On the last day we were discussing this question I endeavoured, by giving facts and certain figures, to convince the House that this particular industry is competing with its rivals on unequal terms. I would like to emphasise the fact that I am not speaking on behalf of any individuals, nor am I speaking on behalf of any association. I desire to make that quite clear. I am speaking on behalf of an important national industry which I and other Deputies have observed is decaying. That industry is decaying for the reasons that I have outlined. I desire that any discussion on this important matter should be taken altogether out of the arena of politics. I want the Minister and the House to deal with it just as any other great national industry has been dealt with already. I have pointed out that there has been no relation whatever for a number of years between the price of flour ex-mill, whether home-milled or foreign, and the price of the loaf to the consumer. I have mentioned that a particular statement which I described as a ramp and which we listened to in this House and in the country when an application was before the Tariff Commission in 1923 was a dishonest statement, dishonest to the producers in this industry. It was started by a few selfish people in their own interests and this House, when it is handling this or any other industry, must see that it will not allow any selfish interests from outside to intervene.
Private Deputies' Business. - Saorstát Milling Industry.
Or inside.
Or inside. I think I made it perfectly clear in my opening remarks that I was not speaking on behalf of individuals or associations, so I think the interruption from Deputy Gorey is unwarranted. The Government and the House must see that it will not be dictated to by any private interests outside. I said that rates and freights are wrong from the point of view of the development of this industry and I might go further and say that from the point of view of the development of any industry in this country the existing rates and freights are wrong. Rates and freights internally and externally must be adjusted before we can get anywhere with internal development in the matter of agriculture or any other industry. If you have any doubts in the matter, ask our agricultural feeders who pay exorbitant freight and dues on the raw material imported and who pay excessive freights and port dues on the exported finished article.
The producers here are struck twice at their own doors by abnormal rates and freights that have been imposed on this country by statutes at least 120 years old. These old statutes impose a big burden upon people here who are in competition with the Dane or any other outsider in the foreign market. The producers here are wonderful to keep going all those years in the face of that unfair competition, and the sooner the House gets down to decide what the rates and freights, internally and externally, are to be, the better.
Hear, hear!
It does not matter two straws what form of Government we have or what flag we fly in this country or what is the colour of that flag if we cannot develop along the lines that I suggest.
Hear, hear!
There is no good in talking about what the name of the Government might be, whether it is to be a Republican Government or any other form of Government. Signs and symbols do not count in this matter. It is a business proposition here now. We are in keen competition with our rivals all the world over and we must be placed in a position to compete on equal terms. I think our flour millers are wonderful people to stand up to the unfair competition all these years. They are really wonderful people and I am not surprised that recently some of them handed over their concerns or sold them to any party that came along. They had been beaten to the ropes by unfair competition. On the last day when I spoke here on this question I gave instances of dumping. I stated to the House that I could give many other instances and documentary proofs. The House will appreciate that it is very difficult to get documentary proofs on this question.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
It is difficult to get confidential documents passing between business people, and it is difficult for me or for any other person to ask business people to hand me over confidential documents. But we have our commonsense and our business experience to bring to bear on this question. We did not drop off a gooseberry bush yesterday morning. When I hear people in this House stating that we ought to follow the lead of Great Britain on all questions dealing with the tariffs, and when people point out to us that England has been a free trade country, that it has developed on free trade lines, I wonder did these people ever study history or did they ever study the history of this British free trade bogey. I stated here the other day that our millers were penalised in one particular instance, viz.: by the imposition of heavy dues on raw materials passing through our ports. I gave a particular instance. I know of one port where the producer is penalised to the extent of 120 per cent. in favour of the manufactured article. That is a very serious handicap to any producer. When I look across the water to Liverpool and find that the manufactured article going in there is penalised to the extent of 200 per cent. in favour of the raw material, I am not surpised that England has become a great industrial country. In that sense she has been a highly protected country for many years past. She allowed raw material in under favoured conditions, and she penalised the manufactured article coming in. It is the same in every country under the sun except here. It is well to state here that some of our Port Authorities function under statutes 120 years old, and under these statutes the import of the manufactured article is favoured as against the raw material for the industry that is competing against the manufactured article. Therefore, it is that the industry here is decaying.
I am surprised that the Tariff Commissioners did not investigate these things, for these conditions exist and they are there for any person or any Deputy to see. Deputies tell us of a 14s. freight on flour between Liverpool and this country, I say it is trifling with an important matter of this kind to say that there is a 14s. freight, or any other freight when it comes to selling foreign flour in this country. We know that in such a case it is a question of making the best bargain one can. It is not a question of selling flour on any basis. It is simply a question of bargaining. It is a case of "sell the flour at the best bargain price you can make regardless of the cost of production, regardless of the cost of raw material and regardless of any other consideration, but simply take bet price for our surplus supply; Ireland is our only market, and rather than let it rot here we sent it over to our agents and give them carte blanche to do what they like with it and send us back the price." That is the situation we are dealing with and I ask any sane person who knows anything about the business to tell me how can any business in this country stand up against that? Is it fair to any business in this country or to any man who desires to put his money into enterprise or production in this country to be faced with those conditions? Of course it is not fair.
I believe that if the Minister were supported properly in this matter by all the millers this serious position or situation would have been settled long ago. But I am afraid that is not so. I am afraid that some particular miller or some particular baker who should not enter into this question at all is deceiving the Minister on this question. The baker and the miller are two different and separate factors and I am afraid someone is deceiving the Minister. I again say that the baker does not enter into this question. At the moment we must first decide what the position of the milling industry must be and when we have that settled to our satisfaction, then we will turn our minds to the question of what the price of bread ought to be. I told the House on Friday that I could fetch along here any number of papers and documents to prove that dumping is taking place and that it has been taking place in this country for a very considerable number of years. I got such a document the other day; I produced others on Friday last. It is dated the 5th May, 1930. I see in this document a quotation for wheat at 8/9 per 100 lbs.
Working along the figure, 8/9 per 100 lbs., we arrive at a price of 37/3 per sack of flour. When I give that price I am referring to the economic level in Britain, costings, and all other details in connection with the working out of the milling of a sack of flour. In that particular week I took up a document dated the 6th May from Galway. Deputies will remember that when speaking on this question last Friday I stated that millers across the water can put flour into any part of the country— I mentioned Thurles and Castlebar— and, even if there is an economic mill in such area, they sell their flour at the door of such mill here shillings under the price per sack at which that economic mill can produce it. I will give a case from Galway, which is not very far removed from Castlebar, and it will serve for the purpose of illustration. I mentioned that the price of wheat at 8/9 per 100 lbs. works out at 37/3 per sack in an economic mill. That flour was offered in Galway in that particular week at 34/6 per sack. I have a letter here in connection with that matter. It is confidential, but it is stated in it that they could buy Liverpool flour at that price ex Galway quay in that week. If the Minister requires the original I will give it to him with pleasure. Where does the 14/- rate come in there? Where does anything come in there except a bargaining price? Sell it at any price you get.
