Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1933—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on Section 47.
I move amendment 22:—
Section 47, sub-section (9). To delete sub-paragraph (a).
The effect of the amendment is that, no matter how many premises a maize miller may have, he need only apply for one registration. As the Bill stands he must apply for a registration for every premises he has, no matter how many. I think there is no necessity for that. If a person is registered as a maize miller, I think he should be allowed to carry on his business in any number of premises that he has under the one registration.
I think it would be rather difficult to keep the register unless there was a registration for each premises. It is not going to cause a great deal of trouble to a maize miller, if he has two or three premises, to fill up two or three forms instead of one. There is no fee charged.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments 23 and 24 not moved.
Section 48 agreed to.
Amendments 25 and 26 not moved.
SECTION 49.
Cathaoirleach
In connection with amendment 27 to Section 49 in the name of Senator O'Rourke, I must rule it out of order. When this Bill was in the Dáil an amendment was moved to set up a maize millers' advisory committee as part of the machinery of the Bill. The amendment was defeated and no such advisory committee is, in fact, provided for. I have, therefore, to rule the amendment out of order.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment 28:—
Section 50, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "but shall not refuse to register an applicant for registration in respect of additional premises in any register kept by him if such additional premises had in fact been used by the applicant for the purposes of his business during any part of the appointed period as defined in the preceding section, or if such additional premises are required by the applicant in substitution for other premises used by the applicant for the purpose of his business during any part of the appointed period so defined or as a necessary addition to premises previously so used."
This is a matter that was discussed at great length in the Dáil on, I think, a similar amendment. The amendment may be divided roughly into three parts: (1) it refers to additional premises; (2) to substitution for other premises, and (3) to an addition to premises previously so used. Take the application for registration in respect of additional premises. If the Senator refers to sub-section (6) of Section 49 he will see that if the application is made within one month the Minister has no option but to grant it. He cannot refuse. The Minister, however, is not bound after one month to grant an application. I think Senators will agree that there must be some limit. In the Dáil we extended the period to one month. As well as I remember, it was only seven days before that amendment was made. I think myself that a month is a reasonable period to allow a miller to decide whether he wants additional premises registered or not. As to substitution for other premises, the only case made for that was that where, say, a maize mill was burned down the proprietor might like to carry on business in some kind of a make-shift way during the rebuilding of the mill so as to keep his business and his customers during the rebuilding period. In fact, he might be anxious to rebuild, perhaps, on a much better scale than that of his previous premises and he would like in the meantime to hold on to his customers. In such a case as that, unless the substituted premises were very objectionable, certainly no objection would be raised if the substituted premises were used for that purpose. That is the only case that has been put up to us where a maize mill was burned by accident and they wanted to substitute premises during rebuilding.
With regard to the third part of the amendment, you will find in sub-section (2) of Section 50 that the Minister cannot refuse to register if the premises are attached to or adjoining. I do not know whether Senators have the same difficulty about knowing the difference between adjoining and attached which I found, but I believe that "attached" means under the same roof and "adjoining" might mean in the next building.
As to the question of substituting premises in case of fire, I am not connected in any way with a mill, but I am connected with certain industries where a stand-by plant or reserve plant is available in case of accident. I can readily imagine a miller having some such plant which would be available in case of fire. I would ask the Minister to consider something between this and the Report Stage of the Bill which he might be willing to put into the Bill.
Are the premises referred to premises with plant in them or merely premises for holding material? The difficulty is that in our business we often find that we can get supplies in one part of the country in one year and not in another, according to the growing of the crops, which naturally varies, and we have to get premises to store the corn in the neighbourhood of the people who grow it. If by "premises" you mean premises for storing the grain they buy, it will be a serious handicap if you put any difficulty in their way. It would be a serious handicap in our business if we could not take premises to store the corn, which we buy in the particular part of the country where it is grown. I should like to know whether such stores are the subject of the section?
No, it does not refer to stores at all. Stores need not be registered. It is only where machinery is used for milling that it applies. With regard to Senator Dowdall's point, I could undertake to look into it, but on three different occasions we looked into this matter in the Dáil and came to the conclusion that to put a section into the Bill would be more restrictive than otherwise. We would have to put all kinds of safeguards in concerning the exceptions. I think the millers would be wise to leave it to the discretion of the Minister in a case like this. If we have to put in a section, it would be a very restrictive section and I do not think it would be for the millers' benefit in the end.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 50 agreed to.
Sections 51, 52, 53, 54 agreed to.
SECTION 55.
(3) Every person required by regulations made under this section to make any return who fails or refuses to make such return in accordance in all respects with such regulations shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act.
(4) An offence under this section by a registered flour importer or registered distiller may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce as prosecutor.
(5) An offence under this section by a recognised wheat importer, a registered wheat dealer, a registered maize miller, a registered maize importer, or a registered manufacturer of compound feeding stuffs may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister for Agriculture as prosecutor.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
I move amendment No. 30:—
Section 55, sub-section (3). To delete in line 21 the figure "II" and to substitute therefor the figure "III."
The object of this amendment is to switch across from Part II to Part III of the First Schedule. Part II prescribes imprisonment as a penalty, and we think that there should not be imprisonment. My amendment means that it should be a question of a fine only, and I think that is reasonable.
During the passage of this Bill also through the Dáil all the penalties were reconsidered and revised, and a certain number of them were brought from Part II to Part III, and from Part I to Part II. They were made easier—a large number of the penalties—and really I think that we could not revise them again. Under this Bill there are lighter, medium and serious offences, and we consider that there should be a rather severe penalty in the case of wrong returns. We have made an exception of the wheat growers, because it is recognised that a grower should not be expected to have the same knowledge of law and of the filling up of returns and so on, as a maize miller might be expected to have. Accordingly, we have excepted the growers from it; but we think that the maize millers and others concerned should be subjected to this particular penalty.
Where do the distillers come in under this? Why are we introduced into this section? All the returns made in the distilling trade are made out in accordance with very old established customs, and I cannot make out why we are brought in at all. It says here in (a) of sub-section (1) "the returns to be made to him by registered flour importers and registered distillers"; and in sub-section (4) it says "an offence under this section by a registered flour importer, or registered distiller". How do we come in under this kind of thing? I cannot imagine an offence, not already in the category, that will come under this.
It is only with regard to wheat; that is, the amount of home grown wheat received by the distiller. I think the only questions he would be asked are the amount disposed of and the amount in stock, and if he did not answer these questions he would be subject to a penalty.
Of course, that is a different matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 31 not moved.
Sections 55 and 56 agreed to.
SECTION 57.
(2) It shall be the duty of every person registered in the register of wheat importers, the register of wheat dealers, the register of maize millers, the register of maize importers, or the register of manufacturers of compound feeding stuffs in respect of any premises to keep or cause to be kept at the appointed place in the form prescribed by the Minister for Agriculture the following records, that is to say:—
(a) if such premises are entered in the register of wheat importers, records of all imported wheat brought on to or dealt with at such premises and of all dispositions of such wheat; or
(b) if such premises are entered in the register of wheat dealers, records of all home-grown millable wheat purchased by him and brought on to or dealt with at such premises and of all dispositions of such wheat; or
(c) if such premises are entered in the register of maize millers, records of all maize and home-grown cereals brought on to such premises, of the quantities of such maize and home-grown cereals milled on such premises into a maize meal mixture and of all dispositions of such maize meal mixture; or
(d) if such premises are entered in the register of maize importers, records of all maize brought on to or dealt with at such premises and of all dispositions of such maize; or
(e) if such premises are entered in the register of manufacturers of compound feeding stuffs, records of all raw materials used in the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs, of all compound feeding stuffs manufactured on such premises and of all dispositions of such feeding stuffs;
and within twenty-four hours after the completion of any such importations, purchases, millings, manufactures or dispositions to enter or cause to be entered in such records the particulars thereof prescribed by the Minister for Agriculture.
(3) Every record kept in pursuance of this section may be inspected at any time during office hours by, in case such record is kept by a registered flour importer or a registered distiller, any inspector of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or, in case such record is kept by a registered wheat importer, a registered wheat dealer, a registered maize miller, a registered maize importer or a registered manufacturer of compound feeding stuffs, any inspector of the Minister for Agriculture and it shall be the duty of the person liable under this section to keep such record to produce for the inspection of such inspector on demand such record and also all invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents (including copies thereof where the originals are not available), reasonably demanded by such inspector for the purpose of verifying any entry in or explaining any omission from such record.
(4) If any person liable under this section to keep a record in respect of any premises—
(a) fails to keep or cause to be kept at the appointed place such record as is required by this section, or
(b) fails to make or cause to be made in such record within the time fixed by this section any entry required by this section to be made therein, or
(c) fails to produce or cause to be produced for the inspection of an inspector on demand any record, document, or copy of a document which he is required by this section so to produce, or obstructs any such inspector in the making of such inspection, or
(d) wilfully or negligently makes or causes to be made in such record any entry which is false or misleading in any material particular,
such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
(a) inspection of a record or document shall include taking copies thereof or extracts therefrom; and
(b) a demand for an inspection of record required by this section to be kept in respect of any premises or of any other document reasonably demanded by an inspector under this section for the purpose of verifying any entry in or explaining any omission from such record shall be deemed to have been duly made to the person liable under this section to keep such record if such demand is made verbally at the appointed place to any individual in the employment of such person; and
(c) a refusal or failure to produce a record required by this section to be kept in respect of any premises or of any other document reasonably demanded by an inspector under this section for the purpose of verifying any entry in or any omission from such record if made or committed at the appointed place by an individual in the employment of the person liable under this section to produce such record or account shall be deemed to have been made or committed by such person; and
(d) the expression "the appointed place" in relation to any premises entered in the register of distillers or the register of maize millers or the register of manufacturers of compound feeding stuffs, means—
(i) in case the office work in connection with such premises is carried on at a building in the vicinity of but not forming part of such premises, such building, and
(ii) in any other case, the place at such premises where such office work is carried on;
(e) the expression "the appointed place" in relation to any premises entered in the register of flour importers, the register of wheat importers, the register of wheat dealers, or the register of maize importers means—
(i) where such premises are used for the storage of flour, wheat or maize (as the case may be)—
I. In case the office work in connection with such premises is carried on at a building in the vicinity of but not forming part of such premises, such building, and
II. in any other case, the place in such premises where such office work is carried on, and
(ii) where such premises consist of offices only, such premises.
(f) the expression "office hours" means—
(i) in relation to any day (not being a Sunday, a bank holiday, or a locally observed holiday or half-holiday), any time between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon during which business is being carried on or work is being done at the appointed place; and
(ii) in relation to any locally observed half-holiday, any time between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and one o'clock in the afternoon during which business is being carried on or work is being done at the appointed place.
