As there is a question for the adjournment, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that an agreement was reached at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges by which the adjournment should in such case be moved at 9 o'clock owing to transport difficulties. The debate on the adjournment should conclude at 9.30. Any attempt to prolong it would be quite contrary to the spirit of the agreement by which a half hour was given of Government or Private Members' time. The Minister should be given at least ten minutes to reply and will be called on by the Chair at 9.20 if he has not already risen.
Adjournment—closing of Limerick Flour Mills.
I asked the Minister a question to-day regarding the closing down of the two flour mills at Croagh, County Limerick, and, not being satisfied with the Minister's reply, I asked your permission, Sir, to raise the matter on the adjournment. As long as I have been in the Dáil, a period of over 15 years, no action of any Minister or any Department has caused such widespread consternation as the closing down of those two mills has in the County Limerick. I do not think my post bag has ever brought to me such voluminous correspondence on any particular matter as I have received in connection with this matter. These two mills of Messrs. Sherwood and Sparling have been operating in the County Limerick for well over 100 years and were milling wheat into flour for farmers long before there was any general policy of growing and manufacturing our own wheat into flour, and long before any of the Ministers or Deputies in this House was ever heard of. All that time the people of that particular district had been having their wheat milled into wholemeal flour, and had been using it as an alternative to the purchased flour. Those farmers, the smallest farmers in the County Limerick and the most industrious, have attempted to live as economically as they could, and, getting their 2/- or 1/6 wheat milled for threepence, they had flour produced for them at something like 2/- or 2/3 as against that supplied by the bigger millers at 1/- or 1/6 more.
Those two gentlemen, Messrs. Sparling and Sherwood, were the oldest established millers in my side of the country, men of integrity that everybody looked up to as honest, law-abiding people. In October last I am informed by both gentlemen that they became aware for the first time that a permit for milling was necessary. They say—and I am prepared to believe them, knowing the men—that up to then they did not believe that the Order requiring a permit applied to such old established mills as theirs, and though they had been milling without a permit they did it without intentionally breaking the law. Immediately they were informed that permits were necessary they applied for them, and got an acknowledgment from the Department, with forms to fill in. They filled in the forms and sent them back to the Department, but they heard nothing further in the matter until April. In April, there were proceedings taken against them for, as the Minister said, illegal milling of wheat. I asked the Minister to-day if they were prosecuted for the milling of white flour, and the Minister said that they were prosecuted for the illegal milling of wheat. I asked him further if he meant that they were prosecuted for milling without a permit, and he said: "Yes, for milling without a permit", so that what they were actually prosecuted for—whatever offence was in the mind of the Department—was milling wheat without a permit. I have here in several letters a voluminous amount of information which I do not intend to inflict on the House. I am not prepared to argue the fact that, possibly, those millers committed a technical offence. There is scarcely a miller in this country, big or small, who has not at some period of his career committed a technical offence of some minor kind, but I do say definitely in this House that the penalty inflicted on those two millers —two respectable men, whose families have been conducting this business for 100 years—is a penalty that ought not to have been inflicted. I say, furthermore, that it puts the 4,000 farmers in the County Limerick supplied by those two mills in a position into which no Minister has the right to put them.
The Minister has been appealing to the people of this country to produce the necessary food for our population, and, to my mind, those farmers have answered that appeal in the best way in which it could have been answered, by growing more wheat than they usually do, although they always grew more than enough for themselves and their families. In response to the Minister's appeal they produced still more wheat this year. If there is one part of my county that has done its duty in regard to grain growing generally it is East Limerick, which, in the main, is the part of Limerick supplied by those mills. Those farmers grew the wheat that the Minister asked for, and, if they desired to keep some of it for themselves and get it milled at a cheaper rate than they could buy flour from the retailers, they were entitled to do it, and no Minister has the right to take advantage of a technical fault by a miller to debar those people from getting their supplies. I have several letters here which I could quote to the Minister, but one or two will suffice. I have a letter here from one man who says that not only has he carried out the Minister's advice about growing wheat but he has grown considerably more wheat than was actually demanded. He said that they always sold all that wheat, and sent enough to the mills to supply themselves. Continuing, he says:
"Long before there was any mention of N.B.B.L. in this State, we adopted in my family that particular process. We are entitled in my family, according to the Minister's regulations, to 160 stone of wheat per year, but we asked or demanded only 24 stone, because I believe that the duty of every decent man in this country who can possibly do without it is to use as little flour as he can and leave the rest for his poorer brethren. Now, having grown considerably more than the Minister asked for, I am in the position that for myself and my eight in family I am without flour of any description, because I cannot get it from the retailers. Somebody informed us that we will be compensated for the seizure of our wheat. I do not want compensation. I want my wheat and my bags."
