The business before the House is the voting of a subsidy for bread and flour and, more particularly, the motion by Deputy Dillon asking the Dáil to reduce the sub-head in the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Supplies providing for that subsidy. I do not propose to repeat now what I said in that connection last evening except to the extent necessary to take up the thread of my remarks. The wheat which will be used this year for the manufacture of flour and bread will cost, approximately, £2,000,000 more than the wheat used last year. I use the term "year" to denote not the calendar year but the cereal year—the period between one harvest and another. That additional sum of £2,000,000 must be paid by somebody. Quite clearly, if we are to give the farmers more for native wheat and pay more for imported wheat, somebody has to foot the bill. If we do not provide a subsidy and thus put that additional burden on the taxpayer, the additional amount will have to be paid by the consumers of bread and flour.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Office of the Minister for Supplies (Resumed).
Or the millers.
There is no possible device by which we can escape the cost of it. No doubt, some people would like to escape it. Many people in this House, and some people outside it, are fond of urging that we should pay more to primary producers for their products and charge less for the same products to the consumers. That is a common type of illogical argument characteristic of certain Fine Gael Deputies and most Labour Deputies. They like to have their cake and eat it and they like to have their cake without paying for it. They want us to give the farmers more for their wheat without charging more for the flour. It cannot be done.
Deputy Corry wants that.
Because we decided to give the farmers more for their wheat and because we have to pay more for the wheat we are getting from abroad, whether we like it or not, an additional bill, amounting to £2,000,000, must be met by somebody. In fact, the farmers who grow wheat will get for the wheat they grow this year a sum of more than £2,000,000 in excess of the amount they received last year.
Will the Minister explain how he arrives at that figure?
It is a simple calculation. It is due, not merely to the fact that the guaranteed minimum price for wheat has been increased by 5/- a barrel, but also and primarily to the fact that the total quantity of wheat produced has increased by 33? per cent. —at least, the total quantity of wheat produced in this country which it is assumed will be available for milling into flour.
I am glad that the Minister used the word "assumed" as I think it is a very big assumption.
On that assumption, I find they will get for wheat in this year a sum which will exceed by more than £2,000,000 the sum they received last year. We have to buy less foreign wheat, even though we will have to pay more for the foreign wheat that we do buy, and the total additional bill for wheat will be £2,000,000. That £2,000,000 can, therefore, be described as a subsidy to wheat. It is true— Deputies may contend and contend truthfully—that we had to pay the increased price for foreign wheat in any event, and that we had to pay the increased price for native wheat in order to get the yield, and that this additional cost had, therefore, to be faced in any event. It could not have been avoided. If that contention is well founded, this subsidy can be described more accurately as a subsidy to the consumers of flour and bread. It is not correct that the provision of this subsidy could benefit the millers of this country in any way: it is not intended to benefit them, nor will it do so.
Except to maintain their dividends.
It will not operate to maintain the dividends of the millers, or affect their dividends in the slightest. The sole effect is that the loaf, instead of costing 1/2, will continue to cost 1/-, and the sack of flour, instead of costing 66/6, will continue to cost 52/6. If we do not provide a subsidy and adopt Deputy Dillon's motion, or if for any reason we fail to make this subsidy available, those prices will have to operate.
Deputy Dillon's motion goes further than that.
How far does it go?
State control of the industry.
I propose to deal with that. If there is any truth in the contention that the millers of the country are getting unduly liberal treatment, that contention must be based upon the price fixed for flour, not upon the proposal to subsidise flour; as, in so far as the millers are concerned, the position in this cereal year will be precisely the same as it was in the last cereal year. While undoubtedly the contention could be made that the price fixed for flour was unduly liberal to the millers, I think a very slight examination of the facts will show that the contention is unfounded.
