Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1942

Vol. 85 No. 15

Adjournment: Standing Order 27. - Supply and Distribution of Bread.

General Mulcahy

In accordance with notice given, I move the adjournment of the Dáil. I considered it proper to-day to ask if we agreed that the bread situation, caused by the recent action of restricting the amount of bread and of flour available, should have been dealt with in the sudden and unprepared way in which it was done, producing a situation here that calls for review and urgent action on the part of the Minister for Supplies, and to see that bread distribution is ordered in a more satisfactory way, and that those classes of the population that have no reasonable alternative to bread to keep themselves and their families alive, will get particular consideration. I put down certain questions to the Minister to-day, and I think it would have been much more satisfactory if the House, in approaching a discussion of the situation now, could have the answers before it. We had a statement to-day, for well over an hour, about turf. I have no objection to that, but I think questions about turf had none of the elements of urgency that questions about bread have.

Instead of coming before this House and making a statement analogous to that made about turf, the Minister for Supplies on last Thursday week left this House and broadcast a general statement suggesting that the consumption of bread and flour would have to be cut down by one-fifth as from Friday, February 27th. He gave no reasonable details that would suggest how distribution was to be safeguarded, and, particularly, how the poorer classes of people were to be safeguarded in their requirements. I suggest that it would have been more helpful, and that the Minister would have been warned of the difficulties and of the kind of situation he would have to meet if he had made his statement in this House and given Deputies from the various constituencies a chance of discussing it. I do not want to take up time dealing with that now.

I want to state what the position is, as I found it in the city, in a family consisting of father, mother, grandmother and eight children living in the workers' area on the north side. Normally they would get, on Monday, five loaves, but actually got two. They were people who dealt with and were known to a baker. On Tuesday, they would get six loaves, but only got three; on Wednesday, they would get five loaves, but only got three; on Thursday they would get six loaves but got three, and on Friday they would get five loaves but got only three. On Saturday they would get 11 loaves to bring them over the week-end, but up to 3 o'clock on that day they got only three loaves, and those were got by going into a queue. They had that amount to bring them over the week-end, but by some of the children getting into a queue and waiting from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. they got two additional loaves. There you had a family of 11 persons, who normally consumed 38 2-lb. loaves in the week, succeeding in getting 19 loaves with a considerable amount of difficulty. According to a statement that was issued by the Department of Supplies, the situation was investigated, and it was understood that the panic that occurred during the week arose from over-anxiety on the part of customers of bakers' shops, and that arrangements were being made on March 2nd, so that the public who normally purchased bread in bakers' shops should have no difficulty in getting supplies any time during shopping hours. On Monday, March 2nd, when that family would normally get five loaves they got two, and got two small pans in another shop. On Tuesday, when they would have got six loaves they got two.

That was the position of one worker's family known to the baker, where there were no great complications about being the type of person who shopped here, there and elsewhere. In another better-class house on the North side, consisting of a father, mother, three children and a maid they would get on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, four loaves daily, and on Saturdays when they expected eight, they got five loaves. For the full week instead of getting 28 loaves they got only 11. The five loaves they got on Saturday were only got by going into a queue in the morning and in the evening. On the other side of the city a family consisting of a man and his wife and seven children normally got four loaves at a baker's shop and one loaf at a neighbouring dairy daily. They would get that amount on five days of the week. They actually got two every day at the bakery and they were able to get three in other places. Therefore, since the Order was issued, instead of 25 loaves, they got 13. On Saturdays they would normally get seven plus some flour to do some baking at home, but on last Saturday they got only four as a great compliment. On Monday when the situation was supposed to have changed and when they should have got four plus one, they got only two and a small brown square. On Tuesday they got three. In order to get the two, a boy of 13 had to be kept at home from school and had to go into a queue. These are examples, showing in a purely statistical way how families were affected.

Anybody who has experience of the home life of these people and of the circumstances in which they live generally, will have some kind of an impression of what it means to be deprived of 50 per cent. of the normal bread requirements of the home. Added to that there was the anxiety of not knowing whether they were going to get any bread and the fact that children had to be kept at home from school to take their place in queues.

The confusion and the scenes that took place in some of the queues accentuated the hardship of these people in the last week. This was entirely a result of the shortness of notice and the absence of any systematic arrangement to deal with the situation. The situation was made worse for some people towards the end of last week and the police in the city got the idea of removing the younger people from the queues and not allowing young people into the queues. The result was that many older people without families who could not leave their homes and who were depending on neighbours' children to get supplies for them, were disappointed by reason of the fact that after they had spent some time in the queues, the children were sent home by the police without any bread. It seems to me astonishing, that, knowing the importance of bread to the working class here in the City of Dublin, the most careful examination of what was likely to be the result of any action by the Minister was not made beforehand.

The Minister, apparently, appreciates that there are some classes of people to whom alternative varieties of food are available. He suggested in his broadcast that retailers should be able to distinguish between various classes of people, that they should be able to know the people who are likely to have alternative foods and that, in the rationing of the bread, they should take that into consideration. The Minister, having that appreciation of the situation in the city, surely ought to have remembered that there are certain districts in the city which should be particularly catered for in the distribution of bread and that in a rushed action of this kind the working class areas should have been catered for by instructions to the distributors to see that the full complement of bread was allowed into these areas until his Department was able to work out a system by which the definite amount that could be allocated to those areas was arrived at. There have been many families who formerly received three or four loaves daily who were able to get only one.

There are many families who get little or no bakers' bread and who buy flour. There are very few families using bakers' bread almost entirely who do not get, over the week-end, a small quantity of flour to do some home baking on Saturday or Sunday. The Minister no doubt has heard the very caustic comments on the announcement of his Department that over-anxiety on the part of the public to get bread caused the present situation, but the suggestion I heard most frequently was that the difficulties could have been lessened considerably if the Department of Supplies allowed the bakers and the bread distributors to formulate their own schemes. It seems to me that the Minister in a rushed and panicky way issued an Order without any plans or arrangements behind it. The reason that he would not answer the questions to-day is, I think, that he was not prepared to answer them because he could not hope to persuade the House that he had taken reasonable precautions to obviate the calamitous situation in which a large number of people found themselves during the past week.

I do not want to read all the communications I have received on this matter. I have had them from places as far apart as Donegal and Cashel. The position in Donegal is as bad as it is in Dublin but in a different kind of way. The position in Cashel, to quote only one phrase from a letter that reached me this morning, is that "the poor are like hunted rats looking for bread." I raise this question principally to ask the Minister does he realise what the situation here in the city is? Does he know no more about it than is indicated in the statement issued from the Department of Supplies? I ask him to tell us here what he proposes to do so that we may be able to help him by suggestions. If he is not able to do any better than he has done up to the present, then I think the bakers and the retailers should be brought into consultation with no officialdom near them. The problem should be put to them as business people in touch with consumers and the responsibility might be put on them to outline how they are going to serve the people of the city with 80 per cent. of the bread they got previously. The problem is not a big one, but in the actual working out of the Minister's plan up to the present, it is the poor only who have really suffered. Other people have been inconvenienced. The greatest amount of hardship and the greatest amount of misery has been caused to the people who can least afford it while the least amount of disturbance has been brought about amongst those who can get us much bread as they like in hotels and restaurants if they are not able to get it in their homes.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I should like to say, from inquiries I have made, that while the position in my part of the country may not be as bad as apparently it is here in the City of Dublin, certainly there has been a good deal of dislocation in certain areas which have not been able to procure sufficient supplies of bread. I think we must say at the outset that this position has arisen largely because the Government did not at the beginning of the emergency take the step, which everybody outside Government circles thought was not only desirable but essential, of setting up a national register and of introducing rationing. The position at the moment cannot be otherwise than one of confusion and chaos. An order is issued by the Department and the responsibility for carrying out that order immediately in thrown upon retailers throughout the country, whether that order is to apply to bread, sugar or other commodities. Deputy Mulcahy has said that the Minister issued this order in a sort of panic. I can quite understand that because it is only, of course, quite recently that the Minister apparently became aware of the serious position in this country in relation to its wheat supplies. I remember that in a debate in this House as far back as November 13th last we were discussing wheat supplies, and some of us told the Minister, from the information which we had at our disposal, that there was a fear that we were going to be at least 100,000 tons of wheat short. I remember the Minister in his usual way telling me that I was talking through my hat.

Mr. Lemass

I think the Deputy is mixing up who said what. I think it was I who told the House that we were 100,000 tons short.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I will tell the Minister a little more about it. The Minister will not want the Official Report by the time I am finished. When we asked the Minister: "How much wheat have you already got into the stores?" he said, 170,000 tons, but we were going to get 290,000. All his calculations in respect of the subsidy and everything else, the House still remember, were based on 290,000 tons of home-grown wheat in the hands of the millers, and when, from this side of the House, doubt was expressed as to the Minister being able to get, after 13th November, 120,000 tons of wheat to make up his 290,000 tons, the Minister again had no doubts whatever this the 290,000 tons would be got. It is only about six weeks since the Minister woke up to the fact that he was not going to get 290,000 tons, that there was no possible chance of his getting that amount, and that, instead of being 100,000 tons short, he was much nearer to being 130,000 or 140,000 tons short. That is the fact.

The Minister goes further, and on the usual Government principle of trying to put the results of their own inefficiency upon the shoulders of somebody else said that this rationing of flour and bread is made necessary because of the farmers withholding wheat. Will the Minister deny that he said that? I want to say here and now, publicly, that that statement was not only untrue and unfair, but it was a dangerous statement to make. It was absolutely untrue. There were two reasons for the Government's failure to get in the amount of wheat they anticipated. One was that we never had 490,000 acres under wheat last year and sufficient care was not taken to check up the figures supplied to the Department; and the second, and main, reason was not that the farmers were withholding wheat, but that the yield of wheat was down by 20 per cent. The Minister made no reference to that.

I do not want to go back on that matter any further, except to say that it discloses a state of affairs in the Department of Supplies and the Department of Agriculture that must create very grave doubts in the minds of members of the House and of people outside. I want to say here and now that different and more effective machinery will have to be set up for the collecting of agricultural statistics. Those of us who come from the country know quite well how these statistics are generally got together. John is met at the creamery and asked: "How many acres of wheat have you sown this year?" John, knowing that under the law he must have 25 per cent. of his land tilled, says: "I have nine or ten acres," when he might have only four. That is bad enough, but his neighbour, James, is not at the creamery that morning, and John is asked how many acres he has tilled, and again he is not going to underestimate. That is the type of administration on which, I might say, the lives of the people are being made to depend. These figures are totalled up after collection and then there is a great flare in the headlines, from the platforms over the radio: "490,000 acres of wheat." They were not there, unfortunately.

It is unfair for a responsible Minister to say to the people of the country that the rationing of flour and bread was brought about because the farmers were withholding wheat. That created a very bad impression, very naturally, in the cities and towns, so much so that there were letters in the daily and local papers about it. One letter was written by an official of one of the bakery unions in the city and these letters, of course, accepted the Minister's statement as being absolutely true. I can speak only for the farmers with whom I am in touch in my own constituency, but I take these as being typical of the farmers in the rest of the country, and so far as my knowledge goes in this matter of grain—and I am certainly as close to them as probably any member of the House—the farmers in that area kept sufficient wheat for the needs of their own families and no more—and my blessing to them for providing for their own families.

Another matter to which I object is this statement last Monday week in respect of flour and bread, that where a person got five loaves, he would now get four. I take it the same ratio was to apply to flour for home baking. What is the fact? Is there a single purchaser of flour for home baking who has been able to get anything like his normal supply for the last three, four or five months? Of course, there is not. Let me give the Minister a couple of examples. In the country areas, and particularly in rural areas and in some of the small towns, the normal thing is to buy what is called a half sack of flour, ten-stone bag. If you went into any flour merchant in any town or village I know of over the last three, four or five months, and asked for a ten-stone sack of flour, you were told: "I am sorry; all I can give you is six stone or five stone." The person who went in for a stone of flour was lucky if he got a half stone. That went on for the three or four months before last Monday week and the position since then is that the farm labourer or town person with a big family, who normally bought a ten-stone sack, got, instead of six stone, four stone, and the poor person who normally bought a stone at a time got a half stone, or perhaps a quarter stone.

