I move: "That the Dáil do now adjourn until Wednesday, 23rd April."
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment of the Dáil—Debate on Supplies.
We now find ourselves in the position of adjourning this House for a very considerable period, at a time when, if the statements made by the head of the Government are to be taken seriously, the people are facing something akin to starvation. At a time when one of the Government Departments consider the position to be so grave that a tea ration on the severe scale of one ounce per person per week is considered necessary; at a time when, in so far as the mobile commercial life of the country is not completely paralysed for want of fuel, it is certainly seriously curtailed, and when the employment position is such that the gravity of it is not so much for the tens of thousands who are out of work, but rather for hundreds of thousands who can only look on their job as a type of livelihood which they have from hour to hour; at a time when our greatest industry—one that is bigger than all the other industries put together — is practically non-existent through the rampant and rather rapid spread of foot-and-mouth disease, this House is about to close down, without any reasonable opportunity being given to the representatives of the people to deal with these matters, and without any member of the Government utilising the time of the House to take the House and the public into its confidence. I want to impress on the Government, particularly, that, at the present time, there is in the mind of everyone a state of absolute confusion. No ordinary member of the public knows the why or the wherefore but, in the mind of many there is a kind of suppressed anger. They feel that they are not being treated fairly; that they have been misled. In moderation I put it to members of the Government that that state of mind is perfectly reasonable. Whatever the explanation, the public have got contradictory statements from one member of the Government and another, sometimes as frequently as twice in the same week, so they do not know where they are.
As a Deputy, I am unable to give any satisfactory explanation of the present position. Let us briefly take a glance at a food commodity, tea, that presses most acutely on the homes of the poor people. It is only six or nine months since we had not one but probably all members of the Government going from one public platform to another, and in particular the Minister for Supplies, urging people to buy up and store commodities, including tea. It was put up to these people as good citizens, and an appeal was made to their civic sense in the interests of the State to utilise their money in buying stores of flour, tea and other commodities. The case made at that time was that there were ample supplies of tea, but that the question of transport might be difficult in the event of invasion. Consequently, they wanted to get so much of these vast stores into the homes of the people in order to clear the decks, as it were, for more to come in at the centre. Probably a very great number of people acted on the advice and listened to the appeals made by the Minister and bought up such commodities as tea.
Some of us doubted, in respect of an article like tea, of which very great quantities in point of value can be stored in a very small space, the advisability of making appeals to wealthy people to buy up tea. Many of us thought: "This may result in leaving the poorer classes without tea"; but we were assured, not once but many times, that there was no danger of that. The Minister for Supplies went out of his way to say to the people: "Some decent, charitable people may think that by buying up such commodities now they are leaving their poorer neighbour without, or that, at some future date, they may leave their poorer neighbour without. I want to say: Put that out of your mind; there is no danger of it." The charitably-minded, unselfish person who read that statement immediately took it that it was his duty, in face of that statement, to buy, and he went into the merchant and bought. Some of us moving around through the people, and particularly those of us whose duties bring us into the homes of the very poorest, were definitely aware of the fact two or three months ago that tea was running out, and, with other Deputies in this House, three months ago, I made that statement from this bench. I was told in a vehement and emphatic manner that that was not so, that there were ample supplies of tea, that that form of malicious propaganda was going around the country, and that it was malicious, because there was no such shortage and there was no necessity to contemplate a rationing scheme for tea.
In June, July and August, people buy, store and hoard tea—that was the instruction; in January of this year, no shortage of tea and no necessity for rationing; and five days after that statement was made by a member of the Government, we had the Taoiseach going on the air and painting to the people a picture of famine, and amongst the items mentioned by him was tea. Can there be confidence in a Government when the members of the Government contradict one another on such a vital issue as a necessary of life within a week; when, on one day, the Minister in charge of food supplies says they are ample and, a week later, the head of the Government says there is scarcity to the point of famine? Buy and hoard—the advice nine months ago; three months ago, the advice is that there are ample supplies and no necessity for rationing; ten days later the commodity has run out and famine is ahead. Two months after we were told there were ample supplies and no necessity for rationing, we get the public announcement of a rationing scheme and, in my opinion, for what it is worth, a grave mistake was made in the public announcement of the rationing scheme. I am in favour of rationing. If there is going to be the slightest shortage, I am in favour of rationing everything; but what will happen if you, or I, or anybody else, announces to-day that cigarettes are going to be rationed, say, from 1st May? The ration tickets will be only bits of paper on 1st May and there will not be a cigarette for sale in a shop.
What did we do with tea? We gave notice to everybody with a "bob" in his pocket a month ago that, from 5th April, tea was going to be rationed, and naturally the head of a house with money bought what he could.
We also made an order prohibiting deliveries of tea in excess of 75 per cent. of normal purchases.
When the Minister made the announcement a month ago——
The order was in force.
——I take it that the Minister was doing his job and knew what tea was available. When he made the announcement, he made an announcement to the effect that supplies would allow two ounces per person per week.
Not supplies, but that the quantity sold to retailers would allow it.
Two ounces per person per week, and, within three weeks, he found that he had just half as much tea, and the ration was cut down by 50 per cent. I do not care whether the Minister speaks from the Front Bench here, with official knowledge, or outside as an individual citizen with a citizen's knowledge. He knows this, and so does every Deputy, that the amount of tea purchased from merchants in the last month was greater than in any month since last June. I do not live my life in Dáil Eireann. I move around the country, and, in the course of my business and in the course of social contacts, I meet merchants, and many of them whom I have met for the last fortnight were rubbing their hands because they had sold out every ounce of tea in their stores. Whether that is an official fact or not, it is a fact, and if the Minister sets his machinery going through the shops, he will find that what I say is true, and the people of this country would be lunatics if that statement were not true. The Minister made an announcement some 18 months ago that he was going to ration petrol from a certain date in advance, and, prior to that date, every teapot in the country was filled with petrol because the signal in advance, in effect, said to everybody: "You will be rationed from 1st of next month, but you can buy without rationing before that, and buy what you can."
Could the Deputy devise a system by which we could introduce rationing without giving notice?
Certainly.
Let us have it.
I am not patting myself on the back, and what I suggest may be completely wrong, but if I were in the Minister's position, knowing the public and knowing the tendency, and, as it were, the responsibility of people to look after themselves, I would have announced a month or six weeks ago that rationing of food commodities may become a necessity, and in order to prepare the machine for rationing, if it became necessary, I wanted a registration card filled up by every householder and that, if people neglected to do so, they might find their houses without important food commodities. I would get in the cards and I would then ration, without any notice, from a certain date.
Does the Deputy for a moment think that nobody would have guessed it was tea we were aiming at? We thought of that, but we knew that everybody would guess it was tea.
Better leave them guessing. It is a trick of the Government's, which they might have tried on that occasion. It might have been some other commodity. There was no necessity, in getting the registration cards, to say that there was an early or immediate intention of rationing. However, if it could have been done in any way calculated to invite large purchaser of the commodity, that was the way selected. Be that as it may, what is the position? The position is that the average member of the public is allowed to purchase one ounce of tea per week—one-seventh of an ounce per day. I, certainly, think there should be discrimination between the person living alone and the house in which there is more than one person. I can see the possibility of one ounce in a day, properly stretched out, being sufficient to do for seven persons, but I cannot see the possibility of any person—say, an aged woman living alone —doing on one-seventh of an ounce for one day. I do not believe it can be done. I can see the ounce being stretched out to do for seven, but I cannot see one-seventh of an ounce being stretched out to do for one. There should be an increased scale for the very small household of one, or even for the household of two.
Further, I believe that, ever since the war started, the public, irrespective of class or creed or political division, have shown a remarkably sound sense of citizenship. They were asked to do many disturbing things. They were asked to subscribe in many ways to many phases of national life—sometimes financially, sometimes by giving up their time and, at other times, by giving up their labour. Every appeal made to the people was responded to in a magnificent manner. The people are now on a ration of one ounce of tea per week. Many people, in response to the Government appeal of last summer, have stocks—perhaps very large stocks—of tea in their houses. There are hundreds and thousands of households where there is, at least, a chest of tea. That did not look a huge purchase at the time.