Then we have the question of contracts. We have people here in the Saorstát and over the border who, when they anticipate a rise in the price of flour, rush all over the area, having fixed their price across the water for a few thousand sacks—it may be one thousand or ten thousand. They rush in and fix up their price in many cases for twelve months. The people across the water wink their eyes at it. If a man makes a sale here it is all right. If the price drops he does not take the stuff. That is understood.
Recently on reading the "Corn Trade News," which is a reliable paper, I found that a reputable firm, Messrs. Simons, of Manchester, gave some figures regarding costings. I do not think that any Deputy or Minister will dispute any figure that such a reputable firm puts up. If I have put forward any figures which the Millers' Association, whom I have not consulted, will refute, I am prepared to close my mouth on this question for evermore. All the figures which I give are verified, and I would be surprised if even the English millers disputed any figure which I give here on this particular question. Messrs. Simons gave figures dealing with the cost of production, and based them on a mill working 7,000 hours per annum. That, of course, is a rather extraordinary basis, because we know very well that no mill will work for 7,000 hours per annum, as there is the question of holidays for the mill-workers and a few days in the year for cleaning the machinery, and so on, which has to be considered. They base their figures on 7,000 hours, and arrive at 5/7.07 as the cost of production per sack in an economic mill. The usual maximum hours in an economic mill, working at full capacity, is about 6,500 hours, but I am satisfied to take 7,000 for the purpose of my argument.
Take an economic mill in this country. I do not care whether it is situated on the banks of the Liffey or in the heart of the country. I have been endeavouring to work out the cost of production, and I have had to work on 60 per cent. capacity. I find that there is a difference of 1/4 per sack between the two—that is, an economic mill across the water working at full capacity at 7,000 hours per annum, and an economic mill in this country working at 60 per cent. capacity, which is, unfortunately, the normal working of such mills in this country. That difference of 1/4 per sack immediately knocks the Irish miller out of the market when competing with any of his rivals. I am prepared to submit those figures to any expert, whether English or Irish, provided he is impartial, and if he refutes them I shall never touch this question again. We must take this problem out of the rut in which it has been for five or six years past, deal with it as we find it, and endeavour to find a solution. I do not think that Deputy Anthony's solution is the one that is necessary.
If I thought that the millers were working under fair conditions in this country, that they were slacking or treacherously handing over this important industry to outsiders, I would say that Deputy Anthony's scheme, or some similar one would be the proper way to handle the problem, and that we should deal with them drastically. We are, however, dealing with people who are forced to walk into a foreign combine with their hands up, having been beaten to the ropes in the last five or six years through dumping. It is hard to blame them. I maintain that our millers, or any other producers in this country, have a standard of commercial morality which will compare favourably with that of other producers in any part of the world.
What is your cure for dumping?
I am sure the Deputy is impatient, but I am developing my case, and I will reach that particular point in a few moments. The Deputy asked me for alternatives to Deputy Anthony's motion. My first alternative is to remove the disabilities under which our producers are endeavouring to carry on. That is alternative No. 1. Remove all these factors which are operating seriously against the economic production of flour in this country by the millers. Put them in a position to compete favourably with any rivals. The producers in this country do not need shelter. We have heard Deputies referring in this House to the question of protection and tariffs as sheltering laziness, inefficiency, incompetence, etc. These millers or any of our producers do not require such shelter. They require to be placed in a position to compete on level terms with any rival who comes in. If they are placed in that position I will guarantee to this House that they will knock hell out of their rivals in any market here or outside.
I think the Deputy is seriously endeavouring to find an alternative solution, and we are trying to understand him. Will he be more precise as to what he meant by the first alternative before he moves on? Let us hear it. We want to know what it is.
On Friday last Deputy Flinn was not in the House when I was speaking.
I read everything you said.
If the Deputy reads a report of my speech in the Official Report, he will notice that I stated that the millers in this country were labouring under certain disabilities in endeavouring to produce flour. I enumerated certain factors which were operating seriously against the economic production of flour in this country. I wish now to have those factors removed.
By what means?
Tell us how.
What is this House for?
If Deputy Anthony has not the right cure you must have it. Give it to us.
We are trying to help the Deputy. We are anxious to understand him.
The Deputy will not help him by his interruptions.
It is not unreasonable, I think, that the Minister should order that on and after 1st November next, or after any date which the House wishes, he will restrict the imports of flour into this country by 25 per cent. That is another alternative. You are giving your producers here an extra market and the little details can be settled between the millers themselves and the Minister. Deputies will notice that I am moving slowly and cautiously.
You are almost going backwards.
The Minister might order that after 1st November next, or other date, no flour will be allowed in here except within certain prescribed limits. Mind you, such order would not apply to imports to Messrs. Jacobs. I hope I will not be misunderstood in that connection. Is there anything unreasonable in that alternative? Another alternative I suggest is that henceforward the price of imported flour sold in this country must be based on the price of the wheat on the day it is sold plus production costs plus the 14/- freight which the Tariff Commission told us existed between the two countries. If foreign flour were henceforward sold in this country on that basis, bearing the cost of production, bearing the 14/- freight, it would mean a big relief to the milling producers in this country. Is that an unreasonable alternative?
Government control.
The Minister might also issue an order—I wish he did— to the effect that on and after 1st November next, or on and after 1st January next all flour sold in the Saorstát must contain a certain percentage of flour ground from Irish-grown wheat.
That is in the scheme.
I wish he did. My point is that we must first place our producers, our millers in this case, in a position to produce flour economically, to allow them to compete on equal terms with their rivals. We must first give them that opportunity as an enterprising body, having their money invested in this particular industry. We must give them that opportunity, I contend, before we decide to deal with them in the way in which Deputy Anthony suggests. I hope I have convinced the House that dumping, serious dumping—so serious that it is becoming a big menace to this industry—is taking place at the moment and has been taking place here for a number of years and that if this dumping is stopped the millers will be able to stand up to any competition and will, in fact, welcome it. If flour is sold in this country on the basis of the price of wheat on the day it is sold there would be no question of the millers profiteering. The prices are quoted in public documents, and, further, we protect the community by deciding that the price of the loaf will also be based on this particular price; one will be a continuation of the other. You have the price of the flour based on the price of the wheat plus the production costs and you have the price of the loaf based on the price of the flour, and the consumer is amply protected.