(7) An offence under this section, if committed by a registered wheat importer, a registered wheat dealer, a registered maize miller, a registered maize importer, or a registered manufacturer of compound feeding stuffs, may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister for Agriculture as prosecutor.
Amendment 32 not moved.
I move amendment 33:—
Section 57, sub-section (2). To delete in lines 29-30 the word "dispositions" and to substitute therefor the word "sales."
The word "dispositions" is too vague and would permit an inspector to pry into a secret mixing process and to have it revealed. The whole object of the Bill is to ensure the purchase by millers of home-grown cereals for admixture purposes and their sale in maize meal mixture. The only time the obligation should rest on the miller is at the time of sale.
With regard to secret recipes and processes we can discuss them under amendment 36. The word "dispositions" is used because it includes sales. For instance, we have to get returns, and if a maize miller has a retail shop he could transfer a certain amount of the maize meal mixture to the shop for sale there. He might also transfer certain compound feeding to his premises or to a factory in order to have it incorporated in compound feeding stuffs. There is also the possibility that a certain amount of grain might become mouldy or bad and have to be destroyed. We would have to get returns of that, so that it would not be sales alone that would be affected. "Dispositions" is the only word we could use. I am prepared to discuss the matter of secret recipes and processes on amendment 36.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 34 and 35 not moved.
I move amendment 36:—
Section 57, sub-section (2). To delete all after the word "stuffs" in line 36 down to the end of sub-paragraph (e) and to substitute therefor the words "such records of the quantities of all raw materials brought on to the premises for the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs, of the quantities of all compound feeding stuffs manufactured on such premises, and of all disposal of such feeding stuffs as may be required for the purpose of supervising and enforcing the provisions of a licence granted under Part VI of this Act, provided that nothing hereby required shall be construed as obliging the production of any information relating to or disclosing the composition of any special mixture or any secret process used by the person registered."
This amendment concerns secret processes. Some millers have paid substantial sums for secret mixtures and it would be grossly unfair to expect them to disclose them to the inspectors. The records of quantities and dispositions provided for should be sufficient for the inspectors, in order to see that the provisions of the Bill are being complied with.
My Department does not take a very serious view of the secret processes. The officials do not think there is anything in these processes. They are surprised to learn that any miller of a compound feeding stuff would pay for a secret mixture, because we have experts at our disposal in Albert College and in the Department, and we can really give to anyone who asks for it the best mixture that can be got for feeding animals, free of charge. If it came to the point that a manufacturer claimed to have a secret process our officials would be bound by the Official Secrets Act to keep any information they got to themselves. There is no danger whatever of the secret leaking out. We would not be disposed to go minutely into details. The amount of maize, barley, oat meal, or Sussex ground oats that would be in mixture for poultry and dairy cattle feeding is not really any great secret but the amount of some mineral that might be in it would be. That gives some particular flavour to and distinguishes it from others. That is the only distinction. We would not be concerned with that as long as it was not poisonous. If we know the amount of cereals in the mixture we are not going to pry further. Perhaps we would be inclined to go further if we found that an extravagant price was being charged. It will be found that we have taken very drastic powers in a later section with regard to compound feeding stuffs. The reason is that manufacturers of these stuffs were sending mixtures over here for sale for poultry, pig and greyhound feeding for which they were charging most extravagant prices. We had some of these analysed in the Department and, in one particular case, we found that material which was selling at 58/- a cwt. was worth 8/-, according to the materials in it. We want to stop that kind of material coming to the country. We want to go further and to see that no one is engaging in that trade at home. Although we are anxious to promote industries we do not want industries of that type started. If we find that an extravagant price is charged our inspectors may go very minutely into the composition of the feeding stuff concerned. Even when they find out everything it will be secret under the Official Secrets Act. All an inspector can do is to report to the Minister that the person should be stopped manufacturing that particular mixture and he will be compelled to cease doing so. If we find that he is manufacturing a new mixture under another name we may warn him, and eventually we may withdraw his licence as a manufacturer of compound feeding stuffs. There is no fear whatever that there will be any interference with legitimate trade. We must have powers, however, to see that legitimate trade is carried on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 37, 38 and 39 not moved.
I move amendment 40:—
Section 57, sub-section (3). After the word "documents" in line 56 to insert the words "as have been prescribed."
The reason for the amendment is that someone may wish to have an opportunity of bringing the matter before the House and discussing it.
In the interests of maize millers, I am opposing this amendment. While we have put into the Bill the words "prescribed regulations" we do not want to go too far. We must be restrictive in our regulations just the same as we would be restrictive in the Bill. It is better for those concerned to have discretion used in a case like this. If we have to be restrictive we will have to be so restrictive that we will inflict, perhaps, a certain amount of hardship on millers who have to keep records. It is difficult to foresee all the loopholes and all the evasions that may be necessary under the Bill. Our regulations would have to be drawn up in such a way that I am afraid they would be a burden on the maize millers to carry out. It is much better to leave the wording as loose as possible and at the Minister's discretion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 41 not moved.
I move amendment 42:—
Section 57, sub-section (4). After the word "person" in line 9 to insert the words "unless such failure or such false or misleading entry is due to a strike or to a lockout or to any circumstance outside the control of such person."
I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment. If there is anything such as a strike or a lockout no member of the milling trade should be compelled to make returns.
As Senators will see, the wording in the section is necessary. Before anything can be done that the Minister would consider an offence it would be after the inspector and the Departmental officials would so advise.
Having taken that advice the matter must go to court, so I do not see that by accepting this amendment there would be any safeguard. These matters would always be taken into account by the court if not by the Minister. I think the amendment is not necessary; in any case it would require very serious consideration before it could be accepted. Some Senators objected to the wording of this section, but the question must be considered by the Minister, and he is not likely to take action if the matter appears to be outside the control of the person concerned. If the Minister takes action then when a person comes before the court he will make his case and do his best to defend himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 43 not moved.
I move amendment 44:—
Section 57, sub-section (5). To delete in lines 22-23 the words "any individual in the employment of such person" and to substitute therefor the words "the person liable under this section to keep such record, or such other person or persons authorised by him to keep and produce such record."
As the Bill is drafted at present any employee may be told to make certain records. He may be a yardman or he may be a clerk. My amendment makes it clear that nobody can be penalised, except the persons authorised to make these records.
The words in this section are the same as those used in different Acts up to the present. Perhaps the defence I made in regard to a former amendment would be a good defence here also, that is that no complaints have been made so far in connection with the Eggs Act, the Fresh Meat Act or the Potato Act or any other agricultural products Acts, and the wording here is the same as in them. It would be unreasonable to put the duty upon us to serve notice on a particular person. Everyone knows the difficulty there is experienced sometimes in serving writs upon particular persons. The sheriff and his men find it very difficult sometimes to get the man they want to serve. It would be much more difficult for the officials of the Department of Agriculture than it would for the sheriff. It would be unfair in fact to put the onus upon them. The Department of Agriculture has worked the Agricultural Produce Acts, and there never was any complaint of serving a writ on a yardman or anybody like that. They would have written several letters before the stage of serving a writ was reached. The matter would not be abused in any way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 45, 46 and 47 not moved.
Section 57 agreed to.
Amendment 49 not moved.
Section 58 agreed to.
Amendment 50 not moved.
SECTION 59.
(1) The appropriate Minister may publish in such manner as he may think fit—
(a) all or any of the matters entered in any register kept by him; and
(b) notice of the cancellation or alteration by him of the registration of any person registered in a register kept by him.
I move amendment 51:—
Sub-section (1) to delete in line 46 the words "he may think fit" and to substitute therefor the words "is prescribed."
The section as it stands is a bit too vague. Unless this matter could be done reasonably a person should not be compelled to do it.
Under the Statistical Act of 1920 the Minister for Industry and Commerce has the power, whether we take it in this Bill or not. All we need do is to apply to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and we could get the information which we are asking for here.
As a question of interpretation is it not difficult to define what is a reasonable practice and would it not be better to have such definition put into the Bill?
The wording here, in this section, is copied from other Acts in existence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 60.
(1) An inspector shall be entitled at all reasonable times to enter any premises entered in any register (other than the register of wheat growers) or the premises of any person who has made an application for registration in any such register in respect of such premises, and there do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) examine any wheat (whether imported or home-grown) flour, wheaten meal, maize, maize meal, home-grown cereals (other than wheat), offals or screenings of wheat or other cereals, maize meal mixture, raw materials for the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs or compound feeding stuff, found on such premises and take reasonable samples of such wheat, flour, wheaten meal, maize, maize meal, home-grown cereals (other than wheat) offals or screenings of wheat or other cereals, maize meal mixture, raw materials for the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs or compound feeding stuff, and
(b) if such premises are not registered in the register of distillers or are not the subject of an application for registration in such register inspect all or any part of such premises and the equipment, appliances and fittings therein.
I move amendment 52:—
Section 60, sub-section (1). After the word "times" in line 4 to insert the words "during office hours."
The meaning of this amendment is that there should be no inspection at certain times, on days, for instance, kept as holidays. In Dundalk the 3rd July is a holiday. If an inspector came on such a day it would not be considered that he came within office hours. I think it is only during office hours that it would be necessary to enforce this section.
This does not refer to the examination of documents or anything like that.
Yes. For instance, if we suspected that a person was not making a particular mixture or a particular compound mixture that he was supposed to make. If the mill is working 24 hours and the office closes at 6 o'clock in the evening, the miller would be able to make what he liked from 6 o'clock in the evening until the next morning if there was no danger of inspection. We want power to call upon the miller, and to inspect the working operations, not the office at all. This section only refers to the working of the mill.
But the time of inspection is vague. Would you agree to accept an amendment, on the Report Stage, providing that the inspection should take place when the mill would be working?
Would that include any mixing?
It would mean when anybody was employed in the mill.
I could consider an amendment to provide that when the mill was closed the inspector would not break in.
The miller would not be there if it was a holiday.
If there is nobody there he would have a case.
As at present worded the miller would be compelled to let a person in at all times.
Where are the words in the section that provide that the inspection is to take place when the mill is working?
I mean by that, of course, when anybody is working in the mill. The mill may not be running, but somebody may be working in it.
Well, then, we shall have an amendment on the Report Stage that this shall only apply if there are people in the mill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 61—SUB-SECTION (1).
(1) The appropriate Minister may, at any time, alter or cancel the registration of any person in any register kept by him upon the application of such person, or, in the case of an individual, his personal representative or, in the case of a body corporate, the liquidator.
I move amendment 53:—
Section 61, sub-section (1.) To delete in line 54 the word "may" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."
The Minister is taking power under this section to compel a man to continue in business and the effect of this amendment is that a man may cease milling if he wishes. Surely it is an extraordinary proposition that a miller cannot cease milling for a week or a year if he wishes to do so.
