Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Nov 1960

Vol. 185 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Production and Distribution of Bread and Flour: Motion.

Dr. Browne

I move:—

Having regard to the paramount importance of flour and bread as the staple diet of our people, and the necessity to bring these commodities within the reach of all the people without hardship to them, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the national interest and the common good require that the production and distribution of these commodities should be taken over by a State corporation on the general lines of the Sugar Company, such corporation to be non-profit making and all its shares to be held by the Minister for Finance.

We put down this motion for a very simple reason. We put it down because we believe it is high time the whole question of the flour milling industry, and the wholesale and retail distribution of the products of bakeries should be considered in this House. It is possible that the result of such consideration would be that a company such as we suggest would be set up in order to try to bring about some kind of order in the industry, to try to give to the farmers some greater measure of security in the marketing of wheat and, above all, to try to bring about some reduction in the price of bread, the staple diet of our people, particularly the poorer sections of the community.

In moving a motion of this kind, suggesting that there should be a takeover by a State company, obviously in the context of the society in which we live, the case must be a very compelling one. I think it can be shown to be a particularly strong case by virtue of the failure of the flour milling industry to operate in the most efficient way and thereby provide bread for the consumer at the lowest possible price.

There are three main approaches to this question of securing a reduction in the price of bread. One which was favoured by the Government in the post-war period was that of the raising of funds from the Exchequer and the provision of subsidies, and by the provision of subsidies, causing an artificial reduction in the price of bread. Clearly, that policy went overboard in 1957, and clearly the Government do not favour its re-introduction. Consequently we must rule it out.

The second way in which one could make bread more readily available or, as we say, "...bring these commodities within the reach of all the people without hardship to them ..." is as a result of trade union action. We suggested during the debate on the subsidies that trade union action could so increase the income of the workers that they could provide this staple commodity for themselves without any great hardship. I am afraid that device or solution has not been satisfactory either, in so far as recent figures have shown that the real income of the average worker has not increased by one penny piece since 1939 as a result of trade union action over the years, admirable though it may have been.

It seems to us anyway that we must rule out the system under which the industry at present operates, that is, private enterprise. Private enterprise has been given the total period of the life of the State to maximise output, to improve output, to reduce costs and to maximise its efficiency. The net result since 1939 has been that the cost of a 2-lb. loaf has gone up by 191.1 per cent.—nearly 200 per cent. The trouble about bread is that the poorer one is, the more one needs and the more one must buy. It is the high cost which, in our view, has led to the reduction in bread consumption which is alleged to be worrying the millers so much.

I do not think I need dwell at any great length on the ethics of the nationalisation of these industries. Both sides of the House have accepted the principle that in certain circumstances it is perfectly permissible to intervene—in fact, the State has a responsibility in certain circumstances—to control and operate an industry where it is decided that it would be in the public interest or in the common good.

Article 43 of the Constitution deals with the question of private property in this State. There is no doubt whatsoever that it recognises the right to own property and indulge in profit-making enterprises, but this right is not absolute but relative. Where it is felt that some damage is being done to the common good, then the State is perfectly within its right in intervening and taking over any such industry. We have had illustrations from both sides of the House: Comhlucht Siúicre and the E.S.B. and the many State companies established by the present Government; then there are in the very important sectors of our economy, Irish Shipping, Irish Steel Holdings, Aer Lingus and various other companies. The State has a perfect right to take over existing private enterprises or establish completely new industries sponsored, financed and administered by the State.

The consumption of bread has dropped considerably. The consumption pre-war was 288 lbs. per head per annum and has dropped to 264 lbs. per head in 1957-58. There are various explanations for this reduction in the consumption of bread, one explanation—and it seems to me a paradoxical one—being that it is a sign of our increasing prosperity: the more prosperous a society is, the lower is its consumption of cereals, bread, potatoes and so on and the higher its consumption of proteins. That is a very flattering interpretation of the reduction in the consumption of bread. I do not subscribe to that view.

Another reason is that given by the President of the Irish Association of Master Bakers. He suggested that because in 1956 the amount of native wheat in the grist was increased from 38 per cent. to 68 per cent., it is difficult to get the housewife to buy the bread. I am not inclined to believe that is so, either. Bread is such an essential commodity that even if it is unpalatable, people must eat it.

I think the reason for this fairly substantial drop in bread consumption is the impact of the removal of the subsidies which has put bread outside the purchasing power of too many middle-income and lower-income families. Of course, the bigger the family, the less is a family able to purchase all the bread it needs. The reason they are not eating bread is not that they are eating cake as Marie Antoinette would have them, but simply that they are engaging in a private rationing scheme.

Mr. Moher

On the doctor's advice: cut down carbohydrates.

Dr. Browne

It is all right to eat carbohydrates if one cannot afford anything better but these people cannot afford even the carbohydrates. This point of view is supported to a considerable extent by the findings of the Nutritional Survey. Admittedly, this survey was carried out in 1946-47 but it is the only one we have available which goes into very great detail. It gives the consumption of food by the varying classes in the cities and towns and in rural Ireland and it discloses that a high percentage of the food consumed by what they called the slum dweller, the lower income group, the unemployed, the old age pensioner, is bread and that 44 per cent. of the meals of children under 14 years of age was composed of bread and spread, The difference in consumption between the lower income and the middle income group is that 18 per cent. in the middle income group and 44 per cent. in the lower income group eat as a predominant item of their diet bread and spread, that is, butter, margarine or other such commodity. That was the position in the city of Dublin. In the farming community, one-third of all meals taken consisted simply of tea and bread or tea and bread and butter or margarine, and the poorer the family, the higher the consumption of bread. I think this claim which is made that the more prosperous a society is, the lower the consumption of bread is true. While it is true internationally, it is also true nationally, and the lower the income, the higher the percentage consumption of bread or cereals in any family.

The people we are trying to help most are those who cannot afford to buy any of the other expensive commodities such as meat, eggs and so on. We want to secure a reduction in the price of bread in order to help such people in the middle and lower income groups and, in particular, the large families. The Nutritional Survey also showed that the larger the family, the lower the consumption of bread because they are unable to afford it.

I want to give some figures which may be of some help in assessing the validity of the suggestion that the drop in the consumption of bread is a measure of our prosperity. The consumption in Ireland, as a percentage of Britain, of bread is 131 per cent.; of fish, 23 per cent.; butter, 88 per cent; potatoes, 172 per cent; and fruit, 80 per cent, so that in fact the general level of food consumption and general dietary standards are relatively low. That, of course, has a considerable effect on the general physique and health of the middle and lower income sections of the community.

We believe therefore that there is an important principle involved, the necessity to try to see that the flour milling industry is operated in the most efficient way and in a way which is likely to lead to the maximum reduction in the price of bread. As I said, there are various ways which can be tried—subsidy, trade union action or nationalisation. In the nationalisation of the industry, we are given the assurance that the money which now goes in profits to the millers and to the various components of the flour milling industry and bakery industries generally will be ploughed back by a State company into the industry and either used for its improvement by providing more efficient equipment or for better wages for the employees and for the reduction of the price of the end commodity, bread, to the consumer, who is of course to a certain extent an employee.

We believe that in these circumstances, the high price of bread and the fact that so many of our people are faced with the inevitability of using bread as the most important component of their diet, we are justified in claiming that we cannot afford the luxury of running this very important industry under private industry and that we cannot afford the luxury of paying profits to private individuals out of the milling industry. The need to reduce the price of bread is so great we are justified in asking and insisting that these people forego their profits and in that way we shall have money at our disposal to help secure a reduction in the price of bread. This suggestion is not based on the classical socialist belief in the ownership and control of industry being vested in the people but is a simple proposition that in certain circumstances, where it serves the common good and where we believe it is contrary to the public interest that a profit be made, we are justified in suggesting the industry be organised so that profits can be absorbed back into the industry in one of the many forms I have suggested, better wages, better conditions for the workers and a better price for the end product, which is the bread.

We could not be justified in putting forward this far-reaching suggestion, a proposition which certainly affects one of the greatest industries in the State, affects hundreds of individuals, and which would mean radical changes for many people—of all of which we are fully conscious—were it not for the fact that we feel a case can be made against the flour milling industry and against the bakery trade, on foot not only of the needless distribution of profits but also on foot of the demonstrable inefficiency in the flour milling industry.

We have one very great advantage in trying to assess the position in the flour milling industry, that is, a number of reports from commissions set up by successive Governments. These are magnificent reports so far as the examination of the facts disclosed are concerned and the energy with which the whole matter was pursued, but they disclose, first of all, a situation which points to a considerable measure of inefficiency in the flour milling industry and bakery trade generally. They must also disclose the measure of disquiet felt by different Governments at the position of the flour milling industry. One of the most disturbing things is that, in spite of many categorical statements, recommendations and findings of these people—nobody would call them socialists; I suppose they were mildly conservative individuals who formed the greater part of these commissions—their recommendations have been completely ignored by successive Governments.