That is Deputy Anthony's scheme.
If we get these things settled I think the problem which we have been discussing here for some days will right itself.
From reading Deputy Hennessy's spech on the last day and listening to him to-day, I must say that I would have been glad to make such a speech in support of the motion, but I would have stopped at the point where Deputy Hennessy went on to alternatives. When Deputy Hennessy tried to reconcile his support for the Cumann na nGaedheal policy with pointing out the disabilities under which the mills are at present suffering, I think he placed himself in a rather ludicrous position.
I do not like the Deputy's suggestion that this is the Cumann na nGaedheal policy. It is my own considered opinion on the question regardless of what Deputies on these benches think of it.
But you will vote in the Cumann na nGaedheal Lobby, all the same.
I quite agree that some of the alternatives Deputy Hennessy offered are not in line with Cumann na nGaedheal policy, but they are at least put forward in defence of the way that Deputy Hennessy intends to vote. He says, "Remove all disabilities." That is a very big order indeed. If all disabilities were removed, and if you placed the Irish millers in as good a position as the British millers, that is all that anybody wants. How is that to be done? We have not been told how it is to be done. He did tell us the various disabilities under which Irish millers are labouring; but he did not tell us how those disabilities could be removed. He talked of another alternative. He said, "Restrict the imports of flour by twenty-five per cent. from 1st November next." That would naturally lead to the prohibition of imports eventually. If you start with twenty-five per cent. next November, and at a further date you stop another twenty-five per cent., eventually you will have prohibited entirely the import of flour into this country. Another alternative might be taken with that: the fixation of the price of wheat. One of the principal arguments put forward here against the proposed tariff on flour was that it would raise the price to the consumer. If a tariff on flour is likely to raise the price to the consumer, surely the prohibition of the import of flour will be even more likely to raise it. If we are to agree to the other alternative, the fixation of the price of wheat, it would also have the effect of raising the price of flour to the consumer. So that the old motion brought in here some time ago to have a tariff put on the import of flour would not have had such disastrous effects, that is from the point of view of the people who opposed the tariff, as some of the alternatives Deputy Hennessy has suggested.
Deputy Hennessy also suggested, even proved to my satisfaction, that there is serious dumping of flour going on in the country. If he is able to convince the Minister for Industry and Commerce that that is the case, then we shall immediately have a tariff on flour, because the Minister stated here in a previous debate on this question that if it could be proved to him that there was dumping of foreign flour he would immediately introduce a tariff to stop it. Deputy Hennessy also said that we should compel the millers to use a certain percentage of Irish wheat in their grist. A motion was also brought before the Dáil on that subject. I do not remember whether Deputy Hennessy was here on that occasion, but I do know that if he was here he voted against the motion, because I know he did not vote for it. Now he comes forward, when, as I say, he is seeking the opportunity to justify himself in voting against this motion, and suggests to the House alternatives that he had previous opportunities of supporting and did not support.
There is absolutely no analogy between the two things to which the Deputy refers.
The policy is "safety first."
The Minister for Industry and Commerce, when speaking on this particular motion, said with regard to the foreign capital coming into the country: "We regard that as a good move. It is likely to increase efficiency here and lead to rationalisation." That puts in a nutshell the policy of the present Government with regard to foreign capital coming into the country, and it is a policy to which the supporters of this motion are absolutely opposed. I should like to quote a parallel to the present position in order to show the House what is likely to occur if this particular policy which the Government are pursuing is allowed to continue. On the 3rd March, 1923, Deputy Corish asked a question in this House with regard to the cement works in Wexford. These works had, previous to that date, been taken over by the Portland Cement Company and that Company had notified, at this time, that they intended to close down the works. The answer given to Deputy Corish by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce was that they had got into communication with the Company and that the Company stated that their warehouses were full of cement, that they had got no orders, and that they would have to close down. The Minister went on to say: "There should be no difficulty about producing cement at an economic price in this country and consequently, we have asked the company to remain open pending further investigation." The present Minister was not then the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but if he were, and if he were to hold the opinions then that he does now, he would have told the House that the taking over of the Drinagh Cement Works by a foreign company was likely to lead to efficiency, to have the effect of having cement produced in this country at a lower cost, and further that it was likely to increase the production of cement in this country, because these are the kind of things that he has stated on this flour motion.
What was the result with regard to the cement works, which I hold is parallel to the present case? The works were closed down completely, although, as Deputy Corish pointed out at the time, the Company were sending in hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of cement into this country from their factory on the other side. The Minister for Industry and Commerce when they did close down did not use the powers vested in him that he spoke of here with regard to the flour mills. He told us that he has powers to deal with this question and to prevent these foreign millers from closing down the mills here, if they should wish to do so. He did not use these powers in regard to the cement works, and I, for one, am convinced that if the foreign millers take over our flour mills and commence to close them down the Minister will not use the powers he claims to have against those foreigners. We may expect, on the word of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to get more effciency because it will lead to rationalisation. Perhaps for the purpose of this debate it does not matter whether we agree with rationalisation or not. There may be Deputies on the other side of the House who are out for big ideas for rationalisation and so on, and they may, on that account, support the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his attitude. But, even if they are, are they sure that we are going to have efficiency and rationalisation if these millers come in? I think they ought to stop and consider before voting against the motion.
The Minister for Finance in speaking against this motion said: "There are industries which it would be very much more important to take steps to ensure that they were owned by Saorstát citizens than the flour milling industry." What industry could be more important to the life of this country than the flour-milling industry?
I would like to know what industry the Minister had in mind when he said they were industries that it was more important should be kept in the hands of the Saorstát citizens than the flour milling industry. Does he regard some of the industries on which he put a tariff, such as eider-down quilts, and rosary beads, as more important than the flour milling industry, or, if not, what are the particular industries he had in mind?
