Items F and G and the motion to reduce are being discussed together.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Office of the Minister for Supplies (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Estimate be reduced by £10 in respect of sub-head F.— (Deputy Dillon).
When dealing with this matter on the last evening, I stated that, in my opinion, this was one of the most serious Estimates this House would have to consider for a long period. The Minister for Supplies is responsible for the supply of all necessities to this country during a very trying period, the period of the war. He has to face the responsibility for seeing that the people of this country will have sufficient bread during that period. I warned the Minister the last day, and I repeat that warning now, that, in my opinion, from the knowledge that I have of the country, he will not get anything like 300,000 acres of wheat grown this year at 41/- per barrel—he has no hope of getting it.
What is the remedy?
The Estimate relates, not to the price of wheat, but to a subsidy.
The Minister is making provision in his Estimate for the extra cost of wheat, and I suggest that he is not, on the one hand, making sufficient provision, and, on the other hand, that the provision he is making is being spent in the wrong manner. The Minister states he is making provision for the import of something like 80,000 tons of wheat at his present figure of roughly about £33 per ton. I suggest to the Minister that, with world conditions as they are, he has very little hope of getting 80,000 tons of wheat across the Atlantic and, if he can bring in 80,000 tons of anything across the Atlantic, I suggest to him that it should not be wheat. I suggest that wheat can be grown here in sufficient quantity for this country's needs. We have proved it. We have worked on that policy ever since 1932. Now is the time to try out that policy. The Minister's 80,000 tons will cost about £2,500,000 landed here at £33 per ton.
And we can give him 120,000 tons for the same price.
I suggest that, in the Minister's position of responsibility for seeing that this nation has sufficient bread, he should take steps to see that the full quantity of wheat is grown at home; that he should consider the agricultural community in the same manner as he is considering the industrial side of it. If he does that, the agricultural community will supply him with sufficient wheat. The Minister stated here:—
"The total amount of commodities which all those ships, working at their fullest capacity, can bring 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 suggest that we can spare him 80,000 tons, which is the quantity he is budgeting for. I suggest further that, if the Government stick to their present proposal of 41/- per barrel for wheat in the coming season, he will want to budget, not for the import of 80,000, but 200,000 tons, and more perhaps. The position is too serious. I ask the Minister to look at it in the light of the seriousness of the situation. We grew 490,000 acres of wheat last year. The Minister said he expected to get 290,000 tons of wheat from the Irish wheat crop. But even that has not materialised. Out of 490,000 acres, he was not able to get 290,000 tons. He has got 170,000 tons, and perhaps he may get up to 200,000; but I doubt it. That shows that the yield this year and the situation of the Irish farmer who grew wheat were worse even than we thought. I budgeted myself on getting between 8½ and nine barrels per statute acre. I got six to the acre, and was lucky to get it. Some of my neighbours did not get six.
Did you get £2 per barrel?
I did.
You were lucky.
I was not. I get 50/- for the most of it.
Then you were luckier still.
We were right when we said that 50/- is the price that should have been paid.
I got 50/- for wheat for seed and they were glad to buy it at that. If we are to work on the basis that every ton of shipping belonging to Irish Shipping Limited that can be spared should bring in something else besides what wheat is required, then I say to the Minister: "Let us have an economic price fixed for wheat this season." It would pay him better. He can afford to give up to 50/- per barrel for Irish wheat and lose nothing by it. In fact he would gain by it. He would gain to the extent of the foreign securities that have to be used for the foreign wheat, as against our own currency here. I suggest that it is nothing short of criminal lunacy in the middle of a war to start out on an economic fight for our daily bread. I say that frankly as one who made up his mind away back in other years that this country would not be caught out during the period of a war for want of sufficient wheat being grown here to supply our own people. I started out with that before my mind and, despite all the codology preached here by Deputy Dillon, we stuck to that. If this country to-day finds itself in the position that the greater portion of its requirements in wheat are grown in the country, it has to thank the Minister for Supplies and other Ministers like him. I want to give him praise for that; but I ask him now not to spoil it in the midst of a trial by expecting the agricultural community to do this year what, in my opinion, they will not do, and that is grow wheat at an uneconomic price.
They cannot do it.
I do not believe they can and I do not believe they will do it.
Is not that a matter for the Minister for Agriculture?
I wish it were, but unfortunately I have found, with very bitter results, that it is not.
Is it not his responsibility?
The Minister whose Vote we are considering now is the Minister who is responsible for seeing that we have sufficient supplies in this country. The responsibility rests on his shoulders, and I am suggesting to that Minister, who budgeted for 290,000 tons of wheat last year, and who states he has only got 170,000 tons out of 490,000 acres, that if he is going to ensure that this country will get a sufficient supply of wheat this year he will have to change his plan. Instead of spending £2,500,000 in trying to bring wheat across the water, he should use that money for the production of home-grown wheat here and see what the result will be. It is a far safer insurance policy than investing money in the hope of bringing anything across the water in the present condition of world affairs.
Every other class in the community is catered for. The agent, who never sees our wheat, who never bothers with our wheat, who only gets the cheque and passes it along to us, gets his commission. He is provided for. The miller is provided for. He gets 6 per cent on his shares. Every other class in the community is provided for except the man on whom dependence must be in the first instance, because if the farmer does not produce neither the miller nor the agent will have anything to get. I do not wish, nor do the farmers of this country wish, anything exorbitant. The farmers in this country last year were asked to make a sacrifice and they made it. They grew 490,000 acres of wheat at an uneconomic price.
Is not the price fixed by the Minister for Agriculture?
Is it not.
I am of the opinion that it is.
I have never seen it published as a statement by the Minister for Agriculture yet.
It is certainly not fixed by the Minister for Supplies. While a passing reference may be allowed, a discussion on the price of cereals is not in order.
We are discussing here a subsidy for imported wheat and home-grown wheat, the subsidy being required to reduce the price to a certain limit. In dealing with that, the Minister made certain statements. He made a statement as to the quantity of Irish wheat he expected to get; as to the quantity of foreign wheat he intended importing and as to the subsidy he would have to pay on both. I am suggesting that it is absolutely in order on that to deal with the actual amount of Irish wheat which, in our opinion, the Minister will get, the steps he would require to take to get a sufficient supply and the foolishness, to my mind, of the Minister budgeting on a supposition that he will be able to bring any wheat from abroad.
In his submission to the Chair the Deputy has not even mentioned the price of wheat.
Unfortunately, a Chinn Comhairle——
It should be quite clear to the Deputy that for the fixing of the price of wheat the Minister for Supplies is not responsible. To suggest to the Minister for Supplies. that the required quantity of wheat is not forthcoming because the price is not sufficiently high is permissible, but not a debate on the condition of the farmers or the growing of wheat generally.
The price of wheat is fixed, I understand, by the Executive Council and the Minister for Supplies has certainly the right to stand up and say: "I am afraid I will not get my supplies unless the price is right." I think I am appealing to the right man to see that the price is right.
Did the Deputy support the motion to raise the price?
Oh, no. I am going to support a fair price and not robbery. The farmers of this country do not wish me to support robbery. Deputy Bennett, who voted for the motion, did not make sure his own constituency would grow any wheat, either with or without a subsidy or price.
May be he did.
As a matter of fact we had to send oats there to feed his fowl the other day.
Would a yield of six barrels to the acre at 50/- be an economic proposition?
Deputy Belton made his speech and ought to be quite satisfied with it. I am dealing here with the position as I see it.
I would like to put the Deputy right this year so that he will not make the same mistake he made last year.
When I want Deputy Belton to put me right I will ask him. Up to the present I am confining myself to the two points that came before us, one is, the sending abroad, under the Minister's proposal, of £2,450,000 out of foreign securities to buy wheat and import it, as against the payment of roughly about £1,500,000, as I suggest, at home in order to see that the full quantity of wheat required for this country is grown here, which would mean that we would not be gambling on anything. I suggest that that should be the policy of the Minister. I am supporting the subsidy because, in my opinion, the burden of getting bread for the poor at the present day should be placed on the shoulders of those most able to bear it; but I am suggesting to the Minister that it would be far better for him, as the Minister responsible for seeing that our people have sufficient food, to see that the money is spent in producing sufficient supplies at home. If he wants to bring in anything to this country to-day let him bring in artificial manures, which would help us to get a decent result from our wheat crops. Let him devote the 80,000 tons of space that we are giving him—or a good deal of it—to artificial manures, and he will find it will pay both of us better. The difficulty, as I see it, is that the situation is too grave to gamble on bringing wheat from abroad. Deputy Belton asked me the other night if I were prepared to support Deputy Belton's price of 60/- a barrel. I am not prepared to support it. I do not think it is necessary to offer our farmers an inducement of 60/- a barrel in order to get them to grow sufficient wheat for our people. I do not think it is necessary.
How much would you give them?
That depends. I do not believe, for instance, that if you gave 80/- a barrel for wheat you would get the County Limerick farmers to grow sufficient for their own needs.
The Deputy is not very optimistic about any county.
I believe the only thing that will get Deputy Bennett's farmers to grow it is compulsion—definite compulsion, and I would resort to compulsion in County Limerick so far as to take the land from them.
The Deputy may constrain the Chair to resort to compulsion.
I do not wish to press the matter further. I just wished to put forward the case, as I saw it, to the Minister who, in my opinion, is responsible. That Minister, from 1932 onwards, from the moment we started out on a wheat policy, has been the one man who has shown the way and led the way and I ask him at this point, when the whole policy is on trial, not to spoil it. If he does succeed in bringing in 80,000 tons of wheat and if, at the same time, he has made provision for the growing in this country of all the wheat necessary for the supply of our people, there is not a man in this country who will not clap him on the back for it.
Does the Deputy support the importation of wheat?
I do not. I do not believe there is any necessity for importing into this country anything that can be produced or made in it, even if we have to do with substitutes. I should prefer to see the people living on oatmeal than to import wheat for them, but there is no necessity for them to live on oatmeal, because there is plenty of land to grow sufficient wheat for the country's needs, not only for this year but for the next ten years, if the war should last that long, and I believe it almost will. I think it is absolute lunacy to depend on the importation of 80,000 tons of wheat and to set that out as a definite policy for the next 12 months, because, with the Yankee coming into the war and the Japs also coming in, I see very little hope of bringing any of that wheat in. Whatever else we say we must do without, let us not say that we will run any risk in relation to the provision of sufficient bread for our people.
When an Estimate of this size, marking a departure in regard to policy and involving so many different sets of figures is introduced here, one would have expected that the Minister would have provided us with a White Paper in connection with it. It is not easy to decide to which of the various figures he gave us the Minister is pinning himself down. Let us take one example. He has said that 370,000 tons of wheat are required to supply the country with flour and bread, and then we have the Minister's statement that we must import one-fifth of that amount. Is the Minister altering his figure of 80,000 tons to be imported to 74,000 tons, or is it that it is merely an approximate 20 per cent.? We are informed that very careful steps are being taken, and that various checks are being provided, to ensure that correct accounts will be kept in this matter, and, almost in the same breath, we are told that when the Minister is in a fix in relation to dealing with the flour problem and the shipping problem, he goes outside and gets in business men to help him. The experts, I suppose, are within and the specialists are without.
We have different figures for the price of flour and for the price of wheat. In one case, there is what is called the allocation price. Presumably, that is the price at which this new body which the Minister has set up is going to issue wheat to the millers. This wheat in one case is stated by the Minister to have been purchased at 15/- per barrel, and having supplied the Dáil with an estimated price for the quarter, of 120/-, we find that the price of this wheat which is to be imported this year will be 70/- per barrel. If the sum of 15/- is paid for it and it is to cost 70/-, it is obvious that the transit charges and other expenses amount to 55/- per barrel, or £22 per ton. May we ask in all seriousness if that is a correct figure? If so, I think the experts ought to be changed, or some alteration made in the whole procedure. £22 a ton for transit charges, freight and insurance!
Some of them are much higher. The transit charges on a large quantity of the wheat will be much higher than that.
What provision is made for the increased price?
I gave the Deputy an average figure.
Can we get any information as to why there should be such a difference as to make it necessary to take an average?
Some of it came via Lisbon.
Even if it did, it means the addition of only another couple of miles. Does that cause the very much higher figure?
The Deputy will understand that it has to be discharged, stored and reloaded in Lisbon, and that involves a substantial difference in the cost.
In that case, we have the most extravagant and most expensive way of getting it across that we can have. All we are concerned with is getting it across—the price does not matter. If the Minister were in business, he would have another view with regard to that. It is one of the disadvantages of this problem that there is not a single business man or man with business knowledge of any sort or kind amongest the Ministers, and their advisers are in the same position. The Civil Service is exactly the same.
If we had not brought it through Lisbon, there would have been weeks during which the Deputy would have had no bread.
Perhaps, and that notwithstanding the fact that we have a Department of External Affairs which, for years, knew exactly what the situation in the country was, and that we had a Minister for Industry and Commerce who should have been informed of that situation, in which he could buy wheat at one-third of the price of 15/- per barrel, but he did not stock it. Even when he was in Ottawa, he could have learned from Mr. Bennett, the then Canadian Prime Minister, of the drop there had been in the price of wheat over a few years at that time.
We stored a very large number of tons, despite the opposition of the Deputy and his Party who protested strongly against our doing so.
The war was on about 18 months when the Minister had his danger signals out.
We started storing wheat 12 months before the war started.
I tell the Minister that he stored, at the best or worst, not two months' supply of anything.
Surely all that matter was debated several times during recent years.
It was, several times. The Dáil was lectured by the Minister in connection with this business of a subsidy. If we wanted to select lecturers to give us lectures on morality, philosophy, economy or anything else, we would not approach the Government for them.
Hence the appalling condition of the Party.
Or on dangers, either. The Minister lectured the farmers and told them of the serious steps that were going to be taken in the event of their using wheat for feeding stuffs. Let us put the farmer's side of the question. He gets 16/- per cwt. for the wheat he grows himself. What is he asked to pay for feeding stuff of a much lesser value? At least 6/-, possibly 7/- and maybe 10/- more. Is the Minister aware of that? Is he aware of the difficulty the farmer has in buying any feeding stuffs, if he has not grown them himself. In this year, whether the Minister is aware of it or not, the yield per acre is down, the price of feeding stuffs is up and the costs of threshing and all the other operations are higher than ever they were, and are increasing. The suggestion made by Deputy Corry, if he understood it, was probably a fairly sound one. The Minister informed us that we would import 80,000 tons of wheat. He gave us a price of 120/- for 480 lbs. which is 70/- a barrel. It is made up of 15/- a barrel, the cost of the wheat to the producer, and 55/- freight and other charges. The wheat would cost, on this calculation, £480,000, and the transit and other charges £1,760,000, making a total of £2,240,000.
Taking that figure with the figure which the Minister supplied us with, the price which it is expected the Irish wheat will cost, the average all-in price is about 54/- a barrel—that is on the basis of 46/9, not the 40/-. That would probably admit of an extra 5/- or 6/- a barrel for wheat in this country, if it were all to be grown here, although it is nonsense to be talking about it in the way that Deputy Corry did. There is no use in growing wheat that will only yield three or four barrels to the acre. No man will do that unless he is prepared to run a big loss as well as injure his land. When the Minister talked about stocks of wheat he obviously had in mind the possibility of a war at that time, but what did he do about manures then? What is going to be done about manures now? The better policy in this case, the one which would be more satisfactory from practically every angle, would be to save that 80,000 tons of shipping space and grow wheat here. I doubt very much if it is an attractive proposition at the price. It certainly is not a sound proposition in the absence of manures.
