Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1930

Vol. 14 No. 3

Public Business. - Position of the Flour Milling Industry.

Debate on the following motion resumed:—
"That in the opinion of the Seanad the position of the flour-milling industry is one calling for the immediate action of the Executive, and that control of wheat and flour imports is an immediate necessity." (Mr. Connolly.)

The Senator, in moving his motion, gave a number of figures. I have been able to check those figures to some extent, but they left me with doubt as to their fullness, and I am unable, from the statistics that are available, to come to the conclusion that the Senator has come to regarding the importance of the figures he has given. They are important, and they are important as affecting the milling trade in Limerick, but they ought to be supplemented by further information. I feel that the information that is available will hardly bear the full weight of the argument that the Senator has placed upon it. I think it is widely known that there is a good deal of variation in the quantities of wheat and flour that are imported from year to year. An examination of the figures since 1924 of imports into the Free State will show that there have been variations, ups and downs, and that the 1930 figures—the figures for the nine months—while they undoubtedly show a serious change for the worse as compared with other years, do not bear quite the same construction.

If you are looking on this matter with a certain amount of detachment and judicial consideration we have to take not one year but a series of years. For instance, for the nine months of 1930 the imports of flour show an increase over 1929 of 7½ per cent. but they are only a very small proportion over 1928, and for seven years, 1924 inclusive, the figures vary somewhat, but they vary up and down, and one cannot judge the whole case on the figure for one year as compared with the previous year. It is interesting, too, to take into account the ratio of flour to wheat imports. There again we find that there are some variations, but for 1930 while the ratio of flour imports as compared with wheat, shows a considerable increase over 1929 it is not really alarming if we take the whole country. There has been a fairly steady ratio of 40 to 60, 36 to 64 and so on from 1924 right to 1930 for the nine months period, so that we would require, if we were considering this from the point of view of the Free State as a whole, to have more information than appears at present available, and I would like the Minister to instruct that very complete figures, if possible, should be published regarding imports of flour and wheat respectively, into all the ports of entry in the Free State. We would then be able to get an idea of the tendency in the respective ports of flour and wheat imports.

But I think Senator Connolly was well justified in directing special attention to the case of Limerick because, as I have said, there was an increase in the imports of flour of 7½ per cent. for the nine months over the previous year, taking all the ports of the Free State into account. There was an increase in Limerick over 41 weeks of 48 per cent. So that we have, taking all ports together, an increase of flour imports of 7½ per cent. while for Limerick port there is an increase of flour imports of 48 per cent. That seems to coincide with the new management and ownership of the Limerick mills and, undoubtedly, it would require to receive some consideration. Here, of course, we have to take into account Limerick particularly, perhaps because it is a big milling centre and not only concerned with Limerick. Limerick is in the peculiar position that its mills have undergone a change of ownership, and presumably they are changed in direction and in policy.

Senator Connolly drew attention to a feature of the recent policy, which was a change in the grade of flour which is milled in the Limerick mill. It appears, and I think the statement made by the Senator can be borne out by evidence that is available in Limerick, that the mill which has been making what is known as baker's flour is no longer used for that purpose, and that the whole of the flour being milled in the Limerick mills of Messrs. Ranks, are at present and henceforth to be known as household flour. But, as he pointed out, the old brands of Limerick milled flour for household purposes are being abandoned and a new brand for Irish-milled flours is being used. That brand is identical with the name used in Liverpool and Birkenhead milled flour. That brand apparently is being imported into this country from Birkenhead, and considerable quantities have gone into competition with the Limerick milled flour. Henceforward the "Millocrat" brand may be milled in Birkenhead or it may be milled in Limerick. It does not matter where it is milled. It is going to be sold under the one name, "Millocrat." This may be justifiable. I take it we have no particular reason to consider a particular name of flour or any other article which may be sold by merchants in this country, but a feature of this change that has to be taken into account is that the new ownership is part of a great international organisation and the Minister has, in another connection, drawn special attention to the changes that have taken place in Europe and throughout the world in regard to economic organisation, the organisations in particular industries in one country aligning themselves with industries in other countries. A complete change in the commercial outlook of these industries is being undergone. That is true in regard to flour milling, at least so far as this country and Great Britain are concerned. We know that Messrs. Ranks who now own the Limerick mills of Messrs Bannatyne, are part of a big milling organisation in Great Britain, and this system of rationalising the milling industry is for the benefit, protection and assistance of the industry as established in Great Britain. What seems to me to be significant and important is that the change in Limerick is part of the rationalising process, but it is the rationalising process of a British organisation and the Limerick mills and that firm appear to be fitting into the rationalising scheme of that British organisation. If that process continues it may have very considerable reactions and detrimental reactions upon the milling industry of this country. I think there ought to be rationalisation, better organisation, adjustment of means to end and a clear understanding of what the ends are for the milling industry in this country. I think if we are going to look on and remain quiet and unmoved by the rationalising scheme which conceives of the Irish milling industry as part of the unit of the British milling industry, then we are running very grave risks indeed of losing the milling industry as a whole. I would take it to be assumed that it is desirable that there should be retained within the country the plant and capacity for milling flour. Much would depend upon the intensity of our desire that that should be retained. If we take it as something of no supreme importance, then, of course, we are not going to trouble ourselves very much as to what happens, but if we take it as of great importance that there should be maintained within the country an efficient, active milling industry then I think it is necessary that there should be a watch and guard over the developments and the tendencies of those developments.

As I said at the beginning, I am not quite sure that the tendencies are yet showing themselves sufficiently to justify us in coming to the conclusion that the new policy has already the end of destroying the Irish milling industry. I do not think that is yet obvious but I think the tendency, as shown by Senator Connolly to fit in the Limerick mills of Messrs. Ranks into the British organisation, is a very dangerous tendency and one which ought to be guarded against. I think that proposals which were propounded some months ago on behalf of and by the Irish milling industry ought to have sympathetic and favourable consideration, and that the plan adumbrated at that time, to organise the Irish mills into a single organisation, giving that organisation a practical monopoly of the main qualities of flour that are in ordinary use, should be given encouragement and brought to a successful accomplishment, because it is undoubtedly true that the mills at present existing in the Free State could, with comparatively small extension, supply the needs of this people in respect of the milling of flour. It may be that under a rationalisation scheme which covers this country, but which has as its end the satisfaction of the British milling industry will, as a natural complement of their rationalisation process, at some point find it uneconomic to mill their wheat in this country. In the course of the discussion some months ago it was pointed out that the capacity for milling economically overseas-grown wheat was much greater on the banks of the Mersey than in existing mills in this country, with the possible exception of one, and it was inferred, apart from any handicap respecting the position of freight and so on, that it was desirable not to allow to be developed the milling of Irish demands for flour in that mill, where it could be done most economically, all pointing to the Mersey Mills.

I think we ought not to allow the flour needs of this country to be dependent on the possible superiority of technical equipment of mills in another country. There again I am assuming that it is thought desirable that we should keep within this country a flour-milling industry. If we are agreed that it is necessary, I think we ought to be prepared to pay a price, whether in money value or in fancy, taste or fashion, for the maintaining of those mills in this country.

