I move that the House do adjourn until Wednesday, 27th September.
Adjournment Debate. - Government Policy.
The adjournment for some seven weeks now, after practically that number of months of the Dáil in session, enables us to examine how far, and if at all, the Ministry which came into power on such a very big list of promises and so many undertakings, have been able to accomplish some of those things they set out to achieve. We were told amongst other things that the earnings of people on the land were to be increased by about £16 per head per annum; that some 80,000 persons were to be put into good occupations; that taxation was to be reduced; that economies were to be effected in public expenditure; and a host of other political nightmares which the Fianna Fáil Party had before they took up office. Now, after some 18 months' experience of their administration, I think that outside of the Ministry very few people in the country are anything the better of their experiments. Over and above all, there is the position in which they have placed this country in so far as its main industry of agriculture is concerned. On previous occasions I have referred to this as being the main failure on the part of the Government. The situation in which they found the agricultural industry was economically sound. We were not free, any more than other countries, from the difficulties of the times. The Oireachtas had made efforts to help that main industry, while at the same time fostering the secondary industries of the State, and we had a relatively smaller number of people unemployed than any other country. According to the public returns of the Ministry these numbers have gone up, notwithstanding the fact that very much more money has been raised from taxation, and that in order to spend more money they have had to increase the burden upon the principal industry of the country.
The main complaint I have against this Government is, however, their repeated attempts to take the public mind off the present economic situation in this country by a series of political sensations, sensations which began with victimisation and will I presume go on in the same fashion; sensations which we may expect day after day, week after week, and month after month, as long as they find themselves unequal to the task of restoring to the main industry of the country the position to which it is entitled, the position which it requires if the other industries of the country are to prosper. Examined from the political point of view we find the status of the country no higher, if as high as it was when they came into office. We find our economy much worsened. We find unemployment very much worse. We find taxation very much higher. We find assistance that ought to be given to the main industry of the country denied to it. We find a series of political, economic and financial experiments, such as no other country has, perhaps, ever known, being indulged in. Last year the Government proposed to borrow £1,000,000 to balance the Budget. They went near the mark—£700,000. This year they propose to borrow £3,000,000 to balance the Budget, one and a quarter millions of it on the security of the land annuities which they are spending at present. Legislation has been rushed through, estimates have been introduced and passed by means of long-night sittings, and even to-night we have to sit late in order to finish up the work of the session, having last week been able to adjourn for a couple of hours in order to attend what was described as a State function and which ordinary people recognise as a garden party. The description "garden party" cannot be mentioned—it is taboo. We have public attention directed to the fact that small savings have been made in certain respects and the attention of the public distracted from the enormous expenditure which is being incurred in other directions. The sum and substance of the whole matter is that this Government is the most brilliant failure of all the Government in the world at the present time.
It is quite true that it has been the practice on the adjournment of the Dáil for members of the Opposition to take advantage of the adjournment debate in order to review the sins of omission or commission of the Government. I am not quite clear, however, why we should continue that practice. I think it would add considerable zest to this discussion if, in addition to discussing the faults and virtues of the Government in office, we also discussed the faults and virtues of the Opposition. We can look back over the Session which is now concluding with some pleasure. We have succeeded in getting through a considerable amount of useful work and we have demonstrated to the satisfaction of everybody something concerning which we on this side of the House never had any doubt. When the Party opposite was the Government everybody used to say that they would do well as an Opposition. Even their own friends used to say "Well, when the people do kick them out they will be a most effective Opposition. With their experience of office, their knowledge of administration and their information concerning the conditions of the country they will be a really effective Opposition to the Government that succeeds them." Look at what we got! It is now quite clear that they are a bigger failure as an Opposition than they were as a Government. I said here last night and I repeat it to-night that day after day we have had the appalling spectacle of Front Bench members of the Opposition participating in debates on Bills which they obviously had not read and which they certainly did not understand. They were too lazy to read the measures put before them and obviously incapable of comprehending them even if they had read them. They come in here and waste our Parliamentary time asking questions to try and find out what the measures are about. It is no wonder that the new slogan of that Party is "Abolish Parliaments altogether," because this Parliament, at any rate, has shown up their incompetence. It may be that a case can be made for the abolition of the Parliamentary system; certainly a case can be made for its reform. Certainly I think we should try to keep out of it or, at any rate, prevent from wasting time here those freaks of the electoral system that prevail in this country who always are the first to speak on and nearly always the last to understand any measure which comes before the House. Deputy Cosgrave referred to the programme that this Government put before the people when seeking election and he said we were the most brilliant failure in the world. It is extraordinary that nobody seems to realise that except himself. I do not know if he wants another election. If he does want another election I shall certainly try to persuade my colleagues on the Executive Council to let him have it.
The sooner the better.
I think I shall be able to assure them that at least ten additional seats should be secured as a result of the exhibition the Opposition made of themselves since the last election. This Government came into office in March, 1932, and, because we thought the people might like to express a judgment upon the manner in which we were carrying out our programme, we took the opportunity when it offered, an opportunity that we need not have taken, to go back to consult them again and what happened? Not merely did we get a renewal of the confidence given in March, 1932, but we got a renewal with interest. And what is more, it is quite clear the confidence of the country in the Government is continually growing and will grow until we hold an election, when one Party only will come back into the Dáil, and then we will have the ideal situation desired by the Party opposite. We will then have one Party Government. They do not now believe in the Party system. They are anxious to abolish the Party system since their Party was nearly abolished. So long as the Party opposite occupied these benches and overflowed to other parts of the House there was great talk about democratic government, and the will of the people, and the necessity to preserve the Constitution and the right of free speech, but now they want that very absurd Constitution abolished.
In times past I have often advised the Party opposite to agree amongst themselves about their policy upon any particular matter before coming to the Dáil. I am now advising them to try and get agreement amongst themselves about their policy before making it public. It is most confusing when we find Deputies opposite outside the House protesting against discussion. about wasting time in useless talk in the House and about the futility of the Party system. If the tactics of the Party opposite in this House are to discredit Parliamentary government, they are certainly most successful. They have done more in the past 12 months to bring Parliamentary government into disrepute than people outside the House could do in a century. We are going to change that and we propose to change it in a most constitutional manner by holding election after election until the Party opposite ceases to exist. Then we will have an ideal situation.
Let us examine the position from the point of view of the Government's record. A programme was put before the country. After our Party were returned we went back again and asked the electors if they approved of the way we were carrying out that programme. The people said most emphatically they liked our programme. We proceeded to carry on, on the same lines; but Deputy Cosgrave told us that as a result of the Government's activity nobody outside the Ministry had benefited. That is a very large statement. There are something more than 2,999,000 people in this State, and Deputy Cosgrave asserts that outside the ten members of the Executive Council nobody has benefited. I do not think that he had given thought, if he ever does think, to that statement before he made it. I think quite a large number of people have benefited. The peculiar thing is that the majority seem to have benefited; and they have said so. When Deputy Cosgrave offered to relieve them, and to take the burden of this Government off their backs, they said: "No, sir."
Another peculiarity is the fact that Deputies opposite seem to have abandoned the base from which they started, and have come to consider that there must be something in the Government's policy, for they have come to adopt it. For instance, Deputy MacDermot supports, and Deputy Cosgrave insists, that every industry in this country should use Irish fuel where possible, and do everything to encourage the use of Irish coal. Deputy Cosgrave seems to say now burn everything English except coal. And in regard to other problems they seem to have abandoned the position they formerly took up. They are striving to out-Fianna Fáil Fianna Fáil, to go one better because they realise the direction in which the country wants the Government to go.
I would like to give a brief statement concerning certain other people who have benefited as a result of the Government's activities. These people, as well as others, are beginning to realise that when they talk in the strain that Deputy Cosgrave talks they are talking nonsense. We found, on coming into office, an industrial situation which was most deplorable. Not merely had many of the industries, which had survived wars and foreign Governments and periods of depression in the past ceased to exist under the blighting influence of Cumann na nGaedheal, but the industries that actually did survive were in a very weak and precarious condition. I frequently told the people, prior to 1932, that they would have to hurry up and get rid of the Government then in office, because each year that passed while they were in control was going to make the task of their successors more difficult. Unfortunately the opportunity of getting rid of that Government was not offered to the people until a very considerable amount of damage was done and, to a large extent, our energies had to be directed towards repairing that damage before we were able to get to the stage of opening up new avenues of achievement in the industrial sphere.
We discussed last night the flour-milling industry. Deputies are, I am sure, familiar with the history of that industry since 1922. It was quite a flourishing industry then. There were prosperous mills all over the country. Many of them went to the wall. Those that survived were working two shifts instead of three shifts, and, after a period, those working two shifts were cut down to one shift only. These people came to the Government, from time to time, to complain of their difficulties and to explain the nature of their position. They asked for assistance. On every occasion they were told by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce that their case was being considered. Nothing was done. Those engaged in that industry entered into an arrangement with their competitors in Great Britain, which secured for them permission to mill up to one-half of their capacity, subject to their securing that no less than one-half of the Irish market should be supplied with flour from Great Britain. These were the dictated terms of surrender following upon the war and these terms had not merely the approval of the Government in office but they were actually justified in the course of discussions in this House. We have changed all that. The flour milling industry is flourishing once again. Every mill works three shifts, or 132 hours in the week. That means working full time. In these mills employment is increasing. Ancillary employment is being created. North, south, east and west there is, in regard to that industry, a degree of activity not experienced since the Free State was established. We know that the enemies of Irish industry are trying to wreck it before it gets too strong.
We had Deputy McGilligan last night talking about the possibility of a shortage of flour in the west of Ireland because we had cut down the quota of a particular group of mills. I do not know if I made it clear last night that there was, for a period, a temporary shortage in the west of Ireland but an entirely artificial one. It was a shortage deliberately created by that particular milling concern which had certainly got Deputy McGilligan in its hands when he was Minister and which was striving to force the Government which was controlling the industry to put it into a more favourable position than its competitors. But that did not succeed. The temporary shortage in the west of Ireland was rectified by the Associated Millers of the country as soon as its existence was made known. The circumstances that produced it, being known, cannot possibly be repeated.
I do not propose to give a detailed industrial review, but I want to mention some of the outstanding facts. Taking the industries in the order in which they appear in our trade and shipping statistics, I should like to merely mention the following particulars. In the confectionery trade we have completed our job. The imports are now of no consequence. The country's requirements of confectionery of all kinds are now being supplied from Irish factories. The magnitude of what has been achieved in that direction will be realised when I mention that in the year 1931 the value of our imports of confectionery was £550,000. The importations of bread and buns, which were valued at over £200,000 in 1931, have also ceased. All the country's requirements are now being supplied from bakeries in the Saorstát. We ended that job in the last week or the week before, when the last bakery necessary to supply our full requirements came into production, and the licences to import were withdrawn. Deputies are familiar with the Government's proposals in relation to sugar, and it is not necessary to reiterate them. This year we imposed a duty upon yeast, an important industrial product. In this month the job in relation to that product will also be completed. Imports will cease entirely, and the home firms will supply all our requirements. The value of those imports in 1931 was £40,000.
In the case of glass bottles and jars, we have also completed the job. In last week developments which had been in course of construction were completed, and the full extent of our programme was achieved. Not merely have we succeeded in getting production to the point at which our home requirements can be supplied, but the beginnings of an export trade have been established. In the case of constructional steel, the job is also completed. All constructional steel of all kinds likely to be required here is now being produced in Irish works. The same applies to wire manufactures of all kinds. Again I can say our task is done. The value of the imports of those goods in 1931 was over £100,000. In respect of galvanised ware, considerable progress has been made. Concerning many classes of galvanised products I can again say that the job is done. In relation to the others, it will be complete in the very near future. The value of such imports in 1931 was over £200,000.
The regulations made by the Department of Local Government in respect of building, which require that all materials used in houses built under the Government's housing scheme must, where possible, be of Irish manufacture, have produced very direct and substantial results in the industrial sphere. In the case of stoves, grates and ranges, production has been very substantially increased. All requirements in relation to the Government's Housing scheme can now be got from Irish firms. The same is not yet quite true concerning other cast-iron manufactures. We are producing 80 per cent. of our requirements. The erection of the buildings and the installation of the machinery necessary to bridge the gap are now taking place. The gap will be bridged within three months from now. The value of the imports of such goods in 1931 was over £60,000. The same Local Government regulations have brought new trade to our brass foundries, and new trade to many other subsidiary industries associated with the housing industry.
We have had many discussions here concerning our attempts to establish firmly here the coach-building industry. In so far as commercial vehicles are concerned, the task was completed long ago. There are now no completed commercial cars imported into this country. The imports of motor chassis for the first six months of this year show an increase of over 400 per cent. on the imports of last year. Those chassis are now coming in here to be fitted with bodies in Irish works, instead of being imported complete as heretofore. In respect of private cars, there are now four or five makes of car available from Irish works. In come cases those cars are completely assembled. In other cases they are imported at the medium rate of duty, and finished and fitted in those Irish works. We hope to be able in the near future to record a much more substantial development in that direction. In the case of cycle assembly, a new industry has been created. It is not perhaps of prime importance, but when establishing it we were taking the first step towards securing the manufacture here of the cycles required, and required in great number, by our people. Now that the first step has been taken, the second step, which is the manufacture of certain parts, will be commenced.
There are many industries for the working of timber, all important, and all eminently suitable to this country. In connection with them we have also a story of continuous progress to record. Last month we shut down finally upon the importation of planed and dressed timbers. Although a duty was imposed last year, regulated imports had to continue, because many firms engaged in the timber trade had to build extensions and instal considerable machinery in order to enable them to produce the requirements in their own works. They have done that. That job is done, and in future imports of planed and dressed timber will not be necessary. In relation to wooden cases and other wooden products, considerable progress has been made, despite extraordinary difficulties. There is probably no trade in the world which has been so disorganised by the slump in prices which took place in the years since 1929 as the woodworking trade. To such an extraordinary degree were freak results produced by the slump that in relation to many classes of those products one could buy the manufactured article cheaper than one could buy the material with which to make it. However, again we are able to say that, with the passage of the worst of the depression, conditions have now been created in which that industry is making very rapid progress. In relation to the furniture industry, the job has also been done. It is true that the fire which destroyed one of our principal furniture factories a short time ago created a temporary deficiency in capacity. That deficiency, I am glad to say, is being made good. There are other manufactures of wood of various kinds, the imports of which in 1931 amounted to £250,000, all of which are now being turned out from Irish works.
