They have also, in the meantime, had to bear, through the levy, the cost of the disposal of the surplus millable wheat. Owing to emigration, the estimated requirements now are 765,000 tons, as against, I think, 320,000 tons in 1958. They have to bear the cost of disposal, so the Government have relieved themselves of that. But they have also had to bear something much heavier. When there is a bad harvest, or an extra amount of wheat grown, or where any surplus at all exists, the millers crack down on the amount of wheat taken into the mill. In the past year 91 per cent of the wheat sent to the mill was rated as millable and was purchased on that basis. That was easy when there was a reduced acreage of wheat and also a substantially reduced yield. It is very easy when the quantity is in scarce supply to have a price, and have conditions of sale made easier. But where there is a surplus of wheat, as in 1960-61 and at the same time a bad harvest, we all know the treatment the farmers got at the hands of the millers and we know the unsympathetic Government we had towards the growers.
We expected that the Minister for Agriculture would be the one man who would see that the farmers of that time got their wheat disposed of. We know how little sympathy these people got. It is no wonder there is a reduction in the quantity of wheat grown in the past year. I suppose they said they would have to take so many men off the land so that the people remaining could get a higher income. Therefore, the policy of the Government as regards wheat has been to reduce the quantity.
The Minister stated on Thursday evening last, when I raised the matter of the price of barley, that farmers were getting a 5 per cent increase in price. The Minister said that was an agreed price with joint committees of agriculture. I wonder is the price of wheat also an agreed price with joint committees of agriculture. I doubt it very much. I would appeal to the Minister, and to the Government, to review the price of wheat, in view of the increased costs to the growers.
This week we have seen a substantial jump of 12 points in the cost of living over the past 12 months, and, to make allowance for that, I would appeal to the Minister, and the Government, to give a reasonable increase to those people who must at the present time grow this crop. It is the only practical cash crop they can grow. They grow feeding barley even at the reduced price because, whatever happens, they will be able to sell the barley and will not have to go through the various tests, such as maltose and all the final tests, which have to be undergone in the case of wheat. On any of these tests wheat can be turned down. People have turned to barley growing, not because they get a return from growing barley, but because of the hardship they have suffered at the hands of the millers over the past number of years, and they want to be sure they will be able to get the price available, and not left as they were with the wheat.
I would appeal to the Minister to review the price of wheat and the price of barley. Barley has been increased by 5 per cent. Ten years ago the price of barley was 48/- as against 40/now. Still, farmers have to meet increased costs of machinery, and so on. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister to give this matter serious thought.
As I said last year, I disapprove of the assistance given by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the rationalisation scheme evolved by the Irish Flour Millers Association. That rationalisation scheme meant a closure of six mills in the first instance and two later. Two have been closed in my constituency. The owners of these mills have always given good service and have had good relations with the local farming community. These relations meant a lot, especially when the harvests were not as good as they might be. I regret the Minister's approval of this. After all, without his approval I doubt whether that rationalisation scheme could have been carried out.
It would appear to me that the Irish Flour Millers Association is only an association in name. Two combines have taken complete control and dictated to the whole industry. The millers have been allowed by the Government to create a fund over the years which is now been used under the guise of compensation to close down the mills in the country. This fund is being used by the larger mills. If we cannot beat them we will buy them, and buying them they are. I understand that fund is still being very substantially contributed to. I believe any miller exceeding his quota in the year has to pay 10 per cent per sack for each sack of flour milled over and above his quota. Their accounts are subject to examination by the accountants of the Association.
I would ask the Minister and through the Minister, the Government, to have an investigation carried out into the activities of the Flour Millers Association. As I have said, the two big boys dictate and the other millers have no say at the meetings.
Another point to which I should like to refer is in relation to the old days when wheat was imported and no Irish wheat was grown until we got the newer types. All flour milled in this country was milled from imported wheat and it was necessary to differentiate between the imported price and the home price. Now, when 75 per cent of the wheat is being produced next to the very country miller's door, these people still insist that the differential should be maintained. They insist that the people down the country should have to pay 2/- per sack more for their flour than the people in the big cities where the ports are. The day for that should be gone.
On the subject of land reclamation, we all regard the Dillon Land Project as one of the finest schemes ever introduced in this country. The Minister mentioned that it is going ahead at an active pace and that, during the past year, 90,000 acres were reclaimed. I am glad of that but I think much more could be done. It is the general feeling that farming is under-capitalised. A lot of our farmers who can pay their way are afraid to raise debts fearing, as they have good reason to fear, bad harvests and other losses. Those people like to keep themselves out of debt. They will not avail even of the credit facilities that are available. If they would do so, there would be increased production in general on their farms.
The Government have dropped Section B of the Land Project. Under Section A, the farmer contributes his share and the Government contribute their subsidy. Under Section B, the Government paid the farmer's share but put it on his annuity. That provided capital so that the farmer had not to finance the reclamation of his land and he was put into a better position to pay back the annuity over the years.
Some farmers, even smaller farmers, would have to provide from £100 to £300 in cash and we all know that only well-off farmers could do that. By cutting out Section B of the Land Rehabilitation Scheme, the Government have refused that credit to the farmers. The Minister may think I am using this argument because I speak from the Opposition benches but it is a very important matter. I have here a copy of the Kilkenny People of Friday, 12th June, 1964. In a news item headed Waste And Wet Land A Shame, we read what a supporter of the Minister's Party, Mr. J. Ryan, urged at a meeting of the Kilkenny County Committee of Agriculture on the previous Monday. The report is as follows:
Mr. J. Ryan, at Kilkenny County Committee of Agriculture meeting on Monday urged the reintroduction of Section B of the Land Rehabilitation Scheme. Dairying, he said, was a most vital part of the agricultural economy, and a year ago he moved a resolution asking that Section B of the Land Rehabilitation Scheme be reintroduced.
He would also like to see a review of the grant per acre for reclamation, since pipes were going up every day, and wages had been doubled since the scheme was first implemented. Having regard to the plan for economic expansion, he thought it a shame to have waste and wet land in the country today.
Such land might not be suitable for tillage but it would be suitable for the cow, and for the dairy farmer, and he felt the section heretofore providing for grants for the drainage of such land should be reintroduced.
Mr. Ryan said small farmers could not afford to carry waste land. It was impossible, and it was vital that his income should be maintained at a reasonable level.
Apparently there was general agreement about the matter at that meeting of the committee. I add my voice to the plea of Mr. J. Ryan that Section B of the Land Project be brought back for the reasons I have stated.