I think the motion is justified. I think there ought to be control of the proportions of flour and wheat that are imported, and that beyond that there should be a direct attempt, with the aid of the Government and the legislature, to bring the flour-milling industry into a national organisation, with the clear and definite object of supplying the flour needs of the people of this country, to be run with what ever checks and controls are necessary. I believe that the cost to the consumer in this country would be very trifling, indeed, if anything, but even if some trifling addition to the cost, some trifling sacrifice in taste or fancy was required, the price ought to be paid, and the milling industry in this country ought to be secured for this country.

Senator Connolly, when he introduced this motion a week ago, appealed to the Seanad not to look on it as a political matter. He asked every member of the Seanad to discuss it purely from the point of view of how far his suggestion would help this country. Senator Connolly dealt with the question of English milling. I am not going to touch on that, as I know nothing about it. I am going to confine my remarks to the general subject. I would like to see all the manufacturing possible done in Ireland, but it has always been the habit of certain people, both in Ireland and England, to mill their own wheat. I was for many years in the great wheat belts of America, and I can bear testimony to this, that a vast quantity of third-grade flour, known as baker's flour, for which there was little or no demand in the States, was dumped into England and also into Ireland. You will remember that when Mr. Chamberlain took up his tariff reform campaign in England, that was one of the things that was pointed out. The English mills in these days were in a very bad way, while low-grade flour was being dumped in from America at a price less than the cost of milling.

Senator Connolly tells us that the same thing is going on in Ireland today. I suppose it is. It always has gone on, and it is very probable that it is being dumped in here from England. The question is—how can you stop it? I have always taken the view that a tax on that sort of flour which was being dumped on the country or a tariff—whatever you like to call it— would assist milling in Ireland. It would not keep the flour out, and if it did not, it would not assist the millers. But if it did not do that it would be a gain for the revenue. You cannot have it both ways. It seems to me that if ever there was a thing which ought to be referred to the Tariff Commission this is one of them. I have always held the view that a small farm in Ireland should be self-supporting. It would be folly to suggest that we should raise wheat in Ireland with a view to supplying the mills. It is impossible, but we can let wheat come in free from America, with some protection to the Irish millers to put them in a position that they could use the small quantities of wheat which would be brought to them by the Irish farmers. I think everybody knows that the small farmers in Ireland are inclined to grow an acre or two of wheat, that they can send to the mills and get in exchange flour or flour products. I know one place, not twenty miles from Dublin, where I was last year. I noticed in a house that they were using bread made from their home-milled wheat. I do not say that it was very good, but they grew the wheat themselves and had it milled. I would like to see as much of that as possible. It seems inherent in the people to do that thing, especially on the small farms. I suggest that steps could be taken which would increase milling in Ireland and give encouragement to small farmers to produce such wheat as they want for their own requirements. Some regulation might be introduced that would compel mills to take this wheat in exchange for flour. It is a thing that we would all like to see. If Senator Connolly changed the wording of his motion, he might make it such that everyone could vote for it and we could have the matter referred to the Tariff Commission. I think everybody in the Seanad would agree to that.

I think it is clearly a matter in which we would like to do something, as it is a question that is stirring the people very much at the present time. It is also causing great thought in England. I think if this subject were ventilated before the Tariff Commission they might provide procedure by puting a tariff on imported bakers' flour. I cannot see what benefit it is for us to have this flour dumped into the country in competition with our own. A tariff might be arranged that would give some assistance to the millers and at the same time would be of some benefit to the Treasury. I would suggest that instead of Senator Connolly's motion you have a motion such as this: "That we recommend to the Tariff Commission to consider whether an import duty should be imposed on certain grades of flours entering the Free State. What steps, if any, should be taken to encourage farmers in the Free State to grow wheat for their own requirements by providing them with a market in which they could sell or exchange home-grown wheat for flour and other wheat products on a fair exchange basis?" In the way in which Senator Connolly's motion is worded, I would not vote for it; but if it were worded in another way I would.

As a Limerick man, I should like to congratulate Senator Connolly on the great skill which he showed in making out the case for his motion. I should also like to congratulate the seconder of the motion on the biblical knowledge which he displayed and the apt way in which he applied a certain text. I am sure he knows his Shakespeare just as well and that he would not dissent from Antonio when he said that "the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose." While congratulating the proposer of this motion, I could not help noticing that he is a most skilful special pleader. He skated over thin ice, some of it very thin, with great dexterity. I quite agree with Senator Johnson that he has not made out a case that it is the intention of the people who have acquired control—I do not say altogether—of the milling and wheat importing industry in Limerick, to shut down that industry altogether. I do not question the figures he cited as regards the amount of wheat that was imported into Limerick, but I can say from the published statistics that until quite lately Limerick was the second port in Ireland for the importation of wheat. That importation has to a certain extent fallen off. I know that the men who were employed by Messrs. Bannatyne and Russell were employed in connection with the carting and storage of wheat as well as the milling, and when the Senator pointed out that there had been a decrease of, I think, 40 men, he by no means made it clear to me that the 40 men had gone out of employment because of the reduction in the quantity of flour produced in Limerick. I think, from what I know of the way in which work was carried on there, it is quite possible that those 40 men had gone out in connection with the importation and distribution of wheat.

From Limerick a great many of the smaller mills were supplied. Senator Comyn told us of the mills at Kilrush, Ennis, Askeaton, Bruree, Ballylongford, Croom, Killaloe, and a number of other places. No doubt the requirements of these mills, for the purpose of grinding corn, have fallen off. Why? Because these mills were very small mills. Their output could not afford the cost involved in installing expensive and up-to-date machinery. We know that, in these days of feverish competition, nobody can hope to retain a market if they do not go in for the very latest developments as regards machinery that will enable them to turn out their goods at the lowest possible price. The Senator most adroitly started an artificial hare. He chased him down with great skill, and just at the moment when we were hoping that he would come to conclusions with him the hare popped into a hole and we heard no more of him. I believe that is the manner in which hares are disposed of on the dog-racing tracks. The Senator called this hare Messrs. Rank.

Now, I hold no brief for Messrs. Rank. I never met any of the members of that firm, and I have had no communications directly or indirectly, from them, but I agree with Senator Johnson that Senator Connolly has not proved his case: that Messrs. Rank are out to destroy the milling industry in Limerick. Senator Johnson very properly said that Messrs. Rank are the members of a firm largely identified with a very powerful association of millers in England, with command of practically unlimited capital at their disposal. I believe that is so, and, from what I have heard of them, their character is that they are very competent, up-to-date, and experienced people. I cannot imagine people like them expending the very large sum of money that they had to expend to acquire control of the business of Messrs. Russell and Bannatyne in Limerick with the object of closing it down. The Senator laughs, but he failed to tell us that after Messrs. Rank got control of these places they probably found that the sites of the mills were not in the most advantageous position for executing work in the cheapest way.

Was there any better place they could get?

