I have received notice from Senator Hawkins that on the motion for the adjournment of the Seanad this evening he proposes asking the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will inform the House whether the committee appointed to examine the subsidy paid to millers has completed its examination and made its report thereon; and, if it has not, whether he will arrange to have the proposed increases in the price of bread deferred until such time as the report is available.
Adjournment Debate—Price of Bread.
I am sure that members of the House will feel that when an important announcement, such as has been made within the last day or two, is issued, and this or the other House is in session, it is the duty of a member to bring it to the notice of the House and have as much information as possible gleaned from the Department concerned. An announcement has been made that, on next Monday, the price of bread will be increased.
We all remember that, some few months ago, a bakers' strike took place and, at great inconvenience to the people of the City of Dublin, was allowed to continue for some time. It was pointed out that there was only one way of bringing that strike to an end, by meeting the demands of the bakers and that these demands could be met only in one of two ways—by an increase in the subsidy or an increase in the price of bread. The Minister made it quite clear at the time that it was the policy of the Government that neither would be allowed, that an increase in the subsidy would not be granted and that permission would not be given to increase the price of bread, and, therefore, the strike continued. Some time after, negotiations were entered into, a settlement arrived at and the bakers resumed the production of bread.
It was suggested at the time that bread would be increased in price, but no definite announcement was made and no information was given to the public as to the arrangements made as a result of these negotiations, as to whether there was an undertaking that the subsidy would be increased or whether the master bakers were to be compelled to bear the whole cost or to be allowed to increase the price. In the meantime, the Government decided to have an investigation into the subsidies, amounting to roughly £9,000,000 annually, being paid to the millers. These subsidies are paid in order to maintain bread and flour at their present prices and the Government felt it might be necessary to inquire whether this amount was necessary for the purpose, in view of the reduction—I believe there has been a reduction—in the cost of imported wheat. A committee was set up under the chairmanship of the Attorney-General and it was suggested that, until such time as the whole question would have been examined, no decision would be taken in connection with giving permission to increase the price of bread.
Immediately after the strike, a particular bakery adjacent to the city reduced the price of bread. That reduction was brought about by reason, I understand, of the annulment of the Fresh Bread Order. The position is that bakeries are enabled to reduce the price of bread when permited to sell fresh bread, whereas they cannot do so, if not allowed to sell bread until it has been baked for 24 hours. However, that is a matter as between one bakery and the other bakeries.
The main purpose of my raising this matter is to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary information which will enable the public to know the cause of the increase in price. Has the committee appointed to investigate the amount of money made available in subsidies carried out its inquiry? Has it issued a report and are the findings in the report that the amount of subsidies are sufficient or insufficient? If the findings are not available, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that steps be taken to defer the coming into operation of the increased price, until such time as the investigation has been completed. I need not point out how essential a commodity bread is. We have in this city one-fifth of the total population who are affected by this increase. Sometime ago, I was in Sligo and Leitrim, and I discovered that the bread supplies of many large towns came from city bakeries.
The amount of the increase may be small and Senators may hold the view that it is scarcely worth while raising the matter here, but, while the amount per loaf is small, the increase in the case of a large family will be considerable. It is not so much a matter of the amount of money as the effect it will have on the community at large. We have had many increases in recent months. We have had increases in the price of meat and we have, as I pointed out on the Appropriation Bill, an increase in the price of boots. The Minister for Finance did not accept my statement that there had been an increase in the price of farmers' and labourers' boots on that occasion, but a question was put down in the Dáil by Deputy Lahiffe, of Galway, on the point, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce replied——
We are not discussing boots on this motion. The Senator must confine himself to the bread situation.
I merely want to say that the Minister in his reply admitted that there was a substantial increase in the price of these boots. We have a position in which there is to be an increase in the price of bread and a reduced ration of butter, when what the people were promised was a reduction in the cost of living, this reduction, if necessary, to be brought about by an increase in the subsidies. When we remember that a saving of £3,500,000 was brought about in the readjustment of subsidies, as the Minister said in his Budget statement, I feel sure that it would be possible to obviate this increase and thereby steady the people, because, if this increase takes place, it will encourage further increases, which, in turn, will lead to further demands for increased wages, and, instead of a reduction in the cost of living and preventing inflation, we will be moving in the direction of helping to bring it about.
