This Supplementary Estimate, which contains five sub-heads, will be moved by the Minister for Supplies. Sub-heads A. D. E. will be disposed of without a vote. When sub-head F is reached a motion will be moved by Deputy Dillon to reduce the Vote by £10 in respect of that sub-head. When that motion is decided, sub-head G will be taken without a vote. Finally, the Estimate, as a whole, will be dealt with.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Office of the Minister for Supplies.
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim breise ná raghaidh thar £683,908, chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Soláthairtí, maraon le conganta áirithe airgid d'íoc.
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £683,908, be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1942, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Supplies, including payment of certain subsidies.
Deputies will see from the Estimate that the additional sum is required for two purposes. A sum of £42,168 is required to defray the cost of additional staff recruited by the Department of Supplies and other sums in respect of telegrams, telephones, advertising and publicity are needed in excess of the amount voted for the year in consequence of the expansion of the Department's activities. The main sum asked for is £550,000, for the purpose of subsidising the prices of flour and wheaten meal and an additional sum of £80,000 for the purpose of subsidising the price of bread. To deal first with the amount required, over and above the Estimate, in respect of salaries, wages and allowances, it is, I think, unnecessary to inform the Dáil that there has been a considerable expansion in the activities of the Department since the original Estimate was framed. Because of that expansion in its activities, substantial increases in staff were necessary. At this time last year, only one commodity was rationed —petrol. Since then, rationing, or control of distribution in one form or another, has been found necessary in respect of a number of other commodities—kerosene, mineral oils, coal, tea and sugar as well as a number of industrial materials, such as timber, cotton and woollen goods. At this time last year, the staff serving in the Department numbered 157. It has now reached 425. The provision made under sub-head A of the Estimate for the Department of Supplies in the past did not, at any time, reflect the whole cost of the staff serving in that Department because, in accordance with the practice of the Civil Service, the salaries of officers who were on loan from other Departments were paid by the Departments from which they came. It was only where officers were promoted that any provision had to be made in the Estimate for the Department of Supplies for any part of their remuneration. While the staff serving on loan has increased, the main increase in staff has resulted from the recruitment of officers from the usual Civil Service examinations for direct appointment to the Department of Supplies. These direct appointments are responsible for a substantial part of the increased provision which has had to be made under sub-head A. It has been found necessary for the staff of the Department to work overtime considerably in excess of the amount originally estimated, and provision has been made under sub-head A for the additional cost involved. It is clear that the staff of the Department will have to be considerably augmented to deal with the further measures of control of the distribution of commodities in short supply and provision has been made for the substantial increase in the amount of clerical assistance which will be required before the end of the financial year.
Because of the increased activity of the Department, the expenditure under sub-head D has also expanded. As Deputies will note, there has been a very considerable expansion, relatively speaking, in the estimated amount required for advertising and publicity. To a much greater extent than was originally considered necessary, we have resorted to the use of display advertisements in the newspapers in order to bring to the attention of the public the regulations in force concerning the distribution of commodities, the fixation of prices and other matters of that nature. These display advertisements, which are, I think, necessary to secure the requisite publicity for the matters concerned, cost much more than the usual formal type of advertisement previously used for the purpose of making Government announcements in the Press.
As I have said, the main sum asked for is that in respect of the proposed subsidy to the prices of flour and bread. As has been obvious for some considerable time past, owing to the great increase in the cost of importing wheat from abroad and the decision to increase the guaranteed minimum price for native wheat from 35/- to 40/- per barrel, a substantial increase in the price of flour and, consequently, of bread, could not be avoided during the present cereal year. For some time past—since the extraction of flour from wheat was increased to 95 per cent.—imported wheat has been allocated to flour millers by Grain Importers, Limited, at a price of 65/6 per quarter. That price, it is true, contained an element which enabled Grain Importers, Limited, to accumulate some surplus funds. A large part of the wheat allocated this year by Grain Importers was purchased before the war at pre-war prices. From the point of view of the miller, the cost was 65/6 and it was, of course, that cost which had to be taken into account in determining the price at which the miller could sell flour. It is now clear that a considerable part of the 80,000 tons of wheat, which it is considered it will be necessary to import this year, will not be brought in at a price much less, if less, than 120/- per quarter.
What weight is in the quarter?
Four hundred and eighty pounds.
A barrel is seven-twelfths of a quarter.
The important point I want Deputies to note is that the allocation price of imported wheat this year may be practically double what it was last year. Similarly, the price of native wheat has increased, and the increase in the price of native wheat will operate to increase the price of millers' grist and, consequently, the price of flour to a substantial extent. These increases in the price of wheat mean that the subsidy which will be required to enable the price of flour to be maintained unchanged during the whole of the cereal year will be about £1,900,000. As I informed the Dáil some time ago, we estimate that we shall get for milling purposes 290,000 tons of Irish wheat. If circumstances should arise which would prevent our getting that quantity of Irish wheat, then the various calculations we have made as to the cost of the subsidy will be upset. These calculations are based on the assumption that we shall have 290,000 tons of native wheat, to be supplemented by about 80,000 tons of imported wheat. The average cost of native wheat, dried and fit for milling, during the last cereal year, was 40/9 per barrel. The price on the farm was 35/-. Various additional charges had to be allowed for in respect of sacks, drying costs, agents' commission, and 10 per cent. loss on drying, which charges increased the cost of the wheat to the miller from the 35/- paid to the farmer to 40/9. The corresponding figure this year will be 46/9—an increase of 6/-. The average price paid to the farmer will be 40/6. Allowances in respect of sacks, agents' commission and drying costs will remain unchanged, but the 10 per cent. loss on drying will involve a higher figure because of the higher price. Consequently, although the guaranteed price to farmers was increased by 5/-, the actual cost of dried wheat to the millers will be increased by 6/-.
Is that a comparable figure with the 120/- for imported wheat?
Yes.
Will the 120/- per quarter be the actual cost to the miller in his store?
Not necessarily. That will be the cost of the wheat landed here.
Could you give us the comparable figure?
That will be the lowest possible price at which the miller can get it. There will be some charges to be added, but they will not materially affect the cost.
At what point will the cost be 120/-?
Landed at an Irish port.
The figure, 46/9, is the cost in the miller's store?
Yes.
In the miller's store, what will be the addition to the 120/- per quarter?
That would involve a calculation into which I do not want to enter now. Irish wheat, as the Deputy knows, has a moisture content higher than that required by the miller, and, consequently, the cost of drying it must be added to the price of the wheat, but imported wheat contains an insufficiency of moisture. Consequently, there is a gain to the miller because he adds moisture to the wheat.
The figure of 46/9 represents the cost in the miller's store. The figure of 120/- represents the cost at an Irish port. That wheat has to be transported to the miller's store. There it has to be treated for additional moisture before it comes to the comparable point with the 46/9 for homegrown wheat?
That is right.
Could you give us the comparable figure?
The figure I have given will do for comparison purposes. It is not necessary to go into pence. The increased cost resulting from the increased price of native wheat will be roughly £700,000. The increased cost of the 80,000 tons of imported wheat will be about £1,200,000.
Are you going on last year's figures?
The increased cost of native wheat will be £700,000. We estimate that 80 per cent. of the total wheat used will be native wheat as against something below 50 per cent. previously. The increased cost of imported wheat will be £1,200,000. We estimate that the allocation price will be £30 per ton, as against £15 per ton last year, and that only 20 per cent. of the wheat used will be imported wheat. That sum of £1,900,000, which represents the total increased price we will have to pay for wheat on the assumption that the quantity of flour to be consumed will be 2,700,000 sacks, means that, without any subsidy from any source, the price per sack of flour would be increased by about 14/-. The port price of flour at present is 52/6 per sack and that would become 66/6. In accordance with the formula on which bread prices are fixed, that would make a 4-lb. loaf 1/2 as against the present price of 1/-, even assuming there were no additional costs in the production of the loaf which would have to be offset by a higher price. I want to stress that the increase in the price of flour—the 14/- to which I have referred—is attributable solely to the increased cost of wheat, both native and imported. The other items going to make up the price of a sack of flour will remain unaltered. In other words, I am allowing nothing for any possible increase in the cost of production or for any change in the remuneration of the milling industry, which is 6 per cent. on the capital employed in the industry as a whole.
Six per cent. on the capital?
Yes. There is, however, as Deputies know, available to offset the increased cost of flour a certain sum which represents the accumulated reserves of the Wheat Reserve Committee, that is to say, the body that bought wheat before the war and held it until required—it was not required until this year—and Grain Importers Limited, who have been in the position of accumulating reserves since the increase in the extraction of flour from wheat. At the time that increased extraction was decided upon, it would have been possible for a short period to have reduced the price of flour, as more flour was being obtained from the wheat, but we decided not to reduce the price of flour but to hold the surplus funds accruing to Grain Importers Limited against this period when we knew that the cost of flour would have to be increased substantially. If we were to rely solely upon these reserve funds, which amount to £650,000——
£650,000?
Yes. I should explain that it has been decided that £650,000 be used during the cereal year but in the period of the cereal year covered by this Estimate only £330,000 will be used. That £330,000, if that were all that was available to reduce the price of flour now, would reduce the 14/- increase which would otherwise have to be faced, by 5/3 per sack. The net increase, therefore, would be 8/9 and the price of the 4-lb loaf would be 1/1½. If, on the other hand, we decided to use the whole of this reserve in this financial year, then the increase would be reduced by 10/6. These figures will help Deputies to understand the magnitude of the decision which the Government took to maintain the price of flour and bread unchanged by the provision of a subsidy. The price of flour at present is 52/6, as I have said, at four ports—Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford—and elsewhere it is 52/6 plus the cost of transport by the cheapest method of transportation.
These prices have been maintained unchanged for over 15 months, from September of last year, by various devices which it is not now necessary to enumerate. They will continue unchanged in consequence of this decision of the Government to provide a subsidy. It is intended to make an order fixing maximum retail prices for flour. That order will come into operation in a day or two. It is being made because arrangements have been completed which will permit of it, and I will refer to it again in another connection.
I take it that the Minister does not wish to mislead us. The price is not being maintained at what it was, because heretofore the price of 52/6 was in bags: now that price is naked, representing an increase of 1/3 per sack.
There is no change in the price of flour since last year.
There has been a change, inasmuch as flour now is consigned naked.
When fixed by me in September of last year, that price was subject to the conditions which still obtain.
The Minister now knows that the effect of the Minister's decision is to increase the price by 1/3 per sack.
But that was done when the price was fixed.
No, it was done only when the Minister made the sacks 5/- and made them returnable.
The Deputy is referring to the Sacks Order, which was designed to ensure the return of sacks.
It put £150,000 per year into the pockets of the millers.
That is a matter which I do not intend to argue now, but I am prepared to dispute it at any time that may be arranged.
It is true. It represents an increase of 1/3 per sack of flour. I assure the Minister that.
We have a motion by Deputy Dillon to reduce this sub-head F, that is, the sub-head which deals with flour and wheaten meal. I do not know for what reason the Deputy has submitted that motion. Perhaps he intends to argue against the subsidisation of flour—I do not know—but whether he does it or I do it, somebody must give to the House the arguments that can be advanced against the subsidisation of flour. Those arguments are not inconsiderable. In fact, they are of such a nature that the Government spent a long time considering whether it would be wiser to proceed by way of subsidy or otherwise. Finally, we decided, for reasons which I can give, in favour of the subsidy, but I would like the House to understand that the decision was taken only after we had given full weight to the arguments in favour of another course. It is obvious that subsidising the price of flour does not reduce the cost of it. The cost of producing the flour required by the people of this country will increase in this cereal year by £1,900,000 over the cost of last year. That increase in the cost of providing the community's flour is due, as I have stated, to the higher price we are now paying for native wheat, which represents 80 per cent. of our supply, and to the very much higher price we have to pay for the balance, which we import in the form of hard wheats across the Atlantic.
Not for the wheat, but the cost of transport.
For the cost here. The big item in the cost is transport charges, but the effective price to us is that at which the wheat is delivered in this country.
But we control the freight rates through Irish shipping.
The payment of a subsidy to maintain flour prices tends to conceal that increase in the cost of our flour. The community will pay it as taxpayers and not as consumers. It is essential that the members of this House and the public generally should understand that we do not avoid an increase by a subsidy arrangement—we merely transfer the main burden of the charge from one section of the community to another. The community as a whole will have to pay the higher cost of the flour. The payment of a subsidy may tend to conceal the fact that our flour will cost a great deal more, and it may lead also to extravagant demands for further increases in the costs now operating to raise the price of flour—increased demands in respect of wheat by the producers of wheat and demands from other people interested in the production of flour. These might be deterred or the demands postponed if the persons concerned realised fully that the granting of their demands would have an immediate adverse effect on the consumers of the country.
If somebody proposed that the price of wheat should go up by 5/- a barrel to farmers, then everybody could relate that demand to the effect of an increase of a halfpenny in the price of the loaf; but when the element of subsidy is introduced, that fact does not become so obvious. Consequently, the decision to pay a subsidy may result in demands by producers of wheat or other persons concerned in the production of flour, of an extravagant nature, which could not be resisted so easily, as the effect upon the consumers will not be obvious. Furthermore, the introduction of an element of subsidy in the price of a commodity such as flour tends to disorganise the relationship between the price of flour and the price of other commodities. We could conceivably reduce the price of flour to a point at which we would be giving very definite encouragement to people to engage in the illegal practice of feeding flour to animals. If, by subsidy, we cause a disrelationship to appear between the price of flour and other materials that could be used as animal feeding stuffs, we are clearly taking a risk which would be completely unjustifiable in circumstances like those now existing, when it is not yet clear that we will have a sufficiency of flour to maintain the minimum requirements of our people.
I realised also, more particularly, perhaps, than other members of the Government, that a decision to pay a subsidy on the price of flour would lead to assertions that in some way flour millers were going to benefit by that subsidy and, in fact, that it was a subsidy to flour millers and not a subsidy to the consumers of flour. There is no gain of any kind to the Irish flour millers by reason of the decision to pay a subsidy. The position that the flour miller will be in is that he will continue to receive his wheat this year at the same price as he paid last year. He will have the same allowance in respect to cost of production and overhead charges, and he will be required to sell the flour at the same price.
Plus 1/3 a sack.
That is an irrelevancy.
It is an irrelevancy amounting to £150,000.
The flour millers are at present controlled at every stage of their activity. The price at which they buy the wheat is fixed; the wages of the workers are fixed; the allowances in respect to overhead charges are fixed and their profit is fixed by my Department. Thus, at every stage in the production of flour, from the growing of the wheat to its ultimate sale to the consumer, there is complete control and, so far as the miller is concerned, his position has not been affected by the payment of the subsidy.
How is the miller's profit controlled?
The price of the flour is fixed by me, or by an officer of my Department, on the known costs of producing flour, plus an allowance of 6 per cent. in respect to the capital employed. Furthermore, we had in mind, when considering this question of the paying of the flour subsidy, the fact that under the food voucher system the poorest sections of the community, those dependent for assistance on public funds of one kind or another, were, in fact, having their bread supply secured to them and the effect of an increase in the cost of bread offset by the allowance of bread free of charge which they get under that scheme. The fact, therefore, that the subsidy concealed a real increase in the cost of flour, that that concealment of the increase might lead to extravagant demands which would tend further to increase the cost of flour, that there was a risk that the subsidising of flour prices might encourage its use as an animal feeding stuff, that there might be a misunderstanding as to the effect of the subsidy on the position of individual traders, and the further fact that the poorer sections of the community were already being protected by a Government scheme against a rise in price—all these were serious considerations against the payment of a subsidy, and I stress them here because I should like the Dáil to understand that this policy of subsidisation of food prices was not lightly embarked upon and cannot lightly be pursued without regard to other consequences.