Similarly, our linen industry has been working very busily supplying the home market and maintaining itself with considerable success, despite the conditions prevailing, on the export markets on which it was heretofore almost entirely dependent. We gave the industry a new market valued £75,000 a year. It has filled it and as a result employment and additional activity have been noted in that industry. Similarly in the case of woollens and worsteds, there is probably no woollen mill in the country that is not at the present time installing additional machinery or erecting buildings to house such machinery. Some of these mills I have been told by their proprietors have more than doubled their capacity and doubled their output during the past 12 months. In relation to the industry for the manufacture of cordage, cables, ropes and twine, we took the first protective measures in May of last year. I remember Deputy Mulcahy asking then was this intended to be a revenue duty. I told him that though it might produce some revenue it was not designed for that purpose. I am glad to say that in the very near future it will not produce any revenue at all because the industry has been developed with remarkable speed and a market valued at over £120,000 a year was retained for Irish workers. There are a number of other industries, particulars of which I could give but it is not necessary.
Tell us about the foundries. Are they prosperous?
I do not know——
I do.
——that I would like to contemplate the position in which the Wexford foundries would now find themselves if the Party to which the Deputy belongs remained in power.
The farmers are not able to buy the products of these foundries now.
The people who are working these foundries do not say that.
It is a nightmare you have. I live amongst them and I know it.
I next come to the apparel group of industries.
What about the foundries?
I am sure most Deputies will agree that there are very few items of apparel that we cannot make for ourselves. Yet in the year 1931 we imported apparel to the value of £5,500,000. We set out to secure that market for Irish workers.
Not for the Wexford workers.
I am glad that the success which met our efforts has more than exceeded our expectations. In relation to men's clothing of all kinds, the job is finished. We can shut down on imports and probably will. I can state with confidence that the existing concerns can more than supply all the country's requirements. In relation to women's outer garments, the same is not yet true although very considerable progress in that very difficult industry has been made. In the case of hosiery I said here some time ago that we had in 12 months doubled the production of the home industry and would, in this year, double it again. I am glad to say that our expectations have been realised, and I hope that in a very short time we shall be able to say in relation to that branch of the apparel industry that we have also finished our job. In the case of the boot and shoe industry, I saw quite recently the figures for the production in the Saorstát factories during the first six months of this year. These figures, for the first six months of the year, were more than double the figures for the whole of the year before Fianna Fáil came into office. Extensions have proceeded very rapidly indeed. We still, it is true, have a long way to go, a long way made difficult by the fact that workers have to be taken raw and trained in that somewhat difficult industry while the extensions are going on but the extensions are going on and plans have been made and approved of by my Department for the erection of new factories in the remaining portion of this year which will almost bridge the gap between production and requirements. We will certainly close that gap early in the next year.
I am glad to be able to report that the duty recently imposed on sole and insole leather has led to a very substantial revival of the old established tanning industry. Not merely are existing tanneries increasing employment and increasing production, but steps for the reopening of tanneries that were closed or the establishment of new tanneries are being taken in various parts. The manufacture of boxes and cartons of cardboard which is a considerable industry in other countries but which was only given the benefit of protective measures a short while ago, is also proceeding rapidly. I was in fact only this morning informed of proposals to erect a large factory for the manufacture of these goods, which factory, it is hoped, will be in production within three months. Printing and stationery, the imports of which amounted to over £300,000 in 1931, have also been greatly assisted and I trust that, when some additional measures that may have to be taken have been completed, we will have wiped out that item entirely off our import list. In respect to soap and candles the job is completed, although the imports amounted to over £120,000 in 1931. Medicines and medicinal preparations of all kinds, which figured largely on our import list, and the value of which amounted to £400,000 in 1931, are also being manufactured or prepared here to a very great extent.
I could continue naming industries of this description. In those to which I have referred we have transferred to Irish factories from foreign factories, within a period of slightly more than 12 months, trade valued annually at over £5,000,000, and we hope to double that figure within the next 12 months. There is, of course, a lot to be done yet. I do not want to minimise the nature of the task to which we have set ourselves. We planned that we would have five years to finish the job. Already I think we can contemplate finishing our programme in a much shorter period because of the progress we have achieved. I merely want to indicate the plans we have either maturing at present or which will come into operation in the near future. In respect of the coal resources of the country certain investigations are in progress and we have indications that considerable development is possible, development which will give very much-needed employment in the districts affected and which will also considerably lessen our dependency upon external sources of fuel. Other mine and quarry products also offer considerable advantages. In relation to certain of these mine products, it has now been established without a question of doubt that resources, which in quantity and quality justify their economic working, exist in this country, resources in many ways more suitable for commercial exploitation than similar deposits in other countries which are being successfully worked at the present time. We hope to be able to get development in that connection also in the near future.
Where are they?
The Deputy may not be displeased when he hears in due course.
Where are they?
I hope that before the end of this year we will have succeeded in establishing a pottery industry in the Saorstát. Plans, which are at present in contemplation, and which we expect will come to fruition, will have that desirable result, I trust, before the end of the year. We have had very many inquiries as to the manufacture of asbestos products of many kinds. The principal use is for roofing slates. We have been in consultation with the Department of Local Government but it is not yet decided that it would be wise to permit of the production of these products here to compete with certain other products available and on that matter opinion may be divided. The Bill for the establishment of the cement industry has now become law and I hope that we will have established here factories working economically and supplying the country's total requirements. As to the production of roofing slates, the industry, which has undergone considerable development during the course of the year, is still capable of greater development but there are difficulties in connection with the training of skilled workers and securing the rights to work the slate deposits where they exist. However, I feel that, despite the great difficulties with which we met, considerable progress was made and, as Deputies are aware, several new quarries have been opened. I hope, before the end of this year, to establish on a large scale the cotton - weaving industry in the Saorstát. Inquiries have also been made with a view to the establishment of the artificial silk industry which is quite suitable for this country and could be established on an economic basis. We hope also to have established in reasonable time a rubber industry for the production of motor and cycle tyres and other products of that nature.
I must confess that I have been disappointed somewhat with regard to the re-establishment of the paper industry. There were certain difficulties which, I think, have now been overcome and there is no reason why our plans for the re-establishment of that industry should not be brought to fruition in the near future. We hope also to be able to establish a linoleum industry. There are various other industries coming into existence which it is not necessary for me to enumerate. Despite all the progress which has been made already, and despite all the plans which we hope to bring to fruition, we have still got to face grave social problems and we will continue to have them. These social problems are grave but they are not peculiar to this country or, in fact, to any country in the world to-day. These problems are the product of the manner in which modern civilisation has developed. I think that if we tackle them in the right way, and are not bound by precedent or scared of upsetting the existing order, then, we will succeed in solving those problems and removing forever from the backs of our people the legacy of poverty, unemployment and hardship which has been bequeathed to us by our predecessors.
In six months!
I never said it could be done in six months. I was prepared to put our policy to this test: that if, at the end of six months, we had not produced in that time better conditions than we found when we came into office, I would admit that our policy was a failure. I said that in June of 1932, and at the end of that period we did not ask the Dáil to decide on the merits of our policy; we asked the country for its verdict, and we got it in a most emphatic manner. There are many lines on which to approach our economic problem, and, though Deputies and Parties may differ amongst themselves as to which is the best line to pursue, so long as we have got agreement as to what the objective is, then discussion upon alternative methods will be useful and helpful. But if we are working in opposite directions, each trying to establish in this country conditions different to those which the other is trying to achieve, then we will, in a large measure, nullify each other's efforts.
Where is your plan?
We can differ about plans, but plans are designed to achieve some edifice in this country, and I want to know are we agreed as to that. I have seen Deputy McGilligan and other Deputies with joy in their faces when they were able to record some temporary set-back to the Government's industrial policy. I have seen joy in their faces when we have achieved something less than we hoped for. They quote unemployment figures with relish. Deputy Cosgrave this afternoon, with a smile on his face, told us that unemployment was bad, that agriculture was depressed, that——
Do you deny it?
——that industry was being retarded.
According to the Minister, it is flourishing, and he is delighted with it.
And Deputy Keating is also delighted. The Deputy will sit down, please!
A Deputy
That is a matter for the Chair.
If their sole aim is a political aim; if they are willing and even anxious to wreck the economic prospects of this country merely for the sake of scoring a point on their political opponents, they will only be following exactly the tactics they have been following for the past six months. Every time they go to vote in the Division Lobby they are hoping, not for some ameliorating conditions for the country, but for some temporary and petty score over the Government Party which will produce in the country the conditions which they believe will turn the people against the Fianna Fáil policy and back to the discredited policy of Cumann na nGaedheal. They will not succeed. Time and again they have tried to fool the people by the same stupid methods, thinking the people would be stupid enough to return them.
You are educating the stupid now.
Well, if I do not succeed, it will not be my fault. I want to give the Dáil something to be proud of instead of all this wailing and moaning that we have constantly here, and which seems to me to be like the whining of the electric fans newly installed in the dining-hall. Every time I listen to these electric fans I think of the Deputies whining here in the Dáil. We put a definite programme before the people. We said we would carry it out. We are trying to carry it out and we will succeed in carrying it out, and the Deputies opposite can bet their blue shirts on that.
The first remark that occurs to me to make about the Minister's speech is this: that if this Government had deliberately and treacherously designed to bring agriculture to ruin, they could not have acted otherwise than they have acted. I am one of those who have always been in favour of creating new industries in this country and creating them to an extent, perhaps, beyond what strict economic necessity would warrant, for the sake of their social effects and for the sake of providing more varied occupations for our people than have been provided for a century past. But it is simply absurd for the Minister to suppose that, by getting up and making the sort of dreary recital that he has made this evening, he can induce us to believe that he has proved the country is prosperous. The Minister lives, no doubt, in a universe of his own, and if the world came crashing about his ears it would leave him undismayed because he would not notice it. But it is simply astounding that he should expect people to sit and listen to him with serious faces when they are able to go round the country for themselves and see what the conditions really are.
What number of bankrupt countries in the world could not make the same boast that the Minister has made here to-night? If high tariffs and pure protection could save a country what country would not have been saved long since? Is not the Minister simply hastening noisily along the path that other failures have taken before him? Has there ever been a country in which there was less excuse for the kind of failure that he has led us into? What was there fundamentally wrong with the economic condition of this country? Were our imports altogether out of proportion to our exports? No. Taking into account invisible exports, the balance was pretty even. Was there ever a country more sure of being able to maintain and improve on that state of things than we were? Is there a doubt that if the Minister and his colleagues had done their duty at Ottawa—to go back once again to Ottawa, because it is something that we must always go back to—they could have obtained a securer position for the home farmer in the British market than he had ever enjoyed? Instead of England being engaged in making treaties with all sorts of foreign countries that are willing to take her exports which possibly she may no longer be able to send in here—and in exchange taking their agricultural products—we could have made a treaty, the outcome of which would be to increase the volume of our agricultural exports to England.
What did happen to the treaties that these countries did make in Ottawa?
What did happen was this, that the farmers of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland did not have their case fought, and if their case had been fought, and if they had stood together, the farmers of this country would have been put in a better position, permanently, than they had ever been in before. Now the Minister talked about people having moved from the positions that they used to occupy. What about himself and his colleagues? Have they not moved at all from the position that they used to occupy, and when we hear this unconvincing litany of their triumphs, what about their promises? I do not believe in going back, over and over again, on the past, but when the Minister gets up and makes a speech like that he simply forces us to remind him of the things that he and his colleagues promised the country. Has he forgotten that they had a plan ready for the cure of unemployment within a year? They published that in their election manifesto all over the country. Has he forgotten that they promised to relieve agricultural land of rates, and to relieve the farmers of the payment of their land annuities without any danger of an economic war? Has he forgotten that at the last election they promised that, if returned to power again, they could bring the economic war to an end at once? How many of those promises have been fulfilled, and how has the Minister the impudence to get up and make the speech that he has made here to-night about the accomplishments of his Government? Really it absolutely takes one's breath away.
I wish it would.
What impression has the Minister made on unemployment? Is he able to tell us that he has even sensibly reduced unemployment since he came into office? Have not his friends of the Labour Party recently said that unemployment was never so bad as it is to-day? What about the Government's promise to reduce expenditure by £2,000,000? We find instead that they have increased it by £6,000,000 or thereabouts. Was there ever a Government that was so wildly far away from all the things that they promised to do, and yet they are able to stand up and inflict on us the sort of self-complacency we have just had to listen to. I did not intend to go into these past matters at all this evening, because I am more interested in the future than in the past.
Naturally.
Will the Deputy please develop that remark?
There is no need to.
Is the Deputy afraid to stand up and explain?
Deputy MacDermot did say at one time that he sacrificed a lot for Ireland by losing certain promotion in the British Army that he otherwise would have got.
And the Deputy himself refused to buy "Nationality," because he feared that he would lose his job in the Department of Agriculture, in 1919.
I would much prefer to buy "Nationality" than some of the houses that Deputy Belton is trying to sell and cannot.
I have never boasted that I have sacrificed a lot for Ireland, and if I ever do have the honour of sacrificing a lot for Ireland I shall not boast about it. I want to try and elicit a little information to-night under two or three headings. First of all, in the matter of the preservation of ordered liberty in this country. I will make no excuse for reverting briefly to the speech which the President made here the other night on this subject in connection with what he described as private armies. He said:—
"If you have forces that follow army nomenclature on the one hand and an army organisation on the other hand, the Government are determined to see to it that armies of that sort, side by side, each fearing the other, using whatever the other does, are not going to be permitted to continue."
Does the President hold by that declaration, and, if so, would he state exactly what steps he has taken, or is going to take, to see that these armies are not to be permitted to continue? When the President says that he is against private armies in this country I am with him 100 per cent. There is no one in this House who has a greater dislike for militarism than I have. There is nobody in this House who is less inclined to glorify war than I am. There is far too much glorification of war and soldiering in this country. There has been too much war and soldiering and too much sham soldiering here as well. It would be a great blessing if we had not so many military metaphors from the Front Benches and so many allusions to the past military prowess of the Front Benches. War is a filthy business, and war such as we have in this country with the characteristics of civil war is an especially filthy business. The less glorification there is of it the better for the future of our country, and for the future of our young men. People who go about talking of the noble trade of arms, and the inspiring effect of the tramping of armed men, and using military metaphors about marching to victory, are talking nonsense, and mischievous nonsense, and the sooner we get away from militarism in every shape and form the better for everyone. What is remarkable is that, in spite of all our pressure, the President never developed this point of view with regard to private armies until a few weeks ago. Why has he developed it? When the A.C.A. was still the A.C.A., and already in Blue Shirts and berets, with ex-Ministers marching about in procession with them, the Government paid little or no attention. I might say that during that period the A.C.A., or some of them, were making speeches and declarations that personally I very much disliked. There were speeches and advertisements about starting to do in this country what the Black Shirts did for Italy. I strongly object to anything of that kind. If anyone in this House wants a dictatorship, certainly I do not.