Senators may remember that the strike which took place was due to the refusal by the bakers to accept an award or recommendation of the Labour Court. The strike had been in progress for some weeks when the Minister took steps to bring the matter to a conclusion. He was reluctant to interfere where the Labour Court had made an award or recommendation, but a bread strike, or any strike dealing with essential foodstuffs, is in its effect much more severe than other strikes of which we have had experience. It was only when it became obvious to the Minister that a continuance of the strike would create greater hardship on poor people—particularly as it operated here in the City of Dublin and in adjoining districts, where other foodstuffs are not as readily available as they are in the country—that the Minister held a conference between both parties to the dispute.
I am sure Senators recollect that because the bakers refused to accept the award the only method by which a solution could be found was to increase the wages paid to the bakers. The consequences of that increase was an increase of approximately a farthing in the 2-lb. loaf. It is regrettable that that increase had to be sanctioned and it is easy enough at the present time to criticise the Minister's action at that time. It is easy to complain when people have to pay a higher price for bread, it is easy enough even to attempt to make some capital out of it; but when you throw your mind back to the position which obtained when people could no longer secure supplies of the most essential foodstuffs available to all sections of the community, at a price which, in comparison with prices of food in general, bears a favourable relation to the pre-war price, then it must be obvious to Senators and to the public that the lesser of two evils was to put an end to the strike, even with the increase of a farthing.
Subsequent to the sanctioning of that increase, it was decided by the Government that a committee would be set up to examine the whole question of the bread and flour subsidy. As Senators are aware, the Attorney-General, Senator Lavery, is chairman of that committee. The committee has started the work of examining the whole question, but I am sure nobody expects that the examination would have been concluded. It was only on the basis of the ¼d. increase that the Master Bakers were prepared to settle the strike. Consequently, the increase takes effect and an Order was recently made by the Minister authorising an increase in the price of the 2 lb. loaf, in Dublin City and county, and Bray and Greystones. If Dublin bakeries deliver to rural areas, the price will remain as it is at the moment. In order to maintain the price of bread at its present level, a subsidy of £10,000,000 is required annually. That is two-thirds of the total food subsidies. Before any question of increasing the subsidy is considered, the obvious step to take is the one which has been taken, namely, to conduct a searching examination into the whole structure of the bread and flour subsidy.
Senator Hawkins referred to the fact that there has been a rise in the price of meat. I am sure he is aware that some Deputies in the Dáil almost advocated that we should have raised the price of meat still further, forgetting that the previous Government agreed last year with the butchers that a rise would take place. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce implemented that agreement last March. I have no desire at the present time to digress into the other matters that were raised here, but I think I should say, in connection with the suggestions that have been made, that there has been a reduction in the cost of living, by the withdrawal of taxes amounting to £6,000,000. In addition, certain alterations have been made in other subsidies; and quite recently, only to-day, the Seanad has discussed the Social Welfare Bill, under which increased pensions will become payable. In order to meet that, a sum of £2,500,000 is necessary, so I am sure it is obvious to Senators where some of the money that has been saved already is going. I think it is an over-simplification to say that it would be possible to use some of this £3,500,000 to increase further the amount of the bread subsidy. Subsidies are only a disguise— they only encourage the belief that food is being made available at a lower price, when in reality people are paying for it indirectly.
Before there is any further increase in subsidy, or any consideration given to increasing the subsidy, the Government rightly decided to conduct a full examination into the whole question of the bread and flour subsidy as it operates. That committee was appointed just over three weeks ago and, as I have said, it has started its examination. It was part of the agreement under which the bakery strike was settled, and considerable hardship on the people was ended, that an increase of a farthing would be sanctioned by the Minister. It is in order to avoid any further increase and, if possible, to reduce the subsidy payable, while at the same time maintaining bread at its present price or at the price which obtained before the farthing was added, or even to reduce the price of bread, that this inquiry was decided on by the Government. Until that inquiry has been concluded, the present increase in relation to Dublin city and county, Bray and Greystones must operate. I think it is a proper step to take to conduct an examination into the whole bread and flour question. I believe the public are satisfied that, by its very nature, this committee will conduct an impartial and full examination and I hope and am confident that, at the end of the examination, it will be possible to provide the people with this most necessary food at a price within the means of the poorer sections of the community and at the same time effect some saving in the subsidy at present payable.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. sine die.