Beside the docks at Limerick would be a better place. Messrs. Rank applied to the Limerick Harbour Board—mind you, we were not told a word about this—for a lease for a site adjoining the docks where the corn could be put, as it is in Liverpool, direct from the ships into a modern, fully-equipped and up-to-date mill. The Harbour Board agreed to grant the lease, but now we come to the curious part of that transaction. No sooner had the Harbour Board agreed to grant that lease than members of a certain party, a certain organisation in Limerick, handed in a notice of motion to rescind the proposal relating to the grant of the lease. That looks to me rather suspicious. In the first place, I cannot imagine Messrs. Rank coming in and spending a large sum of money to acquire this business, then coming forward and offering to expend an extremely large sum of money in erecting an up-to-date, fully-equipped and thoroughly good mill, and then closing the whole thing down. I agree with Senator Johnson that the case has not been proved of their doing so. In these days of feverish development no one can hope to keep his trade or secure fresh business without expending money and going in for the very latest developments. I am not in their confidence and I do not know, but it looks to me as if the idea which Senator Johnson threw out was in their minds when they came to Limerick to acquire an interest in this business and made their proposal. They found that Limerick was most favourably situated. It was in direct communication with the Atlantic, in the position where sea-going ships could come in, and where the corn could be unloaded at least as cheaply as it is in Liverpool. They asked for a site to erect a mill where the corn could be put into the mill for grinding at least as cheaply as it can be done in Liverpool. Why we should fail to take notice of these facts and suppose that they have some ulterior motive in their minds in coming in—to kill, for instance, the milling industry in Ireland—is more than I can understand. I have no faith in the modern Canutes who propose to prevent the tide of progress reaching the shores of this island. I know that attempts were made on many occasions to prevent that, and if the House will permit me I can give some examples from my own experience.

When I commenced my studies for the engineering profession I was given a number of old documents and old specifications. I found that in each of them, wherever brick work was alluded to, it was specified that well-burnt Limerick brick was to be used. The whole of the new portion of the city of Limerick was constructed with that brick. It has stood the test of time admirably, and when I was a boy the Limerick brick works afforded a tremendous amount of employment. There was a whole fleet of barges in the river carrying these bricks to various places. There was a special quay set apart for the sale of the bricks known as the Brick Quay. Suddenly some of those evil disposed and badly minded inventors came along, and invented a machine which enabled one man to do the work hitherto done by four, and in addition enabled a better article to be turned out.

The people who owned this old established business—I may say for the information of some Senators around me that they were not of the type generally alluded to with a certain amount of scorn as capitalists but were working men who had acquired a certain amount of capital which enabled them to carry on the business—saw that they could not hope to keep their markets if they did not instal this machinery. They got the machinery and put it up, but some of these Canutes came along and said that they would not have it. They refused to work the machinery and smashed it. The result is that the barges have long since disappeared and the men have gone. I do not know what has become of the employees, but I do know the entire business has vanished. I am anxious to show the futility of these attempts to stop progress. Another instance occurred in Dublin. When taxis had been tried in Paris and London and found a success somebody proposed that they should be introduced into Dublin, but the jarveys combined together, unwisely I think, and got a regulation passed by the old Corporation refusing to licence anybody to run a taxi. But that regulation has now gone and the taxis are here, and though I am glad to say that the jarveys have not entirely disappeared, they are rapidly going the way of the stage coach and the knights in armour, of the long-bow men in their green jerkins, to join the ghosts of a long past and most picturesque but inefficient age. I believe that interference with the milling industry, such as is suggested by this motion, would have the same effect, and I feel with Senator Sir Walter Nugent that I cannot support it.

I wish to give my views on the matter of tariffs, and to be excused if I again bring forward the same reasons as I expressed on former occasions in the House. I am an advocate of protection, and think that the judicious application of tariffs to our most distressed industries would be for the good of the country. In the case of our milling industries, I would put a tariff on all manufactured products of such coming into the country. I would put a tariff on flour. I say this with the firm conviction of my life's experience. I can speak of times back to my young days, and of the prosperity associated with the mills that once flourished along the valley of the Brosna, a few miles beyond Roscrea. I remember some sixty years ago that there were eight mills on the Brosna, and all were hives of industry, giving much employment to all the people in the neighbourhood. Also, the district was noted as the best pig feeding and calf-rearing one in Ireland. This was on account of the abundance of good feeding to be had at a cheap price from the by-products of these mills; namely, pollard, cracked oats, bran, and barley meal. I saw these mills in their heyday, and I am sorry to say that I have seen with misgivings their decline. I may tell the House that none of them is left with the exception of the one carried on by the labours of the Monks at Mount St. Joseph's Abbey. The only other one is a malt house. The others are derelict, not habitable for even a mouse. I feel that this decline is due to the action of the English Government in their adherence to a free trade policy, with a total disregard for the future well-being of these mills. It was found that flour was sent to Roscrea to undersell the native-worked mills, and, as time went on, these millers were broken in their endeavours to carry on their trade. These are the facts I wish to reiterate.

I am not in agreement with those who wish for a tariff on oats, wheat, maize, and barley coming into the country. I wish to give my reasons for this. We must realise that we are up against world competition, and we cannot be sheltered behind tariff walls in the matter of our agricultural products. We must only face the issue and modify our policy to meet the changed conditions. It is my considered opinion that the growing of cereal crops must be rearranged and balanced more uniformly throughout the country, so that all these crops may be fed to the live stock on the farms. The feeding of live stock with the surplus grain is the best solution of the present depression in the grain-growing industry. I can promise that where farmers turn to the better feeding and breeding of their live stock good results will follow their efforts. Farms that grow little, or a negligible amount of corn, should use their own labour and grow a few acres more corn. Then they will be in a position of feeding a cow and a sow more in the year, and have some ewes and lambs. This will not entail any more risk than necessary, and the farmer will be the better off by having cattle to sell as a good store at an assured good price, and he will be able to rear pigs and lambs while, with luck and attention, he will have something which will grow into money. I think that the future prices of store cattle will give farmers an opportunity of encouragement to follow the lines of my arguments. It would be to the advantage of all farmers that they would be able to feed their live stock cheaper and continue to cater for the needs of our best customers, and the cattle trade will carry on without need for protection.

It is my opinion that tariffs must be applied judiciously, without fear of any possibility of the rate of living jumping up. In the case that I mentioned, even if the price of the worker's loaf was raised, it would be better to have more money in his pocket to pay for it.

I have seen the history of England for over 60 years. At the period I mention, say 70 years ago, the trade of England was booming. It was a fact that iron and cattle prices ruled high together. It meant that when the iron foundries were in full swing the trade of England for beef and mutton was in good demand. The Colonies were only in the infant stage and were customers of England, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Argentine. There was no unemployment in those days. Now for some years all these countries are producers and are sending all classes of manufactured goods, including beef and mutton, to England, and underselling English manufactured goods. They are able to do that with the aid of labour saving machinery and mass production. Therefore, it is not surprising that unemployment is increasing daily. I can see the great change that is taking place in the minds of England's statesmen rulers. Mr. Winston Churchill, in a speech delivered at a Unionist demonstration in Dumbartonshire, and reported in the Irish Times on the 8th September, said, towards the end of it that Mr. Snowden's Budget would end in a deficit. The limits of direct taxation had been reached and there was a measure of common agreement in all parties that a tariff for revenue upon foreign imported manufactured goods was bound to come.

