Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Nov 1943

Vol. 91 No. 18

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach—(Resumed).

The discussion of this Estimate has revolved around the present economic position in the country and the standard of life of the people. The fact that practically every Deputy who has spoken on the matter found it necessary to advert to the economic conditions of the country and what might be described as the financial plight of the people, is in itself an indication that the House and the country are genuinely concerned about the deterioration which has set in here and which is developing in the whole economic structure of the nation. I think it will not be questioned, I think it cannot be questioned, if one adverts to the reports of county medical officers of health, that there is an ever-widening stratum of poverty, that large numbers of persons are not able to get the barest necessaries of life, that tuberculosis is increasing and that malnutrition is on the up-grade.

These are factors which must beget the lively attention of an alert Legislature and an active-minded Government. But, I am sorry to say, I can discover no evidence that the Government realises the immensity of the task confronting it or of the grave dangers which beset the nation if these problems continue to be dealt with in the unsatisfactory manner which has been manifested during the past four years. In many parts of this country we have had a condition of endemic poverty. I am sorry to say that I think I discover an extension of the area of endemic poverty. I think that condition of affairs is due, on the one hand, to the low standard of wages of large sections of our people and, on the other hand, to the fact that the Government's inability, the Government's utter helplessness, to control prices has produced a deterioration in the standard of life of our people, intensifying malnutrition and ill-health in the country.

Very large numbers of our people are compelled to depend on such forms of relief as they can get through social services. I think the fact that the Government is forced into providing social services in the form of free food and free fuel for the people is in itself an indication that the whole economic organisation of the country is bad. The ideal condition to aim at is to give our people decent rates of wages, to give them decent conditions of employment and enable them to buy food, clothes and the necessaries of life in the same way as Deputies buy food and clothes and the necessaries of life. That is the ideal to aim at. That is the objective which we ought to set before our eyes, and, to the extent that we are forced to give able-bodied men, who are willing and anxious to work, vouchers for free food, cheap fuel, and so on, it is an indication of how far we are from attaining the objective that is so much desired.

In a normal condition of affairs, and with a healthy economic and agricultural organism, we ought to be able to provide our people with a decent standard of living, and thus avoid having to resort to those subterfuges which, undoubtedly, are designed merely to try to provide the poor of our country with some form of sustenance which would enable them to keep alive. I think that, if employment were provided at decent wages, there would be no necessity for this business of giving vouchers for food and fuel. I think that, as a result of giving these vouchers, the unemployment position grows worse from day to day, and I believe that that is due to the fact that we have no plan to deal with the situation. I doubt if we have even an objective in our minds; but certainly we have no plan to deal with the immediate problem as it exists. I hold that this whole problem can be solved by giving all our people full employment at a decent wage, which would enable them to maintain a decent standard of life. I believe that we have the resources within our own country to ensure that this could be done—to guarantee a wage which would enable them to discharge their domestic duties, and also to fulfil their responsibilities as citizens' of this State.

When one adverts to the extent to which the cost-of-living index figure has increased since the beginning of the war, it is easy, perhaps, to see what expense would be involved in any addition to that cost-of-living index figure. In August, 1939, the cost-of-living index figure was 73—being based upon nought—whereas to-day it is 184—an increase of about 111 points since 1939. To the extent to which we permit the cost of living to increase to that extent, while doing nothing to increase the wages or pensions of people, whose standard of life has been affected by that increase—while doing nothing to increase the standard of living of tens of thousands of our people who are forced to live on pittance rates—we are deliberately permitting the standard of life of such people to deteriorate.

Take, for instance, the case of old age pensioners. In 1939, they had a maximum pension of 10/- per week. If they were now getting 16/- a week, having regard to the purchasing power of money, they would not be getting any more in income to-day than they were getting in 1939 when the pension was at the rate of 10/- per week. The Government, however, still tolerates the condition of affairs in which these old age pensioners are compelled to subsist on a pension of 10/- a week, notwithstanding the fact that, even judged by the rigid standards set down by the Department, and ascertainable by reference to the cost-of-living index figure, it would take 16/- to-day to buy what 10/- would have bought in 1939. The Government have taken no steps whatever to repair the shrunken purchasing power of the pittance which we may pay to old age pensioners.

That is bad enough, but in regard to the recipients of unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance benefits, the position is even worse. Many of these people find themselves absolutely unable to subsist on their allowances. It might, at one time, have been pleaded that there was a prospect that such persons might get employment at a later date. Everybody knows now, however, that the prospect of full-time employment is narrowing, and that it is harder to get full-time employment in this country at the present time than it ever was before. As a result of this, the recipients of unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance benefits are worse off to-day than they have ever been in the history of this State since 1922. So far as the unfortunate people who have to depend on home assistance are concerned, I think their case was never worse than it is at the present moment. Of course, I know that we now have installed throughout the country a kind of marionettes, under the Department of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who are described as county managers. If I am right, I think that the object of certain statements that have been made by the Ministers concerned is to try to take away the atmosphere of unpopularity with which these county managers have been surrounded. Now, the position is that certain people, who had been allowed home assistance relief in the past, now find it harder and harder to get such relief, because any such applications must get the approbation of the county manager. That is the position, as I understand it, and the answer that is given is that the rates are not sufficient to enable the county managers to pay the money required, but the position is that the people concerned are not getting enough to enable them to keep body and soul together.

I had occasion, last week, to speak to a number of school children on a roadside in County Kildare. The children who were barefooted and ill-clad, were going along the road to school. I asked them whether they had worn boots or shoes this year, and they told me, no. They said that they had had no boots or shoes this year, because their parents could not afford to buy them. Now, as one with somewhat the same propensities as Deputy Larkin (Junior), I think I can say—and I think that members of all Parties in this House could also say—that the increase in the number of barefooted children in the villages, towns, and cities of this country would constitute a most appalling indictment of the inadequacies of our present system. Why should our children be compelled to go to school in the mornings, and return from school in the evenings, ill-fed, under-nourished, under-clad, and obviously undershod? Surely, the Government should be capable of remedying that state of affairs? How long more are our people to be left in the position that their children—young boys and girls—will have to be left ill-clad, hungry, and barefooted? How long more will they have to endure the hardships and privations that they have to endure to-day? Is there any indication that the Government has any plan to deal with a situation of that kind? It is no use to say to these people that times are difficult at the moment; that is a mockery of our Constitution. We have here in this country resources which are capable of development. We had an opportunity of meeting many of the trials and difficulties which, inevitably, beset a nation during a war situation, and we ought to tell these people now what are the prospects for the future development of the resources of our country. Are they to continue to be under-nourished and ill-clad? Are they to be allowed to continue to be the victims of tuberculosis as a result of having to live in slum conditions and in poverty, or are they to be the recipients of a few raggedy garments, as a result of charity, which possibly, may help them to survive the rigours of bitter winter weather?

The Taoiseach should and must give an answer to that question. If we are not in a position to remedy that situation, then we might be allowed to understand the position; but I refuse to believe that we are not in a position to relieve the poverty under which large numbers of our people have to suffer. I believe that you can get people to suffer for an ideal, and that you can get people to put up with bad conditions for a long time, so long as they know or believe that they are suffering for an ideal, but you have to convince these people that you are doing the best you can to remedy the terrible conditions under which they suffer. I am not convinced that the Government have been doing enough to remedy the situation, and I believe that, in regard to the mass destitution under which this country is suffering to-day, many of the difficulties which now beset us, are due to the want of foresight shown by the Government in the years 1938 and 1939. I believe that if this Government had taken proper measures, at that time, they might have imported to this country certain commodities which would have sustained our secondary industries for a much longer period, and that we might have used our now frozen external assets for the purpose of importing to this country commodities which are now in short supply.

Although we missed the tide on that occasion, although we failed to take advantage of the situation which was then present to us, and failed adequately to measure the extent of the dangers which menaced us, I still refuse to believe that we are utterly helpless to-day. We are exporting to Britain to-day much more than Britain is sending to us. We are sending to Britain very valuable foodstuffs which Britain could get otherwise only from the ends of the earth. Britain wants those foodstuffs and is very anxious to get them. The British have no intention whatever of neglecting any opportunity which presents itself of getting from this country as much agricultural produce as she can, the best quality of agricultural produce that we can export. Very essential foodstuffs are being sent to Britain which our own people are denied an opportunity— denied because they have not the wherewithal to purchase them—of consuming. We talk about the export of fat cattle and store cattle while thousands of people in the City of Dublin, in the towns and rural areas, do not see fresh meat from one end of the month to the other. Yet we continue a situation in which we are exporting these fat cattle to Britain and piling up there assets which, notwithstanding Deputy Dillon's enthusiasm for external assets, may not be very valuable to us when the war is over. If it is part of the deliberate policy of the Government to send our primary products to Britain while many of our own people are denied an opportunity of consuming them, I think the least that the Government is entitled to do is to look for its pound of flesh. If we are to give Britain our primary products, our agricultural and dairy produce, then at least we ought to say to the British: "We are giving you much more than you are giving us; the least you should do is to reciprocate by giving us more commodities which are in short supply here."

On one occasion we sent a Minister to America—a long distance away— and we gave him a very good gallop across the whole Continent. I think the results of the visit were pretty meagre. I want to put this to the Taoiseach: Is there anything nationally humiliating or nationally abasing in sending a Minister, or a squad of Ministers, to Britain to tell the British people that we are exporting to them more than they are exporting to us, and that that is not fair, in existing circumstances, where goods, and not money are the main determining factors in international trade? Is there anything wrong in sending a Minister to Britain to say to the British: "Look here, we are giving you the best agricultural produce we have, we are giving you more than we really can afford to export. We are giving it in abundance. We are giving it even when our own people do not get an opportunity of consuming it, and we ask you to give us something in return for that produce?" Instead of that, we are perfectly satisfied, apparently, with a scheme of commercial relations which permits us to send to the British the best that can be produced here, and they can give us a fragment of goods in return and chalk up a credit balance for us in the Bank of England—a balance which may not be redeemable when the war is over, a balance the post-war value of which may not be a fragment of the value of the goods we are exporting to-day.

It may be that the members of the Government think that it would be an infringement of our neutrality to have these close relations with the British. I do not believe it would. I think it is the obvious duty of this Government, so long as it continues to trade with Britain on the present basis, to try to get from Britain at least the value of the goods we are sending the British people. I looked the other day at the statistics of trade between Sweden and Germany. Sweden is a neutral country but an examination of its export trade with Germany is illuminating. Although neutral, and anxious to preserve its neutrality, Sweden recognises that the maintenance of trade with Germany to-day is vital to the maintenance of life in Sweden. Swedish Ministers have not been afraid or ashamed to go to Germany to conclude trade agreements. There has been an expanding trade between these two countries. What is the position here? Here we are content to say to the British: "Look here, take the best we can give you and we are satisfied with any crumbs you can send back here." I do not think a Government which permits a condition of affairs like that to continue is a competent Government. I do not think it is doing its duty to the plain people. I think it is permitting to develop here a lop-sided economy, an economy which gives the British much more than the British give us.

I know of no condition of neutrality, national defence or economic complication which should prevent us sending a delegation of Ministers to the British and saying to the British as one would be entitled to say to any citizen with whom he had trade relations: "Look here, you are not playing the game; you are taking from us much more than you are giving to us. That condition of affairs must end by your adjusting the balance of trade on an equitable basis."

I should like the Taoiseach to put——

The moment the Taoiseach attempts to make an explanation the Minister for Local Government feels that he can do so much better——

Answer the question.

Put your question.

If the Taoiseach had not so many incompetent assessors like the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I think he would do much better. I want to put him a question.

I am afraid you will not get a straight answer.

Answer that one.

You know the people you have to deal with.

I asked earlier, and I think it is no harm to interpolate the question again, what are we going to do in the situation in which we find ourselves? Is there going to be a policy of drift, drift around the bay with no one to tell us where the port is? Are we to kick the football around the field with nobody knowing where the goalposts are? Is that the policy that is to be continued here? That is the policy which has been the classic feature of the Government's handling of the economic situation for the last few years. I believe, unless we are to turn the country into a vast workhouse, unless we are to still further impoverish the people, unless we are to see poverty and malnutrition increasing and tuberculosis developing to a greater and more alarming extent, some steps will have to be taken to relieve the present position.

We may be told, of course, that it is difficult in present circumstances to provide alternative employment. Perhaps it is, if we are to rely on the old orthodox methods of providing employment, but I do not think we can afford to do that. I think the situation to-day is so desperate and so serious that we have got to provide any type of employment which we can offer our people, even though that employment may not be of the same economic value as we would expect from such employment in the years before the war. I may be asked, of course, what are the alternative types of employment. Any type of employment at all is preferable to mass idleness. Any type of employment is preferable to sending tens of thousands of our people to Britain, not merely to work in British armament factories, but to join the British armed forces. We are permitting this, and we are at the same time parading our neutrality throughout the world. Approximately 55 out of every 100 of our people make a living by agriculture. I believe, and always have believed, that the land is the greatest source of our wealth and that an intensification of agricultural production, by the application of new and up-to-date methods, would provide a still greater volume of employment on the land. What is the position to-day? We are in the fifth year of the war; we have 12,000,000 acres of arable land, 3,000,000 acres of which, cultivated, probably would provide sufficient food for our people. Yet, in the fifth year of the war, we have not cultivated 3,000,000 out of the 12,000,000 acres; we still have not food for our people; and, before this year is over, and before the next potato harvest is in, I prophesy that there will be potato queues in the City of Dublin and in many other towns and cities throughout the country.

Could there be any greater indictment of the muddling, lazy, incompetent, inept policy of the Minister for Agriculture than is revealed by the fact that, with 12,000,000 acres of arable land, we still have not managed, in the fifth year of the war, to cultivate 3,000,000 acres? With the finest land in Europe, our people are still hungry and still in need of the products which can be obtained in abundance from Irish soil. There is a responsibility on the Government to find more employment on the land for our people, but that employment cannot be provided while we continue to pay agricultural workers the destitution rates of wages which are paid to them to-day. With prices as they are to-day, can anybody imagine an agricultural worker being able to feed himself, his wife and four, five, six or seven children on a wage of 36/- per week? Would anybody in this House like to try the task of living on a wage of 36/- a week?

Everybody knows that, during the past four years, the agricultural worker is becoming poorer and poorer. He fulfils an important function in our defence against poverty and famine and, although he is probably the most important worker in the whole country to-day—inasmuch as he is the guarantor against famine, his brain and energy insulate us against famine, when operating on our agricultural resources—we deliberately permit a condition of affairs to continue in which he is paid probably the lowest rate of wages paid to any whole-time employee in this country. Thirty-six shillings a week is the best that this Government can assure him. We have had eleven years of Fianna Fáil Government; we have had more than four years of war; we have seen the cost of living rise by approximately 64 per cent. since 1939. With all the Government's mock protestations on the manner in which it has revolutionised our agricultural economy, the test of the Government's success in that respect and the test of the prosperity which it has brought to the agricultural community is that the agricultural worker here to-day has to live on 36/- a week. That is the best our agricultural economy can give, that is the highest concept of life which this Government has chalked out for him.

I think there could not be a greater indictment of the poverty-stricken outlook of the Government on agriculture than is revealed by the low standard of wages paid to agricultural workers. The most daring thing of the whole lot is that the Minister for Agriculture apparently does not realise that these agricultural workers—who, from their wage standards, are really agricultural slaves—are entitled to anything more. Efforts made in this House to induce him to recognise that their wages are utterly inadequate have left the Minister as complacent and as unperturbed as if he were the Minister for Agriculture in the Garden of Eden. I do not believe agriculture can be made prosperous by paying such a low wage: I think prosperity can be brought to agriculture only by giving the farmer a fair price for his produce, by giving the agricultural worker a decent rate of wages and by putting into the hands of the agricultural community a purchasing power which will reflect itself in a demand for goods and services in the towns and cities. It is impossible to imagine that there can be a demand for goods and services in the towns and cities if the agricultural community is impoverished, as it is there that the main market is for the goods and services which the towns and cities produce and render.

The least the Government ought to do—and they cannot shed or shelve their responsibility any longer—is to give the agricultural workers a standard of living consonant with the fact that they are citizens and bearing in mind that a wage of 36/- a week is utterly incapable of enabling those people to enjoy a civilised standard of life to-day.

If anybody mentions here proposals for an extension of our afforestation schemes, he is immediately countered with a long dissertation on the difficulties which have to be overcome. It may be that there are difficulties—I am not blind to them—but they should not impede our determination to provide employment and I refuse to believe that our afforestation programme is not capable of much greater expansion than we see to-day. In afforestation we can provide employment for our people, we can provide, under a long-term policy, wealth for the nation. We can do that at a time when thousands of our people are idle and when others are crying out for the emigrant ship as the only relief from poverty. It seems nothing short of a scandal that we should not exploit to the fullest the afforestation potentialities of the country.

Certain difficulties have been experienced in continuing the housing programme, but they are not insurmountable difficulties, and a good deal of progress could still be made in housing if people would only cease sitting down in that easy-going way and pretending that, because there is an emergency, there must be an abandonment of the housing programme. Very valuable work could be done in the way of carrying out the necessary development for housing schemes by devising temporary alternative means of housing our people during the present crisis—measures which would lend themselves to adaptation afterwards when materials not now in abundance would probably be available.

Reference has been made by some other speakers to the necessity for drainage, and for the maintenance of the fertility of the soil. The soil of this country represents Ireland's greatest capital asset. Every opportunity that presents itself should be utilised to drain and improve land, and to maintain to the utmost of our capacity the fertility of the soil, so as to make the land capable of producing more when peace returns.

In respect of mineral development, there are possibilities not only of employing our people but of producing fuel for our people. In the Leinster coalfield, in the Carlow region, competent geologists have certified that there are millions of tons of coal. Every effort made to induce the State to step in and develop these coal deposits has been met with the reply that it is a matter for private enterprise and that the Department of Industry and Commerce will be glad to assist. That sort of drawingroom procedure may be quite all right in peace-time—if, indeed, it is right even then. It may be all right when boats are taking millions of tons of coal to this country but it is not all right when we are getting a mere fragment of our previous coal imports and when many of our industries are hit extremely hard because of the lack of coal as a means of production and generation of current. I believe that the Government should long ago have put State money into the exploitation of the Leinster coal-field. It may be difficult to produce the coal there and the coal so produced may not be up to normal peace-time standard in respect of cost, having regard to outside prices. But we cannot afford to waste time to-day on that kind of commercial embroidery. What we have to do is get the commodities we require. Price is a secondary consideration because the money we pay for the commodities is our own money and it is only a question of relating that to our needs.

Again, one notices a reluctance on the part of the Government to utilise the power it has to make our resources available for our people, not merely because we require the commodities concerned but because we must do something to provide employment at home for our people. We can do either of two things: we can say that, notwithstanding all our past declarations, notwithstanding the Arcadian picture we painted of the land of milk and honey which we proposed to create, we now recognise that life in Ireland must go hand in hand with a low standard of living for the mass of our people, that unemployment must be the lot of tens of thousands of our people, that malnutrition, hunger and preventive disease must be the lot of many of our citizens, or we can take another course —the course we are really unconsciously taking—and say to our people, "go wherever you can get a decent living; get out of this country." That is what tens of thousands of them are doing. The mass export of our people during the past few years to Britain is one of the most appalling indictments of our capacity to govern. The fact that we are now exporting, approximately, 50,000 of the finest of our manhood and womanhood to Britain is a declaration of governmental bankruptcy, from the standpoint of providing employment for our people. Every Deputy who represents a rural area, and even Deputies who represent town and city areas, get letters by every post appealing to them to get permits for unemployed men and women to go to Britain. By every post I get these letters. If the files of the Department of Industry and Commerce are examined, there will be seen the number of recommendations I have had to make to that Department on behalf of unfortunate people whose choice is the emigrant ship, with wages in England, or poverty and qucues at the labour exchange here.

I could not help feeling sad the other day when I got a letter from a woman whose husband had been unemployed. Her husband wanted to get a permit to go to Britain. I made representations, and in due course a permit was issued. I got a letter from that woman saying—"thanks so much for all you have done in this case. My husband went to England this morning." Fancy a condition of affairs being allowed to develop in which a woman thanks another person because her husband was deported through poverty. Does that provide any consolation to the Government? There was a man anxious to live here and work and provide for his wife and children, and because of our laziness, indifference, and incompetence he had to go to Britain to try to get a livelihood. Although that father was sundered from his children and that husband parted from his wife, that was considered preferable to the poverty and hardship which was the lot of the family at home.

Having regard to the fact that so many of our people go to Britain and get a livelihood there and are not paid in gold, I wonder that it does not occur to our Government to emulate the methods of the British and provide employment for our people here. In Britain there is no gold backing for the note issue. In fact, there is practically no metallic backing for the note issue. Britain is issuing millions and millions of pounds of State credit. What is the guarantee for that? It is neither gold nor silver. There is practically no metallic backing for the note issue there. Britain and the other belligerents—Germany, Russia and the United States—are satisfied that they can issue these credits to finance production on the basis of the recovery of the nation and on the basis of the character, ability and brains of their people. Britain is financing the most gigantic armaments programme she has ever known. She is doing that by issuing credits. The backing for the State credits consists of the bombing plane, the submarine, the aircraft carrier, the warship, and all these other implements of death and destruction. If Britain, once the citadel of orthodox methods of finance, has been driven by sheer force of events to recognise that she can issue credits guaranteed by the character, brains and industry of her people, why cannot we issue sufficient State credits to provide our people with employment here, so that they may not have to go to Britain to earn the wages they are denied here at present?