When General O'Duffy took over, what happened? It is true that he gave the new organisation, or the old organisation, whichever you call it, a military sounding name. Frankly I wish he had not done so. At the same time, however, he proclaimed objects for that organisation which definitely took it out of the category of a private army. He declared it to be civilian in all its aims and methods. As far as I can make out, the military side of it is something to appeal to the young. I am very sorry that it seems to be necessary to appeal to the young by a military atmosphere of that kind. There seems to be, as far as one can judge from the declarations of those now responsible for control, less danger about that body than ever in the past. Therefore, I am unable to understand this hasty enrolling of extra police, and these rumours that are spread about with regard to gunpowder plots. The mystery and the sensation worked up during the last week with regard to the National Guard, and its possible activities, are to me incomprehensible and ridiculous. I hope before we adjourn for the holidays that the President will throw some light on what was passing through his mind and through the minds of his colleagues when they took these peculiar steps. Are they going to take steps to see that these private armies do not exist? What are those steps? As regards the I.R.A., do the steps they are going to take involve enrolling in the Government service every member of the I.R.A. as a paid servant of the State? Is that the plan? If so, will a similar offer be made to the other private army? If not, why not? What reason is there for treating one on a different basis to the other? The objects of the I.R.A. are, at least, as much open to suspicion as the objects of the National Guard—I would say very much more open to suspicion.
The President told us the other night, when asked to express his views on the I.R.A., that their movement was unnecessary, and that that was a truth which would soon penetrate into their minds. The reason it was unnecessary was because the objects they were after were going to be attained by him by peaceful means. Is that a proper answer to that organisation or to any organisation? Surely it is immaterial whether their objects are going to be attained. The point is that no one in this country has any business to go after any object except by peaceful means. If it cannot be attained by peaceful means, then it cannot be attained at all. That ought to be the attitude. I suggest that if the President is going to proceed by the method of reasoning kindly with the I.R.A., perhaps it is not a bad method. He might talk to them in a rather different strain. He might possibly point out that an illegitimate attempt to impose their will on the people by force is intolerable. He might mention the fact that if what they are after is a republic, there is nothing in the wide world to stop him from declaring a republic to-morrow, except, I should say in fairness, that he has pledged himself that he will not do so until he has consulted the people again. If he does consult them—whether at a general election or by referendum —he can declare a republic without let or hindrance from anyone. Should persons with the slightest common sense, then, go about brandishing arms as a method of arriving at that or any other object?
If I were an Englishman with no sympathy for Ireland—the kind of Englishman who had no particular sympathy for Ireland or particular interest in Ireland—I should be strongly in favour of the Irish Free State turning itself into a republic at the earliest possible moment because, as far as I can see, the English would have nothing whatever to lose by it. They are over-populated and hard-pressed for occupations for their sons and daughters. By excluding the very considerable number of people from this country who still go into the position in various parts of the Commonwealth and in England, they would have all the more openings for their own people. They are hard-pressed by the numbers of unemployed they have to provide for. No doubt it would be very agreeable to them to do what the Americans do, to deport from that country all persons of Irish birth who are unemployed, on the ground that they were not citizens of Great Britain. When they consider the situation in India, I should think it would be very satisfactory to them to have an object lesson, as it would be an object lesson, that the mere conversion of the Free State into a republic did not suddenly introduce an age of gold.
For my part, as a citizen of the State, as an Irishman, I believe quite firmly that the ultimate destiny of this country is within the British Commonwealth. I believe that the Border will go, and that we will be in the British Commonwealth, not as slaves, but as co-partners and as co-proprietors. I am certain that is the ultimate destiny of this country—though it may be long after my death, if the policy of the present Government continues. Even though that is my view of the ultimate destiny of the Free State I would derive considerable consolation from the immediate declaration of a republic if and when the President gets the verdict of the people. I cannot see how without the declaration of a republic, and the experience of a republic, we are ever going to de-bunk Irish politics, and God knows they need de-bunking.
The Deputy was not in the country when the republic was functioning.
On the Order Paper to-day we had a series of Bills presented for First Reading, which represents the last word in the Government's constitutional wisdom. This is their idea of giving more freedom and dignity to this nation. It is absolute and pitiable rubbish, not worth bestowing a moment's thought upon.
At the beginning of this session they assented to a motion that the primary object of every Irish Government ought to be the reunion of Ireland and every other constitutional consideration should be subordinate to that. To what extent have they implemented that motion? What have they done to promote the reunion of Ireland during the last six or seven months? The first thing they have got to do, if they want to promote the reunion of Ireland, is to put an end to quarrels with England and, besides putting an end to quarrels with England, putting an end to the sort of class antagonisms that their followers are never tired of raising all through the country and putting an end to the kind of allusions to the past and to the kind of reproaches about the past which, if justified, would turn men like Grattan, O'Connell and even Parnell himself into bad Irishmen. I never heard that O'Connell was reproached because he stood aloof from the rebellion of 1798 or that Parnell was reproached because he stood aloof from the activities of the Fenians.
Really, if this country is to come to anything, we must become a little more charitable and a little more broadminded. I would have no difficulty, if I wanted to do it, in formulating reproaches about some of the things that occurred in the years to which Deputies are so fond of alluding. I can assure Deputy Cleary or anybody of his type that it is not from timidity that I would refrain from making such allusions; rather would it be because I consider such allusions disruptive and unpatriotic. For Heaven's sake let us attribute the best motives to each other, whatever course we may have taken in the past. Until there is absolute proof that a man is unpatriotic, let us assume him to be patriotic.
I hope the President will give us a little more information about his attitude towards the so-called private armies, and a little more information about the extent to which the idea of a re-union in Ireland still carries weight with him. There are other matters I would also like to know about. The Government are fond of stocktaking. They have an opportunity now for a little stocktaking. During their holiday celebrations they will have an opportunity of stocktaking and examining their consciences. Have they given up even considering the possibility of finding ways and means wherewith to bring to an end the economic conflict with England? I am not going over ground travelled a hundred times already. It is apparent from speeches that we read in the papers and rumours that we hear round and about that a friendly arrangement by negotiation with England is practically out of the question, because it involves some assurance with regard to our constitutional relations that the Government are unwilling to give. If I am wrong in that I am open to correction. At any rate, that is what I gather to be the state of affairs. If that is so, is it really impossible to go back to the other method, the method of arbitration?
I have never believed that we were as far apart on the question of arbitration as Government spokesmen have been inclined to make out unless on the assumption that the Government do not want arbitration at all and are refusing to come to close quarters on the question. If they want arbitration, is it not really possible that the thing can be achieved? Suppose to-morrow they appointed two Irish citizens to represent us, and asked the British to appoint two British citizens to represent them, and then left the question of a chairman to be settled by those four people on the basis that a few from within the Commonwealth could be selected and a few from without the Commonwealth could be selected. Let us say there would be six names from within and without the Commonwealth, all of which would be unanimously agreed upon by the four people as suitable, fair and able men. One man's name could then be drawn out of the hat. When I first spoke of the economic war in this House I ventured the statement that it would be more sensible to settle the whole land annuity question by tossing a coin than by having an economic war about it. I felt exactly the same about the European War in 1914. For some reason or other it is thought to be a childish thing to trust anything to chance, whereas if you are pigheaded enough to bring your country to ruin it is not regarded as childish at all. I suggest, if the Government have to rule out an arrangement by friendly negotiation on the ground that we cannot expect to be treated as one of a family unless we belong to that family, they should explore again the method of arbitration and see if something cannot be achieved on those lines.
The Government are fond of suggesting that everybody who opposes them is insincere in his opposition, and that we are all anxious to see them fail. That accusation has been extended not only to the official opposition but to my colleagues and myself. I know no way of proving the contrary to people who do not want to believe; but I cannot pass by in silence such accusations as were made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to-night. I, therefore, want to say most categorically, and I will allow anyone to reproach me for it afterwards if I ever act in a manner contrary to the spirit of the declaration, that not only have I frequently and almost officiously offered assistance to the Government in the past in matters connected with this dispute with England, but in those matters now and in any efforts of a constructive nature that the Government may make, I shall conscientiously refrain from unreasonable and dishonest criticism, and I shall do my very best to help them on in any enterprise that I regard as being for the good of this country.
We have had to-night a very interesting speech delivered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He went to an enormous amount of trouble to explain to the House that the imports into this State were falling off. He went through a very long category of things which he said are no longer being imported. Of course, the imports of this State are falling off. What else could happen except that the imports of the State would fall off? But to say that the imports have fallen off and that the home market is providing the same proportionate quantity of goods to be purchased is absolutely a different matter. There can be no question about it that the Government have succeeded in reducing this State and every person in the State to a condition of poverty such as has not happened within living memory, such as the people of the State have not had to endure within the memory of any living person. That is a matter which no man can dispute. Nobody who looks at this State and regards the condition of the inhabitants fairly and not through prejudiced eyes can deny that the country is poorer now than it has been in living memory. And because this country has been reduced to that condition of poverty, of course there is a falling off in the purchasing power of the people.
When by your economic war you have reduced the farmers of this country to a state of abject poverty, then of course, you have killed purchasing power in this State. It follows and flows from that that the home market is gone, and therefore it can neither absorb the amount of imported stuff it used to absorb nor can it absorb any largely increased amount of home produce. That is obvious and plain, and it is happening everywhere. As to all these millions of pounds that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was so glibly talking about, if all these millions were now employed in the purchasing of Irish goods how could it happen that the figures of unemployment would be increasing and steadily increasing? How is it, with all these millions of pounds of a reduction in imports, that we have our workers flung out of employment and out of wages? How is it, after all this talk about millions, that we have no increase of employment? Any increase of employment that you can show is an increase of employment amongst girls and lowly paid workers.
If there is this great increase of prosperity, and as the Minister for Industry and Commerce says, "we have settled this and we have settled that and we have settled the other thing," how does it come that the figures of those in receipt of home assistance have already reached such appalling dimensions, and that they are going up month by month at an appalling rate? We have month by month 10,000 extra persons going upon home assistance in this State which is supposed to be flourishing and which, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has now been put upon a sound basis. Everybody in the State, we are told, is happy, well-off and rich. But every month a population equivalent to the population of the very largest of our country towns is being added to the number who are receiving home assistance.
In the face of facts and figures like that, what is the use of asking this House to believe that the State is getting rich, and that it is getting rich because these imports have fallen off? That was the whole tenor of the speech delivered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as far as he attempted to be apologetic for the Government at all. Of course, he spent a good deal of his time attacking the Opposition. We do not care for the Minister's attacks. They leave us quite unmoved. We know that the Minister is a gentleman of a flippant disposition with a flippant wit, and we do not in the slightest mind his attacks. We would be rather disappointed if from time to time the dulness of Fianna Fáil oratory was not enlivened by the flippancies, possibly the cheap flippancies, of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
There is one thing that the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not attempt to deal with and that was what was contained in the major portion of Deputy Cosgrave's speech. Deputy Cosgrave pointed out that there were promises made that agriculture was going to thrive and flourish under Fianna Fáil and that instead of thriving and flourishing it has been reduced to its present terrible position. The Minister for Industry and Commerce made no reference at all to that when he was on his feet. He made no attempt to gainsay what Deputy Cosgrave had said. On the question of the agricultural conditions in this country the Minister for Industry and Commerce was silent and from his point of view rightly silent. There was nothing to be said and it was better for him, he considered, to say nothing. But we have what is plain for every man to see, the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party as shown by its fruits. We see that policy in the only way by which it can be best seen and that is by its fruits.
We know that millions of money, the property of the State and of the ratepayers and taxpayers of this State, have been taken out of their pockets, have been spent by the Ministry and there is nothing to show for that expenditure. We see that money is being wasted and that the State is compelling the private individual to live upon his capital. The Government of this State is wasting the capital of this State. But the Ministry have determined not to be satisfied even with wasting the capital of the State. The Ministry are also wasting the moral resources of the State. Fianna Fáil have done a lot of terribly bad things; they have done a lot of noxious things and have done a lot of them deliberately. They have done a lot of material harm to this State but in nothing is Fianna Fáil so blameworthy as in the way in which they have set themselves to work to demoralise the people of this State. They have done many wrong and bad things, but the things for which posterity will most condemn them, is for the way in which they have set themselves to work to lower the tone of this State and to lower the conditions of the people in this State regarded from the moral point of view.
You have got people in this State who are industrious and hard-working and the Government has simply set to work and has endeavoured to bribe them. You have given them relief works when it became necessary by your action and on these relief works there was nothing whatsoever to be done and these people were not called upon to do any work. Some of you Deputies have told them openly in this House "it is no use to work upon your land; your land can never be made pay." You have done every single thing that you can do to turn industrious hard-working people into idle people looking for their support not to the fruits of their hands on their own lands but looking to Government doles, to home assistance and things like that. That is not the only way in which you have demoralised the people. You have deliberately told the people of this State that defiance of this State and defiance of the laws of this State are the things that pay.
You have got in this State now an established body which despises the institutions of the State, despises or at any rate professes to despise the Executive of this State and what it stands for, and that body of men are the complete masters of the Executive Council. They tell the Executive Council what they wish them to do and meekly and humbly the Executive Council obeys. Do you want to know what is the next step the Executive Council is going to take? If you want to know what their next step is read An Phoblacht and you will have a very fair idea of what is going to be done. The I.R.A., through its organ, demand certain things from the Executive Council and every single thing that they have demanded the Executive Council with meekness and that pusillanimity which is the keynote of its character immediately accedes to their request.
General O'Duffy is disliked by them. "He must go," is their cry, and because the I.R.A. demanded it he goes. Exactly the same happened with Colonel Neligan. They are not satisfied with the Department of Justice. A solicitor, who was their standing solicitor, must be taken and put in as secretary of that Department. One of their number, a man named Dempsey, was charged and refused to recognise the court. An Phoblacht demands his release and he is released. As to how far that release was actually dictated to the Minister's predecessor by armed men I do not know. I do know that it was commonly stated and believed by most people that it was so dictated. It has been so stated in this House, at any rate, and it has not been denied. We know this much anyhow, that the Minister's predecessor did not carry out in toto, though he did to some extent, the orders that the I.R.A. gave him, and he had, at any rate, the manliness to refuse to hold an office in which he could not function, could not discharge the duties of the office as the duties of the office ought to be discharged, because no man holding the post of Minister for Justice should allow himself to be the mere puppet of any persons outside the House, and that is what we have in the present Minister for Justice. “This man must go; that other man must go; we want this, we want that, and we want the other,” and the Minister for Justice does what he is told.
