Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Mar 1958

Vol. 166 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Industry and Commerce.

Mr. S. Lemass

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £230,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Subsidies and Sundry Grants-in-Aid.

The first sub-head in this Supplementary Estimate relates to losses on the sale of wheat. The House will appreciate that normally the Minister for Agriculture is responsible for matters pertaining to the disposal of the wheat crop, but, for certain technical accountancy reasons, it is considered necessary this year to charge this amount on the Vote for Industry and Commerce. The amount specified is required to meet the losses which will be incurred in the disposal of surplus native wheat up to 31st March. The original Estimates for the Department contained provision for an expenditure of £150,000 on the disposal of surplus native wheat from the 1956 harvest as animal feed. A market was found for about 12,000 tons of that wheat at a cost to the Exchequer of £136,000. The balance of the Estimate will be absorbed by supplying surplus wheat at the animal feed price for the manufacture of biscuit flour since 1st December, 1957.

Mr. Dillon

For the manufacture of biscuit flour?

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes. I shall refer to that later. In July last, the Government considered wheat-growing policy and all the problems likely to arise in regard to surplus wheat from the 1957 harvest. It came to certain decisions which were subject to the result of the investigations which were proceeding at that time into the maximum extent to which native wheat could be used in the production of bread of reasonable quality. It decided that, subject to the outcome of these investigations, the aim should be to produce 300,000 tons of dried wheat for milling.

As Minister for Industry and Commerce, I was authorised by the Government to enter into consultations with the flour millers regarding the disposal of the 1957 crop, on the basis that the millers would purchase the whole of the wheat crop, whatever dimensions it took, but that their obligation would be to utilise in the production of flour 300,000 tons of dried wheat. That obligation was expressed as a percentage of their milling quotas, which were also adjusted to allow a margin for competition between the millers. In respect of wheat purchased by the millers at the guaranteed price, in excess of the 300,000 tons required by their quotas to be utilised in the production of flour, it was decided there would be carried forward into this year such quantity as the Government might decide, the cost of storing that carried forward wheat to be defrayed by the Exchequer; that as much as possible would be sold for animal feed and the balance would be exported, the loss on either operation to be defrayed by the Exchequer; or, alternatively, that wheat in excess of their quotas could be sold to individual millers at the animal feed price.

As, I think, the House has already been informed by the Minister for Agriculture, the millers held a stock of 75,000 tons of native wheat at the end of the 1956 season.

Mr. Dillon

I did not follow what the Minister said about selling wheat in excess of their quota to millers at the animal feed price.

Mr. S. Lemass

The millers were under obligation to acquire 300,000 tons at the guaranteed price and use it in the production of flour. Wheat in excess of that would be sold for animal feed or at the same price to a miller who wanted to buy more than he was obliged to buy under his quota. A miller is free to utilise more native wheat than his quota requires him to utilise, if he chooses to do so. I have pointed out that the millers held a stock of 75,000 tons as a result of the 1956 harvest. The mill intake of wheat, the quantity purchased by the millers under the arrangement made with them last year, from the 1957 harvest, was 370,000 tons dried. There was, therefore, available a total quantity of native wheat of 445,000 tons, or 145,000 tons in excess of the 300,000 tons which the millers were required to use for the manufacture of flour.

The Government considered that position again at the end of December. It was decided to confirm the assurance given to the millers in the previous July and the assurance was extended to home-grown wheat of both harvests, whether produced in 1956 or 1957. We then decided that the carry-over, to which I have already referred, should be 50,000 tons of wheat and we are negotiating with the millers with a view to making the best possible bargain with them as to the amount of the carry-over upon which storage charges will be defrayed by the Exchequer.

Mr. Dillon

That 50,000 tons should be deducted from the 145,000 tons?

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes. We decided also to effect the immediate disposal of surplus wheat so far as possible for animal feed, the quantity to be disposed of to be decided by the Minister for Agriculture, but the aim being to dispose of as much as possible in that way and to export the balance to the best advantage from the economic point of view.

The flour millers agreed to be responsible for the cost of the carry over of 50,000 tons of native wheat as at 31st August next, on the understanding that their obligations in regard to surplus wheat would be limited to that amount. As the House knows, the millers decided later to purchase additional wheat over and above the 300,000 tons and use the additional wheat—23,000 tons—in order to bring about a reduction in the extraction rate from 80 per cent. to 72 per cent.

Therefore, as far as it can be determined at present, the proposals for the disposal of the 145,000 tons which I have mentioned are as follows: the carry forward on 31st August next of 50,000 tons; 23,000 tons which have been purchased by the millers in excess of their quota obligations to effect a reduction in the extraction rate; 40,000 tons which will be sold for animal feeding and the balance of 32,000 tons is to be disposed of by exporting.

Mr. Dillon

What about seed requirements next year?

Mr. S. Lemass

I presume that was taken care of. It is the quantity of wheat to be purchased by the millers we are now concerned with. The price of maize to animal feed importers is about £26 per ton delivered and it is proposed that the wheat should also be available at that price. After deduction of transport charges and other expenses incidental to the disposal of the wheat, the net return will be about £24 per ton. That will show a loss of £13 12s. per ton because this year wheat cost on the average 94/- per barrel dry or £37 12s. per ton.

Mr. Dillon

94/- per barrel dry, where?

Mr. S. Lemass

On the mill floor. With regard to wheat for export, it seems likely that the best price available will be about £20 per ton c.i.f. That would represent about £18 per ton ex mill, involving a loss of about £20 per ton in the sale of wheat for export.

In the current financial year, to which the Supplementary Estimate relates, Grain Importers Limited had been authorised to purchase from the millers 43,000 tons of the surplus wheat, with a view to its disposal for animal feed, to millers in excess of their quota, and for export. It is unlikely that Grain Importers Limited will be in a position to furnish details of the total losses which will be incurred before the end of the financial year. Where that is the position, it is proposed to make payments on account. It is estimated that the total amount to be spent in this financial year will be £500,000. That is the amount stated in the Estimate. There have been savings under other sub-heads in the Department of Industry and Commerce Estimate amounting to £270,000, so that the net sum required will be £230,000.

The maximum prices payable to farmers for green wheat of the 1956 crop varied according to bushel weight from 65/- to 77/6 per barrel. The average cost of the green wheat to the millers in that year was 66/11 per barrel. The average estimated cost of the dried wheat in store was 89/- per barrel. As the House is aware, revised prices were fixed for wheat of the 1957 crop. These prices were designed to give farmers a bonus of up to 5/- per barrel for wheat of low moisture content. As it happened, the majority of the crop in 1957 qualified for the maximum bonus payable, with the result that the wheat costs to the millers averaged 72/6 per barrel as compared with 66/11 the previous year.

The average cost of the 1957 crop dried or in store was estimated at about 94/- per barrel. That higher cost of drying and storing takes account of some increased expenses and higher interest charges operating in 1957 which offset the savings in drying the wheat arising from the low moisture content of the 1957 crop.

In 1956-57 the grist used by the flour millers for the production of 80 per cent. extraction flour was 66? per cent. native and 33? per cent. imported wheat. Towards the end of 1956, the consumption in flour declined and there has been no reversion yet to the previous level. In view of the better quality of the 1957 crop and in order to enable the millers to use the 300,000 tons of native wheat, the percentage of native wheat in the grist had to be increased, and was increased in September, 1957, from 66? per cent. to 79 per cent. That increase in the proportion of native wheat in the grist would normally result in an increase in the price of flour because of the difference in the price of native and imported wheat. It is estimated that each additional 5 per cent. increase in the use of native wheat should increase the price of bakers' flour by about 1/- per sack and the price of retail flour by about 1/6 per sack.

During 1957, there was a considerable drop in ocean freight rates and a resulting reduction in the costs of imported wheat to Grain Importers Limited. That reduction was not at the time passed on to the millers by Grain Importers Limited. A surplus of £82,000 stood to the credit of the imported wheat account. In September last, Grain Importers Limited were authorised to apply some £14,000 of that amount to a reduction in the price of imported wheat to the millers, with a view to stabilising the cost of the grist.

In January last, the flour millers indicated that they had assembled their costs for the past 36 weeks. They found on preliminary examination that increases of the order of 6/3 per sack in the price of bakers' flour and 7/10 in the price of retail flour would be justified. These figures were discussed and reviewed, and, in the final analysis, the millers agreed that the increase in the prices of both types of flour could be held at 4/9 per sack, provided the price of imported wheat was stabilised at the existing level.

It was at that stage that the millers produced the proposal to produce flour at the 72 per cent. extraction, without any increase in the price beyond what was already necessary because of the higher price of the native wheat, provided that they got the 23,000 tons of native wheat at the animal feed price. That proposal was accepted, subject to the condition that all flour produced would be 72 per cent. extraction and that there would be no alteration in the flour price by reason of the higher extraction and that the maximum increase would be held at 4/7 per sack which was held to be justified, due to the higher cost of native wheat.

Mr. Dillon

I thought you said that 4/7 was due to the high cost of manufacture.

Mr. S. Lemass

Oh, no. It is entirely due to the higher cost of native wheat. It was also agreed that the balance of the funds in the imported wheat account would be applied by them to maintaining at the existing level the price of imported wheat for the balance of the 1958-59 period.

All these conditions were accepted by the millers and it was decided that the price of the 72 per cent. extraction flour would not be increased by more than 4/6 per sack for both bakers' and retail flour. The millers' costings showed that an increase of 4/9 would be justified, of which 3d. would be attributable to the recent increase in wages. However, the millers decided that this would not be included in the price of flour.

The matter then went on to the Master Bakers' Association. An increase of 4/6 per sack of flour would represent something more than a farthing per two pound loaf and the minimum increase which could be charged to the consumer would be a halfpenny per two pound loaf. The Master Bakers took the line that the increase would not be sufficient to meet an increase in wages and the inevitable reduction in the number of loaves which could be got from a sack of flour at the lower extraction. They agreed not to increase the price of the loaf by more than a halfpenny per two pound loaf.

The reduction in the extraction of flour has resulted in the absorption of about 23,000 tons of surplus wheat. Its utilisation in that way rather than by exporting it means a saving to the Exchequer of about £7 per ton. The increase in the amount of offals which will be produced will also mean a reduction in offal imports by about £450,000.