Deputy McGilligan and other speakers referred to the inflation in existence to-day. There is no doubt that there is inflation. The bank balances indicate clearly that there is inflation. Money is coming into this country, probably at the rate of £7,000,000 per year. A Central Bank Act was recently designed in which the function of the central bankers is to maintain the integrity of the currency. We have a situation in existence whereby anybody in Britain can gather 1,000,000 pound notes, go into the Currency Commission or the Central Bank, and say: "Here are 1,000,000 British pound notes; give me 1,000,000 Irish pound notes for them," and that person can get them.

Does the Deputy know any person who has done it?

The Minister will find out at the next banquet he attends——

Is the Deputy aware of any person who has done what he has just mentioned?

The Chair has called the Minister to order, and he ought to respect that. That is what can happen. This is the scheme of getting the Irish £ note, with its brogue, looking the British £ note in the face. Everybody knows perfectly well that the importation of all that money from Britain is having, and will inevitably have, an inflationary tendency here. Those unfortunate people have been driven to Britain. The choice was Britain or the workhouse, Britain or the destitution rates of benefit which they could get at the employment exchanges or the home assistance offices. They have gone to Britain and they send back financial coupons to their relatives and the money which comes here in the form of remittances gives to the recipients of the coupons a lien on Irish food which the senders of the financial coupons do not have to produce. You cannot blame the recipients here or the senders in Britain. That is their only fortification between themselves and poverty.

What has the Government to say, the Government which permits the mass export of our people to another country, to perform work for that country, to create a type of wealth for that country and, because they produce wealth for that country and render service to that country, they get a lien, not on the produce of that country, but on the produce of this country? I suggest to the Taoiseach that that is a situation which must be examined. It is an unhealthy situation from the national point of view. We export tens of thousands of our people to create wealth in another country and we permit them then to participate in the purchase of wealth here which they do not help to produce. Unfortunately, these people have been driven to Britain by the Government's Micawber-like policy, waiting for something to happen. You cannot blame those unfortunate people, but you could remedy the situation if you provide those people with work at decent rates of wages at home. So long as you refuse to do that, either by negligence or incompetence, then so long will you permit an unhealthy condition of affairs to continue.

Some military prophets are now beginning to speculate as to when the war will end. It is extremely difficult to tell when it will end. The longer it continues, the longer will our people endure privations. But, maybe the end might come quicker than we anticipate. We obviously must have a plan for the post-war situation in the world, which will have its repercussions here. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in some of his occasional thunderously optimistic outbursts, tells us of all the great plans the Government have, plans which will be implemented when the war is over. We are short of potatoes in the fifth year of the war, and if the Government could not plan to produce sufficient potatoes in Éire in the fifth year of the war, I begin to get sceptical about the plans for the period after the war. I think these are just flights of Governmental fancy. I see no evidence of any Government plans. It seems to me they put down a few striking objectives with no notion in the world as to how they can be implemented or financed.

The world will not stay quiet until we are ready, and what we have to realise, whether we like it or not, is that as a result of this war mechanical progress and scientific development have been so accelerated that we will see that mechanical development and scientific progress converted to peaceful methods, to peace-time production, on a scale which will leave us as the Babylonian state of Europe. There is no evidence of any post-war planing, nor is there evidence even of wartime development. We are stumbling from one difficulty to another; we are staggering from one experiment to another. We seem to be incapable of taking any direct line calculated to yield tangible and enduring results for our people. My fear is that in the post-war race we will be hopelessly beaten by every competitor, because there is no evidence that the Government realise the situation into which they will be precipitated when the war concludes. If we continue to do things in our present way, this country may well attain a certain grandeur, the grandeur of being the museum of Europe. To-day we are fumbling and tinkering with problems which demand the application of live, alert, full-blooded methods if they are to be successful.

There is another problem which we may have to face. At one time Fianna Fáil feared they might have to send to America to bring back the emigrants. That was in 1931. None of the emigrants came back; none of them was asked to come back. We may have an entirely different situation in the period following the conclusion of the war. The emigrants who have gone to Britain include 150,000 who are stated by British journals to be in the British Army. They may be demobilised. The 400,000 stated to be in British industries may be sent back here—we may not have to send for them. We may be told to collect them and they may come back here. What are we to do with them? Has any Deputy on the Government Benches an idea? Suppose we get 250,000 of our people sent back to this country in the year following the conclusion of the war, is there any plan or any proposal to absorb them into employment? Is there any idea of how the problem will be dealt with? I see no evidence of it.

These people have not been working in the vineyards; they have been pursuing halcyon methods of employment; they have not been in cloisters; but they have been in areas where there are armament factories, blitzed day and night. They have been in the armed forces, and they have been compelled to experience a condition of life in which many gained nothing but courage and grit and the ability to endure hard things and hard knocks. They will come back here and we cannot tell them about interesting rates, or the difficulty of getting money through the Central Bank. We cannot pass them off with that type of green or red tape, because they will be impatient of that type of thing. They will come back here, feeling they have been in a different world, as it were, and they will demand some of the fine things they were told this war is being fought for. I see no evidence that we will be able to give them anything.

I think the Government ought to ask itself: "Do we want them back?" If we want them back, and ask them back, then we must do something for them. I see no evidence that we are doing anything for them. If the Government cannot do anything, that means a further export of our people because these unfortunate emigrants will take their wives and children with them, and then the Celt will go quicker than he is going to-day. I, unfortunately, though normally an optimist, see no ray of sunshine in the bleak and sombre economic outlook that confronts the nation to-day. There is no gleam of hope whatever in the Government's policy. It is relying to-day on peace-time methods, with the appalling results which flow from these peace-time methods so far as our industrial, agricultural and social economy are concerned. We are relying not merely on peace-time methods, but on piecemeal methods which are worse still. We can carry on and allow the rot to extend and the deterioration to multiply, or we can make a stand and try to brace our people to meet the difficulties and the dangers which beset them to-day.

I put it to the Taoiseach that we are not helpless, that we have here certain resources and a natural aptitude on the part of our people, that no matter what happens we must try to counter whatever helplessness confronts us by providing as much employment for our people as we possibly can, and that employment must not be subject to the rigid economic criteria which we applied to it in the pre-war years. We may be told that, to attempt to put people into employment on schemes which do not produce a full economic return, is a wasteful type of employment. Maybe it is. I do not say it is wasteful. It may not give as full a return as we would desire, but it is the only alternative we have to the mass export of a larger number of our people.

I think it would not be unreasonable for us to say to-day, taking stock of the facts, that we live in a world in which a war on an unprecedented scale rages; that we live in times of danger and crisis, such as never confronted the nation before, and that posterity can well be asked to bear some of the burdens and some of the trials through which our people are passing to-day. Even if we create credits, even if we spend money in putting our people to work on schemes which would not normally be contemplated, and even if that means passing on to posterity the liability to make good in the piping times of peace the credits which we create now, I think we are entitled to ask posterity to do that. When this war ends it may be a long time before there is another war. Forces of production and of scientific discovery will be unloosed after this war which will make poverty and want an absurdity from the point of view of ability to produce. It is not unreasonable to say to posterity: We had in our circumstances to create credits to put our people into employment, we endeavoured in so far as lay in our power to redeem these credits, and in so far as we have passed on to you, posterity, the liability to make good these credits, well, that is a legacy which we have got to pass on to you because we had to protect our people in the greatest crisis that the world has ever known, and during the most devastating war in history.

I think that when members of the Dáil, and particularly the Leaders of Parties address the House in circumstances such as now confront this country, or purport to advise the Government, they should be expected to deal with real issues in a real way. The verbal futilities and the parade of vague generalities which we have just heard from Deputy Norton indicate that if that is the best the Labour Party can offer the nation in present circumstances, silence would be more effective. There are, I know, members of the Labour Party who can and do deal with practical matters and offer practical suggestions here, suggestions no doubt influenced by the sectional viewpoint with which they view the nation's difficulties. Was the Leader of that Party, in the speech which he has just made, speaking the Party policy, or merely indulging in verbal futilities?

He was speaking plain facts.

There was not a fact in it. The Deputy would not know a fact if he saw it.

Plain facts.

My complaint is that he did not deal with facts. Deputy Norton, whenever he came in sight of a fact, shied away from it like a nervous horse, and got behind vague generalities. This debate has to deal with the cost of living and the effect of the rise in the cost of living on social conditions. The real issue here is the rise in the cost of living, due to causes which can be ascertained, examined and analysed. We can, as a result of that examination, decide whether it is possible or not for us to remove those causes or minimise the extent of their operation. We can examine the resources available to us as a community to minimise the social consequences of that rise in the cost of living. These are the facts which I am going to deal with, and these are the facts which Deputy Norton is now running away from.

Deputy Norton is going to a meeting.

As he ran away from every other fact that he came across in his life.

I will meet you in O'Connell Street to debate it. Will you have that?

Deputy Norton—stop. If you do not the Minister will convince the House that you are afraid.

Deputy Norton's speech——

Do without your meeting, Deputy Norton.

Deputy Flanagan must cease interrupting.

Deputy Norton wants to meet me in O'Connell Street. In fact his speech this evening was a crossroads speech, and this House is not a crossroads.

Will the Minister——

Am I to be allowed to speak without interruption?

Certainly, or the Deputy may be called on to withdraw from the House.

We are here to deal with real issues and not with vague generalities. Deputy Cosgrave said that this Government had made no effort to prevent a rise in the cost of living. That is the issue—what efforts can be made to prevent a rise in the cost of living? The cost of living rises because of the operation of a number of causes, but there are two main causes, two causes which are so predominating in their effect, that all others are really of no account. We can take these two main causes, examine them and find out if there is any possibility of a measure of agreement upon questions of policy in relation to them leading to practical action. That is what Deputy Norton does not want. That is what the members of the Labour Party always avoid, and that is what Deputy Cosgrave tried to avoid in his speech.

What practical action can be taken in relation to these two main causes of the rise in the cost of living: (1) the higher prices we are paying farmers for the foodstuffs produced by them, and (2) the higher prices we have to pay for the goods we import from other countries? These are the two main causes of the rise in the cost of living. There are other causes, but, in relation to these two, they are of no importance. The cost of living index shows an increase of 64 per cent. The actual expenditure of the average family upon the necessaries of life has not increased in that proportion, but that is a matter that we can examine at another time. The index figure, however, shows an increase of 64 per cent. Let us take that as our basis. The index figure of agricultural prices in 1939 was 105. The index figure of agricultural prices this year was 185. Since the beginning of the war the prices we paid farmers for foodstuffs which they produced for our consumption have increased by 76 per cent.

Is that correct? Do not mislead the House. See what the Trade Journal says about the index figures.

I do not think the Deputy questions the accuracy of the figures I am giving.

No, the basis on which you are giving them.

I vouch for the accuracy of the figures. The Deputy may or may not accept the deductions I draw from them.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am doubting the interpretation you are putting on them.

There has been an increase in the agricultural price index between 1939 and now of 76 per cent. The prices which farmers are getting for the produce of the land have increased on an average 76 per cent. In the main that increase in agricultural prices was decided upon here as deliberate policy, and with the approval of every Party in the Dáil. Is that not so? We had to increase the price of certain agricultural products in order to get within this country the production necessary to give us a sufficiency of them. We increased the price guaranteed to farmers for wheat from 30/- to 55/-. We increased the price paid for milk delivered to creameries. Why? Because, in 1939, there was not enough wheat to feed us and because, in order to get increased production of wheat by the method of inducement, a method which all Parties desired we should try, it was necessary to give the particular inducement of a higher price. We had to maintain butter production to make good the requirements of our people in fats as we were facing a deficiency due to the absence of margarine which is manufactured from imported products. In order to maintain the output of milk necessary to ensure a reasonable sufficiency of butter production we had to increase the price paid to the farmers. That has caused the cost of living to go up.

We could have prevented the cost of living going up by refusing to pay these higher prices to farmers. We could have, perhaps, resorted, as was done in other countries, to the method of compulsion. I do not know whether we would have succeeded. I think every Party here agreed that it was desirable, in our circumstances, to increase these prices and to give farmers that inducement to maintain increased production or, if not, they have been misleading us. Is there a single member of the Dáil who will say that we should not have given increased prices? Is there a single Deputy who will say that, in order to pull down the cost-of-living index figure, these prices should be reduced? There has been a 76 per cent. increase in the prices paid to farmers. That is one part of the explanation of the 64 per cent. increase in the cost-of-living index figure. We buy goods abroad. To the extent to which we cannot meet our requirements in essential goods from the produce of our own land, we have then to go abroad. The prices we must pay for goods that we get abroad are not determined by us. They are determined by the willingness of other peoples to sell to us, by the competition which other peoples needing these goods offer against us. There is an index figure of import prices also. That index figure for 1939 was 87.4 per cent. The year 1930 is the basis year. The import price index for August, 1943, was 192.6, an increase of 115 per cent. in the average price we have had to pay for the goods we imported. The quantity of these goods which we can get is not determined by our will. The price we must pay for these goods is not determined by us. That increase in the price of imported goods is due to causes entirely outside our control.

Is that not another explanation, a very obvious explanation of the increase in the cost-of-living index figure? Against the fact that the prices of agricultural products have increased by 76 per cent., that the prices of all materials imported from abroad have increased by 115 per cent., we have had an increase, we are told, of 64 per cent. in the cost of living. Why was the increase in the cost of living not more? Why did it not correspond to the increase in agricultural prices or import prices? Because of the measures of price control adopted. In this country the measures of price control during this war have been much more effective than those which operated here during the last war. The increase at the corresponding period of the first World War was much less than has occurred here now, but in so far as there has been an increase, the two main factors producing it are not open to debate here. They cannot be remedied by any action we can take here except in so far as there may be the unlikely possibility of a proposal that the prices which we pay farmers for what we need and which they are not yet producing in the quantities we require, should be cut.

On many occasions since the war began I came to the Dáil as Minister for Supplies and stated the principles upon which we are operating price control. I invited every Party to make suggestions as to how these principles might be modified or extended so as to ensure that price control would be more effective. Not once did I get any member to find fault with those principles. Not once did I get any member to make a practical suggestion as to how these principles might be extended for the benefit of the community. There was criticism, no doubt, of the effectiveness of the application of the principles. There was criticism of the adequacy of the arrangements which we had in operation to get our regulations enforced, but on the main issues, the principles of policy which obviously must be the determining factors, there was, so far as I could discover from the speeches of members in any Party, complete agreement. We fixed traders' prices. We have enforced the observance of these prices by ruthless action. Do Deputies remember the debates that took place before the recent general election when every Party, except the Government Party, pleaded with the Government to be less drastic in its treatment of traders?

That is not true so far as we are concerned.

It is true of your Party more than any other. Read the speeches which were made.

It is not; it is a deliberate misstatement.

I will produce the speech of Dr. Hannigan, who was at that time a member of the Party.

That is deliberately misleading.

There was a joint appeal which included members of the Labour Party for a minimising of these measures.

Do the rules of order require Deputies to maintain silence in view of the fact that the Minister is misrepresenting what occurred? If Deputies deny that their Party was responsible for a particular line of policy attributed to them by a Minister, is the Minister obliged to accept that denial?

It is a question of fact which the Chair cannot decide. It is not a personal matter as it refers to the attitude of a whole Party.

The Minister will not be allowed to misrepresent this Party if he wants to continue.

The Minister will continue.

It is on the records in speeches made by members of that Party. Members came to me on a deputation including members of that Party.

Including members of your own Party.

Certainly.

What are you talking about so?

There must be a recollection of what occurred.

There was no deputation from this Party and no delegation.

I am speaking from recollection. I am certain that speeches on the lines I have indicated were made by members of that Party. Am I right, Deputy O'Higgins?

You are speaking of a deputation at the moment.

I am speaking of a debate that took place here on the question of the revocation of traders' licences when convicted of overcharging for commodities.

Where was the Labour Party when the Vote was taken?

Probably hiding in the Lobby.

You did a good deal of hiding down the country like a sulky boy when the Dáil was sitting.

So far as the result of the general election is concerned, I am satisfied. What I am saying is considerably distasteful to Deputy Norton. I am only trying to deal with the facts of the situation, facts by which the Government is bound. We fixed the prices of essential commodities.

There is a range of commodities which we left outside control, because the machinery available to us is limited in its operation, and, because, as a general policy which I announced here, we decided to confine the operation of that machinery to articles which were essential, or which could be regarded as reasonably necessary. In so far as these goods are essential, the restrictions on the margins allowed to traders have been designed to ensure not that these margins will be proportionately the same as they were before the war, but that there will in fact be no increase in the traders' income.

In some cases, of course, the fixation of national prices has involved alterations of the margin previously taken is one district as against another. In normal times, the trader in better in Cork got a profit of 3d. per lb., while the trader in butter in Dublin frequently got no profit at all. Competition in the sale of butter had produced that result in Dublin. It had not produced that result in Cork. At present, there is a flat rate margin of 2d. per lb., and the trader in Cork is in fact getting a lower profit than he was getting pre-war, while the trader in Dublin may be getting a higher profit; but the fixation of national uniform prices must have that result in conditions under which previously there were variations of prices from area to area. It is only where the re-reduction in the turnover of the trader has been of such a nature as to seriously impede his operations, or where there have been established higher operational costs, such as higher wages, higher cost of packing, higher cost of fuel, or higher cost of transport that any modification of traders' margins is allowed.

Behind the traders there are the manufacturers, and the fixation of manufacturers' prices is a different matter from the fixation of traders' prices. In the case of traders, one can prescribe maximum prices which must not be exceeded, and whether these traders are retailers or wholesalers. It is possible to control the machinery of distribution at all stages, but when you come to the final stage and deal with the manufacturer, the method of control must obviously be different. It is not possible to prescribe fixed prices except for a particular limited range of commodities, such as sugar, cement or flour, commodities of which there is only one variety and which are uniform in quality. In the case of other traders, the control must necessarily be retrospective. It must be designed to ensure that the margin of profit secured by them on their year's trading will not exceed a reasonable figure.

It is not necessary for me to tell many Deputies that the determination of a range of prices for manufacturers at levels which will secure that only a certain predetermined profit is secured at the end of the year, is not an easy matter, even in normal circumstances, where the probable output of a manufacturer can be accurately determined. It is particularly difficult in cases where the output is itself uncertain and where developments may occur during the year which will upset the manufacturer's calculations. It is, therefore, quite possible that particular manufacturers will, in the course of the year, realise profits in excess of those considered reasonable. In so far as these profits are not taken by taxation for the benefit of the Exchequer, the operation of our price control arrangements ensures that the consumers get the benefit of the excess in the ensuing year.

Deputy MacGilligan read yesterday the reports of the annual meetings of a number of companies. In so far as these reports were selected, they gave a false picture to the Dáil, because there are other companies in respect of which much more doleful tales were told by the directors to the shareholders at the annual meetings. It is, of course, impossible to decide whether a company is making reasonable or unreasonable profits by ascertaining the dividends which these profits allow it to pay on its subscribed capital. There is a well-known business in Dublin, which in normal times carried on an export trade. It started with a subscribed capital of £40,000, but it, year after year, ploughed back into the business the profits earned in those years, until to-day the value of its assets is probably not less than £1,000,000. If the company earned one or two per cent. on the capital actually at work in its business, it would represent a very big rate of dividend upon the subscribed nominal capital of the company. The reverse could also be true.

Hear, hear!

The Deputy referred to the process of watering stock. A company could have a very large subscribed capital, only a fraction of which would in fact be at work in the business. A very low rate of dividend on the subscribed capital of that company may represent an exorbitant profit on the capital actually at work. These are the facts which the Department of Supplies, in its enforcement of price control, has to take into account. It is a simple matter to sneer at the efficiency of that control. Nobody claims that it is 100 per cent. efficient. It is a simple matter to misrepresent its operation by referring to some gas company which is alleged to have increased its profits in one year as against another by 400 per cent. I tried to find out from an examination of the records of my Department what company could have been referred to. Possibly the Deputy was referring to the Dublin Gas Company, which last year had a loss of £52,000.

Mr. Larkin

That is funny, really.

I think the Deputy was referring, however, to the Cork Gas Company. Let me say this about the Cork Gas Company. It is quite true that, by misrepresenting the facts to my Department, the Cork Gas Company got fixed for last year a price for gas which was excessive and which proved to be excessive when the accounts of the company were furnished. Whatever other action might be taken in relation to that company, the immediate result of the revelation of the fact that profits were being earned far in excess of what had been anticipated and what could have been reasonably expected on the basis of the information supplied by the directors of the company, we not merely required the company to give a rebate to the consumers of gas in Cork, but we effected a reduction in the price prevailing, sufficient to ensure that the whole of the excess profits earned by that company in the first half of this year will in fact be repaid to the consumers of gas in Cork before 31st December next.

