Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 1941

Vol. 83 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Office of the Minister for Supplies.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £19,072 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Soláthairtí.

That a sum, not exceeding £19,072, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1942, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Supplies.

I presume Deputies will not wish me to discuss at any length the details of this Estimate. The explanatory notes set out on the face of the Estimate will give them most of the information they require. There is, however, one thing I wish to say concerning the amount of the Estimate and the general increase over last year. I mentioned when moving the Estimate last year that the practice of staffing the Department of Supplies by the loan of the services of officers from other Departments had been adopted and continued during the year, but it was found necessary to depart from that pactice to some extent. The most important departure was in the case of the staff engaged on price control work, and the bulk of that staff has been transferred to the Department of Supplies. Extra staff had to be recruited to cope with the increase in the general work of the Department. These are the circumstances that explain the increase in sub-head A in the present year. The provision for advertising and publicity alone shows a substantial increase, due to the necessity of a campaign urging economy in the consumption of foodstuffs likely to be in short supply. The extension of the rationing of tea, cocoa, coal and other commodities requires increased advertising, and the expenditure in that respect during this year will be substantial.

The developments in the war situation within the past 12 months have greatly altered the position regarding the supply of essential commodities. Many normal sources of supply for a wide range of goods have been entirely cut off, and the ability to avail of alternative sources, where such goods as well as others are plentiful, is severely restricted by lack of shipping, by limitation in foreign exchange resources, and by the requirements of the belligerents for materials needed in the production of armaments.

The shipping position is one of great difficulty. I do not propose to refer to it at any length now, because it would be more convenient to discuss it on the Supplementary Estimate for Shipping, which will be taken after the conclusion of the debate upon this main Estimate for the Department of Supplies. I wish merely to say that there are now almost no neutral ocean-going vessels available either for purchase or charter, and the measures taken to acquire ships through the company which has been established—Irish Shipping, Limited—for the carriage of goods to this country have consequently yielded only partial success. Ships that have been obtained will be required almost entirely to bring cargoes of wheat, which are our most important need, and it is not anticipated that it will be possible to make space available on these ships for general cargoes, save to a very small extent where circumstances of a very exceptional nature exist. Experience so far shows that the difficulties in regard to shipping will continue, and I think will be increased, if, as appears possible, there is a further extension in the field of combatant activity. Our supply problem would not, however, be solved even if it were found possible to ease the position with regard to shipping. The fact that most of our external assets consist of sterling securities puts a limit to our capacity to buy outside the sterling area, and we have to look to countries outside that area for many important supplies, such as wheat. That factor of foreign exchange also affects our ability to buy other goods, and owing to the demands of the armament industries, material, labour and shipping are no longer available to us, or are available only in reduced quantities from the United Kingdom, which was the chief source or channel of supplies in normal times.

Owing to the operation of the factors I have mentioned, we are facing a severe shortage of food supplies for human consumption, in animal feeding stuffs, in artificial manures, in fuel and in most of the raw materials for industry. We must recognise that the short supply of these commodities will persist while the war lasts, and we must make the necessary adjustments to meet the shortage. Rationing of consumption in one form or another will have to be applied and extended as circumstances require. Action in that direction has been already taken with regard to petrol, kerosene, fuel oil, coal, tea and cocoa. It is my desire to give the Dáil a brief review of our present stocks and future prospects in regard to a number of commodities in which the public are particularly interested. It will not be possible in the course of the time available to refer to the commodities which are in short supply now or concerning which future difficulties are inevitable. I wish, however, to give Deputies all the information that they require and that is available. If any Deputy wishes to know the position concerning a particular commodity to which I do not refer now, I will endeavour to meet his wishes when concluding the debate.

The first commodity to which special reference must be made, because it is of primary importance, is wheat. We require here in normal circumstances approximately 52,000 sacks of flour per week. During last year, because of the efforts we made to secure the dispersal of stocks, to ensure that minimum supplies would exist in all areas, and that the risk of damage to these stocks in the event of an attack on this country would be reduced, the weekly sales of flour exceeded the normal average of 52,000 sacks and reached an average of 53,000 sacks per week.

Up to about the end of last year, the normal inflow of wheat from overseas to supplement the home-grown crop was well maintained at a figure of 331,858 tons for the whole year, and it had not been found necessary, until recently, to draw on the reserve supplies which had been held in store since the outbreak of the war. When it became evident that there would be difficulties in arranging transport for wheat cargoes from abroad, steps were taken to conserve the supplies within the country so that sufficient flour and bread would be available to meet requirements until the next harvest. These steps are, I think, known to most Deputies. We increased the extraction of flour from the wheat berry. The normal extraction is 70 per cent., and by successive stages the extraction was increased up to the present percentage of 95. In addition, by an arrangement with the Flour Millers' Association, deliveries by its members were restricted to 48,000 sacks of flour per week. It was considered, in view of the abnormal purchases in 1941, that a slight reduction in sales by the mills should not result in any hardship. In fact, there is evidence that the 48,000 sacks of flour per week, now being delivered, are more than sufficient to meet the current demand. Whether that is due to one cause or another it is difficult to say. We have, of course, appealed to the public to economise in the use of flour and bread and to avoid wastage. Possibly as a result of those appeals, the consumption of flour is at present slightly less than the 48,000 sacks per week now being delivered by the mills. We made an order making it an offence to feed wheat or flour to animals, and we made an appeal to the public to substitute other foods, which are in plentiful supply, for flour, to the maximum extent possible.

The stock of wheat available for the manufacture of flour, together with the sack held in the millers' stores, represented on the 14th June, 618,800 sacks of flour. That stock, without taking into account the stock held in retail shops or on bakers' premises, is sufficient to meet requirements until next harvest, on the basis of a demand of 48,000 sacks of flour per week. By an arrangement with Irish Shipping.

Limited, Grain Importers (Eire), Limited, have booked cargo space for a quantity of wheat on ships trading between New York and Lisbon. A portion of that cargo has already arrived in Lisbon, and Irish Shipping, Limited, are making arrangements for the transport of the wheat to this country. It will be seen, therefore, that there is no immediate cause for anxiety as to our flour and bread supplies up to next harvest. It is, of course, too early as yet to forecast the yield of wheat, and other cereals, from the next harvest, but it is not improbable that a certain amount of other cereals may have to be used with wheat for the production of our flour requirements, when the next harvest has been gathered. Close consideration is at present being given to the problems which may arise in the collection and distribution of the new cereal crop so that the most economical use will be made of it to meet both human and animal needs, on the assumption that the country will be completely cut off from supplies of wheat and of animal feeding stuffs from abroad.

The price of flour, at the commencement of the last financial year, was 47/6 per sack, which was increased to 52/6 per sack on the 9th September, owing to the increased cost of Irish grain, the guaranteed price of which, for the 1940 harvest, was 35/- per barrel, compared to an average price of 30/- per barrel in the preceding year. When the extraction of flour was increased to 75 per cent. there could have been a reduction in the price of flour inasmuch as a smaller quantity of wheat was required per sack. That reduction, however, did not take place, but, instead, the allocation price of imported wheat to the millers was increased by 2/- per 480 lbs., and any monetary advantage accruing to Grain Importers, Limited, from that arrangement has been used for the purpose of creating a special fund. For similar reasons, when the percentage of the extraction of flour was further increased, the allocation price of imported wheat was correspondingly increased, and now stands at the figure of 55/6 per 480 lbs. It was considered more desirable to allow that special fund to accumulate to meet contingencies rather than to reduce temporarily the price of flour and bread which would again have to be raised, and raised very considerably, when the wheat from the next harvest comes on the market at the new guaranteed price of 40/- per 280 lbs.

We have had some discussions here upon the advisability of increasing the flour extraction to 95 per cent. of the wheat. All I wish to say at this stage is that the matter was very carefully considered before a decision was taken, and that the decision was not adopted merely by rule of thumb methods to secure a greater yield from the wheat available. A great deal of assistance was given both by the millers and the different bakers' organisations over a long period, and I would like to express my appreciation of the help they have given me. At one time it was thought that it would be necessary to incorporate some other cereal with wheat to carry the country on until next harvest, and the cereals considered most suitable were barley and oats. Experiments in the making of different types of loaves were carried out. There were submitted to my Department loaves made from wheat with a flour extraction of 80, 85, 90, and 95 per cent., as well as loaves made from different proportions of these flours. Furthermore, loaves were baked from mixtures of wheaten flour and barley flour of different extractions. Finally, in the view of all concerned it was considered best to adopt the all-wheaten loaf. An important consideration is the capacity of the baker to produce a satisfactory loaf with the minimum of wastage. It should be remembered that the baker has the further disadvantage of having to work with a much smaller percentage of strong wheats than he used in pre-war days, which makes it still more difficult for him to produce a satisfactory loaf. All things considered, the loaf now on the market was believed to be the most palatable and economical. Different views have been expressed as to the quality of the present loaf and there is no convincing argument that it is not as good as the white loaf.

Several months ago arrangements were made to purchase supplies of suitable barley for mixing with wheat should the necessity arise. Several thousand tons of barley were obtained at that time. A certain quantity of oats was also purchased. But, in the current cereal year, neither barley nor oats will be required for the manufacture of bread. Further examination is being given to the matter of using barley and oats next year. From the information available it appears that a certain amount of pre-cooking of oats is desirable before mixing the oaten flour with wheaten flour. We are also examining the possibility of utilising potato flour. I hope that it will not be necessary to ration either bread or flour. At the same time the possibility of having to introduce rationing has been anticipated, and a scheme which may prove to be satisfactory can be put into operation in a reasonably short space of time. The rationing of these particular food stuffs may prove to be a most elaborate affair, involving considerable expense on the taxpayer, and for that reasons, I believe that it should be avoided for as long as possible. Arrangements have been made for the registration of all bakers and all wholesale flour merchants, and at a later stage it may be found necessary or desirable to register everybody trading in bread and flour.

I made another order, to which Deputies may have seen a reference in this morning's paper, prohibiting a practice which has developed, particularly in the City of Limerick, of extracting the bran and pollard from the flour. That practice obviously involves considerable wastage, and it is clearly desirable that it should be stopped. I had taken action to stop it previously by curtailing the deliveries of flour to the bakeries believed to be adopting the practice. That did not prove to be a sufficient deterrent, and I have now made an order making it illegal to adopt the practice. It is necessary that the bakers concerned should understand that, apart from any penalties that may be imposed on them for breach of the order, I will have power to put them out of business for the duration of the war, a power which I will not hesitate to exercise if necessary. I realise that the closing of a bakery may have adverse effects upon the workers employed in it. I should point out to the workers concerned, however, who may be so affected, that they cannot be required by their employers to break the law, and if workers employed in these bakeries are asked to facilitate a practice which is against the law it is their duty, not merely to the country as a whole, but to themselves to refuse to do so, because a continuance of the practice may involve the closing of their place of work.

The next commodity to which I wish to make reference is tea. I presume Deputies will not require me to give again a review of our tea position since the outbreak of hostilities, or of our relations with the British Tea Control.

That is just the thing we would like to hear.

I have given that before. It is available to all Deputies who wish to have it in the records of the House, and it would, I think, be unnecessary repetition to go over the same ground again.

Will the Minister tell us the latest position?

I propose to deal with the present position. These developments finally led to a position in which our supplies were so short that it became necessary to reduce the general rations to one half-ounce per head per week.

From what date?

From the 19th April, I think. There is no immediate prospect of any improvement in that position. We have purchased a certain quantity of tea in the United States of America and some tea has been delivered from that source but the amount involved is inadequate to permit of any alteration in the present ration. Efforts are being made to purchase substantially larger quantities for direct shipment. It would not have been possible to do so before this because the supplies were not available in the countries of production. The tea harvest is only being gathered now and on that account the efforts which we are making to obtain supplies in the countries of origin and to ship them here, even if they are successful—and there are many chances that they will not be successful—cannot bear fruit for some months to come. The stocks of tea available will permit of the existing ration being continued for some time even if outside sources of supply should be cut off entirely.

What is the total quantity in the country at the moment?

It is sufficient to maintain the existing ration for a number of weeks.

The Minister is not prepared to give the figure?

Is it only for weeks?

For a number of weeks.

Only weeks?

It is sufficient to maintain the existing ration for a number of months but, obviously, a smaller number of months than number of weeks. Our present rationing system came into effect in April, from which time supplies could only be obtained, or should only be obtained, by householders from the shops at which they had lodged their ration cards. Many cases are reported to me of abuses of the regulations by traders and by individual consumers. So far as traders are concerned, I again want to draw the attention of those who may be tempted to break the law to the fact that conviction for an offence under the regulations empowers me to cancel their registration as traders, and I will not hesitate to use that power in order to ensure compliance with the regulations by traders generally.

Is that as traders in tea, or as traders in general?

Traders in tea. I know that traders are sometimes subject to temptation and pressure by their customers, who threaten to withdraw their custom in other goods if extra quantities of tea are not supplied to them, but traders should understand the risks they take if they yield to representations of that kind. I will deal later on with the question of price control generally, but, in connection with tea, one frequently hears complaints that traders are asking exceptional prices for tea sold illegally. Prices as high as 6/-, 7/-, and 8/- per pound are mentioned. It is, of course, very difficult to secure evidence which will support a prosecution in those cases. Those selling the tea and those buying the tea are breaking the law, and inevitably there is on that account difficulty in procuring evidence. Deputies who sometimes criticise the efforts of my Department to enfore the regulations should bear in mind that the process of enforcement is done through the courts of law, and that action in a court of law requires evidence acceptable to the court that an offence has been committed. In the case of the regulations in relation to tea and a number of other commodities the difficulty frequently is to get sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, even though we know, or are morally certain, that an offence has been committed. People who encourage others to break the law, who tempt them to do so by offering, exceptional prices, are frequently themselves the first to complain about the price they pay, but, as I have often stated in this House before, it will not be possible to make effective any of the regulations which have been put in force to secure an equitable distribution of commodities that are in short supply, unless the public as a whole are prepared to cooperate in enforcing those regulations. We cannot put an enforcement officer in every shop, or in every place where a sale or similar transaction is taking place, and, unless the public realise that it is in their interests that those regulations should be duly enforced, and assist the Department in enforcing them, then inevitably there will be breaches of the regulations which will escape attention and escape punishment.

Can the Minister cancel a tea licence without going to court?

The man can do anything he likes.

I am just asking a question.

I think so, but clearly it would be difficult to justify that action unless one could show the grounds upon which it is done. If a trader is convicted of an offence, then the grounds are obvious. I have mentioned that we procured a quantity of tea which came from the United States of America, a quantity insufficient to affect the general ration, and it was decided to utilise that tea for the purpose of enabling us to give extra rations in certain exceptional cases, such as the case of bog workers who are employed in organised groups of substantial numbers at a considerable distance from their homes. Other cases to be treated exceptionally will include night hostels and clubs conducted by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or other charitable organisations, the crews of Irish owned and operated ships, and railway employees whose duties take them away from their homes for long periods. The examination of applications for concessions is not complete, but I want to state and get it understood that the quantity of tea available for special licences is not sufficient to enable exceptional treatment to be accorded to any more than a relatively small number of cases.

The mention of tea brings up the matter of sugar. I wish particularly to mention sugar, because I am aware that some rumours are in circulation concerning our sugar position. I know how those rumours originated. In order, however, to remove apprehension I wish to state that the quantity of sugar available in the country is quite sufficient to support normal consumption until the next sugar campaign is commenced. Having regard to our estimate of the quantity of beet to be sown, and allowing for the possibility of the yield of beet being somewhat less than normal, and the sugar content being less than normal because of the scarcity of artificial manures, we should get, during the next campaign, a quantity of sugar which will carry us on the basis of normal consumption over a period considerably in excess of 12 months ahead from this date.

Will the Minister give the acreage under beet?

Well, of course, there are no reliable statistics as to the beet acreage yet, but we estimate that some 72,000 acres will be grown. That figure may or may not prove to be accurate.

Is it hoped to get in any sugar material for refining here?