I can meet that point on report but not exactly as the Senator has put it because the draftsman objects to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Cathaoirleach
The following amendments, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58, all deal with the point of cancellation of registration of persons convicted under the Act. Amendment 54, standing in the name of Senator O'Rourke, may be moved separately but 55, 56 and 57 should be taken together. I think that as amendment 55 is the best worded, it should be selected.
I would suggest that Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks move amendment No. 55 because if No. 55 goes through there is no necessity for amendment 54.
I do not propose to move amendment No. 55 because the matter was discussed on Section 34 of the Bill and I do not want to go any further with it. The same remark applies to amendment No. 59.
Amendments 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 not moved.
Section 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I would ask that amendment No. 60 which stands in my name should be allowed to stand over until a later amendment in my name is reached. It is contingent on an essential amendment later on.
Cathaoirleach
I cannot go back over amendments but if the Senator succeeds in the amendment which he is proposing later, this amendment can appear on the Report Stage.
Amendment 60, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 61, 62, 63 and 64 not moved.
Sections 62 to 68 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 65 not moved.
Sections 69 to 71 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I move amendment 66:—
New section. Before Section 72 to insert a new section as follows:—
"72. There shall be paid by the Minister, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, compensation at the rate of £3 per statute acre to every registered wheat grower who shall prove to the satisfaction of the Minister, in respect of the area sown by him under wheat, of which a return has been duly made pursuant to sub-section (1) of Section 56 of this Act,
(a) that the crop, or part thereof, has failed, or
(b) that the crop, or part thereof, where produced, is not of millable quality,
and that such failure or lack of millable quality is in no way attributable to the wheat having been sown in unsuitable land, or to want of reasonable care and attention during its growth and harvesting, or otherwise to any default or negligence on the part of such registered wheat grower."
My object in moving this amendment is to try to secure for the farmer who grows wheat, and who tries to comply with the request of the Government, in case his crop fails or in case the wheat does not prove of millable quality, compensation for his out-of-pocket expenses. The Minister has put forward a wheat policy which he states will improve the economic condition of this country. If he wants that policy to be tried out and to get a sufficient quantity of wheat grown, he should, I believe, accept the amendment. It may be said that this amendment is a policy of subsidies gone mad but we have adopted the principle of subsidies for wheat of a millable quality. I cannot see why the grower of wheat who is assured of a reasonable price for his product should get a subsidy when the man who goes to the same care and trouble, through no fault of his own will get less than half the price. The grower who produces a millable quality of wheat is assured of about £15 per acre whereas the man who is not able to produce a millable quality of wheat may only get £3 or £4 per acre. It is very questionable whether under the present state of affairs he will be able to sell it at all. At the present time oats cannot be sold although there is a prohibitive tariff on imported oats. I do not remember that for the last thirty years oats have been sold at such low prices. The fact is that if this present tariff policy continues the farmers will go out of production. If the farmer goes out of the production of oats, the farmer who goes to the trouble of producing wheat and who will not be able to produce a millable quality will have practically nothing for his labour.
It might be said that there is no necessity for a farmer to grow wheat if he is not able to grow wheat of a millable quality but I contend that a farmer may not for several seasons be able to produce wheat of a millable quality. I discussed this matter some time ago with Senator Jameson who buys a considerable quantity of wheat for distilling purposes and he told me that for some years at least he found it very difficult to get a sufficient quantity of wheat of good quality for his distillery. I contend that we will want to have millable wheat as good as distilling wheat. Senator Jameson says that in several years his men found it difficult to get sufficient wheat to supply their requirements in the distillery and any wheat grower might find it difficult to produce a millable quality of wheat with the climate we have to put up with at times in this country. At the present time, wheat can be bought in Dublin at from 14/- to 15/- per barrel. That is the price for best imported foreign wheat and, under those circumstances, it is very qnestiouable whether you will get five or six shillings a barrel for wheat which is only of a feeding quality in this country. For that reason, I think the House should support this amendment and provide some compensation for the farmer who tries to assist the Government's wheat growing policy and to recoup him for his out-of-pocket expenses.
I should like to ask if the Senator is being humorous or sarcastic on this amendment. I cannot quite make up my mind.
If a farmer loses a calf, who compensates him? Will Senator Counihan or the State compensate him? He ought to remember that we are a serious body here and that amendments are expected to have some real sense in them. I do not think there is any in this amendment.
I wish to support Senator Counihan. When we guarantee the price of wheat, I think it is reasonable that we should compensate the farmer if his crop is damaged by weather. I do not see anything ridiculous in the suggestion when we are prepared to compensate him in regard to his price. In a number of counties like Leitrim and Cavan, the crop may be very late and it will not be possible to save it. It will not be millable wheat and the growers will get very little for the crop. I think, in those circumstances, that it is quite reasonable that they should get some compensation from the Government. If that is not done, it will mean that the farmers in the good lands will get all the benefits while the farmers in the bad lands need not attempt to grow wheat at all because of the risk attaching to it. I think it is a reasonable suggestion notwithstanding Senator Foran's joke about it.
In Canada, every year, enormous quantities of wheat are destroyed by early frosts which come just as the milk is coming into the ear and the result is that the Canadian farmers nearly always insure their crop against frost. I do not remember whether there is a Government insurance scheme or whether they insure through ordinary insurance companies but almost all of them do insure, and I should imagine it would be possible to do the same thing here. The rates would be very low indeed.
I agree with a great deal of what Senator Counihan has said but I cannot vote for the amendment. I doubt the practicability of administering what is outlined in it. I think it would be almost impossible to administer such a proposal, satisfactorily, at all events. The State would be taking too much responsibility in the matter and would be absolving the grower from responsibility and it would never be possible to get to the bottom of it satisfactorily. If the Bill was compulsory, it would be a different matter but the Bill being as it is, I do not see how the proposal could be administered.
I should like to correct Senator Counihan on one point as to the difficulty of getting millable wheat. There have been such years—I did not say several—but, in the course of my experience, I have known years in which it was very hard to buy millable wheat in any quantity. The trouble about this amendment is that it is really against the principle of the Bill. The whole Bill deals with millable wheat that is fit for human consumption, and I do not think that the Minister for Finance has ever considered what the paying of compensation for all the wheat that is not millable or fit for human consumption that may be grown anywhere would cost the taxpayers. I think it is really an amendment which cuts across the principle of the Bill. There is a real danger along the lines suggested by Senator Counihan. There is not a vestige of a doubt that if this is a successful scheme and if we reach a stage where we are growing a large quantity of wheat in this country and if, for some reason or another, very bad harvest weather comes along, a whole lot of wheat that was excellently millable will become unmillable and removed from the operation of the subsidy.
The farmers who grow it face a very great loss, and I think Senator Robinson's suggestion is that somehow or another the farmers who do grow this wheat should protect themselves by something in the nature of insurance. The Government who are fathering this scheme should look into that point and see if there are any conditions which would fix such insurance at a rate which a man could afford. I think it should be looked into, because it is one of the serious risks that will have to be run by farmers under this scheme for the promotion of wheat growing in this country. A bad season, such as some of us have seen, would undoubtedly mean serious loss for them. The House will remember the trouble we had here on the question of insurance against foot-and-mouth disease, but there ought to be some scheme possible by which insurance would prevent that loss falling on the farmers from causes entirely outside their own control. If that is possible, it certainly ought to be done, but I cannot see how we can alter the Bill to include an amendment such as the one Senator Counihan puts before us.
This amendment strikes me as it does Senator Jameson —as cutting right across the principle of the Bill. The Bill aims at encouraging wheat for flour milling, and if there were a proposal to give a bounty to all persons who till the land, I could understand this proposition but, clearly, if that were passed, the one thing that stands out as important to me would be lost, namely, that, with a wheat growing bounty based upon wheat for flour milling, we will have what Senator O'Rourke promised us by inference on Second Reading—a specialisation in breeds of wheat suitable for this country. If you are to have a bounty per acre on the tillage and sowing of the crop rather than on the product, that particular encouragement would be lost. I think that that is a fatal objection to the very idea that is embodied in the amendment, quite apart from the other objection that the whole scheme of the Bill will be destroyed by its acceptance.
Cathaoirleach
I should like to point out to both Senators as regards this amendment cutting across the principle of the Bill, that one of the principles of the Bill is to make provision calculated to promote and encourage the growing of certain cereals in Saorstát Eireann. I hold that it is not against the principle of the Bill.
I would like to make this correction. I am not referring to the principle of the Bill in the usually accepted sense; I am referring to it from the point of view of the scheme of the Government.
Cathaoirleach
I am glad Senator Johnson has made that explanation.
In these times when it is almost impossible to get a price for anything, when the price of everything is very low, and when the Government dangles in front of the farmer 23/6 and 25/- for a barrel of wheat, naturally you are going to have farmers growing wheat. The price inducement is going to make farmers grow wheat and there is certainly going to be this loss. Is it fair, if a man carries out the tillage requirements and, by an act of God, his crop is destroyed, that he should not get compensation? There is really something in the point. If the Minister would introduce some system of insurance, then perhaps that might meet the case. There is a lot to be said for subsidising the man who does the work.
I think Senator Counihan's amendment is a little bit wide. It finishes off:
that such failure or lack of millable quality is in no way attributable to the wheat having been sown in unsuitable land.
If you consider the matter from the point of view that a farmer is going to get £3 an acre, I honestly believe that into every bog hole in Kerry people would be inclined to throw a handful of grain and the Minister would find himself an extremely popular man.
As certain Senators have mentioned here, the Government policy is to get the best possible grain grown under the best possible circumstances. We have provided here that the farmer who grows good wheat will get a better price than the farmer who grows wheat not quite so good. We do not fix a flat price for the wheat. We are trying to encourage the efficient farmer to grow the best wheat for milling purposes. When this tillage policy was being discussed before the Bill was brought in, the suggestion was made several times to me that the best way to encourage tillage was to give a subsidy per acre. I did not agree with that because I did not want to have tillage of an indifferent kind subsidised. I want to see the farmer who tills properly getting a good price for his produce. If a person has a failure in the beet crop we do not compensate him, although the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and this Government have induced farmers by various means to grow beet for the factory. I admit that there have been very few failures in the case of beet, and I believe there will be very few failures in the case of wheat, too. We do not compensate the owner of a herd of cows if his cows get an attack of contagious abortion and he loses all his calves.
There is no inducement to produce the calves. If you say "I will give you £3 for each calf produced," that would be some inducement.