He came into the House the other day to explain the extraordinary action of what he called taking stock of the arms in the country—taking stock of the arms of persons who had these arms legitimately because, in the opinion of the Guards, they required them. Does he go to the I.R.A. to take stock of their arms? Not at all. I should like to see the Minister for Justice facing the I.R.A. and saying: "I want a list of your arms." It was stated here the other night that there ought to be no arms left with the I.R.A., because Cumann na nGaedheal had ten years in which they could have collected those arms. Cumann na nGaedheal did collect a great deal of those arms and found a great number of dumps. I should like to know how many dumps the Guards have found since Fianna Fáil came into office. Either directly or indirectly they have been told not to search for those arms, or they know that if they found those arms, instead of being rewarded for doing their duty they would be punished by the persons who ought to reward them. There must be some cause of that nature, because no dumps of arms have been discovered since Fianna Fáil came into office. Look at the opportunities they had, and have still, in comparison with the opportunities Cumann na nGaedheal had got. When the Ministers opposite were in opposition I again and again stated to the present Minister for Defence and to the present Minister for Industry and Commerce: "One of you was the so-called Chief of Staff of the I.R.A., and the other was the so-called Minister for Defence. You were determined to upset then, if you could, by force of arms, this State and its institutions."
When there was an order to dump these arms nobody could have known better than Mr. Lemass, as he then was, and Mr. Aiken, as he then was, what arms there were and where they were placed. Have they ever told the Minister for Justice what they know about the arms, what quantity of arms were dumped and where they are to be found? They had every opportunity. That is information which they can give to the Minister for Justice, information which they most certainly would give if there was any desire on the part of the Executive Council to collect arms from the I.R.A. But, of course, there is not. There is no such desire, even though they know that that armed body is a body which has been condemned by the Church in Ireland and by the heads of the Church— that body and its associate body, Saor Eire; even though they know that body is there planning to establish not a republic of the type that Deputy MacDermot talked about, but a republic of the Soviet type. That is the type of republic which they are seeking to establish and which they have armed themselves and are arming themselves in an attempt to establish in this State. Though you know all that, though you profess to regard yourselves as Ministers in a Christian State, yet you allow these bodies to arm themselves for the express purpose of upsetting the present established Christian social order, and, instead of facing them, you humbly do their behests, because you are wanting in courage and dare not face them.
Then another body arises. We had mention of it to-night. Of course, such another body had to arise. Anybody who knows this country knows that another body would have to arise, that you had made that inevitable. Do you think that in a country like this, with the traditions behind it which this country has got, the young men who have been reared in Irish and Catholic traditions are going to allow themselves and to allow their State to be trampled upon by persons whose aims, objects and desires are so completely antagonistic to everything that they and their fathers held dear? Of course, they have joined together; of course there has been a wonderful spontaneous movement of the young men of this country who are determined that they will keep this country a Catholic country. That is what their association is. That is what the National Guard is. It is the spontaneous rising up of men, determined that the forces organised against Christianity and Catholicism, in this city, shall not be the only forces organised. If the forces of disruption are going to be organised, then there are going, also, to be organised forces that stand for the present preservation of society. But the Government are brave against them. They are an unarmed body, and the Government talks a terrible amount about them. They get suddenly brave as regards them, and then we see such things as we have seen lately.
I asked the Minister for Justice to-day about this new armed force that has been organised. He said it is not a new armed force; it is merely recruiting to make up the ordinary strength of the Civic Guards. Some time ago the Minister for Justice informed me that there were 2,000 Guards too many when the Cumann na nGaedheal Party were in office. Now he is going to have more Guards than there were at any time from the time that I became Minister. He is going to increase the force which he said was 2,000 too many some time ago. I said on a previous occasion that it was perfectly obvious that it was the intention of the Government to recruit for the Gárda this year. "No," said the Minister, "it is not our intention to recruit until the Guards have fallen in numbers." Why then this sudden recruiting? Why this parade of sending armed guards into Leinster House? What is the meaning of this force? The only armed body that could attack this House is an armed body that wishes to upset by force of arms the Constitution of the State. Are these armed Guards all over the place here to defend this House against the I.R.A.? They are not. If the I.R.A. wanted to attack this House I do not believe the Executive Council would stop them. Who then are these men? What loyal body is there in this city that would require these extra men hurriedly collected together? Of course, we have not been told. We have been left to gather, especially from the English newspapers, which I suppose have got the information through some Government Department, that this armed force was brought in here to prevent unarmed men—the National Guard—from seizing Leinster House. Is there one single Minister or Deputy follower of Ministers who is not moved to tears of laughter at an explanation of that kind? Does the Minister think that that sort of explanation is going to carry conviction to one single person in this country?
It would be a very interesting matter to learn where were these armed men collected from. We challenge the Minister to say whether they were recruited in the ordinary way. He cannot get up and say they were. There are regulations laid down by virtue of which certain things have to be gone through, and certain formulas have to be observed which could not have been gone through here, before a man could be legally attested as a member of the Civic Guards. I challenged the Minister as to whether these things had been gone through, and he could not say that they had. I challenge the Minister here, and now, to say if these regulations have been carried out in respect of the new recruits. I challenge him to say if each new recruit has been recommended by the chief superintendent of the district in which he lives. That is laid down in the regulations. I challenge the Minister for Justice to say if each one has been examined by a doctor and found to be medically fit, as laid down in the regulations. I challenge him to say is each one of them between the legal ages of 18 and 27, or are some of them considerably over that age, and how many of them have passed the Civil Service examination, which must be passed, before they can be legally attested members of the Guards. I would like to know these things and to have a specific answer upon each of them, but the Minister dodged giving any answer to these matters at question time to-day.
There is one person, and one person only, in this State, who can select recruits for the Civic Guards. That is the Commissioner. He is absolutely supreme in this matter. The Minister did not deny that to-day, when I put a question to him. I said to him to-day—and this appeared in the newspapers—that these new recruits were selected by Deputy Traynor, and not by the Commissioner, and the Minister could not contradict that statement. It is a statement which, if untrue, should not have been made and, no doubt, would have been contradicted the very moment it appeared, by the Department of Justice. Of course it would. But it has not been contradicted here in this House, and we now know that the Commissioner recently appointed is considered by the Minister for Justice incompetent to perform the important duty of selecting those who are to be recruited to the Guards, and that the work that should be discharged by the Commissioner of the Guards has been delegated, by the Department of Justice to a Fianna Fáil Deputy.
That is the way the law is observed. I said in the beginning of my speech that I considered that, bad as I thought the economic policy of the Government was, much ruin and misery as I thought they had brought upon this State, yet in nothing have they done so much harm as they have done in demoralising the people of the State by putting the forces of disorder above the law. After all, no matter how poor we may be, there is always the hope that once this Government goes, and sane people get into command of the forces of the State, it may be, slowly and painfully, but, at any rate, finally achieved that we will get back to the position of prosperity that we were in two or three years ago. Financial losses may be overcome and recouped, but there is one thing that it is terribly hard to get back, that it is almost impossible to get back, and that is the morale of a people that have been once demoralised. This is the great and serious injury which you have done, an injury which would be an irreparable one except that the people of this State have been determined that no matter what you may do to terrorise them, no matter how you may strive to demoralise them, they will not be demoralised, and when you put them in danger they are determined to save themselves.
I listened with quite considerable interest to the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to-night. The more I listened to the speech of the Minister the more I was reminded of the defence of the small timid boy, who whistled in the dark in order that he might still his fears. It seemed to me that in spite of the buoyancy, largely artificial, which was displayed by the Minister, there were streaks of despair and patches of cold feet in the industrial policy upon which the Minister has mainly relied so far. We were told by the Minister of what had been accomplished by the tariffs. We were told of the extent to which certain industries were supplying the home market. We were told by the Minister, for instance, in relation to confectionery, that the imports had dropped enormously, and that the home factories were now supplying practically the whole of the home market. The amount of employment in that connection was something which apparently pleased the Minister extremely, but in this House, on the 11th July last, the Minister stated that the number of additional persons who had secured employment in the confectionery trade, including the sugar and jam trades, was 151 for the previous 18 months.
He did not say that.
Perhaps the Minister did not say that——
It was his deputy said it.
——but figures can in any case be obtained to show that in respect of this particular industry only 151 extra persons secured employment during the previous 18 months. I wonder at what rates of wages did the 151 extra people secure employment?
The same as in the sausage factory.
It seemed to me that the buoyancy of the Minister might well have been leavened with some sense of reality, some sense of responsibility, and, indeed, some kind of knowledge of the real position of industry and unemployment by somebody who is able now, as the Minister was in other days, to devote some time to consideration first hand of what the real position in the country is. The Minister's speech showed that his mind was the mind of an enthusiastic tariff reformer, but his own figures give no consolation whatever, and no justification whatever for the apparent clear and sole dependence of the Government upon tariffs as a means of producing industrial regeneration.
On the 11th July, 1933 the Acting-Minister for Industry and Commerce supplied this House with certain information as to the number of persons engaged in 18 industrial or manufacturing groups. Those 18 industrial groups ranged over tobacco, boots and shoes, soaps and candles, coach and motor bodies, confectionery, brush-making, shirts and collars, spinning, hosiery and knitted goods, wholesale clothing, furniture, margarine, and woollens and worsteds, many of the principal industries of the country. I find that in respect of those 18 industries an additional 2,465 persons secured employment during the previous 18 months. Let us remember that at some portion of that time at least 100,000 people were registered as unemployed, but that in five cases in respect of those particular industries there was actually a fall of 771 in the number employed, notwithstanding the multiplied tariffs in operation under the Government's policy.
If one takes the trouble to examine the real position a good deal of interesting information is presented to one. The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated this evening that in respect of the wearing apparel trade the progress made had more than exceeded his expectations. I do not know what the Minister's expectations were in the first instance. If his expectations were to ruin employment in the trade it seems to me that those expectations are near realisation, because—again according to the information supplied by the Minister's own Department—there are 490 less persons employed in the wholesale clothing industry to-day than were employed on the 30th September 1931. Yet the Minister stated this evening that the progress made in that respect more than exceeded his expectations. It seems to me that any Minister who makes statements of that kind is completely divorced from any practical knowledge of the real position in industry. There is no justification on the face of those figures, those unchallengeable figures published by the Minister's own Department, for the buoyancy, and indeed to some extent the flippant buoyancy, displayed by the Minister this evening. I certainly could find no reason to share that buoyancy with him. I can certainly find no reason to be satisfied with the statistics in those 18 trades. I am sure the Minister on cool reflection, and his colleagues in the Executive Council, if they take the trouble to ask the Minister to give them the figures for March, 1933 and September, 1931 in respect of tariffed industries, will find poor consolation from reading those figures.
There is another example that is well worth quoting. It ought to be an object lesson to the present Minister for Industry and Commerce; it ought to be a sign post to show him the direction in which he is proceeding. Again, quoting from the Minister's own figures, I find that there are 20 less persons employed to-day in the brush-making industry than were employed in September, 1931. I would ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to find out to what extent the output has increased in that particular industry with less hands employed to-day than were employed in 1931. I had actual experience of that industry. I know the position of the workers engaged in that industry. I know the complaints of the workers engaged in it. You find to-day that a lesser number of people in the brush-making industry are producing at least four times the output they produced two years ago. Now we get some idea of the picture with which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is satisfied. It seems to me that the Minister this evening is making a very good capitalist out of himself. The Minister's speech this evening was the speech of one who wanted effcient capitalism even if it meant very little humanity.
To purport to believe that he can be satisfied with less people employed when production is being increased by four times what it was two years ago, seems to me to be a lamentable exhibition of the Minister's feelings on the matter, as is his attempt to balance production with the human needs of the people engaged in the industry or unemployed, because industry is being run on highly mechanised lines to-day. One thing I was tempted to ask the Minister during his speech but I refrained from doing so lest I might let loose a cat amongst the industrial pigeons trotted out this evening. It seems to me that the Minister imagines that all we have got to do is to supply the whole of the home market and then everything will be well. That kind of mentality seems to be as "daft" as a halfpenny watch—to imagine that once you supply the home market everything in the garden will be lovely. I want to ask the Minister and some of his colleagues in the Executive Council who will participate in the debate on what grounds there is any justification for pinning our faith to the belief that when we are supplying our own home market, under the existing systems of society, currency and credit, we are going to get prosperity and the industrial and economic wealth that some people so glibly talk about. If supplying the whole home market could bring prosperity many countries in the world would be reeking with prosperity to-day. In America we find a country that can supply in little more than half the year, all its needs for its home requirements. There is no question of anybody invading the American market. The American manufacturers have the market to themselves. They supply in seven months of the year all the home requirements for the year. Yet we have 12,000,000 unemployed in that country to-day.
It seems to me that even if you reach the stage here where you can supply all your own home requirements, you will still be a long way from solving the unemployment problem. You will still be a long way from giving to the people of the country that prosperity and economic security to which, in my view, they have an inalienable right. Only a person with the most elementary notions of economics, only a person with the most amateurish visions of industrial and economic practice, could possibly be so foolish as to imagine that our economic ills will be solved and disappear automatically once we supply our home market with all the commodities which our people require. The Minister's speech this evening gave me the impression, at all events, that he was the dutiful child of the capitalist system of society, the dutiful imbiber of the capitalist philosophy. His flamboyancy this evening gave me the impression, at all events, that he was impregnated with a new enthusiasm for a false, and what, I have no hesitation in predicting here to-night, will be a very ephemeral faith. In my opinion there can be no solution of the unemployment problem so long as you have a system where the exploitation of the many in the interest of the few is the only impetus to producing goods. So long as you have such a system, you will inevitably have unemployment, misery, poverty and destitution, because that system can only survive by keeping the many in poverty and destitution in order that the few may walk off with the commercial swag.
The Minister told us of the many new industries that were being established. He told us of the new industries he hopes to establish. I wonder why the Minister did not produce an industrial balance sheet in this particular connection? As a result of the imposition of tariffs, certain financial interests who want high dividends on their money, high dividends on money surplus to their own personal requirements, in order that they may store and store and store, come into the country and unloose their money in one way or another in starting industries. The Minister speaks of the number of people put into employment, but not one word did he say about the rate of wages they get, not one word about the age of the people who go into these factories, not one word as to whether the factory is in a main street or in a hygienic building, not one word about the fact that many of the so-called factories might be put in inverted commas, as I said here before, when reference was made to them. They are in kitchens, cellars, basements, lofts and in back lanes, the workers existing under conditions that even in ancient Babylon would have excited condemnation.