In fixing the price for flour, certain estimates had to be made, certain assumptions had to be relied upon; but to a much greater extent than is possible in the costing of most commodities, a decision was made upon known facts. It was possible to determine with preciseness, down to a fraction of a penny, the cost of the wheat required to make a sack of flour; it was possible to determine the costs of manufacturing wheat into flour in every flour mill in the country. The certified accounts of every flour mill were examined, and the average cost of manufacturing in port mills was taken for the purpose of our calculations. It was possible to determine, not quite so accurately, the capital invested in flour milling. About the figure for actual capital invested in flour milling there was some contention with the Flour Millers' Association, but, nevertheless, a figure was determined upon; and on the basis of that figure and a decision to allow 6 per cent. in respect of capital charges, the flour price was built up. That flour price is open to examination here. People can urge that we should pare a little more off the millers, people may urge that we should reduce the wages in the flour-milling industry in order to get the cost down. Those people are undoubtedly free to make arguments of that kind, but I think no sensible person will urge that there is contained in the fixed price for flour any element of undue liberality to anyone.
16.7 per cent. on Rank's capital.
He did not hear that.
I heard that, and I have despaired of explaining to Deputy Dillon the most elementary theories of economics and accountancy. He cannot understand them. There are some Deputies in this House who can, and they will have profited already by the remarks I have made. I do not expect Deputy Dillon to understand.
The Minister is quite right. I do not understand this kind of profit.
There may be in the minds of some people the idea, in this connection as in any other connection, that we can offset the increased price we decide to pay to farmers by a reduction of manufacturing and distribution costs. That contention is without foundation. There is no industry in this country which is so completely controlled as the flour-milling industry: it is controlled in every aspect of its operation. I must admit the possibility that, in making decisions, I or the officers who advised me were guilty of errors, but the point I want to make clear is that a positive decision was made by me in relation to every single cost of the industry before the price was fixed. There is that absolute control over every cost, to which I have referred, and which does not exist in relation to any other industry.
There is possibly some point in the contention made by Deputy Dillon that the operation of the order I made recently relating to sacks will upset the basis of our calculations of a fair price for flour. I do not think it is either necessary or relevant now to justify that particular order. I want to say merely that the purpose of the order was to ensure that every sack that went out containing flour or anything else came back again. It is no exaggeration to say that, of all the many problems this country will face in the coming year, none is more likely to be so troublesome as that of maintaining the supply of sacks and other containers. Deputies are aware that the supply of the materials required for the manufacture of sacks—cotton, jute, and other textiles—has been very seriously curtailed. In consequence of that, we are facing a situation in which we may not have sufficient sacks to facilitate the distribution of various classes of goods. My mind balks at the possibility of having to undertake the distribution of flour or sugar or similar commodities, without sacks; and that possibility may have to be faced, if we cannot secure the conservation of the existing stock and the return of all available containers to those who require them for distribution purposes.
Now, that was the reason why the Sacks Order was made—in order to ensure that flour sacks and other similar containers would be returned, a charge was attached to them. A charge of 5/- was attached to the flour sack. The person who gets the sack of flour—whether as a trader or as a consumer—is charged 5/- for the sack, which is returnable when the sack is returned. When we fixed the price for flour, we included in that price an item in respect of the sack which contained the flour. It is clear that if the millers get back all the sacks that item becomes unnecessary and, unless there is some adjustment in the arrangement, the millers will benefit to the extent of the allowance previously made against the cost of the sack. But, of course, it is not true that the millers will get back all the sacks and those sacks that do come back will have to be cleaned and perhaps reconditioned, and consequently the millers will not save the whole of the allowance previously made to them in respect of the sack. They will still have some charge to meet.
Will they not have 5/- for every sack that does not come back?
No.
But, surely, they will?
If the Deputy will allow me to proceed I will make it clear, perhaps even to him. It is clear there is the possibility that some benefit will accrue to the millers under the operation of the sacks order, and if such benefit does accrue, then the position will be adjusted by a modification of the subsidy arrangement. The price of flour will remain unchanged, but, to the extent that the costings upon which that price is based are upset, then a rearrangement of it will be made in order to diminish the cost of the subsidy.