I mentioned the question of biscuit flour and the difficulties which were brought about by the withdrawal of the flour subsidy. The House is aware that Irish manufacturers of biscuits are, at the moment, at a severe disadvantage, particularly with regard to the price of flour, and also that the protection which is given them cannot be increased owing to the conditions of the British Trade Agreement. If they are to be maintained in business and put in a position to compete with other suppliers of biscuits, they must have flour available to them at or about the price at which their competitors can get it.

We have tried to meet that situation in a number of ways. Firstly, we gave them licences to import flour; secondly, we gave them licences to import wheat and to mill the wheat into flour; and, finally, it was considered more desirable to utilise part of the surplus wheat available at the animal feed price to make into biscuit flour. The amount is comparatively small compared with the total quantity of wheat available, but it does solve a problem which had to be met anyway and which can better be solved in that way to our advantage rather than by allowing the importation of flour or wheat for that purpose at the world price.

I mentioned the question of investigations being carried out under the auspices of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards into the question of increasing the use of native wheat in the grist. Reports of these investigations have been furnished from time to time. Last year, there was an experimental baking carried out at the Curragh Military Camp under the auspices of the institute. The object was to ascertain whether good commercial bread could be produced by flour derived solely from native wheat. Ten sacks of flour were ordered from the miller who holds the Army contract for flour, but one of the sacks was rejected as being below the average for the group.

That decision, unfortunately, invalidated to some extent, the outcome of the investigation. Various doughs were made from the flour and the quality of the bread produced was compared. The report of the institute which, I must emphasise, is only a preliminary one, was that bread of good commercial quality could have been baked from the 1956 crop of wheat, without the addition of imported wheat, provided that there was adequate scientific control of the materials used. The institute pointed out that, in the 200- or 300-odd bakeries scattered throughout the country, the scientific control of the materials used, the addition of certain chemicals, would not be possible.

A comprehensive report from the institute is to be submitted later, but there is one feature of the preliminary report which is worth noting. There appears to be a very wide variation in certain characteristics of the same type of wheat received from different parts of the country. That is one of the considerations to be taken into account and much attention will have to be given to it, if there be any change of policy later decided upon in that regard. It is apparently a matter of difficulty for millers to handle grist which contains a high percentage of native wheat, without having some means of dealing with these varying characteristics of the wheat.

There is one other sub-head in this Supplementary Estimate to which reference has also to be made. The House will have been aware from announcements which have been made that a special representative has been sent, with my approval, by the Industrial Development Authority to the United States of America for the purpose of interesting American manufacturers in the possibility of setting up industries in this country.

It is thought that American manufacturers are at this time giving consideration to the possibility or desirability of establishing plants in Europe in the light of the discussions that have been proceeding about a European Free Trade Area and that now is the appropriate stage at which to endeavour to interest them in establishing such plants in this country. That is why this time, rather than some other time, was selected for this campaign. If we are to succeed in it, we must have a full-time representative there to explain to American manufacturers who may be interested in the facilities which this country has to offer. The appointment of this special representative is intended to be for one year only unless, of course, the outcome of his mission should be such as to make it appear desirable to continue it for a further period.

It will be his function to bring to the notice of individual American manufacturers the many advantages which Ireland offers as a location for manufacturing industry and particularly for industries which would export all or the greater part of their output.

Mr. Corish

Could the Minister say if the person appointed is a civil servant and what is his rank.

Mr. S. Lemass

He is Count Cyril McCormack. He is not a civil servant and he has been specially appointed for this purpose. Simultaneously, an advertising campaign in suitable American newspapers and magazines has been carried out by the Industrial Development Authority. The first advertisement appeared on the 16th December last and further advertisements were inserted in papers to coincide with Count McCormack's arrival in the United States of America. It is planned to continue that advertising campaign for the purpose of setting out briefly and in an attractive manner the main advantages which Ireland holds for American industrialists.

Any manufacturer in America who shows interest in this possibility will be contacted by the representative on the spot who will explain the position to him in more detail. The representative will also have the duty of approaching other manufacturers who are known to be interested in the European Market or whose interest can be aroused in the possibilities there. He will also have to seek contacts with manufacturers through such bodies as chambers of commerce, industrial associations, banks and so forth or, indeed, any other suitable means that presents itself to him.

The Industrial Development Authority have also, at my request, arranged for the publication of a new brochure setting out in attractive form the advantages and facilities to which I have already referred. There was a somewhat similar booklet prepared some years ago which is now rather out of date. I think copies of the new brochure have been distributed to Members of the Dáil, so that they will be familiar with it. I am sure everybody will appreciate the importance of having an attractive booklet of that type available for interested parties abroad and also the value of the publication as a source of general information on conditions in this country affecting industrialists.

In a full year the cost of all these operations—the sending of the representative to the United States of America, the advertising campaign to which I have referred and other promotional expenses in that connection —is estimated to be £24,500 and the necessary provision has been made in the Book of Estimates for 1958-59 on that scale. In regard to this year, the cost is estimated at £7,000, £2,000 of which will fall under sub-heads P.2 and P.3 and which can be met out of savings on other sub-heads. £5,000 will, however, fall under sub-head P.1 as a Grant-in-Aid.

That expenditure, of course, was not anticipated when the original Estimate was being framed and it is necessary, therefore, to seek the Dáil's approval for that estimated additional expenditure, £5,000 under sub-head P.1, in connection with that campaign to interest American manufacturers in Ireland under the auspices of the Industrial Development Authority.

Mr. Dillon

To take the last matter first, as the Minister was speaking, there was circulated to us another list of amendments to the Industrial Development (Encouragement of External Investment) Bill. Is not it plain daft to be sending Count McCormack to the United States of America to interest industrialists in investment here while at the same time we are legislating in the House to provide only a very restricted access for foreign capital to come here?

Mr. S. Lemass

We are legislating for the opposite purpose.

Mr. Dillon

You are legislating to relax the present formidable restrictions which have existed for 20 years instead of sweeping them all away and simply saying, "We want foreign capital now into this country" and making some kind of dramatic gesture while at the same time saying, "That will give rise to problems, perhaps, for existing industries here and we shall deal with them in another way." We want to make it manifest to the whole world that the policy of deterring foreign capital from coming into this country is now reversed, that we seek to encourage it. In fact, what we are doing is, we are pursuing a very devious and cautious legislative procedure here which may or may not be understood by the Deputies and Senators who participate in it but which certainly is not calculated to make any dramatic impact on people abroad who are not all that interested in coming in here.

One would imagine sometimes, by the way we go on in Dáil Éireann, that there was a queue of eager industrialists clamouring at the door to get in. The fact is that we cannot find a manufacturer for rat traps who will come in, despite our best effort all over the world.

I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. If this is really serious, why does not he make the dramatic gesture of repealing the Control of Manufactures Act, arming Count McCormack, as the envoy of the Industrial Development Authority with that evidence of a genuine desire on the part of the Government and people of this country to welcome foreign capital here and then prevail upon his colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, to approach the American Government and say to them, "You have been pouring out immense assistance of a financial character all over the world, to everybody, in fact, handing out huge sums of dollars. We do not want any dollars in that form at all but would you collaborate with us, in consideration of our having wiped out all restrictions on foreign capital, in an effort to install in Ireland ten or 20 industrial units designed ultimately to employ 1,000 persons apiece?"

If the United States Government earnestly desire to maintain suitable institutions and growing prosperity in democratic countries, as opposed to the kind of assistance that is available to those countries which are prepared to withdraw behind the Iron Curtain, would not it be good business from their point of view, instead of handing away their money in millions, to approach their own technologists and invite them to collaborate with the United States Government in setting up plants in Ireland and other similarly circumstanced countries, now that it has dawned on them that what people want in free democracies much more than loans or grants is the opportunity of employment in their own country which derives from the availability of capital but quite equally from the availability of technology, plus marketing? The Minister himself must recollect a firm in this country that was on the verge of dissolution, but the moment it was brought into contact with an international firm in the same business which had technocracy at its disposal, plus a great international marketing organisation, the whole outlook of that firm was metamorphosed overnight and it is now a very prosperous concern.

Surely if we mean business here— and I cannot forget Deputy Kyne on the Vote on Account when he spoke of unemployment and men feeling the apprehension of working themselves out of jobs—I think that is the challenge to democratic institutions and free society—to find means of providing employment under a system directed by individual liberty and free institutions. Here is a means, as I see it, by the provision of capital techniques and marketing equipment, effectively to provide employment here through industrial development.

If it is not done that way, I want to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce this simple and pragmatic question: if there is a firm in Canada or the United States which is concerned to penetrate the free trade market in Europe and so contemplates the establishment of an industrial plant inside the surrounding barricade of the Free Trade Area, and it is presented with the alternative of establishing that plant in Dublin or Cork or Hamburg or Rotterdam, what economic argument can we advance for establishing the plant in Dublin or Cork? If the raw materials have to be brought to the point of manufacture and the articles distributed mainly in the European market—for that is the reason they come here—what is the economic advantage of bringing the raw materials to Cork or Dublin and transshipping the products to Rotterdam or Hamburg for distribution in Europe?

I wish the Minister would indicate what argument he proposes to advance to that. I do not think there is a valid argument based exclusively on economic considerations for foreign firms aiming at the European market choosing a site here in preference to a site on the Continent, bearing in mind the immense advantages of the universal availability of continental transport to a plant established at Hamburg or Rotterdam. On the other hand, if the United States or any other friendly nation really wants to help and we are prepared to reciprocate wholeheartedly, I do not think it is outside the bounds of possibility that we might get substantial industrial plants established here on somewhat the same lines as we sought to implement under the Undeveloped Areas Act when we tried to divert plants from Dublin and Cork to the undeveloped areas in the West.

If, in the same spirit, the United States Government attempted to establish plants here at, I believe, no formidable cost to themselves, they could confer an inestimable benefit on this country, and, from that initial departure, there might evolve quite a number of secondary developments which would not require Government assistance at all. But if we are to get something of that kind, I suggest we ought to make it known emphatically and dramatically to the world outside that the epoch in which we were afraid of foreign capital is gone and that we are now opening the doors in no halfhearted manner. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that if that is done, it is probable that parallel steps may have to be taken to shore up some existing enterprises which would view the unrestricted arrival of foreign capital with apprehension, but we have shored up so many in the past that if we have to shore up a few more in the future, we should be able to do it.