That is all the more reason why we should not compensate them. We gave a subsidy in relation to butter, not on the number of cows in the country. We did not say to the farmer with twelve cows "We will give you a subsidy of £3 a cow." We told the farmers that all the butter they could produce that could be sold under market conditions would be subsidised. The farmer who lost his cow got no subsidy. Only the farmer who kept good cows and produced suitable butter was given the subsidy. It is stated that there will be great loss in the growing of wheat if it is not up to millable quality. I think unless the wheat is very bad—if it is just below millable quality—it will be practically as good as the same area under barley or under oats. Under ordinary circumstances wheat is a better foodstuff than either barley or oats.
I do not take this amendment seriously. A similar amendment was introduced in the Dáil and I know the Deputy responsible for it put it in more or less as a sarcastic amendment. I do not think the Senator is guilty of sarcasm. He may have put the amendment in good faith. Let us suppose that I were to administer the Act if this amendment were inserted. I would have to prove to my own satisfaction that the wheat was not sown on unsuitable land. I would have to be advised by some official of the Department that the land was suitable and that the failure of the crop was not due to want of reasonable care and attention. How would my official find that out? Would he have to call witnesses before him to see if this man exercised reasonable care in ploughing and harrowing the field; if he exercised reasonable care at six o'clock in the morning in shooting crows; if he exercised reasonable care in order to see that weeds were properly removed from the crop? As a matter of fact, the official would have to hold a sort of public inquiry. He would have to investigate carefully whether reasonable care had been exercised in the harvesting of the crop. I fail to understand what the word "otherwise" is meant to convey. Would the inspector be expected to see that the stocks were not left for a sufficiently long period in the field to allow field mice to accumulate? Would he be expected to find out if the wheat was threshed at a reasonable time and the grain was brought to the mill without being exposed to the dampness of the atmosphere? Then the point is reached where the farmer presents his grain to the miller and it is turned down. We would have to interpret what the Senator means by "otherwise." I think the whole thing is either a joke or sarcasm and I would like to know which.
I am surprised at the statement the Minister has made, following the speeches we have listened to from Senators Jameson, O'Rourke, Wilson and others. It has been proved to the satisfaction of every sensible man who understands anything about growing wheat that the whole danger is the weather. A man may be able to produce the best possible crop of wheat when suddenly the weather will break and he will not be able to supply a millable sample because of the wheat getting lodged or otherwise deteriorating. That is the whole case. The Minister asks how can he be expected to prove that there was reasonable care. If it has been a suitable year for growing wheat and the majority of the farmers are able to produce millable wheat, it would be easy for one of the inspectors to make inquiries with regard to the reaping, harvesting and threshing of the crop. It is possible that in some years fully 85 per cent. of the wheat grown will be unsuitable for milling. In such circumstances it is very unfair to let the farmer be at the sole loss of his crop.
The Minister states that the wheat would be suitable for feeding, but I want to tell the Minister that there are several farmers in the country, and I am afraid there will be more later on, who will grow wheat and oats and look on them as the only cash crop they can grow. When the farmer wants to sell his wheat or oats whether for feeding or for millable purposes, he will have to sell it and get the best price he can. I submit that the amendment is a very reasonable one, and in view of the Minister's policy of trying to get 600,000 acres of wheat grown it is an amendment that he should accept, otherwise I do not think he will get these 600,000 acres grown under wheat.
Amendment put and negatived.
Sections 72, 73 and 74 put and agreed to.
Amendments 67 and 68.
Section 75, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 4-5 the words "or the Minister for Industry and Commerce."—(Senator Bagwell.)
Section 76, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 21-22 the words "or the Minister for Industry and Commerce."—(Senator Bagwell.)
Not moved.
Sections 75 to 79 put and agreed to.
Section 80, sub-section (1). To delete in line 55 the words "or the Minister."—(Senator Bagwell.)
Not moved.
Amendment 70.
Section 80, sub-section (3). To delete in line 2 the words "he thinks fit" and to substitute therefor the words "are prescribed."—(Senator O'Rourke.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 80 put and agreed to.
SECTION 81.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to sell any maize meal unless either—
(a) all the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(i) such maize meal is intended for human consumption, and
(ii) such maize meal is sold in a package secured in the prescribed manner, and
(iii) the weight of maize meal in such package does not exceed the prescribed weight or, if no weight is for the time being prescribed, one stone, or
(b) in case such maize meal is sold wholesale by a registered maize miller, such maize meal is sold under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister, or
(c) such maize meal forms part of a maize meal mixture.
(2) The Minister may attach to any licence granted under this section such conditions as he thinks fit and may revoke such licence at any time.
(3) If any person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part 1 of the First Schedule to this Act.
I move amendment 71:—
Section 81, sub-section (1). After the word "miller" in line 20 to insert the words "or retailed by a registered maize meal dealer."
We have got to assume that some of the consequential amendments have been passed and that there is such a person as the maize miller. We have got to assume that. As Section 81 stands at the present moment, maize meal intended for human consumption can only be sold in 1 stone packages secured in a certain way. We realise that the restriction or control on maize meal is essential to the working of this measure. I do not think that the amendment I have put down will interfere with this to any extent. My intention is to lessen the burden which the preceding section imposes on the poor people in the provinces, particularly in Munster and Connacht. There have been figures given in the Dáil and figures will vary very much in the different districts as to prices of meal. The prices are largely governed by the cost of distribution, and, that being so, I think you will find that the difference in the proportion in the prices between the 1 stone package and the 20 stone sack will remain constant. In my own locality in the South-West of Munster the situation is like this: Before this mixture scheme came in a 20 stone sack was 17/6 or 10½d. per stone Now you can only get maize or flour in 1 stone packages at 1/2 per stone. That is at the rate of 23/- for a 20 stone bag as compared with the price of 17/6 bought by the sack. That would be an increase of 33 per cent., a very considerable amount to the small farmers and others. I do not believe when the Bill was first debated that anyone realised that in Munster we do not use porridge as in Donegal. In Donegal the small family uses a stone of meal in the day. In South-West Munster we use a good deal of maize in our bread. A family of five will consume two stone of maize in their bread in a week. That means that a small family will consume somewhere about 104 stone weight of meal in the year. At 3/6 per stone that is an increase to these people in the family budget of £2 in the year. In actual fact, from April onwards, when the potatoes are extremely scarce, the people will use an extra two stone of flour per week to make up for the want of potatoes. I have not put that item into my figures. That margin is in favour of my calculation. This £2 is a small sum, but the man who has to work a very long day before he finds any portion of that money in his pocket, will feel this tax heavily.
It is in examining the total tax that you will find that flaw in the administration of the scheme. Now in Munster there are 48,000 holders under a £7 valuation and in Connacht there are 53,900 holders under the £7 valuation. That gives you altogether in Munster and Connacht 102,000 small holders— the very poorest class. A sum of £2 each on these families means that the preceding section will cost them £204,000 without any benefit gained at all. I say that because the man who fills these bags will start by using more labour; finally he will put in machinery for filling them so that this will not mean any additional employment. The position then is that in respect of this one essential article of food this Bill as it stands will impoverish to that extent people who will not get any benefit in return from it for the reason that their land is unsuitable for growing wheat.
I take no credit for the fact that in Donegal they use a great deal more than this. So as to allow that proper margin for families who do not use it in the South-West, I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and take only 50 per cent. of my figures. That still leaves an indirect tax of £102,000 which I think should be reconsidered. I would say that the people who will suffer this tax chiefly are not the people who will profit from this Bill in the shape of any wheat bounty. I propose a very simple thing which can be done through the present machinery. I propose that a certain specified quantity of maize meal may be sold to these small occupants in 20 stone bags. I fix a £7 valuation limit. That is £3 less than the valuation figure at which the Government decided that the farmer should be totally de-rated. If you de-rate the farmers with one hand and then shove a tax of £2 on them in this way they will not really be better off. I have specified a certain certificate to ensure that this concession will not be used to evade the provisions which the Government decide to introduce into the country to ensure that there is a reduction in the imports of maize meal and that there is an increase in the amount of home-grown feeding stuffs used. It is possible that there will be evasions in some directions but the amendment is worth trying. I think it will make it possible for the small holders to get the greater part of their supplies for home consumption in the 20 stone sack. I admit that this will mean further control but everybody is controlled under this Bill and in actual fact a great many of the people who come on the register are also maize dealers. When this was discussed in the Dáil, there were indications that the Minister realised to some extent what this meant but I do not think he realised to the full extent. I hope if this particular form of concession is not quite what will meet the case—the Minister may think that evasion would be greater than I anticipate—that the Minister will consider the matter and put down an amendment which we can consider on the next stage of the Bill. The certificate which follows is a simple matter. It is of much the same type as the sales certificates for wheat. The records are available, in the Gárda Síochána offices in every town, of the holders of £7 valuation. At the end, the person concerned certifies and that will make him liable in a court to the penalties at the end of the Bill if he has attempted to evade the provision by going to some other dealer and getting more than his quota. There may be some small evasions. Finally, the actual concession amounts to just about four cargoes of maize out of the whole supply of the Free State.
I fail to follow the figures quoted by Senator The McGillycuddy. I do not know how we can be accused of taking a tax of £200,000, or even half that, from these people unless they are consuming an enormous amount of maize. The increase in price we were accused of was 3/6 per sack of 20 stones. On those figures, they must be consuming for human food in the congested districts more than half the maize that comes into the Free State. Apart from that, as the Bill was originally introduced in the Dáil, it was considerably more restrictive of the sale of pure maize than it is at present under Section 81. As it stood when introduced, there was no departure from the package of one stone, but this question was raised in the Dáil by Deputies from Kerry and Donegal, principally, and as a result sub-section (1) (a) (iii) read:—"the weight of maize meal in such package does not exceed the prescribed weight or, if no weight is for the time being prescribed, one stone." We have power under that section to change the weight from one stone as soon as the demand for larger weights is apparent in those areas. We have had no complaint through our inspectors in the country and no complaint direct to the Department of Agriculture since these regulations were made. Although we are working already under the regulations as they stand in the Bill, we have had no complaint from these areas with regard to pure maize meal for human consumption.
I mentioned here yesterday that the one complaint we did get was that a miller had been deceiving a consumer for about four weeks by giving him a maize meal mixture for human consumption without telling him that oatmeal had been mixed with the maize meal. The point is that the person concerned did not detect by sight or taste the mixture of the oatmeal with the maize. It was only when he was told by a third party that he had been consuming oatmeal for three weeks that he became indignant with the retailer and threatened to take an action against him. In those two counties—Donegal and Kerry—where the consumption of maize meal is very heavy, the maize meal mixture is being used to a great extent. When turned out with the proper mixture of food oats—dehulled oats—in the maize it is quite suitable for human consumption.