I am very glad to see the Minister here for this debate, for in my opinion he is playing an unusual role. In the case of the milling industry he reminds me of a certain character in Dickens. I want to tell him that while he is waiting for something to turn up, something sudden, something of a drastic nature, that such a thing is not likely to happen. Those of us who are in touch and know what is going on in the mills realise that the milling trade of this country is being steadily strangled. The position of the flour mills to-day as compared with it years ago is deplorable. Some of our best and most up-to-date mills are working about half time. We have a Senator here telling us that he has no interest in Ranks or anybody else, and he goes on to say that Ranks are anxious to build a mill in Limerick. I want to tell him that a mill is being built in Belfast and a dummy is being built in Limerick, and the people in Limerick have introduced a new Harbour Bill for this dummy mill while an up-to-date mill of enormous capacity is being erected in Belfast. The Senator said that no syndicate acquired an industry for the purpose of closing it down.

On a point of order, what authority has the Senator for saying that it is only a dummy mill that is being erected in Limerick?

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is giving his opinion, and he is perfectly entitled to do so.

What Messrs. Ranks have asked for in Limerick is a site for a store—that statement is made on the authority of the Mayor of Limerick, whom we can accept as an honest and truthful person. Now we see the mills closing down, and the best and most modern of them are running at half time. We see this huge milling syndicate cutting out the local brand of flour and substituting their own particular brand in the country. We have now to take Limerick as the centre of gravity for the flour milling trade. Since the new management have taken over the biggest mills in Limerick drastic changes have been introduced, and we see boy labour introduced under the new operations, while forty men have been displaced since the new ownership. We see these boys getting no opportunity of promotion when they are put into jobs ordinarily performed by men. We who have an interest in this matter see that it is quite possible this syndicate is irritating the workers of the mills in Limerick in order that they might force them into a stoppage of work or a strike to give them the opportunity of closing down the mills in Limerick. We know that there is a good deal of friction and irritation going on, and the men must endure the existing conditions in the hope that there will be Government intervention to prevent the closing down of industry in Limerick.

The facts have been brought to the notice of the Minister, or his Department, and we see that he is not prepared to do anything in the matter. As to the question of tariffs with regard to this industry, speaking for myself I would not be in favour of putting a tariff on imported flour. Once we have this huge British syndicate, with England over-milled and a surplus across the water, if we put a tariff on foreign flour they can close their mills here and still send in flour and make people pay for any tariff that may be put on. That is one reason why I am not in favour of tariffs. Another and more important reason is that taxing the food of the people is a very serious matter. I do not go the length of suggesting that for the sake of the employment of 4,000 or 5,000 people in the flour milling industry a tax ought not to be put on. Even a minimum tax on imported flour would mean a tremendous revenue for the State from imports. I urge the Minister to grapple with this question with the same energy he has shown in connection with other matters. We realise that if things are allowed to drift the flour milling industry will be eventually non est in this country, and the production of flour for the people will be in the hands of the foreigner. That is not desirable in the interests of the country in general.

The motion before the House is: "That in the opinion of the Seanad the position of the flour-milling industry is one calling for the immediate action of the Executive, and that control of wheat and flour imports is an immediate necessity." That has been put up on the basis of certain statistics given by Senator Connolly and not denied, if not very carefully endorsed, by Senator Comyn. Two or three Senators have spoken of the skill with which these statistics have been prepared, but two or three other Senators in my hearing have said that the statistics did not prove the case. Two contentions have been made. The first is that a deliberate attempt has been made by an English concern to wipe out the flour-milling industry in this country, and, secondly, that something described as subtle and sinister is happening with regard to flour sold in sacks and bearing certain marks. However skilfully the statistics may have been used, I hope at any rate that there will be no question of any Senator voting for the motion if, as I suggest in fact, a proper view of the milling situation at Limerick shows, first, that in the six months up to the beginning of October of this year the actual output of flour from the Limerick mills was greater than in the six months of the preceding year. That is the fact. Secondly, if, admitting that bakers' flour has decreased in production in Limerick, it can be shown that the extra increase in the production of retail flour has more than balanced the decrease in the production of bakers' flour, that gives the Seanad the same conclusion as my first point. Thirdly, if with regard to the men alleged to have been dismissed from employment it can be shown that no man has been dismissed from productive milling, whatever men may have been dismissed from the transport side of the work required in connection with milling, and that the actual hours worked by the producing staff are greater up to 1st October this year than they were up to 1st October last year are a fact, then Senator Connolly's statistics, no matter how skilfully and carefully used they are, are rubbish.

These are the facts from figures that I have been able to ascertain, from figures that I have taken the trouble to get and on which I put certain checks. I wonder where did Senator Connolly get the figures that he has given us as regards Messrs. Rank. He has not stated that. The Senator did state that the figures had been discussed at a public meeting to which the flour millers were invited and had not been challenged or denied. I deny them. The other leg upon which the arguments rest is the statistics dealing with the import of wheat and flour. Senator Johnson has already dealt with that. I had intended to go in some detail into that, but the main case against what Senator Connolly said has been put by Senator Johnson: that during a period of years the amount imported either of wheat or flour varies, because there is forward buying, and because the condition of the market operates to prevent a man holding any great quantity of stocks. On that point, I have consulted the Irish Flour Millers' Association asking what is the situation with regard to the demand for flour. Their reply was:—

The demand for flour has been rather slack for the past two months, owing to those in the trade buying from hand to mouth in view of the serious decline which has been taking place in values, buyers endeavouring to have as little stock on hand as possible.

That is the peculiar situation this year: that owing to falling prices buyers like to have as little on hands as possible. Even with these conditions, what Senator Johnson has said is true: that the imports of wheat and flour for the year 1930, taking the average for the nine months and calculating on the basis that the figures for the last quarter would be much the same as those for the previous nine months, show very little change one way or the other from the average for the preceding five years, or from the average for the preceding four years, leaving out this year about which allegations are being made. I think Senator Johnson's argument meets that. My case is that there is no necessity for any interference—though there is still being a watch kept on the whole situation—by reason of anything that Senator Connolly has brought forward, because none of his figures can stand any examination.

I will take some of the Senator's statements. The Senator first of all referred to a statement of mine in a previous debate where I did put the question: "Is it that there should be preserved in this country flour-milling irrespective of what the product is going to cost?" The Senator said that that question had been answered by a member of my own Party, who said that certain flour millers in England made a loss last year of £350,000. I do not know what that has to do with the question that I asked. My question had relation to the cost to the consumer and not to the producer. I was arguing that though I would like to preserve the milling industry, I was not going to preserve the present group of milling industrialists if they could not produce an essential foodstuff at an economic rate. The Senator alluded to my remarks with regard to a scheme to be promoted between Irish millers and the Millers' Mutual Association in England, about which I passed the remark that I was going to watch that carefully. Senator Connolly skipped over that by saying: "I am not in a position to say whether there is any concerted scheme operating between the Irish millers and the Millers' Mutual Association in England," and he went on to say that he wished to bring forward certain particulars of what is happening, and what has happened since the 10th April, as evidence, he says, that our worst fears were to some extent justified, and the worst fears of Senator Connolly were that the flour-milling industry in this country was going to be crushed out. The Senator also talked about protecting our milling industry from further encroachments on the part of the British flour ring. In so far as his statement relates to any schemes between the Irish millers and the Millers' Mutual of England, I will deal with that later. The main burthen of the Senator's complaint was that there was going to be no flour-milling industry here after a bit, and that the flour-milling industry was going to be crushed out. He went on to say that eventually we would waken up and find ourselves with all the mills closed.