The Minister may have many people, inspectors and others, supplying him with information, but we are giving the actual facts as we find them in our own areas, and as we come up against them day in and day out. It is information which we have checked so far as it is humanly possible to check it, and which we have obtained in order to get the actual position. The picture I have painted for the House is a picture that could be painted, I am sure, by any Deputy from rural Ireland on any side of the House. That is a situation that should have been provided against, and if the reduction had to take place—and there is no doubt that it had to take place in the circumstances because the wheat was not there—surely a much better way could have been found of breaking it to the people than the way which was adopted. I am satisfied that if the Department and the Minister deliberately set out to create a panic and to cause queues to line up at the bread shops, they could not have adopted a better way than the Minister's broadcast on that night.

Mr. Norton

We are now paying, or, rather, the poor people of the country, and particularly of this city, are now paying, for the complete displayed in 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941. During all those years, it ought to have been obvious to the Government, which thought it necessary to set up a shadow Department of Supplies, that there was one vital need: to ensure an adequate supply of food for our people. But the Government did nothing of any substantial value in the three years, 1938, 1939, and 1940 to ensure a substantial increase in the wheat acreage.

In the early days of 1941 there was a panic when it was discovered that Grain Importers could not charter ships to ensure the delivery of wheat to this country, and then every Minister and official of standing in the Department of Agriculture wash chased around the country to make a panic appeal to the farmers to grow more wheat. But, even then, we continued, by an emergency powers order, to require only an infinitesimal proportion of the arable land to be tilled, and in case anything should happen so that we would have an adequate supply of wheat, no stipulation whatever was made to ensure that the minimum acreage of wheat would be produced. In those years every possible blunder that could be made was made with classic brazenness, so far as the Government are concerned. No serious effort whatever was made to plan our requirements. Everybody knew that we had not sufficient wheat, that, in fact, we did not produce 30 per cent. of our requirements in wheat, and that we would have to depend on a mercantile marine to bring overseas the other 70 per cent. of the wheat we required. The Government would not buy ships, and, though we have some of the most fertile land in Europe, they would not insist on it being tilled. They could not be aroused from the slumbers in which they have been resting for many years, even to stipulate that the minimum acreage required for wheat would be provided.

Because of all the inexplicable complacency, all that kind of economic stewing in which the Government have enshrouded themselves during those years, the poor of this city are to-day paying for the Government's mistakes. To realise that, one has only to witness the sad spectacle of persons waiting in rain and biting wind outside the bread shops in this city, and the hardships they are enduring to-day. They have no fuel at home to heat them, and in order to get a loaf or two of bread they must withstand the rigours of the rain and the wind outside the bread shops.

There is no reason in the world why the people should be obliged to do that. They are only being compelled to do it because we have in office a Government which apparently believes in shock tactics and does not believe in planning. The Government's only policy is to shock the public and to shock them as often as they can. Every crisis in respect of supplies with which the country has been confronted has been ushered in upon the people before they have even got time to plan or think of an alternative method of dealing with it. No effort was made by the Government to appeal to people who could very well afford it to economise in the use of articles which were in short supply.

That is the position in March. We were told by the Minister the other day that all one had to do to solve the bread problem was to reduce the consumption of bread from five loaves to four loaves; that once that happened everything would be all right. but we see how that has been falsified by the actual facts in this city and in other towns during the past week. In face of that, what is the position going to be in June and in July and August, before this year's harvest comes in? Is it going to be any better than it is now? If the muddle that we have to-day is simply a sympton—reducing consumption from five loaves to four loaves—what is the position going to be later on when perhaps the consumption of bread will have to be still further curtailed? We learned the other day, from a statement made by an official of the Department of Agriculture, that those who can afford it ought to use bread only for breakfast. But poor people cannot even get bread for breakfast.

If well-to-do people can afford to adopt a formula of that kind, then some effort ought to be made beforehand to create an atmosphere favourable to its adoption, but instead we get, after the Dáil has adjourned, a statement broadcast by the Minister for Supplies announcing a curtailment of our bread supply with no adequate propaganda undertaken to ensure that the policy of bread for breakfast only is to be practised by those people who can afford to buy vegetables at the high prices at which they are procurable to-day.

The most striking part of the whole muddle has been the complete absence of any plan to take special care of the needs of the poor people or of the needs of working-class households. So far as they are concerned, they have been put on the same basis as the wealthy, and not even on the same basis as the wealthy, because the latter, with their commercial connections, can always manage to get goods. The poor people have to depend on the weekly credit they are able to get from a small shopkeeper. The latter may not be able to measure precisely the difficulties that he is likely to be confronted with, with the result that the poor suffer the greatest hardships in a crisis of this kind. I have here a letter from a well-known social worker in this city, dated yesterday, in which he states that he has first-hand information of several women having to wait in queues for two and even three hours. There were some cases of women, he says, collapsing from fatigue and having to be taken away in ambulances. If those women have had to wait for two or three hours, have collapsed from fatigue and have had to be taken away in ambulances that is all because the Department of Supplies apparently believes in shock tactics so far as the poor are concerned. I bet there were no wealthy to be seen waiting for two or three hours. I bet that no wealthy people collapsed from fatigue, and I bet that no wealthy folk had to be taken away in ambulances. But the poor people on this occasion—as they always do— collapsed, and were made the victims of that type of misapplied charity, all because this Department of Supplies will not plan and will not think in advance. At the last moment it simply announces that it is going to do certain things without any previously conceived idea as to the manner in which its proposals can be implemented.

I have some letters here from people in other areas. A woman in Meath Street writes to say that she has five in family, that she usually takes four loaves, but that last week-end, for two days, all she got was one loaf and a brown cake. There was no reduction from five to four there. Another woman, living in the Coombe, with eight in family, writes to say that she usually takes four or five loaves daily. For two days—Saturday and Sunday— she got four loaves, so that instead of ten loaves for two days she got four loaves. That is the five to four formula.

Another woman with seven in family usually takes four loaves a day and got four loaves for three days and waited in Meath Street in a queue from 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock to get those two loaves of bread on Monday last. Another family of five in number usually gets three loaves per day; at the week-end they got one loaf and two small brown squares. Another person living with six children in a flat got two Vienna rolls to keep two adults and six children over the week-end. In small shops in York Street and Mercer's Street areas there was no bread, and not even cakes, after 3 o'clock on Saturday last.

That does not even exhaust the figures. I have a letter here from a woman, who says: "I got no bread yesterday, and made up my mind to go into a certain shop in town"—which is mentioned in the letter—"early this morning, where I always get my bread; and after waiting one hour and fifteen minutes I was handed one turnover instead of the usual four. The loaf in question was steaming hot and of no utter use to any woman with children." She goes on to say that she had left a child of three years to look after a baby one year and four months old. She says: "I can assure you my mind was in a dreadful state when I had to go to another shop"—the name is mentioned—"and there I found people treated a little better, but with the same sad conditions. Again I left home to try this shop and after waiting from 1 o'clock to 2.45 we were told: `No more bread to-day: come in the morning early'."

That is a picture of what poor people are suffering in this city for the past week, and with no reason whatever why they should suffer. They could have been spared that suffering if the Department would only plan and invite the co-operation of the public, and endeavour to plan their ukase to deal with the requirements of the people, and particularly the needy section of the community. I took the trouble to ask bread-van drivers their experience in the delivery of bread. Many of them told me that, so far as the wealthy people were concerned, and in good residential areas, there was a tendency to get as much bread as possible, and that in practically no case, except where they were refused, was there any disposition on the part of well-to-do people to cut down the supplies of bread. If the bread vans, instead of being sent into those areas, had been sent into the working-class areas, and if half-filled vans had been sent into the well-to-do areas, we might well have saved the working-class people from suffering all that they suffered, while I do not think it would have inflicted the slightest inconvenience on the well-to-do.

I had cases of complaints from my own constituency, where people depend to a large extent on bread vans which come out from Dublin. In some places, bread vans did not go into those small towns for three days and people had to eke out an existence on whatever local bread they could get. Can anyone imagine a more chaotic condition of affairs than that? A number of people depend on bread from a certain supplier, and the bread vans which took those supplies daily simply do not come. There is no explanation to the people concerned, there is no attempt to plan for the needs of the people concerned; the people are simply told they will have to put up with the hardship and get over it as quickly as they can and with the least possible complaint. Of course, we could have avoided all this mess and muddling if we had only planned last year. We have no plan, no idea of a plan, no attempt even to plan; and anybody who suggests a plan to the Government or suggests——

Mr. Lemass

There is no danger of the Deputy doing that.

Mr. Norton

There was only one plan the Minister ever promulgated in this country, and that was the famous plan in which he would have to send to America to bring back the emigrants. Those emigrants, thanks to their own good sense, are still in America, and it is a good job they are not back here now looking for bread. It is a good job they are not looking for oatmeal. What would the position be if the Minister had even been able to keep here the emigrants now going to England to make munitions?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is making a most constructive and helpful speech. Obviously, he is trying to help the country in its difficulty.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister wished to help the country, the best thing he could do would be to resign.

Mr. Lemass

The best thing the Deputy could do would be to stop talking. Is that the contribution of the Labour Party?

Mr. Norton

The Minister is muddling this whole thing from top to bottom, and I want to make this sensible suggestion to him.

Mr. Lemass

I would be astonished if it is.

Mr. Norton

Anything that is sensible would astonish the Minister, we all know that. I want to make this appeal to the Minister. Instead of kicking the football all round this economic field, without a glimmer of idea where the goal posts are, the Minister should stop and think and get some sense of direction and aim at the goal posts. He has no notion as to what he intends to do or where he intends to go or what results he ultimately hopes to achieve.

We get an example of the Government policy in respect of wheat prices. The declaration from the Government Benches was that 50/- a barrel could not be paid for wheat, that it was an extortionate price. Then we get the Government retreating from that position and saying that 50/- is a fair price, as if it were not a fair price earlier. You get the Government retreating, retreating, retreating and doing this only under pressure, when they are compelled to do it, and when they cannot resist the logic of the contentions advanced in favour of doing these things, and then doing them with bad grace and usually after a substantial portion of the population has been irritated by the Government's stubbornness in the matter. Take, for example, the muddle about oats, which may be a very useful substitute for bread. You could have got oats and stirabout in the famine years in 1846 and 1847, and some of our people were kept alive then on stirabout, but you could not get stirabout now, notwithstanding all the compulsory tillage orders and the boastfulness as to the extent to which our land is under tillage. You cannot buy oatmeal in the city to-day.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no oats or oatmeal in this question.

Mr. Norton

There is sufficient asininity in it otherwise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Bread supplies is a very limited subject of debate.

Mr. Norton

The commodity is extremely limited, but, if we have an abundance of oats, as we are told, we ought to have a considerable amount of bread. The Minister should take a walk in the poorer quarters of his own constituency and see the little shops which formerly sold oatmeal and he will realise that he could not get a pound of oatmeal in those shops. Where is all the oats gone? Where are the wheat supplies? Statements were made here that 490,000 acres were under wheat and the Minister expected to get 290,000 tons of wheat, allowing for the hold-back for seed for the following year. Instead of 290,000 tons of wheat, the Minister tells us about 190,000 tons of wheat is all he got, but he told us with the same assertiveness that he believed that it would be necessary to import only 180,000 tons of wheat. After making that miscalculation and being out 35 per cent. the Minister——

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy should stick to the truth. I challenge him to quote any statement of mine like that.

Mr. Norton

The Minister should read his own speech. What is the use of going on in that prevaricating way?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy should try to be truthful. It may be a bit of a strain, but he should try.

Mr. Norton

Whatever association the Minister may have with a gentleman called Ananias, so far as his political utterances are concerned, he has none with a gentleman, now deceased, called Washington.

Mr. Lemass

I am sorry for interrupting the Deputy, but the sooner he stops the better.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not wish to intervene in the dialogue between the Minister and the Deputy, but I would like to point out to the Deputy that we are dealing with the bread question and the sufferings caused, particularly amongst the poorer classes, by the bread restrictions. We are not dealing with wheat production.

Mr. Norton

It would be impossible to discuss that without mentioning the cause of it and the future position. Bread is made from wheat, and can you discuss bread without discussing wheat?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This motion speaks of the bread restrictions.

