With your permission, Sir, before the debate is resumed might I ask if there is any likelihood of our getting agreement in the House as to the time of the closing of the debate?
Adjournment Debate: Position in Éire.
Debate resumed on question proposed: "That the Dáil do now adjourn."
Has the Tánaiste any suggestion to make?
I suggest we ought perhaps to close not later than 2 o'clock and, as the Taoiseach would like to wind up, that he should be allowed to start at 1 o'clock.
We recognise that the Taoiseach has a great deal of work to attend to at the present time and, in addition to that, it is desirable that the Taoiseach should be given ample time to deal with the various matters that have been raised. In view of those special circumstances we would not resist the proposal that the Taoiseach should be allowed to rise at 1 o'clock and have an hour to answer the general debate.
I take it then as a rule of the House, that the Taoiseach be called on not later than 1 p.m. to-day to conclude this debate.
I have listened very attentively to the debate. This is the third day and, personally, I thought that the debate did not take a sufficiently business turn. No Deputy on any side of the House will accuse m of 'being guilty of throwing bouquets at the Government or any of its Ministers but I recognise that when this war is through the names of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and all the rest of the smaller names in politics at the present time will probably be forgotten and that we will have to co-operate as closely as we had to co-operate from 1916 to 1921. I agree with die Taoiseach that it is probably more difficult to observe neutrality than it is to be a belligerent. In our circumstances it is far more difficult. I am perplexed to know how we will be able to keep neutral when I take up my pound note and say, "Value for this can be got in London and nowhere else.
It is disappointing and disheartening to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce—or the Minister for Supplies, as he now is—saying that undoubtedly we are going to have increased unemployment. Another Minister follows and says that we want 900,000 acres increased tillage. Others, on the opposite side, say that there is no danger of a shortage of food here. This debate has gone on for three days. If we have only arrived at the stage that we talk platitudes of that kind, this debate should be continued constantly. There should be no break in it until we learn something of the position that really confronts us.
To start with, I agree that we require an increase of 900,000 acres of tillage this year. Though I have a couple of hundred acres under the plough, I am prepared to do my share in regard to tillage. But the Government must realise that if a man spends money he must get a return for it. I quite agree that no man need starve in this country, ,but if unemployment, now in the neighbourhood of 100,000, doubles—as has been suggested here— where is the unemployment assistance, or the "dole," as it is called, going to come from? A third of our revenue comes from tariffs, and there will be a shrinkage in imports and, consequently, a shrinkage in revenue. That will mean increased taxation, increased unemployment, increased expenditure and diminished income. We have not heard any Minister, or, I think, any Deputy, applying himself to that problem. I am not going to apply myself to it, beyond mentioning it: it is a matter for somebody, on behalf of the Government, with the inside knowledge and information available only to members of the Government, to tell us about it. I want the Minister present here to understand that I am not raising it as an obstacle, but as a problem that is there and that has got to be faced. If we are going to have increased production, we must have increased capital. It has been said— and said loosely, I must say—on all sides, that We must have this increased capital, that more loans must be granted, that there must be some system of loans. I have as much experience in that direction, perhaps, as anybody in this House, and my advice to the Government is not, in any circumstances, to resort to a system of loans Loans will get us nowhere but into debt. What will get us somewhere and what is essential in this emergency is for this country to do what every other country in the emergency is doing, namely, expand national credit. We have no control of our credit, and we are the only nation in the world that has not control of credit. Shame on us, who fought for freedom but did not recognise the essence of freedom when we got to power, and did not establish that full freedom. The central bank of our banking system is the Bank of England; a central bank, and a central bank alone, manages and manipulates credit. I am afraid that the best and the only thing we can do in the present circumstances is to get into touch with, our banking system and with the Bank of England, and see how credit can be loosened here.
I give one example. I dare say members of the House are acquainted with the quantity theory of money: the more money that there is in circulation the better the prices—in fact, they run proportionately. Since Britain declared war her currency has increased from £478,000,000 to £580,000,000, and that represents a proportionate increase in price. Have we been able to do that? These are the things to which we should apply ourselves. There is no good in giving Deputy Hurley, the Minister lor Co-ordination of Defensive Measure or myself, in our own special calling, loans to produce if the general public has not a corresponding facile, namely, the purchasing power to buy what we produce, and if we have not the purchasing power to buy what they produce. That is the problem before us and the one to which we must apply ourselves. There are no other immediate problems except those of unemployment and food. We can solve the food problem but we cannot solve the unemployment problem and, if we have to carry the unemployed still, it means increased overhead charges, our revenue will shrink and we will have to find more revenue in order to maintain the present level of income and to make up for the loss occasioned by the war. There will then be too high an overhead charge on productive industry.
I heard some speaker yesterday complaining of the absence of two Ministers—of, I think, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture. They are only in the halfpenny place compared with the Minister for Finance. That is the job at the helm and on how that job is done depends our future. In fact, that will decide the fate of self-government in this country. It seems to me that the fate of the Irish Parliament of over 100 years ago was largely decided on the question of money. I would advise Ministers—particularly the Minister for Finance—to read and to study closely the financial and currency history of that period, particularly in its application to this country and to its effect on the Irish Government. If they do, I am sure they will set their backs against our falling into the pit that the people fell into then.
I would 'also advise them to study the financial and currency history of the famine period. If they do, they will find that the famine' was produced, not by a shortage of food but by a shortage of money, and that it was currency manipulation that caused the famine. I would advise the Minister for Finance to go into the National Library and to get a copy of the pamphlet by Dr. Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin, on "The Land Question and Bi-metallism", and there he will find the secret of the prosecution of landlordism. It was due to the demonetisation of silver, leaving as a consequence, in this period—according to the theory of money—less backing and cover for money and less currency, that is to say, lower prices. The landlords insisted on getting their pound of flesh but the tenants were unable to pay it.
Now we have the power to remedy this and we have not done so. We are up against a war situation, we are in the midst of the war, and we are asked to produce more. Certainly I do not criticise the Government for having set out on a policy of self-sufficiency—I never did—though I did criticise the pace at which they tried to travel. I did criticise them for endeavouring to do so and carry on the economic war at the same time. Agriculture was not able to bear the burden of building up industry, with a tariff on industrial products coming in, a tariff which I agreed to in normal times. They were putting that burden on agriculture and putting on the burdens of the land annuities and the tariffs at the same time. That is the only reason I had for criticising the Government. I always advocated the growing of more wheat, the growing of crops—even of crops that might be growing at a loss, but not growing to the point of self-sufficiency, to such a point that, in case of an emergency, we could, by an effort in one season, reach the point of self-sufficiency and keep to it so as to carry on until the emergency would have passed. In the matter of wheat growing the Government has done that. By an effort this coming year on behalf of the farmers, which I am sure will be freely given if the Government do their job, we shall produce between 500,000 and 600,000 acres of wheat, which will meet our requirements during this coming year. I am glad we are in that position. I am glad also that we are in the present position in regard to supplies of sugar.
I should like the Minister to consider a statement made by the Taoiseach with regard to agriculture. He said, and he could not give an explanation for it, that the agricultural produce exported during the last war did not show any appreciable increase on the export of agricultural produce before the last war, although there was increased land under the plough. The explanation is that there was more tillage but there was more home consumption of native produce.
There were less imports of foreign wheat.
Yes. That accounted in some measure for the discrepancy. I am speaking without consulting any records or data, because in the short time at my disposal I had not an. opportunity of doing so, but I would take it that the production per acre. was not as high during that period for many reasons, one being that people were brought into cultivation who had not previously been in cultivation to any extent, and consequently did not know the art of cultivation as well as those who had been normally engaged in it. Secondly, there was not as much manure available for the increased area and artificial manures were very scarce. Nobody got a full supply of them during that period. The shortage in exports, to which the Taoiseach referred, I should put down to the fact that home consumption had increased, and that there was more demand for native produce consequent on decreased imports. There was also a shortage of production, even though the area under tillage had increased, because we had not fertilisers. I have no doubt that the Minister present will convey one more little voice to the Minister for Supplies that the key to increased economic agriculture is increased fertilisers. That is one of the most important essentials to which the Minister for Supplies should attend, to enable us to produce sufficient food in this country for man and beast.
Better use of our own fertilisers would also help.
I do not know. A friend of mine, the present Judge Comyn, made an attempt at producing fertilisers, some kind of compound phosphates, in Clare. I undertook to use some of them, but I shall not disclose anything beyond that.
There are more fertilisers, home-produced fertilisers, going to waste on farms than would replace our imports.
Lime?
I mean through insufficient care.
I agree. We make the tea, so to speak, on the farm; we use the leaves and throw out the liquid. That is what the Minister is referring to. If the Minister could arrange for some capable person to give a broadcast for a quarter of an hour on that point it would be very useful. It would bring home to the people the desirability of retaining the liquid manure. Those people living near bogs could dry it with dry bog stuff—"mousheen" we used to call it—and people living near the sea could use fine sand. It should not be allowed to go waste. Economy of that kind will be very essential in the times that are ahead.
Many farmers I know—some of them have been with me—have fallen into arrears in regard to rates. They have not been allowed to fall into arrears with annuities as the sheriff was sent out and the annuities were collected by the direct method. We shall not go into that now. Many of them have also been stuck in the banks. In this period of emergency, would the Minister for Finance not have a talk with the Banks Standing Committee and say to them: "We know there are frozen debts there, but could you do anything to extend credit so that we shall have more production? While you have frozen debts, and no capital is made available, nobody will get anything out of the land, and the country, apart from who owns the land or who has money sunk in it, wants this land producing during the national emergency. Will you, as it were, forget the debt that is there until this emergency passes and give credit where you have a man who, on his face value, was normally a person to whom the bank would have given credit?" The Minister could get in touch with the banks to see whether any arrangement could be made in regard to those farms on which no production is taking place because of arrears of some kind or other, such as bank debts or rates.
There is just another point with regard to the Taoiseach's complaint that there was not a corresponding amount for export, notwithstanding the increased tillage during the last war. Everybody knows that this happened in the various counties throughout the country. Farmers were obliged, by order or by law, to till a certain percentage of their land. People who had grazing land and who never tilled any had to comply with these orders. How did they comply with them? Merely by ploughing their land and stopping it from growing good grass. They frilled it but they produced nothing. I am sure both the Ministers now present, who are farmers themselves, know that far better results could be achieved, acre for acre, if you can induce people to till rather than force people to till, because when you induce people to till they will be paid on production. The other people will merely stop the land from growing good grass.
I have nothing to fear no matter what percentage of land the Government requires for tillage. I do not fear compulsion, but if results are wanted you must approach the question from the angle that we want say 900,000 acres more under tillage this year, and that we want that apportioned under various crops. If the farmer is a good loyal citizen in this time of emergency he will do that, but we on our part must give a guarantee of so-and-so to the farmer. At no time have I been an advocate of fixed prices for things. I would prefer to see a guarantee of fixed conditions. Once you start fixing prices you do not know where it will end. If you fix the price at which the farmer must sell his stuff, and get that price, then the price at which he buys stuff will have to he fixed also. Suppose that you were to fix a price now for agricultural produce, it might look a very good price to-day, but it might not be a good price next year when we are selling our produce because of an increase in the cost of other commodities that farmers will want and that their workers will want. If the price of those commodities goes up, the workers will want an increase in their wages, and that must inevitably alter what would seem to be an equitable price, if fixed to-day. Therefore, I suggest that would be a very difficult matter to go into at the present time.
The Taoiseach made another statement which amounted to this: that we want this increased production and want it on an economic basis. I hope that the Ministers responsible will insist that it is on an economic basis. Broadly the position here is that we have 70,000 or 80,000 unemployed, and that we are expecting an increase in the number. Why should wet I would appeal to the Government to take this up in a businesslike way. Taking into account the forces involved, it is reasonable to suppose that millions of men in Europe will be taken away from ordinary production and put into the fighting line. History teaches that in such circumstances prices go up and employment increases for those not in the fighting forces. Even though we are neutrals we should be looking forward to an increase in employment rather than to a diminution of it. Being neutral we are confronted with this problem here: that while in Great Britain peace time employment is disappearing and war time employment increasing, here peace time employment is diminishing, just as it is in Great Britain, and war time employment here is not coming in to fill the vacancy. Why should our Government not set up war time industries? The United States, and every neutral country, are doing it. Why should we not be in the swim? Any industry that would not blatantly give grounds for the charge against us of breaking our neutrality should be set up here so as to give our people employment.
Certain trades were mentioned, particularly the building trade. There is no use in Deputies making an apologia for that trade. They can look upon new buildings here as dead until the present state of emergency or war is over. I can say that as one having an intimate knowledge of the building trade in the City of Dublin. From now on, the only building you will have will be of the maintenance type, so that employment in that direction has a poor future. As a matter of fact, most of the building operatives in the City of Dublin, particularly joiners, are over in England making huts. There is no future in that direction. Therefore, we must seek war time employment, in addition to that which will be provided by way of increased agricultural production.
I am not connected with any farmers' organisation and cannot speak for any organised group of farmers. I am speaking with the knowledge I have gleaned from conversation with ordinary good farmers who mind their business scad farm their land well, men that one would look to as farmers of a high standard. The information that I have gleaned from them with regard to trade with Britain roughly coincides. with what I have read in the Press Farmers here look with fear to the future if our cattle are to be bought by our Government and sent to Britain, if the exchange mart is to be in Great Britain. They are very much opposed to any arrangement on that basis. They consider that if they must be brought together in a common mart that then the British should buy the cattle here, and that if the cattle we to be graded or killed, that it must be done here. I believe that point of view expresses roughly the opinion of farmers and cattle traders.
The Minister for Agriculture will remember that I headed a deputation to him about cattle licences when there was more or less a show-down between the cattle traders and the farmers as to who should get the licences. There is no show-down on this. Both are agreed that the exchange mart should be on this side of the Irish Sea. If the Minister for Agriculture has not committed himself in regard to this matter—and he told the House here two days ago that he nor his Government has not been committed in regard to it—I would strongly advise him not to do so. If he is up against making a deal, he should consult authoritative farming opinion. I cannot advise him as to where he will get that, but I am sure representations have been made to him by various bodies connected with trade and agriculture, and he will know where to tap sources of information. I would strongly advise him to do so.
In passing, I would advise him to endeavour to make as long a deal as possible. If he can make a deal with the British Government in the matter of agricultural supplies, let him consider the post-war period more particularly than the actual war period itself. This country will be sure enough of getting some sort of a price during the war. It is the aftermath of the war that will be very trying for this country, and if the Minister could make an agreement which would carry us not only over the war period but over the post-war period—I am only giving this as my own opinion, and I have no expert support for it—it would be the best type of agreement he could make.
The Minister for Supplies appealed to employers to keep on their men. That is good patriotism. No employer should let his men go if he can keep them on. But here again the Government, and only the Government, can come to the assistance of employers who are making an attempt to do that. I wonder is the Government aware that there are many big employers in the City of Dublin, particularly in the building trade, who have on their hands thousands of pounds worth of goods which they cannot sell? How are they going to keep on their men? This is a trade that has shown more unemployment in the last few months than perhaps all the other trades put together. It is a pity that the Minister for Finance is not here, because he alone would have the entree; it is his Department that is peculiarly concerned in dealing with a matter of that kind. In Britain, since the outbreak of war and even before it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Montague Norman, have been in constant consultation as to the provision of credit, realising the truism that it is only by the provision of sufficient credit for industry that you can put all the people to work. Credit, I am afraid, if it is shifting at all in this country, is contracting.