That is based on what are alleged to be facts, and the alleged facts are these, that "in Limerick normal employment was given in the flour mills to between 400 and 500 hands, while the annual wages bill amounted to about £75,000 a year. That was a normal thing before Messrs. Joseph Rank took a hand in the game." The Senator went on to say that the total valuation on the two mills in Limerick was £2,971, and that they contributed to the rates of Limerick £3,639 odd for the current year. He said that was a factor that should not be lost sight of. If that was introduced into the debate for any purpose it was to show how badly the rates in Limerick are going to be hit if the two mills disappear.

Later we were told by the Senator that the activities of these mills were responsible for half the total revenue of the port of Limerick, and that half the revenue amounted to £24,000 per annum. Then we were told how much the elimination of £24,000 per annum must mean to the Limerick harbour authorities. That is to say, that the elimination of the wheat imports was alleged to be responsible for £24,000 a year, and £24,000 was alleged to be half the revenue of the Limerick harbour authorities. I wonder where did Senator Connolly get the figure of £24,000 as being half the revenue of the Limerick Harbour Board, because in the report to which he refers the entire revenue of the port for the year 1928, leaving out exceptional money spent in connection with the Shannon scheme, was £24,000. The Senator looked for the disappearance of £75,000 annually in wages, and to Limerick being deprived of a contribution of £3,639 towards the rates of the city, and the elimination, as he said himself, of the entire import of wheat, leaving altogether out of consideration what would happen to the revenue of the harbour if that revenue from the import of wheat was substituted by an equivalent revenue from flour. The suspicion that the Senator sought to create in the minds of Senators was that something was going to happen that would lead to the elimination of milling in this country. That, I think, is a fair statement of the Senator's case. Since Messrs. Rank took over in Limerick the Senator says "Forty men have been let go. I do not know whether that number has been increased since the date that I am dealing with, namely, the 4th November." The Senator went on to say that: "We all know, taking flour milling on a per capita production, that owing to the development of modern machinery forty men is a very substantial number of skilled operatives to be working in flour mills and that their productive capacity is very high." Has the Senator given the Seanad any information as to where the forty men disappeared from? Did they disappear from productive milling? Taking flour milling on a per capita production, the disappearance of forty men would mean a terrific decrease in the amount of flour manufactured in Limerick. The Senator assumes that all these men disappeared from the productive side of milling. That is not a fact. Practically all the men who have disappeared have disappeared from the transport or the clerical side.

What does it matter as long as they were working in connection with the industry?

If forty men are dismissed who are engaged in the carting of flour, how does that interfere with the productive capacity of the mill? Senator Connolly advanced another point. He said: "Before Messrs. Ranks took over control, 12,160 bags of bakers' flour were milled per month, and 53,312 bags of retail or household flour were milled per month. Since Messrs. Ranks took over, no bakers' flour has been manufactured." That is wrong. Bakers' flour is still being manufactured.

In very small quantity in the two mills owned by Ranks. The Senator went on to say: "In other words, there has been the elimination of 12,160 bags of bakers' flour per month since Messrs. Ranks took over." I deny that. And later he said: "While in addition the 53,312 bags of retail or household flour have been reduced to 44,928 bags per month. That means a total reduction in bags of flour per month of 20,544." The reduction that is alleged there is about thirty per cent., while the fact is that the output of the mills in Limerick has increased in the months up to the 1st October, which are the latest for which I have got figures.

In Rank's mills?

Yes, definitely. If that is not the fact, may I ask the Senator where did he get his figures? That is the fact; and may I ask where did the Senator get his figures?

From the public reports in Limerick.

What are these founded upon? Is it on a calculation as to the number of bags of flour that emerge from the mills? When the Senator thinks fit to delve into the business of a company in this country he should give more precisely than he has done the method by which he arrives at that calculation. I have before me figures which show a larger output in Rank's mills in Limerick in the months up to the 1st October than was the case in the corresponding period last year. I have the additional check on it that a greater number of hours have been worked in these mills in that period than in the corresponding period last year. I have calculations also with regard to the people who have been dismissed, and these show that practically nobody has been dismissed on the productive side. The Senator said that he got his figures from the public reports in Limerick. I take it we will hear from the Senator afterwards where he did get them. The real point in the argument is whether or not the output in Rank's mills in Limerick has increased or decreased.

The second point that I wish to deal with is the calculation which the Senator made, based on a comparison between the import of wheat and flour this year and last year. As Senator Johnson has pointed out, these things vary from year to year, and no calculation can be founded upon figures which show such a variation, as the Senator well knows. The Senator asked what do we find when we turn to the report dealing with imports for the nine months, January to September? The report, he says, is available to all Senators. "It has been posted to all members of the Oireachtas, and Senators can examine the figures for themselves." Equally Senators have the reports for the years 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929, from which they can make calculations, as well as for the year 1930. The Senator just uses one figure which is suitable to his purpose—last year's figure. In making an inquiry of this kind any scientific or observant man would have gone to the trouble to see if that was a unique year, or if there was anything peculiar in the circumstances. Nobody with an observant type of mind could have failed to realise that this was an exceptional year, with the price of wheat tumbling down. The Senator was simply content to make a calculation on last year's figures as compared with this year's, instead of going back over a period of years. Senator Johnson made his calculations in a more judicious way, and showed that there has been very little difference in the imports this year of wheat and flour as compared with the average over five years, including this year, or in the four years immediately preceding this year. I think no argument demanding the control of wheat and flour imports as an immediate necessity could be based upon such figures. There was one other point of which the Senator made a great deal. That was with regard to "Millocrat" flour. The statement made by the Senator was: "Between the 4th April and the 18th October 96,000 bags of Limerick flour have been manufactured in Limerick and sold under the brand of ‘Millocrat.' That is the subtle method that has been adopted of killing the popularity of the local brands."

Some other Senator said that the local brands were being withdrawn and that this was being substituted. Senator Connolly did not say that, but his words would lead one to believe that he meant that. I wonder does he say it, because my information is that there has been no diminution in the supplies either of "Sunrise" or "Eclipse" flour. The figures I have given show conclusively that there has been none. With regard to "Millocrat" flour, as a Senator said, there can be very little objection taken to what Ranks does with regard to "Millocrat," but I would take very serious objection if I thought that he was mixing brands and trying to pass them off on people who wanted either "Sunrise" or something else. What is actually happening? 96,000 bags of what is called "Millocrat" flour, previously manufactured in Liverpool, are now being manufactured in Limerick.

Instead of the others.

No, but in addition to the others. The figures show conclusively that there is more flour being manufactured in Limerick than there ever was before in these mills.

But the smaller local mills cannot get the bakers' wheat.

I am leaving that out for the present. The position at the moment is that 96,000 bags of what is called "Millocrat" flour, which was previously manufactured in Liverpool, is now being manufactured in Limerick, and does the Senator want to prevent that? If there is anything in the way of passing off certain brands fraudulently, that can be got after, but there is not even the allegation that that is being done. As far as I can understand the situation it is this, that the same travellers are employed by Messrs. Ranks as were previously employed by Messrs Bannantyne, and these travellers are still pushing the sale of what used to be Bannatyne's flour, while Messrs. Ranks travellers are pushing the sale of Ranks own flour.