I mention these matters merely for the purpose of illustrating the principles upon which the price control machinery is working. If there is a more effective method of price control, let us have it. Let us have suggestions as to how the possibility of excess profits being taken at any stage in the manufacture or distribution of goods will be minimised. I have not got such a suggestion from anybody. I welcome such suggestions. I appreciate that this problem of price control is a difficult one, and that in other countries they have apparently been much less successful than we have been, although sometimes their methods are more drastic. It is obviously a practical matter in respect of which practical men can produce proposals, but this type of vague generality, this mere denouncing of the Department of Supplies as being incompetent and inefficient, such as we had from Deputy McGilligan yesterday, get us nowhere.

There is another issue in this matter which I must raise. I raised it here before and was met by silence. Quite early in this war, the Government had to decide on one of two courses. We knew that in a number of industries a decline in the supply of raw material would involve a decrease in the employment given by those industries. We could, in the interests of price regulation and of preventing increases in the cost of living, have instructed industrialists to get rid of every worker whose retention in their employment was not justified by the supply of materials.

Mr. Larkin

Did they not get rid of them?

Let me finish what I am about to say and I will welcome all the comments which Deputies want to offer. We could have concentrated the production of particular industries in individual production units. If we had done so, we might have restricted a rise in prices and we would have eliminated from the production of these goods every uneconomic element. We could have ensured, as they did in Great Britain, the maximum efficiency in production. Their problem in Great Britain was different from ours. They had not to face the possibility of rising unemployment. Their aim was quite contrary to ours. They wanted to release every available man and woman for services in their army and munition factories. Consequently, they closed down factories and shops and reorganised distribution in a manner which would ensure not merely an economy of labour, but also the elimination of unnecessary costs in the production or distribution of goods. We decided deliberately on the opposite course. We asked employers to retain workers in their employment even if there was not full employment for them, or if accountancy considerations would justify dismissal. We tried to keep every unit in every industry in production by controlling the distribution of raw materials, even though all of them could not work full-time. We recognised, when we did that, that we were adding to the cost of production of these goods. Do Deputies think we were wrong? That is a plain issue of policy upon which we can pool our wisdom. Which course would the Labour Party, or the Fine Gael Party, or any independent Deputy urge us to adopt?

I should like to see the correct facts. I am not going to take statements here as the facts.

Let me put it as an intellectual exercise. The Deputy must know that that issue arises. Whatever the actual development in relation to particular industries may be, upon that issue it should be possible to express an opinion. I stated that the cost-of-living index figure is not an accurate guide of variations in the cost of living. As Deputies know, that figure was prepared in 1922. It was prepared upon the basis of family budgets of 308 households where the average weekly minimum wage was £4 7s. 5d. per week. The actual quantity of goods which would be purchased by such a family on the average was determined and the index figure was based upon that quantity of these goods. Many goods upon which that calculation was based are not now available. A very high percentage of them is rationed. The quantities which people can buy under these rationing regulations are substantially less than the quantities assumed in preparing the index. That does affect the preparation of the index and makes it unreliable as a guide. It is true that people cannot now buy 2¾ ounces of tea per week, which was the quantity assumed, but they buy more cocoa, coffee or some other beverage. The same applies in respect of all these commodities. If they cannot get coal, they buy turf. In respect of some of these items their expenditure may be actually higher than if they could buy the commodities taken into account in the preparation of the index. But there are also cases where very small increases in the outgoings of the average family have disproportionate results on the cost-of-living index figure.

Let me give an illustration. The price of tea at the moment is 4/- per lb. If we were selling tea without loss, the price would be 4/8. It is actually sold at 4/- and there is a loss of 8d. per lb. If we increased the cost of tea to 4/8, the actual increase in the expenditure of the average family would be 1½d. per week, but the rise in the cost-of-living index figure would be two points. It is true that a person buying 3/4 of a lb. of tea may be also buying cocoa or coffee but in circumstances in which the prices of these are not increased and the price of tea increased, you will get a reflection in the cost-of-living index figure which has no relation to the actual increase in the expenditure of the average family. In so far as it is possible to make a calculation of the actual increase in the outgoings of the average family, such a family as was taken into account in 1922 when the index was prepared, the increase in the cost of living appears to be about 10 per cent. less.

I cannot believe that an increase of 1½d. per week for tea would mean an increase of two points in the cost of living.

The main complaint is that there is, undoubtedly, an increase in the cost of living, an increase due mainly to the two causes to which I have referred. Deputies have complained that there has not been an increase in the wages of workers or of payments under the social services commensurate with the increase in the cost of living. Deputy Norton says that that is an indictment of our civilisation. Let us again deal with facts in regard to this matter. G.K. Chesterton said that the outstanding characteristic of Labour leaders was that they used more big words than anybody else.

He never heard you.

I shall proceed, so far as it is possible, in words of two syllables so that the Deputy will get clearly what I mean.

If you tell the truth, I will be satisfied.

It is obvious that, in present circumstances, there must be some decrease in our standard of living. What do we mean by "standard of living"? Do we mean the amount of money we get every week, or the quantities of food, clothing and fuel that the money will enable us to buy? Surely the standard of living is to be determined in relation to real things, not in relation to currency. In so far as we have less food, less clothing, and less fuel than is sufficient to give us the pre-war standard of living, clearly there must be a diminution of standards in the present circumstances. I made that statement before and I was represented as having expressed the view that it was desirable that there should be a lowering of our standards of living, which would, obviously, be undesirable.

I am trying to bring Deputies face to face with facts from which we cannot escape. There is no way by which we can get more goods from abroad by giving more money to workers here. By putting more purchasing power into the hands of our people, it is not possible to increase by one pound the weight of the quantities we will import. Is not that so? Giving out more money would not enable us to increase the ration of tea, of sugar, of butter, or of any commodity which is in restricted supply and the distribution of which has to be controlled. Is not that true? It is quite clear that the expansion of the purchasing power available to the public, without a corresponding expansion in the supply of goods available, can only result in inflation of prices. It cannot have any other result.

The Government are trying to avoid the dangers which will develop for the poor people of the country, the low-paid workers, the people who work on their own account, the fisherman and the blacksmith, and all those people who cannot by any means get an increase in their income commensurate with the rise in the cost of living. To try to protect them from the consequences of inflation, we have made regulations which are designed to restrict increases in prices, profits and wages. Supposing we made a decree to-day prescribing that every worker would get, over and above the wages he got in 1939, a sum which has a direct relation with the increase in the cost-of-living index number and that every person in receipt of benefit under every social service would get a corresponding increase, would not the immediate result be a further inflation of the cost of living? If we tried to overtake that further inflation by another increase in wages, we would push the cost of living higher still.

Deputies should see that there is no escape from the hardships which the war must mean for us. We can minimise them, we can try to spread the burden more evenly, putting on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, the heaviest part. But we cannot escape the hardships altogether. These are facts which we cannot get over by talking about an ideal situation. All of us have our ideals. We know the conditions which we would like to produce, but in our day-to-day working we must deal with realities, and these are inescapable realities.

Should we not try to prevent one person having four pairs of shoes and another person having none?

That is the purpose of rationing. It is the obligation of the Government to apply rationing whenever the circumstances show that there is a possibility of inequitable distribution. We have done that. I admit that there is a possibility that the regulations made have been evaded from time to time. We try to make them as nearly perfect as possible, but we do not expect always to succeed.

It is the imperfections of which we are complaining.

We even got white bread for Deputy Dillon.

We got from Deputy McGilligan yesterday a specific reference to the increase in the cost of clothing. There has been an increase in the cost of clothing, a very substantial increase, due primarily to the higher prices we have had to pay for the textiles out of which clothes are made and, in a secondary degree, to the very considerable diminution in the output of clothing. We control the price of clothing. We fix the prices which the manufacturer can charge. We fix the percentage upon that price which the wholesaler can take. We fix the percentage on that price which the retailer can take. Right through the whole chain of distribution, from the manufacturer to the consumer, the price or the profit margin is controlled.

What about the utility shirt? I gave you all the facts on that here in the House.

The Deputy does not recognise facts when he sees them if he thinks those were facts.

They were.

It will not be suggested, I am sure, by anybody that the margins which we are allowing to retailers or wholesalers or manufacturers are excessive. In order to ensure that the benefit of that control will go in the main to the poorer sections of the population, the margins allowed to traders on the cheaper priced articles were cut and, to offset that, we permitted a wider margin upon the dearer classes of clothing.

We are told there is a scarcity of boots. There is a scarcity of boots. Deputy Norton says that is due to Government inefficiency or incompetence. Let us again deal with the facts. In the year 1939 there was produced in this country at the Dunlop factory in Cork, I think, about 3,000,000 pairs of rubber Wellington boots or rubber-soled Plimsoles. The majority of the children of this country were, in fact, wearing these rubber Wellingtons in the winter and Plimsoles in the summer, first, because they were cheap, much cheaper than the leather footwear which could be produced and, secondly, because they had certain other advantages.

Are you daft, man? The majority of the children were not wearing Wellington boots. That is daft.

If the Deputy says that is not correct, I will withdraw. I merely state that out of a total of about 6,000,000 pairs of boots and shoes of various kinds, nearly one-half were these rubber Wellingtons and Plimsoles. When Japan came into this war and over-ran Malaya and Burma and cut off our supplies of rubber, that production stopped and there is nothing we can do about it. There is no possibility of our producing rubber footwear or rubber-soled footwear at present. The total supply of rubber which we can get is barely sufficient to maintain the output of heavy tyres for commercial motor vehicles and about 50 per cent. of our normal requirements of bicycle tyres.

Maybe Deputy Norton can give you the rubber.

What are you stuttering about now?

To deal with that situation, and following the development of difficulties in the present year, in respect of the imports of leather, the type of leather required for the production of children's boots and farmers' boots, we have decided to take over control of the output of the boot manufacturing industry. That control will come into operation on the 1st January or thereabouts. It cannot come earlier because, obviously, it must begin with the tanneries. In fact, it had to begin with the hides. We had to get the hides under control first. We had to organise the production of the tanners to ensure that the various types of leather are produced in the proportions in which we require them. That will take about six weeks. It is only when that process of development has been completed that we can go to the footwear factories and impose there the control that we want. That control will be designed to ensure the maximum output of heavy boots and children's boots. And, let me mention this, I am already getting protests from some of the trade unions catering for boot manufacturing workers against the imposition of that control in that way.

Mr. Larkin

Mention their names.

Certainly.

Mr. Larkin

The boot and shoe operatives?

Certain branches of the union. I am not saying that their objection is unreasonable. Their objection is this, that, in so far as this control will involve the production of heavy boots or children's boots by factories that never produced them before, it is going to interfere with the present and future prospects of the factories in which they are employed, in which these boots were mainly produced. I do not think, however, that we can allow considerations of that kind to operate in present circumstances. We can endeavour to restore the best conditions in that industry when normal times come again but, in the meantime, we must try to ensure that the available supplies of leather and the available supplies of grindery—which are even more precarious than the supplies of leather— are in fact used to produce utility footwear and the types of footwear which are mainly required by our people, and without any undue regard to the trading interests that may be disturbed.

You could have done that 18 months ago, could you not?

The circumstances only developed in the course of the present year.

I warned you 18 months ago.

Mr. Larkin

The Deputy always gets in ahead of everybody else.

There was in fact last year little difficulty about leather. There was for a time a difficulty about the grindery. The position was eased during the year but it was only in the spring of this year that these difficulties about leather supplies became acute, following the suspension of imports of sun-dried hides for a number of manufacturers. The Irish hides available to us are suitable only for the production of certain types of leather. For the hardwearing leather that is required for certain classes of footwear, the sun-dried hides, in ordinary times got from Abyssinia and similar parts, are mainly required.

The Minister is aware of the serious position that obtains to-day. I told him personally of the serious position that obtains in Dublin to-day so far as children's footwear is concerned.

I assume the Deputy has only just come in.

The Minister has just stated that the position will not be adjusted until January.

I did not say that.

Will the Minister indicate to the House precisely how he proposes to deal with the position as between now and January so far as children's footwear is concerned?

I forgot to mention that in the periods since the beginning of the year we have been trying by exhortation and by consultation—exhortation addressed to the manufacturers, and consultation with their representative council—to ensure a greater production of footwear for children and of heavy boots for workers.

You could have got results by a different process.

Let me speak. It is only because these consultations did not produce the results we desired that we decided to go the step further and to take the output of these factories under control. I think we were entitled to try to get the results by consultation first without setting up elaborate control machinery.

Amongst the suggestions which have been put forward here in the course of this debate is one that we should subsidise food prices, that we should try to prevent the rise in the prices of commodities by a policy of subsidisation. Some Deputies suggested that the cost of the subsidy should be met by taxation; some Deputies suggested that it should be met by borrowing. There are, however, practical difficulties in the subsidisation of many products, practical difficulties which Deputies are inclined to leave out of account. Take flour. We are subsidising flour to the extent of almost £2,000,000 a year, and we have very nearly reached the stage when we are making flour the cheapest feeding-stuff which the farmer can use for his stock. If we subsidise it more, I think the possibility of preventing a more extensive feeding of flour to farm stock would be almost negligible. That is a practical difficulty.

Unless you ration flour.

Unless we ration flour, and I think we should endeavour to avoid the rationing of flour as long as possible, because the needs of different classes of people very considerably.

It is very complex.

In the present year, it was decided to increase the cost of wheat by 5/- a barrel. It was decided to decrease the extraction of flour to 85 per cent., not for the reasons given by Deputy McGilligan yesterday, but for the sole purpose of ensuring that there will be a better use made of the available supplies. It will involve an increase in the cost of flour, an increase in cost which in part will be passed on to the consumers. I think it is desirable to do so, not because I want to increase the price of flour to the consumers, but because it is necessary, under present circumstances, in view of the prices for oats and barley, to do so if there is not to be greater wastage of flour by feeding it to farm animals.

The same applies in the case of butter. Again, there are practical difficulties. We can subsidise creamery butter and only creamery butter. A very high proportion of the total quantity of the butter consumed in this country every year is produced by individual farmers and sold by them in the neighbouring towns, or to people living in the immediate vicinity. Some of it is purchased by wholesalers and is available for manufacturers. There are no practical means by which you can subsidise the individual farmer producer. If we subsidise creamery butter and fix a maximum price for butter based upon that subsidy, we are going to drive out of production a very large number of farmer producers for whom that price will be unremunerative and, instead of easing the butter situation, we will probably intensify it by decreasing the total supply available.

I do not say it is impossible to operate the subsidisation of flour or the subsidisation of butter within a reasonable measure. We are doing it. We are providing £2,000,000, or almost £2,000,000, for the one purpose and nearly £1,000,000 for the other, in the present year, but, if you pursue that policy too far you will get reactions in other directions which will only make our position worse, and not easier.

There are also what I might call political difficulties. When we first increased the guaranteed price of wheat to farmers, we decided to carry the whole of the increase upon the subsidy and not to allow the price of flour or the price of bread to rise. Immediately, every Party in this House, every committee of agriculture throughout the country, every agitator who wanted to secure popularity with his neighbours, demanded that the price of wheat should be raised higher still.

That did happen, and the Deputy knows quite well that it happened, and that it will happen again. When we subsidised the price of flour we were not avoiding paying more for it but merely paying for it in a different way than through the retail price. We were, in fact, merely disguising the fact that, according as the price of wheat went up, the price of flour would go up also. Because we realised that the further subsidising of the price of flour might lead to fantastic demands for higher prices for wheat, just as, in the case of butter, it might lead to demands for an increased price for the supply of milk to creameries, that on the second occasion that we allowed an increase in the price of wheat the full amount was passed on to consumers and there was very little agitation in connection with that matter. I am sure that Deputies realise that such an agitation might have had a reaction on production. If there is an agitation for an increased price for butter or milk, the reaction on farmers might be to induce them to decrease their wheat or butter production until they get a better price. For instance, it is necessary to pay 55/- a barrel for wheat, in order to have produced the wheat that we need, but that means that the economic price of flour will be 70/- or 72/- a barrel.

Could not the Minister give a higher price to the farmers?

Even Deputy Larkin (Junior) who spoke here yesterday, and who spoke, I believe, with the authentic voice of many of the workers in this country, would not propose that the farmer should get less for his produce or pay lower wages to his workers, to get food prices reduced. Deputy Corry, who spoke after Deputy Larkin (Junior), seems to consider that the farmers are getting the raw end of the deal.

They are.

Well, evidently Deputy Corry still considers that that is the position. Deputy Larkin seems to desire that the farmers should be put into the position where they would be enabled to increase production without increasing the cost of the commodities they produce to the people in the towns or cities. Both Deputies Larkin and Corry, evidently, believe that there is a class of rich persons in this country from whom we can take all we want, and give it to the rest of the community, so that everybody will get more and nobody get less. That is a foolish idea.

The Minister has not answered the question I put to him.

It is not true to say that there is in this country, as there is in the United States of America, and in Great Britain, a vast concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people. When we come to consider what we have, or what we can afford to give for certain purposes, we have to consider the whole total of our assets. Now, in 1938, the total of our national income was estimated at £160,800,000.

Mr. Cosgrave

I would say that that is an optimistic estimate.

Yes, perhaps it is, but that was the only attempt, so far as I know, that was made towards estimating the national income of the people of this country. Now, of that income, 44.2 millions was attributable to Agriculture; 37.2 millions to Industry; 66.9 millions to Services, such as transport, Government services, building, and so on; and 12.5 millions from emigrants' remittances from abroad or from dividends from funds invested abroad—a total of £160.8 millions.

That does not seem to add up.

Well, it is near enough. One cannot be absolutely accurate in such matters.

But there would seem to be a mistake of about 66 per cent. in the estimate the Minister has just given us.

Yes, there would appear to be a mistake of about 66 per cent., according to the figures the Minister has given us.

I should say that the figures are practically right. I mentioned the figure of over £160,000,000.

But I understood that the Minister was speaking in terms of percentages, when he mentioned the figure of 66.

No, I was referring to millions of pounds.

Well, that explains it.

At the present time it appears that the net output of people engaged in agriculture in this country is about £110; whilst the net output of people engaged in other gainful employments amounts to about £170 That is all we have, and there is no means by which we can raise the standard of living it represents except through increased production. In normal circumstances, if we wanted to see, as we all desire, a raising of the standard of living of our people, it could only be done by bringing about increased production in agriculture or industry or increased output per head or both.

Could we not arrange for the redistribution of wealth?

Yes, of course we could arrange for the redistribution of whatever wealth is available, and, in effect, the policy of this Government has been directed towards bringing about a proper redistribution of our national income. We have tried, by means of income-tax, corporation profits taxes, and by other means, to reduce the incomes of those in the higher social strata; to stabilise, within reasonable limits, the incomes of those in the intermediate strata and to provide more for those in the lowest strata. Our object was to endeavour to use the money taken from those at the top to help, through the social services, those who were at the bottom. How that process can best be carried on is a matter of speculation. It may be that by pushing that process too far, you may make the problem more difficult, instead of minimising it. However, we decided to proceed on those lines to the best of our ability, and, at the same time, to try to control the inflationary tendency which results from every war, and which, if not checked by methods of price control and wage control, tends to get out of control. That is the policy that we have pursued, and which has been misrepresented on every occasion, but I think that everybody who understands the realities of the situation which this country has to face will agree that some such policy will have to be worked out if we are to avoid the dangers which our weak state of industrial and general economic development might easily bring upon us.

Let me refer to one other general matter before I turn to deal with a number of specific points to which I shall have to refer. One of the factors which tends to inflate prices here is the fact that wherever there is an exportable surplus of agricultural produce, the export price regulates the internal price, generally speaking. We are exporting still certain agricultural products of which we have a surplus or at any rate, of which we have a quantity that is not being purchased by our own people, and to the extent that we are exporting them, the price we get abroad determines the price at home. We could depress prices at home by creating an artificial surplus through the stoppage of exports. Deputy Norton spoke about making some arrangements with the British with regard to these exports. It is true that when he was brought up against the reality of the situation, he sheered off from that suggestion. Does he think that it has not been conveyed to the British Government that as we are exporting a large quantity of produce to them they should send us certain goods in return? The next step beyond expressing such a wish is the decision that we will not export any of this produce unless we get the coal, the iron or the petrol that we desire. Is Deputy Norton prepared to face that situation? There is no use in trying to bluff in this matter. You cannot bluff when the other fellow knows the value of your hand. If we decided at the present moment to adopt such a policy, we must be prepared to go through with it and face all the economic dislocation it would cause in this country. I submit that nobody would recommend the application of a drastic policy of that kind in our circumstances. It is true that we could lower the prices which the farmer gets for his produce by a stoppage of exports. We could reduce the price at home but, so long as we allow exports to continue, it is obvious that the export price will determine the price our consumers will have to pay for these products here. There is no clear-cut solution for that problem.