I will not endorse what Deputy McGilligan said yesterday about our present Minister for Finance. I hope he will be a success in the Ministry, because that is absolutely essential for the future national life of this country. Above all those of us who belong to the Sinn Féin school want to see it a success on this occasion, because if it is not a success on this occasion it will tell against the whole Sinn Féin movement. It will show that it had been wrong in conception, and that this country would have been better if it had never seen it. Now we have the test, and I hope the Minister for Finance will get busy on this matter of credit, because nothing else counts. If he wants to increase agricultural production, and if he wants to increase employment, he must see to the provision of adequate credit. When I say credit, I am discriminating, and discriminating very particularly, between credit and loans. If you want to kill a man in business give him a loan, because I would say that the majority of them, when they get a loan, especially if the Government comes into it, begin to ask themselves: "How much of this need we never pay back?" The matter of expansion of credit is an entirely different thing, and should be seen to at once.
There are many matters in this debate which I should like to touch upon, but I think I have taken up my share of the short time at our disposal this morning. In my opinion it was a very useful debate, because We were not restrained as we would have been if a particular subject had been before the House, and on the whole I think there was less wandering from the subject than if we had been restrained. I am not suggesting that we should have free debates on every subject.
Is the Deputy speaking for himself?
No. I am speaking for the Ceann Comhairle. I do not propose to take up any more time of the House, but I hope that when we meet again there will be a similar opportunity for a review of the whole position. If the Government thinks that it would not be discreet or in the national interests to have a full dress debate here, to which the Press would be admitted—a debate during which there would be a national stocktaking of our resources, and an opportunity of considering the best method of pulling through the present emergency by utilising those resources to the best advantage—then it might be worth considering the holding of a private debate, so that we could hear from the Government the whole extent of our national resources, and in order that members of the House might offer their suggestions as to the best method of husbanding and utilising those resources in the national interests, so that this country will not be worse after the war than it was before it. I make that suggestion to the Minister, and perhaps it may be worth considering.
I merely intervene to say a few words about agriculture, because I think there is some misunderstanding with regard to a few of the points discussed during this debate. I should like to state exactly how we stand with regard to certain of our marketing problems. Deputy Belton, I think, is under the impression—if you take the position of cattle, for instance—that we would be asked to make some deal with the British Government. That is not the position at all. The food controller lays down certain regulations with regard to the sale of cattle, how they would be disposed of, and so on. He does not ask us, he does not ask the British farmers, or the Scottish farmers or any one else, to accept them, but we on this side thought that they were unworkable as far as we were concerned, and we made our views clear to the Minister of Food.
I am not sure whether or not the Minister of Food will alter his plan. So far as we are concerned, we shall do our best to get him to alter these regulations. If we fail, I do not know what we can do. Deputy Belton suggested a few days ago that we might keep the cattle in the country. That would be really the only remedy if we are dissatisfied with the regulations as they will be. I am hopeful that the regulations will be changed somewhat and that they may be, at least, workable for our exporters. We, in the Department, are making our views clear to the Ministers concerned on the other side and we are trying to keep the trade on as normal a basis as possible. I suppose Deputies are aware of what the normal method of exporting cattle is. We have the two big classes—stores and fats—and usually the store exporter consigns his cattle from a port here to some centre in Great Britain—not necessarily to a port—to be sold there, frequently by auction. These cattle may be consigned direct, to some farmer in England or Scotland. I think that that will go on practically as it has been going on, with this exception —that the food controller reserves the right, if he thinks that some cattle in a lot consigned as stores are really fat, to take these cattle out and have them slaughtered.
What about the price?
I shall come to the question of price in a moment. The point I have mentioned is one about which we are having some negotiations. It is a system that would give the exporter a great deal of trouble. The exporter of stores is sometimes, but not always, a man who knows very little about the fat cattle trade and who has no agent on the other side who would dispose of these fat cattle to the best advantage for him. There are points that must be settled up and, in the long run, they may be settled up by the exporters cooperating and having agents appointed at the ports on the other side to dispose of those cattle picked out as fat but originally consigned as stores.
To dispose of the fat cattle, whether consigned from here as stores or sent as fats, the proposal of the Minister of Food was that he would take over ownership of the cattle when landed on the other side, that he would consign these cattle to any centre that he thought fit, that they would be slaughtered there, graded after slaughter and then paid for. Naturally, the exporters here are not enthusiastic about that scheme. They say that they will have lost touch with the cattle. Their batch of cattle may be broken up into two or three parts. They may go to remote centres where they will be slaughtered and graded without a representative of theirs being present, because it would be impossible for them to have representatives in all these places. They say that they will have to wait for a fair length of time before they get their money back and they will always have the fear, or suspicion, that it was not their own cattle that were slaughtered or that, if they were their own cattle, they were not graded as well as they should be. We are making as strong a case as we can against that, and we are arguing very strongly with the Minister of Food on the point.
If the Minister of Food wants to take possession of all fat cattle, we cannot very well oppose that proposal. That is an internal matter for them, but we say that, if he must take possession of our fat cattle, could he not take possession either here or at the other side and could he not take possession of them on a live-weight basis? Within the next few days, we may have come to a conclusion of these negotiations and arguments. I mean by that that we shall have got as far as we possibly can with the Minister of Food—that we shall have got the best terms possible from our point of view. At that stage, I propose to summon a meeting of those most concerned with that particular trade and ask them if they think the scheme is workable.
What do you mean by "that particular trade"?
The fat cattle exporters.
What about the feeders?
I do not see that the feeders have anything to do with this matter.
Will they not have to pay the piper in the end?
They will, but not 1 per cent. of the feeders could tell you how cattle are exported.
They could tell you the price.
Certainly, but I am speaking of the mechanism of transport and disposal.
An exporter has no interest except to buy from me and sell at a figure that will make a profit. If he gets £l or £2 less he will give me £l or £2 less, so that he will be at no loss.
Deputies are, I fear, inclined to think that we, in the Department, do not see these points. I am giving my full time to these matters, and I have a staff of a few hundred, many of whom are very able men, giving their full time to these matters. They see all these points.
I know that nothing will be overlooked.
If the method of export and disposal be once settled, we may assume that, if it is workable, it will continue throughout the war. We expect that the price will be changed from time to time. We shall be always in touch with the British Government with a view to getting the best price possible. If the method of export makes a return to the producer less than some other method would make, we shall say that it is not the best method from our point of view. So far as price is concerned, we. shall keep the interest of the producer in mind, and so far as the mechanical operation of export and disposal goes, we shall do our best to see that it works to our advantage.
When I say that we shall call the fat cattle exporters here to see if the scheme is workable, that is a different matter. We shall say to them: "Can you possibly work this scheme?" If they say they can work it, naturally we shall say: "Is it more costly than another scheme?" because, if it is, no Deputy will accuse me of thinking that the exporters will take the loss out of their own pockets. I know they will take it out of the producers' pockets. That will be a very relevant consideration—the cost of any scheme put up. I thought Deputy Belton was under the impression that there was a sort of treaty being made whereby we would supply cattle if they would supply something else, but there is not. They are exactly in the position of buyers.
Until you assured the House to the contrary the other day, I was under the impression feat a deal was actually made, but I took your word at once, and I did not repeat that to-day.
I admit that. The Minister of Food is in the position of a buyer. He says that he is going to take the cattle and that a certain figure is his price. We are the sellers. We say that the method proposed is not the best method, that both of us will get better value if we change the method. As to the price, eventually we shall have to come down, as two men in a fair come down when the buyer says "That is my last word".
Sheep will be in the same category as cattle. Fat sheep will be disposed of in the same way as fat cattle, and store sheep will be exempt from any of these regulations. We do not export store sheep to any great extent from this country—to nothing like the extent we export store cattle. I mean that, in the case of sheep, our big export is fat sheep and our export of store sheep is small, whereas, in the case of cattle, our big export is stores and our export of fat cattle is less.
Now, with regard to butter and bacon, as far as we have any knowledge at the moment, the British Minister of Food intends to take control of all milk and bacon products going into Britain, and he has told us that it would facilitate him—and in fact that it might be necessary—if there would he one exporting body in this country in connection with these commodities.
And one price for North and South?
Well, that is a different matter, and we shall come to that also in a moment. We have, therefore, got our machinery really with regard to these things. As a matter of fact, if I got a telephone message to-day we would be ready to deal with the matter, because our machinery in connection with the export of bacon and butter is already there. At an hours notice we can telephone or send a telegram to every bacon curer in this country and tell him what the machinery is, and from that on the matter will go on to a committee which will be composed in the main of civil servants. The same applies to milk products.
Now, we come to the question of prices again. In the case of bacon the price has been fixed, and the prices that have been fixed so far are, as the British say, provisional. They have fixed the prices more or less on the prices that were ruling before the war, but they have not given any great thought so far as to what the price should be, say, during the next 12 months. In the case of bacon, our prices were as good as those of anybody else—in fact, a shilling over in some cases—so that we had no serious complaint to make, at any rate with regard to our comparative prices. Compared with the case of Denmark, and so oh, we were getting a fair price, but we could truthfully say, and could argue strongly, that it was not sufficient to induce our producers here to increase production, and we may succeed in that point and get a better price for our bacon as time goes on.
With regard to milk products, we are not in so fortunate a position. Deputies know. from reading the English prices of butter over the last ten or twelve years, that Danish butter was usually, and in fact, almost always, on top, and that some of the Scandinavian countries got a price coming close to the Danish price. On the other hand, New Zealand and Australia, which were very big suppliers of the British market, got a price that was invariably lower than the price of Danish or Scandinavian butter. The difference varied, of course; sometimes the price was within 5/- or 6/- of the Danish price, but at other times there was a very big gap, running up to 27/-, and Irish butter was in between Australian and New Zealand butter. However, we are gradually improving, and this year I think we could claim to be as good as New Zealand, but the British, when fixing the price of butter, fixed Danish and North European butter at one price and fixed Colonial butter, in which they included us, at a lower price. I think that that was unfair. I think they fixed the price much lower than they should equitably have fixed it, and we made that plea that they had put our butter very low, comparatively speaking, as against the European butters. Where we were in an unfortunate position, however, was because ours is a very small percentage of the Colonial butter. New Zealand and Australia export huge quantities of butter to the British market and our export is very small in comparison, so that I am afraid that any argument we put up will bear very little weight unless we can get these two big exporters to do most of the arguing for us.
At the moment, it does not affect us very much because we have very little butter to export this season. I think it cannot be very much mow at the moment than a couple of thousand tons, and if it were not creating an undesirable precedent tor next year we could say that the national loss is very small with regard to the remaining butter for this year and that the price does not matter very much to us at the moment. It does not matter at all to the producer because, in any case, he is safeguarded by a fixed price and a guaranteed price. We do think, however, that we should argue the case as strongly as possible because, as I say, it might be taken as a precedent for next year and that we would accept for next year the position as it is at the moment and would acquiesce in the same differentiation next year.
Some of the officers in my Department who deal with milk products and eggs are at the present moment, as a matter of fact, in London negotiating about these things and are being advised by people in the trade, both the milk products and ,the egg trades. They are also negotiating in connection with the matter of price for eggs. Now, we come to the point that was raised by Deputy McGovern. When they fixed the price of eggs in England, we must admit that they did fix the price more or less on the basis of the prices that had been ruling for the previous two or three weeks, and at that time that happened to be a very unfavourable ruling so far as we were concerned. There happened to be a gap of about 3/6 between our eggs and the native eggs. Native eggs include those of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, therefore, are all included as home eggs, and the position, therefore, is that the producer in Northern Ireland is getting 3/6 more than we are getting at the moment. They could not have taken a more unfavourable time for us. There were times this year when we were within a shilling of the Northern Ireland price —I do not want to be tied to the exact figure, as I am speaking from memory, but I think that is correct—but at the particular moment that they took for fixing the price there was a big gap between us. Our people in London are also negotiating on that matter, and I have more hope that they will succeed in getting a fairer price for our eggs than I have in the case of butter, because we are on our own so far as eggs are concerned. Our eggs are not the same as New Zealand or Danish eggs. They were always in a class by themselves and were always recognised as coming next to the home eggs. Accordingly, we certainly should get a price equal, or nearly equal, to Northern Ireland eggs. We are certainly entitled to get it on quality at least, and certainly should get a price very close to their price, if not equal. As I say, therefore, I have hopes that we will succeed in making some improvement in the price of eggs as a result of our negotiations.
What is the difference at the moment?
It would be from l2/- to 14/- in one case—that is, taking the mean difference_and about 17/- to 19/- in the other case.
It works out at 4d. a dozen in Fermanagh and Cavan.
Yes, it may be that. That is how we stand in regard to bacon, butter and eggs. As I have said, we are ready to put our machinery into operation with regard to marketing bacon and butter, and we are negotiating, as far as we can, to get a better price for milk products and eggs.
I do not think the export of eggs will be controlled. There will be a fixed price, but I think the ordinary channels of export will be available, and that there will be no such thing as the Food Controller on the other side taking over eggs as he intends to do in regard to milk products and bacon. As far as eggs are concerned, the only thing we need trouble about is to get the best possible price. I think that covers our exports which are in any way going to be interfered with. Poultry will not be interfered with in any way, I think. Potatoes will be controlled, but we are not up against that yet, and we do not know exactly what the conditions will be. We have no great export of potatoes from this country for at least another month or two, and, as the other matters are so urgent, we put potatoes aside for the moment until we have time to deal with them.
I do not anticipate any great difficulty in getting seeds. I think, for instance, that in the case of seed for winter wheat, we will get an ample supply and will have no difficulty whatever in getting that seed in. We are ourselves fairly self-sufficient with regard to the other cereal crops, like oats and barley, and if you go back a number of years, you will find that, with the exception of last year, we imported very little seed oats and no seed barley. I am not sure yet what the position will be with regard to seed wheat, but I think it will be as good as it was in the Spring of this present year. It was difficult, as every Deputy knows, to get in seed wheat during the Spring of 1939, and I do not think it will be any worse this coming Spring, but it will probably not be any better, either. Deputy Belton also spoke about manures. I am very doubtful if we will have more artificial manures than we had last year and, in fact, I am afraid we may have a little less, but the reduction, I think, will be small. I do not think we will have very much less than last year, and I suppose that if we succeed daring the war in keeping our supplies up even to what they were in 1938-39, we will not be too bad. If possible, we will try to get in even more than that.
Will you keep the price at the same level?
No, the price will be higher.
Will the subsidy be increased?
There will be no subsidy. I have taken a note of what Deputy Belton said with regard to these manures and I do not know if it would be possible, or advisable, to have a radio talk on the matter of the conservation of farm-yard manures. It might be a very good idea and I think we will try to get some propaganda, if you like to call it so, across to the farmers on that matter, and advise them to do their very best to keep their farm-yard manure in the best possible condition and to conserve the liquid manure, if at all possible.
It would be as good as some of the talks.