My final point is that the Dáil is entitled to a White Paper on this whole matter. I do not think it has been properly presented to the House at all. The House is entitled to something more than lectures from the Minister about the danger of this policy. We know all about that. He has been engaged in this matter of subsidies over the last ten years. That has not tended to improve the country in any respect. It has been responsible for a smaller number of persons being put into employment than was the case before he became Minister. His industrial push was all bosh. Whatever advantage was in it was at the expense of other forms of employment. In connection with the guaranteed 6 per cent. on the money that is invested, what exactly is meant by the money that has been invested? I have looked up the particulars of one company, and I find that there are 5/- shares quoted at 15/-. I am informed that in the prospectus the 5/- shares were sold at 15/- to the public. This particular company for a number of years paid 20 per cent. on those 15/- shares.
Would the Deputy say if those figures relate to the milling industry?
It is in relation to the Minister's speech in which he said that a guaranteed 6 per cent. is to be paid to the millers——
I never said anything about a guaranteed 6 per cent.
——in respect of their profits out of this transaction. I will get the relevant extract.
It does seem to be necessary.
The Minister does not deny it himself?
I should prefer to be quoted correctly.
What did the Minister say? I do not wish to misquote him at all. If he wishes to intervene now he can do so. What did he say? Did the Minister say that he was providing, in connection with this business, that the flour millers would not get more than 6 per cent. on the money that was invested? The Minister said:
"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."
As I have said, I have not seen the balance sheets of this particular company. I was supplied with a stock exchange card which gave particulars showing that this company paid 20 per cent. from the year 1934, in which it was incorporated, up to 1939. Last year it paid 16? per cent. Now 6 per cent., on the basis of 15/- being paid for the 5/- shares, would, I presume, be 6? per cent. It would be 18 per cent. against 20.
I made it clear that in calculating the capital invested in the flour-milling industry no regard was had to the issued capital of the companies at all, but regard was had to the capital value of the equipment employed in flour milling.
I am not interested in what the Minister said or in what he is saying now. I am saying that this company, from the year 1934 when it was incorporated, two years after the Minister came into office, paid 20 per cent. per annum on 5/- shares which were being quoted at 15/-, and that in 1940 it went down to 16? per cent. That, roughly, would be 5 per cent. Were the profits to be regulated in connection with this scheme at 18 per cent?
No.
At what then?
Nothing. They are not regulated at all.
There is a subsidy to be given. The Minister speaks here of 6 per cent. on the capital employed on the industry as a whole. Are there some companies to get more than that, and others less?
That will depend on their efficiency.
I am putting a simple question to the Minister in connection with the flotation of that particular company in which the 5/- shares were sold at 15/-. In this case, are the millers' profits for this year going to be based on 18 per cent. on the 5/- shares, or are they to be 6 per cent.?
Obviously, the Deputy does not understand the matter yet. I explained that we fixed the price for flour, and that in doing so we had to have regard for the capital invested in the flour-milling industry as a whole, and on the basis of allowing a remuneration of 6 per cent. on the capital invested the price was fixed. It may be that companies operating in the flour-milling industry on that basis will make no profit at all.
Then may I ask was it on the 15/- or on the 5/- that this 6 per cent. was based?
On the capital invested in flour milling.
On all the money invested. One person invested his money at 5/-, and another at 15/-.
That does not alter the value of the mill or the buildings.
In that case, it means the price paid by those who floated the company?
The capital invested in materials and buildings.
What is meant by capital "invested"?
The physical, tangible assets which had to be bought and paid for by somebody.
Does that take into consideration the carry-forward and reserve funds?
It means the capital invested in the flour-milling industry.
The Minister is quibbling.
It is the Deputy who is quibbling.
If the Minister does not want to give the information or if he wants to mislead the House, let him say so. If he purports to give the information, let him give it to us exactly.
The Deputy understands the difference between issued capital and the capital actually invested in the production of a particular commodity. It is on the capital invested in the production of flour that the fixed price is based.
The Minister understands what is meant by "capital invested"?
Yes.
If a premium is paid on a share, is it the premium price that is counted or the rock-bottom price? Does the Minister mean that the carry-forward and reserve funds are included? They are still in the business. Does the Minister include or exclude them?
It frequently happens that a company has a much smaller issued capital than invested capital. If the profits are re-invested in a company, the invested capital will be larger than the issued capital. In some cases the reverse happens. In flour milling most of the companies are engaged in other businesses than the production of flour. The price is related to the capital invested in the production of flour.
I want to know whether the capital on which the Minister proposes to calculate is represented by the premium price of the shares?
It means the capital invested in buildings and machinery.
Then the Minister is misleading the House.
I presume the Minister refers to the cost of that portion of the buildings and that part of the machinery used in the manufacture of flour?
Yes.
How is the Minister to get that?
It has been obtained.
The Minister has apportioned the value of the buildings and machinery in the possession and ownership of the flour millers?
Exactly.
The Minister is a great man.
I did not do it personally, and I do not want to take the credit for it, but it was done.
The amount we are asked to vote under this sub-head— £550,000—is very substantial. It represents a contemplated annual expenditure of £1,900,000. That is an extremely large figure for any particular object. When I saw in the Press some days ago a statement by the Minister that it was intended to subsidise the price of flour to the extent of, approximately, £2,000,000 for the current year, I, in common with, I am sure, a very large part of the population of this country, expected that a full and ample explanation would be given, so as to enable the public to appreciate the necessity for the expenditure of this sum. I sat here and listened carefully to everything the Minister said in connection with this matter. I do think that, in the presentation of this Estimate to the House, there was a great lack of clarity because of the different units mentioned. Reference was made to quarters, sacks, tons and barrels. It was only by sitting down and very carefully parsing and analysing the Ministerial statement, as it appears in the Official Report, that I was able exactly to discover the case the Minister was making. It may be that I am not as intelligent as the bulk of the population, but it certainly required not only my presence here, but careful analysis of the printed statement, to discover the case made by the Minister.
The people, generally, believe that this sum is being voted for the sole purpose of subsidising the millers. It was stated by the Minister that the sum is required for the purpose of ensuring that the price to be paid for bread will be fixed. In other words, the Minister regards it as an insurance against an increase in the price of the loaf. The public believe—on a careful analysis of the Minister's statement, I do not think that anything will be found to disabuse their minds in this respect—that this sum is not so much an insurance aimed at controlling and keeping within certain limits the price of the loaf as an insurance that the pet industry will not suffer a single penny of loss as a result of the emergency through which we are passing. That is the general opinion in the country. I searched the three daily papers—including the Government organ, the Irish Press—and read what they had to say on the subject, and I could discover nothing in those papers which put any other interpretation on the Minister's statement. In a matter of this kind, where a large sum of money is involved, I think the Minister should have made the position much clearer than he did. I shall pay the Minister this tribute, if I may, that he is a splendid advocate in a bad case.
How does the Deputy know that? I never had a bad case.
The Minister does not know when he has a bad case.
The Minister certainly created the impression in my mind that he had a bad case.
Then, I was not a splendid advocate.
I am not departing from that view. I regard this sum with intense suspicion. The Minister marshalled his facts in such a way as to put a face on the case for spending this money but he did not disabuse the minds of a number of people of the idea that the money was more intended to benefit the milling industry than to benefit the people of the country in respect of the price of the loaf.
I am not acquainted with any of the directors, not even with the names, of Grain Importers, Limited, but I agree with the Minister that it is a splendid thing that people should come forward and offer their services voluntarily for the purpose of helping the general good. I quite agree that they should not be attacked for doing so, but I do not think they deserve any particular credit for the action they have taken in this matter. After all, they represent a committee of a certain trade or industry, and they are ensuring that they will get adequate supplies of their own raw material at a price which will involve them in no loss. In any industry, any profession or any occupation a group of people would gladly form an association, and give their services voluntarily in their particular occupations if, in the times we are living in, they were assured of a supply of raw materials. That is the position of these people.
My criticism is chiefly directed towards seeing that the Minister approaches this question, not from the point of view of benefiting one section of the community, but for the general good. The figures which he quoted reveal a very serious state of affairs. The importation of wheat will be reduced from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent. The importation on the Minister's figures will be 30 per cent. less for the year we are now discussing than the previous year. Yet, in spite of that, the additional cost will be £1,200,000. I accept the Minister's figures. They disclose a very serious state of affairs. The bulk of the amount, he pointed out, will represent freight and transport. The whole object, I think, underlying the Minister's activities in this direction was to look after the millers. I am not saying that in a critical sense, but that appears to be the arrangement. Speaking in this House last week the Minister, at column 598 of the Official Debates, when referring to the price the millers would have to pay for home-grown wheat said:—
"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/-."
There is not a single aspect of the millers' problem, in the purchase of wheat from the grower, that has not been dealt with there, in case it was possible that through a contingency they might suffer a loss. How different is that from the way the grower, the person who in the first instance is responsible for the production of wheat, is treated. Accepting the Minister's figures, and assuming that this sum of money is to be spent for this particular purpose in order to stabilise the price of the loaf, I think the Minister and the Government would be very much better advised to divert portion of that sum towards ensuring that bigger and better crops of wheat will be grown, and in that way encourage farmers to produce more wheat at home, with the knowledge that such encouragement is necessary. I know that it is not within the province of this discussion to deal with the fixed price of wheat, and I do not intend to do so, but it is perfectly obvious that with the Department of Agriculture, and all the resources of the State, some other way should be found to increase the quantity of wheat, and to have it available at a certain price rather than to be paying this large subsidy to the millers. If the subsidy was directed in a different direction, something on the basis that exists in England and Northern Ireland of £2 to the acre or something like that, the Minister would find that there would be a very much better return, and that it would not be necessary to come to this House to ask for this extraordinarily large sum of money.
The country believes that the millers are the pets of the Government. I do not know whether that is so, but having listened to the Minister, and read his speech he had no word of sympathy whatever and no word of encouragement for the growers. Everything was for those persons who buy the wheat. The whole idea was to put the millers here in a favourable position. In an agricultural community like this it is up to the Minister to give a better explanation than he has given. It may be that the view I take is entirely wrong, and that this enormous subsidy is necessary, but I do not think that 99 per cent. of the people realise or approve of the action taken. I certainly did not realise it, and I did not appreciate it. I believe there are other ways in which the money could be spent for the purpose of producing a cheap loaf, and for that reason I intend to oppose this proposal.
I believe we all agree that the paramount consideration of every Deputy is to ensure that bread is available for our people, particularly for our poor people, during the present year, at a price that will not exceed the present price. Whether the method that has been adopted by the Minister to secure that object is the best method is a matter that I very seriously question. I think the method adopted to subsidise bread and flour as adumbrated by the Minister is a highly complicated method and one that leaves itself open to very grave abuse. It will require very drastic inspection and supervision that will prove very costly to the State. Notwithstanding drastic supervision, I am satisfied that many people will find loopholes in this scheme, at all events dishonest people, and I am afraid we are not free from that type in this country. They will be able to net something to which they are not entitled. It will be very difficult to arrange. The Minister suggests that he is not prepared to pay a subsidy on fancy bread made on premises where that bread is produced in conjunction with batch bread. I feel that that is a method of handling this situation that undoubtedly leaves itself open to the danger of being abused. We got numerous figures from the Minister when he was dealing with this question, and the estimated production from native sources this year was 290,000 tons.
If you take it that that is the production of 490,000 acres, and that the Minister is banking on that for seed for next year for approximately 600,000 acres of wheat, which would require about 400,000 barrels, and that a considerable quantity must be retained by farmers for their own household purposes, it appears to me that the Minister has calculated on a yield this year of at least about seven barrels to the statute acre. From my experience as a farmer, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the average yield this year will prove to be far less than seven barrels—I think you could not put it higher than six barrels—to the acre. The Minister told us that, so far, that expectation has not borne fruit, that up to the present date not more than 170,000 tons out of the 290,000 tons estimated has reached the millers; so that that figure alone of what has reached the millers at present, will indicate to the Minister that he cannot possibly base his calculation on a return of 290,000 tons from native sources.
It is a well-known fact that there is a very substantial drop in the yield this year, that we had a bad year and lack of sunshine, and that there was a rather serious shortage in artificial manures. On that account, many people who grew wheat this year are very disappointed with the result. In face of that situation, there is an announcement of a price of 41/- for the coming year. The Minister has been advised by many Deputies already— and notably by a Deputy from his own benches, Deputy Corry, who is a practical farmer—that the result of a price offer of 41/- for the coming year will be a serious falling off in the amount of land under wheat cultivation. I must say that I am in complete agreement with Deputy Corry on that point. Taking the price of foreign imported wheat and all the chances and risks that are involved, the cost of importing it and also paying on that a subsidy —as the Minister has told us—of £2, it appears to me that the course he is asking the House to agree to now shows that the producers in this country are being treated in a very shabby way.
The Minister has based his calculation first on the chance of importing 80,000 tons of foreign wheat in the teeth of a U-boat menace, although he has informed the House that quite recently cargoes of wheat have cost as high as 84/-. The Minister has not made it clear to the House how he can hope to reduce that figure of 84/- a barrel to 70/-. Possibly it is by means of direct shipment, and that the 84/- wheat was shipped through Lisbon and that the handling charges there have driven the price up to 84/-. The fact remains that any imported wheat we can secure at the present time—after running all the risks of war—is going to cost us £3 10s. In face of that figure, the position is that we are now offered a price which amounts to only 1/- increase over last year, notwithstanding the fact that the position with regard to the supply of artificial manure is very serious for the Irish farmer. Undoubtedly, we had a considerable reduction in the amount of artificial manure available for the production of wheat last year and that reacted very unfavourably on the yield. I ask the Minister, if that was the position last year, what will it be next year, in view of the present supply of artificial manure—or what we are told it is likely to be for the coming year?
Are not these questions for the Minister for Agriculture? I have a recollection of their being minutely debated on the Estimate of the Minister for Agriculture.
It has been minutely debated here.
Not in my hearing.
The Ceann Comhairle was present when Deputy Corry dealt with it.
If the Deputy were present, he would remember that Deputy Corry had to depart from that subject.
He certainly devoted a considerable amount of time to it.
There is no objection to a Deputy suggesting an alternative to giving subsidies, but there is objection to a discussion on artificial manures and the fixing of a price for wheat, for which the Minister is not responsible.
I wish to support the alternative that a price offer should be made sufficiently attractive to induce our own people to produce our own supplies.
How will that affect a subsidy this year?
I am not suggesting that it will affect it. Undoubtedly, if a better price had been paid for this year's wheat, it would have affected the subsidy this year, as it would reduce the amount required still further. The price offered this year of 40/- was not sufficiently attractive to induce enough people to put land under cultivation, to produce 100 per cent. of our requirements. Undoubtedly that would affect the subsidy this year. The Minister was informed on this point when numerous Deputies expressed the view —on more than one occasion here—that he should not allow the same position to obtain in the future, as it will be even much worse next year.
The present position is that the farmer has to sell his wheat at £16 a ton as human food. If he is feeding many animals and requires animal food, he cannot replace that at the present time at £16 a ton, or at anything like that figure, nor can he get any animal food at all at anything like £16 a ton. There is the risk that wheat may be used for animal feeding, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has warned and threatened people that severe penalties will be inflicted on anyone making use of wheat for animal feeding. As an alternative to that, I believe it is a very good suggestion that some of whatever shipping is available should be used for the importation of artificial manures, if agriculture is to be kept going.
What price would the Deputy pay for it?
The Minister mentioned a figure of £36 a ton. How is it that there is a considerable quantity of nitrogenous manure available in the "black" market at £25 a ton? Will the Minister answer that?