That is something achieved.
It was never intended to do anything else. There are members of the Deputy's Party who are more familiar with this matter and who could have advised him if he had troubled himself to consult them. Deputy Davin has referred to the suggestion put forward by Deputy Dillon that we should nationalise the flour-milling industry.
I heard of that proposal before ever the Deputy mentioned it.
I have no objection whatever in principle to the nationalisation of the flour-milling industry. On the contrary, if the existing control over that industry is maintained permanently, or even for any protracted period of time, there will be no logical, fair or desirable alternative to nationalisation. But if I come here with a proposal to nationalise the flour-milling industry, I will not do so on the basis that it is going to benefit the consumers, because it will not.
Question.
Deputy Dillon stated that he was proposing the nationalisation of the flour-milling industry in order to benefit the public, but I am sure other Deputies noted what I noted, that he made no attempt to show how it would benefit the public. I should like to bet my shirt that Deputy Dillon was inspired to make that proposal here by a flour-miller, and I will bet my socks as well that I could name the flour-miller. Deputy Hickey knows quite well what I am talking about.
On a point of explanation. There is no shadow of foundation for the Minister's suggestion. The suggestion to nationalise the flour milling industry was made exclusively on my own initiative, because I was nauseated by the robbery of the public which was conducted by the flour combine in this country.
The Labour Party fell for Deputy Dillon's suggestion, merely because they are always slaves of catchwords and phrases. A catchword or a phrase saves the members of the Labour Party the trouble of thinking and when Deputy Dillon threw out the suggestion of nationalisation they at once fell for it. They did not ask themselves whether it was going to benefit the public or the flour-milling workers.
Did you not get a proposal something along those lines from the Labour side in 1932?
It is in 1941 that this suggestion is being made and the main point to be considered is: if we do it now, are we going to benefit the public or the flour millers? Let us see what would happen if we adopted this proposal. Deputy Dillon says that we could buy out the flour millers on the basis of the actual assets they have in this country.
Tangible assets.
That is, that they are to get nothing for goodwill. Roughly speaking, it takes £8,000 capital investment to produce one sack of flour per hour. That is a rough calculation, but it is good enough for ready-reckoning purposes.
Whose calculation is that? The Minister talks of £8,000 capital investment. I would not care to say that the Minister is draft, but he must be something like it.
Anyone engaged in the flour milling industry works on that figure.
And that is what has flour the price it is in this country.
The Deputy must allow me to proceed. It does not matter whether it takes £8,000 or 8,000 pence.
Then, we need not bother.
For the information of those Deputies who want information I may say that that is generally assumed to be the capital cost of the equipment required to produce one sack of flour per hour. Our milling capacity is 500 sacks per hour. Our milling capacity at present is substantially in excess of our actual requirements, because it was established on the basis of flour of 70 per cent. extraction and we are now using flour of 95 per cent. extraction and it requires a much smaller number of mills to produce the full quantity of flour required when we are working to 95 per cent. extraction. However, the millers have tangible assets capable of producing 500 sacks of flour per hour and, on the basis of £8,000 per sack, that means that about £4,000,000 is the value of their tangible assets.
Question.
If we decide to proceed on Deputy Dillon's suggestion we will pay £4,000,000 to the flour millers. The flour millers will have no trouble about investing that money in England in a manner which will enable them to earn more than 6 per cent. on it. I am sure I do not have to assure Deputies on that point. We will then have the flour mills and we will have to get somebody to run them. The only people capable of running them are the flour millers. We will have to ask these people to run the mills and they will probably ask a salary for doing so. They will have got £4,000,000, which they will invest in England—and there can be no doubt it will be profitably invested—and then we will have to get them to run the mills for us. If they do not do so, nobody else will do it.
That is all "cod." The Minister said the same about insurance.