There is no likelihood of its being imported in the immediate future. During the period prior to the introduction of the Budget, a considerable quantity of sugar in excess of normal purchases went out through wholesalers and retailers, presumably to persons who thought that a duty on sugar was likely to form a feature of the Budget, and who hoped to anticipate that duty. As soon as my Department became aware that those excessive deliveries, which amounted to quite a considerable quantity of sugar, had taken place, steps were immediately taken to suspend further deliveries until after the Budget. While deliveries were subsequently resumed, it was considered desirable, after consultation with the sugar company and the wholesale sugar merchants, to endeavour to effect a readjustment in the position by restricting the quantities now being sold. An arrangement has been made with the Irish Sugar Company that their deliveries of sugar to wholesale merchants will be restricted to the aggregate quantity of 6,000 tons during the month of June. That quantity represents two-thirds of that which ordinarily is distributed to meet the full demands in June. It is that restriction in deliveries by the company which has caused rumours to spread that a scarcity of sugar is likely to arise in the immediate future. As I have explained, however, the quantities delivered to merchants in the weeks prior to the introduction of the Budget exceeded normal supplies during that period by more than the amount by which deliveries in June will be restricted, and there should be available, therefore, in the country sufficient sugar to meet requirements. We are asking the wholesale merchants to restrict their deliveries to the retail traders who are their customers in such a manner as to ensure that those who got the greater amounts of sugar during the pre-Budget weeks will get less now, so that ultimately each trader will receive over a period of months commencing with March and ending, perhaps, with August, the same quantity of sugar which he normally would have received during that period. The existence of these extra stocks of sugar in the hands of merchants throughout the country is a source of danger. There has been an illegal trade in the exportation of sugar across the Border for some time past—a trade which we have taken many measures to stop, without being completely successful. Some of those traders who bought excessive quantities of sugar, and who anticipated a profit to themselves following the imposition of a higher duty may be tempted to sell that sugar to those concerned in that illegal export trade.

I want everyone to understand how important it is that that trade should be killed. No one would hesitate to call by his proper name a person who betrayed military secrets, or who destroyed arms necessary for the defence of the country. Our stocks of food are so limited that anybody who knowingly breaks the law in order to diminish them, or to export them illegally deserves no public sympathy, and is just as entitled to be regarded as a public enemy as a person who would betray military secrets. I want traders, motor lorry owners, or any other class of individual who knows of that illegal trade in sugar, and who may be in a position to give information to stop it, in whole or in part, to understand that it is their duty to do so. They cannot expect any treatment but the harshest which we can induce the courts to inflict if they themselves are convicted of engaging in that kind of action.

Did the Minister not wash his hands of that when he washed his hands of the flour imports? Does he not know that the export of sugar is a corollary of the import of flour?

I said nothing of the sort. The Deputy's statement is untrue and I do not propose to deal with statements of that kind. I want to deal with this matter without the recriminations, personal abuse and party manoeuvres which are normal features of debates here. At the moment I am speaking, not merely to the Deputy but to the ordinary members of the House, including the members on this side.

Is it not a two-way trade—sugar out and flour in?

As far as this country is concerned, the importation of flour is perfectly legal. Those who bring in flour do not break our law but those who export sugar do.

Even if it is to part of our country?

If the Deputy's idea is to encourage the export of sugar——

No, we are against both and want both stopped.

I suggest that the Minister can do more to prevent breaches of the law than any trader.

I know the Deputy wishes to show that I or some member of the Government is responsible for all the misfortunes of the country. He will not get away with that, as people do not take him seriously.

We are trying to get information.

The best way to do that is to refrain from interrupting.

Let the Minister refrain from irrelevant impertinences.

Perhaps I would be allowed to proceed.

As long as you conduct yourself.

Looking up the Second Stage of the Trade Union Bill, before I came in, I found that during his concluding speech the Minister was interrupted 78 times, 22 times by one Deputy. Debate is futile in such circumstances.

There was intense provocation.

The Minister might have had similar opinions in regard to some Deputies, but he did not interrupt them.

Because of the illegal export, the dimensions of which I do not know, but which might be sufficiently serious to cause concern, and because of other circumstances which have arisen, or which may arise, control over the deliveries of sugar must be maintained. It is, of course, impossible to foretell how long the war will last, or whether it will be possible to maintain sugar production indefinitely —either because of difficulties concerning fuel, lubricating oil, machinery parts or other essentials of production of one kind or another. It will be desirable to ensure that no future scarcity will be allowed to develop through delay in taking action to prevent the wastage of supplies and conserve them at the present time.

I mentioned that we had introduced rationing of cocoa. Perhaps that term is not entirely correct. The quantities of cocoa available within the country are not sufficient to permit of rationing upon the basis of a unit distribution per head of the population, either per week or per month. The order made prohibited the sale to any one family of a quantity of cocoa in excess of a quarter lb. per week. I pointed out at the time that the quantity of cocoa in the country was not sufficient to enable every family to get a quarter lb. per week. In fact, the quantity available was only sufficient to give that ration to about 12 per cent. of the population.

As, however, cocoa is usually made up in tins of a quarter lb.—and sometimes larger—and as it would not be possible to distribute it on a flat-rate basis per head of the population, the only action which we could take was to prevent any one person getting an excess quantity at the expense of his neighbours. Apparently, there is little prospect of our being able to increase the available supplies of cocoa. The British Cocoa Control have refused to grant licences for the export to this country of cocoa beans or cocoa butter, and have informed us they can hold out no hope that future allocations of these commodities can be made to us.

On what is the present allocation based?

There is no allocation. The types of these commodities used in this country are mainly of West African origin. There is an alternative source of supply in the United States, but efforts made to obtain supplies from the United States have met with only a small degree of success on account of the shipping difficulties.

Do I understand the Minister to say that there is no export of cocoa from Great Britain to here?

That is so. There is no export of cocoa beans or butter for the manufacture of cocoa.

Does that mean that, when present stocks are exhausted, cocoa is gone until the war is over?

Yes, unless we are able to bring in supplies from some other source, and I merely indicate at the moment that the prospects of that are very slight.

Before the Minister proceeds further, may I ask this: He has two Votes to deal with—Shipping and Supplies; will he deal with the shipping situation before he concludes?

I said that it was my intention to deal with shipping on the Supplementary Estimate for Shipping.

There is this difficulty. The Minister mentions there is inability to get cocoa beans from America on account of inability to obtain shipping. It does seem to me that there is an interlocking between shipping and supplies in connection with these commodities. Will he give any information, or does he intend to give any information in connection with the position of shipping between here and the United States?

There is no shipping service at the moment between here and the U.S.A. Occasionally, a ship chartered by private interests may come in, but there is no shipping service, and there is no possibility of arranging for a shipping service to the U.S.A., except by the ships purchased by Irish Shipping, Limited.

And ships via Portugal.

That is the same thing. Cargoes have to be brought via Portugal by our ships. I have stated that it was our intention to use this service entirely for the importation of wheat. I want to make special reference to the case of coal, because, although the position regarding a number of commodities is very serious, there is no commodity about which I am as deeply concerned at present as coal. Our future coal supplies are so very uncertain, and the picture of the conditions that might arise here in the event of their ceasing entirely is so appalling that, I think, the House should be fully informed concerning the coal situation, and should realise what the difficulties of that situation are likely to be. Since the commencement of this year, very serious difficulties have been experienced by our coal importers in obtaining coal from their usual suppliers in Great Britain. Our normal imports of coal amounted to 2,500,000 tons annually, which included 1,500,000 tons of high volatile coal for household consumption, and 300,000 tons, also of high volatility, for gas production, the balance of our imports being steam coal and anthracite. For many months past it has not been possible to secure material supplies of coal from any but the South Wales district. Unfortunately, that district is unable to supply the high volatile coals which, in normal times, form the great bulk of our requirements. Furthermore, difficulties of production and transport have resulted in a decrease in the quantity as well as in the quality of our coal imports. In these circumstances, it was necessary to reintroduce the rationing of coal for household purposes which had been in force for a short period in 1940. Permits for supplementary supplies, on the basis of meeting 75 per cent. of their normal requirements, are given to the larger consumers such as hotels, institutions, and the like.

I found it necessary, last February, to make special arrangements for the poorer people in Dublin. By a purely voluntary arrangement on the part of merchants with Dublin bellmen, under my Department's auspices, special bellmen's dumps were established, into which a percentage of every cargo of coal arriving in Dublin was put. At some periods, as much as 75 per cent. of the coal imported by the merchants was allotted to the dumps. Generally, the coal was imported containing 50 per cent. slack but the bellmen's coal was specially screened and supplied with only 20 per cent. slack. In addition, the price was lower than the merchants' price. The position, therefore, was that the bellmen were getting the best coal available to the country at the lowest price. It was reasonable to assume that that scheme would meet with general approval but it led to a great deal of discontent and demonstrations by bellmen for various reasons. However, the coal situation during the past week was such that sufficient coal was not reaching Dublin to supply the dumps. The only places in which coal was available were the merchants' yards. The merchants are now prepared to supply the bellmen in the same way as formerly—that is to say, before the dumps scheme was introduced. I should like, however, to keep on that scheme for the benefit of the really small users—namely, those persons who buy coal loose in small lots— and every effort will be made to continue it but I should like the House to understand that I can hold out no promise that it will be possible to do so. We may have to face a situation here in which coal for household consumption, or for any domestic purpose as distinct from industrial purposes, will not be available at all. I undertake that every effort will be made by my Department to prevent that situation arising but, having regard to the difficulties we are experiencing at this time of the year, it seems almost inevitable that greater difficulties will arise during the winter period.

I know that some domestic consumers have not hestitated to try to defeat the rationing scheme—the restriction of their consumption to a quarter ton per month—by buying from different merchants or by buying from a merchant as well as from bellmen. I have, accordingly, taken power to restrict each domestic user to a particular merchant, in so far as the purchase of the periodical ration is concerned, and proceedings will be taken under the Emergency Powers Act against any person found to be purchasing more than the ration, without a permit, or registering with more than one supplier. There has, so far, been no restriction on the sale of coal for industrial purposes and I have, for a number of reasons, been reluctant to impose any such restrictions. The position in regard to supplies, however, has become so uncertain that a stricter control of coal used for industrial purposes has become imperative and I have, consequently, had to take control of coal for industrial purposes in order to secure the fair distribution of the coal supplies available amongst industrial users. In future, coal for industrial purposes will only be purchasable under a permit. That, however, does not apply to industrial users who import their own coal supplies.

There was established in July last a non-profit making company known as Fuel Importers (Éire) Limited. That company was established for the purpose of accumulating, under the supervision of my Department, a stock of household coal. I know that stock of coal has caused some heart-burning to people who can see it but cannot get at it, and the knowledge that that coal was there may have influenced the bellmen in some of their agitations. I want it to be understood that that stock is an iron ration which will not be released for consumption except as a last resource and only in the event of the failure of all other sources of supply.

Would the Minister care to say what is the quantity?

I should prefer not. That company has also arranged to store a quantity of firewood from our forest and woodlands for use as fuel next winter. In anticipation of a possible shortage of coal, I have prohibited the export of all timber suitable for use as firewood, including timber exported as pit-wood, the usefulness of which as firewood is sometimes open to question.

Why do you prohibit its export then?

Because nevertheless it will burn, and we may be in the position of requiring anything that will burn before the year is out. I know that a number of Deputies are concerned with the position of gas undertakings in various towns. Gas coal used in normal times in this country possessed the very high volatility of 32 per cent. For some months past it has not been possible, due partly to the restriction of our importers to the South Wales area, and partly to shipping difficulties, to import adequate quantities of highly volatile coals. During the month of March the stocks held in the country fell to a very low level. My officers have been almost in daily touch with the Mines Department in the United Kingdom with a view to the provision of suitable coal in adequate quantities for gas undertakings. It is hoped for the present that some measure of priority will be given to their requirements. Stocks, however, are at a dangerously low level, and there is no reserve of gas coal anywhere in the country. Arrangements have been made for the centralised importation of supplies for the smaller gas undertakings.

There has been a substantial increase in the consumption of gas in road vehicles during recent months. While many people urged previously that the use of coal gas for the propulsion of vehicles should be prohibited, I did not think it necessary to take action in the matter while the quantity of gas being used for that purpose was very small. For a long time the quantity of gas used for that purpose was less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the gas production of Dublin. It has, however, risen fairly rapidly in recent weeks and has moved up at last to 2 per cent. I consequently considered it necessary to control the use of gas for transport purposes, and for the future gas equipment cannot be put on road vehicles without a permit. Steps are also being taken to check the use of gas for transport purposes.

Seriously, would the Minister consider the desirability of releasing pit props for export if we want coal? It looks bad asking the English people to supply us with coal if we will not give them pit props.

I am prepared to make a bargain at any time on these lines.

I think it is a reasonable suggestion. It looks silly to forbid the export of pit props while at the same time we are begging coal from them.

In any event, the quantity of pit props exported from this country was not very considerable.

No, it was a trivial thing.

The quantity of pit props available here is insignificant in relation to the British user of them, whereas the quantity of timber concerned represents a substantial amount of firewood for us.

It seems to me scarcely proper to prohibit the export of pit props when you are depending on them for coal supplies.

I want also to refer to the position concerning petroleum products—petrol, kerosene and fuel oil. I stated recently in the Dáil that the maximum quantity which will be made available for this country during this year will, I am informed, be about 20,000,000 gallons which represents not quite 50 per cent. of our normal consumption of petrol. We have already debated here the particular difficulties which arose during the first few months of the year and I do not wish to go over the same ground again. We have made every effort to keep as many commercial vehicles on the road as possible. On the total number of commercial vehicles registered last year, there has been a reduction of 1,500 in this year.

For the months prior to May it was not possible to grant any allowance to private car owners. It was always intended that private cars should be permitted to run if any allowance of petrol could be made available for them. There is, I know, in some quarters a false impression that private cars are used mainly for pleasure purposes. Actually, the great majority of private cars are used in connection with business and I know, and I have good reason to know, that a considerable amount of hardship was occasioned during the period in which it was not possible to grant any allowance for private cars. At the same time petrol is allocated for private cars only if other services requiring petrol can be granted some supplies.

As our petrol is now supplied upon a monthly basis, it is not possible to indicate for any length of time what will happen at a future date. In fact the position is that there is no assurance of any petrol supplies, although there is reason to believe that efforts will be made to send us the quantity I have mentioned. I should say that up to the present petrol has not been coming in at a rate which would indicate that we shall receive the quantity mentioned, in the course of the year. It is possible, however, that the deficiency in deliveries up to the present will be made good. In the course of the next few months it will be necessary to arrange for the provision of a considerable quantity for the transport of turf, firewood, beet, etc. The question of the arrangements to be made in relation to the movement of these commodities is being discussed with other Departments. The quantity of petrol which will be required for this purpose is expected to be substantial although it is hoped to devise a means of staggering the transport over a number of months so that the strain on our petrol supplies will not be too heavy in any particular month. Still, it may be necessary to reduce the allowance granted for other purposes during the period but priority over all other services must be given to the transport of the country's food and fuel requirements. Every effort will be made, however, to make the position as easy as possible for other petrol users.

Kerosene is imported into this country in the same tankers as petrol and what I have said in regard to the uncertainty of future deliveries of petrol applies equally to kerosene. The oil companies notified my Department some time ago that the maximum deliveries for the year will be in the neighbourhood of 10,000,000 gallons against a normal consumption of 19,000,000 gallons. As in the case of petrol, no assurance was given, however, that that supply would be maintained. As I have said, the distribution of available supplies is to be made on a monthly basis. We made an arrangement with the oil companies to reduce deliveries to consumers with the exception of industrial users, including tractor owners. It was necessary to give priority to tractors to ensure that the extra tillage required by the Government's programme would be carried out. The first reduction was made in respect of domestic users, and monthly deliveries were limited, in March, to 50 per cent. of the deliveries in the corresponding month of 1940.

The demand for kerosene for tractors, however, far exceeded their estimated requirements and, in March, deliveries for domestic use were further reduced to 25 per cent. In the meantime, other industrial users were finding it difficult to obtain their supplies, and, consequently, in April, I made an order prohibiting the sale of kerosene to all industrial users, including tractor owners, except under permit, and limiting monthly deliveries to retailers to 50 per cent. of the quantity in the corresponding month of 1940. The order provides also for the registration of all industrial users, and that the maximum quantity which can be purchased by a householder for domestic use should be limited to half a gallon per month without a permit. In order, however, to conserve supplies for harvesting requirements, the oil companies have for the present completely suspended deliveries of kerosene to retailers for sale to domestic users. Every effort was made to give tractor owners all the kerosene they required, which, in the aggregate, amounted to about 50 per cent. of the total quantity of kerosene available for all purposes in each month of the sowing season. A drastic reduction in the distribution of kerosene for other purposes was, therefore, necessary.

The demand in respect of tractors has now fallen considerably, but it must be stated that that does not mean that other users can get anything like their normal allowances for the next three months. The most important matters to be kept in mind are the requirements for harvesting, threshing and grinding the coming season's crops. At this stage, it is impossible to estimate the harvesting requirements, but it is not unreasonable to expect that the total consumption of tractors for tilling and harvesting will amount to about 60 per cent. of the total year's supply. It is clear, therefore, that the quantity of kerosene which will be available for all other purposes will fall far short of the normal consumption.