In view of this ration, what does a chest of tea mean? It means 40 years' ration for an individual. There are many households with far more stores than that which, I would say, was not an unreasonable reply to the Minister's appeal of last June—one chest of tea. It turns out now that the tea situation is so bad that that modest purchase of one chest of tea represents, approximately, 40 years' ration or a year's ration for 40 people. Would not the Minister consider it advisable, even at this stage, seeing the response the Ministry has got from the public, to request people who did store a certain amount, in response to his appeal last year, to return those stores to the merchant or, alternatively, to disclose them to the Minister, so that they would not require to be on the ration list until those stores were considerably depleted. I know that talking about a thing like food at present is like walking on egg-shells. I am aware of that. I am also aware that, if sensible people do not discuss these matters sensibly, irresponsible people will begin to discuss them recklessly. I do urge that where it can be said of the Government: "You asked people to board; the people did hoard and, because they hoarded, I am to go without now", it is a dangerous situation. I believe that, even though many people might not disclose what they had, very many others would. The position would be healthier and safer if such an appeal were made and if we were in a position to say with certainty of the people who had laid in stocks of this particular article now running short: "They made available the stocks which they previously laid in with the best intentions in the world."
There may be some explanation of this tea situation which I have never heard, but it wants an amount of explaining. We had statements as late as last January that we had ample supplies of tea, that there was no necessity for rationing, followed up by a statement, within a fortnight, that there was a shortage and another statement, within two months, that there was, certainly, necessity for rationing—necessity for the harshest scale of rationing this country has ever experienced. These statements want some explanation—a big amount of explanation. You cannot expect to have confidence behind an Administration that is constantly contradicting itself. We asked the public to follow the Government. To follow the Government in which direction? If a Government on Monday is going one way and on Tuesday is going the other way, you are in danger of colliding with yourself in an endeavour to follow the Government in opposite directions. We have got very contradictory and misleading statements, and the mere getting around an awkward corner in a debate does not justify a statement by a Minister that is not correct or is not officially sound.
If the statement made by the Minister on the 16th or 17th January was officially correct, what happened our stores of tea within the following ten days? Was there any destruction of our stores? Was there any extensive robbery? Why did the whole situation change in those ten days? After 18 months' experience of having a Department of Supplies, and after 18 months' study of the situation by the personnel of the Department of Supplies, it was the considered opinion as recently as the middle of January that the rationing of tea was unnecessary. What happened between January and March which made the Department change its mind? There may be some reason for that remarkable change of mind, but the public has never heard the reason.
Meantime, in the public mind this severe rationing of tea and threatened rationing of other articles of food is being linked up with speeches—indiscreet speeches—made by the head of the Government. In the public mind, this ruthless scale of rationing is mixed up with the statement of the Taoiseach that we are being blockaded by both sides. The ordinary man can put two and two together. He listens to a speech by the head of the Government that we are being blockaded by both sides. What does that mean to the ordinary man in this country? No matter what his views on internal or external policy may be, what does it mean to any Deputy? The head of the Government says that we are now being blockaded by both sides. It means that we are now being blockaded by Great Britain. If it is stated here that we are going to be short of tea, and that there is a famine ahead in regard to other things, what does he say but that that is the result of the blockade by Great Britain?
Then the head of the Government comes in and is asked if he will explain those words. He justifies them in the debating style of the big boy in an infant class by saying that these great Powers in blockading one another are indirectly blockading us. We are supposed to be grown-up people, we are supposed to be the representatives of other grown-up people. If the Taoiseach made an indiscreet speech, perhaps in a panic, perhaps in pique, perhaps based on incorrect information, then is it not his responsibility, rather than to continue the harm, to say: "My impression on that particular date was that that was so," but not to come in here talking that childish twaddle? A blockade means a determined attempt to stop supplies reaching the blockaded area. It is not true, and it never was true at any phase of this war, that we are being blockaded by both sides.
I do not hold a position so responsible as that of the Taoiseach, but I am certain that, if we were not being blockaded by Germany, and I went out in the street, and, worse still, went on the air, to talk to the people of Ireland and the people of America and attempted to make the statement that we are being blockaded by Germany, all the emergency powers and the powers of censorship and everything else would be used to prohibit that statement. Every Deputy would say: "Such a statement in the midst of a war, a false statement against a mighty belligerent can only provoke the wrath of that belligerent, and it is quite right to prevent that reckless person from making such a statement." It would be a serious statement made even by a person in my humble position, but the harm must be multiplied a hundred fold when such a statement is made by the head of the Government.
I believe that whatever blockade we are suffering from at the moment is a blockade imposed either by the Irish Government or by the Irish merchants. That picture of famine is held up before the eyes of the people at a time when the bottle-neck of the port of Dublin is glutted with goods which merchants will not remove. The fact that merchants will not clear these goods means that ships laden with supplies for Éire cannot get in to supply Éire because of our own negligence here.
That is not correct and the Deputy knows it is not correct.
The Deputy does not know it to be false.
That allegation was made by a member of this House outside this House and was fully investigated and found to be entirely incorrect. The allegation was repudiated by the traffic managers of each of the shipping companies serving this country.
I have made the statement and I invite the Minister to accompany me to that particular port and repeat that contradiction when he comes back.
I want to say this to the Deputy. A report came to me from the Defence Conference that that statement had been made. I immediately caused a conference to be summoned of the traffic managers of the shipping companies. The statement was put before them and they said it was not correct. They stated, on the contrary, that they were quite capable of carrying a much larger quantity of goods than was offered. I sent a copy of that report to the Defence Conference.
May I be allowed to say this? I was not responsible for making the complaint in the first instance, but I do know that the statement was made with authority that the traffic manager of the most important cross-channel shipping company approached the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Irish Industries and asked both bodies to communicate with their members to collect the goods which were lying in the stores at the North Wall, and that, in consequence of that approach, a circular was sent by both bodies to their members asking them to clear goods which were there.
I am not denying that merchants were asked to facilitate the companies by clearing goods lying in the stores. But the statement that, in consequence of congestion at the North Wall, deliveries of supplies to this country were being held up was incorrect, and was stated to be incorrect by the traffic managers of the companies.
With all due respect to the Minister, the Minister appears to be speaking truth according to the information he has. I can assure the Minister that, in repeating my statement, I am speaking truth according to the information which I have. Moreover, I believe that some couple of months ago the blockade position effected by blockading ourselves was accepted to such an extent by us that we worked the labour at the docks round the whole face of the clock in order to clear away that glut, in order to clear away the jamb, and that since that day labour has done its part but the merchants have not, and that the actual tonnage of goods at that port has trebled or quadrupled since the time the Minister refers to.
In other words, whatever bottle-neck there was there three months ago is narrower by two-thirds than it was then. That is a statement that may be contradicted here and may be reasserted here and that does not lead us anywhere. It is a statement made because I believe it is true and because I believe it is a serious matter. If the statement is incorrect, I will be the first to withdraw it, but I certainly will not withdraw it as long as I believe it is correct. I have been asked to visit the North Wall this afternoon and I am going there. Does that look as if my information was incorrect?
It is true that some merchants were slow in removing goods from the docks and that some congestion in the stores of one company resulted. The suggestion was made, however, that in consequence of the congestion there, the companies were unable to ship goods awaiting shipment on the other side. That statement was categorically denied by the traffic managers of the companies. They stated on the contrary that they were capable of shipping a much larger quantity of goods than was offered.