There is the risk of which the Government were fully aware, that that policy, once started, might lead us into a position of considerable danger if it were pursued recklessly. I do not want to be taken as saying that no expansion of that policy would be deemed possible in the future, but any proposal to expand it will have to have the same serious consideration which was given in the first instance to this particular aspect of it. We decided on the policy of subsidisation knowing what the risks were. We appreciated that the community would be paying more for flour, even though they would be paying as taxpayers and not as consumers. We did recognise that the burden of the additional charge would be transferred by subsidy from one section of the community to the other and that the effect of it would be, in part at any rate, to transfer it to the shoulders best able to bear it.
In announcing the decision of the Government, I made it clear that the sum of approximately £2,000,000 which was being provided this year for the purpose was the utmost that would be provided and, if any additional costs arose, these additional costs would have to be reflected in the ordinary way by an increased price of flour and bread.
How do you make up the £2,000,000?
Our estimate is £1,900,000. I used the sum of £2,000,000 as a round figure.
There is some money in the principal Estimate for this same purpose?
The total additional cost on flour in the cereal year will be £1,900,000. We are providing in this Estimate the amount required to the end of the financial year. It is, I think, necessary that we should follow up the decision to subsidise flour by exercising a more rigorous control over its distribution and use, and I want to urge on Deputies the importance of lending their moral support to the enforcement of the order which prohibits the use of wheat or flour or any wheaten product as a foodstuff for animals. He have had occasionally reports of the scarcity of flour in many parts of the country. These reports have been investigated and in some cases it is quite clear that the inability of numbers of human beings to get the quantity of flour required to maintain them was due to the fact that traders in the area had sold flour which they must have known was going to be used by the purchasers as feeding stuffs for pigs.
I think we should easily be able to get in the country the public spirit which will ensure that that practice will stop. I realise, and I am sure Deputies do, too, the tremendous difficulty of enforcing completely an order of that kind. It is almost impossible to get the evidence which will enable offenders to be convicted in a court, but if we get the public spirit aroused and get the public to understand that every person who offends against the order and uses wheat or wheaten products to feed to animals is depriving some human being of the appropriate quantity of flour, then we will get the kind of enforcement which will be most effective.
No matter what we may do, we will not have more than sufficient flour for human needs in this year. We may not have sufficient. The estimated yield of 290,000 tons from the Irish wheat crop has not yet materialised; not more than 170,000 tons has yet come in. There is, of course, still time for the balance to come in—the harvest was late—but if the full estimated quantity is not secured, then we will not be able to reach the end of the year with an all-wheaten loaf.
You will never succeed in stopping the use of wheat for the purpose of animal consumption unless you ration flour.
I shall deal later with the rationing of flour. I think it is necessary that I should explain to the House the procedure that will be adopted for the payment of the subsidy. Let me say this. I would have much preferred if we could, in this year, have paid the subsidy direct to the producers of wheat. I think we would have settled a lot of argument and have made quite clear both to wheat producers and everybody else what precisely was happening. Because of the system of minimum prices in operation under the Cereals Acts, and for other reasons, it was not practicable to do it this year. We are therefore subsidising the price of flour instead. We are doing that through the flour millers. We are doing it by arranging that the flour miller will get his wheat at the same price as that at which he got it last year. We are utilising for that purpose the organisation of Grain Importers (Eire), Limited. As Deputies are aware, Grain Importers (Eire), Limited, is a company, set up by the Government and financed by the Government for the purpose of buying wheat abroad for this country. It is a non-profit making company, the directors of which give their services voluntarily.
Who gets the 3/4 a ton?
I do not know what the Deputy is referring to. What 3/4 a ton is he referring to?
Is there not a commission of 3/4 a ton in respect of all the wheat handled by them?
So far as Grain Importers (Eire), Limited, are concerned, there is a very nominal charge to offset their expenses. There has been, in the past, a certain excess over the price at which they purchased wheat and the selling price fixed, the reserve thus being accumulated.
Do not the members of that body receive 3/4 a ton in respect of all the wheat they handle?
They receive nothing. They are a voluntary body.
But the directors?
The directors receive no remuneration.
No, but as to the seven men who are in that company, are they not all traders in grain in one capacity or another, and do they not receive 3/4 a ton on all foreign grain handled by them?
They are all directors of flour mills, are they not?
Obviously, they had to be people concerned with the flour milling industry.
Who gets the 3/4?
I do not know what 3/4 the Deputy is talking about. Those commercial organisations which handle the wheat, finance its purchase, and distribute it to the millers, get their expenses and a reasonable profit.
Is it 3/4 a ton?
I do not know what it is.
There happen to be seven houses which constitute Grain Importers (Eire) Limited.
Not at all. The Deputy is misinformed.
Well, who are they?
They are all directors of flour mills in the country.
Not all of them. One of them is from Belfast.
I want once again to protest here against the privileges of this House being used to abuse people who are giving valuable public services to the State without remuneration. The members of Grain Importers (Eire) Limited, as well as the members of other such companies, are businessmen of Irish nationality, who came forward at the call of the Government to put their specialised knowledge, their time and their energy, at the service of the people of this State, without pay. They are doing better work than some of the Deputies who criticise them here, and they should be immune from the type of criticism which is frequently directed against them here. How does the Deputy expect that the Government will get the services of such men in the public interest if those who are willing to offer that service feel that they are going to make themselves a cockshot for the criticisms and abuse of every narrow-minded little man who wishes to indulge in it?
The Minister says people are narrow-minded because they will not accept all he says.
I am quite prepared to say it. I am quite prepared to say it anywhere, in Cork or anywhere else.
The Minister cannot call me narrow-minded.
Grain Importers (Eire) Limited is an organisation that we set up for the purpose of importing wheat. We propose to use that organisation under this subsidy scheme. The money will be made available to Grain Importers (Éire) Limited, who will make adjustments in the allocation price of wheat to the millers in such form as to ensure that the total cost of the millers' grist will remain unchanged. That is, I think, the most effective method to ensure that the funds provided for subsidy purposes will be utilised to ensure that there will be no increase in the cost of producing flour.
And the amount given to Grain Importers (Éire) Limited will be checked by an official of the State?
Certainly. I do not know what suspicions the Deputy has. If Grain Importers (Éire) Limited were to make profits of £1,000,000, where would they go to? The only place they could go to is back to the State. The only shareholder is the State. If there is money to be distributed in the way of profits, it cannot go to anybody except to the nation.
Why did you put the Dock Milling Company on the board of Grain Importers (Éire) Limited, by order, if it is such an unpleasant burden?
If the Deputy wants to question any action that I have taken at any time, I am quite prepared to answer for it. The Deputy, however, believes every cock-and-bull story that is told to him by any casual passer-by in the street.
I believe that the Minister made an order putting that company on Grain Importers (Éire) Ltd.
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. I made no such order.
The Minister will find out.
I should be glad to do so. If I made such an order I must have done it sometime when I was not conscious of my actions. For the purpose of assisting in the administration of the scheme a special committee is being formed consisting of Grain Importers (Eire) Ltd., and the Flour Millers' Association. That committee will be known as the financial adjustment committee and will be presided over by an officer of the Department of Supplies. As well as advising Grain Importers (Eire) Ltd. the committee will also advise me as to the nature of the directions to be given to the company. It is proposed also to subsidise the price of wheaten meal produced by licensed wheaten meal millers for sale. The cost of the subsidy in respect of wheaten meal is estimated at £33,000. It is, of course, included in the figure mentioned in sub-head F.
Is it included in the flour subsidy?
Yes. The subsidy, however, will not be payable to permitted millers, that is to say, millers who are grinding on a commission basis, and not for sale. Neither is it intended to subsidise any flour of less than 95 per cent. extraction. A limited quantity of certain types of flour is at present being produced under permit for use as altar bread, semolina, paste and starch. Flour of 95 per cent. extraction used for biscuit making, will, however, be eligible for the subsidy. Now, it is necessary also to provide a separate subsidy in respect of bread, if the aim of the Government to keep bread prices unchanged is to be realised. Deputies might have assumed that the fact that flour prices will remain unchanged automatically involves that bread prices will remain unchanged. But it is clear that other costs involved in the production of bread have risen as well as the cost of flour. As the House knows, the price of bread was controlled before the war. It was controlled under a special Act passed by the Oireachtas many years ago, following on a report of the Prices Commission, which prepared a formula designed to relate the price of bread to the price of flour. The Prices Commission drew up a table of flour prices and indicated the various points in the scale at which an increase or a decrease in the price of bread would be justifiable. Ordinarily, the price of bread goes up by ½d. per 4-lb. loaf if the price of flour rises by 4/- a sack, or, at some point in the scale, if the price of flour goes up by 3/- a sack. 50/- and 53/- per sack of flour were two points in the scale. If the price of flour fell below 50/- a decrease of ½d. in the price of bread would be involved; if it rose above 53/- an increase of ½d. would be involved. It is clear that, in preparing that formula, the Prices Commission had regard to the circumstances that existed at the time, normal circumstances pre-war, in which there was a continuous movement in the price of flour, the price of flour being fixed upon the world market price of wheat, which was continually fluctuating. Because the world market price of wheat was continually fluctuating, the home price of flour also fluctuated. In deciding upon that method of fixing bread prices, the Prices Commission assumed that that fluctuation in the price of flour would continue. If a change in the price of bread is admissible when the price of flour falls below 50/-, or when the price of flour rises above 53/-, it is clear that it is only when the price is 51/6, half-way between the two points, that the formula is strictly accurate and that the price of bread is exactly relating to the price of flour. The Prices Commission, however, assumed that the arrangement was fair to the bakers because they thought that, in the ordinary course of events, the price of flour would be as often below 51/6, as it was above it. Therefore, they said: "So long as it is at any point between 50/- and 53/- this price of 1/- a loaf should prevail."
Since the outbreak of the war, however, those circumstances ended. When the Department of Supplies was set up, it took control of the price of flour, and, as I have already stated, for a period of 15 months the price of flour has been pinned at the point of 52/6, that is 1/- above the price which was intermediate between the two points at which a change in the price of flour would take place. It was contended by the bakers that that arrangement was unfair to them; that, in holding the price of flour at a point just below the point at which they would be entitled to an increase in price, we were in fact making it impossible for them to continue in production at a profit. Now, I am going to say a few words which the bakers of this country will not like. The bakers contended that the arrangement was unfair to them, but they never proved it. Any other manufacturer in the country who considered that he was entitled to charge higher prices for his products came to my Department, produced his accounts, and satisfied the accountants in the service of the Department that an increase in costs had taken place sufficient to justify his claim for a higher price. The bakers never did that. They contented themselves with making vague general statements, some of which were so fantastic as to invalidate their whole contention. I took no action upon their claim because of their failure to make any attempt to substantiate it. It was not until a tribunal was set up by the Department of Industry and Commerce to investigate a claim by bakers employed in Dublin bakeries for an increase in their wages that the Dublin bakers produced their accounts. As Deputies who are familiar with the report of that tribunal will remember, those accounts showed in some cases—and showed to the satisfaction of the tribunal—that some at least of those bakers were selling bread at that time at a loss, or at any rate, not at a profit.
Now, I know that the price of salt and of yeast and of fuel and of petrol and of feeding stuffs for animals, and the cost of vehicles and repairs to vehicles and the like, have all increased and because I know those things I am assuming that the bakers are entitled to some increase in the price of bread, even though we disregard their claim in respect of our action in holding the price of flour at 52/6 for a period of 15 months, but the only positive information I have is the accounts submitted to me by those bakery firms in Dublin, and one out of 1,000 firms in the rest of Ireland. The various associations of bakers were asked to see that certified accounts were produced by their members, and they failed to do so. Outside the City of Dublin, out of 1,000 firms engaged in the bakery industry only one firm produced accounts. As a result of the information available to me, the examination of the accounts which were presented, and the knowledge, which is in fact common knowledge, as to the increase in the price of other commodities in addition to flour required in the manufacture of bread, I am satisfied that there has been an increase in the cost of baking bread equivalent to ½d. in the 4-lb. loaf. If, therefore, we wish to implement our decision to maintain the price of bread unchanged, this subsidy arrangement must include a provision to offset those higher costs of bakers. Under a recent order, all bakers of batch bread must be licensed, and I want to make it clear that this subsidy will be paid only to licensed bakers. The idea of licensing bakers has the official support of the three main associations of bakers. I want to mention, however, that, despite the publicity which was given to the matter, and despite the fact that the various associations of bakers were informed of the steps to be taken, the number of applications for licensing seems to be far below the number of bakers of batch bread. It must be clear that those who have failed to apply for their licences under the order will not qualify for and will not receive the subsidy.
How are you going to pay the subsidy?
The subsidy will be paid direct to the bakers in relation to their sales of batch bread.
Even to the 1,000 who did not furnish their accounts?
It will be paid to all licensed bakers.
Including the 999 who did not comply with your request?
Certainly.
Does the Minister wish to tell us at this stage how he will distinguish between the quantity of batch bread and fancy bread which a baker turns out?
Regulations will be made to enable us to determine the quantity of batch bread sold.
I wish to goodness the Minister would give us a brief sketch of the regulations he has in mind, because I am a baker, and how on earth he can satisfy himself as to how much batch bread and how much fancy bread is turned out is a mystery to me.
A number of regulations have already been made relating to the records which bakers must keep, as to the various returns that must be available for inspection by the departmental inspectors, and as to the manner in which their accounts must be presented. Those regulations are at present in force. I should have mentioned before that the subsidy in respect of flour and bread will be payable as from 15th October.
October last?
Yes, because the higher costs are in operation. If we did not make it retrospective to 15th October we would now have higher prices of flour and bread in operation. Arrangements were made with the bakers to ensure that those records would be kept. They will be sufficient, I think, to ensure that we will be able to exercise a proper check over the quantity of batch bread sold by each baker.
Why not add the bakers' subsidy to the flour subsidy?
It is not possible to do it that way because we are subsidising only the price of batch bread, and not the price of fancy bread or any other class of bread.
Would the difference be much?
The difference would be substantial. There are some bakers who produce no batch bread at all.
Would not the administration be a lot simpler?
No. There is a number of bakers in the country who do not produce batch bread. If we tried to deal with the situation by controlling the price of flour, then all those bakers, including manufacturers of confectionery, would get the benefit of the subsidy.
Would it matter if they did?
It would matter, to the extent of a very substantial amount of money.
I think it would mean a saving in administration and it would be a much simpler way of giving the subsidy.
The Deputy can be assured that that matter was fully considered because my natural inclination is towards simple administration arrangements in matters of this kind and if we decided to have a separate subsidy for batch bread it was due to the fact that no other method could be devised.
It will not make for very efficient administration.
From time to time we have had it urged here that we should reconsider the question of maintaining the extraction of flour at 95 per cent. It has been decided to retain it at 95 per cent. If we were to reduce the extraction of flour, say to the pre-war level which gave us white bread, not merely would the effect upon the price of the bread be very substantial—it would amount to 3d. or 4d. per loaf— but we would have to supplement the native wheat harvest to a much greater extent than we now contemplate. The attempt to give the community that white bread again would involve the importation of an additional 150,000 tons of wheat.
Not for an 85 per cent. extraction.