What does the Minister suggest the people will light their houses with?

I am giving consideration to the question of introducing a full rationing scheme for domestic use in a month's time. I do not know whether it is practicable to devise a workable scheme for the purpose.

Surely, now is the time to do it.

If the Deputy has any bright suggestion to offer as to how an equitable scheme for the rationing of kerosene for domestic use can be carried out, I shall be very glad if he will let me have it. There are obviously practical difficulties in rationing the distribution of any commodity which is not consumed by all consumers, but only by a limited section who cannot be easily identified. The position at the moment is that we have used up to the present more kerosene than we were entitled to use, upon the basis of the deliveries we are expecting in this half of the year. It is necessary, therefore, to restrict drastically the use of kerosene at present to ensure that there will be a sufficiency available for harvesting operations. When the harvesting is completed, it may then be possible to resume deliveries of kerosene to retailers for sale for domestic use.

The Minister should try to stop the illicit use of it.

We are taking measures to do that.

Does the Minister propose to deal with candles before he departs from this matter?

I do not know what the Deputy wishes me to say about them.

In the country, paraffin and candles march hand in hand. If you do not get paraffin, you buy candles.

I did not propose to deal with candles now, but if the Deputy wishes to get some information, I shall be glad to let him have it.

Is there likely to be a shortage of candles?

There is every likelihood of a shortage of candles. The materials used in the manufacture of candles consist mainly of paraffin wax, beeswax, stearine and wick, all of which have to be imported, mainly from Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, from the United States of America. The stocks of these materials in the country at present are very low and the prospects of our being able to obtain any further supplies from outside sources are not favourable. We have been in consultation with the manufacturers with the object of extending the life of their present stock of imported raw materials by standardising output, by eliminating certain lines which are produced in normal times and by using such portion of home-produced tallows as may be available. Efforts are being made to recover candle grease from church shrines, and, with the co-operation of the Church authorities, to secure a reduction in the number of candles used for church purposes, but, even with all these economies and any other measure which it may be possible to bring into force, in the absence of further supplies of raw materials from outside, the industry will find it almost impossible to continue in production much beyond the end of the present year.

The problem of rationing candles, which is possibly what Deputy Dillon has in mind, is as difficult as the problem of rationing kerosene. We can restrict, and we are restricting, deliveries to retailers in order to ensure that the supplies going to various parts of the country will be uniform, to avoid wastage or hoarding and to compel retailers themselves to control their sales to individual customers, but if there is a practical means of ensuring that the available supply of candles will go to those who need them most, and to nobody else, and that they will get them in a uniform quantity, I have not been able to discover it. I do not know of any effective system of rationing which will ensure that. I am prepared to deal later—and I wish to do so— with some of the problems of applying rationing to a number of commodities, and the type of commodity that offers the greatest difficulty is that which is used only by a limited number of consumers who cannot be easily identified. If you fix a flat rate per head ration, everybody will avail of it, and the ration permitted to those who need the goods most will consequently be reduced. On the other hand, there is no easy method of identifying the people to whom you wish to give preference.

When the Minister speaks of using all the paraffin for autumn agricultural operations, does he dwell in his own mind on the situation that will develop in rural Ireland if everybody has to sit in the dark from 4 o'clock in the evening?

I do, and possibly a lot more than the Deputy. I should like the Deputy, when he raises these difficulties and talks about the hardships which this situation will inflict upon individuals, to endeavour to give us his ideas as to how these hardships can be mitigated. We have a limited quantity of kerosene here and we want that, not merely for domestic lighting and certain industrial purposes, but also for getting in the harvest. Are we to cut the supplies available for tractors for harvesting operations in order to give lighting to consumers for domestic purposes?

We got in the harvest for the last 2,000 years without tractors.

Well, I am quite prepared to be guided by the House in the matter. In my opinion, it would be essential to devote a very large proportion of the kerosene available to the use of tractors for harvesting purposes, and I think that that is a far better use to be made of it, but I appreciate just as much as anybody else the hardship any curtailment would mean on people who relied on it for domestic or lighting purposes.

Take lighting alone.

Yes, lighting; I appreciate the hardship entailed, but I do not know what we can do if we cannot increase our supplies. It is only a question of allocating the known quantity amongst certain users, and deciding which is the best use to make of the quantity available, and the judgment of no two individuals will be precisely similar on that matter. However, as I say, I am quite willing to be guided by Deputies in the matter. If there is a feeling in the House that we should restrict the supplies of kerosene that are to be given to agricultural tractor owners or other harvesting operations, in order to be able to make more available for domestic purposes. I shall certainly consider it, but I earnestly ask Deputies to consider all the implications of such a decision.

Equally with petrol and paraffin, there are difficulties—much greater difficulties in fact—arising out of the curtailment of fuel oil. Our normal consumption of fuel oil is about 15,000,000 gallons, of which 4,000,000 gallons were produced within the country. So far as the oil companies have been in a position to inform us of the matter the maximum quantity that we can hope to receive this year is 6,000,000 gallons, from which it is clear that of all the petroleum products the country is most restricted in the matter of fuel oil supplies. Fuel oil is used almost exclusively for industrial purposes, although a minimum amount is used for heating and lighting of public institutions, hotels, hospitals, shops and so on. Whilst it is possible to restrict supplies of kerosene and petrol without affecting seriously the carrying on of industries, that cannot be said of fuel oil. Amongst the industries dependent on it are the public bus services in Dublin, canals, the production of glass bottles, creameries, bacon factories, grain millers, saw mills, textile millers, fishing boats, electric lighting production, paper, cement, paint, laundries, and a number of public services, including water supplies.

Self-sufficiency for ever!

The Dublin Transport Company is a large consumer of fuel oil, and investigations are being carried on with the company, in collaboration with the Department of Industry and Commerce, with a view to a reduction in the use of such oil.

You can see some of them sticking out.

I did not catch what the Deputy said.

You can see opportunities for reduction in their use of fuel oil sticking out. They have buses running on their own tram-lines.

Unfortunately, the difficulties concerning fuel oil are no greater than the difficulties concerning coal, and considerably less than the difficulties concerned with materials necessary for the running of trams.

Look at the Dalkey bus service, where they have the buses running on their own tram lines and beside the railway.

It is possible that the services available for Dublin in future will have to be reduced, but efforts will be made to ensure that the minimum of inconvenience will be caused to the public, and as little unemployment as possible. Even if a reduction in consumption for public transport purposes can be obtained, no hope can be held out that other industries will get their full requirements, so long as supplies are restricted to their present level, and I want strongly to recommend that persons using fuel oil for heating purposes should revert at once to some other fuel as there is little likelihood that any fuel oil can be provided for such purposes. The distribution of fuel oil has been under control since the 1st March, by virtue of an emergency control order. Under that order, no person can purchase fuel oil without a permit. Up to the present, applicants have been receiving permits to purchase practically all the fuel oil they require, due regard being had to the stocks held by them. A substantial number of users, however, did not make their requirements known to the Department until quite recently and it is now clear that the demands are far in excess of the supply. In the light of the returns we received, users of fuel oil must for the future expect a substantial reduction in the quantity which they may purchase.

It might be no harm if I made some special reference to the building industry. The requirements of the building industry, in the matter of supplies, have been engaging constant attention. A substantial part of the goods used by the building industry is produced within the country from raw materials available from home sources. The more important materials, for which the industry has been depending on outside sources, are timber, constructional steel, pig-iron, pig-lead, copper, bitumen and sanitary fittings. Imports, in most cases, were maintained at an adequate level until recently, but the position in that respect has been deteriorating rapidly, and that tendency is likely to continue. The fact that the demand for materials has been below normal, owing to the curtailment of building activities, has operated so far to ease the position considerably. The extent to which the various subsidiary industries, upon which the building industry largely depends, can be carried on in the absence of what may normally be regarded as essential imports, has been under close examination.

The position in that respect is not altogether without promise, but the continued and increasing shortage of items, such as materials for the production of lead and copper pipes, will give rise to difficulties which it will not be easy to surmount, but the present difficulty arises in connection with timber. The development of the war in 1940 resulted in cutting off imports of timber from the Baltic countries, and our importing companies were obliged to seek and alternative source of supplies from Canada. Canadian timber was more expensive and the shipping for the timber ultimately became unprocurable. The position now is that practically no timber is being imported, and when the existing stocks of imported timber are exhausted we shall have to rely entirely upon home-grown supplies. The export of timber, of course, has been controlled since the outbreak of war, and only such varieties of native timber as were not required here were allowed to be exported. No export licences are now being given for the export of timber, in the round or sawn, or for manufactured timber and articles such as are made from home-grown timber. Control has been taken over all timber supplies. The stoppage of imports makes it necessary for us to fall back on our resources of home-grown timber to supplement the stocks of imported timber and to meet the many requirements of those industries which formerly used imported woods. It is intended to ensure, by a system of regulation, that military requirements, building and other essential industries, will have first call on the available supplies. I wish to emphasise that the available supplies are strictly limited and that in a very short time any large-scale building operations will be impossible. There are, of course, a large number of other commodities, to which I do not intend to make individual reference here, concerning which future prospects are very bad indeed, and increasing restrictions upon the distribution of such goods will be unavoidable.

Will the Minister make any reference to tobacco?

I did not intend to.

There is a very serious curtailment of supplies. Some small shopkeepers cannot get any supplies.

I do not think that is so. We have made arrangements with the companies under which the complaints of individual traders will be investigated by us. In every case where there was genuine ground for complaint the necessary adjustments have been made to ensure the delivery of appropriate supplies to the trader concerned. I am not aware of any case where a trader who was entitled to supplies was unable to get them.

I sent the Minister particulars of one case, and I will send particulars of another, where a shopkeeper near a military encampment cannot get supplies.

There have been a number of such cases, but Deputies must recognise that the number of soldiers in the Army has increased considerably and the contract for supplies to canteens has been changed from one shop to another, with the result that individual traders near military barracks may find themselves short of supplies, but every case that was brought to my attention has been adjusted.

I want to make a special reference to the problem of rationing. One occasionally hears of proposals made at public meetings and other gatherings outside— perhaps it would be better to use the word "demands" rather than "proposals"—for the widespread rationing of all essential goods. It is the duty of my Department to apply rationing in relation to any class of goods where it is necessary and practicable to do so. If we have not rationed enough to meet the wishes of some people, it is because there was good reason for it, and I think many of those people who demand a widespread extension of the rationing system have not given any serious thought to the considerations involved in such an extension. I want to set out certain general principles for the guidance of Deputies and the public and, if Deputies want to find fault with any of those principles, I shall be glad to hear their criticisms. It may be that I have come to certain conclusions as a result of unsound thinking, but it seems to me that the considerations which have influenced my judgment in these matters are sound. If others consider that is not so, I shall be glad to have their views as to the points where the considerations are not sound.

The purposes which a rationing scheme serves are the equitable distribution of a commodity in short supply, the avoidance of waste of a commodity, or the conservation of supplies of some articles which are, or which may become, in short supply. In my opinion it is neither necessary nor desirable to ration commodities which are not, or are not likely to become, in short supply. That is self-evident, and I would like Deputies who may think otherwise to say why. That consideration applies to many classes of foodstuffs which are produced at home in quantities considerably in excess of our own consumption. I refer to such articles as milk, butter, bacon and fresh meat. The quantities of these goods available for home consumption can be fixed by controlling the export of them. The total production is substantially in excess of the quantity we need to supply our own requirements. In relation to these goods, or any other class of goods concerning which there is not a shortage or a danger of a shortage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to adopt rationing. I do not know what purpose the rationing of such goods would serve.

I have mentioned to Deputy Dillon another problem which must be kept in mind by those who wish to speak on this matter. I refer to rationing on a flat rate. Rationing on a flat rate per consumer is practicable and desirable only in respect of commodities which everybody consumes or where the consumers of the commodity can be distinguished, and easily distinguished, from the rest of the citizens. I mentioned tea and petrol by way of illustration. It is possible to ration tea on the basis of a flat rate per consumer, because everybody consumes tea and it is the fairest way of distributing the limited supplies available. I mentioned petrol, which can be rationed on a flat rate basis because you can easily identify the people to whom petrol has to be given, namely, the owners of vehicles using petrol. Any attempt to apply a flat rate ration to articles not consumed by everybody—kerosene and candles for domestic lighting were mentioned here, and they will serve to illustrate my point—would complicate rather than facilitate the distribution of these goods because, if we fixed a flat rate ration for everybody, then everybody would avail of that ration, even people who do not ordinarily utilise paraffin or candles for domestic lighting.

If they are told they will be permitted to buy a certain quantity, the inclination on the part of everyone will be to buy that quantity and that will involve a substantial reduction in the supplies to be made available for those who really need such commodities. There are practical difficulties of a very considerable kind in applying a flat rate ration in respect of commodities not in general consumption or for consumers not easily identified from the rest of the community. There are difficulties in rationing articles which are produced in wide varieties of quality—articles such as clothing, for instance. The experience of other countries, Germany particularly, shows that rationing in such cases concentrates a demand upon the better quality articles available. A person who is entitled to buy only one suit a year will seek to buy the best suit that his means will permit him to purchase, and a concentration of demand on the better quality articles not merely disorganises the effective utilisation of the available resources but it reintroduces into commercial life the very thing which rationing is intended to eliminate, namely, the exercise of favouritism by a trader amongst his customers.

I notice they have introduced that system of rationing for clothing in Great Britain and already one can see in the British papers the advertisements of retail trading establishments urging their customers to come now and buy the best quality goods, pointing out that the best quality goods will last longer and that is the best way to make effective use of the coupons given to them. There may be in Great Britain, and possibly in Germany, good reasons for concentrating demand upon the higher range of quality, but I do not think these reasons exist here, and if we have to ration articles of that kind at a later stage, we will have to devise some system of reducing the number of varieties or fix a maximum standard quality, which would ensure that the possibly unforeseen ill-effects of rationing of that kind in other countries will not operate here.

I mentioned three considerations. I said that it is desirable and necessary to ration commodities which are in short supply. I pointed out the difficulty of rationing supplies which are not in general consumption, the consumers of which could be easily identified from the rest of the community, and I mentioned the difficulties and objections to the application of rationing to articles which are produced in wide varieties and quality. There is another category, and what I have to say in this regard concerns not merely rationing of supplies, but also price control by means of maximum price orders when applied to articles which are produced within the country by a large number of individual producers. The experience in Great Britain, Germany, France, and other countries in Europe, where the rationing of such articles has been resorted to, and about which information is procurable, shows that the tendency is for such goods immediately to disappear from the market, to encourage the growth of a black market in such goods and for the development of illegal traffic, with many objectionable forms of racketeering which developed in America. It has developed here. It has developed in Dundalk where we fixed a maximum price for milk, and where the milk producers said that not merely were they not going to supply milk at that price, but that, as far as they could, they would see that no one got any milk at that price. We may be able to deal with isolated cases of that kind. Action necessary to deal with it is being considered, but Deputies should bear in mind that our limited experience in that matter here has been also the experience on a much larger scale in Great Britain, Germany, France, and everywhere else where it was attempted to apply a rigid system of price control, either by rationing or by maximum price orders to goods produced within the country by a large number of producers.

Anybody can see the practical difficulty that would arise if we attempted to ration potatoes. You could not ration the quantity of potatoes consumed by producers of potatoes, and probably more than half the heads of families could be, at present, described as producers of potatoes, either on a commercial scale or in back gardens or plots. The practical difficulty of rationing potatoes is obvious, and much the same consideration applies, although in a varying degree, to all other vegetables. It is practically impossible to discover a foolproof plan for a completely equitable system of rationing of home-produced vegetables. Our experience has been that it is possible only to ration effectively where the source of supply is under control. These are factors that are ignored by people who suggest that a large number of our supply difficulties can be disposed of by rationing. We have adopted rationing wherever necessary and wherever practical, and we are preparing the way for the introduction of other rationing schemes by getting supplies under control or eliminating varieties. In the case of many classes of goods the removal of obstacles to equitable distribution will be attempted by other means than rationing, of which the most obvious, if it could be done at all, is by arranging for the storage of reserve supplies during periods of maximum production, by some central organisation, with a view to controlling the market during periods of comparative scarcity. The arrangement which is operating at present in relation to butter will help Deputies to understand the general idea I have in mind.