I am talking about the price of bringing manures in on ships from the United States.
The price of sulphate of ammonia in England is ten guineas, with a certain rebate, as much as £1 a ton early in the year. Every English farmer is stocked up; he has all his requirements of sulphate of ammonia. He was appealed to to take early deliveries. Imperial Chemicals had large stocks of sulphate of ammonia and they were anxious to unload these stocks, because the place might get bombed at any time, and the English farmers were asked to take early deliveries. There was an inducement offered to them of a rebate of £1 per ton. The price in June and July was £9 10s. a ton. There was plenty of sulphate of ammonia available. There is any amount of it coming over the Border at £25 a ton. It is available to Northern Ireland farmers at ten guineas a ton, less a rebate of £1. The Minister states that that could not be bought.
That sulphate of ammonia could not be bought at any price.
Was there any attempt made to get sulphate of ammonia at that price?
The Deputy is merely dodging the point.
On the question of artificial manures, will the Minister indicate what type of artificial manure could be obtained from America?
Superphosphate.
Has the Minister made any attempt to get concentrated manures here, manures that would correspond to I.C.I.? Is he aware that Imperial Chemicals have made a highly-concentrated manure known as I.C.I., one cwt. of which would correspond to six cwts. of ordinary compound manure? That is the type of artificial manure he ought to try to secure, in view of the fact that shipping charges are so high. If it is possible to get a highly-concentrated manure of that sort, the freight charge of £22 per ton on it would be relatively less than on a low-grade manure.
Can you get ships?
You are getting ships to carry 80,000 tons of wheat. Our suggestion is that provision ought to be made for the importation of manures.
And do without the 80,000 tons of wheat?
Grow it here.
And then we will have it next September, but what will we live on until then?
Will you do it next September?
You cannot bring in both articles in the same ships.
And this subsidy is for this financial year.
The Minister says he will do it next September. Why did he not do it this year?
The Deputy missed that point, too.
The position will recur.
I feel this whole situation could have been better handled. We are paying out money that could have been kept at home to help our own people, particularly our farmers. Out of the amount that is being made available now by the House, you certainly could pay much more on the wheat that was produced this year. The home production has been very disappointing. The financial return to the producer is uneconomic and it is bound to have a very bad effect on future production, unless there is a very substantial increase in the price the Government are prepared to fix.
This Estimate is one of great importance to the country, inasmuch as it is intended to enable flour and bread to be provided for our people at a price which they can pay. One great worry in the minds of Deputies is that a very large percentage of the money which is being provided will give a very inadequate return. Much of this money will be spent subsidising the importation of wheat. In that way, it will be spent on freight charges that are excessive. It will be spent in connection with ships which are not value for the money paid for them, and much of the money will find its way into the pockets of speculators and profiteers who are out to take advantage of the abnormal situation that exists.
Every Deputy will agree that it is a shame and a pity that all this money could not be held in the country and eventually be put into circulation amongst our farmers and other agricultural workers in the production of wheat. Everyone admits that there was slackness in the effort to secure the 100 per cent. wheat requirements of this country last year. In the first place, there was failure to stress at the proper time the need for an increased supply of wheat. Secondly, there was failure to provide an adequate price, a price which would induce farmers to cultivate the necessary acreage of wheat. It is our duty to ask if any real effort is being made to secure our requirements for the coming year. Two of the most important months of the year, from the point of view of wheat production, have passed. The cultivation of land for wheat growing should begin in September.
Does not the Minister for Agriculture deal with the cultivation of land for wheat growing? I have a recollection of the Deputy and other Deputies holding him responsible in that regard.
I regret to say that many people have come to regard the Minister for Agriculture as being wholly incompetent for the job which he is called upon to perform, and they are looking to the Minister for Supplies to take him by the hand——
The blind leading the blind?
——and make some effort, at least, to induce him to deliver the goods in the coming year. The Minister for Supplies has a tremendous task placed on his shoulders and people would be inclined to sympathise with him if they were satisfied that he was making a reasonable effort to deliver the goods. So far as wheat is concerned, the people are not satisfied that a reasonable effort is being made. We are not satisfied that the acreage necessary for the coming year has been ploughed and is being sown.
That is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, as the Deputy has admitted.
Having failed to offer the inducement which is absolutely necessary if we are to secure a supply of wheat adequate for our needs, the Minister is now forced to provide a subsidy to pay for imported wheat at the rate of 84/- per barrel. Now, surely it is not good business, it is not sound business to offer to pay such a price for imported wheat when it is possible, when it is within our means, to provide the home supply. There is in this country, first of all, sufficient land to grow all the wheat we require for our needs. There is, in addition, I think, sufficient seed within the country to seed that land for the coming year. Those two things are available, and even though, having regard to the shortage of artificial manures, it is necessary to plant a greatly increased acreage in order to provide our needs for the coming year, there is still sufficient land and sufficient seed available to ensure that we will in the future, or should in the future, be independent of imported wheat. Yet we find that time is passing and no reasonable effort is being made to offer the necessary inducement to farmers and to take the necessary steps to ensure that wheat will be cultivated.
An offer of an increase of 1/- a barrel for wheat is simply insulting the potential grower, putting him off wheat altogether, and making him feel that those in charge, and having on their shoulders the responsibility for providing this country with a food supply, have absolutely no sense of responsibility and do not seem to care whether the necessary food is provided in this country or not. It makes it appear to the plain people that the Government prefer to sink the taxpayers' money in the Atlantic Ocean rather than pay the farmer and the agricultural worker for the production of wheat. Deputy Esmonde suggested that it would be a good policy for the Government to provide a subsidy per acre for wheat grown in this country. I do not think that that is sound. I think the Government should pay for the article or the commodity produced, but I think it would have been a good policy—it certainly would have been a good policy, and I think the Government will realise it—to have offered some special inducement to growers to plant autumn wheat, even by giving a small bounty on wheat sown during the autumn months. By so doing we would have ensured that a greatly increased acreage would have been put under wheat instead of having to rely on a shorter period for growing wheat in the Spring.
These considerations are of vital importance to the people of Ireland and they should be of vital importance to the Government and to the Government Party. The importance of this question does not seem to be indicated by the attendance of the Government Party in the House at the moment, but I am sure that within the private meetings of the Party the question is getting consideration and anxious thought, and I hope the Government even now, though it is somewhat late, in order to secure the maximum production of wheat that could be secured, will mend their hand in regard to the price of wheat and offer a substantial increase which will make it unnecessary in the future to provide a subsidy on imported wheat.
The most startling fact which was brought to light by the Minister in his opening statement was the fact that only 170,000 tons of wheat have been delivered so far to the millers. That seems to indicate that the yield for the present year has been abnormally low, lower perhaps than most people are aware of, because it must be certain that the bulk of the season's wheat crop has been already delivered to the millers, and if the yield is so low it is certain that a tremendous effort will have to be made to secure the production in the coming year of even the inadequate quantity which was produced during the present year, and so far as we can see no effort has yet been made to face up to this problem. Some time ago, the Minister for Agriculture informed me, in reply to a question which I asked, that he did not know what the acreage of arable land in this country is. Yet we have the Government making estimates of the necessary amount of compulsory tillage required, and so on, without any facts upon which to base these estimates. We have the position also that the Minister—and he made it clear to me, in reply to a question—does not know what is the cost of producing wheat in this country. These are two essential facts upon which the Government of an agricultural country, apparently, have no reliable information. They are in much the same position as a blind man in a black-out: they are groping about trying to find some means of solving problems as they arise but have no knowledge on which to base calculations for the future. Now, I think that the Government of an agricultural country should know exactly what it costs to produce cereal crops, that the Government of this country should base the price of such cereals upon the cost of production, leaving a decent margin of profit, and that in addition to that they should know exactly how much arable land is available in this country. If they did that, we would not be called upon now, as we are to-day, to provide this enormous subsidy upon imported wheat. I hope that even now the Minister for Supplies, who is believed to be a man of energy, will take the Minister for Agriculture to task and insist upon his providing the necessary wheat for the coming year and providing it by the simple means of offering the producer an economic price.
Will the Deputy get back to the Estimate? He has been dealing so far with the cost of production, the development of agriculture and the price of grain, none of which comes in under this Estimate at all.
I am afraid, Sir, that all these matters have been extensively debated up to the present, but I do not intend to dwell further upon them. There is also in the Estimate provision for a subsidy on bread, and I should like to ask the Minister for Supplies whether he is satisfied that the people, and particularly the people who are dependent solely upon plain or batch bread, are getting a product which is as good as could be produced out of the materials available? I am satisfied that over a very large part of the country the bread provided is not as good as that which could be provided. This may be due to the fact that the bakers have not adjusted their equipment to the production of bread from the present type of flour. At any rate, there is certainly a very great difference between the bread produced in some parts of the country and that produced in other parts, and I think it is a question to which the Minister should direct some attention. I was told of a workman's wife who, having purchased some loaves of bread and some sods of turf, both of emergency quality, unfortunately made the mistake of putting the turf on the table and putting the bread into the fire, but she hardly noticed the difference. There is certainly considerable waste of this very essential commodity, flour, due, I believe, to the fact that in many cases the bakers have not the necessary equipment or for some other reason are not producing bread which can be used economically.
I would not mention this matter except for the fact that there are other bakers who are producing quite good bread, and it is obvious that there must be something wrong somewhere. I am not putting the entire blame on the fact that the present extraction is too high. I think if the Minister were to inquire into this matter he might have it adjusted. I would appeal to the Minister for Supplies, who has this important duty of keeping the country going, to ensure that in the future the very limited shipping space which we have available will be used for the importation to this country of really essential commodities. It may be possible to secure artificial manures, and, if it is, all available shipping space should be devoted to that purpose. There is an abundance of other materials used in the manufacture of home-produced commodities for which shipping space is urgently needed, and to which it could be devoted if the Government were to adopt even now a vigorous and progressive policy in securing our 100 per cent. of home-produced wheat.
The last speaker described this as an enormous Estimate. Undoubtedly, it is for a very large sum, £1,900,000, but the trouble is that we are not quite sure that it is sufficient. It seems to me that the House will be faced with a further Supplementary Estimate for this very purpose. So far as I can understand, this sum is based upon 290,000 tons of Irish wheat finding its way into the mills of this country. The Minister told us last week that, so far, 170,000 tons are in the stores, and he expressed the hope that the other 120,000 tons would come in to be ground by the millers. I think that was a very optimistic hope. I think that, at the very end of the grain season, it is too much to expect that there are 120,000 tons of wheat in this country still to be purchased. I think anybody who knows anything at all about the wheat situation here will agree that that is, to say the least of it, very unlikely.
So far as I am concerned, my main interest in this matter, my primary interest, if you like, is to see the price of flour and the price of bread stabilised. If this £1,900,000 is essential for that purpose, and if it is to be used exclusively for that purpose. I do not believe anybody in this House will object to it. There are really two aspects to this question; one, the stabilisation of the price of flour and bread, and secondly, an economic price for home-grown wheat to the farmer. Deputies, I think, with reason, have said that the Government should have offered greater financial inducement to the farming community to grow more wheat. I should like to say, with all respect to the Deputies who have spoken, and most of whom have greater knowledge of this matter than I have that it is not altogether a question of financial inducement. So far as certain farms in this country are concerned, no financial inducement that could be offered would get economic wheat growing. Deputy Cogan, I think, was right when he said that one of the Minister's biggest problems in equalising the price of home-grown and imported wheat, and in arriving at an estimate, whether it is £1,900,000 or £2,500,000, is the fact that home-grown flour is not available to the millers to the extent that we expected. One of the reasons for that is unquestionably the fact that the yield of wheat this year is down anything from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.; certain authorities in this country have put it as high as 33 per cent. Coupled with that, you have the fact that this year more farmers than ever have kept wheat for themselves, and even those who always kept a certain amount of wheat for their own use have kept a far greater amount this year.
I should like to take the opportunity of saying here and now, reinforcing, if I may, the statement made by the last speaker, that the great danger is that we are facing a cereal year when the shortage is going to be even far greater than it is this year. I have heard with regret dozens of farmers—I think I might say, without being accused of exaggeration, hundreds of farmers— saying at the end of this harvest, when their crops were gathered and threshed and ready for sale, that they would not grow wheat again next year, or that if they did, they certainly would not grow it to the same extent as they have grown it this year. I think that is to be deplored. There are two reasons for it. One is the low yield this year, and the other is that they realise that they are facing a new cereal year with probably only one-third or perhaps only one-fourth of last year's artificial manures available. Of course, every practical man in the country realises that it is almost impossible to grow wheat, or certainly to get any sort of decent return on wheat, without artificial manure, although the leader writer of the Irish Press pushed it aside a few days ago and said that artificial manures were unnecessary.
If you go and ask any farmer in any part of the country—I do not care what his political views are, or which newspaper he reads, or whether he reads any newspaper at all—whether he thinks artificial manures are unnecessary for the growing of crops here, particularly beet and wheat, he will very soon give you an answer. There are certain lands in this country that will grow wheat—perhaps a fairly decent crop of wheat, and perhaps even two crops of wheat—without the aid of artificial manures. I am talking at the moment about some of the most intensely cultivated parts of this country where they have always tilled and grown wheat, but it is impossible in places where the soil is light to grow crops of wheat without artificial manures.
Without desiring to widen the discussion in any way I say that three main points present themselves to me. Firstly, there is the question whether we have any chance of getting in the 290,000 tons of wheat we should get, according to the Minister, this year. That will depend on whether this estimate is sufficient, and I doubt it very much. Secondly, the question arises— and in passing may I say that it is a matter of tremendous importance and urgency?—whether adequate steps are now being taken to see that we shall not be called upon for a far greater subsidy in respect of the next cereal year. Thirdly, if the Minister can convince the House that this sum of money or even a larger sum is essential for the stabilisation of the price of flour or wheat, I think he will get the House behind him provided he assures us that it is used exclusively for that purpose. Fourthly, I should like to know whether the Government have satisfied themselves that 41/- is a fair price for the farmer, and is it the highest price they can afford to give. These are very important matters and now is the time, this very month, to settle them definitely as the best part of the year for the preparation of the ground for growing wheat is practically over. Every day we lose now is storing up for our people very hard times in regard to flour and bread for the next 12 months. These are the points that present themselves to my mind, and I do not want at this stage to deal with any other aspect of this Estimate.
The country seems to be getting by easy stages to a system of rationing for the entire population, and I just want to make a few remarks as to why rationing is necessary. I feel that one of the reasons is to be found in the policy of the Government in the past. In many cases only one manufacturer was allowed to accumulate raw materials, as against a stocking-up by the entire distributing trade. In other cases regulations were made by the Prices Commission that rendered the holding of supplies unremunerative for the distributor. I know the Minister does not agree with me in that.
I do not agree that it arises on this motion.
Is it not rationing?
We are discussing the subsidisation of flour now.
I am dealing with the subsidisation of flour and rationing. I merely refer to it in passing as one of the problems that has aggravated the position. Nobody suggests that we could, by any process of stocking-up, have got the country over the war period, but we are now coming to the most important stage of this country's supplies. Supplies are getting scarcer in the one market where we can get any goods. I was rather disappointed that the Minister did not seize this opportunity to give us some idea of what the policy of the Government is going to be. I should like to suggest to him that the alternative facing the Government is: are they going to take the duty off some supplies which can now be got or will they wait to remove the duties until these supplies have disappeared? Again, I should like to ask the Minister if when removing these duties he can see his way to give any forecast as to the period for which the duties will be removed, whether it will be for the duration of the war, or the duration of the war plus a certain postwar period. The Minister has spoken about this subsidy that is to be given to flour.