One of the most important recommendations is made by the first Flour and Bread Inquiry, 1950, which is referred to on page 27 of the Final Report of the Flour and Bread Committee, 1956. At paragraph 29 it quotes this recommendation:—

Our first and fundamental recommendation is, therefore, that a proper uniform costing system be put into operation in each mill without delay, so that costings may be available for interim periods as soon as possible and for the year ending 31st August, 1950 in due course.

That recommendation is really the basic recommendation of the Flour and Bread Inquiry and it is reiterated in the subsequent Flour and Bread Inquiry, 1956, in the report of which they also pointed to the wide variation in costings.

On page 57, paragraph 58 they set out:—

The wide range in production and distribution costs is prima facie evidence of wide variations in efficiency ——

and they repeat then the recommendation that a proper, uniform costings system be put into operation.

The report also states:—

It is surprising to find that—seven years after the submission of the Inquiry's Report—there is still no complete costing system in the industry, nor is there any indication that one will be installed in the near future.

Of course, they made the obvious point that until a proper costing system is introduced into the flour milling industry, it will be impossible to be certain as to the degree of efficiency that is to be found in that industry.

On page 59 of their report of 1956, they say:—

We accordingly strongly recommend that a uniform costing system, on the lines of that devised by the Department of Agriculture, amended, where necessary, in the light of developments since 1950-51, should be installed in the mills without further delay.

As far as I am aware, the flour millers have completely ignored this recommendation and have allowed the demonstrably inefficient mills to continue to operate, without taking any steps to bring themselves up to the position of efficiency which would allow them to reduce their working costs. This is all very well in an industry making television sets, motor cars, washing machines or refrigerators, where that could be considered permissible, but in an industry which is concerned with the provision at the lowest possible cost of our daily bread, it seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility on the part of the flour millers that they have not yet seen fit to examine their own industry in order to find out in what way it could be brought to its maximum level of efficiency.

The average cost varied between 12/8d. and £1.15.1d. Obviously, that is an appalling range of discrepancy between the lowest and the highest. The Committee report shows that there must be a considerable measure of inefficiency in mills for which the consumer is paying. That is the most important thing. The profits do not suffer. The flour millers continue to take their profits. They merely put an increase on the price of bread. I think any State company would hasten to introduce an efficient costing system so that they would be able to weed out the inefficient from the efficient. This has been neglected by the flour millers.

There is another situation which arises every year—we are at present engaged in it—and that is the disputation which goes on between the Department of Agriculture, the farmers and the flour millers over this question of a fair price for the wheat and the test for the millability of wheat. The millers consider they are to be the final judges on the suitability of wheat for the mills and for making into bread. Consequently, of course, the farmer is completely in their hands. He appears to have little or no right of appeal. He has no redress that I can see, readily available to him, at any rate. Consequently, the millers have the final say and that, I think, is most undesirable. If a State company were formed, we would have a situation in which farmers' representatives would have an equal say with everybody else.

In regard to the question of the decision as to millability, the definition of "millable" wheat is clearly so imprecise in its wording as to be open to practically any interpretation at all. Wheat must be commercially clean, in sound and sweet condition and capable, having regard to the methods customarily used in the milling industry for the cleaning and conditioning of wheat, of being milled into flour suitable for human consumption. That could be interpreted and is being interpreted by the millers any way they want to and the farmers can do little or nothing about it. No attempt has been made by the millers to devise a more precise test or definition of millability in order to try to make it possible for the farmers to know exactly where they stand every year with their crop.

We have another position developing in the milling industry which I consider is undesirable and which should be changed, that is, that a large sector of the flour milling industry is controlled from outside the country. These people outside the country have little or no interest in or appreciation of the implications of their decisions and failure to increase efficiency. So long as they can take a fair profit, a good profit or a fat profit, they do not mind what the consequences for the consuming public are.

The flour milling industry has also failed in another respect. In spite of the considerable capital assets, equipment and machinery available to it, it has played only a negligible part in the development of the industrialisation of the country over the years. It simply developed the provision of animal feeding, which was easy enough. Very little trouble was involved there. It is now advancing out into what, to my mind, is also undesirable, an attempt to control the bakery trade. In the report of the Flour and Bread Committee of 1956, there is reference to a developing monopoly situation. Sixty per cent.—a most undesirable feature—of the milling capacity is now in the hands of two milling companies. At page 84 of the report, they say:

It is significant that the two milling companies which have recently taken steps to acquire bakeries belong to the two groups, referred to in Paragraph 40 of the Flour and Bread Inquiry, which together control two-thirds of the nominal capacity of the milling industry—one of the groups in turn being in effect controlled by an English company.

They go on to say:—

If present trends continue, these two groups might eventually dominate not alone the milling industry but also the baking industry.

That is the development which is clearly worrying many people in the bakery trade. They are to be gobbled up by these very powerful milling industries and eventually there will be a complete monopoly, not only in the milling industry but also in the bakery trade.

We think it is time that the Government stepped in to stop this development of a monopoly position before it has gone too far. We could clearly reach a position in which these two companies could absorb the whole of the milling capacity and then a takeover bid by the English company for the Irish company would leave the English company in complete control of the production and distribution of the flour milling industry and the bakery trade as well. That seems to be a most undesirable prospect. I cannot see why the people of Ireland cannot themselves take over—establish a State company, take over the industry and establish their own monopoly so that any benefits accruing from the monopoly position come back to the consumer, the taxpayer and the people.

The other failure on the part of the flour milling industry is that it has failed to develop and expand in the industrial field. It is now faced with a reduction in consumption—whatever the reason is unimportant at the moment—in the consumption of bread. Yet the industry has an increasing milling capacity. It has made no attempt whatsoever to diversify its industrial interests and is now confined to a very narrow field. This narrow field is getting progressively narrower. That seems to me to be a situation which the industry could have anticipated. The millers should have anticipated it and taken steps to see that they developed their activities, so that if a contraction did come about, they could have expanded in another way.

The millers failed to take any part in the expansion of exports, or even to try to take any part in the expansion of exports. It is true that it is difficult to expand exports in such a trade, but it is possible to do it and they have failed to take even a small part in the drive for increased exports.

With the increase in the percentage of native wheat in the grist for flour milling, there is a very high percentage of temporary employment. Men are out of employment for a large part of the year and the millers have not attempted to organise their industry so as to employ their workers for the whole round of the year.

The milling industry has made no contribution to the development or organisation of research into the problems of wheat growing in our particular atmospheric conditions, the problematical weather. The position, as we are told by those millers, is that the person who grows wheat by conacre, the telephone farmers, as they have been called, is the person who grows the worst wheat and we are told by the Minister for Agriculture that he does not know how much wheat is grown by conacre. Nobody has attempted to find out how much wheat is grown by conacre and apparently that is the worst kind of wheat. This seems to me to be another failure on the part of the millers.

I do not know how a private company could control the types of farmer who grows wheat except by the contract system. Under Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, it has been found possible to develop the contract system, but that is a semi-State company and does not present the grave dangers which would arise if these millers were allowed to control the acreage of wheat permitted to any particular farmer which would give them something in the form of a monopoly. There is a position already existing in regard to agencies which is part of the restrictive practices operated by these people. This is the case where a particular miller cannot buy in a great wheat growing area because an agent has it tied up and will not allow him to get supplies. That increases the costs because that man has to go to another area to get his supplies or buy dried wheat from a drier who has a surplus.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that in one minute, I shall have to call for a seconder to the motion.

Dr. Browne

Yes, Sir. In relation to the bakery trade, it is clear to one studying the costs in that trade that there is a great variation in those costs. There must be inefficient bakers and some solution must be found for that problem. The Committee stated that it was obvious that inquiries into the matter of the production and selling costs of bread must concentrate as much, if not more, on selling than production. It seems to me to be difficult to leave out the milling trade and not take in the bakery trade, particularly in view of the latest development of the existing position, of the millers taking over the bakeries. If we establish a State company for one section of the industry, we are justified in establishing it for the other.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The time has now expired.

Dr. Browne

I recommend the motion to the consideration of the House and I hope that they will agree with the matters contained in it.

Mr. McQuillan

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Larkin

I move the amendment standing in the names of Deputy Desmond and myself:—

To delete "these commodities" in the fifth line and substitute "flour".

In doing so, I should like, first of all, to express the view that this question of bread and the price of bread as it affects the poorer sections of the community has been a matter of concern for many years. A very large percentage of our community, particularly those on the lower income level, such as those in receipt of social welfare benefits, rely to a great extent for their diet on bread and margarine. In those circumstances, it appears to me only reasonable that the State should, through some form of public company, some form of State concern, take some greater responsibility for endeavouring to assure this section of the community, and the community in general, that this particular article of diet will be available to them at prices that they can afford to pay.

It is true, I think, that the consumption of bread has been going down for some years. One wonders whether that reduction is effected by the fact that so many families have been leaving the country over the years, having regard to the fact that in recent years the trend has been, not for individual members of a family to go, but for whole families to go.