Somebody will have to run the mills and they are the only people who know how to. No doubt, they will continue to engage the same workers as are employed now. They will be paid the same wages as now and they will produce flour just in the same way. The net result will mean no difference for the consumers of flour, but there will be a substantial improvement for certain of the flour millers.
I want Labour Deputies to note one possible result. I have just mentioned that our flour milling capacity is substantially in excess of our actual requirements, and if we establish one corporation to run all the flour mills the inevitable result will be a concentration of production of flour in the larger mills. That is the only justification that could be offered for nationalisation. Deputy Davin may approve of that, and Deputy Keyes might possibly be in favour of it, because some of the concentration might be done in Limerick. But ask the Labour Deputy for Kilkenny and the Labour Deputies for other places, where small mills exist and give employment, what their opinion is. The mills in these places are the mills that will disappear.
The only possible benefit that could be conferred on the consumers of flour through nationalisation or rationalisation would come from that elimination of the small mills and the concentration of production in the larger mills. We may have to do that—do not take me as arguing against it—but I want Deputies who have an enthusiasm for nationalisation to understand precisely what it involves.
You are playing the part of the devil's advocate for the other side.
If I come here to propose the nationalisation of the flour mills it will be for that reason, and not to pretend that the consumers will benefit by it, because they will not, except to a limited degree, when the rationalisation process has been completed; but in present circumstances, while we maintain our present system of control, the only people who would obviously gain by it are these same flour millers.
How much did they gain during the last ten years?
They gained, approximately, £10,000,000 in surplus profits in the last ten years.
I am asking Deputies to deal with the problems of this month and the suggestion made in this month, a suggestion which, if operated now, will mean that the flour millers will be better off, flour will be available only at the same price as it is available now, but fewer people will be engaged in flour milling.
How does the Minister know what the price of flour will be next year or in two years' time?
I am dealing with the price now.
Does Deputy Davin say it will be cheaper?
How does the Minister know?
I think the real problem is whether or not we will have enough wheat to mill next year.
The Minister must be allowed to conclude.
He is provocative, Sir.
The Minister has been speaking for 25 minutes and already there have been 30 interruptions.
One of the things that has caused Deputies confusion is the fact that next year is not this year. One would think that that should be an obvious thing to Deputy Cosgrave and others who have spoken, but clearly they have not appreciated the fact and are all mixed up about the 80,000 tons of shipping space which we are going to use this year to import wheat which we will consume this year. They want us to use that 80,000 tons of shipping space to bring in fertilisers to help us to grow wheat here at home, but we would not get that wheat this year. I could not get them to see the flaw in their argument. Undoubtedly, we have that 80,000 tons of shipping space, but we want 80,000 tons of wheat now, or at least before the next harvest, and we propose to use that available shipping space to bring in that 80,000 tons of wheat. If we were to adopt the suggestion of Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies, to bring in fertilisers instead of wheat, we might get more wheat grown in this country next year as a result, but it would mean that we would be 80,000 tons of wheat short this year, and we cannot use that 80,000 tons of shipping space twice. The shipping capacity at our command may permit of our bringing in across the Atlantic, before the next harvest, a larger quantity of goods than the 80,000 tons. The actual quantity of goods that we could bring in during that period, however, it is as yet difficult to say, but we do feel that we have at our command sufficient shipping capacity to bring in the 80,000 tons that we need. Of course, the less wheat we have to bring in the better, and Deputies need not argue with me to convince me that it is undesirable to use that shipping space to bring in 80,000 tons of wheat if the wheat could be produced here at home. I would much prefer to have the wheat produced here in our own country because, if we had that wheat here, we could use that shipping space to bring in commodities that are almost as urgently required, but I have got to deal with the fact that we did not get, or are not going to get, from this year's harvest our full requirements of wheat, and if we are going to keep our full supply of flour and bread for the country against the coming of the next harvest, then that 80,000 tons of shipping space must be earmarked for the importation of wheat.