To the millers.
Another question that arises is, what is the population that will consume that flour during the coming year? Naturally, the first thing that the people require is something to eat and I think bread is a primary commodity. I do not see how the Government, therefore, could avoid some system of subsidising bread, but at the present time it appears as if this country were faced with a total stoppage of almost all essential supplies in the very near future. I should like the Minister to give us his views on that question. Surely the Minister should be able to give some indication to the country as to the materials that are running short? As an instance of what I am referring to, petrol became very short.
There is no question of petrol in this Estimate.
I quite agree, but the question of rationing is involved and I am merely using the case of petrol to illustrate my argument. Petrol became very short and people turned to gas. Of course, there is no gas in this Estimate either, but I might point out that a lot of people installed gas-bags on their cars when the petrol shortage arose. Soon afterwards it transpired that they would not be given any gas for the bags. That is a procedure I should like to see reversed. I should like the Minister to have told these people that there was no use in installing gas-bags on their cars because they would not be given any gas. I think that if the Minister could give a lead to the country by way of telling the people in future what they should or should not install, his time would be well spent. I should have liked the Minister to have availed of the opportunity to give us a forecast over a wider field than the flour position because there are other people who have their problems as well as the Government.
One serious fact which this Estimate has elicited is that there is a very alarming wheat position in the country to-day, because, although we are now in the middle of November, the Minister has told us that there are approximately only 170,000 tons of wheat in and that we still require to get in 120,000 tons, which, with the 80,000 tons which it is intended to import, will probably carry us up to the next harvest. But I, with other Deputies, have grave fears that, in the middle of November, you are not likely to get in another 120,000 tons of wheat and I think the sooner the Minister realises that the better, rather than that the country should be treated again to the shock tactics——
What does the Deputy suggest we should do about it?
The Minister always misses tides and then asks people to explain to him why he did not see them flowing.
What does the Deputy suggest now?
The Minister received a deputation from this Party in September, 1939, and was then advised to buy ships. He was told then that small nations in Europe had extensive mercantile marines and ships that could be bought. The Minister did not realise then the necessity for ships, but he woke up in 1941 when he could not buy ships except at a fancy price, and when the area of belligerency had so extended as not to give the Minister any choice whatever in the type of ships available for purchase.
The Deputy is running very far away from my question.
I will come to your question. The Minister asks now what should he do. We had a Department of Supplies, or were supposed to have a Department of Supplies, 18 months before the outbreak of the war. We had all kinds of declarations here——
The Deputy is running in another direction now.
All the directions seem to be uncomfortable for the Minister.
He does not want you to talk about them.
We were told that there was not merely a shadow Department of Supplies but an actual Department of Supplies in operation before the war commenced, and the Minister was supposed to be a kind of one-man brains trust who was thinking and planning for the dark days of shortage which the war would probably herald. Then the war broke out and there was considerable commercial activity between nations for a considerable period, although the war was on. Then the commercial activity was interrupted suddenly by events on the Continent. We found it difficult to import commodities and discovered that the Department of Supplies, which was to do all the planning and all the storing had, at most, a few weeks' supply stored away and no more. The moment the relations between nations broke down, owing to the events of the war, then we were pretty well in the position of a beleaguered nation. We ought to have thought in 1939 of the necessity for growing a full wheat harvest, sufficient to provide our people with an all-Irish loaf and an all-white loaf. Of course, nothing was done in that matter until last November when the flour importers discovered that they could not charter ships to take grain here. Then the Minister for Agriculture was released on the country to urge farmers to grow wheat at all costs and, of course, we go the inadequate results that are visible to everybody this year.
We are told that the acreage under wheat was 490,000. Apparently, all we hope to get out of the 490,000 acres is 290,000 tons of wheat, showing, at all events, a very small yield. Of course, if the Minister went through the country he would realise from what he would hear from farmers that the yield all over the country has been uniformly low; so low, in fact, that, as Deputy Morrissey rightly pointed out, many farmers will abandon wheat growing this year and go in for growing oats and barley in preference to the growing of wheat. Before the Minister is many months older, he will be able to get returns of the acreage under wheat which will indicate a veering away from the production of wheat to the production of other cereals which are calculated to give a better yield on the soil available for growing them and less risk from the standpoint of the farmer growing the cereals. I suggest to the Minister that that position has got to be faced and that he ought not, in the middle of next year, come to the House, as he had to come so often before, to tell us of another difficulty that has arisen, because this difficulty can be overcome now if the Government will only think and plan. It can be overcome if the Government will insist, in respect of each suitable holding, on a minimum acerage of wheat, and at the same time give the farmer a price for the wheat which will ensure that he is encouraged to sow wheat and that he is kept in the production of wheat for the use and benefit of our people.
Apart from the question of the now inevitable shortage of wheat supplies for the current cereal year, I have grave doubts about the wisdom of this Estimate, and I have more doubts as to the generoús way in which this House, in present circumstances, is treating the millers of the country. According to the Minister's statement a sum of £1,900,000 is to be shovelled out to the millers, and the bakers in order that they will not get too envious, are to get £80,000 as well. When you think, in these circumstances, of millers getting a subsidy to that substantial extent and of bakers getting a subsidy of £80,000 and contrast that treatment, on the one hand, with the provisions of Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order on the other hand, one thing that strikes you immediately is that, apparently, the miller or baker is to get what he likes from the Government, but, as regards the worker, the best treatment the Government can give him is to peg down his wages to a low level while doing absolutely nothing to control prices. We were told by the Minister for Finance and by various members of the Government that the Government had decided to set its face against any class in the community getting compensation for the increased cost of living. The millers apparently walk in and present a demand to the Minister and are now being offered a cheque in the name of the House for £1,900,000.
Not even for 1d. The Deputy is just being misled by Deputy Dillon.
£1,900,000 is being given to the millers.
They will not get 1d. of it. Deputy Norton does show signs of intelligence once in a while.
The Minister has not developed the symptoms of intelligence, not to speak of signs of intelligence.
I will give the Deputy a question in elementary arithmetic in a minute.
I wish you would give it to Joseph Rank.
The man's name is James.
He trades under the name of Joseph.
Whether it is Joseph or James, the Minister knows very well that he can manage to ring the changes on the Government that came into office to put him out of the country.
Deputy Dillon said all that.
There was a day when the Minister used to say it but, of course, we have seen the road back. We have seen the road back on flour milling, as we have seen it on nationalisation of transport and various other things. The point I want to make, Sir, is that we have in the country a relatively small number of millers and a small number of bakers. They can walk into the Government and get a subsidy of approximately £2,000,000 as compensation for their increased costs.
They are not getting 1d. in respect of increased costs.
Will the Minister read the case he made for granting the bakers the £80,000? Will the Minister read the case?
It is all here in black and white.
The bakers, certainly.
A small number of people are able to come in and get a subsidy of approximately £2,000,000 while the Minister, on the other hand, refuses to allow workers to get any compensation whatever for the increase in the cost of living so far as it affects them. The Minister tried to explain to the House why these gentlemen are treated in this lavish fashion whilst he reserves for the workers, apparently, the bitterest hostility in respect of wages that he could manifest. The workers' wages are to be pegged down to a low level. They dare not get an increase. The greatest sweating employer in the country, if he wanted to wipe out sins of low wages committed in the past, would not be permitted to do it under Emergency Order No. 83. That is the treatment reserved for the workers. He virtually throws £2,000,000 at the millers in this country and the Minister imagines he is conferring a public benefit on the nation by treating that monopoly in this generous fashion.
The most striking part of the Minister's statement was his admission that he asked 1,000 provincial bakers to send him copies of their certified accounts and that out of the 1,000 people communicated with only one provincial baker sent him a certified copy of his accounts. Notwithstanding the fact that he had not got a certified copy of the accounts of these 1,000 bakers, the Minister intimates that he is nevertheless going to give them a subsidy of £80,000. What information was the Minister looking for when he asked for the certified accounts? Information, presumably, as to the financial position of the firms in question and their rate of profit or loss. What information has the Minister now about that position if he did not get a certified copy of the accounts from the firms?
It is all set out in column 613 of the Official Debates. The Deputy did not understand.
I read it all. The Minister said he got one reply from a provincial baker. The 999 simply put out their tongue at him and would not furnish him with any certified accounts. The Minister says: "Nevertheless, let me give this fraternity £80,000 as a subsidy towards their increased costs," although the Minister has not got from the firms in question the information which he felt was necessary when he asked them for these certified returns. I would like to know on what grounds the Minister attempts to justify the payment of a subsidy to bakers. There may be a case. We have not heard the case. The Minister talked about costs increasing. I have seen reports of firms in the Press and they do not appear to be doing too badly in these difficult times. But, of course, the gentleman marauder in the whole milling industry is the miller because that gentleman has plucked and salted the community with impunity for many years past and, by reason of the fact that he possesses a State milling licence, he is apparently put now in such a privileged position that not only can he legally continue to salt the public but he is now advanced even further; he is now entitled to come to the House and say: "Notwithstanding the fact that you gave me a milling licence, please also write a cheque for £1,900,000."
I heard the other day of a gentleman in the flour-milling industry who was appointed at a salary of £7,000 and he subsequently had the salary increased to £10,000. Fancy £10,000 being paid to a gentleman in the flour-milling industry out of bread and flour sold in the main to poor people in this country. That is the type of firm for which we are writing this cheque for £1,900,000.
The Deputy need not do it. He can vote against it. The Deputy should vote against it. By this time 12 months he will deny he ever did it.
Thanks awfully for your advice.
That is a prophecy. It is on record, too. This time 12 months the Deputy will deny he voted against the subsidy on flour.
The Minister poses as a prophet. This is a subsidy on millers' profits, according to the Minister's own words.
And all these prophecies of mine come true.
The Deputy is in order and should be allowed to make his speech.
We heard it all from Deputy Dillon. It is the same speech.
The Minister poses as a prophet. There is another type of profit that Mr. Rank is interested in, that is the £1,900,000 that the Minister is going to ladle out to him now in a very generous fashion.
Every time I told the Deputy he was making a political mistake it came true. He is making one now.
Let us examine this flour milling industry in the hope that we may unmask to the public, notwithstanding Press censorship——
And Ministerial protection.
——some of the things that happen in respect of monopolies. I hope I will not annoy the Minister by reference to Mr. Rank and I do not want to conjure up any ghosts of the Minister's past speeches about the gentleman but everybody knows that Rank came into the country and bought up the interests of any mill he could get, and bought them for the purpose of closing them. He originally did that in order that he could flood this country with flour. Then the Government changed and Rank changed. Then the Government changed again to conform with Rank but Rank floated a company consisting, I think, of a group of other companies that he bought up. He released, I think, in 6 per cent. preference shares, £700,000.
£350,000 in 6 per cent. preference shares.
I think the entire capital was £700,000. Half was released as £1 shares which were sold at 25/- to the Irish people. Then there were 5/- shares, I think, to the extent of another £350,000 but Rank got the bulk of these.
At 5/- a share.
He released some of the remainder——
At 15/- a share.
——to the Irish people but they were released at 15/- a share and Mr. Rank, whom this Government was going to drive out of this country so that he would not be the octopus in the flour milling industry, was permitted to do that by this Government while this Government was in office, after the Minister had finished his fire-eating speeches about Rank. All that was done by a firm that is now getting a very substantial slice of this £1,900,000. I regard that as racketeering. I regard that as simply swindling the public and making exorbitant profits out of the vital needs of the people.
That is precisely what the Deputy is doing at the moment— swindling the public.
Rank is able to float these shares at 15/- because our people eat bread and because our people want flour. He is, apparently, allowed to do that, which is a most dishonest form of gambling because there is no element of loss or probability of loss in it so far as Rank is concerned. It is downright racketeering, downright plundering of the people, to permit a firm to get away with that type of financial welshing on the needs of our community in respect of bread and flour. These millers have been given a monopoly by the State—a milling licence. That is their goodwill. We created their goodwill by giving them a milling licence. That is the only goodwill they have and that is the thing that entrenches them to-day. We gave them a licence to deal in the most vital need of our people, namely, flour, a commodity which has become still more vital because of the circumstances under which we live. I have very grave doubts if it is good national policy to give a subsidy of £1,900,000 to a monopoly which is in private hands.
It would be a very bad policy, so we are not doing it.
You are doing it.
That is the very thing you are doing.
The Minister can try to slave his own conscience in any way he likes.
It is not a question of salving conscience; it is merely stating the facts.
This is £1,900,000 to the flour millers——
Not one penny to the flour millers.
And I think on an invested capital of about £7,000,000— which is not bad either. Flour in present circumstances is a vital necessity for our people and having regard to all we know about flour milling and having regard to what we know has gone on in respect of flour milling and having regard to the exorbitant profits which were made out of the milling of flour, I do not think that we should continue to allow this monopoly, in present circumstances, to rest in private hands.
It seems to me that what the State ought to do, having regard to the conditions with which we are now faced, is to take over the mills and operate them as nationally-owned institutions, administer them not for the purpose of issuing shares, or for the purpose of paying salaries of £10,000 a year, but for the purpose of producing flour at the cheapest possible price and making the provision of flour for the people the overwhelming consideration of their milling policy. At present the millers think of one thing, that is, the making of the highest possible profit, and they are sufficiently well organised and have sufficient financial resources to be able, according to this Estimate, to shake the Government any time they choose to do so; but, in present circumstances, it seems to me to be very undesirable that a private monopoly of this kind should be given this gigantic sum of money. I should very much prefer that the State itself would take over the flour mills and operate them under national ownership, basing their policy on the production of flour at the cheapest possible price. So far as we here are concerned, we are in favour of any practical policy which will keep bread prices low and which will keep flour prices low.
But the Deputy will vote against it all the same.
The way in which that can best be done is by the State taking over and operating the flour mills on a non-profit—making basis. Does it not seem absurd that we should pass through this House the Shannon Electricity Act, which prevents any profit being made out of the generation and sale of electric light, while we give a free field to the flour millers to make any profit they can get away with in respect of flour, a still more vital commodity?
Does the Deputy not know that that is not true?
What is not true?
Does the Deputy not know that the price of flour is fixed?
It is fixed at a price which enables the millers to become the new rich of this country.
To make 21.2 per cent on their ordinary capital.
That is utter nonsense.
It is in this document in black and white.
Does the Minister deny that when Ranks were issuing their 5/- shares at 15/-, they said as the reason for looking for 15/-, that a profit of about 30 per cent. would be earned?
38 per cent.
The Deputy said that we were allowing the flour millers to charge any price they liked. That is not true.
I did not say any price, but any price which will pay the flour miller generously. Is that not the position to-day? The people who are getting rich are the flour millers. The mass of the people may have their standard of living depressed, but if you want to get rich you have to be a flour miller or a bacon curer, and then you have a passport to a kind of Eldorado under this Government. My quarrel with this Estimate is not in respect of the amount of it, but in respect of the purpose for which the money is being used. It is being used for the purpose of subsidising the millers, and I should prefer to see that money kept in the pockets of the State and to see the State breaking from the policy of the past, taking over these flour mills, especially in existing circumstances, and operating them for the purpose of providing cheap flour for the people, instead of huge profits for the millers.
So far as the debate has gone, it certainly will not ease the minds of the traders or the people who have to procure bread in the counties along the Border. I had two telephone messages this morning before I left home saying that they still had not got an adequate amount of flour. They have got most of their quota for the month, but, owing to the amount of flour which has come in illegally during the past three months, the people have not got sufficient for their requirements. There has been a good deal of discussion about this sum of almost £2,000,000 and about where it is going. Deputies say that it is going in one direction, and the Minister says that it is going in another direction.