Deputy Norton spoke about emigration and the possibility of providing employment at home for those who have to emigrate. Why not cut out general terms and come down to specific cases? Take motor mechanics, for instance. There is widespread unemployment amongst motor mechanics and there is no possibility at present of providing employment for them owing to the number of motor vehicles that have had to be taken off the roads as a result of the petrol shortage. You cannot provide employment for a motor mechanic through afforestation or any of those other schemes of which the Deputy talks so glibly. Does he suggest that there is anything we can do to provide a motor mechanic with employment which will ensure for him the same standard of living here at home as his experience and skill secured for him before the emergency? What applies to motor mechanics applies to a number of other classes of skilled and semi-skilled workers. We can promote various schemes in the country to provide employment but they must, in the main, be of a type in which unskilled labour is employed. It is our view that we are not entitled to withhold a chance of securing employment elsewhere from individuals in this country who are unemployed and for whom there is no immediate hope of employment here, merely because of a sentimental objection to emigration.

Is it only a sentimental objection?

No. I am trying to get away from sentimentality. I am trying to deal with the realities of the situation, and the realities of the situation are that there is a number of workers in this country, mainly skilled and semi-skilled workers, who cannot find employment here. There is nothing we could do which would secure employment for them.

What about agricultural labourers?

There is no unemployment in the greater part of the country amongst agricultural labourers. In most rural areas there is a scarcity of labour.

If it were profitable for them, would they not stay at home?

The agricultural labourer is not allowed to emigrate. The Deputy must not understand the regulations which are in force. Any person who has experience in agricultural work or in turf production is not allowed to emigrate.

Mr. Larkin

What about County Dublin?

That is in operation only about 12 months.

It is well over 12 months. I wish to make some brief reference to certain matters with which Deputy McGilligan dealt yesterday. He had apparently some insinuation to make concerning the decision of the Board of Irish Shipping, Limited, to engage in marine insurance business. He talked about certain insurances which had been placed by local authorities and having created a certain atmosphere by his reference to insurance, he said according to the report in the Irish Independent of to-day:—

"A letter was issued on October 1st from the Department of Supplies directed to traders who had got space for shipping goods into the country and instructed them that they were to do their insurance through Irish Shipping, Limited. What was the personnel of Irish Shipping, Limited? Who were they? Could they have their names so that they could follow up what their associations were, if they had any of the political type?"

Now Deputy McGilligan, I am quite certain, knew the answers to these questions before he asked them, but he could not have pretended to have known the answers and at the same time squirt his venom into the Dáil, because it was quite obvious that the purpose of his observations was to convey that there was some graft connected with the decision of Irish Shipping, Limited, to engage in this business and that some political friends of the Government were going to benefit. Am I right in saying that he took——

Mr. Larkin

Was it not true?

Irish Shipping, Limited, is a Government organisation. Every share of that company is owned by the Minister for Finance. It is a non-profit-making company. The provisions of the articles of association require that in the event of the winding-up of the company, the whole of its assets are transferred to the Exchequer. Its directors are men who were chosen by the Government to establish that organisation and to build it up because they were people who appeared to be, from their experience, best fitted for that task.

Mr. Larkin

Give us their names and their capacities.

They have been working—and it has been no easy job—without remuneration of any kind. They have declined to accept remuneration as directors of the company during the emergency. The Deputy has asked for their names. There are two civil servants on the board. The Secretary of the Department of Supplies, Mr. Leydon, is chairman of the company and the Assistant Secretary in charge of Transport in the Department of Industry and Commerce, Mr. Flynn, is also on the board. There are four other directors, Mr. Hallinan, who originally came on the board as representative of Grain Importers, Limited, one of the organisations who financed the undertaking, and three other persons chosen by-reason of their association with Irish shipping companies—Mr. Gordon from the Irish and Continental Steamship Company, Mr. Stafford from the Wexford Shipping Company, and Mr. Rycroft from the Limerick Steamship Company. These are the gentlemen the Deputy is attacking.

On a point of order, I would not agree that Deputy McGilligan attacked anybody.

I shall read the report again:—

"What was the personnel of Irish Shipping, Limited? Who were they? Could they have their names so that they could follow up what their associations were if they had any of the political type?"

Associated with that was an allegation that insurance business was being distributed through a Government Department or a Government organisation to the Government's friends.

You were merely asked questions.

And I am going to answer them. As I say, Irish Shipping, Limited, was established primarily for the purpose of conducting a shipping business. It came later into the insurance business, largely through accident, at a time when it was exceedingly difficult to get supplies into the country. We conceived the possibility of bringing supplies on neutral ships which were still available to Lisbon and Vigo, and transporting them from Lisbon and Vigo in the smaller vessels owned by Irish shipping companies; but we found that we could not insure the goods against war risks for more than 15 days when lying at those Spanish and Portuguese ports. Lloyds refused to take the insurance and the importers refused to take the risk of leaving the goods uncovered. Therefore, in order to ensure that essential supplies would reach this country, Irish Shipping, Limited, at my request, undertook the insurance of those goods against war risk while lying at those Portuguese and Spanish ports.

At a subsequent stage Irish Shipping, Limited, and I personally, became very much dissatisfied with the exorbitant premiums which were being charged by Lloyds for the insurance of Irish ships. On one occasion, Deputy Dillon raised the matter in the Dáil and referred to the offer of the business of insuring Irish ships being hawked around Lloyds and our being unable to place it at even 20 per cent. of the value of the ship for three months' cover. On many occasions these ships had to sail not fully covered by insurance. In such circumstances, Irish Shipping, Limited, decided to carry the war risk insurance upon its own hulls.

That is, at the Government expense.

It was their own money.

But it had no money except from the Government; it was all State money.

It decided to carry the insurance upon the hulls of its own ships, except in the case of two ships which were on charter from the American Government, and which, under the terms of the charter, had to be insured by the United States Maritime Commission. In the event, those were the only two ships lost.

This was all Government money, if lost?

There was no Government money in it.

Where did Irish Shipping, Limited, get the money?

Irish Shipping, Limited, was originally financed by Grain Importers, Limited, and by the shipping companies which participated in its organisation. Those interests have now been eliminated.

And now it is all Government loss or gain, whichever it is.

Irish Shipping, Limited, went into the insurance business gradually. It took on, as a first stage, the insurance of goods in Lisbon and Vigo against war risks. That risk, as Deputies know, never materialised, and the premiums secured by the company upon that business represented profit. After Irish Shipping, Limited, decided to take that business, of course Lloyds decided they could take it, too, and were prepared even to underquote the terms offered by Irish Shipping, Limited, but Irish Shipping, Limited, because of the fact that the risk did not materialise, were able to reduce their rates. The insurance fund began to accumulate, and the company was able to extend its business. It did so, first, by carrying the risk upon its own hulls. It is, perhaps, worth mentioning that the amounts which were being paid in war risk insurance upon the hulls of Irish ships were at that time very substantial. The rates of insurance were immediately reduced when it became known that Irish Shipping, Limited, was going into the business itself. If we were to try to determine the saving effected on the assumption that the rates would have remained unchanged, it would run into many millions of pounds.

Mr. Larkin

Is it not true that the cover for four trips would have bought a new ship?

Certainly. I mentioned that the rate charged was 20 per cent. for three months.

Mr. Larkin

Why did the Minister not do it at first, when he was told?

There must always be a beginning for everything. Then, as the third stage, the company decided to quote freights to the importers for goods delivered here—in other words, the company was carrying the insurance of the freight. Deputies will understand that, when importers bring goods from abroad, they must not merely insure the goods but also the freight on the goods, as, if the goods were lost, they would lose the freight as well. By quoting a freight charge delivered here, the importers were relieved of the obligation of insuring the freight. The premiums in respect of the hulls of the ships and the freights represent a sum of £1,000,000 per annum. A sum of that dimension was, in fact, leaving the country in respect of insurance on the hulls of the ships and the goods carried in them.

For how long?

It was early in 1942 that Irish Shipping, Limited, began to carry this risk. It is, of course, to be noted that the rates quoted by Lloyds for the insurance of ships and the insurance of freights on Irish ships were immediately reduced when Irish Shipping, Limited, entered the business, but Irish Shipping, Limited, reduced its charges and was able to meet the competition.

Would the Minister give a date?

In October, 1942, Irish Shipping, Limited, decided to underwrite the insurance of all cargoes being imported from North America and the Iberian Peninsula on Irish ships. The first development was the insurance of the ships, the second was the insurance of the freights, and the third was the insurance of the cargo—in all cases, against war risk. Again there was an immediate reduction in Lloyds' charges which, however, was met by a reduction by Irish Shipping, Limited. Since then, the company extended the insurance to cover cargoes brought on neutral ships, including cargoes from British ports.

Mr. Larkin

Who covered the insurance of the lives of the men who operated the ships?

The company is not carrying workmen's compensation insurance.

Mr. Larkin

I am asking about the lives of the men.

The Government operates a compensation scheme. The company is at present considering the undertaking of ordinary marine insurance as well as war risk insurance. I think that the manner in which this matter was referred to by Deputy McGilligan was due to the knowledge that the company was proposing to embark on ordinary marine insurance. Am I expected to apologise to the House, because we have succeeded in having, for the first time, marine insurance carried on by a company adequately financed to do so—a Government organisation which is saving to this country a sum in excess of £1,000,000 in insurance premiums?

Mr. Larkin

Not at all. The Minister was perfectly right.

It is a development of which I am quite proud. Let me say at once that none of the members of the Board of Irish Shipping, Limited, has any association in any brokerage business. The chairman of the company, who is the secretary of the Department of Supplies, is, as Deputies know, for the time being a member of the Board of the Irish Assurance Company, which does life business only; but, apart from that, no member of the board has any interest in or association with any insurance business whatever. I should say that the pressure which was brought to bear on Deputy McGilligan to raise the matter here was probably due to the fact that Grain Importers, Limited—and grain represents the bulk of the cargo carried in these ships— are proposing to dispense with the services of brokers and do their business direct with Irish Shipping, Limited.

Mr. Larkin

Does this Irish Shipping, Limited, underwrite anything in British offices?

No. There is one other matter before I conclude. I have been speaking somewhat longer than I intended, so I will only refer to it briefly. A statement was made by Deputy McGilligan yesterday evening concerning transactions in the stocks of the Great Southern Railways. I do not wish to refer to it at any length, because I realise the futility of arguing with people of a certain mentality, who refuse to accept a clear and obvious explanation of a particular phenomenon and insist on giving some devious and sinister meaning to it. Deputy McGilligan's story, told briefly, was as follows: The chairman of the company made a speech at the annual meeting in March last, and gave a gloomy picture of the company's affairs. The immediate result was a fall in the value of the company's stocks. The value of the stocks remained static during the summer until, according to Deputy McGilligan, certain people, inspired with certain information, started to purchase and the shares rose until the debenture stock, which was quoted at 55 in March, reached 71 on the 20th of October. These are Deputy McGilligan's words, as reported in the Irish Independent:“Before there was any mention of a reorganisation scheme.” Most of the Deputy's fantasies are easily destroyed by the compulsory injection of a few facts, so let us get the facts in this case. The speech made by the chairman of the Great Southern Railways on the 3rd of March last contained the following statement: “There must, therefore, be a reconstruction of the capital of the company and what was ultimately agreed to be the value of the stock-holders' interests should rank equally with and carry whatever guarantees were given to those subscribing new capital. He had indicated that a post-war programme was being considered, that this war might go on for years and, as the reorganisation of the capital of the company could not be postponed indefinitely, it was the intention to proceed now to formulate proposals with a view to stabilising the capital position.”

So much for Deputy McGilligan's contention that there had been no mention of a reorganisation scheme until the company's circular was published on the 25th of October. Nor is it true that the immediate reaction to the chairman's speech was a drop in the value of the stocks. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the debenture stocks, which had averaged 55 for the week ending March 2nd, were 55½ on March 5th, 56 on March the 12th, and remained at 56 until the end of the month, but after that, there had been a fall in the value of the stocks and during the period from the end of March to the end of June there was a very slight tendency downwards. Surely the most obvious explanation of that fact is, first, the revelation from the company's accounts that the earnings of the railway undertaking in the previous year had been insufficient to pay the debenture interest, and that the company had to pass the dividend on the guaranteed preference stocks upon which, in the previous year, three years' arrears had been paid. The payment of interest on the debenture stock would not have been possible out of railway earnings. It became possible only because of the profits accruing to the company from the road transport undertaking.

The next step in the development of this matter was a statement by myself of Government policy made prior to the general election. In the course of that statement, I said:

"The vast reorganisation of the company's equipment which was contemplated would take years to complete. It was the Government's view, however, that the reorganisation of the company's capital and administration should not be delayed until after the war merely because the re-equipment of the system could not be begun before it ended. The framing of the necessary legislation had begun. If the present Government was re-elected, it was expected that the general frame-work of the measure would be completed at an early date and the drafting of the necessary Bill put in hands."

Another rise in the value of the company's stocks began in July. There was a steady improvement in the value of these stocks from July to October. The price of the debenture stock at the beginning of July was £56; at the end of July it was £59; at the end of August £60; and at the end of September £67½. All the other shares of the company moved in sympathy. Why? Deputy McGilligan purported to give an answer to that question. He said it was because some people had got previous intimation of the nature of the reconstruction proposals which the company had in mind and were speculating upon the prospect. Surely, there is another explanation—a far more obvious explanation.

In May of last year, the Government made an Order which came into full effect on the 1st July, increasing by 20 per cent., on the average, the rates chargeable by the company on the carriage of goods. Would that not be a more likely explanation? The railway company publishes weekly its receipts from passenger and goods traffic. Persons who were owners of shares in that company or who were interested in the shares would, naturally, take account of this weekly return of traffic receipts.

They have not appeared for quite a long time.

The papers may not print them, but they are available. I do not want anybody to think that they are withheld. They are sent to the papers but, whether they are printed or not, I do not know. I am sure they are available to shareholders, as they are available to Deputies. They are published in the Trade Journal and in the Quarterly Statistical Bulletin of the Central Bank. It is from the Quarterly Statistical Bulletin I am reading at the moment. There are two tables—one dealing with passenger train receipts and the other with goods train receipts. For the purpose of convenience in debate, I have added them together.

Is not the Statistical Bulletin a quarterly publication?

Yes, but it contains the weekly returns which must by law be made available by the railway companies. For the month of July, 1942, the total receipts were £143,000, as against £169,000 for 1943; August, £132,000, as against £159,000 for 1943; September, £136,000 as against £169,000 in 1943. That improvement in the gross receipts of the company, coupled with the knowledge that, by efficient management, the net receipts from the company's operations were also likely to be improved, would, naturally, have a bearing on the value of the shares. It is obvious that the debenture stock of the Great Southern Railways Company—a 4 per cent. trustee stock which never missed a dividend— quoted at £55, was much undervalued. The price of gilt-edged money at present would be about 3 per cent. Yet, this 4 per cent. stock was quoted at £55.

And never earned a dividend, according to the Minister.

It never missed a dividend. The debenture stock is charged on all assets of the company. They cannot be segregated. It is true that the profits from the railway were not sufficient to earn a dividend, and that it was in connection with the railway that the debenture stock was originally floated. The expectation that the debenture interest would be secure and that some of the accumulated arrears of interest upon the guaranteed preference stock would be forthcoming, resulted in that steady improvement in the value of the shares. I submit that that is a more obvious explanation than any other explanation which has been given, especially when coupled with the fact to which I referred yesterday, that the volume of transactions on the stock exchange during that period was in no sense abnormal, and that the total value of the shares involved in all these transactions represented a very insignificant part of the total capital of the company.

This was not an unanticipated development by persons familiar with the transport position. Following Mr. Reynolds' appointment as manager of the Dublin United Transport Company, there was a substantial improvement in the value of the shares of that company. The Government had nothing to do with that. It was the application of good business methods to that undertaking that brought it about, and there was the belief that the application of good business methods to the Great Southern Railways Company would also be productive of good results to the shareholders. The average value of the stocks of the company during all that period, up to the publication of the company's circular, was, however, less than it had been in the corresponding period of 1942. While the value of the stocks in 1942 may have been influenced by the fact that three years' arrears of dividend were paid upon the guaranteed preference stock in that year, that payment was made possible only by the fact that the railway company got a windfall in the form of a refund of rates paid by the company. No doubt, the fact that three years' arrears of dividend had been paid influenced the value of the stocks.

Deputy McGilligan spoke yesterday about my "defence." I am defending nobody. I was reported in the newspapers as saying that there was no leakage of information. What I said was: "I know of no leakage of information." I am assured by the chairman of the railway company that no member of the staff of that undertaking and no officer of the undertaking was familiar with the proposals he intended to submit to the shareholders before the meeting of the board on the 21st October and that there was no possibility of leakage from there. That statement, coupled with the fact that there is no evidence of leakage, convinces me that it did not occur. But if any Deputy has any reason to believe otherwise, I want him to give me that reason. I invited Deputy Cole, who tabled a question yesterday, to substantiate his statement that there had been a leakage. Needless to say, he has not done so and I do not expect that he will. Any Deputy who alleges that a leakage occurred cannot base that upon facts that are known. He must have some other source of information. If he gives that information to me, I will see that it is transmitted to the railway company. I am sure that no interest is to be served by retaining from the company knowledge of the fact that any of their staff transmitted irregularly information concerning its business, which resulted in stock exchange speculation. There is very little likelihood that that occurred, having regard to the statement of the chairman of the company, and there is no evidence of it in the record of stock exchange transactions but, if it did, there is no reason why knowledge of the fact, if such knowledge is available, should not be transmitted to the company.

May I point out also that in the period from July last, in which the steady improvement in the value of the stocks of that company occurred, there was a steady improvement in the stocks of all transport undertakings in this country and Great Britain, following the statement made by the British Ministry of War Transport concerning the British Government's plans for post-war railway development? There was an upward movement of the stocks of British companies, as substantial and, in some cases, more substantial, than occurred here, but there is nobody in Great Britain who will allege that was due to any intention on behalf of the British Minister to facilitate speculators, or that his statement was made for corrupt or other reasons.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister knows that a gentleman named Jimmie Thomas was driven from public life in England for that. Does the Minister forget that?

I would not have referred to these matters affecting the Irish Shipping Company and the Great Southern Railways Company—my own opinion is that they are out of order— but, as Deputy McGilligan dealt with them and got publicity, I felt it was desirable to give the Dáil accurate information concerning them.

There are only three matters to which I wish to refer. One deals with the railway problem, the second with the equality of sacrifice in the present crisis, and the third is our post-war position. The Minister said that he does not think it necessary to have any inquiry into the railway position in the absence of evidence of anything being wrong. His attitude is: let those who allege misconduct produce the evidence. There is the evidence in the records of stock exchange transactions. The stock exchange prices for the Irish railway shares—we shall take the debenture as the criterion—stood in the neighbourhood of 51 or 52 per £100 worth of debenture stock. There was a slow, steady increase in the value of that debenture stock consequent on the published statement by the chairman of the company that the outlook for the railway is indeed gloomy and bleak. The ordinary shareholder, who has nothing to go upon except the statement of the chairman of the company, holds the view that the prospect of his investment is extremely bad. Nevertheless, somebody is steadily buying. The Minister says there was no more buying in the relevant year than in the previous year.

I did not say that.

Shall I say there was no remarkable increase in the buying?

I have no information as to whether shares were bought or sold. The only information I have is as to the number of transfers registered with the company.

Let us note this interesting fact, that the effect of the transfers in the previous year was not to raise the price at all. There was no evidence of the price rising steeply, and these transactions were taking place when there was no peculiarly pessimistic announcement by the chairman. Coming to the relevant year, some number of transfers are registered and the price is rising steeply. Does that not suggest that the volume of the shares affected in the relevant year was very much larger than the volume of shares in the previous year?

If the Deputy looks up the figures he will see they were not.

Is it not remarkable that, in the presence of a most gloomy and pessimistic prognostication by the chairman, some sort of buying went on that raised the price of these shares steeply over the whole period, and the judgment of those who bought was amply vindicated by the restriction proposals that were produced, and persons who bought those shares at 53 sold them on the Dublin Stock Exchange at 85? If all these transactions were perfectly above board and were nothing but the transactions of persons who simply used their own private judgment in assessing the future value of these securities, why is it that the bulk of them are transactions in which the name of the purchaser is concealed under the anonymity of a bank trustee?

We all know that when the Marconi scandal broke in England before the last war, and when the Stavisky scandal almost shook the French Government to its foundations, the reason why public confidence was so profoundly shaken by these things was that the governments in those days, in the initial stages of the scandal, protested that there was nothing to be uneasy about; that everything was above board; that there was nothing to worry about; that they had full possession of the facts and they were not going to take any action because they were quite clear there was no trouble afoot.

I would not be a bit surprised if Mr. Asquith in his day, and M. Daladier, or whoever was Premier in France when the Stavisky scandal manifested itself, spoke in perfect good faith. But, when the truth was unearthed, and it became manifest to the community that either of two things happened, that the head of the Government had conspired with the criminals to deceive the public, or that the head of the Government had been culpably negligent not to make inquiries in order to bring the miscreants to justice, there was an upheaval which affected, not only the governments, but all democratic institutions, and it was alleged that in as much as Parliament had not been active enough, all the Parliament must have been corrupt, that everyone was "got at". When we look back on the days of Marconi and Stavisky, I am afraid we are constrained to confess that very probably the greater part of the British House of Commons of the time, and of the Deputies in France, had been "got at", and not only was the Government of the day squared, but the Opposition was squared, and we all know it was a very small minority which eventually got the Marconi scandal opened up in England, while, in the Stavisky scandal, anyone who was prepared to give evidence was assassinated on the streets of Paris and was never allowed to open his mouth.