Mr. Norton

The Minister for Supplies does not know what quantites of wheat we have in the country. He told us at one time he had 290,000 tons. Then it turned out to be 190,000 tons. The Minister's calculation was out by 100,000 tons of wheat; in other words, out by 100 days' supply of wheat; in other words, out by over three months' supply of wheat. He told us he expected to get 290,000 tons; that his estimate was out by 100,000 tons, which is over three months' supply of wheat out of the nine months' supply of wheat which we were then producing. What credit can be placed on statements made by a Minister who makes such irresponsible calculations? He then comes back to the Dáil and makes an entirely different statement and wants to contend that he is right on the second occasion, even though the statements are entirely dissimilar.

I do not blame the Minister for the muddle about wheat. That is the fault of his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, but the Minister ought to know what the wheat position is in the country. I agree with Deputy Morrissey. I do not believe either that 490,000 acres of wheat were grown last year. The method by which that calculation was arrived at would not bear examination for ten minutes because it is a loose, rough-and-ready method which might suit all right in peace times when you would have plenty of wheat, but which is an entirely fallacious standard for reckoning our wheat acreage at a time when we could ill afford to make miscalculations to the extent of under-estimating by over three months' supply the amount of wheat grown in the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, I remind the Deputy that the words of Deputy Mulcahy's motion refer to the inequitable distribution and the suffering caused by it, rather than shortage of production.

Mr. Flinn

I submit, on a point of order, that the adjournment was moved for a specific purpose, to clear up the difficulty in relation to the distribution of a quantity of bread, and that, unless discussion is concentrated on that, we will not get to that particular point which is the one point we do want to get to the bottom of in this discussion.

Dr. O'Higgins

On a point of order, may I point out—I think the Minister will agree that I am correct—that this debate took place because this way of dealing with it suited the Minister and the House better than answering five questions that were down on the Paper this morning.

Mr. Lemass

That is not true.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Minister is aware of the reply he gave me to my question.

Mr. Lemass

May I point out to the Deputy that Deputy Mulcahy's motion to move the adjournment of the House had been submitted to the Ceann Comhairle long before he knew what my reply would be.

Dr. O'Higgins

Not before he knew the reply to mine. Some of the questions dealt with wheaten flour. My own did. The answer I got from the Minister was that he proposed to answer that question on the debate this evening. That question dealt with wheaten flour. The case being made by Deputy Norton at the moment deals with a product of wheat, wheaten flour, and if the information we got was that we would get a reply to our questions in the course of this debate, then I submit that wheat is perfectly relevant. It is not narrowly confined to distribution.

Mr. Lemass

I submit that permission was given to Deputy Mulcahy to move the adjournment of the House on a matter which he described as of urgent public importance. I submit it is not of urgent public importance that Deputy Norton should waste half an hour abusing the Government.

Mr. Flinn

I submit on a point of order that it was the urgent public importance of a specific issue, the distribution of bread in the City of Dublin, which caused this discussion.

Mr. Linehan

No.

Mr. Flinn

I have no desire to limit the discussion in any way but the difficulty is that time will not allow this particular issue which was of urgent public importance to be faced if we get into all sorts of side issues.

Dr. O'Higgins

I may be wrong, but my belief is that the really acute situation with regard to bread is because a vast number of people previously cooked their own bread and when they could not get flour to cook their own bread they joined the queues to buy bakers' bread. The two hang together.

Mr. Lemass

I do not disagree with Deputy O'Higgins but I submit that Deputy Norton is entirely irrelevant.

Mr. Norton

The Chair has not moved that.

Mr. Dillon

We cannot talk about bread without talking about flour. It would be like talking about eggs without discussing hens.

Mr. Linehan

The Minister said to-day he would answer Questions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 in the course of this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not dealing with questions on the Order Paper. We are dealing with a specific notice of motion given by Deputy Mulcahy.

Mr. Linehan

The Minister said he would answer Questions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 in the course of this debate and No. 17 refers purely to flour.

Mr. Lemass

Is there anything there about the collection of agricultural statistics?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is dealing with the matter that is particularly before it, and it is explicitly stated that it is to deal with the inequitable distribution caused by the restrictions imposed by the Minister on the 23rd February, and the debate must be confined to the motion.

Mr. Dillon

The restrictions imposed by the Minister and the reason for them.

Mr. Flinn

On that particular date.

Mr. Norton

I may point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance that we could have had all the evening to discuss this matter were it not for the fact that we were endeavouring to suit the Minister's convenience. He was not prepared to start the debate before 7 o'clock.

Mr. Flinn

The point I have put, and I am asking for a ruling on it now, is, what is the matter of urgent public importance for which the adjournment was moved? That is what was read out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has just stated what the adjournment was for.

Mr. Flinn

I submit, on a point of order, the discussion should be confined to that matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has so ruled.

Mr. Norton

One fact that emerges from this whole situation is that during the past week, notwithstanding all the money that we spend on the Department of Supplies, notwithstanding all the eulogies that that Department occasionally reads to itself, the poor of this city have had to queue up outside bread shops to try to purchase a fraction of their bread requirements. For the first time for a long period we have seen bread queues in the city. They were visible in the city to-day.

Mr. Lemass

To-day?

Mr. Norton

To-day.

Mr. Lemass

Did the Deputy see them to-day?

Mr. Norton

To-day, of course. Everybody knows this except the Minister. If the Minister would walk around the town he would see them too. Everybody knows that queues were there to-day. I would not be surprised to see them there to-morrow, too. I saw people huddled in rain yesterday morning, not 120 yards from this House, in a queue about five yards long, the door bolted against them, waiting for whatever hot bread would be available for them. That is the situation we have asked the Minister to deal with. That is the situation we are pointing out to the Minister as one which calls for immediate and drastic remedy, and it is the Minister's job to supply the remedy.

I believe, with others, that the way in which this whole problem of commodities in short supply should have been dealt with was by a scheme of national registration and by the issue of coupons for the commodities which our people need, with, if it is humanly possible, a bias towards those who are likely to suffer most by a shortage of supplies. We may have logic-chopping arguments that rationing is a costly scheme. Cost does not matter compared with honesty. What is being said to-day is that the rich can get what they like because, when food is scarce, there is not a free market. The rich can always get commodities. What is being said to-day is that there is no honest administration in the distribution to the people of the supplies which are available. Public confidence in the Government is being undermined. Public confidence even in this Institution is being undermined because when the people cannot get bread and cannot get the barest necessaries of life while they see others trading in black markets and getting away with it, public confidence is undermined to an extent that cannot be recovered merely by putting against that a saving of expenditure when expenditure might have avoided that undermining of public confidence.

I plead with the Minister now, no matter what the cost may be, no matter even how sluggish the administration may be, to devise a national scheme of rationing. It is clear to everybody that it is only in those circumstances that the poor will get at least the minimum provided for them by the State. If there is a scarcity of one commodity or another, then we may be sure it is the poor will suffer. The only intelligent thing the Department of Supplies did for a long time was preventing a racket in the sale of fruit at the ports the other day. If those were allowed out in a free market, does the Minister think many of them would have been bought by poor people? Does not the Minister know perfectly well that the poor would never see one of them? A scheme of fixed prices, a scheme of rationing, will at least ensure that the poor people will get their minimum requirements. The Minister should have no hesitation whatever in introducing a rationing scheme, because even if it is a costly scheme it is at least an honest one, and now more than ever we want to convince our people that there is honesty in our administration, and that, if there is any bias, it is a bias towards those who need the goods most. I do not want to be unhelpful in the matter. I want to tell the Minister he has been on the wrong track. He has been in the wrong train and he ought to get out of it. He has been going in the wrong direction. He ought to get out at the next station. He ought to recognise that he has been in the wrong train. The correct vehicle is the one labelled "rationing for the people". The issuing of rationing cards will ensure for everybody a fair ration of goods. If the Minister will do that and get after the black market racketeers he will at least be able to demonstrate to our people that, even though there are difficulties in administration, he is endeavouring to overcome those difficulties. Probably, the people will then recover some of their faith in representative government, which they have lost because of the way they have been treated in the last couple of years.

Mr. Byrne

I have a few points to make and I really do not know where to commence. I do not know whether I should first draw attention to the discourtesy of Ministers' Departments, the discourtesy of their secretaries——

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the alleged discourtesy in connection with the subject of this motion?

Mr. Byrne

Yes; it is in connection with this matter. Whether it is that bureaucracy has gone mad or dictatorship is growing in those Departments is a matter for the House to judge. Last Wednesday I was cycling through a tenement quarter of the City of Dublin, and I was called by a very poor woman who was having a conversation with another. This woman told me that she had found difficulty in getting bread. She showed me one loaf in her arms and she said: "That one loaf is for myself and my husband and eleven children." Lest there should be any exaggeration in the matter I asked the other woman what was her position. She gave me her name, and she said: "It is true. I got one loaf this morning and one loaf this evening for myself and my husband and eight children." In a few moments a crowd of women collected, and each of them told me the same story. This is probably the poorest tenement quarter in Ireland. I refer to Waterford Street and Railway Street. Leaving the Gresham Hotel, where people talk about prosperity, if you take the first turn to the right and walk around there for five minutes you will see how Dublin lives. Having heard those stories, you would ask yourself: "Do we sufficiently praise those people, or do we know how saintly the tenement mothers of Dublin can be?" I took the particulars down on a slip of paper. Mrs. Gleeson, 154 Summerhill, got one loaf for herself and her husband and eleven children. She also had three small what she called "penny cakes", for which she paid 7d. Mrs. Noone, 40 Upper Seán MacDermott Street, got one loaf for herself and her husband and seven children. Mrs. Herbert, from a better area, 39 Clonliffe Avenue, got one loaf for herself and her husband and six children. I have a note here: "Please call to 38 Waterford Street," which is a tenement house with about 18 rooms and, I think, 18 families, a family in every room. With six or seven or eight children in every family, they got one loaf for each family in the morning and one in the evening. Mrs. Cooke, 18 Summerhill, got one loaf early in the morning and one loaf in the evening for herself and her husband and eight children.

The matter worried me quite a lot. I thought: "If I call attention to this, will I be accused of creating some kind of atmosphere which will bring about a scarcity?" It worried me.

I went home, and at about half past twelve or twenty minutes to one in the morning I got up and sent the following telegram to An Taoiseach: "Unequal bread distribution caused serious hardships in Dublin to-day. Immediate action is necessary to secure equality for all citizens.—Alfred Byrne." I took the precaution of sending a copy to every Minister; I sent out twelve telegrams at 1 o'clock in the morning. Next morning I went around the city, and to my amazement I found queues everywhere—not in one part of the city alone. At a shop in the North Strand there was a queue at least 100 yards long. In Wexford Street there was another queue; in Longford Street there was another queue; in Meath Street there was another queue; there was a queue of at least 200 children in Liffey Street waiting for their turn. My complaint is that, having sent those telegrams to draw attention to the urgent necessity for doing something quickly, I got only one reply, and that was from the Minister for Agriculture on the 26th: "Bread distribution: I am directed by the Minister for Agriculture to acknowledge receipt of your telegram regarding the above matter." Now, I do say it is not fair to a parliamentary representative of a city like Dublin that he should get only one reply from a Government Department, having sent out 12 telegrams. I put that to any member of the House and ask him to judge for himself. In the last two or three days the position has been the same. The bakers, to give them their due, I understand, made every effort on Friday to send out double supplies both morning and evening. They did everything humanly possible. In that connection, let me make another complaint. In all the papers on Saturday morning an announcement appeared from a Government Department, blaming the shopkeepers; throwing the onus on the shopkeepers, and suggesting that they were to blame. I do not think it is fair——

Mr. Lemass

No such announcement appeared from a Government Department.

Mr. Byrne

It appeared on Saturday morning.

Mr. Lemass

No, it did not—not from any Government Department.

Mr. Byrne

Was it not from your Department?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Byrne

I saw it in the Press. It was framed in all the papers in a two by four block paragraph and it was indicated that it was issued by the Department of the Minister for Supplies. It was blaming the shopkeepers for the failure of the distribution.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy should have brought the quotation.

Mr. Byrne

I am sure I read it—I do not think I could have made a mistake.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It appeared in the papers.

Dr. O'Higgins

This is what appeared in one paper:

"The Minister for Supplies has caused a special investigation to be made into the position regarding bread deliveries in Dublin," states the Department of Supplies. "It has been found generally that difficulties which had arisen during the week were confined mainly to bakers' shops and were due to over-anxiety on the part of the customers of these shops to obtain supplies. The supplies of bread to all shops were practically normal during the week."

Mr. MacEntee

Where is the blame put on the shopkeepers?

