a carry-over of 60,000 tons at the end of the cereal year.

That was the objective we were trying to achieve in spite of the Minister. The Minister did his utmost to prevent that objective being attained. He would not be seen dead in a field of Irish wheat.

Top
Share