I asked to-day a question in the terms of No. 3 on the Order Paper. It was founded upon two items of information which reached me, one the rather notorious item of information that was broadcast in pretty nearly every newspaper in the country, that in a particular district in the neighbourhood of Sligo there were, about three or four weeks ago, what amounted to famine conditions in relation to flour. That is the first, and what I call a notorious fact. The second item of information was given to me by no less than three people who were at the meeting to which my question refers. The question is detailed under a number of heads. I think if any man wanted to answer the question honestly one thing should have stood out clearly, and that is the point which I refer to in the supplementary part of the question: Had there been a demand made upon certain importers of flour in this country that they should get into this country either by the end of July—the 26th was the precise date —or mid-August a certain quantity of flour which I have stated here to be 250,000 sacks. The answer that I got to that was that my information was incorrect. I think an honest answer would have stated whether or not there was an emergency caused here by the sudden lessening of the quota which had been given to certain people and by the inability of certain other people to supply. I asked: Was there a meeting of flour millers recently convened and was there, amongst other subjects discussed at the meeting, the question of "the alarming shortage of flour" and "the extortionate prices demanded by actual holders from consumers." The reply I got to that was this:—
"Meetings of flour importers and officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce are held frequently."
I did not ask that.
"Among the subjects discussed at these meetings are the best means of ensuring that all parts of the country shall be supplied with flour in adequate quantities. I am not aware of any justification for the Deputy's reference to an ‘alarming shortage' of flour and to ‘extortionate prices for that commodity."
The Minister was not present at the meeting he refers to, but both these phrases were used at the meeting and by officials of his Department. That is what I got by way of reply to the question: Was there a meeting recently convened to discuss two things—(1) a shortage of flour, and (2) the natural increase in price which certainly importers in this country feared would be made upon them if they had been caught short. What I have read is the information which was given to me. I also asked "If certain firms were requested to import a large quota amounting to about 250,000 sacks, for urgent delivery in the end of July or mid-August." Why I had to phrase the question in that way was that the first demand made upon the importers at this meeting on the 12th July was that they should order for delivery here by the 26th July a particular amount of flour. It started off at 200,000 sacks. When the importers explained that to anybody who understood the trade that was not possible without paying panic prices, the 200,000 sacks was, by a bargaining process, lowered to 100,000 sacks eventually when the meeting was re-summoned in the evening. The 250,000 sacks was the particular amount mentioned. At the evening meeting the tone had changed somewhat, and instead of there being a demand put on these importers that they should import a certain quantity of flour, and that if they did not the Minister would give the order to somebody else, they were implored to order as much as they could and to date delivery for the 26th July and the 8th August. They were told that if they could not get 250,000 sacks, which was thought to be the desirable amount, at any rate to make it 100,000 sacks. On this information I phrased the question in this way: "If certain firms were requested to import a large quota amounting to about 250,000 sacks for urgent delivery in the end of July or mid-August," and the answer that I got to that was:
"The Deputy appears to have been misinformed as to the extent to which imported flour is required. The total amount for which licences were issued for the four months ending the 31st July was 193,000 sacks. The amount to be admitted during the three months ending on the 31st October next is, on the basis of our present calculations, 140,000 sacks."
I take that as typical of what comes from the Ministry as accurate information on these matters, honestly given in reply to questions on general industrial conditions in the State. A meeting was summoned to discuss an emergency, and a demand made upon certain people that they should bring in a certain quantity of flour or the order would be given to somebody else. When they met in the evening they were implored to get delivery of as much as they could, and the answer that I get about that precise item is that I appear to be misinformed, and that the total amount for which licences were issued for the four months ending 31st July was 193,000 sacks. Then it will be observed from the answer that a careful reservation is made that the amount to be admitted in the next three months "is on the basis of our present calculations." That is the honest dealing that people are getting at the moment.