I agree, but 85 per cent. bread is not white bread. We could reduce it, as the British have done, to 80 per cent., and call it white bread, but over 80 per cent. the bran gets into the bread, and it does not make much difference from a dietetic point of view whether the extraction is 85 or 90 per cent. In respect of the keeping quality of the bread, the dietetic value of the bread, and so forth, the difference is not very significant. It is only when you get the extraction so low that there is no bran in the flour that there is any noticeable difference. At any rate, I am so advised by bread experts. I do not claim to be an expert myself.
You can tell the experts to eat their hats.
For the information of people, other than Deputy Dillon, who may feel that we should attempt to restore the white loaf again——
Eighty-five per cent. is not a white loaf.
——or reduce the extraction at all, I want to point out that any action of that kind involves a substantial increase in the quantity of wheat we would have to import. The total shipping space at our disposal is limited.
How much would you have to import to allow of an 85 per cent. loaf?
Roughly half 150,000 tons—75,000 tons. We have, as I say, a very limited amount of shipping at our disposal. The total amount of commodities which all those ships, worked to their fullest capacity, can bring in in a year is very limited. Every ton of wheat which we bring in, in excess of the minimum required to maintain the quantity of flour required by our people, can only be imported by stopping something else, and there are many other commodities, essential commodities, which are in such short supply that we must avail of these shipping facilities to bring them in. I mention tea as a case in point. There are many people who will urge, and rightly urge, that it is more important to increase the ration of tea, if we can, than to maintain a full supply of flour. Certainly it is much more important to increase the ration of tea than to reduce the extraction of flour from wheat. There are also industrial commodities upon which the livelihoods of many thousands of people depend, and if we cannot import these commodities, the industrial activities of which they are the raw materials must cease.
Self-sufficiency not with standing.
We can discuss that at another time. I should hate very much to contemplate the quantity of goods we would have to bring in if Deputy Dillon had his way for the past ten years. The position is that we must utilise our limited shipping space to the best advantage, and in order to enable us to import as many and as much of the commodities of which we are now short as we can get. Of course, in the circumstances of the world to-day, there are many commodities of which we are in need which cannot be got. It is not a question of shipping facilities at all; it is a matter of the unavailability of the commodities themselves, but there are many commodities still procurable in the world which must be imported through the medium of these limited shipping facilities. A decision, therefore, to reduce the extraction of flour from wheat means that we decide to utilise 75,000 or 150,000 tons, or at least the shipping space capable of carrying that tonnage of wheat, to carry wheat instead of some other commodities. I think that would be a very unwise decision.
The alternative is to grow it at home.
Yes, and if we can succeed in producing in this country 100 per cent. of our requirements in wheat within the next year, it will be possible for us, with the same shipping facilities, assuming we still have them, to bring in another 80,000 tons or so more of other commodities than we could bring in this year.
If you paid as big a price to the home producer as you pay to the foreign producer, you would get all the wheat you require grown at home.
If the Deputy would be satisfied with the price we pay to the foreign producer, I would be quite prepared to give it to him. The price we pay to the foreign producer is about 15/- per barrel. In fact, the Deputy can take it that there are countries in the world to-day where you can get wheat for nothing, merely for the taking away.
You told us it cost you 84/-.
That is the cost of bringing it in here, not the price paid to the foreign producer. As I have said, there are countries where we could get wheat almost for nothing if we could take it away. That has no relation to the cost of the wheat delivered in this country. It is a very interesting fact to bear in mind, however, that the enhanced price we now pay for home-grown wheat is very much below the price at which in present circumstances we could buy wheat of other origin. Deputy Dillon has referred on more than one occasion to his suggestion that we should ration flour.
And I sent you an admirable memorandum.
The Deputy made suggestions besides that seemed even not so intelligent. From time to time during the course of the last few months I have had complaints from different parts of the country that there was a shortage of flour. I want the House to believe me when I say that, to the best of my knowledge, every single one of these complaints was investigated and as a result of the investigation of the complaints I want to make the definite statement that nine out of ten of them were bogus. These shortages of flour were either caused, or alleged to exist, by traders who had a very definite interest in getting an increased supply of flour through their shops. There were exceptional circumstances in Monaghan, in Cavan and in Leitrim. There were districts along the border of those counties where the quantity of flour of native origin sold was much less than the quantity consumed, because people in those districts bought flour on the other side of the Border. In those districts there was a definite shortage of flour from the time that deliveries to traders in those areas were related to the purchases last year, and special measures had to be taken in order to deal with genuine shortages in those areas. In some other districts, or on some other occasions in particular districts, there were special and abnormal circumstances which caused real shortages which had to be made good by an increased supply.
Over the rest of the country as a whole most of the allegations of shortages were created by traders who had a vested interest in the matter. I want to urge on parish councils and similar bodies who communicate with me and my Department alleging the existence of flour shortages to investigate these things for themselves before making the allegations. In a very large number of cases which we investigated we found that there was in fact no shortage or should have been no shortage, if the traders concerned were not interested in creating one. Either there was no shortage at all and the trader was hoping to get an additional supply to sell on the black market or the trader had deliberately caused the shortage by selling exceptional quantities of flour to individuals. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that, even in the Border districts of County Monaghan, we have come across cases of traders who were sending flour out of these districts to other districts in the hope of getting a better price for it. We came across one trader in Monaghan who was actually sending flour to Kerry at the time when some newspapers were reporting a shortage of flour in Kerry.
Was not that white flour?
No, ordinary flour.
Surely you do not deny that there was a shortage of flour in Monaghan and along the Border?
The Deputy had just gone out when I was speaking of the question of the Border areas. I told the House before that 48,000 sacks of flour were being released every week for consumption. The fact is that, taking the flour milling industry as a whole, for some time past they have not got orders for 48,000 sacks of flour per week. That does not mean that in some districts there was no shortage, but it does indicate that the 48,000 sacks was sufficient to meet the requirements of the country, if distribution arrangements had been working perfectly. I have mentioned already that we are going to fix the maximum retail price of flour. That fixed retail price of flour will prevent any such transactions as that of the Monaghan trader to whom I have referred and will, I think, make it unprofitable for traders to do what a number of them have been doing—taking flour sent to them to supply the requirements of their area and sending it into other areas for sale at a higher price there, illegally. Furthermore, we have made arrangements which will, I am satisfied, ensure that no genuine shortage can arise in any area.
The institution of a rationing scheme for flour would be a very elaborate business and I think it would be entirely unjustifiable to impose all the inconvenience and hardship of a rationing scheme on the community as a whole because of the difficulties created by a few traders in a very limited number of districts. We can deal with these traders. There are probably too many traders engaged in the flour trade anyway, and the country would be better off without some of them. I want it to be known definitely that any trader who I find is not distributing the flour he receives equitably and fairly will in fact be put out of that business for the duration of the emergency or so long as I am in control of it.
You are passing the buck of your inefficiency on to the traders, and that is not just.
Any attempt to ration flour on a flat-rate basis would be eminently unfair to the poorer section of the community.
What about tea?
In the diet of the poor, bread constitutes a much more important item than in the diet of the rich. In relation to the total quantity of food they buy, the poor buy much more bread than those better off, and to ration flour or bread—it would be very difficult to find an effective ration system anyhow—on a flat-rate basis would be unfair. I am not going to do it so long as it is possible to keep up the supply of flour, even if it becomes necessary to mix barley or oats with the wheat in order to maintain the supply. I think it is a much better policy to maintain a full supply of flour, even if it involves the use of other cereals, than to resort to rationing. I am prepared to deal with any case of alleged shortage that may be brought to my notice. The allegation will be investigated forthwith and, in any case where it is found there is a genuine shortage, additional supplies will be made available. These supplies will be there, we hope. In any event, we can, within the present total distribution, make available a surplus which is not now in demand in order to meet the requirements of particular areas.
I do not know if the Dáil expects me to deal with any other aspect of the work of the Department of Supplies other than this proposal to subsidise flour and bread. I do not know to what extent it is open to the Dáil to debate the whole of the activities of the Department on the Supplementary Estimate, but I assume it is. If it is desired that I should make a statement concerning the position of fuel, or tea, or sugar, or any other commodity, I am prepared to do it. I have gone at some length into this one item and perhaps it will satisfy the House if I leave it at that.
Will the Minister justify the price of turf?
I have done that already; at least I informed the House that the price of turf was fixed without relation to its cost. It was fixed on a basis of what it was considered people might be able to pay without interrupting or interfering with its equitable distribution. The actual cost of turf delivered in Dublin, that is turf produced by the county surveyors and transported from Donegal and the West will, I think, prove to be high. The price of the turf which has been stored in Dublin and has been subject to storage charges will be high. I doubt if the price at which Fuel Importers, Ltd. are now selling turf to merchants will prove to be adequate to avoid their incurring a loss.
God be with the days when it was to be the second greatest industry in this country.
What are the Dublin merchants getting out of the 64/- per ton?
I do not know. What it is going to work out at nobody can say. In relation to this question of turf, which is now being distributed in quantities in which it was never distributed before and through an organisation not designed for that purpose, there are a large number of unknown elements. We can estimate what their costs are likely to be, but even if we confine ourselves to the obvious costs, the cost of labour, which is by far the biggest item, the cost of rent, the storage, etc., we cannot arrive at a definite figure. But, over and above those elements, there is one factor which is completely unknown, and that is the extent to which turf loses weight in storage. If you put 100 tons of turf into a dump at the North Wall or elsewhere, you will not get 100 tons out. The Deputy knows that.
Even in wet weather.
Even in wet weather. There is the wastage of the turf, the loss of moisture content, and what weight will come out has yet to be seen. The same applies in relation to the merchants themselves. In the handling of the turf, its stacking, delivery and unstacking, there is again wastage. To what extent that will affect the cost of distribution it is impossible to say. Therefore, we had to fix a figure which had relation no doubt to our estimates, but which in relation to these estimates seems to indicate that a loss will be incurred. That is all the information I can give the Dáil at present. At a later stage, when the accountants will be able to determine what in fact the cost was in relation to the turf actually distributed, I can give the Dáil much more definite information. But, at the moment, the only information available to me is so vague and indefinite that we decided to disregard it in fixing the price of turf.
How did you get the price? Why did you strike 64/- instead of 54/-?
As I said, we had some regard to the estimates that were there and there is turf coming into Dublin at the present time which is costing more than 64/- in Dublin.
Some of it came in at 35/-.
Some came in at 35/-.
The best turf came in at that price.
So far as Fuel Importers, Limited, are concerned they, like Grain Importers, Limited, are a non-profit making company set up by the Government. The whole of their costs will be averaged out. We are not going to sell one sod of turf at one price and another sod of turf at another price. All the turf, no matter what its quality, or its origin or its prime cost, will be sold at the same price and at the end there will be an averaging out of costs and of prices. The fact I wanted to make clear was that that final accounting is not likely to reveal a profit to Fuel Importers, Limited. On the contrary, it appears fairly clear now that it will reveal a loss.
What did it cost to get the best Clonsast turf into Dublin formerly?
The cost was very heavy.
What was the cost?
The cost of transporting turf by road from Clonsast——
What was the cost of transporting it by rail to the North Wall dump?
It was very heavy. Most of the turf that came by rail came from Mayo and Galway and the far west.
I am talking about Clonsast turf.
My recollection of the figure is, I think, that the turf that came from Laoighis as a whole was by far the dearest.
Did the cost of the turf that came from Clonsast to Dublin at any time exceed £2 per ton?
Probably it cost that to bring it in.
Did it exceed that?
The stacking of the turf at the North Wall dump alone is costing 10/- a ton. Taking it out of the railway wagons and stacking it is costing that.
I will quote the figures if the Minister wants them. Would he know them?
I know that much and I know that that cost is inevitable.
Ten shillings a ton for stacking?
Of course, the men who are working on that are getting the rate of wages appropriate to workers of the Dublin docks. They are not getting the rate of wages appropriate to bog workers in Mayo or Laoighis.
Would you take these figures for Clonsast turf—production on the bog at 22/6; cartage to Portarlington at 5/- a ton; transport over rail at 7/11? Make that up.
I deny that, certainly.
You would deny it?
Certainly, and there is turf which cost in the bog less than 15/- which is costing over £3 a ton when it reaches Dublin because transport costs are very high and all the additional handlings which take place add to the cost of the turf. We can have this out more satisfactorily some other time, when I am able to produce more than provisional costings for the turf. The Deputy can be certain, so far as this turf is concerned, up to the point where it leaves Fuel Importers' hands there is no private profit in it at all. No private enterprise has had anything to do with it. It was produced by a public authority, transported at fixed rates and handled here by a non-profit-making organisation which is concerned only to recover its actual outgoings. There is no element of private profit in that price at all until it reaches the distributors' hands and the distributors are allowed a margin to cover distribution costs.
What is that margin?
It is yet impossible to say. The main element, of course, in the margin that has to be allowed to traders is the wages of the workers and I am sure the Deputy would not suggest that they should be reduced. I do not know if a general review of the turf situation or the fuel situation is called for at this stage.
It is questionable whether it would be in order on this.
In that case I am more than satisfied.
At the same time have not we a right to raise a very wide list of matters in view of the fact that we are providing a very substantial increase in the Estimate in respect of salaries?
The Deputy must know the procedure in discussing a Supplementary Estimate. There have been several debates recently on turf production with replies by the Parliamentary Secretary who is in charge of that Department. The increase in salaries extends over many activities. Surely the Deputy would not suggest that all those activities might be discussed widely on this Vote. If the Deputy considers the amount of the Vote he will see things in their proper perspective. Of the total Vote of £683,000, over £600,000 is required for subsidies on bread or on flour and meal. There is obviously not much basis for a discussion on turf.
I do not want to debate turf but I think that if I did want to do so I might be entitled.
I do not want it to be thought that I am not anxious to give the Dáil all the information I have. I would welcome an opportunity of dealing with the whole question of prices.
When does the Minister hope to have the information as to costings?
If, in previous discussions, for stated reasons, the Minister was not able to give certain information is it not possible that he might now be able to give that information?
On some other Estimate.
On an Estimate carrying a higher personnel with increased expenditure.
The Minister states he has not got the figures and statistics at hand. That will be realised by the House.
The previous occasion to which the Deputy refers is three hours ago.
At the present time the Border county of Cavan is practically without flour. I received a letter signed by 13 traders in the town of Ballyconnell who say they have no flour.
I had that letter this morning.
The same thing applies to Belturbet and Blacklion. These people have no flour in their possession.
The Deputy will have an opportunity of dealing with that on item F.
I have already arranged for increased supplies of flour to Cavan. The representations from Ballyconnell only reached me this morning.
Will it come soon?
I do not think the Minister dealt with sub-head E. Would he give us some information about this advertising and publicity?
He did.
I did, yes.
In connection with E——
Item A must first be disposed of. On F will be discussed the motion to reduce and the Vote for subsidies.
Are we going to discuss A? If we discuss A, I take it any discussion on D must be limited to telegrams and telephones.
Quite. That is the usual procedure.
So that under A, which is expenditure necessary in consequence of the expansion in the activities of the Department of Supplies, it is possible, I take it, to advert to the type of expansion and to the nature of the activities of that Department, if one does not want to raise a matter connected with telegrams, advertising, flour and wheaten meal subsidies and bread subsidies.
The main discussion on flour and bread subsidies will be taken on F and G.
Suppose the point I want to get ventilated is the question, not of the activities of the Department, but of its inactivity in respect of price control, I take it I would be quite entitled to raise that matter on sub-head A.
On previous occasions I invited the Deputy to arrange for a special discussion of price control only. It is still open to him to do so.