Turning to this Vote, which proposes that £500,000 be provided to sell Irish wheat to millers for manufacture into biscuit flour or into animal feeding or into anything they like, I do not believe this provision is necessary at all. It is a most astonishing situation in which to find ourselves. One would imagine that nothing could be simpler than to indicate the total wheat crop, how it is to be disposed of and the consequent gain or loss, but the Minister went to great trouble to try to give every detail of the whole business, and I think when Deputies come to read the Official Report—much less the Deputies who sat here to listen—they will agree with me that it is a regular jig-saw puzzle. Why it should become so vastly complicated, I do not know. The total wheat crop is produced on about 3 per cent. of our arable land. That is all that is involved.

My experience when I was responsible for wheat was that there was pressure all the time to demonstrate that millers could not mill the wheat into flour at all and the view was very strongly pressed that the grist would have to be 50 per cent. Irish and 50 per cent. imported, to make a bakeable flour. Every year, I was told that a large percentage of the Irish crop was not convertible into flour and should be rejected; every year, I told them it was convertible into flour and if they would filter it into the grist in the course of the ensuing year, they would have no difficulty, and every year we succeeded in making them do it. There was always a fight and assurances were always given, with the most circumstantial evidence to support them, that if they were to mill this stuff, they could not bake it into bread at all; but they always did, and we never introduced an Estimate, so far as I remember, to enable us to dispose of any of the wheat crop, except for the purpose of conversion into flour.

Last year was the first year it has ever been conceded that a great part of the Irish wheat crop must be converted into animal feeding and I think I am right in saying that the wheat crop of last year was one of the best gathered in this country in regard to quality. Those of us who were present will have heard the Minister make a series of protracted calculations. I heard no reference whatever to the annual requirements of seed wheat. That is a very substantial annual charge upon the wheat crop because for some time we have found it unnecessary to import seed. Most of our own seed wheat is labelled and certified by the Department of Agriculture and I am informed by those who sow it that the quality of Irish certified seed wheat is superior to any imported seed wheat. In all his reference to the disposal of 370,000 tons of the 1957 harvest I heard him make no indent upon that in respect of seed but he went on to speak of 155,000 tons of a surplus which he reduced to 95,000 tons net surplus as a result of the millers being required to give an undertaking to carry 50,000 tons as the normal annual carry-over.

Would it not be a very much better way to handle this wheat—which the Minister says is a surplus 95,000 tons, but which I very much doubt is surplus—if, instead of grinding it all up and selling it as wheat feed at murderous prices on the foreign market, the Minister arranged for an extraction of say, 50 per cent., and to have that fed into the general bulk of flour manufactured and let the other 50 per cent. be sold as what we used to call before the 1939 war, "sharps," which is one grade higher than pollard? It is a grade of animal feed that has not been available since the war but which used to be pretty widely available and I think it derives from a 60 per cent. extraction of flour which apparently obtains nowhere since the 1939 war.

I am wholly unable to understand how it is that in 1956 we had an average price of 66/11 for green wheat with a relatively high moisture content which worked out at 89/- per barrel dried on the mill floor, and yet in 1957 72/6 related to flour with 21 per cent. moisture or less works out at 94/- dried on the mill floor.

The Minister knows as well as I do, and much better than most Deputies in the House, that an absolutely accurate appraisal of the situation without all the figures before one, is well nigh impossible. However, I suggest to him that it ought to be possible to find the means of using all this wheat in the manufacture of biscuit and bread flour in the coming year, that it ought not to be necessary to appropriate £650,000 wherewith to dispose of surplus Irish wheat and that that money could be very much better used.

We heard my courteous successor sneer across the House to-day that he would not let us see certain papers we wanted to see. They related to double byres.

Mr. S. Lemass

I do not think the Deputy can possibly bring that question into this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

My successor has taken the course of winding it up in 24 hours.

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy cannot reasonably get it in on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

This £650,000 would enable him to do this year what I proposed to do last year, that is, to give the farmers 12 months' notice. If he would do that, a great deal of the harm of his present proposal would be removed and he would be helping agriculture, but it seems to me that under this dispensation we are helping the bigger manufacturer of flour. To put it at its best, if this is helping the farmers it is helping farmers who are farming 3 per cent. of the total arable area of Ireland whereas it could be made of very material use to all the farmers who are engaged in the dairying and livestock industry.

I do not believe it is necessary to appropriate £650,000 in order to use the Irish wheat crop. I direct the attention of the House to the fact that it never was necessary before although it was always pressed upon me when I was Minister for Agriculture that it was. I was always able to persuade them to use it—and I believe that could be done now. It is right to warn the House that, if they adopt this procedure this season, this is only the first step in a campaign which will turn up year after year to justify the new departure in regard to wheat prices. This is meant to create the surplus atmosphere. Heretofore the policy was to fix a price and the merit of that was supposed to be that the farmer knew when he sowed his crop what he might expect to receive for it but, in this surplus atmosphere, the new sliding scale is introduced and no farmer in Ireland to-day knows what he is likely to get for his wheat crop when he saves it next autumn. You may call that a married price or anything else you like to call it but, whatever about the marriage of the price, it divorces the farmers of this country from the certainty that they enjoyed heretofore of a fixed price which was communicated to them before they sowed the crop.

I very much doubt that this £500,000 will be spent and I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce will find that it will be possible to arrange for the use of this grain without that expenditure of public money. However, I believe that all this campaign about surpluses, too much wheat and so forth, is for the purpose of softening up the farmers of this country to a new situation in which they will be told: "There is a surplus of wheat. There is a surplus of butter. There is a surplus of eggs." In respect of everything they produce they will be told there is an unwieldy surplus. We have to take effective measures to relieve the Exchequer of these intolerable burdens. In one speech, we will marry the price. That has a nicer sound about it than reducing the price. None of us will know the end result of that unholy travesty of matrimony until the Autumn comes, but we have a pretty shrewd suspicion of what it will be.

In the course of his introduction of this Supplementary Estimate, I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce pay his respects occasionally to the Minister for Agriculture who would administer this and who would have regard to that. It is most eloquent of the atmosphere into which we are moving that, for accounting reasons, this Supplementary Estimate is being presented by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. S. Lemass

In this year only.

Mr. Dillon

In this year only. We do not know what will happen next year about this Estimate or about the price of wheat, or about the price of butter or about the price of pigs. However, Fianna Fáil are making one thing clear to us all, namely, that they are all in surplus, costing piles of money to the taxpayer, and Fianna Fáil think them a public nuisance for which emergency measures are requisite on a heretofore unprecedented scale. Surely some of the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party recognise the racket that is on? Have none of them the courage to get up and say so?

Mr. Corish

I have only a few words to say by way of comment on this Supplementary Estimate which includes two separate and distinct items —(1) losses on the sale of wheat and (2) the Industrial Development Authority. I wonder whether or not the advent of wheat in this country was a blessing or a disaster. We are now confronted with a Supplementary Estimate amounting to £500,000, even money, to provide for losses on the sale of wheat. It seems that the taxpayer is being asked to pay £500,000 for the losses on the sale of wheat and, at the same time, the Irish farmer is asked to suffer a reduction in the price paid to him.

Deputy Dillon said he did not know whether or not there was necessity for this Estimate, or the major portion of it. I must confess that I do not know. We must take the Minister's word that there is a surplus of wheat and that it must be disposed of by some method. The Minister gave us in detail the method by which it is proposed to disposes of the wheat. Bearing in mind all the circumstances, I suppose the method of disposal is about the only method to dispose of what is now being described as "a surplus of wheat."

I was very interested in the Minister's comments on the all-Irish loaf. He gave a certain amount of information. We should be interested to know the final outcome of the experiment carried out at the Curragh with nine sacks of flour made from Irish wheat. I do not quite follow some of the details the Minister gave. I presume the report he received is but a preliminary report and that, as soon as ever may be, the final report will be submitted to the Government, and subsequently to the House or the country. Apart from the experiment on the scientific side, I should be interested to know whether or not any member of the Government has eaten bread made from all-Irish wheat. I should prefer their opinion on an all-Irish loaf than that of any scientist or master baker.

I am interested in subhead P (1)— Remuneration and Expenses. The Minister says this money is for the expenses of a representative from this country to the United States in an endeavour to interest American industrialists in the establishment of factories and industries here. In present circumstances and having regard to the fact that we may be on the brink of entering into a free trade area, I hold that £24,000 is a puny sum to spend in competition with, as Deputy Dillon says, a lot of the countries in Europe.

The booklet, Industry in Ireland, published recently, was excellent. It described the social, economic and other advantages in the establishment of industry in this country. I should be interested to know what advantages other countries have to offer in this connection. I should be interested to know what inducements are being offered by other countries in Europe to industrialists and manufacturers in the United States in an attempt to get them to establish factories in Holland, Belgium, Germany or France, because we shall have to compete with them.

As Deputy Dillon said, I do not think there is a queue of Americans waiting to come to this country nor are people in the United States receiving Cyril Count McCormack with open arms, wondering when they can start industries in this country. This is a time of serious competition and, in the light of that competition, I do not believe a sum of £24,000 will provide one-hundredth part of the sum required to advertise sufficiently the undoubted advantages this country has for the establishment of industry here.

Deputy Dillon referred to the advantages in what are described wrongly, in many cases, as the developed areas of this country. I was never enthusiastic about the Undeveloped Areas Act. I think it was unfair and I was beginning to think it was unconstitutional, inasmuch as certain advantages were provided for a part of the country which were not provided for the rest of the country. The tradition of industry in this country, in my opinion—and it is fairly well accepted—lies in the eastern and southern coastal areas and in the Midlands. Without wanting to be unjust to the people in the West of Ireland or to the people now included in the undeveloped areas, I think it is right to say that there is not the same tradition of industry or the same tradition of the skilled industrial worker in those areas as there is in the East and, in saying so, let me make it clear that I do not say it against any person in the West.