Dr. O'Higgins

The statement continues:

"Special arrangements are being made by the bakers to maintain more frequent deliveries of bread to their shops so as to meet all reasonable demands throughout the day. The public who normally purchase bread at bakers' shops should therefore have no difficulty in getting supplies at any time during shopping hours."

If they could not get supplies, the indication is that the shopkeeper was to blame.

Mr. Byrne

The small family grocers usually take three or four trays of bread every day. During that week they did not get the bread and they took that paragraph as throwing the blame on them. They complain that it was not fair to put the blame on the shopkeepers. Traders in Crumlin, Cabra, North Strand, Summerhill, Meath Street, Wexford Street and, Longford Street, among other places, have complained to me about that statement, which they took to mean that they failed in their duty to their customers.

I did not put down my question on the Order Paper to-day without having been very well informed of the situation in Dublin. The women whom I interviewed told me plainly how they were affected. They said: "Mr. Byrne, our only hope is through ration cards —give us our ration cards." The suggestion about rationing is not mine. I put down a question asking for a system of rationing because all these people feel that it is the only way in which they can get their supplies, and with ration cards they would not have to wait in queues for hours, as I saw women waiting last Friday. I saw one woman at a baker's shop at 10 o'clock in the morning. The shop closed at 2 o'clock and by that time she had moved, according to her position in the queue, up to the door of the shop. The shop was closed and it was indicated that it would be re-opened at 4.30. This woman and several others refused to leave their places in the queue although they were standing in torrents of rain. They had to remain there in order to get supplies of bread for the evening.

I suggest to the Minister that a bread rationing scheme should be made operative immediately. If the Minister is not aware of the fact, I have reason to believe that one of the biggest bakery concerns in the city is getting ready to organise some system of rationing. That firm recognises that in order to deal fairly with its customers it is necessary to start a rationing scheme, and I believe it has ordered the printing of cards for the purpose. There is one bakery about to do something that all the other bakeries should do. In that way they would help the Government. I think the Minister should put that suggestion to the bakers, that they should do their own rationing. That would go a long way to relieve the present difficulty.

I put it to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that the time has now come to give hot meals to school children. An emergency has arisen and he should allow the Corporation to use the equipment that they have installed in the Mansion House, at the expense of the citizens, for the purpose of feeding the poor children. We saw an advertisement in last Saturday's paper suggesting that we should use more meat, soups and vegetables. The Corporation are prepared to give 48,000 children nice hot meals if the Minister will only say the word. These children at the moment are getting small, hard, unpalatable buns. We are prepared to give them a decent hot meal every day if the Minister will only allow us to do so. The Minister for Education has recognised the urgency of the matter and he has authorised a break in the school hours in order to allow the children to get a hot meal.

Mr. MacEntee

To go home for their meals.

Mr. Byrne

What have they to go home for? The people at home in many cases have nothing but wet turf or wet timber. What would the children in the tenements have to go home for? For their mothers to cook them hot meals? Those people have not the vegetables or the meat or the soup.

Mr. Corish

Or the 'bus fare.

Mr. Byrne

The School Meals Committee connected with the Dublin Corporation are prepared to give hot meals if the Minister will give them permission. If the Corporation are authorised by the Minister they will see that the scheme is put into operation before the week is out. We are prepared to give the children hot meals.

Mr. MacEntee

Is this in order?

Mr. Byrne

I hope the Minister will not insist on asking if my remarks are in order. This matter is too important.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must come back to the matter under debate—shortage of bread.

Mr. Byrne

This is the most important discussion, to my mind, that has been raised in this House since I became a member of it—since the days of the Provisional Government in 1922. I think this discussion is most important, far more important than any other discussion that could take place in this House. It concerns the feeding of the children and the safeguarding of their future food supplies. I, and the people of the country, think that the time has come when the Government should recognise that all the brains of Ireland are not on their benches. They ought to look around the Dáil and appeal to the chief Opposition and the Labour Party to help them to form a National Government, a Government that will give satisfaction to the people and that will be prepared to accept full responsibility in every emergency.

An Ceann Comhairle

The advocacy of a National Government is irrelevant to the motion.

Mr. Byrne

But the whole situation is so serious.

An Ceann Comhairle

Possibly, but it is not in order.

Mr. Byrne

Very well, I will leave it at that. I requested the Minister to-day to issue ration cards. Many of the people and at least one bakery in the city are of opinion that that is the only way in which the people will get supplies. In this evening's papers it is reported that Mr. J. E. S. Condon, Clerk of the Dublin Board of Assistance, read a letter from a trader, in which it was stated: "I had to refuse food vouchers as bread supplies have been reduced and I could not get sufficient to supply vouchers. I cannot see my way to take any more vouchers." These are vouchers issued by the Government, vouchers as good as pound notes or postal orders and issued almost as cash. Here is a shopkeeper saying he cannot take any more vouchers from necessitous people, the blind, the infirm, the unemployed; that shopkeeper cannot see his way to take any more vouchers from them for bread.

It is not every shopkeeper who takes vouchers. The person who is registered to get goods for a voucher cannot go to the shop next door. That person cannot go to shops in Grafton Street, Henry Street or Mary Street, because those shops will not take vouchers. The Government should realise that the time has come when they should ask for help from every member of the House. This matter is a very serious one. Please God it will get no worse than it is to-day. I would be very happy to help the Minister in his difficulties. I know that all the blame must not be put on his shoulders. The Minister for Agriculture should be here to give us an idea of what the future holds in the way of food supplies for this country, especially wheat.

Mr. Lemass

I am very glad that an opportunity has been given to me to deal with this matter. I must commend Deputy Mulcahy for having confined himself to the matter of urgent public importance concerning which he gave notice to the Ceann Comhairle. I do not think his good example in that regard was followed by other Deputies. Deputy Morrissey regarded it merely as an opportunity to make political propaganda against the Government.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is not so.

Mr. Lemass

So far as Deputy Byrne's appeal to the Government to ask help from all Parties in the House is concerned, I wish to say that there is nothing we want more, nothing we would be more glad to get, but I hope that the help we will get will not be of the kind offered by Deputy Norton in what I consider was the most mischievous speech that was probably ever delivered by a member of this House.

Mr. Norton

Mischievous from your point of view.

Mr. Lemass

The situation which has arisen in relation to bread and flour supplies is one with which this House, naturally, must be very deeply concerned and in relation to the particular problem of distribution, with which Deputy Mulcahy is concerned, I think it is desirable that the supply position should be stated and understood. A necessary preface to any remarks dealing with the difficulties that a curtailment of deliveries of bread and flour has caused is a review of our supply position. Quite clearly, this debate, if it is to have any value whatever, must be conducted in the light of that position. Our supply position is such that a shortage of bread and flour is unavoidable, and Deputies must realise that they cannot talk themselves out of that position. They should not attempt to delude either themselves or the public into the belief that there is any scheme, any method of rationing, any device which can be suggested by members of the Dáil, which will avoid a shortage of bread or flour. That shortage is not now avoidable. If we are lucky, the shortage will be a small one, and the difficulties caused by that shortage will be slight. If we are unlucky, the shortage will be severe and the difficulties will be considerable. Unless, however, we avoid this method of approaching the question as if there were some tap that the Government could turn on at will, and out of which would flow an abundance of flour and bread for all the consumers of the country, we will get on to what Deputy Norton calls the wrong track—he got on to the wrong track himself but I do not mean to follow his example. Because of the fact that we are now facing a shortage of wheat supplies, we have to restrict consumption of bread and flour. If we restrict it now, the reduction that it will be necessary to impose on consumers between this and the harvest will be a slight one. If we delay restricting now, the reduction may be considerable, and the sole reason why the Government acted in February to impose this restriction was in order to reduce the hardships which the shortage of wheat would inevitably cause.

When it became apparent that we were not going to get from the harvest the quantity of wheat which the Statistical Return entitled us to expect, the public were duly notified. Now, some Deputies have suggested that the Statistical Return was misleading. I think there is substance for that suggestion. I do not believe I am incorrect in saying that I was the first to point out in this House the possibility that the Statistical Return, prepared in the usual way and submitted in the usual manner, might prove, in the event, to be inaccurate, but at no time did I lead this House to believe that 290,000 tons of wheat had been secured or was certain to be secured. The earliest occasion upon which the matter was discussed in the Dáil was that mentioned by Deputy Morrissey, November 13, and that I think is also the occasion to which Deputy Norton referred for the purpose of misquoting. On that occasion I said, according to the Official Report, column 607:

"No matter what we may do, we will not have more than sufficient flour for human needs in this year. We may not have sufficient. The estimated yield of 290,000 tons from the Irish wheat crop has not yet materialised; not more than 170,000 tons has yet come in. There is, of course, still time for the balance to come in—the harvest was late—but if the full estimated quantity is not secured, then we will not be able to reach the end of the year with an all-wheaten loaf."

In December, in the course of a public statement, I made it clear that not merely had the deliveries of wheat to the merchants and millers fallen off seriously, but that the quantities of barley and oats coming on the market were also much less than were anticipated, and that our original plan, of making good the deficiency of wheat by a substitution of barely, did not appear to be capable of being put into effect. Early in January, when the situation had been reached in which there could be no doubt about the fact that the anticipated 290,000 tons of wheat was not going to come from the Irish harvest, in a statement in the Seanad I told the members of that House that the rationing of bread could not be avoided.

Now, it does not matter in the least, for the purpose of our present discussion or any plans we may make to deal with our present position, whether the Statistical Return was accurate or not. If the wheat was not grown we would still be without it. The fact is that only some 210,000 tons of wheat has come from Irish farms to the merchants and millers for manufacture into flour and bread. Whether more wheat may yet come, it is difficult to say, but that is the total quantity we got to date, and that position left us short to the extent of about 80,000 tons in the quantity estimated to meet the requirements of the Irish people this year—in fact, something more than that, because the 290,000 tons of wheat that we expected to get was calculated on a dried wheat basis, whereas the 210,000 tons actually received was undried wheat.

Our position at the moment is this: that the stocks of wheat in the country, in the hands of millers and merchants, if we allowed normal consumption to continue, would be exhausted on the 24th May. On the basis of the reduced consumption now in operation, that is to say, 80 per cent. of normal, the stocks of wheat here in the country will be exhausted in the middle of June. If, therefore, no more supplies can be procured from abroad or at home, all deliveries of flour and bread will cease in the middle of June. However, there is no reason to anticipate that we will not be able to get further supplies of wheat to augment those already within the country, assuming that there is no very exceptional development in the war situation which will prevent us from doing so. We require, on the basis of present distribution and present extraction to maintain the 80 per cent. deliveries until the completion of the harvest, an additional 80,000 tons of wheat. Our original estimate was that we could import in the year, in our own ships, 80,000 tons of wheat. I hope the repetition of the figures 80,000 will not confuse the minds of Deputies, because they have no relation, one to the other. Of that 80,000 tons which we expected to be able to import in our own ships, 36,000 tons have already been imported, leaving a balance of 44,000 tons yet to be imported. I have no doubt that if conditions remain as they are at the present time we will be able to import at least that quantity of wheat.

I told Deputies before that the channel of importation via Lisbon had been closed to us by reason of the cessation of American sailings to that port. Grain Importers, Limited, have been endeavouring to make arrangements to procure South American wheat, and shipping for South American wheat to Lisbon, with a view to transhipment to this country. It appears probable that these arrangements will result in the importation of some quantities by that means. I have placed on my table a figure of 10,000 tons against all possibilities of importation by that route. We have available in this country some 20,000 tons of barley which have been purchased by brewers and held by them, in excess of the quantity required for brewing for the home trade, for the purpose of brewing for export. As Deputies are aware, the malting of barley has been suspended by Government Order and restrictions have been placed upon the exportation of beer and stout. On the assumption that we prohibit the exportation of beer and stout from this until after the harvest, that 20,000 tons of barley can be made available for human food and, on the basis of 75 per cent. extraction, it corresponds to 15,000 tons of wheat. I know that customers of Dublin brewers in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain will be seriously inconvenienced if circumstances force upon us the necessity to suspend the exports of brewery products. I trust that those customers will appreciate that it is only the dire need of our own circumstances, the necessity for keeping up the supply of human food upon a restricted basis, that will force that course upon us.

