To-day, I addressed three questions to the Minister for Agriculture concerning the proposed withdawal of the subsidy on wheatenmeal. I would refer to the answers in greater detail but I regret that the time at my disposal will be insufficient to allow of my making the case that I should like to make in regard to this question. I raise it in this form because I consider it to be a very urgent problem and I hope to be able to convince the Minister, through the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is a question that should be reconsidered and that he should reverse his policy in regard to this proposal to withdraw the wheatenmeal subsidy. First of all, I should like to make a few general references. Whatever motive prompted the Minister to make this announcement some weeks or some months ago, from the purely financial point of view it seems extraordinary that the Minister, in an effort to save a sum of £80,000 on the subsidies should descend on such an innocent form of industry as the production of wheatenmeal. When one considers that the total amount of flour subsidies in the current year is over £9,000,000, perhaps £10,000,000, one must agree that the amount devoted to wheatenmeal is very small indeed. Even though the Minister in the course of a reply to Deputy Hickey a fornight ago, said that the figure was by no means insignificant, if we take the relationship of £80,000 to £10,000,000 it represents something less than 1 per cent. Even if this total is not all devoted to the ordinary 85 per cent. flour extraction, there is at least something over £6,000,000 devoted to the 85 per cent. flour extraction and in that case the percentage would be only slightly over 1 per cent. Unless there is some very urgent reason for this retrenchment, I think that the Minister on that score should reconsider the matter.
I regret that the Minister is not here personally because I should like to have heard his reply to the case which I am about to make. I realise of course that he had no notice of my intention to raise the matter in this way before he left for America. The second point that I think is worthy of consideration is that the production of wheatenmeal is an almost exclusively rural industry.
Before the general election, the various Parties paid lip service to the necessity for keeping rural industries alive. They were quite right, of course, in formulating that as part of their policy. Fine Gael was particularly strong on that and so were the members of Clann na Poblachta in their published election addresses. Of the total production of wheatenmeal, by far the greater proportion, as I say, is produced in purely rural areas. I might mention the names and the locations of a few of the firms engaged in the industry. You have Howard's of Crookstown, County Cork, Kavanagh's of Maynooth, the Bandon Milling Company, McCarron and Hills, Drogheda, O'Rourke's, Drogheda, the Blanchardstown Mills, County Dublin and Newman's, Athboy, County Meath. I am told that there are many other smaller mills in the more remote rural areas, some perhaps along the western seaboard. From that point of view alone, I think the withdrawal of the subsidy is entirely unjustified.
Each successive Government in this country has, at least, declared as its policy that rural industries should be kept alive, this Government much more than any other, and if it persists in this action, it is dealing a death blow to that policy and certainly to the rural production of wheatenmeal. There are in all 40 or 50 mills throughout the country and even if the production of wheatenmeal is not the only activity, it forms the major portion of the industrial activity of almost every one of these mills. On the assumption that each of these mills employs on an average about 20 men, there would be something like 800 men engaged, directly or indirectly, in the production of wheatenmeal. I do not think that any mill would desire the case to be made that every one of these men would be put out of employment if the subsidy were withdrawn, but its withdrawal would certainly have a very bad effect on the numbers employed in the mills, not only on the operatives directly concerned with the handling of wheatenmeal but also those engaged in the transport of it and clerical staffs, because a certain proportion of the work of the members of these staffs is devoted to the handling and transport of wheatenmeal.
Apart from those directly concerned in the mills, you have various subsidiary occupations in which people are enabled to get some form of work, due to the production of wheatenmeal. They are enabled to get that work in close proximity to their homes, with the result that it enables them to remain on the land. That is possibly the most desirable ideal that any Government in this country could place before it. I might mention some of these subsidiary occupations. There are carpenters who have to attend to the plant, masons, joiners and lorry drivers. The people engaged in these occupations and who live close to the wheaten-mills thus get a certain amount of employment which helps them to maintain their homes in these rural districts.
The third point has reference to the dietetic value of wheatenmeal. When the proposed withdrawal of the subsidy came to the notice of the Society of Medical Officers of Health, they passed a resolution expressing their concern over the proposed withdrawal. I have not the terms of the resolution before me at the moment but, summarised, the effect of them was that the Society of Medical Officers viewed with consternation the proposed withdrawal of the subsidy because of the bad effect it would have on the nutrition of the people of the country. Apart from that, the Minister has ample reason, from the dietetic point of view, to maintain the subsidy. Even the Department of Health in his own régime has published an advertisement which emphasises the nutritive value for children of wheatenmeal. I shall refer to that in more detail later.
Apart from these points, there are other factors which should be taken into consideration before what I would describe as this most drastic and undesirable step is taken. These local mills, which depend for their existence on the production of this meal, provide valuable drying and storage space for our own native wheat particularly in years of a bad harvest. In 1946 when harvest conditions were particularly adverse, these mills performed a very useful function to the country by enabling us to save several thousand barrels of wheat which would otherwise have been lost for want of adequate storage space on the farmers' own land.
There is another point that might be worthy of consideration and that is that, in the event of a future war, a thing which we cannot ignore, the first object of attack would be places of industrial concentration. At present the mills which produce 85 per cent. extraction flour are mostly situated close to large ports. In the event of these ports being attacked, it is hardly likey that these big mills would escape. Therefore, it would be a very valuable asset to the country if we could fall back to some extent on the small mills that produce wheatenmeal.