If there is to be encouragement for the establishment of industry, that encouragement would be of more avail in the eastern portion of the country or the South or the Midlands, where there is the tradition and from which the English market is more accessible than in Connemara or the western shores of Mayo. It would be a tremendous advantage, as an advantage, to this country for the establishment of industry here by Americans if the terms of the Undeveloped Areas Act were widened to include the country as a whole. This must be said as well. While the Undeveloped Areas Act has undoubtedly provided some industry in the West, I am sure it has not achieved what the Minister for Industry and Commerce believed it would achieve when he introduced that Act in 1952.

We have made many efforts—various people have made efforts—to attract industrialists and manufacturers from the United States of America over the past five years. Can anybody say that either Minister or individual met with any success? The Minister for Industry and Commerce was there on one occasion, possibly not for the specific purpose of attracting industrialists or manufacturers. The previous Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, was over there. Deputy Briscoe was there some time last year. He is there again this year. We had the present Lord Mayor of Dublin over there for his second spell in 1958.

Many of us hoped—we were not too presumptuous or too optimistic—that at least one industry would come from the United States of America. I think it true to say that not even one has come back. If one has come, it certainly has not come to my knowledge through any efforts made by any of the type of people I have mentioned, through the people who are in America at the present time whether Deputy Briscoe, the Lord Mayor of Dublin or Count McCormack. We all hope their efforts will be successful, but in my opinion Count McCormack's mission has not much chance of success. It will be a tremendous personal feat for him if he succeeds even in a small way. He has not a chance if the country can provide him with only £24,000.

The sum of £24,000, as the Minister is probably aware, will be only a flea bite in the great advertising world in America. When one takes into account his travelling expenses to the United States, his out-of-pocket expenses and his hotel expenses, the meagre entertainment that he can do on the small allowance made to him, what then is left for advertising?

This booklet to which I referred is a very good publication but it is not sufficient. It does not go into the details that American businessmen want in order to make up their minds as to whether they will establish their industry or factory in Ireland, Belgium, Germany or any part of Europe. So far as the Labour Party is concerned we would certainly support the Minister in any drive in which he engages or proposes to engage for the purpose of encouraging foreign capital into this country, especially capital from the United States of America for the purpose of establishing industry.

Deputy Dillon is somewhat innocent if he thinks that the simple approach he suggested would convince the American Government that this country is worthy of investment. I think his words were to the effect that the United States of America at the present are pumping dollars into establishing industries in certain countries in Europe in order to try to re-establish the democratic institutions, or maintain the existing ones. I do not think that is sufficient. I do not think it would be sufficient for us to go to America and say that if you take dollars into this country, you will help to maintain the democratic institutions or the democratic way of life.

The Americans still adore the mighty dollar. If they have a particular interest in the countries to which Deputy Dillon referred in maintaining the democratic way of life and democratic institutions, they have no interest in that respect in this country because they are absolutely confident that so far as the democratic way of life and the democratic institutions are concerned they are intact and will always be intact, as far as this country is concerned. For the purpose of getting help from abroad and especially from the United States of America, I do not think we have much of a chance because strategically we are badly placed. If we found ourselves in the Mediterranean, the Middle East or some place situated near the Iron Curtain, the Americans would pump not only millions of dollars into the country but billions and trillions to maintain the democratic way of life and democratic institutions as Deputy Dillon says.

It has to be a hard-headed businesslike appeal and I suggest that we cannot make that on a meagre £24,000 per year. May I conclude by saying that it would be better if the Minister had any proposals to jack up that sum and provide for more publicity?

Mr. Booth

I should like to add my tribute to what has already been said in support of the Industrial Development Authority. The issue of the brochure will tend to interest industrialists to set up industries here. I think it is magnificently thought out. It is also extremely well presented. It sets out a number of special advantages which have resulted already in the setting up of new industries here. It sets out in detail the particulars of cash grants for new industries, tax reliefs, trade agreements and other special opportunities for development.

There is only one thing which disappoints me and I suppose the Industrial Development Authority are not to be held responsible for that. Under the heading "Opportunities for Development" occurs the following:—

"Under Irish law non-nationals may participate in industrial enterprise in Ireland in either of two ways:

(a) by obtaining a New Manufacture Licence where the foreign promoter wants to provide all or the major part of the share capital, or

(b) by taking an active but minority interest in an enterprise the major part of whose share capital is obtained from Irish sources."

That appears to me to undo a tremendous amount of good which was done in the earlier part of the brochure. I know from my own experience and from those who have much more experience than myself, that the mention of a licence, however irrevocable it may be, frightens off and has frightened off any new industries which otherwise could have been established here. I do not feel it is any attraction to any industrialists to offer them an active but minority interest in a firm. That, to my mind, is most discouraging to the setting up of new industries. However, I think the Industrial Development Authority have done an extremely good job, so far as they are able. I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed in respect to this brochure, which I hope will have an excellent reception overseas.

I was interested in what we were told about the work of the Institute for Industrial Research on the question of the use of Irish wheat exclusively for baking an Irish loaf. I was reminded of a speech which I heard last September from the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Mr. Spaak He was speaking to a small group of members of Parliaments of Western Europe. He told us that we should never hand over to any alleged technical experts our responsibilities for making decisions. His advice was never to ask an expert whether such and such a thing could be done. He said it was our responsibility as politicians to give our decisions, to summon our experts and to tell them the decision and let them have the responsibility to carry it out.

I feel that in this particular connection some such attitude should be adopted in regard to both the milling industry and the Institute for Industrial Research. I grant that they are working towards the desired goal. At the same time, I cannot see any sign of undue pressure being exerted on them. If a decision were reached here and now that no foreign wheat whatever would be imported next season, I believe that the experts would be able to produce the all-Irish loaf next season without any trouble; but if we keep on asking them can it really be done, while I do not want to be disrespectful to the technical experts, I believe their attitude always will be: "Well, it might, but there are certain difficulties and we do not want to commit ourselves at this stage." I feel this is where we must commit ourselves and say the import of foreign wheat is too expensive, as it is sending money out of the country which could be much better used in the country. Let us, if necessary, take a deep breath and say: "That shall cease"—so that we will not in future need another Supplementary Estimate such as this.

I do not see a way round it at the moment. I think the Supplementary Estimate is inevitable, but I do not want another one next year. I would urge on the Minister and the Government to take this decision as rapidly as possible, in the sure confidence that our own industrialists and our own technical experts will produce the answer to the problem. Unless that decision is taken at Government level, this experiment will go on and on, and we do not know when it will finish.

I support this Supplementary Estimate, but I sincerely hope we will not have so much expenditure in respect of wheat next year. I hope that, if anything, we will spend a little bit more on boosting the Industrial Development Authority, making funds available for them and taking every possible obstacle out of the way of anyone who wishes to set up an industry in this country.

Mr. Hughes

On this Supplementary Estimate, the Minister has dealt with the manner in which it is proposed to deal with surplus wheat. I have the same opinion as Deputy Booth in regard to that. This whole question of a percentage hinges on our percentage of native wheat; and I think the Government are not interested enough in native wheat—and especially the Minister. He has told us here this evening that an experiment carried out by experts at the Curragh has proved that it is possible to produce an all-Irish loaf and that it has been successful there—but the experts went on to say that there were certain technicalities which the ordinary baker in the country could not get over and the possibility was that that was the trouble, and a further report would be issued. That is the part to which I object very much. These experiments took place last June and the Minister is still waiting for a further report from these people on a matter that is very serious for the country.

We find ourselves this year with a surplus of native wheat and at the same time, we are to import, in this financial year, over 100,000 tons of foreign wheat for use here. I believe there is a certain section here in this country who do not want to see an all-Irish loaf or a high percentage of Irish wheat used. I think the millers and some of the bigger bakeries in the country are the people who are completely against it. One thing which makes me think that more than anything else is the advertisements appearing in all the daily papers for the last week or two by the millers' organisations. They are going out to defend their point of view. Why should they have to defend it, if they are honest in their point of view? This is a matter on which a decision should be taken by the Government and not by the millers. They claim in their statements that it is the housewife who decides. I have never heard a housewife objecting to the flour or the bread we have at the present time. The millers state in that statement that they use 87 per cent. of native wheat. The Minister told us this evening it is 79. I wonder who is telling the truth?

Mr. S. Lemass

The 79 per cent. is the quota they are compelled to use.

Mr. Hughes

They claim they are using 87 per cent.

Mr. S. Lemass

So they are.

Mr. Hughes

If we are using 87 per cent., we should have very little, as far as surplus wheat goes. A month or two back, when the extraction was reduced by 6 per cent., the percentage of Irish wheat could have been increased immediately without any noticeable effect. It should be up to the Government to stage increases until we got to the stage where there was objection. So far, there has not been any objection. The public are not objecting to it.

As the wheat growers are fixed at the moment, it is a very serious problem. They do not know what price they are to get, for one thing, but they definitely assume there is to be a reduction. It is all a matter of its being handled properly by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister told us this evening that this experiment on the Curragh was successful, that they can produce an all-Irish loaf successfully. Then he says he is waiting for a further reply. The farmers are going to feel that "waiting for a further reply". They will get less for wheat in the meantime. They are entitled to be paid what they got for it last year. Their costs have increased—they have not become less —and the thanks they are to get for producing a big quantity of wheat is to have the price reduced.

If the Minister tackled this question seriously and if he were really interested, it would be different. I do not believe he is interested. He is interested in the millers and in some of the other people, but not in the farmers. That is a disgrace. I appeal to him here this evening to take this matter up seriously immediately and see what is the maximum amount of Irish wheat we can use. I believe we can use more than we are using at present; and the people generally in the country, the people concerned in this whole issue, which has become very important, are also of the same opinion.

Mr. McQuillan

The fact that we are asked here to provide a supplementary sum of £500,000 to get rid of surplus wheat is only one more proof of the muddled thinking and planning of various Governments here over the past few years in connection with this wheat problem. I recollect that, here in this House, less than two years ago, figures were given showing that over 140,000 acres of land were taken on conacre, by exploiters, to grow wheat. Some of the people who took this land took it in the names of limited liability companies. Others who exploited the wheat situation had nothing whatever to do with farming in their lifetime up to the taking of this conacre. The result to-day is that lands in the midlands which, up to three or four years ago, had been used solely for the ranching of cattle, were immediately ploughed up and turned over to the production of wheat, to satisfy a group of what I can only describe as exploiters of the worst sort. If the Governments in the past had taken the necessary steps to control the growing of wheat and the acreage involved, this sum would not have to be sought in this House to-day.