I am sure Deputies will not expect me to mention the commodities which may have to be rationed before the end of the year. Owing to staff difficulties and other reasons, it takes some time to bring a rationing scheme into force. The distribution of blank rationing cards, which can be used for different commodities as required, comes to mind. The adoption of that plan is complicated by the scarcity of suitable paper required for that purpose. We hope, however, to find some way out of that difficulty. I have dealt with the supply position concerning a number of essential commodities, and the general problem of control and distribution of commodities, and if I am not delaying the House I want to make particular reference to the problem of price control. When I introduced the first Estimate for the Department of Supplies I pointed out that with the dependence of the country on outside sources of supply of materials and manufactured products, price increases, affecting large sections of the country's internal price level had been and would continue to be forced upon us, and that in turn the impact of these prices would bring about corresponding increases in the prices of home-produced articles, and manufactured products, so that through the whole price structure a general upward movement was inevitable. During that speech I defined as the primary aim the measures of control taken in my Department: first, to bring all increases in prices and commodities under control; secondly, to limit such increases to the recovery of the unavoidable increases in cost; thirdly, to limit profits or profit margins to peace-time proportions; and, fourthly, to secure the maintenance of the greatest economy possible in the cost of production and distribution.

I gave an outline of the measures taken and the procedure generally adopted to control prices. Since then, however, the general tendency of prices in the country has been towards higher levels. The cost of imported materials, freight and war risk insurance has increased and corresponding increases have taken place in the cost of production of home manufactures and home production. Since then also an additional factor which adversely affected the tendency of prices generally has arisen, namely the shortage of supplies of certain commodities.

The shortage of supplies arising in regard to a number of commodities—and the number of commodities and the degree of shortage tend to increase—means that the cost of production and distribution for the lesser volume of goods available must increase in proportion. While manufacturers and traders must suffer a serious diminution in profits as a result of the fall in the volume of trade they cannot be compelled to trade at a loss. Consequently, increased costs of production and distribution and a fall in the volume of trade must be reflected in higher prices. During the past year I made 36 price control orders fixing maximum prices for various commodities, and the measures initiated following the outbreak of war, for the continuous control and revision of prices charged, on three main groups of traders, manufacturers and producers, importers and wholesalers, and retailers, have continued in force.

At an early stage in the past year it became evident that the price arrangements entered into with groups of manufacturers or traders were proving ineffective. In normal times the force of competition in any trade makes for efficiency in production and for the maintenance of low prices. During a war period, however, with the immediate or remote prospect of a shortage of supplies, and in anticipation of rising prices, the demand for most goods is urgent, and the force of competition is lessened, if not entirely removed. That has proved to be the case during the present emergency. In the absence of keener price competition, prices have tended, in a number of trades, towards levels set by the less efficient. For that reason it has been necessary in these trades to deal with each firm separately, and either fix prices or enter into a suitable price arrangement with each firm separately, so that, in all cases, the goods would be sold at the lowest possible price, and that the profits to be earned would be fairly reasonable.

The number of price revisions carried out by my Department, each covering a group of commodities, was 185. These involved an examination of the records, in some cases covering a period of two or three years, of 604 firms. Up to the present, the measures of price control which have been taken have been primarily directed towards the prevention of profiteering, and, taking that expression in its generally accepted meaning, it can be stated that the measures which have been adopted have been successful. There has been no profiteering in the country generally. Manufacturers and traders have been prevented from profiting unduly from the situation which has arisen in the country, and, in that sense, profiteering, as practised when similar situations arose in the past, has been absent. There have been cases of individual manufacturers and traders who took undue advantage of the situation as it developed, and before effective price control measures were taken to fix prices, which yielded profits at a rate which they would claim to be merely a good rate in the circumstances, but which, judging by the prevailing standards of the country, must be regarded as excessive.

These cases were, however, the exception rather than the rule, and in the future relations of the Department with those traders their action will not be lost sight of. It is only fair to say, however, that since the outbreak of the war, and since the earlier announcements in regard to prices which have been made by me, the price policy of the majority of manufacturers, or producers or traders has conformed with the publicly expressed desire, and these have co-operated in a highly satisfactory manner with the price control measures taken by my Department.

While the problem of price control has been concerned up to the present, mostly with the prevention of excessive profit-taking by manufacturers or producers, or by wholesale or retail traders, a situation has gradually been reached in the country which enlarges the problem and renders it much more difficult of solution. A situation arose out of the shortage of imported supplies, and the replacement or substitution of commodities, with a consequent increase in the costs of manufacture, or of production and distribution. If we assume that a manufacturer or producer or wholesale or retail trader cannot be compelled to suffer loss—I do not think there is any known means of compelling a man to remain in trade if it involves him in loss—and that he must, therefore, be allowed to recover his increased costs, and assuming that his ultimate profit is limited to the fullest possible extent, there still remains the fact that the prices of a wide range of commodities will tend to increase beyond the existing high levels, and beyond the levels of the incomes and purchasing power of large sections of the community. Within these ranges of commodities there are a number which are essential to the life of the community. The problem is not, therefore, one of preventing excessive profits merely, but of maintaining the prices of certain essential commodities at levels within the purchasing power of sections of the community. That is not primarily the problem of price control or of my Department. The point which I wish to stress is, that the keeping of the prices of many essential goods within the purchasing power of many classes of people, cannot be done by means of price control alone, and those who suggest that it can are merely confusing thought in the matter.

I have reviewed the policy of my Department in the matter of price control in some detail. In dealing with that problem it is necessary to keep a sense of proportion. In a time of war, prices necessarily increase, and in a country which is preserving its neutrality and cannot embark on alternative types of industry or find alternative employment for its people, it is essential to keep a balance between the extent to which prices must be kept down and their reaction upon existing industries and employment. We cannot afford to have our industries closed down merely because only low prices and no remuneration are to be allowed, nor can we, in any haphazard manner, jcopardise the livelihood of shopkeepers, both large and small, who, through a shortage of supplies in many of the goods in which they trade, are finding it very difficult to carry on at the present time. Nevertheless, the Department has concentrated particularly on foodstuffs and clothing included in the cost-of-living computation, with very satisfactory results in most cases. I mentioned before, in another place, that a comparison can be made between the course of prices in this country and in Great Britain. Although there is considerable subsidisation of food prices in the United Kingdom, the cost of foodstuffs generally in the last 12 months increased here only to the same extent as in the United Kingdom, although food prices here are not subsidised. Clothing prices have risen here by 37 per cent. They have risen in Great Britain by 75 per cent. There has been no increase here in the last 12 months in the price of bread, fresh milk, condensed milk or sugar, whilst there have been decreases in the cost of oatmeal and lard. Since September last there has been no increase in the price of flour. The food items that cause most concern are meat and vegetables. So far as meat is concerned, every effort is made by my Department to ensure that undue profits are not going to retailers, but the increase in the prices for cattle, sheep and pigs necessarily drives up the price to the ultimate consumer. There is no obvious method, therefore, of maintaining low prices for meat if the producer has to get a satisfactory market price for the animals he has to sell.

Similarly, in the case of vegetables, the price obtained by the producer largely governs the price to the ultimate consumer. Any cases investigated by my Department show that the shopkeeper is not obtaining an excessive profit on the sale of vegetables. It is clear that, in respect of the most important items, especially in the case of potatoes, price control alone may not be sufficient next year to keep the consumer's price at the present figure, or at any reasonable figure. The cost of fuel and light increased here considerably, much more than in Great Britain. That is due entirely to the increase in the price of imported coal.

I want to mention, before leaving this question of price control, that in future I propose to give a direction to my Department to concentrate all their energies on essential commodities. We have been frequently asked to investigate the prices charged for some luxury goods or for some service which was in no sense essential. Under the provisions of the Regulation of Price Act, it is necessary to take up these complaints and examine them, even though you know that the person concerned could easily have protected himself against the overcharge and merely avoided doing so because he knew that the services of the Department were available. I propose, therefore, that in future we will exercise our price control activities only in relation to commodities which are essential, or nearly essential. People who are overcharged for non-essential goods, luxury goods or luxury services, will have to choose, if they do not like the prices proposed to them, between refraining from buying or taking their custom elsewhere.

Would the Minister name the non-essential commodities?

For example, in the course of the last few days a man was charged an excessive price for a taxicab from one part of the country to another. He just paid the man and then sent in a complaint to the Department and asked my Department to get him a refund. I do not propose to do things like that.

Would the Minister mention the essential commodities?

I do not propose to mention the essential commodities. The Deputy knows the class of commodity I have in mind. They are commodities the absence of which would be likely to be a source of hardship to any individuals. I propose also that we shall, so far as possible, proceed to exercise price control by fixing maximum price orders but I want Deputies again to bear in mind the difficulty about operating maximum price orders, the effect that they sometimes have in driving commodities off the market and making it more difficult for the average person to procure supplies at any reasonable price at all. I want Deputies also to keep in mind the fact to which I have already referred, that it is very difficult to fix prices for articles which are produced in considerable varieties of quality. I am giving consideration to the practicability of limiting the number of varieties of many goods which will be permitted to be sold and, where raw materials are in short supply, limiting the use of such materials to the production of lower and medium priced articles. That policy may have adverse effects upon employment in a number of industries, but it will be unavoidable. Where supply difficulties are likely to be acute and where it is necessary to ensure that the limited supplies available will not be utilised entirely for the most profitable lines of goods, which are generally the luxury lines, the effect of which would be to confine the total supply to one class of the commodity, by restricting the number of varieties of goods produced or by confining the available materials to the manufacture of low-priced and medium-priced goods you ensure the most equitable distribution of the goods, and if increased unemployment should result in the industries concerned it cannot be avoided. I think the lesser of the two evils is to proceed on the line I have suggested.

I have spoken for a considerable length of time. I did not intend to delay the Dáil so long but I felt it desirable to give the review I have given of the principal activities of my Department. There is a great number of matters that we have been dealing with that I have not referred to at all. There is a number of commodities concerning which Deputies frequently ask questions to which I have not referred. If there is any particular matter of that kind to which Deputies would like me to refer, I am prepared to do so in concluding.

I move the motion standing in my name:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

We are asked to vote moneys for a Department, the total cost of which is expected to be this year £71.544. It is an expensive Department. It ought to be a useful Department. My reason for moving back the Estimate is that I think the Department is useless as long as the Minister stands between Parliament and the Department. If the Department was properly directed it ought to be and it could be useful. When we consider the direction it has received for the last 12 months in the hands of the Minister, then we have to say it is not worth the money. It is a bigger danger to the employment position in this country and to the supply position in this country than anything else. In so far as Parliament has any relations with the Department, instead of being able to use the discussion in Parliament here to direct, influence and guide the Department through the Minister, the Minister's attitude has been to stand between Parliament and the Department and to prevent Parliament either having the information it requires about the Department or passing on the line of direction that I am sure everybody in the House would wish to have passed on to the Department.

The Minister says he has dealt with a number of things during the year which he has not mentioned. There is quite a number of things that the Minister has not mentioned. The Minister, for instance, went down to some locality in Dublin on Monday, 9th June, as reported in the Cork Examiner of the 10th June last, and among other things, he indicated there that in the greater number of our industries—those, unfortunately, which provided the greatest number of livelihoods—the prevailing conditions are so uncertain that a sub stantial reduction in output or in the work available, involving reduced employment, was unavoidable. As far as the building industry was concerned, he said:

"Imports had now stopped and there was little prospect of their being resumed. The available stocks were now very limited, and so one could count the days in which building operations on any substantial scale would be possible. They could eke out their supplies and confine their use for essential purposes, but a complete stoppage of building trade employment appears unavoidable unless circumstances should change fundamentally. A stoppage of building would eventually close down all industries producing building materials and adversely affect a number of others."

Dealing with transport, he said:—

"An extensive reduction of services may be unavoidable, perhaps even at times a complete stoppage, with the resultant disemployment of thousands of workers."

In regard to supplies for the building industries, supplies of raw materials for other industries, supplies necessary for our transport industries, the position is reduced to that. The Minister has not told us what he is going to do about it. The Minister has told us that we are going to carry on all right with our wheat position and that it will not be necessary to mix either barley or oats with wheat in making bread or flour this year. But that simply means that the people of this country have done their own work in that particular way, without any help from the Department of Supplies. As far as the Department of Supplies is concerned, the people were hindered rather than anything else. We are all aware of the difficulties in which the farming community found themselves at the beginning of the spring, when, comparatively late in the day, the Department of Agriculture asked them to plough. They could not get petrol for tractors. They could not get kerosene. They could not get seeds. So that, in respect of that particular part of the provision for our food supply we cannot congratulate the Minister for Supplies on the assistance he gave. In so far as it is suggested that reserves were accumulated in the country and that it may be as a result of these reserves we are enabled to carry on until the harvest comes in without any dilution of flour and bread other than by wheat offals, the Minister cannot claim that he has done anything special to lay in reserves of wheat or reserves of flour, because our imports of wheat for the year 1938 and for the year 1939 were less than our imports of wheat for the year 1936. The imports for the year 1938 were about equivalent to those of 1935.

Much less than 1931.

I know that, but I am talking about the operation of the Minister through the body that he specially set up for the purpose of laying in reserves and whom he commissioned to put an extra shilling on every bag of flour that was sold to the people of this country in order to pay them for putting in this reserve.

Not in 1938.

I am saying the import of wheat in 1938 and 1939 was less than in 1935 and 1936.

Of course it was. Does the Deputy not know the reason? We had started to grow wheat in the country since.

Yes. How many interruptions is that? We had the Minister seeking the protection of the Chair a little earlier in the day, and I think the Chair was able to say that some Minister had been interrupted 26 times in making a speech the other night.

I was trying to help the Deputy.

The Minister is not helping Parliament to understand this particular point. In so far as providing the people of this country with what they will have to eat is concerned, we cannot thank the Minister for Supplies. So far from being a help to the tillage campaign of this particular year, his lack of work was a hindrance to it. In so far as helping to get in special supplies is concerned, there is no evidence that any very special supplies were brought in either in the year 1938 or in the year 1939. We can see no reason why the difficulties which were put in the way of the tillage campaign of last year by the operations of the Minister should have been created when we consider the amount of petrol there was in the country. In 1939, we got 95.4 per cent. of our imports for 1938; in 1940, we got in 79 per cent., and, in so far as the position up to date is concerned, we have been getting in something like 50 per cent. In view of the amount of petrol there was in the country at that particular time, there was no reason why the tillage campaign should have been handled in that way. However, I just want to say in regard to food that the Minister for Supplies cannot claim to have been any assistance to the country, or to have done anything that was worth any part of £71,000. Apparently, the people of the country themselves can be thanked for whatever has been done.

The Minister deals with tea. He tells us that, so far as tea is concerned, he thinks he may be able to continue to give a half ounce per person per week for some weeks to come, if not months, and that he may be able to give some additional tea to people working on the bogs, to people working here and people working there. We know that, in the year 1939, we got in 96.5 per cent. of our tea imports for 1938, that in the year 1940 we got in 104 per cent. of our imports for the year 1938, and that in the first four months of this year we got in more tea than we had in the first four months of 1936, or in the first four months of 1937, so why should the people of this country at the present time and for some time past be reduced to a half ounce per week?

The Minister then said that he was considering the question of price fixing, and that he prevents prices rising other than in cases where they are affected by special and unavoidable factors. When I asked him why the price of tea had risen to the point to which it has risen, in spite of the fact that the import price last year had risen by only 1¾. per lb. over the two years before that, the Minister's attitude was that he was not going to be cross-examined. Now, in the first four months of this year, it has risen by another 1¾d. per lb., which means that the average import price for tea imported into this country in the first four months of this year is 3½d. per lb. more than it was in the year 1938, or in the year 1939, in spite of all the price-controlling machinery. We got no explanation as to why the price of tea is so high, or what the relationship ought to be between the import price of tea and the price of tea as it is. The Minister says he has explained this before. We ought to know why the people are reduced to a half-ounce of tea per week at the present time, in view of the fact that imports of tea are as I have stated, and as the Minister has previously had to admit. The reason is that when the Minister got the tea into the country, he was not able to handle it administratively in such a manner as to make it go around in a satisfactory way.

The Deputy's first complaint was that I did not get supplies into the country.

I am certainly not thanking the Minister for getting them in.

We got in the same amount as we got before the Minister ever took up office—the normal amount.

I wish we had it now.

The trouble about its distribution is that the Minister was there; the tea would have been more satisfactorily distributed in the country if the Minister had not been there. This was a case in which the supply came in, in spite of the Minister, but because of the Minister's presence there it was scattered in such a way that many people are short of it now, and many others are paying more for it than they ought to be paying. But all the Minister has to say, standing on his £71,000 machine, is that he thinks he will be able to let the people of this country have a half-ounce of tea per week for some weeks longer.