I will not pursue the matter further because I can see, as there is a difference of opinion, that it could be more satisfactorily discussed elsewhere. The Minister has certain information which may be correct; I have certain information which I believe to be reliable and which may be correct. I am satisfied that at least we are agreed on this, that if there is a hold-up there, it has to be looked into, and if there is not a hold-up, the statement that there was a hold-up was made in good faith. My belief is that there was and that there is. If I am convinced of that by visual evidence, because as I say I am a person who doubted it and disputed it, the first person that will get the evidence is the Minister, and it can then be dealt with.
I did refer to the rationing of tea. Whether there was a real necessity for it or not, I do not know. I have not met any constituent or anybody else to say that there was. I get the Minister's statement, that he made two months ago, slapped in my face, and I get pulled up and asked if we are going to reach the point of having to ration the very poor. On that, why did we invite the rich to hoard? I have gone over that ground already. I believe the whole tea situation was badly handled. The petrol situation was worse. I had better draw a screen over it, because the petrol situation of the present and the future, as I see it, is appalling. In the case of the petrol situation, we are again up against the question: who is blockading us? The motor trade in Dublin say the Ministry of Supplies. They say that a reasonable arrangement for a more or less adequate supply of petrol for this country, to keep workers in employment and cars on the road, could be effected but for the Department of Supplies. Others say that it could be effected but for the Irish petrol companies. My information is that the hold-up is a fight between the Irish petrol companies and the Department of Supplies over the question of an oil refinery. That information may, or may not, be correct. I asked the Minister had an offer been made to supply this country with 50 per cent. of its pre-war petrol. Deputy Belton had previously asked the same question.
I made a definite statement on it. I asked for a contradiction of the statement, and I did not get it.
You did.
I did not.
The Deputy is getting it now.
I repeat what I said, that an offer was made by the petrol companies.
The Deputy does not mind contradictions.
It is the Minister who does not mind contradictions. Every statement that he has made in the last six months has, in the main, been proved to be incorrect.
I put down a Parliamentary Question to the Minister during the present week stating that it was freely rumoured that an offer was made to supply this country with 50 per cent. of its pre-war petrol supply, and asking him "whether he would state (1) if any such offer was made. (2) Did the Minister contradict that?
No. I cannot understand the sense in which the word "offer" is being used by the Deputy. There was no question of an offer, but the oil companies informed us of the quantity of petrol that they expected to bring in. I want to say again that there was no offer.
Did they not offer to give a certain quantity, to supply 50 per cent. of our consumption in a maximum year?
They said they expected to supply 50 per cent. of our maximum consumption in this year, without any conditions.
Do not bother about conditions. Call it an offer or call it arrangement, was it not discussed with the Minister's Department? I say it was.
Deputy O'Higgins.
My information is that there was an arrangement between this country and Great Britain—say it was between either the Government or the oil companies here and the petrol board on the other side—entered into at the beginning of the war that we would be supplied with 80 per cent. of our pre-war petrol supply, but that about the end of last year notification was received that it could no longer be maintained on account of the sinkings. Communication was opened up between the two countries, resulting in a proposal that, instead of 80 per cent. of our pre-war petrol supply, we would be supplied with 50 per cent. of that supply. Obviously, guarantees could not be given in a world-war situation to deliver a gallon of petrol, but backed up by good faith that proposal was made to replace the 80 per cent. arrangement by the 50 per cent. arrangement. Apparently, final acceptance——
What does the Deputy mean by "acceptance"? Were there any conditions attached to it?
Not that I have heard.
There is no question of acceptance, and there was no question of a bargain. There was an intimation from the oil companies that they expected to deliver 50 per cent. of our requirements and no more.
Did not letters to this effect go back—that we considered 50 per cent. was not adequate? We got a notification at a later stage from the other side that they could not alter the 50 per cent. as far as the petrol was concerned, but that, as regards kerosene and fuel oil, there might be some increase.
If the Deputy says that I expressed the view that we should get more than 50 per cent. of our requirements he is correct. I did, but there was no question of a bargain or an arrangement.
Is the present position this, that as far as carriage and circumstances will permit, we are to get 50 per cent. of our pre-war petrol supply?
So I have been informed. We have not got it yet.
According to the reply given by the Minister that arrangement has not been quite adhered to since the 1st January. I expect it was made as early as the 1st January. Since that date we did get 50 per cent. of last year's petrol consumption.
Thirty-four per cent. of our normal supply.
The Minister informs me, in the answer he gave to my question, that during 1940 we received 34,000,000 gallons of petrol or, roughly, 2,800,000 gallons a month. He says that since the 1st January we received 3,900,000 gallons of petrol—that is over a period of three months—or, roughly, 1,300,000 gallons of petrol per month. The latter figure is very nearly half of 2,800,000 gallons. In other words, pending the operation of this new proposal, we have got for each month of this year approximately half of what we got for each month last year. The distribution of that petrol by the Department of Supplies appears to be on the basis of having received only 25 per cent. Does the Minister assert that motor owners, of all kinds, in this country are getting half as much now as they got in each month last year? The commercial people are cut down 60 per cent., the doctors 80 per cent., and the clergymen 50 per cent., while private owners are completely off the road. Yet, according to the Minister, we are getting half as much petrol. What has become of the rest?
By way of supplementary question and answer, the Minister made a state ment here to the effect that he was perfectly prepared to give over to the Medical Union or other representative bodies the distribution of petrol allocated to certain classes of people— nothing more—only the amount of petrol allocated. Last year every doctor received a basic petrol ration of three times the horse-power of his car. In addition to that, nine out of every ten of them got a supplementary allowance. The petrol is cut down by half in the basic allowance alone.
The medical officer looking after the sick and injured is immediately cut down 70 per cent., without taking into account the supplementary allowance at all; taking that into account, he is cut down 80 to 90 per cent. That is true: there is no denying it. If the Minister cares to look it up—he can get it in five minutes—he will see from the coupon allowance of every doctor any month last year as compared with the present month, that they have been cut down by 70 per cent. and in most cases by 90 per cent. No organisation could undertake the distribution of a percentage of a pool which is grossly unjust.
If we had half as much petrol per month this year as we had last year, and if it had been sensibly passed out through the coupon issue, the motor life of this country would not be disrupted to the extent it has been. On the basis of receiving half as much, I do not think it would be necessary to disemploy a single man. Although I have referred to doctors, the most serious side of the whole petrol coupon control is the complete cut-off of the private car. From the points of view of unemployment, of trade, and of the ordinary life and business of a great number of people, it was very unwise. Even if an issue of two gallons per month could have been made to the private car owner, I believe many of them would have remained on the road and, by that means, garages would have kept their staffs. In the last month we have all met pathetic cases of people who were qualified tradesmen and held big appointments in big firms here in Dublin, and who are now looking for any class of work in this country or in England.
I have to apologise to the House, as the debate started late and I have taken up an undue share of the time available; but I would strongly urge on the Minister, before I sit down, the advisability of altering the ration of tea at least in its application to the poorer households. In dealing with cases where he is perfectly satisfied, from the means of the household, that they could not have a reserve of even 1 lb. of tea, he should consider a special extra ration.
In view of the short time available, I shall be brief. As the House is adjourning for a few weeks, and as the food situation is the most serious which confronts us, I should like to get some information from the Minister for Agriculture as to the probable position in respect of food supplies. We have heard very disturbing and contradictory statements as to the area under wheat, and the expectation that, by the sowing of wheat at the usual time, and by the late sowing of wheat, and the putting in of what spring wheat is available, we would be able to get the 700,000 acres we need. Anybody going through the country, and hearing the point of view of the farmers, will have no hesitation in realising clearly that we will not be able to get 700,000 acres under wheat this year, nor anything like that figure. That is due, firstly, to the fact that we woke up late to the necessity for increased tillage, and, secondly, to the accidental circumstance of particularly bad weather during the period when winter wheat could be sown with safety.