I asked a number of questions here over recent years as to what steps were being taken by the Government to deal with the land being exploited by the conacre men in different parts of the midlands, what steps were being taken to acquire that land and have it redistributed amongst decent farmers in the community. All we got here was an evasive answer from various Ministers. The result is that to-day the small farmer, the worker and the members of the community as a whole, are being asked to pay further penal taxes, in order to soften the blow for those gentlemen who have exploited the wheat situation so long.

Deputy Dillon has told the House that only 3 per cent. of the arable land in Ireland is being used for the growing of wheat. If that figure is correct, it should not be an insurmountable problem for a Government to bring a practical plan into operation to ensure that we grow our own full requirements and, at the same time, give a reasonable allocation to those who have constantly grown wheat over the years. It is the only method by which we can get rid of such Supplementary Estimates in future. We should place the growing of wheat under contract in the same way as the sugar company places the growing of beet.

Down through the years, small and medium-sized farmers have loyally produced wheat when it was needed. They have grown three, four or up to ten acres a year and they have never let the State down. They are being hit to-day by the uncertainty of prices, all because of the fact that greedy people were allowed to exploit wheat-growing over the past couple of years. Is it right that that should be allowed? Is it further right that the small farmer should pay this penal tax now to subsidise the millers, bakers, and large wheat exploiters? There is an onus on the Minister to have a practical plan prepared whereby in future wheat will be grown by contract and whereby the small and medium-sized farmer will be protected. After that, I do not care if the extra wheat that is needed is grown by a group of people who started to grow it only recently. There is no other way out of it.

It is ridiculous to plan the wheat programme on the basis that next year we will not have as much wheat, due to the married price. That is a gamble and we cannot have a gamble, as far as production on the land is concerned. I do not want to see a Supplementary Estimate like this being brought in here again. There is an awful lot to be said for having control over the growing of wheat, that is, a control to be exercised right from the growing until the wheat is processed and it reaches the consumer in the form of bread on his table. In between, there are people who are getting away with the swag, the large millers and the large bakers. To add insult to injury, the controlling influence in these concerns is exercised from outside the State. I do not think we should tolerate that control being exercised from outside the State, especially in a fundamental matter like our food production.

The other matter is the amount for the Industrial Development Authority, to cover the expenses of a representative of this country who is in America at the moment, seeking the establishment of industries here. I do not want to say too much on this at the present time, but I have heard a lot of talk about our being short of capital and short of money. So far as I can see, we are not short of money but of methods whereby we can spend it. Deputy Corish pointed out that over the last five years people ranging from the rank of Cabinet Minister down to the like of Deputy Briscoe—I presume he could have been a Cabinet Minister, too——

Mr. Barry

There was no room for him.

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy said "ranging down."

Mr. McQuillan

They have gone to the United States and tried their utmost to interest American industrialists in setting up industrial concerns and factories here, the enticement being that here is a suitable country, that grants are available under the Undeveloped Areas Act and that we are in a suitable position as a jumping-off ground, if the European Free Trade Area comes into operation. However, in those five years, we have had no response whatever from any large-scale industrialist in America, but we have had an influx of people from America, as well as elsewhere, who, instead of setting up development works, bought land and property and other businesses in this State. We do not want that.

At the present time, our chances of getting industrial projects from America are less than ever. I do not like to be pessimistic, but my impression of the situation in America is that they are in for a very serious time during the next two or three years, and that the position in regard to unemployment in America is only starting. Our demands and pleas in America, in such a situation, will fall on deaf ears. If we have money to spare at the present time, we should spend it in places where we can secure markets for the products we can already sell. If we take the Middle East and the countries recently under colonial rule, there is a vast market for any Irish products. If you look up the trade returns, you will see that Ireland has an adverse trade balance with the majority of those countries at the present time. If we had the proper approach to these, I have not the slightest doubt that we could increase our exports of processed goods of an agricultural nature to them. During the past few months, we have imported something like £150,000 worth of ham. It is fantastic that we should be spending money in seeking industrial projects from America when we have the raw materials in agriculture at home which should be developed, processed and foreign markets sought for it.

I do not suggest we can get into such markets overnight, for a number of reasons. One of the greatest difficulties is the shipping drawback. If to-morrow morning we were in a position to send large consignments of Irish foodstuffs to various countries, we would not be in a position to send them in our own ships. We are up against the fact that so much trans-shipment has to take place. If we sell abroad, our exports go to Liverpool and other British ports, where they are trans-shipped to the countries where the products are to be utilised. We have no control over the method of trans-shipment, once they leave our shores.

The results of this have very often been shown in the adverse criticism levelled at Irish products, and the real cause of the criticism being levelled is the delays that take place, not between Ireland and Liverpool, but between Ireland and the country to which the product is being sent. I am afraid that we are not putting first things first. While we all agree on the desirability and necessity for increasing industrial activity here inside the State, we should first concentrate on the major industry that we have here, and use the multitude of by-products that can be processed out of the main industry itself. If we concentrated on those industries and got markets for them, we would be doing a lot to keep our people at home and at the same time reduce this disequilibrium in our balance of payments.

I do not think we can do anything about refusing the Minister the extra money for which he is looking, but there is no harm in my going on record as saying I believe the money being spent on the tour by this individual in America is a waste of time. I do not say that in any contentious sense as far as that organisation is concerned. The fault lies with our own Minister. When he and his predecessor, with their train load of expert advisers, could not get suitable industrial projects here, how can we expect a man in the position of the individual concerned, who has only very limited resources at his disposal, to do so?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am sorry the last speaker adopted such a defeatist attitude towards our trade representative, Count McCormack. The period of ten years or so, over which we have tried to encourage United States industrialists to come here, is a very short period in a lifetime. The advances made since the establishment of the State in 1922 have been big in comparison with advances in other countries that have hundreds of years behind them.

Listening to the various speakers, I feel the time is past when it was a case of: "No matter what you do, I can do something better." It is time for a pooling of the best brains in the country. Even if the Minister for Industry and Commerce had a wand and had all the power possible, he could not do anything without the full co-operation of the people. If our country is to survive, that co-operation is necessary.

I would not cut the stick of any trade representative of this country. If he does not do good now, he may soften up the ground for somebody to follow him. We want to prove to the world the potentialities of this country. I am very disappointed that our products are not hitting the headlines in the American market. I do not know who is at fault. One such product is whiskey. I do not know whether or not the blend is palatable to the American taste but it is a product which should be a great dollar earner. Instead of that, it is still relegated to a very poor place on the American market while the Scottish product is worth millions of dollars. I believe the explanation in that case is that the Scottish distillers have spent plenty of money on advertising. They have succeeded in getting the blend of whiskey the Americans want and they have succeeded in selling——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That question does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate. The Deputy is dealing with exports.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am dealing with our trade prospects. I am pointing out the possibility of spending more money in order to export more goods from this country.

I want to deal now with our industrialists. Those of them who are nationally-minded should join together, pool their plans and say: "We are able to produce something a foreign country needs." On the one hand, we are asking the Minister and his Department to do everything; on the other hand, we are condemning them for interfering too much with private enterprise. We cannot have it both ways. Industrialists anxious to get into the export market should pool their resources and ensure that the quality of their products is of the highest. Unless that spirit of co-operation is adopted by all sections, we will not go ahead as a nation. Other countries have had to change with the times and we will have to do the same.

I heard a number of speakers on the other side speak about wheat. I am delighted to see that times have changed as far as the Fine Gael Party are concerned. They are very anxious about growing wheat now but a few years ago their chief spokesman did not want it at all.

Mr. Corish

Give it up. We have been hearing that all last week. You are too sensible.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I gave Deputy Corish a very respectful hearing when he was speaking. He is getting a bit bothered now but I shall carry on.

It is very nice to hear of the complete conversion to wheat of some of the leaders of the Fine Gael Party. I heard Deputy Dillon speak a while ago on this very problem. It is nice to know he can change his mind, too. He was one of the men who opposed the production of wheat. I am very sorry that a number of the small farmers in County Dublin and other parts of the country, who stood by the people when there was compulsory growing of wheat, are now hard hit. That is due—I have to agree with the last speaker—to the intervention of people who are not farmers and who only went into the business to make a racket of wheat growing. They took hundreds of acres of land in every county they could. They succeeded in injuring the honest-to-God small farmer and the conacre farmer who made a good living on a mixed farm or a tillage farm. That is a problem that the Government has now to face.

The Minister for Agriculture has a heavy burden on his shoulders—to see that the people who stood foursquare behind the Fianna Fáil Government and the people of Ireland will get reasonable protection now. It is a very sad reflection that the land of this country should be destroyed by people who saw a chance of making easy money out of it. When we wanted to have wheat grown in this country to feed our people during the war years, the owners of the large ranches thought very hard of growing any wheat at all. During the 1946 harvesting campaign, in which I was interested, I went to a farm about 15 miles away from Dublin where a man had 600 acres of land. He told the inspectors to get out of his fields and that he did not mind whether the wheat rotted or not.

When the price of wheat went up, these people saw an opportunity of exploiting the market and of destroying the market for the hard-working small farmers. This is now a serious problem for us. As the Minister for Industry and Commerce has already stated, an effort is being made to see if a loaf can be produced from Irish wheat. I hope the experts will prove that it is possible to have an all-Irish loaf. I hope that the people who stood by us in the years when we wanted them to do so will get a square deal now and that they will get the protection they deserve. I also hope that the exploiters who came into the market in recent years will not be permitted to squeeze the hard working people out of the market as they are trying to do.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Estimate which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has brought before the house shows, in the main, losses arising from the sale of wheat. Once again we have emphasised the importance to the Exchequer of having stability in agricultural production. Deputy Dillon has already pointed out that it was not quite necessary to be so emphatic about this being a charge on the taxpayer arising out of the subsidisation of agriculture. There have been appeals from members of the last Government and from public men now in office that there should be an increase in agricultural production. What the farmers have done has been in response to that general appeal to increase production. Now that they have responded in that way there seems to be a concerted effort to imply that in some way they are benefiting unduly at the expense of other sections of the community.