I think that if that were done well, it would more than make up for any reduction there might be in the amount of artificial manures coming in. With regard to food stuffs, the Minister for Supplies made a fairly full statement and I do not think I have very much to add. There will, I am afraid, be this difficulty—the difficulty has arisen now, but I think that things are possibly at their worst now and that they may be better in a few months' time—that it may not be always possible to get the best balanced ration that a feeder would like to get from his merchant; but, on the other hand, if there is a scarcity of maize— we have had a fairly abundant harvest and we have quite a lot of wheat in the country, and we can get in quite a lot without any trouble at the moment_ and if we replace our maize by cereals, whether wheat, barley or oats, it is not going to interfere very much with the ration fed to the pig, at least in ingredients, or chemical constituents.
You will not consider the taste of the pig? A pig dors not like much wheat.
There is no doubt that a pig fed on oats and barley will produce much nicer bacon than a pig fed on maize.
But not on flour.
A certain amount of wheat is quite all right. The difficulty may be the getting of sufficient proteins. For some years, up to the time the Roscrea meat factory ceased to operate on the large scale on which it had been operating, we had all the proteins we wanted in the country. We had not been importing any meat meal or fish meal, but from the time the factory stopped its large operations, we have been importing a certain amount of meat meal. It is not a very big quantity. Speaking again from memory_ I have not got the figures—it is only a couple of thousand tons, which is rather small. I do not know whether we will be able to get it now, and we may be somewhat short of proteins, as I say, but we will have to do our best to make this good by making better use of skimmed milk and other things, and by growing certain crops, like beans, for cattle. I do not think, however, that it is going to be a very serious position because, as I say, our imports of proteins were comparatively small.
What about ensilage?
I am glad the Deputy mentioned that. We did, as a matter of fact, provide in the Estimate for this year, before we foresaw any war, for a certain amount of expenditure on demonstrations of ensilage through the country, and we carried out those experiments as far as we could. I quite agree that we should go out as strongly as possible now to encourage farmers to ensile much more of the grass crop than they have been doing up to this.
The Minister is as well aware as I am of certain experts in the country who have taken a strong line in this matter. Would he think of availing of their services and of giving them a licence to carry out experiments on their lines to demonstrate what they are able to do, even if only in one district?
If I am correct in my interpretation of what the Deputy has in mind, I think the ingredients required for these experiments will be very difficult to get. I am afraid we shall have to depend entirely on ordinary ensilage.
Would the Minister say that he will send for this person and ask is he prepared to undertake the experiment under existing conditions?
I will. I frequently meet him, so that I do not have to send for him. The question of compulsory tillage has arisen during the debate. All we can say is that we may be in a position next year in which it will toe impossible for us to get our full requirements of wheat, maize and so on. The war, if it goes on as it is expected to go on, may take a course such that we will have no trouble whatever in getting in whatever we want, but we would be taking a very serious risk in chancing that.
Did the Minister speak of "getting our requirements of wheat"?
Of wheat and maize imported.
After 1940?
From this time next year on.
I think it is entirely in the Minister's hands to have all the wheat he wants.
Our storage capacity is limited.
Build the storage. You have a year yet.
By the time we had built it, we might not he able to get in the wheat. I think we should not take too great a chance on it, but that we should get our farmers to produce more cereals, more potatoes and, of course, more beet for sugar. That will mean a substantial increase in our tillage.
I do not like compulsion any more than any Deputy here, and I think that if we make an appeal to farmers we will get a fairly generous response. But there is no doubt that whatever response we may get even from the big majority of farmers, there will be some that will not respond to anything, and I do not see why they should not be compelled to take their part.
You will give those of us who will respond a better price ?
Which is the best way of getting the stuff.
Then the others will respond the next year.
I do not know. I should like to say this to Deputies, that I did spend some time in looking over the appeals made to farmers during the Great War, and the measures taken by the British Government and the Department here to get increased tillage, and the result was practically nil. Until compulsory tillage came in, the appeal, did not bring in, I think, more than 30,000 or 40,000, or possibly 50,000 acres during the first couple of years. Of course, when compulsion came in, the acreage was very much increased.
Conditions are different now.
It is possible that conditions may be different, but I am not sure about that.
If yon ask people to say how much extra tillage they will do, take a kind of census, I am sure you will get a good response, and you will know where you are. I think you are quite right not to leave out compulsion unless you have something tangible to go upon, that at the seeding season you will have a substantial increase. If you have not that, I think you would not be doing your national duty if you do not resort to compulsion.
It is a question of the time. It may be too late by the tune you have your replies in.
You can put the county committees of agriculture on that work.
I do not say that I was accused very much here in the Dáil, but I have been accused by organisations outside of doing things without consulting the farmers. I have, therefore, decided to set up a consultative council representative of the county committees of agriculture and the other farming organisations which are there, which will be a permanent organisation at least for the duration of this crisis. In connection with whatever we propose to do, we hope to be able to consult those people to see if they have any strong objections or very sound objections from the farmers point of view.
If that does nothing else it may at least assure the farmers that at least their views will be put before me and the Department of Agriculture before any big change is made in the regulations. I am hoping to get that council set up within a week or two. I am going to get it done as far as possible on an elective basis, that is, getting them to nominate their own people so that nobody will be able to say that they are a picked body.
I believe it was stated here that the number of cattle in the country had gone down, and I was asked if that were true. It is not really true at all. The number of cattle in the country when the census was taken in June last was slightly higher than in 1931. It was 4,000 lower than in 1938, but it was about 23,000 higher than in 1931. There has been practically no variation in the number of cattle in this country for at least fifteen or twenty years. They have always numbered in or about 4,000,000. I do not think they ever exceeded that by 200,000 or went below that by 100,000; so that there has been really no great variation. It is true that there are not as many cattle of more mature age, that is, over two years. That is, I think, entirely due to a change in the taste of the people and in the trade generally. The producer is finding that it pays him better to bring out his cattle in a finished condition younger; that he gets more for them. Our experience is that a good two-year-old, say, gets a better price than even a three-year-old.
The tendency is changing again.
That may be so, but that has been the tendency for some time. With regard to tillage, there was a decrease this year as compared with 1938, but, again, the total amount of tillage is higher than it was in 1931 by about 50,000 acres. As I said, the tillage acreage is not high enough to meet our total requirements if we have to visualise a complete blockade of all imports, which is almost impossible. But, if we had to visualise that, we would need about 850,000 or 900,000 acres probably to make up the deficiency of wheat and maize.
Has the Minister considered the desirability of getting supplies of potash from kelp which I mentioned?
I can only answer that in a general way. I asked the Department a few weeks ago to see if there were any sources from which we could get the manures which we want. For instance, we can get, I believe, sulphate of ammonia from gasworks by asking them to do their best in that way. I also mentioned the question of potash, out I am not sure if the particular source referred to by the Deputy has been investigated, and I shall take a note of it.
Might I impress on the Minister the vital necessity of telling the people what he wants in as explicit terms as he can? It may be fully present to the Minister's mind and the mind of the Department what they want, but what the average farmer requires to be told is to grow barley or produce pigs and fowl. I urge the Minister strongly, through the radio and Press publicity, in selected areas to tell the farmers what he wants them to produce. I believe if he will do that and make it clear and certain that in Roscommon he wants one thing and in Kildare another, he will get a very much better response than if he makes a kind of general, vague appeal for a wide range of produce in the whole country.
I would remind Deputies that there has been an arrangement made to the effect that the Chair is to call on the Taoiseach not later than 1 p.m. to conclude the debate. Four or five Deputies have been trying to catch the Ceann Comhairle's eye, and if speeches ace brief all may get an innings.
Might I point out that that arrangement was made under the definite impression, on this side of the House anyway, that the Taoiseach was to be the only Minister to intervene?
There was no such stipulation.
I know there was not, but that was the definite impression. If the Minister's contribution had been made yesterday or the day before, it would be very much more helpful.
That was not my fault. I think the Taoiseach will agree to curtail his speech by ten minutes in view of my intervention.
We are all very glad to see the Minister for Agriculture present this morning, and hope that he will not leave the House before hearing the views of those who wish to speak on the question of agriculture. There was one statement he made as regards the fixing of the price of cattle, which I hope lie will take a note of for reference when on some future occasion we may be talking about the Pigs Marketing Board. The Minister said that the exporters of cattle could not be sure under the system proposed by the Minister of Food in England that the cattle taken possession of by him and graded would be their cattle or, if they were, that they were graded properly. That also applies in connection with the Pigs Marketing Board, and possibly he will hear more about it later on.
At the present time farmers are not in a position to go in for a lot of extra production. Ninety per cent. of them have not recovered from the effects of the economic war. During that time the stock of cattle in the country was depleted. Any deposits which farmers had in the banks have been withdrawn. Most of the farmers got into debt during that time, and have not been able to pay off these debts yet. They are gradually trying to pay them off. They are not in a position to undertake a lot of extra production at the present time, and I do not think it would be fair for the Government to try to force them.
The Government are well aware of the position of the farmers. If I am correctly informed, the Taoiseach received a deputation from Clare a short time ago and they pointed out to him— I am not in a position to speak with accuracy and I am only giving you what I heard—that the farmers to-day are in a very difficult position. They referred to their grandfathers and the way they handed down the holdings to their sons and daughters. In due course those people handed down the farms to the present generation and the present generation hope to hand them to their sons and daughters. But there has been a vastly different outlook in the different phases of life. Heretofore the farmers handed on the holdings to their sons and daughters together with a certain amount of money, a small deposit. We will be handing on our holdings to the coming generation with debts on them and these debts will be swamping them for years to come. That is the difference in what was done heretofore and what is being done now.
The position of the fanners in 1914, when the Great War was started, was vastly different from what it is at the present time. They had a certain amount of surplus money; they had cheap machinery and they had none of the tariffs under which we have to work at the present time. Consequently, it was much easier for them to carry on and to do extra tillage than it is for the farmers to-day. Before we can undertake compulsory tillage it is necessary to remove a lot of the tariffs. It will be necessary to let machinery in free. Supposing we did utilise all the machinery of Irish manufacture that we can get, it would still not be sufficient to do all the extra tillage required. Consequently, we would need to have the machinery coming in free of tariffs. Again, the Irish farmer cannot afford to pay a great amount by way of wages. Admittedly, the farm labourer is worthy of his hire and the wages he is getting at the moment are not excessive. When you take the rent out of 27/- a week he has very little left, not even sufficient, after the rent is paid, to procure the necessary supplies of bread and other things for the family. At the moment there is no excessive payment to the farm labourer, but if the farmer has to continue giving employment and if prices increase, the labourers will have to be paid more and there will be further hardships on the farming community.
There are two ways in which the Government can obtain extra tillage, and those ways will not mean any burden on the Government. One way would be to fix a minimum price so that the farmer will know what he is going to get and he will be sure that his crop will not be turned down, that he will be producing a crop that will at least pay him. If you fix a minimum price he will know what he can get from a certain area of cereals. If a farmer has cereals or cash crops to sell, the bank will advance money on those crops much more readily than on anything else. If the farmer is a straight, honest man, the banks will know and they will be prepared to advance a certain amount of money in the springtime to enable him to purchase whatever seeds or manures he may require.
Another way of assisting tillage is by following the example that we find in Northern Ireland. It is not infra dig. to look at what our neighbours across the Border are doing. Our neighbours in Northern Ireland are giving the farmers so much semi-free labour. By that I mean that the farmer in Northern Ireland employs a certain number of men who are on the unemployed list and the Government pay a certain amount towards their wages. I am not sure of the exact figure, but supposing the Government pays 10/- or 12/- and the farmer pays the balance, that enables the farmers to employ more labour and the number of men receiving the dole is lessened. These men are given a reasonable wage for a reasonable amount of work.
If either of these ideas was adopted, our Government would not be at any loss. If they proceed to enforce compulsory tillage it will mean the employment of inspectors. Then you will have young men going around the country in their motor cars, many of them not knowing the difference between an acre and a rood. These inspectors would start dictating to the farmers, telling them how much land they should have under tillage and suggesting the crops they should grow, thus creating a lot of ill-feeling and getting the farmers' backs up. If these ideas were adopted I think it would do much to encourage extra tillage and there would be little need for compulsion. I ask the Government to consider this matter carefully before they enforce compulsory tillage.
There is one matter I would like to emphasise. When will the Minister for Finance consider the payment of separation allowances to the wives and other dependents of soldiers serving in the Army?
That allowance has already been issued to them. The wives and children of serving soldiers are entitled to a family allowance. There was some delay for a week or so after mobilisation, but arrangements have been made and the money is now being paid in practically all cases.
I am sure the Minister is quite correct in what he is saying, but so far as County Cavan is concerned the money has not reached them this week. There are people there in very poor circumstances and they need all the money they can possibly get.
I am glad that the Minister for Agriculture came in and took us away from the war zone. We were living in the war zone for the last few days and we scarcely heard anything at all about the economic side; it was all war. I suggest that the Ministry should get away from that war-time attitude. They have been living in it for a month and if they got away from air raid precautions, black-outs and all the other things, and devoted a little attention to the economic side of the question, it would be more advisable. Were it not for the statement of the Minister for Agriculture the people in the country would not know where they stood.
They were afraid there would be a scarcity of seeds, of manures, and of practically everything that would be required to produce a crop next year. I hope the Minister is right when he says we will have sufficient seeds and as much manure as we had in the years gone by. But all that will not be sufficient if we are going to have increased tillage. There is certain to be a demand for more artificial manure.
The Government undertook to expend £10,000,000 on war preparations this year. I do not know what all that is for. I do not know who is going to attack us. If that money were spent by the Minister on the purchase of manures and feeding stuffs, where-ever they are available, and if he would only assure us that there will be an adequate supply of those very essential articles, particularly maize, I think it would be much better than foolishly to spend money in the way of war preparations. The Minister stated that he thought there would be no scarcity of wheat seed, oat seed or barley seed. I do not think there is any danger of a scarcity of any of these seeds this year. At the same time. I should like to poe the restrictions on the importation of oat seed removed. Oat seed goes down in quality very quickly, and growers find it necessary year after year to get improved seeds, imported or otherwise, for sowing.
Last year the Minister for Agriculture bleatedly granted import permits to merchants. Farmers could get permits from the Department to import seed, but they are not in a position to give orders, or to go through all the formalities of the customs authorities. Very often they find they have not the ready money. If merchants could get the names of a certain number of farmers who wanted quantities of seed oats, they would be able to buy in bulk and pay cash, and, as is very often done, give the farmers credit. In that way merchants could order ten or 20 tons of seed oats, pay cash for it, and comply with the customs requirements. Otherwise farmers would not be able to avail of such facilities. I appeal to the Minister to see that there will be no recurrence of what happened last year, when the seed oats came in too late, with dire results in some cases.
I know the value of liquid manure as well as anyone, but I ask the Minister to explain how the ordinary farmer, at the back of God-speed, is going to go about putting up a tank for liquid manure When he has not the wherewithal to put up a croteen for hens. If that is to be done, let the Government provide the money to enable people to put up these tanks. What is the good of talking nonsense about such things if the people have not the funds to carry them out? I agree that it would be a step in the right direction. Let the Government provide the money to put up tanks, and they will be doing something effective in the way of meeting the shortage of manures.
There will be more than that if the war lasts long.
The people are not in a position to undertake this work.