In regard to sugar, the Minister tells us that we are likely to be all right if we can stop the smuggling. Well, I do not want to add anything to my interruption, but my interruption was that the Minister cannot wash his hands of the flour imports into this country and at the same time think he can deal with the smuggling out of sugar. The Minister must know, if all the police of the country are not asleep and if all the officials in the country are not asleep, that tons upon tons of flour are coming into this country, and that it is being paid for by sugar and such things as that. What I particularly want to challenge the Minister on is as to what he is going to do and what he has been doing in the past to fight and to prepare against the situation which he has indicated here—that in a large number of our industries, through lack of supplies, we are going to have unemployment, that the building industry is to be more or less stopped, and that, as to transport, we may at times have a complete stoppage. Can anybody who listened to the Minister make out from him what he is doing to use his £71,000 Department in seeing that some of those essential supplies will be made available?

One of the things wrong is that he is withholding from his Department the particular type of service which a Minister was put there to give. Enough has been said during the last year to show how completely he has failed in his Department. When we came along to December or January last it was necessary to cover up some of the failures, and the Minister's explanation then was that, by force of circumstances or deliberate design, each of the belligerents had taken steps the direct consequence of which was a curtailment or stoppage of supplies coming to us, although, in the case of Great Britain, action or design was of recent occurrence. That is to say, there was thrown quite unnecessarily into the situation here a suggestion to our people that the Minister's difficulties and their own difficulties would not be so great but for action deliberately taken by Great Britain. The Minister may have wished to put his own interpretation on that statement, but the inevitable reaction on the people of Great Britain on the one hand, and on our people here on the other hand, has been that the people of Great Britain feel they are being attacked and challenged by a person who knows nothing about their circumstances or who has no sympathy with them.

Where is the attack?

The Minister explained in public that our difficulties here were caused by a blockade, and that that blockade was recently being carried out by Great Britain as well as by Germany, although it was only recently that blockade by design had occurred.

If Britain prohibits the export of goods to this country, is not that action by design?

What I wish to underline is that that is presented to our people as a withholding from them of supplies that they might reasonably be expected to get.

By whom?

By the British.

Who represented it as that?

The Minister did.

The Deputy has a queer method of interpretation.

I would be very glad if the Minister would say what he did mean by it. It requires clearing up if the Minister is to be understood either by our own people here or by the people with whom our own people have to deal. I suggest to the Minister that it deserves to be cleared up. From time to time he speaks of facing facts— usually when he is speaking outside this House—and it is here we should face facts first. It is to us that the Minister should give the greatest possible chance of facing facts. Surely we should face the fact that the people in Great Britain are in difficult circumstances and that they are handling the utilisation of their supplies with very considerable vigour and energy under great difficulties. We should be able to appreciate that they may have great difficulty in allowing us to have supplies. We can admit that, at least. We should be able to present the situation to our own people without any intrusion of anything likely to stir up feeling. We must make them realise that, while they cannot manage to escape the effects of events in the world outside, they have Ministers who will leave nothing undone—in the line of work that falls to be done by a Minister—to alleviate those difficulties or circumvent them. Ministerial action should be such that, when it has been taken, our people will face their difficulties in the knowledge that they cannot escape them. They should not be left with the feeling that their present difficulties are those which have been created unnecessarily for them by people outside.

Secondly, our own people here should have some chance to appreciate the difficulties of the other people and the energy they are putting forward, the organisations they have set up and the way in which all classes are co-operating. We should have some chance of looking at the other people concerned in the world struggle outside. I suggest that the Minister's implication here prevents our people from doing that. If in this discussion the Minister would make it clear that nothing is being done unnecessarily by people outside to make our economic position any more difficult than it is, that would be helpful. If he is not in a position to do that, then we require him in this House—or we should require him—to tell us the things that are being denied, in goods or services, by another country—goods which he thinks we are reasonably entitled to obtain. He should be able to tell us of the steps he has taken to acquaint those in a Ministerial position in other countries with our viewpoint, and should be able to tell us what steps he has taken to discuss personally those things that he considers unreasonable or difficult.

We have had complaints by Ministers that we are not getting supplies or services from Great Britain to which we feel we are entitled. The same has been suggested with regard to the United States—at any rate, there is an implication in a statement published, even in the Government organ, by our Ministers in the United States that that is so. Surely we should face these facts here and discuss them here. We should be told what Ministers are doing to overcome and solve difficulties. I would be very glad to exculpate the Minister from the charge I made against him that it was to cover failures and shortcomings in the first nine months of this particular year that he made that statement in January last. I suggest to the Minister that he should appreciate the importance of overcoming any misconceptions with regard to statements like that. It should be made known that our Ministers have removed every single difficulty which they possibly could remove, acting fully in their Ministerial capacity, so that our people may face the war situation, knowing that it cannot be escaped. We should have an assurance that no supplies or services which we might reasonably get are withheld from us. If the Minister thinks they are being unreasonably withheld. we should know what they are. It is much more injurious to the public good, and much more dangerous to our international position that things like that should be hidden or allowed to become a source of irritation or to fester in people's minds.

It should be stated plainly in Parliament that the Minister has taken steps to overcome whatever difficulties there may be.

The Minister realises that this House should be addressed in that fashion, that it should get that type of information and that he is not discharging his duty either to his Department or to the House unless he acts in that spirit. There is no use in going into petty detail if we have any hope that the Minister will face the present discussion in that way. The Minister should appreciate that it is no satisfaction to us—we cannot feel that we are helping constructively in the present difficult situation by so acting—simply to come in here and abuse him for things left undone, knowing the kind of reaction we shall get. If the Minister is serious in telling us that, "at times there may be a complete stoppage of transport, with resultant disemployment of thousands of workers," that "a complete stoppage of building-trade employment appears unavoidable unless circumstances should change fundamentally," with the very great effect on additional unemployment that, he says, that would have; if he is serious in suggesting that some of our industries may be stopped through lack of raw materials, then I say that the House wants, above everything else, to know what the Minister has done about it and what he is going to do about it.

It is all very well to discuss price-control and the changes that are taking place in the rationing system or the articles that may have to be rationed but, in respect of fundamental things such as those referred to, we are entitled to a clearer and fuller explanation from the Minister. Our charge against the Minister is that, in a Ministerial capacity, he is completely nonexistent on the constructive side and that, here in the House, he interposes himself between Parliament and his Department as a sort of aggressive stop. Parliament is getting no service of a Ministerial kind from the Minister and it is for that reason that I move that this Vote be referred back for reconsideration. I think that it should not be passed until the Minister tells us what he has done and what he is going to do in a Ministerial way to overcome the difficulties to which he has referred. There are difficulties in respect of supplies to which we have to look to Great Britain. We should be told what these difficulties are and what he proposes to do about them.

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it or not, but the Department of Supplies is, in my opinion, the most unpopular Department in the State at the moment, and is subject to more criticism on the part of the people generally for its incompetence than any Department I have heard criticised since I came to this House. That is not because the Minister is personally unpopular. I do not believe that that is so, but there is a general feeling amongst the people that the Ministerial head of the Department has not faced up to his responsibilities to the people since the day his Department was established. In dealing with the question of supplies in the very lengthy and detailed speech which he has delivered, the Minister did not give to the House the information which the House and the country are entitled to receive. I heard him say on one occasion to an Opposition Deputy, across the floor of the House, that the banks had guaranteed the industrialists the necessary money to provide for themselves the raw materials which, in their opinion, they would require during the period of the emergency. When this Department was established, I was of opinion—I think the opinion was shared by my colleagues—that the State would come in at once and either purchase, itself, as a central purchasing machine, the necessary raw materials, or guarantee to industrialists whatever money was required to buy raw materials to keep industry going during the period of the emergency. I should like to hear from the Minister— this is a very important matter—to what extent the banks gave guarantees for that purpose, or to what extent, if any, the State asked them to give these guarantees from the time the Department of Supplies was set up.

Generally speaking, I am of opinion that industrialists, traders, and the people generally were obliged to rely on their own financial resources to get whatever materials they could in the best possible way. That is not the way a Department of Supplies should look after the interests of the community during an emergency period. The Minister has some information at his disposal to show in what respect his Department has assisted the people in getting additional supplies to meet the period of emergency.

If there are, as we know there are, thousands of men out of employment to-day and if there are, as we know there are, thousands of their dependants without work and in a state of destitution and semi-starvation, the Minister and his Department must accept responsibility in so far as that disemployment has been brought about by the lack of vision on the part of the Department of Supplies and its Ministerial head.

The most amazing portion of the Minister's speech and the portion in which I was very deeply interested was that in which he faced up in a rather half-hearted way to the question of profiteering and the absolute failure of his Department to deal with persons who have been found guilty of fleecing the public during this critical period. The Minister said—and rightly so, I am sure—that people sending sugar over the Border since the emergency arose should be treated in the same way—and, I suppose, given the same punishment—as persons who would give away military secrets to the enemy. How many such people have been discovered and how many of them have been brought before the courts and dealt with in the manner indicated by the Minister? I have no information at my disposal regarding the number of people reported under that particular heading to the Minister, but if the Minister regards the activities of such persons in the serious way which his speech would indicate, it is not unfair that I should ask him to give us particulars of the number of such criminals who came under the notice of his Department and to state in what way they were dealt with. The general opinion is—the speeches of the Minister are not going to get people to think otherwise—that a number of persons have come into business since this emergency and established themselves as racketeers, to the disadvantage of the decent traders, and that they are being allowed to get away with profiteering without any proper punishment.

The Minister says, of course, that in order to deal with profiteers and racketeers he must have the co-operation of the community as a whole. I agree that is so. We have, at any rate, upon record the fact that, notwithstanding the alleged lack of co-operation with the Department of Supplies in this matter, 1,011 complaints were made to the Minister and the Department of Supplies alleging overcharging from the 1st September, 1939, until the 30th April, 1941. Out of 585 such cases reported to the Department, on the admission of the Minister, during the year 1940, only four persons were brought before the courts of this State. Three were convicted and fined the small sum of £3 7s. 6d. That sum of £3 7s. 6d. representing fines for profiteering carried on by three people, will not go a long way towards balancing the Budget this year or next year. During the subsequent four months, from the 1st January of this year until the 30th April, 426 complaints were received by the Ministry, but there was no prosecution, and, naturally, no conviction. The Minister at the same time admits, in a reply addressed to me, that it was found as result of investigations that 17 per cent. of the 426 complaints were genuine and justified. Notwithstanding that, not one of these profiteers was brought before a court or fined 1d. I want to tell the Minister quite sincerely that if that is the way he is going to deal with the profiteers, the warnings he has issued in his speech to-day will have as little effect as his previous warnings or whatever communications have been addressed to these people by the officials of his Department. I ask the Minister why did he not bring before the courts of the country the 17 per cent. of the 426 individuals who were reported to him during the four months of this year for profiteering.

You can only bring people before the courts if they are guilty of some breach of the law.

Does the Minister suggest that he has no proof in any case that racketeers have, for instance, been selling tea at 5d. an ounce, petrol at 5/- per gallon, flour at 7d. per lb. and cauliflowers at 10d. each? Will he stand up in this House and say that he has received no such complaints and that if he has, they were not justified, and that there was no case for bringing such persons before the court?

I cannot bring anybody before the courts unless they have broken some law. The charge has not only to be proved to my satisfaction but to the satisfaction of a judge.

If the Minister found, as he admitted, that 17 per cent of the 426 cases reported to his Department in the first four months of the year, were correct, that overcharging was found to have taken place and that he ordered the culprits concerned to refund the amount of the overcharge in these cases, why did he not take them to a further place where they would have received deterrent punishment?

Because they had not broken any regulations.

If people have proved to the satisfaction of the Minister that they have been overcharged in 17 per cent. of 426 cases, there is something radically wrong with the regulations under which the Minister is administering his Department if he cannot take them to court.

There are maximum price orders in force with regard to certain commodities. If a person breaks a maximum price order, he can be prosecuted before a court, but a person who has merely overcharged for a commodity, in respect of which a maximum price order is not in force, has not broken the law. I have referred to a case where there was an overcharge for a taxi. That was a very well-founded case, but the taxi-driver had not broken the law because there was no maximum price order fixed in relation to taxi hire. A person must have broken a regulation before he can be prosecuted.

Why not make a regulation in respect to these commodities so that folk with that kind of mentality can be caught in the net?

The Deputy might try to make some constructive suggestion.

The Minister will not polish me off with that kind of plausible argument. The Minister knows that complaints have been received in his Department which are included in the 1,011 cases referred to, that tea has been sold by racketeers at 5d. an ounce, that petrol has been sold at 5/- a gallon, that flour has been sold at 7d. a lb.—flour smuggled over the Border, purchased in the Six Counties at 26/6 per 20 stone sack, and sold here in the streets and in the shops at the rate of 180/- per sack. He knows there has been overcharging for coal, but he has gone no further than to request these racketeers to refund the amount of the overcharge.

Does the Deputy not know that is untrue?

That is the reply which the Minister gave to me.

Did I say to the Deputy that somebody had been found overcharging for tea and flour and that they had not been prosecuted?

Have they been prosecuted?

Did the Minister take any action against unscrupulous racketeers in respect of white flour?

I have fixed no price for white flour.

Why should you not do so?

I shall argue that with the Deputy at the proper time.

The Deputy might wait for the Minister's concluding reply to this debate.

You, Sir, remarked that some Deputy had interrupted a Minister 22 times——

Seventy-eight times in all.

The Minister has already interrupted me three or four times.

Did not the Deputy ask and pause for answers?

I am not making that the subject of a complaint.

If the Deputy requests replies, he cannot complain if he gets them. I would suggest that for the remainder of the debate there should be neither question nor reply. The Minister can deal with the points raised when concluding.

I am not claiming your protection, Sir, because the interruptions have not been serious up to the present. I have been informed that complaints of the kind referred to have been received by the Minister and are included in the 1,011 cases which have been dealt with by his Department between the 1st September, 1939, and the 30th April this year. Only in four cases have the profiteers been brought to court and a miserable sum of £3 7s. 6d. was collected from them as fines. If that is the way the Minister proposes to deal with profiteers and racketeers, profiteering and racketeering is going to increase rather than decrease for the remainder of the emergency.

The Minister suggests that he has done as much to face up to the situation as they have done in Britain. What is the position in Great Britain. I have before me a report issued by the British Ministry of Food which states that profiteers have been brought before the courts in Great Britain at the rate of 2,000 a month, that that is likely to increase to 3,000 before very long and that offenders will not escape lightly. All the Minister for Supplies says on the same question is that, so far as his Department is concerned, the action taken with regard to profiteers discovered by his Department will not be lost sight of. The action taken was to order a refund of the amount overcharged and to warn them that their action in overcharging will not be lost sight of. I have here also a report issued by the British Ministry of Food which states:

"The Lord Chancellor has warned magistrates that they must regard food offences seriously and inflict penalties stiff enough to prevent profiteers offending a second time."

The Minister has the audacity to get up here and say that he has taken the same steps, with better results, as are being taken in Great Britain to deal with the profiteering supposed to be going on there.

The Deputy only regards it as a good result when 2,000 people break the law.

The 2,000 people who were found to have broken the law— and if the law here is wrong, it should be amended—are being dealt with in the proper way. That is the only way in which to give confidence to the people in the Department of Supplies in relation to dealing with profiteers. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister in this connection: if the Estimate gives a correct picture of the staffing of his Department, it appears very clearly that the Minister has not at his disposal at the present moment the necessary staff to deal effectively with profiteering, or with the supervision of the rationing schemes so far as these have been adopted by the Department. Is it a fact that the Minister has only four inspectors for dealing with cases of this kind? Could that possibly be true, or has the inspectorate staff been increased since the Estimate was printed?

We use the staffs of other Departments.

Does the Minister, for instance, make the best use of the weights and measures inspectors, who work under the Department of Industry and Commerce, for the purpose of discovering profiteering, reporting profiteers and taking effective steps to deal with them?

The Deputy should not invite interruptions or replies which he might consider such.

If I appear to be doing so, I am very sorry. I suggest that the Minister should consider the advisability of calling in under the supervision of his Department, more appropriately than that of the Department of Industry and Commerce, the 70 or 80 weights and measures inspectors who know the traders in every area of this country, who should know whether profiteering is going on or not and who, working under the Department of Supplies, or even in co-operation with that Department, could render very effective national service in dealing with the criminal activities of the racketeers and profiteers.

I want to say quite frankly that the number of people engaged in profiteering is a very small section of the trading community. They have come into the business just as the new cattle dealers came into the live-stock trade during the economic war when licences were given to people who had never engaged in the live-stock trade before. The ordinary traders, the overwhelming majority of them, are carrying on their business in a fairly straightforward way, and, so far as I know, are not generally engaged in any profiteering activities. I am prepared to admit that to the Minister. It is up to the Minister and, indeed, to every Deputy who wants to back the Minister in matters of this kind, to see that the decent traders who do their business in a straightforward way and who are not engaged in profiteering, generally speaking, will not be done out of business by the illegal activities of a small percentage who have started in this racketeering business since the emergency arose.