The total of these figures is 69,000 tons, and I think there is a reasonable prospect that we will be able to increase the quantity imported by our own ships over and above that originally estimated to make good the 80,000 tons required to supplement present stocks and permit of the delivery of flour and bread to the extent of 80 per cent. of normal requirements until the next harvest. If circumstances should be favourable, we will be able to do better than that.

I do not need to tell Deputies that it is a difficult matter in present circumstances to calculate with any accuracy the quantity of goods that can be carried on our ships. There are so many circumstances which can impede or delay the transportation of goods by sea in war conditions that no reliable estimate is possible. The estimate which I have mentioned, while not unduly optimistic, is not conservative either. We hope to be able to realise it. If all the cards run in our favour, if we have no misfortunes, and no unexpected delays through a breakdown of the machinery or other causes, we may be able to do better. If we can do better, then the delivery of flour and bread towards the end of the cereal year may be increased beyond the 80 per cent. But I think it would be unwise to calculate on doing better than I have indicated.

On the basis of these calculations, or, shall I say, these expectations, of imports from abroad, we can maintain the 80 per cent. delivery of flour and bread until the end of the harvest. We can do that because we started the restrictions in February. If we had delayed imposing restrictions on the delivery of flour from the mills until we had a formal rationing scheme ready, or until some other precautions had been taken, we could not have been in that position. The earlier we started imposing these restrictions, the smaller the restrictions would have to be. A delay in restricting deliveries from the mills would have involved a much greater cut in supplies later in the year and might, if circumstances were adverse, have left us without flour or bread at all for a portion of the year.

We have heard many suggestions in this House and from people outside this House concerning the introduction of a formal rationing scheme for bread. Some Deputies who spoke this evening seemed to convey the impression that they thought it was a new idea. Surely they are aware of the fact that a national register was compiled and that the necessary census was taken last November?

Mr. Dillon

Twelve months too late.

Mr. Lemass

I want to deal with that interruption before I go further. The suggestion has frequently been made that an advantage would have been secured if the national register had been taken at the beginning of the war, or some other date long before any use could be made of it. That is an entirely mistaken idea. The whole problem of the utilisation of a national register for rationing purposes is that it begins to get out of date the day after the census is taken. An estimate prepared by the Statistics Branch would indicate that there are not less than 100,000 changes in population in the course of a year, and, if we had taken a national register a year ago with the intention of utilising it now, there would be 100,000 errors in the register. It would involve almost as much trouble in rectifying it as the taking of a new census at the present time.

Mr. D. Morrissey

If that is so, they must be in an awful mess in England.

Mr. Lemass

I am going to bring in the English comparison in a moment. We decided in the month of October that circumstances would arise in which a formal rationing scheme by means of coupons would be necessary or might become necessary in respect of a number of commodities. Arrangements were made to take a census at the earliest possible date. A very large number of forms had to be printed, enumerators had to be instructed, and the census was taken in November. Following the taking of the census, the compilation of a national register began. It is now nearly completed. Arrangements were made for the printing of ration books. It was a matter of considerable difficulty to organise both the materials and the equipment for the printing in this country of the ration books.

It was some time before production got under way, and at present the ration books are being delivered from the printing organisations of the city at the rate of 80,000 per day. At that rate of delivery, it will be early in April before delivery is completed. The printing of ration books is not the same thing as printing a number of leaflets. The distribution of them is not the same thing as distributing a number of leaflets. Each book, if it is to be of any value at all in connection with the rationing scheme, must bear on the cover and upon every page of the book the identification number of the person to whom it is to be issued, and arrangements must be made to ensure that each person receives the ration book with his number on it and no other and that that book goes to no other person. That involves a very great deal of organisation, and I can hold out no hope that we will have in the hands of every person in this country the ration book appropriate to him and printed specially for him before the end of April. That will mean that it will be the end of April or early in May before these books can be utilised for a rationing scheme.

Now I do not think Deputies who speak about rationing, or members of the public who lightly urge the adoption of formal rationing in relation to bread or other commodities, fully appreciate all the administrative problems in our circumstances in inaugurating it. Nevertheless, I think I can say that, despite the limited organisation at our disposal, the limited industrial equipment upon which we can call, the problem of supplies that arises in connection with the introduction of a rationing scheme, supplies of paper and of printing materials, we have done reasonably well in getting ourselves into a position in which we can distribute these ration books to the individual consumers of the country within six months after the beginning of the operation of the process. In Great Britain they did not do it in 12 months, and although they were, it is true, operating their system before the war and in a more leisurely fashion than they might have adopted during the war and for, perhaps, a different purpose from what we have in mind, because their main use of the national register has been to enforce military and industrial conscription; nevertheless, that comparison does not redound to the discredit of the organisation which was established here for the purpose.

It is, however, necessary to get rid of the false idea that the utilisation of rationing books, and the inauguration of a formal rationing scheme to control deliveries of flour and bread will improve the position of the poorer classes of the community. I think that is an entirely false conception. I have no doubt if we could make the present voluntary system of rationing work— and I have no illusions about the difficulty of making it work—it would be much better for the poorer classes of the community. Deputies who say here that their main concern is for the poorer classes of the community because of the problems that bread rationing will cause them should be as much concerned as I am to try to avoid the necessity for the control of bread distribution by formal rationing and should be as much concerned as I am to work the present system if we can, because it is the poorer sections who are going to be the main gainers by it. I believe that much of the difficulty that arose in Dublin and in other parts of the country during last week was due very largely to an unfounded feeling of panic amongst certain members of the community, in the belief that if they did not rush at once to the bakers' shops, they would not be able to get supplies.

In that connection, I want to say a few words which I think are appropriate to this discussion concerning the duties of Deputies and of the Press in relation to matters of this kind. I do not like making a comparison of this nature, but I ask Deputies to note the attitude of English public men and English newspapers whenever the Government of that country appeals specifically to them to take some course of action that is necessary in the public interest. The newspapers, for a time at any rate, endeavour to conform to the Government's plans, and uniformly report a willingness on the part of everybody to co-operate in those plans. Whether it is true or not, they succeed in getting into the minds of the people an attitude of acceptance and a willingness to co-operate. For various reasons, that is not the situation in this country. When the Government here appeals to members of the public to take a certain course of action in order to ease some national difficulty, our papers are disposed to go out to investigate the extent to which the Government scheme is not working; to report that people find difficulty in conforming to it; that people are refusing to conform to it, and generally to try to create an attitude of discontent and non-co-operation.

General Mulcahy

Why did the Minister not speak in this House on February 19th instead of broadcasting?

Mr. Lemass

On February 19th, I spoke on matters of importance to the people of this country. It was from the people of this country I wanted co-operation. It was not members of this House I was asking to reduce the consumption of bread. I felt I could reach the people throughout the country by speaking direct to them rather than to Deputies.

General Mulcahy

That was the only plan?

Mr. Lemass

I am asking Deputies, when the Government considers that a course of action by the public is desirable in the public interest, to endeavour for a time, at least, to ensure that the public will act in that way and not to be going around seeking evidence of non-co-operation or difficulties in order to promote public discontent, but to endeavour, for the time at any rate, to give the Government plan an opportunity of working. A very large part of the difficulty that arose in Dublin in relation to bread supplies was due to the fact that we did not get that atmosphere of acceptance and co-operation created through the co-operation of public representatives.

General Mulcahy

The Minister is charging public representatives with interfering with his plan?

Mr. Lemass

I am not.

Mr. Norton

The Minister is suggesting it.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Norton would interfere with anyone's plans if he thought it would bring him a few votes.

Mr. Norton

The Minister never had a plan.

General Mulcahy

What was done before Monday, February 23rd, that prevented people getting 80 per cent. of their ration of bread?

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy sits down, I will deal with that.

General Mulcahy

The Minister is avoiding that.

Mr. Lemass

I was on the question of rationing and I was expressing the view that the present voluntary system, if we could make it work, will prove to be a much better system than we could operate by means of rationing cards. Let me say this, that we have got to operate this system until May, and if it is not working by May then, as soon as a ration card is in the hands of everyone, formal rationing will begin.

Arrangements for formal rationing are being pushed ahead as rapidly as possible. They will be brought into operation, if necessary, but if we can utilise the interval to get the other system working, and to avoid the necessity of rationing, I think it will be the better course—better for the poorer people. We have in the case of flour and bread a very different problem to deal with from that which arises in relation to tea and sugar. There is only one class of commodity in each of these cases, but, in the case of flour and bread, you have three commodities: bread, flour and the other products of flour which are classified under the general name of "confectionery". I considered the desirability of prohibiting the manufacture of confectionery, and I have seen that suggestion made in some newspapers. I did not take that course, because the quantity of flour used in the manufacture of confectionery is not very considerable, on the one hand, and the amount of employment given in the manufacture of confectionery is comparatively very considerable. I felt it was undesirable that we should throw several thousand people out of employment unless it was obvious that the prohibition of the manufacture of confectionery was going to be necessary. We may face that situation yet, and if there is a strong opinion in this House that the manufacture of confectionery should be prohibited, then I am prepared to reconsider the question.

I should like Deputies to understand that the term "confectionery" covers practically everything but batch bread. All our orders relating to price, weight and control of bread are related only to batch bread.

Mr. Dillon

You cannot make batch bread out of 100 per cent. flour.

Mr. Lemass

People are succeeding in doing it. If we were to operate a formal rationing scheme, we would have to have a standard ration, and that standard ration would have to be fixed so low that people whose families use a large quantity of bread in comparison with other foods will not get nearly enough, or it will be fixed so high that people who use comparatively little bread will be entitled to get more than they would normally purchase, and there will be waste.

In any event, any system of rationing bread must involve a basic ration, with probably a supplementary ration in thousands of individual cases. I mention that as one of the problems which must arise, and one problem which may prove to be insoluble in the case of bread rationing. Furthermore, we know that there are persons in the city, at any rate, who have not access to alternative food, and many who have not got adequate cooking facilities. The great advantage bread has over all other food is that it is ready cooked, and consequently the need of people in these areas or of families who possess no cooking facilities is obviously greater than people in other areas with access to other food and adequate arrangements for cooking. It is going to be a matter of considerable difficulty to relate the needs of one individual family to the needs of another and to allocate the bread ration accordingly.

There is the problem created by farmers who grow wheat, some of which they retain for family use. It is clear that any system of distribution of bread should be such as to encourage them to utilise their own products, whether wheaten products or otherwise, rather than that they should go to the shops to buy flour and bread required by other members of the community. All these factors make the rationing of bread something to be avoided, if we can, but we will have to face it. If we could avoid it by a voluntary reduction of consumption on the part of those who can afford to do without bread, and by a very slight reduction in the supply of bread to other sections of the community, then I think we would get a better system. We may be able to avoid the necessity of rationing if we have some lucky break in the matter of supplies from abroad, but I think there is not much likelihood of that. In the two months that remain between now and the time that formal rationing could be adopted I ask Deputies, the Press and everybody who can influence public opinion to endeavour to get this system to work. It is the better system, and it is all the more desirable to get it to work, because we can hope that the need for rationing at all will disappear in September, and that with the new harvest, we will have sufficient to maintain the full supplies of bread and flour of the community for the next 12 months. It is possible that there are farmers in the country who have got more wheat than they need for their own households, or for seed purposes, though Deputy Morrissey thinks it an insult to farmers to suggest that any of them hold more than the barest minimum of their requirements.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I did not say that. The Minister knows that I did not. The Minister stated that the sole reason for the shortage was that the farmers were withholding supplies.

Mr. Lemass

I made the comment that some farmers may have held more than they would normally hold.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister is trimming.

Mr. Lemass

These farmers will reach a stage at the end of sowing operations when they will know whether they have more wheat than they require. When they reach that stage, if they have more than they require for their own households I ask them to sell that wheat to the nearest merchant or mill, so that it may become available for the manufacture and supply of bread for the rest of the community. There may be a temptation amongst some farmers not to do that, but I ask everybody who can influence farmers to endeavour to get them to do it, so that it will become available for the flour mills.

General MacEoin

Is the Minister's attitude one of making a charge against farmers?

Mr. Lemass

I did not charge farmers with anything.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Of course; you did.