I wonder did the Minister consider whether it would be better to give a subsidy to the millers or to give it, as Deputy Esmonde has suggested, to the farmers? If the Minister would take the trouble of finding out what it would cost to pay for these 370,000 tons of wheat required and dividing that sum into the £2,000,000 which he proposes to give to the millers, he would find that it would represent about £5 a ton. To approach it from the other angle, it is estimated that we have about 490,000 acres of land which might be developed for this purpose, and dividing that into the £2,000,000 which he proposes to give to the millers, we find that it works out about £4 an acre. If some of this money were given to the farmers, it would be an inducement to them to grow wheat because they will not grow wheat at the present prices. Even people who are not engaged in the agricultural industry realise that wheat cannot be grown year after year, or even in the space of two or three years, without a great quantity of artificial manures. This year, unfortunately, we cannot get artificial manures. We were able to get a certain amount last year by ways and means which will not be available this year, and something should be done, and done immediately, to give the farmer a subsidy or some increase in price—let it be paid by the acre or by the ton, and I think the weight system would probably be the better— because winter wheat sown later than October is not nearly as good as winter wheat sown in that month.
A terrific amount of money was spent last year on advertisements encouraging farmers to grow wheat up to January and into February. Some of the Ministers went through the country in February and said: "There is still time to grow wheat." That is not so. It is impossible to grow winter wheat at that time of the year. Some Deputy asked a question as to the cost of these advertisements and we were told the figure. It was a huge amount, but anyone in the habit of growing wheat realises that there is a difference of tons between wheat sown in October and wheat sown in January. The longer it is left unsown, the worse it is, and unless a move is made immediately, there is no hope of getting the wheat required. There is another item which you, Sir, will probably permit me to refer to, although it is not exactly relevant to the Estimate, that is, the matter of tea.
We are not discussing tea. The Deputy must confine himself to the subsidy in respect of flour and bread.
Very good, Sir. I shall reserve my remarks for another occasion.
We always seem to be wrangling over sops of one kind or another here, and it is unfortunate that we can never get the Minister to view things correctly. He always seems to stick his heels in the ground and to do practically as he likes. We have now a glorious opportunity of showing the world that we can produce our own food and live by the hands of our agriculturists, but have we the manliness to do it? We find ourselves in a position in which practically £2,000,000 are to given away. And who are the people who are to get this money? The millers and some importers, while the very people who can and will produce the food, the farmers, are to get nothing. If the producer is not given a better price for the wheat that he grows than he got last year, then everyone knows we are not going to get half of last year's acreage grown for the reason that his costs of production are so heavy. The Government and all concerned should realise that. Now is the time for sowing winter wheat, but the fact is that very little of it has been sown except in a few areas of the country. I come from what might be described as a ranch county, in which there is a great deal of virgin soil. There very little winter wheat is being sown. The farmers will not be encouraged to sow it until the Government offer them a decent price for it. If that situation is allowed to go on, it may very well land this country in a desperate position. We may be faced with famine, so, therefore, I would urge on the Government to offer a decent price to the farmers and encourage them to grow all the wheat that will be needed to feed the people. What is wrong that we cannot afford to pay a decent price to the man who is ready to produce food for the people?
Would not that be a question for the Minister for Agriculture?
The point that I am trying to make is that, in my opinion, this subsidy is being wasted. A subsidy is going to be paid to the millers, but I think it is the producers who should get it, the men who kept this country in safety last year. They can be relied on to do the same next year if they get a fair deal. I agree that we can produce all the wheat we need. Of course, it is only in a time of emergency that such a thing will be done, because when the war is over you will have wheat being landed here from many far away parts of the world. In that case our farmers will go out of wheat production, but we do not want that to happen this year. We want them to stick their heels in the ground and to produce all the wheat possible. Growing wheat year after year on the same land means that you get a diminished return per acre. To produce wheat properly you must have adequate supplies of manures and fertilisers. We are not likely to have either this year. Therefore, the only incentive to the farmer to grow more wheat this year is to offer him a decent price.
I agree with Deputy Belton, Deputy Corry and other Deputies who have said that to offer anything less than £3 a barrel for wheat will not get the farmer to produce it. I know, of course, that in a time of emergency our farmers will do the right thing, but the Government should not be tinkering with this thing. They should go out boldly and offer a price that will encourage farmers to produce. Otherwise the country may be faced with starvation and we may have to appeal to outside powers to help us out of our difficulty. We should not be put in that position. It is now in the power of the Government to do the right thing, to take the necessary steps to stave off any fear of starvation in the coming year. If immediate steps are not taken by the Government the winter wheat, which gives a good return, will not be sown. Farmers will put off sowing it and will wait until the spring. We all know that winter wheat is desperately hard on land: that it takes years to bring back that land to a good condition. The farmers are the people who can deliver the goods and it is they who should get the subsidy. If the tillage undertaken last year had been carried out in a proper way a subsidy of perhaps £1,000,000 would be sufficient. In the county that I come from I saw tens and tens of thousands of barrels of wheat lying rotting on the land. It was not that the people could not overtake the work but rather that proper care was not exercised in the saving of the crop. In some places we had very big landholders who tilled hundreds of acres of land, not because they loved to do it——
What connection has that with a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Supplies?
I want to show that £1,000,000 of this subsidy could be saved if the crop last year had been properly harvested, and if there had been more supervision of some of the people who tilled large areas of their land. A lot of them put in the crop and then let it take pot luck. In a number of cases I saw cattle and birds eating the crop, and there was no attempt made to save it at all, although Providence had blessed us with a bountiful crop which should have been saved to meet the needs of the people. I do not know where all the inspectors were. They seemed to be very anxious to get the land tilled, but when it came to saving the crop the inspectors were not to be seen at all.
Inspectors from the Department of Supplies?
I do not know which Department they belonged to. In future, when we force people to till their land I think we should take steps to see that they deliver the goods.
Has the Deputy anything to say on the subsidy?
If I cannot develop that I have not much more to say. In conclusion, I ask the Government to do the manly thing now, and not leave it too late, by giving a good price to the producer. Let them forget about the flour millers and the importers, and let the subsidy go to the farmers.
I have listened for almost two days to the misrepresentation of the Opposition led by that stalwart of wheat growing in this country, our friend Deputy Dillon, and to other members from the opposite side who have spoken on this Estimate. What they have been really doing is this: making a case for a reduction in the price that the farmer should get at the present time. Everyone of them knows quite well that it is a good "cant" to get going in the country—probably good ammunition for propaganda purposes—to say that the Government are paying the millers £2,000,000 of a subsidy. If they go out on public platforms and say that it will go all right. It is quite a good "cant". Deputy Dillon should go down the country with it immediately. If he thinks he can get away with it, I am sure he will. But Deputy Dillon and the other Deputies know quite well that this sum of almost £2,000,000 is being paid to enable the people of this country to get bread at the price they got it at last year.
And to give the millers 6 per cent. on their capital.
Deputy Dillon and the other Deputies opposite who have spoken also know quite well that if this sum of almost £2,000,000 were not paid, one of two things would have to happen: either that bread would go up in price, or that the farmers would get from 5/- to 10/- a barrel less for their wheat.
Why could not the millers reduce their profits?
Deputy Dillon is leading a dishonest campaign in this matter.
Why cannot the millers reduce their profits?
The Deputy should not interrupt me. Last year he spent almost a day speaking on this. We have been listening to the Mad-hatter of the Fine Gael Party speaking on this matter.
Deputies are to be referred to as Deputies.
Deputy Dillon has been the leader of a campaign against any wheat growing in this country. If he had his way, and if the people minded him, they would be starving to-day because they would have no bread. That would be their position if Deputy Dillon had got away with the campaign which he has been carrying on for the last ten years. Fortunately for the country, Deputy Dillon had no influence amongst the people of the country and never will. That, at least, is certain. He knows quite well, and other Deputies know, too, that the price of the loaf of bread and of flour would have to be increased substantially as a result of paying farmers 40/- for their wheat and also because a certain amount of hard wheat had to be imported at an exorbitant price from abroad. Those are the two reasons why this £2,000,000 has to be paid this year to keep the price of bread to the poor at the level at which it has been since the war started.
And to keep the millers' profits up.
Deputy Norton, who dare not go into the Lobby against this Vote, indulged in cheap penny-ha'-penny criticism on the level of what has come from Deputy Dillon. He spoke about millers' profits and Rank's 5/-shares selling for 15/-. I doubt if Deputy Dillon will contradict the statement that Guinness's £1 shares went up to almost £7 some years ago.
They have no Government monopoly.
There was nothing wrong in their £1 shares selling for £7.
Porter against bread is a bad comparison.
I got up to protest against the campaign being carried on by the Opposition. Deputies on the opposite have no less responsibility than Deputies on this side. They have a responsibility to the people to lead and guide them and tell them the truth.
Deputy Allen, in his cross little outburst, told us that either the price of wheat would have to be reduced or the price of bread would have to go up. I wondered at his saying that.
Show us how it could be done otherwise.
We have been told that a miller made 21 per cent. profit. Is there not plenty of room there? There is no use in comparing the profits of Guinness or the price of Guinness's shares with the millers' position. Guinness has not a monopoly, and so far as I know, were never subsidised by the Government.
The millers are not Government-subsidised either.
The millers have had a monopoly for quite a number of years and they are being presented with a subsidy.
The alternative was to import the flour, which Deputy Dillon wants.
It is just as dishonest as Deputy Allen's suggested alternative to say, as was suggested in the Minister's speech, that 6 per cent. is the correct profit. Everybody knows that that is not correct. This is going to prevent the miller from ever getting less than 6 per cent.
It was suggested that the £2,000,000 subsidy was going to the millers——
Deputy Allen had an objection to being interrupted.
I had but I was interrupted.
I do not think that I interrupted Deputy Allen. From beginning to end of his introductory speech on this Estimate, the Minister was defending the millers, apart from the price or the subsidy.
How do you know?
I read it in the report. Everybody knows that since 1932 the most stalwart defenders of the millers has been Deputy Corry. He is the man who stood up for the millers from beginning to end.
I wanted to put an end to British thievery in this country.
He is the man whose greatest grievance was that somebody was going to make profit out of the millers because he cornered some wheat before them.
£45 a ton——
The Deputy had an opportunity of speaking and must be content now.
I cannot listen to the Deputy.
If the Deputy cannot listen, he has his remedy.
Regarding the distribution of flour, I do not agree that one point made by the Minister is correct —that 90 per cent. of complaints regarding shortages in the rural areas were attributable to the traders concerned "trying to get something out of it". The suggestion is that, in rural areas, traders were getting a reasonably level supply of flour from the millers and that they were holding this up and not giving it to the consumers. That is not so and I defy the Minister or anybody else to prove it. It is not correct that millers were delivering to traders—particularly, small traders—in the rural districts a reasonably level supply of flour. Some traders always got flour but others could not get it. In the case of one large milling industry—the Minister referred to this —one half of a county got very little flour for a period and the other half of the county got a good supply. That was simply because the commercial traveller for one half of the county was able to secure supplies for his customers.
Which county was that?
My information from a baker is that it happened in County Cork. When the Minister asks parish councils and similar bodies to investigate complaints about flour shortages before sending them up to him, how does he expect them to do it? The ordinary consumer goes into a shop in a village where he has been buying his flour all his life and he is told he cannot get flour. According to the Minister, that is the fault of the trader. I say that is not so. If the Minister was satisfied that the shortage was being created artificially by the trader, is it not strange that we did not hear anything about it until he introduced this Estimate? If the Minister is allowing traders to get away with the creation of artificial shortages in flour, it is a scandalous situation. I say that the shortage is not the fault of the smaller traders. They are absolutely at the mercy of the millers and the Minister knows that.
The most serious feature of the whole situation—one which was referred to by a number of Deputies—is that regarding the 120,000 tons of wheat which have not got into the mills to be turned into flour. The subsidy in this Estimate is not going to bring in those 120,000 tons of wheat. I should like to hear from the Minister how he proposes to get in those 120,000 tons because it is obvious that, if they are not got in, there will be a 50 per cent. shortage of the wheat necessary to provide flour up to the next harvest. That is more serious than most people realise. If that be the position, drastic measures will have to be taken to deal with it. There is a suggestion in the country that certain people are using wheat for animal consumption. In present circumstances, that is a shocking crime. I doubt if that practice is widespread but, if it is happening at all, it is a shocking crime against the people. If 120,000 tons of wheat are unlikely to be turned into flour, it is the most serious revelation made since the present emergency. I find it hard to visualise what will happen if that wheat is not got in. The subsidy under this Estimate will not have the slightest effect in bringing it in. It will not offer the slightest inducement to bring it in. A number of Deputies in talking about an increased price for wheat—whether it be justified or not— may be doing a lot of damage. If the Government feel that they should offer an increased price to get that wheat in, let them offer it now, but let not an atmosphere be created in which certain people will think that they will get an increased price, and accordingly, hold up the wheat with a view to getting it.
I am afraid that is what is happening. When you have a number of Deputies on all sides expressing their views, rightly or wrongly, as to the right price, there are people with the necessary accommodation who can hold up their wheat, and if the Government do not choose to give an increased price, what will happen? Suppose these people hold up the wheat until March, and the Government do not give a better price, what possibility is there of getting it? None at all. The people who will not sell it now will not sell it in March or April.
You are mistaken.
I wish I had the same faith in human nature that Deputy Corry has. I am not satisfied that people who hold up the wheat until then will not use it for animal feeding.
We were talking of 1942 wheat.
That does not concern me. My concern is that there are 120,000 tons of wheat which must be got in. It would be satisfactory to have an indication from the Minister for Supplies, whose job it is, as to how he hopes to get that wheat in.
How much wheat is the Deputy growing?
I probably grew more than the Deputy did. Deputy Corry will, surely, agree with me that no Deputy from Meath should ask a Deputy from Cork how much wheat he grew.
Deputy Victory is from Longford.
That is even worse.
Deputy Victory is so busy looking after Deputy Childers that he has not time to grow wheat.
While the Minister denies that the flour millers are going to get anything out of this £1,900,000, he does not suggest what is going to happen it. So far as I can judge, it will not go anywhere. It will not go to the farmer, because he will get the same price as before. It will not go to the consumer because he will pay the price for his bread as before, and the Minister says it will not go to the millers. It is beyond me to guess what will happen it. According to the Minister, we are voting this sum for some purpose, but he does not tell us what will happen it. If it will not go anywhere, then he does not want it at all. But it is utter nonsense to suggest that it will not go to the miller and the baker. In fact, the Minister gave the figure on which he based the amount to go to the baker. The Minister is very foolish to be defending his attitude, as he did to-day, by suggesting that Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon are making the same speeches as they made before, and are merely doing that with a political object. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how he is going to get in these 120,000 tons of wheat so as to turn that wheat into bread? If he is not able to do that, then we have a shocking position, and no subsidies will get over it.
It is up to the farmers to help to feed the nation, and it is the duty of the Government to help the farmer to sow more wheat. My experience of the county which the Minister for Agriculture and myself represent is that a great deal of barley is grown because the land suits barley. So long as the farmers are getting £2 for wheat and 30/- for barley, there will be little wheat grown in that county. The farmers cannot be blamed for not growing it. The best way to spend some of this money would be to go out and tell the farmers that you would give them a decent price for their wheat, so as to make it worth their while to grow it. Deputy Belton suggested that the farmer was entitled to 50/- a barrel for his wheat. I agree with Deputy Belton, and I voted for his motion. We all know that this is not a suitable country for wheat growing. There is considerable dampness at times, and plenty of sun is required for wheat. There is only one way to feed the people, and that is to give the farmer a good price for his wheat. He should not be told in April, May or June what he will get. He should be told now that he will get £3 a barrel——
The Deputy should make these representations to his Wexford colleague, the Minister for Agriculture.