I do not want to allege, and I do not believe it is true, that the Prime Minister of this State has covered up, or would cover up, any improper transaction with regard to this business; but I say quite deliberately that, unless this business is cleared up fully and openly, it will leave an extremely bad taste in the mouths of our people, and a great many people will be left with suspicions in their minds, and I want to say most deliberately that in my considered judgement those suspicions are well founded. It is all very well for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to say: "If you have any proofs of what you are saying, produce them." I cannot produce the proofs, because I have not got them but I am as sure as it is possible to be sure of anything that is incapable of demonstrable proof that transactions in the shares of the railway company, prior to the publication of the reconstruction proposals, were inspired by hints or rumours that came either from the company or from the Minister's Department; I am convinced that persons speculated in those shares who had contacts either with the company or with the Minister's Department, and who should not have used the information they got for that purpose, and I am convinced that unless it is made perfectly clear in this particular case that conduct of that kind will not be tolerated in this State, we will be permitting an evil to develop in our midst which some day may destroy the institutions of the State.

I agree with the Minister that there is not the slightest use in making vague general allegations unless you propose a remedy. I will propose a remedy. Let one of two courses be pursued. Let a select committee of the House be set up with authority to send for the transfer books of the company and for the board of directors of the Irish banks to reveal to that select committee who were the anonymous persons purchasing these shares under the protection of a bank trusteeship, and with powers to send for these persons to ascertain from them the motives that induced them to speculate in these shares at the time that they did. That is one course. If the Minister thinks that a select committee of this House would be an unsuitable body to conduct an inquiry of that kind, then I ask him to induce the Government to set up a commission consisting of a High Court judge assisted by two assessors to carry out the same investigation. I am convinced that if we do not do that we shall have allowed something evil to go unchecked in this community which will have the gravest possible repercussions upon our national life.

I do not propose to refer to the matter further. I want to make it quite clear that I have made concrete suggestions which I believe to be reasonable, either of which, if adopted, will dispose of the public concern in regard to this business. I have no doubt that if it does appear that persons who had confidential information used it for personal profit, the Minister will be anxious to see that they are brought to account. I am equally certain that if there is no substance in these allegations all Parties in this House will be glad to have reassured the public that such transactions will not be permitted at any time, and that any allegation that such transactions had taken place has been proved by a full inquiry which commanded the confidence of every reasonable man in the State, to have been unfounded.

The Minister for Supplies in a long and effective speech dealt with his administration of the Department of Supplies. We have been living in a world which has been at war for more than four years. Everybody knows that the difficulties of the Minister for Supplies are very great. I have never heard any section of the community complain very bitterly about a shortage of supplies. On the contrary, I think, and I am sure the Minister will agree with me, that the fortitude of our people in accepting inconveniences of one kind or another from shortages of supply, has been quite admirable. Who would have imagined four years ago that in the province of Connaught little or no protest would be raised when the people's ration of tea was reduced to three-quarters of an ounce per week? I am standing behind the counter every day that I am not here, and I can assure the House that during all that time, apart from the lamentations of a few old women, I have never heard a single person complain that the shortage of supplies was due to the fault of the Government. It is not the scarcity of supplies, which is unavoidable, that the people are concerned with, but rather the inequality of distribution.

Deputies cannot escape the fact that there are children going to the primary schools in Dublin at the present time who are barefooted and virtually in rags. I am not saying that all the children attending the primary schools in Dublin are going to them in that condition. I do not think that anybody from the Taoiseach down to the crossing sweeper wants to see children going to school barefooted and in rags. Every citizen in this State is prepared to collaborate in any effort requisite to ensure that these children will be given shoes and clothes. I know charitable institutions that are doing their best to get shoes to give free to children who are barefooted. I know that the children's parents are anxious to get shoes for them. The reason why they cannot get the shoes is because there are not any shoes there to give them. Deputy Larkin, Senior, may be inclined to jeer at me when I say that I directed the attention of the Government to the imminence of this development 18 months ago. The whole burden of our complaint against the Minister for Supplies is not that there is a shortage of boots——

Mr. Larkin

I told him that four years ago.

The burden of our complaint against the Minister for Supplies must not be that shoes are in short supply. That is not his fault. The burden of our complaint is that he did not take steps earlier to ensure that the short supply would be equitably distributed between all the people, so that you would not leave shoes uncontrolled at a time when supplies were dwindling. By doing so, you enabled people who had money to buy four or five pairs of shoes and put them aside, while those who had no money were only able to buy shoes as each individual pair got worn out. The result is that there is now a considerable section of the community with four or five pairs of shoes under their dressing tables that they have never put their feet into, while at the same time you have barefooted children going to the primary schools in Dublin.

I agree that it is wrong for any citizen of this State to hoard goods which are in short supply. But suppose there is the question of an impending shortage of a certain commodity raised here in the Dáil, and that the Minister responsible says there is not any shortage of it, and takes no special measures because there is not any shortage, and suppose an individual citizen thinks that the Minister is wrong, is it any crime for him to back his judgment against the Minister's? I do not think it is. He is entitled to go out and buy four or five pairs of shoes and say to himself that he thinks his judgment is better than the Minister's. What I complain of is that the Minister failed to take the necessary measures while there were still enough, but his attitude then was that there was no need to do anything. The result of that attitude adopted by him 18 months ago is that to-day there are some people who have four or five pairs of shoes, while at the same time you have children attending the primary schools who are barefooted.

The Taoiseach, I am sure, will remember that it was on his Estimate last year I said to him that there was an acute shortage of leather for boots. The Taoiseach replied to me at the time that he had heard nothing about it. I said to him that if he had not heard about it that he ought to have heard, and that I believed the shortage was due to the scarcity of tanning materials. I asked him if he could get the Emergency Research Bureau to set on foot an inquiry to procure substitute tanning materials. His reply was that he had got in touch with the responsible Minister and was assured that there was no acute shortage. Is that not so?

There never has been, fortunately, a shortage due to tanning materials. Arrangements for a supply of tanning materials have been adequate up to the present. There were periodic shortages due to the non-delivery of hides. In a modern boot factory wire and tacks are essential to production. Without them production cannot go on. We formerly got supplies from Great Britian. When we could not get them there we had to go to the United States for them. There was a hiatus during which there were irregularities in the supply of wire. Hides then began to get scarce, but there was no real shortage of them. There may have been temporary difficulties in regard to delivery.

I am not trying to be offensive to the Minister, but there is a difference between the approach of the bureaucrat and that of the ordinary person to this problem of the handling of these commodities. As a merchant who sells boots and shoes I can tell by the attitude of manufacturers and wholesalers if there is going to be a shortage in 18 months. I can judge when they begin to cut orders, when travellers stop coming in, or when men who were very glad to get orders in the past now make it a compliment to supply. When supplies begin to tighten that is the time to take control. If you wait until the consumer is short it means that not only will the manufacturer's stock be exhausted but also the wholesaler's and retailer's stocks. I was trying to get the Government to control supplies of shoes while there were still supplies with the wholesalers and retailers. I was buying all the shoes I could get for my customers, because I felt that I had a duty to them.

When I had large stocks of boots and shoes I begged the Minister to step in to control stocks while they could be replaced. If my customers were to ask for boots and shoes I could not refuse them because they could go elsewhere. I was anxious then that the Minister would come in. No one would have complained if the Minister said that there were ample supplies in one district and that some of them should be moved to Dublin or Cork where people were barefooted. Although I believed the Minister was culpable in this matter I felt that if he came to the House and said that he had to look after the supply of boots, that may be he had slipped a bit and now had come to the regrettable conclusion that he had made an error of judgment, he would find sympathy on all sides. I have no doubt whatever that if I were Minister for Supplies over a period I would make blunders. I have not the slightest doubt that if Deputy Larkin were Minister for Supplies he, too, would make serious blunders. What is irritating is that when you take such action you are treated as a public mischief-maker, instead of being met with the reply that they were glad of your help, or that they had made mistakes which they were anxious to rectify.

The Minister was impatient with regard to the utility shirt. That was one of the greatest scandals that occurred here. Notwithstanding the fact that I came to this House with a figure which showed that the shirt cost the manufacturer 6/-, that it was made out of cloth specially allocated by the Minister, he was charging the wholesaler 9/- and the retailer 10/-. That is my recollection. The Minister, instead of saying: "I will have that matter looked into and put right," declared that it never happened. The Minister knows in his heart and soul that it did happen. The scandal of the thing forced him to take some action, although in this House he told me that nothing would induce him to do anything for at least six months, because he would not get the annual report of the shirt manufacturer until then, and would not intervene to inquire what prices were charged. He said he would wait to see what profits were made during the financial year and if these appeared to be excessive he would take action. How do you expect Deputies to make constructive suggestions when they are met in that spirit?

The attitude adopted towards me was that I was a mischief-maker, a panic monger, trying to vent my spleen on some manufacturer. I did not know the names of the manufacturers. I do not know who made the shirt to this day, because I do not deal with manufacturers direct. I deal with manufacturers through wholesalers. I do not know the name of the individual firm that made that shirt. I think, at the time, when challenged by the Minister, I did get a name but I have forgotten it. The attitude taken up in this country in these circumstances is that one is trying to make mischief, trying to make a mean attack on some individual, and not acting out of a sense of public duty. How then does the Minister expect to get co-operation? The Minister stated that the trouble about the price-fixing machinery was that the public could not be got to co-operate in that work. I agree that the price-fixing process is difficult. I agree that it is dreadfully hard for an inspector to detect misdemeanours in price control without resorting to discreditable expedients. The vast majority of the shopkeepers know practically every customer, and if a stranger goes into a country shop the owner at once becomes vigilant to see that every regulation is fulfilled, because instantly he smells the possibility of an inspector. Faced with that situation I have sympathy with the inspectors if, carried away by excessive zeal, they try to palaver country shopkeepers into breaking the law. I am sure the Minister will agree that they ought not try to induce anybody to do that.

The Deputy is now going into details.

If the Minister will approach the House in the way I suggest it will appreciate his difficulties. Deputies will sympathise very keenly if his organisation slips, but what they resent is that when they draw attention to shortcomings their whole attitude is misrepresented. The burden of the complaint to-day is not primarily that the whole system of price control has broken down and not primarily that supplies are short in general. It can be put in a nutshell by saying that one person has four pairs of shoes and somebody else none. It is that position Dáil Éireann must right. I understand that one of the primary topics down for discussion is post-war problems. I wonder if post-war problems are too heavy to place on a figure that I was astonished to hear the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures describe as "an old gentleman". Do Deputies realise the astounding scurrility perpetrated by that Minister?

How is that related to post-war problems?

If that Minister looks upon the Taoiseach as an old gentleman we must be apprehensive lest post-war difficulties would be too heavy for so frail a figure.

I still fail to see the relevancy.

I am warning the House. If the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures thinks he is too gentle then we ought seriously to think of getting some vigorous candidate for the position. I vouchsafe the opinion, notwithstanding what the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures thinks, that there is a kick in the old dog yet. He is not as old as that Minister seems to think others are.

Is this not a serious debate?

The Taoiseach believes in isolation. He believes that we ought to withdraw more and more from the world. He believes that life in the post-war world will be so difficult that the best thing small nations can do is to cut off contact with the outside world as much as they can and retire within themselves. This House should make up its mind, while there is time, about the position of this country post-war. Let us take some of the preliminary steps that we should have taken about boots. Are we going to collaborate with the Commonwealth of Nations post-war or are we going to cut ourselves off? Does the Fianna Fáil Party want to do that? Do they intend to declare a republic at the end of this war and sever their connection with the Commonwealth of Nations?

That might have been raised on the External Affairs Vote.

Mr. Larkin

There is only one left.

He comes from Connemara, and it is said that one man from there is as good as ten. Perhaps he would undertake the burden of explaining the Taoiseach's rather devious intention; but, perfectly seriously, I think that to argue about what we will do post-war is the acme of futility, if we have not made up our minds on the fundamental question of the attitude we are to adopt in regard to our relations with the rest of the world.

That issue could have been raised on the Vote for External Affairs, on which there was a long discussion.

I assure you, Sir, that I have not the slightest desire to pursue external affairs in any way. I merely desire to examine the repercussions of that position on our internal economy. It is absolutely ludicrous to talk about the economic state of this country unless we know what status this country is to occupy. If it is to be a member of the Commonwealth, in collaboration with the United States of America and the other members of the Commonwealth of Nations, then, one set of circumstances will present itself. If, on the other hand, at the end of this war, we are going to declare a republic, to cut ourselves off from the Commonwealth and simply say that we desire no closer economic contact with the other members of the Commonwealth than is enjoyed, say, by Nicaragua or some distant State, then, an entirely different set of circumstances presents itself to us. If we are to cut ourselves off definitely, then, I think we ought to make up our minds to the fact that we shall have a very low standard of living indeed.

Unless we are to get a profitable market for our exportable agricultural surplus, two things will happen: (1) the output of our land will fall catastrophically and (2) the fund from which we must finance the purchase of the raw materials of our industries will disappear. I think it was Deputy Norton who said that he did not attach as much importance to our net external assets as I did. The reason I look upon these net external assets as the raft upon which we must float post-war is that, if we had not got them to finance our essential imports in the period during which we are making up our minds as to what we are going to do in the years to come, we would find ourselves confronted with famine on the day the war ended. So long as that fund of invested moneys in Great Britain is there, we can finance our imports until that fund is exhausted, but if we make up our minds to pursue a policy which will result in the virtual suspension of our agricultural exports, there is no other means that I know of by which we can finance our imports after our external balances are exhausted.

This war must have taught the most block-headed supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party in Ireland that self-sufficiency is the merest "cod". Every factory in this country depends for its existence on imported raw material and machinery. There is not a single factory operating in this country at present which could carry on if it had not got a store of imported material, or if it had not access to certain types of raw material, whether machinery, lubricating oil or the actual stuff the factory processes within its walls. So long as we intend to have any industrial production here at all, these things must be brought in from abroad. We cannot bring them in from abroad, if we do not pay for them.

Will any Deputy tell me how we are to pay for these things, if we have not got an agricultural surplus to export, and, if we have an agricultural surplus to export, where can we export it, if not to Great Britain? Did we not try, from 1932 to 1936, to find alternative markets under the strongest possible pressure of circumstances which could induce us to do so? It was the despairing need of the Government of the day to find some place other than Great Britain to which to sell our goods, and yet, under the punitive tariffs of the economic war, the Government of that day preferred to send our goods to Great Britain and pay these punitive tariffs, rather than to let the stuff rot on the quays because there was nowhere else to sell it. We have nowhere else to sell it, and, if we do not sell it, every section of the community must pay.

What are we going to do about that? Are we going to face a lower standard of living? Let us assume that we stick our heels in the ground and say: "Very well, we will not export any agricultural surplus and we will not import anything, except what emigrants' remittances will enable us to buy." What is going to happen then? We are going to have in this country a very low standard of living. If we were located out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, like the Azores, that might not make any difference, but we are not. Here we are, within gunshot of Great Britain, and what will happen is that all the young people of the country will rise up and leave the country because the standard of living available in Great Britain will be so much higher than it is here, and we shall ultimately be left with a nation of dotards and children.

All that, I think, we could contemplate with comparative equanimity but for one inevitable consequence of that development, that is, that the sovereignty and independence of this country cannot and will not survice such a development. Sometimes some of us are inclined to speak in a disillusioned way of the struggle to make this country free, but, whatever section of the community we come from, deep in the heart of us all is pride in the fact that for 700 years we never relinquished our claim to be free, that we stuck to it through adversity, until ultimately we realised an ambition which no historian in the world for 100 years ever dreamed was conceivably possible. That was realised in our generation, and what appals me is the possibility that that same generation who acquired it should vindicate the judgment of the traditional enemies of this country, personified in the late Arthur Balfour, who said: "Leave the dirty Irish to themselves for a generation and you will have them crawling back to us on their knees."

The future of this country is in our hands absolutely and without a claim by any living creature on the whole face of the earth to question our discretion. I say deliberately here that if we refuse the decisions which it is requisite to make for the preservation of that sovereignty and independence now, we shall lose it and, if once we lose it, not seven centuries, or seven centuries of centuries, will get it back again for us. It is for that reason that I have consistently advocated in this House and in the country that the sovereignty and independence of Ireland depend on its membership of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The Deputy is going into a matter which was not even suggested for this discussion, a grave issue and with great implications. The Deputy should get down to the matters which he himself said were relevant. He mentioned three subjects. Our future relations with Britain or other countries do not arise now.

The post-war situation is——

Post-war policy.

It is utterly inconceivable that everybody does not realise that to talk of post-war policy as if suspended in a vacuum is the merest waste of time. To envisage our post-war policy, we have to envisage where this country stands.

The Deputy had his opportunity on another Vote.

There is isolationism and collaboration, and we must consider what Ireland will be in either of these set-ups.

That is the same question in another guise.

Am I free to say this: if we do not export agricultural produce, we perish?

As the Deputy has already said so, he must have been free to do so.

The conditions under which we can export are manifest to Deputies. In the absence of these conditions, this country must perish, or at least its freedom and independence must perish, and, so far as the country is concerned, that is all that matters. Unless we take steps now to clarify our minds on that issue, we shall stagger into a position out of which there will be no escape. My purpose in raising this matter now is to ask Fianna Fáil Deputies to examine their own consciences and to question their Leader. I ask Fianna Fáil Deputies, if they feel that it would occasion the Taoiseach any embarrassment to state his mind openly from the public forum of Dáil Eireann——

That matter is out of order.

The question of economic policy?

Not economic policy.

I say that to live we must export. I am asking Fianna Fáil Deputies to examine the implications of that. If they agree with that, I ask them to ascertain from the Taoiseach what his intentions are post-war and, if they feel it would occasion him embarrassment to declare these intentions and the implications that flow therefrom from a public forum such as Dáil Eireann at present, I ask them to discuss it with him in the secrecy of their Party room. In my judgment, the post-war policy of this Government may settle for all time the question of whether Irish independence is to survive or to be completed by the unity of the country.

The Deputy will have to get away from that subject.

Mr. Larkin

It is an obsession.

Does not Deputy Larkin agree?

Mr. Larkin

Not at all.

Does he not agree——

Does the Deputy realise that that question may not be pursued? It is too serious a question to raise without notice.

I respectfully submit that, whether notice was given or not, I have a constitutional right to raise any question relevant to Government policy on this Vote. I think you, Sir, said that that right was vindicated.

The Deputy ought to be quite clear on it. The Chair stated twice that notice should be given and asked for notice twice in the last week, and I got none from the Deputy. It was established practice that no important matter would be raised without notice. It would be unfair to the House and impossible for a Minister to answer on a serious matter raised casually at the whim of any Deputy.

I reserve my right to raise any matter on this Estimate, in accordance with the reservation I made yesterday. The Standing Orders of the House entitle me to raise any question relevant to Government policy on this Vote. I recognise that you, Sir, asked Deputies to follow a certain practice in courtesy to the Taoiseach. That is a separate thing from the Standing Orders of the House.

With certain reservations, it was the rule of this House, and established procedure should not be allowed to fall into desuetude.

It is not a rule now?

It has been the custom, yes.

That is a different thing from a Standing Order.

It was a matter relevant to the Estimate for External Affairs and should not be introduced now.

I understand that any matter relevant to the policy of the Government is relevant to this Vote, as I understand the rulings of the Chair. The fact is, and it has to be faced, that either this nation exports agricultural produce or it dies. What is going to be the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party on that issue? Until the Fianna Fáil Party makes up its mind on that question, all the high-falutin talk about vast reconstruction post-war is so much hot air.

All this talk we hear about erecting factories, protecting industries and better social services is so much hot air. It is being indulged in for the purpose of creating a fog in which people can wander nonchalantly in the belief that they are facing the real facts. I assert that the fog is being raised for the purpose of concealing the real facts from our people. I say that the Deputies who encourage discussions of this kind without having first faced the fundamentals are doing this nation a great disservice. If this country has not got a national income, and that national income can only be secured as the result of the export of agricultural produce, there can be neither social services, industrial development, nor any programme of public works. Unless we have a profitable export of agricultural surplus, the poor in this country must grow poorer, the unemployed must starve or emigrate, and the few vultures who will be here to exploit our people will grow fat, as the minority grew fat in the Southern States of America when they were collapsing prior to the civil war and immediately afterwards. The facts are so plain and so cogent that it is impossible to elaborate them. If they are denied, you cannot carry conviction by argument. It is as difficult to demonstrate the proposition I am bringing before Dáil Eireann at present as it is to demonstrate that two and two make four. That proposition once denied, it would tax the ingenuity of a logician to demonstrate——

Will the Deputy say what his proposition is?

That we must export or perish. It is as simple at that—that we must export profitably agricultural surplus or perish. All the talk about lofty programmes is contingent on that. To discuss all these hopeful enterprises while ignoring that fundamental issue is to turn our backs upon the facts, to bury our heads in the sand. In the microscopic question of whether poor children in this city shall have boots on their feet or not, we have discovered a case of refusing to face facts in time. I implore Dáil Eireann not to make the same error in regard to the very existence of this country that we have made in regard to boots.