The Minister takes no stock of the position, as to what is happening in any field of activity. The Minister talked about the progress that was being made in the milling industry. I am sorry the Minister is not in the House until I would put one simple question to him. Perhaps some of his colleagues would be good enough to probe this. Though there is now prohibition of the import of flour, and though we are doing all our milling in the country to-day, there is one big mill in this city which has enormously increased its output as a result of the prohibition of the importation of flour, and I challenge the Minister to deny that concurrently with the substantial increase in production in that mill there has been a very substantial reduction in staff. What is happening seems to be happening unknown to the Minister. The Minister, with the aid of tariffs, is assisting the small huckstering manufacturer to establish himself in kitchens, in lofts, in back lanes, under appalling conditions, sweating people and not merely sweating adults but sweating children. That is happening in the small and inefficient factory, and the efficient manufacturer is installing machinery, the man who employed 20 people for the one who found juvenile employment in back lanes, kitchens and lofts with the inefficient manufacturer. The man who could pay decent rates of wages is introducing machinery and sentencing to economic death two and three times the number of people who have secured child wages in the child farms and in the sweating shops that are being established as a result of tariffs.
And in Dublin too. What about decentralisation of industry?
We have statements in the paper each week almost that the number of registered unemployed this week was less than last week. I want to commend the prudence which the editorial staff of the Irish Press displayed some time ago when they seriously warned their readers not to take it that this actually meant a drop in the number of unemployed in the country. These were very wise words, and a copy of that particular issue of the paper might well be sent to those people who suffer from excessive buoyancy, because to-day even on the Government's own admission we have 57,000 people registered as unemployed at the local labour exchanges. I venture to say that if you announced in this House to-day that another £1,000,000 would be made available for every county in the country, and that it would be distributed on the basis of the number of unemployed registered, that that figure would go up from 57,000 to not less than 100,000, because in my view —and I might as well be frank; there is no use in burying our heads in the sands—the unemployment problem to-day—I have no hesitation in saying it, because we gain nothing by dodging facts—is as serious as it was 12 months or two years ago. I said before that I do not believe it is possible to cure the unemployment problem under a system of society that is as mad as it is outworn. Even without asking the Government to adopt another system of society— although the present President, in one of his sensible and more revolutionary moments once said that he would have no hesitation in going outside the present system if it was necessary to do so—without asking them to adopt a radical alteration in the existing system, much could be done to help the problem of unemployment. Here, perhaps, I might ask the President at what time or in what year he expects to make up his mind whether the present system will give him the industrial regeneration he expects to have. We have seen the effects of the Government's policy in the clothing industry, in the brush-making industry, in the soap and candle industry, and we have seen the generally poor results of relying on tariffs in stimulating industry. My complaint is that the Government has no organised plan whatever behind its industrial policy. They have no push behind their policy and no scientific drive. I will concede that there is plenty of enthusiasm, but a bear in a china shop can be very enthusiastic without being very effective.
Except in breaking the china.
My point is that while each Minister is trying to prove that he is a very efficient Minister in his own Department, there is no national thinking-box in existence thinking out national policy. If any member of the Government comes along to say that there is a thinking-box and that it has been in operation for the past 18 months it is presuming too much on our credulity altogether when we have the Dáil sitting four days a week and sometimes all night, to suggest that they are doing anything except in the sense of remembering what they are losing by this business. The Government has no thinking-box, no industrial plan. It seems to me that they are just travelling from one policy to another, from one piece of legislation to another, patching up here and there, and bolstering up generally, the rents in the capitalistic system of society which have not been patched in other countries in the world and which will not be patched even with Fianna Fáil cloth and thread.
It is time that some members of the Fianna Fáil Party, who are not wholly innoculated with the policy of capitalism, should say something to the Executive Council which, perhaps, the Executive Council would take in a more friendly fashion than from these benches. It is time that some such members should suggest that the Government should take up their oars from the sea, and instead of rowing here and there, sit down in the boat and think out a plan and then have the courage and the vision to put that plan into operation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce talked with a good deal of flippancy about what might happen in this State industrially if certain things were done, as if working in factories and workshops was the beginning and end of all human happiness—as if working for 10/- and 12/- a week and being exploited by capitalists at that wage was something to be aimed at. The Minister, however, was significantly silent this evening as to what the Government's industrial plans were. There was not a word from the Minister as to the hours of labour to be worked in these industries, or about the labour to be employed in these factories, or about the extent to which machinery in these new factories is displacing human labour and condemning that human labour to the industrial scrap-heap. There was not a word from him as to what the currency policy of the Government was, or as to what the credit policy of the Government was, or as to what the Government proposed to do in respect of banking, currency and credit; though every thinking member of the Fianna Fáil Party must realise that these problems are at the root of every scheme of industrial and agricultural regeneration, especially in a small country such as this. Recently, the Minister for Lands and Fisheries was sent to America on some mission or other. I have no doubt that he did his duty very well while there and I think he has gained considerably by the fact that he probably had an opportunity of reading, while in America, some of the schemes which even that Mecca of capitalism, that economic madhouse of capitalism, is finding it necessary to devise for the protection of its own people. I would not mind sitting here until 6 o'clock to-morrow and voting for an amendment to send the whole of the Executive Council to America in order that they could stay there and study at first hand some of the methods being employed, not in a country where the Government talks about the revolutionary methods that the Fianna Fáil Party talks about, but in a country where the capitalistic system predominates. If they studied the affairs in that country I doubt whether the Government, which is so revolutionary at election times, would even have the courage to follow in the footsteps of what the Americans have found it necessary to do in the interests of their own people. Speaking recently on the subject of his proposals to try to assist America to recover from the economic depression which had swept that country with such appalling consequences the President of the United States said:—
"In my inaugural address I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me equally plain that no business which depends for its existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By business I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers— the white-collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level—I mean the wages of decent living."
That is a pretty sound philosophy which might be studied profitably, and which, more effectively, could be acted upon by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Ask Deputy Flinn.
Recently the London Times, a responsible Press organ, discussing the way that American employers were likely to look upon President Roosevelt's proposals in his endeavour to restore prosperity to American industry, pointed out that the President could, under his Industrial Recovery Act, “compel all businesses to secure federal licences without which they would be forbidden to operate.” It pointed out that the Industrial Recovery Act empowers the President of the United States to “fix minimum wages and maximum hours per industrial employee.” Here in the Board of Works we find that, instead of minimum rates of wages being fixed, there is a definite instruction to pay less wages than even those paid in the most debased industry in the country to-day. The following quotation from the London Times of the 11th July will not be wasted on the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Referring to the activities of President Roosevelt under what it describes as the “Cotton Code” of the Industrial Recovery Act, it says: “The new Code establishes a maximum working week of 40 hours, prohibits the employment of persons under 16, fixes a minimum weekly wage of 12 dollars in the Southern mills and 13 dollars in the Northern mills... it will have the effect of raising the average wages in the textile industry by about 30 per cent. and reducing working hours by more than 25 per cent.” The Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Minister for Finance in particular, might take special notice of that, because instead of fixing minimum rates of wages and reducing working hours and attempting to raise wages in industry by 30 per cent., we find the Minister for Finance, the chief purse-holder of the Executive Council, enforcing wage reductions on persons in the Post Office service who have less than 20/- per week on which they are expected to rear a family and maintain them in ordinary decency and comfort. £1 per week is very much less than £300 or £400 per annum referred to by the President in his famous speech in the Rathmines town hall last year when he said that £300 or £400 a year was only just adequate for the support and education of a family. Yet we find the Executive Council, through the mouthpiece of the Minister for Finance, actually slashing wages in the Post Office which amount to less than £1 per week, and on this a man is expected to maintain his wife and five or six children in a state that, we are told, is shaping towards a Christian social policy.
We did not hear one single word from the Minister for Industry and Commerce this evening about any plan which the Government have in mind. We have no indication from the Minister as to the Government's policy to create a credit bank, to deal with working hours, rationalisation, or any attempt to generate here a planned economic, industrial and agricultural life. The most noticeable thing about the speech of the Minister this evening was not so much what was in it as what was left out of it. I hope that somebody on the Government Benches will attempt to repair that omission and give the country some indication, as the country is entitled to expect, especially in an economic crisis, as to where it is going and for what reason it is going there. If the country is going to be asked to row in the boat, it ought to know where the boat is being driven to. I do not want merely to indulge in condemnation of the apparent inability of the Government to put up any kind of a systematised plan to restore the prosperity of the country. It seems to me though, without asking the Executive Council to commit what I feel would be the unpardonable sin of getting away from the capitalist system of society, that they might do much more than they are doing in the way of endeavouring to restore prosperity to the country. What we need to-day, firstly, is a national thinking-box, a piece of machinery which will think and plan and order and get things done with reasonable expedition. Will anybody attempt to say that that is being done to-day, or that the Government's housing policy is being carried out with the expedition that it ought to be? If any divine prophet were to come amongst us here to-night and tell us that in six months' time the inhabitants of every insanitary house would be poisoned by some particular fumes which would penetrate into these insanitary dwellings, because they were insanitary, would we lose through sheer indulgence and inactivity the opportunity of saving those people by our inability to build decent houses for them? The Government needs a thinking-box and it needs a plan. If it gets that, then I shall have more faith in the future development of its policy than I have now, but I see no reason to have faith in a Government that seems to me to be without what is essential in every intelligent organism, namely, some piece of machinery to enable one to see where that organism is going. A human being cannot walk the streets inteligently without the use of his intellect. The Government is attempting to give the country an intelligent life without the capacity to know in what direction it wants to order that intelligent life.
I would suggest to the Government that it ought to set up that thinking box immediately, and that it ought to charge it with the responsibility of overhauling our credit system, and especially with the responsibility of putting up a suitable plan for the creation of new money, not against a commodity which we have not got, but against the newly-created capital assets of the nation. I would charge that thinking box with the responsibility for carrying out on specially created credits a comprehensive scheme of public works to solve our housing problem, to provide decent sanitation and water schemes in all our towns and villages, and generally to take steps to lift our country out of the web of decay and misery which unfortunately hangs over many of the rural portions of our country to-day. I would tell that national thinking box especially that there is no justification for the roseate view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and to get on with a scheme for reducing the hours of labour in industry.
When asked recently to consider a scheme for forty-eight hours per week in American industry, General Johnson, who is administering the Industrial Recovery Act there, told a deputation which waited upon him that a forty-eight hour week was so long that he would not even consider it. That national thinking box ought to be told that there is no reason whatever, especially with the development of machinery, why people should be condemned to work for long hours per week while other sections of the community are denied the opportunity of work at all. Primitive man only worked when there was a scarcity. To-day we have a surplus, at least an unconsumable surplus, and we have highly intelligent modern man working for long hours, notwithstanding that unconsumable surplus. That national thinking box ought to be told to get rid of child labour in factories at once, and to bring in proposals for raising the school leaving age. It ought to be told, too, to bring in proposals for a comprehensive high wage policy which would enable our people to purchase the products of our own industries instead of being compelled to waste the best years of their lives depending on home assistance or cursing the inability of the Government to satisfy them with their human needs.
I would like some member of the Executive Council to say definitely what system of society they stand for. Clearly they are not standing for any comprehensive code of Christian social principles, because of the unemployment problem we have in our midst. The existence of slums, poverty, misery and squalor is a negation of Christianity, and the continued existence of these evils is a perversion of every Christian social principle worthy of the name. I suggest to the Executive Council that they should not presume too long upon the inherent sternness and resoluteness of our people, in the face of any foreign challenge against our independence, and against our economic liberty. If that were the only challenge to be met, the only problem we were confronted with, it might be easy to solve it. We have that challenge on the one hand, and we have a pauperised land on the other hand. The Government would fail utterly in its duty if it did not use the British challenge to our economic and political liberty as a means of building up here a system of society which will make our nation for all time invulnerable to any challenge, whether by Britain or any other nation which may seek to dominate over us. I advise the Government not to presume too long on the sympathy and the credulity of our people. I advise them to use the interval in thinking, and in thinking hard, and to come back when the Dáil reassembles, and to put before it some comprehensive plan for bringing into existence here the Christian social policy which was so much talked about at election times. After all, while freedom is a thing highly to be prized, not because it is an end in itself, but because it is a means to an end, what is the use of having secured freedom from foreign domination, if it only means freedom to starve in our own land, because we prefer to follow the social and the industrial policies pursued by those from whose thraldom we have escaped?
Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, before getting on to what always seems to him to be his great treasure, the I.R.A., dealt with a few matters in regard to the Department of Justice. He mentioned that it had been the policy of that Department for some time to proceed to move officials and to plant others there. He referred to the removal of General O'Duffy. I hope before I conclude to be able to prove that the removal was in the best interests of all. The Deputy mentioned that a solicitor was placed in the position of Secretary to the Department. I think at that time the Deputy was arguing against his present policy and may not be aware that that particular person had been Secretary of the Department at another time. The Deputy may not be aware also that that person was offered a position by the late Executive. Any changes that have been made have been made in what was considered to be in the best interests of the administration of the Department. It was stated in this House on a previous occasion that the previous Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan, had been approached by armed men. I do not know where that information came from. All I can do is to give it an unequivocal denial.
Will he give that denial himself?
I am quite certain he will.
I would like to hear it.
The Deputy will have an opportunity of hearing it. I am giving it now. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney talked about the I.R.A. and the danger to the institutions of the State. He then proceeded to say that as a result of the actions and attitude of the I.R.A. it was inevitable that there would be formed in this country spontaneously an organisation which, he said, is out to fight for Catholicity. He pointed out that it was only an unarmed body. I want to tell the House very definitely, and very clearly—and the information might be given to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney by some of his colleagues who were associated with the A.C.A. formerly, now the National Guard—that it is a very heavily-armed Guard.
Does the Minister say that this body is armed without the permission of the State?
I will read a report for the Deputy. This is it:—
"The organisation has the support of the members of the late Government, the most active being General Mulcahy. Mr. Blythe supports the organisation through the medium of the United Irishman.
"The majority of Cumann na nGaedheal T.D.s and ex-Army officers throughout the Saorstát are also organising.
"There is no doubt that a considerable number of individual ex-Army officers are in possession of revolvers, and even rifles, held surreptitiously as souvenirs of the pre-Truce period. Further, many ex-National Army men when leaving the Army in 1923-25, brought arms with them.
"I have, however, been informed, as already reported to the Minister, that certain members of the organisation hold extreme views, and would be prepared to urge the use of force in pursuit of their policy."
That is the report of General O'Duffy in September last.
On a point of order. I presume the complete document the Minister is reading is going to be made available to Deputies?