Recently the Taoiseach went to Limerick and made a speech in which he indicated that, as far as bread was concerned, we might before next harvest have bread which contained not merely 95 or 100 per cent. wheat extraction, but which contained barley and, possibly, oats. If that is the position, it ought to be on some definite basis, and not left to mere speculation. We know now what quantity of wheat is in the country, and we can, apparently, assume that we will get no more in. If we have to make a barley or oats admixture, we should start at this stage with a graduated admixture, rather than do it in July or August, and then have a loaf with an undue barley or oats content. At all events, we should know definitely where we stand in regard to these supplies. We should know what kind of loaf we will get until next harvest, and what the situation is likely to be from then onwards.
It seems to me that the Government themselves and the Department of Agriculture do not appreciate the seriousness of the position. The Taoiseach goes to Limerick and uses the word "starvation"—a very grave word in existing circumstances. I am afraid he is right in suspecting that there will be starvation here in regard to the availability of certain cereals. We may have a situation in which we cannot export cattle to Britain because they will not take them, and we may have live stock which we cannot feed and may have to kill. Our population may not be able to get wheat supplies and the internal agricultural economy may break down through the inadequate area under wheat and other cereals. I feel, therefore, that the Taoiseach was right in sounding the warning that there may be starvation if we fail to recognise the agricultural position.
We have not recognised it, and we are too late.
We started late, and went about it in a most ineffective manner, and in respect to food stuffs we seem to have adopted the Micawber-like policy of waiting for something to turn up. I represent a constituency which has land that might well be the envy of any other country in Europe —Deputy Hughes knows that too—and the one thing which astonishes us is the small quantity of land under cultivation. The order provides that there should be a tillage of a minimum of 20 per cent. It seems to me that there is considerable doubt as to whether that minimum of 20 per cent. is being tilled, but there is no doubt in the world that there is at least a minimum of 80 per cent. still under grass, and in some cases 90 and 100 per cent. under grass, with no effort being made to turn a sod.
It is just nonsense to put an odd paragraph in the paper saying that 17 farms have been entered and taken and that people have been put to work on those farms. Things will have to be done in a much more drastic way than that. Things will have to be made move much more rapidly than that. If you are going to acquire 12 or two farms every week or every month that is all right, if the time will wait for you, if you can stop the calendar until you can take up all these farms. But you cannot. The sowing season will be past. Your land will be idle and your people will be looking for food at the end of this year and next year. I appeal to the Government to use every power it possibly can to compel people to put their land under the plough; to give them reasonable prices for their produce, and, once there is an assurance of reasonable prices, to be drastic with these people in compelling them to till their land. There could not be a greater offence against the nation to-day than the offence of not producing food from the finest land that is available in Europe for the production of food.
With Deputy O'Higgins, I want to make a reference to the present tea rationing. I am afraid the statement which the Minister has been compelled to issue in respect to tea has certainly had a most disturbing effect, not merely on the Government but even on the Minister's prestige as well. One is beginning to wonder whether, in fact, the Minister is ever correct in his statements. We had panicky statements about petrol last year intimating that we were going to get no more supplies; then an intimation that probably the position would be better. We had statements and assurances from the Minister on coal, followed by a collapse in respect of the importation of coal.
We had an assurance by the Minister in January that tea supplies would be all right, that there was only one difficult wholesaler who was causing all the difficulty and once he was brought to heel we might expect everything to go right in future. Then we had an instruction about rationing on the basis of two ounces per head for persons over 12 years of age and one ounce for persons under 12, and, a few days before rationing was to come into operation, an announcement was made that we could only get one ounce per head. Will the Minister reflect for a moment on the effect contradictory statements of that kind have on public confidence? One is quite entitled to say that the Department which is issuing these statements does not know what it is doing.
Does the Deputy realise that circumstances change? They have even changed since I made the statement yesterday.
I think the Minister will admit there was more tea imported into this country in 1940 than in 1939.
Not at all. I will give the figures here to-day.
You will give the figures to-day?
Yes.
It will be very useful if we do get the figures, but I think I can produce to the Minister—not just at the moment—other figures, if I get the permission of the Minister's colleague to quote them, showing that the imports of tea in 1940 were greater than the imports of tea in 1939.
Over the who'e calendar year, that may be so.
Over the whole calendar year, in 1940, we imported more tea than in the calendar year of 1939. There was no shortage in 1939, and very little shortage until the end of 1940 and yet, notwithstanding the fact that the imports are up quite considerably in 1940 over 1939, we are now faced with a situation that we can get only one ounce of tea per head per week. The Minister must know that tea is a staple article of food in the working-class houses. To think of a family in a city tenement or in a small town or rural area throughout the country trying to subsist on an ounce of tea per head per week is absurd. Take the case of the ordinary workman who goes out to work early in the morning. He has a cup of tea before he leaves home. He makes a cup of tea shortly after he has started on the job. He takes a cup of tea at lunch time. He will be getting an ounce of tea, which will have to make a cup of tea for him early in the morning, a cup of tea when he is on the job, a cup of tea with his lunch and a cup of tea for his meal every evening. I suggest to the Minister that, if there must be this drastic rationing of tea there ought to be some special concern expressed by positive executive action for working class families who have to depend in a very large measure on tea. It is not unreasonable for the Minister to ask the wealthy classes who have tea available in their own households not to present their ration card or, if they do, to make their ration available for poor people, because the present tea rationing is going to inflict very considerable hardship upon them.
I just want to make a reference to the serious question of unemployment as we are now about to adjourn for a period of three weeks. I think that an intensification of the present unemployment position is going to cause very serious difficulties as far as this country is concerned. We are faced with a shortage of food. There is no question but that shortage will arise. We are faced with an intensification of our unemployment problem. We are faced too with constantly rising prices, when wages are pegged down to pre-war levels, where wages are obtainable at all. Does not everybody who gives a moment's consideration to the position realise that there are very dangerous ingredients within circumstances of that kind? Widespread unemployment, shortage of food, high prices: these are the factors that have caused revolutions in every country where revolution has broken out.
We will be fools and we will deserve the punishment that an outraged population will give us if we fail at this stage to plan to mitigate these evils. Some of the factors may be completely outside our control. Some are within our control. We ought to make sure at all events that if there is a dislocation in our industry, food will be available. Dislocation in industry must be met in every possible way and by methods which we might reasonably reject in peace time but which we cannot afford to reject in existing circumstances. Above all, we must try to meet that new type of unemployment caused by the disemployment of the craftsman and the skilled worker who, in the past, have been able to get reasonably constant employment.
I had a case the other day where 200 bricklayers and plasterers were recruited by an agent for a British firm to go to work in London. A difficulty arose as to whether Dublin rates of wages would be paid to them in London or London rates. The agent got in touch with his London office and was informed that Dublin rates would be paid to them in London, but the Ministry of Labour in London would not allow them to be employed in London at Dublin rates, because that would have reactions on London workers who would be getting lower rates of wages. That hitch is the only thing preventing 200 trained operatives from earning a living in London, having to keep a home there and a home here, and having to withstand a blitzkrieg there because of our inability to plan here. If we had all the houses we needed, one could understand but, with so many houses required, we are proceeding to export the most essential craftsmen, the plasterers and bricklayers.
I urge the Minister to impress upon his colleagues the necessity for dealing with a situation of that kind. We can do it now while the reins are in the hands of the Government, but if they fail to face up to their responsibility in that connection the consequences, I fear, will be very serious for the whole country.
Deputy Belton rose.
I do not know whether it is intended to conclude at 2 o'clock. If business is unopposed, debate might go on till half-past two.
I think we could agree on that.
Deputies who are anxious to speak might come to some agreement to divide whatever time is left.
Is it suggested that the debate may proceed until half-past two?
On the assumption that it is unopposed, that there will be no vote.
As far as I am concerned, a statement of the position will meet my case. How long will the Minister want to reply?
The Chair does not regulate length of speeches. The Minister is entitled to come in now.
If we are going to have an arrangement, we would want to know what time the Minister will require to reply.
I am going to speak now.
That does not conclude the debate?
No.
What time would be left?