You know as well as I do that I have often suggested it to the Minister for Agriculture, and he turned me down. Last night he said it was economic to feed pigs on barley and potatoes. "Jack the Lantern" would not feed pigs on barley and potatoes without milk.
That is quite irrelevant.
I say the farmer is entitled to his share of the subsidy and that he is not getting it. It is necessary to grow all the wheat and potatoes possible. Do you think it would be better——
The Chair takes no part in discussion.
The Chair will not allow me to talk to the Minister or to the Chair itself. If we are asked to grow more wheat, we should be encouraged and told that we will get £3 a barrel for it.
The Minister for Supplies is not now asking farmers to grow wheat. He asks a subsidy for bread and for flour.
A subsidy to give to the foreigner. If the Minister for Supplies is voted this money it is not going in the right direction. It is the farmer who is entitled to a fair price for his labour. Deputy Corry told us here about seven barrels of wheat to the acre. I am sure the same land will grow 12 barrels of barley. Seven barrels of wheat at £2 a ton would yield £14, while 12 barrels of barley would yield £18. If you were given the choice, which would you grow?
The Deputy may not question the Chair on the matter under discussion.
There is talk of "Grow more wheat". Why are the farmers not encouraged to grow it? I will get an opportunity later on to talk to the Minister for Agriculture about prices.
The Deputy will get his opportunity on some other vote.
Listening to the debate this evening, it comes as an agreeable surprise to me that at least one-half of the Opposition is now preaching self-sufficiency—a word which used to be laughed at and about which there was a lot of codology. The only question now seems to be how to handle the sufficiency. Personally, I believe that the price of wheat will have to be advanced, if the farmers are to be expected to produce it. We all know that at the moment in certain districts oats and wheat are both going at 2/- a stone. Therefore, something must be done to give encouragement to grow wheat.
The whole meaning of the subsidy— as I understand it—is to give bread to the poorer part of the community at a reasonable price, and I ask those people who are opposed to the subsidy, if there are any, if they would in the same breath ask to remove the stabilisation of salaries and wages. Are we going to have this inflation—one thing chasing the other—and none of us in this House able to sum up where it will end? At the moment the Government is trying to ensure that the food produced will be sold at a price which will enable people to live within the present salaries and wages. It is argued by some that the Government should take over the mills and nationalise them. That is a very big question and I, for one, would not like to start on it in the present emergency and world outlook.
I believe we should try to give encouragement for production. Some people do not set the same value on money now that they set on it five years ago: they do not know where the present world racket will end or what its value will be. Our consideration should be to get as much industry and production going as possible and to try to make conditions for our people, as a whole, as easy as possible. We cannot expect to have it very easy, as the cost of many things from foreign countries has gone up. After listening to some of the speeches in the debate, I must say I cannot see any division on this point, and I would not have risen were it not that one side of the House has been ridiculing the Minister and nobody here to defend him.
Hear, hear!
We do stand up to defend him. We believe, as we believed five years ago, that the policy was right, and we are glad to find Deputies, like Deputy Keating, advocating self—sufficiency.
Deputy Keating always did.
One of the items which has been very well dealt with is that in regard to the subsidy, and the Deputy who has spoken made a very good case for it; but there is another item to which I would refer— the very first item. It shows £42,168 increase in salaries, wages and allowances. That is an appreciable item and I suppose it is an indication of an increase in the number of officials. If there is an increase like that in the number of officials, one would expect that there would be efficiency in that Department, but from long experience of trying to deal with that Department I have found that, instead of having any sort of efficiency, it is behind every Department in the State. There seems to be neither head nor tail there, nor any kind of order. It is very hard to account for it. They never seem to get things into shape, or to have any method in that Department.
Discussion is not now on salaries paid in the Department of Supplies.
Are we not dealing with No. 4?
No; wheat and flour subsidies. In the Estimate there is provision for salaries, wages and allowances, but those items have been disposed of.
I suppose there is hardly any difference of opinion about the need for reducing the price of bread and the price of flour. As regards the method by which that money is passed out to the people it is intended to reach, the trouble is that it is paid over to the men who have a monopoly—a few millers who have been multiplying their profits for the last few years. They get a present of this subsidy, to deal with it very much as they like. The money is voted by this House, but they do not reduce the price of bread or flour. If we vote money to people who have a monopoly like this, it is but natural to expect that they have some obligation in regard to these privileges handed over to them.
There should be no reason for debate on this question. I believe that all sides of the House ought to be satisfied that it is a little difficulty which could be overcome, if there were some committee of men competent to deal with it, representing all Parties in the House, to arrange the way this money would be paid. Some Deputies say it would be better to pay it direct in increased prices for wheat. All sides of the House are inclined to agree that that would be the best way. There has been a tendency here for a considerable time to give more and more to the monopolists—to the men who are making thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds in profits—making millionaires of them and making paupers of the bulk of the people, the real producers on whom the country has to rely for food. It is not fair, and everyone knows that it is not fair.
I do not know why the Government should be so anxious to pass it all on to the men who need it least and to throw the responsibility on them to use it as they like and they will deal with it very much as they like. They do not distribute it to the satisfaction of any section of the community, and I am sure that nobody on that side of the House would agree that they are dealing with the subsidy properly and letting the people entitled to benefit get the benefit. If they were doing that, there would not be so many complaints about the price of flour, bread and other commodities.
Deputy Cole referred to the distribution of flour in parts of County Cavan. That has been a very troublesome matter in this area between the consumers and the shopkeepers, the Deputies and the Government. I got in touch with the Department of Supplies in June last about an extreme shortage of flour there and the first time I got a reply was in September. That was to a letter I wrote in June— three months before—and it went no further than saying they were going to investigate the matter. From September until now practically nothing has been done about it. About two weeks ago, I got a notice from the Department of Supplies that they had decided to increase the quota by 5 per cent.—that was over the whole country. Any suggestion of 5 per cent. or 20 per cent. or even 50 per cent. indicated that the Minister or the Department did not know the first thing about the problem there. I explained it as far back as last June, and it has since been explained by the people concerned in the flour trade and has been clearly put before the Minister and the Department.
There is no purpose served by talking about any increase if there is not going to be a general rationing scheme in these districts where special circumstances exist, as the Minister knows. Certain conditions that existed in my area in 1940 made it inevitable that the quota was very much below what it should have been. Yesterday I was speaking to a man who, in conjunction with two others, gets flour from a miller; they are distributors in the town of Ballyconnell. This man told me that the amount of flour they got for the last month or two would work out at 1½ lbs. every week for each person in the area which they supply. From another source I heard it said that if the flour were rationed there would be 5 lbs. for each person. It is no use talking about increasing the percentage when there is such a wide difference as that. It may be asked how did the people manage to get along during the last year. There is an explanation for that, and I believe some of the traders there have brought it to the Minister's notice. They were able to carry on because they had laid in supplies, but these supplies are now exhausted and unless the Minister sees to it that something will be done, there is nothing but starvation facing those people.
I heard yesterday of another increase over and above the 5 per cent. I advise the Minister not to rest assured that that will meet the situation. The people who have the responsibility of supplying customers must be satisfied that they are getting a fair and equitable supply as compared with other districts. They do not want to be better off and neither do they want to be worse off than the people in other districts. There has been a serious scarcity in this area, and I hope that situation will not be allowed to recur. The people have correctly informed the Minister of the circumstances and they will be satisfied if they get a fair show. The supplies that the people were advised by the Government to lay in have been exhausted.
The district I am speaking of is not a place where any wheat worth while can be grown, because the land is unsuitable. The people have to depend on whatever supplies they can get. I hope the Minister will give some attention to their grievances. At the present time many people are writing to the Department and they fail to get satisfaction. It is impossible, of course, for the Department to deal with individual complaints from all over the country. If the people are given to understand that goods are being distributed in an equitable fashion they will realise there is nothing to be gained by writing, and thus the Department will be able to save a good deal of time, and a more satisfactory condition of affairs generally will exist. Would I be in order if I referred to tea?
Certainly not; there is no subsidy for tea.
There is a shortage of it.
There is a shortage of other commodities to which it is not permissible to advert now.
I must respect the ruling of the Chair. I do not think there is anything more I can say on this subject. Other speakers have dealt with it better than I could, and perhaps it is better to leave well enough alone. I appeal to the Minister not to overlook the district to which I have referred, and I trust he will arrange for a suitable flour allocation. He does not seem to realise to what extent the existing quota has been affected by the supplies brought in last year.
The Minister referred to complaints, and he pointed out that in nine out of every ten cases there was no proper ground for complaint. In the area I represent I am aware there was a definite shortage. I am not referring to what led up to the shortage, whether it was the fault of the traders or the system of distribution, but there was a definite shortage in some of the congested areas in South Kerry and, were it not that one or two traders in one district happened to have a substantial quantity of flour in stock, the position would have been very serious. In order to avoid that happening again the Minister should adopt some system along the lines already outlined here. He mentioned the definite quantity that would be required for the whole country. Could there not be a certain quota allocated to each county in such a way that every area would receive a fair quantity?
In my opinion there is a lack of uniformity in the matter of distribution. It is the duty of the Department to see that all Government orders are enforced and properly respected. There should be a general evening-up of the whole position. Deputy Linehan and others mentioned that farmers were withholding wheat stocks and that 100,000 tons were still being held in different parts of the country. It has been suggested that some of the subsidy could be utilised to give an enhanced price to the farmers.
Of course, everyone realises that would not be fair, because a certain price has been paid to the farmers who have already sent in their produce and their stocks, and why should anyone suggest that farmers who have still held on to their stocks should at this stage be given an enhanced price as an inducement? I do not think that that would be fair or just. There is, however, the question of the farmers holding on to these stocks for animal feeding. That is deplorable, if it is true. I have been informed of a few cases where people have held over stocks of wheat. I must admit that it is a difficult matter to check up on, because these farmers, naturally, state that they require it for home consumption and that it will be utilised eventually for home requirements.
I believe that there should be some check-up on this matter, even if the Minister has to call in the assistance of another Department of State. For instance, why should not the Minister for Supplies, on occasion, call in the assistance of the Gárda Síochána in the enforcement of some of these orders? I think it is necessary and that it will be necessary, and I would suggest that when he is replying the Minister should refer to the fact that it is understood that there will be a fixed minimum price in regard to the retail price of flour. That would be a step in the right direction, and I believe that that would be one deterrent so far as the distribution of flour is concerned.
I have been given information—I have passed it on, not to the Minister for Supplies, but to the Minister for Agriculture—with regard to the withholding of stocks of wheat. I have also been informed in regard to traders who have sold two and three sacks of flour to farmers for the feeding of animals and had none at all for the poor people and others who came from congested districts. They had none at all for these people when the shortage took place. These are the matters I was referring to when I mentioned the question of the Gárda Síochána being called in. If the Minister adjusts the system, probably it would not be necessary to have any such proceeding or any intervention at all so far as the Gárda are concerned, but I believe that in order to have proper distribution and a proper check-up on the whole thing the position must be reviewed. The Minister makes an order up here and the House gives it its approval, but it is another matter altogether to get the order enforced and respected. With regard to the subsidy, I would suggest, if I am in order, that a percentage of that subsidy should be put aside for an increased price for wheat for the coming season. I do not know if I am in order in suggesting that.
The question of the price of wheat would be a matter for the Minister for Agriculture.
Yes, Sir, but this is a subsidy.
For the current year's flour and bread.
For the current year?
Yes, this financial year.
Well, could not portion of this money be left over, if necessary, so as to make sure that the price of wheat would be increased for the coming year? That would be one of the main considerations in connection with having a sufficiency, in my opinion. We are given to understand, and we agree, that the Minister is doing the right thing in asking for this money to subsidise the price of flour and to regulate the whole system, but I should like to know, since we are given to understand that portion of this money will be required for the subsidisation of imported wheat, homegrown wheat, etc., whether portion of it could not be also utilised for the other development, that is, to ensure a sufficiency for the coming season. Could not portion of that £1,900,000 be held over and not expended for the current year? I am only making that suggestion in case such an adjustment is possible and if I am in order in doing so. In conclusion, I should like the Minister, so that this shortage will not occur in future and so that there will be a proper distribution in the areas I am referring to, to consider the question of a minimum retail price for flour.
The House is being asked to vote a sum of £1,900,000, as stated by the Minister, to enable him to keep the price of the loaf at its present level. Now, portion of that £1,900,000 will be for the 80,000 tons of wheat that the Minister hopes to import into the country, but the price of that 80,000 tons of wheat is not included in this Estimate, I presume. The total Estimate of £1,900,000 will go to the miller and the baker to subsidise the price of the loaf to the consumer in this current year, and I believe that that will be allowing the baker something like 1d. per loaf.
I do not know how much the miller will get out of it, but £2,000,000 is an extraordinary amount for the taxpayers and the people of this country to have to pay this year to the millers and the bakers. The loaf will be at the same price as it was for the past three or four years. For the past year they have been selling the loaf to the people at the same price, while that loaf was very inferior in quality, and therefore their profits must have been greater than when they were giving us white bread at the same price. Now we are giving them another £2,000,000. The Minister said that the millers will not get any of it. I suppose the bakers will not get any of it either, and I should like very much to know where this £1,900,000 is to go. I know the farmers are not getting any of it.
They are getting 5/- a barrel.
They have got it?
Yes—5/- more than they got last year.
I thought the Minister stated neither the farmer nor the miller was getting any of this?
On the contrary, is not the farmer getting 5/- a barrel more than he got last year?
Mr. Brennan
The Minister is entitled to change his mind.
Is not the farmer getting 5/- a barrel more than he got last year? Somebody must pay it.
How much is the miller getting more than he got last year?
Nothing. Somebody must pay the 5/- a barrel to a farmer.
The farmer is paying the whole lot.
He is getting 5/- a barrel extra.
The farmer is paying the whole lot; there is no doubt about that. I have been very much surprised at the figures given for this year's yield of wheat. The Minister says he has 170,000 tons from 490,000 acres. Is that correct?
It may not be correct to-day.
I do not think it is correct. Surely there was a better yield than that even though the year was not a very good one. Another Deputy has stated here that he believes there are 120,000 tons of wheat in the country unaccounted for at the moment. If that is so, it is not being held by the farmer who went out to plough up his land in order that the people would have bread, and it is not being held by the working farmer who had to harvest his wheat as quickly as he possibly could and get the money for it. It is being held by the people who can afford to hold it in order to get a better price for that wheat out of the sweat of the people of this country. If that wheat is here, and I believe it is, then it is the duty of the Government immediately to see that it is procured for the people at the price that was paid to the farmers for this year's crop. I would say to the Minister, if I am in order, that now is the time to fix the price for the coming year's crop of wheat, and that a decent price should be fixed if the farmers are to be asked again this year to be the great heroes that they were last year in producing 500,000 acres of wheat. The Minister will remember that if the yield was low this year it is likely to be very much lower next year, when the farmers will be unable to get any manures, and the price will have to be greater if the wheat is to be got for the people. Now is the time to fix the price.
This Minister does not fix it.