The Minister for Supplies has chosen throughout the administration of his Department again and again to turn his back on portents, and wishful thinking persuaded him that they would never be realised in facts. Time and again we have seen the facts manifest themselves, and we have had to rebuke the Minister for failing to perceive the portents. I say that Dáil Eireann is falling into exactly the same error for which we have condemned the Minister for Supplies. The portents are there. The facts of which these things are portents go to the very root of the existence of this sovereign independent State. Failure to face them now while they are still portents will paralyse us when the facts come upon us. Failure to face them now is mere cowardice in facing facts. Facing facts before one if forced to face them requires moral courage. I say that Deputies who fail to face those facts now fail for the want of moral courage. I challenge them to face the facts, to declare their policy, and to let the people know the inevitable consequences of the policy they have decided upon. Let us have it to show hereafter that, if a policy is chosen which ends in the destruction of our independence, at least it will have been done with the full knowledge of the Irish people, whose right politically to do wrong I assert, the Taoiseach notwithstanding.

Do not let it be said that our people were led blindfold, in a sense of false security, down the road to destruction and discovered whither they were going when it was too late to mend their hand. I apprehend that that is the danger which besets us at the present time. I apprehend that the issues which we are called upon to decide in regard to the Estimate at present being discussed may determine for all time whether this State is to be independent or for all time servile.

That is outside the discussion as the Deputy has been told twice.

If I trespass, I regret it.

I regret it.

And the Deputy is as conscious of it as is the Chair.

I have made the case that to live we must export. I invite Deputies to examine the implications of that, to make up their minds upon it and do what is best for this country. I have no doubt what I think ought to be done. The trouble is that I think most other Deputies are in grave doubt. In the name of God, if they are responsible public men, let them clear their minds and, if they do them what they believe to be right, no one can expect them to do more.

I have listened to this debate for the greater part of a day and a half and, on the whole, I think that, in spite of the fact that it covered a very great field, it was in the main of a definitely helpful character. It was a discussion that showed a serious attempt by Deputies to face up to very serious times ahead from the point of view of our position in this country and also from the point of view as to what best we could do to help others in sorer circumstances than ours.

The Minister for Supplies, reflecting the mood of the House, appeared to me to make his statement in a more reasonable and less brassy, less aggressive manner than that which he generally displays in his statements from those benches. It may be that the process of learning by mistakes is beginning to seep in and educate that particular Minister, because there are few of the major bungles that have been made by that Department—and there have been many—of which the Minister was not warned well in advance. He refused to listen to anyone or to take any advice. Every Deputy was wrong. Everyone was wrong but the Minister for Supplies. To an extent, he adopted that particular attitude at the tail-end of his speech this evening.

Deputy McGilligan last evening raised a matter of very serious consequences to a democratic institution such as this, in a State managed as we are. He raised that particular matter in a very, very inoffensive manner and he made it very clear that he was making no charges, that he came here to Parliament to inform Parliament and the Taoiseach of a suspicion and a rumour that were very prevalent. The Minister's response to that was to turn round and rasp back at the Deputy that the Deputy came here to inject venom into the debate. The only venom that has appeared in this debate is what appeared at the tail-end of the Minister's speech.

The Minister invited anybody who had information with regard to that particular leakage about Great Southern Railways shares to come along and lay the information at his feet, and then he might or might not take action. I would invite Parliament and every Deputy in this Assembly, conscious of the necessity for universal respect for the people's Parliament, to consider whether or not the Minister's course was a wise one. It was saying to any of us: "Prove the case, and, if you prove the case to me, then I will take action." The Minister must know as well as anyone else the impossibility of proving such a case, of putting the onus of proof on any individual Deputy.

Constitutional usage in democracies elsewhere lays this down as a rule— and a rule seldom, if ever, departed from—that if a rumour or suspicion gains currency that there is anything corrupt in the administration of any public service or any Government Department, the fullest, the freest and the most searching inquiry will be made, not in order to prove the charges, but in order to maintain the good name of Parliament and Government. It was in that spirit that the Deputy came forward last evening. If anything was to increase the suspicion and give greater speed to the rumours, it was the attitude of the Minister in clamping down discussion and shirking inquiry. Every Deputy who referred to the matter, from these or other benches, stated that he had no suspicion against the Minister or against the Ministry, but that the coincidence or coincidences were too remarkable to bear any normal explanation. The shares of the company slumped at a period because of a speech by the head of that company as gloomy and as depressing as any speech could be, and immediately there was a rise that could be regarded as a jump, and that rise was attributed by many to be based on knowledge that subsequently proved correct.

The statement of Deputy McGilligan was to the effect that there was very general rumour that certain speculators, with advance knowledge of the company, plus the Government scheme, were in a position to jump in with big money, to buy shares from unfortunate people who had held those shares through the worst of times, and to reap a substantial profit as a result of the transaction. That is the rumour. That is the suspicion. Most of us, if not all of us, heard the tales, possibly false, possibly exaggerated, that are going around the city, as to the fortunes that were made. In such circumstances, if there is no fire behind the smoke, is it not the right thing, the, proper thing, and the democratic thing to have a full and searching inquiry, and to clear the name of the Departments concerned, and to prove, once and for all, to malicious gossipers, that they should be more cautious about gossiping in future?

I do not claim to know anything about these transactions but I do speak as a Deputy who heard that rumour around Dublin. What truth there is in it I do not know but I do know the amount of damage done to the State itself in letting such rumours go when, if the Minister is right, an investigation will clear it up very speedily.

Now, as far as this debate has touched on questions of the post-war position of this country, economically and in other respects, I think the Deputy who laid himself out most seriously to project his mind into painting a picture of the post-war position, as far as our trade is concerned, was Deputy Roddy. He warned us that, after this war, as after most wars, we must expect to be prepared for a slump in trade, and that the best way to equip ourselves to meet that position would be to try to anticipated in what direction, and for what type of goods, there would be a big demand and, possibly, an attractive price, since supply could not possibly meet the demand. The Deputy instanced certain classes of stocks, and urged people who could go in for that class of goods to lay them in. In my opinion, that was a very thoughtful speech, and it was in very distinct contrast to the speech that was made by the Deputy Leader of the Farmer's Party, whose only suggestion to meet the post-war situation, it seemed to me, was to give more and more subsidies to the farmers of this country. Now, in the course of Deputy Cogan's speech, he pointed out that 60 per cent. of the people of this country were living out of agriculture and that, approximately, 40 per cent. were engaged in other industries. That would seem to indicate that 60 per cent. of our people, according to his speech, could only be carried on by a policy of giving more and more subsidies to them.

And they are working 12 hours a day.

Yes, but we are not discussing that. Mind you, I am as anxious as the Deputy, or anybody else, to ease the lot of those engaged in our agricultural industry, but Deputy O'Donnell must realise, as well as I do, that when hard times come to agriculture, it is the people on the flank who suffer the most. The farmer himself, thank God, can carry on, because he has shelter, fuel and food, whereas the people all around him are either in their coffins or under the sod. I want to see a sound and prosperous agricultural community in this community because it is obvious that the only way we can exist is as a result of the farmers' efforts to produce food for our people, and I am sure that, in the main, we can discuss, without acrimony, how that can best be achieved. Deputy Cogan, however, seems to think that that can be best achieved by a policy of giving subsidies, and then more and more subsidies, to agriculture.

All we want is adequate compensation for the work we do.

Well, I only hope that the farmers will get what Deputy Cogan wants to give them, but we want to know how it is to be done. Let us take this policy of giving more and more subsidies to the 60 per cent. of our people who are engaged in agriculture. From where is that money to come, and at whose expense? Is it suggested that 40 per cent. of the community are capable, even if they wished to do so, of carrying the burden of subsidies or grants—call them what you like—so as to carry the other 60 per cent. of the population on their backs? Deputy Cogan pointed out that the home market alone had put over £29,000,000 more into Irish agriculture in the last three years than had been put into it previously. Well, then, let us face the facts. Nobody grudges that to our farmers, but the fact remains that one-third of the people of our country put something like £30,000,000 more into our agricultural industry in the last three years than had been put into it previously. In other words, 1,000,000 out of a population of 3,000,000 put an extra £30,000,000 into the pockets of the agricultural community—something like £30 per head—and yet Deputy Cogan says that the only way to face the post-war situation is by giving more and more subsidies so that our agricultural community can remain prosperous. Evidently, it does not matter about the other 40 per cent. of the population. Remember, however, that in the last analysis that 40 per cent. of the community are the consumers of the goods produced by the 60 per cent., representing the agricultural community, and that if the capacity of the consumers to purchase these goods should break down, then the position of the producer may be worse than it was in previous years. Now, the alternative to that is to face up to the difficulties that may exist in the post-war world, and to strain ourselves in every possible manner to secure greater markets and better prices for our produce abroad. In the same statement, Deputy Cogan, in a rather cheap manner, pointed out that no Government had ever said that there was any good in the farmers, and that the farmers had never got any benefit from any of the Governments in office here.

He got 21/10 a week.

I shall repeat to Deputy Cogan, and also to Deputy O'Donnell, that although, undoubtedly, we are a courageous race in this country, there is one thing that we will not face up to, and that is the truth or the facts of a situation; and one thing that a great many of us are lacking in is gratitude for and memory of the things that were done in the past. When the previous Government took over the administration of this country, and a certain amount of responsibility for the welfare and progress of Irish agriculture, between the years 1923 and 1932, the value and the quantity of Irish agricultural goods were just doubled in the interval. That was the work of eight years and, at the end of eight years, they had succeeded in winning for this country and for the Irish farmer the greatest material victory that was ever won abroad for the farmers of this country. That was imperial preference, or the right of the Irish farmer to sell his produce, except beef, in the greatest market in the world, on terms advantageous to himself as against anybody who might happen to stroll into that market in competition with him. You never enjoyed that benefit, because there was a change of Government a month afterwards.

21/- for pigs.

No matter what was the price for pigs, Deputy O'Donnell was as noisy as I am in supporting that policy, but at least it can be said that during that period your trade was doubled and you got a financial preference over your competitors in the British market. Now, as has been expressed by other speakers, we have got to see what out position will be in that market in the post-war years, and we have got to remember that we will be going into that market in competition with countries that have been blasted and damaged beyond recognition. We have got to remember that we will be going to negotiate in that market against the representatives of other countries who will say: "Look at the way we suffered in the war; look at the way in which our stocks were slaughtered, our farms depleted, and our capital burned up."

There is no good in pretending that we shall not be at a distinct disadvantage when that particular time comes. We may have to tide over a period by an extension of subsidies, but the subsidy system is not a solution. A subsidy is merely a stopgap, and the only way business can be done is by cultivating the friendliest relations possible under existing circumstances, so that at least our voice will be listened to. We have a case and we have an argument. We have the argument that was very frequently, and very successfully, advanced by the former Minister for Agriculture, the late Mr. Patrick Hogan. Time and again when other people tried to get inside the Irish farmer on that market his argument was this: "We belong to the community known as the Commonwealth. These people are outsiders. The first right must go to those who are members." That is an argument that cannot be turned down. That is an argument that finally secured us imperial preference as against other members of the Commonwealth. When they put in over there for a larger share of that market, his argument was that we had been buying so much per annum from Great Britain, that exports and imports in the main should balance, that other members of the Commonwealth were buying elsewhere and that the highest percentage of all our purchases were in that market. I do not agree for one moment with the Minister for Supplies when he stands up here and says that we have no bargaining power and that we have nothing left to bargain with. Surely our very purchases even during the war, the value of our imports even during the war, the value of our imports in normal years, are a bargaining power. It is a despairing kind of attitude for the Government to adopt the line, before the struggle commences, that we have nothing to fight with, that we have no bargaining power, that we are merely begging, as it were, to get what we are demanding.

This debate to a great extent revolved round the cost of living. The Minister for Supplies made a reasonable attempt to explain many causes contributing to the increased cost of living. I do not think he was, as it were, talking to a brief. He was defending the present situation and endeavouring to make it appear that nobody else could improve on that situation. I do not think the House was very impressed by the Minister. We have the situation here that we are mainly an agricultural country, where the bulk of our food is produced at home, where the volume and the value of overseas supplies have shrunk and shrunk so that there is little or nothing now coming in. Nevertheless, we have had our cost of living increased by 111 points. See the situation over in Britain, a country with an immense population, a country either in peace or war unable to feed itself, a country that must buy the bulk of the necessary articles of food from across water and pay the cost of them, with insurance and transport, and yet the cost of living goes up by only 64 points. Now, surely, nobody is going to give a certificate of efficiency in control of prices over here presented with that picture.

The very first step in the early days of the war, or one of the first steps, taken by the Minister was to peg down wages. His case for pegging down wages was: "If I do not peg wages down the cost of living will soar. Give me that authority to peg down wages and I shall control the cost of living." By the weight of the vote behind him in this House, he put through his Order No. 83 and he got absolute control of wages. That control was ruthlessly exercised since, but the price of commodities went up and up and up, so that lower wages go up one point as against every 20-point rise in the cost of living. Are we to congratulate the Minister in face of that situation on the successful carrying out of the control of prices? What we have in this country at the moment is fixation of prices, but there is a very great difference between fixing prices and controlling prices. If we take the cost of living as going up 111 points and take wages as going up 15 per cent., what does that mean in terms of supplies? What does that mean in terms of goods? It means, in fact, that the wage earner has to go without 85 per cent. of the goods which he bought prewar, whether these were food, clothing, or little articles that might be regarded as not entirely necessary. The statement made here by Deputy McGilligan last night gives part of the answer. If the profits of companies supplying goods to the public, particularly a company supplying fuel, are to go up by leaps and bounds, while the amount that can be purchased in the poorest home is to go down by a very substantial amount, surely we have not, in fact, an effective control of prices. We have the kind of control that would affect people retrospectively. We have a kind of attempt to meet a situation after a situation becomes really desperate.

Let us take the different things that we can say are effectively controlled at the moment. From the first day of the war the Minister had control of petrol, and we reached the point when not a vehicle in the country had sufficient fuel to move. The Minister then began to exercise his powers more effectively, but after the harm was done. We had in turn a bread famine, a potato famine and a butter famine, in this city; and as soon as we had a famine or a partial famine this Minister stepped in to exercise control. We have subsisted for some years on whole-meal bread—100 per cent. wheaten flour—and the Minister told us that we could not possibly give the people bread with a lower percentage. We remember the time when the bread famine was here in Dublin, that the Minister scoffed at the people in queues and told us that there was plenty of bread but that they all wanted fresh bread. Two months afterwards, in a political speech, he himself pointed to the tragedy of that short-term famine in Dublin, and he justified the steps he was taking on the grounds that such a famine would never occur again.

What I am putting to the Minister is that, whether it was boots or flour, petrol or butter or potatoes, 12 months, 18 months or two years before the shortage occurred, Deputies in different parts of this House urged and begged the Department and the Government, and, in particular, the head of the Government, to take timely steps so that distress and partial famine would not occur. I remember, on an occasion two years ago, appealing to the Taoiseach, who is directly opposite, that what occurred with regard to bread and butter should not be allowed to occur with regard to potatoes; and the Taoiseach agreed, and nothing was done. Twelve months later we had a partial potato famine here in the city. As I said, the Minister, in his statement here this evening, gave some evidence of a more reasonable frame of mind with regard to the House than he generally shows. He gave certain evidence that, at least, he was beginning to realise that every Deputy, when he stands up here and is not entirely in agreement with him, is not standing up in order to embarrass the Government, in order to criticise for the purely political effect. The Deputies who do not see eye to eye with the Government, and criticise the steps the Government is taking, are criticising in order to have speedier or more effective steps taken, and they are doing that in the interests of the nation as a whole. Whereas it is his responsibility to administer, it is our responsibility to voice the views and criticisms of the people outside.

I hope that the Minister will extend very generally the rationing system in this country. There is no good in rationing a commodity such as potatoes, or shoes, or tea, after the wealthy have bought up all that is there. What happened with regard to tea was that, for 12 months, there was intensive and extensive buying of chests of tea by those who could write cheques with ease. The Minister contradicted that in a previous debate in this House. I do not know on what official records he based his contradiction, but I would say that there are few Deputies, either in this Party or any other Party, who do not know, amongst their own friends or social contacts, that there are, in the average home of the better-class person, stores of tea that will not be exhausted if this war lasts another four years. That was going on, and when all that greed—if you like to call it such—was satisfied, when all the cheques had been exchanged for chests of tea, then we had rationing of tea on the basis of half an ounce per person per week; and the wealthy got the half-ounce plus the chest, and the poor got the half-ounce.

We had a discussion here on shoes and boots. The Minister explained that, with the advance of the Japanese, cutting off rubber from this country, and the consequential loss of so many million pairs of rubber boots per annum to the community here, there must be a shortage of boots and that he can do nothing about it. The rubber countries fell into the hands of the Japanese some 18 months ago. Surely, the head of a great State Department such as Supplies could have and should have foreseen 18 months ago that, with rubber gone, with 3,000,000 pairs per annum of rubber boots of different types being bought and used in this country, there would be a shortage of footwear and that that shortage could be anticipated to this extent by rigid rationing of what footwear, what boots and shoes, were then in the country; so that, as far as he could see to it, everybody would get an equal share of whatever was there. The man in the street could see as well as the Minister should have seen that, with the cutting off of rubber, there would be a shortage of footwear. The man in the street with money, and the woman in the street with money, at least said to himself or herself: "If the State does not look after its family, I will look after mine"; and they bought more pairs of boots and shoes in one year than normally they would buy in five.

As soon as we reach a situation where children have got to pad it to school in frost and slush barefooted, the Minister says: "That is too bad, but there are no shoes for them. The Japs invaded the rubber countries 18 months ago. I am sorry that there are no shoes for them, but I am taking steps now, that will take some time, to have the situation in the future dealt with as adequately and completely and efficiently as I can do it." Is that facing up to the responsibility of that Department to the public? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the work of a Department controlling supplies is adequately, efficiently, fairly and justly being carried out, by waiting to ration tea until all the tea we can give is half an ounce per person per week; by waiting to ration footwear until we have to admit that, in city and country, helpless, delicate, weakly children are facing the winter with naked feet, and that still more time will be required to ensure that the future will be better than the present. Recalling the debates that took place here and the advice that was given regarding the bread problem, is the Taoiseach satisfied with the present position? We have had two years of a harmful, wasteful and extravagant kind of bread.

The Minister was warned, time and again, that it would be wasteful, that if all wheat and pollard were, by order, cut off from the stocks on the land, nevertheless, those stocks would be fed—if necessary, even with flour— and that, in the end, there would be more wastage by his 100 per cent. flour than there would be by a lower percentage. He dealt with that in his usual brassy manner. Nobody knew anything about Irish rural life but the Minister for Supplies. He was being told for two years what was going on, that the bread was not good for the body, that it was distasteful and wasteful. Now, he comes along and says that in the interests of economy— not for any reason of health or for any reason advanced by Deputy McGilligan—he has decided to give an 85 per cent. flour to the public.

I hope and pray that his economy will work. I congratulate him on taking that step even now, but is it fair to the public that a Government will go along, learning only by bungles, disasters and hardships instead of examining a matter properly and taking sufficiently broad advice before a decision is arrived at? May I say to the Taoiseach that this little country belongs to all of us? The men and women and boys and girls who go around the country are our relatives and friends and our kith and kin, just as they are yours. When we Opposition Deputies—Fine Gael, Labour, Farmers and Independents— come in here to give advice or to advance criticism, we do not do so to sabotage our country. We do not come in to injure the people outside. We come in to give advice when we believe the advice is sound, when our experience, our contacts or our knowledge convince us that the course being taken is the wrong course, the wasteful course, the extravagant course, the bad course for the people as a whole. Some attention should be given to that advice. Some consciousness should be shown by the Government of the fact that we are part owners and share responsibility for the welfare of this little country. They should not wait, as they have done so far, until something approaching agony and famine arises before they take proper and effective steps.

Mr. Larkin

I want to bring the House back to the realities of the situation. I think that that was the note struck by the Minister in his raging outburst this afternoon. He rushed at his problem like a bull at a gate. I suggest that we bring him back to the realities of the situation and examine his credentials and the manner in which he has discharged his duty to those who elected him and so the Government of which he is one of the most active members. Firstly, I think that the man is overloaded with work. Secondly, I think he has got obsessions—political obsessions. Thirdly, I think he is the kind of person who would sooner continue doing wrong than be corrected. What are the facts in connection with his mismanagement as national housekeeper? I do not think that anyone has ever dared to explain the mistakes—open and deliberate mistakes—that have been made at the expense of the community. He deliberately went out of his way, as Deputy O'Higgins said— he said it in a very kindly tone; I was surprised he was so gentle in his manner towards the Minister for Supplies—to disregard suggestions made by members of the House.