As I understand the position, if the Dáil wants to vote on this motion, it must conclude before 2 o'clock. If they do not want to vote on it, it can go on until half-past two.
There will be no vote.
Will anybody with authority say whether there will be a vote or not?
There will be no vote.
Will the debate then go on until half-past two?
If the House so decides. The Deputy will have less time if he delays the Minister now.
I will take up as little time as I can. Deputy O'Higgins commenced his speech by reiterating a number of our misfortunes. I have no desire to dispute his list. In fact I think I could add a few to it, but I would suggest to Deputies in this House that instead of merely counting our ills and expatiating on them, they should give us the benefit of their constructive suggestions as to how these ills might be met or mitigated. We are all aware of the difficulties that confront the country. The problem of this Dáil at the present time is not so much to draw attention to these troubles as to devise means of dealing with them. I think Deputy O'Higgins was unfair in his suggestion that no reasonable opportunity was given to Deputies to discuss these matters. If that is his alibi for not making constructive suggestions, then it is a poor alibi. So far as I am aware, the Government has met every request from a responsible section of this House to provide time for the discussion of any matter they wanted to discuss. Government time was provided for the discussion of these matters and the Dáil met specially for their discussion when responsible Party leaders so requested.
Deputy O'Higgins also suggested that the public mind is confused—that people do not know why conditions are as they now exist. If there is confusion in the public mind it cannot be held to be the fault of the Government. For months past the Government—every member of it—has been utilising every possible occasion to impress upon the public the inevitability of the conditions that have now arisen, and while it is probably true that the disinclination of people to face facts, their unwillingness to accept, as inevitable, unpleasant developments, has led to some confusion of mind, that confusion of mind does not exist merely outside this House. We have had evidence here this evening that it also exists within this House, and a large part of the speech made by Deputy O'Higgins was prompted by his lack of willingness to face the facts and his desire to believe that there is some way of evading the facts if the Government would only take some undefined and unsuggested course of action.
Now, I want to deal with the question of tea particularly, because I have an unpleasant announcement to make concerning it, but before I make that announcement I want to deal in a brief manner with certain statements made by Deputy O'Higgins. It is quite true that, last July, when this country was facing a danger of invasion and it was desired that stores of goods should be moved as rapidly as possible into isolated districts, I advised not only wholesalers and retailers, but also householders generally, to buy in more than they usually bought of specified classes of goods, among which were specified flour and sugar. There was no special reference, however, to tea. I have looked up my remarks on that occasion, and what, in fact, I stated was, that there was not the same concern about tea as in regard to other commodities because the stock of tea held by traders was normally enough to supply the needs of country districts for a long period. There was no advice to people to buy and hoard tea in the same way as we advised them to buy and keep flour, and it is not true that the public responded wholeheartedly to that appeal. There was, in fact, a very small outward movement of these goods. Only about a week's supply of sugar went out, and about a fortnight's supply of flour. There was some outward movement of tea, and as a matter of fact the first thing that people thought of was tea when we suggested the buying and storing of food beyond normal requirements, although no special reference had been made to tea. In spite of that fact, Deputy O'Higgins appears to think that if we had introduced our rationing system for tea by the process of sending out a rationing card with a blank space, where the name of the commodity would be entered, nobody would suspect that it was tea we were going to ration. I do not believe that, and I am sure Deputy O'Higgins does not believe it either.
When we advised the laying in of certain stocks, the first thing people thought of was tea, and if, in February this year, we sent out cards for the rationing of some unnamed commodity, the first thing the people would think of would be tea, and the reason was that before an announcement concerning tea was made an order had been signed by me requiring wholesalers of tea to register with my Department, make returns of their stocks in hand, and limit their deliveries of tea to their customers to 75 per cent. of their normal deliveries. That announcement could not have facilitated rich people in laying in large stocks because, simultaneously with the announcement, that restriction upon the outward movement of stocks from wholesalers was imposed by law.
Deputy O'Higgins also said that I have made what he alleged are contradictory statements concerning tea. Now, with regard to the statement I made here in January, that supplies of tea available then were sufficient to meet normal requirements, I have already given a full explanation to the House. Up to that date—the date upon which I spoke—an arrangement was in operation with the British Tea Control under which we were entitled to get, and were getting, 100 per cent. of our normal purchases of tea. On the 18th January I received notification from the British Tea Control that that arrangement was ended and that, instead of getting 100 per cent. of our normal purchases of tea, we would only get 75 per cent. That change, under the circumstances, necessitated a change in policy. It then became necessary to put restrictions on the sale of tea and make plans for the introduction of rationing. Subsequently, we were notified by the British Tea Control that instead of giving us 75 per cent., they were only going to give 50 per cent.
Now, with supplies equal to 75 per cent. of normal purchases it was possible to give a ration of tea to each household based upon an allowance of two ounces per week per adult and one ounce per juvenile, but with the reduction to 50 per cent. of supplies that ration, inevitably, had to be reduced. Deputy O'Higgins asked what happened between January and March that necessitated that change in our system of rationing. I am not going to attempt to say what happened. What we know happened is that the British Government, for reasons which it considered adequate, decided to reduce the quantity of tea we were going to be allowed to receive. I regret to have to inform the House that I received telephonic notification yesterday evening to the effect that a communication was being sent to me informing me that future allocations of tea to this country would be, not 50 per cent., but only 25 per cent. of our normal purchases—the allocation of tea now being made to this country and the next following allocation will be determined on the basis of our receiving only one-quarter of our normal purchases. That further reduction in the quantity of tea which the British are going to allow us to have will necessitate a reduction in the ration from one ounce to a half ounce per head per week.
These reductions in the quantity of tea allowed to us by the British Tea Control have been attributed by them to shipping difficulties and to the loss of supplies. I am no longer able to accept that explanation as adequate. There is no doubt of course that there have been shipping losses and destruction of supplies, but my inability to accept them as an adequate explanation of the curtailment in the quantities of tea allowed to us is due to the fact that while our allocations have been reduced in successive stages to 75 per cent., 60 per cent., 50 per cent. and now, apparently, to 25 per cent., the allocations made by the British Tea Control to wholesalers in Great Britain have not been reduced. Great Britain consumes normally more than 400,000,000 pounds of tea per year.
The present allocation made by the Tea Control to British wholesalers is 85 per cent. of their normal purchases and, on that basis, Britain is now consuming approximately 350,000,000 pounds of tea per year. The saving of tea effected by the British Tea Control by a reduction of 25 per cent. in our allocation amounts to less than 500,000 pounds per month. That quantity of tea is so insignificant in relation to the total consumption of tea in Great Britain that some explanation other than that given to us must be advanced to justify the action taken.
It is necessary to bear in mind in this connection that on the proposition of the British Government, a proposition put forward by them in their own interests, the Government of this country agreed to purchase all our teas through the British Tea Control, they on their side agreeing to give us 100 per cent. of our purchases. The quantity of tea which we were entitled to receive under that arrangement was fixed in accordance with our purchases over an agreed period, the period between July, 1938, and June, 1939. While we recognise that circumstances might arise which might make it impossible for the United Kingdom to give us our full supplies, we cannot agree that the reduction of our allocation to 25 per cent., while their allocation remains at 85 per cent., is reasonable. I do not propose to speculate here as to the possible real explanation of this rapid restriction in our tea supply, but it is clear that the explanation which has been given to us is inadequate. The form and the manner in which representations must be made to the British Government in connection with this matter are to be determined by the Government. I think it is desirable that the House and the public should know the circumstances which have arisen.
Does the 25 per cent. refer to the forthcoming year?
It refers to the allocation now being made.
For 1941?
For the present month.
Is it on an annual basis?