There is another aspect of this matter, apart from the desirability of ensuring that the consumers can purchase adequate supplies of bread. It is an aspect which is very frequently the subject of debate in this House, the aspect of national policy regarding the growing of wheat. It has been accepted as national policy for many years that we should increase the percentage of home-grown wheat and various methods have been used to further it. From the point of view of the consumer, to some extent, there has been a form of compulsion because of regulations which provide that a certain percentage of the grist must be obtained from Irish wheat, and there have been efforts made to subsidise the growing of wheat by our farmers.

If it is accepted that a basic item of diet, such as bread, should be provided for the consumers at reasonable cost, and if it is to be our continued policy to encourage the growing of wheat, it must be obvious that there should be an acceptance of the necessity to establish proper machinery to realise these objectives. In that connection I submit that the machinery existing at present, so far as the milling of wheat and flour is concerned, is not the most desirable for that purpose. Over the years, the flour milling industry has been the subject of a number of inquiries, and not just for the sake of holding inquiries. They have been held because there has been a very widespread suspicion that the flour milling industry has been becoming a monopoly and that its control and the profits from it are passing into the hands of people outside the country. Indeed, there has been very widespread suspicion that the industry has not been operated for the benefit of the community as a whole.

These inquiries have been rather exhaustive, but, so far as the ordinary layman is concerned, they have not produced many effective results. A number of recommendations have been made but whether they have been of any value to the consumer or producer is, even to-day, a subject of very great doubt. Ownership of the industry has tended to become concentrated in very few hands and the bakery industry has been brought into line with it to an extent that, in the course of a few years' time, it may well be impossible to dissociate one from the other, to separate flour milling from the baking of bread and its distribution, with the result that a future inquiry may produce no more effective results than previous ones.

In these circumstances, and because we are dealing with the basic question, it is surely desirable to do some rethinking. If it has been shown to be beneficial in general ways to the community as a whole to have organisations such as the Irish Sugar Company and Bord na Móna, surely it is valid to argue that this industry should be examined with a view to its transfer out of the hands of those whose main concern it is to make a profit and into a semi-State undertaking whose concern it would be to ensure its healthy development and service to the community?

We hear frequently in this House and we read almost daily in the newspapers of contention between the flour millers and the farmers who grow the wheat. There never appears to be agreement on whether things are being operated in a reasonable way. If a semi-State organisation were set up, aside from ensuring the proper and efficient production of flour, proper conditions of employment and proper safeguards and protection to the workers in the industry, the farmers might be in a position to operate on a basis such as exists at present and which appears to give reasonable satisfaction between the Sugar Company and the Beet Growers' Association whereby those who wish to produce beet are reasonably assured that there will be a contract for its production.

I should like to support the motion in so far as it applies to the flour milling industry and having regard to the fact that in the type of development that is taking place in industry at the present time in this country— its gradual and accelerating development of mechanisation leading almost to automation—the setting-up of a State-sponsored company could ensure the protection of the workers engaged in the flour milling industry. To-day, as the monopoly grows, mills are closed down. Those employed in smaller mills have no protection. They are left on the labour market and can only join those others who leave the country in search of employment.

In circumstances where proper and efficient development of the milling industry might necessitate some contraction in the labour force, at least it would be possible to follow the example which has been shown by C.I.E. since its reorganisation. The workers in the industry would then have some protection afforded to them.

While there appears to be a sound case in present circumstances for taking this monopoly private enterprise control of the milling industry away from it and applying to that industry a type of organisation based on service to the community, and in particular based on the efficient production of flour, there is some difficulty regarding the question of the bakery industry and the distribution of bread. Flour milling interests have entered increasingly in recent years into the actual baking of bread. Nevertheless, a very large number of smaller concerns have been giving reasonable employment and providing a service to the community in the baking and distribution of bread.

It appears that there would be very little hope under present circumstances of making the change envisaged in the motion without disrupting and adversely affecting the living of a very large section of the community. Bread is baked in places other than large bakeries. Even at present it is baked in smaller units. It is delivered even to shops which take bread from the larger bakeries. In many cities and towns it is delivered direct to the consumer by people employed on the distributive side of the trade.

I feel that at this time there is no justification for thinking in terms of taking over the whole machinery, which has slowly been developed over the years, of baking and distribution and converting it into an organisation such as the Sugar Company. I do not think the system would permit its changeover without injuring severely many small interests involved. I am of opinion it would be quite possible to take over the private interests of the flourmillers and it is quite clear that in the course of the years changes will take place in the baking and distribution of the bread.

I feel the justification is not here at this stage to ask the House for support for a motion to take into semi-State hands the baking and distribution of bread. While the baking of batch bread may be concentrated in the larger bakeries there is also the baking of brown bread, brown cakes, and so on, which are also a part of the diet of people. In many cases, this article of diet is baked in very small home bakeries and is available for direct sale for consumers in towns and villages. If accepted, the motion would affect not only those concerned in the larger industrial undertakings but those concerned in the much smaller undertakings.

From the point of view of distribution, the problem of the bakery is an old one which is not easily solved. I do not think the motion would solve the many difficulties, the many problems and the complex situation in the bakery industry. The motion, if amended, would read as follows:

Having regard to the paramount importance of flour and bread as the staple diet of our people, and the necessity to bring these commodities within the reach of all the people without hardship to them, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the national interest and the common good require that the production and distribution of flour should be taken over by a State corporation on the general lines of the Sugar Company, such corporation to be non-profit making and all its shares to be held by the Minister for Finance.

The prime concern is to endeavour to ensure that the poorer sections of the community are protected because they have to rely on bread to a great extent as a staple article of diet. Over the years, this House has failed to give them protection by way of price control; and the Government, apparently, do not propose to introduce legislation to protect them. In the past, by the removal of the subsidies, they have, in fact, brought about increases in the prices of foodstuffs. The time has come when the House should place on record its view that steps should be taken to have the flour industry operate for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

The motion as on the Order Paper, stripped of its verbiage, means simply that the House supports the nationalisation of the flour milling and bakery industries in this country. In making arguments for such a course, it is very easy to introduce a lot of sentiment and make arguments based on dietary considerations, but it is necessary to have regard to the economic factors involved in such a proposal.

I take it that the proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment will agree that, in the event of any such nationalisation proposals being implemented, there should be some compensation for those engaged in these two aspects of the supply and marketing of flour and bread? If they do, then they must have regard to what the cost of such compensation would be and how the money which would have to be made available could be raised by the State. Neither of the two speakers applied themselves to an appraisal of what that cost should be and of what the existing capital assets of the bakery and flour milling industries comprise at present.

Broadly speaking, the proposition would mean the raising of funds by the State and of creating public debt amounting to between £12,000,000 and £14,000,000 to pay over to the flour milling and bakery trade so as to acquire their present businesses. I shall refer later to how these estimates were arrived at. However, the effect must be looked at also. The first effect to be sought for is whether there would be any increase in the country's productive capacity as a result of such a take-over. Having paid by way of compensation sums of from £12,000,000 to £14,000,000, one must immediately ask: to what purpose would these huge sums of money be subsequently applied?

Dr. Browne

How much is milling and how much is bakery?

Mr. J. Lynch

Roughly £6,000,000 each. I might be able to develop that later.

Proposing the motion, Deputy Browne said that to some extent the financial interests in the flour milling industry and bakery trade were exercised by persons resident outside this country. Therefore, it is perhaps not unreasonable to presume that some of the money that would have to be paid for the take-over of these two industries would find its way to sources outside the country and there would likely be a net loss to the resources of this country.

This Government have no doctrinaire views about nationalisation. As Deputy Dr. Browne said, the question of ethics does not arise in his motion because there is evidence, from both sides of the House, of nationalisation of certain industries. But there is an essential difference in this case compared with some of the examples he gave. For example, Bord na Móna and Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann are State companies, but they were formed for the purpose of undertaking a job that private enterprise had not been able to do, or had certainly shown no signs of being competent to undertake. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no analogy between the two cases.

Dr. Browne

Surely we all bought loads of turf from the local farmers in the old days? That was private enterprise.

Mr. J. Lynch

It was private enterprise, but the production of turf on such a small scale is not the same as the production envisaged by Bord na Móna.

The question would have to be considered whether the advantages likely to accrue would be worthwhile, and no Government would be prepared to undertake such a take-over, unless substantial advantages were likely to accrue. In the case of these two industries, it is possible that there would be few advantages and many disadvantages in their nationalisation. It is true that many flour millers would welcome nationalisation. As the proposer of the motion said, there has been for some years a decline in the consumption of flour. He referred to the paradoxical explanation of this decline in the suggestion that we are a particularly prosperous country. I do not think anybody ever suggested that we here are a particularly prosperous country, but the suggestion has been made—with, I think, some justification—that, by reason of the increase in the standard of living which has been evident over a number of years, the consumption of flour has declined.

That has been borne out by examination of the consumption of flour and other food commodities in other countries, particularly by the F.A.O. in Rome in respect of its examination of the consumption of bread and flour in Europe. All the countries of Europe, over a number of years past, have decreased their consumption of bread and flour and therefore it is nothing of a phenomenon in this country. By reason of that decline in consumption, most millers, not only here but in other parts of the world, have excess capacity and that is one of the reasons why it is not illogical to assume that flour millers here would welcome nationalisation and with it, the taking over by the State of some or all of their excess capacity.