I have here many other letters of a similar character. Some of them I should not like to read in the House. Some of the writers go so far as to utter threats as to what they would do if they were not compensated in some way or other. I do not agree with such letters. One gentleman writes to say he believed that if any intimation of the Government's intention to close down the mills and seize the wheat had been given a day or two earlier, the farmers would have come in force, seized their grain and taken it away despite any Order. The writer goes on to say that he is glad the occasion did not arise, because it would have been a lamentable occurrence. I agree with that view.
If the Minister can offer no further reason for the closing down of those mills than he gave in his short reply to me to-day, then I say he has no defence. Even if the Minister could argue that there was a technical offence—and prove it—committed by those millers, then I say that the penalty inflicted was altogether too severe. It is unfair to inflict this severe penalty on two respectable millers whose families have been carrying on this business for a period long beyond the memory of most of us. By the closing down of those mills, an unfair penalty has been inflicted on 4,000 decent, honest farmers in the County Limerick. Every Deputy in this House knows that at the moment —no matter what the Minister for Supplies says; he tells us every day that sufficient flour is available—it is impossible to get enough flour. Every one of us who has to buy flour—I am not one of the people who get their own wheat milled—knows that we cannot get enough flour. It is not there. The country people have certain supplies sent to them, not in relation to their needs but according to the amount which can be divided out by the retailers. There is not sufficient flour for everybody. Those people who have been accustomed to getting their own wheat milled into flour are now in the position that they cannot get flour anywhere, because the retailers have not enough to supply their ordinary customers let alone additional ones.
I am not prepared to argue that any miller who milled wheat into white flour in recent months acted rightly, but I do say definitely that, whatever the evidence is, there has not been any concerted attempt by these two millers to defy the regulations. In fact, I believe that it would be impossible for them to do so. I have been in the premises of numerous farmers in the area, and I never saw any white flour there.
Does the Deputy deny that white flour was being produced by these mills.
I cannot say that. I have no evidence of it, and I can neither admit nor deny it. If the Minister says that these millers manufactured pure white flour, I say I do not believe they did.
Was it proved in court that white flour was manufactured in these mills?
I shall reply at the proper time.
The Minister said that in October last he found evidence that white flour was being manufactured in these mills, or that they purported to manufacture white flour. If he knew that last October he should have taken action last October. If the offence merited the closing down of the mills, then the Minister should have acted in October.
I had not the necessary power last October.
You should have warned the people that they were endangering themselves by sending wheat to these mills to be milled. When it came to prosecuting these people, if you thought they milled white flour, you should have had the courage to prosecute them for that and not for milling without a licence. It seems to me that you were afraid of your own evidence—if you had any, which I do not believe. In all the letters I have received, from men who are not concerned one way or another with the matter except in so far as I am concerned—that is, in the interest of those affected—there is not one word about white flour being manufactured by anybody. The first intimation I got that there was any question of the closing of the mills because of the manufacture of white flour was from the Minister to-day. If the Minister is satisfied that 4,000 farmers in the County Limerick are to go without bread because of his action, it is useless to raise any question in this House. I do urge upon the common sense of the Minister, if I cannot appeal to his sympathy, that it is not a wise proceeding to defy 4,000 farmers. The defiance of 4,000 farmers is going to carry the Minister a long way further than he ever expected to be carried.
This is not fair treatment for two millers who, I believe, are as honest as, if not more honest than, the majority of millers, big or small, in this State. There is no justification for imposing such a penalty upon them— one of them is of advanced age—as the Minister is imposing upon them. These mills were the only means of living of these men and the living they got out of them was not extravagant. They worked on a commission basis for the farmers. The rate they charged was the smallest on which they could have worked. They produced flour for these farmers at minimum cost. If the big millers were to be offered the same terms for grinding wheat for national purposes as these millers worked upon, we should have no flour at all. Because of a technical offence, these mills are to be closed down, their livelihood is to be taken from these two men and 4,000 farmers are to be plunged into a position in which there is no market. If the Minister stands up to defend that action, then he differs from any Minister to whom I have ever listened. What is the Minister's intention with regard to the wheat seized from the farmers? It is useless to say that he is going to compensate them. They were informed that they would get 2/1 for the wheat and 2/6 each for the bags. I question whether the Minister's inspectors are acting in accordance with the law when they offer 2/6 each for the bags. I understand that 5/- is charged per bag. I expect that the big millers to whom the wheat was sent got their bags for 2/6.