It is impossible for any Minister for Agriculture to say exactly when agricultural production, whether of milk, bacon, eggs or wheat, would be sufficient to supply the home market. Much of the charge which has now to be met has been caused by reduced consumption at home. It seems, from replies that have been given both by the Government and by the millers, that this reduction in the consumption of bread and flour has been occasioned by three factors. The first of these is an increase in the standard of living of the people. It must be remembered that bread is the basic food of the lower income group and, when people move from that low standard group, they consume less bread. The second factor is that of emigration which has an effect in particular parts of the country and the third factor, and not the least, is that the higher prices of bread and flour are reflected in this Supplementary Estimate. If we examine any commodity we will find that its consumption is governed by its price. With a commodity such as bread and flour any increase in price has an impact on the cost of living of every family and there is no doubt that the sudden withdrawal of the food subsidies has resulted in a reduction in consumption.

Before I leave this subject of milling and baking, I should like to express the great concern that exists in many small towns throughout the country at the mopping up process which is taking place with regard to the small family bakers. This is being done mainly by two big cartels; I need not give their names. To some extent the temptation to small people to sell out, has arisen because of the extremely attractive price that has been offered to them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not arise under any of the subheads of this Estimate.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The fact that this mopping up is taking place does not bear out the contention that the milling industry is not in a position to bear any further impact on it. It is an extraordinary thing that these millers are capable of making such extremely attractive offers to the smaller bakeries while here in this House we are being asked to pass such a formidable Supplementary Estimate which will accrue, in part, to the benefit of the milling industry.

The Minister included an interesting item of news in his opening statement. He stated that, in consequence of the reduction of the food subsidy, troubles were brought on the biscuit manufacturers and their troubles will be remedied by this Supplementary Estimate. The Estimate provides that they will be given access to some of the wheat which has now become surplus.

The figure of 300,000 tons of Irish wheat, which has now been stated by the Government as being the maximum figure of home grown wheat which can be consumed at home, is a figure that has been challenged. Deputy Hughes referred to it; organisations representing farming interests have challenged it and there is no doubt that the producers were extremely interested, and will be interested, in what the Minister said to-day in regard to the tests carried out at the Curragh, tests which were expected to provide an answer to the claims made that it was possible to produce an edible Irish loaf made completely from home-grown wheat.

Quite apart from the producers, this has a very great attraction to anybody interested in the maintenance of our balance of payments equilibrium. If we could eliminate from our imports such a substantial item as wheat, no doubt it would relieve any Government of the kind of measures they might be called upon to take should disequilibrium arise in our balance of payments. Consequently, we can expect any Government to be sympathetic to the results that would flow from the production of an all-Irish loaf. Like Deputy Hughes I am concerned to find that the long-awaited results have not been as encouraging as they might have been and have, in fact, an element of reservation in them.

While the Minister was encouraging up to a point, he indicated that the rejection of one sack of the ten used in the test to some extent impaired the acceptance of it as a correct basis. That means that it will apply to any further report that will come on the completion of that test. It is extraordinary that we can produce figures and results and reports for industrial standards that will bear the closest scrutiny and the most exact examination, but when we seek to find out the cost of producing a gallon of milk, through the Milk Costings Commission, or when we try to find out whether we can produce an all-Irish loaf, we are immediately up against mistakes in the very basis of computing the ultimate results in both matters. That is regrettable.

I should like to ask the Minister whether, in his opinion, that would resolve any problem that the Government might have to meet in relation to what would be expected to flow from the production of a suitable all-Irish loaf. Is there any other difficulty which would emerge later as an alibi for the non-acceptance of a favourable result in the matter of the actual milling or baking of this bread?

We know that at harvest time a Minister for Agriculture is hard put to it to ensure that the production of wheat in the previous harvest will be taken up without undue delay at the mill doors and we know it is in consequence of much arduous work on the part of successive Ministers for Agriculture, and very successful work on the part of their Department that the producers' problems have been met and that the flow can be handled, even though it has been aggravated by the fact that, with the introduction of mechanisation and the almost universal use of the combine, we now have the delivery season considerably shortened and that there is an immense physical job of work to be faced in the acceptance of the wheat grown by the farmers.

It would be little good to the producers if, having surmounted one difficulty and got the green light in that regard, they were faced with the type of scrutiny and examination at the mill door which would quite possibly result in the rejection of much of the wheat produced, or result in slowing down the acceptance of wheat, which again, in the event of unfavourable weather conditions, would cause much loss to the producers. I should like to know, when this question of dependence on the all-Irish loaf is again advanced, whether that has been resolved and whether the Government can meet the requests that come so constantly now from many quarters for an active move towards the attainment of a higher acreage of wheat for consumption at home, by the acceptance of the view that an all-Irish loaf is not alone a possibility but an imminent probability, so to speak.

The smaller item included in the Minister's Supplementary Estimate in connection with the grant-in-aid for industrial development has been explained as being intended to defray the expenses of Count Cyril McCormack in his efforts in America at present. I should like to compliment the Minister on his selection of this envoy and to express the hope that the results which will flow from his work will not alone recoup the meagre expense which is required here, but will do justice to the hopes many of us entertain in regard to the advantages that could accrue to this country from the introduction of suitable enterprises with the capital and technical "know-how" that is so desirable in our present circumstances.

I should like to conclude on the note on which Deputy Dillon began, by saying that it is a pity, when this Estimate is being made, that the whole fraud— it is a strong word to use, but nevertheless when one gets down to it it appears to be the only word to describe the existing set-up in relation to the implementation of the Control of Manufactures Act—is not remedied. We know there are numerous means by which a coach-and-four can be driven through that Act, that it exists merely as a facade, and that behind it we have devious routes by which non-nationals can come in and establish industries here, while at the same time some of us believe there are many reputable and well-established, desirable enterprises outside that will not resort to the methods necessary to circumvent the provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act.

The Minister has given some slight indication that he has found that all that was intended to flow from the Control of Manufactures Act has not come about. He is now enthusiastic about the desirability of obtaining foreign capital. I think that while we retain this facade, it will not have the attraction for outside investors of any repute which it would have if there was a clear field thrown open to them.

I would again wish that the consequences of the provision of this additional sum of £5,000 would be reflected in the success of our representative, Count McCormack. I hope his efforts will not be dampened in any way by any diffusion of activities there, but that he will be recognised as the sole, authorised representative of the Government and of this House in bringing about what we hope will be successful results in consequence of his activities in America at the present time.

Mr. Crotty

I was very interested in the debate in relation to the provision of the additional sum of £500,000 required for the disposal of the wheat surplus and the debate on the 100 per cent. Irish loaf. There seems to be a great deal of controversy in the country as to whether we could produce in this country a 100 per cent. Irish loaf or not. Arguments are adduced that certain vested interests are against using 100 per cent. Irish flour. I would not agree with that. In my opinion, all concerned would be most interested to see a 100 per cent. Irish loaf being produced, provided it could be made a palatable loaf with reasonable commercial possibilities.

That is the only interest these people have. Provided they get a reasonable profit for their work and provided they are able to turn out a reasonable article, they have no prejudice whatever against using 100 per cent. Irish wheat. Up to the present and having regard to the type of wheat we have in this country, it has not been practicable. Even before this, when we had all winter wheat—and that is not so many years back—you could not have used the same percentage in bakers' bread as we use to-day but, with the changes in varieties, the percentage has been stepped up. I have no doubt that in the years to come we will produce in this country a variety of wheat which, treated by improved methods, will give us the 100 per cent. Irish loaf. At the moment, I do not think these conditions are being fulfilled.

We have had indications in relation to the experiments which were carried out at the Curragh. The report seems to be delayed for a very long time. I cannot understand why that report should be held up so long. One would imagine that one month would be quite a considerable time for anybody to examine the pros and cons in relation to the types of flour used. One could have had in that period many more experiments and they should not be confined to the one run of flour. The experiments should be continuous and I see no reason why we could not have experiments fortnightly. If that were done, a loaf could be produced which would be a commercial proposition. The Minister said that they had special conditions in the Curragh which would not be available to the ordinary baker, but I am sure that these special conditions could be made available to the ordinary bakers.

With regard to the disposal of the surplus, the Minister is helped by his officials. They channelled it into three different departments—one for animal feeding, one for biscuit flour and the third for reduced extraction. The millers seemed to think that the reduced extraction would help the sale of flour. I would not agree with the Minister on that. My feeling is that the tax of 43 per cent. which was placed on bread in the Budget of 1957 and the tax of 73 per cent. which they placed on flour in the same Budget were the main factors in reducing the consumption of bread.

Mr. S. Lemass

The fall in consumption took place in 1956.

Mr. Crotty

That may be due to emigration at the time as well. The fall in consumption took place since the Government put a tax of 43 per cent. on bread and 73 per cent. on flour in the Budget of 1957. That was bound to have a big effect. The Minister's officials should have been directed to find a method by which they could divert this surplus for the benefit of the people of this country. Those who compose the Government may not know that at present amidst a surplus of wheat—and a very large surplus— there is great hunger and certain people are unable to purchase the wheat. The Minister's officials should have been directed to place the £650,000 at the disposal of the hungry people.

I am very closely connected with the trade and I know a good deal about the disposal of bread. I know that people would be satisfied to get any little reduction in the price of bread. The Minister has very helpful officials and he should have asked them to direct their energies towards finding a method to give unemployed families the benefit of the surplus. I feel that the £650,000 —or another £650,000 with it—would have been much better spent in finding some method whereby this surplus would accrue to the benefit of the people of this country. A person said to me the other day that we have starvation amidst plenty.

The difference of practically £3 between the price which the farmers received for good quality wheat and the price ex-mill of 130/-, is far too high. There is a great deal of clamour for efficiency experts in industry to reduce costs and I suggest that the Minister would get some of these experts to examine that matter, with a view to effecting a reduction, slight though it might be. The slowness of demand was bad enough before we had the 43 per cent. tax on bread and the 73 per cent. tax on flour. On top of that, we had another increase of 4/6 in the price of flour and bread which the Government will find it very hard to stand over.