Certainly. I will have no hesitation about doing so at another time. In that report of September last General O'Duffy includes a report from the Chief Superintendent of Tipperary, which states:—
"It is certain, however, that Mr. Jerry Ryan could, should the occasion arise, muster a fair number of the arms taken from Templemore Military Barracks during the mutiny."
I take it that is from the same report and will be available?
It continues:—
"Should it at any time desire to adopt other than constitutional methods it can, without doubt, lay hands on a sufficient quantity of arms and ammunition to render it a very formidable insurrectionary force and a source of extreme danger to the peace and stability of the country."
So said General O'Duffy. It will be noticed that since the institution of the A.C.A. one of the most active members was ex-Colonel Jerry Ryan. I do not know if he was the proposer or seconder of General O'Duffy at the Hibernian Hotel meeting. At any rate, they were throwing bouquets at each other; each was very pleased with the other. We have that report. There are other reports to show that in General O'Duffy's opinion these people were armed. I assume that the people on the opposite benches who have encouraged and advised people to join this organisation are also aware that, in the words of the Chief Superintendent to General O'Duffy, "it is a very formidable danger to the State."
"If it becomes revolutionary", you read out.
I see—"If it becomes revolutionary".
That is what you said; that is what you read out.
Would one not consider it somewhat revolutionary if the members of an organisation such as this, some of whom have declared that the organisation stands for the maintenance of the institutions of the State, will not give up their arms? General O'Duffy has acted contrary to the declared intentions of the organisation. What effort has been made by him to get his first lieutenants or his second-in-command, Mr. Jerry Ryan, to gather up all the arms? Was there any effort made to collect the considerable number of arms missing out of Templemore Barracks in 1923? What attempt was made by the last Executive Council to get these arms? Was there any effort made by the Cumann na nGaedheal Executive Council to try to procure the arms? How many raids were carried out by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government to secure the arms taken away in 1923 and 1924? They knew perfectly well that these people were retiring and that there were arms missing. How many of the ex-Army officers who were known to have taken arms away were prosecuted for taking those arms? We hear a lot of talk about fair play—fair play all around.
What efforts has the Minister made to collect the I.R.A. arms? Let us be fair all around.
Why not collect those arms?
Apparently that is the whole trouble. I will lead up to that in a moment. It seems to be getting a bit annoying now. I do not know whether arms have always been openly exposed in Deputy Belton's yard when they are drilling around there. He probably knows something about the number of arms that those people have out there.
Have you a report on that, too? Read it out.
You would be surprised at the intelligence we have.
And you would be surprised at how much we know about you.
The United Irishman of 20th May, 1933, under the heading “Cumann na nGaedheal and the A.C.A.”, says:—
"At the Convention of the organisation held a fortnight ago, references made by various speakers to the A.C.A. evoked hearty applause. Yet it appears that there are a few parts of the country in which leading members of Cumann na nGaedheal are chary about giving real encouragement to the militant body of which Dr. O'Higgins is the head."
The militant body!
Not military.
In the United Irishman of 10th June, 1933, under the heading “Combat not Persuasion”, the following appears:—
"But its idealism and tolerance are not the only things which differentiate it from a political party. It differs as to methods. Established to meet a dastardly attack it relies not on persuasion but on combat. It is organised for combat and it wants members who will not shrink from combat if the sight of preparedness fails to frighten off attack."
That is combat.
Attack.
Whom are they going to attack?
The Minister does not seem to understand the article.
He does not seem to get it.
I do not yet get what they mean by combat.
Resisting attack.
"... it relies not on persuasion but on combat."
There would need to be some protection from the murder gangs which the Minister has established.
I see. They mean that without saying it?
Yes.
That is clear now.
In an interview given to the Press on the 15th August, 1932, Deputy O'Higgins stated:—
"Our objects are peace. We are an army of peace. Policy may, however, not be able to control circumstances. If policy cannot control circumstances in the future, then policy in the future must be directed to some extent by circumstances."
Then we have articles in the United Irishman on the 1st April, the 15th April and the 15th July. I will quote some of them:—
"... this country has been injured in consequence of the naiveté of the first Saorstát Cabinet, which at a time when the whole world was beginning to sicken of parliamentary demagogy gave us a Constitution in which all the absurd and hurtful refinement of the expiring system are prominent. Someone has said that the members of our Constitution Drafting Committee should have been hanged, drawn and quartered. I think the exponent of that view was not unmerciful, for I believe the time will come when suggestions of boiling oil will meet with more general approval.”
And that is the Constitution in defence of which we had 77 executions.
This is the thing for which we were told so many times we should have great respect. They are now going to get boiling oil.
Will the Minister be the Mikado?
The article proceeds:—
"There are indubitably good grounds for the world-wide tendency at present apparent to supersede, modify, or side-step the old Parliamentary system. The days of its usefulness are gone."
It was never discovered that its usefulness was gone until Cumann na nGaedheal was put out of office, and when they saw no prospect of getting back again through the ordinary electoral methods which they themselves provided they began thinking of some other method of getting back.
"Good Government, honest dealing with the public, political foresight and stable national policies can only be got by abandoning parliamentary demagogy and creating a popular associative system."
I will leave it to Deputy McGilligan or someone else to explain what is meant by a popular associative system.
I would like to get the Minister's innuendo to start with.
Here is another extract:—
"We may learn from Fascism but we must not attempt any close imitation of it."
What is Fascism adopted for in this country? Does it mean that we are to get away from Parliamentary institutions, to maintain which a war was carried on in this country? A war was carried on here in the name of the will of the people in order to maintain those Parliamentary institutions. The article goes on:—
"Democracy is not self-protected; if assailed it must turn to undemocratic methods of defence or go under. What is everybody's business is nobody's business."
Listen to this about the freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press that this A.C.A. was started to maintain:—
"Freedom of speech and freedom of the Press are not good or bad in themselves; everything depends on the use made of them."
Is there anything wrong with that? Is the Minister expressing disapproval of it?
Not at all.
I would like to have the views of Deputies opposite upon those matters. When this particular force was started over 12 months ago, we heard a tremendous lot about it being started purely and simply in order to secure free speech for everybody.
Does the Minister suggest that free speech can never be abused?
I have often heard it abused here.
That seems to be the Minister's policy.
Here is another extract:—
"... if there is to be a happy and prosperous future for this country, we must abandon the existing system of demagogic parliamentarianism and, by drastic constitutional changes, transform the Free State into a Diast, an organic democratic State adapted to Irish conditions."
Have you any objection to that?
Who is the genius who wrote it?
We have often heard here about the independence of the judges. This party would not leave the judges out. Here is an interesting extract:—
"Judges, civil servants and military and police officers would not be debarred from the Diastral Union but would in fact be expected to join it. Discordant political propaganda and action would only be permitted within narrow limits."
Then they would allow propaganda. I think there is very little doubt about the object of those articles. Certainly they were not for the purpose of raising in the estimation of the readers of the paper, if it has much of a circulation, any respect for State institutions. They were not calculated to excite in the minds of the people who would read them any great respect for the institutions in defence of which so much blood has been spilled and so much suffering has been gone through in this country. I would like to take some of General O'Duffy's own statements. Before I deal with them I will take a report given by him to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, when he was Minister for Justice, before the election of 1932. It states:—
"The strong action taken by the Government and the courageous manner in which the members of the Dáil and the Seanad supported the Government has saved the country and the people may now exercise the franchise at the coming election without being terrorised or intimidated."
There was a free election at any rate——
Hear, hear!
We have some more of General O'Duffy's statements on this organisation. He speaks of "people who are not satisfied with other political parties and who thought that debates were undignified and barren of good results for the people." He does not approve of the methods of Deputies here in the Dáil nor does he approve of the debates that have taken place. He is a good judge now. He talks about "working for changes in the Parliamentary system." He does not, however, tell the people by what means he is to carry out these changes. "Including," he says, "in their policy what they considered good in Fascism or any other movement." He speaks of "Ministers yielding to the advice of permanent officials and that with a change of Government new Ministers became just as objectionable as the old before three months."
His expectations have been more than realised.
A Deputy
We are not under his control anyway.
Then he goes on to say: "A change is coming and that before long the National Guard is going to bring about that change." He says: "The Parliamentary system in the Saorstát is un-Irish," that is, un-Irish after ten years. "Every day it is becoming more and more detrimental to the best interests of the Irish people." It is a wonder he did not impress that view on Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney when he was Minister for Justice and get the view effective in some way. It must have been obnoxious to him to be carrying out police duties under an un-Irish Constitution.
All these statements indicate the frame of mind of the individual concerned with this A.C.A. force as it was formerly called, or as it is now, the National Guard. All these statements indicate the ideas that have been inculcated into that organisation. With an organisation such as that, General O'Duffy has stated in his reports to the Department of Justice when he was a Commissioner of the Gárda, with the knowledge that he has of the arms that are under the control of that body of which he is the head, you have a position created where that body can be a danger to the State. What the Executive Council has to bear in mind is this: that it is not going to permit a situation to develop in this country where there is a possibility of civil war.
Bearing in mind the viewpoint and the outlook of these people who are parading in uniform, people who have made statements indicating their ideas as to their future policy and having, on the other hand, the other people, you have a situation where, if the matter is not taken in hand by the Executive Council, a position might arise where very serious responsibility would rest on the Executive Council for not having dealth with the situation in time. That situation is known to the Government. The Government is in possession of the facts. What I do object to is that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, who could have got the information from many on his own benches as to the strength of the arms not held under permit out through the country by people who are members of the A.C.A., did not give the House that information. I do suggest that if he paid any attention to the Department when he was there, he would have known the position with regard to the possession of arms held by ex-members of the Free State Army. If the Deputy did not know of that, what steps did he take to secure these arms? He knew they were held by people who did not have any permit for them.
It is all very well to say: "Oh, the I.R.A. have arms and we will take them off them." I challenge the Deputy to point to any single raid to get arms held by ex-members of the Free State Army. These arms are there and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney knew that they were there. The Deputy was well aware and the Cumann na nGaedheal Executive was well aware of the considerable amount of arms that disappeared out of the Templemore Barracks at the time of the mutiny. But the Deputy never made any attempt to bring ex-Colonel Ryan to justice. No attempt was made to do that and we had all this talk about it here. Yet not a single attempt was made to collect these arms which he knew were under the control of the gentleman who is now one of the leaders of the National Guard in this country. It is all very well to talk about Communism. That is only trying to create a great scare in the country. I saw a statement the other day by General O'Duffy that he would give the names of 150 Communists in Kilkenny. I understand he was challenged to give these names, but he has not given them.
Does the Minister say they are not there? We say they are.
The names were not given.
Did the Minister ever go to Moneenroe?
What has that to do with it?
I went to Moneenroe and there were over 150 Communists there shouting "Up the Reds." If the Minister will take the trouble to read the statement of the bishop and the parish priest he will learn something about it.
I take my information from the police reports.
Did the Minister get what the bishop said?
Did the bishop say there were 150 Communists there?
The vast majority of the people who were at Moneenroe during Deputy Fitzgerald's visit were not Communists.
I know they all shouted "Up the Reds." The bishop had to go there and condemn an attack on trade unionism, and all these people voted for Deputy Gibbons. If the Minister wants to find these names he can get them.
We have got some thing to do nearer home than to be going out into the wilderness looking for the names of 150 Communists. Perhaps Deputy Fitzgerald will furnish us with the names.
The parish priest will.
Do not mind the parish priest. The Deputy represents the area. He has given no evidence of 150 Communists being there.
There are more than 150 of them there.
There are thousands of them there according to the Deputy. Surely the country is teeming with Communists.
Well, O'Connell Street was full of them last night.
We are not speaking of O'Connell Street now.
It was packed with Communists last night, the very scum of the earth.
I think they were on a very safe side of the street.
They always are on that side.
President de Valera has brought the scum of this country to the top.
There is no use in people allowing their temper to run away with them. We are backed by the people.
We saw the scum last night in O'Connell Street; we can always recognise the scum when we see it.
There is no use in trying to create a scare here about Communists. Some two weeks ago a certain Communist came over here from England to address a meeting in Dublin, and, well organised as it was, that meeting was not held because only ten people turned up at it. That is all the strength the Communists can show in the City of Dublin. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was in office for a good while. I have gone back over many of the reports that came to my Department as to various activities in this country and I could not find any trace, and I wonder did he find any trace of Communism at that time in the country.
Yes, and in the police reports.
Big numbers?
Huge numbers?
May I ask about what time these reports came in that the Deputy refers to, or did he take them away with him?
I took nothing away with me. If the Minister states that I took any documents away from the Department of Justice he is making a false statement. I say that repeated reports came in from the police on the activities of Saor Eire, the I.R.A. and the other Communist associations.
As to taking them away or not, I do not see much difference between taking away documents and burning them, as 100,000 files were burned before Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney cleared away.
So far as I am concerned I burned no documents and, as far as I know, not a single document was burned in the Department of Justice.
They were burned outside then?
By nobody in the Department of Justice and they were not taken from the Department of Justice. These statements of the Minister are absolutely false.
Will the Deputy deny that something like 100,000 files which were under the control of the Deputy's Department were burned?
I will.
You will deny that?
Does the Deputy say that the "S" Branch was not under his control?
Of course it was under my control.
May I ask who gave instructions to General O'Duffy, and through General O'Duffy to Colonel Neligan, to destroy something like 100,000 files before Fianna Fáil came into office?
I gave no instructions to anybody to destroy any files.
Was the Deputy aware that these files were destroyed?
I was not aware and I do not believe the files were destroyed.
The Attorney-General
Was it not sworn by Colonel Neligan in Green Street that he destroyed 18,000 files under the direction of General O'Duffy?
I do not know whether it was or not. I certainly gave no instructions to destroy any files.
The Attorney-General
It certainly was sworn.
You had better leave Green Street out of the calculation.
The Attorney-General
Keep quiet. Why did you not discuss Green Street on my Vote? You kept out of the House.
I have discussed it up and down and will again.
I do not want to pursue that line of argument. It was a bad business and a dirty business, whoever was responsible, to deprive the incoming Executive of the information there.
What were they but your own sins that would be dished up to you—your own blackguardism?
There might be a file about Deputy Belton destroyed also.
Deputy Belton is not afraid of anything he ever did. He stood for this country in 1916 when you did not and my people stood for it also before you and President de Valera were heard of. I am not ashamed of myself or my family.
There is no use talking about 1916. Anyone could run on a message.
What about the people looking for food and work?
What about the farmers?
This is mere fooling.
We want to hear what is going to happen to the farmers.
(Interruption.)
Order, order. There is a chorus of interruptions and I should like to remind Deputies that if they want to hear the Minister or anyone else—
We do not want to hear trash. We want to hear what will happen to the farmers.