Mr. Brennan
Is it true that whatever wheat was in these mills was seized and handed over to Ranks? Before that, was any inventory taken as to whom the wheat belonged, with a view to compensation? As these people have not been in the habit of buying flour from any distributor, where are they now to get flour?
The speech we have had from Deputy Bennett and the general attitude of the Party opposite give, I think, a fair indication of some of the difficulties with which the Government have to contend in dealing with the circumstances of the present time. Because of the problems which the emergency has created, regulations have had to be made controlling the use of a number of commodities. Regulations have been made controlling the use of wheat. These regulations are considered necessary to preserve for human use the limited supplies of wheat available and to secure their equitable distribution. Deputies can criticise these regulations if they like, but surely they go beyond the limit of reasonableness when they criticise the Government for enforcing the regulations.
I did not refer to that question because it was never raised. I do not think that there was any charge of using the flour for other than human use.
There was in this case no charge of using wheat for animal use but it is well known to some Deputies that a number of mills have, in fact, been milling wheat for animal use. Because that abuse has taken place, because regulations concerning the milling of white flour and the milling of wheat in unlicensed mills have been abused the Government have had to take additional powers to secure compliance with the regulations. The usual complaint I get, in general terms, from the Dáil is that the Government is not sufficiently active in enforcing these regulations. Latterly, the attitude of the Party opposite has changed and, now, the criticism is that the Government is acting too drastically in enforcing regulations designed to keep the emergency position under control. These two gentlemen in Limerick may be respectable persons. They may be hard working, honest and, normally, law-abiding citizens. I shall take anybody's assurance on these points but I cannot enforce the regulations efficiently unless they are enforced upon everybody—upon those who are, normally, respectable and law-abiding citizens as well as upon those who are not.
What are the circumstances in this case? In October last each of these mills was inspected by an officer of the Department, and they were found to be milling wheat although they had no permit to do so. Deputy Bennett tells us that neither of the two millers concerned was aware of the requirements of the law and did not know they needed a permit. At any rate, they found out last October.
And they applied in October.
At the time that the inspector visited the premises, in the case of Mr. Sherwood's mill, known as Croagh mills, milling was in progress and white flour was being produced.
Were those mills capable of producing white flour?
Those mills were in process of doing it.
That is not the question I asked.
It answers the Deputy's question, if he is intelligent enough to understand it.
That is an evasive answer.
This white flour was being produced when the inspector walked in.
Why was the miller not prosecuted?
In the second case, milling was not in process; but, in a tub underneath the milling plant, white flour was found, which indicated that the last flour milled on the plant was white flour. No action was taken. No power was then possessed by the Government to do what was subsequently done, but each of these millers was informed of the requirements of the law.
If it was illegal——
Will the Deputy let me speak? I am as much entitled to do so as anyone else. I have been told that the closing of these mills under Emergency Powers Order is unfair to the farmers. Were those two millers not unfair to the farmers, in taking their wheat after they knew of the requirements of the law, after they knew they had no legal right to mill wheat? Subsequent to that date, they took wheat from the farmers and kept it in the mill, and it was discovered in the mill not merely last October when the inspector walked in, but after they had been convicted in court. Surely they knew then what was required and could not contend they did not know the law when they had been fined for not obeying it.
After they had been fined for not having a permit.
After they had been fined for milling wheat they knew the law.
And they believed they would get a permit.
I am not responsible for what people believe. Surely there was some obligation on honest law-abiding citizens to say to the farmers who brought wheat to them: "I want you to know that I have no permit and no legal right to mill wheat at all, and that if wheat comes to my premises it is liable to be seized." Surely respectable law-abiding citizens would have treated their customers at least to the benefit of that knowledge.
Were they refused a licence?
In May of this year wheat was discovered in their premises. On the 14th of this month an inspector of my Department visited the premises and made the discovery that led to the making of the Order sealing the mills.
They never were refused a permit.
The Deputy had 20 minutes to speak.
