Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 May 1933

Vol. 47 No. 4

Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1932—Motion of Enactment.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

Toisc an Bille Tora Talmhaíochta (Arbhar), 1932, do chur go dtí Seanad Eireann an ladh lá de Mhárta, 1933, do réir rúin do rith an Tigh seo an lá san fé Airtiogal 38a den Bhunreacht, agus toisc an tréimhse de thrí fichid lá luaidhtear san Airtiogal san do bheith caithte o cuireadh an Bille sin amhlaidh go dtí Seanad Eireann, deintear, leis seo, a bheartú le rún, go dtuigfear, ós rud é nár rith Seanad Eireann an Bille sin laistigh de tréimhse sin de thrí fichid lá gan leasú no gan aon leasuithe air ach na cinn le n-a n-aontuíonn an Tigh seo, ach ina ionad san gur ritheadar an Bille sin laistigh den tréimhse sin go leasuithe air ná haontuíonn an Tigh seo le cuid acu, go dtuigfear an Bille sin do bheith rithe ag dhá Thigh an Oireachtais i gcionn an trí fichid lá san sa bhfuirm inar cuireadh é amhlaidh go dtí Seanad Eireann an ladh lá de Mhárta, 1933, go sna leasuithe air atá leagtha amach sa Sceideal a ghabhann leis an Rún so, leasuithe do rinne Seanad Eireann ar an mBille sin agus le n-ar aontuigh an Tigh seo.

The Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1932, having been sent on the 1st day of March, 1933, to Seanad Eireann in pursuance of a resolution of this House passed on that day under Article 38a of the Constitution, and the period of sixty days mentioned in that Article having elapsed since the said Bill was so sent to Seanad Eireann, it is hereby resolved that, as Seanad Eireann did not pass the said Bill within the said period of sixty days without amendment or with such amendments only as are agreed to by this House but on the contrary passed the said Bill within the said period with amendments of which some are not agreed to by this House, the said Bill be deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas at the expiration of the said sixty days in the form in which it was so sent to Seanad Eireann on the 1st day of March, 1933, with the amendments set forth in the Schedule to this Resolution which were made in the said Bill by Seanad Eireann and agreed to by this House.

SCHEDULE.

1. Section 3. The word "and" deleted in line 11 and the words "and maize germ meal" added at the end of the section.

2. Section 3. The following words added at the end of the section:—"the word ‘grinding' includes crushing, breaking, kibbling, flaking and rolling."

3. Section 7, sub-section (1). Subparagraph (c) deleted.

4. Section 7, sub-section (1). All after the word "condition" in line 49 deleted down to the end of the sub-section.

5. Section 7, sub-section (3). The sub-section deleted.

6. Section 8, sub-section (1). After the word "stuff" in line 11 the words "or medicine" inserted.

7. Section 47, sub-section (1). After the word "on" in line 27 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

8. Section 47, sub-section (1). After the word "on" in line 31 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

9. Section 47, sub-section (3). After the word "on" in line 36 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

10. Section 47, sub-section (3). After the word "on" in line 39 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

11. Section 47, sub-section (4). After the word "on" in line 40 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

12. Section 47, sub-section (4). After the word "on" in line 43 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

13. Section 47, sub-section (6). After the word "on" in line 50 the word "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

14. Section 47, sub-section (6). After the word "on" in line 53 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

15. Section 47, sub-section (7). After the word "on" in line 54 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

16. Section 47, sub-section (7). After the word "on" in line 57 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

17. Section 47, sub-section (8). After the word "on" in line 58 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

18. Section 47, sub-section (8). After the word "on" in line 62 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.

19. Section 61, sub-section (1). The words "or cancel" deleted in lines 54-55.

20. Section 61, sub-section (2). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—

"(2) The appropriate Minister shall cancel the registration of any person in any register kept by him upon the application of such person or, in the case of an individual, his personal representative or, in the case of a body corporate, the liquidator."

21. Section 68, sub-section (1). The figures "1932" deleted in line 19 and the figures "1933" substituted therefore.

22. Section 80, sub-section (1). The words "under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister" deleted in lines 56-57 and the following words substituted therefor:—"such maize is sold under and in accordance with a licence granted to him by the Minister and is so sold to a person to whom a licence to purchase maize has been granted by the Minister."