Quite a number of them are in a position to do it, if they would only make a start.
I am talking about people who are not in a position to do it, but who need the manures. What is preventing better production at the moment is the high cost of machinery. It is very easy to talk about increasing production. Practically 50 per cent. of my land has been under tillage for years, and I could increase the acreage, if I had the machinery and the parts of machinery. In my case the expense there amounts almost to an annuity. Remove the restrictions on machinery and on parts and it will be of the greatest help to farmers.
As to the licensing of bulls, it should be remembered, that cattle are as important as wheat, beet or anything else we produce. Milk and butter are necessaries of life, and so is meat. Inspections of bulls are held in various centres. The owners would not keep them unless there was a necessity for them. I saw that in one place 14 or 15 bulls were inspected and that four were selected and ten rejected. As far as I know, no man rears a bull up to nine or ten months unless the animal is going to be useful afterwards for breeding purposes. The Livestock Breeding Act has been in operation for six or seven years, and there are very few bulls brought up for inspection that are not fit and useful animals. In the case of a bull that is not kept for show purposes, but is kept for use on the farm, and not overfed, the inspector may come along and say that he has narrow ribs, or that he is not in condition, and the animal is rejected, whereas another bull, that is not half as good, in which defects are covered up, and who is full of meat, is selected. Restrictions of that kind have been removed in England during the period of the war, and the same thing should be done here.
Everybody knows that as a result of the economic war the majority of the farmers are in financial straits. If we want them to increase production now, credit facilities must be made available. I do not know what is the best way of doing that. Beet growers get a credit note from their association, which they hand to shopkeepers, who give them manures for the crop. If the same arrangement could be made for manures and seeds for wheat and other crops, where people have not the ready money, and if the merchants were guaranteed payment when the crop was cashed, it would be of the greatest help. If the example followed in connection with the beet industry was extended to other crops, that would be a step in the right direction. I suggest that money that is now being spent on war preparations should be stopped for a month, and that there should be during that period expenditure on peace lines, so that farmers might increase production during the coming year.
I wish to call the Taoiseach's attention, as Minister for Education, to the question of extending Summer Time Deputy Dockrell expressed the hope that Summer Time would be extended here as in England. I understand that is to be done.
It is under contemplation and, I think, probably will be done.
Then I appeal to the Taoiseach to give consideration to the position of children in outlying parts of the country. If Summer Time is going to be extended it should be remembered that some children may have to walk two or three miles to school. As a farmer I have a decided objection to Summer Time, but not at this period, if it serves a useful purpose. The position is that in country districts the children have to leave their homes at 8.30 in the morning—that is only 7 o'clock, God's time —and many of them may not be warmly clad or too well fed. If the Minister could issue an order to the managers and teachers of schools in country districts doing away with Summer Time, it would be helpful. The Minister is well clad and so am I, and we did not feel the cold so far, but there was certainly a, nip in the air this morning, which would be uncomfortable for children who had to leave their homes at an early hour and travel two or three miles to school. I appeal to the Taoiseach as Minister for Education to have that order carried out immediately and I will give you Summer Time then to your heart's content afterwards.
There is one very highly technical point that I would ask the Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defence to bring to the notice of the Minister for Supplies. It is with reference to the allocation of petrol to hackney cars. I am informed that the petrol allocation to hackney cars is on a monthly basis and that it has no reference to the horse power of the car. A 16 horse power car or a 22 horse power car gets the same amount of petrol per month as a 30 horse power car. Whether there has been any alteration in that respect in the last two or three days I do not know, but on three occasions in the early part of this week hackney car owners complained to me that they were only allowed the same amount of petrol for a 30 horse power car as for a 16 or 22 horse power car. I am raising this not as a question of cutting down the men with the 16 or 22 horse power cars but it is quite evident to the House that there is here a great injustice to the hackney car owner who has a 30 horse power car. I ask the Minister to take a note of that and see whether that position has been considered at all.
Deputy Belton in the course of his speech made one remark with which I would be inclined to agree. That was that the calling up of the Dáil was to review the whole situation. "Review" was the proper word to use for it. Things were to march along. We were to see a spectacular movement, but we were not to be allowed into it. Now everybody understood that the Dáil was summoned up here this week to learn about what the Government had been doing in the past few weeks and what they intended to do in the future. But even though the Minister for Supplies comes along here and tells the House that there is plenty of everything in the country, plenty of sugar, plenty of flour and other things, I am satisfied that his speech, in view of the facts in the country, has not allayed in the slightest any fears on the part of the people. The Minister talks about what supplies we have in stock, what additional supplies we are to get, how much sugar we have available, and then he tells everybody that there is a sufficiency of these things in the country. Now, I warn the Minister for Supplies that, there is not a bit of good in telling that sort of thing to people who cannot get sugar. If there are sugar supplies in this country certain it is that the Minister is most definitely not doing his duty if he is allowing wholesalers to retain large stocks and not supply them to the retailers. It is either one thing or the other—either the sugar is there or it is not. If the sugar is there it is a scandal that Irish wholesalers are allowed to hold up supplies from the retailers throughout the country, for any shopkeeper down the country will tell you that when he orders his usual supply of sugar he gets letters from the wholesalers saying that they will send him one bag where he got ten bags of sugar previously. These matters are of great concern to the people of the country.
One very important item of which there is a terrible scarcity is baking-soda. It is little good for the people who cannot get baking soda to be told that there is a sufficient supply of it. I do not know whether the Minister for Supplies will say that there are large stocks of baking soda in the country, but I do know that the people find it impossible to procure their ordinary supplies of it. That is a very serious thing where people bake their own flour, for they cannot continue doing so if they are unable to get baking soda. There is another important point that I want to see cleared up here. There is a sort of scare raised when somebody here talks about profiteering. Deputy Norton said that one of the ways to prevent profiteering was through the setting up of local committees to deal with it. That sort of thing creates the impression that the profiteering is done by the last man who handles the goods and sells them to the consumer. I defy the Minister to take the ordinary run of retailer, the business man in this country who is dealing with the public, carry on business for a month and see what profit he is going to make. If there is profiteering in the country, that profiteering is done by the monopolist —by the wholesalers, but not by the retailers. There would be no possibility of a retailer in a country town getting away with profiteering. God help the man who tried to start a retail ring in a country town.
It is a very bad thing and a very unfair thing to create the impression that the profiteering always comes in at the last point at which the goods reach the public—in other words, that the retailer is always at fault. I am certain that if there is profiteering and if prices have gone up beyond what they should—if what the Minister says w true that the supplies are in the country—that in 99 cases out of 100 it is because the monopolists and the wholesalers have been allowed to raise prices of the stock they had in their warehouses. It is not because of the action of the retailers. The raising of prices is not done by them.
I wish to be as brief as I possibly can, but there is one other point to which I cannot help referring. In his opening statement on the Adjournment, I found it hard to understand the attitude of the Taoiseach and his waxing indignant about the type of business the Dáil had been getting through in the two hours before he rose to speak. The Taoiseach made the most amazing references to parliamentary government that I have ever heard when he said that no Government could stand up to the type of the cross-examination that the members of the Government had been put through during those two hours. I do not know really how that statement struck the people everywhere in the country. I do not know what has been the reaction of the people to the Taoiseach's attitude on this matter. Is it the Taoiseach's opinion that the Government cannot carry on if there is going to be cross-examination of their acts in the Dáil? Cross-examination is only rather a nasty way of speaking of criticism. That cross-examination was really criticism of the Government. Now I want to say there is only one type of person who is afraid of cross-examination. That is the person with a bad case. The witness with a good case is never afraid of cross-examination. When the Taoiseach made the statement that no Government could stand up to the type of cross-examination that had gone on here for two hours he should have remembered that that cross-examination dealt with serious questions that were absolutely vital to the people of this country. There was quite good reason for the cross-examination. There were a number of Ministers, including the new Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and the Parliamentary Secretary who dealt with air raid precautions, who were really very good in evading that cross-examination. They were as slippery as any witnesses ever put into the box. They evaded giving direct answers every time. On the question of the new appointments I do not know what the reaction in the Fianna Fáil Party has been. I do not know what the reaction, especially of the legal luminaries of the Party, has been to one appointment, the new Minister for Justice. That is a most amazing; appointment. It is certainly astounding that a layman should he appointed Minister for Justice, the highest judicial Appointment in the Government. No one can say that I am personally interested. I have no interest in the position, whatever it might have been under different circumstances, but certainly it is amazing that the highest judicial position in the land has been filled by a layman. We have heard over and over again attacks made in this House because So-and-so, who was not a farmer, was put into the Department of Agriculture.
I am not saying that the Minister for Justice would not be capable of doing his job better than a lot of people, but I do say that it is entirely unfair to this House and to the Minister himself that the head of a Department like that is being put into the position that, for instance, if he were introducing a Courts of Justice Act or an amendment of the Constitution that he would be entirely dependent on outside advice, that he would be in the position of coming into the House and if any point were put to him that he would have to refer back to the Civil Service.
I cannot understand the Taoiseach's attitude in these changes. Why did he not leave the Ministry as it was? It has been a sort of musical chairs. It has been as if on two or three evenings the Taoiseach decided to have a game of musical chairs and when they all sat down he said: "You are the Minister now." Then they all walked to Phoenix Park and handed up their seals of office. It is all very amusing but it is most disquieting for the people of the country.
There is one thing here that has been treated with much levity and that is the black-out. I saw one very serious reaction to the black-out. In a local district court last week a young fellow was prosecuted for impersonating a Civic Guard and going around, during the period when the black-out started first, warning people to put out their lights. The greatest danger I see in the black-out in towns is that sort of thing. The Guards and the State authorities will have to be very careful that blacking out in this country is not going to give scope for a lot of rowdyism—I am not referring to political matters at all now—because it has given rise to it already. Apart from the Taca Síochána that the Government have instituted, if there is going to be a complete black-out for long periods I think we will have to get something like what existed in England during the last war—special constables —who would look after the streets at night if the ordinary police are not capable or have not sufficient numbers to do it.
There are two other very small points I wish to put. The Minister for Supplies will have to be more frank. There is no good in talking of the sugar that may be there or that is hidden somewhere.
The people of the country are also going to blame the Minister for Supplies about the maize question. That is absolutely scandalous. You had 12 months' notice of a war, and there is not one cwt. of maize meal to be got in this country. I cannot find words to express strongly enough what the people of the country think about the action of the Government in that matter. There was 12 months' notice of a major European war, to use the Taoiseach's own words, and there is not a cwt. of maize meal to be got in the country. I am very much afraid, Judging by the manoeuvring of the Minister for Agriculture, that the same thing is going to happen in regard to artificial manures. May God help the Government's economic policy, either as regards tillage or as regards taking advantage of the British market now, if we are short of artificial manure or if we are going to be short of maize meal for the production of the goods we can export. Unless they are going to act very carefully we may be short of labour, because even the Labour Deputies will tell you that the attitude of some workers is that they swill work for anybody except for a farmer. The Government will have to deal with that question also.
There are many rumours afloat in these times, and there is one that has come to my ears on which I would like the Taoiseach to speak, that is, that it is the intention of the Government to break with sterling. Probably, colour has been given to that rumour by the fact that the former Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee, has been changed to another position, and the Tánaiste has taken up that position. However, I am giving that to the Taoiseach for what it is worth. There is one thing that I would like to stress—and I was very glad the matter was raised by Deputy Belton—that is, the position of this country with regard to credit and finance. We saw at the outbreak of war that the banks in this country raised the bank rate from 3 to 5 per cent. I was discussing that point with a bank manager, and I was told the reason was that the Bank of England rate went up. There was very good reason for the Bank of England rate being raised, but I do not think the same reason obtained here. It shows that the banks here were allowed to exploit the position that has been created by the war situation. Other things were controlled. Prices were controlled, but this is a thing that should definitely be controlled. The banks at this country and the Bank of Ireland especially, should be directly under the control and direction of the Government in this crisis. If that is not done, then I am afraid that all the suggestions, and probably all the plans of the Government will come to naught. If the people who control the banks are a power outside this House, and are allowed to exercise that power at their own sweet will, then it is useless for people here to suggest schemes, or even for the Government to suggest schemes.
I am saying that very advisedly because I believe that this question of the control of credit in this country is at the root of the salvation of the State. I have been always of the opinion that, no matter what kind of political freedom you may get, it is very little use unless you have the financial freedom of the country. I have held that opinion and I am more strongly entrenched in that opinion now when I see what is being done.
We saw in the papers this morning a statement to the effect that the Directors of the Bank of England decided to reduce the bank rate from 4 to 3 per cent. that the reduction was much appreciated on the Stock Exchange, where losses in early dealings, following the Budget demands, were recovered, and that the Irish Banks' Standing Committee reduced the bank rate from 5 per cent. to 4 per cent. There is no reason given for that. It is simply because the Bank of England has done it our banks follow suit. If the Government had put up to the Standing Committee of the banks here within the last week that it was necessary to reduce the bank rate I wonder if they would have done it so willingly. I am informed that, as a repercussion from this raising of the bank rate, the local loans fund interest charges had been raised from 4¾ per cent. to 5¾ per cent. That is a very serious position for local authorities who want to borrow money for housing. If that increase is allowed, then it means that the people who are to occupy those houses will have to pay that interest. That is unfair because I cannot see any reason for it. If other prices are being controlled, and rightly controlled in the interests of the community, then I think that this very important matter of credit, currency and banking should also be controlled.
Whatever I say in this debate I am saying with the best intention, to help the Government, because I am of the opinion—and I am sure I speak for my Party—that the Government must get all the help possible in this emergency to carry the country through. As the Taoiseach rightly said, it is not a question of a Party or a Government, it is a question of the whole community and we will have to stand or fall together in this crisis: Realising that and realising the responsibility of the Government, I am pointing out to the Taoiseach and to the Government the importance of this very serious position with regard to credit.
We talk about credit for farmers, about credit for industrialists, for housing and for everything else but we have no control over it. I was listening to Mr. Savage, the Finance Minister of New Zealand, speaking to the members of the Parliamentary Party here recently and he told us that when they got into power as a Government in 1935 in New Zealand the very first thing they did was to control the banks because they found that there was a power outside their control which would wreck any schemes or any plans they might bring into operation. I think the position is so serious here that it will require something of that nature at the present time.
There has been a good deal of talk about the position of housing in this country and about housing schemes. Deputy Brazier referred to a scheme in the South Cork Board of Health for which £171,000 had been granted, but owing to the increased cost of materials that amount, I venture to say, will be enormously increased. Where is the balance to come from? Are the Government prepared to see to it that money will be available for this increase or is the position going to be that this work will stop? The building trade is a very important one in this country. There are a good many people employed in it and I think that the Government should make every effort to see that those works will be continued. If not, there is going to be very serious unemployment.
I think the position with regard to agriculture has been very well dealt with but somebody, sneaking on land division, I think it was Deputy Keyes, suggested that acquisition of land was to be stopped. Now, I think that that is bad policy. If you want to get more tillage a very easy way to do that would be to break up the land that has i not been tilled at the moment. I venture to say it will not be tilled unless it is divided amongst people who are willing to work it. In that regard, I would like to stress the point that cottiers who live on estates that have been acquired and are about to be divided should get portion of that land to work. The statistics prove that the land they have got from the Land Commission has been worked better than that in possession of any other section of the people who have got land. I think I am quite safe in saying that cottiers who are on estates which are being divided should get portion of the land. They will certainly make the best possible us of it.