We had as another alternative, apart from what Deputy Hennessy gave us, the gratuitous advice given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to how the flour millers should carry on their business. The Minister for Industry and Commerce commenced his speech by a jibe at the Labour Party. He said if they took into consideration the refusal of certain labour elements to allow up-to-date machinery to be used at the ports it was possible that the native millers might have a better chance of competing against foreign millers. If the Minister was in any way familiar with the conditions of the working people in this city, or in other cities where wheat is being unloaded, he would not be surprised that labour should hold on to every single bit of employment that they have at the present time. No one would blame people whose employment is so uncertain at present for holding on to what they have and not giving in an inch, no matter what the views of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or anybody else are.
The Minister for Finance, also, in that connection thought fit to give some advice. He said that the Irish millers ought to develop a scheme for producing their wheat. The Minister for Finance, and his colleagues in the Cabinet, in their pronouncements here in the Dáil, said that a scheme for the production of Irish wheat in this country would almost go so far as to bankrupt the State. Yet that same Minister invites the millers of the country to develop a scheme for the production of their wheat. It is somewhat hard to understand inconsistencies of that sort from a man who is supposed to be a responsible Cabinet Minister. It is hard to know whether it is due to latent puerility or to early senility. We have the Minister for Finance, just as we have Deputy Hennessy, coming along now when they are looking for some argument, no matter what, against this motion in order to turn it down, advocating a mixture of Irish wheat in the manufacture of flour in order to save the flour millers.
Then, again, the Minister for Finance said it would be better to have a low system of tariffs accompanied by some form of discriminating taxation. He and other members of his Party had the opportunity on three or four occasions in this Dáil of pronouncing in favour of a system of tariffs on imported flour, but on these occasions they used all the various arguments that could be used against a tariff on imported flour. Indeed, the Minister for Finance suggested that a low system of tariffs might meet the case better than this motion. He said, when the wheat motion was before the Dáil, the growing of the wheat in Ireland would bring about a revolution. He is now prepared to brave that revolution in order to save the flour millers, and to save them in a way that his own Government had not the courage to take. If the Minister for Finance wants to introduce here a low system of tariffs, as he suggested, there is nobody, as far as I know in any Party in the Dáil, except his own, who would hold out against that policy, and if the Minister would go to his own Party and try to get support there he could feel assured of the support, so far as I know, of the other Parties in this Dáil for any remedy which is likely to save the flour mills of this country.
The Minister said, also, that even if foreign millers came in here that is no reason why the price of flour should go up. He said the price of flour here depends upon the price of flour in England. We have Deputy Hennessy producing what he himself said was documentary proof that the price of flour here is sometimes much lower than in England, owing to dumping, so that the price of flour here evidently does not depend upon the price of flour in England. It depends upon what the British exporter can get for his flour in this country, and if at times he has to sell it at a loss in order to capture the market he is prepared to do so. He is doing that for a certain purpose, so that when he has captured the market he can get his own price and recoup himself for his loss. If we allow the foreign millers to come in and take over our mills, we may expect them to get back what they lost through dumping and we shall then have the price of flour going up. Do we, for instance, now get our cement in this country cheaper than they get it in England since our cement works were taken over by the Portland Cement Company?
We do?
Does the Deputy deny that?
No. I do not, but I would rather look it up than take the Minister's word. We are told that flour-milling here does not give very much employment. We are told that if we turned out all the flour we required we would not give employment to more than 150 additional men. In 1929, we paid £2,438,000 for flour which we imported into this country. If we had bought the equivalent in wheat to produce that flour here we should have got it, at the price ruling last year, for £2,280,000; we would have a saving of £158,000 on that deal, and, in addition, we could have had 67,000 tons of offals from that wheat as well as the flour required. Taking these offals at £7 a ton we would have had a net gain to the country of £627,000. The reason I mention that is this: We were told that if we produced all the flour we required we would only employ 150 additional men in the flour-milling industry. Take these men as earning £200 a year each—a rather high wage at the present time—and I am fairly certain it is as high an average as men working in mills are getting at the present time, that is £4 a week each—the wages of this 150 men would only amount to £30,000 a year. Where does the rest of the £627,000 go? It would go to subsidiary industries such as sack-making, printing, stationery and so on. We would have Irish managers and supervisors for the staffs here which we shall not have if British millers come over and take over our mills, as has been the experience in connection with other industries. In all the other industries, jam-making and everything else, when those foreign capitalists came in here they brought their managers and supervisory staff with them from Scotland, England, or somewhere else, while we had competent men here who were able to fill the positions. If there are profits from these mills we should have the dividends paid to Irish shareholders, and those Irish shareholders would be paying income tax to this Government. If the mills are owned by foreign capitalists the dividends will be paid to people living in England or elsewhere and the income tax will go to some other Government.
We are told that any form of control of Irish milling will help to increase the price of flour. We are told, moreover, that the most dangerous form of control, as far as the increase in price is concerned, is the form of tariffs. In order to try to quiet the minds of members on the other side especially, I would like to take a quotation from a Minister's speech in this House on the 23rd January, 1924. He said:—
"The immediate effect of a comprehensive system of Protection will lead to an increase in price. ...But remember I say the immediate effect. I do not say that ultimately it may not adjust itself. ...It is quite possible that ultimately things may adjust themselves, indeed not only is it possible but with anything like efficiency it is probable that you will get your goods at the same price in a protected country.... When I say immediate and ultimate, I am not thinking of a time far ahead. I am really only thinking of this year and next year."
That quotation is from a speech of the Minister for Agriculture.
I did not intend at all to intervene in this debate, but listening to the speeches delivered last Friday and to-day one is convinced that there is something more in this motion than appears on the surface. One thing I heard in the discussion was that the consumer in the country is being placed in a very favourable position, that flour is being sold in this country cheaper than it can be produced economically, and, naturally, if there were not some other elements in the way, he should have got the benefit of that cheap flour. I think it must be admitted from the speeches that have been made, if there is any truth in them, that the consumer in this country has been placed in that favourable position that he has not been paying an economic price for his flour, that the miller has not been getting an economic price for his flour, and that the consumer in this country must pay more to get it at an economic price. I think there can be no question about that. It may be said that there are other elements between the consumer and the miller, the bakers and the operators. I will not go into that for the moment. If there is any truth in the statement it means without any question that the consumer for one is required and expected to pay more and that the favoured position he has had must be taken away from him. In the future he will be expected to pay that economic price, that vague price which is to be decided according to this motion and according to the ideas of the flour millers who are not in accord with this motion. Flour millers are not in agreement with this motion and do not accept it.