23. Section 81, sub-section (1). The words "forms part of a maize meal mixture" deleted in line 23 and the following words substituted therefor:—"(being the entire product of grinding maize) forms part of a maize meal mixture or of a compound feeding stuff one of the component parts of which is a maize meal mixture."

24. New section. Before Section 82 a new section inserted as follows:—

"82.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any registered maize miller to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture unless such maize meal mixture complies with the following specifications, that is to say:—

(a) oats (if any) included therein is, if an order under sub-section (3) of this section is not then in force, in one or other of the following forms, that is to say, the entire product derived from grinding oats or the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats, or, if any such order is then in force, in the form required by such order;

(b) the amount by weight of oats (if any) included therein in the form of the entire product derived from grinding oats does not exceed the prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture;

(c) in case such maize meal mixture does not include any oats or includes any oats in the form of the entire product derived from grinding oats, the amount by weight of the product derived from grinding maize included therein does not exceed the prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture;

(d) in case such maize meal mixture includes any oats in the form of the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats, the amount by weight of the product derived from grinding maize included therein does not exceed the appropriate prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture.

(2) The Minister in making regulations in relation to the percentage referred to in paragraph (d) of the immediately preceding sub-section as prescribed shall, by reference to the quantity of oats contained in maize meal mixtures to which the said paragraph (d) applies, divide such maize meal mixtures into such and so many classes as he may think proper, and shall prescribe different percentages in respect of different classes, and the percentage so prescribed in respect of any such class shall for the purposes of the said paragraph (d) be the appropriate prescribed percentage in relation to every maize meal mixture which belongs to such class.

(3) The Minister may from time to time by order require any oats included in a maize meal mixture to be in the form of the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats.

(4) The Minister may by order revoke any order previously made by him under the immediately preceding sub-section.

(5) If any registered maize miller acts in contravention of this section such registered maize miller shall be guilty of an offence under this section and be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the Schedule to this Act."

25. Section 83, sub-section (1). After the word "percentage" in line 46 the words "(if any)" inserted.

26. Section 83, sub-section (2). After the word "percentage" in line 49 the words "(if any)" inserted.

27. Section 90, sub-section (1). After the word "substance" in line 28 the words "(other than an excepted article)" inserted.

28. Section 90. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—

"(4) Each of the articles specified in sub-paragraphs (b) to (w), both inclusive, of paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule to this Act shall be an excepted article for the purposes of this section, but if the Minister makes an order declaring that any of the said articles shall be a scheduled feeding-stuff for the purposes of this Part of this Act, the article to which such order relates shall cease to be an excepted article for the purposes of this section."

29. Section 91, sub-section (2). After the word "feeding-stuff" in line 4 the words "or any substance used in the preparation of any scheduled feeding-stuff" inserted.

Mr. Dillon

Before this motion passes, I desire to draw the attention of the House to a few points, one of which I adverted to while the Bill was in progress, and one which I apprehended when the Bill was under way. I believe that the provisions of this Bill are calculated seriously to increase the price of Indian meal to the producer and live-stock raiser in this country, if and when the present economic condition ceases to operate and the ordinary flow of trade is resumed. I believe that the operation of this Bill is going to impose a serious burden on the poorest section of the community in the Gaeltacht, who have been in the habit of using Indian meal as food-stuff for human consumption. While I do not yet despair that the Minister will meet this situation, I have yet to see him taking any constructive steps to that end. Lastly, I desire to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the restrictions which have been imposed under this Bill upon the importation and manufacture of flour in this country are resulting in something which I can only characterise as plunder of the consuming public by the flour millers in Ireland. I suggest to the Minister that quality for quality the commercial value of bakers' flour at present, during a given quarter, in this country is 23/- per sack, and for the same quality of flour the Irish millers are demanding 27/6 and, in some cases, up to 28/6. It might be argued by someone unfamiliar with the trade that when that price is asked there is nothing to prevent any merchant from importing flour and paying the duty. Anyone who is familiar with the trade knows that it is not a practicable proposition to import small quantities of bakers' flour from the other side. I have mentioned this matter on more than one occasion in this House, and I think the Minister will agree with me that action on the part of the flour millers, calculated to raise the price of bread on the people, is indefensible and scandalous, if that action is taken for the purpose of inflating their profits. I do not propose to say that we should allow any British combine to wreck the milling industry by selling at a figure which is below the cost of production. I recognise that that danger existed when this legislation was first introduced, and I warned the Government then, and I warn them now, that we can pay too heavy a price for the protection of the Irish milling industry. If the Irish millers are prepared to play the game, and charge a fair margin of profit, then it would be reasonable to give a fair chance to any control designed to protect the Irish milling industry from destruction by British concerns. But at the same time the consuming public of this country is being held up and unjustly charged from 2/- to 4/- per sack too much for flour. The consuming public have no remedy against the millers. I suggest the time has come when the strongest possible action should be taken by the Executive Council to put an end to what is a scandal.