Captain Giles

I would add my voice to those of other Deputies who have criticised the wheat position. It is a complete national muddle. It is the responsibility of the Government to see to it that it does not happen in the future. There should be more calculation at the commencement of the year as to the direction in which we are going. Unfortunately, we have none of that, but just a national muddle. Farming is in a complete muddle; farmers are in need of guidance and direction from the top.

It is scandalous that farming should be treated as it is treated at present. It is without management. Poor leadership and poor direction are responsible for that state of affairs. We should work to a national plan instead of having a complete muddle and mess. Nobody seems to be at the top or the bottom of anything. Wheat-growing was bedevilled by speculators. That has been rife for many years in the Midlands and no Government has made the slightest effort to put an end to it. We shall be far worse off at the next harvest because more wheat will be grown this year than was grown last year.

It is sad to see the small farmer and the middle-class farmer squeezed out by speculators, both foreign and native, who reap the profit that should go to the small man. We are wiping out the little industries that were a tradition in the country—the cottier with his poultry, his eggs and his pig. He cannot continue with them, because he cannot make a profit. It is the same with wheat. In the past, we had a tradition of wheat-growing, but it was always done in rotation. The farmer would sow his wheat in October or in early spring and the job would be done properly and the wheat would be harvested in good condition.

At the moment, the speculators with their huge machinery reap this wheat in the worst of condition, but that makes no difference to them. Whether it rains or shines, they cut it night and day and rush it to the mills. There was a complete glut in all the mills and it could not be otherwise. All that was bad enough, but worse was to follow. Those people turned themselves into money changers and were able to give handsome tips here, there and everywhere in order to get that rotten stuff off their hands. At the same time, the small decent man, who would not stand for that low type of behaviour of buying his way, could not get into the mills at all. I ask the Minister to put a stop to the speculators and to give the small decent man a chance. It is bad enough that there should be smuggling at the Border without having the mills and so on involved in the same type of racket. What will we end up as, but a nation of gangsters? It is time to curb that tendency. The same can be said about the pig industry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.

Captain Giles

I ask that we get back to a balanced rotation of crops. It is essential for the good of the land. Wheat-growing should be put on a basis similar to that of beet-growing. It should be put on a contract system. In that way, the small man will be able to get a return. If the Government do not do that, we may as well throw our hats at it.

There should be no gluts but proper guidance and direction at the top. The people will then know where they are being led. The trouble at the moment is that they are not being led. Every Minister talks about the mess and says that we have too much wheat and asks what we shall do with the surplus. We should not have a surplus. We know the population of our country. Why not put wheat-growing on the same basis as beet-growing? If we have a small surplus, it is all right, but there is no need for a big surplus. Let the small and the middle-class man get back into wheat-growing, pig-rearing and so forth, rather than have him squeezed out.

I appeal to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to speak to the Minister for Agriculture and get him to get his inspectors active and stop the abuses I have mentioned. Otherwise, in a few years' time, an acre of good land will not be left on which we could grow wheat in a national emergency. A lot of our land is like a dust bowl at the moment because, year after year, speculators are sowing wheat on it regardless of how they will leave it. All they want is to get away with the swag. Would any other country stand for it?

The farmer should get a chance at the beginning of the year to calculate how things will turn out at the end of the year. We are allowing speculators to squeeze out the small farmer and the middle-class farmer and to leave them as hewers of wood and drawers of water. The same can be said for the mills and bakeries. There should be no large combines in this small country, where a Christian outlook should prevail. Instead of all that, we allow the speculator to be the big fellow. Is it not time the Government gave direction and guidance and showed good management and business methods?

What would become of any business, if it were run the way our agricultural industry is run? Surely any other business would have to go into liquidation? The Government should consider the small and the middle-class people who have carried this country along in the past, but who are sadly neglected to-day. They should take some of the land from those large speculators and thus prevent them from taking what, in justice, should be given to other people, so that we will get a balanced economy, have good business methods and an Irish way of life of which we can be proud.

Mr. Kyne

When replying, would the Minister be more specific about the flour that will be made available to the mills or tell us what it will be used for? Is it correct that it will be used for export for biscuits?

Mr. S. Lemass

No. We have had two debates in one—a separate debate under each sub-head of this Supplementary Estimate. No doubt, that complicated matters for Deputies. I will deal with each of these matters separately in my reply.

It will be appreciated that, in a debate on a Supplementary Estimate of this kind, only particular aspects of policy directly relevant to the sub-head can be referred to. Some of the wider issues of policy raised by some Deputies can more usefully be discussed on the main Estimates which are now coming along. It is necessary to emphasise that the immediate problem with which I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, am concerned —and to which this Supplementary Estimate relates—is a bona fide surplus of wheat in the hands of flour millers.

Following the 1956 harvest, a surplus of wheat was recognised to exist. The Government of that day, which included Deputy Dillon, included in the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce a sub-head relating to that problem. They proposed to provide £150,000 under that sub-head to offset the losses likely to arise upon the disposal of that wheat surplus. The amount provided was completely inadequate—and that is the part of the problem I am dealing with now. It is true that the surplus has been more than doubled as a result of the 1957 crop experience, but, nevertheless, the position is complicated by the fact that there was this carry-over of wheat from 1956.

Deputy Dillon said that there was no problem in disposing of the surplus. When he was Minister, he brought in the millers and said: "There is a lot of wheat being produced, more than you require; because of the bad weather during the 1956 harvest, some of it is barely of millable quality, but you buy the lot at the guaranteed minimum price and if you have any difficulty after that, talk to the Minister for Industry and Commerce"—then Deputy Norton. That settled the problem for Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture, but it did not settle it for anyone else, either Deputy Norton, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the flour millers who were holding the wheat. It was left to me to try to work out a practical method of taking from the millers that wheat which they held in excess of their requirements and to get rid of it in the most useful and least costly way.

On a couple of occasions Deputy Dillon referred to seed wheat. That does not arise in this connection at all. The surplus I am talking about is a surplus in the hands of millers, wheat bought by millers for milling into flour, but purchased under Government direction, in excess of the quantity they needed or the quantity they were required to buy by their quota obligations under the Cereals Acts.

Deputy Dillon said we should get rid of this surplus by cutting the extraction rate to 50 per cent. I do not know if 50 per cent. extraction flour was ever on sale in this country, but the suggestion indicates an inability to understand the essentials of this problem. That inability was reflected in the speeches of other Deputies who spoke about a 100 per cent. Irish loaf. One of the aspects of this problem in which we are all concerned is that the present price guaranteed for Irish wheat is about £10 a ton more than the price at which we could buy imported wheat. Therefore, any proposal such as that which Deputy Dillon has made, to reduce the extraction of wheat so that more Irish wheat will be used by millers, or to increase the percentage of Irish wheat in the grist so that less foreign wheat will be used, means that flour will cost more, that bread will be dearer. Deputies must not leave that out of account. The problem of increasing the percentage of Irish wheat in the grist is not merely the technical problem of producing good flour from 100 per cent. Irish wheat, but it is also the problem of the higher cost to the consumer of flour and the consumer of bread which is necessarily involved. Therefore, we must not glibly talk about there being no problem of disposing of the wheat surplus. It is a very clear problem, both in respect of the technical arrangements that could be made to secure it and in the effect of any measures we may adopt upon the cost of this essential commodity to the consumers. I should imagine that a 50 per cent. extraction loaf would cost about nearly double the price of the present loaf. Therefore, it is rather foolish to put forward that proposal as a solution.

Deputies opposite talked about the 1957 wheat crop costing more. The prices guaranteed to farmers for the 1957 crop were fixed by Deputy Dillon as Minister and he altered the scale of moisture content deductions to which the guaranteed price applied and particularly he introduced this idea of a 5/- per barrel bonus for wheat under a certain moisture content. I am not finding fault with that arrangement, but surely Deputy Dillon or the Government which approved of that arrangement must have realised that if there was a good harvest and a high percentage of dry wheat delivered to millers the cost of that wheat to the millers, who had to pay the bonus, would be higher than it was in the previous year. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the cost of the wheat to the millers in the previous years was lower because of the very high moisture content. I hope we shall always be able to get as good a harvest as in 1957. Certainly, we do not want to see a repetition of the 1956 harvest, with a high moisture content and a consequently low price payable for wheat as in 1956. The good harvest meant there was a higher price payable for wheat in 1957, plus this bonus introduced in that year. The total cost of the wheat to the millers was increased considerably and their cost of the flour made from that wheat rose as well.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Would the Minister excuse me? Is not there the impact of the reduced cost of drying good wheat, as compared with drying wheat which is wet?

Mr. S. Lemass

Certainly, I mentioned that. I said that the saving which might have been achieved by reason of the lower cost of drying the wheat was offset in 1957 by higher transport charges and higher interest charges. Let it be quite clear. It never was the policy of any Government in this country to produce wheat for export, a surplus of wheat which could be disposed of only by export. After the war we considered the details of a long-term policy for agriculture and announced our conclusions as to the form we thought that long-term policy should take. We indicated that the aim should be to produce here two-thirds of our total wheat requirements. Our total wheat requirements then were higher than they are now, because of this falling off in the consumption of flour and bread to which reference has been made.

We aim now at producing and using four-fifths of our total wheat requirements and the obligation on the flour millers is to buy from the farmers four-fifths of the total wheat requirements of this country at the guaranteed prices. That is 300,000 tons of dried wheat. The question whether we can go from four-fifths to 100 per cent. Irish wheat is, as I said, partly a technical problem and partly a price problem. The technical problem may be resolved. Deputy Booth said you do not ask experts if you can do something: you ask them how you can do something. In the case of the technical problem of producing flour from 100 per cent. Irish wheat, the experts have been asked: "Can it be done?" with a result which will be satisfactory from the point of view of the consumer. Some millers say it cannot be done, that there are chemicals in Irish wheat which tend to produce what is described as a bole in the bread when it is baked in the ordinary type of oven available to the Irish baker, that is, a ridge of doughy matter immediately inside the crust.

The experiment carried out on the Curragh would indicate that a palatable loaf can be produced under certain conditions from a flour made out of 100 per cent. Irish wheat. The experiment on the Curragh however, which was conducted under the supervision of experts, was of doubtful value, for these reasons. The production of the palatable dough and of good bread from it required an addition of certain chemicals on a controlled basis in order to improve the appearance and quality of the dough. The probability is that most of the bakers in this country could not do it. They would not have the facilities or the equipment to enable them to do the same job in the same way. We could be taking a risk, and indeed would be taking a risk, in deciding on a 100 per cent. Irish loaf, before all these aspects of the matter had been fully examined and the report of the Institute for Industrial Research upon them had been received.