There are many other matters, some of which have been already, dealt with. but there are a few local matters with which I should like to deal. Down in my constituency we have a number of woollen mills—at least three—making cloth, and I would like their position in the industrial life of the country to be taken into consideration by the Government. What I have in mind is this. Some of the ready-made clothing people imported a good deal of cloth for their requirements. Could not our local mills turn out a substitute for that i In these days things must be done which would not ordinarily be done in peace time. I cannot see any necessity for importing cloth while we have the woollen mills working on short time or have persons unemployed.
The Haulbowline industry was supposed to supply the steel requirements of the country. With an effort that industry might be kept going. I am informed that the works are practically closed down, which would be a very serious loss to the town of Cobh. Cobh and Cork harbour generally have been very hard hit during recent years. The works in Haulbowline did give promise that there would be a return of some kind of prosperity to Cobh, but if the position is left that we cannot get supplies it means that those works will be closed down and Cobh will go back to the position in which it was before they started.
In Cobh Harbour there is also the dockyard at Rushbrooke, which could be put into operation for ship repairs by a very small expenditure. I would suggest that Cork Harbour would be a very important port during this war, and probably, by the Government commissioning the docks, it would be of advantage to the country and to neutral ships which will come for repairs there. At the present time we could not repair even a fishing boat. If there is a chance, I am sure the Government will explore every avenue to see that that employment will be kept up.
There is also the question of labour camps. We should set our faces definitely against the idea of labour camps: it savours too much of the idea obtaining in other countries under systems of which we do not approve. That idea should not be tolerated here at all. Some Deputy from the Fianna Fáil Benches mentioned that, and I hope that the Government is not thinking along those lines.
It was a Kerry man.
If work is, available the people will go to work. For example, when the Ford works were started in Cork, people came from all over the country, even from across the water, to work in Cobh. If work is available there will be no necessity for labour camps. The first requisite is to make the work available, and again it all comes down to a question of money. Where is the money to come from? Unless that question is tackled all the schemes are only so much waste of money. There is the question of sewerage and road works. These will certainly make up for any unemployment that may arise in other directions. Wherever the Government can carry on useful schemes they should be carried on. There is no need to become panicky and say that these things must close down. We are neutral country: I hope that everything possible will be done to maintain our neutrality; I am convinced that the only salvation for the country and the only way to keep it united is to remain strictly neutral.
In regard to the black-out, there was some kind of panic regulation. I was here in Dublin when the war started and when the black-out was put into operation. It was not strictly enforced, but, on going back to Cork, I found there was not a lamp at all lit. Things were happening to which Deputy Linehan has referred; there was a certain amount of blackguardly behaviour. The corporation met and put it to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures that there was no necessity for this. As a result, tin street lights are in use again. Such things should not have happened a that panicky kind of way. If there is necessity for an order, let it be made and carried out to the fullest extent. At present, one day an order is made and the next day some change is made in it. Care and thought should be exercised in regard to these orders.
On the question of the sugar supply, I know a large merchant dealing in one of the biggest houses in Cork and taking supplies through the country to the farmers and to other people living in the country. This big wholesale firm in Cork was not able to supply him with sugar during the last three or four weeks and he had to leave his customers short. This is an important time for the farmer when threshing is going on. There must have been some bungling about sugar, as the Minister for Supplies told us, at the 1st of September meeting, that there was a two years' supply in the country. It would be well to tell that to the people who know the fact that the sugar was not there.
Finally, let me emphasise that, unless there is some reorganisation of the monetary system and unless the system of credit is taken under control by the Government—and not by the standing committees of the banks—this country will be in a very serious position before very long. That is a vital power which is outside the control of this House, and I do not see any reason why that power should not be controlled by the Government of the day, especially in these difficult times. It may be very drastic, but drastic things will probably have to be done before the war is finished. Unless we start off in a methodical manner, all our other plans will fall to the ground.
Another matter that has been brought to my notice has reference to the question of employment. I have been informed that an unfair discrimination is exercised and that people who are members of certain political Parties —I should say of a certain political Party—get preference over other men in employment. I think the Minister should look into that and should see that, at this stage at any rate, that kind of political favouritism will not obtain. If the Minister wants any particulars I can give him some with regard to that point. I do not want to stress it. I think all citizens should be treated equally at this juncture and that there should not be any favouritism shown to people with certain political affiliations or any encouragement of that idea. These are some of the matters that, I think, should be looked into. If the Taoiseach thinks that they are important matters—personally I do, especially the matter in regard to banking—steps should be taken to put into operation some of the measures I have suggested here.
The only other matter to which I wish to refer is that of unemployment. It is a point which has been made already and I wish to stress it. The amounts granted by way of unemployment assistance, old age pensions. national health insurance benefit, and other static sums of that kind, will depreciate very much owing to the increased cost of living and the people in receipt of those sums will suffer very severely. I think the Government ought to consider that point and make some allowance for it. Certainly I would have no sympathy with profiteers. I think that any penalty imposed on people who profiteer in this time of stress cannot be too harsh or severe.
Mr. A. Byrne, Senior
There are only about seven minutes left in which Private Deputies may speak, according to an arrangement about which Deputies sitting on these benches were not informed, otherwise we should have made ait effort to intervene at an earlier stage in the debate. I shall, however, take up only one minute of the remaining time so as to give other Deputies who wish to contribute to the debate an opportunity of saying a few words. I just wish to make one suggestion to the Taoiseach and that is, that during the week-end he should write a letter to every member of the Dáil asking him to see employers in his area and to appeal to them not to start dismissing their hands at the first sign of Shortage. I think every member of the Dáil would become an agent through whom unemployment might be prevented if that suggestion were adopted. I had the pleasing experience myself during the past week of appealing to an employer not to dismiss his hands at the first sign of shortage and I am happy to say it has had a good effect.
I also wish to draw attention to the depreciation in value, and the consequent diminution in the purchasing power, of the benefits paid to the unemployed. I have been definitely asked by the representatives of the unemployed in the city to suggest that during this emergency their allowances should be increased, at least in proportion to the increase in the cost of living that has occurred in the past couple of weeks. I think that is a very reasonable suggestion. An unemployed man in Dublin who has a wife and four children is allowed £1 a week, but the purchasing power of that £1 per week is now only 17/- as compared with a few weeks ago. I understand from one of the Ministers to whom I wrote that that matter is under consideration.
I earnestly hope that employers will favourably listen to the appeal made to them that there should be no dismissals of men in their employment. I desire also to draw attention to another matter which, in the interests of employers as well as of employees, should be made known. It has reference to supplies from a neutral country with which this country has dealt largely in the past.
The price of glucose, which is largely used in the manufacture of confectionery, supplied from that country has been increased from £16 per ton to £32 per ton recently. I think that is a most shameful action on the part of a country with which this State has been dealing for many years, and I think the Government should draw the attention of the Consul of that country to what is happening.
Or we should manufacture it ourselves out of carrigeen.
I am afraid that democratic government in this country will come to an end unless some arrangement is devised for giving each Deputy a fair opportunity of expressing his views in important debates such as this. Each Deputy should have an equal opportunity of speaking, and an effort might be made to curtail very long speeches. There are just a few points to which I should like to refer. With regard to the censorship, I think there has been some blunder or some misuse made of that department. We all admit that a censorship is a necessary and desirable thing in a time of crisis, but I am afraid it has been misused, and that the objects which the Government have in view are being defeated by a too strict use of the censorship. There has been a black-out of news, and that has created a fertile field for the propagation of mischievous rumours. It has given a fair field to mischief makers who industriously circulate these rumours throughout the country, perhaps to further some designs of their own. There should be no black-out of news, and there should be a fair amount of news given to the people. At any rate, an effort should be made to contradict those false rumours once they come to the knowledge of the Government. The Government might also consider issuing a certain confidential bulletin to Deputies, because people, who are somewhat nervous and who have some misgivings about rumours they hear, when they meet Deputies and Senators expect that they should know something about these rumours. In present circumstances, Deputies or Senators are not able to contradict any of these reports. All they can say is: "It may not be true, but I have no information about it." That is a very serious matter in a crisis like the present, because it is nerve-wrecking. It tends to create inefficiency and ill-health amongst people who are naturally nervous.
We have heard various suggestions about increasing production in this country, and as to the means at the disposal of the Government for doing so. Some Deputies suggested compulsion, and others were of opinion that an inducement should be held out to farmers. I certainly say that the only way by which production can be increased is by giving the farmers proper inducements. They are anxious to co-operate with the Government. They are as good Nationalists as any in the State, and they are anxious to assist for the good of the country; but at a time when they are actually coming out of the trenches, wounded by the economic war, and when they are not in a position to make sacrifices, they must not be driven and compelled to make further sacrifices.
One suggestion that I would make in order to help farmers to increase production is that they should be provided with machinery and manures in so far as it is possible to do so, at the cheapest rate. With regard to unemployment and production, I believe that a scheme could, and should, be devised by the Department of Agriculture in co-operation with other people throughout the country to provide work for the unemployed in producing necessary extra supplies, such, for instance, as the making of arrangements to get land either by agreement or compulsion, land that could be worked by labour camps instead of paying unemployment assistance. These are a few of the important points to which I desire to call the Government's attention. I think they are well worth considering and I hope that no time will be lost in putting them into operation.
At the opening of this debate I said I regretted that the attitude of some members of the Opposition seemed to have changed in the interval that had elapsed since we last met. When we last met it was very satisfactory indeed to recognise that Deputies on every side of the House realised that we were entering into a period of very great difficulty for our people and oar country: that it was a time in which some of the liberties, and all the licences, of political controversy might be carefully examined, and as far as it was necessary and possible, restrained. I think it was suggested in the debate that the fault was ours: that the Government had broken its word, and whilst that was being said to us we were asked by leading members of the Opposition—I think, in fact, by the Leader of the Opposition—why we called the Dáil together at all. Now, clearly, these two things are inconsistent. If we had broken our word with the people and wanted to do things in the dark, we would not have summoned the Dáil earlier than it was necessary. We summoned the Dáil at this particular time because a number of Orders had gone out, and we were anxious to enable members of the Dáil to ask questions which might be troubling themselves individually or as public representatives, or, which might be troubling some sections of the community with whom they were in contact. As I said here when the Dáil met before, we would welcome the ventilation of rumours and difficulties, because in the Assembly, when these things are raised they can be answered almost directly or within a very short time after. The damage that is done by rumours and misunderstandings is prevented very largely by hearing the replies that can be made. Very often a thing may look suspicious. It may look unaccountable, and then you begin to account for it in ways of your own, whereas the real reason may be very simple and easy to understand if only it was given.
I have tried to make a note myself, or to get others who were listening to make a note, of some of the things that were being talked about in this debate, and of the points in regard to which the Government has been criticised. I hope to deal with them if time permits, because there is nothing, in fact, to hide. Somebody said, because I objected to the remarks that were made during the debate and said something about cross-examination, that it was because we had a bad case that we were afraid of cross-examination. That is not true. What I resented was that what was known to be suspicion should by the advocacy of members on the opposite benches be given the appearance of truth: making the pretence that what was only rumour and what was false was, in fact, true. There are people who listen to debates in this House who think that a responsible Deputy would not stand up and make a statement unless there was some solid foundation for it. But unfortunately it is true that Deputies do stand up and make statements for which they know there is no solid foundation. They do it in order to gain some particular point, and it was because I regretted to see that continued in a crisis like the present that I said if democracy is to persist then that sort of attitude will have to stop, because it is the licences that have been taken, the abuse of the liberties which democracy gives to the individual members of society, that have brought an end to democracy in a number of States throughout the world to-day. If we really treasure the freedom of individual expression, the freedom that we have here, we will try to learn from what has happened in other countries: we will try to safeguard our democracy by not abusing its liberties. I think that the people on the opposite benches, the majority anyhow—there may be exceptions as in other Parties in the House—are as devoted to this freedom as I am. I have always confessed myself as one who is devoted to the freedom which is found in democracy. I am also a believer that in the long run it is the best form of government, and that if we could only get the individuals in a democracy to realise how by abuse of their liberties, and sometimes by unwisdom in the use of their legitimate liberties they could bring democracy to an end, we would have no difficulties in an Assembly like this.
Coming to some of the points that were raised, I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who said that there was no good reason for bringing the Dáil together. If we had not brought the Dáil together there might be an outcry. It might be said: "Here is this Government to which we have given those extensive powers; they are using those powers and will not allow the representatives of the people to come along and discuss them." We met this month because to wait until the Dáil was due to meet two or three weeks hence might, we felt, be an unduly long time. It was in accordance with the general spirit of co-operation and understanding which I thought we here had, on the last occasion, arrived at, that I asked the Dáil to come together.
Now, it has been said that we came together simply to make an announcement about the appointment here of a British representative. That is not true. It had no part whatever to play in the summoning of the Dáil. In fact, I do not know whether if the records were examined it would not be found that agreement on the appointment of the representative was not reached at the time the Ceann Comhairle was communicated with for the summoning of the Dáil. It is true that we could have gone on without summoning the Dáil, but for the reasons I have stated it was generally thought better to have this meeting. I am not sorry, provided it is clearly understood that we cannot have these frequent meetings if Deputies will abuse their liberties, and if they bring the State into danger by unwise and wrong action, because we have a great responsibility at the moment. It was admitted on the opposite benches that it is a very serious responsibility. The difficulties are so appreciated by the people on the opposite benches that they are already rubbing their hands and exulting openly, with the idea that this Government could not hope to go through the crisis and be able afterwards to face the people and win an election. I hope they are not carrying that a little bit too far, and that their desire—it may be natural enough from a political Party point of view—may not induce them to do things which would be much more damaging than mere damage to a Party.
Would it not be helpful if the Taoiseach would not carry his implications too far?
Read Deputy Dillon's speech. I am simply uttering a warning which is one that I think ought to be uttered—that more than the defeat of a Party or a Government is involved in this situation; that we are living in a time in which nations which had their freedom have lost it; that we are living in a time in which small States have great difficulty in maintaining their existence, and we ought to remember that the position we have reached, even though the whole of our national aspirations have not been achieved, is one which we ought to try to safeguard, and make the basis on which we can secure and build up the complete aspirations of our country.
The Taoiseach completely misunderstands the whole situation in this House if he thinks the House requires to be lectured on that point.
If the House does not, then I am happy, but some of the speeches made here in my hearing led me to think something different. I hope that every member of the House realises it, as apparently Deputy Mulcahy does. If so, there would be nobody happier in this House than I should be, and I hope the people of the country as a whole realise it. As I have said, the great difficulty we have at present is to get the people to realise that there is a serious situation; that there is war all around us; that the days in which, because we were an island, we were immune have gone: that you have airplanes now which, I think, can go some 5,000 miles without stopping, and that we have not got to-day a lot of the immunities from attack which we had in the olden times.