It will be suggested by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the machinery provided in the Control of Prices Bill is now, or will be very shortly, available. The machinery provided in that Bill is absolutely worthless for control of this kind of produce, and for this reason: Let us assume to-day that the miller is getting 4/- a sack too much for flour, and proceedings have started with a view to having the price fixed. Long before the necessary evidence can be accumulated, and the case brought to a final hearing before the Prices Commission, the situation may be entirely altered. Exchange conditions may operate; all sorts of extraneous matters may enter into the situation, and by the time the decision is given the damage will have been done. I know the Control of Prices Bill has a somewhat elaborate provision in order to compel people to return money that they got by overcharging, but anybody, with any practical experience of trade, knows that such a provision as that affords no adequate protection against the kind of overcharging going on at present. Few people who are victims of overcharging would care to risk the expenditure, and the vast trouble that an appeal to the Control of Prices Commission would involve. I have no confidence in the Control of Prices Commission to deal with such a position as that to which I have referred.

I state here, publicly, that the Irish millers are at the present time charging from 3/- to 5/- per sack more than is a fair price for bakers' flour to-day. I invite the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture to make enquiries on this matter from those conversant with the trade, and if they do, I think they will find that every responsible representative or economist in this country will confirm what I have said, and I suggest that the time has come for immediate and drastic action to put an end to what is becoming a public scandal.

Professor O'Sullivan

We already discussed this Bill at considerable length. We have spoken against the principle of the Bill, and pointed out that the Minister not only did not answer our arguments but did not attempt to answer the points made against the principle involved in this Bill. The Bill was subjected, both here in the Dáil and also in the Seanad, to a great deal of detailed criticism, but the Minister made no attempt not merely to answer but even to grasp the points put forward against the Bill. The Government from the start took up the line that the Bill embodied their policy but they did very little to justify the line that they took up. They made it quite clear, during the different stages of the progress of the Bill, that they were, practically speaking, determined not to answer the criticism put forward. We find the Bill objectionable from many points of view. Perhaps this is an instance of an extreme leap in the dark, but it is rather late now to criticise the Government for one leap extra of that particular kind. We did not even get any kind of adequate answer from the Minister or the supporters of this Bill as to what ultimately the Bill was likely to cost, either in the way of subsidies, or administrative cost. We have no idea as to how much might be involved if the Government is successful in inducing some people in this country, by means of subsidies, and against their better judgment, to adopt the plan of the Bill. Evidence that it is against their better judgment is explained by the subsidy, and by the uneconomic character and policy in this Bill. No attempt was made to find exactly what it would cost the community as a whole. We have simply here another instance of the general policy of the Government to come to the assistance of one particular class of the community. I do not believe that this policy will justify such an attempt. In order to do this they are taxing the general public. The burden will be placed upon every class of the community but will fall with greater weight upon the poorer classes. As a result of the increased price flour, for instance, must cost the consumer more. The cost of living will go up from what it otherwise might be as a result of this Bill. We get plenty of instances in the case of Governmental policy of that vicious circle of tariffs and bounties which are put on to counteract each other. Each of these measures tries to limit, to some extent, the damage to a certain class of the community by a previous measure. Deputy Dillon referred to one particular matter that aroused a good deal of attention in this House in the course of various debates and that is the increased cost of Indian meal, especially to those who use it for human food in the western portion of the country. Undoubtedly in my own constituency it is used, mixed with flour, to form bread. The Minister has not given us any figures to refute the statement made in the Seanad by Senator The McGillycuddy that, as a result of the price of the stone bags and of the extra labour in packing that is necessary to fit in with the Minister's wishes, the price of meal has already increased from 10½d. to 1/2 a stone. This again is but another instance of the fact that the real financial burdens in the way of taxes that the country has to bear are not by any means altogether revealed in the Budget. We will be told what the tax burden of the country will be; that will be revealed to us perhaps next week; but there are other burdens that do not appear in the Budget, and that are quite as real and very often heavier than some of the taxes. Indirect taxes hit everybody. Possibly people may not feel them as acutely as direct taxes, but at least they know they are taxes. Here you have a burden; you have an increase in the price of an article of human food, used largely by the poorer classes of the population, especially in the west. That increased price is due to the policy of the Government. It will not appear as an increase in taxation for which the Government is responsible, although it is directly traceable to the policy of the Government.