The Minister for Supplies came in to-night in chastened mood, though he used rather rash terms. After making so many mistakes, he wants assistance and advice, and if anybody—even a humble Deputy like myself—has a suggestion to make, he is prepared to consider it. That is after he has put us in a dilemma from which there is no escape. According to his own state ment to-night, we have virtually no supply of clothing and what we have is sold to us at a prohibitive price. He has lost control of textiles. As regards shoes, he quoted figures so absurd that nobody dared to deal with them afterwards. What about that feature of our economics? In our climatic conditions, what has he done in that field of activation? The Minister, Deputy O'Higgins and I were talking to some students one night. On that night, he also referred to boots. Deputies may remember the song during the last war, "Boots, boots, boots, marching up and down again... marching to destruction". I believe that our friend is going to march to political destruction because of boots. We have heard from all sides of the House that those who require boots have not got the material means to buy them. Those who have the money have taken more than their share in the way of boots and shoes. Let Deputies throw back their minds to 1939. The Minister was then in charge of another Department which had also to do with supplies. He advised everybody who had money to lay in stores of goods and food.

His argument was this, and this is the logical situation, that people who possessed money and who had power to buy should put away goods in reserve and that would help to clear the warehouses. When all the stuff would be gone and the warehouses emptied, there would be a fresh inflow of goods. One particular trade union leader commended that to his members. The position was that all the available stuff, manufactured or otherwise, was put in store by those who had the money. There was the case of the old lady who died in Bray. She was 90 years of age, and she had no less than 156 lbs. of tea stored away. I suppose if she lived for another 90 years she could not have consumed the quantity of food she had stored away. She was in her dotage and she spent money everywhere, piling stores up in her house. When the police visited the place they found it packed with food and clothing, clothing that she never could have worn. All she got eventually was a box.

We are a marvellously patriotic people in Dublin. The people who have money live here only because they have to. Most of them are here in order to make more wealth at the expense of those who are gullible enough to be exploited by them. If you go to the Ballsbridge district and enter any of the houses there you will find, as Deputy O'Higgins stated with very truth, that there is at least a year's reserve of food and clothing, and possibly more than a year's reserve. At the other end of the city, in Crumlin, you will see poor children going to the national school in their bare feet. Just imagine what it was like during the last two or three days, when the weather was anything but warm. Those children had to set out for school with empty, or partially empty stomachs, and that is due to the action of the Minister for Supplies, the Minister for Local Government and those other Ministers of the Government who support the present policy. If death comes to any of those unfortunate children, the responsibility will lie at the doors of those Ministers; on their consciences must it lie. Those poor children have been denied their share of the national wealth.

The facts are there, and no ambiguous statement from a Minister can explain them away. The facts are there that human beings, born to the likeness of God, have been denied their ordinary rights by this Government. I say that these poor children have been denied food and clothing. I can point to the fact that 28 batteries of boilers, capable of cooking food for hungry children, were paid for by the people of Dublin. When we asked for an opportunity to use them—to use our own property—we were told, in effect, by the Minister that if we gave a hot meal to a hungry child, the child was in danger of losing its immortal soul. What do you think of that, in the 20th century, coming from a supposedly intelligent human being? Last year, when the canning trade was going fairly well, in one day 500 oxtails, that could be used for human consumption, were allowed to rot and were taken to the refuse dump. The oxtail is capable of making the finest kind of food that could be put into the stomach of any child or adult. The extails were only a small portion of the amount of food destroyed. That matter was drawn to the attention of the Government, and the Minister responsible, but nothing was done.

At the present time we are killing 2,000 oxen in this city in a week. Each beast has a tail and each tail is worth, in the retail market, at least 2/6 or 3/-. But they cannot find a market for the tails. The Minister for Agriculture says that the stuff cannot be sold and they will not give a permit to allow that material to be shipped out of the country. You could sell in Holyhead all the oxtails we can provide. Last week in the Dublin abattoir 71 oxtails were dumped as refuse. For two years I have been mentioning this matter to certain people, including the city manager and the Minister for Local Government. The Taoiseach was visited by a group of women, who referred, among other things, to this matter, but nothing was done. Why not give the hungry child a bowl of oxtail soup? That soup is sold in London at 2/6 a dish, and a plate of pure oxtail soup, or clear soup as it is called, costs two dollars in New York. Oxtail plus vegetable soup would make a feed almost for the gods, yet the oxtails are allowed to rot rather than be given to hungry children in the schools in Dublin.

We are not allowed to use the boilers for which we paid £11,000. But the Minister for Local Government sees to it that his family are well fed. They are well fed, and good luck to them. I recommend him to look after his own first but, having done so, surely he should give some consideration to the children of the poor. He must remember that all children are entitled to some measure of consideration and respect from this responsible, Christian Government. If even one hungry child is going to a Government school, the members of this Government are responsible for that crime against humanity.

What about the destruction of food in this emergency? What answer have they to that? We see tons of good food taken to the refuse dump. There are Deputies here who know I am speaking the truth. Every beast killed in the Dublin abattoir carries 3 to 4 cwts. of bone matter. In any week you have hundreds of good bone matter available. If that were taken and boiled, look at the valuable material you would have. We have gentlemen here talking about the lack of common fats, and the butchers get abused because they have not common fats. There was a time when people used to ask: "Why is Ireland not getting Home Rule?" The answer was: "Look at the House of Lords." I say, look at those gentlemen to-day who neglect to do their duty. You have 6,000 cwts. of bone matter allowed to lie rotting in the abattoir until the bones have to be taken away because it might be a danger from the point of view of public health. They are taken to a refinery in order to make manure. From each cow or old or young bull there is a certain amount of bone matter taken, and even after these bones are cleaned there is a certain amount of meat. No matter how you clean them, there is a certain amount of valuable meat left on the bones. You have in those bones the finest fats but, as I have said, we will not be allowed to use the boilers to render them down. They are left to rot, and when carried away the rats clean the meat off them. They are then made into manure. For two years that has been going on under the nose of the Minister, not only in Dublin but in Roscrea and, to some extent, in Waterford. We have all this waste of food because there is no co-ordination in the activations of our different groups of citizens.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce asked us why do we not give the Government ideas and suggest remedies. For five years, publicly, privately and politically, I have been calling upon the Government, through the different Ministers, to set up an economic council and get together men and women with a knowledge of these matters to work on it. What is the answer? The door is slammed in your face, and you are told that the Government is going to do all the planning. Now they find themselves utterly unable to do it when the crisis has come upon us. They are getting rejected by all men. Even members of their own organisation object to their lack of vision. One of the units that carried on a campaign of calumny to secure the return of the Minister for Local Government came to me and apologised, and said that I had proved myself to be correct. I challenge the Government that if they do not alter their conduct towards the ordinary common citizen, that before long they will have something to learn in the same way as the Government that preceded them.

Take the question of bread. It is the one thing that should have been rationed at the very start. After all, tea is something of a luxury in Ireland. It is a necessity in other places. Tea has been rationed, but how is that rationing being carried out? In any part of Dublin, if you want to be an enemy of the State and of your race, you can buy all the tea you want at from 10/- to 25/- a lb. People who want to keep within the ordinary law can get it at 4/- a lb. People who came down on excursions from Belfast were able to take away tea in cwts., as well as clothes, boots and watches. Dundalk was an open town on Sundays, supplying everybody over the Border with everything they needed. Those people had plenty of money. The dieticians have now advised the Government not to insist on the 100 per cent. extraction of flour. We had certain people on platforms who outwardly appeared to think well of the 100 per cent. extraction, but behind the people's backs they were ready to sell them and their country for a price. It has now been proved that certain people fed flour that was needed for human consumption to live stock. The remedy proposed for that is to reduce the flour extraction to 85 per cent., in the hope that those people will examine their consciences and will not feed the staff of life to animals. The idea to reduce the flour extraction seems to be sound on the face of it, but will it be carried out? Personally, I do not see that there is much hope in regulating people who would use food intended for human consumption in that way, and who would do so in defiance of the law and of the observance of all ethical principles. Death, I think, is the only hope for such people.

Deputy O'Higgins pointed out that tea, clothing and boots and other commodities are now rationed. In my opinion bread should be the first thing to be rationed. Steps should be taken to see that the new quality flour will be distributed under a system that will be fair, honest and Christian-like. As soon as the quality of the bread is changed, every person should be assured of getting their share of it.

Deputy Blayney from Donegal, a county that produces men who have shown their willingness to work under all kinds of adverse conditions the world over, made a statement last year which was published in the Press to the effect that there were no qucues for potatoes in Dublin. At that time you had women almost pulling down the doors of the shops in an effort to get potatoes. I hope the Deputy will now insist on a rationing system for potatoes. I ask Deputies not to mind what our pleasant, courteous Minister for Agriculture tells them. He is a kindly gentlemanly person. If one approaches him he will whisper a lot of sweet nothings in your ear, but that is all you get. We want things done in a businesslike way, and I suggest that 200,000 tons of potatoes should be made available for the cities. Ration them so that everybody will be able to get their share. Fix a decent price so that the farmer will grow them, and do not have the position that we had this year when people in the County Dublin were getting 126/- per ton for them. I sold potatoes at one time to workers at 5d. per stone and made a profit on them. They were grown in Tipperary. I referred the other night to what are called scab potatoes grown near Carlingford. They are the best potatoes that a man ever ate. I have seen them sold to the alcohol factories at £2 a ton. Potatoes are a good wholesome food for human consumption, but prohibitive prices are being charged for them. I want to see a decent price fixed so that the farmer and the man who works with him will get an adequate return for their labour. The most important thing in my opinion is to ration both bread and potatoes. I appeal to the Taoiseach to take a personal interest in this food problem.

As regards the meat industry, the people in the canning industry are just ordinary business men. I ask that they should not be allowed to waste any of the food they handle. The Minister for Local Government will not give us permission to use our own plant for the purpose of boiling soup to give to the children during school hours. Why not release the oxtails and ox heads and other portions of the offal so that we may be able to get a price for them in Liverpool or Holyhead? A question was raised the other night by some Deputy about the killing of young breeding cattle. It was said that from 16 to 20 per cent. of the cattle that are being killed under present arrangements are in-calf, and that from 7 to 10 per cent. of the ewes that are being killed are in-young. That is a matter that requires more attention than it is getting. The facts cannot be denied. What is happening may be due to carelessness or lack of knowledge, but it is true. I believe it is most essential that we should set about establishing large reserves of young stock, because I do not believe that this war is going to last as long as some people think.

I think there will be an end to this world war before the end of next year. That does not give time to build up stocks. We should turn our minds in that direction as it may be impossible to get the materials for our industries. Incidentally I want to challenge some statements made by the Minister for Supplies about the shipping question. It was suggested to him privately as well as publicly in 1939 that he ought to take over shipping. I told him that there were ships available then that could be purchased from £12 to £20 a ton. That suggestion was made in an ordinary conversation. The Minister did not adopt it that year or the next year. When it was decided to make purchases vessels were bought that were not to be bought for scrap. I believe that one ship cost £300,000. Ships were also taken over that belonged to another company. That arrangement can be decided at the end of the war. We may then be asked what was done with the earnings of the vessels while under our control. That can be answered here or in some court. In taking over these ships the right thing was to have them nationally insured. Never mind the insurance racketeers. This country should insure its own ships. On voyages between Vigo, Lisbon and Dublin with the saving effected on insurance a new ship could be bought. It would be the same with western ocean-going ships. When we ask about its personnel we are told that the members of the Shipping Board are working for nothing. During the last war people were told that there were dollar-a-day men in America, great business men, controlling industries. When the matter was investigated afterwards, after 1,000,000 men had lost their lives, it was found that millions of dollars had been made by certain people. One firm which was owned by a brother-in-law of the late President Wilson had, it was said, made 21,000,000 dollars although they never built a ship.

Those who have taken over the Irish ships we are told are working for nothing. Does anybody in this House believe that? I know some of these men personally. One of them would not know how to go up a gangway. We have two civil servants, very eminent people. One of them seems to be everything in our economic life. He is here, there and everywhere. I do not know how he finds time for all his duties. I undertake that if I brought him before any maritime commission he would not know the keelson of a ship from the truck. These are the men who have been put in charge of the fleet which is said to be worth £2,000,000. One of them is fully capable of discharging his duty. He has full knowledge of the work and is a very able man. Another gentleman has no connection with the life of this country. Another is a non-citizen and has connections with a dockyard, with coal and with turf. Wherever you look you find him moving. I suggest that there must be other men with ability in the Fianna Fáil Party. I had a conversation with the Minister some years ago concerning the machinations of a business group in connection with an industry at Carbury at County Kildare. The Government put about £96,000 into a concern. The chairman of the board was an eminent financial genius. A man who was supposed to be a Norwegian went there every day. He had a picture of Hitler on the wall. He was getting £10,000 a year. Money was being thrown into that bog. When the Minister was told about it of course no notice was taken as it was said Larkin was not interested in the country. The Government got whatever remained out of that venture where the very best turf was being sold.

Another gentleman was getting £12 a week out of our transport system. Decent well-intentioned men never knew the position. As an old comrade I suggest that we should never mind personality; principles come first. I do not want to offend anybody, but I want to help our people in this crisis. No matter what may be said here when it comes to facing a crisis, we are going to stand together against all the forces outside and against the forces inside against this country. I suggest that the Minister should tell the House candidly about the reorganisation of the transport system, that there should be a free discussion, and no Whips put on by any Party. Transportation affects the economic life of the country. It should be a vital question not only in the case of the Great Southern Railways, or any other system, but in the interests of the nation. I do not often agree with Deputy Dillon, but I agree that he is one of the best read men in this House or outside it, although he has a peculiar obsession with regard to certain matters and questions of intimate knowledge of life. I think he stands in the forefront of the intellectual men of the country. I had a greater love and affection for his father, but that does not matter. I think he will admit that he will never be as big a man as his father. He put a very sensible query to the Minister. He asked: "If this rumour is abroad, and this atmosphere is being created, why not set up one of two forms of investigation—a select committee of this House or a judge of the High Court, with two consultants, one from each side of this House—and go into this question of whether there was any leakage?"

Before judging that matter, we should get the national credit behind the scheme for deciding as to whether there was a leakage on the part of the staff of the railway, because that would impute dishonesty to men who were proved to be honest; but, as there are other people concerned in this question of the amalgamation of all the activities of the railway under a new management, surely that is the decent thing to do. I speak for those I represent on the railway, workmen who are honest, decent men, underpaid as they were until lately but now getting a reasonable chance of life. I say that all of them would be glad to join in having this matter properly dealt with. It is true that in Dublin men got money out of this railway by the manipulation of stocks. A man told me to-day—and I will give his name to any commission appointed; he is a decent Irishman—that he had been approached to buy shares. I am in the position in which nobody can point the finger of scorn at me, because I have no shares, no stocks, no money, no manners some people think, and no morals. However that may be, nobody can ever say I ever took from anybody that which did not belong to me by right.

A point with regard to the Gas Company's accounts was mentioned by the Minister and I interrupted to say, "How funny." On the occasion about which the Minister speaks, we were applying to the tribunal for an increase under Emergency Powers No. 83 Order, as amended by seven amending Orders—what drafting! We went into a packed court to ask for a bonus for the men and women in that firm. Previous to our application, an episode, to which I do not propose to refer as it is sub judice, occurred and two of the officials were arrested. When we came before the tribunal, to our surprise, the company brought in documents and my son, who was leading for the plaintiff—he had the brief —in the course of examining the management, found out that they paid no dividend for the previous half-year and were £81,000 “in the red”. In other words, they had lost £81,000 and paid no dividend. Under their statutory powers, they can pay 8 per cent., and, over 8 per cent., they have to make a return, either in service or better quality gas. They are a statutory body. We told them, and proved to them, that they had 100,000 little money boxes in every house connected for service, and that if the money in those little safes were collected, they would have more than sufficient to meet the dividends which were unpaid and also any other extra charges in respect of coal and otherwise; in other words, that they had made more than an average profit. A funny thing then happened. The shares were 23, and, for one week, they dropped to 15½. They then moved up to 17, went down and up again and are now back at normal.

May I point out to the Deputy that the Dublin Gas Company was specified?

Mr. Larkin

With all due respect, Sir, the Minister spoke of the Dublin Gas Company.

And the Cork Gas Company.

Mr. Larkin

Yes. I would not intrude on the time of the House if I had not ground for my observation. However, I am pointing out that that company, in the next half-year, made more than sufficient to pay the £81,000 which they presumably lost. They earned £137,000 profit in that half-year.

This is not an inquiry into the financial position of the Dublin Gas Company.

Mr. Larkin

No, but reference was made to it by the Minister when he was making the case that he had done everything efficiently to control the money monopoly in this country, the financial exploitation and the racketeering which has been going on in the people's foodstuffs.

The Minister referred to the Gas Company in Cork.

The Minister definitely mentioned the Dublin Gas Company.

I think it is clearly within the recollection of the House that he referred to both companies.

I accept the Deputy's assurance.

Mr. Larkin

It was merely an analogy I was endeavouring to draw— that as there was suspicion in the case of the railway, there might be suspicion in relation to the drop in the value of the Gas Company shares and then the quick rise. That was the only reason I was arguing on that line.

However, I have been fairly well treated by the House and there are only one or two other things I want to say. I heard the Minister speaking of the manufacture of boots for those who need them. I represent a body of shoe workers, and there are other members who represent organised workers in the shoe industry. I can say that if leather is provided for the manufacture of shoes for school children and others who need them because of the nature of their work, the men and women of my union will work without pay to provide them. I give that undertaking. They will work for one week, if the Minister decides that one factory is to be set aside for the manufacture of heavy shoes, without wages, in the interests of these people.

With regard to this question of shoes, when the Minister was told about the lack of control over hides, what did he do? Green hides were being sold in this city in 1937 and 1938 at 3d. per lb. They were being sent over to England to be cured, coming back as chrome and kip and being sold at 2/10 per lb. The matter was brought to the Minister's attention and now we are tanning our own leather— another group of exploiters. What are they doing with the hides taken off the thousands of beasts last year? We have a number of people from another portion of our territory, who are making all kinds of money by holding up these hides for exploitation. First, they were allowed to ship them out. The Minister then decided, in his wisdom, to stop the shipments, and we have had a hold-up for speculative purposes. Now the Minister has taken control of the hides, but the butcher was being robbed, the farmer who sold cattle was suffering a certain loss and green hides were being sold for 3d. per lb.

We can tan in this country. We had some of the best tanning factories in the world in Limerick, Dublin and other parts of the country. We have now two factories. There is no difficulty about the chemical matter because they are all now cured with chemical matter. No sun-tanned hides are coming into this country or have come in since the trouble in Abyssinia, and people in Europe want all the sun-tanned hides they can get hold of. The hides we have are home hides. Some times they require a particular method of curing, but, when cured, they will make good utility boots for school children, even without linings. The natural leather itself, if properly treated, will make a good shoe for children and for grown-ups who work on the land. I see that the Minister has come back into the House. I hope he has examined his conscience.

More likely he has had a cup of tea.

Mr. Larkin

He deserved it after his effort this afternoon and the audacity he exhibited in trying to tell people all about their short-comings, while he forgot his own sins of commission and omission. I appeal to him to think over all the things he did not do that might have been right, and all the wrong things he did against the advice of the best minds in this country, including my own. You, Sir, have got two jobs. I think one of these jobs is big enough for any man. I suggest that the Taoiseach ought to relieve you of some of the burden.

My position is that I am Ceann Comhairle, not a Minister. The Deputy should address the Chair.

Mr. Larkin

Through you, Sir——

Deputies using the second person are presumed to refer to the Chair.

Mr. Larkin

I never at any time treat you, Sir, with lack of respect.

I am asking Deputies—Deputy Larkin is not the only offender—to address the Chair.

Mr. Larkin

Some of us are used to debating all our lives and sometimes we forget the proper procedure here.

Hence the reminder.

Mr. Larkin

Thank you, Sir. I suggest that in these times, when there is such a task before the Minister for Supplies and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, he should get somebody to help him. I am very sympathetic towards the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Supplies, but after all "one man one job." Surely it is sufficient for him at present to deal with the Department of Industry and Commerce considering the arrears in connection with applications for bonuses.

That is a question of the Minister's administration in detail.

Mr. Larkin

Very well. I challenge contradiction of anything I have said. Anything I said has been said with the intention of getting that Department to function in full and complete service to the needs of those whom the Minister ought to consider first and whom he spoke of in a most kindly way, namely, those lacking means, those who are in a hard way of life, the poor and despised and rejected, and those in the ordinary upper strata of the working classes. The other classes can always protect themselves. The other day I had occasion to deal with some industrial cases, and in connection with one particular avenue of supplies I came across a gentleman who has opened a factory under the control of the Minister's Department. That gentleman said he was a national. I will not give the name, but I will give it to the Minister in confidence. He is producing a commodity which he alleges he has a right to produce as a monopoly. He has young women working for him from 14 to 18 years of age and he pays them 7/6 a week on a casual basis—two days one week, three days another week, and four days another week. The highest paid person in his employment is paid 30/- per week, and he is a man between 20 and 30 years of age.

Does the Deputy consider that that is a major question of policy?

Mr. Larkin

It is a matter connected with supplies because he is producing food.