No. Let me deal for a moment with the references that Deputy O'Higgins made to the stocks which may be held by individuals throughout the country. I am very glad that Deputy O'Higgins referred to this matter, because it is desirable that the public should be fully informed concerning it. It is particularly desirable that members of the House should be fully informed because there is a real danger, faced as we are with a situation in which there will be an absolute scarcity of tea, possibly a situation in which we shall have no tea, that there may be a number of unfounded rumours that certain individuals have large stocks of tea. One can easily visualise how rumours of that kind would in the case of particular communities, become directed against individuals. Stories as to the great quantities of tea held by individuals would go into circulation, and disturbances and breaches of the peace might result from them. I think the faces show that there can be no substantial quantity of tea held by individuals generally throughout the country. I am going to give the and Deputies can come to their own conclusions on the facts. I am going to state my conclusions, and if Deputies think, as I do, that the facts justify the conclusion that there can be no great quantity of tea held by private individuals throughout the country, I would ask them to use their personal influence on every occasion to kill these rumours when they arise, as they inevitably will arise. Undoubtedly, a number of individuals purchased reserve stocks of tea last July. Some individuals may have these stocks still.
Much earlier.
The information available to me, the statistics which I have, and which I am going to give to the House, would appear to show conclusively that the quantity of tea now held by such individuals, as distinct from the quantities held by institutions— hospitals, county homes, and other bodies of that kind—cannot be very large. The quantity of tea which was imported and sold last year was substantially less than the quantity which we were entitled to get from the British Tea Control under our arrangement with them—that is to say, the quantity imported in the datum period, July, 1938, to June, 1939. The total quantity of tea which was distributed in the country in the 11 months to the 28th February was 21,366,000 lbs.
For what year?
Up to February last. Our normal annual consumption of tea is 23,500,000 lbs. The earlier figure was for 11 months. If we add to that figure, one month's normal consumption of tea we get 23,210,000 lbs., so it is quite clear that in the 12 months up to February last the quantity of tea sold in this country was less than the quantity sold in a normal year. We can reinforce the conclusion to which that figure leads us by reference to the time of the year in which the greater part of the tea was, in fact, sold. Supplies of tea coming to this country fell off rapidly during the latter part of the 12-months' period ending on the 28th February. That would seem to suggest that people who had purchased exceptional reserves of tea in June and July of last year probably utilised some or all of these reserves in the intervening period. The quantity of tea obtained in September, 1940, was only 37 per cent. of the quantity obtained in the corresponding month of 1939.
That was obtained by the wholesalers?
It was 46 per cent. in October, 85 per cent. in November, 60 per cent. in December, 73 per cent. in January and 53 per cent. in February. Those figures suggest that, while the total quantity sold over the whole period was less than the quantity which would be normally sold in that period, the greater part of that quantity which was sold was sold in the first half of the period. Consequently, there is no evidence of any substantial hoarding of tea by anybody, by institutions or by individuals, during the last six-months' period. The stocks held by wholesalers and by retailers are being furnished to the Department. Those traders are required by law to make certified returns as to the stocks held by them, and having regard to the information which those returns show it seems clear that the quantity of tea held by individuals cannot be much; even if we could bring it all into a common pool it would not seriously alter the position.
I agree that it is desirable that everybody should be on a basis of equality. The existence of inequalities is always a fruitful source of discontent. It is, however, I think, obviously impracticable to take measures which would bring into a common pool the stocks, however limited, which private individuals may have. No doubt we could make an order requiring those people to declare their stocks, but does anybody here believe that we would get accurate declarations in any case? We could not test the accuracy of the declarations except by domiciliary searches, and I am sure most Deputies will agree that the institution of domiciliary searches for such purposes is not desirable. I would like to support those Deputies who have spoken on this matter, and who have urged people who have any stocks of tea capable of keeping them going for a little while, not to avail of their rations. I think that is a reasonable request to make to those people. If they do not avail of their rations it will not permit of any increase in the existing ration, but it may enable us to maintain the existing ration for a week or so longer, and, when the ration is reduced, if it has to be reduced, to half an ounce per head, then to maintain that ration for a little while longer. Perhaps some of those who have stocks of tea might decide to offer them to charitable organisations like the St. Vincent de Paul Society. My sole purpose in referring to this matter at the moment is to convince Deputies that there can be no bona fide foundation for any widespread rumours as to the existence of abnormal stocks of tea in the hands of a large number of private individuals. Some private individuals have stocks, but the total stocks held by private individuals cannot, on the basis of the information which we have obtained, be very much. Possibly some tea was smuggled across the Border; I do not think so.
It will be smuggled now.
In the last year any movement was in the opposite direction, and to the extent to which there was a movement in the opposite direction it reinforces the conclusion which I have arrived at from those figures. So much for tea. If I am not unduly delaying the House, I should like to make some reference to the points concerning petrol that Deputy O'Higgins mentioned. I know that there is a multitude of rumours in circulation concerning petrol, and the rumours, in the main, are originating from the one source. I know the source.
Those rumours are particularly virulent in their effect upon motor traders, and I received a list of them from the Association of Motor Traders some time ago. A deputation from the Motor Traders' Association came to meet me. I gave them a point-blank contradiction of every rumour on their list, but I could see that they were not satisfied. The information which they had got from the source of the rumours appeared to be so specific, so circumstantial, that even my point-blank contradiction did not satisfy them.
They would not believe the Minister?
We brought those motor traders' representatives and the representatives of the oil companies together at one conference over which the Secretary of my Department presided, and we said to the Motor Traders' Association: "Now repeat your rumours." They repeated them, and got a specific and definite contradiction of every one of them from the representatives of the oil companies. Those are the rumours that are in the minds of Deputies like Deputy Belton, Deputy O'Higgins and others—that there is some difficulty between the Government and the oil companies which is preventing our getting petrol. I know of no such difficulty. There has been no question of a bargain between the oil companies and the Government which the Government is refusing to make. When the war started there were discussions between officers of my Department and officers of the British Government on the question of the conservation of petrol supplies, and an arrangement was made under which we were ensured, in so far as it was possible to ensure it, a quantity of petrol which would permit of our distributing the same proportion of the normal supplies to our people that the British Government were distributing to their people. That arrangement persisted during the whole of last year. We received roughly 75 per cent. I think, of our normal quantities, and that went out into circulation. Some quantity was held in reserve, but it was not a substantial quantity. When the petrol difficulties arose suddenly at Christmas, due to the sinking of ships carrying supplies to this country, and the British Government informed us that they could not replace those ships and the oil companies told us that they could not replace the oil, there were new consultations, both between the representatives of the Irish oil companies and their parent organisations, and between my Department and the British Government Department dealing with petroleum products.
Arising out of those conferences we were informed that the utmost which we could expect to get this year was 50 per cent. of our normal supplies. I made strong representations to the oil companies that that was not sufficient. I have been informed that the decision to limit us to 50 per cent. was a decision arising out of the commercial policy of those oil companies, but no representations which I made appeared to improve the prospect of our getting more.
Is that 50 per cent. of pre-war supplies?
Yes. That is how the matter stands. The oil companies still say that, subject to the contingencies which are inevitably associated with the matter, we will get over the year 50 per cent. of our normal supplies. In fact, the quantity delivered does not represent 50 per cent. of the normal quantity utilised in that period. It represents only 34 per cent. Deputy O'Higgins says we are distributing only 25 per cent. The Deputy is entirely misinformed because, in fact, we have distributed in the first three months of this year more petrol than we got in the first three months of this year.
There was a carry-over from last year; there was a certain reserve in the tanks of the country when, at the beginning of the year, this crisis arose. In the month of January, although only 1,000,000 gallons came in, 2,000,000 gallons were issued, and that lee-way has not been made up in the two months since.
May I put a question to the Minister?
Certainly.
We have got this year half as much as we got last year. The Minister says we are distributing it all. Then is it not clear, when the doctors are getting only 25 per cent., that they are picked out for victimisation?
Oh, no. It is quite true that doctors are getting less and certain other users are getting less. Other services must be maintained. The public transport companies cannot be cut by 50 per cent. It is necessary that they get substantially more than 50 per cent. They have been reduced; services have been eliminated and reduced, but the total quantity of petrol going to public transport is substantially more than 50 per cent. Services like fire brigades, ambulances, and public health and cleansing services must get something more than 50 per cent.