Deputy Dillon says he does not despair—it is quite obvious, of course, from his speech that he does despair— of getting the Minister really to appreciate the seriousness of this particular problem for the people involved. It was quite obvious from the course of this debate that the Minister was determined not to give way in the slightest in connection with this particular matter. He says he has power under the Bill. That is not what interests us. Unfortunately, what interests us is that it became quite apparent during the debate that even if he had power under the Bill he was determined not to use it. Further, this mixing proposal may have some effect in increasing the price of grain in certain districts higher than it otherwise might have been. That may or may not be true, but I think it is apparent that in certain counties—and those the poorer counties, like the county I myself represent—it means a direct loss. This Bill, in every one of its clauses, means a direct loss to the people of the county I represent. Quite true, it may be concealed from them. The Government agent does not come down, get into personal contact with them, and demand the money from them; therefore they may overlook the fact that under the Government's policy they are out of pocket to a very considerable extent. I see very little benefit that this Bill can do in a county like that, either in its wheat growing provisions or in any other provision. I have opposed this Bill and feel it necessary to oppose it still.

There is one question which I put to the Minister last time. Perhaps he has had time to look into it since then. He may say that it is not a practical question. What I want to know is whether in fact, as the Bill stands, it is an illegal act for the ordinary farmer to mix feeding stuffs in his own house for the purpose of forming a mixed feeding stuff for his own cattle. The Minister said, I think, on the last day that that was not "manufacture," but it became quite apparent in the course of his answers that it is what was meant by manufacture in other portions of the Bill if it is done elsewhere. If it is manufacture, done elsewhere in other premises, it does not change its nature as a process because it is done in the farmer's house. The Minister may say that there is nothing whatsoever to interfere with the farmer mixing feeding stuffs in his own homestead for use to his own cattle. That may be true; that may be the intention; but I suggest that the Minister ought not lightheartedly, merely because he does not intend to enforce the law, declare that certain things which he knows the farmer will do are illegal. I admit that he may have no intention of interfering with the liberty of the individual farmer so far as that is concerned, but, unless there are provisions elsewhere in the Bill allowing the farmer to do that, I suggest that on principle it is a serious thing to declare an action of that kind illegal when the Minister knows it will be performed by most farmers. The principle is bad, unless there is provision to deal with it in the Bill.

Mr. O'Neill

There are one or two matters to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister in connection with this Bill before it is finally out of hands. It will be remembered that on the introduction of the Bill the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that, if we milled in this country the total quantity of flour needed for our requirements, all the additional employment that would be given in the mills would amount only to 153 hands. The stoppage of the importation of flour has to a great extent been in operation for the last six months. We have not ceased to import some quantity of flour, but we have stopped the importation of it to a great extent, While we have not absorbed anything like the number of 153 extra hands in the milling industry, we have put some thousands of people out of employment as a consequence of the partial stoppage of the importation of foreign flour. I think this is a point which has not been sufficiently stressed in connection with this Bill in any of its stages. I think the Minister has discovered by this time that the labour content of the milling industry is practically the lowest of any industry whatever. Furthermore, the stoppage of the importation of flour has removed from the Irish millers' minds any fear of competition in quality. The result is that the bakers of this country are now forced to take any sort of flour that is given to them, at any price whatever that is charged to them. I am not going to enter into the question of the increased price, which has been dealt with by Deputy Dillon, but I know from experience that we are forced to pay more for a worse class of flour than we were accustomed to handle. In the ultimate analysis the consumer is paying more for an inferior article. How this condition of things is going to be remedied when we are going to mill all our own flour from all our own wheat is very hard to imagine; and it is fearful to visualise the situation that will arise when the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture in conference shall have to decide on what, in this country, can be produced under the title of millable wheat. It is evident that feeding-stuffs have also increased in price to the Irish farmer.