We are not debating the Vote for the Minister for Supplies.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister invited all these matters. He was so eaten up with his feeling of magnanimity in connection with the services he had given to the country that he wanted to tell all about his activities and all the wonderful things he had done—without him the country would be sunk 20 fathoms under the sea. If he is allowed to continue, I am afraid it will be sunk. I just want to say one word about our reserve values that are being driven out. We are told about the men working on farms and how we love them. We love them so much that we give them 35/- a week for a 56-hour week in all kinds of climatic conditions. If they want a pair of boots they must pay £3 for them. A man with a wife and three children, which is the average, gets 35/- a week, out of which he has to buy a pair of boots every six months for which he has to pay £3. I wonder how he can do it. That man could get a job in England, where the lowest wage is about 1/5 per hour for a 60 hour week and where he might get 1/11 per hour. There are 400,000 or 500,000 of our people working over there, sending home money through the Post Office at the rate of £80,000 or £100,000 per week. With that paper money, food or clothing can be bought. There is no real value, because the only real value in life is labour as applied to the raw products of the earth. You can produce wealth by no other means. You have either to work, to beg or to steal. These are the only three ways of living. These men and women are liquidating their liabilities with a piece of paper. They are not giving service here. They are creating wealth, whether by way of materials for the destruction of life or in the way of food, clothing and shelter, in another portion of these islands.

Then we have the audacity of the Minister who says that the Government do not agree with inflation, that they are trying to keep down this accursed spiral of the rising cost of living. It is admitted that there is inflation to the extent of something like £16,000,000. I have not the time to go into the question of money values and my young friend who is an authority on the new monetary system is not willing to take a hand. There is more humbug talked about money and its uses than about any other subject in the world and there is less known about it than any other subject. We have now brought it down to this point, that with every piece of paper with a certain gentleman's name on it you can get £1 worth of goods in Dublin or in any part of the Twenty-Six Counties. If I take a piece of paper with the Taoiseach's name on it over to London they will say: "What is this?" If I tender an Irish note in a shop in London I will be asked "What is this?" If I tender an Irish two-shilling piece in London for a fare on a bus, I will be told: "That is Irish; we will not have anything to do with it." Yet our currency is backed by sterling. It has the same financial backing as the British currency. We have gold behind our currency and we have got more than that. But the £1 note given to us is only worth 11/2 in real value and is going down in value every day. We do not tell people who are working over there to buy clothes or watches and not to bring that paper money over here, as it is putting more weight on our shoulders. If they would do that it would be all right. There is a certain group of people whom you never see carrying that paper money over here. They may go up to Belfast but they bring back watches or razor blades. When they go over to London, Scotland or Wales they bring back real value. I suggest that we should send some intelligent person over to tell our people to bring back the goods and not to mind the paper.

I do wish, in all earnestness, that the Taoiseach who, everybody knows, has a deep love for children—and I think the same can be said of the members of the Front Bench—would take up as a special task this matter of the material welfare of our children in the big cities this coming winter. Give them a little warmth, a little clothing and a little comfort. Ration bread and, above all, give us our own property to use so that we can buy soup and give these young children a hot meal during school hours.

Those who have listened to Deputy James Larkin (Senior) for the last hour will agree that he is a very difficult man to please and a very difficult man to follow in the wide range of his imagination, and the mighty spate of his oratory. I do not propose to traverse the whole wide world from China to Peru, which he has opened here in the course of his speech. I had intended primarily to devote myself to the narrow issue which the Chair suggested should be taken as the subject matter of this debate — the present cost of living and its effect upon the position of those who are existing on low wages or low incomes, or who are mainly dependent upon the social service payments. I say, Sir, I had intended to devote myself entirely to that specific issue, but I doubt whether any citizen of this State, reading this morning's newspapers, would for a moment have believed that that was the subject which had been suggested from the Chair. On the contrary, those of them who took the trouble to read the speech of Deputy McGilligan would have assumed that the subject matter which we were discussing was an even graver issue — and God knows, the plight of our people in their present circumstances is grave and sorrowful enough — because the impression which was conveyed there, and deliberately conveyed, by Deputy McGilligan was that there was widespread corruption in this State, and that he had entered the House to expose it, and that that was the main thing with which we had been concerned.

A number of Deputies heard Deputy McGilligan last night, I think, for the first time. All I can say is that his speech was characteristic. Those of us who are old in the House know that his methods are slick and slimy. He does not often appear in debate. He has not spoken here, I think, twice since this House reassembled after the last general election. He came into this House at about half-past five in the evening, after the law courts had closed. I believe the Deputy enjoys a lucrative practice there. He remained in this House until twenty minutes past eight and then intervened in this debate, not, Sir, for the purpose of addressing himself to the subject which you had suggested to the House, but to deal with quite another matter. The time at which Deputy McGilligan rose to speak is significant because he always chooses that hour of the evening, the hour when he can speak and cannot be replied to. It is characteristic of the Deputy's methods. It reminds me of a little creature of the sea which I read of when I read natural history, a little animal, the hermit crab. It is hard-cased in front but, if I may say so, is somewhat tender behind and it goes through life preoccupied with the weakness of its rear. That is Deputy McGilligan's preoccupation when he speaks in this House. So much for the time of his intervention.

It is not necessary for me to remind the House of the subject to which he addressed himself. As I said, those of us who heard him and those of us who read the morning papers know what the subject was. Two of his allegations have been dealt with and completely exploded by the Minister for Supplies and Industry and Commerce in his speech this evening, so exploded that Deputy O'Higgins, I understand, disclaimed any idea of impugning the Government in regard to this matter of the Great Southern Railways. Those Deputies who heard the Minister for Supplies addressing himself to the question of the insurance business which had been built up by the Irish Shipping Company, a shipping company which is the property of the Irish people, all shares in which are held by the Minister for Finance, can have no doubt whatever as to the propriety of the course which was pursued in suggesting that Irish citizens importing these goods for the use of Irish people, in Irish ships, should support the national shipping company in the insurance enterprise which it was building up.

But, Sir, in order to create this atmosphere, the Deputy has referred to the rumours which are going around. Deputy McGilligan is the most fruitful source of these insinuations and allegations. He is the one who broadcasts them most openly under the protection and privileges of this House. And, Sir, in order, as I say, even to make more dark that suspicion which he has endeavoured to create, he referred to a matter of the Roscommon County Council insurances. What that has to do with the present cost of living and its effect upon the circumstances and conditions of those of our people who have to live upon low incomes or who are mainly dependent for their subsistence upon social service payments, it is not my place to say.

On a point of order, was it not agreed that Deputies would not be confined exclusively to that subject? Will the Chair admit that? Is not that your ruling, Sir?

The Chair suggested, as subjects for debate, the cost of living, the effect of the increased cost of living on those on low wages or dependent on the social services of the State and the social policy of the State, without ruling out other subjects. Obviously, the Chair's suggestion was not accepted by half the House. That is the fact. It was not accepted.

I am merely raising the point that, according to your ruling——

It was not a ruling; it was a suggestion.

——the Deputy was within his rights in raising other matters.

Most Deputies who rose maintained or exercised a right to raise anything relevant to this Vote. The suggestion made from the Chair was not followed in the main. Hence, a discursive debate has rambled over many subjects.

I do not know whether Deputy Hughes is speaking for the Leader of the Opposition; I am not going to question his position in the House; but it is quite obvious that Parliamentary business cannot be conducted, in, my submission, if agreements and arrangements that are made in order to ensure that there would be an orderly discussion of public issues cannot be made effective by the Chair. That is what would bring this House as a deliberative Assembly into disrepute.

Who is talking now?

However, Sir, I was referring to the fact that it was Deputy McGilligan who opened up this matter of the Roscommon County Council insurances, and he opened it up in such a way as to suggest that someone, in relation to these insurances, had been guilty of unworthy and improper conduct, and had been guilty of that conduct at the instance of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, or some of his officers. Now, Sir, that is a grave and serious imputation to make—a grave and serious innuendo to convey. The Deputy, of course, as usual, tried to wash his hands of the matter by saying that people outside are saying this or saying that, but how many people spoke to Deputy McGilligan about this question of the Roscommon County Council insurances? How many people spoke in public in the hearing of Deputy McGilligan on this matter? He is a man who professes to be concerned about the public honour of this State, of its Ministers, and of those who are charged with the administration of its public concerns. If he were such a man, and if he really wanted this matter to be investigated, one would have thought that he would have intimated, to the Minister whose conduct he proposed to impugn, that he proposed to raise this issue in the House and would expect the Minister concerned to deal with it: and he would surely have taken the opportunity of intervening in this debate at such a stage of the debate as would at least have given an opportunity to those upon whom he wished to reflect to reply to him at the earliest possible moment. However, as I said at the beginning of my speech, he took care to choose his time well so that his insinuations would appear in this morning's newspapers uncontradicted and that the seed of suspicion should have been sown by this man who professes to be animated only by concern for the public honour and professes to desire to do nothing more than safeguard the democratic system of government which exists in this country.

We know, of course, that that is not the fact so far as Deputy McGilligan is concerned. We have known him now since 1927 — over 16 years — and the record of those 16 years goes to show that that is not what Deputy McGilligan seeks in public life: that all he is concerned to do is to vilify those who have ousted him in the public esteem and public confidence— to blacken and tarnish their honour, and to slander his political opponents, under the protection of this House.

On a point of order. Sir, Deputy McGilligan, last night never mentioned the Minister, or any official of the Department of Local Government and Public Health.

That is not a point of order.

Well, he did not mention the Minister or vilify him in any may.

Deputy McGilligan, as I have said, gave me no notice that he was going to raise this issue — an issue which most people who were unaware of the facts would intimately associate with my administration of the Department of Local Government and Public Health.

Deputy McGilligan did not spend half a minute on it.

There is no use in Deputy Coburn trying to absolve Deputy McGilligan from the charge I am making against him——

Deputy McGilligan is well able to look after himself.

——that he deliberately tried to darken this debate by creating suspicion with regard to the administration of a certain county council, in order to blacken the good name of those associated with the Taoiseach in the administration of the affairs of this country, and that he opened this question of the insurances for that reason, and for no other purpose. Now, what did Deputy McGilligan say — I am quoting what Deputy McGilligan said, as it appeared in this morning's Irish Independent, which gives the fullest report, and which is as follows:—

"Mr. McGilligan referred to two or three matters which, he said, were disquieting to a number of people. He found that in connection with certain insurances of local authorities, letters were sent to insurance people, particularly in the case of Roscommon County Council, saying that people who were tendering for this insurance should note that all those accepted must pass through the agency of the county secretary, for the time being, Mr. Gilhooly, and, in the case of workmen's compensation, through Messrs. MacDonagh and Boland, and, in the case of all other insurances, through Mr. Maguire, Cross, Claremorris, for brokerage purposes."

You will note, Sir, that in making that statement Deputy McGilligan took good care not to mention from whom that communication issued. Deputy Coburn has said that Deputy McGilligan did not mention the Minister for Local Government, specifically, in this connection.

I think I am right in that.

But he did not mention either, specifically in this connection, the name of the individual from whom that communication issued. Why not? Because he wished the public to assume that the communication to which he was referring had issued from the Department of Local Government and Public Health.

I, for one, did not assume that.

That is because the Deputy knows what the facts are in regard to the insurances of county councils.

That is because Deputy Coburn is a member of a county council and knows the conditions under which they perform their duties. The Deputy is one of the few in this State who does know the truth, but the great mass of the people here, whom Deputy McGilligan professes to be concerned about, do not know the facts.

Is there not such a thing as the Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurance Company?

Is it in order for the Minister to shout so loud?

On the last occasion, Sir, on which I addressed the House, I was told that I was indistinctly heard from some of the benches opposite, and I am endeavouring this evening to correct that defect in my delivery. I was commenting, Sir, on the fact that Deputy McGilligan had carefully omitted to state who was responsible for that communication. I may say, Sir, that I know nothing about the communication in question. If it were issued by the county council, it could only have been issued on its behalf by the county manager. I gather, from Deputy Coburn's interruption, that it was issued by another body.

I did not say that. I said that it could have happened.

It could have? Well, whether it was issued by the Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurance Company or not, I do not know, but everybody knows that that company was one which was established under an enactment passed by the Oireachtas during the years when Deputy McGilligan was a member of the Government, and, that so far as anything that has been done under that Act is concerned, he is perhaps more responsible than I am. However, that is not the point.

I want to get on to deal with the queries which Deputy McGilligan founded upon that communication and the comments which he made upon it. He is reported in the Irish Independent as going on to say:—

"In other words, somebody was interested that payment of brokerage in connection with the insurance of one county must go through a certain named firm and a certain named individual."

Now, anybody can see the clear innuendo there. Quite obviously, when a Deputy is discussing matters in this House, if he is criticising anybody, he is criticising the Government. If he is impugning anybody, he is impugning the Government, and no doubt everybody assumed, despite whatever Deputy Coburn may suggest to the contrary, that when Deputy McGilligan said that somebody was interested that payments of brokerage in connection with the insurance of one county council must go through a certain named firm and a certain named individual, he wanted to convey, and he wanted the public to understand, that that somebody whom he had in his mind, this nameless one, was a member of the Government.

Not necessarily.

He went on:

"Why were Messrs. MacDonagh and Boland's singled out for this particular preference? Who was responsible for the county council having issued that statement? He understood it happened elsewhere."

Now, Sir, the imputations in these queries are quite clear. They are that somebody had acted improperly in this matter and that he had acted in this way in order to secure fees or commissions for the secretary of the county council and for the insurance brokers referred to by Deputy McGilligan. These were the direct imputations. But, as I have said, the overriding suggestion was that, in some one way or other, the person responsible for the issue of that communication had been suborned to this improper conduct by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health or some officer of the Minister.

I do not believe it.

Now, Sir, I shall show in due course that there is no foundation whatever for Deputy McGilligan's imputations so far as the County Manager of Roscommon is concerned, but I want to deal, first of all, with the position of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I can deal with that briefly and succinctly by saying that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has no responsibility whatever, and no functions whatsoever, in relation to the insurance of the Roscommon County Council or any other county council.

That is agreed.

As a matter of fact, the position has been that where county councils have proposed to deal with their insurances in a way which seemed to us to be imprudent or unwise, by entering into insurance contracts for too long a term, we have on occasion made known our views to them, but we have found ourselves preempted and precluded from going further than making representations. There are many Deputies here who are members of public bodies, and any one of these Deputies can vouch and testify that that is the position. That is the real position. It was known to Deputy McGilligan because Deputy McGilligan is not only a Deputy of this House but a lawyer, not only a Deputy of the House but a lawyer who was a member of the Irish Government, not only a lawyer who was a member of the Irish Government but a lawyer who was a Deputy in this House when the Irish Local Government Act and the County Management Act were going through this House in 1940 and 1941, and if there is any man in this country who should be as familiar as the Minister for Local Government is, with these limitations in regard to public bodies' insurances, that man is Deputy McGilligan. But, Sir, though the Deputy knew these limitations, though some members of the House knew them, he also knew that there were many members of the House who might not be familiar with the position, which is as I have already stated. I would like to repeat that, because it is the gravamen of the indictment against him, though he knew this well, he also knew that the great masses of the people would be unaware of the facts and, trading on their ignorance and credulity which is a weakness of our human nature, he tried to suggest to them that in some way or another either myself or the Department for which I am responsible had been guilty of improper conduct and had participated in a corrupt or illegal way in this transaction with a view to securing fees or commissions for the brokerage firms mentioned in his speech. So much for the position of the Minister.

Now, Sir, what was the county manager's part in this transaction? Those who have had occasion to deal with difficult questions of insurance, particularly where large properties, great risks and correspondingly high premiums are involved, have been accustomed to call to their assistance people who have had special experience in dealing with insurance matters, people who are used to construing and interpreting insurance policies in the light of relevant court decisions and other considerations. And experience, dearly bought, has shown that it is not an economy but an extravagance, and quite an unjustifiable risk for people, who have to deal with large properties, to enter into these insurance agreements unless they are fortified and guided by this specialised advice. Therefore, there has grown up in this country the profession or business of insurance broker, and people who have to handle these things in a large way, have been accustomed to place the major responsibility for their insurance transactions in the hands and upon the shoulders of such people. That has a double advantage. They have not merely the specialised advice of the insurance broker but, if the brokerage firm is a reputable one, the insuring company has the guarantee that the insurance transaction to be carried out will be a genuine insurance transaction. Therefore, in insurance matters, the known reputation of the firm handling them, their probity and good faith, generally ensure that the insurer placing his business through a reputable firm will get a reasonable and, in some cases, even a reduced premium.

In regard to Messrs. MacDonagh and Boland, I do not think that anyone would say that either name has an unworthy place in the history of our country. I understand this firm has been handling the workmen's compensation insurance for the Roscommon County Council for a long period of years. The general insurances of the county council were being handled by Mr. Maguire of Claremorris. I understand that both firms had given every satisfaction by the way in which they dealt with matters on behalf of the county council. When the county manager was appointed, he found that position existing and, like a wise and prudent man, he did not upset it. He allowed the position to continue and made certain to ensure that he would have the advice of these two brokers, who had been doing business, as I have said, for the county council for a considerable number of years. He would continue to have their advice in handling insurance matters. So much for the two firms.

What was the position of the other third party in this transaction? I will remind the House of what Deputy McGilligan said in relation to that. He pointed out that communications were sent to insurance people, saying that people who were tendering for the Roscommon County Council insurance should note that all those accepted must pass through the agency of the county secretary for the time being, Mr. Gillooly. Those of us dealing with insurance business know, of course, that an insurance agency connotes a fee or commission. Deputy McGilligan knows, most of us know, and most of the general public outside are aware of the fact that, as a rule, an insurance agency carried with it a commission. What was the clear purpose of Deputy McGilligan's reference to that man, except to convey that, with the connivance of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, a local official — an official of the Roscommon County Council — was receiving a commission — it would be, in his case, an illicit commission — upon the insurances placed for the Roscommon County Council?

His reference was to MacDonagh and Boland, was it not?

In this connection, no.

Deputy McGilligan's reference was to MacDonagh and Boland.

Not at all.

Yes, it was.

I have read the statement. What Deputy McGilligan wanted to convey was that the secretary of the county council was going to receive, illicitly and improperly, a commission as agent upon the insurances placed by the county manager for the Roscommon County Council. What was the fact? The fact was that, in order to secure that so far as he could secure it all the benefits and advantages of the insurances would inure to the county council, the county manager insisted that the county secretary would be appointed agent in relation to these particular insurances, that the agent's commission would be paid over to the county secretary and that the county secretary would, in turn, transfer that to the finances of the Roscommon County Council. In consequence of that, the Roscommon County Council is better off by £112, being the amount of the agent's fee upon those insurances.

What was there improper in that transaction? What was there imprudent or improvident about it? Is it not a clear instance of the principal officer of the local authority doing everything he should do by his county council, doing everything he should do in order to secure the utmost value for the ratepayers and the public bodies with which he was associated? But what gloss is put on that by Deputy McGilligan? What gloss is put on it but that it is something which disquiets the public mind, that it is something which has given rise to rumours, insinuations, innuendoes and allegations, that it is something which would suggest that there is corruption, not merely in the local administration but corruption which extends and permeates down from Dublin and the Department of Local Government and Public Health in Dublin to the County Roscommon?

Was it not a very unusual and improper thing to do?

I do not think so.

I do not think so. After all, some one was going to carry the agency and receive the commission.

And the county manager got the county secretary to blackleg.

That was not what Deputy McGilligan was endeavouring to convey.

I agree.

Deputy McGilligan wanted this House and the general public to believe that this commission was being improperly paid. The real fact of the matter is that the county manager, as I have said, was trying to secure this commission for his local authority and, accordingly, he insisted that one of the terms of the insurance would be that the agent's commission be collected by the county secretary and paid into the county council's funds.

Are the facts the same in the case of the Galway County Council?

If Deputy Dillon had been in the House when I was opening this matter, he would have known that I had pointed out that I had no power and no control over the insurance transactions of the local authorities, that I had on occasions made representations to them that, in my view, it was imprudent and improvident— and, mind you, quite another view could be taken — to enter into long-term insurance transactions.

Does that mean that the secretary was acting as agent for an insurance company?

It does, of course.

That is a separate question.

It is rather important, I think.

It does not arise.

He might clarify the position.

There is nothing further to be clarified.

Then the secretary——

The Minister is in possession and should not be cross-examined.

I do not know why not.

It is not relevant. Certain allegations are being made to which the Minister is replying. Extraneous issues should not be raised.

He has quite misrepresented what Deputy McGilligan said and is answering something that was not raised at all.

Not in one iota. Deputy Dillon is playing "jeering Jimmy" to Deputy McGilligan.

He shook you, anyhow.

No, he did not shake me, but he was trying to shake the foundations upon which this State rests, the foundation of public confidence in the probity of its Government and its administrators. That is the game which Deputy Davin plays on occasions, too. Deputy Dillon is the last man — since this matter was opened in this House — who ought to reflect upon the probity of a public man.

What does that mean?

Deputy Hughes rose.

The Deputy may rise to a point of order.

On a point of order, what does that mean — that I should be the last man to reflect on the probity of a public man? Is that a reflection on me?

No, indeed.

It had better not, or I will answer the Minister in very trenchant language.

It is a reflection on the Deputy's charity.

Probity is the matter involved. The Minister should withdraw it.

I propose instead to move the adjournment of the House. I do not reflect on Deputy Dillon's probity. I am merely saying that he is the last man in this House who should reflect upon another man's probity, because he is so concerned for his own—rightly concerned. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m., Friday, 19th November.
Top
Share