Mr. Lemass

We have had reports about the difficulties Dublin families experienced last week in obtaining bread. I am going to speak with knowledge of the facts. Deputy Linehan suggested that I did not know what was happening. I will deal with the facts, because my information comes from reports from reliable officials of the Government. I am not depending on rumours. I am talking about official reports that I can depend on. I know that a number of rumours were circulating in Dublin last week, some of them of a most alarming nature, and I think it is desirable that these rumours should be scotched at once. I heard about bread-vans being attacked and overturned, and shops looted. Nothing of the kind happened. I should like that fact to be known. It is undesirable that a campaign of rumours should be going on, and the public mind disturbed in consequence. I have asked the police authorities for full reports. I asked for full reports of such instances, and there was only one which came within that category in a shop in Crumlin, where some people waiting to be served went behind the counter and helped themselves, but paid for the bread, so that rumours circulating in the city had no foundation in fact.

Mr. Linehan

They were true.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Deputy try to behave himself and not interrupt? It is true that difficulties arose in Dublin last week, but they were practically confined to the bakers' own shops. Deputy Byrne mistakenly accused me of blaming the grocers' shops. I did nothing of the kind. On the contrary, from the reports I received it was obvious that very little if any difficulty arose at ordinary grocers' shops at all. The problem was almost entirely confined to shops operated by bakery concerns, and these difficulties were attributable, in a number of cases, to people being anxious to get supplies early, and they thought the surest way was to get them at the bakers' shops. If they were refused full supplies by grocers, they thought they could supplement them at bakers' shops. The general feeling of uneasiness created in the minds of certain members of the public led to that rush to the bakers' shops which resulted in queues. I had the position carefully examined. There is a number of outdoor inspectors continuously in touch with the position and, as a result of information that came to me, I felt we would solve the difficulty if we could arrange for deliveries of bread to the bakers' shops to take place more frequently. In the normal course, every baker delivers bread to these shops twice a day. I have seen small queues outside these shops in normal times waiting for the fresh bread at 4 o'clock. The infrequent delivery to the bakers' shops led to the formation of queues. With the more frequent delivery of bread to these shops, that situation began to ease, and to-day I received reports from the outdoor officers that the queues had disappeared from the bakers' shops, because the steps taken to make sufficient bread available had restored a feeling of confidence amongst the class of people served by these shops. At several shops this morning, a number of customers refused to take bread that was carried over from last evening, as they wanted bread that was made this morning. That indicates that there is no shortage.

Mr. Cosgrave

I saw queues yesterday.

Mr. Lemass

At a conference early to-day with the Dublin master bakers, they confirmed that the difficulties which arose last week have disappeared.

Deputy Mulcahy suggested that if we had left the whole thing to the bakers, the arrangements would have been better. That is precisely what we did. While I have no desire to cast any reflection at all on the way in which the bakers tried to discharge their responsibilities, in practice their efforts had to be co-ordinated with those of my Department to get rid of the difficulty.

General Mulcahy

When did the Minister tell them they were to bring about the restrictions?

Mr. Lemass

They were told at the appropriate time.

General Mulcahy

How many days before they came into operation?

Mr. Lemass

I could not answer-Clearly, it would not be many days.

Mr. Norton

How many hours?

Mr. Lemass

The shortest possible time that was considered reasonable, and if it becomes necessary to ration any other commodity, it will be announced to the public on the day that rationing starts, because otherwise you would have people rushing all over the place trying to lay in stocks, by buying up available supplies and disorganising distribution arrangements.

General MacEoin

Who is going to suffer?

Mr. Lemass

Surely it is only common sense that when an arrangement cannot be found——

General MacEoin

Who is going to suffer, the rich or the poor?

Mr. Lemass

Deputy MacEoin agrees that it is desirable that there should be no previous announcement of the intention to ration commodities that can be stored in advance.

General Mulcahy

Considering that the people object to stale bread, do you think they would store it?

Mr. Lemass

I have given the contents of a report which I have received from the officers of my Department on outdoor duty to the effect that the queues have disappeared from the shops, that the more frequent delivery of bread to the baker's shop has restored the confidence of the customers of these shops in their ability to get bread, that in many cases bread of yesterday's baking was left unsold, and that the people felt so secure that they would take only fresh bread. I can tell the House further that the Dublin master bakers confirmed that report at a conference held in my Department to-day, and stated that the difficulties that had arisen at their shops had disappeared.

General Mulcahy

How many representatives were there?

Mr. Lemass

They were the representatives of the Dublin Master Bakers' Association.

General Mulcahy

How many?

Mr. Lemass

I could not say. They were speaking, anyway, on behalf of the Dublin master bakers.

General Mulcahy

Was there more than one?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly.

General Mulcahy

How many?

Mr. Lemass

About five or six. They were representatives of the bakers in Dublin; at any rate, the people who are sent to represent them.

General Mulcahy

I asked how many were there?

Mr. Lemass

About five or six.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister did not know how many a minute ago.

Mr. Lemass

Nor am I certain yet about it.

Mr. MacEntee

Does it matter how many, if they were speaking on behalf of the master bakers?

General Mulcahy

It does, if there was only one there.

Mr. Lemass

They were Dublin master bakers, representing the Master Bakers' Association. Is that intelligible enough for the Deputy? They informed me that they were able to maintain supplies to the shops sufficient to meet all demands on them.

General Mulcahy

Will the Minister get inspectors to go round to-morrow?

Mr. Lemass

It will be necessary to impose further restrictions on hotels, restaurants, and similar establishments. At present these consumers of bread are restricted upon the same basis as everybody else, that is, to 80 per cent. of their normal supplies; but in order to ease the position in certain districts, it will be necessary to secure additional supplies by reducing deliveries to hotels and restaurants. I think in all the circumstances that is not unreasonable. Deputy O'Higgins referred to the fact in one of his questions that many people do not buy bread, but flour. That is true. The bakers, for the purpose of increasing the quantity of bread available, had been reducing their deliveries of shop flour to their customers over and above the 80 per cent. required by the instructions. I have arranged with the bakers that they will resume the delivery of shop flour to persons who normally purchased flour from them in order to provide them with 80 per cent. of their normal requirements. I think that the problem which Deputy O'Higgins had in mind will be very much eased in consequence.

Deputy Mulcahy asked under what authority these regulations were being enforced. They are being enforced under the authority of an officer from my Department, the Controller of Flour. That is not a recent appointment, as one of the newspapers seemed to assume, but an appointment which dates from the commencement of the war, 1939. He was appointed by the Government; he has full control over all supplies of bread and flour in the country, and is entitled to direct their allocation in any way he thinks necessary.

General Mulcahy

I asked more than that.

Mr. Lemass

That is all I am going to say at the moment on the matter. I should like to point out also that bread and flour traders are required, as from Monday last, to operate under licence only. No trader, who is not in possession of a licence, will be entitled to engage in the sale of bread or flour. These licences will be continued, in the case of every trader, only if such traders are found to be carrying out the general intentions of the rationing scheme and the specific instructions they may receive from time to time. In the case of any trader who is found to be flagrantly disobeying instructions or acting in a partial manner in the allocation of supplies amongst his customers, the licence will be withdrawn apart from any other penalties to which the trader may become liable.

Deputy Byrne referred to a report which appeared in this evening's newspapers concerning a trader who refused to cash bread vouchers. I saw that report myself and it was the first intimation I had received that any such problem had arisen. Speaking from recollection, I think that trader has already broken the law. The regulations relating to the distribution of food vouchers do not give him the discretion which he appears to claim for himself. In any event, I want to make it clear that persons, to whom food vouchers are issued, are entitled to receive bread against vouchers from any trader who is a bread retailer. If it be reported to me, and I find that the report is true, that any trader refused to give bread in exchange for a food voucher, his licence to deal in bread will be withdrawn for the duration of the war. It is necessary that these stringent regulations should be imposed on traders who are the necessary channels of distribution for this essential commodity.

I disagree entirely with the suggestion frequently made by some public speakers and sometimes in the Press that many of the difficulties of distribution and excessive prices are due to traders. In my opinion, the majority of traders are conscientiously trying to do the best they can under very difficult circumstances. It is only a small number who take the opportunity of getting rich quick by disobeying the law or charging excessive prices.

I was very pleased to notice that one district justice has, at long last, risen to the point of sending to jail a person convicted of the offence of charging over and above the fixed price.

Mr. Hickey

It is about time.

Mr. Lemass

I heartily agree. I think I have dealt with all the problems that have been raised. I should like to say, in conclusion, that even if we had ration books in the hands of consumers and had been in a position to control the distribution of bread on the basis of these books from the 23rd February, the same difficulties would almost inevitably have arisen during the first week. The opinion which some people hold that all problems disappear with rationing is altogether false. People who make that contention cannot be familiar with the reports which frequently appear in the English newspapers. From these reports it would appear that people are frequently unable to obtain supplies for which they hold the necessary coupons. To a far greater extent than anything yet experienced in this country black-market activities have developed, to such an extent indeed that in some countries it is stated to be almost impossible to get supplies outside the black market, judging by the reports that appear in their newspapers. None of these problems of distribution is going to be solved completely, no matter how elaborate the system of rationing introduced may be. They will persist as long as human nature persists. In fact, I think it is true to say, judging by the reports which appear in various papers as to conditions in Europe, these defects of control whether they relate to the prices charged or to illegal sales, are less pronounced in this country than in most European countries. I have seen reports to the effect that in certain towns on the Continent of Europe, shops were closed because nobody would sell at the controlled price or in the controlled quantities and the whole supplies go through illegal channels at exorbitant prices.

Mr. Norton

You could not apply any check to these reports.

Mr. Lemass

I am only saying that, on the basis of these reports, we can claim that traders and members of the public here, generally, are showing as high a degree, if not a higher degree, of willingness to conform to the law in respect of restrictions as the traders of any other country in Europe and that fact should be brought out in the speeches of public representatives and in the columns of our newspapers.

Mr. Linehan

Will the Minister say anything about the Master Bakers' Association?

Mr. Lemass

Look at the motion.

Dr. O'Higgins

It is now ten minutes past nine and I am not going to take up the time of the House at any great length. I listened to the Minister's speech and I regarded it as a very fair survey of the supply situation, but I think the Minister erred more than any other speaker in ignoring the specific terms of the motion. Earlier in the debate, the Chair called attention to the fact that the motion was specifically confined to the question of distribution of bread. The Minister—and I rather welcome it—went more fully than any other speaker into what goes to make bread, namely, wheat, flour, etc., and into the results which might be secured under a system of rationing. He did not deal at any length with the specific question put, namely, how he proposed more equitably to distribute the 80 per cent. that is available, pending a rationing scheme.

Everyone of us saw the very deplorable and pathetic scenes in this city for the ten or eleven days up to yesterday. According to the Minister—and I believe him—it was not because the bread was not there, not because the flour was not there, and not because the shopkeepers were not agreeable and willing to serve their customers. Why had we that panic, that chaotic and lamentable state of affairs here? The answer, in all fairness, is because of the Minister's radio broadcast. I am not blaming the Minister. He says: "I am entitled to get in touch with the people and to appeal to them directly." Of course he is, but he is not entitled to ignore this Assembly as the starting point. If the Minister, 24 hours before his radio broadcast, when this Dáil was rising with nothing to do, had devoted 20 minutes of his time and of the time of the Dáil to telling us, and the people through us, that he found that the situation was such that it would be necessary to restrict the consumption of bread and flour to four-fifths, questions would have been put and questions would have been answered by him, as they were to-night, and there would have been no panic.

I accept the Minister's statement, and it was my own view of the situation for the last week and a half, that the whole pathetic situation arose from the fact that the alarm spread, that people thought they would not get bread and that every woman wanted to be ahead of the other in order to provide for her children, and quite rightly. I drove through the Minister's constituency every morning of that period, as I do every morning except Sunday. I drove by a big bread place at the end of the Coombe —one of Kennedy's shops—and every morning up to this morning, at 9.30 or 9.45, there was a long, weary, pathetic queue, four or six deep, of scantily-dressed women and quarter-dressed children, with policemen keeping them in order, and every one of us in our big coats, our mufflers and our motor cars remembers what the weather was like for the last fortnight. There was a wind that would cut through steel and that, multiplied over every bread shop in Dublin, was the appalling condition in which people lived for the past fortnight.