What is the offer of the Minister?
I say that on many occasions in the past I told the House I would welcome a discussion of price control here.
The Minister can initiate the discussion; then we will have it. We cannot get Government time for it.
The Deputy was never told that. Did anybody ever propose to discuss it?
What are you talking about at all?
I invited the House on more than one occasion to do it.
On sub-head A: from time to time we have had orders issued from the Department of Supplies to the effect that a certain maximum price has been fixed in respect of certain classes of goods. These orders are issued in a manner that leads one to think that there is some seriousness in fixing these prices but on the issue of the order, apparently, no effective steps whatever are taken by the Department to ensure that these orders are complied with. I do not know who is responsible for ensuring that the orders are complied with. I do not know whether the Department has sufficient personnel at its disposal to ensure visitations to various towns regularly and surprise checks on traders, with a view to ensuring that these orders are not flagrantly disregarded, but I can assure the Minister that these orders are being disregarded and that there is widespread and growing indignation at the manner in which traders are, apparently, allowed to get away with any price they like. I attended a meeting last week in Newbridge and very strong and bitter complaints were made to me that certain traders in that town—I do not say all traders — were charging prices higher than those fixed by the maximum prices order. As soon as complaints were made by people familiar with the circumstances in Newbridge, complaints were also made by people in other towns in Kildare that they were experiencing similar hardships.
What did the Deputy do about it?
I was coming to that. I tried to be helpful in the matter. I suggested that an effective scheme of price control needs some form of co-operation from the consumer. In saying that I was not unaware of the difficulties involved to the consumer in endeavouring to co-operate. I was promptly reminded of the fact, which I knew from my own experience to be accurate, that if a consumer reported a trader for over-charging or refusing to give a receipt for a commodity purchased, that consumer would get no more goods in that shop. Where a consumer happens to have an account at the shop and to depend on the trader for goods from Monday morning until Saturday night, he is not too anxious to incur the wrath of the shopkeeper. I do not say that that method of retaliation is practised by every shopkeeper, or that every shopkeeper indulges in the objectionable practice of exploiting consumers, notwithstanding the maximum prices orders, but I do say, definitely and deliberately—the Department's inspectors will get the evidence if they go there—that in the case of Newbridge and other towns in Kildare, prices in excess of the maximum fixed prices are being charged. They are being charged, in the main, to poor consumers. There is no effective control of prices, and although it is known that there is over-charging, no prosecution, so far as I can ascertain, has been instituted against a single trader in the whole county. It may be difficult for the Department to exercise wide supervision over that kind of illegal activity on the part of traders, but some effort should be made to utilise whatever instruments of inspection are available. I cannot understand why it is not possible to employ the services of the Gárda Síochána for the purpose of ensuring some degree of compliance with the maximum prices orders or some fear of the consequences of noncompliance.
I had occasion to advise a person to go into a Gárda barracks and ask what the maximum price of a commodity was. Not only did the Guard say that he had never seen a comprehensive list of maximum prices, but he told the visitor that his wife reported her inability to purchase paraffin from a trader to the Department of Supplies and her reward was to be refused further paraffin oil supplies by the trader. Is not that a chaotic condition of affairs when we are endeavouring to secure some scheme of price control and to take some measures to protect the public from being fleeced by people who want to get rich quickly? Having issued a maximum price order, it is the Minister's duty to endeavour to secure compliance with that order, respect for his authority and for the authority of the Government. The trader should be made aware that if he charges prices in excess of those fixed, his action will be punishable by severe penalties. Fines imposed in cases where proceedings were instituted have been perfectly farcical and have not acted as a deterrent to traders against exploiting the needs of consumers. The Minister must establish respect for his maximum price orders. He must ensure that these orders, when issued, will govern the conduct of traders and every possible instrument must be utilised to bring home to the traders the seriousness of the offence of noncompliance. Any breach of the order should be punishable by a heavy fine and no flouting of the Minister's authority should be permitted. I can assure the Minister, as other Deputies can, that notwithstanding the fixation of maximum prices, poor people particularly are still being fleeced. The people who are being fleeced most are those with weekly accounts in shops, who are not able to bring their custom elsewhere and who are afraid to report cases of over-charging because of fear of retaliation by the shopkeeper.
Is it intended that I should reply on this sub-head now?
Administration should not be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate, but where the sum involved is substantial, the Chair does not hold too strictly to precedent.
I would welcome a debate on the subject of prices control because there is a great deal of rather careless talk which convinces me that a number of Deputies have not applied their minds to the problem at all. It is not merely a question of administration. There is a question of policy involved and one must consider the objective behind it. When one deals with the enforcement of maximum prices orders it is only a question of machinery, but behind the whole matter of price control there arise questions as to the aims to be achieved by that control. I should like to give the Deputy a few illustrations to make clear what I have in mind. The aim of price control could be—most Deputies speak as if it should be—to keep down prices to the lowest possible point. Is that the aim of price control? If a manufacturer says that goods cost him——
Will the Minister allow me to say that I did not discuss the wide question of price control because I did not think that I would be allowed to do so? What I ask is that if the Minister issues an order saying that the price of candles six inches, eight inches or 12 inches, is to be a certain amount, he should secure that no higher price will be charged.
We may have as the aim of price control the keeping down of prices, the maintenance of employment, the equitable distribution of goods or some equally desirable objective, but the whole thing breaks down unless there is proper enforcement. To secure enforcement of price control orders there is a staff of inspectors. No doubt the Deputy will say that that staff should be increased. I shall not disagree with him, but there are problems about increasing the staff because the attitude of the Government as a whole is to keep down administrative expenses. That is certainly the policy of the Department of Finance, and one must convince the Department of Finance before increased staff can be secured. Even if the consent of the Department of Finance is obtained there is the problem of selecting the proper type of person. The type of person who can be entrusted with the enforcement of price control, which involves contact with shopkeepers who may have an interest in suborning officials, is not easy to get. He has to be a trained officer, preferably a member of the permanent service, so that there will be no temporary inducement to him to take advantage of his position. He has got to be trained in a definitely difficult class of work. We have got a number of inspectors. They are working very hard and have brought a very large number of cases to court. A much larger number of cases are awaiting trial by the courts as soon as the legal department can arrange for their completion, but they fall down very frequently upon the question of evidence.
Deputy Norton spoke about the inadequacy of the fines imposed upon offenders. He knows, of course, that I have nothing whatever to do with the fines imposed upon offenders. Under the Constitution of this State, the determination of the appropriate punishment for convicted offenders is a matter for the courts, and the courts are completely independent of the Executive. I have sometimes been amazed at the decisions of district justices in cases relating to price control offences. I have seen a case where a man was charged with selling milk at 1d. per pint above the fixed price. When convicted of the offence he was fined 1/- by a district justice. I have seen where district justices practically threw out cases on the point that, as everybody was making a bit, why should not those before them make a bit, too?
District justices acting in that way should be interned.
Whatever the explanation—there may have been details and facts that I am not aware of—a number of decisions by district justices have been rather astonishing, and certainly appear to indicate to me that the district justices attach much less importance to this matter of price control than the Government. The function of the Department of Supplies is to detect the offender, to bring the offender before the district justice, whose job it is to decide what the punishment will be; but in order to get a conviction in the courts, it is necessary to have evidence, and the obtaining of that evidence is often a most difficult thing. In most cases the offences are committed without anybody being present as a witness. There is the individual who makes a purchase at an excessive price, and the trader. It is only the individual who is the victim of the overcharge who is, in fact, in a position to give evidence, and in a great number of cases that individual will not give evidence. Therefore, there are many cases where it is known to the officers of the Department of Supplies that an offence against a price order is taking place, and nothing can be done about it because of our inability to get legal evidence which will stand the test of examination in the courts, leading to a conviction in the courts. These are problems which face those responsible for price control in every country. In some countries they get over the difficulty by shooting people on suspicion, and sometimes even without trial. If we did that here, no doubt we would get a much greater degree of compliance with our price control orders than we are getting, but I think that would be a dangerous departure from present practice.
Hear, hear!
Says the shopkeeper.
But in other countries, wherever they operate the same system that we have—that is, trial by independent courts and a conviction upon evidence produced in the courts—this difficulty in the matter of price control that we are experiencing arises also. I do not think it is correct to say that there is widespread evasion of the orders. It is true that every case of overcharging gets a great deal of publicity, and that individuals talk a lot about these things. On the whole, the majority of traders are obeying the law, at least, obeying the law 99 times out of 100, and these price control orders are, in a very great measure, effective. I know that in many cases the overcharging complained of was part of an illegal transaction in which the customer was concerned. The customer went to a trader and said: "Give me a quarter pound of tea above that to which I am entitled on my ration." The trader says: "Yes, but you will have to pay me for it at the rate of 8/- or 10/- a pound." The customer pays, and gets an illegal quantity of tea, and then proceeds to talk about the enormity of the offence committed by the trader in charging him that price for the tea. There would, in fact, be little difficulty in enforcing all orders now made to control the distribution of commodities, or to fix the price of commodities, if there were not many people who, for selfish reasons, are prepared to condone offences committed by traders so long as they get something out of it. That attitude towards the administration of control orders is widespread. I think it exists amongst every class of community. The individual who goes into a golf club, a public house, or any other place where people foregather, and boasts to his friends of the fact that he has succeeded in getting more tea, or more sugar, or more petrol than he is entitled to, is not regarded as a sort of mean criminal who is depriving other people of their rightful share of the commodities available; but, instead, he is regarded as a smart fellow, and people clap him on the back, expressing the hope that the same opportunity will come to themselves some time. It is that wrong spirit which exists over a large part of the community which is making it so difficult to implement these price control orders. If, when men stood up in golf clubs or in public houses or elsewhere, and boasted of the fact that they were able to get more tea than they were entitled to on their ration, that they were able to get more flour or more sugar, or a few extra gallons of petrol, they were immediately denounced by those present as criminals of a mean type who should properly be in jail, then people would not be so keen to do those things, or to incur the disapproval of their fellows.
I want to urge on public representatives, on newspapers and on everybody who is in a position to influence public opinion, that they should try to promote in the minds of our people that approach to this problem of enforcing these control orders. They are made to protect the public. If somebody gets more sugar than he is entitled to, then in some part of the country some other person is going to get less sugar than he is entitled to; if somebody gets more flour or more tea than he is entitled to, then somewhere else some other person is going to suffer. The man who takes advantage of his wealth or of his personal friendship with traders, or of his contact with sources of supply in order to take out of the very limited pool more than he is legally entitled to, is properly to be regarded as a public enemy. I would ask that everybody would try to promote that idea. If they do, then we will have less difficulty in enforcing these orders and people will be more willing to come forward and appear in court and give evidence to assist the Department in bringing known offenders to book.
I agree with Deputy Norton that it is a deplorable thing if any of the orders made by me or by the Government to control supplies or fix prices are being disobeyed and are known to be disobeyed, because it brings the whole administration of the Government and the whole democratic machine into contempt. Therefore, we must try by every possible means to see that there is no evasion of any kind of any of these orders. We know that sometimes there is evasion because we hear of cases. There is, in fact, definite knowledge, even in many cases where there cannot be legal proof, and it is bad that it should be so. I can only assure the Deputy that, so far as it is possible to secure the enforcement of these orders by means of inspectors and by means of administrative action through the Department of Supplies, that action will be taken.
I think it is correct to say that the position now is that a person is entitled to ask for a receipt.
Yes.
That is not generally known and perhaps the Minister would cause further publicity to be given to that aspect of the matter.
Certainly.
On sub-head E—Advertising and Publicity—I have come across a number of cases of complaint arising out of the refusal of the Department of Supplies to issue a permit for the allocation of some commodities where the refusal, apparently, was based on the unwillingness—it may be on the unwillingness—of the applicant to comply with some regulation issued by the Department. I know these regulations are published in the daily papers, and, to a limited extent, up to recently, in the provincial papers, but I think it desirable that, in existing circumstances, all advertisements for which the Minister for Supplies is responsible should be inserted in all papers with any kind of a decent circulation, and especially the provincial papers.
I had a complaint some time ago from a newspaper owner in my constituency that, notwithstanding the fact that they could prove that they had a circulation of 17,000 a week, another newspaper, with an alleged circulation of 10,000 a week, had got the advertisement in that area. Any paper which can prove a circulation of 10,000 or 17,000 per week should, in existing circumstances, get these advertisements, so that people living in the rural areas and who do not read the daily papers will be able to have access to the contents of orders issued by the Minister. If that were done, there would be no good ground for some of the complaints I have received. If these advertisements are to be paid for at the public expense, and if citizens are to have access to the information contained in Government orders, I think every newspaper owner in the country has a right to expect that he should get some share of public money spent in this way.
I am not raising this matter in the interests of any newspaper owner. If all the newspapers were given the advertisements issued by the Department of Supplies, there would be fewer refusals issued by the Department to either traders or consumers who have not complied with the requirements of the Department, and who give as their reason, rightly or wrongly, the plea that they had no knowledge of the requirements of the Minister in relation to the many orders issued. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard and to hear from him the method adopted by the Department, or by the Department of Finance, if that is the Department concerned, in making selections for the issue of these advertisements, particularly in provincial newspapers.
The truth of the matter is that the Minister gets the list of newspapers in which he puts advertisements from the Stationery Office. The explanation of the strange discrepancy by which you find some insignificant rural rags included in the list, while substantial provincial newspapers are excluded, is that every Fianna Fáil T.D. has the Stationery Office warm to get any rag that will support them in their own policy put on the list, and they have succeeded in getting a good many.
Does the Deputy suggest that that description applies to all the papers on the list?
No. It applies to some of the ridiculous rags which have survived by licking the feet of the local Fianna Fáil T.D. in exchange for getting themselves put on the advertising list of the Stationery Office, where they should never have been put. That is the explanation of the whole thing. The remainder of the list is an old list which has been there for the last 20 or 30 years and which is seldom changed, but, of course, everybody in Government circles knows the goings-on between the Fianna Fáil T.D.s and these half-bankrupt little rags which depend for their survival on these indirect Government subsidies, which I think the Government are very glad to pay.
Would the Deputy name a few?
I hope to get a list of them one of these days, and I will give it then. I agree with Deputy Davin that the right way is for the Stationery Office to fix some minimum weekly circulation at which the Government will give Government advertisements, and then let any newspaper which is in a position to produce an auditor's certificate that it has that average weekly circulation automatically go on the list. That is peculiarly necessary at present when, as Deputy Davin says, men depend for their livelihood very often on knowing precisely the terms of some Government advertisements or other which have been given publicity. It is perfectly simple. If a newspaper wants Government advertisements, it ought to be able to satisfy the Government as to what its weekly circulation is, and if it is able to satisfy the Minister that it has a circulation sufficiently large to justify insertion of Government advertisements in its columns, it ought to get Government advertisements as of right, without having to go round and court the particular Fianna Fáil T.D. who sits for the constituency in which the paper is published. That is the plain, unvarnished truth of the matter. There will be loud howls of protest from the Government that such a thing never crossed their mind, but it is the truth, and I happen to know it.
I should like to give the House an illustration of Deputy Dillon's unvarnished truth. He said that this list of papers was prepared by the Stationery Office. It is not; it is prepared by me. As far as the Department of Supplies is concerned, I list what papers the Departmental advertisements will appear in. The papers were chosen by me on the basis of circulation, and in each case where there were two papers concerned, the advertisements are given to that which has predominantly the larger circulation. If there was any sort of close relationship between the circulations of the two papers, if they were near one another, both got the advertisement, but the aim was to ensure that in every part of the country the papers with the widest circulations would carry these advertisements. There are in this country hundreds of papers with very small circulations—sometimes less than 1,000 per week—and as all these papers adopt the uniform practice of charging double rates for Government advertisements, it would be obviously a misuse of the taxpayers' money to give them these display advertisements for which they charge these high rates and which would more than double the advertising bill of the Department.