We see all around us a conflict of powerful States. We see ranged on two sides giants engaged in a conflict such as there has never been in the world before, if it develops, and we have got to try to live through all that period. We have to try to maintain our independence through all that period. We have to try to exist as a community through all that period. Therefore, I say to anybody who may think lightly of it here in the House, and say it is "all a cod", as Deputy Gorey said, that it is nothing of the sort; that it is a serious situation for every nation in Europe, and although we are not immediately in the path of the land conflict, we are in the centre of the sea conflict.
One of the points raised here was the summoning of the Dáil. The next point raised was the question of rumours. Rumours are spoken of in the earliest histories—how quickly they spread and what damage they can do—and we have had here a crop of rumours within the last two or three weeks, the most ridiculous and absurd rumours, rumours that could be immediately verified or the reverse by anybody who wanted to take the slightest trouble. One of them, I believe, was that I was shot. I have been coming in to my business at the usual times. Nobody would have had any difficulty in seeing that, at any rate up to the moment, I am alive.
Hear hear. Long may you survive.
I will be able to see this thing through, and hope finally that we will see the full aspirations of this country achieved. At any rate I am here, and I have been here, or there, for the last three weeks, without any change in my routine from what it had been heretofore. Here we have the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures at my side. He was supposed to be in jail. He was supposed to have been arrested. I do not know whether that was supposed to have been on my orders or on the orders of the new Minister for Defence.
He was supposed to have been executed, according to the Westmeath people.
It was another of those ridiculous, silly rumours. Another was a rumour of divisions in the Cabinet.
That is not possible. You were always united.
We are happy to say that we an a very United family.
You were always united.
I say we are a very united family here. There was a reason for the changes in the Cabinet. They were explained already. I think they were explained the last time the Dáil met. There was need for a new Department of Supplies. That necessitated taking Deputy Lemass from the Department of Industry and Commerce. That left a vacancy. The question was what was the best way to fill that vacancy. I was sorry that Deputy Lemass had to leave any section of the Department, but it was impossible for him to do the two together. I thought the best person to fill the vacancy was the person who had been most intimately in touch with the Minister for that Department, as the Minister for Finance is with practically every Department, and particularly with the Department of Industry and Commerce. There is a number of things with regard to which he had to have contact with the Minister for Industry and Commerce over a long period, and I thought the best person to put in as Minister for Industry and Commerce was the Minister for Finance. That left a vacancy in Finance. That had to be considered and filled. I came to the conclusion that, in so far as it is possible, the senior member of the Government, next to the Taoiseach, should occupy that office. The Minister for Local Government was put there. That left a vacancy in the Department of Local Government. That had to be filled. We wanted somebody who had some practical experience of local government. I thought the Minister for Justice, who had been chairman of a county council, was a very suitable person to put into that Department. He was transferred to the Department of Local Government. That left a vacancy in Justice. That had to be filled. Deputy Boland had already substituted in the Department of Justice, and knew the working of that Department fairly well. It was very natural that he should be put into the Department of Justice. That left a vacancy in the Department of Lands. The Department of Lands is the one which has been operating in connection with Gaeltacht Industries and so on. I was rather anxious that somebody with a knowledge of Irish should be put into that particular post. The Minister for Education had. that knowledge, and had also a certain experience of the Department of Lands. He was put into the Department of Lands. That left a vacancy in the Department of Education. At one time, before I had made up my mind definitely that it was better that the Minister for Finance should go to the Department of Industry and Commerce, I had a different idea for the Department of Education.
It is quite obvious that whoever goes there will have the care of the Irish language in his hands, that he more than any other Minister will have to look after the interests of the Irish language. We wanted a person with a knowledge of Irish, and one whose association with the language would be a guarantee to people outside that the interests of the language were not going to be neglected. Who better than the present Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste, for that post? When it was decided definitely that it was necessary for him to take over the Department of Finance, that office was left open. I had to make up my mind as to how it was to be filled. I came to the conclusion that I, myself, would fill it as best I could for the moment. I am perfectly aware that the work of the Taoiseach, without the care of any other Department, would be quite enough, and so I have indicated to the House that if I continue in the office of Minister for Education—and I should like to continue in it—I may require the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary. This problem was lightly spoken of by the Leader of the Opposition, but it is not so easy, as the Leader of die Opposition wants to pretend, to manage two Department. We have not so many public Departments and from the point of view of public administration and the economy which can be brought about by careful supervision, I doubt whether some of the Departments are not already too large for one Minister without doubling them. I had always that view about the Department of Industry and Commerce. A number of social services are being administered by that Department, and I doubt whether there would not be greater economy if a Minister were put in charge of one of these sections.
I now come to the Department of Defence. At the time that the Department of Supplies was being: set up a question arose in connection with the Department of Defence. The Minister for Defence had tacked on to his Department quite a number of functions other than those of being directly and immediately in contact with the Army and looking after the Army personnel and organisation. I felt that it would be quite impossible to give to the personnel, organisation, discipline, preparedness, equipment and other things associated with the Army the immediate attention required at a time like this and attend, at the same time, to these other functions, such as censorship and air raid precautions, which fall to be taken care of in connection with general defence.
It was thought best to take out the Minister for Defence, who had experience of the details, and put him into a position of general co-ordination and to put in his place a person with narrower functions, in so far as any of the existing functions could be transferred to the Minister for Co-ordination. That is the whole story of the Cabinet changes. I may be asked: "Why do it now?" I say that I would not do it now were it not that we wanted these two Ministries and that they necessitated the change. It may be said: "Will not that be very dangerous?" There might be a difficulty were it not that we have worked together as a Government for a period of over seven years. Each one of us has, to some extent, a fair idea of the work done by the other Departments, though not in the detail that the Minister in charge of the particular Department would have. In future, when a question of policy from any particular Department comes up for consideration by the Government, we shall have not merely the general knowledge which we have got as members of the Government but we shall have two minds, both of which, to a certain point, will understand the details. We shall, therefore, be able to get a broader and more intimate knowledge of the working of the Departments when it comes to a question of a comprehensive decision on Government policy. Have I said enough to explain that it is not through differences of policy or anything of that kind that these changes were made? There could not be a difference of policy, in any case, because Government policy is decided by the Government as a whole. In matters of administration each Minister must, in the nature of tilings, be responsible for his own Department to the Dáil and lie must be left free to deal with the day-to-day matters, but big matters affecting the Government as a whole are decided by the Government as a whole. I hope I have given an explanation which is reasonable—one which anybody of common sense who knew how Government Departments are operated could see the moment it was necessary to get two new Ministries.
Before I leave this question, reflections were made yesterday—I do not think the country will mind them very much—on the former Minister for Local Government and, at an earlier stage, on the former Minister for Finance. There was a disgraceful article—one unworthy of Irish journalism—in a certain newspaper in the city with reference to the work that was being done by the Tánaiste as Minister for Local Government. It is so disgraceful that I had not seen anything worse in a long period. It was an article that was obviously inspired by some personal reason.
The Tánaiste, as Minister for Local Government, has had to take action at one time or another which has not pleased some people. There may be resentment of one kind or another at that sort of thing—resentment on the part of individuals or their friends. At any rate, as I have said, that was a disgraceful article, which everybody in the country know to be unfair and untrue. As one who is responsible for the Government as a whole, if you like, because I am responsible for the nomination of the personnel, I want to say that, in my opinion, there was not a word of truth in the allegation that the Minister for Local Government was not doing his work. He could not have been asleep, as was suggested here, when some 100,000 new houses were erected during his period of office. The whole countryside bears testimony to the fact that he and his Department have not been asleep. Half a million people have been provided with decent. sanitary dwellings during that time. It is a Department in which millions of public money were spent. If the Minister had not some knowledge of finance—it was suggested that he had no knowledge of finance, that he was not brought in contact with financial questions_then, he would not have been able to retain the office of Minister for any length of time. The erection of hospitals and the extension and improvement of mental hospitals have been done under his supervision. Just as I hope to be able to show in regard to the Minister for Finance, there is a monument to the Minister for Local Government in the work to which I have referred.
It was said that the Minister for Finance had not done his work. The Leader of the Opposition, going back to his usual attack, said that there were three years of unbalanced Budgets. That is not true. The fact was that last year there was a deficit of £527,000 odd. That deficit was due to the abnormal situation, the war situation and crises that had occurred. Everybody knew that, and the Minister did not hide that from anybody or attempt to hide it. It was admitted, and he spoke about it himself in the Budget speech. The year before that, however, there was a surplus of £627,000, and the year before that again there was a surplus of £465,000. Just as in the case of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, so in the case of the Minister for Finance his record has been as good as that of any Finance Minister in this country or anywhere else. He has always maintained a high standard of financial rectitude and he has managed the public finances in a way that, in my opinion, could not have been bettered by anybody from any side of the House who might have been put into that office. His knowledge of matters of finance was both wide and deep, and the Deputies here know that. When people talk about the position, they should remember this: that last year, whilst he was Minister for Finance, there was made a settlement——
A Deputy
No.
——yes, a settlement, in regard to a sum of £5,000,000 that was being paid out from this community yearly—a payment the full capital value or which was estimated to be £100,000,000—for the payment of one-tenth of the total sum. I do not want, then, to talk any more about the changes in the Cabinet.
Now, the next thing that was raised, besides, the question of rumours, was that of the censorship. Everybody knows that censorship is very difficult. It is difficult to knew where you are to draw the line. If you have too severe a censorship then you provide the ground and the soil in which rumours flourish, and the most trifling things assume tremendous importance. If you do not do it, you do harm on the other side. The only way in which that can be met is to get somebody of sound judgment who should be put in charge, and to give general rules by which his decisions are to be made. It is very difficult to draw up general rules, but I think that nearly everybody here will admit that censorship is necessary, that general rules have to be given, and that, in the application of these general rules, perhaps, no two individuals would, agree in a particular case. It is hard to draw up these general rules, but general rules can be roughly drawn up anyhow if we understand what is the purpose: what it is that we seek to achieve by the censorship and why it was necessary; in other words, what is the harm that can be done if there is not censorship.
Now, to eliminate the harm is, clearly, the purpose of censorship. What is the damage that can be done by an uncensored Press, for instance Now, I shall tell you. Here, in ordinary peace times, as Minister for External Affairs, I received many protests from other Governments with regard to attacks in our papers on their States and on the heads of their States. We have here full liberty of the Press, or we had. In matters of comment on world affairs, matters of opinion, our newspapers went very far at times. They went to the point of calling the heads of States names at times, and, of course, the Ministers of these States protested to me about it. They were sometimes very angry about it. F said that we have free Press here, that the Government is not in control, and that the Government is not responsible for what is being said, but it did not help the good relations between ourselves and the other countries that such statements should be made and that these names should be called.
In time of war people feel very strongly on one side or the other. We are neutral here, but I do not think there is a single individual in this country at the moment who is neutral. The ordinary individual makes up his mind one way or the other so far as he knows the facts. Very often he does not know the facts, and makes up his mind on what he thinks to be the facts, but, whether or not he knows the facts, he has his mind made up one way or the other, and if it were simply a question of his wish or his decision, the war would go one way or the other to-morrow. There are very few of us in this country who say that we do not care, and that it is a matter of complete indifference to us. It is not a matter of complete indifference to us whether the war goes one way or the other, and everybody knows it. You could divide the people in this community into three large classes. First, there is the class who, whilst having their own individual opinions, are agreed—and they are the vast bulk of our people—that although they have then own individual opinions about this war and their own individual wishes with regard to its termination and the way it should terminate—and perhaps the majority of them would wish the war to terminate at once, no matter what might be their own wishes in regard to the termination of the war or how it should issue—they are agreed, at any rate, and it is their desire, that we as a nation ought not to get ourselves involved in this war. These people are the vast mass of the people of this country, and that is the definite policy of the Government.
There are two other sections of the people, however. There is one section of the people who are not satisfied merely to wish to do a thing. They want action to try to bring about the result they desire. They want this State to take action. In other words, they want to involve this State on one particular side, and on account of having, the feelings that they have, the wishes that they have, and the desire, as far as State policy is concerned, that they have, if they were given a free hand to-morrow we would have a strong propagandist campaign started here that this country should enter on a particular side, and another strong propagandist campaign that we should enter on the other side. If propaganda were allowed, and there were no censorship, you would have these two sets of people competing with each other, each going stronger and stronger with their propaganda, in an endeavour to bring about a change in the national policy and to bring us in on one side or the other.
Is the Taoiseach suggesting that there is any substantial volume of public opinion in this country that supports Nazi Germany?
That is not the issue. Mind you, it is not support of Nazi Germany or of Britain that is involved. I take it that these two sets of people ire not thinking of Britain or of Germany, but that they are thinking of Irish interests and believe that Irish interests would be better served by victory on one side or the other. I do say that there are sections in this country who hold both these views, and that if they were allowed to go into competition with each other, we would have a very nice mess here, apart altogether from any external consequences. Censorship is necessary, in the first instance, to avoid bringing about a very undesirable condition here, and, secondly, in order to prevent our getting into complications with either set of belligerents. For instance, one or two days after the outbreak of the war, there was a poster exposed outside Dublin newspaper shops. It was the poster of an English newspaper, and it certainly was not one that could be exposed publicly in a country which was supposed to be neutral, without giving offence to one of the parties. The censorship very properly would prevent such a thing happening in future, but this happened very early, before the censorship had properly got under way. Have I said enough to the Dáil to indicate that a censorship is necessary and for one reason—not to support this side or that side, but to preserve our nation intact and to make for its welfare during this crisis?
But the Taoiseach will remember that specific instances of articles being censored that do not come within the realm of what he refers to were given here yesterday.
I will go into those. I am trying to get this thing step by step as clearly as I can. I am first talking about the general principle and the reasons for censorship. I am first giving the reasons. The application of them is another matter. The safety of the State is the fundamental purpose, and I am showing two aspects of the ways in which that safety could be endangered. I can only say that if we here in the Dáil had to bring up specific instances and to ask: "Will you censor that or not?" we would have a difference of opinion. There would be nice balance of judgment as to whether it would be better to let the thing go or not. There was an instance referred to by Deputy McGilligan of a banner which was exhibited in Croke Park and reference to which did not appear in the newspapers. There was the question: Is it wiser to prevent its appearing or to let it appear? There is no doubt that it was not in the public interest it was exhibited. It was displayed there for a definite purpose —to get publicity for a certain viewpoint. It was said that 40,000 people saw it. Is it better to leave it at that, or to let a larger number see it? Was not the purpose of it to get publicity ? I was not consulted about this, and I was not asked what I should be likely to do in such a case, but I can imagine the censor asking himself if this was done to get publicity. Clearly, it was not in the interests of the State that it was done, and was it better to have the publicity stopped at 40,000 people— apart from the people talking about it afterwards—or to let it go outside that number? Probably, on the balance, I might agree that it would be better to let it go, but there are nice questions of judgment involved in the whole matter.
It is easy for us to find fault, and we see, undoubtedly, the mistakes that will be made. Like other things, we will not see the good that is being done, but we will see the harm and the mistakes that may be made. In any case like that, mistakes are bound to be made because it is very foolish to think that it is possible to operate a thing like a censorship, which, in itself, from our democratic point of view, is an evil, but a necessary evil, without some unwise things being done. We have to do our best to prevent mistake, and, as far as possible, to see that only those things really harmful to the State are censored. There, again, there will be differences of view as to what is fundamentally harmful to the State. In the long run, all yon can do is to hold a certain body of men here responsible and to say: "You have the responsibility of doing it, and if you do not do it well, or if we dislike what you do, out you go." There is no other way in which you can do it. The same must apply even in regard to the individual censors. I do pot know if it is worth while spending any further time on this question.