The Deputy should know sufficient about the procedure of the House to listen to the Chair. If the chorus of interruptions does not cease Deputies may not be given an opportunity of hearing either the Minister or anyone else.
I understand the debate is to conclude at 2 o'clock. I venture to suggest seriously to the House that we have heard a lot of talk about guns and everything else and we want to hear about the economic position of the farmers.
I have no power to direct the trend of Minister's or Deputies' speeches, particularly on an adjournment debate.
I quite understand that, but at the same time we do want to hear something about the farmers.
Why did not Deputy MacDermot speak about the farmers?
He spoke about the National Guard.
We do not want to listen to all this. We have a right to discuss our position.
You got your beating.
I am not responsible for introducing this matter of the National Guard or the I.R.A. The Leader of the Centre Party dwelt for some time upon it, and the way he dealt with it caused me to reply to him. He took the ordinary programme of that organisation as it appeared in the newspaper at its real value when it only had a face value, and a very poor face value. We were told also by Deputy MacDermot that, according to the newspapers, large numbers of young people who are followers of his Party are joining up this armed force.
Is Deputy Holohan a member of it?
Does the Minister deny that the I.R.A. is armed?
I did not deny any such thing.
He referred to my yard. I know what went on in my yard and who carried it out. I will say more if the Minister puts me to it.
I did not deny it.
I know what the I.R.A. think of the Minister and of the President.
You have a foot in that camp, too!
I thought they were allies of ours. I do not want to say any more except this, that so far as the Executive Council's responsibility is concerned in this matter of preventing an armed conflict, such a situation as might lead to civil war, it is going to take the necessary steps to prevent that.
If you do it on all sides you will be doing a service to the country.
With the exception of the last speaker, buoyancy has been the note of this debate. I am giving the last speaker as the exception. He served the useful purpose to-night of distracting attention from the debate that was promised. Except for his success in doing so, he might again resume the rôle he played for many years of keeping a reputation for wisdom through silence. Deputy Norton used to be the buoyant member of the Fianna Fáil Governmental system. It is a pity the Minister for Industry and Commerce was not in his place to hear him to-night. He played a different rôle to-night. He was more the heavy lump of lead that might be cast around the Minister's neck if Deputy Norton had any chance to deal with him as he desired. He did one good thing, even if it was merely repetition—he got out again the definite facts which were given out by the colleague of the Minister who acted for him in his absence recently and which were the answer to the bombast that the Minister gave out of him to-night, or that he can give out so fluently when industry is being spoken of in this country.
There were two notable events this year in relation to parliamentary procedure, and these were that on two occasions, at least, the Government ran away in two debates. I think it is unparalleled in the history of the institution of the Dáil that the Minister, who was supposed to answer for the Department of Industry and Commerce, on a vote for that Department, should have moved that the vote be closured before he got a chance of replying in the debate, and yet that happened. The other case of a Minister running away was that of the President. The debate on that vote was closured after 20 hours. To-day we are given four hours for this particular debate. After the closing stages of the Land Bill and a few additional Estimates, we are allowed this time for the President's doing—the war he brought on and the futile attempts he made recently through certain negotiators who were rebuffed and would not get a hearing.
There is not a word of truth in it.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce contemplated negotiations last Christmas.
I was not in the least bothering about negotiations.
It is always opened up in such a way that it can be repudiated when it is found necessary. The Minister got a typescript put into his hands on the occasion, but I shall deal with that in a moment. I said, already, about the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that when speaking on industrial matters he possesses a property which, when I was young, I was taught to believe was associated only with gases, and that was that gas could expand itself to fill up any space. There are just two spaces that the Minister cannot fill up in this way. One of these is Gallaher's tobacco factory and the other is the unfortunate Naas sausage factory. There is a lot more, also, that he cannot expand sufficiently to fill.
Deputy Norton stated to-night, and he was quite right, that a good many of the figures which the Minister's colleague gave, proved to be a real test of the Minister's statements and their authority. But Deputy Norton had not the full facts. I quoted them before, and I shall quote them again. The Minister gave a list of industries in the country, the imports for which he said were phenomenal at one time, but now there are none; and the Minister concluded that there has been a whirl of industrial activity in this country. Deputy Norton asked if that is so, where is it reflected in the employment figures and where are all the new factories to be found. Why does not the Minister produce the tot of the factories, the necessary preliminary to the directory of Irish industries, which is going to be published some day, that is, if the Minister is long enough in office. Let us take two tests. I tried to reduce this matter to two simple tests before.
On the 11th May the Minister for Industry and Commerce in a high flight of oratory said: "Take the confectionery industry! Employment in that industry has doubled; the output has been more than doubled; there is an equation between output and employment." Employment in the confectionery industry was more than doubled according to the Minister on the 11th May last. After that he went away, apparently forgetting to leave behind him an order that no figures were to be given out during his absence. His complaint now is that his unfortunate colleague, the Minister for Education, did give out the figures. We find that in the 18 months from September, 1931 to March, 1933, employment in this industry had gone up by 151 people. We find that employment had increased from 5,096 to 5,247. Yet the Minister says it doubled.
I may say there is a bigger increase than the increase the Deputy mentions in one factory alone. The Deputy is simply playing tricks with the figures.
Here are the figures as given by the Minister's own colleague; 151 covers the total increase in employment in 18 months.
In what industry?
In the confectionery and jams as well. But in confectionery alone the Minister said last May that employment had doubled. That is to say that the figure of 5,096 had doubled which would mean something over 10,000. The facts are as the Minister's colleague told us that employment at the present moment in these trades is 5,247. I have said before, and it is a proper thing to say, that that is the ratio the Minister's statements ordinarily bear to truth. The difference between the figures 5,096 and 5,247 is 151. But that, according to the Minister, is the double of over 5,000. There is the test. Take that as the test, and we find the main industries of the country blooming up. But we soon get to the facts.
The figures the Deputy is quoting are very far away from the facts.
I am quoting the figures published in the Minister's absence. I take one other industry and it is an industry that the Minister himself took to-night, the apparel industry. On the 11th May here is what the Minister said about the apparel industry. "Progress in the apparel industry has greatly advanced even beyond what was contemplated." He said that they had got so far—and this is really a prize statement—Deputies, he said, can read for themselves in the newspaper that there is a dearth of skilled workers in this particular trade. Every skilled worker, he said, in that particular trade has been employed. This is a fairly good rotund statement. "Increase of production has been held up by the fact that additional skilled workers are not available and the people concerned in that industry are writing to my Department asking for sanction to bring in skilled workers from abroad." Then the Minister unfortunately fell ill and in his absence his colleague, the Minister for Education, gave away the game, and we got the actual figures. So that we see in this particular trade not the small increase of 151, but that there were actually 500 fewer employed in the trade. That is the figure Deputy Norton quoted to-night.
They are not the right figures.
If these are not the correct figures, will the Minister give the correct figures?
I do not know what figures the Deputy is quoting.
I am quoting the only figures quoted here, which are the figures that were given in an answer put by Deputy Mulcahy when the Minister was away and the Minister for Education was acting for him.
There are more than 400 additional workers employed in one industry and that is not the main industry.
We are taking the figures all over the country and they work out that between September, 1931, and March, 1933, the total in that industry of people employed had lessened by 490. Yet the Minister said that not a solitary skilled employee was left unemployed.
I repeat that.
The Minister can repeat it as much as he likes but the figures are against him. Here I have taken two industries which are given as tests. In one 151 extra persons employed is to represent the figure of 5,000 doubled. That is in the confectionery trade. Then we are told that no skilled worker has been left unemployed in the apparel industry, whereas the figures show that close on 500 people occupied at work in our time are walking the streets to-day. The Minister boasts about the flour trade as his greatest triumph. Anybody can triumph in relation to tariffs if they are negligent about the price the community is going to be charged for the particular product. It is notable that at this moment flour is costing 5/- a sack more than when foreign imports were coming in. That is admitted.
There is a really false estimation there.
There is no false estimation. The test is easy. Take any well-known brand of flour and compare the price at which it is bought at the other side. Add the freight and that is an easy addition to make. Then take the price at which the sale is completed here and there will be found to be at least 5/—I think 6/— in the difference. And then what do we find the Minister saying? Already, he says, we have more than 300 extra people employed. When there was an application before the Tariff Commission some time ago the applicants did not claim, even if they got the whole manufacture of flour for this community, that they could put into employment more than 153 people. That was their own claim.
The Minister says that we have got 300 extra people employed. I doubt it. Supposing we did, there is the ordinary calculation made that as far as the white peoples are concerned the consumption of flour is one sack per head per annum. It is costing £750,000 to put 300 people in employment. If that is victory, you can have it. A tariff was discussed here in the early part of last year, a tariff on fertilisers. Deputy Dillon made a prophecy on that occasion that if that tariff were persisted in we would find less fertilisers would be used. The Minister for Agriculture explained to the Dáil his knowledge of the use of fertilisers in this way: On the 3rd June, 1932, he said that it was very well known that there was less manure used last year because of the fact that there was less tillage in the country. He went on to make the statement that there is more artificial manure used on tillage than on grass. The argument was that less artificial manure was used because there was less tillage. We have much more tillage now, we are told. The import of fertiliser has been stopped. Yet to-day we have the firm of Goulding complaining that their sales have dropped about 20 per cent. Why? Is there more tillage, according to the argument of the Minister for Agriculture? If there is more tillage and less fertiliser used, what is the explanation? Is there less money to buy fertiliser, and is this another of the results of the tariff policy of the Minister? The Naas sausage factory is an object of fun.
We heard of that before.
You heard of it from the Minister for Industry and Commerce first.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce made this case: There is going to be an export business. There is going to be—this most fatuous suggestion was made—a subsidiary industry of tanning attached to the sausage factory. The Minister for Industry and Commerce took a day off to sample the products of the factory and the factory burst.
Who burst it?
There is not the slightest doubt about it, if the thing had not burst so spectacularly we would be hearing a good lot about it when the Minister gets into his crossroads style. This is a factory which, according to the Minister, had hoped to have an export trade with France, Belgium and Switzerland. It is very different saying that subsidiary industries were hoped for from saying that they are there. It is quite possible to reconcile what the Minister said to-night with what Deputy Norton said, and what I am now repeating, that you can close down on the import of certain products, or show a decrease in the value of those imports, and yet you may not have given employment at home, because if there is no purchasing power you cannot do so. Without purchasing power you cannot dispose of what is produced at home. There is clearly not the employment which the Minister pretended to believe there was, or evidence would not have been there, ready to the hand of his colleague when the Minister was absent, so that his colleague did give information to the Dáil to show just how hollow are the pretences which the Minister has made about industrial development. I take the confectionery and apparel trades as tests. The Minister is good at crossroads talk. The Minister is good in this House when he can keep crying out figures, but the Minister cannot argue—brazen as he is—and pretend there is industrial development in this country when the figures that his own Department supplies give him the lie.
There are many things that might be spoken of on an adjournment debate; the scandalous looting of the taxpayers' money for the paper which supports the President, the balance sheet of which showed that it was on its last legs; the illegalities worked by the Minister for Finance upon the Civil Service, illegalities which were, to a certain extent, exposed to-day; or this new Guard. The stocktaking of revolvers was one fatuous excuse which the Minister for Justice thought fit to amend to-night. It is a good thing the Minister now recognises that the test of a revolutionary is whether a man says he will give up his gun or not. That is the test of a revolutionary. The Minister recognises that a revolutionary force might become formidable if armed, and their arms should be taken from them. That is also an advance. The present Minister for Justice might have turned to his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who before he was sacked by the I.R.A. was Minister for Defence in that squad, and ask him: "Where are the dumped arms?" Or he might turn to the President who gave the dumping order, and say: "You know where they are." We have it now that the test of a revolutionary is whether or not a man will give up his gun, and we know the danger of a revolutionary in respect of the State institutions. Are you getting the guns that you yourself have knowledge of? Are you going to produce in this House the police reports about I.R.A. guns? Are you going to confine yourselves only to the foolish sort of reports read out here to-night?
Foolish?
What did all those reports from the United Irishman mean? The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice did not try to understand them. They tried to suggest that militant was the same thing as military, and that people who prepared against an attack are looking for quarrel.
Combat.
If you want really good red-meat phrases read your Poblacht. That is where you will get the stuff if you think they mean it.
Do you mean it? You have something to do with the United Irishman. Do you mean it?
I have nothing to do with the United Irishman.
Oh, you wash your hands of it?
I do not wash my hands of it.
Ask your colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, if he means it.
Certainly. Unfortunately the Minister for Justice did not understand it. I was waiting for him to read out something that was going to shock us. The unfortunate man does not understand what he reads.
Let us get the contrast as put here to-night. One section of the people have arms, and it is known they have arms. It is known to the authorities. It has been reported upon. There was a stocktaking recently. Stocktaking was the excuse given. Now it is something different, and we are to have a formidable force, the "Broy Harriers," as I believe they are being called. That was only the reopening of recruiting which had stopped. Why had it stopped? Because you people sit on those benches on account of certain promises made to the populace, one of them being that the Civic Guard was over-manned——
——and overpaid.
——and that one of the ways of reducing expenditure in this State was to stop recruiting. Recruiting has had to be reopened Why? Was it for the excuse given by the Minister for Justice to-night? Not a bit of it.
They increased the wages to £2!
After all the Minister for Industry and Commerce promised in the House about the growth of industry in the country, what do we find this country driven to? The Minister for Finance with the willing aid of his Parliamentary Secretary reduced wages to 24/- per week. They attempt to sack people who have been in employment for 20 years, to give a chance to other people who otherwise would not get employment. They dole out subsidies and give reliefs. They give other people's moneys in relief and at the end of it all they announce that they are introducing a Bill because they believe that in the autumn there will be 50,000 people in the State destitute unless they get this Bill through. Yet, it is a happy country!
They were told under your Ministry that they would have to starve.
The President says we have peace and people are asking under what particular thimble is the peace. He gave us the I.R.A., the armed Civic Guards and the new squad. He gave us plenty too. Misfortunes never come singly. Peace and plenty are the President's gifts. Where is the plenty for the farmers of this country? Has the Minister for Finance still the idol of alternative markets to let his mind run on? The President will tell us that there is no alternative market but has he disciplined his Ministers into that belief? Was there an attempt made to settle the dispute that is going on? Has the President any knowledge that such an attempt was made, that either before Christmas or now any approaches were made on the other side which produced a document that certainly could not have brought joy to the President's heart or the heart of the Minister for Industry and Commerce? Was there recently a repetition of the same joke? What is the reason for the nonsense about the new squad and the taking up of guns? Is it not to distract people's attention? Whenever we went abroad to defend this country's case——
A Deputy
And its institutions.