People say that when a person asks for "Millocrat" flour he should not be allowed to have it. That is introducing a type of control that I cannot allow. At present I am concerned to see the quantity of flour previously manufactured at Limerick does not fall below a certain datum line, and I have seen to that. I do not think that on the Senator's statement, unsupported by any facts other than his own statement, one should ask for the control of wheat and flour imports on the basis of the argument that it is "a sinister and subtle move," or, as I would call it, subtle and sinister nonsense. It is a subtle and sinister move if the people have suspicious minds that Senator Barrington tried to argue against. This man buys a mill here because of a business speculation into which he was brought. It did not arise out of his survey of the Irish market, but it arose out of the fact that a family in Limerick went into the market with a certain property, and he bought it. Why? Because in his opinion the differential by way of freight charges enables a man to manufacture more cheaply in this country than he can manufacture in England. That was the argument publicly used on which these people came into the country. It is a useful argument to have used, because it means that immediately we find that they are not manufacturing as much flour in this country as previously there is something wrong and they can be brought to task for it. Senator Barrington talked about the erection of another mill. I know nothing about it, but a piece of land has been taken for a new silo. There is a situation with regard to these people who come into this country. They come here because they can manufacture flour here and sell it at the old price, and get at least as good a profit as they could if the flour was manufactured at Liverpool. All the circumstances around Limerick since they came in show that that argument must be still maintained by them, because they are still manufacturing as much flour as had been manufactured previously in Limerick, and at the present time no other mill in the country can say that.

And smashing the small mills.

That is another matter. Senator Comyn talked about smashing the smaller mills, but efficient mills in any part of the country will drive out small or inefficient mills.

It is not a question of efficiency. It is a question of big capital smashing small industries.

What about the efficient mills losing five millions?

Senator Comyn was asking me about the small mills being wiped out.

Yes, because they cannot get the bakers' wheat. The Minister knows that the transport workers have complained on that score.

I do not know anything about that. If that is going to be raised, let it be raised.

It has been raised, and the Minister has not answered it.

It has not been raised in the Senator's speech.

Is the contention being made here that small mills should be allowed to exist in this country whether or not they can exist in competition with other mills in this country, those other mills being owned by Irishmen?

If they are efficient they ought not to be driven out by big combinations acting unjustly.

Injustice we can tackle as it comes along. If the ordinary effect of a big corporation working efficiently in any part of the country, that syndicate being an Irish syndicate, is to drive small mills out of existence, the Senator's contention is that we ought to try and stop that.

Certainly.

I will not have anything to do with that. There is a certain social advantage possibly in scattering mills all over the country, but that should not be allowed to weigh in the efficient and cheap production of food. The Belfast mill was referred to. I remember taking up this question before. The calculation that I have made shows that there was room in Belfast for a mill to supply the needs of Belfast and the adjoining country, and to leave a small export of the surplus. I know the area towards which it is intended to direct that exportable surplus. It is not here. At the moment it is not intended that it should come in here, but should it come we can deal with it. The third point that requires to be dealt with is the one to which Senator Johnson referred, and which is rather aside from this motion. That was the question of English millers and Irish millers.

A point over which Senator Connolly carefully passed, just making an allusion to it, was the question of further encroachment by the English ring, as he called it. I spoke on this at great length in at least two debates. I said I hoped that the Irish flour-millers would not consider that the whole case with regard to the milling industry was closed just because the Tariff Commission reported that in certain circumstances a tariff could not be put on. I said that the Tariff Commission pointed out certain defects in the milling organisation of the country, and that if these people were serious about their business and wanted help I would give the promise of help, provided they proceeded to set their house in order, but that in such a thing as breadstuffs we were not going to allow people to exploit the people's necessities, that we were going to insist most rigidly and ruthlessly on as big a point of efficiency being reached in the mills here as could possibly be reached. I said, once that point of view was understood, that if anything was required in the way of Government intervention, or the supply of credit, I would meet the millers and discuss these things with them. In the early part of the summer I met two or three of the millers. At one point, in answer to a remark of mine, my suspicions were aroused a little bit that I was not having the mind of the millers' organisation in the country put to me by the two or three representatives that came to me. There were two or three alternative schemes discussed. At that point I decided to interrupt my calculations and write to the organisation to know what was the view of the organisation with regard to these schemes: did they want Scheme A or B or not. The answer I got was flat and decisive, that they preferred an amalgamation with the English Mutual Millers' Association. I said that when that was done I would have a survey made of it. Since then I have written to them, and each time I got the reply that a rationalisation process is still being hammered out. Recently I was told it would be through in a fortnight, and that full details would be sent to me. When we get these details, then will be the time to get an investigation of them. If we cannot get that information in the ordinary way, then we can have a sworn tribunal to extract the information, but I believe that we will get it in the ordinary way. I do not believe that any information is being withheld. I think the negotiations that have been conducted took more time than they thought. When we see the scheme they propose we can take steps to guard against the quotas associated with Irish mills being sold to English manufacturers. Then we will know whether these people are sheer downright business men or partly business men and partly patriots, and will be able to judge and take action accordingly.

Senator Sir Walter Nugent referred to the question of dumping. That question was before the Tariff Commission. The allegation was made that there was dumping, but the Commission reported that those who made the allegation had failed to sustain their point. I have always said this, and the statement has been repeated by the Vice-President, and I think the President, that if dumping could be shown it would be dealt with on an entirely different plan to the ordinary control of imports by the imposition of a tariff. If people are now making a case with regard to dumping there is machinery available for dealing with that and they can avail of it. As I said, I put myself at the disposal of certain millers to see if we could hammer out a scheme. I pointed out the danger I saw in it, and went on to point out one danger which I think the Seanad should be alive to. Would anybody like to see industry in this country taken over by speculators? Would anybody like to see people in this country buying mills and holding on to them until a certain quota had been assigned to them, and then transferring them, at the enhanced value the quota gave, to English firms? I must protect the public against that. I must see that no mercy is shown to the men who buy up mills in a bankrupt condition and hold on to them with the view to overloading them at an enhanced price, the enhanced price being due to any action the Government may take here to protect the people against increased exploitation. I have already dealt with Senator Johnson's point that we should retain milling capacity here. I have always tried to make a distinction between the retention of milling capacity and inefficient milling. If the present millers are not efficient I am not certain that any great concession should be made to them. If they show themselves willing to put their house in order, then the fact that there is a milling industry of sufficient importance would warrant us to give any assistance that any intelligent Government could give, but we should not be asked to protect a certain group of millers if they are not prepared to protect themselves by putting their house in order.

If Senator Foran has any figures which show a steady strangulation of the Irish flour milling industry, it is his duty to give me those figures so that I can get them examined. I hope that the milling employees in Limerick will be forewarned by Senator Foran's statement here, and that if Messrs. Ranks are trying to irritate them to strike, so that they could close down the mills, it will be for Senator Foran to advise the men that they must resist this irritation, and not allow themselves to be goaded into any strike so as to enable Messrs. Ranks to get rid of the mills. The Senator said he would not be a party to the taxation of food in order to employ 3,000 or 4,000 men. I do not know if he meant extra men, because, if he did, his calculations are very far wrong with regard to milling. The Tariff Commission Report showed that if the mills of the country were run in an efficient way there would be, possibly, a decrease in the number employed in them. Certainly no one ever suggested that there would be an increase of anything like 3,000 hands.