While they have increased in price they have deteriorated in quality. In fact the difficulty at the present time for many millers is to get rid of the offals at all because owing to the condition of things that has been brought about in this country by Government action the demand for feeding-stuffs has gone down to a very low level.

I should like also to raise the question of the want of discretion which in my opinion the Minister has shown in giving licences to mills in pushing forward the policy of increasing the milling capacity of Irish mills. Certain parts of the country are over-milled. The capacity of the mills is now equal to the total local consumption in these places but there are certain portions of the Free State, particularly in the West, where there are no mills at all. These regions have to be supplied with their flour requirements from the eastern and southern side of the State. Dublin especially has to supply in a great measure the wants of the West. I think you have in Dublin very excellent mills, mills which are capable of great development and are turning out very excellent flour but, if I am correctly informed, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has resolutely set himself against not only helping these mills here in Dublin to increase their output but he has actually refused them any extension of their licences that would enable them not only to increase their output but to give increased employment in the port of Dublin, while at the same time licences for mills and for additional capacity have been issued in portions of the country where already the milling capacity is quite equal to the requirements. There is another matter, that while we are in the position of not being able to supply all our requirements from Irish mills, a certain amount of flour is being imported under licence. I would draw the Minister's attention to the desirability where these licences are granted of stressing that the licensee should take on the responsibility for that licence himself. In other words what I want the Minister to see is that that licence can not be transferred to another person for a consideration because in some cases licences have been auctioned. They have been sold to interested persons at so much per sack thereby increasing further the cost of the flour to the baker who eventually gets it and necessarily increasing the price of bread made from it. I am sure the Minister has no intention whatever of allowing a condition of things such as that to prevail. I would ask him in issuing these licences in future to insist and to see that the licence is not disposed of by the person to whom the licence is granted. I think there is nothing further in connection with the Bill that I wish to comment upon except to say that I believe it is going to be a very costly Bill in administration. It is going to be costly to the nation as a whole. With regard to its increasing employment, I am afraid it is going to have the very reverse effect. I further believe in regard to feeding-stuffs and food for the people generally, the general tendency will be to give us an inferior article at very much enhanced prices.

Mr. Corry

This Bill as far as I can judge by the statements I have heard contains two terrible faults. One is that it was brought in by a Fianna Fáil Minister and the second is that it is of benefit to the farming community. These are in short the main complaints about it. We hear wails and complaints every day from the benches opposite about the conditions of the farmers. The Bill, which increased the price of the farmers' barley this year by something like 4/6 to 5/- per barrel, and increased the price of the farmers' oats by something like £2 per ton, of course ruined the farmers, like everything that Fianna Fáil did will always ruin the farmers! That is the complaint. When I was on the opposite benches, I made repeated attempts to get the Cumann na nGaedheal Executive Council to do something to give some measure of protection or relief to the farmer who is tilling his land and giving employment in the tilling of it but they would not; he should go to the wall. They were only interested in the bullock rancher. We urged for instance that a particular class of farmers were suffering a very grave injustice for a number of years. Their lands were valued under Griffith's valuation as grain-growing lands. On that account the valuation of their lands as compared with dairy land was doubled. I know that farmers in different portions of Cork County, each of whom could carry 20 cows easily on their farms, had their valuation fixed at £50 each while a farm of the same carrying capacity in East Cork had a valuation of £150. The farmer of course has to pay rates according to his valuation but Cumann na nGaedheal had no remedy for the grain-growing farmer. He could go to the wall. They were not going to make any attempt to get a market for his barley. No, they could not interfere with Guinness. They were not going to get a market for his oats here. The large shipping interests should be protected. That was the position.