Well, I am sure this Minister is very much interested in it, and while I may criticise him I appreciate his very great and onerous job in procuring food for the people. He has a big job on hands, and he has willing workers in the farmers of this country to procure the food. I wish him success, and I hope that, whatever happens or whatever the cost, our people will not be without flour and bread.
I agree with some of the statements made by Deputy Flynn regarding a shortage of flour in South Kerry, particularly in the Kenmare rural district, and in the area called Castlecove. When the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was in Kenmare about two months ago I drew his attention to the matter, and he raised it with the Minister for Supplies. The situation improved slightly at that particular time, but there is still a serious shortage in that area. I should like if the Minister would endeavour to improve the supply of flour into the Kenmare rural district, particularly Castlecove. I tabled a question to-day, more or less in the form of a helpful suggestion, asking that a bounty would be given per acre for the growing of wheat in congested districts and in the areas where the land is poor. I had a particular reason for tabling that question, because I remember distinctly that, during the Great War, the congested districts and areas along the seaboard produced quite a large quantity of wheat, mainly for the use of the tenants themselves, and the falling off in the growing of wheat this year is very noticeable in those areas. As a matter of fact, the shortage of flour is particularly noticeable in the areas where no wheat is grown. I know quite a lot about that subject for the simple reason that I had something to do with the milling of wheat during the Great War, and I know that there is at least 80 per cent. shortage in the growth of wheat in those congested districts.
There must be some reason for that, and, therefore, I think it is up to the Minister to encourage the growing of wheat in those areas. Apart from that altogether there is the question of transport. The transporting of flour from the rich tillage areas into the western seaboard makes a big demand on the transport facilities of the country, and the granting of a small bounty per acre for the growing of wheat in the poorer lands would certainly relieve the transport problem. I was not satisfied with the answer I got to-day, and if the Minister has any influence in the matter I would ask him to take serious notice of the necessity for giving a bounty for the growing of wheat in the poorer lands, because I am fully satisfied that, if that bounty had been given, at least 25 per cent. of an increase in the growing of wheat would have taken place this year.
It is evident that the reason why the Minister had to bring in this Supplementary Estimate is that the whole wheat question has been bungled. If the farmers had received more encouragement last year, we would have more wheat. If the Minister had taken my advice six or eight months ago the price of wheat would have been increased, and the full complement of wheat grown in the country would be in the mills now. We heard during the debate that there is a certain amount of wheat still outstanding. Wheat at 2/- a stone is cheap feeding stuff, and no matter how many inspectors the Minister sends out he will not get all the wheat in the country. Another matter to which I want to refer is the way in which bread is being made at the present time. I was in a farmer's house the other day—I will not mention names no matter what the Minister says—and I saw two loaves there. I asked: "Is that all the bread you buy?" I was told: "We buy two loaves for the hens, and then we have our own wheat; we cannot eat the loaf bread." The complaint all around the country is that nobody can eat the loaf bread made at the present time. If more of the bran and pollard were taken out of the flour, there would be more use made of the bread; it is not being eaten at the present time. Anyone who goes down to the restaurant here will see that there is home-made bread and loaf bread, and the loaf bread is left on every plate. The bread is being used for animal feeding, because the people cannot eat it. It is a great hardship on the poor people to ask them to eat such bread. The people who can afford it can go and buy their bag of flour. Frequently people in the country cannot get flour. There is a workman of my own who has eight big growing sons and his family normally used a bag of flour every ten days. These eight boys cannot get sufficient bread at the present time unless they eat this stuff which is made at the baker's. That is a problem which the Minister must examine. Again this flour made into baker's bread is sheer waste. Now the Minister has to provide a subsidy in order to secure sufficient wheat to carry on until next harvest. If the Minister had given sufficient forethought to the matter he would not have to do that.
Why not?
If he had encouraged the farmers to grow wheat, there would be no necessity for this.
We have to pay them 40/- a barrel.
You have to do it this year in order to get sufficient wheat to carry on until next September.
We want the subsidy because of the price of wheat.
You want to get enough wheat to carry you on until next September. You must remember that next September there may be a position in this country in which you will be able to import nothing and if you do not make provision now, all the subsidies in the world will not get you wheat. There is, therefore, every necessity to encourage farmers to grow wheat because the fact at present is that many farmers are getting out of the growing of wheat. I prided myself this year on my crops of wheat. I thought they were as good as it was possible to produce but the wheat did not ripen or did not give the yield which I expected so that in the end the crops did not pay me. I had as I say an excellent crop. On manured ground, it bushelled over 62 but on the lea ground it did not bushel 57. That is the trouble all over the Midlands. Wheat did not come up to expectation owing to the moist weather in the month of August with the result that generally it bushelled only 54 or 55. I thought I had myself the best crop of wheat in Westmeath and many people congratulated me on it but, except on manured ground, none of it bushelled more than 59. I do not think on that basis it would pay me to go into it again. I put plenty of artificial manure on it. I bought it wherever I could but I cannot see where I am going to get it this year. Although I used such a quantity of artificial manure last year the yield of my crops was not up to expectations.
If the Minister wants the farmers to produce sufficient wheat to carry the country over the next year he must get the Cabinet together and put the problem before them. There is a general idea in the country that the Minister for Supplies is the enemy of the farmers. There is a belief that, were it not for the Minister, we would get a better price for our produce. I think the Minister should get the Cabinet together and put this problem before them, otherwise next September you may have a position in the country in which not all the subsidies in the world will get you wheat. Unless he throws out a sufficient bait to the farmers there will be no wheat and no bread. Should that position arise, the fault will lie on the shoulders of the Minister for Supplies. He is paid to see that the country has a sufficiency of all essential supplies, and if he wants to be sure of a sufficient supply of bread, he will throw out a good bait to the farmers now.
I admit that I voted against an increase in the price of wheat to the farmers last year because I did not want to raise the price of bread on the people and because I honestly thought the price that obtained at that time would pay the farmer. After my own personal experience, I can now say that it did not pay them. If the Minister wants a sufficiency of wheat he will encourage the farmers to produce it by paying an adequate price. It has to be remembered that owing to the shortage of artificial manures, the yield this year will be lower. It must also be remembered that a very large proportion of the land is wheat-sick at the present time. Wheat has been grown on it for the last three or four years and farmers will tell you that they cannot produce wheat on such land again this year. You may produce wheat for two or three years on certain land but you cannot produce it after that. That is why I say that the Minister should make every effort to encourage the farmers to grow wheat by offering them a proper price. I think the Minister should also give the people a loaf they can eat. It is all right for the rich man who can buy white flour but it is sinful to compel the poor people to eat, or to try to eat, the bread made out of the present flour. It is wasteful also because if more bran and pollard were taken out of the wheat, that bran and pollard could be utilised for animal feeding and the bread would be all eaten whereas, in many instances at present, it is simply thrown out because it is unfit for human consumption.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in certain districts along the Border there has been a shortage of flour for the past few months. It is perhaps only natural to expect that in the difficult conditions through which we are now passing there would be a shortage of certain commodities, but I hope that the Minister will see to it that the districts to which I have referred will receive a fair share of whatever supplies are available. The subsidy of £2,000,000 which it is proposed to provide for flour under this Estimate is a very large sum. I am not going to suggest that all that £2,000,000 will pass into the pockets of the millers; neither am I going to take the advice of Deputy Allen and other Deputies on the opposite benches who seem to imagine that we should swallow everything that is said on the Government Benches and vote this £2,000,000 without asking any questions. I was surprised to hear Deputy Allen talking about propaganda and suggesting that Deputy Dillon should try to go out to undermine the Fianna Fáil Party on this issue of a subsidy of £2,000,000 for flour. I think that Deputy Dillon has to go a long way to equal the tactics of Deputy Allen and others in the past as regards propaganda.
This, as I say, is a vote for a very large sum of money and I am interested to know whether we are going to get value for it. It is only right to say that portion of that money will go into the pockets of the Irish farmers. I think that, according to the Minister's statement, something like £700,000 of this money will go to the Irish farmers and that £1,200,000 is being paid to cover the extra cost of the wheat that has been imported. It strikes me as extraordinary—I do not know whether I am right or wrong; if I am wrong I hope the Minister will correct me—that a sum of only £700,000 is being paid in respect of the 80 per cent. of the wheat that is raised in this country while a sum of £1,200,000 is being paid in respect of the other 20 per cent. In other words, the 80 per cent. of our wheat requirements which is being produced in this country receives only £700,000 of the subsidy while the 20 per cent. that is imported receives £1,200,000. Am I right in that assumption?
No, the quantities of native wheat which will be used will be considerably greater.
Perhaps I should quote from the Minister's statement on the matter. He said:
"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 14/-."
Therefore, it does seem extraordinary. The reason I emphasise those figures is that I want to relate this question of wheat production to the Estimate, seeing that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has more or less ruled the point out, and quite properly so. Yet, it is important, and I think the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Agriculture, should examine those figures and see whether it is not possible to produce more wheat in this country in the coming year, and not have a situation arising whereby, to use the Minister's own words, this country is paying £1,200,000 for 20 per cent. of the wheat we use in this country, and we have only paid £700,000 for the other 80 per cent. That is the position as I see it, from reading the statement of the Minister. Therefore, it is imperative that the Minister should take cognisance of the fact. While I know the difficult position that exists in this country, yet, on these figures, something must be done.
It seems to me, from reading the Minister's statement, that he at least is resigned to the fact that we are not in a position to grow sufficient wheat for our own requirements. I should like Deputy Allen and other Fianna Fáil Deputies, who are always preaching the policy of self-sufficiency, to recognise that fact. I think they will agree with me. My reading of the Minister's statement gives me the impression that this country is not able to produce sufficient wheat to meet our requirements fully. It seems to be the fact. So far as I can see, I am afraid we will not produce the same quantity of wheat this year as last year. As I say, it seems extraordinary to pay £1,250,000 for 80,000 tons of wheat. That represents the produce of about 80,000 acres. I am assuming a yield of about eight barrels to the acre. On that assumption, 80,000 tons means the produce of 80,000 acres. I think it would pay the Government and the people of the country if we could get an extra 80,000, 100,000 or 150,000 acres of wheat, and not be paying £1,250,000 for 80,000 tons which as I say, represents the produce of about 80,000 acres. In some parts of the country there may be only a yield of six barrels to the acre, but I think the average yield is about eight barrels to the acre; that is about one ton per acre. Therefore, 80,000 tons represents the produce of 80,000 acres. Surely it would be good policy to induce the farmers of the country to grow 80,000 more acres of wheat. On the Minister's own estimate, that would save us an expenditure of £1,250,000 for the import of 80,000 tons of foreign wheat.
I know the extra price is due to the freight charges and war risks. I recognise the fact that the price at which we get that wheat in the country where it is produced is a mere bagatelle when compared with the price when it is landed at the ports of this country. I think that the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Agriculture, should endeavour by whatever means is possible, let it be an increased price or not, to get that extra acreage of wheat grown here. I am not a farmer, and I have never grown wheat, but from reading the statements made here and knowing something about the matter, there is no use in talking about a policy of self-sufficiency if we are not in a position to grow 80,000, 100,000 or 150,000 extra acres of wheat this year and save the expenditure of that £1,250,000. I should like to ask if this country is able to produce sufficient wheat for our requirements, or have we been talking nonsense for some years past? It would take 600,000 or 700,000 acres to provide sufficient wheat.
Another split in Fine Gael.
How is it that that has not been done? I am not speaking politically. The times are too serious to be indulging in political speeches; but facts are facts. Are we in a position in this country to turn 600,000 or 700,000 acres into wheat? I believe there are between 10,000,000 and 11,000,000 acres of arable land in the country. The question, therefore, arises: are we able to turn into wheat 700,000 or 800,000 of that 10,000,000 or 11,000,000 acres? If not, then we have failed, and all this talk about self-sufficiency is just so much bunkum, especially in view of the fact that that huge sum of money has to be paid for the purchase of a very small percentage of our total requirements. The Minister may have some explanation to give in answer to my contention, but that is my reading of the statement that he made, that £700,000 goes into the pockets of the Irish farmers who produced 80 per cent. of our total wheat requirements, and that £1,200,000 is to go into the pockets of the millers, or whoever is responsible for getting this wheat into the country.
Whether we are getting full value for that £2,000,000 is what we are debating. I am not saying that the £2,000,000 is going into the pockets of the millers, but I do say that it is not fair that they should get 6 per cent. on their capital, in view of the difficulties through which the people of the country are passing at present, especially if, as the case may be, the capital is put at such a figure that it is much in excess of requirements; in other words, that it is inflated and that they are getting 6 per cent. on that inflated capital at the expense of the farmers and the rest of the community.
They are getting much more than 6 per cent.
Much less, as a matter of fact.
I can appreciate the motives which have induced the Minister and the Government to introduce this Estimate. It is in order to prevent the poor from having to pay an extra price for the loaf. One can appreciate that fact, but at the same time we do not want to pay one penny more than is sufficient, if we can avoid it, because we are paying sufficient at present. In regard to the suggestions made by Deputy Fagan, I think it is worthy of consideration by the Minister and by the Government, and that is whether by reducing the extract of flour we could not produce as much if not more bread, or at least bread that the people could eat. It is a well known fact that from 15 to 20 per cent. of the bread goes to waste in some parts of the country, although it is hardly fair to say that that happens all over the country. So far as the bread produced in Dundalk is concerned, I can say that I will not lose a night's sleep if I do not get any change of bread for the rest of my life. That is as far as the bread in Dundalk is concerned, and I am told that it applies to the Drogheda bread also. I am not praising the bread produced in Louth as against bread produced elsewhere, but I have heard it stated that the bread, especially in the Midlands, is very bad. It has been suggested here before by many Deputies, including Deputy Dillon, that it would be much better if the Minister would reduce the extract by from 10 to 15 per cent. He would have as much flour for the people and they would have as much bread, because there is a wastage of from 15 to 20 per cent. of the bread produced at present.
I would also ask the Minister whether, in conjunction with the Minister for Agriculture, he could not get the farmers, by some means or other, to produce sufficient wheat to give us 100 per cent. of our requirements, instead of having to import wheat from other countries. I will not go into the question of whether the wheat policy is good or bad. We are passing through an emergency, and time will tell all that when the war is over. Deputy Allen may have to change his tune when the war is over about the growing of wheat. We need not go into that question now. I have my own opinion about it. We are now faced with an emergency and we have to do the best we can with the means at our disposal, and it is up to us all to do it. In the meantime I would ask the Minister to pay attention to the question of the lack of supplies in certain parts of the country, especially those districts adjoining the Border. Of course, I know the reason why there is a shortage there to-day. There is no use going over that but, however, times are becoming normal now and I hope they will not be penalised for the good times they had in previous years. I hope that sufficient flour will be sent to those districts so that the people may have their usual allowance.
Mr. Brennan
There is a matter that has taken my attention. In the Minister's speech, reported at column 611, Official Debates, 13th November, he says:—"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." That is a matter which is puzzling the people in my part of the country. I happen to come from a part of the country where both commission mills and licensed wheaten millers are working, and I can give the Minister figures for both these mills. I would like to know if the Minister had any advice from people who are acquainted with both sides of this question before he came to the conclusion that he ought to subsidise wheaten meal from these mills. I wonder if he had any advice? I wonder if he has gone into the figures to find out what is the profit already being made upon wheaten meal by the millers who have licensed wheaten meal mills. Has the Minister done that? I am going to give the figures to the House and it does not appear to me or to the people in the country that there is any justification for subsidising wheaten meal as the Minister says he is going to do.