An assurance of having their businesses purchased as going concerns by the Government would naturally be attractive to the millers who are most apprehensive of competition because they are the ones who will first be most likely to close. It is estimated that there is about thirty per cent. excess capacity in this industry and under nationalisation, the State would be paying for that excess capacity and it would be acquiring productive assets thirty per cent. or so in excess of requirements.

To examine the effect of nationalisation on prices, would, I think, be an important exercise in this study. I do not think it can be said that nationalisation would reduce prices; on the contrary, it is more than likely that it would increase them. When this motion was put on the Order Paper, there were 33 flour milling establishments in the country and approximately 700 commercial bakeries. Competition has reduced that figure of 33 to 31 at present, but the book value of the assets employed by those firms engaged in flour milling is approximately £6 million. The replacement value would obviously be much more. The book value of the bakery trade is similarly estimated at about £6 million and assuming that compensation were to be paid solely on the basis of the book value, without any compensation for disturbance and other factors, there would have to be paid at least £12 million in cash to take them over. A more realistic figure would perhaps be £14 million.

Dr. Browne

We faced up to that in the case of the G.S.R. and the G.N.R.

Mr. J. Lynch

Again, the analogy is hardly fair, because in that case the question was whether we would have a rail service or not.

Dr. Browne

To many poor people, it is a question of whether they will have bread or not in this case.

Mr. J. Lynch

It would probably cost about £14 million to compensate those whose business would be taken over in the event of nationalisation and to raise that sum would require repayment of interest at about 6 per cent., or about £1½ million a year. This would, of course, impose a very heavy capital burden on the community. The Deputy suggested that nationalisation would mean that the profits would go towards making the industries more efficient or towards raising wages or reducing the price of bread. The profits out of these two industries are estimated to be in the region of about £1 million so that an immediate increase in bread and flour prices would result in the event of nationalisation because of the extra £½ million it would cost to run these industries. It would probably mean an increase of 2/- per sack of flour or 1d. in the 4-lb. loaf.

I should mention that these profits were held by the committees of inquiry to which the Deputy has referred as being in no way excessive and in fact the Lavery Committee, dealing with the profits of the bakery trade during the period of the subsidies, said that for a long period the profits they were permitted to draw were held at too low a level and recommended, at one stage, that they should be compensated for that.

The Deputy suggested that a uniform costing system would be necessary, first of all, to see whether the industries were being efficiently run and, I take it, ultimately if this motion were acceptable, to ascertain what measure of compensation would be payable.

I should like to remind the Deputy that uniformity of costing was recommended by the Lavery Committee against the background of subsidisation, and I think it is fair to say that the Government set the committee to that task purely for the purpose of measuring to what extent subsidies were being properly applied.

Assuming, as I think it more than likely, that bread and flour would cost more if nationalisation came about, the question would then be raised: could such high costs be offset in any way by economies? I have said that there is already—I do not think it is disputed—about 30 per cent. excess milling capacity and by reason of the decline in consumption of bread, it is not unreasonable to assume that there is at least that much or even more excess capacity in the bakery trade. Economies could of course be achieved by rationalisation, by the closing of mills and bakeries which are not required to meet the needs of the community. It is estimated that there are 3,000, or a few more or less, employed in the milling industry and approximately 3,500 in the bakery trade. Elimination of excess capacity, therefore, would mean the disemployment of roughly 1,000 milling employees and 1,500 or so bakery employees.

Dr. Browne

Why should people stop eating bread just because there is nationalisation?

Mr. J. Lynch

I am proceeding on the basis of roughly the present consumption of bread and flour. I have suggested, and I think it can be proved that I am right, that no reduction in bread and flour prices could be effected merely by nationalisation and I have indicated that against the £1 million profit that both sides of the industry are taking at present, it would cost £1½ million per annum to remunerate the capital necessary to compensate those at present engaged in the milling and bakery industry. That would immediately indicate that in order to find £½ million extra per annum, there would have to be an increase in bread and flour prices or economies would have to be achieved otherwise.

I am now dealing with how such economies could be achieved and one of the methods, of course, is rationalisation. That would mean the closing of the less efficient mills and bakeries and, of necessity, the disemployment of the numbers I mentioned—about 1,000 flour mill workers and 1,500 bakery workers. Such action, of course, action brought about by deliberate acts of a Government, would involve compensation arrangements for these workers. It is an accepted principle that people who have been disemployed by direct legislative action of the Government are entitled to some measure of compensation. I do not know to what extent the disemployed workers in these two branches of the trade could be compensated but even if we took a figure of £1,000 as being fair compensation—I am not suggesting that it is; it could well be much more and may be less—a figure of £1,000 per head of these people would amount to £2,500,000 increased burden on the community that nationalisation might bring in its wake.

The idea that nationalisation could reduce flour prices is based on the assumption that far too high profits are being made at the present time. Flour prices were controlled between 1939 and 1957 because they were being subsidised then. During that period there were many consultations between the millers and the authorities responsible for the subsidies. Most of these consultations and inquiries, such as those conducted by the Lavery Committee, related as I have said, to the reduction of subsidy rather than to the reduction of prices, but during the course of these consultations and during the course of one of these inquiries the Lavery Committee reported that the profits millers were permitted to take certainly did not err on the side of generosity or, if they did, they erred very little.

Dr. Browne

We can prove that when we get an efficient costing system.

Mr. J. Lynch

Since 1957 the method of subsidisation has, of course, ceased but the policy has since been directed towards the promotion of competition. As I said at the outset, two mills have closed even since this motion was put down by reason of inability to measure up to competition. That was in 1958. Another mill has closed down in the present year—the Midleton Mills. Two mills in Cork have amalgamated into one in order to achieve greater efficiency, the St. John's Mills and National Flour Mills.

I have argued in the House on a number of occasions about the effectiveness of the competition that I suggest is taking place and the very good reasons for it. It is naturally in the interests of the mills to ensure, so far as they can, that the level of consumption of bread and flour will be at least maintained and so far as possible will be raised. Therefore, it is obviously not in their interests to raise the prices of bread or to be so indifferent to efficient methods of production as to permit bread and flour to be on sale at prices that are beyond the reach of the ordinary people, if they can avoid it. It is reasonable to assume that they try to avoid putting bread beyond the reach of the average person, be he in the middle or the lower income group.

Dr. Browne

Without success.

Mr. McQuillan

What about the expenditure at the moment on advertising?

Mr. J. Lynch

Advertising is an accepted method of expanding sales in a modern economy, no matter what product is concerned.

Mr. McQuillan

For a vital necessity like bread?

Mr. J. Lynch

Even for a vital necessity because, as I have stated—I think the Deputy's question is taken out of the context of my argument— with the increasing standard of living in the world people, as Deputy Browne himself said, are turning to other forms of food and therefore it is in the interests of flour millers and bakers to promote in the minds of the people the idea of the value of bread as against other types of food that they would otherwise buy.

I should like, however, to point out that notwithstanding the attempts at maintaining or increasing the consumption of bread through the present campaign of advertising and other methods, there is not a very wide margin for competition in the industry when one realises that at the present time the Irish native wheat represents about 80 per cent. of the raw material and that has to be bought at prices which are fixed by the Government. There are other charges such as freight, cost of sacks, depreciation and such like which vary, I understand, very little as between the millers. So much for flour.

In the case of bread, prices were controlled from 1936 to 1957 and, as I have already stated, the Lavery Committee reported that for very long periods prices were kept far too low and that restitution was due to the industry.

No doubt, concentration of all bakery activities in a few large mechanical bakeries would reduce factory costs but at the expense of employment. Assuming that this were done, even at the expense of employment, one would have to take into account the counter-balancing cost of distribution and, in the long run, it is very doubtful that, even by nationalisation in this manner, even by cutting out the smaller bakeries and concentrating on the larger ones, as would be an inevitable result of nationalisation, the people would get their bread any cheaper.

These are some of the problems arising out of the existence of excess flour-milling capacity, but I do not think it can be claimed that the problems could be solved more easily by nationalisation rather than by present operations.

In reference to excess capacity, Deputy Dr. Browne suggested that the millers themselves have never made any attempt to invade the export market but, of course, he ignores the fact that the market immediately open to us for bread and bread products is in Britain, where they already have a very high excess capacity of their own.

There is, of course, I understand, a small export from the Donegal mills to the Six Counties and, to the extent that we have increased our exports of confectionery and biscuits, the flour millers have contributed to that export by making available flour which is milled from imported wheat. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, having regard to the success in the competitive foreign markets that our biscuits and confectionery products have enjoyed, that the contribution of the millers to that success has been efficient. At least it is an indication of the extent to which they can produce flour efficiently for this purpose.