I do not know of a single case of a Fianna Fáil Deputy making representations to me on behalf of a newspaper. I know of cases of Fine Gael Deputies making representations to me on behalf of newspapers—and of Labour Deputies. One of them even raised the question of a newspaper in the Dáil, and he was right. A particular Labour Deputy referred to a newspaper which had a wide circulation in a part of the country covered by no other paper to which we were giving the advertisements. When I examined the matter, I found that there was a deficiency in the list of papers and the deficiency was made good. I have had a number of representations from Fine Gael Deputies about papers in their constituencies. Deputy Dillon will say that that was because the Fine Gael papers were left out, but it was not.
The Minister is a very astute man.
The only case I can remember of a Fianna Fáil Deputy making representations to me related to a newspaper which was very definitely in opposition to the Government.
You will all sprout wings over there in a moment.
No, halos; we will lend Deputies opposite a few, if they want them. Departmental advertisements are published in 34 local newspapers and they may be all scurrilous rags—the People's Press, in Donegal, the Sligo Champion, and a number of other pillars of the Fine Gael Party. I do not know that the proprietors or editors of these papers would welcome Deputy Dillon's description of them. They are certainly not very friendly to the Department of Supplies, or to the Government as a whole. In fact, even Deputy Dillon could scarcely rise to the levels of abuse sometimes achieved by the People's Press. If the Deputy reads the People's Press, he will get a number of new ideas for his speeches in the Dáil, but they still carry the Department's advertisements. I assure the House that the only consideration taken into account in selecting these papers was their circulation. It may be that some papers claimed circulations which we doubted existed. Not all these local papers have their circulations certified, but in the case of the newspapers which have their returns certified, the advertisements are given to those in every case with the largest circulations in their counties. With regard to Laoighis, I do not know if there is any newspaper published in that county, but there are papers which circulate in Laoighis.
The Carlow Nationalist and the Leinster Leader circulate there. I am not concerned about a particular paper. Could the Minister say if any provincial paper with a circulation of 5,000 or over would be entitled to consideration, or is there a minimum figure?
There is no minimum figure. If there were two papers, one having a circulation of 25,000 and the other a circulation of 5,000, that would be taken into consideration.
The Minister may not be aware that in the country a particular family, no matter what particular creed they were associated with, is in the habit of buying the same paper for generations.
That is true. Of course there is a case to be made for giving advertising to every paper, but we have to have regard to the cost, which is also very high. I mentioned already that all the local papers charge us double the ordinary rates for advertising. The circulation of some of these papers is very small. They live on local advertisements and have no circulation outside their limited districts, which are covered by other newspapers with wide circulations.
There is an old Stationery Office list.
I have no idea about that. I could not answer the Deputy. So far as the Department of Supplies is concerned, I got a list of all the newspapers in the country and picked these out myself.
Has the Minister the Wexford papers?
There are four papers receiving advertisements.
Would the Minister consider the advisability of giving advertisements in existing circumstances to all newspapers with a certain circulation, or with a fixed minimum circulation?
I will consider that.
What was the reason for withdrawing the restrictions on the quotas for woollen and worsted goods?
That does not arise now. It has nothing to do with this Estimate.
That was done by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
It does not arise on this Estimate.
It is very important from my point of view. I do not know how I can raise the matter except under one of the sub-heads. Surely some portion of the amount required for salaries, wages and allowances would allow me to do so?
The Deputy cannot make the sub-head as wide as that. In a Supplementary Estimate Deputies can deal only with the matters before them.
On sub-head F I move that the Estimate be reduced by £10, because the Minister informed us to-day that he proposes to hand over to the flour millers, for the purpose of subsidising flour, the sum of £1,900,000 per annum. The total turnover of the flour-milling industry in this country is in the order of from £7,000,000 to £7,500,000, so that the subsidy amounts to nearly one-third of the total turnover. I am going to suggest to the House that the facts which I shall lay before it, will coerce Deputies to the view that we have reached the stage in this matter of flour manufacture, when the only proper method of maintaining manufacture, and protecting the consumers' interests is to establish a body, analogous to the Electricity Supply Board, to take over the entire flour-milling industry; to run it for the benefit of the people and not for the very restricted group of industrialists who have used it for the purpose of robbing and exploiting our people for the last ten years.
That is Socialism.
It is not Socialism any more than the Electricity Supply Board is Socialism. It is the second best method of maintaining flour milling in this country, and it is an acknowledgment of the fact that a monopoly has been forced down the necks of our people with the co-operation of their own Government. I think that state of affairs ought to cease, and the subsidy be used for the benefit of the people, and not a small group who established a monopoly for the benefit of their own pockets.
The Deputy cannot move for legislation on this Estimate.
I am not asking for legislation. This is a scheme to supply £2,000,000 of a subsidy for flour, and I say that that subsidy should be used by the Government directly rather than be handed over to the millers. I want to put it to the House that to give the £1,900,000 a year, which the Minister told us would ensure that the millers would secure 6 per cent. on their capital, and be able to pay shipping and other charges, is outrageous in the light of existing facts. The millers are now going to be guaranteed 6 per cent. on their issued capital. I want to tell the House what the issued capital of one of these mills is. There is a flour mill in this city which went into the courts about 1929, and having laid open the facts about its assets and circumstances, was ordered to reduce its capital by £3,000 to the figure of £17,000. The decision of the courts was that the fixed assets of the company were worth approximately £17,000 and to that order that company readily submitted. That company then sold itself to a new company and the new company emerged with a capital of £150,000. In the interval between the writing down of the capital to £17,000, and the floating of the new company which took over the fixed assets for £150,000, there was doubtless some machinery added to the equipment.
There was a flour mill.
Let me tell my story and the Minister can then give his version. He has been the champion of these rogues for the last ten years. He ought to be as loyal to them now as he has been in the past. The sum of £20,000 was the sum for which the mill was capitalised, and that was written down to £17,000 three years previously. Mark well what is going to happen. The shareholders of the old concern received three new shares in the new company for every one they held in the old company. This company is going to be invited to appropriate so much of that subsidy as will give them 6 per cent. on their new issued capital of £150,000.
That is the reverse of what I said. I made no reference to issued capital. On the contrary, if the Deputy knew anything about the subject he would know that in the case of the flour-milling industry there is a considerable difference between the issued capital and the capital invested in the business. It is on the capital invested in the business as ascertained that the calculation is made.
It is going to have a statutory right to collect profits of £9,000 a year which represent approximately 55 per cent. of the original capital of the company. They are to be allowed to do that after they have employed high-power accountants to build up their depreciation, their overhead costs, and all the other charges that skilled accountants can incorporate in a profit and loss account in order to make the profits look less than they are. We are asked to provide public money to maintain the price of the sixpenny loaf in order to secure that this transaction will continue unhindered. Never will it so long as I am in this House. A film version of the play Major Barbara was shown recently in this city and one of the characters, “Undershaft,” was made to say “Democracy believes that the representatives of the people govern the country”.
Who are they? It is the bosses with the money that govern the country. That is true of Ireland now, but so long as there are a few of us who can gather 8,000 votes, 8,000 bits of paper, they will not govern it in peace, because so long as they attempt to wrap their tentacles around the bodies of our people there will be a few individuals left in this country to expose them and to reveal the measure of their iniquity and of their unscrupulousness and to remind them day after day—no matter how little publicity these revelations may get—of the iniquities and cruel injustices they are doing to the people on whom they are living.
That disposes of one company—one company which had the impertinence, on the occasion of this £150,000 flotation, to announce on the face of the offer for sale, that the secretary of the company had hoped to get £1,400 a year but that it had been decided in the offer for sale that he—the secretary of the company, not the general manager—who was secretary and a director, would have £1,200 a year as a condition of the flotation—and, so far as I am aware up to this day, he enjoys it. I know men who are under-secretaries of State here and they never got that salary. But the poor fools who subscribed to the capital of the company, and the unfortunate consumers of flour here and the legislators of Dáil Eireann, are going to contribute now to a system under which the secretary of that company is guaranteed £1,200 a year, whatever the future of the country may be. That is one company in respect of which there is a guarantee of 6 per cent. Let us see the next.
I remember the time when the people used to be told—"that a Young Lochinvar is come out of the west"— that Seán Lemass, the new Minister for Industry and Commerce, was to render Irish Industry independent of all external control, and the first firm down on his list for destruction was Joseph Rank of Liverpool. What is the position to-day? Who owns the flour-milling industry of this country? Who wrote the terms of that subsidy proposal? Joseph Rank of Liverpool— the firm which was going to be chased out of this country. Within three years of Fianna Fáil coming into office. It has acquired Goodbodys, Russells, Bannatynes, and 50 per cent. of the holding in the Cork Milling Company.
Since we came?
I am going to tell the whole story: do not be a bit anxious. Russells, Goodbodys and Bannatynes were combined, and the combined share capital represented £350,000— that was Rank's unit in the City of Limerick. Shortly after this Government came into existence, Joseph Rank of Liverpool proceeded to sell that baby—with the co-operation of the Industrial Credit Corporation, I believe—to the Irish people. The combined capital of the three firms in the amalgamation was £350,000. What was the flotation to the Irish people? £700,000 was the nominal capital, the issued capital was £350,000 in 6 per cent. cumulative preference shares, to be purchased by the Irish people at 25/- a share and £350,000 in 5/- ordinary shares. Eighty-eight per cent.— or over 85 per cent., perhaps I had better say—Joseph Rank of Liverpool retained in his possession, and the balance was sold to the Irish people at 15/- a share with an encouraging announcement in the prospectus that they might buy them safely, as he looked forward to having 39 per cent. available for distribution on the ordinary shares after the preference dividends had been paid and all ordinary charges had been discharged.
On the property, which was worth £350,000 before he floated it and now has a share capital of £700,000, of which 85 per cent. of the ordinary part of it is retained by Joseph Rank of Liverpool, we are now providing subsidies and benedictions in order to enable him to extend that strangle-hold on the milling industry. Not only has Joseph Rank of Liverpool acquired complete and dominating control and virtual ownership, by his 85 per cent. holding in Joseph Rank Ltd. of Limerick, of all the Limerick mills, but he has also 50 per cent., or thereabouts, interest in the Cork Milling Company, so from the Shannon to the Lee the milling industry is virtually in the hollow of the hand of Joseph Rank.
And that is not all. If you follow the milling industry up to the palatial headquarters in Nassau Street, you will find the Irish Flour Millers' Federation with interlocking committees, and in the key position on each of these committees you will find some of the ablest men in this island. They have been brought over from England by Joseph Rank and are being paid the salaries they earn and are worth them as watch dogs for Joseph Rank at every strategic position in the flour-milling organisation of this country.
I desire, once and for all, to counter what appears to me to be the hypocritical fraud of the Minister when he pretends to wax indignant about anyone referring to public-spirited gentlemen who come forward to assist him in forming independent bodies like Grain Importers, Limited and Irish Shipping, Limited. The fact is that these gentlemen, many of whom are highly honourable men, formed these companies because the Minister induced them to form them—not, as they think, so that they may help him to do the work he has to do but, in fact, and perhaps unknown to them, in order to deliver the Minister from the necessity to answer for that part of his work here in Dáil Eireann. If he can get a group of men to form Irish Shipping, Limited, he is delivered from the necessity to answer to this House for the disposition of the moneys which this House provides for that company: if he can establish Grain Importers, Limited, as an independent company, then he can simply disown all further responsibility for what that particular body requires to do.
I do not accept that view and I will suggest to this House that we ought to concern ourselves very intimately with every fact of the flour-milling industry and, having done so, to make up our minds that the time has passed when people should be asked to provide £2,000,000 a year as subsidy to that institution; and if its survival can only be purchased by public money, the time has come for this House to operate that company as they did the industry now controlled by the Electricity Supply Board. That should be done, and done without further delay. The Minister says to-day that the necessity for this subsidy arises from these two items—one, to preserve the millers' profits of 6 per cent., and, two, to enable the millers to pay the increased cost of importing foreign wheat. Later, he told Deputy Belton that some of the foreign wheat was costing 15/- and that some of it could be got for nothing, that the great bulk of its cost was the freight charge for carrying it to this island.
I think the Minister will agree with me that we look forward in future to carrying the bulk of the wheat that comes to this country direct in Irish bottoms recently purchased by Irish Shipping, Limited. I strongly object to the taxpayers and bread consumers being required to provide a subsidy to permit of a price being paid for wheat used in our bread sufficient to amortise in four trips the entire purchase price of the hopeless hulks that have been bought by Irish Shipping, Limited, in different parts of the world. Now, I know nothing of the qualifications of those concerned; I know nothing personally of any of the gentlemen associated with Irish Shipping, Limited; I am not concerned to suggest that they are in any sense mala fide—I am sure they are not. But that does not mean that because they are respectable men and because they have joined the board of this company, that every man must shut his mouth and never utter a word of criticism of what they do on the Minister's behalf, or of what the Minister makes them do, whether they think it wise or unwise. I am sure some of the men in Irish Shipping, Limited, are men of the highest character and integrity, but, whoever they are, I say that the ships they have purchased are not value for the money, that they have been improvidently acquired.
I suggest that this appears to be entirely divorced from the Estimate.
I say that the cost of the ships is reflected in the price of the wheat.
I was about to suggest the Deputy was wandering from the Estimate and going into the cost of shipping. Freight charges on flour is one thing; the capital cost of shipping is another matter.
I suggest that the freight charges at present being levied on Irish wheat are designed to amortise the purchase price of the ships, and the reason the sum of £2,000,000 is being produced as a flour subsidy is clearly for the purpose of paying off, through bread, for the rotten bargains made in respect to the ships that we hope to use for the transport of wheat.
Comment on the ships is out of order on this Estimate. Freight charges may be referred to.
What are the freight charges? The Minister stated that wheat abroad was worth 15/- a barrel, and in the next breath he said that the wheat delivered here was going to cost us 84/-. What are the freight charges on that?
£3 a ton.
Are we to take the Minister's figures as genuine? If we are, I suggest the freight charges are in the order of 65/- per ton. I submit that the Minister is trying to withhold from us the information we ought to have. My submission is that if the Minister's estimates for freight on this wheat are correct, the freight charge is out of all proportion to what should be charged. I want to know why are the bread consumers to be mulcted in prices and freight charges of this kind by a shipping company over which this House is supposed to have control? That requires explanation. My submission is that the reason for that is that the ships are unfit to put to sea and are very much more expensive than the purchase price would suggest, and it is the cost in which these ships are going to involve the State that is responsible for the freight the wheat is going to bear and for which this subsidy is provided, in part, to pay. Those are the facts relating to this situation and I am putting it to the House that, with those facts in our possession, we ought not to allow this thing to go forward.
One of the ships never carried a ton of Irish wheat; it is not able to move out of port.
I am told that is the case, not merely of one of the ships——
I suggest the ships are outside the scope of this Estimate altogether.
I submit the freight rates paid in respect of the ships come within the Estimate.
But they are not fixed by me.
They are not, and the suggestion is that because they are not fixed by you the House must suspend judgment in regard to them.
Deputy Dillon is not entitled to a fool's pardon. He knows quite well what I mean. I am prepared to answer to this House for any action for which I am responsible. I have said the freight rates are not fixed by me.