I said 3,000 or 4,000 people would be employed.

The Senator meant that 3,000 or 4,000 would be kept in employment. I should refer to certain matters mentioned in the debate that took place at the last meeting of the Seanad, about my not being here. I have never failed to put in an attendance here, as I think Senator O'Hanlon pointed out, when notice was given to me and when it was possible for me to be here. I cannot understand why there should have been so much contention over my absence. Senator O'Doherty was one of those who alluded to it, and, as usual, he is not here himself now. He is hardly ever here, and when he is here he generally does not take part in or intervene in any debate, so that I do not regret his presence or absence at the moment. Senator Moore was very angry with me for not being here. He was afraid the whole idea was to burke discussion. The Senator, I notice, joined himself with a particular Party, by whom, on a recent occasion, he was repudiated in the Dáil; not so with Senator Connolly, who has not yet been repudiated by them.

I do not know that the Minister is right in that statement.

Yes, the Senator was repudiated, and I will give him the quotation.

I would be glad if you would.

Most decidedly. I would like to let the Senator know where he stands. Senator Connolly has not been repudiated so far, though I do not think his attitude with regard to salaries of £1,000 a year is in line with the views of the Party in the Lower House. I think the Senator criticised me for going abroad. It is hardly consistent for a man who himself went abroad on missions to try and discharge——

Under different circumstances.

Under circumstances which led to his recall.

I was sent specially.

I was not speaking of Senator Moore. I had failed to remember that Senator Moore ever had a mission abroad.

Your memory is bad

It is failing with my age. I can hardly say anything to Senator Comyn, because he apologised for himself.

I never did.

The Senator said my eyes were on the ends of the earth. That refers to the Senator himself, because he drifted over Belgium, France, Switzerland, Holland, Canada and England. If certain people's eyes are on the ends of the earth——

I was dealing in an imaginative fashion——

The Senator marked himself out as being in that category. Why should people complain of my absence from the last meeting of the Seanad? I think every Senator gets a copy of the Dáil Order Paper. Senator Connolly is sufficiently in touch with his Party to be able to approach the Whip as to what business is likely to be on that day. Had he done so he would have seen that there were two motions in the Dáil that definitely demanded my appearance there.

There was no explanation of your absence here. You ought to have had the politeness to let us know.

Are we discussing flour?

Cathaoirleach

The Minister is explaining his absence from the last meeting, and I think he is perfectly justified in what he says because of the criticism.

If I am not allowed to explain perhaps Senators will refrain from commenting on my absence. If comment is going to be made, I must say that other duties compelled my attendance in the other House. The business was of such a nature that I could not hand it over to anybody else.

If the Minister sent a message no one would have objected.

The Senator had his own idea as to why I was not here; that I did not want to answer. I think if Senators look back on the proceedings of the Seanad they will find that I never failed to be here to answer a discussion. If any Senator makes a complaint for a party purpose that I absented myself without reason, I want to make the explanation that I had business in the other House. I have never failed to be here, and I do not think that this House is worthy of the disdain that the Senator thought I put on it. I attend here when I get notice and if my duties allow me to do so.

Before dealing with the points raised in the debate, and before the Minister replies, I would like to say that my intervention regarding the Minister's absence did not specifically and entirely refer to the Minister. We noted the Minister's absence first of all, but it will be remembered that there were two motions on the Order Paper and that the Senator who was to have moved them was not present. Moreover, the Senator who moved the motion for Senator Milroy admitted here that he did not know what it was about, and that he could not put forward any argument. Probably that gave me a sense of outrage as regards the way this House was conducted.

On a point of explanation, before any of these points came on Senator Connolly, finishing his speech, said: "I regret that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not here. Evidently he thinks that the flour milling industry is of no importance compared to other things."

I agree, but I stressed it later.

Stick to your guns.

Surely. I usually do. I think if I deal with the Minister's analysis of my statement of last week that that will be adequate to cover most of the points raised by other Senators. The Minister is satisfied, apparently that there is no danger whatever of the English concerns coming here to wipe out industry, and that there is no reason to think that Messrs. Ranks have intervened in the flour milling industry other than to develop the Irish flour milling industry on their own and to maintain it as such. The Minister has gone to great pains to contradict some of the figures I presented. These figures were quoted at a public meeting called by the Mayor of Limerick, attended by representatives of the Trades Council, public representatives, and, I think, members of the Dáil, and to which the flour millers were invited. The figures appeared in the Limerick newspapers on November the 5th, and up to the present they were not contradicted, until the Minister came here now to contradict them. Why have these figures been allowed to be broadcast over the country during the last twelve or fourteen days? Why has there been no contradiction by the interests involved? Why has there been no contradiction from the Minister's own Department? What figures has the Minister? The Minister has not given us any figures. Assuming that he does give figures, how does he come by them? Does he send one of his inspectors down to examine the output books of Messrs. Ranks and the others in Limerick? I prefer to accept the figures quoted publicly, and which have not been challenged, rather than to accept a statement like the Minister's.

Where did they come from?

The Minister has got to give us figures and to justify these figures. If he chooses not to do so, then I say we hold to our figures.

Where are your figures?

They are in the report.

Quoted by the Mayor of Limerick.

I have already stated that they appeared in the Press on November 5, following a public meeting in Limerick on November 4.

No basis of calculation.

I am giving the statement. I say it has not been contradicted. Until the figures are contradicted by the Minister's Department with official figures I stand by my figures. I believe honestly that the Minister has not the figures, and I believe that his Department has no figures as we know it has not figures for other things. What figures has anyone to take to reconcile the position that has been charged as existing in Limerick? The only figures one can get which will be any way symptomatic of the real position are figures of the imports of flour and wheat. I submit that the increase in the imports of flour by 8,500 tons, and the decrease by 40,000 tons in the imports of wheat, have not been fully explained away, even on the sophistical reasoning of the Minister. The Minister has questioned at great length the whole question of the efficiency of the Irish mills. This question of efficiency has to be met some time. I do not know when it is going to be met. It is practically impossible in the Saorstát, with its three million of a population, to maintain what is known as efficient production for the population. We are competing with England, where they are catering for 40 millions of people, and, as I stressed here before, with America, where they are catering for 120 millions, both countries having a huge export trade. We are asked to compete with organisations like these. Let us see where this efficiency lies. The Minister has stated that he is not prepared to subsidise inefficient mills. What constitutes efficiency? Is it the making of profit? Then let me read you something from the official technical milling journal. The actual amount lost in the last few years by flour-millers in England amounted to over £5,000,000. Messrs. Spillers and Bakers lost in one year £350,000, and they have written down their capital. I wonder what the Minister would say if a firm in Ireland came to his Department and said: "These are the circumstances: we are dead up against production at any cost." Here is a firm prepared to lose £350,000. Of course the rationalisation process has come to stop them losing that £350,000 and to stop the losing of the £5,000,000 by the others. The Minister believes that other Senators ought to have more sense, and he stated that Messrs. Ranks did not come here to purchase the mills to close them down. I will read a quotation from the "Manchester Guardian Commercial" which shows the position of the flour milling industry. It is:—

In common with many other trades, the flour-milling industry found itself at the end of the war burdened with a productive capacity which it had no reasonable expectation of employing fully. It has decided to tackle this problem in a way somewhat similar to that which has been adopted in the shipbuilding industry—by buying up and closing down redundant mills, and so concentrating production on a smaller number of units, which would thus be able to work at or near full capacity to reduce their costs. The Millers' Mutual Association was formed last year, with the support of a very large part of the flour-milling industry, to buy up and close down surplus mills; it has been working for some fourteen months, and has already closed down a substantial number of units. Mills have been closed in Manchester, Wrexham, York, Grimsby, Cardiff, Sheffield, and Ellesmere Port. Most of these have been closed permanently, and the buildings and equipment so far as possible disposed of, though one mill at Ellesmere Port, which was bought up by the Association, has been reopened temporarily, while another mill was closed for alterations.