What has been the position of that farmer this year or last harvest? The price of the best barley in the English market was 10/- to 10/6 per barrel. The price here was 14/6 to 15/- per barrel as a result of this Bill. The price of the best white oats in the English market was £4 10s. 0d. per ton. The price here was £5 10s. 0d. to £6 15s. 0d. per ton but of course that was of no interest to those whose only concern was bullocks. Then we had Deputy O'Neill's complaint. We hardly know how to please him exactly. He complains of the bad flour that is at present being sold by Irish millers. Apparently Irish millers do not know how to mill flour. You have to go across the water for somebody who knows how to mill flour for us. He complains about the manner in which licences were given. Deputy O'Neill is the owner, I think, of a fine mill which is lying idle. I suggest that, for the benefit of the people of the West, about whom he talked, he ought to get that mill going and give a little employment in it. Perhaps he could mill good flour in it.

He also said that the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated here that the total additional employment would be 153 hands next year. I seem to have got most of them. In fact, I was patting myself on the back when I heard Deputy O'Neill's statement, because our flour mill in Midleton, which was working half time, is now working overtime and has 17 extra hands employed. Our flour mill in Mallow, which was also working half time, is now working overtime with a large number of extra hands employed. Our flour mill in Clondulane, Fermoy, which was closed by Cumann na nGaedheal, is now working overtime and employing 40 hands, so that I seem to have got 77 out of the 153 in East Cork alone, and I think I should pat myself on the back a few more times as a result. One hears the most peculiar statements from Cumann na nGaedheal Benches on all these matters. On the one hand, they complain that the farmers are broke; that they have no hope of surviving and that they are going to the poorhouse every day, and, on the other hand, we have them, day after day and week after week, voting against every Bill brought in for the benefit of the farming community.

I could not exactly follow Deputy Professor O'Sullivan's case. I do not know the quantity of Indian meal at present being used for human consumption in some parts of this country but I would suggest that rolled white oats is cheap and it makes a good oaten meal and it is better than Indian meal. They will be benefiting the Irish farmer by using their own oats. It is a most extraordinary thing that this Bill, as I said at the start, has only two faults: (1) that it was brought in by a Fianna Fáil administration, and (2) it is giving some benefit to the farming community, that is, to the farmer who tills his land and who employs labour— the very class of farmer who was completely ignored for ten years in this House. I welcome the Bill, and I am glad that it is going right through now. I can see the benefits that will accrue from it to the tillage farmers of East Cork and of the rest of the Twenty-Six Counties who till their land and employ labour on their land. I have very little sympathy with the complaints I heard about it to-day, for those complaints were dishonest on the face of them.

Dr. Ryan

One of the principal objections raised against this Bill is the danger of an increase in the price of maize to the poor people on the west coast and in Donegal. As Deputy Professor O'Sullivan has admitted, there are safeguards in the Bill if the Minister wishes to use them for the benefit of the people. So far as the Bill itself is concerned, we could not go any further unless we were to put in provisions which would compel the Minister to allow maize, free of duty, unmixed and so on, into those areas. On the last occasion on which we discussed the Bill, I said that, as soon as we had the Bill through and got our regulations drawn up and got the Bill into working order, in the course of a few months, I would get a report from our officers in those districts and that I would go further than a Minister usually goes when he says that he will consider such a report. I said that I would act on such reports. I think we will all admit that these officials working in those areas are in touch with the people. They know what the people require and they will give an unbiassed and fair report when asked for it.

The fact is, however, that these people in Kerry, and in Donegal in particular, have been using the mixture for some time without any complaint. When I tried to get figures as to the increased cost of pure maize in Kerry and Donegal as a result of the regulations compelling the traders to sell pure maize in one-stone bags, I was told that it was very difficult to get the information because the people were using the mixture. The people are using the mixture and are not complaining, and evidently it is one of the matters to which Deputy Professor O'Sullivan referred yesterday, on which the people are silent. So long as they remain silent, apparently satisfied, we, for our part, are getting better results under this Bill than we expected at first.