My submission is that we are entitled to discuss the money that is to be raised to pay the freight rates. The Minister has justified his demand for this money by quoting the freight rates. Are Deputies not entitled to ask: "Why do you want money from the public purse and the flour consumers to pay such freight rates?" Is the Minister entitled to reply: "We will not discuss that; I am not responsible for the freight rates"? If he is not responsible, who is? Does he claim that these freight rates are not to be discussed here, when the House is being asked to pay for them? I say they require not only to be discussed, but closely investigated. I want the whole question of the freight burden on wheat to be examined closely and in detail by the House.
Are not freight rates arranged in a market over which the Minister has no control?
On the contrary, they are not arranged in any market. The Minister is dealing directly with Irish Shipping, Limited.
He is fixing them himself.
He denies that, and the rules of the House require Deputy Davin and myself to accept his denial at its face value.
I do not expect Deputy Dillon to accept anything. I would not put myself under any obligation to the Deputy in a matter of that kind.
I do not think these complimentary exchanges are any advantage to the Minister or myself. We are bound by the rules of procedure, however difficult we may find the situation.
The Deputy suggested I lied.
That is the Minister's interpretation of my words. It would be most disorderly if I were to make that statement. Somebody arranged the freight rates. I want to know who, and why, before we pay. Whatever mystery there may be about the freight rates, there is no mystery about the profits that the flour mills have been making out of our people for the last ten years, and there is no mystery about the fact that the flour millers are to get 6 per cent. on the inflated capital which several of these mills have planned off on the Irish people, and a substantial portion of the subsidy is designed in order to ensure that that will be paid.
The subsidy now amounts to approximately one-quarter of the milling industry's entire turnover in this country. In that situation I say the time has come to do as they have done in Great Britain, and that is to take over the whole milling industry, at least for the period of the emergency, and operate it for the benefit of the Irish people. There was no subsidy paid in Great Britain until the British Government had control of the milling industry for the benefit of the English people.
They have no more control over them than here.
Indeed they have. The position here is that the Minister does not seem to know who owns a mill. He does not know where Spillers are milling—Ranks he cannot disguise. Many Deputies may not know that Spillers have a mill in this country. I invite Deputies to apply their minds to the solution of the conundrum: Where is Spillers in Eire? It will be as good as a crossword puzzle to them over the week-end.
Is it a secret?
Imagine Deputy Dillon keeping a secret!
It is not a secret. It is necessary from time to time for Spillers to turn out flour with a round tower and a greyhound, a green flag and the shamrock—they appear in the guise of Cathleen Ní Houlihan. The flour comes out of a very Gaelic mill— Spillers, in this country—all Gaels and all devoted servants of the Irish Republic. I think the time has come to dispose of Spillers, the Gaels and Rank at one blow, and substitute the plain, dull, unvarnished Irish people. They are the people who have to eat the bread and pay the piper. They should get from now on whatever profits are going.
The way I would like to see the profits distributed is on the same principle as that adopted by the Electricity Supply Board. Those who use the bread should get the advantage of whatever profit may be made. The unfortunate bread consumers in this country have been paying subsidies to the millionaires long enough. It is time now that the millionaires would give some of that back to the consumers. When the time for taking those places over comes—and I think now is the time—it should be done on terms of justice and equity.
I thought you were going to confiscate them?
No, buy them over.
At what rate—would you say 6 per cent?
I will tell you, and this is mighty important. Remember that something happened in this country between the day when the Dock Milling Company was worth £17,000 and the day we woke up to discover it had increased in value to £150,000. Something happened between the time when Joseph Rank's was worth £350,000 and the day it suddenly blossomed out into being worth nearly £1,000,000. Something had been added, something about a little tariff on flour, a prohibition upon imports of flour. Before we proceed to value the assets of these millers let that tariff come off, and let us value these mills, not unjustly, not in a spirit of revenge, but let them get the full value of their tangible assets in this country.
Is the Deputy advocating legislation in that connection?
No, I do not think any legislation is necessary.
What about an Emergency Powers Order?
No, I do not want any Emergency Power or Order. I would much prefer if it could be done by arrangement. I would much prefer if we had a proposal by arrangement to pay even £2,000,000 to buy them out, if that was the amount of their tangible assets here, but not to buy back from the millers the tariff and the monopoly that the Fianna Fáil Government gave them. Eighty per cent. of the millers' wealth to-day is the monopoly that that Government gave them for nothing. Eighty per cent. of the millers' wealth to-day is the licence that they have from the Irish Government to plunder the Irish people. I would never buy that back from them and I would never wish to see Dáil Eireann buy it back from them. I would wish to see Dáil Eireann go out and take that back from them, and then I would pay them for their tangible assets in this country and would pay them a fair price for them. I would pay them no mean, stingy or revengeful price, but the price that a fair arbitrator would fix between us and them as the value of the tangible assets which belong to them here, and I think that that should be done now.
Is there a Deputy in this House, except the Minister, who is their spokesman and champion in this House for the last ten years, who will get up and maintain that this plundering monopoly should be further buttressed up with £2,000,000 of public money? Is there a Deputy from rural Ireland in this House who will get up and champion the millers here before this House, or are they all so cowardly that they sit in silence here and growl their discontent in dark corners of their own constituencies?
With a red man and a black man on each bag going through the country.
Does Deputy Victory believe that?
No, he does not believe that. He is too honest for that.
Does Deputy Victory believe in giving the millers of this country £2,000,000 a year in order to maintain their present monopoly?
I believe in feeding the people of this country.
I do not believe in giving them that, and I believe that this House should put an end to it now. The Minister said to-day that foreign wheat, he anticipated, would cost 120/- a quarter—that would be 70/- a barrel —in the coming year. Surely, wheat imported direct from America to this country is not going to cost 120/- a quarter c.i.f. Dublin? I have heard that quoted in connection with wheat transhipped from Lisbon to Dublin, but unless we are mad, we are not going to allow that in connection with wheat imported direct from American ports to Dublin. If the Minister has consented to any such charge, then there is a matter requiring the most careful investigation. Obviously, freight rates of that character are not designed to pay any reasonable insurance rates or expenses. What is designed to be done with the immense fund which these freight rates will create in Irish Shipping Limited? It must ultimately be used for some purpose, and this House has a right to know what that purpose is going to be.
Now, some people in this House may imagine that the Irish flour millers have reformed, that they have changed their habits. I want to direct the attention of this House to one of the slickest and meanest tricks that the Irish Four Milling Association has only just recently perpetrated. They have induced the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Supplies to come in here and tell us that the price of flour is being kept down to 52/6 a sack. The Minister may not know this, but that statement is not true, and the person who furnished the Minister with that information misled him. The price of flour is not being kept down to 52/6. It is being increased by 1/3 per sack, which money is going into the flour millers' pockets, and which amounts in 12 months to £150,000 which the Irish flour millers are collecting from the consumers of this country. Prior to the Sack Order, made by the Minister for Supplies about a month ago, every cwt. of flour came through the merchant to the consumer in a bag. That bag was worth 6d. to the man who emptied it, whether he was a shopkeeper or a householder. A month ago, the millers blandly announced that there were no more bags, that the householder would have to pay 5/- on his bag, and that he would only get the 5/- back for his bag when he returned it to the flour merchant in a perfect condition. But if a mouse ate a hole in it, if a nail tore it, or if the wheel of the cart dirtied it, he would get nothing; so that instead of getting a bag, worth at least 6d., thrown in with his flour, he now finds that he has to deposit 5/- over and above the price of his flour and does not get it back until he returns the bag in good condition. That humble bag represents £150,000 per annum on the price of flour consumed in this country, and the Minister says that it is not worth talking about, that it is irrelevant and that he is not interested. I do not expect him to be interested because he does not understand, but he should not let these people pull the wool over his eyes in that way, and the millers need never hope, so long as there are Deputies from rural Ireland in this House, that they will be allowed to pull that kind of fraud on Dáil Eireann. They may have the satisfaction of getting away with their ill-gotten £150,000, but at least they will be exposed with the swag as they get off with it. The Minister should be ashamed to let them put that over on him and to attempt to let them put it over on our people.
The sum of £1,900,000 per annum is going to be handed over to these gentlemen. Is it conceivably possible that Dáil Eireann will stand for that? £1,900,000, 25 per cent. of their total turnover, is going to be given them as a present from the taxpayers and bread consumers of this country. Is it conceivable that this House has sunk so low, has become so supine and slavish, that it will allow an organisation dominated by the English flour-miller dictator, Joseph Rank, Limited, to get away with that? I find it hard to believe. I cannot believe that this Parliament will allow an industrialist to come in here and play the part of Undershaft, to run Ireland because he has got money. I still believe that there is no man rich enough to buy this country. I still believe that so long as our people have the right to use votes on polling day there is no fortune great enough to dominate Parliament in this country. That is the attempt that is being made here now, and it is for Parliament to determine whether it or Joseph Rank Ltd. is the biggest power in this country. I say the time has come to demonstrate to that combine that this Parliament is the biggest power in this country, and will brook no rival, however rich or however influential. The only way to establish that fact now is to tell them that this was done once too often, and that, in future, the flour milling industry of this country is going to be run in the interests of no Undershaft but in the interests of the Irish people and the Irish people alone. If you do not take the chance of doing that now, I warn you that the whole position will be so rigged that it will be a brave man or a brave Parliament that will undertake to do it later on. It is now being made as difficult as it is possible to make it for any power in this country to challenge the vested interests of Joseph Rank, Ltd. I say deliberately that at this hour an attempt is being made to complete the ascendancy of the Rank interests in the flour milling industry of this country. Consciously or unconsciously, I believe that the Minister for Supplies and Industry and Commerce is helping in that enterprise. I am telling this House, as I have often warned them of impending evils before, that if they do not grasp this nettle now they may find it a most formidable task to deal adequately with it in two or three years' time.
Remember, a man who is not a citizen of your State, and who controls your bread supply, is a dangerous antagonist. Remember that he will never face you openly and above board. His pressure is subterranean and devious, but it gets stronger and stronger as his monopoly becomes more firmly entrenched. Remember this, that, acting together, there is no power equal to us, but money has corrupted and corroded the public life of many countries in this world, and Irish money is no different from any other money. The love of it is the root of all evil, and there was never a great vested interest which did not know that and exploited that knowledge to the full. Now is the time to meet money with votes, and demonstrate that, Bernard Shaw and Undershaft notwithstanding, no matter how powerful money is, little bits of paper—so long as free men have the right to make their marks upon them— are more powerful still, and that there are men in this country, fortified by such little bits of paper, who are a match and more than a match for the richest adventurer in this world, whencever he may come. That is the part of this business that I feel most about, but there are two other details to which I wish to refer. I take it that, for everyone's convenience, it is better that we should dispose of F and G together? The Minister himself dealt with them that way.
It would be feasible. The Minister would then conclude on both subsidies, a decision would be given on the motion in the Deputy's name and then on the main Estimate.
If that meets with the Chair's approval, I think we should take the two together. I think the Minister said that he made exhaustive inquiries into the allegations regarding shortage of flour in certain areas, and that he was aware that difficulties had arisen along the Border. So far, I do not think the Minister's efforts to correct the shortages along the Border have been very successful. Complaints have reached me, and I have sent them on to his Department. I am bound to say—I am glad to say it in public and I am glad to say it in the presence of the people of Monaghan—that so far as the Minister's Department could facilitate me in correcting the shortage of flour in Monaghan they showed themselves ready and willing and anxious to do whatever they could. But, in doing whatever they could, it did not seem to me that the flour was finding its way into the houses where the flour shortage was, and I will tell you the reason. The kernel of the flour shortage problem along the Border was that the individual farmer was smuggling flour. There were individual farmer householders along the Border who were themselves going across the Border, dealing with flour merchants in Northern Ireland, and bringing back the individual bag of flour. That broke their contract with the flour purveyors in the area where they live. You might send out more flour to those purveyors, but, when those individual farmers who had been smuggling for themselves went in to get a bag of flour, the shopkeeper said: "I have not seen you in the last two years," and the man found he had no claim upon the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper kept the flour for his own regular customers. They were very glad to get it, but the very individuals for whom special provision was made were very little better off than they have been heretofore.
I do not want to under-estimate the difficulty of the Minister in grappling with this particular problem. The suggestion I put to him was that he should provide, in the electoral areas adjoining the Border, that persons with tea and sugar cards would be entitled to go and demand as of right from the merchants with whom they were registered five pounds of flour per week in respect of each person registered on their tea card, and that the merchant would have the right to bespeak from a miller indicated by the Minister a corresponding quantity of flour to meet those special customers over and above that which he was at present getting. I think that would get over the difficulty, for the time being, in any case, until some permanent plan has been devised for the equitable distribution of flour all over the country. There is no use in saying to an unfortunate woman with eight or nine children that there is flour going into the area, because she simply says: "Wherever it is going, I cannot get it," and she has no means of demanding it as of right. If the Minister would say to her: "Register with somebody in the electoral area of Tydavnet"— because that is one of the bad areas—"and go to that man every Saturday and get 5 lbs. of flour for every person on your tea card," that person's record as a retail distributor of tea could be turned up, and he could be sent down, from a mill of the Minister's choosing, 5 lbs. of flour for each person on the tea cards which he sent in. That is one way of dealing with it. I do not say it is the best way, but at least it will cure the evil which exists in that area. If the Minister knows a better way of curing it, I am not particularly wedded to my plan.
In regard to other areas, it is a complete illusion to imagine that there is no acute shortage of flour in certain areas in other parts of the country. I sent a memorandum to the Minister on the question. What has happened is this: In certain country areas you had what is called the travelling shop. Now, the travelling shop, when it was a motor lorry, went as far as 30 miles from the town in which its headquarters were located. There was a variety of travelling shops in rural Ireland which would start out from the town in which their headquarters were located, drop bags of flour to customers along the road, and try to end up the trip at a flour mill. Having sold the outgoing load of flour, they would take on a load at the flour mill and try to sell that load on their way home. A great many people objected to that trade, and said it was ruining the towns. I do not suppose it was doing the towns much good, but I could not find it in my heart to object to it; it was enterprising, and gave the country people an amenity which they had not hitherto enjoyed. But, the minute the petrol shortage came, the lorry could not function. Now, notice the snag. The merchant's quota of flour was based on the quantity of flour he had purchased in the previous year when he was distributing flour over a 30-mile radius. With the lorry gone, he was only distributing round the town in which he lived, although he had got flour appropriate to a distribution over a 30-mile radius. What happened? The people in the far end of his 30-mile radius started going into the towns nearest to their homes, and found themselves confronted by the fact that the shop whose business had been injured by the travelling shop last year was getting a proportionately reduced supply. The shopkeeper was getting only 80 per cent. of the flour supply for his regular customers, and he was now besieged by a whole crowd of strangers who wanted to get a quantity of flour over and above that which he was entitled to get for his own customers. In these circumstances, I do not think the Minister has taken any measures at all to correct the situation.