Even if we decide that there are no technical reasons which would prevent the production of a 100 per cent. Irish loaf, we still have to consider another problem, arising out of the fact that the price of Irish wheat is £10 per ton higher than that of the imported.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Is the Minister in a position to state whether the Government have any policy in the matter? Is it the Government policy to get away from the importation of wheat or to let the position remain?

Mr. S. Lemass

The policy of the Government is, as I announced, to require the millers of this country to buy at guaranteed prices 300,000 tons of dried wheat.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does that make provision for the imports?

Mr. S. Lemass

Certainly, that requires some imports. There are two purposes in that. The bakers say that to produce a good loaf in a batch oven, they must have some hard wheat used in the flour. The Irish wheat is a soft wheat. They say they cannot produce a loaf in a modern batch oven without some hard wheat in the grist. The millers use only a soft wheat for shop flour and there would be a price problem, if they were required to use 100 per cent. Irish wheat. Consequently, the national wheat percentage is the same for millers of both bakers' flour and shop flour.

Deputy Corish was under some misunderstanding as to the position in thinking that the taxpayers have to pay £500,000, and the farmers at the same time face lower prices for wheat. That is not happening at all. This year, the whole of the cost of disposing of the surplus wheat is being carried by the taxpayer and is being met by the Exchequer. The proposal is that next year that cost will be met by the producers of the wheat. The position will be reviewed some time before the harvest and a decision taken as to what the total of the harvest is likely to be, and then there will be a deduction from the guaranteed price to the extent necessary and a fund will be set up to be administered by a committee of the growers themselves. I do not know if that will work out. I do not know if it will be a permanently suitable arrangement. I have no objection, and no member of the Government has an objection, to the introduction of a contract system into this business, but it is a sign of very superficial thinking to say that such a system can be introduced without difficulty. It is also a sign of superficial thinking to compare a contract system for wheat with the system operated and applied to sugar beet. The aim of the sugar company is to increase the acreage under sugar beet. Their contract is designed to make sure that the farmer will deliver the minimum that he has contracted to grow and there is a very big difference between trying to get the acreage up and applying a contract system of that sort, and applying a system to get the acreage down.

Mr. Hughes

You would have some abuses then.

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes. I personally would very much like to see a situation whereby a grower of wheat would have an obligation, because of his possible relationship with an individual miller, or otherwise, to harvest his wheat well, to deliver it in sound condition to the miller and possibly to ensure the uniformity of quality which the millers regard as of so much importance to them when they are handling grist containing such a high percentage of Irish flour.

Deputy Hughes was under some misunderstanding regarding the statement I made regarding a 79 per cent. mixture of Irish wheat and the figure of 87 per cent. which the millers say they are using. The millers say they buy 87 per cent. of Irish wheat, but the Deputy must understand that Irish wheat has to be dried, to be reduced in volume by a drying process, whereas imported wheat often has to have moisture added to it.

Mr. Hughes

That is a nice little trick regarding the millers.

Mr. S. Lemass

Eighty-seven per cent. of undried Irish wheat is equivalent to 79 per cent. dried. A number of points were raised which concern the Department of Agriculture in so far as long term agricultural policy is involved rather than matters which relate to the Department of Industry and Commerce, which is concerned with the utilisation of the wheat grown here by the millers. Those points will no doubt be discussed on the main Estimate.

I want now to deal with the second sub-head of the Supplementary Estimate. Deputy Dillon made some comment on the Control of Manufactures Bill and Deputy Booth did likewise. I do not propose to deal with them now because that Bill will be before the House later.

Deputy Dillon, however, talked about collaboration with the United States Government in a manner which Deputy Corish, I think, rightly, described as very innocent. Count McCormack, as representative of the Industrial Development Authority, and our diplomatic representatives in the United States have, in connection with this campaign, already made contact with the Commerce Department of the United States Government and have received every evidence of goodwill and a good deal of useful advice in connection with their work. Everybody knows the American Government is committed to the private enterprise system of industrial development, and it is foolish to think that we can count upon direct Government intervention in the United States in order to persude private firms to engage in industrial projects in this country in preference to other countries which they might choose. That type of thinking is undesirable.

We have a job of work to do here if we are to get our industrial programme developed. We will have to do it ourselves and nobody else will do it for us. It is undesirable to circulate the idea that somebody else is going to do the work we must do ourselves. Deputy Dillon asked what case we could make to American industrialists to entice them to establish factories in Dublin or Cork, instead of Rotterdam and Amsterdam. I think that mentality is deplorable. If there was any justification for propounding an idea like that, the only thing left for us to do would be to dig a hole, jump into it and pull it in after us. That type of pessimism is far too widespread and it is deplorable, therefore, to see it fostered by public men.

We have many and very substantial reasons to advance why industrialists abroad should come to this country rather than to any other in Europe. As I have often mentioned in the course of public speaking, we have what can be described as a degree of political stability that does not exist in other countries. There is at any rate no policy of doctrinaire nationalisation being preached here as it is being preached in countries not so very far away from us. We proclaim our belief in private enterprise and that will be a matter of interest to American industrial firms.

We have labour available here for any industrial enterprise that may be undertaken, not merely a surplus of labour which we deplore and which is a situation we want to remedy, but we have a higher average level of intelligence amongst our labour force than most European countries. That is a fact which has been commented upon favourably by foreign factory managers employed by Irish industrialists and by anybody from abroad who has had intimate contact with Irish industrial firms. They have paid tribute to the quality of Irish labour and to the speed with which Irish workers can acquire proficiency in complicated industrial processes.

Also of importance from the point of view of the American manufacturer is the fact that we have no language problem, as far as their technical and executive personnel may be concerned. That is a problem they are likely to encounter and which will certainly cause them difficulty in the countries to which Deputy Dillon was directing attention, such as Holland and Belgium.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister had better be careful or the boss will be cross with him.

Mr. S. Lemass

I mean we have the capacity to communicate in a language they will understand.

We have these tax inducements and capital grants which are given for the precise purpose of encouraging people to select this country for new industrial projects rather than some other country. So far as I know, they are not paralleled in any other European country. It is true that in the Six Counties they have an arrangement under which cash grants are given for industrial undertakings, although they are not as great as what we can offer under the Undeveloped Areas Act. They also have a system of building factories for renting. While we do not want to represent ourselves as being in any sense in competition with that part of Ireland in the matter of attracting new industries, because we would like to see their prosperity proceed parallel with our own, we can claim that we are offering advantages at least as great as they are in a position to provide.

There is another matter we should not ignore. We have here trade agreements with non-European countries which can be of very great importance to firms establishing factories here for the purpose of engaging in export trade.

Deputies have assumed that as a result of the campaign to interest American industrialists in Ireland's possibilities, we have not produced any results. That is not correct. There are, I am glad to say, at least five undertakings where finance by American capital is contemplated which are now proceeding. Details of these projects will have to be made known by the people who are promoting them. They are quite important, and in the case of at least two of them almost the whole of the production is intended for export. There are two other American concerns which have started operations here—admittedly in a small way—but we hope their activities will expand. Certainly the firms associated with them would have no difficulty in effecting that expansion if the possibility for it presented itself. Even on the basis of the limited effort made during the course of the last year by certain newspaper publicity and other contacts, some substantial results have been achieved. They are not nearly enough to solve any problems here, but certainly enough to encourage us to believe, in the circumstances now prevailing, that a more vigorous campaign will get more substantial results.

As I explained in introducing the Estimate, this period was selected for that campaign because we think this is the time in which American industrial firms will be discussing the desirability of establishing plants in Europe in the light of the possible emergence of European free trade. Deputy Corish said the amount we are providing for this campaign is inadequate and that it is not sufficient to make a sufficient impact on American opinion. I will agree the amount is not very large when one considers the vast scale of the American scene. But the advertising we are talking about is advertising in a very specialised type of journal likely to reach the people we want to contact. The distribution of the brochure to which reference has been made will itself bring inquiries which then can be followed up by the officers——

Mr. Sweetman

Has the Minister in mind trade papers or general business papers like Fortune?

Mr. S. Lemass

Papers like the Wall Street Journal and the Investors' Journal.

Mr. Sweetman

I would have thought Fortune would have been a better mark than that.

Mr. S. Lemass

Possibly it will be used. If we get the results which appear to justify it, I think I shall have little difficulty in persuading the Minister for Finance to increase the appropriation. He will certainly look for evidence first that it will be worth while. It is true that the majority of the important new industries being discussed at present are being sponsored by companies from continental Europe rather than the United States of America. That in itself is an interesting development. For that reason we are discussing at the moment measures which might be adopted to extend the campaign or some similar type of campaign to these countries or to Britain when the time appears opportune and the results appear likely to be forthcoming.

Finally, I should like to say, arising out of some comments of Deputy McQuillan and others, we are not relying entirely on the outcome of this campaign to secure an extension of industrial activity. I have always expressed the view that Irish industrial progress would come more generally and more speedily from the extension of the activities of existing Irish concerns rather than the establishment of new concerns by new companies. It is the aim to ensure that all possibilities will be fully explored. Deputy McQuillan talked about doing something else first. We do not have to do anything else first. We can try to plan our advance on a broad front and hope if we do not succeed on one wing, we will succeed on the other, and that generally the whole economy will move forward as a result.

I am not presenting this Vote to finance this publicity campaign in America as being the be-all and end-all of industrial policy. It is only one segment of it. While I hope it will prove to be an important segment and that substantial benefits will flow from it, nevertheless, its significance in the whole scheme of things should not be exaggerated.

I would point out also that it does not represent the whole of the effort being made even in that American sector. The Industrial Development Authority has always been operating there to some extent and this is merely an addition to its activities. The efforts of the Shannon Airport Development Authority will help to supplement the work of the Industrial Development Authority and certainly should contribute to arousing interest in American business circles in Irish industrial possibilities.

Mr. Sweetman

Is there any change in the personnel of the Industrial Development Authority?

Mr. S. Lemass

No change whatever.

Vote put and agreed to.