My recent remark did not refer to any internal matters, but to articles bearing on international affairs and references to the neutrality position which were actually censored. These do not come within the references made by the Taoiseach.
Deputy McGilligan mentioned the case of an article which was not submitted to the censor at all.
I think it referred to "the downfall of Catholic Poland." With regard to that, I understand that it was not, in fact, submitted, but that somebody said: "There is no use in submitting it in view of the general instructions we have received."
Will the Taoiseach say if one of these general instructions actually operating is that no reference is to be made to an appeal for funds for the afflicted in Poland?
I do not know about that. The Deputy can easily see that that question itself raises a whole lot of problems. He knows that an appeal for funds could not be made in this country without very strong references to the situation, and all the rest of it.
Why not?
The point I want to bring out is: do we want to stir up here all the passions that are excited by war? Does the Deputy think that I am less affected by the downfall of Poland than, for instance, Deputy Cosgrave?
Does the Taoiseach think that by advocating the collection of funds here a Press or Press manager can be involving this country in any way with any of the belligerents?
I do not know the circumstances. It depends on how it is done. A thing can be done in a proper and in an improper way, and I can only say that I do not know enough about the situation to pass any judgment on it at the moment. I can see the pros and I can see the cons, if the thing is done improperly. I have not seen the article, and I do not know what the position is, but I do know that the collection of funds can be made a basis for organisation, and that that organisation and its organisers can use language which would involve us, involve our neutrality, and load to our receiving the sort of protest which Deputy McGilligan evidently thinks we ought to have made in other cases.
The Press have been made to feel that it cannot be referred to at all.
So far as that is concerned, it is possible that too great rigidity has been adopted at the start. Mistakes will be made at the start, as they have been made, possibly, in regard to A.R.P., about which I hope to speak in a moment. My goodness, it is only three weeks since we started and there has been no experience in this country of similar operations conducted by our people. Do not expect that we are going to have a perfect machine overnight. I am not saying, by implication, in saying that, that I am finding fault with the censor. I do know that any two people operating a censorship would not on any particular case come to the same judgment. It is a very delicate and very difficult matter, and I ask Deputies to realise that, and not to think that this is being operated by the Government for the purpose of influencing Party opinion, of helping the Government, or anything of that sort. The only fundamental purpose which we have to look out for is the safeguarding of the State and the public welfare. If it can be shown at any time that it has been operated for any other purpose, then we should have to answer for it, and I should be willing to come to the Dáil and stand any battering we might get, if it could be shown that we were operating the censorship for any purpose, except the safeguarding of the public good, or that we were operating it for a Party purpose. I think that would be really a legitimate complaint, or that we were unduly restricting liberty, because I think everybody who has ever thought about systems of government or about democracy, even in ancient times, realised and even the most democratic people have realised that if you want to save democratic institutions and the State in a time of crisis like this, in a time of war, you have to have a much more severe restriction of liberty than during ordinary peace times.
I have touched upon the censorship. Now let me go on to A.R.P. What has happened in connection with A.R.P. is largely this. We have all been reading about air raid precautions, black-outs, and all the rest in other countries and the measures taken by the people in this matter. War broke out suddenly. We had not on the stocks, as we had in regard to other things, a direct A.R.P. Order and public co-operation was requested in the early stages because most people expected that one of the ways the war would start would be by severe attacks from the air by one belligerent on another. We here are in the position in which it would be possible for one of the belligerents anyhow to complain that our lights were a guide to their enemy's aircraft and it was desirable at the start that no such complaints should be possible. We do not want to guide any side to attack the other, because, if we did, it would be a cause of complaint that we were contributing to the success of one side.
At the beginning, therefore, there was a general dimming, the idea would be a general dimming, so that the glare of the lights of large cities, which can be seen for a distance of 150 miles, I am told, if an aeroplane is sufficiently high up, would not be seen. I have always thought myself that was an exaggeration but I have not been up in an aeroplane at that distance and, therefore, I have no idea personally from what distance you can see the lights of a city. But experiments were being actually made here and it was partly for the purpose of getting information by means of our own aeroplanes that the people were asked to co-operate in order to have a certain amount of darkness and see what would be the effect. Just as I have tried to explain what we were trying to do in the case of the censorship and what I would like to see, I should like also in the case of A.R.P. to do the same and then we may arrive at an idea of what it is best to do.
With regard to A.R.P. we want, first of all, to diminish the glare. So that our lights will not be a guide to outside aeroplanes to attack us or anybody else, a certain amount of dimming to prevent glare is necessary. It need only be a certain amount of dimming, so that the sky glare, which is apparent from large cities and towns, will not persist. The next thing we want is this. We are only at the beginning and goodness knows how it will end. If this is carried out to the end, nobody knows what type of world we are going to be in when it is finished.
One thing is certain, however, and that is, that it is going to be a different world from the world we are in to-day. We do not know what it may lead to. One of the things we ought to be able to do is to take some precautions for have had to take against the possibility of an aerial attack. The less vulnerable we are from attack from any quarter the safer we are, and we ought to try to reduce our own vulnerability by being able, at any rate, to extinguish lights which could guide enemies to us and prevent them from being able to select objectives if they wanted to do it. We may be regarded as being over-careful, but in these times it is better to sin on the side of being over-careful than to be careless. We ought to be in a position in which, if it were necessary to black-out, we can do it.
Our public lighting system was not designed for that purpose. We have not the switches by which, at short notice, you can put out public lights, or a system by which they can be dimmed, as they have in belligerent and neutral countries on the Continent so that, at short notice, we could either dim or switch off completely public lights. In these countries they have also arranged that their private lighting will not reveal the existence of cities and other large centres of population. They have made arrangements with individual householders by which houses can be completely blacked-out. I have been in Switzerland during some of those trial black-outs and seen how they worked.
The system generally that would be best here, in my opinion, would be this. I hope I am not suggesting something by the Ministers who are immediately responsible. But, my own belief would be that we should have our homes so equipped that we can darken all the windows and can extinguish lights on the outside at very short notice. How can you do that? The way that has been tried in other countries is this. During the dimming period they leave the front lights on—those opening on to the streets, and there is a gentle, soft glare of lights on to the streets which enables passers-by to see their way. All the rest of the house is dark so that at a moment, if they want to go from dim to completely black-out, they do it by drawing a certain curtain or something like that. There is very little light in the house. There is from dim to black-out by pulling a curtain or something else. In any big house there will be a number of windows and if you have to go around a number of these too much time is taken.
In my opinion, the main things we have to aim at are, first, to reduce the sky glare, and secondly, to put ourselves in a position in which, if misfortune were ever to come to us, and we have to protect ourselves in that particular way, we will be able to do it and save our selves to whatever extent that will save us. Is there any Deputy who thinks that what we are proposing is absurd or unreasonable? If, in order to co-operate in the earlier stages when experiments were being made, people who had heard what was stated elsewhere wanted to co-operate even more than we desired, and those who were carrying out the experiments found out what they desired, why should we find fault with that? To my mind, there was, on the part of the public, an indication of a general desire to try to help the Government by doing things they thought the Government desired.
That is going to be reduced to an order, if it is possible, but I think you will all admit that it is better for us to have got the little experience we got and know the difficulties involved. Take the black-out in the streets. It is a dangerous thing from many points of view. The possible dangers would not have been as clear to us a month ago as they are now. When the thing is there and everybody can see the danger, there can be no doubt about it. Therefore, is it not much better that we should have had what I may call this voluntary co-operation, even though it has not been regimented and perfected up to the present? We will now be enabled, as a result of this experience, to draw up an order which will remove it from the optional and make it obligatory to do a certain thing; but even the orders will not prevent people from going farther than we ask them.
There is no necessity for the Taoiseach to bring his remarks to a close at 2 o'clock.
That is the point I was about to raise. May I take it that that is unopposed business?
Certainly, so far as we are concerned.
I am afraid it is going to be very tedious for the House. I have a whole host of points here, and I could dispose of them quickly, if necessary, but if I have to give full explanations I must take some time to do so. Perhaps I am lengthy in my explanations, but it must be remembered that these are the things that are causing public anxiety and perhaps a certain amount of disquiet, and I would like to speak on them at some length. I have spoken about the censorship and A.R.P. I am not going to say that the whole thing has been perfect; it has not. There is a certain amount of what might be termed experimentation, and we hope that as the thing goes on it will be very much better than it has been, and there will be as little inconvenience as possible caused to the public.
There is no intention on the part of anybody to deprive the people of any information which is not directly and obviously damaging to the public interest. I think it would be very interesting—I have not done it myself, but I will try if I get any time—to see what are the actual things that have been censored, to see whether it fits in with the general description. Everyone would be surprised if they know how few things haw been censored or interfered with. If you take the two sides which are in this country, outside the mass of the people who have their own views but are satisfied that the best national interests would be served by keeping their views for the moment to themselves, not involving the State in their views, you have two wings, and, if they start in competition with each other, it will mean that we would have disaster here. One might hate to think of any kind of censorship of views or opinions, yet, when these views and opinions are expressed in a certain way, I think Deputies opposite will agree that they could lead to harm. I believe that if the censorship files were examined it would be found that the number of things censored has been very few.
There was a broadcast referred to here and, notwithstanding the fact that Deputy McGilligan did more or less suggest that we ought not to be too careful about the feelings of the belligerents on either side, so far as our expressions of opinion are concerned, nevertheless he was the first who wanted to have a protest about a supposed broadcast. I will take back the word "supposed" , because the Deputy said he heard the broadcast himself, and I have heard of it, too. That particular answer is a matter to which I would like to refer. All the answers that I give here are not answers which I just take from an official and read out. I do not do anything of the kind.
The questions and answers which Ministers have to deal with are extremely valuable to them because they enable Ministers to probe deeply, more deeply than they otherwise might, into the administration of their Departments. I do not believe there is any Minister who simply does what Deputy McGilligan suggests—that is, take a question and answer from some officer and just read it out. I know that so far as I am concerned, and I believe it is the same practice with every other Minister. I look at the question and the answer and, if I do not think the answer is satisfactory from the point of view of giving the information which I think Deputies are entitled to, I ask for the information myself and put it in. If there is a reply which, in my opinion, does not meet the point exactly or would allow misrepresentation, with my own pencil I go over it and see that the answer that I give is my answer, from the knowledge I have got and probed for, and not anybody else's answer.
I do not think it is very decent for a Deputy who has been a Minister to talk as Deputy McGilligan did. Remember that Deputy McGilligan is not merely a lawyer but he was also Minister for External Affairs and for Industry and Commerce, and, when a former Minister talks, people who do not know the individual take, perhaps, a considerable amount of stock of what he says. From statements like that they may be inclined to say: "Is that the way public business is done?" It is also unfair to civil servants, who are not in a position to answer for themselves, to attack them here. When I read an answer here it is my own answer, and I would like to be held responsible for every line, tittle and comma of it, and it is most unfair to talk about public officials and what they do in the way of listening; in at the radio. If a responsible officer in the Department of External Affairs listens on the radio, he does it as part of his duty, to keep in contact with the outside world and get to know what is happening abroad to the greatest extent possible.
I said the truth when I said I heard of a talk on the radio. I heard a somewhat different version from that which Deputy McGilligan gave. I did not check up either version, for the simple reason that there was nothing effective that I could do about it. We know that the belligerents on one side or the other are very anxious to get as much sympathy in their favour as they can get. They get very hurt at times with a neutral State that is preserving its own course, following its own interests and trying to mind its own business. They take up the attitude in these times that "those who are not with me are against me," and because a nation does not take up a line of conduct which may suit one side or the other of the belligerents, they immediately and definitely accuse that nation of being on the opposite side when, in fact, it is on neither side. Those things are bound to happen. I know it, and I do not see how we can continue to be protesting to-day to Germany and those with her, and to-morrow to Britain and France and those who may be with them. We have to face that right through the war period.
Read what happened in the case of neutral States in the last war—Switzerland, for example—and you will see what occurred; you will see the pressure that was brought to bear and the misrepresentation of their attitude that took place. I did not bother or I might have been able to get some definite record of the exact words that were used. There is no use in making a protest unless I can say: "These words were used on such an occasion. What is the meaning of them?" I did not because I did not think I could do anything effective about it. It was not the sort of thing that I would want to make a protest about. I hope when we do make protests that they will be listened to and that we will be in a position to force attention to any protest we make.
I want to preserve our protests for matters of really serious importance. It did not matter very much to me that some person on the radio in Germany or somewhere else tried to misrepresent our attitude of neutrality. Our attitude we hope to keep, not by adherence to some theoretical, abstract idea of neutrality or anything like that, but by addressing ourselves to the practical question that we do not want to get involved in this war, and we merely want to keep our people safe from such consequences as would be involved by being in this war. That is the Government policy, notwithstanding the views that any individuals on one side or the other in this House may have.
I come now to another question, the sinking of the "Inverliffey." What are the facts with regard to that? It has been suggested that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was not plain with the House and that by implication—I forget what word was used —I reprimanded him. I did nothing of the sort. What happened was that the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave the facts truly as they were. It seemed to me that Deputies on the opposite benches were getting after a point other than that with which the Minister was dealing. They were thinking of something different. He was thinking of the facts in regard to the sinking of that particular vessel. The others were thinking of a position like this: "Here is an Irish ship, with the Irish flag and, at the time was sailing under the Irish flag, but nevertheless was sunk. What about it? Have you done anything about it?" I saw that side of the question. It was my business to look after that side of it. I saw what Deputies were driving at. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, perhaps, looked at it from a different angle. Perhaps he was not aware at the time of some of the inquiries that were being made by my Department in regard to the sinking of that ship.
What are the facts with regard to this whole question? First of all, there were seven tankers, which were built in Germany, but intended to be used in connection with the oil refinery here. They intended to trade from our port and to bring in raw material. I need not go into the nature of that enterprise now. It did not in fact materialise in the form proposed originally. What happened afterwards is another matter. That particular enterprise did not materialise, and these boats, which really belonged to a British firm, which were intended for that work and were registered here originally, were engaged on a different class of work. At the request of the owners they were trading between ports in other countries. The owners requested a transfer, and we believed in the circumstances that such a transfer was desirable, even from our own point of view. We agreed to that transfer, and so far as our books are concerned, the transfer of registration was effected, I think, on the 8th of the present month. Whether that transfer became effective at that moment or not is another question, because the ship was at sea.
The ship was registered in another port, but whether re-registration in another port had been completed is a question I am not going to answer. Inquiries are being made. A nice legal point is involved, but taking the view that it is likely that registration at another port was not completed for some days afterwards, the question is, was it done before the ship was sunk and, being done, and the ship being on the high seas, had registration taken effect from the moment it was completed, the moment of re-registration elsewhere; or until the ship came to a home port? As the ship was on the high seas, there is a nice legal point involved, which may come before a prize court in Germany.