There is no good in saying to people retrospectively: "There was enough bread in the country; there was enough flour in the country," if, either owing to the panic stampede created by a radio broadcast, or for any other reason, that bread was not within reach of the customer and could not be procured by the customer. There are many people who had to queue up, but there are many people who were too busy, or too old, or too feeble to queue up, and these people had to go without. There were thousands of people who, as I said, relied on flour and were not bread customers in any shop and for the past ten or eleven days they had to go absolutely without bread. There was no good in talking of a reduction to four-fifths in their cases. They had not been buying bread and four-fifths of nothing is nothing. They had no business going anywhere for bread. They were the people who had changed residence, the newly weds, the people who were not customers anywhere. Whether a shopkeeper was to give four-fifths or not, they were entitled to exactly four-fifths of nothing. All that proportion of the people of the city went entirely without up to about last Saturday.

The Minister referred to people yesterday morning refusing stale bread. On Thursday or Friday of last week, in my own house, I and every other member of my family would have been very pleased to see stale bread. We were in the position of people who did not deal with a bread-van since last June. We were buying flour and baking. When this panic arose, no flour would be sold. We did not buy in bags or half bags like country people—we bought in half stones. And there was definitely none. That is a situation out of which good or evil may arise. Good may arise out of the deplorable situation of the last week and a half if we all learn lessons from it. In war time, people's nerves are frayed. There is a tension in the atmosphere and it is the easiest thing in the world to create a panic. The right way to create a panic, in my opinion, is to talk right into the homesteads of the people without any preliminary warning. The right way to stop a panic is to do your first talking here, where there can be reasonable discussion by question and answer, and where the whole situation will be brought out, if not in a Minister's statement, then in a Minister's statement followed by question, discussion and supplementary question.

I should be inclined to say that if, a fortnight ago, we had had the discussion that we have had here this evening, and if you cut down the bread and flour by even more than you have found it necessary to cut it down, there would have been no stampede and no panic whatever. It is the method by which it was done that caused the panic.

I am not condemning the Minister for that. He cannot know all the people; he cannot know how the people will take everything. It was a road which he was perfectly entitled to go, but it is a road which I would advise him not to go so directly in future. A little discussion here, and then there can be all the radio talking he wants on top of it. I accept the Minister's statement that 80 per cent. is available, that it was available to the shopkeepers and that it was given periodically, but the Minister has to accept that at least 10 per cent.—I will not and never do stand pat on a figure, but I can say a considerable percentage—of the people —not, as Deputy Norton seemed to imply, the poor only—of poor and rich went without bread and flour since last Monday week.

Definitely, as far as one person can see it, the situation is normal to-day. Now, that is not because it was not there. It was purely because a panic was created. The panic arose out of the Minister's well-intentioned broadcast. That is clear. If, instead of barking at people who are anxious enough to help, if not the Minister, certainly the State as a whole, and through it the people, the Minister and his colleagues would examine their own actions and their results, and not be so critical and sensitive when they are dealing with others, it would be all to the good.

I think it was definitely unfair and uncalled for, in view of the support this Government has got from strong political opponents, for any Minister to get up in this, the third year of the war, and say that it would be better if, in future, Deputies developed a more helpful spirit, instead of going around promoting discontent. We could promote discontent just as effectively as the Minister did over a period of ten years if we set about it, and we could reap the harvest of votes resulting from the dimensions of that discontent. There were plenty of opportunities for doing it.

We have not done it and the Minister knows it. In every serious situation, not always in public but more frequently in private when there were no kudos or publicity to be got out of it, the Minister and the officers behind him were told of difficulties which, as far as we could see, were there and warned them of them. We were there to help, so that to get up and accuse Deputies in this Parliament was, I repeat, uncalled for. We have here a Party Government, a Parliament made up of warring Parties.

While we have national Governments over the greater part of the world to-day, there is no Government—no national Government anywhere—that has got the same amount of support that a Party Government in this country has got. That remark was uncalled for, and it might do more harm than the Minister reckons if we are to take it that it was meant seriously as representing the mind of the Government.

What were the activities of the Deputies? Deputy Mulcahy, one of the Deputies for the City of Dublin, a Front Bench member of this Party, and a vice-president of this organisation, went privately and, without any publicity, saw the master bakers. He also saw the big retailers and people whom he regarded as reliable and responsible consumers. He saw them in private and took down their statements of the position. Did he go out and hold a meeting to create and to promote discontent? No. He sat down and wrote to the Minister and to the Geann Comhairle asking to have the position discussed here. When a Deputy is interested in the food supply of the people, when there are queues which, added together, are miles long in the City of Dublin, and when he asks to have that discussed here in the people's Parliament, is it the Minister's suggestion that the Deputy is then promoting discontent?

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

The Minister, as a matter of fact, thanked Deputy Mulcahy for giving him the opportunity to have the matter discussed.

Dr. O'Higgins

Then I am to assume that it was not Deputy Mulcahy he was referring to. Well, was it Deputy Byrne?

Mr. MacEntee

No, he did not say Deputy Byrne.

Mr. Lemass

There are only two left now, and the Deputy can pick them out.

Dr. O'Higgins

Then, I suppose, we may take it that it was Deputy Norton.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister said so.

Dr. O'Higgins

Deputy Norton promoted the discontent? Remember, the discontent that prevailed over the last fortnight was not due to anything that occurred or that was said here tonight. The Minister should have remembered that when he was lecturing Deputies and the newspapers as to their activities in promoting discontent when there is a panic abroad.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Norton did not do it outside this House.

Dr. O'Higgins

There were three Deputies moving amongst the people to get a picture of the situation— Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy Byrne and Deputy Norton, and then they came here to discuss it. We are not elected to represent the Minister, the Department of Supplies or the Government. We are elected to voice, in this Assembly, the grievances and the difficulties of the public, and we would not be doing our duty if we did not look for an opportunity to give expression to those difficulties and those grievances here. It ill-becomes a member of the Government to point to the activities described by the Minister for Supplies as conduct calculated to promote discontent.

The Minister spoke of rationing as if none of us saw the difficulties of it, or the objections to it, except himself. Any person that thinks out a rationing system, and the results of it, can see certain difficulties in it and many objections to it. The only time when any Government or any country will decide on a rationing system is when they see the alternative, namely, some getting and some going without. It may be many getting and some going without, or some getting and many going without, but whatever it be, it is only when they see the alternative—the lesser of two evils—that any people will agree to accept a rationing system. The second point is the understanding that whatever the allowance is, be it large or little, everybody, irrespective of influence, wealth, class or residence, will get the same entitlement. The experiences of people here and in certain towns outside the city during the past fortnight would certainly make any person who was opposed to rationing plump for it.

It may have been a very wise move on the Minister's part, if a rationing jump has to be taken sometime in the near future, to discover that there is no easier road to take than to have the people yelling for what you are going to give them. If that was the idea behind the radio broadcast, with its sequel, then I congratulate the Minister on his judgment and on his knowledge of the people because, unquestionably, if you had a referendum in the City of Dublin any time last week for or against rationing, there would be no odds as to what the result would be.

It being the time appointed for the interruption of business, the motion lapsed.

Motion made:—That the Dáil do now adjourn until to-morrow [Minister for Supplies].

Dr. O'Higgins

If he had it a month or two earlier, the result would be very questionable. By the stampede and the panic and the scramble for bread everyone in this city is convinced that there is no way out but that of rationing. That attitude will make rationing easier when it comes. If we have the Department of Supplies operating this very big Government machine, I cannot understand why there is not some broader basis and some more comprehensive scheme to feed the people of this city.

I do not hold—and I think very few members of my profession hold—that bread is the very essential that it is popular to regard it as. Bread, or a reasonably sound substitute, is necessary. Unfortunately, we had a comparatively poor harvest last year: the old people tell me, however, that for a very considerable number of years there never was a better potato harvest. Here we have the extraordinary position of people in the capital city of this tiny island—where we are responsible for the administration and direction of only four-fifths—going either without food or without the main article of food or having it drastically reduced, while at the same time potato pits of dimensions never before seen in the month of March are in every second tillage field of the country and farmers are telling you they are worth half nothing. I was told that as late as Saturday last in my own constituency, while I myself in the City of Dublin am paying 1/4 a stone—the highest price I ever paid.

If we are to have an Executive armed with emergency powers, and such Government machinery that it is only necessary for an individual within the machine to make up his mind that a thing should be done and an order can be brought out to make it the law immediately, then, is the Government to be congratulated on the manner in which it has been looking after the food supplies of the immense population here in this capital city? One would imagine that, if we could not have wheat we could not have bread at all, that we were living in a country where the natural food of the people never was oaten bread, in a country where, if wheaten porridge could not be got there was no such thing as oaten porridge. One would imagine we were living in a country that did not enjoy the distinction of having its emigrants referred to as "spuds." We are in the greatest potato-producing country in Europe and the potatoes are there, according to the farmers, worth half nothing, buried in the ground during the months of greatest frost while the people here in the City of Dublin are either starving or confronted with the fear of starvation.

It is a psychological fact that, if we had unlimited exhibits of comparatively cheap potatoes here for the last fortnight, it would mean that many people would not worry a bit if they were told there would be no bread for the next 100 days. When the ordinary individual, however, is harnessed and bossed and bullied as a private soldier, with the fuel for his transport doled out, with the machinery of Government telling people what they can and cannot carry in their lorries, with their trains restricted and cut down, it is necessary for the Government to bring the people and the food together. Normally it is the businessman, the farmer and the consumer who would deal with that, but when you break down the bridges connecting the consumer with the food it is the business of the Government to bring the consumer and food together.

All this alarm and uneasiness with regard to the bread situation would be considerably reduced if the Government would give some evidence of considering this matter, not in the very narrow field of wheat at 75 per cent., 85 per cent. or 100 per cent., from the Irish acre, or of wheat from America. They should give evidence that they are thinking along alternative lines of food supply of some kind. More potatoes have been fed to stock here since the first week of January than both stock and humans would normally consume in this country in four or five months. That will go on to-morrow, the day after to-morrow, and the week after next week, as the potatoes cannot be relied on to keep. If the Minister is to do anything with regard to the food supplies for this city, I would ask him to do it quickly, to do it without panicky radio announcements, and, if the situation is at any time worse than it is now, to remember what happened last week and the week before, and to come and make his announcements here in moderate terms, so that there may be a moderate discussion, and after that he can go to the radio and tell the public.

Mr. Dillon

A new technique has grown up in this country whereby the Government that makes a mess of matters can say that it is not its fault. The Taoiseach can get up at Ennis and say it is not his fault. The Minister can say here to-day that there is no bread, but it is not his fault; there is no wheat, but it is not his fault; there is panic, but it is not his fault. I put it to the Minister, in no destructive sense, that in cases where we find ourselves at fault we must correct those faults in order to be better in the future. The reason there is no wheat is perfectly simple. In 1931, if you put 500,000 acres of Irish land under wheat, you would have got 4,000 barrels of wheat. The grow more wheat policy has reduced the yield per acre of wheat.

It is not true to say that last year's was a bad crop. Last year's was an excellent harvest except for wheat. The yield of wheat went down to five barrels an acre, and this year, without artificial manures, the yield of wheat will go down to four and a half barrels an acre for all the land that is being used for wheat. The Minister says: "We have no bread, but it is not my fault." Was not the Minister asked in this House to establish a rationing system nine months ago? Did he not reject a motion by Senator Hayes in the Seanad 12 months ago, asking for a national register to be established? There is not the least use getting up and telling this Government that all these disasters are not their fault, because it is their fault, and if they will not correct these faults now, we are going to have a very much worse situation next winter.

I am telling the House now you cannot get wheat. I believe you will get 600,000 acres sown under wheat this year, because the people are prepared to do all they can to help the Government; but 600,000 acres will not produce the wheat required for our people. Now is the time to face that fact. We have got to support the bread supply for next year not exclusively with wheat, but by seeing that we have sufficient oats and barley to back up the wheat supply, in order to secure that there will be an adequate supply of bread. Why are there no oats and barley available at the present time? I will tell you. It is because the Government of Eire has fixed a price in this country of 37/- for malting barley, when the same barley is being sold in Great Britain for 130/- a barrel.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the restrictions on the delivery of bread.

Mr. Dillon

Listen to me. I am telling the House that, no matter what restrictions are put on delivery or anything else, we are not going to have enough bread to feed our people if we do not take steps to get adequate supplies of bread to spread out all over the people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may be true or not, but it is not within the limits of this debate.