It is true, perhaps, that the millers have not used that excess capacity otherwise. Naturally, I would be glad to see that they could do so by employing their plant and their buildings for other purposes if it were feasible. I do not know whether it is or not but having regard to the fact that they have such excess capacity I am sure it is a matter they must have considered from time to time and rather than let such plant lie idle, if they could use it profitably otherwise, they would be glad to do so if they were in a position to find an alternative form of industrialisation.

To summarise, on the two main aspects, first of all, the costs of nationalisation and whether, in the long run, flour and bread would be any cheaper as a result, I think it is clear that nationalisation would not effect any reduction in the cost of either flour or bread. It would be more likely to necessitate an increase, if a process of rationalisation is necessitated by the excess capacity that now exists. It could be as easily dealt with in present conditions as it could be by nationalisation. An important point which must be considered is that it would mean collecting from £12,000,000 to £14,000,000—perhaps not less than £14,000,000——

Mr. McQuillan

Make it £20,000,000.

Mr. J. Lynch

——to be handed over to the present proprietors, much of which might be invested abroad and, in the long run, without any gain to the nation.

Mr. McQuillan

Where are the profits being invested at the moment?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister must give way in a minute.

Mr. J. Lynch

Is my time finished?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has one minute left.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am looking for figures for Deputy Browne but unfortunately I cannot put my hand on them. The figures given are slightly in excess of the actual figures which were available a year or two ago, but I think they can be accepted as a fair estimate of the present capital value of these two industries. I must say that I am not accepting the motion in its original or amended form.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister said it would mean displacing roughly 1,500 persons in the bakery trade. I did not catch his explanation in that regard.

Mr. J. Lynch

There is 30 per cent. excess capacity in the flour milling trade and presumably in the bakery trade as well. It is possible that some of those 1,500 persons have already lost their employment, but assuming 30 per cent. over-capacity exists in both sides of the trade, that would mean there would be 1,000 redundant workers on the milling side and up to 1,500 on the bakery side, if that excess capacity were eliminated, as it is suggested it would have to be, under nationalisation.

Mr. Cosgrave

We are opposed to a socialist solution for some of our economic problems and, in that regard, we are opposed to the suggestion in the motion that bakeries should be nationalised. We do, however, accept the amendment that flour ought to be brought under Government control for the reason that, for a number of years, the State has assumed responsibility for paying a guaranteed price for wheat. Taking one year with another, that has resulted in excess supplies of unsuitable wheat and, at the same time, the consumer has been obliged to pay an artificially high price for flour and bread. It seems, therefore, that, from every angle, the present arrangement is unsatisfactory.

Excess quantities of unsuitable wheat are being supplied to the mills, which, in turn, the millers reject as unsuitable for manufacture into flour. The difference between what that wheat is sold for, for animal feed or other purposes, has to be met by the Exchequer. On the other hand, the consumer of flour and bread is obliged to pay a high price for flour. We feel, therefore, it is desirable that that situation should be re-examined and that consideration should be given to bringing the flour industry under Government direction.

This matter, as is well known, has been the subject of two examinations in recent years, first, by the Flour and Bread Committee which reported some years ago, and secondly, in 1956. The various aspects affecting the industry were examined in great detail on both of those occasions and certain conclusions were reached. It is our view that there is no case for the acquisition of bakeries.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Cosgrave

We believe the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government should watch with the greatest care the widespread acquisition of small bakeries which has developed in recent years. Small bakeries have been acquired by certain interests and the virtual disappearance from some towns of privatelyowned and privately-run firms is, in our view, not in the best interests either of effective competition in the industry or of the towns in which these industries—specialised and in many cases family-run—operated efficiently and provided employment in small towns. The situation which has developed in recent years has meant that these small bakeries have been acquired by larger concerns and, in certain instances, bread is now brought very many miles by van from central depots or central bakeries and sold over a wide area. That is a tendency that should be watched closely and, if necessary, steps should be taken to prevent further development along those lines.

It is an illusion to imagine that merely by nationalising an industry, it becomes more efficient. That is one of the socialist myths which have been exploded and they themselves have come to accept elsewhere in recent years that it is no longer valid. I strongly believe that in certain circumstances the State should operate and run industries. There are very many examples in this country of the efficient and effective running of State concerns established to operate particular undertakings—the Electricity Supply Board, Bord na Móna, C.I.E. and many others come to mind—but where private enterprise is already operating, as it has operated for a long time so far as bakeries are concerned, there is no justification for State intervention.

Where State intervention in this case is justified is in connection with the acquisition and direction of the flour milling industry because of the fact that the State has already assumed responsibility for payment of a guaranteed price for wheat. The result has been that over a period the excess quantities of unsuitable wheat have involved the Exchequer in meeting further charges. In turn, the consumer has been obliged to pay an artificially high price for bread and flour.

Experience in recent years justifies further examination of the present method by which wheat is grown and the present system under which the State guarantees a price to the producer and accepts responsibility for losses, if excess quantities of unsuitable wheat are produced. The guaranteed price should be paid for millable wheat and suitable inducements should be offered to the producers, but some system should be adopted which will enable excess quantities to be avoided. An effort should be made to operate a system which will prevent the accumulation of large excess quantities such as have arisen in recent years; almost every second year that situation has developed.

It is an illusion to suggest that the acquisition by the State of bakeries would mean cheaper bread. On the other hand, it does seem somewhat strange that the flourmilling interests should publish advertisements recommending people to eat more bread. I have always held the view that cheaper bread and cheaper flour are best possible advertisements. They will advertise themselves and it does not require expensive advertisements in the newspapers to convince people they should eat more bread. If the flourmillers directed their attention towards providing cheaper flour, the bakeries would be able to produce cheaper bread and to sell cheaper flour.

We support the amendment in the names of Deputies Larkin and Desmond, but we are opposed to the suggestion in the motion that bakeries should be acquired. It is in the national interest that this whole question of flourmilling and the arrangements under which a guaranteed price is provided for wheat should be reviewed. The present arrangements are regarded by all concerned as unsatisfactory. It seems that the State and the consumer are both paying for excess quantities of an inferior commodity. At the same time, the advantages of a cheaper commodity are denied to the consumer and the State, at both ends, has to accept responsibility.

Some revised arrangement by which a guaranteed price would be paid for a certain quantity of millable wheat should be substituted, but the suggestion that control in respect of flour and bread should be taken over entirely, as is envisaged in the motion, does not meet with our approval. So far as bakeries are concerned, I should like the Minister and his Department to pay particular attention to the development whereby certain concerns have acquired a number of bakeries and centralised them into a single concern. That, in our view, is not in the interests of anyone concerned in the bakery trade. The employment of some workers may be endangered by it; the prospect of cheaper bread has been largely eliminated; and the effect of competition which should provide an incentive is being jeopardised by it. That matter was the subject of examination when the Lavery Committee reported and the developments since then indicate that it is a matter that should be kept under close review. We are in favour of the amendment and opposed to the motion.

Mr. McQuillan

I have not heard any case made yet against this motion. I listened carefully to the Minister in his contribution to the debate and I must confess to a feeling of great disappointment that he seemed to take a matter of such vital importance to the wellbeing of the community in such a casual fashion. He produced certain figures—and I doubt very much whether they can be substantiated— in connection with the question of compensation to the millers themselves and referred to the danger from nationalisation if uneconomic mills had to close down.

I wish to deal first with the milling end of the question. I am glad to note that Deputy Cosgrave, although he is not in favour of part of the motion in connection with the bakery trade, is in favour of Government control over the production of flour. That is only a logical statement on his part, in view of the fact that he was a member of a Cabinet which, I am sure, discussed time and again the problem of the farmer, as far as the growing of wheat was concerned and that of the consumer, as far as the price of bread was concerned.

From reading the Lavery Report, I believe that the Government in office who set up the Committee which brought out that report were very much in favour of the State taking control of the Milling industry. Changes have taken place in that industry since 1956, changes that were becoming apparent even in 1956. There have been greater developments in the past few years and I refer to the gradual taking over of the bakery industry by the milling concerns themselves.

Great anxiety has been displayed here that the small bakers throughout the country would be likely to be put out of action through the nationalisation of the milling and bakery industry but the simple fact is that at the moment the milling industry itself is gradually putting the small bakeries out of existence. A great percentage of the major bakeries have fallen into the hands of the milling industry so that under the present trend there is a greater danger. With the milling industry left in the hands of private enterprise there is greater danger to the bakery industry and to the small bakers if this trend is not arrested now. The only way to arrest that trend in my opinion is to take the steps outlined in the motion.

Deputy Dr. Browne pointed out that the two milling groups in this country between them mill over 60 per cent. of our national requirements of wheat. These two groups, namely Odlums and Ranks, actually carry out the milling requirements of 61 per cent. of our requirements. That in itself does not constitute a monopoly but the really sinister point behind the power exercised by those two groups is that not alone do they control the milling industry as such but to a great extent they control grain storage, the importing end of it and the provender end of it. As I pointed out they are also gradually gaining control of the bakery part of it. Although the two groups mill over 60 per cent. of our national requirements between them, the same two groups control almost the entire grain trade and their tentacles reach into all aspects pertaining to the milling industry.