Now, I want to remove certain misunderstandings with regard to the cost of that wheat. I told Deputies that we had brought in wheat which cost us 84/- a barrel. That wheat came in via Lisbon. It was a most expensive way of bringing in the wheat, but we had to deal with the situation which arose early this year when it appeared almost certain that the total amount of wheat available for us here would be insufficient to keep us going until this year's harvest arrived. That was the position at the beginning of the year. I told Deputies that at the time; in fact, I told them so vehemently that leaders of the Opposition Parties requested, and got, a special meeting of the Dáil called to discuss that situation. Now, by various methods we did, in fact, make our wheat supply last us until the harvest, although the harvest was three or four weeks later than we had anticipated, but one of the methods that were used was to bring the wheat in via Lisbon, and that was only because there was no other method available. Direct shipment did not begin until July or early in August, and in the meantime we had to get wheat in any way we could, and the only way was via Lisbon. We had some ships at our command, but they were small ships that could not make the voyage across the Atlantic. The wheat arrived at Lisbon via American ships because, under American law these ships were able to sail there, but then the wheat had to be unloaded at the mouth of the river, carted 14 miles inland to the grain stores, stored there, and brought back again the 14 miles to the mouth of the river for reloading on our ships, which then brought the wheat here. Deputies can easily see that that was a most expensive and extremely uneconomic method, but we had reached the position in which the cost did not matter. The only thing that mattered was the actual physical supplies of wheat available in this country, and when I mention what the average cost of 80,000 tons this year will be I have to take into account that a substantial proportion of that 80,000 tons has arrived, or will arrive, via the Lisbon route, and bearing these high charges. Consequently, the average cost of importing the 80,000 tons of wheat this year is high, and higher than that at which we anticipate it will be possible to import wheat this time next year. If, therefore, Deputies want to calculate what price we shall pay or could pay Irish farmers next year in order to obviate the possibility of importing wheat next year, they must not base their calculations on the assumption that it will be brought in by the Lisbon route, which may not be available next year, but on the cost of bringing it in by the direct route, which would be substantially less. What the cost, over a long period, on the direct route would be, it is difficult to say, but certainly it would be substantially lower than by the Lisbon route.
What is the cost of bringing it direct?
It is not possible to give a precise figure because, at the moment, various methods and ports of shipment are being tried out, and some wheat is coming by one route and some by another. It is not until you have a substantial quantity of wheat in that you can give a figure. The actual costs of one ship are not necessarily a reliable way of working it out, but I think the Deputy can reckon that the cost will be in or around 65/- or, perhaps, 70/- a barrel. However, I do not want to enter into the merits of the discussion that took place here upon this Estimate as to the price that should be paid to Irish farmers for wheat grown here. It must be quite clear that any increase in the price paid to Irish farmers is going to increase the cost of producing flour so long as Irish farmers produce only 80 per cent. of our requirements of flour, and even if they produced the whole of our requirements of flour, only a very slight increase in the guaranteed price would be possible without increasing the actual cost of the flour to the Irish people. The increase in the cost of flour, which has already been made, is going to be concealed from the great majority of our people by this subsidy, but the members of this Dáil must not allow the fact to be concealed from them that whether we pay it in one way or another the cost of flour in the nation's bread is dearer this year than last year and if we increase the price paid for wheat now the nation's flour will be dearer next year than it is this year.
Better that than no bread. It will be that or no bread.
