The fact that, on the last occasion this motion was being discussed, I, by rising to my feet, inadvertently and innocently moved the adjournment of the debate, spares you the tedium of listening to the trite remarks and harmless platitudes with which I had intended to introduce myself to you. My real anxiety in getting to my feet was not so much to air immature views on what, after all, is a highly technical motion, requiring more than a mere nodding acquaintance with economics to discuss relevantly and intelligently, but rather to repudiate certain wild statements made by Deputy Giles against a certain section of the community whom he euphemistically described as "opulent." I refer to the Jews. As the Deputy is not in the House and as I take it for granted that the views he expressed on that occasion were his own private views and in no way represented the views of the Party to which he belongs, I shall leave the matter aside.
As to the motion itself, it is logical to assume, I believe, that a sharp rise in the cost of living must necessarily be followed by a corresponding fall in the standard of living. That will apply more particularly to those whose wages, salaries and incomes have remained in statu quo ante. I, in common with everybody else of limited means, deeply deplore this increase in the cost of living, but, at the same time, I am not prepared to agree that the only way to improve matters is to adopt the motto of the Victorian politician in regard to protection and establish what, if the terms of this motion were literally carried into effect, would be a state of free trade between this country and other countries. It is all very fine to talk about buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest market, but, with our major industry in ruins and our export trade in decay, any playing around the skirts of free trade can only bring disastrous consequences and would inevitably result in further accentuating our already too serious unemployment problem. Deputies must face up to the fact that the policy of national economic self-sufficiency has come to stay, whether they, as individuals, like it or not. I believe that tariff walls cannot be built on shifting sands. Rather should they be made unassailable so as to avoid the economic confusion and financial chaos that would inevitably result from their collapse.
History, in this country at any rate, has an unhappy knack of repeating itself. Let us cast our minds back a century and a half to a time when a native Parliament sat below in College Green—a Parliament elected on a hopelessly restricted franchise and unrepresentative of seven-eighths of the community, because emancipation was then a mere embryo in the womb of the future. In less than 20 years, by the action of the Government in introducing levies, duties and like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, our export trade flourished, intensive agriculture was carried out on a grand scale, old industries were granted new leases of life and new industries were established. Then what happened? The action of the British Government, during the period of the Act of Union, in forthwith abolishing taxes, levies, duties and impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, immediately brought about the complete collapse of these industries. Thousands of workers previously employed in the protected industries were thrown out of employment. A terrible period of misery and depression set in which culminated in the famine of '47. I do not for one moment hold that an exactly parallel situation exists here to-day, because one must take cognisance of the repeal of the Corn Laws and of the fact that that period was the beginning of an era of great industrial expansion in Great Britain; but, at the same time, we must ask ourselves are we prepared to take the risk of all the calamities that would occur if the terms of this motion were carried into effect? I, for one, am not. I must say that, for my part, I would hail with joy any suggestion coming from Fine Gael, or from any other Party or individual in this House, that would in any way ameliorate the conditions of the unemployed and the underpaid and unorganised workers, but I see no constructive policy in the terms of this motion. I cannot agree, either, that the Unemployment Assistance Bill at present before the House improves to any appreciable extent the position of the unemployed, or relieves to any appreciable extent the tremendous bill which has to be paid weekly by the Dublin Board of Assistance to subsidise the inadequate allowances to the unemployed and to those in receipt of national health insurance benefit, old age pensions and so forth.
So far as I can remember—because this motion has become somewhat stale —the last speaker on the Government side was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands. So far as I am concerned, the only thing he succeeded in doing was in convincing me that there are three types of lies—lies, damned lies and statistics. With regard to the ráméis we had to listen to from the Minister for Industry and Commerce anent that Celtic myth, prosperity, which is so much discussed on post-prandial dress-suit occasions, the least said the better. Let the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and this applies equally to the Minister for Finance, instead of waxing eloquent about the consumption of spirits and motor cars, of beer and buses, examine the income-tax returns, the balance sheets and, last but by no means least, the consciences of our company promoters, our tariff exploiters, our bounty barons, our quota auctioneers and our licence hawkers, for therein, in my sincere and honest opinion, lies, to some extent at any rate, the solution of the ever-increasing cost-of-living problem. I may have wasted your time, Sir, and my breath on this motion; I can assure you that I will not waste my vote.