The so called independent groups in the milling business to-day are only independent in theory. In actual fact, they are dependent for their existence on importers who in turn are controlled by the two groups to whom I have referred. Therefore, it means that behind the scenes practically the entire flour milling industry is controlled from the importation stage to the storage end of it, the provender end and the bakery end, by two major groups. One of these groups is controlled from outside this State, namely Ranks. In the national interest it is a highly undesirable state of affairs that such a monopoly should be in the hands of two groups.

There seems to be a feeling in this House that it would be wrong for the State to interfere in a matter where private enterprise has held sway for so many years. In my opinion there is a far greater justification for the people, through a State body, owning and controlling the flour milling industry than there is for the people owning the production of electric light or controlling their railways. Moral considerations, in my opinion, do not enter into this at all. There can be no dispute on that by any member of this House because already, as a Parliament, we have in various other fields given authority to the State to set up State or semi-State bodies to exploit, develop and control, in the national interest, industries and various forms of development which are not at all as important as the production of a vital commodity such as bread. If the present trend is allowed to continue within a few years the remaining flour millers and bakeries, which are independent at the moment, will be absorbed. That is the aim of the two groups I have mentioned.

There is one significant omission with regard to the amount of control they exercise and that is that, so far, they have not been allowed to control the actual growing of wheat. Although personally I am completely in favour of setting up the contract system for the growing of wheat, just as we have a contract system for the growing of beet, under present circumstances while control of the flour milling industry lies in the hands of these two groups it would be disastrous to bring in a system of contracts and allow the milling interests, as they are, to exercise that control. If that position is arrived at, and that is what these milling groups are aiming at, then the entire community can be held up to ransom by these people.

At the moment the Flour Millers Association are sending their public relations officers around to every agricultural committee suggesting to them that it would be a far better proposition to have control exercised over the growing of wheat and pointing out that, as far as the small farmer is concerned, he is not getting a fair crack. But the millers are not worried about the small farmer or the conacre man. They are solely interested in getting control of the whole milling industry, right from the sowing and growing of the wheat. If the Government are not prepared to accept the motion, I hope that the farmers' Deputies who are members of the Government Party will ensure at their Party meetings that the Government will not fall into the trap which has been prepared for them by the millers, namely, the setting up of a contract system for the growing of wheat and leaving that control to be exercised by the monopoly which has been operating here over the years.

I have pointed out that two groups, namely Odlums and Ranks, are the key groups in so far as the flour milling industry is concerned. We shall first take the Odlum group. I understand from inquiries that I have made— certainly the information was not available from Government sources— that the Odium group controls eight mills in this country to-day and that those eight mills represent over 30 per cent. of our total milling capacity.

The same group control three large bakeries in Dublin and one in Waterford. In addition to that—and this is of great importance—they also control 23 grain stores. These grain stores are in various parts of the country and I do not propose to delay the House giving details of where they are, but it can be taken that ranging from Sligo over to Portarlington, down to New Ross, up to Dundalk and, of course, Dublin, they have this grain storage accommodation. They have it in the midlands, the south and to a less noticeable extent in the west. In addition to that, this same group control the port grain installations in both Dublin and Waterford. As well as that, they have six subsidiary companies which are officially known as importer-distributors, but which, in fact, are brokerage houses which import and export on behalf of Odlums. These brokerage houses are part of the Odium group. These houses in turn reach out their tentacles to control four provender milling companies as well. It can be seen, therefore, that the ramifications of the Odlum group are widespread.

The other group—the Rank group —is in a similar position. They have five mills and they again control over 30 per cent. of the total milling capacity within the State. The result of all this is that the supposedly independent flour mills, bakeries or provender mills are cornered and their continued existence in business depends on their cooperation with one or other, or both, of the groups to which I have referred.

There is, of course, one notable exception at the moment, that is, Bolands, who are millers as well as bakers. It is believed throughout the trade at the moment that within a very short time the same fate awaits that independent company as that which overtook another one, Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien, some years ago. When the cornering of the shares of that company have taken place, then we can say goodbye to any independent milling group in the country. Complete control will then be in the hands of the two companies to which I have referred.

Take what Deputy Dr. Browne dealt with—the consumers' point of view. It would be reasonable to expect that, as a result of the monopoly created, the take-over of these bakeries and the increasing control exercised by these groups, greater efficiency would have ensued and that a consequent result of that increased efficiency would be a reduction in the price of bread, but, in fact, it is the other way about. In spite of the excuses that all these amalgamations are taking place in the name of efficiency, we have had nothing but a constant increase in the price of bread over the years.

On the bread price alone, in spite of the fact that these people maintain they are highly efficient, we find that on the figures given by the millers, the selling cost and overheads on the 2-lb. loaf amount to 4¾d. and that in the same 2-lb. loaf, the cost of native wheat is only a little over 4¼d. Therefore, the selling costs, namely, the transport costs and overheads are almost as high as the cost of the native wheat in the 2-lb. loaf.

Where is the efficiency there? Deputy Cosgrave spoke about some bakers travelling long distances and said it was a matter upon which an eye should be kept. Keeping an eye on this thing is not worth a damn, unless you are prepared to take action and what action can we take? I am going to give a specific example and the Minister may take a note of it.

In the village where I was born in South Roscommon, there are three shops. It is only a small village. In the week, twelve bakeries visit that village. Twelve different bakeries bring bread to that village. There is no difference in the price offered to the shopkeepers by any of these bakeries. Sometimes the bread van calls and may sell a dozen loaves and the next time they call, they may sell half a dozen loaves. Can anybody tell me what is rational or sensible about a situation in the trade whereby twelve bakeries can call to a small village like that offering the same fare, the same product, at the same price and with no competition?

Is that not where the costs come in? The cost of transport and overheads on a 2-lb. loaf amounts to over 4d. Can we do anything about that? Is it any use asking us to keep an eye on the situation? What is the step that can be taken and should be taken in a case like that? If a concrete suggestion were put forward on the question of nationalisation, then I would fall in with it but in order to reach that stage, you must first take over control of the milling industry. The milling industry in turn at the moment controls a great percentage of the bakery trade and you must take over at least that proportion of the trade which is in the hands of the millers. Then logically, after that, you must make the necessary arrangements to ensure that this overlapping and wild-cat competition is brought to an end.

I have not the slightest doubt that if the proper steps were taken by the Government to control this alleged competition to the extent to which I have referred, namely, where 12 different bakeries send their vans to one small village, the result would be a reduction in transport costs and the price of bread could be brought down by at least one penny on the 2-lb. loaf.

I make that statement and I defy the Minister to produce figures that will in any way prove that my figures are wrong. It is open to any Deputy to say that employment is being given to 12 different drivers. I am not denying that, but there is also the fact that 12 different vans are being used, that those vans are imported, that their tyres are imported, that their fuel is imported and that, to a great extent, the money so spent is going out of the country.

In spite of the alleged increased efficiency which should have taken place, due to the take-over by the two major concerns, there is anything but increased efficiency because the price of bread has gone up. That is the consumers' end of it. As far as the producers are concerned, we have, at harvest time, the annual row. There is an annual harvest war between the millers and the farmers who are growing wheat. The position is beyond contradiction that there is no proper interpretation of what the millability of wheat means. The 1956 report urged on the Government the absolute necessity of deciding once and for all what millability means and also urged that the decision on that should not rest with the millers but with the State. No effort whatever has been made in that regard and to this day we find the millers deciding what wheat is millable. We find the position that lorries bring in wheat to one mill which rejects it as unmillable and that same wheat is taken to another mill and accepted as millable, so that the farmer is completely at the mercy of the miller. I have no great sympathy with the telephone farmer or the conacre farmer, but the farming members of the Fianna Fáil Party should realise that the very men who sent them into this House are being exploited by the flour millers.

Not alone is the producer being hit in the production of wheat but of much wider implication is the fact that these two milling companies have a stranglehold on the feeding stuffs of the nation. The poultry and pig industries which should be of major importance in the west of Ireland are not allowed to flourish because of that stranglehold and until it is removed, there is no hope of proper development or full use being made of the bacon factories in the west of Ireland.

In addition to that side of it, these two groups have the control of all port and storage facilities. Practically every aspect of the trade—the import and storage, milling and brokerage ends of it—is being gradually taken into the hands of these two groups. That means that a monopoly has been created, a monopoly that deals with one of the most important items on the table of the ordinary person. That monopoly should not be allowed to exploit the poorer sections of the community and the fact is that the monopoly is not giving an adequate service to the farmer, either with regard to the wheat itself or the grain needed for feeding purposes. As far as the consumer is concerned, there is complete dissatisfaction with the ever-increasing cost of bread. Surely it is not suggested that a State body charged with responsibility to the community rather than with exploiting the community would prove less efficient than a monopoly of the nature I refer to, a great proportion of which is controlled from outside this country?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The time has now expired.

Mr. McQuillan

I shall not detain the House any longer, except to say that I think it is a very bad thing to find that the farmer Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party show such little interest in a matter of this importance. If these Deputies have any interest in the welfare of the rural communities from which they come, it is too bad that they would not bring pressure to bear on the Government to realise that the control exercised by the milling groups is disastrous for the farmers of this country.