The police and the Army must get more than 50 per cent. These users cannot be cut to the same extent as other users. In fact, they use between them substantial quantities of petrol, and what is left is distributed amongst the other users in accordance with a system of distribution that I consider is equitable.
No matter what system of distribution is introduced, someone will be dissatisfied and possibly that person will declare that his claim is as strong as the claim of some other person who is getting petrol. I intimated to the Party opposite that I was not opposed to the idea of a Committee of the House consulting with me on the distribution of the quantity of petrol available, so that grounds for dissatisfaction might possibly be eliminated. I do not think all the dissatisfaction would be eliminated as a result of the introduction of such a system of consultation, but it might be reduced, and at least it would convince Deputies that there are good reasons for the present system of distribution, for giving petrol to every category of persons getting it, and good reasons for not giving it on a different basis to that which, it is sometimes suggested, involves individual discrimination on the part of officers of my Department.
I hope I have made it clear to Deputies that there is nothing which the Government could do which would increase the quantity of petrol which the country will receive. There has been no suggestion from the oil companies that they want to make a bargain with the Government and, arising out of such a bargain, that they will be prepared to increase supplies. There is no suggestion of their even trying to secure a commitment from the Government on the lines suggested, which would involve the abandonment of the idea of establishing an oil refinery here. If the companies have such an idea in mind, they have kept it to themselves. The intimation that we are going to get 50 per cent. of our normal requirements was not associated with conditions of any kind whatever.
Deputy Norton asked what the position was concerning food supplies generally. It is quite true that the indications now are that we are not going to get from this year's harvest a sufficiency of wheat to meet our home requirements. It may be that we are going to get no wheat from outside.
We must base our plans on the assumption that we will not. But we have a number of arrangements in operation, and plans are being tried out, for the purpose of bringing wheat into the country. Some one or all of these may result in some wheat coming in, but we cannot hope to get enough in to relieve us from anxiety. It seems clear that after the harvest there is going to be a shortage of wheat, which will have to be supplemented by the addition of other cereals.
As regards the position up to the coming harvest, I informed the House yesterday that, based on our present consumption of flour, which has been restricted, we will be four weeks short of the quantity required to keep us going until the end of September. We can easily make good the four-weeks' deficiency if we can get widespread public co-operation in economising bread. But if, in the course of a week or so, it becomes clear that that economy is not going to be practicable, then we shall have to mix other cereals with the bread. Deputies who think we should now start mixing other cereals have the impression that we can substantially reduce the quantity of other cereals that will have to be put into the loaf. That is hardly correct. There is a minimum quantity which must be mixed with wheat and at no time will we exceed that minimum quantity. The total supply of other cereals available is not so abundant that there is any danger that the proportion of other cereals in the grist will prove to be excessive. Unfortunately, there is not enough. All the plans necessary for the mixture of other cereals with wheat in the manufacture of flour have been made. The order requiring it has been drafted and it will be signed as soon as the situation calls for it.
It is with the situation that will exist after the next harvest that I ask Deputies to concern themselves. We are not going to get from that harvest a sufficiency of wheat. We must get more oats and barley if we are going to keep up an adequate supply of flour and bread to the public. The rationing of bread must be avoided if at all possible, and it can only be avoided by adding other cereals to the wheat in the manufacture of the flour. If we can get a sufficiency of these cereals, we will be able to maintain a sufficient quantity of flour to produce all the bread that our people require, even though the flour will not be all wheaten flour.
It is better to keep up the full quantity than resort to rationing, because that would present administrative difficulties of a considerable kind. We are considering these administrative difficulties, so that plans for the rationing of bread may be ready if and when the necessity for such rationing should arise.
The Minister finished his speech by referring to food production and the quantity of flour that will be available. He appealed to Deputies and to the people in the country to concern themselves with the food position after the next harvest. Is it not extraordinary that the Dáil is going to adjourn for three weeks without planning what will be done so as to supplement the food supply at and after the next harvest? The Minister said we will not have enough wheat. Of course we will not; we cannot hope to have a better harvest than last year from the point of view of quality, considering the climatic conditions. The Minister said we will have to supplement our wheat with other cereals. Is he taking sufficient precautions to guarantee a sufficiency of other cereals? I suggest he is not. If we have to turn to barley and oats, what increased acreage will be required in respect to those cereals?
Will the Minister consider that he has been forewarned by the British Minister of Agriculture that the British live-stock population must be cut down and that they will not purchase so many stores from Ireland? Any sales of cattle that we can hope to have in the future must be sales of fat cattle and not stores.
How will we get beef? Only by hand-feeding outside the grass season in rich grazing land. The Minister knows that in normal times half the feeding stuffs used here were imported. He knows that by using all the wheat, without any extraction of offals, he is taking away valuable feeding stuffs in the shape of pollard and bran, representing 200,000 tons. The problem before the Minister is this: that an unknown quantity of barley and oats will have to be put into flour because of the shortage of wheat. That will come from food that would otherwise be available for feeding live stock. As half the entire feeding stuffs which were imported are cut away it is necessary to double the area under barley and wheat, plus bran and pollard, to equal what was imported. Then he must provide a sufficiency to make up for the bran and pollard used in flour, and in addition will have to grow as much as was taken away so as to supplement the wheat shortage. I suggest that 1,000,000 extra acres of cereals would guarantee this country against hunger. We spent five or six hours this week talking about a Constitution that is suspended, a Constitution that will not work until after the war, if it ever works, but we could not give the time to consider plans to deal with food production. There has been a failure to deal with the wheat question because it was not gone about in the right way. If a person wants a suit of clothes and 3½ yards of cloth are required, there is no use trying to make it out of two yards. It would take 5 per cent. of the arable land to grow the crops we require now. There is no order in existence imposing on any farmer the necessity of growing one grain of wheat, so long as 20 per cent. of his land is turned up. By law, farmers need not grow wheat. I wish the Minister for Agriculture were present to deal with that question. Argument is no use now because this is not the time to consider the position. I wish to quote a statement that was made here by the Minister for Agriculture on March 20:
"I regret to say that the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease continue to be very serious, notwithstanding the fact that every effort has been made to deal with them promptly....
"Unless the greatest possible care is taken, there is a grave danger that the disease may become widespread, and following that become endemic. Deputies will realise, without my emphasising it, the catastrophic loss that would mean to our flocks."
He might have added, to our agriculture and its existence. Is not the position ten times graver to-day than when that statement was made? Many Deputies said to me that there was no necessity for the motion I put down, as there were no fresh outbreaks. But two fresh outbreaks occurred yesterday in the City of Dublin, and two more occurred to-day in County Dublin. While every precaution has been taken by the Minister to isolate the disease, I know a dairy yard in which disease was discovered last Saturday. That was reported to the chief veterinary officer in County Dublin, but it was not until I raised the matter here that he was even consulted by the Minister or by the Department. That chief veterinary officer got his staff on Saturday evening and had the place concerned disinfected. A herd consisting of 85 cows was removed, but 19 affected animals were left there, and are there still. Is that the way to deal with this disease? Neighbours told me that the animals have been roaring with the hunger. I have been informed that they are there still. Why? Is that the way to prevent the spread of this virulent disease? Within a radius of five miles of this place there are five large dairy herds. Is the problem being taken seriously? The Chair very properly requests Deputies to accept statements made by Ministers as being correct. I do so. I am not going to say that a statement that was made was false, but I wish to read what I said here about foot-and-mouth disease on March 5th, page 162:—
So seriously did we regard this matter at the meeting of the board of health yesterday that we requested the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Justice, acting on the advice of our chief veterinary officer that humans are potential carriers of this disease, to order that no human being should be allowed to walk on grass land, except those whose business brings them there, that it should be made a criminal offence and that the Guards should be directed to take action in any such case.