Deputy Corry must not take it that I am arguing for or against an increase in the price of wheat. It may be contended by some Deputies that, no matter what the increase in the cost of flour involved, it is a wiser policy to pay more for wheat. I can see a Deputy contending that, but I do not want a Deputy to contend that and at the same time not face the fact that it is going to mean an increased price for flour and bread, unless the Government is prepared to increase the subsidy, and the Government has already intimated that it is not prepared to do that. I do not say that that decision is immutable; that it will not change as facts and circumstances must change all decisions; but, when the Government decided on this subsidy arrangement some months ago, it announced, or authorised me to announce, that that was the limit to which it was prepared to go in the circumstances then existing, and if there was any further increase in the cost of producing flour for any reason —and I specifically mentioned the case of an increased price paid for wheat to Irish farmers—the full consequences of that increase would have to be reflected in the price of flour and the price of bread. Deputy Brennan was perturbed about the extension of this subsidy to wheaten meal, and he tried to make a calculation based upon the cost of the commission miller milling wheat on commission for the grower of wheat. The present fixed price for wheaten meal is 49/-.
Mr. Brennan
I beg your pardon.
The present fixed price for wheaten meal is 49/- per 280 lbs., and that price is built up as follows: the licensed wheat meal millers receive an allocation of imported wheat, and consequently the price of imported wheat is taken into account in determining what their costs are. On the basis of the allocations of imported wheat received by them last year, supplemented by native wheat, the cost of the wheat required to make 280 lbs. of wheaten meal was £2 0s. 3½d. That cost will be increased now because of the higher price for native wheat and the higher price for imported wheat, but under the subsidy arrangement it will remain unchanged. The purpose of the subsidy is to ensure that those wheat meal millers will receive the wheat used by them this year at the same price as last year. That is the whole purpose of the subsidy. In addition to the £2, there is an allowance of 2/- in respect of sacks. The same considerations apply in relation to that sacks' allowance made to wheat meal millers as apply in the case of flour millers, and, although it is quite clear that the whole of that item cannot be wiped out, neverthless some part of it may be.
Why can you not wipe out the whole of the item?
Because the collection, reconditioning, renovating and cleaning of the sacks will still have to be paid for. There is a discount of 4/- in the £ allowed by the miller to traders; and wages, overheads and profits amount to 6/8. An investigation carried out in 1939 put the wages and overheads of wheat meal millers at 5/6 per sack. No increase has been allowed over that 1939 estimate. I think it is almost certain that some increases in the costs of production have taken place since then, but no allowance for any increase in the cost of production has yet been reflected in the price. That allows 1/2 per sack profit to the miller.
Is the Minister aware that the price of wheaten meal at the moment is 3/- per stone?
We have only fixed the ex-mill price.
Whatever you fixed, that is what the public are paying.
Those are the only matters to which I wish to refer now. There were some other matters of detail mentioned by various Deputies, but I think it is not necessary to refer to them at this stage. I have dealt with the principal contentions of Deputies on the main subject of this motion. Now, I want Deputies to understand precisely what they are going to do. The Government has decided to subsidise flour and bread in order to keep the price of flour and bread unchanged when a rise in the price of each would otherwise be inevitable because of the increased cost of wheat. The Dáil is now going to be asked to vote on that.
I asked the Minister a question as to what scheme he had worked out whereunder he could equitably distribute the bread subsidy on the basis of batch bread. How is he going to know that a country baker has baked so much of his flour in the form of batch bread?
It does not matter. It is the quantity of batch bread which he sells that will determine the amount of the subsidy.
Is that the lb. loaf?
Batch bread is the ordinary loaf which is not baked in a container, and which is not all crust on the outside.
Take a baker on the side of the road who bakes ten sacks a week. How is the Minister ever going to know how much of that ten sacks was sold in the form of batch bread and how much in the form of fancy bread?
The baker will have to keep accounts as prescribed by the Department, subject to the periodic inspection of the Department's officers by way of check. He will be paid his subsidy on the basis of the batch bread sold by him.
And he will be the certifying authority as to the amount of batch bread sold?
Oh, no. The certifying authority will be an officer of the Department.
But how can an officer of the Department do it? As I say, take the baker on the side of the road. How is an officer of the Department ever going to know how much batch bread he sold in a given day?