There is a complaint also of great profiteering in flour. Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Neill spoke of this profiteering in flour, and I think both spoke of an increase in the price beyond what was fair of 3/- to 5/- a sack. As Deputies know, the tariff on flour is 5/- a sack apart from the licence. That means that an importer can bring in flour without any licence at all if he is prepared to pay 5/- per sack, so that, if this contention of an increase from 3/- to 5/- over the fair price is true, there is no doubt that flour would be coming in here and jumping the tariff because everybody admitted, before this scheme was put into operation, that flour was being imported at an uneconomic price. Deputy Dillon says also that it is calculated to raise the price of bread. It does not matter very much to the consumer of bread what may be calculated, so long as it does not raise the price of bread. Deputy Professor O'Sullivan said that we were trying to induce people to grow cereals against their better judgment. That is rather a peculiar statement which I find it hard to understand, because after all, if we give a certain subsidy on wheat, we tell the people exactly what they may expect to get for wheat of average quality and fit for milling. We tell them what they will get for it in any month they may wish to sell it during the next cereal year and, if they then use their judgment as to whether they grow wheat or not, I do not see how we can say that it is not their better judgment.

We are not persuading them by any undue influences. The thing is there and it is for the farmer to decide whether he will grow wheat just as he consideres the growing of barley, beet, tobacco or anything else. He knows what he will get for wheat and for beet. He may take a chance on what he will get for other things, such as potatoes and so on, and he can use his judgment as to whether he can grow wheat or not. There is no compulsion on him to do so. We are asked what is the cost to the community as a whole. I think the way in which we have to look at this matter with regard to the community as a whole is that, if we were, up to this, importing £4,000,000 worth of wheat and wheat products—that is, at last year's price—and if, say this year we are to cut down that by half a million pounds and to import three and a half million pounds worth and to grow half a million pounds worth at home, there must be a gain to the community as a whole. Whether that is distributed equally or justly amongst the different sections of the community is another matter; but for the community as a whole there is a gain of half a million pounds because the community as a whole have to pay out for the import of that article this year £3,500,000, as compared with £4,000,000 last year.

A different matter was raised by Deputy Professor O'Sullivan in his next question, however. It was that we have tried to come to the assistance of particular classes at the expense of the whole community. That may be true. It may be true that we have tried to benefit classes, such as butter producers or grain growers, at the expense of the whole community; but if it is a defence to quote precedents for the matter we have precedents for doing so in practically every other country in the world at the present time. Practically every country in the world, I think, has had to do something for different industries and different producers to help them against unfair competition from foreigners. I do not know of a single country that has not had to adopt some measure of protection for its own industries and producers. Many countries—most countries, I think,— have export subsidies also. Other countries have internal subsidies such as we have in the case of wheat. In fact, if we are to take the case of the European countries at the present time, it will be found that the majority of them have given a guaranteed price for wheat more or less on the lines we have here. There may be some difference as to the details, but it is more or less on the same lines.

Deputy O'Sullivan also says that every remedy we bring in is a remedy to repair some damage done by some previous measure. That is a thing that we will have to examine in detail. I do not know if it is true, but certainly it is not true that every measure we bring in is a measure to repair damage done by this Government. The Cereals Bill, for instance, cannot possibly be put down as a remedy to repair damage done by us. It may be a remedy for damage done by our predecessors in office, or for their neglect of their duty. It is primarily, of course, to repair the damage done by the British Government when they repealed the Corn Laws which had been passed previously and had got a certain amount of corn grown in this country.

We have been accused, also, with not answering the arguments raised against the Bill. I do not know if any argument was raised against this Bill that had any substance, except a few put up here to-day again. The principal argument used was that it would put up prices and, secondly, that we would have an inferior article. That is the argument that is always raised by Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies against anything that may be done by Fianna Fáil. That argument is always raised—the argument that the Irish manufacturer or the Irish producer will not produce as good an article and will charge more for it because he is not as honest as the foreign manufacturer, or producer. We tried to point out that the Irish manufacturer, or producer, is just as honest and just as good at his business in producing an article and that we can produce as good a manufactured article or agricultural product here as any other country with which we are in competition, and that our people—the maize millers, for instance —will be just as honest as the manufacturers of compound feeding-stuffs in Liverpool or Great Britain generally. I am afraid, however, that pointing out this is no use and that whatever we may say, the occupants of the benches opposite will still believe that there is no business honesty in this country, and that you must import compound feedstuffs from Great Britain if you want to get an honest mixture. Their argument is that if it comes from there it must be right and that the British manufacturer will not send anything except the pure article and at a competitive price.