There is surely an obligation on millers who know the law, who know that by law they are not entitled to mill wheat, to tell those bringing wheat to them what their position is. If these cases do no other good, they will at least have the result that they will make farmers query the legal position of the miller to whom they bring wheat in future. I advise every farmer who, from this day forth, brings wheat to be milled in any mill, to inquire whether that mill has a permit to mill wheat and whether, in fact, the requirements of that permit are being observed. The mere possession of a permit will not enable a miller to escape the penalties, if he does not obey the conditions of the permit. If a farmer has any reason to believe that the miller to whom he is bringing his wheat is not to be trusted to obey the law, the farmer must take the risk that that mill may be closed down and the wheat found there impounded.
I want to say a few words about the farmers concerned. I have only sympathy for the farmers of County Limerick who were induced to bring wheat to these mills and whose wheat was found in these mills by an inspector of the Department this month. That wheat was impounded by the Department of Agriculture, and the normal procedure of the Department of Agriculture is to transfer it to registered merchants. The legal price of the wheat is refunded to the miller, who owes it to the persons who owned the wheat. I appreciate that, under present circumstances, the farmers who had wheat awaiting milling in these mills are not fully recompensed by merely being given the price of the wheat or the price of the bags; because, in conditions of scarcity, the actual possession of the commodity is more important than the money that could be got for it. I am prepared to deal with any case, amongst all the farmers concerned, where it is shown to me that inability to get flour is a cause of hardship, and that the quantity of wheat to be milled is reasonable, having regard to the size of the farmer's household; and I offer to put at his disposal a corresponding quantity of wheat or an equivalent quantity of flour.
The Minister cannot give flour to the people to whom he should give it, without giving it to them.
So far as the farmers are concerned, if circumstances are brought to my notice that, in any individual case, there is inability to get flour, in consequence of the seizure of this wheat, I will make arrangements to see that flour is supplied. I have no desire to inflict any hardship on the farmers concerned, but it is my job to see that these regulations, which are now the law, are put into force, and put into force irrespective of the previous character or history of the individual miller concerned.
Deputies can have it the other way: we can make regulations which look grand on paper and then not enforce them. In the opinion of the Deputies, that may help the country out of its present difficulties, but I do not think so. If we make regulations, we must see that they are obeyed, no matter who the individual concerned may be. That is my opinion as to how government should be administered. In the matter of wheat, it is more important probably than in the case of any other commodity, that the regulations which have been made concerning it should be observed strictly by millers, farmers and members of the general public.
There is an obligation upon every miller in the country to see that he carries on his mill in accordance with the regulations. First of all, he must have a permit to mill; secondly, he must mill 100 per cent. flour; thirdly, he must mill in accordance with the requirements of his permit, only in specified quantities, related to the size of the farmer's household; he must not mill it for sale and he must not buy the produce of the milling himself. These are requirements which we have made in order to ensure that growers of wheat will have enough to meet the requirements of their own households and that the balance will be available to feed the rest of the community. It will be a difficult matter to secure complete compliance with all these requirements in all the small mills in the country, but we cannot secure it at all if we enforce the regulations with leniency. It is only by making the millers concerned realise that the penalties for disobedience will be drastic and will involve the closing of the mills, that we will be able to get the degree of compliance which circumstances require.
To sum up, therefore, in the case of these millers I do not think there can be any ground for complaint of harsh treatment. The persons concerned knew the law last October, they knew the law when they were fined in the District Court for disobedience of the law. They were still found with wheat in their premises a month later. That involved the penalty imposed on them. The closing of the mills need not be permanent, but whether the permits will be given to them and the mills reopened will depend upon a number of circumstances, including the milling facilities in the county generally. As I told the Deputy to-day, some permits to mill in County Limerick are being issued this week, under which each miller concerned will be authorised to mill on commission for farmers. Consequently, I want farmers to understand that it is in their interest to ensure that they bring wheat only to a permitted miller and particularly to a miller whom they can trust to obey the details of the requirements of the permit. Lastly, so far as the farmers in County Limerick who had wheat in these mills are concerned, I have no desire to inflict any hardship on them at all. The simplest method of disposal of the wheat was to require its sale to a registered merchant, who will pay for the wheat. If that means, in any individual household, that there will be difficulty in obtaining a supply of flour, I will, on the case being brought to my notice, arrange to have the wheat replaced to that farmer, or flour supplied for it.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 27th May.