Dr. Ryan: It is a criminal offence already.
Mr. Belton: What is?
Dr. Ryan: To walk on any person's land.
Mr. Belton: Because of the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease?
Dr. Ryan: Yes. The Deputy should read the orders made.
That statement is not true. The Minister has made no order making it a criminal offence for anyone to trespass on land, except in the borough of Dublin. There are not many green fields in the borough of Dublin. The question I was addressing myself to concerned pasture land in County Dublin. At present we cannot move cows that are hungry from sheds in County Dublin to pasture. The Minister said he is considering whether that must be done, that it was less dangerous than other alternatives. He will not allow farmers to drive cows across the road, yet he will not make it an offence to trespass on their land. I can quote another Department to contradict the Minister's statement. Trespassers were found by the Guards on my land, notwithstanding the fact that I had notices up. The Guards came and asked me if I was going to prosecute and I said that they should do so. They informed me that they could not prosecute, as they had no power. When I went to a lawyer I found that that was the position. I now ask that the Minister should forthwith make an order preventing anybody except those who have business entering on any land or premises, so as to isolate the outbreak of this disease.
Would not that be taking away the right of ownership and transferring it to the State?
It would make it a criminal offence.
It is an offence already.
Is it a criminal offence?
That does not matter.
Where disease breaks out the military, very properly, take control and guard the premises. Is it not taking away the right of ownership when premises are closed? If the Minister does not take the step I suggest how could he isolate premises or cope with the disease? I have been talking to several farmers or dairymen and that is the view they take.
The announcement of the Minister regarding tea is a very alarming one, particularly for the poor people. I do not propose to deal with that position now in the few minutes at my disposal. The Minister has asked Deputies to be constructive and helpful in their criticism of the work of his Department. We are all anxious to do that and it is our responsibility to try to do so at present. The question of supply is not only one of the immediate problems for the present and the remaining months of the year, but one of securing so far as lies in our power a replenishment of existing stocks for the remainder of the emergency. To my mind, that is the paramount consideration for the Government and the country. The supply of raw material for the production of future supplies of food is, therefore, a matter of supreme importance, and while I appreciate the difficulty, the complexity and the impossibility involved in the problem of rationing petrol except on a class basis which will give any degree of satisfaction to the general public, and while I appreciate the necessity for keeping the cost of that rationing system within reasonable limits, I am strongly of opinion that a rigid adherence to a system of rationing on a class basis is not in the interests of the country. We all recognise the necessity for interfering as little as possible with those who have to rely on petrol for their livelihoods, and we recognise that any adjustment of the present regulations means taking it from one individual or firm and giving it to another, but one would expect that, facing the present very critical and dangerous food crisis, the conveyance of raw materials for the production of food would, without the slightest hesitation, be given first preference.
The matter to which I wish to refer is already known to the Minister, that is, the conveyance of lime for agricultural purposes to Counties Offaly, Kildare, Wicklow, Carlow, Leix, and Wexford the most intensive tillage area in this country. I have made representations to the Minister, as well as to the Minister for Agriculture, pointing out that the particular firm which supplies more lime under the lime scheme than any other firm in operation has been tied down to the ordinary ration given to the class in which they operate. I do not think the Minister for Supplies appreciates the necessity for lime on certain types of land. I do not expect him to do so, and I do not blame him in that respect. I do, however, blame the Minister for Agriculture. When he accepted the responsibility of arranging that the agricultural community would give of their best in the production of essential food for the coming year, he should have set down one condition: that raw material for the production of food would have first claim, that he should have first claim in respect of that raw material. The people he represents here are not getting that first claim.
I spent the whole of Tuesday of last week making representations, with the manager of the particular firm, to the two Departments without any result. I thought the matter of such importance that it was my responsibility to spend that time here, and I made every effort to impress on the two Departments the necessity for getting this lime out immediately. Deputies from agricultural areas will realise, in face of the present shortage of artificial manure, the advantage of getting lime on the land. I am not suggesting that lime in itself is a manure, but on particular types of land, sour land and land suffering from acidity especially, an application of lime before the crop is sown will bring about an immediate chemical reaction in the soil and result in the production of a better crop. Take this particular firm. If they got a sufficient supply of petrol now—and they want it immediately, within the next fortnight or three weeks—and were able to get 2,000 tons of lime into that area, and if the farmers put that lime on 3,000 acres of land—on beet land, let us say—a fair estimate of the increase in the yield would be two tons per acre. That means 6,000 tons of beet, of an average sugar content of 17½ per cent., which will give 1,000 tons of sugar. In order to secure 1,000 tons of sugar from 3,000 acres of land, dressed with 2,000 tons of lime, the Minister hesitates to give the few gallons of petrol necessary within the next fortnight or three weeks, because he wants rigidly to adhere to the allowance for the particular class.
I see his difficulty in making exceptions in such a matter, but this is a matter in respect of which there should not be the slightest hesitation. It is a question of an essential raw material for the production of food. I was told that we could perhaps get it later on and, in fact, the Minister told me that he was hopeful of making some petrol available later on, but does the Minister realise that it is required within the next fortnight? As a matter of fact, if more petrol had been available in the past month, more land would have got an application of lime. That is the sort of thing the agricultural community is up against at present. They lack that co-operation and that assistance from the Government, and Government Departments, and particularly from the Minister, which is vital. I am not inclined to blame the Minister because I do not think he appreciates the advantages that would accrue from the facilities I suggest, but I do definitely blame his colleague, who ought to know the advantages and ought to have impressed on him the necessity of granting these extra facilities. It is only for a short period. Yet when the position is put in the strongest possible terms, we are told that it cannot be done now, but perhaps it will be done later on. Later on will be too late. It may appear to be a small matter to the Minister, but, in the aggregate, it is going to react seriously on our food supply for next year.
I am not putting this forward in any spirit of seeking to gain political advantage. I am sincerely asking the Minister to look into it immediately, and I put it to him that wherever a question of conveying raw material for the production of food arises, he should not hesitate to enable that raw material to be made available straight away. It should get first claim over all others. If that is not the attitude he or his Department takes up in relation to this problem, in what position are we going to find ourselves? What is the good of saying, in such a situation, that we have not got the response we expected from the agriculturists? Should not the various Government Departments concerned set a good example themselves? To give an example of the lack of co-operation, let us take the Department of Agriculture which is at present forced to go in on various farms in order to carry out the cultivation which the owner has failed to carry out. These farms are in the grass areas where the farmer lacks agricultural machinery and has no possible means of doing the cultivation himself. He could not buy agricultural machinery, and there is no assistance to be got from his neighbours. No matter how anxious he is, he could not hire a tractor.
And he could not hire a man to drive it.
What help or co-operation did he get from the Government in the securing of a tractor? During the last war, the Department of Agriculture transferred any number of men with horses and ploughs from the tillage to the non-tillage areas. Did it not suggest itself to the Department, immediately they came up against the problem of people being unable to carry out tillage in grass areas, that they should have made a register of tractors and farm implements available in tillage areas whose owners were willing and prepared to go into the non-tillage districts and do tillage work, instead of the Department having to go into lands and take on the work itself? That is what should have been done—and they had a precedent for it in the last war—to make a register of those prepared to go to the non-tillage areas at attractive prices. That is the type of work we want done, and that is the sort of co-operation we are looking for, and not getting.
May I ask a question, Sir? Would the Minister consider this question of lime? It is a serious problem in my county and——
The Deputy rose to ask a question.
—— it involves only one supplementary allowance for the month in respect of the distribution of lime. It is done through the county councils and the Minister could give authority to the county councils for the issuing of the extra allowance to these distributors. If the Minister will consider this limited number of applications, he will be doing a great work for the country.
The Minister may not speak twice.
We want the crops, and we will give the Minister all the power he wants.
Is the Minister still open to consider this particular case?
I am open to consider any case but the consideration must necessarily have regard to the availability of the petrol.
This is only a very small matter.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 23rd April.