That is milling in England. That is the flour ring. We will come to the names now:

It is unlikely that the Millers' Mutual Association will find it necessary to close many more mills, and though there are still a very large number of concerns in the industry, they are mostly small, and nearly the whole of the country's milling is in the hands of three concerns, Messrs. Spillers, Messrs. Ranks, and the Co-operative Wholesale Society.

Perhaps the Minister will now argue that there is no ring.

I never argued it.

The Minister's conduct suggested that there was no such thing as a ring. He has stated, and others have stated, that they could not conceive the millers buying mills here to close them down. I say it definitely and positively here now that the situation is one which has reached the point when the Ministry or the Minister ought to intervene and see what is going to be done about it. We heard a good deal about the English millers in Ireland. The Minister is very fond occasionally of accusing some people in our Party, myself included, of an inferiority complex. The Minister has one inferiority complex, that in this country, owing to our position, we are quite incompetent and inefficient. He is applying that to the whole industrial system of this country. Let us look at this from another point of view. If the Minister is really serious about efficiency I want to tell him right now that there is only one thing to do, and that is to close every industry in the Saorstát, except Guinness's Brewery, Jacob's Biscuit Manufactory, a few distilleries, and the cattle and pig trade.

The Senator has brought in the inferiority complex now.

That is the truth, and it is not a question of inefficiency; it is a question of being up against mass production methods and the Minister knows that as well as I do. If we are going to stand idle while we have any capital or any resources left that is all right, but the Minister must face up to the fact of the productive capacity of this country and where its production is going to go. These industries that have not an export trade in this country cannot be run according to the standard of efficiency demanded by the Minister, and he might as well make up his mind to it.

The Minister alleges that the production in Limerick has increased, but again the Minister does not say by how much or in what way. We have only the Minister's word for that, and let me state quite frankly that the Minister is a past-master in such statements as that, and I for one am not prepared to accept anything unless I can get the actual figures and definite knowledge of how those figures were compiled. He disputes the figures of 12,160 bags of bakers' flour per month. A definite statement was made that no bakers' flour was now being made by Messrs. Ranks. The Minister said that was not true. When someone intervened and asked him what was the amount he said it was a very small amount. I want to know what was the amount of the reduction in the production of household flour. I still stand by my statement until the Minister can prove otherwise.

Characteristically, the Minister dealt with this question of the subtlety of the word "Millocrat." The Minister, of course, does not apply the word subtlety to Messrs. Ranks. He does not believe they know the game. It is only the people of Ireland who have these queer twisted ways of doing things. We know enough about Irish economic history, and so does the Minister, to know that such methods are very common. The conviction that we have, that the people of Limerick have and the people who earn their living there have, is that by a gradual process of using Limerick flour under the brand "Millocrat" the demand for the other two brands will cease. That is the natural deduction, and the people who control the milling at the present time will in a short time be in a position to say "there is no demand for the two brands mentioned; everybody is now buying ‘Millocrat.'" Does the Minister think that we are children, that we do not realise that these things are done in commerce and that they are done by huge rings—that every ring that controls an industry will operate all these things? They want to get the local support. They are supplying them now with the flour milled in Limerick, but they are supplying it under the name of "Millocrat," and in a couple of years there will be no need to mill flour in Limerick because they will use "Millocrat"; it is the flour that is wanted there.

I do not know whether the Minister's Department has any statistics or figures with regard to the other smaller mills through the country. I do not know whether he has any information about the mills in Kilrush or Fermoy, or any of these other mills that we believe are being closed. Even for a moment, assuming that the Minister can argue and prove to us, which he has not done, that Limerick production has increased that would not go to prove anything if Ranks were forcing the smaller mills out of the country.

That brings us back to the question of efficiency again. Whether humanity is going to be turned on the roadside for the Minister's efficiency I do not know, but I do say he has not answered the case that I made. He has denied, but he has not proven that my figures are wrong, and he has not given us any figures of his own to show any justification for the statements which he has made.

The Minister referred to the buying of mills as a speculative investment. I presume he means by that that Rank's or some of these other people are buying mills as an investment in the hope of a tariff. I venture to make a prophecy now: It is that there will be a tariff on imported flour but it will not come until Messrs. Ranks and the other millers are sufficiently dug in here to make it worth their while, and until the Irish millers are absorbed, assimilated or put out of existence. That is the tendency. Then it will be a good speculation.

The Minister referred to dumping. I do not know what he calls dumping. I presume he means selling at prices lower here than they sell across the water, and prices perhaps below the cost of production. The figures I have given you show that the millers' loss was over five millions, and that Messrs. Spillers lost £350,000 and afterwards wrote down their capital. These figures show that flour was produced and sold at a figure far below the cost of production, and that a percentage of it came in here. That may not constitute dumping in the Minister's sense of dumping, but it does constitute an element in this efficiency that the Minister speaks of that we cannot achieve in Ireland.

The sum total of the position is that the Limerick people, including the workers, and not only the workers but the majority of intelligent people in Limerick, are satisfied that the flour control is passing into the hands of the English millers' ring. I have read for you a quotation from the "Manchester Guardian Commercial" of November 20th, which clearly outlines the policy of Messrs. Ranks, Spillers, and the Co-operative Wholesale. That is a definite line of policy. How much longer do we need to wait until the situation is crystallised before we deal with it? I am not suggesting tariffs. I am not suggesting anything. I am suggesting that the Minister is the person who can deal with it, and that it only requires his energy and his analysis of the position. He promised in April that he would watch the position. I bring this up now seven months afterwards when the position is such that it demands the attention and action of the Minister. The position is worse than it was in April, and it is worsening every day. Nothing that the Minister has said makes me want to change one word of the analysis of the position of the flour milling that I made last week, and it now remains for the Seanad to say whether they are in favour of the continued shrinkage of the flour milling or whether they believe that in the interests of the people in this country the Minister should get a mandate from them that he should proceed to take control of the flour milling industry entirely.

Motion put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 22.

  • Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Joseph Connolly.
  • J. C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Foran.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • Seán E. MacEllin.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • L. O'Neill.
  • Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
  • Séumas Robinson.

Níl

  • William Barrington.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • R. A. Butler.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James Dillon.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • P. J. Hooper.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • Seán Milroy.
  • Sir Walter Nugent.
  • M. F. O'Hanlon.
  • Thomas Toal.
  • Richard Wilson.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Comyn and M acEllin. Níl: Senators Barrington and Sir Walter Nugent.
Motion declared lost.
[An Leas-Cathaoirleach took the Chair.]
Top
Share