This is national control. They do not want national control. They want the sort of control that they will control. The motion of Deputy Anthony will embrace a lot of things "which will provide adequate safeguards for the Saorstát milling industry and for the consuming public." The safeguards for the consuming public at the moment I take it are to be removed out of this motion. The cheap flour that they have been getting is to be no longer cheap flour. There is a considerable amount of flour consumed in this country besides what goes through the hands of the bakers. I do not know what is the percentage of the flour that comes in by way of bread and what percentage is sold to people who make their own bread in the country. In any case, both for one and the other the price of flour is to be increased whether it passes through the hands of bakers or not.
I believe we have in this country such a thing as restricted output in the bakery trade. I believe that is so in Cork. They are restricted to something less than 200 pairs per week or per day. I know according to the Food Prices Commission the output in Belfast was about 24 sacks per week per man. In Dublin it went as low as 13 and in Cork it was 12. I do not know what the wages in Belfast are but I believe the wages in Cork are somewhat similar to Dublin, £4 16s. 0d. to the ordinary hand and allowance to foremen and to people like that. The basic wage is about 96/- per week for the ordinary hand. I daresay with restricted output with that wage and all the other things stabilised, as contemplated in this motion, that the consuming public has got to pay. Having said that I will not bother about labouring the question of the bakers concerned with this matter any further. I for one coming from a constituency and having been born in a constituency in which there are a considerable number of flour mills an naturally very much concerned. I happened to be a native of the constituency. I am not there merely as a bird of passage, there to-day and away tomorrow. The Rivers Nore and Barrow flow through my constituency and naturally there is a considerable number of mills along these rivers. I would view with great concern indeed any foreign invasion that would mean the scrapping, or closing down which would lessen employment in any of those mills.
To my mind the question of foreign capital coming into this country is not very important. It might have been much more important than it is to-day before this country got a legislature of its own, but this country has a legislature of its own, and an Englishman coming into this country to do business has no more rights than a Dutchman or a Belgian, or than any of our own citizens. We can deal with our own citizens here, with Englishmen and with Belgians, and we have full powers at any time to deal with them. There is no question about it. To my mind this question turns itself more, I think, on the speech of Deputy Flinn and more on the agitation in which Deputy Flinn has taken a part than it does on the merits of whether capital is coming in or not. I believe that some of the objection from the flour millers at least to foreign capital coming in is based more on the efficiency which Mr. Rank and outside capital would bring to bear on business than it is to the actual foreign capital itself. Deputy Flinn, I think, said that he was prepared to say there were people in this country ready to put down the money. That was what it amounted to.
That is quite so.
That there were people in this country ready to put down money to save the Irish milling industry. Therefore it resolves itself into a question of comparison between this Irish group and this individual. We have on the one hand a man with capital who, I think, stands at the top of his profession with regard to efficiency in business organisation, a man who can buy corn cheap. One of the things that was stressed here was that the Irish miller cannot buy corn as cheaply as this man. The fact that he can buy corn cheaply must carry with it a resultant benefit to the consumer, both here and in England. He is objected to because he has capital, because he can buy corn cheaply, because his business is efficient and he can sell flour here more cheaply than others. That is the explanation of this question of the uneconomic price. That is what they are afraid of. I take it that is the whole case that is being made against them.
No. It is not the case at all.
I think it is.
That is the boost of the Englishmen.
Who are the people on the other side? We have people going round the country on Sundays and other days, and every time they can get on a platform they talk of this calamity to the country that is going to overtake it by the introduction of foreign capital. What did some of these people do in their time? In 1921-22 the creameries owned by Messrs. Cleeves were bought by some of the capitalists or gamblers of this country at scrap price. These people were not very long in possession of the creameries when they came to Dublin urging us to restore order. Order was restored and the property appreciated. When it had appreciated to the extent that they thought it was likely to go they immediately sold out to an English company. Some of their shareholders in that speculation, I believe, cleared out altogether. Messrs. Dowdall, I believe, did as far as I know. I do not know exactly. Mr. Shaughnessy did not. He retained a good proportion of his interest in the creameries. He was one of the biggest shareholders in Lovell and Christmas. These are the people who are at the back of this agitation.
Is the Deputy aware that what he is now saying has been specifically denied by the Minister for Agriculture?
I am not, and until it is denied I will make the statement and continue to make it.
I will show you the document.
We know it was in the hands of these people.
That statement was contradicted by the Minister.
Let it be contradicted again. We know it was sold to Messrs. Lovell and Christmas and that Mr. O'Shaughnessy was one of the principal shareholders at the time the State bought over these creameries. That is not the only business deal. I think it is common knowledge that a few years ago there was an insurance company in this country—the Hibernian—in which there was a good deal of Irish capital. That was also sold to an English company. Messrs. Dowdall were largely interested in the Irish company. I believe that one of them at least managed to retain his directorship of the new company. They were out to make money and they made it, and they are out to make money now and they want a guaranteed economic price. More money has been made out of this guaranteed economic price and more profiteering has taken place, as was the case during the war, under this system than under any other system that was operated in this country. Deputy Flinn suggests that the Government should step in and hand this over directly to the crowd that Deputy Flinn speaks for.
You have got the wrong people. I will give you the facts.
We have another individual who presided here at a meeting in Dublin, a Mr. Gallagher. It is common knowledge that this man was crown solicitor for Donegal.
What has that got to do with milling?
Not a whole lot, but we want to know the bona fides of these people who are making these innuendoes against others. We must remember that a lot of mud has been slung on the one side, and when dealing with a national question like this we must have an examination of both sides.
We must sling mud at the other side.
That is not so. If it is proved that anything I am saying is wrong I am prepared to withdraw it.
Many of your statements are inaccurate.
We know that this man Gallagher was a faithful servant of the old regime, that he was a crown prosecutor who prosecuted members of the Sinn Fein organisation. I will not go into details. When the new order came in this man was compensated for the abolition of his office of crown solicitor. He got a considerable sum of money for it. I do not know what the amount was, whether it was £1,500, £1,600 or £2,000, but when he got it he went into manufacturing. He got loans from institutions set up here and he also got protection for his industries. In addition to that—I think this will not be denied—he had other irons in the fire. He got compensation for the abolition of his office and he also got compensation from the Duke of Northumberland as a distressed southern loyalist, to the extent of £3,700.
Would the Deputy tell us what this has got to do with the motion?
He is now director of the Fianna Fáil paper.
What has that got to do with the motion?
It is an examination of these people's bona-fides.
We are not concerned with that.
Are we not?
I bow to your ruling.
I think the Deputy is going too far altogether with this.