He will give the Department the benefit of the doubt, I am sure. The Deputy seems to think it is impossible to determine the amount of batch bread which a baker sold. I do not see that there is any difficulty at all. I admit that there is a possibility of a baker here and there attempting to falsify returns and getting more than he is entitled to. I think the risks which such a baker would take would be appalling. He goes out of business; he loses everything if he is caught, and he is almost certain to be caught.
How can you check up on him? Suppose he says: "On a certain day, I baked 20 dozen plain and 15 dozen fancy." That bread has been sold and consumed long before the Department's inspector comes on the scene. How in the name of heaven can you check up on that?
It is the quantity sold, not the quantity baked, that matters. It does not matter how much he baked. We can check up on the sales.
Suppose he says: "I sent out my van on such a day. I am charging the same price for fancy, although fancy is not as heavy as batch. I say that my van contained 15 dozen fancy and ten dozen plain. It has been sold and consumed." How can the Department's inspector possibly check up on that?
I agree that we have to rely on periodic inspections. I think in this matter, as in all matters where revenue considerations are involved, the enforcement is secured firstly by those regular and systematic checks upon the accuracy of statements made by individuals, and, secondly, by the drastic nature of the penalties involved. The baker would be able, undoubtedly, to make an inaccurate return in respect of this day and the next day and the third day, but on the fourth day he may be caught, in which case he loses everything.
How can the Minister check up on him? If the Minister's inspector goes out at nine o'clock in the morning he can open the bread van. At that hour, the baker has not completed his return for that day. Suppose the bread van has gone out the country—there may be two vans or five—how is the inspector to find out what is in the bread van? Suppose he does not find the expected quantity of plain bread in the van, how is he to prove that the baker has not sold the plain bread before he caught up on the van?
I do not know that there will be any difficulty in keeping that check. The system in operation has been worked out by the officers of my Department and has been communicated to the Association of Bakers. It has been in operation for some weeks, because as I have already informed the House the subsidy will be payable retrospectively to the middle of October. These accounts have been kept and this system of supervision is already in operation.
I can assure the Minister that the only account that is kept is that the baker says: "I baked so many dozen plain and so many dozen fancy." How can these returns be checked?
The baker who does not keep accounts in conformity with the regulations does not get paid. I want to repeat that the subsidy will be paid only to bakers who have completed their registration with my Department. While I cannot say precisely what the number of bakers in this country is, from the available information in the Industrial Year Book and other sources, the number appears to be considerably larger than has actually registered. Only those who have registered will get the subsidy, therefore bakers who fail to comply with the regulations are depriving themselves of the subsidy. A subsidy for bread is necessary to offset other costs involved in the manufacture of bread, exclusive of the cost of flour. As Deputies are aware, the manufacture of bread involves the use of salt, vegetable oils and certain other commodities, all of which have gone up in price. While it is true that we have not got, in relation to the baking industry as a whole, the very precise knowledge we have in regard to the flour milling industry, neverthless it is clear that costs have gone up to such an extent as to invalidate the allowance made by the Prices Commission on which the price of bread had been fixed. The Prices Commission worked on pre-war costs for these goods. We have got to make this additional allowance or a number of the smaller bakers could not continue to operate. Their disappearance would cause hardship and inconvenience to a large number of people in the country. That is why we decided that not merely should we stabilise the price of flour but that we should also stabilise the price of bread and offset these increased costs.
If the Minister still favours the idea of the nationalisation of flour milling, will he say when he proposes to give effect to that?
I will not.
The Minister stated today that for some time past his Department has required registered bakers to keep a system of accounts. Is the Minister aware that a baker of my acquaintance, who registered and had his registration acknowledged by the Department of Supplies, had received no such request to keep accounts up to last Tuesday, that the only records that baker was required to keep were those which he kept at the request of the bakers' organisation which merely asked that a record of batch and fancy bread should be kept from time to time and that no request for accounts was ever issued?
I am not aware of that. The Deputy need not unduly worry about that. We shall get the system right in time.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John J.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Linehan, Timothy.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.