Seeing that the regulations have been working rather smoothly and without either complaint or comment for the past four or five months, I think it would be a mistake to make it easier for the former consumers of whole maize to go back to whole maize and to give up the mixture of maize and oatmeal. Nobody can complain from the national, economic or public health point of view if we can drive the people of Kerry and Donegal to the consumption of oatmeal instead of maize. From every point of view, they would be better if they went back to the consumption of oatmeal instead of maize meal. They are gradually going back by taking at present 10 per cent. of oatmeal in the maize meal and we hope that as the years go on the percentage will be increased and that when we go up to 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. oatmeal, they will go off maize meal entirely. Nobody can say that it would not be better, economically and nationally speaking, for them to do that. From the point of view of health, and particularly from the point of view of the health of the children reared in these counties, it would be better if they took to oatmeal. Oatmeal has properties especially in connection with the rearing of children that maize meal has not got.
As the matter stands under sub-section (1) (a) (iii), if a case is made to the Department of Agriculture that owing to bad conditions or, perhaps, scarcity of oats, the maize meal mixture could only contain wheat or barley, as good oats could not be got in one of these small areas for two or three months in some particular year— if such representations were made to the Department of Agriculture, I am certain that we would not refuse to use our powers under sub-section (1) (a) (iii) and allow larger packages than the one-stone packages to be sold in that particular area as long as the particular need might last. The amendment is really unnecessary because we have the powers to do what is sought. There is a provision inserted by Senator The McGillycuddy about maize meal dealers which was somewhat confusing to me at first because we had talked about wheat dealers. Wheat dealers are the people who take the wheat from the farmer and sell it to the distiller or flour miller or sell it back to the farmer as seed. In this case, the maize meal dealer would not be on the same plane. He would be more between the manufacturer and consumer, whereas the wheat dealer was between the producer and the consumer.
It was the retailer I really meant.
I mentioned the matter because there might be some confusion in the minds of Senators, as there was in my mind when I read the amendment first. I wanted to make the meaning of it clear. I think there is really no necessity for this amendment or amendments 74 and 75. If the Senator will reconsider the matter I think he will see that we have all the powers he seeks to give us, and these powers could be used in any exceptional circumstances which may arise.
The Minister told us that the people in Donegal and Kerry formerly subsisted almost entirely on oatmeal and that in recent years they have taken up maize which, in his opinion, is not as good for them as the oatmeal, and he hopes to bring them back to oatmeal. Can the Minister tell us the reason why these people went off oatmeal and adopted maize, which is an imported grain and probably very much more expensive?
I have been given different reasons. The reason that appears to be commonly accepted is that maize meal is so handy that they feed the pigs, the chickens and the children out of the same bag. I do not know whether that is true or not.
From what the Minister stated there is an object in this Bill of which I certainly did not know, that this extra price which the people will have to pay if they take this in the stone bags is practically a method adopted to drive them into giving up the use of maize. I did not know that that was a principle of the Bill and I doubt if Senator The McGillycuddy did. From what the Minister says it would appear that to save this £2 a year, which they will lose by having to buy maize meal in one-stone bags, they will have to use oatmeal or some mixture. That means that the Government is trying under the Bill to coerce a large part of our population, the poorest part of our population, to eat something which the Government consider better for them than what they are in the habit of using. It is quite evident that the Government intend to oppose this amendment and keep this tax on the poor people of Donegal and Kerry so as to compel them not to buy maize meal but to buy oatmeal and things which suit the rest of their policy. I think it is well that the people of these counties should know why they have to pay this. I have eaten plenty of maize meal myself and also plenty of oatmeal, but I never could find out that it was a matter of such importance that people like that, to whom money is so important, should be driven off a thing which is cheap to another thing, for the difference between buying a two-stone bag or a one-stone bag. That is quite clever, but I would not be very proud of it if I were in the Government.
Does the Minister guarantee that the mixture will always be oats and not barley or some other cereal? Supposing the children eat barley—a most indigestible food—what would become of them? Who is going to make certain that the mixture will be oats?
The label on the mixture will state whether it is oats, barley, or wheat, or whatever is with the maize. If a person is buying it for human food, naturally, he will select the mixture containing oats.
Is the Minister satisfied that it takes 3½d. a stone to put it into these bags?
I am not satisfied that it does.
These are the figures on which the whole case is based. I am not satisfied that it will be 3½d. a stone dearer.
I was going to draw attention to that. I am glad to see the Minister for Industry and Commerce here. It seems to me a case for the Control of Prices Act—charging 3½d. for weighing out of one bag into another.
I am making no mistake. That is actually the retail price in the district.
Is it a justifiable difference?
It seems to me a case of abnormal profiteering, if the facts are as stated. I would draw the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the position, and hope he will put into effect all the powers under the Control of Prices Act in respect to the Kingdom of Kerry.
I do not think it is exactly as stated. The position in Kerry is different from that in any other county. They make maize meal there as fine as fine flour mixed with wheat flour for making bread. That is different from the other counties. The Senator is probably comparing that with the maize meal ground for cattle. Maize meal ground for cattle mixed with oats is a very different thing, and an entirely different price from maize meal ground into flour, so that the 3½d. may be justifiable. The maize flour might be 1/- or 1/6 a cwt. dearer than cattle maize meal. In that way, I think, the 3½d. might be explained. That does not apply to any other county in Ireland accept Kerry, where they want this fine maize meal.
May I just give the figures again? It is not a different type of meal from what was sold previously. Before the admixture scheme the price of maize meal was 10½d. It is now retailed at 1/2, a difference of 3½d. practically. In other words, in the 20-stone bags it was 17/6 for the 20 stone, and now it is at the rate of 23/6 in one-stone bags. These are the actual figures for every retailer in the whole of that county. It is not only applicable to Kerry.
Cathaoirleach
That was the fine meal used in Limerick and Kerry.
Are all the other factors the same?
Except that there is a slight increase in the price of maize.
Very little; not enough to justify that.
It is very hard to argue with the Minister when he changes himself into a doctor and advises as to whether oatmeal or maize is the better of the two. I think the people in Kerry actually have gone to maize meal because it is really a more palatable food than oatmeal and that they have taken to it in Donegal for the same reason— that they like it a great deal better. I think it is most unfortunate that the price of the food which they choose should be put up and that they should be pressed to eat food which they do not want. The reason I have put this down, in spite of the fact that we have the words in the Bill "exceed the prescribed weight," which means that the Minister can prescribe it any time he wants, is that we assume when this Bill becomes law the admixture of home-grown cereals with the maize meal will undoubtedly be increased and it is quite possible that the original proposal of putting in offals in the admixture will be reverted to.
I admit that the people are now, unknowingly in many cases, eating the admixture. They will certainly go on either eating stuff with more offals of home-grown cereals in it or be put to further expense in the shape of these one-stone bags. The Minister said that he did not understand my figures. I can assure him that I checked them over and over again to make sure that they were right. I did not want to come here and produce figures which were not correct. I do not think that these small people should have to pay. I think this is a great flaw in the Bill and should be rectified. I suggest that something on the lines I have mentioned should be arrived at by the Minister before the Report Stage is taken.
Amendment 71 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Bagwell, John.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Desart, The Countess of.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Guinness, Henry S.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Keane, Sir John.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- Parkinson, James J.
- Staines, Michael.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Cummins, William.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- MacKean, James.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Neill, L.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séamus.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators The McGillycuddy and Wilson; Níl: Senators Séamus and D.L. Robinson.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments 72 and 73 not moved.
Section 81, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 74:—
New section. Before Section 82 to insert a new section as follows:—
"82.—(1) On the application of a registered maize dealer, the Minister may issue a licence for the sale of maize meal in containers not exceeding 20 stones under the following conditions—
(a) such maize meal shall be sold to a person who is the registered occupier of a holding of which the Poor Law Valuation does not exceed the sum of £7, or his agent;
(b) the total amount of maize meal sold to any such person shall not exceed, in any one period of three calendar months, a weight of 20 stones;
(c) a certificate in the prescribed form shall be lodged in respect of the said purchase with the registered maize meal dealer from whom the purchase is made.
(2) The Minister may revoke such licence at any time."
I was induced to vote against the last amendment because I knew that an opportunity would arise to get some clarification of the matter on this further amendment. I should like to have some satisfaction from the Minister as to what there is in the regulations that he has issued and in the Act so far as it is at present operating to make it necessary that there should be a difference of 3½d per stone in the transferring of the meal from the 20-stones sack to the one-stone sack. If the Minister has made regulations which make that an inevitable increase in the charge, then, I think, the case Senator The McGillycuddy has made requires to be met. I am slow to believe that the Minister has deliberately made regulations which make such an excessive cost of transferring meal inevitable. If he cannot give us some satisfaction on the point, I think that there is some justification for the case that has been made for the amendment by Senator The McGillycuddy and I should like that the matter be made much clearer than it has been made in the course of the discussion on the last amendment.
At the present time, under the present powers under which we are working, there is no regulation except that maize cannot be sold unless mixed with ten per cent. of home grown cereal or, if meant for human consumption, it must be packed in one-stone bags. We have not gone further. We have not suggested of what material the bag must be made. In some cases, it is, I believe, just the ordinary paper bags that are used for a stone of flour or oaten meal and, of course, there is no justification whatsoever for an increase of 3½d. However, that is a matter that can be dealt with by another body. As soon as this Bill goes through we will have power. But as far as raising the expense or cost is concerned, our regulations will not make any difference. Certainly, we will not exclude paper bags for the one-stone weight, and the only addition will be a label which must be attached. That label will be an ordinary paper label in the case of those one-stone bags, so that the cost will not be increased in any way. I do not think that the fact of converting, say, one cwt. of maize meal and turning it into eight paper bags of one stone each, should mean a cost of 2/4, which it would appear to be at present. In the Dáil, when this matter was under discussion, various figures were given also, and one Deputy from Mayo—he was not a member of our Party but was very much opposed to this Bill—gave the figure as 2d. per stone of an increase as a result of our regulations. He was very emphatic in his figures because he was in the trade himself, and he said the increase in cost was 2d. per stone. I presume that the merchants and retailers in Mayo were carrying on business at a profit, and if they could do so there, I think there is no reason why they should not be able to do it in Kerry or Donegal. At any rate, 2d. was considered enough in Mayo.
In view of what I have already said, I have nothing to add; but the Minister said that paper bags would not be excluded. As a matter of fact, you cannot possibly have the maize in paper bags. A man, say, comes down to a market, or his wife comes, and he makes several purchases and brings back a few things—his maize and half-a-dozen other things in his cart. He could not possibly bring the meal back in paper bags, for by the time he got up to his home in the mountains or wherever he lived it would be all over the cart. You must have some kind of jute or linen bags. Paper would not do unless you have some very thick stuff. You have a cement bag, of course, but that is easily punctured, and once punctured cannot be mended, whereas sacking or linen can be mended.