I admit that if I were confronted with that problem, I would find myself in a considerable difficulty, too, because suppose the Minister said to the shopkeeper in the town where these strangers were coming in for supplies: "I will give you flour to supply these people," from whom would he deduct it? How would he know what travelling shop he could deduct the flour from? Furthermore, suppose he does send extra supplies to the shopkeepers in that particular town, how can he be sure that it will reach these strangers, or that some shopkeepers will not try to enhance their reputation by giving their regular customers an extra supply? That is why I come back to the thesis that the Minister should ration flour. No doubt, as the Minister has often urged, there is a disparity in the consumption of flour as between the well-to-do and the poorer sections of the community, but the present situation is that the well-to-do never suffer from a scarcity of flour. I never saw a man with plenty of cash in his pocket who could not get a stone of flour when he wanted it. It is the poor person, who has to get "strap" or credit, that suffers. There is no welcome for him in any shop where he is not well known and he finds himself unable to get flour from his regular merchant because the well-to-do fellow has been making a tour of the town, taking up a stone here and a stone there, and he has his little girl waiting for him at the end of the town with a bag into which he empties each stone or half-stone as he gets it. Perhaps his wife will be doing one side of the street while he is doing the other, and his son will be at the far end of the town, collecting the bits and scraps for which they are in a position to pay cash.
Did the Minister ever get a complaint from a well-to-do-person that he could not get flour? I am standing behind my counter in Ballaghaderreen and I never got a complaint from a well-to-do person that he could not get flour. The people who do come to me and who give me sleepless nights are the poor, the people with six or seven children, who have no flour in their houses. The poor come and tell the most pitiful stories of their circumstances which have been made more distressing still since the shortage of oatmeal arose. It is for that reason that I suggest to the Minister that he should consider establishing a rationing system for flour in the conviction that the fact that he gave everybody the right to buy five pounds of flour would not induce the well-to-do person, who did not want flour, to go and buy it with the result that the poor person would certainly be sure of his full five pounds of flour from week to week. The tendency would be for small surpluses to accumulate here and there, where the well-to-do people were not taking the full quantity which they were entitled to receive. The Minister could say: "I do not care what anybody does with that extra flour so long as everybody who has a ration card gets his five pounds. If merchants have a surplus they can sell it to those who want more."
At first glance this might appear to invite profiteering in what I might call the "free" flour, but competition will regulate that. If there is "free" flour knocking about, no shopkeeper would dare to attempt to profiteer lest his neighbour would not do the same thing. At any rate, once a person receives a ration of a commodity like flour, people are not going to pay fancy prices for any additional quantity they purchase. I agree that a full and elaborate system of rationing, a national system, might be very expensive to administer, but what is the objection to saying that every shop where tea is sold must be prepared to supply those who deal with them with flour if they desire to obtain their supplies there? Is that an insuperable difficulty? Surely to goodness, merchants are prepared to help to that extent and to act as distributors of flour if it is necessary in order to secure supplies for the poor. It is a simple matter to provide that if five or six people are registered for tea with a merchant, that merchant would be entitled to receive 30 lbs. of flour for distribution to these same people. The Minister could issue ration books and the books could be distributed by the merchants to their customers. When the coupons were returned to the Minister by the merchant, the Minister could issue an authorisation to the miller to supply the appropriate quantity of flour for the succeeding week. I know of no other way in which the Minister can deal satisfactorily with this matter.
What about bakers' bread?
Why could not the Minister make his coupons exchangeable for so many pounds of flour or bread as the case might be? I do not quite know what five pounds of flour would represent in terms of bread, but I should say that three 2-lb. loaves would be approximately equal to five pounds of flour. Why not say that a person might be entitled to get five pounds of flour or three 2-lb. loaves of bakers' bread?
Quite a lot of people who sell tea do not sell flour—people such as Bewleys, Liptons and Beckers. Is the Deputy going to force them to sell flour?
I see that difficulty, but if the alternative is to compel them to assist in the distribution of flour instead of setting up Government depots, I would simply say to them: "You are enjoying the advantage of trading in tea and sugar, you are now being asked to engage in the distribution of flour and to assist me in the solution of a very vital problem." Why, we do not hesitate to go to a woman in Gloucester Street and say to her: "There is no coal; you have to bring your dinner from one of the cooking depots."
Will the Deputy face the fact that in over nine-tenths of the country there has never been a complaint of scarcity of flour? Is he going to force rationing on the whole country in face of that?
Then the whole of my contention is an illusion; there is no scarcity of flour and all the Deputies who have said that there is are labouring under a delusion. I suggest, however, that what has happened is that the Minister has not heard these complaints. Has the Minister asked the Deputies of his own Party what they hear in rural Ireland, because I suggest they should have heard of these complaints? They are knocking about amongst the people. Is there any Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches who will say there is no scarcity of flour in rural Ireland?
Not now.
Is there an abundance everywhere in Limerick?
There is sufficient flour as far as I am aware.
Does the Deputy say that there has never been a scarcity there?
There was a scarcity some time ago.
The fact is that in certain areas there was an acute shortage of flour.
I said in certain areas there was a shortage but we can deal with these areas. Why impose a rationing scheme on everybody because of shortage in these areas?
I think we are all agreed that a rationing scheme is something which not everybody desires but unless the Minister can solve the local shortages—and I sympathise with his difficulties—I think he should face the necessity of establishing some sort of a rationing scheme, which may work much more easily than he thinks. When you are about to embark on something, prudent counsel raises 1,000 objections. There are 1,000 objections to doing anything—there always are. But if you lay down a system whereby any person, who can get flour no other way, will be able to get five lbs. from his tea or sugar merchant, I do not think it is an unreasonable request to ask those merchants to assist in its distribution. It may not work. But may I put this to the Minister?
The Deputy has not considered it. He is just thinking on his feet. What about the farmer who gets his own flour milled?
The number is small.
It is not small.
The number is so small that I would be prepared to ignore it for the purpose of rationing flour. I do not hold myself out as a person who has drafted a cut-and-dried scheme which will work to perfection to-morrow. All I say is that, dealing with people from day to day and seeing the woman with the long family who can get no flour, any plan which will give her five lbs. of flour per week for her family is better than no plan. I only hope the Minister will work out something that is more efficient than the one I have suggested. The Minister says that everybody comes in here and accuses him, but nobody makes a constructive suggestion. I am making a suggestion, based on my own experience in the kind of trade with which I am familiar. It is, at least, a suggestion and I await a better one from the Minister. I will challenge a division on this, and I invite Deputies who want to perpetuate the cruellest monopoly that was ever established in Ireland, to go into the Lobby against me, because the day they do it they are presenting £2,000,000 to an organisation which believes that this country can be ruled with money—the votes of our people notwithstanding.
It is interesting to find Deputy Dillon advocating what the Labour Party advocated long before 1932. He talks about the flour mills being run on somewhat similar lines to the Electricity Supply Board and we had the Minister asking how is it to be done. The Minister will remember that in 1932 he had a proposal from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union that these mills should be run by the State for the common good and that he told them he would consider it favourably. I resent the attitude of the Minister in supporting the millers and his references to Grain Importers, Limited. Somebody said that the directors of Grain Importers, Limited, were also the directors of the flour-milling industry and his reply to that was that these men have given better service to the country than any narrow-minded Deputy. I deny that. I object to anybody saying that any director of Grain Importers' Limited, or the flour-milling industry has given better service than any Deputy. When one man is drawing £7,000 per year out of a milling company and three members of one family, who had 18,000 shares in a company before it was floated as a new company, have now between them 54,000 shares in that company, I refuse to accept the statement of the Minister that these men are doing better service for the country than any narrow-minded Deputy. I say again, and I defy contradiction, that the men whom the Minister is trying to justify here and who are directors of Grain Importers, Limited, and of the milling companies are simply doing their own business. Why should they look for any salary or remuneration for that work? If they were never connected with Grain Importers, Limited, they would have to do the work they are doing now. This subsidy and the money got from the flour of 95 per cent. extraction are going into the hands of those whom the Minister talks about—the millers and Grain Importers, Limited.
Does the Deputy object to the subsidy?
I object to giving it to those in control of the milling industry.
It is being given to the consumers of bread.
Before those who controlled the flour-milling companies became millionaires, the Minister had a proposal from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union to control those mills, as suggested by Deputy Dillon, but he turned it down. We have not got sufficient evidence to show that we are justified in giving this £2,000,000 to the millers. I maintain that it is wrong to try to convey to this House that Grain Importers, Limited, shipping boards, Timber Importers, Limited, or Fuel Importers, Limited, are giving services to the country without any remuneration. They are doing their own business and are well paid for it, and I object to the Minister saying that any Deputy has not rendered as good service to the community as Grain Importers, Limited.
In regard to this Vote, I have sympathy with the Minister, but I do not accept all that he has said at its face value. There is something about this proposal to subsidise flour in order to give a cheap loaf which will make the people of the country think. Two million pounds is a very large sum of money. The real reason for this subsidy is because the farmers had to get an extra price for their wheat. The Minister has stressed very strongly the question of the cost of production. He said that if the cost of production were to rise they would not give a greater subsidy than £2,000,000; that it would have to go on to the price of the loaf. Two million pounds divided over the amount of wheat grown in this country would mean a subsidy of about £5 per acre, which is equivalent to the price of 2½ barrels of wheat, and, on the average, you have not got ten barrels of wheat per acre. Therefore, while the Minister may be right, I cannot at all accept his theory in this matter; nor can I accept his figures, because I feel that, if there is £2,000,000 being spent to subsidise a cheap loaf, the ordinary people of the country are not getting it; that somebody else must be getting the benefit of most of that £2,000,000. As things stand in this country at present, the Minister for Supplies enters into everything. The Minister has to work in with the Minister for Agriculture and the other Ministers and he is, to a great extent, responsible for seeing that people will be dealt with fairly. Deputy Dillon said to the Deputies opposite that those things were not being done in a fair way, and I think he was appealing for some system of national registration whereby there would be some hope of an equal share for everybody. Since the Department of Supplies was set up there is anything but an equal share for everybody. There is nothing but confusion. If you travel to every little village from Donegal to Cork you may find an over-supply in one village and in another village there will be nothing. That disparity obtains through the whole country, from north to south, not in regard to one commodity but in regard to everything. There has been absolute confusion with regard to flour. It is extraordinary that since the wheat was brought in, threshed and milled, that confusion has appeared tenfold to the ordinary public.
The same thing applies with regard to sugar. We were told in this House several times that we had nearly enough sugar last year but that this year we would have plenty of sugar for the whole population. There was never such confusion created throughout the country. The Minister has told us that if we report to the Department of Supplies that people are not getting 80 per cent. of what they got last year, or 1 lb. per head for every consumer, the matter would be remedied. No matter what we report, the question is becoming more confused and more troublesome.
The Minister referred to-night to a maximum price for flour, and I think he inferred that the Gárda might take up the matter to see no higher price was charged and that the price would be displayed in the shops. I would suggest to the Minister that in all cases, instead of issuing orders through the radio or announcing them in this House, he should see that his orders are in some way made effective. We have heard on the radio and we have heard here that all prices are to be posted up publicly in shops. I say here that not one price for anything the Minister controlled was ever posted up in a shop, and nobody took any notice. Who was to take notice? Surely the Minister does not think that the ordinary public are going to say to the shopkeeper: "Why have you not got your prices up?" There are Guards and investigation officers to do this work. There is the Local Security Force, which has been used for other purposes, for collecting the census, for turf and all that.
Why should not the Minister make sure that every order he makes in connection with supplies is carried out? If he wants to have the people, whom he pretends to be troubled about, supplied, why should he not see that the law is enforced by all the other Departments of State, whether the Department of Justice or the Department of Finance or any other Department? He has never made any effort to do that. I suggest that when the Minister for Supplies makes an order, he should see that it is carried out. He should not wait for me or for the Deputies on his own side of the House or for the public to report to him any offences in connection with that order. I suggest that he should act in conjunction with the other Departments of State and should see that each Department does its duty in the matter of having these orders carried out. I refer especially to the order about displaying prices in shops. I have not seen any prices displayed in any shop. Yet we have an Emergency Order to the effect that the prices must be displayed and that it is an offence not to have them displayed.
One thing that the Department of Supplies and the Government as a whole might consider is that those who produce the stuff in this country should get a reasonable price and that those who are buying it should get it at the price which the Minister fixes. There is very little use in putting something on paper or stating it in this House or on the radio, and trying to pretend that we want to save the poor people from being mulcted or plundered, if we do not make that impracticable. The Minister for Supplies has been all the time working on theory without trying to put that theory in practice. Every one in this House can work something out on paper but to put it into practice would be a different thing. It should not be difficult for a Government Department to put into practice what they want done. Each Department of State is in touch with all the other Departments and they can cooperate in carrying out the work that is to be done. My great complaint against the Department of Supplies is that they have not been trying to do that.
I agree with Deputy Dillon that there is no hope for the poor people of this country, for the ordinary decent people of this country, until there is some kind of national register, and until everyone is put on the same level. There should not be much difficulty about having a national register. Even in 1918 or 1917 the British Government had not much trouble in introducing a national register for the things they wanted rationed and they got it working in this country. It is suggested that it is impossible here, that if we divide sugar, somebody will get too much, and others will not get enough. It is better that everybody should get something, even though it may happen that some people may get less than they require. It is better that all should get an equal share than that some should get none while others get too much.
There is one aspect of this subsidy question to which I would like to draw attention. With all the ramifications of the milling trade one finds it difficult to discover wherein lie the possibilities for preventing increase in prices, but one thing that strikes me about the subsidy is that we are subsidising the millers on the basis of home-grown wheat purchased at £2 a barrel, converted into flour. In the part of the world where I live, East Limerick, not one in ten of the farmers who grew wheat this year has got £2 a barrel. In fact, the majority got something nearer 35/- a barrel. I am one of those who predicted years ago that in East Limerick we could not grow the world's best wheat, and we do not one year out of three, but we are growing the best we can. It was a standing crop. It did not fall. We send it to Ranks or some other miller sends his lorry for it and takes it away. Three days later we get a letter saying: "We regret to say that your wheat bushels badly and we return a price of 35/-." That happened in the majority of cases. In some cases the price was 1/- or 2/- more. In a good many cases it was considerably less. I would be ashamed to say how much less. In fact, wheat was bought that I thought no miller would purchase. It is going to be converted into something, either mixed up with the bread that the unfortunate people of this country have to eat or used for some other purpose, but whatever purpose it is bought for, it is not going to be sold at 1/9 a stone and the majority of the wheat that is purchased in one part of my county is being converted into flour and is being purchased at a price much less than £2 a barrel.
This subsidy is based—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—on a cost to the millers of home grown wheat of £2 per barrel. I do not know what occurred in other counties this year, but not in one case in ten has a farmer in East Limerick got £2 per barrel for his wheat. There are possibilities there for the millers to enhance their profits without the benefit of this subsidy.
Deputy Dillon pleaded for national control and I believe the time has come when we should have it. There are so many possibilities for deluding the public, the Minister and the Department in the ramifications of the flour and milling trade, that whatever chances there are—and there are many —of making excess profits ought to be put into the hands of the people. That is one of the matters in which there lies a distinct possibility of defrauding the public, because I think the Minister himself is satisfied that the millers this year are coming to ask him to base his subsidy on wheat bought at £2 per barrel. The Minister is subsidising the millers on the basis of wheat purchased at £2 per barrel. I say that they are not paying £2 per barrel for it this year, in my county, anyway.
Speak for your own side of it.
I said, in East Limerick, and if Deputy O Briain says that every farmer in West Limerick got £2 a barrel, I shall contradict him.
Is it not a fixed minimum price according to the grade of the wheat?
Very few of them got £2 per barrel, unless the wheat bushelled high.
There was no fixed minimum price last year when we were asked to grow wheat. Every advertisement issued said: "Farmers, grow wheat for a guaranteed price of £2 per barrel." There were no reservations whatever. The price was guaranteed and there was nothing about anything else.
I find myself in a fog in regard to this debate.