Deputy O'Neill also joined in this argument and said that we would have an inferior article and at a higher price. He said that the Irish millers can do what they like now because they have no longer the competition of the British mills. He said that as long as they had that competition they had to keep down their price to a fair level because, of course, the foreign producer always sold at a fair price and that now that the competition is removed they can engage in dishonest practices and charge what they like for their flour. He said that we got good flour because, again, the British supplied good flour; but now that their competition is removed the miller can turn out anything he likes because he has not the honest British miller competing against him. How could anybody answer these arguments adequately in order to satisfy Deputy O'Sullivan, Deputy O'Neill and others that we would have as honest and as competent men in their business on this side as in Great Britain?

Deputy O'Neill says the feeding-stuffs have increased in price, and then he goes on to say that we had dealt with the flour mills in such a way that they cannot get rid of their offals at all at any price, because we have made such a mess of it. He says that the feeding-stuffs are going up in price and the offals are to be had for nothing— that the flour millers cannot sell their offals at any price. That is the sort of balanced argument from Deputy O'Neill all through. In the same way, he said that we had not placed mills in proper places, that we had placed none in the West and that in giving out licences for flour mills proper discretion was not used. On the other hand, he said that we were calculating to put 153 additional men into employment if we built flour mills but that we had put thousands of men out of employment at the ports and other places. There is a complaint from Deputy O'Neill that we built our flour mills in the big cities and ports, such as Dublin and Cork, but not in the West; and there is also the complaint that because we did not bring all into the ports thousands have gone out of employment. How are we to remedy that? The Deputy did not suggest a remedy. The only remedy one could see as a logical remedy from his argument was that we should not build mills at all and that instead of employing 153 additional men we should employ thousands at the ports by importing. If we were to pursue that argument logically, surely, if we were looking for employment for our people and that Deputy O'Neill was our only adviser, we should close our mills and relieve unemployment in that way. But, surely, we could close our maize mills, too, and give a lot of employment at the ports importing maize. If we were to pursue Deputy O'Neill's figures a little further we should close the other types of mills also. It appears so ridiculous to think that if you import the flour and distribute it you will employ thousands, but if you mill it and distribute it you will not employ these people at all.

I was asked one other question which was raised by Deputy O'Sullivan before, and that is whether the mixing of meals on a farmer's premises is illegal. The point was raised by Deputy O'Sullivan before, but I thought it such a far-fetched point, if you like, that I did not look it up in the meantime. Assume that the Minister and the judges have lost their commonsense to such an extent that the Minister will bring a farmer before a judge and say, "This man is mixing meal on his own premises," and that the judge would convict him. We have, at least, power under the Bill to licence the farmer to do this mixing if the thing appears to be illegal. The Deputy admits that the present Minister would not bring a farmer to court for mixing grain on his own premises. I could not imagine any Minister, no matter what Party he might belong to, being so bereft of commonsense as to bring a farmer to court for such an offence. As I said, if a Minister did so I could not conceive any judge losing his commonsense to such an extent as to convict such a farmer.

Some of the matters covered by this Bill have been operated in a provisional way up to the present. That matter, for instance, of mixing. To come back to the west coast. Up to the present we could not possibly make any exceptions, because we were operating the mixing scheme under a provisional order. When the Bill becomes law, however, we have power to make regulations, and if the outdoor officials of the Department of Agriculture advise us that in any particular area on the west coast there is hardship under this mixing scheme from the point of view of getting maize for human consumption we have ample power to make the necessary regulation to deal with that area. I have no objection to giving the undertaking that I gave on a previous occasion, that if the officials of the Department in any area report to me that a relaxation or change in the regulations is necessary I shall have no hesitation in acting on that report.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 54.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Carty, Frank.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Doherty, Joseph.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• Kent, William Rice.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Connor, Batt.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.