The price is not 3½d. dearer. It is only 2d. The Senator is comparing it with the price of the stone to-day. There is only 2d. in Kerry to-day actually and I claim that 2d. is a reasonable figure because a penny must go for the bag. A miller cannot send out 14lbs. of meal in paper. It must be a cotton bag and that will cost a penny and the shopkeeper must get a penny for retailing it out. So that 2d. is quite reasonable.
What I said was that the whole of the scheme of this Bill resulted in raising the price by 3.6d. Why should these people pay even 2d. or 2½d. extra for this stone? That is my point.
I should like to ask whether the Minister is prepared to consider favourably the position that has been stated by Senator The McGillycuddy and make a regulation enlarging the size of the bags that may be sold for this particular purpose, even if he takes power in the Bill to make regulations in respect of particular districts.
Is the Minister prepared to make regulations in that way, to give us some assurance of that kind?
In (1) (b), the matter is practically covered. It says, "In case such maize meal is sold wholesale by a registered maize miller, such maize meal is sold under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister." Taking that in conjunction with (a) (iii) everything may be done that the Senator has asked me to do except that it need not be done always and in all places. I could do it in certain places and under certain circumstances if the case so warranted, but I am afraid that as the amendment is worded we would have to sell it in all parts, except, of course, that it would be confined to people under the £7 valuation and at all times of the year.
I am prepared to take any suggestion the Minister makes to meet me. I can only count on it as a temporary proposal.
I do not want the Senator to withdraw the amendment under any misunderstanding. I could not do anything until the Bill is through and until the regulations are framed. That was the intention. I want to state frankly that if we thought there was occasion for it at a certain time over a certain area we would frame regulations so as to permit larger quantities than one stone being sold. The point was made by Senator Counihan that never in his memory was oats as cheap as at present. If it is the case that maize is a little dearer than it was before the scheme came in, I do not see that there is any justification for an increase in the price at all. That is a matter that the Prices Tribunal might inquire into. I think the increase is not general and certainly not as high as in County Kerry.
I would like to put down an amendment if the Minister cannot give a guarantee. Even if it goes back to the Dáil and is thrown out it makes the suggestion a great deal stronger than it is at present.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment 75:
New Section. Before Section 82 to insert a new section as folows:—
82.—(1) Every certificate required by the foregoing section to be used for the purchase of maize meal shall be in the following form:—
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (CEREALS) ACT, 1933.
Purchase Maize Meal Certificate. I hereby certify as follows:—
(a) that............................is the registered occupier of a holding in the Townland of ............................in the Barony of............................in the County of............................the Poor Law Valuation of which is............................and does not exceed Seven Pounds, and that the said............................is not registered in respect of any other holding.
(b) that no other certificate has been issued by me to the said ............................or his Agent, except ............................*
(c) that a purchase of............................ stones of maize meal may be made by the said............................at the registered premises of............................ (registered maize meal dealer.)
Dated, this............................day of............................ 193.
............................Sergeant, Gárda Síochána.
................................................................ Address.
*Delete where no previous purchase has been made.
1............................certify that I have not made any purchase of maize meal, other than in packages of one stone, except as set out in the above certificate.
............................Signature of Purchaser.
(2) A duplicate copy of each such certificate issued in respect of the purchase of maize meal shall be retained in the custody of the Gárda Síochána.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 82.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture unless the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(a) such maize meal mixture is contained in a package, and
(b) if the weight of maize meal mixture is one hundred weight or more, there is indicated in the prescribed manner on such package particulars of the percentage by weight of each of the component parts of such mixture.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.
I move amendment 76:—
Section 82, sub-section (1) To delete all after the word "more" in line 36 down to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the words "such package bears a label stating that the contents comply with the requirements of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act, 1933 in regard to home-grown cereals."
The object of the amendment is to secure that millers will not be compelled to brand packets "maize" in future. It had been the custom until the change in the mixture to brand all packages "maize meal." If compelled to do so under this Bill it will mean increased cost, because there will be continual variations in the percentages. In my district we may be using half wheat and half barley at the beginning of the year, half barley and half oats in the spring, and all oats at the end. If the millers had to keep a stock of bags to cover that position it would entail considerable expense. What we want is a pasted label and to have it clearly specified that the mixture is according to regulations. I am suggesting that in the interests of economy If the Bill is passed as it stands it will compel millers to charge 1/- or 2/- a ton extra. It would be of no benefit to anyone.
It is not our intention to do that. As Senators will see regulations will be issued in regard to labels. It is our intention to prescribe ordinary labels setting out the contents of the sack. Some of my advisers seem to think that it may be necessary to go beyond labelling. Something may arise which we cannot foresee and the actual branding of the bags may be necessary. I cannot see that it will be necessary. As a first step the present intention is that the regulations will prescribe ordinary labels and if that is satisfactory we will not go beyond it. If it proves unsatisfactory we may have to have branding. I do not believe it will prove unsatisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 77 not moved.
I am curious about reconciling the section with what the Minister said. The section seems to suggest that there must be a prescription of what is in the package.
A pasted label we are quite satisfied will conform with the regulations.
Section 82 agreed to.
SECTION 83.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any registered maize miller to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture prepared by him which contains more than the prescribed percentage of moisture.
(2) It shall not be lawful for any registered maize miller to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture prepared by him which contains more than the prescribed percentage of fibre.
(3) If any person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part III of the First Schedule to this Act.
I move amendment 78:—
Section 83, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section.
I meant to meet the Senator somewhat on this section. I wanted to put in the words "the prescribed percentage, if any." That is, when we do prescribe. We mean to work the Bill with that percentage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Before leaving this section I would like to know distinctly from the Minister whether the intention of the Government, under all the regulations dealing with maize, is really to drive maize out of use in favour of home-grown cereals. To put it plainly, is that the intention underlying the Bill?
Except that I would like to put it the other way, to drive barley and oats into use instead of maize.
Sections 83 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments 80, 81 and 82 not moved.
Sections 87 to 96, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 97.
(1) The Minister for Industry and Commerce may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, acquire, compulsorily or by agreement, any land on which there is situate a potential flour mill together with every right of way, water right or other easement used and enjoyed in connection therewith.
(2) The Minister for Agriculture may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, acquire, compulsorily or by agreement, any land on which there is situate an unworked maize mill together with every right of way, water right or other easement used and enjoyed in connection therewith.
I move amendment 95: Section 97. To delete the section.
This, and subsequent amendments, are directed to get Part VIII of the Bill withdrawn. The most essential amendment to that effect is the amendment I am now moving and later, amendments 99 and 100. I propose in this first amendment to develop my argument with regard to the whole of the part of the Bill we propose to omit. The principle of this Bill has been before the House long ago. There has been a general election in the meantime, and I know the Government has a mandate for the principle of this Bill. Therefore, I feel all the more called upon to give an explanation for moving amendments, the object of which is the withdrawal of one whole part of the Bill. I suggest to the Minister that the Bill could do without Part VIII. That particular part of the Bill is open to more objection than any other. That being so, and that part not being vitally important to the rest of the Bill, it is not unreasonable, I claim, to bring up amendments with the object of effecting the withdrawal of the whole of Part VIII. I hold that it is not a national necessity that we should pass legislation that would enable two Ministers to set up milling business with public money and at public risk. It is, of course, understood that I am not referring to the present two Ministers or to any Minister. It is, that I object to the principle, and I object to Ministers of this or any other Government going into business in this way.
Let us get down to first principles in this matter. Ministers are most unlikely to be trained in the business of milling. If there was available a Minister trained in that business it would be either because he had retired from business or that on the question of age he would be past his time, or because he did not like the business or because he failed at it. Anyhow, the Minister would be going into a business which like any other is complicated and technical and requires a good deal of wisdom to conduct it with success. Ministers would be quite unfit to go into this. Just like the miller in private business he would have to depend upon his officials and his employees. I do not see how he would have knowledge enough of the business to enable him to get the best out of his employees. He would also lack certain qualifications and incentives to economic milling. That, as a matter of fact, is a matter of principle, and would apply to the State as it would apply to any other business. The Ministers in this milling business, also, would change with every change of Government. There would be no continuity or personal responsibility and no fear of the bankruptcy court. The country would have to bear all that. I contend that State milling would lead to a waste of public money, and would generally discourage private milling. I do not see why private milling should not stand well with this country. One of my grounds for making all these assertions is that I see, and it is common knowledge, that the State in business tends to be inefficient and wasteful. That is no new question, or any special idea of mine as one member of this House; it is a matter of common knowledge.
I know from many examples the evils of the State coming into business. I do not know any satisfactory example to the contrary, with one possible exception. It is true that that exception is somewhat apposite, in a way, because the exception has to do with the man not trained in the business— the business that has to do with corn. He dreamed a dream and his name was Joseph. With that exception I do not know any satisfactory case of the State having gone into business and made progress. In the forties of the last century there were many State workshops in France, and they went on there for a long time. There was terrible waste and very great loss. In the royal dockyards in England the State, in our time, conducted business on a great scale but they gave it up because it was found that it was far more profitable for the nation to deal with private dockyards. Army clothing factories were established, and they were given up because they were found more expensive than factories run by private enterprise in the ordinary way.
In the matter of railways there is a long and very extensive experience all over the world of State ownership and it has proved in every case to be unsatisfactory. And the principle so far from making an advance in the great countries of the world is becoming generally discredited. In a number of countries State management of railways has been abandoned and they have reverted to private or more or less private management. That is the case in a number of countries. In these countries State control of railways has proved a failure. It has been abandoned in Belgium, New Zealand and South Africa. In the United States they set up a shipping board and they started a big mercantile marine and that also was a comparative failure.
Russia to-day is, of course, the best example of State controlled industry. It is a more difficult country to understand than any of those I have mentioned. There the State is in every business; everything is controlled by it; yet we find that in England from nine-tenths of the newspapers and nine-tenths of the books written with the general western point of view, the whose thing is characterised as one great, wasteful muddle. Ministers in Russia themselves are always declaring the failure of the things they have undertaken. Of course, every new programme they produce is going to work out all right and grand after a bit, but as a matter of fact their standard is very low and, as we know, they have food queues all over that country. If Ministers—and I am not now talking of the present Ministers, but any Ministers—were to ask for capital to set up milling with private money I do not think they would get it. People would refuse to take the risk of entrusting their money to men who had not been engaged in the business previously. The present Ministers contend that they have got a mandate, but the minds of the people never realised, when these powers were given, that State money was going to be wasted in costly experiments by people not trained in private enterprise.
I think there are objections to this part of the Bill that do not apply to other parts of it. When we come to consider what the State did on previous occasions, in relation to these matters, I think Ministers will realise, and would prefer, that this part of the Bill should be done away with if possible. It is not for me to say whether it is possible or not, but I suggest to the House that the Bill could stand without Part VIII, which is, I think, the most seriously objectionable part of the whole measure.