Mr. Dillon

As Deputy Cosgrave has emphasised, we are opposed to any suggestion that there should be nationalisation of the bakery trade or of the distribution of bread. I think Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan have been bitten by the socialist bug and that that accounts for the terms of their motion which advocates a semi-State body to control flour milling and also the production and distribution of bread. As Deputy Cosgrave has said, we greatly regret the tendency of the small bakeries to disappear which has manifested itself. We would prefer to see the bread trade in the hands of the local baker catering for his neighbours and the growing centralisation of that trade has for us, I think, very considerable dangers.

It does appear that a situation has been reached in the flour milling industry which would justify the establishment of a State concern to operate it. Much the best system for getting the most efficient operation and the most economic production is private enterprise, under the spur of open competition. If that system obtained in the flour-milling industry in this country, we should be glad to see it maintained. The fact is that it no longer obtains in the flour milling industry and that that industry is in the hands of small group amongst whom no element of competition survives and whose profits, so far as I am aware, are still practically guaranteed by Government interference. They are entitled to charge a certain profit on their operations which are guaranteed to produce a certain dividend, not only on the nominal capital of their enterprises but on the total capital invested in them.

Anybody who reads the Lavery Report will realise that once one gets into the maze of calculations to determine what is the total volume of capital invested in the industry and to disentangle all the various operations, one gets hopelessly lost. It is true that the whole machinery of handling grain, both home-produced and imported, and its manufacture, is now controlled by a small close-knit group, and it seems to me that in those circumstances it is better for the community to control it and to be responsible to the community, rather than that such a monopolistic group should control so vital a product.

I think the sound principle is that if a product is essential to the community, and if its production has evolved in such a form as to leave it in the hands of a virtual monopoly, then the State should take it over. If the product is not essential, then I do not think it matters a fiddle-de-dee whether it is produced by a monopoly or not and, if a product is essential, but there is effective competition and free enterprise in its manufacture, then I think it is much better to leave it the way it is. In the flour milling industry, the product is essential but it has become a virtual monopoly and, in those circumstances, I think the State would not only be justified but well advised in operating it on the same basis as the sugar industry, the peat industry and all the other public services a modern community now administers in the interests of the community itself.

Anyone who wants to learn the details of this trade will find them all set out in the Lavery Report and I remember the awed admiration with which I used to study, when Minister for Agriculture, the operations of handling grain, the charges made for bagging and for housing it, for unloading it, for unhousing it and for debagging it. These operations were carried out by independent firms, but, when you began to examine home who the independent firms were, you discovered to your admiration that the directors of these firms which were engaged in the business of housing and unhousing, bagging and debagging, were all directors of the flour milling industry itself and they had managed to build up an extraordinary structure of cost and profits, all of which used to be very carefully examined by conscientious civil servants in the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture.

I well remember our Government urged upon them that there should be some uniform costings procedure established at all the mills and machinery was set up to achieve that purpose. I think it was in 1951, but, when we left office, that whole project was abandoned and, so far as I know, much the same complicated structure as then existed still exists. I reached the conclusion when grappling with these complexities that the plain truth was that the only way the abuses, which, in my opinion, undoubtedly existed, could be effectively remedied was to establish the flour milling industry as a public service under a board responsible to the Oireachtas.

I am not at all sure that Deputy McQuillan is right in going on to say that the same conditions apply to the provender milling industry, because, unless things have changed since I was intimately concerned with it, there is a real element of competition in that industry, and my present experience leads me to believe it is still possible to shop around between one provender mill and another and get rival quotations so that the same degree of price fixation is not present and, of course, it is much easier for anybody to engage in the provender manufacturing business than in the milling industry. So far as I know, any man to-day who is prepared to provide a suitable premises—and they do not require to be very elaborate— is entitled as of right to get a provender milling licence from the appropriate Department and to set up business in the morning and, so long as that continues to be a fact, the danger of monopoly does not exist.

The great difficulty in connection with the milling industry is that the capital cost of installing flour milling capacity is very great and, though there may be a theoretical right in people to get a licence to mill flour, the likelihood of anybody seeking such a licence in modern conditions is very remote. I do not believe that it is practical or desirable to recapitulate to the House all the contents of the Lavery Report. Anyone who is sufficiently interested in all these matters should read the report, which is quite a considerable document, but I think any reasonable man who peruses it carefully will realise what the true situation is and will agree with the view that we have long ago reached a point when the organisation of the milling industry on a national basis is more than justified.

Now the Minister said one of the only means of effecting economy in the event of such a thing taking place would be to close down some of the smaller mills. I do not believe that is true but I do believe some of these small mills could be effectively employed as provender mills and it is that kind of thing that a socially responsible organisation, primarily interested in the welfare of the community rather than their own welfare, could reasonably and responsibly undertake.

I believe real economies could be effected and I do not agree with the Minister that the only result of acquiring the industry and operating it on a national basis would be to increase the price of bread. In fact, I think the reverse would be probably true. I believe if this thing were properly done, there would be, not a drastic reduction, but some reduction in the price of flour and bread. What is much more important, a guarantee in future that the obligation would be placed upon such a body to make a reduction in the cost of flour and bread its first consideration would avoid the possibility of gradual increases in flour which are threatening to arise, if the industry is left in the hands of the present monopoly.

Mr. J. Lynch

Does the Deputy suggest that provender milling should be nationalised as well, then?

Mr. Dillon

No. I do not see any reason why an international company should not be allowed to enter the trade and train the present occupants of it.

Mr. McQuillan

The Grain Board.

Mr. Dillon

I do not see any horrible possibility in trade in provender. I think it is rather a good thing and would be very stimulating for some nationally-controlled bodies if they had a bit of competition. I do not feel there is anything incongruous or shocking in the proposal that if you have a national milling board which engages in the provender business, they should be allowed to compete on equal terms with the provender mills.

Mr. J. Lynch

They would not have the same problem of capital as the private provender. They could take less profit.

Mr. Dillon

That is true but I do not think it is an insuperable difficulty. Private enterprise will run and often hold its own against State enterprise and one acts as a spur upon the other. I do not believe the problem is insurmountable. I remember considering it when the matter was under consideration before. One of the problems that did create difficulty was to detach flour mills from their annexed bake-houses. Some large mills have bakeries closely associated with them. That problem is becoming even more complex since I last considered it because a great many bakeries have since been bought by milling concerns.

Let justice be done though the heavens fall. I think you can read into that a dark and sinister purpose which I do not believe is there. I believe the milling industry began to buy bakeries when the production capacity of the mills here began to outstrip demand; I suppose there was something sinister in it. The mills did not like having to go out to purchase the trade of the independent bakeries by competition. Therefore, what every mill did was to try to buy as many bakeries as it could so as to have a certain outlet for its flour. In that sense, they were trying to destroy competition and in that sense, I suppose there was an evil element in their development.

Quite apart from that, it is thoroughly unsound to try to concentrate the whole production of bread in this country in one pair of hands, whether it is the State or otherwise. If you concentrate all the baking capacity in one pair of hands, you are inviting the possibility of a very serious situation arising if all the bakeries are closed down for one reason or another at the one time. The community is entitled to protect itself from the possibility of being held up. If a State organisation is using flour, there are always means of getting it if circumstances make it impossible to mill it on the spot.

Mr. J. Lynch

So long as you get all the trade unions with you. I take it the Deputy is referring to a strike in the milling industry?

Mr. Dillon

I say you should not concentrate all the baking capacity in the country in one hand. Baking capacity should be as widely distributed in the community as possible.

Mr. J. Lynch

I cannot see clearly enough the Deputy's distinction between flour and bread in this context.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister were as long in the trade as I am, he would see it very vividly. If the Deputies who put down the motion reflect on the trading implications of it, they will realise their motion suggests that every shop in Ireland that handles bread should be prevented from handling it and that bread should be distributed only through State shops. That is all my eye and Betty Martin. That is simply the Socialist bug that happens to have bitten the two Deputies concerned. I suppose we must excuse them if these bugs carry them somewhat further into folly than they would otherwise travel. I do not believe either of them meant what they said in that part of their motion. It just fitted into the broad circle of Socialist approach to things which they have adopted and is, of course, nonsense.

For these reasons, if the amendment proposed by Deputies Larkin and Desmond, which operates to confine the proposal to flour-milling and to exclude the distribution of bread and flour products, is adopted, we would be prepared to give our general approval to the motion as so amended.

Dr. Browne

Having listened to the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose in the circumstances of this debate, the most apposite remark I can make is that half a loaf is better than no bread at all so far as his offer to support part of the motion is concerned. As far as we are concerned, it is a considerable advance. I could nearly look forward to the time when Deputy Dillon might be Taoiseach and might be able to put even that part of our motion into operation.

On the question of the bakeries, we were concerned, on the distribution side of our motion, to emphasise that the indictment against the milling and bakery interests was really established by the Lavery Commission. Here is the relevant quotation:

It is obvious therefore that the search for economies in the production and selling costs of bread must concentrate as much if not indeed more on selling as on production and administration costs.