That is the interest that they represent here, not the interests of the consumer or of the public. When they claim to represent the interests of the public I deny that. They represent interests quite outside the interests of the consumer. They do not care two pins for the consumer; their only concern with the consumer is to throw dust in his eyes. I see these people going around, Sunday after Sunday, on platform after platform, when I hear them with tears in their voices and with their hearts bleeding on account of the calamities that are going to befall this country. I know some of them personally and some by repute, and the only concern they have with the consumer in this country is the sort of concern that a vulture would have with a corpse in the desert—a prospective gorge. That is the only regard that they have for the Irish consumer— when is he ripe for the feast, when can they pluck the most feathers off the bird? "Reasonable safeguards for the public in the matter of prices." That would mean setting up a tribunal, with additional cost to the State. It would mean staffs and a court. Whoever will be able to write up his books the best, whether he is the consumer, the miller or the baker, will get the most benefit. It would be a question of evidence; evidence would be given to this tribunal—the public would be safeguarded! As a matter of fact, these proposals would take away the safeguard that the public has at present, the safeguard of competition; would take away the fact that flour is being got at a cheap price by the public and would make it pay more.
There can be no fixing of prices, there can be no safeguards, unless there is some court or body to decide. To have safeguards you must have a court, you must have evidence, and you must have staffs, for which the public would have to pay, and all this would come back to the consumer. As I say, the people who are skilled with the pen, skilled in accounts, skilled, as they were trained to be during the war, in how to grow fat, how to hoodwink the income tax officials and everybody else, are the people who can quite safely go before any tribunal. They have worn their teeth doing it and are skilled at it, and instead of an ordinary business they would have a gilt-edged investment.
Is the Deputy insinuating that all our business people are rogues and robbers? I stated that the producers and the business people of this country, embracing all sections of the community, whether agriculture or otherwise, have a standard of commercial morality which compares favourably with the standard of business people outside.
I am not denying that.
Did not the President describe them as antique furniture?
I am not denying what Deputy Hennessy has said, but I know that human nature is human nature in Ireland as outside it. I know people have grown fat at the public expense inside Ireland and outside it. I have as much faith in human nature as Deputy Hennessy has.
Then why run down your own country? Why foul your own nest?
I am not. I am thinking more of the people who are contemplating getting a strangle-hold on the community.
Cannot the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies fight that out outside?
I am not going into the question as to whether Deputy Aiken or Deputy Alton or Deputy Ruttledge or Deputy de Valera or Deputy Lemass is a better Irishman than any other Deputy. I believe that those who came over with Strongbow are just as good Irishmen as those who came over with Cromwell. We are all long enough here——
Did they bring mills along with them?
I do not know. It is not a matter of concern to this House which of them is the better Irishman. They are all here long enough anyhow. This is a question of outside capital; it is a question as to what particular individuals are to get hold of this good thing, with this tribunal and all the rest of it. Deputy Flinn is quite sure that it is a good investment. I said before, and perhaps it is no harm to say it again, that it is these people's contention that they cannot buy their corn as cheaply as the other fellow, that their overhead is higher. If they cannot buy their corn as cheaply, and if their overhead is higher, it follows that the consumer must pay more for the raw material, and I would be very slow indeed to do anything that would mean that the consumer would have to pay more.
Some of the speeches that have been made have indicated several things. They have indicated that they wanted protection and, consequently, that they wanted to exclude foreign capital. I have no objection to foreign capital any more than the Minister for Finance has, provided we do not lose our sense of proportion. There is no doubt whatsoever, and there can be no question about it, that if anything requires national interference we can and will interfere, and I see no more danger from Mr. Rank than I do from Messrs. Dowdall and O'Shaughnessy; in fact, I would prefer the one to the others. If I as an individual were to make a choice I would take this business man before I would take that set of gamblers.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House in replying to the many irrelevant matters that have been imported into this debate and to the still more irrelevant interjections. There are one or two matters which I would like to touch upon before I proceed to reply to some of the questions raised. The time at my disposal is rather limited, and I intend to be as brief as I possibly can, but I am not going even to attempt to unravel the confusion that has been created in the minds of Deputies, and that would certainly be created in the minds of the public if the speeches of Deputy Hennessy and Deputy Gorey were published in full. Deputy Hennessy's speech at the end of last week undoubtedly marked a certain advance on what we understood as the Cumann na nGaedheal policy. He appears to me, and I feel sure that he appears to other Deputies, to have been moving in a circle. He began to make some kind of progress, but we found him in his speech to-day working his way back to the very position from which he set out, a sort of hare hunting that I never saw so well performed in this House before, with all the acute and wonderful politicians that this country has produced within the last half-dozen years or so, or even within the last half-dozen centuries or so.
I suggest to Deputy Gorey that he did not direct one sentence in his speech to the statement which I made a couple of weeks ago. His criticism was levelled at certain members of the Fianna Fáil Party and at certain of the commercial activities—business activities, if you like—of certain members of that Party, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the motion on the paper. I think Deputy Gorey will admit that I am not a millers' man. I have had no contact with the millers and do not give a fig about them. What I am very much concerned about is the future and the prosperity of the milling industry. Nobody so far has charged me with being a millers' man. It has been indicated, even by Ministers, that these proposals of mine are not acceptable to the millers. I know the reason why they are not acceptable, because inherent in these proposals are suggestions for national control. That, perhaps, is too socialistic for some of our millers. I am not one of those prepared to suggest that the millers in this country are wonderful patriots, nor am I prepared to suggest that they are in this business for the good of their health. I believe that the millers—not all, but the vast majority—are as selfish as, or perhaps more selfish than, any other section of the mercantile community.
I think I have disabused Deputy Gorey's mind that I stand for the millers or the exploitation of the public, whether that be on the part of workers, employers or capitalists. I have been wondering what is the cause of the extraordinary volte face that there has been in connection with this whole milling problem. We held a meeting in Cork on March 9th in connection with this invasion of the English combine. An important resolution was submitted to that meeting which went far beyond the motion on the Order Paper, and which suggested that:—
Inasmuch as a control called the "rationalisation of our flour milling industry" is imminent, and as 30 per cent. of this basic industry is now in the hands of a powerful foreign combine of flour importers, the sole issue before the country is to choose between the private foreign control and public national control. We, therefore, call upon the Government and upon all Deputies and Senators to support a scheme of national control with adequate safeguards for the native producer and the consuming public.