I put my name to these amendments as a protest against the principle more than anything else. They are all in logical sequence while more or less independent. I must say that I am opposed, from the general experience the world has had, to the State entering into competition in commercial enterprise with private individuals either directly or indirectly. There is always the cost to the taxpayer to be considered. There is no incentive whatever to keep down the cost, particularly under proposals such as we have in this particular section. Here for a moment I cut away from Senator Bagwell's suggestion regarding inefficiency. I suggest that the present Minister would be an extremely efficient miller. Let us take a case in point. A miller's licence is withdrawn. The Minister then steps in and under the Bill he can buy the mill at a price which the Government themselves fix. Then, being an extremely efficient miller, he is going to rationalise the industry and to work it himself. Under the provision of Section 102 (2) he can incur any loss whatever in doing so. As a matter of fact, referring to what Senator Bagwell has stated, if shares were offered under Section 102 (2) at 5 per cent. I would jump at the opportunity to put capital into the thing because the risk would be completely covered. Suppose it were the policy of the Government to reduce the cost of feeding stuffs in some particular district, under pressure or for some other reason. The Minister has only got to do what I have said and he then can proceed to undersell all the other millers in that district. They will have either to go out of business or bring prices down to his level. I do not think that is a thing that is fair in ordinary commercial dealing, but really these are the powers which the section gives him. I think the fact that there is such a provision, or that there is that possibility, is going to sap confidence to a very great extent. Although we are told that there is a large number of applications for milling licences, I should say that the first time this provision is put into operation it will create very considerable alarm.
It seems to me that only if Senator Bagwell had opposed the whole scheme of this Bill, would he be consistent in proposing the deletion of this section, because it strikes me that this is a kind of reserved power which the Minister intends to have if private owners of flour mills decide by a combination or conspiracy to destroy the scheme of the Bill. I am not going to enter into any controversy with the Senator on the merits of State ownership of any industry, but I think it is rather unwise to raise questions of the relative merits of State ownership of industry as against private ownership, at the present time, when we are witnessing the collapse of so many private industries with enormous losses, owning to inefficient management and bad control of the finances of these many great undertakings. As I understand this particular part of the Bill and the Bill itself, it is really intended to provide for the country what the privately owned milling industry has failed to provide. The potential flour mills and maize mills that are in question are to be established instead of mills which the private owners have ceased to work. The whole scheme of the Bill, if the Minister had not reserved powers to step in, could be destroyed by the simple expedient of keeping mills out of operation. Another aspect of it, as I understand the scheme, is that, in the design of the Minister, mills may be erected up and down the country for the purpose of local milling, which would not be erected in the ordinary course by mill-owners who would prefer to work port mills. In case there is obduracy, the Minister is taking power to step in and to do the work which the private owners refuse to do, having regard to the public interest and not merely the shareholders' interest. That has been the issue raised here on many occasions, whether the public interest is to be superior to that of the shareholders. If Senator Bagwell is opposed to the whole scheme of flour milling and the growing of wheat, encouraged by legislative action, then he is consistent in voting against this part of the Bill, but any Senator who thinks that the scheme is in general desirable, must agree that this part of the scheme is essential.
I think that Senator Johnson forgot one thing in his remarks. He referred to private companies which he says have failed. He is quite right in that, but it was the money of private individuals that was lost in these industries and not the money of the State. It is the loss of money to the State which Senator Bagwell dealt with. He dealt with the question of whether the State was going to lose money because the Government entered on this business. It is the money of citizens we have in mind here, not the money of private shareholders invested in big companies which have gone smash. I think that every individual who has studied these matters will agree with Senator Bagwell that even under municipal management, not to speak of management of industries by the Executive Council, the work has not been successful to any great extent as compared with private enterprise. There would be grave risk, if these powers were exercised, of the money of the State being lost.
Senator Johnson states that the money may be used in places where the Ministry wish to have mills started, and that if they cannot get people to carry on these mills economically in these parts of the country, they would proceed to put this part of the Act into force. I carefully read the Minister's remarks on the Second Reading and I do not think he went to the length of stating what Senator Johnson stated here to-night. He stated that it was only in case of national necessity or in some such state of affairs that these powers would be exercised. He stated, I gathered, that he did not like this part of the Bill himself. As far as I was able to judge in reading what he said, he knew the dangers of the thing. I would suggest that if such a national necessity arose, and if these powers were required, they should form part of a separate Bill brought before the House by the Minister, with the case stated as to why he wanted these powers. It is a pity that they should be put in at the end of a Bill here to meet difficulties that might never arise. I think he said himself that these difficulties did not exist at the present time. We are told that there are millers in a surplus quantity at the present time who are thirsting for licences. We are informed that the Free State is over-milled rather than under-milled, so that there is no possible need for this part of the Bill at the moment, and the Minister is taking powers to provide for a contingency which may never arise. Where there is a huge question of State management of business I think it should be dealt with in a separate measure, with cause definitely stated as to the necessity for these powers, and not at the end of a Bill which we are passing with a few recommendations, but about which there has been no trouble in the House at all. This is a different thing. It establishes the precedent of State trading for a reason which has not been adequately argued before the House and, therefore, I wish to support Senator Bagwell's amendment. We know that under existing circumstances it can only be a recommendation, but I do think that it is one that members of the Dáil and the the Seanad should very seriously consider—whether, by passing this, they should abandon their power of considering the situation in which they could agree to giving the Minister power to carry on that business. Definite stating of a reason, and the House agreeing with the Minister and giving him the powers—those are the only conditions on which this power ought to be given and until that situation arises and until that is the way it is put before the Parliament, I do not believe that it should be tacked on to a Bill of this kind and passed in this way.
I suggest that it is absolutely essential to the carrying out of the purposes of this Bill that the Minister should have these powers reserved to him. To my mind, the powers do not go quite so far as they ought to go and I believe it would be much better if the Minister had the power, not alone to produce the flour, but to bake it as well, and then we might, perhaps, be able to get bread in Dublin at something like a reasonable price. At present, if a person getting relief, unemployment benefit, home help or assistance in any shape from a public authority is in a position to buy three four-pound loaves of broad in a day for his family, they cost in Belfast about 5¼d., while in Dublin they cost 1/0¾d., so that the housewife could have a pound of bacon as well in Belfast for the price of the three loaves in Dublin.
Senator Bagwell speaks a good deal about State control and State running of industries. I wonder what explanation could Senator Bagwell give of the fact that, when Great Britain was faced with the most dire consequences during the Great War, the railway industry of England was taken over and run by the State, if private enterprise was so much more successful than State control.
And they nearly ruined the business.
They won the war, anyway.
England won it, nominally. They got all they wanted out of the railways, anyway. It was generally admitted by the greatest authorities that England could not continue to have private management of the railways. Is it not also an admitted fact that when shells and other ammunition were being made in England by private enterprise tens of thousands of soldiers lost their lives in France because dud shells were made in those private factories?
They did not come out of English factories.
Excuse me, they did come out of English factories. It has been absolutely proved and established that private manufacturers in England sent out dud shells that would not explode and tens of thousands of British soldiers were lost as a consequence. It is on record. It was a shame but, nevertheless, that did not prevent private enterprise from making a profit on the job and it was only when the Government nationalised the factories and nationalised the railways that they got the results they required. I heard a good many times here statements made about national control of industry and I think it is time that somebody said a little of the truth in regard to that matter in this assembly.
Is this in order? It is an implication that I am not speaking the truth.
Cathaoirleach
I think it is in order. You quoted parallel cases to show that it was not right for Governments to embark on business and the Senator is trying to argue that there are reasons why they should embark on business.
I think the reference to the railways is not in order.
To come nearer home, what sort of spectacle have we in this country in respect of the privately managed railways? We have, for the last five or six years, accounts regularly about the railways being run at a loss and being subjected to unfair competition. A man in a very small way of business, with only a few hundred pounds, could buy buses and run services, bring people from their doors to the shops, from the heart of the city into the heart of the country and create passenger and supply services in places where there never was a service. I have in mind the County Meath, where I lived the greater portion of my life. You could not get from Navan to Dublin on a Sunday although there were two railways serving the district, but now, since buses came along and because you had a few men who had got a little compensation for their services during the war who could buy buses, there are ten or twelve buses running from Dublin.
That is not State control.
It is not, but it seems to me that it is a terrible reflection on the monopoly that existed in the railways.
You have at the present time a railway strike and that strike——
Cathaoirleach
I think you are going into too wide a field.
I thought it was brought about by private enterprise?
Cathaoirleach
The strike would open up a very large field of controversy.
I will not go into the strike at all, but I will suggest that the Minister, instead of having his powers cut in this matter of establishing State control and State ownership of factories and of providing the absolutely essential material of flour for the people of the State, should be given these powers. In the last analysis, he cannot afford to subject the ordinary people of this country to starvation, if it is decided by the mill owners that a monopoly is going to be created here in respect of milling our own flour and the people should not be left in the hands of any group of individuals who could say: "We will starve this State or get whatever prices or conditions we want for manufacturing this flour." It is right and proper that the Minister should have power to take over these factories, if necessary, and as I said before, my only regret is that he has not asked for greater power, but of course, it is not too late yet. Once we have the flour made in the mills it is only another step to take over the bakeries, bake the bread, and sell it at a price at which the people can buy it.
I desire to support Senator Bagwell. I do not think there is any necessity to give the Minister power to embark on milling. Private enterprise is quite capable of doing all the milling that is required. We are told that the Minister has had any amount of applications from people anxious to start mills and there is no reason to think that there will be a scarcity of mills. If there is to be a profit made out of the business, there will be plenty of millers prepared to equip or build mills and produce the meal and flour required. It is no analogy to say that because England thought it necessary to take over railways or equip munition factories during the war there is every reason here why the Minister should start flour mills. There is no comparison there at all. Of course we have an economic war in progress, but that is not the type of war that England was engaged in. If there is a war in this country the Minister will have sufficiently drastic powers in the matter of feeding the people.
There is no necessity to give the Minister the powers that have been referred to in the course of this discussion. I am entirely in favour of the Bill in so far as it tends to increase tillage. If we have more oats, barley, potatoes, etc., the country will benefit. There is no necessity at all for this part of the Bill. If the millers act in a way that is not considered proper it will be very easy for the Minister to allow foreign flour to be imported and in that way he can bring sufficient pressure on the millers. If the millers do not conform with the Minister's requirements he has ample power at his disposal to bring them to their senses.