I then asked the names of the firms and the quota allotted to each and the average price at which this large emergency order was purchased in relation to "(1) prices for ordinary deliveries then prevailing, and (2) present prices". I also asked from the Minister an estimate of the extra profits demanded and received by holders by reason of this emergency order. I put that in for this reason, that in the morning when the demand was made to bring in this huge quantity on the 20th July, the importers explained that that simply could not be done: that orders could not be placed. In the evening when they came to discuss the 8th August they pointed out that there was no time to get in touch with shippers in the United States and Canada, and that if they bought from people holding in Cardiff, Liverpool and other places word would get out so quickly that the Irish Free State had been caught, had been nipped, and that there was an emergency order for 100,000 sacks, 200,000 sacks or 250,000 sacks being placed, that naturally there would be an increase. And there was an increase. It is with that that the last portion of my question deals. I asked what is "the position of the importers here in relation to this emergency order and whether they are to be recouped their expenses by Government aid or by increased or continued excessive prices to consumers." When they did point out that if they had to buy not merely at the then prevailing price, but something above it—at the time and since prices have been coming down in the world but not here—and had to sell this emergency order flour purchased at panic prices on a falling market, they were going to lose, a nice answer certainly was given: that the price of bread need not come down, and therefore the price of flour need not change. That is better than a Government subsidy. It is more secretive, but it costs the populace the same and whoever blundered should have been exposed. What was the cause of the blunder? I think people should get that information now. Who cut down the quota to such a point that it is notorious that in the neighbourhood of Sligo on a particular occasion about four weeks ago there was such a shortage of flour that a meeting had to be held in a hotel—I understand it was attended by members of this House—to discuss the emergency that had arisen. Who thought of this bright plan of discharging an order for 250,000 sacks of flour at panic prices, and who decided on the bright idea that the way out was to let flour continue to sell at its present excessive price? The question simply put is: was there an emergency here recently; how did it arise; how was it got over; who is going to pay for it in the end; whose blunder caused the emergency? The information that I got is what I have read, but I have not read it all. There is this:—
"The Register of Flour Importers established under Section 45 of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act may be inspected by any person interested on payment of a fee of 1/-. The particulars appearing on the register contain all the information concerning importers that can reasonably be made public. It would not be proper for me to disclose particulars regarding the extent of the trade carried on by each of them and I cannot, therefore, give any figures concerning the quantities of flour admitted under licence to the order of individual importers."
On prices, here is what we are told:—
"The price which importers pay for flour to millers and merchants abroad is primarily a matter for the importers themselves and the persons from whom they purchase it."
Not when forced by someone's blunder here to try to place a big order at once. It runs on:—
"The purchasers are not financed by public money, and importers are not guaranteed against loss by the State. The price at which importers sell in this country the flour which they bring in is the only question which affects the consumers. I have asked the Prices Commission to investigate the prices of imported and Saorstát-milled flour."
I asked for information in relation to this matter some weeks ago. Will the Prices Commission be asked to report specially on this? Will they be asked to say whether the extra 5/- a sack demanded in recent months should not be enough to carry the people forced to import this quantity, over the rather serious loss they will incur ordinarily on the sale of this big quantity of emergency flour? I raised this question mainly to call attention to what is thought to be information given to the public with regard to what I again describe as a matter that was notorious. Flour had run short. I say again quite openly that the information I have recited in detail comes from no less than three people who were either present themselves, or had representatives at the meeting, representatives, I might say, summoned to a meeting to discuss the emergency. Did anyone get from the answer I read the information that there was a meeting summoned hurriedly, or that there was an emergency, and that the agenda included an item as to how people here were cut short and how the gap should be filled? Would anyone have any appreciation, from the reply given, that the meeting was adjourned under a threat, then resummoned—very much not under a threat the second time—the date changed and the order canvassed about sackage? Is there any appreciation from the answer that there was a big order given, more than ordinarily placed in July, for delivery on August 1st? Would anyone reading the reply have any appreciation of the fact that people are going to pay a little bit more, or a little bit more than they should have been paying, for some longer time, because of the fact that someone blundered in relation to the ordering of flour or, I should put it, in relation to the cutting down of the quota of imported flour allowed to certain firms?
We are told that the Prices Tribunal are going to investigate. If they are allowed to investigate, it will be some justification for the setting up of the Prices Tribunal, if they are not forbidden to report specially on this matter. If they are allowed to report the House and the public should be allowed to hear speedily what they say about it, and should know the cost to the country. We will not see any such report. Of course, the question referred to them was the general question of prices, and that will occupy a long time. It will be regarded by the Minister as much more urgent and more serious than this, because this arose through his own blunder and from the general reactions of the tariff and the embargo imposed. Even if allowed to make a report on the big question, some good might come from the Prices Tribunal. It is accepted in this House that there is a rise of 5/- per sack more than what there should be if imported flour was coming in. The average consumption of flour amongst white people is supposed to be a sack per head. That would represent, at 5/- a sack, £750,000. It would be a good thing to have a calculation made to see what we are getting for the £750,000 extra spent on flour. When the Tariff Commission reported on flour it was indicated that the biggest claim ever made for increased employment was 300 men. They indicated that in their view it would be 135 to 150 men. Even if we got the maximum employment claimed by reason of a tariff on flour, is it good business to pay £750,000 in order to get 300 people extra put into employment? Added to that fact we were told of the benefits that would flow to the country from cheap offals. The notable fact is that the offals have to be shipped out of the country. That is what that blessing came to. There was a pretty good mess made of this, and the only thing that can be said that comes well out of it is the Minister in his reply to-day, in covering up the tracks. It is not an honest reply. It is nowhere accurate. It neglects facts and gives no explanation either of the flour position or of who is going to pay.