At that meeting there were representatives of all parties present, Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil, Labour, and if there is such a Party, the Commercial Party; at least a number of commercial men were represented who have or pretend that they have no affiliation with any political party in the State. At that meeting we find Deputy Barry Egan supporting the resolution. I will quote his speech from the local Press:
Mr. B.M. Egan, T.D., in supporting the resolution, agreed as to the peril of economic penetration of the country by foreign capital, but what were they going to do to prevent it? People did not sell their businesses to foreigners unless they saw a profit in doing so.
He concludes:
Failing their efforts to stop this economic penetration the Government should be asked to take steps to see that the industries of the nation would remain under Irish control. He would not let any foreign capital into the country that was not controlled by Irish interests, that was, that 51 per cent. would be in the hands of an Irish controlling body.
The Deputy made that statement on March 9th, and in column 940 of the Official Debates, volume 34, No. 3, intervening in the debate he said: "I am opposed to this motion for several reasons." I want Deputies to understand his somersault, and the somersault on the part of others too, on this matter. "I am opposed to this motion for several reasons." The Deputy also said:
I believe it is an unnecessary motion, and if the danger which is put up here were an actual danger I believe it could be dealt with in a very much more effective fashion. The motion is one which is taking up time that this House can ill-afford to spare.
I do not want to waste the time of the House reading any further, but the Deputy also said:
I am satisfied that the Government will take the necessary steps....
Can it be that there was a courtmartial in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, and that as a result of the courtmartial some of the Deputies were advised to take a course of gymnastics or acrobatics, in which some of them are already very skilled, that we had a kind of acrobatics inflicted on a rather middle-aged Deputy, which I consider very unfair treatment indeed for any man not accustomed to athletics, more especially one who is an aesthete rather than an athlete.
He survived it.
I deprecate, too, the attitude taken up in the debates suggesting that certain Ministers are not capable of doing their jobs. I want to get away from that attitude. I would like to have sufficient time to deal with many of the points raised by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I am not so blinded by political prejudice as to suggest that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not as patriotic as I am, or as any other Deputy. I know that he is eminently qualified for his job, but, while qualified, I suggest that he is only human and that he should be amenable to some kind of reason. I felt that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was speaking last week he had certain knowledge, because I am very creditably informed that whilst we were discussing the motion on the paper, negotiations were going on between representatives of the millers and the Department of Industry and Commerce. I do not know what the nature of these negotiations were, but I have a suspicion that the millers may have been attempting to get some guarantees from the Minister which perhaps the Minister would be slow to grant.
If anything emerges from these negotiations, conversations, pour-parlers, or whatever you like to call them, that will benefit the industry and incidentally, benefit the country, then I, for one, will be satisfied. I feel that while those negotiations were going on those of us who believe that the milling industry should be supported or helped in some way or another should, in common courtesy, have been acquainted, to some extent at least, as to what was going on. We have had many speeches on this motion. Deputy Hennessy, for instance, said that the milling industry should be helped, but he did not indicate in what manner it should be helped.
Of course I did. I wonder was the Deputy listening to me?
If the Deputy did indicate how it should be helped, then either I must be very dense or I do not understand the English language. The only thing that I could gather from Deputy Hennessy's speech, and from other speeches on this motion, was that we should have a tariff.
I did not suggest a tariff.
At the moment I am not suggesting anything in the nature of tariffs. I desire to say this, that the number of hares that have been started in this debate are not, in my opinion, helpful, and are not calculated to find a solution for the very great crisis that exists in the case of this industry.
Despite what the Deputy has stated, I think that I spoke very plain English when dealing with the motion. I instanced one particular factor which has a good deal to say to this question, and with which I think Deputy Anthony is acquainted since, as we know, he is a member of the Cork Harbour Commissioners. I referred to that port and pointed out that the raw material for this industry which passes through it is penalised to the extent of 120 per cent. in favour of the manufactured article. When you get down to the question of the cost of manufacturing flour and you take the price of flour per sack, you find that the native miller in Cork is handicapped right away by as much as a shilling per sack. I stated, that we should remove these disabilities and put the millers here in a position to compete with their rivals. The Deputy knows that there are ways and means of removing these disabilities in this House.
Is Deputy Hennessy suggesting that the alternative to Deputy Anthony's motion is a tariff policy? Let the House have "yes" or "no" to that question.
Who mentioned a tariff policy at all?
I would like to remind Deputy Hennessy that as far as the Cork Harbour Commissioners are concerned, their body is the only one of its character that within the last ten or fifteen years has revised and reduced its rates and dues. If this question of the reduction of the dues which Deputy Hennessy has referred to is the only obstacle in the way to keep him from voting for this motion, then I say this to him, that if he can guarantee on behalf of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party that they will vote for the motion the dues he refers to will be reduced.
Humbug.
I am going to stand over that.
Deputy Hennessy is caught in a trap at last.
During the course of the discussion on this motion many interruptions and irrelevancies were introduced. I want to say that I am not concerned whether or not the Cumann na nGaedheal Party got subscriptions from the English millers. Neither am I concerned with the alleged offer of £1,000 to a Fianna Fáil Deputy by an Irish miller towards the new paper that is being established by the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not saying that these things are true at all. I am not concerned with the many statements that were bandied across the floor of the House during the debate on this motion. I do not care whether the Cumann na nGaedheal Party get £10,000 from the English millers or whether the Fianna Fáil Party get £10,000 from the Irish millers. All that I do say is that, judging from these statements, there must be plenty of money flying about for the two big parties.
You are prejudicing our position. We will get nothing between the two of them.
In my speech introducing the motion I said the proposals it contained were not cast-iron. I did not suggest that they provided a panacea to cure all the disabilities under which the milling industry in this country labours. I did seriously suggest that they formed a basis for discussion and, possibly, for negotiation at a later period with the Minister and his Department. I noted with a good deal of satisfaction that the Minister for Agriculture, when speaking on the motion last week, ended on a note of hope. He was rather hopeful that something would be done for the industry. Whether his statement was based on the result of conversations or negotiations that have been carried on I do not know, but if what he indicated is good for the industry and, incidentally, for the country, then I am quite satisfied. The question of foreign capital was referred to. I think I made it perfectly clear that, so far as I and those associated with me in bringing forward the motion are concerned, we are not against foreign capital as such. What we are against is foreign control in industry, and particularly in the case of a basic industry like flour-milling. We had some cheap arguments as to solicitude for the poor and the loaf of the poor man. There is wonderful solicitude exhibited at times like this for the poor man and the price of the loaf. I am not going to waste the time of the House commenting on that.