And so does everybody else.
I am surprised to hear members advocating the nationalisation of flour milling. I certainly do not. We want no more inspectors, and no more Government control of anything, and if this motion to reduce the Vote is backed by national control, I propose to vote against it. I am sure that those who have spoken here in support of national control do not really believe in it. I do not believe, and never did believe, in control by the millers. At a public meeting held in the Mansion House to support the demand for the milling arrangement we now have, I opposed it, and the majority of the meeting would have done so also, if they had got the opportunity of voting against the arrangement. It was there suggested, although never put to a vote, that the flour milled in this country should have a percentage of Irish wheat in it. If that were ensured, there would be no need for any millers' control or any millers' monopoly.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to certain aspects of the figures he has given us, and to what they reveal. In the current year he expects to get 290,000 tons of home-grown wheat, and he built his case to-night on getting that amount of wheat from the current Irish crop at £2 per barrel. Foreign wheat imported—I hope this will not be censored and that the farmers of the country will be told about it—was purchased from the American and Canadian farmers at 84/- a barrel. When I put down a motion here for a price of 50/- for this year's crop, I only got eight Deputies to support it, and every member of the Government voted against it. But they gave 84/- a barrel to foreign farmers.
No.
The Minister said he got it from them at 15/-, but, of course, world war conditions have made the wheat crop a drug on the markets of the wheat-growing countries. You could make roads and paths with it there, but to get it here cost 84/-, and we would not get 50/- for growing it here, and only eight members of the House voted for the proposed price of 50/-. As I say, I hope that will not be censored, and that the country will be told it to-morrow. I want the Minister to make a little calculation: 290,000 tons of home-grown wheat at £2 per barrel and 80,000 tons of foreign wheat at 84/- per barrel represent an average of 50/- per barrel.
We had to put up with £2 per barrel. Deputy Bennett said that down in Limerick, where, as I learned from my geography, there is the best land in Ireland, the Golden vale, they were not able to bushel 60 lbs., and that no farmer in East Limerick got £2 per barrel on what is the best land in Ireland. I do not know whether it is a case of the best land and the worst farmers or the worst land and the best farmers.
The farmers are bad there, anyway.
I once heard Deputy Corry say that the farmers of Cork have to feed the farmers of Limerick, but I do not know how true it is. I want the Minister to reflect on the fact that the prices paid by the community of this country for their 370,000 tons of wheat average 50/- per barrel, according to the figures he has given himself.
This is not the time to discuss a motion on the Order Paper in the names of Deputy Cogan and myself— the two Deputies who put down the motion for a price of 50/- last year— but that motion asks for £3 per barrel for wheat and, when it comes to be discussed, we shall see who will vote for it and who will vote against it. We shall see whether the people who are producing are going to be encouraged to continue producing, and it must be remembered that once the wheat is produced in this country, you are sure of having it. It will not be necessary to take the risks of 2,000 or 3,000 miles of sea voyage, and we shall be sure of a wheaten loaf. I am satisfied that if the Minister gives a proper price—and by that I mean a price at which wheat can be produced, considering all the conditions surrounding agriculture at present, the absence of fertilisers, the shortage of farmyard manure due to the bungling of the cattle industry in relation to foot-and-mouth disease, and by all the mistakes of the Government by which the productivity of the soil of this country has been reduced—the crop will be grown. If the Government want an adequate supply of wheat to give us either a 95 per cent. extraction or a 70 per cent. extraction, with a white loaf, it can be done, but the Minister must bear in mind the small yields we must expect because of lack of manure.
Deputy Dillon tried to ramble into a discussion of the hulks which were bought for importing the wheat. This is not the time to start buying hulks when they have soared ten times beyond their value. This is the time for us to produce in this country the food we want. It is the only royal road, the only sure road, to safety. I suggest to the Deputy who is now both Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister for Supplies that in order to help the production of food here he should import fertilisers rather than wheat. Every hundredweight of fertiliser that he can import will produce a ton of food. That would be the most economical use he could make of the boats that he has. The fertilisers will cost less to import and will produce more food than he could possibly import in the ships available to him. I ask him to consider that aspect of the matter.
What price will the Deputy pay for the fertilisers? They cannot be got at less than £36 a ton.
Bring them in. Will you get potash at £36 a ton?
You cannot get it at any price.
You cannot be said to be importing fertilisers unless you are able to import a balanced fertiliser, and if you cannot import potash, then you are not importing a balanced fertiliser. Even at £36 a ton, would it not be much cheaper and better to import fertilisers than wheat at 84/- a barrel? I must compliment the Minister on his introductory statement in the course of which I put some questions to him. He is proposing a subsidy of £80,000 for bread. I can foresee terrible difficulty in administering that. Why as I suggested earlier to him, not add that £80,000 to the flour? Even if some of it finds its way into other than batch bread, I think the saving on administration and the guarantee that it will get to the proper quarter will compensate for the little advantage that other than batch bread will get. The Minister should also consider that there is a good deal of pastry cooking and a good deal of fancy-bread baking done in Dublin. What is he going to do with the confectioners who will be thrown out of employment? The Minister is one of the representatives for the City of Dublin and should consider that the saving would be very little.
How will the confectioners be thrown out of employment?
Because you are making the flour dearer by withdrawing the subsidy from them. Can the Minister tell us if he has calculated the saving that would be effected by excluding the bakers' subsidy from everything except batch bread? Personally, I think it would be very small and would not be worth all the trouble it would cause. The Minister told me earlier that all that had been considered, but the matter has struck me in the light that I have put it to him. If the Minister has considered it and found that what he is suggesting is the best thing to do, I will leave it at that. I would ask him, however, to make sure of his case. From the rough and ready examination that I have been able to give it in the House, I do not think it is worth the trouble.
The Minister's requirements of flour would appear to be 80 per cent. home-grown and 20 per cent. imported. What strikes me is that the Minister is probably aiming at 20 per cent. Manitoban wheat to mix with the home-grown wheat. I admit it is good business, if he can get the 20 per cent. Maintoban wheat in here, to mix it with our own wheat, but the risk is so great that I think it would be better to bank on an all-Irish loaf. I agree that we will have a better loaf with the 20 per cent. Manitoban wheat and 80 per cent. Irish. I am prepared to admit that at once, since I have some knowledge of the analysis of the milling qualities of both wheats and realise the necessity of maintaining a percentage of gluten in the grist. The 20 per cent. Manitoban wheat will give us better gluten, and more of it, than a 100 per cent. Irish wheat. But the times are risky and the battle of the Atlantic is still on. I suggest to the Minister that, instead of laying his plans for 80 per cent. home-grown wheat and 20 per cent. foreign, he should lay his plans for 100 per cent. home-grown. In doing that he will have to reckon on an increased price for the following reasons: (1) we are short of fertilisers; (2) we will have to extend our area under wheat in the coming year; (3) although our land grew over 490,000 acres of wheat this year, you will not get an extra 190,000 acres to grow a good crop of wheat next year because of the absence of fertilisers. Therefore, we must be satisfied, from the facts of the case, that our productivity will be less in the coming year, and in every succeeding year, as long as we are deprived of fertilisers. Hence, to produce a greater amount of wheat we must have a wider area under the crop.
Not only must we look for a wider area to produce a greater quantity of wheat than we produced this year, but if we are to go in for a 100 per cent. Irish loaf, we must rely on getting this greater production from land that will not be as well manured—there is no possibility of fertilising it—as the land on which we grew the crop this year. It is inevitable, therefore, that even with the best of a wheat season we will have to bank on a smaller crop, and the ploughing, sowing, reaping and threshing of the lighter crop will cost us as much as a large one. Therefore, we will have to go in on second-rate land—land that will not be as suitable for wheat as the land that we have been growing the crop on. All this combines to make it inevitable that we are going to have a smaller yield. The only way that the smaller yield can be economically produced is by increasing the price of wheat to the producer. I accept the Minister's figures for the subsidy for flour, as I do not know the subject in sufficient detail to contradict him — even if there is room for contradiction—but I know a little about the growing of wheat. The Minister claims on behalf of the flour millers that they are entitled to this subsidy. I do not contest that. Farmers will produce wheat if their income is guaranteed. I think it is up to the Minister to look to the production of an Irish loaf rather than to the problematical loaf that may be produced by trying to import 25 per cent. of the flour to make it in the coming year. Supposing the 25 per cent. does not come in, and that despite everything the Minister has done that 25 per cent. is sent to the bottom of the Atlantic, where are we? Already there is a 10 per cent. shortage. That means that there is 10 per cent. less available than at this time last year. The Minister is doubtful if he will be able to finish out this year with the wheaten loaf, even with 100 per cent. of an increase in production. According to the Minister he paid 15/- a barrel for wheat on the other side of the Atlantic. Why was not that 15/- given here for a white loaf seeing that it would leave us with 30,000 tons of offal to feed live stock? The reason was that it could not be transported across the Atlantic. The commonsense way of dealing with the matter is to pay farmers to produce our own requirements. They can do it, and they will do it if they are paid to do it. Farmers have as much right to be paid for growing wheat as millers have for milling it into flour. Pay the price. That would be the best assurance that the country could have. Pay the Irish producer to grow wheat and if possible give the people an all-Irish white loaf. If the price is paid the subsidy can be so arranged as to regulate the price to the consumer.
The Minister talked of a 1/2 or 1/3 loaf being too dear. I will bring the Minister to any Dublin Corporation housing scheme, and I guarantee that if I bring a load of white loaves there I will sell them at any price I ask. The poor people are not unwilling to pay a price for a white loaf. In fact they will go short of other things in order to get it. The bogey of the low-priced loaf should not be tried on the poor. The poor man and the rich man want the loaf as cheaply as they can get it. Why not? They are satisfied that they cannot get a white loaf now at the prewar price. They are paying 7d. and 8d. a lb. for white flour in Dublin. The Minister knows that. Who is paying that price? Not the wealthy people. It is the working class. I challenge contradiction of that statement. Consumers understand the difficulty of producing wheat and they will pay for it. The poor people are not howling about the price of bread, but they are howling about the quality of it. The Minister can make a test. Let him get in touch with any shopkeepers selling bread in working-class districts, and I guarantee they will tell him that if they could supply a white loaf it would be bought. If possible the aim now should be to supply a loaf that is nearly white. Tell the working people that the loaf is going to be diluted and they will shiver. If they have to pay a penny or twopence more to avoid that they will not mind doing so. From the traders' point of view I know that what I am saying is an actual fact. With regard to the flour market, and the reference to Ranks, or as some Deputies put it in this debate, Joe Rank, I say that Ranks or any other millers could not have got such a grip of the situation if the test had been that the flour should contain a percentage of Irish wheat, let it be from 1 per cent. to 100 per cent.
That is the law.
Then what nursing of the millers is there? Let them trade, but let there be 5 per cent. of Irish wheat in the flour. What is the real emergency now? It is to have the loaf. I suggest that the loaf should be as white as it is possible to have it, or as near to a 70 per cent extraction as it can be had. If you ask farmers—I do not mean holiday farmers—who are tilling the soil to produce food, and tell them that if possible an all-Irish loaf is wanted, they will produce it. If that is done I suggest there would be no need to bother whether the old hulks, which have been bought, ever sailed the seas. The farmers are as much entitled to be paid for their work as the millers. Give them a return of 6 per cent. and they will supply the food.
In my opinion, Deputy Belton has struck the right note on this question. When this Party came into office in 1932, they determined upon a policy of insurance against the present position of food supplies. That policy has made this country wheat minded, in order to supply our needs in bread and to put us in a position that no foreigner can hold out his hand and say: "Give us 500,000 men and we will give you bread for your people." That is the reason the wheat policy was introduced. As a result farmers here got a little more than they would ordinarily be entitled to, and the public have paid since 1932 a little more for bread. I did not vote for Deputy Belton's Vote of 50/- a barrel for wheat, because I considered it too high. I also expected to get eight barrels to the acre. I did not get that yield from my crops this year. I will not vote for a demand for 60/- this year, because I consider it to be too high. At the same time, I consider that farmers are not getting enough. I want to warn the Minister that it is my honest conviction that we will not get 300,000 acres of wheat grown this year for 41/- a barrel.
No, nor 200,000 acres.
With a definite knowledge of the position of farmers I say that that acreage will not be got this year. If farmers can get £15 or £16 a ton for oats in the black market, I do not believe they are going to grow wheat. The Minister is considering the importation of 80,000 tons of wheat at 84/- a barrel. Roughly, that represents £1,360,000. I suggest that this is not the time for doing anything but playing for safety. I would like to see Manitoba wheat mixed with Irish wheat, because it would give us a nice loaf, but if the Yanks are in the war one of these days—as they probably will be—and if the Japs are also in, what chance have we of getting 80,000 tons of wheat across the Atlantic? Very little. If we could get 80,000 tons of supplies across the Atlantic, would it not be better to get artificial manures? That would be a better policy. If, by means of an economic price for wheat, we get another 80,000 tons, and succeed in bringing it across the Atlantic, would it not be a fine thing to know that we have provided not only sufficient wheat for our people but for a white loaf? That would be a real good insurance policy.
I hope the Minister will consider a subsidy that will give Irish farmers at least the cost of production, so that it will pay them to produce our full wheat requirements. This month of November is the time to do that and not next February. If we are to have full supplies this year, they will be got by fixing the price now, by making the price a right price, instead of waiting for February or March next, when it will be too late. I firmly believe that the Irish farmer will do his part. I believe that we could have 600,000 tons of wheat grown here next year if the price was right. I would not look, as Deputy Belton does, for 60/- a barrel. I do not believe there is any need to look for that price.
I believe the Deputy is mistaken there.
I am prepared to admit that without artificial manures we are not going to get the yield to the statute acre.
There must be a price to make up for that.
I do not believe that our farmers want to extort.
What yield would you anticipate from the crop?
I should say about seven barrels to the statute acre.
£21 an acre. Can it be produced for less?
I could give figures and Deputy Belton could give figures to prove that we are wrong. That is what figures are made for. With fixed prices for oats, barley and wheat for the coming year, the inclination, as well as the common sense of the ordinary farmer who is working for a living, will be to grow oats or barley as against wheat. The Minister's offer is 41/- for wheat, and there are fixed prices for barley and oats. Seeing that most farmers got 35/- a barrel for barley and £16 a ton for oats this season, I believe they will go in for barley and oats next season, unless there is some incentive to make them change. I do not care how the Minister deals with the matter. Let him give a bounty per acre for each acre of wheat grown, or otherwise increase the price. I suggest that it is a far better insurance policy to work on the supposition that there will be no shipping coming in for the next 12 months and that, therefore, we must produce 100 per cent. of our requirements. If there are 80,000 or 90,000 tons of wheat here next year I do not think anyone will blame the Minister.
Whatever is brought in will have to be paid for with borrowed securities or in American dollars. Our notes may be of very little use. When this war is over it may be that the value of the note will be the same as German marks after the last war. I have no sympathy with the people who have the notes. Let us face this position, that money is of no use to a starving man. I give Deputy Belton this much credit, that from the first hour he came into this House, and prior to that, I knew him as an advocate of the growing of Irish wheat. Even if we have a few die-hards who say that it was codology to grow Irish wheat, thank God we have it now to give it to them.
Who are the die-hards?
The deputy Leader of Deputy Keating's Party told us some months ago that it was codology to grow wheat here.
Thank God, I grow wheat, and I have more than seven barrels to the acre.
I am delighted to know that Deputy Keating does not believe in the policy of his deputy Leader. I move to report progress.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again on Wednesday next.