It was said that it was contrary to international law to sink the vessel. That is a question. She was carrying a cargo that was admitted to be contraband by all belligerents. I think she was taking it to a belligerent country. The point is that if the ship is ours, the owners are entitled to make application for compensation for the sinking. But it was said, and this is the point at which I intervened: "The ship had a right to be there and was carrying the Irish flag." That is information that was supposed to be accurate as far as I know. If there are going to be legal proceedings, I suggest that we want to be as careful as possible. I do not want to say anything which might in any way prejudice anything that might happen in connection with an examination of the merits of that particular case. Let us assume that what was said by the Opposition was accurate, and that what was reported in the newspapers was accurate, that her master may not have been aware of the transfer, that he was flying the Irish flag and may have thought that his ship was registered in an Irish port, and although the captain of the submarine saw that it was a neutral flag he torpedoed the vessel. What about it? As far as I know it is not contrary to international law to do that. The cargo was contraband. The captain probably went on board the ship, saw by the papers where her cargo was going, and where ownership lay, and then said: "In accordance with international law I am entitled to sink this ship, and if the Irish Government has any complaint to make they will have to make it to the prize court, or to some court where compensation for the sinking of the vessel will be demanded."
As far as I know, that is the whole-question, and as there are legal proceedings pending, inquiries have to be made to establish the facts. The moment that someone publishes rumours or reports in newspapers that a captain said something about something that happened we cannot rush into a denial. We have to be responsible for all our facts. The newspapers that want to be first out with the news can write anything that purports to be true. When there are facts to be investigated we cannot come out as a Government when we do not know them ourselves. We have to find them. It was said that the broadcast was a misleading one. It was nothing of the sort. The facts obtained were the essential facts as we were aware of them. As far as our registration was concerned, the boat was transferred three days before she was sunk. That was what was stated in the broadcast. How could we broadcast facts when at the time we had not all the facts that are to be put before a court of law. There will be legal proceedings with regard to that ship.
The Taoiseach will appreciate this, that the question that really arises is as to what guarantees are now available from the German Government, that vessels carrying the Irish flag are not going to be sunk if they are carrying foodstuffs to Great Britain.
As far as I know the Deputy knows very well that if there is declared contraband it is recognised that a submarine unable to take prisoners to port sinks the ships.
Surely the Taoiseach appreciates this fact, that we have diplomatic relations with the German Government which are absolutely unbroken, and they are of such A nature that the question can be put to them and directly answered. Is it possible to put a direct question and to get a direct answer from them? Has that been done?
Just as is the case with the protest, what is the use of making a complaint of that sort if we are uncertain of the facts? If, for instance, it is recognised generally that submarines will sink contraband, even on neutral ships, what basis can we have for an effective protest?
I am not speaking of the protest but of the possibility of ascertaining information as to whether the Germans will sink vessels carrying the Irish flag when they are carrying foodstuffs to Great Britain.
If they are carrying what is called contraband of war, we may assume that they will.
Have they stated that?
Am I to ask definite questions about every aspect of international law and as to what is the accepted practice?
Surely there Is a very limited and important principle there?
It is unfortunately not very limited but it is very important. It is of real importance to a lot of our people. The Deputy can understand that when there is a war on and when two powerful combatants are each trying to destroy the life of the other or at least to get a victory each over the other, that innocent people who have nothing to do with the conflict are injured and that there are certain principles of international law some of which have only been just defined. It is only in the last war that there were operations of that kind and there were emerging from them gradually certain rules which the States have accepted.
Take the United States of America, a country of tremendous resources; she is telling her ships: "You will have to keep out of the zones of war activity." I can only tell Deputies on the opposite benches that I will do everything in my power as Minister to look after the national interests in that regard, and that we are alive to all of our responsibilities in that connection. There may be cases where we have not such good ground to stand on to make effective protests. In this case, which is a very delicate one, I do not want to go too far in a way that may prejudice the whole result if we seek from the German Government guarantees of the type which will bring us no further. That would be equally true in the case of the other belligerents. They will refer us to what are the usual rules. I think I have dealt with most of the questions that Deputy McGilligan and the others raised in that connection.
There is one other question. Could not the Taoiseach say whether the revenue estimates for the year have been re-estimated, and the anticipated Budget expenditure re-examined, and whether in the near future he proposes to make any review of the Budgetary position?
That is, of course, an important matter. There is no doubt that the war situation is going to affect our financial situation in a variety of ways. The Minister and his Department are examining the matter at the moment, and it will take a little while to do that, even apart from the changes that there will be. Even at the very beginning there is probably a big general upset, and it takes time to have these matters clarified to enable one to look some distance ahead. I appreciate that it is a most important matter for us. The thing will be examined, and it is being considered. I have a number of other matters about which I wanted to talk. There is the question of expenditure. That brings up social and other questions that may be economic questions which I would prefer by far to deal with here. But as this meeting of the Dáil was called to give Deputies an opportunity of talking about things which are agitating the public mind, I have spent all this time dealing with things which could be dealt with by a word with the Deputies across the House. I am ready to deal with any particular matter that occurs; I am ready to meet representatives from the other Parties. If they come along I think I would be able to give them information which would satisfy themselves, but it would not be information that would be going to the country, and, therefore, that would not satisfy the country.
I have to talk here for the purpose of satisfying the country. The things of tremendous public importance are: First of all, how we will stand with regard to the essential needs of life— food, clothing, shelter, fuel and so on. These are the fundamental things—how we will stand in regard to these things if the war is protracted and how far is the war going to affect our essential supplies. The Minister for Supplies gave some indication of what our policy in this regard is. The Department of Supplies is a Department that will take stock from time to time of our requirements and do its best to get these requirements for the country either from home production or outside sources as best we can. The Minister for Agriculture has indicated what is the position with regard to our prime source of the essential commodities of life—namely our own farms. It is from these that we are going to get the things on which we can depend to maintain the lives of our people. But in addition to maintaining the lives of our people we also want to maintain a certain standard of comfort as high as is possible for our people. To do that we must have certain supplies. The method of the distribution of these supplies depends upon the amounts in the pockets of individuals to purchase them—that is, so long as we are using our present system of exchange to purchase the commodities that we require for the essential needs of life. Some commodities may not be forthcoming. Deputy McGilligan said that the Department of External Affairs paid no attention to some requests made. That is not true. Deputy McGilligan knows full well that there was more in that matter than trying to get from another Government safe conduct guarantees. There would he the whole question of negotiations and arrangements. There will be certain general principles. We have to look after the supplies problem as a whole and not the supplies of one particular firm. We have to balance the getting of individual supplies with the idea of getting our supplies for the country as a whole. I mentioned already that 50 per cent. of our supplies come in from outside. I see my time is up and all I wish to say is this: No Government, whether the present Government or any Government that may come, can save this country completely from the consequences of the conflict now going on.
The effects of that conflict are going to be very widespread. We are on this planet, not on a planet far away from the conflict, and we are going to feel the effects. It is only by organisation of ourselves to meet the new emergency that we can hope to escape from it without very serious damage and very serious consequences. The most immediate and direct consequence will be unemployment because of the dislocation in industry and the difficulty that there is in taking a person who has been in one employment that has closed down and putting that person into employment in which he will get equally good wages to buy the things he was able to buy formerly. That is the most immediate and the most serious consequence to us of this conflict. If the Government gets the co-operation which it is to the general interests of the community it should get, not merely from other Deputies in this House but from the people as a whole, I believe that we can weather this storm and weather it in such a way that, when it is ended, our whole position will not be worse but will be better than it is to-day. We ought to approach it from the point of view of making out of this terrible necessity virtue, to develop here the things that could get the initial start here only in a time like this. We ought to try to draw good out of this terrible evil, in so far as that is possible, and I believe it can be done if we approach the whole thing in that spirit. But we will want here a feeling, between one section of the community and another, that we must either stand or fall together. Remember, if one section of the community goes down it is going to pull the other section down with it. We have to stand together in this particular crisis.
I wish that we had an organisation that would be better able to meet the situation than the organisation that we have. I am not a believer, and never have been a believer, in centralisation. I think a time comes when centralisation brings about a tremendous evil because, unless you have terrific regimentation, it is going to be unsuccessful and, from day to day, it requires more and more regimentation if you have too much centralisation. One of the arrangements I would like to see applied in the way of social organisation at the present time would be to organise every parish, which is the natural community of our people. We built up the Sinn Féin organisation on that basis. Later we built up the Fianna Fáil organisation on that basis. I am sure the other Parties have their organisations based in that way. The natural unit of the community in this country is the parish. Sometimes there is a sub-division, which we used to call the chapel area.
Those are the natural divisions, the natural groups larger than the family. There is the individual, the family and then the next group in our nation and the next natural basis for organisation is the parish. I would like to see emerging from this time of trial an organisation in which we would have our communities in the parishes organised. It is there that people see things that you cannot see here from Dublin. They are able to see who are the sheep and who are the goats, whereas when we have to pass a law for helping those who are destitute we have to relieve a lot of people who ought not to be relieved, because we have to have a law which has to be applied generally. If there were a local organisation, it could look after those who needed help and could see that those who did not need help and who were too lazy to work—if there were such—would be given the opportunity of working and, if they did not work they would not get the help. That is, in my opinion, a thing that, from the point of view of organisation, we should face as soon as possible. It is easy enough to devise a general scheme. The more voluntary it would be the better it would be, and if we could get from the Deputies here, of all Parties, some help generally for the organisation of such parish committees, we could be sure at least that in a crisis like this the real needs of the people would be met.
Before the Taoiseach leaves that point, I hope he understands that there is a very urgent and vital need to avoid narrow centralisation in the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Supplies at the moment.
With regard to Supplies, remember that centralisation here is not desired by us. It is forced on us, because it is only in that particular way the thing can be done. We cannot get supplies from outside. If any particular merchant is able to get supplies from outside I am perfectly certain the Minister for Supplies will be delighted, but centralisation is necessary because in the country which is our biggest market on the one hand and our biggest supplier on the other, there is a centralised organisation with which we have to correspond.
But the dangers and the difficulties of that could and must be avoided by consultation with the particular groups of traders, workers or manufacturers that are concerned. Where I refer to decentralisation I mean a segregation into different groups and a gathering together of groups of manufacturers, traders and workers, associated in some particular work.
I am in full agreement with the Deputy and have always shared that view with the Deputy. In any matter of that sort I have always advised any Minister in the working of his own Department not merely to have his Departmental advisers but also to have, in so far as possible, some consultative groups in regard to his own particular sphere of activity. For example, the Minister for Agriculture has such, I know, and intends to get a closer body in relation to the position. I know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has always been in touch with groups concerned with industry. With regard to a matter that I hope to speak about, education, I think it is very desirable in the case of education to be able to consult groups of people who are engaged in the day to day work. I do not want to sot up a council which would control education. As long as we have the present system, that would not work, but I do believe that in regard to the particular Department which I hope to have that it is advisable to have a group of people who are, in their own way, experts in their own particular job and who know the details of it, in addition to any advisers.
The Leader Of the Opposition suggested that we could double up the Ministries at the present time. The fact is that every Minister and every Department will be working far harder than ever before because there are new problems for everyone of these Departments, the solution of which will tax the Ministers and their advisers and the Government to the very utmost. Therefore, it is not a time really for duplication at all. In regard to education, I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that of some £30,000,000 of voted money, roughly £5,000,000 is voted for the Department of Education.
Practically one-sixth of all our voted moneys is spent in connection with that particular Department. It was suggested that the Department required only day-to-day administration. Surely the Deputy did not say that after any consideration whatever. The fact is that education is the foundation of the State, and if this nation ever blossoms out into what those who have been striving for its freedom in the past wish it to be it will be because we have a sound system of education in this country. Therefore, it is not a Department to be waved aside or that can be doubled up with something else. In my opinion, it is the most important single Department in the State, so important that my regret is that we cannot have immediately a Minister to take complete and absolute charge of it. I will have the general direction of it and I will try to answer the House on any questions about it, but I am afraid that the work that has to be done there is of such importance and the need for getting full value for all the money that is spent on it is so pressing that I doubt very much if it will be at all possible for me to do that in addition to my other duties. It may be possible to take the general direction of it and later get the help of a Parliamentary Secretary to whom a certain section may be allotted. However, it is the Department of State in which I, personally, would most desire to be working. I have always felt that it is really the foundation of the State and I hope that as Minister, in the various bodies with whom I may come into contact, I will able to get that co-operation without which it would be vain for any Minister to hope to get results.
I have just one question to put to the Taoiseach as-Minister for Education. I raised it a while ago when he was not in the House. It concerns the application of summer time to schools. We know there is a possibility that summer time may be continued. The Dáil will not be meeting here until the 18th October, and summer time expires on the 8th October. Numbers of children travel long, distances to school, and I would like the Taoiseach to consider issuing instructions to managers and teachers that summer time would be discontinued, as far as the schools are concerted, from the 8th October. Children have to travel long distances in country districts, and there is a bit of a nip in the air.
I have gone to school in the country, and understand the situation, but the Deputy will realise that there is an industrial side to it, too. I know he is only dealing with the country. We will have to see how far we can make the two fit in with the general idea. The point of view of industry and commerce would be that, on the whole, many complications would be avoided by continuing summer time. There are time-tables and such like which would be upset and I think the Department of Industry and Commerce feels that it is better to extend summer time from its point of view. However, I will have the whole thing examined from the point of view of the rural population and in regard to children attending school.
That will meet the case.
Since the Taoiseach started to speak, I have received a complaint in regard to the Ministry of Supply. I have not had time to verify it so far, but believe that there are people looking, for a certain article vitally connected with the policy of increased tillage. They have found that the article which previously was imported, cannot be made suitably here, and that the attitude of the Department of Supplies is that these people should try to find it themselves and only come back to the Department for help if they failed. I am not mentioning this in any contentious spirit, but if the idea got abroad that the Department of Supplies was only acting when everything else failed, it would be very harmful.
The Deputy will understand that that was not unreasonable. It can be unreasonably interpreted.
It would be a very bad idea.
The position is this. Naturally the Department of Supplies at the moment wants to be relieved in so far as it is possible to do it, of having to supply the needs of the private individual. If I can get something for myself, why should I help to add to all the other articles that the Department has to provide? If I can get it myself, let me go and get it. Meantime the Department will try to arrange the whole thing so that afterwards, if I cannot get it, there will be a further resort to go to. The Department of Supplies cannot guarantee anything; it can only do its best. If a man asks for something, it is a sensible reply to tell him to try to get it himself, while the Department may be trying too.
This is a question of making the attitude clear. Is it: "You try and do it yourself: we will do nothing in the meantime, but if you fail, come back to us?"
It is obvious that that is not the attitude of the Department. It is to take the things which cannot easily be got first and to leave others to individuals except in so far as they cannot get them. They must deal with the essential fundamental things first and later go on to the question of the odds and ends. In the meantime, it is obvious that anybody who can get in anything should do so —that is, anything from outside.
As the Dáil may not meet until the 18th October this is an important point. The suggestion has been made that, for increased tillage, there are certain types of agricultural machinery, apparently not being imported and not being made here, which are necessary. I do not know if that is correct but would ask the Minister for Supplies to look into it. They are seed machines.
Where are we going to get them?
I understand that one company—a Canadian Company—is supplying the United Kingdom. There may be a possibility of getting a supply from them.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.50 p.m. until Wednesday, October 18th at 3 p.m. as previously ordered.