I have a great and sincere difficulty in deciding what I shall do in relation to this amendment. I disapprove altogether, and have always done so, of State interference with industry. On the other hand, there are occasions upon which the State has to intervene. Senator O'Duffy has told us about the taking over of railways and other works in the country. They were taken over by the State in a time of war. Of course, in such times that becomes absolutely necessary, but we are not at present experiencing anything like those times and I cannot say that there is any reason given—perhaps the Minister may be able to give one—why it is necessary to take powers under this Bill to absorb all the milling industries in the country. They may be absorbed gradually or in bulk. Sometimes the State comes in and takes over industries. Such a course has been found necessary in time of war or on very exceptional occasions.
If it turned out to be absolutely necessary here—I very much doubt it and I cannot visualise any circumstances under which it would be necessary for the State to take over the mills—then I would be in agreement in regard to the part of the Bill now under discussion. I certainly do agree with what Senator Jameson has suggested, and that is that this part of the Bill should be postponed until some occasion arose under which it was really necessary for the State to take over the work of flour production and other matters connected with the cereal development of the country. As Senator Jameson said, the Bill without this would be complete in itself. It is introducing an unusual state of affairs into a piece of legislation which is purely domestic, which deals with an industry of the country. It is unnecessary, so far as I can see, that any part of the Bill should be devoted to industrialising this particular business by the State. If the Minister can assure me personally—it is rather a personal matter, as I do feel a difficulty about it—that there is a national necessity, I will vote against the amendment. If he cannot assure me that there is really a national necessity for such a drastic provision, I will vote in favour of the amendment.
With all respect to you, sir, and to Senators Bagwell, The McGillycuddy and O'Duffy, this part of the Bill has nothing whatever to do with nationalisation. It neither permits nor facilitates the nationalisation of the flour-milling industry. I think Senator Bagwell was completely in error when he tried to suggest that the design behind this part of the Bill is to achieve the nationalisation of flour milling by a backstairs method. I think members of this House have sufficient acquaintance with the Government to know that if we did intend to nationalise the flour-milling industry, we would not hesitate to produce a Bill which would be avowedly a Nationalisation Bill. That is not what is here. The only mill that can be acquired by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Agriculture is a mill that is not working. A mill in respect of which a licence has been issued, and which is in production, cannot be acquired. It is not possible for me to walk into the Dublin Port Mill, for example, order the manager out and put a clerical officer from my Department in his place and tell him to carry on. If a mill is not in production and it is considered necessary in the national interest that that mill should be brought into production—if the owners refuse to bring it into production—then there is power to acquire it at a price to be fixed by agreement or, failing that, by an arbitrator.
We are asked what is the necessity for this provision. Senator Bagwell talked about first principles. There is nothing in what he said after that which bore any relation to first principles. He dealt with the possibility of the Minister not being a trained miller, being too old to be effective, or being too incompetent to be successful. He talked about the possibility of a monetary loss and the probability of the Minister acting with glorious irresponsibility, cutting prices and generally causing havoc in the industry if he became an owner. These are not first principles. The only first principles involved are whether the State has the right to interfere with private enterprise when private enterprise is abused and public hardship is being occasioned.
This part of the Bill would not have appeared were it not for the fact that the millers bluffed one little bit too much. When we announced our proposals to deal with the flour-milling industry, the millers rushed into print saying they were not pleased with the proposal, that they were much better off if they were left alone, and that they could not co-operate with the Government. Events have since shown that the flour millers were only raising, as a poker player would say, the ant. We had to face the possibility of the Bill being passed and the flour millers refusing to operate their mills. Were we to allow these mills to become derelict, or were we to take powers to permit in such circumstances the State acquiring the mills, if necessary operating them, but preferably disposing of them to people prepared to operate them?
I admit that the danger has been considerably diminished. There are not many flour millers nowadays who will say that the Bill has disimproved their position or that they are not prepared to co-operate in putting it into effect. I do not anticipate circumstances will ever arise under which the powers conferred by this part of the Act will ever have to be exercised. To some extent, also, it is a dud shell, such as Senator O'Duffy talked about, because just as a shell cannot be exploded without a detonator, the Minister cannot acquire a mill without the money. He cannot get the money until he goes to the Dáil and secures a Vote for the necessary amount. In fact, the powers under this part of the Bill cannot be exercised by the Minister without a further appeal to the Dáil.
It is one thing to have a legal right to acquire a certain class of property. It is another thing to have the wherewithal with which to do it. The amount required cannot be provided except by the Vote of the Dáil. Circumstances might easily arise in which it would be necessary in the national interests for the Minister to have this power of acquisition. I cannot foresee them arising at present. But we may find when the Bill has been passed and the various sections brought into operation that the circumstances that we had envisaged when drafting the Bill may have arisen. If we have destroyed the organ that heretofore imported flour and carried on milling operations and if the people of this State are left entirely dependent for their supply of flour by these millers, these millers could by a deliberate policy close down the mills and refuse to operate them. In such circumstances the licences would be withdrawn.
I ask the Senators under such circumstances to say that we should have power to acquire those mills and work them so as to insure that an adequate supply of flour would be available for the people of the country. But the circumstances, as I have said, will never probably arise, but if they should arise the power will be there. At any rate the knowledge that the power is in the Minister for the time being is likely to deter any attempt on the part of any group of people to blackmail the country in the circumstances which we have created and which enabled them to do it by the exercise of the powers conferred here.
We are in fact giving to the flour millers a monopoly in the marketing of flour on the condition that they undertake to mill and sell in the country a certain minimum quantity of flour per year. If they fail to do it, they lose their rights under the Bill. They lose the protection which the Bill confers upon them. There is an obligation on the State to provide or substitute in that event in order to ensure a continuity in the supply of flour. If for a moment we consider that a supply of flour would not be available from outside, or, as was the case during certain periods of the world's history, supplies could not be obtained at all from outside, if there were a transport strike or a shipping strike or any international circumstance which made it impossible for us to get a supply of flour from abroad would the Government in these circumstances tolerate the continuance of conditions in which mills equipped to produce flour were standing idle? Would the Seanad say that in these circumstances the State should have power to acquire these mills?
I may tell the Seanad that the power conferred here will never be exercised except in grave circumstances, and they cannot be exercised until the Dáil is willing to vote the money that will permit of these powers being exercised. The mills to be acquired must be acquired at an agreed price or at a price fixed by arbitration. There is power taken to dispose of them. The only circumstances in which I could possibly see that these powers will be exercised would be where a silent mill was not being brought into production or for some reason which might exist, say, for instance, that the existing owners were unable to bring it into production. In that case the State might acquire the mill and dispose of it to another group to work it. Even in that eventuality, before the Minister could do that, he would have to acquaint the Dáil to approve of working the mill. There are in this Bill sufficient safeguards to prevent the use of these powers. It is eminently desirable that the powers should be there even though the powers are circumscribed in the manner I have indicated.
I am not convinced by what has been said in criticism of my amendment that this section is necessary for the working of the rest of the Bill or that Part VIII is necessary. May I refer very briefly to some criticisms that the Minister has made on this amendment? That the millers of this country could combine to defeat the aims of this Bill I suggest is not a thing that is likely to happen. The millers have too much sense. Irish private and public interests have been raised in this debate. Now I have not any particular interest to support here. I am moving the amendment in what I conceive to be the national interest and not in any particular interest or in the interest of any particular section. I have got no connection with the milling industry and I hold no brief for the millers by whom I was not consulted.
All politicians desire to pull down successful great men, including successful millers. I put it to the Seanad that the successful business men are the people who deserve more from their countrymen than anybody else does. Successful business men are the people who start works and without such men a country is not worth much. The idea put forward here that all this is done to benefit their own pockets is absurd. They benefit the whole country and they benefit all persons in my opinion. I take it we are not at war with the millers. It would be a very bad thing for the country to create a state of war with the millers.
As regards the Minister's statement on Part VIII of the Bill I cannot really understand what he means by not starting State milling. If this is not State milling I do not know what State milling is. This is milling by the State as against private enterprise. For that reason I suggest that this is going to be a waste of public money. It is creating a very formidable precedent though the Minister is only taking power to do the thing. It is a thing that is likely to be followed not only in this but in other business and it is a great deterrent to enterprise. People will not go into a thing if they think what is made possible in this Bill is likely to occur.
One thing is quite clear and that is that the Minister does not want to put this Part of the Bill into operation. I entirely accept that. He said so before too. That no doubt is the case but I do not like the powers that are being taken under this Bill in the wholesale manner in which the powers are being taken. What I propose to do is to withdraw these amendments and the other amendments now and to bring up another amendment providing for a limitation of this Part of the Bill to a state of emergency which would be a somewhat different thing. Would the Minister say that he would favourably consider that? If not I shall move the amendment as it stands.
I think the Bill is perfect as it stands.
Well, then, I move my amendment.
I think that an assurance that the power will not be used except in case of emergency should be sufficient. The assurance will be contained in the debates and I am not anxious to proceed any further with the matter.
Might I suggest that the Minister should wait and see the amendment on the Report Stage.
I am prepared to wait and see the amendment, but I should not like to contract to accept the amendment.
I did not ask that. That would be asking too much of the Minister. What I have got to decide is whether I shall move this amendment or bring up another amendment of the kind I have indicated. If I thought that such an amendment would have serious consideration from the Minister, I should be prepared to do that. If, however, the Minister says that he considers the Bill perfect, I have no alternative but to move my amendment.
I should be quite prepared to consider an amendment which would make clear that these powers are only to be used in an emergency, but I should not like to confine myself to a national emergency—a state of affairs which would apply to every part of the country at the same time. It is quite clear that the powers would only be used when there was strong justification for their use. No Minister would care to face the Dáil with a proposal to devote public moneys to a purpose of this kind unless he could make a very strong case for it. There might be a local emergency, due to local circumstances. Provided it is clear that the decision as to what constitutes an emergency is to be left to the Minister or to the Executive Council, I should have no objection to an amendment of that kind, but I do not see that such an amendment is of very much value as a safeguard.
I quite understand. I propose to introduce an amendment on these lines on the Report Stage. The Minister has given me an assurance that he will give it full consideration. I shall try to avoid the difficulty the Minister mentions, but it is impossible to say to what extent words can be made secure that. With the consent of the seconder, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I have a number of amendments on the same lines.
My withdrawal is not intended to prejudice Senator O'Rourke's amendments.
They deal with practically the same thing. If we get Senator Bagwell's amendment accepted, I think it will meet the whole problem.
Amendments 89 to 91, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment 92 which I move is somewhat different from the others. It deals with a penalty. It is as follows:—
Section 95, sub-section (3). Before the word "false" in line 19 to insert the words "to his knowledge."
These words are not necessary. The statement must be false to his knowledge.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 95 agreed to.
Amendments 93 to 110 not moved.
Sections 96 to 103 agreed to.
Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported to the House.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 22nd March, 1933.