And its institutions, and we coerced you people into believing these institutions——
They were not unIrish then.
——we got a certain amount of respect abroad. We got away from the old, bad view that our history had implanted in people's mind in regard to our country—an Irelánd weeping, full of tears. We got rid of the idea of Ireland as the damsel in distress. There should be no necessity for people to run into the absurdity of portraying her as a fallen woman. That is what you have done. There is no honour associated with this country abroad now. There is no respect for this country, even in regard to how it can fight although there was some ten or 12 years ago. That is all because it is known that people do not believe in this fight, that the people were not actually voting for this fight. They were voting for the magnificent promises—no taxation, more employment, and economies. Everything was to be rosy.
How many voted for the Deputy in the last election?
Everything was to be rosy. We were an inefficient Opposition, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce the other night, and yet the cause of the last election was stated to be that we were hampering the Ministry!
How many intelligent voters voted for you at the last election?
The Vice-President used to yap about murder. Surely he should have got over that stage.
I have not yet.
There was an understanding that the President would be allowed 20 minutes to conclude in this debate.
We have had two Ministers speaking already and I do not know that there was that understanding.
I shall willingly give him 20 minutes to reply.
There was an understanding, I believe, to that effect, but the Chair has no power to enforce it.
That is a question that has got to be answered.
How many of the educated voters of the country voted for the Deputy at the last election?
Tell us about the economic war and stop "codding." We do not want umbrellas or empty formulas. We want to get down to facts.
This Dáil is to be sent home for about seven weeks or so. What is the country to be thinking of in the interim? The collection of these guns? The new recruiting? That is what the President would like them to think of. Will he tell us about the negotiations? Will he deny that on any occasion he knew that people were trying to negotiate? Will he deny that at any time he heard the results of what certain people did? If not, will he say what are the results?
If the Deputy would speak in understandable language he might get a reply.
That I take to be a very severe criticism from the President. He talks of anybody speaking an understandable language! The country should get some indication between now and September whether there is to be any attempt made to finish this quarrel, and if not, what is going to be done.
Ask your friend, John Bull.
What I might do is to ask the friend of the Deputy whose picture, in the full regalia of a Black-and-Tan, he used to carry about in his pocket as a safeguard. Does the Deputy know a friend of his, named Riordan, whose picture he used to carry about as a safeguard?
Ní fíor san.
Rubbish. It is true and the Deputy knows it.
It is not true. It is not true, a Chinn Comhairle.
You are cornered at last.
There is the type that is going to fight the economic war.
That statement is not true. Does the Deputy accept my denial?
Deputy O Briain will fight to the last farmer.
On a point of order, when an allegation is made against a Deputy and he states that that is not true, is it not usual for the Deputy who makes the allegation to accept his word?
You should not mind the allegations. Sure, nobody minds him.
Deputy McGilligan was in possession when he was interrupted and the sympathies of the Chair are always with a Deputy who is interrupted.
Deputy Norton has pleaded with the Government to mend their ways. He gave them an impossible task. He would like them to get a thinking-box. There is some need, certainly, for one amongst them. He asked them to get a plan. Surely they had one? Does the Deputy remember the advertisements? Of course I have forgotten that they should not be quoted now. The Minister for Education has thrown them on the scrapheap. According to some people, they were what went on fire the other night when the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party were giving President de Valera what the country will give him one of these days, something with oil in it. Deputy Norton also said that if the country was going to be rowed in a boat it ought to know where the boat was being driven to. Deputy Norton must know where it is. It is dangerously near the rocks.
So are the farmers.
A Deputy
The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
Is there a plan? Deputy Norton has asked for its production. I asked for its production before. In 1932 we were told that Fianna Fáil had a plan. Where is it? Where is the plan in relation to agriculture?
Down in Naas!
Exactly! That is the first time I have found the Deputy living up to his name for honesty. We thought they had a plan for economy in the State, and we know where that went. We were told that there was a plan in relation to unemployment and we know what we have got.
The Deputy's plan was starvation.
One time we were told that the plan was to provide alternative markets and another time we were told that Britain could not afford to buy from us. Which of these fantasies holds the field now, or is there any co-ordination between any of these ideas? Is there anybody who thinks that this country can last out until next winter if the present insane policy goes on? Is there any decent Republican who will not hold in the worst scorn President de Valera for having exposed our weakness to the British and for having exposed our own people to the results of this economic war?
We have a good harvest, anyhow.
Exactly; we have had a good havest, but there is no place to sell our produce. There is no alternative market. We are told that we started the war, which any fool can do. If they do not stop this war the country will stop it, and it is not the soft talk of the Minister for Justice that will end the frightful demoralisation that has set in amongst all the people whom we left to him as a disciplined body. Frightful demoralisation has set in amongst that body, and there is not a doubt about it, and no Deputy here can fail to realise and to see in his own constituency that that is the situation which we have to face, notwithstanding all the stoppage of imports about which the Minister for Industry and Commerce boasted to-night. It is not because we have industries here, but because there is no purchasing power, and because there is no way to sell the goods which Providence has provided for us. There is no way of selling our produce, and if any peace is to be made now it will be got on worse terms than were offered last Christmas or the terms that were offered to the President three weeks ago.
Might I ask the Chair, with all respect, if the House is prepared to give the President more than five minutes to reply?
There is an order of the House that the House rise at 2 o'clock. That order cannot be set aside except by unanimous consent.
Is it not within the competence of the Chair to extend the time of the debate?
Without the consent of the House the order already made cannot be discharged.
Might I ask if an opportunity will be given to a member from these benches to say a word with reference to the conditions of agriculture in this State? Is that agreed, on the clear understanding that, at the conclusion of the very brief observations I have to make, this House is prepared to afford the President an unlimited time to reply.
The Chair is not taking it as unlimited time. Some definite hour must be fixed.
Is that on the condition that Deputy Dillon and nobody else is to be allowed to speak?
If it is proposed to discuss the agricultural policy, we will insist that the farmers' point of view will be put forward and not that of the professional man.
I am calling on the President to speak until 2.15. It is obvious that some definite time must be decided upon.
I think the President should be given whatever time he needs in order to reply.
Deputies
Agreed!
Is it not in order to give the President whatever reasonable time he requires to reply?
Is it not in order to give the whole House time to consider it?
It does not seem to be much use to give time when you have Deputies like Deputy McGilligan getting up and repeating and insinuating charges and statements which have been challenged a thousand times. Never once has the Deputy put anything forward to substantiate his statements and charges. We had Ottawa trotted out on several occasions and never once has anything been said to substantiate anything that was supposed to have happened in Ottawa. Again, we have some mysterious hints from Deputy McGilligan as to our supposed negotiations with Great Britain. As far as our relations with Great Britain are concerned, the public know everything with regard to any moves that either Government has made.
Of course, we cannot prevent officious people from interfering. Every person outside the Government, of course, is full of suggestions as to how this thing could be brought to an end. The Deputies on the opposite benches, who pretend to be so anxious to bring it to an end, have been since we came into office doing everything in their power to prevent it being brought to an end because one sure way of preventing it being brought to an end is to induce people across the water to think that we will be beaten in this fight, that our people are weakening and are in a state of misery here.
And so they are.
Talk of exposing our weaknesses! Heavens, if we had them they would have been exposed long ago, and the fact that we are still as we are is good proof that in this particular matter, we are sound and solid in this country. This terrible winter that we are going to be faced with is held up before us. The same terrible winter was held up before us last year and yet it was after that supposed terrible winter, that we went before the people, put our programme before them and said: "You have had a year's experience of us; do you want our programme or do you want the programme that Deputy Cosgrave holds out to you", and what was the people's answer? Were it not for proportional representation, there would not be half a dozen of you on the benches opposite. Of course Deputy Cosgrave could settle this war. He told you before that he could do it in three days. What happened when he was in office and when he sent over to the other side a piteous message asking for a moratorium of a quarter of a million pounds? He was given the answer he deserved to get. He is the man who is going to settle this thing, the man who paid out £50,000,000 during the time he was in office—and if you multiply that by 66 you will understand what would be the equivalent for England. They ask us suddenly to try and remedy a situation that they created, a situation which they had done nothing to prevent coming about. If speeches of mine made when I sat on the benches opposite are looked up in the Official Debates it will be seen that I begged the Government at that time to try and look ahead, to see that steps were taken to meet the situation that it was clear was going to face our farming community. I asked them to see that proper measures were taken in time but they did nothing. Listening to Deputy MacDermot's speech one would imagine that he had never read a bit of Irish History. The Deputy told us about the wonderful things that would have happened if this new policy of ours had not come in. What were the wonderful effects of the policy the Deputy advocates in the past century? One of them at least was to cut down our population by half, from 8,000,000 to 4,000,000.
It is very easy of course to sit on the benches opposite and say: "If only we were there we would have done so and so. We would have put into operation this wonderful policy of free trade that left us in the past dependant on the English market," a policy that brought us to such a state of wonderful prosperity that we are the only white people in the world whose population has been cut down by half. The people of Ireland came to the conclusion, every single nationalist in the past, the people with the true spirit of Ireland came to the conclusion that we came to, the conclusion that the people came to when they started Sinn Fein and reverted to once more when they put Fianna Fáil into office: that if there is to be any hope of prosperity for this country it is by reversing that policy which made us simply the kitchen garden for supplying the British with cheap food.
It is cheaper now than ever.
Thanks be to God that situation is changed.
With subsidies.
What did the British Minister for Agriculture say recently when speaking to the farmers of his own country? He said that they could get good meat at 2d. per lb., and that meat that he would be glad to eat himself was being sold to soapmakers at 1d. per lb. That is the situation in England itself and that is a situation that no person here can remedy. So far as I can see the British market is gone for ever. The position to-day, so far as that market is concerned, would be the very same if the people opposite were sitting in our places, with this difference, that we are keeping at home the £5,000,000 which belongs to us but the people opposite would have continued to pay out that sum and still be in the same position.
Interruptions.
I did not interrupt once during the speeches that were made in this debate this evening, and yet Deputies on the benches opposite continue to yap out, as someone has said, senseless phrases.
What about the farmers?
It may be thought possible to shout——
The farmers are in a nice position to-day.
The Deputy will please keep his place.
On a point of order, Deputy Fagan is after saying that he does not give a damn about any Chair.
I never said that and I ask Deputy Walsh to withdraw it.
The Deputy must sit down. It is quite possible to shout down a Minister or a Deputy, but such conduct is not characteristic of a deliberate assembly.
I never mentioned the word "damn."
The Chair did not hear that expression used.
The precise words used by Deputy Fagan were: "The Chair be damned." I heard him clearly.
I never used it and I appeal to the Chair.
We are told that the people of the Twenty-six Counties——
I appeal to the Chair to ask Deputy Walsh to withdraw his statement about me.
The Chair did not hear either statement.
On a point of order. I have no intention or desire to interrupt the President. The statement has been made by a Deputy on the opposite benches that the observation made was: "Be damned to the Chair." If that statement was made it certainly should not have been made. If it were not made then the Deputy who has made the allegation should withdraw it.
The Chair is not going to deal with this cross-fire between Deputies.
I never used that expression.
You did, because I heard you.
I say that I did not.
Hear the President, anyhow.
Interruptions.
When we went before the people and put our programme before them and asked them to approve of it we did not tell them that we could create new miracles. We were very careful and told them that the situation was one which would require a tremendous effort to remedy. It would be just about as reasonable to blame us for some of the things that, as a Government, we have been blamed for to-night as it would be to give us credit for the good weather we are having. The fact is that this country of ours, like other countries in the world, had to face a difficult economic situation. Denmark used to be held out as a model, as something to be followed. Ask the people of Denmark to-day in what position they find themselves.
They have secured our market.
We were told they were getting the highest prices in the British market and they were organised in such a way that everybody was talking about the wonderful organisation which ought to be followed and which would enable this country particularly to get possession of the British market. What is the position of the people in Denmark to-day? I may tell you that you are living in a paradise at the present moment as compared with the condition of the people of Denmark.
You are succeeding in making paupers of the people of this country.
They did organise themselves in an intensive way in order to supply the requirements of a foreign market, but now that foreign market is no longer able to absorb their goods.
We are 40 per cent. worse off than they are.
They are in the position that the market for which they organised is unable to absorb their products. The British Minister for Agriculture pointed out the position which the British farmer is facing. There is no economic or trade war or anything of that sort in question there. The position there is that good meat is obtainable at 2d. per lb., meat that the Minister himself would be glad to eat, and it is being sold to the soapmaker at 1d. per lb.
Things were all right in this country until your Government came into power.
The position is a serious one, and it calls for serious thought on the part of every public representative as to how it should be satisfactorily ended. It would not be ended if to-morrow you were to make that peace which Deputy McGilligan says we should make and pay £5,000,000 a year to Great Britain.
You are too small a man to end it; you cannot end it.
Why should we pay them £5,000,000 a year? We do not owe them the money.
We are paying it in any case.
What about the bounties?
You would be paying it doubly in other circumstances.
You have killed the biggest industry in this country.
If you wanted to build up your industries and give employment in the building of these industries and if Britain chose to say: "Very well; if you are going to deny our manufactured products entry into your country by tariffs, we are going to defend our agriculture by similar tariffs," you would find yourself in the same position, except that you would be £5,000,000 a year worse off. That is the position you will have to face. There are a number of things Deputies might know if they would listen a little more and talk less.
We know our own position sufficiently well—better than the President.
There are many Deputies who have not been able in the past to see further than their noses and they are not able to see much further to-day. Deputies who are now on the opposite benches might have adopted measures in time to mend the present situation.
You have ruined this country.
There is one speech that deserves attention. There were a number of things in it with which I did not agree, but it was at any rate a thoughtful speech. There was an attempt in it at decent constructive criticism. There would be some value in opposition and in listening to the views of Deputies who oppose if the speeches delivered were of that kind and of that spirit. The Leader of the Labour Party dealt with certain aspects. The people of Ireland can read the speech to-morrow and judge for themselves if it was not of quite a different character to the speeches we have had from the opposite benches.
Will the President carry out the advice contained in it?
The Deputy when he had a chance of being with that Party and carrying out that programme ran away from them. Why, if he believed in those principles, did he walk away from them?
He was too honest to remain with them.
I was here before the President. I was here when the President was in the wilderness, when the President was in the Shelbourne Hotel shirking his duty, when the President shirked it in the Shelbourne Hotel in 1925.
Those interruptions come well from a Deputy who was formerly a Vice-Chairman here and who should know something about the rules of Order.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.15 a.m. until Wednesday, the 27th September.