The Minister mentioned that he found it very difficult to deal with the activities of people who were, as I think he admitted, charging excessive prices for vegetables. It is certainly a fact that very high prices, excessive prices, are being charged for vegetables in the cities and towns, and that the producer is not getting his fair share of the selling price of these vegetables. I have come across glaring cases of profiteering in the clothing trade, and a complaint was made to me by a manufacturer some time ago, who alleged—and I discovered that his allegation was quite well-founded—that certain cloth sold by a manufacturing concern in my constituency at 9/6 per yard was retailed over the counter of a big business firm in this city at 18/6 per yard. The Minister knows more about this business than I, or perhaps any other Deputy. What would the Minister consider a fair gross profit for a drapery firm to receive? The manufacturing concern, which has to find the capital to build the factory, to pay wages and other overhead charges, gets 9/6 for a certain type of cloth sold to a certain trading firm in the city.

What class of cloth was that?

Ladies' wearing apparel.

A luxury article.

Yes, I admit it is. I was informed by the representative of this manufacturing concern that they had been brought before the Prices Commission and questioned as to how they made up their costings and what profits they were likely to make during the current year. This individual told me after his interview with the Prices Commission—he was not making any complaint that they had been unfairly dealt with there—that he thought it very unfair that they should be dragged before a court and made to give all the details of how that figure of 9/6 was made up, while the firm who retailed their goods at practically double that price did not hear anything from the Prices Commission, or from the Department of Supplies which, I understand, acts as a prices commission in matters of this kind. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to the suggestion that the weights and measures inspectors will be brought in to assist his Department in the discovery of profiteering activities throughout the country.

The Minister, in dealing with the tea supply position, the price of tea and other matters affecting the position in regard to the consumption of tea, admitted to me that it is possible to cancel a retailer's tea licence without bringing the individual to a court. Will the Minister state in his reply how many tea licences have been issued since the tea rationing scheme came into operation and how many, if any, have been cancelled?

None, so far as I know.

Am I to take it that the Minister is thoroughly satisfied that every person in possession of a tea licence to-day is selling tea within the limits prescribed by the Department and that no cases of overcharging sufficient to warrant cancellation of a tea dealer's licence have been brought to his notice?

A very large number of prosecutions is pending.

Pending? Now, I am not anxious that the Minister should be marching up a whole lot of tea dealers, or any other sort of dealers in this country, to the courts, but I say that prosecutions and the imposition of some kind of deterrent punishment is the only way to stop profiteering by the small section of traders in this country who are carrying it on to-day. If the Minister has the power to cancel a tea dealer's licence without bringing him to court, I think he should exercise that power wherever he or his Department is satisfied that a case of overcharging has been proved. If it is not necessary to bring a dealer to court in order to cancel his licence, then I do not see why his licence should not be cancelled right away, once evidence is available that profiteering has taken place, and I think the Minister has had such cases brought to his notice.

I ask the Minister, when he is replying, to state whether there is any grave reason why he should not give information as to the quantity of tea in the country. Of course, if he says it is not in the public interest to give that information, I shall have to accept it, but I do not think any damage would be done to the public interest if he were to tell the House and the country what is the quantity of tea in the country at the present time. I am of the opinion that there is a reasonable supply of tea in the country at the present time and that a lot of people, who had plenty of money in their possession with which to buy tea when the Minister advised them to buy it, have large quantities of tea in their possession at the present time, whereas the poor people—and they are the big section of the community—who had not the money to buy large quantities at a particular period, are without tea to-day and cannot get anything in excess of the miserable ration now provided by the Minister. Has the Minister any information in his Department to prove that private citizens of this State have chests of tea stored in their private houses, or that traders in the city and country have quantities of tea stored in excess of what the Minister or his Department would regard as a reasonable supply?

Could the Deputy say what percentage of the traders would tell the truth if they were asked to give that information?

I am prepared to give the Minister and his Department all the help I can. The Minister should have at his disposal an inspectorate staff that would be able to go into a trader's house and examine his books and, if necessary, see what he has stored in any portion of his premises. I believe the Minister has that power under the Emergency Powers Order and, if he has not the power, he can issue a regulation, if he thinks it well to do so, taking such power. I am satisfied personally, that there is a number of traders in parts of the country who, I know, have a very reasonable supply of tea, whereas the ordinary members of the community in the same towns are confined to the miserable ration that is now provided by the Minister under this rationing scheme. The records are there to prove, the harbour board returns are there to prove, and the Minister's figures, as supplied to Opposition Deputies, are there to prove conclusively that the ordinary quantities of tea came into this country during the past three or four years. Therefore, we must have here at the present time a supply of tea, in excess of the rationing allowance, that would carry us over a long period. If that is so, it should be taken from the people who have too much and given to those who have too little. The Minister should make a survey of the position from that point of view, and take powers to go into the stores of large and small traders and private citizens in order to see if they have tea.

Why does the Deputy deduce that from the fact that our imports were normal? Was not our consumption normal also?

The consumption this year was not as great as it was last year.

Neither was importation.

What percentage of last year's surplus supply are we consuming?

There was not a surplus.

There was a surplus brought in during 1936-37, according to the figures the Minister gave Deputy Mulcahy in the House here.

I am sure the Minister is well informed officially and privately—and it is public knowledge in any case— that many people have tea in excess of what they would normally be entitled to have in their possession. If he knows that, he should take the necessary action, and if he has not the power to find it out, then he should take power and deal with that situation and, by doing so, increase the miserable ration provided in the present circumstances.

I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I should like to deal with another matter in connection with the fuel position. The Minister indicated, in a speech he delivered in some hotel—I think it was the Central Hotel—a few weeks ago—and he is in the habit of delivering fortnightly speeches in different hotels——

Temperance hotels.

The Central Hotel is not a temperance hotel.

I thought it was.

Did you? The Minister must have gone in by the wrong door. In his speech on that occasion, the Minister referred to the fact that the transport companies were likely to be very seriously affected by the shortage of fuel oil. If the Minister wants to reduce the amount of fuel oil consumed by the Dublin United Transport Company at the present time, for instance, he could do nothing better or more correct than to cut the bus service off the Dalkey line, where the tram and railway services are quite sufficient to deal with the traffic situation there, and restore some of the services that have been cut off by the Dublin United Transport Company in other parts of the city and suburbs where there is no alternative transport system available. I submit that as a suggestion that may be worthy of consideration if the fuel oil supply to be made available to the Dublin United Transport Company is likely to run short in the near future. Personally, I think it is a bit of a joke—it has been a joke to me for many years—to see large numbers of buses running on the permanent way of the Dublin United Transport Company alongside their own trams—their own trams and the railway, that runs parallel with the bus and tram route, being quite sufficient to deal with the traffic requirements of the area concerned. I do not see why these lords of the transport industry in this country cannot see cases of that kind sticking out, unless they have gone blind to transport requirements, especially if there is a fuel oil shortage. I heard Deputy Corry cite a similar case here some time ago in connection with the bus services running parallel with the railway services running from Cobh to Cork in his own constituency.

I cured that.

Did you?

Yes, but I hope that when Dalkey is cured we will not have the railway companies raising the passenger rate.

No. The Minister has power to prevent that kind of activity, if he wishes to do so.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, is it not?

Yes, Sir, that is right. I have been anxious to get from the Minister what is the Ministerial definition of profiteering, and the Minister has failed to give it to the House. Speaking here on the general Budget Resolution, the Minister got up and told the House, and the country, through the paper that published a portion of his speech, that the people from whom excess profits were going to be collected, arising out of the excess profits section of the Budget Resolution were not, in his opinion, guilty of profiteering. There is a fine line between people who make excess profits and the profiteer, in my opinion, and that is why I am sure it would be very interesting to the civil servants in the Department of Supplies, who are responsible for looking after profiteering activities if they were to have a Ministerial definition of profiteering.

Perhaps the Minister will give us that definition when he is replying to this discussion.

Mr. Byrne

I avail of the opportunity of speaking on this Vote to draw attention to the tea allowances in the City of Dublin and all over the country. Tea has always been regarded as an essential by the people of Dublin city, and everywhere I go I hear complaints about the inadequate amount allowed. I appeal to the Minister to increase the tea allowance without delay. The very inadequate allowance now being given to city people has caused tremendous hardships, particularly among the poorer classes. I suppose there are more complaints from the City of Dublin in regard to the tea ration than from any other portion of the country. Anyone who knows Dublin well will recognise that in days gone by, when the poorer classes could not get a decent meal or a sufficient supply of ordinary foodstuffs, they had to be satisfied with a cup of tea and a piece of bread and butter, if it were possible to get the butter—in most cases it was bread and margarine.

It has been stated that there is a fair quantity of tea in the country, but where it is nobody seems to know. Deputy Davin suggested that the Minister has adequate power to make minute inquiries and to see that whatever tea is available is distributed fairly amongst the people. The poor people, for whom I speak, should get a fair share at a reasonable price, a price they can afford. It must be galling to many of those people to hear of tea being sold at such high prices as 4/-, 5/- and 6/- a lb. I think the Minister would be well advised to establish a national tea at a definite price, a tea that will give satisfaction to all parties. Let us not have a privileged class getting tea at high prices while the poorer classes can get none other than a miserable allowance of half an ounce per head.

The difficulties of the poorer people have been increased of late through their not being able to get coal. I think it is the duty of the Minister to see that a fair supply of coal at a proper price is made available for those people. And it should be coal, not dirt or slack, or a mixture of both. A reasonable profit can be allowed those who sell it. I must draw attention to the Minister's failure to supply alternatives to tea. Coffee and cocoa are almost unpurchasable at the moment. The poor people also have much difficulty in getting supplies of paraffin oil. Those who are not registered in some of the big stores find it quite impossible to get even the smallest quantity of paraffin oil. Paraffin oil, tea and cocoa have always been regarded as most essential commodities, the commodities that cannot be done without, especially in the tenement quarters of Dublin City. I understand there is a scarcity of oils of all kinds.

The Minister's speech to-day did not hold out very much hope for the people. The picture he painted was indeed a gloomy one and the outlook for the future is anything but rosy. He indicated that a scarcity of materials would bring about further unemployment, and that is a sad thing to hear. I am aware that there is a scarcity of building materials. There is a scarcity of timber and there should not be. There is also a scarcity of glass. I had a rather unfortunate experience within the last week or two. The Dublin Corporation are making every effort to house the people who lost their homes recently, and I was amazed to find houses almost ready for occupation, but we could not get a pane of glass for the windows. Glass, apparently, is unpurchasable in Dublin City. With soaring prices and the possibility of further unemployment, the prospect for the future is indeed gloomy.

I earnestly hope the Minister will get all the support he requires from the House in his efforts to regulate a method of living for our people that will give the underpaid an opportunity of getting the necessaries of life. It should not be merely a matter of who can pay the best price for the foodstuffs at our disposal. If you go through any street in Dublin to-day and observe the prices of vegetables, you will be simply horrified to see what the poor people are asked to pay. A few miles from the city you can see hundreds of acres of land available for growing vegetables, yet in the city shops cauliflowers are selling at 8d. and 10d. a head. God alone knows where the difference between the producer's price and the retail price goes. I made inquiries and I satisfied myself that by the time vegetables reach the retailers in the small shops they have little or no profit. I hold that there are too many middlemen, too many people handling the food of our citizens, and each one wants a profit. That is one of our chief troubles to-day.

Are the Government going to make any attempt to grow tobacco once more in this country? In English cities there are queues a hundred yards long outside tobacco stores waiting for supplies of cigarettes. I have every reason to think that tobacco can be grown successfully in this country. Some time ago I saw samples of Irish-grown tobacco and I think the Minister should make arrangements to give it another trial, so as to avoid a scarcity of tobacco in the days to come.

People are critical at the present time and they want to know what we are doing with reference to supplying the community with fish. All round our shores there are good fishing grounds, and people are anxious to know are we going to do anything to provide them with fish. It is true that, as a result of trouble caused in the fish trade a year ago, prices got so high— and I believe that it was all due to a monopoly—that people lost altogether their fish-eating habits. Some effort should be made to create a public liking for fish. There are adequate supplies all round us, and I think the Government should stimulate the industry, even if it does cost the State something extra.

My special reason for intervening was to refer to tea, coal and the scarcity of materials in the building trade. The municipality is practically the only body giving employment in the building trade. As the wages paid are reasonably good every effort should be made to have materials forthcoming in order to facilitate contractors in giving employment. I believe every Deputy is anxious to help the Minister.

I saw some ships lying at the North Wall recently, and I wondered when they were going to be put into order and used for the bringing in of materials. I heard complaints from sailors and firemen at the North Wall and the South Wall about the need for employment. They were anxious to take the risks involved. They said it is better to take risks than to starve at home. I promised that I would bring the matter to the attention of the Government and to see if it was possible to acquire ships that have been lying idle at the port for many years. I appeal to the Minister not to lose sight of the importance of the tea and coal supplies. It is a pity the Government did not listen to views that were so freely expressed by the Opposition and by their own supporters when the people were asked to grow more food. We all saw that the land to a certain extent was being neglected, but hope it is not too late yet to remedy matters, and that the picture painted by the Minister will not turn out to be as black as is expected.

We listened this evening to the drabbest picture that was probably ever painted for us since the war commenced by the Minister for Supplies, from whom, up to the present, we have had many drab pictures. He recited a long litany of shortages of various commodities, and had not one indication to offer as to how we could hope to make good the serious shortage of supplies with which we are now faced. It is quite clear to everyone that we are going to pay for the very short-sighted policy embarked upon by the Department of Supplies when it was set up in 1938. We were told then, and the Official Reports of the House can confirm the statement I am making, that when the Department was set up it had been planned to guard against the possibility of shortage, and that it was going to develop not merely our own resources but take every possible step to ensure that the supplies we urgently needed, and without which our economic life would be considerably stunted, would be made available so far as the vision of that Department was concerned. In 1938 we could buy ships in any part of the world. Small nations with huge mercantile marines would be willing to sell ships at a fraction of the price that we would be asked to pay for them now.

At that time the Department of Supplies could not be got to think of anything but normal peace-time methods, and apparently imagined that the war was going to rage in such a leisurely manner as not to inconvenience that Department, and that all the Department had to do was to say: "Look here, lads, you cannot fight a war in that way. You must fight it in a way that will not disturb our serenity." We now see the short-sightedness of that policy in bold relief. We could have bought ships, as well as abundance of raw materials then, if the Department had any pre-conceived ideas as to the possibility of the war lasting any substantial period. Now what do we find? Much of the supplies we require were purchasable up to the time that France collapsed. We have been hanging on since then with the supplies we accumulated. We know that in the past 12 months there has been a considerable shortage of many commodities, and that the supplies which we had gathered together were not sufficient to last us for 12 months. It seems to me that in their approach to the whole problem neither the Government nor the Department of Supplies have anything to congratulate themselves on. There was no reason why we could not have bought ships because they were on offer and were available. There was no reason why we should not have bought commodities, because they were available. There was no reason why we could not utilise our foreign investments, which are now our frozen assets, for the purpose of financing the purchase of materials abroad. It might have been some consolation to some people to remember that we had frozen assets and foreign investments. Perhaps that would draw commendation from those who believe in orthodox financial methods. But these frozen assets are now practically of no use to us, for the reason that we cannot now repatriate them for the purpose of buying goods elsewhere, and because the British people, who have our frozen assets, are apparently not prepared to give us goods against these frozen assets.

The one thing clear about the present situation is that not only is Britain not allowing us to repatriate our assets, but is taking steps in our own interests to increase our assets in Britain. If we export £3,000,000 worth of goods in a month and get back £2,000,000, that means that our people have given £3,000,000 for £2,000,000, and we are £1,000,000 the worse. We get credit for the £1,000,000 in London, but that credit may not be worth the paper upon which it is written when the ink is dry. That is what we are doing by permitting an exchange of goods from London on a basis that is entirely unfavourable to us, while we are exporting commodities that we may be glad to have later, just as we would be glad last year to have our butter back if we could only get it, after feeding it to the British at the lowest possible price they would pay. I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that they should look into that aspect of the economic picture as soon as possible, and realise that the present basis of exporting to Britain goods substantially in excess of what we get from them has the effect of clearing our granaries and getting back goods of substantially lesser value. Whether we take coal, wheat, petrol, tea or cocoa, we are absolutely helpless to do anything.