Mr. Dillon

What we have been discussing for the last hour is the reason for the scaricity and how to spread our scarce supplies over the people equitably. I am telling the House now, and there is no escape from it, that unless we take energetic measures to get supplies which will make it possible to spread the supply of bread over the people in reasonably ample quantity next winter, no administrative measures will meet the situation. You cannot get it in home-grown wheat because the land is so exhausted without artificial manures it will not produce the wheat but you can get it if you will take steps now to add to the millers' grist sufficient quantities of barley and to make available to certain sections of the community alternative supplies of oats. There is no other way of securing equitable distribution of bread feeding-stuffs or the substitutes referred to. If you want to get adequate supplies of barley and oats wherewith to prop up the wheat supply, the only way you can get it is to take the price control off oats and barley now and tell the people to go out and sow all the oats and barley they can and, if possible, produce a surplus.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that this motion deals with the inequitable distribution of the bread we have.

Mr. Keyes

The bread we have not.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister says: "Give us constructive suggestions to overcome this difficulty." His difficulty is that he has not got enough bread to give the people. I beg of him to get it out of his head that that is not his fault. It is his fault, but that does not matter so much if he will put himself right in the future. I am telling him that no administrative measure will spread the prospective wheat supply of this country next year over the people in such a way as to preserve the public peace. The only hope we have is to get a food supply sufficient to give the people either bread or an adequate substitute. The only means of getting that is to ensure that the people will grow sufficient barley and oats so that it will be available to the Government to ration with the wheat, and the only conceivable way they will get that is to take the price control off oats and barley now. Some people say that if we do that we ought to have a minimum price fixed for these two cereals. I say no. Encourage the farmer to grow oats and barley and to get the best price he can for them. It is quite possible that inducement will be sufficient to produce a surplus of oats and barley next September. If there is a surplus, God be praised, because at once the primary food problem of our people is over. The primary food problem is the problem of bread or bread substitute. With sufficient barley and oats, that problem is solved, and it is so easy to get it if people will open their eyes.

Why is it that at the present moment you cannot get oatmeal in this country? The reason is that no farmer will sell oats to a registered buyer at the Government price. Oats are being sold in abundance at any market to-day at 23/- per cwt. Why should the men who can get that price sell to an oatmeal buyer at the fixed price of 18/- for seed and 10/8 for ordinary oats? Because the Government have perpetrated that egregious folly of fixing the idiotic price of 10/8, there is no oatmeal. If we had oatmeal in the country at the present time we could do without 20 per cent. of the flour and that flour could be diverted to feed the city population.

There is not a grain of oatmeal to be got in any country shop in Ireland, with the result that people who have lived largely on oatmeal porridge are clamouring for flour and bread which they normally would not consume and would not require. What is the use of pretending we can separate all these things and put them in air-tight compartments? If there is a scarcity of oatmeal in Killorglin, it may affect the scarcity of bread in Gloucester Street. If there is abundance of flour in Connaught, it may be drawn upon to meet the emergency of the city; but you cannot draw on Connaught to relieve Dublin if there is just as great a shortage in Connaught as in Dublin. My submission is that part of the shortage in rural Ireland, which in turn affects the City of Dublin, is created by the fact that, through the folly of the Government, they have robbed the rural population of the oatmeal on which it largely depended. Now is the time to mend your hand.

We hear that Messrs. Guinness are to be deprived of their right to export porter, and the Minister tells us—I do not know whether the Minister said it in so many words—that he would seek to negotiate a swop with Great Britain of wheat for porter; that he would be obliged to say to the British: "If you cannot fill up the gap, we have got to use the barley for bread manufacture in Ireland, and so we cannot export porter." Would this House believe that 12 months ago I went to the Taoiseach myself with a memorandum urging him to offer barley in exchange for wheat? I went to the Minister for Supplies. I went to the Minister for Agriculture. I pointed out to them that they could go with their heads erect to the British and say: "We are not asking for any concession. We are offering you 25 cwt. of barley for every ton of wheat you will give us." We could have got from the British 130/- per barrel for that barley and pay them the market price for wheat, and we would have conferred on the British a benefit of nearly 200,000 tons of shipping. They would have brought across wheat or barley from abroad. We were prepared to give them one and a quarter times as much barley as we got wheat from them, so that every time they executed that transfer with us, they saved 5 cwt. in each ton of shipping space on the Atlantic. It could not be done then. It was not worth looking into. It could not be operated. The administrative difficulties were impossible. But now they are trying to swop porter for wheat. What is porter but barley? Is that not true? Will either of the Ministers deny this?

Mr. Lemass

No, but there was no question of administrative difficulty; it was a matter of the folly of doing it.

Mr. Dillon

When we are with our backs to the wall the Government are trying to make the bargain that I wanted them to try to make when their granaries were full, when they were in a position of complete independence and in a position to say to the British Government: "If you do not make this bargain with us, we can stretch the supplies we have over the period in question and get along without you."

Mr. Lemass

Who said so?

Mr. Dillon

Who said so? Did not the Minister say so? Was not the Minister lamenting to-day that he could not send porter to the public-houses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain because we wanted the barley to make bread? Do not try to pull any more wool over the eyes of this House. If the Minister would be frank and honest with us, we would get somewhere. Again he is trying to make the bargain too late. Very well then. Let us forget the egregious follies of this Minister for the moment and pray to God they will not be perpetrated again. You have got a chance now to provide that in the coming year the chaos which has obtained in this year will not recur. Get the wheat and barley and oats grown. Bargain with Great Britain for an exchange of wheat for any surplus of barley. Use part of your barley to prop up the available wheat. Make up your minds to this: if you get 600,000 acres of wheat you will not get sufficient wheat from them to provide our people with 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. extraction in the coming year. Open your eyes to that now, because if you do open your eyes now you can take effective measures to make up the deficit with barley and oats.

The last thing I want to say is this. Deputy O'Higgins expressed amazement, as indeed he might, that potatoes are allowed to rot in the fields while 1/4 a stone is being charged for them here. Does Deputy O'Higgins know that potatoes are being converted into industrial alcohol in four factories in this country at the present time, and that potatoes are being exported from this country at the present time? Am I not right? I put it to the Minister that we suggested to him two years ago that he should take his infernal industrial alcohol factories and convert them——

Mr. Lemass

What is the Deputy's point? Is it that we have not got enough potatoes?

Mr. Dillon

Deputy O'Higgins says that potatoes are costing 1/4 a stone in Dublin. Why are not the potatoes being brought into Dublin instead of being converted into industrial alcohol?

Mr. Lemass

Is it suggested that there is a scarcity?

Mr. Dillon

We asked the Minister two years ago to convert his absurd alcohol factories into factories for the conversion of potatoes into flour. If he had done that we should now have supplies of potato flour, and potato flour represented about 40 per cent. of the German diet in the last war. I do not know whether machinery for the conversion of potatoes into flour can now be got. It it cannot, that is not the Minister's fault, but at least he ought to realise that it was his fault that it was not done before, and faults of that kind have landed us where we are. He should now accept Deputy O'Higgins's suggestion about consulting this House, so that he will not be plunged into any further folly.

My advice to him now, even assuming that all the wheat which it is possible to sow is sown this year—and I think everybody is doing his best to persuade the farmers to do that—is that he should make up his mind to the fact that he is not going to get sufficient wheat to keep us going. The only effective solution is to take the price control off. Let the brewers of this country pay the Irish farmer the same price for barley that is being paid to the farmers in Great Britain. Let the surplus of the barley produced as a result of that extra attraction in price be used for human consumption. Take the control off oats, and let oats find its natural level. If the farmers get 18/- a cwt. in the markets of the country, that will become a crop which every farmer will desire to grow, and will be able to grow in abundance. With those two subsidiaries we are perfectly safe, and there is no further need for anxiety. The problem in the next eight weeks may be difficult, but we will get through it if we have the assurance that it will not recur. We can get through anything provided we have an assurance that appropriate measures will be taken to provide against a recurrence; but it is enough to break the heart of anyone to be led from one disaster into another. This country is involved in no military enterprise at the present time. Those countries that are have the crushing experience of going from one military disaster to another. We have an economic crisis here, but we will get through it provided the people's confidence in their leaders' capacity to bring them safely through similar difficulties in the future is maintained intact. I believe there is enough courage and prudence in this House to meet any dangers that lie ahead, but all Parties in the House require to lend a hand.

My experience of my colleagues in the Fine Gael Party is that they were always glad and willing to lend a hand where the national interest demanded it, and I am quite confident that they still are. Every member of the Independent Party and every member of the Labour Party in this House is prepared to lend a hand if the Government is ready to make some effort to avoid the miseries into which we have been plunged in the past. Oats and barley are the solution of your present problem, and, if you take the measures requisite to secure adequate supplies of those, you need have no fears for the future, on the bread front at any rate. If you do not take those steps, you will be confronted next year with a crisis far more acute than the present one.

Mr. Linehan

At the end of the Minister's speech I asked him whether he was going to deal with bread and flour distribution as affecting the country, and he told me that if I knew the motion I would know he was not expected to deal with it. As far as I know the terms of the motion, and as far as the mover is concerned, there is no restriction in the motion confining the discussion to Dublin. The Minister, in his speech, attempted to justify what is being done to solve the problem of the distribution of bread and flour by referring to a meeting that was held to-day between officials of the Department of Supplies and representatives of the Dublin master bakers. There has been a situation in many places in the country that was equally bad as the situation in Dublin. I wonder did the people who sent the Minister all the accurate information he possesses tell him about the villages in this country that were completely without bread for two or three days after his broadcast, villages that have no bakeries of their own, villages that are entirely dependent on van supplies from towns 20 or 30 miles away. There was no possibility of getting bread supplies by van because those towns had not enough to supply themselves. I wonder has the Minister his inspectors walking around the country as he has them walking around Dublin, and if he has, did they give him information about that sort of thing?

The Minister knows nothing about the situation in regard to flour and bread in the country. If he did, he would not make the extraordinary statement he did make in his broadcast that he was going to reduce the flour supply to 80 per cent. of our supplies in 1940. There was not a retail shopkeeper in this country who got, in 1941, 80 per cent. or even 60 per cent. of what he got in 1940. There was not a labourer or a farmer in this country who got from a retailer, in 1941, 80 per cent. of what he got in 1940. The people who were in the habit of coming into a shop once a fortnight and buying a half-sack of flour would have been lucky from September of last year if they got two or three stone.

Mr. Lemass

What happened to it?

Mr. Linehan

It was not there.

Mr. Lemass

Fifty-four thousand sacks of flour were sold every week. Somebody got them.

Mr. Linehan

If they were, they were not sent to the small country towns. The Minister possibly may be able to get better information about its distribution than we can, if he gets it from this gentleman who was appointed early in 1939 to take complete charge of the distribution of flour in the country. Has the Minister any idea of how the small country shopkeeper operates his flour supply at the moment? People come in and get a stone and a half or two stone weekly— people who used to get a half-cwt. or a cwt. before. If there was that much flour sold every week, certainly the system of distribution by the mills should be examined.

Mr. Lemass

And when all this was happening, they did not say anything about it to anybody?

Mr. Linehan

Who?

Mr. Lemass

The shopkeepers who were left without flour.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Nonsense. There has been talk about it for the last 12 months.

Mr. Dillon

There has been loud lamentation.

Mr. Linehan

If 54,000 sacks were sent out the Minister should get his Controller of Distribution to find out to whom the mills were giving the flour, and whether it was distributed by the mills on an equitable system.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is grossly exaggerating.

Mr. Linehan

Everything said in this House which the Minister does not like is grossly exaggerated according to the Minister. The only gross exaggeration to my mind was the Minister's suggestion that the people were getting 80 per cent. last year.

Mr. Lemass

Ninety per cent. last year.

Mr. Linehan

They did not get it in any country town, and the Minister knows it. If the Minister believes that they are getting 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. the Minister's experts are misinforming him. The Minister need not talk about exaggerated statements. He has spent 20 minutes to-day denying that he ever said it was possible to get 290,000 tons of wheat. He denied that he ever suggested that there were 490,000 acres of wheat in the country.

Mr. Lemass

470,000 acres; that was the official statistical report.

Mr. Brennan

All the Minister's figures are unreliable.

Mr. Lemass

It was the only information available to me or to anyone else.

Mr. Linehan

Within the last fortnight the Taoiseach suggested at Ennis that there was a bigger acreage of wheat in the country, and suggested that if we get 150,000 acres more next harvest, in addition to what we had last harvest, we would have all the flour we want. That is the most exaggerated statement ever uttered outside or inside this House.

The Dáil adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 5th March.