asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in view of the fact that 15,000 tons of least suitable Irish wheat bought at the subsidised price last harvest have been disposed of for animal feed, he will take steps to ensure that flour millers now use more than 66? per cent. Irish wheat in the grist in order to avoid the danger of a larger surplus next year and to lessen storage difficulties.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Use of Irish Wheat.
When the wheat crop of 1956 was being harvested, an undertaking was given to the flour-millers by the then Government that, if they bought all potentially millable wheat offered to them, sufficient quantities of imported wheat would be made available to provide a grist suitable for their requirements. The millers maintain that a minimum proportion of one-third imported wheat must be admixed with wheat of the 1956 harvest to provide a grist of suitable quality, and in view of the undertaking given to them I have not taken any steps to force them to make up a grist which contains a larger percentage of native wheat.
Is it not open to the Minister to request the flour-millers to filter any surplus of this year's crop into the grist next year, as was done in 1955 when a similar situation obtained? Is the Minister aware that, after the bad harvest of 1954, we had to give a substantial quantity of hard wheat in order to carry the damaged wheat of our own harvest but that the resultant surplus was filtered into the grist in the following year and was all successfully used for conversion into flour? Exactly the same situation obtains at present. I do not think I am wrong in saying that there was a clear understanding that, while millers would be helped to use the produce of last year's crop, they would be expected to follow the 1955 procedure and filter any carry-over into next year's grist.
That is a somewhat different question. While it is undoubtfully desirable that the maximum percentage of native wheat should be used by millers now there still will be a substantial carry-over of wheat when the harvest of this year comes in. It is necessary, in order to facilitate the handling of that harvest, to dispose of as much of the existing stocks of wheat as possible before then. While I agree that it is open to me to make representations to the millers to use a higher percentage of native wheat, I do not feel I am in a position, because of the undertakings given to them, to make an Order requiring them to use a higher percentage of native wheat of the 1956 harvest than they themselves consider to be practicable. It should be possible—indeed, I think it is possible—to increase the present percentage somewhat but the tonnage of wheat involved, in the period now remaining of the cereal year, would not make a substantial difference to the carry-over.
In connection with any understanding entered into with the millers about the percentage to be used in the grist at the present time, there was a clear ancillary understanding that any surplus would be carried over into the next year and filtered into the grist during the next year. If representations are being made to the Minister to the effect that the millers should be permitted to use a grist, without any ancillary agreement, the represents tions are not correct. There was a clear understanding that any surplus wheat would be carried over and filtered into the following year's wheat.
In other circumstances that would be a practicable arrangement. Notwithstanding all the 1956 wheat we can get the millers to use between this and the harvest, together with the disposal of a certain amount of the surplus for animal feeding, there will still be an exceptionally large carry-over which may create storage problems later when the much larger harvest of this year comes to hand.
The Minister indicated that the millers stated they felt a grist of the proportion indicated was the proper grist. Does the Minister agree that that is the proper proportion?
That is rather a technical matter. The Deputy is probably aware that the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards was asked to carry out an investigation in regard to it. They recommended the 2-1 grist, now being used, as the most suitable. Certainly, for household flour, I think a 70-30 per cent. grist would be practicable.
If the Minister considers that that would be a practicable proportion, why does he feel in any way impelled to allow the existing proportion? Any discussions held last year were on the basis of a proportion to be accepted by the Department of Industry and Commerce.
No.
Quite positively, yes.
Before the harvest came in, when the millers reported that a lot of the wheat was in a bad condition, they were told they would be allowed whatever quantity of imported wheat they thought necessary to produce a suitable grist.
Quite definitely, no.
They required a 50 per cent. mixture at the beginning.
We directed 66-2/3rds.
After the report was received from the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards.
Whatever proportion was necessary—but it was to be in the opinion of the Government and not of the millers. The Minister has changed that.
What about the Irish loaf?
There is a big change from the time when you would not have any Irish wheat in the loaf.