Every one of these difficulties is easy to remedy if the British people would release to us goods of which they have an abundance. Everybody knows that the British are not short of tea; that they have never been short of tea. They may have lost some large warehouses in Britain, but they were never short of tea, never short of cocoa, and they are not seriously short of petrol. One could not imagine Britain, which supplies the bulk of the world with coal, suffering from any coal shortage. Those who have spoken to people who were in England were told that there is no difficulty about getting coal there. A small country like this, with a population of 3,000,000. would not take a substantial quantity of British exports of that commodity. Why cannot we get these things from the British? Why does not some member of the Government, or half the members of the Government, go to London to talk to the British and tell them that we send them beef, live stock, agricultural produce, that in other circumstances would have to be brought from the ends of the earth? Why is it not put up to the British that we are not prepared to continue exporting goods substantially in excess of the goods that the British send here?

It did not debase our national integrity to get a Minister to fly from here to America and to trek over that vast Continent with its 350,000,000 people to tell them of our necessity for certain kinds of raw materials. What is the difficulty of a one-hour trip by 'plane to London to tell the British that we cannot continue to give them goods if they are not prepared to treat us on an equitable basis by giving us the commodities we require? Britain took good care that we could not trade with America even if we had the ships. Britain managed to secure practically the entire control of the dollar exchange, so that even if we could buy goods in America they could not be paid for when Britain got control of the dollar exchange for the purchase of munitions. The Minister's picture of the whole question was a most disturbing one. One has only to reflect for a few moments to visualise what might happen if the Minister's picture came to anything like realisation. A serious shortage of coal is going to throw large numbers of people out of employment in the gas-production industry. That, in turn, will affect a large number of other industries which depend on gas for the production of their commodities. This coal shortage will throw large numbers of transport workers out of employment, and generally there will be a very serious dislocation in the entire industrial position if the picture painted by the Minister for Supplies this evening comes anything near realisation. Why, at this stage when there is yet time, and before a crisis develops, will not some member of the Government go to the British people and tell them that we are getting a raw deal from them in the case of certain commodities, commodities in respect of which we had every right to expect a fair deal from them, having regard to our exports to Britain? Why not do that instead of carrying on telephonic communication with London? Why not go across and try to extract from them some fair return for the exports which we are sending to them? The fact of the matter is that even if we could get an abundance of British coal, the stuff that has been coming in here has, to a substantial extent, been pure rubbish. The quality of it ought to have excited the indignation of the Minister for Supplies sufficiently to induce him to go over and discuss that question with the British. But no effort whatever has been made to do that. No effort has been made to make personal contact with the people on the other side. Instead, we send a Minister to the far ends of the earth to look for supplies. While we do that, we will not go across to the people from whom we are entitled to expect supplies. Apparently, it is considered to be a kind of national decadence to talk to the British about giving us a fair supply of coal and of other commodities, but, apparently, it is considered to be national righteousness to give Britain much more exports than she gives us imports.

The Minister spoke about the wheat position. According to his statement, we will have enough flour to last until the harvest is gathered. As regards what the position will be at the commencement of the next cereal year, the Minister could not express any opinion on it. I think that anybody who goes through the country will have no hesitation in realising that the acreage under wheat will not be anything like sufficient to meet our requirements, even on the basis of a whole wheaten loaf. It does not look probable now that we will be able to get in any cargoes of wheat. If we could, we might be able to produce a whole wheaten loaf next year, but in the absence of wheat cargoes, I am afraid there will have to be a very substantial admixture of both barley and oats in our bread. Britain is not suffering from any shortage of wheat. She seems to have an abundance of it under her control. Here, again, what is our difficulty in going to the British and saying that we are giving to her certain commodities, and that in return for them she must give us the wheat that we want? There is no reason in the world why we should not have sown a sufficient quantity of wheat to ensure a whole wheaten loaf next year, except the fact that we allowed valuable months and the good weather to pass by before we started sowing the crop. We had run into the worst possible weather for sowing when the Government got into a panic about the position. It was only then that the Minister for Agriculture, with the officials of his Department, was rushed through the country, with instructions to the county committees of agriculture to try to get them to do what they could to have a greater acreage of wheat sown. We did not get a greater area of wheat planted, and we probably will not get it planted next year unless the Department plans its campaign with more vision and acts with greater energy than it did during the past sowing season. I suggest to the Government that it is not now, but in 1938, they ought to have been thinking of our war-time harvest. They did not begin to think about what they should do until the war had been on for a year and a half. At any rate, they ought to begin planning now for next year's harvest. If they begin to act energetically now, our wheat problem for next year may be at an end. Meantime, they should do everything possible to get a fair supply of wheat from Britain in return for the commodities that we are supplying to her.

Deputy Byrne made a reference to the tea position. On this, I think there is room for some revision of the existing ration. It is not fair that the poor person in Townsend Street should be on the same ration as the persons in Merrion Square. One may be quite certain that the latter have already made substantial provision for themselves as regards their tea requirements. In addition, they can afford to buy a wide variety of foodstuffs. Tea is not an important article of diet with them. It is something they drink for the purpose of having a conversation over. The position is quite different in the poorer quarters of the city and in the rural areas—the occupiers of labourers' cottages and others. Tea to them is meat. In many cases they cannot get meat. In these circumstances, I suggest they are entitled to a ration of tea in excess of that which is provided for well-to-do people. In fact, an appeal might well be made to well-to-do people, who have stored substantial quantities of tea, not to insist on getting their ration. They should be prepared to make their ration available for poor people to whom, in existing circumstances, it is an essential article of diet.

The Minister's reference to timber was again disturbing. Of course, the whole speech, from beginning to end, was disturbing. The Minister will not deny that, when his Department was set up in 1938, we could have bought all the timber we wanted from the Baltic countries and from Canada, and stored it either on credits provided by ourselves or by the banks, or by the repatriation of our external assets so much of which are now frozen in London. We could have bought that timber and stacked it in different parts of the country. If we had done so, it would be of much more value to us now than our pound notes, or other securities that we have lying in the Bank of England. We did not do that. For more than 12 months there was no real intensification of the war, and during that period we could have got supplies in. The Minister said that the building trade may have to close down. He cannot picture the continuance of the building trade now on any large scale because of the shortage of timber, and, to a certain extent, of other commodities. But, if we were wise, the Department would have seen to it that the country was well stocked with timber. It could have been bought for two years before the war was intensified.

The Minister must know what the closing down of the building trade is going to mean. It will mean disemployment for large numbers of well-paid workers, for male workers who, in most cases, are the heads of families, and for those families it will mean a sentence of economic death because they cannot be expected to sustain themselves on the inadequate benefits provided under our Insurance Acts. If it does not mean that, then it will mean that those men will have to go to the passport office to get a permit to go to England, so that this country will suffer the loss of their skill and ability together with all the risks and undesirable complications that enter into the export of workers to Britain at the present time. I suppose it is too late to imagine that, at this stage, anything can be done in that connection. It might have been done in 1938, 1939 or in the opening months of 1940, but in 1941, with the area of belligerency substantially extended, it will obviously be impossible for us now to get timber for the continuance of our building activities. The greater the difficulty we experienced in that connection the greater the obligation on the Department of Supplies to have seen to our requirements, because they were easily ascertainable and they ought to have made provision for the importation of the raw materials necessary for the carrying on of so essential a national activity as house-building.

The Minister said he did not pretend to be travelling over the full range of raw materials which were short in supply. That is true. Anybody connected with industry, or in association with industrialists or industrial workers, knows that already a very serious shortage is being experienced in many industries. As the months go by, that shortage will so intensify itself that a substantial number of persons will be added to the roll of unemployed and the roll-call of unemployed is long enough already. The unemployment position is already bad. One shudders to think what it will be like when the harvest is in, turf-cutting operations are finished and when the supply of raw materials will have become so unsatisfactory that a large number of industrial workers, previously in regular employment, will be thrown on the market. That situation, bad in any circumstance, will be made worse by the substantial rise in prices which has taken place and continues to take place with the utmost impunity.

The Government might, if they were wise and were not so self-centred, have sought national co-operation in 1938 for a national plan against shortage of raw materials. They could have devised a common national policy for the importation of such supplies as we needed and they could have thought out the best method of importing these commodities and paying for them. The Government did not do that. The Department of Supplies had its head in the sands. It believed that it could deal with the situation without assistance from anybody. Now that the war has taken a serious turn, we find ourselves presented with that drab picture of shortages which the Minister painted for us on a pretty wide canvas. In 1938 we might have evolved a national policy for the importation of raw materials. We did not do it then and we are paying now for our folly. Discussion on this Estimate is really the holding of an inquest on the futilities of the Department of Supplies and the policy pursued by that Department during the past few years. I do not know whether or not it is possible to correct now, to any substantial extent, the mistakes made, but I suggest that some Minister—preferably, the Minister for Supplies—ought to go to the British and say: "We are giving you goods which you cannot get in the same quantity or quality elsewhere; we are giving you more than you are giving us; that is bad economics, from our point of view, because what you give us is not sufficient to replace in our granary what we give you." There is a strong and logical case for urging the British in these terms to make available to us supplies which they have and which they will not give us. If there was nothing wrong in sending a Minister to America —3,500 miles away—I cannot see any national objection to sending another Minister to London, 300 miles away.

I know of no Department whose success or failure more closely affects the lives of persons living in every home here than the Department of Supplies. I know of no Department on which the people have to lean more in connection with the affairs of their ordinary life than the Department of Supplies. That being so, I know of no Department where it is more important there should be as full an understanding as possible with the public, the public making allowance for the difficulties of a Department of Supplies continuing, as it were, to cater for the needs of the people from the centre of a tiny island during a world war, mainly fought at sea. I know of no Department where there is more necessity for the political head—the spokesman of that Department—to be exceptionally patient, exceptionally tolerant and exceptionally painstaking in explaining in a reasonable way to the public the difficulties with regard to supplies. In hardship, privation and suffering, the ordinary, plain people here were never found backward in meeting difficulties. They were never a people given to grousing and irritation when asked to make sacrifices in view of a national difficulty, because they understood the difficulty and the reason for the sacrifice. At the present moment—Deputies in all corners of this House know I speak truly—you have only to mention the name of the Minister for Supplies or refer to the Department of Supplies to have an expression of anger that the people do not even attempt to suppress. The reason of that is the attitude of the Minister—his reaction to criticism, his objection to questions, his studied and deliberate plan of withholding, as far as possible, from both Parliament and people details of information harmless to the State but useful to the people, particularly as regards their reassurance.

So far as I can interpret the functions of that Department, they were (1) to deal with supplies, which means as far as possible to procure all supplies necessary to carry on the normal life of the country and to accumulate stores, so far as possible, as against the rainier day; (2) the conservation of supplies already in the country or produced by the country; (3) their equitable distribution; and (4) control of prices. So far as I have ever heard any answer given by the Minister, I do not believe I would be exaggerating in saying that, in the opinion of the vast majority of the people, judged in any one of these four fields of activity, he has completely failed.

No sensible person could blame the Minister for not getting supplies of certain commodities at the present moment in view of the world situation and the shipping position, and no criticism would be raised or no complaint would be made by the people in going without those supplies if they were satisfied that every reasonable effort had been made by the Minister to procure and store supplies before the real crisis arose. Every one of us remembers speeches made by the Minister away back in 1938 when it was clear to everybody that war was inevitable, when everybody with any commonsense at all knew that that war would be to a very great extent fought on the sea, and that our sea-borne supplies would be drastically curtailed, if not completely cut off. We remember statements made by the Minister at that time, sensible statements, statements by a man who apparently at that time, at all events, was keen on doing his job, statements which displayed energy and a bit of vision, statements to the effect that a special Supplies Department had been set up within his Department, and that the function of that sub-Department would be to examine everything in relation to supplies, to get stores into the country against the rainy day so that, when the clash of war came, we would have, within this country, as far as human beings and energy could ensure them, ample stores of sea-borne goods in order to meet the days of privation when our supplies would be restricted or curtailed. We have available to the whole of us—it is not a question around which there need be any argument—the official returns of imports of every class of commodity away back to the time when the State was established up to last year. Whether it be tea, coal, timber, wheat, flour or petrol, I cannot name one single commodity in regard to which there is any evidence of any effort to procure an extra ounce or an extra gallon over the years before the war when it was known that war was inevitable—not an extra ounce or gallon except the official figures lie.

Except the official figures are not understood or are not read properly.

What does the Minister say?

Deputies opposite frequently try to estimate the efforts made before the war by comparing the figures for 1939 with 1938, a most unfair comparison. The special Supplies Branch was set up in September, 1938, and the war started in 1939. If the figures for these 12 months are compared with any previous 12 months you will find out the result of their work.

If the Minister is going to make speeches at intervals during other Deputies' speeches we shall find it difficult to carry on. The Minister is the one person in this House on this debate who has a legitimate opportunity to make two speeches. The rest of us can only make one. What I am pointing out is that whether in his capacity as head of a Government Department, with a sub-Department named Supplies, or in his capacity as a Minister of the Executive Council of this State with the responsibility for directing and controlling supplies, the Minister neglected to take the obvious precautions. Every two-legged man in this country, and in every other European country from, certainly, at the furthest back, 1936, knew that a world war was going to flare up in a few years. Sensible Ministers and sensible Governments in every European country with the exception of this country, built up credits, stores and reserves during these years, without waiting until 1938, to meet the day of scarcity and the day of strain. Yet, we were an island country, without a navy, without a mercantile marine worth mentioning, relying for our supplies mainly on a country that naturally would be the most seriously engaged in that conflagration when it arose. In view of that long, tragic, discreditable record of thoughtlessness with regard to the people, the head of that Department is the one Minister who does the hedgehog if the mildest criticism is advanced, and gives the least consideration to the people in so far as he makes the least effort to explain to them why it is that this or that commodity has run out.

Let us just leave on one side the fact that there is no evidence, by results, that there was any attempt to accumulate as much as an extra ounce of anything prior to the outbreak of hostilities. How do we handle what we have and what we got since the outbreak of hostilities? In the very early months of the war, if not in the very first month of the war, Deputies from the Opposition Party, Independent Deputies, and many Deputies from different parts of this House, foreseeing that the time would come when supplies would be very difficult to get, and would be very drastically restricted, asked the head of the Department of Supplies not to wait until the larder was empty, but to exercise his powers so as to control what was there, and spread it over the greatest length of time. The only article over which the Minister exercised control, so far as attempting to ration it was concerned, was petrol, and in fact, it was the article in regard to which we had the most appalling collapse and in regard to which we had the most ample evidence of failure of control. We had petrol rationed from the first month of the war. We had the ration designed in such a way that the coupon for every gallon of petrol was over-stamped in a conspicuous manner so as to give it an enhanced value of 50 per cent. at times when the flow of petrol into the country was adequate and the stores in the country ample, but the mere withdrawal of the over-stamping value of the coupon would be the first obvious attempt to curtail the expenditure of petrol.

We went on with the over-stamping carrying the full excess value until suddenly a day came and the head of the Department of Supplies announced: "The tanks are empty." Are we to be asked to vote £71,000 for a Department which is merely a recording machine to tell us when commodities have run out? Any petrol pump man in the country could tell us that. Any shopkeeper in the country at no expense to the taxpayer can tell us when commodities are run out, and can even tell us when commodities are getthing scarce, at no expense to the public. If the only function of this Department is to make speeches, sometimes buoyant, sometimes dismal, and to make announcements that such-and-such is gone and such-and-such is going, then there is no justification for asking for this big sum of money. The only justification for asking for money for such a Department is in order to give a commensurate return to the public, not merely to announce when things are gone, not merely to announce when things are going but sensibly to control whatever is there at the moment and to assist the public to procure what the public cannot get through their own efforts.

There are imports coming in. Great quantities of imports are coming into the country through the ordinary efforts of human beings on this side of the water and on the other. The Department of Supplies has little or nothing to do with that. The time when Government assistance is wanted is when the ordinary trade lines break down. With regard to a great number of commodities, the ordinary trade channels are breaking down one by one, and it may be that no effort by any of us or all of us put together will, at least so long as the war lasts, resurrect or revive the flow of goods which heretofore came into this country from Great Britain, but there is a responsibility on the Minister for Supplies in the mind of every intelligent person to demonstrate that before industry closed down, before people were cold in their homes and before people went hungry to their beds, he had done his utmost to face up to the immense responsibilities of his important office. Has any Deputy or any member of the public any reason to believe that the greatest effort and the full effort has been made by the Minister or the Government to make good the gaps in the people's larder, to make good the deficiencies which are affecting industry in such a way as to drive men out on the despairing road of the unemployed?