Let us consider the effects which the proposed withdrawal of this subsidy would have. At present the price of wheatenmeal varies from 2/4d. to 2/7d. a stone, according to the locality. I think it is cheaper in the county borough areas. As against that, 85 per cent. extraction flour ranges between 2/6d. and 2/9d. per stone. There is generally a difference of 2d. per stone. If the subsidy is withdrawn, it is estimated that the price of wheatenmeal per stone will increase by almost 100 per cent. Therefore, the consumers of wheatenmeal who are not inconsiderable, people largely from the labouring classes, will either have to pay almost 5/- per stone for this meal or purchase 85 per cent. extraction flour. In most cases where wheatenmeal is used it is used from preference and, not only that, but the people who use it think it is essential to their health. If the price increases by that amount, it is almost inevitable that the output of wheatenmeal will drop considerably. It is estimated by people who have examined the matter closely that it would drop to almost 5 per cent.; in other words, wheatenmeal would not only become too dear, but almost unobtainable. It is a staple food with a large section of the community and it is by no means a luxury. Therefore, the people who use it as a staple food should be protected. We pay lip-service to the protection of the interests of minorities and certainly people who eat wholemeal bread are in a minority and therefore their interests should be protected.
From the point of view of the effect it will have on labour, I think I can do no better than quote from a memorandum from the workers in one of these mills. The mill in question is the Bellmount Mill, Crookstown, County Cork. They say:—
"If this step is taken, the sale of wholemeal will drop to such a low level that it will be uneconomic for the mills to continue in business. They will be forced to shut down and lay off their employees. The result will be that the mill workers will be compelled to leave the district to seek alternative employment. While seasonal work is occasionally available, no constant employment is available in the district, so that the workers have no alternative. For the majority this will mean abandoning their homes and looking for accommodation wherever they may find work. Many of them will be forced to emigrate and will be lost to the country. Furthermore, they have served their time to wholemeal milling but will find it very difficult to get positions in other mills as most of these are fully staffed. They would be more likely to finish up as unskilled labourers in building or similar trades. It does not seem fair that skilled men should be threatened with such a prospect. Neither does it seem good economics for a Minister for Agriculture to wipe out an industry giving employment in a rural district and to drive the workers and their families from their homes and throw them like so much scrap on the labour market. This is particularly hard to understand when the Minister for Industry and Commerce is advocating the establishment of new industries in rural districts and promising every support to such industries."
Apart from that, there is the likelihood that it will entail a possible increase in the subsidy on 85 per cent. extraction flour, because the wheat that is now being diverted to these mills will have to be brought to the other mills and the cost of transport to the big mills at the ports will not be inconsiderable. In his reply to the question I have referred to by Deputy Hickey, the Minister gave as a reason for the proposed withdrawal of the subsidy that it had already been clearly established that for children its dietetic value is materially qualified by its content of phytic acid. The bogey of phytic acid in relation to wheatenmeal was raised many times and squashed very effectively by medical officers of health, not only here but in England. I can call to mind that a very high authority in this country, in the person of Dr. Saunders, Medical Officer of Health for Cork, laid fairly and squarely the bogey of this phytic acid in wheatenmeal. I think the most forcible argument I can put forward in this respect is an advertisement published by the Department of Health on July 23rd, 1949, which was headed "Diet Does It" and in which there is a picture of three young children. I shall read some of the material in this advertisement, which will be most enlightening to the Parliamentary Secretary. It says:
"For growth and repair the body needs every day foods with proteins which are the main body builders: milk, cheese, fish, meat, eggs, peas and beans. Foods with calcium, which form strong bones and good teeth: milk, fish, cheese, green vegetables, wholemeal bread.... Some foods from each of these body-building groups can always be bought at little cost."
The advertisement also gives the advice: "Be sure that the children get these foods."
If this proposed withdrawal is to come into effect, not only will this particular food not be bought at little cost but it will be on the market at a prohibitive cost and, possibly, in such short supply that people will not be able to get it at all.
Another reason the Minister put forward was that "there is good reason to believe that a substantial part of the total production of wheatenmeal is being used for animal feeding." In that connection, I put a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to-day as regards the number of prosecutions instituted for this alleged offence in the eight years since 21st October, 1941, when the subsidy was first given, and the answer I got was that there was only four prosecutions in the eight years. I do not think I need refer any further to the weakness of the Minister's argument in that respect. I also asked the Minister to give me the date of the last prosecution, but he was not able to do so. I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I am fairly confident that there has been no prosecution for this alleged offence in the last 12 months. The Minister also stated in his reply to Deputy Hickey's question that he would take certain compensatory measures to ensure that there would be no unemployment. I shall quote again from the memorandum circulated by these employees to which I have referred as to alternative employment. They say as regards wheat assembling:
"This is purely a seasonal trade confined to about two months of the year and giving very little employment proportionate to the volume of wheat handled. Furthermore, there appears to be no future in the trade at present, as is evidenced by the fact that the concerns who previously engaged in it have reduced their activities to about one-tenth of the volume handled in previous seasons. The reasons are, of course, that the amount of wheat sown was considerably reduced last year as a result of the Government's policy and that this season large quantities of imported seed wheat will be available, so that the anticipated demand for native seed wheat is very small."
With regard to maize and compound food manufactures they say:—
"The firm is already engaged in this trade and, competition being very keen, there is very little room for expansion. The employment value of the trade is small, as most of the operations are automatic. It would certainly not be large enough to keep the business going on the present scale."
As to commission milling they say:—
"This also is to a certain extent seasonal, as it depends on the supplies of grain stored by farmers. It forms a very insignificant part of the firm's activities, as the local cooperative stores and privately-owned hammer-mills do the bulk of the work."
I regret that I have overstepped the mark. I had hoped that there would be time for another Deputy to speak on this. The problem, however, was so wide that I could not possibly deal with it in less time. I think I have given sufficient reasons to the Parliamentary Secretary to show why this position should not only be reconsidered but why the proposal should be abandoned.