The Minister said a while ago, in reply, I think, to Deputy Daly, that one of the causes for this subsidy is the increased price of home wheat. I am going to take the Minister up on that and to see how far that is justified in regard to the production of wheaten meal. Take, for instance, the man down the country who takes a barrel of wheat to a commission mill. We will say his barrel of wheat is worth 40/-. Any of the country Deputies who are in touch with commission mills will know what I am talking about. The barrel of wheat is worth 40/-. He will pay the commission mill 3/6 per barrel for turning that into wheaten meal and he will get back 18 stone, after drying. What is 18 stone of wheaten meal worth to the licensed wheaten-meal miller? It is worth 24/- per cwt., that is 54/-. If we add the price of the wheat, that is 40/- and the 3/6, that is 43/6, it would cost the ordinary licensed wheaten meal miller to turn that into whole meal the sum of 54/- and the Minister does not think that is enough. Is that the position? He has 9/- per barrel for handling the wheat and he is not providing bags at the moment. The Minister proposes to tell the House that one of the reasons why he has to provide this subsidy is in order to give £33,000 to those millers. Is there any justification for that? Those are the figures I bring up from the country from mills that are operating at my back door. I would like the Minister to give his attention to this matter and to justify, as far as he possibly can, the subsidy to the licensed wheaten meal millers down the country who are making whole meal and are charging 24/- per cwt. for the whole meal. If that is in keeping with the Minister's other statements, it is no wonder that the House and the country would be very doubtful of what the Minister says. Deputy Allen, I am sure, knows perfectly well what I am talking about. On the price of 40/-, the value of the wheat, the miller is able to make at least 9/- a barrel profit and the Minister does not think that is enough for him. I do not want to spoil my case by saying any more or bringing in any other matters.
I would like the Minister to tell us what he thinks about it.
I had hoped that we would have been able to discuss this proposal to subsidise the price of flour and the price of bread in a spirit of a legislative Assembly dealing with an important matter of national policy. I think it is utterly discreditable to members of this House that they should have endeavoured to use this occasion for the purpose of misleading the people of this country as to the proposal before the House and as to the effect of that proposal. We have to face the fact that the wheat we are going to use this year will cost more. Everybody knows that. The guaranteed minimum price to Irish farmers was increased from 35/- to 40/- a barrel. Somebody must pay the extra 5/-. The wheat which we are going to bring from across the Atlantic is going to cost more. Somebody must pay the extra cost. If we do not subsidise the price of flour, that additional price for Irish wheat and additional cost for imported wheat will be paid by the consumers of flour. All the rest that has been stated here is so much humbug. The extra cost of our wheat will increase the cost of flour from 52/6 to 66/6 a sack. That is the result of the increased cost of wheat. It will mean that the 1/- loaf will go up to 1/2. If we do not provide this subsidy, that will happen to-morrow. If the Dáil votes against this Estimate, as many Deputies indicated it was their intention to do, then, as from to-morrow, the loaf will be 1/2—it will probably be slightly more because there will be certain arrears to be made good—and the price of the sack of flour will be 66/6, because our wheat is going to cost us more.
Deputy Dillon said that we are providing this subsidy for the benefit of the millers. "Is there a Deputy in the House," he said, "who will get up and maintain that this plundering monopoly should be further buttressed up with £2,000,000 of public money?" Later he said: "The sum of £1,900,000 is to be handed over to these gentlemen." Not by one penny will the millers of this country benefit by this subsidy. Except in very exceptional cases they will not even see a penny of it. The purpose of this subsidy is to ensure that there will be delivered to the millers in this year wheat wherewith to manufacture flour at the same price that they bought it last year. Getting the wheat at the same price, they will sell flour at the same price. There will be no benefit of any kind to the millers. There can be no benefit to the millers. The operation of the subsidy will be conducted through Grain Importers Ltd., a Government organisation——
Mr. Brennan
The millers themselves.
——which will arrange the production of the flour by regulating the price at which the millers will receive the wheat. Some Deputies have tried to mislead the House— Deputy Dillon, followed in a very parrot-like fashion by Deputy Norton——
That is a most disorderly statement.
——and other Deputies who, apparently, are unable to understand humbug when they hear it.
On a point of order, the Minister is behaving in a disorderly way inasmuch as it is contrary to the rules of order of this House to state that any Minister or Deputy is trying to mislead the House.
May I resume? Deputy Dillon misled the House. Whether he did that intelligently or unintelligently, consciously or unconsciously, I do not know. He misled the House. That is a fact.
On a point of order, it is, I submit, disorderly for the Minister for Supplies to say that any Deputy of this House sought to mislead the House. Is that in order or is it not in order?
I think the Minister is quite in order.
In stating that?
In the remarks he has made.
Would Deputy Dillon please sit down? He blathered here for two hours on the last occasion and now he wants to interrupt the few minutes allowed to me to reply by raising these frivolous points.
On a point of order——
The Minister is quite in order.
On a point of order, Sir, is the Minister——
Deputies
Chair!
Sit down.
If you imagine you are going to shout me down, you are making a great mistake.
Put him out of the House and we will get peace.
It is a most sportsmanlike attitude on Deputy Dillon's part. I was allowed twenty minutes in which to reply——
You have to-day and to-morrow. Do not be clacking.
I will take to-day and to-morrow.
On the point of order, Sir, is the Minister in order when he states that a Deputy sought to mislead the House?
The Minister is quite in order.
Some Deputies were not clear as to how this increased cost of wheat arose. I gave figures yesterday which were based upon one method of calculation. Some Deputies did not understand these figures, and perhaps if I give others based on another method of calculation, they will make the position clearer to them. In rough figures, we require 370,000 tons of wheat to produce our requirements of flour and bread.
On a 95 per cent. extraction?
Yes, but that does not matter. It is only the total quantity that matters in this case. Last year, we used 200,000 tons of native wheat which cost us 35/- per barrel on the farm and 40/9 per barrel delivered dried to the mills. If Deputies work that out, they will find that the total cost of native wheat last year was £3,260,000. In order to make good the inadequacy of the home supply, we imported 170,000 tons of wheat, or, at any rate, we used 170,000 tons of imported wheat which was delivered to the millers at the allocation price of £15 per ton. That cost £2,550,000 and the sum total of these two amounts was £5,810,000. That, roughly, was the total cost of the wheat we used, whether native or imported, last year. This year, the consumption of native wheat will, we think, increase from 200,000 to 290,000 tons, and that native wheat will be bought from the farmers at 40/6 per barrel, instead of 35/- last year, and delivered dried to the millers will cost 46/9 per barrel. 290,000 tons at 46/9 per barrel will involve £5,400,000. We have to supplement that 290,000 tons of native wheat by 80,000 tons of imported wheat which this year will cost £30 per ton, making £2,400,000. The total cost of both these items is £7,800,000. Last year, the wheat used to produce all our requirements of flour and bread cost us £5,810,000 roughly. This year, it will cost us £7,800,000. The difference is what we are going to make good by subsidy.
May I ask the Minister where he got the figure of 290,000 tons? How does he arrive at it?
Our calculations are based on the assumption that that is the quantity of native wheat which will be used this year. I think our estimate is correct——
I hope so.
—— but I will deal with that later.
A lot of it was bought in at less than £2 per barrel.
I am not going to deal with these minor factors which may affect our calculations. I am dealing with broad figures. Some quantity of that flour purchased by millers was devoted to purposes other than the manufacture of bread for sale to householders. Other minor factors operate which affect these figures in greater or lesser degree, but, roughly speaking, these calculations will show Deputies clearly where this additional sum of £2,000,000 is going. It is going to pay the extra cost of Irish wheat, plus the additional cost of imported wheat. Even that statement is somewhat misleading——
And the standard profits on the milling capital.
——because, as Deputies will have noted, the amount which will go to Irish farmers this year exceeds by more than £2,000,000 the amount which Irish farmers got last year, because not merely has the guaranteed minimum price of the wheat been increased but the total production of wheat by Irish farmers has increased, and therefore, the total amount which will go to the farmers exceeds by more than £2,000,000 the amount which they got last year; but, on the other hand, even though the price of imported wheat has risen considerably over the allocation price of last year, the quantity will be so much less that the actual outgoings for imported wheat this year will be less, we assume, than last year.
I have said that these figures are based on certain assumptions. Deputies have misunderstood the statement I made last week. I told them that, of the 290,000 tons which we calculated would be available for milling into flour, 170,000 tons, according to the latest information, had actually been delivered to millers or merchants. That delivery does not indicate that there is going to be difficulty in getting the 290,000 tons. As a matter of fact, I gave that information on Thursday last as being the latest available to me, but, when I checked up on it, I found that, by Thursday last, 200,000 tons had been delivered to millers or merchants, and the quantity delivered to date is probably larger still. Those who are familiar with these matters tell me that, making allowance for the lateness of the harvest, the deliveries of wheat to date are quite good and well up to normal, and, in fact, somewhat above normal, and there is as yet no reason to anticipate that there will be difficulty in securing the estimate of 290,000 tons of dried wheat delivered to millers and available for milling. Whether that will prove to be so or not, I cannot say, but there are at least sufficient indications of the total quantity we will get to enable us to say that, if we do not get 290,000 tons, we shall at least get so near to it that the importation of the balance required to maintain a full supply of wheat will not be beyond our resources. I therefore would not like it to be thought that there are any serious grounds for apprehension on that point yet.
I have answered the question asked by a number of Deputies as to where this money is going. In fact, it is going to pay for the wheat. In practice, it will be distributed through Grain Importers, Limited, who will adjust the price of imported wheat to the millers in such manner as will ensure that the total cost of the millers' grist in this year will be the same as last year. I want to make it doubly clear that there can be no benefit to the miller from the subsidy because that utterly misleading statement made here is likely to be accepted by some people, and in fact has already been assumed to be correct by occasionally intelligent people like Deputy Norton. The miller this year will get his wheat at the same price as that at which he got it last year. He will pay in wages to his workers the same amount as he paid last year. Whether the cost of producing flour from wheat will prove the same this year as last year will, in any event, not affect the price, because the miller is going to be allowed only the same charge in respect of that cost this year as last year——
Poor fellow!
——and he gets an allowance of 6 per cent. in respect of invested capital.
Which yielded Ranks 16.7 per cent. last year.
Some Deputies either misunderstood, or were anxious to misrepresent, that particular calculation. I stated quite clearly that the profit allowance, in the price of flour, represents 6 per cent. upon the capital invested in the production of flour.
Ranks got 16.7 per cent. last year.
I think I am entitled to proceed without interruption from the Deputy. I have said that the calculation is based on the capital invested in the flour milling industry as a whole. It is not the practice of my Department, nor would it be practicable, to fix the price of flour at each mill according to the costs of production in that mill. We take the flour milling industry as a whole. We take the average costs of production in all the mills of the country. We determine what is the total capital invested in flour milling in all the mills in the country, and, on the basis of these average costs, a price for flour is fixed which would enable the miller to produce flour with a return of 6 per cent. upon the invested capital. Some millers, of course, are able to work to costs which are below the average, and some millers work to costs which are above the average, but the price is fixed on the basis of the average costs of the most efficient mills in the country. I should have made that clear.
The most efficient mills——
Will the Deputy stop interrupting? I think I am entitled to proceed without this buffoon keeping up this chorus of interruption.
Is that in order?
It is not, and I am sure the Minister will withdraw it.
I will if the Chair will keep the Deputy from interrupting.
Is it in order?
It is not, and the Minister has withdrawn it.
For the information of the House I should explain that there are certain mills in this country which, because of their position, can produce flour somewhat more advantageously than others. These mills are located at certain ports—Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick—and our calculation of the cost of producing flour is based upon the actual cost of production in these port mills. The price that we fix for flour is based at these port mills. Over and above that price, flour is sold in other parts of the country at that port mill price plus the cost of transporting the flour from the port by the cheapest means of transportation.
There was made recently an order, which comes into force on Monday, fixing a flat retail price for flour. Heretofore that was not considered practicable because certain difficulties existed, but these difficulties have been overcome and an order is now coming into force which will fix a flat retail price for flour in these port mill towns and in the rest of the country. The price in the rest of the country will be slightly higher than in the port mill towns. It will be 3/- per stone in the port mill towns and 3/2 per stone in the rest of the country. It is, therefore, clear that we do not, as has been stated, guarantee profits to anyone. We do make it possible for the mills of the country to carry on their industry. I think it is obvious that we must do that. I know of no action by which a Government could compel any manufacturer or trader to continue in business at a loss to himself. Clearly, any practicable arrangement for the fixation of prices which will be just to all parties must provide for the earning of at least minimum profits for the manufacturer. The profit that we have fixed in the case of flour milling, of 6 per cent. upon the invested capital, is, I think, the lowest point at which we could fix it. Certainly in normal circumstances it would be held, by most people who are familiar with business conditions, that 6 per cent. upon ordinary industrial capital is an inadequate return.
On paid up capital?
Invested capital.
Ranks made 16.7 per cent. last year.
Does the Minister think that farmers who put their money into wheat growing at 40/- a barrel are getting 6 per cent. on it?
Some, I am sure, are. Of course, it is obvious that if people can get only 6 per cent. on the money they invest in ordinary shares in industry they will not put their money into them if they can get 6 per cent. on preference shares and debentures where they have security added to their return.
What about Ranks' 16.7 per cent.?
The Deputy must allow the Minister to proceed without interruption.
I am prepared to defend a return of 6 per cent. upon the capital invested in any industry. In fact, there are some industires more precarious than flour milling, where 6 per cent., in my opinion, would be an unfair return. The actual capital in the case of some companies is substantially less than the issued capital. There are many well-known companies in Dublin—big firms of manufacturers —whose nominal capital does not represent the value of their assets. These assets have been built up out of profits. I think it is true to say of the banks and a number of other commercial concerns that the actual money invested in their businesses is substantially less than the original capital invested. There may be other cases, but for the purpose of this particular calculation the capital invested by the concerns in flour milling is substantially less than the issued capital. That, in fact, is the normal situation in this country. Most of the flour millers in this country are also maize millers and engage in other business activities as well. The total capital of the concerns includes their investment in their other businesses, maize milling or whatever other activities they carry on. The actual capital invested in flour milling is less than the issued capital of these concerns, and a return of 6 per cent. upon the invested capital, which the fixed price allows for, would not permit in some cases of the payment of 6 per cent. upon the issued capital. But if there is any basis in the charge that we, by this arrangement, are guaranteeing 6 per cent. to the millers, we are doing it not by the subsidy but by the fixed price. The subsidy does not affect the position in the least. Any intelligent person can see that. It is by the fixed price that we do secure, if, in fact, it can be said that we are securing, for the miller a return on his investment.
I want to deal further with some points that were raised here of greater importance than those that I have referred to already, but as the time available does not admit of that now, I will have to postpone my remarks until to-morrow. There is one point, however, that I want to make clear for the information of Deputies, and that is in relation to the shortage of flour which arose in some districts, and was attributed by some Deputies to the feeding of wheat, or wheaten products, to animals. It was urged that we should make more extensive efforts to enforce that order, and particularly that we should employ the Civic Guards for that purpose. It is at present the responsibility of the Civic Guards to enforce that order. We realised that it would not be possible to secure the enforcement of it through the activities of departmental inspectors. The risk of evasion was much more widespread than in the case of other orders, and, consequently, arrangements were made with the Department of Justice that the Gárda Síochána should undertake the enforcement of that order. Anyone who is aware that the order is being evaded: that this practice of feeding animals with wheat that we will require for human consumption is taking place, should make the fact known to the Guards who, I am sure, will take the necessary steps to bring the offenders to justice.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.