Then we had the firm of Messrs. Ford's instanced as an example of what foreign capital does for this country. Admittedly, there is no analogy, as I have pointed out, between the creation of a new industry like Ford's and the penetration of a big English combine like Messrs. Rank to oust an old-established industry like flour-milling. Then we have very optimistic people who believe that this very efficient business combine will not eventually have the ill-effects I have suggested in my opening remarks. I want to know does the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is a very shrewd thinker, believe that this firm will treat the Irish millers any better than they treated their own nationals? He must be very optimistic if he believes they will. Then we have the suggestion that dumping takes place, and the suggestion that it does not. I ought, perhaps, indicate in some way where there is a form of competition which may be termed dumping, and which possibly accounts for a lot of the under-selling of flour in this country.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
There was a meeting of a very important body recently in England, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, better known by its abbreviated name the C.W.S. It was stated, according to the Press reports, that the C.W.S. people were meeting with severe competition in the flour business. As most Deputies are aware, the Co-operative Wholesale Society is engaged very largely in the production of flour, and the complaint made at the meeting was that there was a growing competition in the flour end of their business, frequently resulting in the taking away of orders from the C.W.S. The newly established association or combine in England, the Millers' Mutual having satisfied the requirements of their ordinary customers, have still a surplus of flour left over which, as I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, was frequently dumped into this country below the cost of production. At this meeting it was stated that even in England the competition of this combine has very keenly affected the profits of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who themselves are manufacturers of flour. This association of millers in England have now a surplus of flour left over which they sell at considerably under the cost of production to members of co-operative societies throughout England. There is a form of competition, and surely it cannot be suggested that a combine which has already got 30 per cent. of the flour-milling industry in this country is going to treat Irish nationals better than it treats its own nationals.
We heard during the course of the debate, I think it was from Deputy McDonogh, who rarely intervenes and who is a shrewd and sensible business man, the suggestion that the millers wanted to be left alone. I can refute that, and any Deputy in this House who has made any observations at all might have noticed that there was considerable lobbying going on in this House for the last four or five weeks by millers, or by persons acting on behalf of millers. I was sent for myself in this House by a representative of the millers, and it was intimated to me that there were other millers who wanted to meet me, but I refused. Yet we have Deputy McDonogh in his innocence suggesting that the millers want to be left alone. The millers, as far as I know, are not satisfied with the position. They do not perhaps like—I am not suggesting that they do or that they do not—the proposals indicated in this motion, because it involves national control, and because, perhaps, many of those millers want to be uncontrolled in attempting to fleece the Irish public. This motion does not stand for them. It is in very simple and plain terms. I cannot understand a member of Cumann na nGaedheal who gives it any thought at all voting against the motion.
Is the statement by Deputy Anthony absolutely correct, that the millers are opposed to this particular motion?
So I have been informed.
By whom? Was it by the millers?
If the Deputy was here he would have heard it stated by the Minister for Agriculture.
The Minister for Agriculture said that.
I want Deputy Anthony to state here definitely whether, he has heard from any body of producers that they are in favour of or opposed to the particular motion before us, and not to be merely giving us hearsay.
A more important member of the House than I am, the Minister for Agriculture, who is a member of the Deputy's own party, stated so.
I could state the contrary, and I have as good a right to speak as Deputy Anthony.
There is another rift in the lute of Cumann na nGaedheal. I think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will bear me out, or any Deputy who takes any interest in this question. I want to say in reply to some of the things that have been said about certain interested parties going round the country to meetings since this motion was put on the Paper and making use of this motion for the purpose of party propaganda, that I have not taken part in any one of these meetings. I have refused to do so, and I deprecate that line of conduct altogether. I think it will be admitted I had altruistic motives in putting down the motion. I have endeavoured right through my opening statement to separate this motion entirely from party politics, and I regret that some Deputies have introduced a party element into it. They have not done the motion any good and they cannot do the industry any good. I will not take up the time of the House any longer, but I merely wish to add that the speeches made in opposition to this motion have not convinced me, and I believe they have not convinced the people of the country. We are faced, as I indicated in my opening remarks, with a very serious problem, and if the Minister would give us any guarantee that he was prepared to subscribe, even in a limited way, to the things I have suggested, and to subscribe particularly to this motion, I do not think we need have a division on it, but I am hardly sanguine enough to expect that.
Will the Deputy answer two questions? This is with a view to events that may take place in the near future. Will the Deputy give me his opinion as to whether in the event of some system of control having to be established he would like the price of flour to be fixed by three millers or by an independent person entirely away from the millers?
I certainly would not like to have the price fixed by three millers only. I would like to have a representative of commerce, a trader or something like that, on the board as you have on the Agricultural Credit Corporation, the Banking Commission, or the Electricity Supply Board. If we had a representative of a trade organisation that would satisfy me.
I am speaking in relation to the scheme on which the Deputy's motion is based, although the Deputy does not abide by it in all its terms. The scheme referred to a commission of five, and there were to be three millers on it, a majority. There were certain things to be laid down as to the fixing of the price. At one time it looked as if the independent chairman would fix the price and at another time as if the three millers would do so. I am asking if the Deputy would be in favour of the price of flour being fixed by a person independent of the millers and not by three millers?
Yes.
On the second question, in the event of any interference in the control of the industry, particularly if it comes to the point of establishing a quota for idle mills—setting a value on mills that at present have very little value— would the Deputy agree that if there was to be any transfer of ownership of these mills—putting in a good position mills that now are in no position—that the price should be fixed by outsiders, and should be fixed on the basis of present value and not future value?
I would like to say in answer to that question that it is one of which I should have notice. It is a rather long and involved question.
We will discuss it later.
If the Minister puts his query into writing I will be prepared to answer him.
I think the Deputy's scheme involves that mills would be sold freely at the enhanced price. Therefore, I object to his scheme. He apparently would not insist on that in his scheme.
No; the scheme I suggest was merely as a basis for discussion. We would be prepared to meet the Minister on that. I am sure the Fianna Fáil Deputies would be prepared to act on that. We would be prepared to accept this suggestion as a basis for discussion. We are not out to force anything to a division if we find that we can get mutual agreement. I ask to have this matter treated as a non-Party matter, and if the Minister is prepared to accept that position I am satisfied.
We admit we are not infallible.
We are not infallible, and neither is the Minister nor his Government infallible. If the Minister is prepared to accept that, it may be a precedent that could well be usefully followed in other matters.
I am not accepting this motion at any rate.
Well, I will take a division on it so.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway)
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.