We felt that was a good enough reason for putting this second part of the motion down. We felt we would have an opportunity of hearing the views of the House on the ways in which we could reduce the distribution and selling costs of bread.

With all respect to Deputy Cosgrave, I do not think his suggestion that we should keep an eye on the bakeries or distributors is very valuable. If it is a valid suggestion in respect of the bakeries, why not suggest we keep an eye on the millers and hope they will learn the wisdom of their ways? On the question of the possibility of closing-down small bakeries, according to the Lavery Report, it does not necessarily mean that with a State company, the industry would go out of business. The least cost per sack of flour in a list of bakeries, taking the lowest cost, was in the eighth smallest bakery. The second lowest was in the third smallest; the third lowest in the ninth; the fourth lowest in the twenty-first; the fifth lowest in the fourteenth; the sixth lowest in the smallest; and the seventh lowest in the second smallest. The Lavery Report says that "Whatever generalisations one can make about the bakery trade, at least one cannot say that the largest bakeries have the smallest costs."

Mr. Crotty

It shows private enterprise.

Dr. Browne

If I had the time I would point out that there are very great discrepancies between the efficient and the inefficient bakery. That is something which must be looked into, in order to reduce the cost of bread. Our other difficulties arise from the fact that the tentacles of these two major companies have extended to many of these small private bakeries—some of them family concerns—and they are being gobbled up. As the Committee reflected, "If present trends continue, these two groups might eventually dominate not alone the milling industry but the bakery industry." Therefore, it seems quite proper that we should keep an eye on the bakeries, since it is not going to help the small bakeries which will be absorbed gradually by these mammoth companies and put out of business.

That really brings us to the point of the comments of the Minister for Industry and Commerce on our motion. It is obvious that we have to face the problem of reducing the cost of bread. Deputy Dillon is wrong. This is not a doctrinaire Socialist proposition; it is a proposition designed to reduce the cost of an essential commodity of the community. To do that we had a number of propositions which we put to the House and which, we believed, would increase efficiency and thereby reduce costs. The first was the elimination of the necessity for paying dividends. There was the attempt to take profits given in stevedoring, storage and drying; the attempt to establish a proper contract system for farmers to see there is not surplus production; to establish millability standards; to see that the conacre farmer is made secondary to the ordinary farmer and to try to get a rationalised distribution of flour to the baker and bread to the consumer. Also, the prime purposewas the establishment of a proper costings system. With that we would be able to determine which was the-efficient mill and which the inefficient; which was the efficient bakery and which the inefficient.

Then we would be faced with this problem of rationalising production, as the Minister suggested. But have we not to face these problems? If there is an inefficient mill or an inefficient bakery, there are two things one can do: first, make it efficient by various improved business and administrative methods, which is the obvious thing to do. If this is not possible, then you cannot surely justify the retention of an inefficient unit in our economy. If the Minister holds this view—that he thinks we should not look at the inefficient mill or inefficient bakery lest we would have to put it out of business—is that to be his policy in relation to our entire industrial economy? Are we to carry that kind of uneconomic industry, or is the consumer going to carry it? Who will have to carry it? If it is an uneconomic unit, we should try to make it economic if possible. If not, then we have to face the fact that we cannot carry these uneconomic units as a form of relief work.

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not think the Deputy was quite fair to me in that interpretation.

Dr. Browne

I am sorry. I hope I shall have another opportunity of dealing with it. That is the only interpretation I can put on it.

On the question of the efficiency of nationalisation, Deputy Cosgrave was very contemptuous. He said this question was one of the exploded myths—that nationalisation is more efficient. I do not want to deal with that at any great length, but it seems to me that one of the wonderful achievements of propaganda is the blind refusal to see the obvious and face the fact, which is the failure of private enterprise in other countries: America, with six per cent. unemployed, Britain with mounting unemployment, and the position here at home with consistently high unemployment figures under a predominantly private enterprise system.

The fact that people can continue to defend private enterprise against nationalisation in those circumstances continues to amaze me. Deputy Cosgrave knows quite well of the remarkable achievements of Aer Lingus and the transatlantic Airline, Bord na Móna, the E.S.B., Irish Steel —all these wonderful examples of what Socialist enterprise, if Deputy Dillon wants it that way, can achieve. The case has been made so many times that I continue to be amazed at this continuing adhesion to private enterprise, despite the decay it has brought about in our society.

On the question of compensation, I would say £12,000,000 has to be found. But £12,000,000 had also to be found for the shareholders of the G.S.R. and the G.N.R. when we decided as a community that the most efficient transport system could be run under C.I.E. In that case, we accepted the principle of the establishment of a State company and of finding the capital for it. I would favour the payment of compensation, particularly to the foreigners, with some form of national development bond on the same lines as, say, Land Bonds, which would mature in 20 to 25 years' time and would be non-transferable. In that case these people would have the privilege of allowing the compensation which they should get to be left in circulation in the community and thus help us in our plans for national development. I do not see why the Minister should be so terribly frightened of this question of compensation. If the problem is one worth tackling, then the matter of compensation is one which I do not think is insuperable.

The Minister dismissed the question of the emotional appeal we made about the reduction in the price of bread. If that does not worry him, could I put the point to him that if he could bring about a reduction in the price of bread, he would bring about a reduction in the cost of living and, in addition, a reduction in the cost of production? Is it possible that this more "cash register" argument might appeal to him and that in that way we might improve our own over-all national position?

Mr. J. Lynch

My case was that nationalisation would not, of itself, reduce prices.

Dr. Browne

The answer to that, of course, is that we deliberately decided' to nationalise the two transport compannies, the G.S.R. and the G.N.R., because they were run extremely badly, extremely inefficiently and at great cost to the community by two private enterprise organisations. The reason we took the decision to extend State control to these companies was because we thought the undertakings would be run more efficiently and at less cost to the consumer, the person using our transport. In fact, that has transpired. Whatever defects there may be in the present C.I.E., in my view it is infinitely more efficient than the two companies which preceded it.

I do not think the Minister would seriously suggest that C.I.E. should revert to the G.S.R. or the G.N.R. I do not think he would seriously suggest that private enterprise would run C.I.E. more economically or more efficiently. I do not think he would seriously suggest that a private company would run Aer Lingus more efficiently or economically than it is being run at the moment. I do not think it would be suggested that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann should be handed over to some private monopoly so that they would run it more efficiently, or that Irish Steel Holdings should revert to the private people who could not make "a go" of it before it was made a State Company.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Sweetman

Would it not be better to finish the debate as there are only a few minutes left for the motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the House is agreeable.

Mr. Sweetman

Say five minutes and we can then take the vote and be finished with it.

Dr. Browne

It will only take a few minutes; I have nearly finished. In this matter of nationalisation, the problem always arises of the position of the workers in the subsequent State organisation, but in relation to bread, as I pointed out to the Minister during the debate, people will go on eating just as much bread and using as much flour after nationalisation as they did before it. The workers will find just the same opportunities under State enterprise as under private enterprise. The same number of deliveries will have to be made to the same number of shops and virtually the same number of mills will be required, but we must face this question. Where we have inefficient enterprise, we must face the necessity to rationalise the position and find alternative employment for those who may be disemployed as a result of that rationalisation. At the same time, the question of compensation, which so much concerned the Minister where the mill owners were concerned, also applies to the workers so that any workers disemployed should preferably be reemployed and certainly compensated for the loss of their employment.

We are prepared to accept the amendment tabled by the Labour Party and to withdraw our own motion. We accept the amended motion as put down by the Labour Party.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question will be: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Mr. Dillon

We are not clear about that. I understood the proposers of the motion want the amendment incorporated.

Mr. J. Lynch

They have withdrawn the original motion and they are letting the amended motion go to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the amendment is agreed to, I can put the amended motion to the House.

Mr. Corish

On a point of order. I gather that you declared the amended motion carried. In those circumstances we do not need a vote.

Mr. Dillon

The amendment is carried.

Mr. J. Lynch

A vote was called for.

Mr. Corish

We did not call for a vote.

Mr. Sweetman

All we want to clarify the situation is the Tánaiste. Then it will be clarified.

An Ceann Comhairle

The situation appears somewhat clouded. The amendment has been accepted and I am putting the motion, as amended.

General Mulcahy

Could the motion as amended be read?

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion as amended is:

"Having regard to the paramount importance of flour and bread as the staple diet of our people, and the necessity to bring these commodities within the reach of all the people without hardship to them, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the national interest and the common good require that the production and distribution of flour should be taken over by a State corporation on the general lines of the Sugar Company, such corporation to be non-profit making and all its shares to be held by the Minister for Finance."

Motion, as amended, put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Burke, James.
• Carroll, James.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Dillon, James M.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Everett, James.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McQuillan, John.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Toole, James.
• Russell, George E.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Galvin, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Teehan, Patrick J.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dr. Browne and Casey: Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Motion, as amended, declared lost.