There were some materials we thought we might require. We were not getting them handy and we thought they could be got in America. What is the obvious thing to do? Is it to make use of the American Minister here? Is it to have a chat with the American Minister and say: "Will you put that up to your Government?" and be perfectly satisfied with any reply that came back in the course of time? No; although those supplies were not vital, that was not the way in which it should be done, in the opinion of the Government. If the material was worth getting, they considered that it was worth trying to get it in a thorough-going businesslike manner and they sent a Minister to America, believing that nothing succeeded like direct contact between one Government and another, and that sending subordinates or representatives, or working through the Minister in this country, was not the way to do business if we wanted to bring off a deal. The way was to send a Minister. America sent us normally about 5 per cent., if as much, of our supplies. America is five or six days away from this country and the prospects of the Minister ever getting back were rather doubtful, transport conditions being as they are, but nevertheless that was considered by the Government the real effort that should be made to get those supplies.

Of our ordinary day-to-day requirements of industry, of our existence, 95 or 90 per cent. comes from Great Britain. There is a certain interruption in the flow of supplies between Great Britain and this country, and the Minister asks the people to put up with a half ounce of tea per head per week. People who have paid through the trousers pocket in taxation and in purchasing and keeping motor cars which they are to go without are to be content to see them idle, and men who have made a good living by honest hard work and have reared healthy children for many years, are to go out of employment smiling, happy, contented and quite satisfied that the Minister is doing his job when he notifies them that supplies have run out. That country is one hour's travel from this country, but not one Minister from this Government, in spite of the distress of the people, the hardship, the cold, the lack of employment and the lack of the wherewithal to give them even a hope of employment, would spend one hour crossing over to make personal contact with the Minister in England to see if he could not do better than he could by using the telephone, the post or subordinates.

The Minister is not going to clear either himself or his Government of the charge of not facing up to their responsibilities in respect of the supplies of this country so long as he prefers to play cheap, old-time, out-of-date politics and that is what is being played in respect of the relations between us and Great Britain. You jeered at your predecessors noisily and ignorantly on many occasions because, when there was a job of work to be done, either here or in London, they did it even if it was in London, in spite of the jeers and you are not now big enough to forget those jeers and to say: "Look here, the people are going without and I am going to do my utmost to see that they do not go without. There is a good case for getting supplies and the better the case is, the more urgent it is that I go over and put that case up to the British Minister."

When that is done, if it is done, and failure follows such an attempt, we can concede that an effort has been made to deal with the shortage of supplies in this country, but we cannot concede it until that is done, not once, not in a happy-go-lucky spirit, but done every time difficulties occur, and done in a determined manner.

People of this country are going without too many things just now to have either patience or toleration with old-time, cheap, hollow politics. It is business they want now. It is results they want now, and if we are to get results, if we are to get supplies, it can only be by Minister on this side dealing directly with Ministers on the other side, with no quibbling as to who is to do the travelling. We are at peace, they are at war. Look at Europe, at Europe that has been at war for 18 months. Every Government in Europe have their civil servants and they have their Ministers in friendly and neutral countries. Trading agreements have to be made. Supplies are running out here of one commodity and there of another commodity. It can be got over there if it is not here, and the Government, statesmen, and the Ministers in the various belligerent countries are probably working overtime, getting little leisure and little rest, because they are engaged in directing the greatest war in history. Nevertheless, when it comes to a question of supplies, any of us who follows up the newspapers will see that a Minister from one country travels into the next. The needs of his people are foremost and anything else does not matter. The last card is going to be played and the last effort made to supply his people. They cross the frontier, with all the risks of war, difficulties of transport, and loss of time. That is all reckoned as not worth considering: the one thing to be considered is the people. Here, the last thing to be considered is the people. The political complexions of Ministers, the old-time foolish speeches of Ministers, the old-time foolish jeers of their followers—all those are of the greatest importance, but the ways and means of trade, the ways and means that make the difference between abject misery and comparative comfort, all those can go because it is politically awkward. We are told, when it comes to getting supplies from England: "Oh, sure, the way to do that is through the British Minister in Dublin," but when it is a case of getting supplies from America, then the only way to do it is to send a Minister.

Now, there are no two heads nowadays on the coin that is tossed by Government Ministers. There are two sides to the coin, and the argument that is applied one way to-day must be applied the same way to-morrow. The very case that is made for sending the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures to America, thousands of miles away, is the unanswerable case that can be made for going to the island where we have every claim, where we have been buying big and selling big, and when that effort is made, then we will listen to a Minister for Supplies who says that owing to the war these supplies are either completely cut off or curtailed. At the moment, the judgment of the people is that that is owing to the Minister, and that judgment is a correct judgment and a fair judgment until the Minister is in a position to say that he has done his utmost.

Now, with regard to supplies, such as they are, anything but consideration has been given to the people. As regards tea, I join with other Deputies in saying this to the Minister: that if the supplies of tea which came into this country, or are in this country, had been adequately or competently handled: if there was any necessity for a reduced ration at all it would certainly be substantially greater than the present ration. As far as I know, with regard to the imports of tea into this country, going back over a period of seven or eight years, the normal quantity of tea imported and, presumably, consumed in this country was 21,000,000 lbs. per annum. I think that is about a fair average. It may be a few hundred pounds weight over that but I take it that the normal imports and the normal consumption are in the neighbourhood of 21,000,000 lbs. per annum.

It never was as low as that in any single year.

Wait now. I shall meet the Minister there. I think 22,000,000 lbs. would be about the right average. Would the Minister accept that?

Fair enough.

Here are the figures: 22,700,000 lbs. in 1935; 21,800,000 lbs. in 1936. Then there was a big jump in 1937, to 25,250,000 lbs. In 1938, the figure was 22,500,000 lbs., in 1939, it was 21,875,000 lbs., and in 1940 it was something over that. In other words, for the years 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939, we got our normal annual requirements in the way of tea, with the 3,000,000 lbs. extra lump in 1935.

That was due to tea being exported and re-imported.

In 1940, we got more than we ever got in our lifetime, except in that one year of 1935. So the position, up to the 31st December, 1940, is that we got as much tea in every one of those years as ever we got, and we got 2,000,000 lbs. more in the year 1940 —that is, last year. So that, except the people in this country drew their ears back and, because there was a war on, deliberately consumed more tea last year than ever they consumed before in their lives, we finished up the year with an ample reserve, and our imports for this year appear to be up to the normal.

Does the Deputy call one month's supply an ample reserve?

Occasionally, I am inclined to believe the Minister's speeches, and I am suggesting this, that, except we drank twice as much as we normally did, for each of the war years, there must have been some substance in the speeches he made early in 1938, when he stated that he had accumulated vast stores, easily procured and storable.

Will the Deputy quote those speeches? I never made them. The Deputy must have dreamt about them.

I do not blame the Minister for forgetting his speeches so speedily. It might be just as well if the public did the same.

The Deputy has not indicated where I made them.

The Minister established a Department in September, 1938, to make provision for the years of scarcity, for the war years that were certainly coming. I do not think the Minister will suggest that there was any shipping difficulty, good, bad or indifferent, from September, 1938, to September, 1939. I do not think the Minister or anybody else can suggest any article of diet that is more easily transported or more easily stored than tea. Even the full supply of tea that was given to a man in peace time would be carried, I presume, in one of his coat pockets, allowing him two ounces a week or about 100 ounces a year. A man's tea for his lifetime could be stored under an ordinary chair. There was no article in the way of food on which the people relied which could be more easily purchased, more easily transported, and more easily stored than tea, and there were 12 months in which to do it. Am I now to assume that not an extra ounce was got during that 12 months?

I would not say that.

Or am I to assume that, even if a fair effort was not made, some effort was made with some results? If some effort was made with some results and, in the following year, we got more than ever we got before, is it not obvious there must be considerable reserves? The Minister can choose his own argument and have it one way or the other, but he cannot have it both ways.

The Deputy is trying to have it both ways.

We have certain supplies—I do not know what quantity— and certain reserves in proportion to the efforts made. The Minister says they were big. Then we have big reserves. If the position is as I believe it is, we have small reserves, but, whether big or small, we have reserves, and last year we got 2,000,000 lbs. more than ever we got before and so far this year we have got our normal supplies. Yet the people find themselves on a ration of half an ounce a week. I suggested here that there are big supplies in the country, and the Minister's answer was that he could not go around taking the stocks of traders. I remember the time one of his colleagues was preparing to put a tax on tea, when it was a case of getting the last penny out of the people. There was then a very fly and very speedy check on tea stocks, even in the smallest huckster's shop in the country. It was then a case of getting money and the work was very quickly done. Now, it is not a case of getting money; it is merely a case of feeding the people or making the people go without, and it is too much of an effort to take stock of what is in the country.

What is the result of the tea rationing? The Minister talks about facing up to facts. The result of the tea rationing is that the majority of people who could spare £1, £2 or £3 spent that much money purchasing tea and they stored it in their houses. There is nothing exceptional in that amount, I suppose. Very wealthy people, responding to the Minister's appeal of 12 months ago, bought huge quantities of tea and they stored it in their houses. People in the trade were not deaf to the Minister's speeches and they bought bigger quantities than any. Then the rationing came in and people were allowed half an ounce a week. The traders' time came.

The Minister knows as well as I do, if he is living with his feet on the earth, that there are traders here, there and everywhere who, when the half-ounce ration is supplied, will inquire if more is wanted and point out that more is available but that it is at a very stiff price because it came across the Border, and therefore it could only be sold at 6/-, 7/- or 8/- a pound. Fully 90 per cent. of that tea crossed the Border as often as I crossed the Equator. It was tea that was brought into this country previously, purchased and stored by merchants previously, and it is being sold now at a prohibitive price, and in order to justify that price it is stated that it was brought across the Border. If all the tea and all the white flour that is on sale now crossed the Border, all I can say is that every customs and Border revenue official went asleep 12 months ago and did not wake up since.

The Minister protested against references to a demand that he should stop profiteering on white flour. The Border is only a false alibi. All the white flour that is on sale in this country at an absolutely prohibitive price never crossed the Border. The bulk of it escaped detection by the Minister's Department, was left hidden for a while and is now back with the label of the Border on it in order to justify a most exorbitant and extortionate price. So far as flour coming across the Border is concerned, it is within the knowledge of all of us that fairly considerable quantities are coming across the Border and that fairly considerable quantities of other goods which, if we are not short of them now, we may be screaming for in another 12 months, are going back across the Border to pay for the flour. Is it no concern of the Minister, as he told us, what price is charged for that flour? Is that no concern of his? Is it no concern of the Minister if metal goods, or razor blades, of which we may have none in six months' time, are going out to pay for that flour? The Minister says that it is his concern and that he wants to stop it. The one sure way of stopping it is to stop both imports and exports. Flour will not be brought in except a tidy price is given for it. The Minister says that he will not control the price of that flour if it is imported.

It would be waste of time.

It would not be the first time the Minister wasted time, and it would be wasting a bit of time for once in a good cause. There is not a lorry engaged in that trade that will take a one-way contract. Every lorry engaged in the smuggling business will only do so provided there is a guarantee of a full load each way. If the flour that is being brought in does not pay 1,000 per cent., or an abnormal percentage of profit, or if the price is fixed so that there is no hope of smuggling flour in, then it will not be smuggled in. If the flour is not there to smuggle in at an extortionate price the sugar will not be going out. The effective way to stop sugar going out is by doing what the Minister is doing at the moment, and in addition to fix a reasonable price for the commodity being smuggled in.

Will the Deputy explain in what way we will be better off if the flour does not come in?

We would have more sugar here. Sugar is going out to buy that flour.

Sugar was going out long before we put the restrictions on flour—twice as much of it.

Twice as much? The Minister does not appear to know what is going on.

I know that much.

It is only going in exchange for flour.

Does the Deputy suggest that it is only going since we took restrictions off sugar?

No. In the past certainly we sent out sugar.

Illegally exported?

If it went short we were able to fill the gap. Now the Minister tells us he is rationing sugar, to an extent, in order to stop it from being smuggled out of the country. When I dealt with that I asked: "Did we not always do that?" The Minister is in a net. He cannot "stay put". He cannot have it both ways all the time. Let him stand on one foot or on the other in the course of one debate. In a rather jaunty way the Minister dealt with the control of prices. His defence of his administration as controller of prices was that the percentage increase in the price of certain commodities here was not greater than the percentage increase of similar commodities in Great Britain.

In some cases it is even much less.

That is the Minister's answer.

The defence and the justification for prices going up and up in this country is that they compare with the rising prices in a country that is fighting for its very existence, and for the existence of a great many other countries as well. If that is the Minister's only defence I wonder how he got it, because if there is anything that shows an evidence of lack of control, it is the question of prices. Not only is there a spiky variation in the price of certain commodities from day to day, but even within the knowledge of every Deputy there is a variation in the price of most commodities from parish to parish from day to day. Even in the City of Dublin important commodities that could be considered essential can be bought by two householders on the same day with nearly 100 per cent. variation in the price. The Minister places the responsibility either on the trader or the consumer, to see that he gets an article at the proper price, provided the Minister does his part. The Minister says certain prices are fixed and are controlled. What is the good of prices being fixed if the public does not know what they are fixed at? What is the good of the Minister saying there are fixed prices for tea or that merchants will only get a profit of 6d. per lb. on tea? How does the purchaser deduce from that what price he should pay? Is it the idea of the Minister that a profit of 6d. per lb. for the most expensive tea, costing 5/-, 6/- or 7/- per lb is a reasonable profit, and that 6d. per lb. on tea that would cost only 1/6 per lb. would also be a reasonable profit? In the first case, in my opinion, 6d. would be an unreasonably small profit, and would not pay anyone to handle, while 6d. per lb. on the cheaper tea would be an absolute licence and an illegitimate profiteering by 25 per cent.

No matter what way you fix prices, what the public have got to know is the fixed price of the article. The legitimate price and the percentage margin of profit mean nothing to a poor woman going into a shop to buy goods. Time and again suggestions were made here that if the Minister wanted to make an effort to control prices in the public interest, on what might reasonably be called the necessaries of life, the Minister would settle what the price was per unit, and then compel every trader to have that displayed prominently in the shop windows. The public would do the rest. The Minister need not worry about lack of inspectors or whether he has evidence enough to carry a case into court. All that quibbling could be dispensed with. It is a question of the price per lb., per pint, per ounce, as the case may be, if the law compels the trader to display it.

That is the position in respect of all articles in respect of which a fixed price is possible.

I am not talking about what the law is. I am talking of what is the practice. If the Minister sees a shop window between here and Buncrana where a list is prominently displayed, let him have a photograph of it taken and put in the Museum as an historical document of unique distinction and immense value. I do not believe any Deputy has ever seen such a list in any shop. Deputies go in and out of shops as often as the Minister.

Let the Minister try the shops in his own constituency first.

A bee can give immense evidence of activity by buzzing around a window, but if the bee spends the time buzzing around the pane of glass, it will never make any honey. What is wrong with this Government is that they give evidence of hysterical activity by the outpouring of regulations and orders like sausages from a machine, but they never see that the orders are respected or that the public are given any protection by such orders.

In making some comments on this Vote, it is rather difficult to make up one's mind as to where supplies begin and industry and commerce ends. For example, last year it was disclosed that the Prices Commission is under the Minister for Industry and Commerce if it is a tariff that is in question, and under the Minister for Supplies if the question under review relates to an overcharge to the public. Supplies to the country are of vital importance. The question is: How far have the Government contributed in the way of obtaining supplies? Undoubtedly, there were three parties really concerned as regards having additional supplies held in the country. First, there was the Government as represented by the Minister; then there were the manufacturers, if it was a commodity that had to be manufactured and, lastly, the holders of stocks. The Government no doubt had a very difficult task to perform because of the fact that the economy of the country is modelled upon rather peculiar lines, due to its proximity to a very big industrial centre. This country has a small and scattered population. Because of that, it tended to have a very small degree of manufacturing capacity and a somewhat overweighted system of distribution.

No one would quarrel with the Government's desire to promote native manufacture. I suppose the Minister will plead, and if he does we will all agree with that portion of his speech, that he cannot be blamed for the present war, whatever other sins may be laid at his door. In certain cases, however, I would suggest to the Minister that the Government failed to take necessary precautions. A comparison between the 1914 war and the present war will show that, while this country had less capacity for manufacturing in 1914, it held very much bigger stocks then. The country faced this war with a bigger capacity for manufacture and with very much smaller stocks than it had in 1914. I suggest to the Minister that is due to the fact that the native industries were only geared up to produce supplies to meet normal requirements. When, however, the situation began to develop that everybody felt there was going to be war, considerable stocks should have been laid in. When war did come it was found that the native manufacturers could only cope with peace time demands, and the Government had not vision enough to allow imports to be brought in freely. Somebody made the suggestion that there is no use in holding inquests, but sometimes an inquest can at least show why a person died. In the case of a number of industries, in order to enable the native manufacturer to establish himself and to compete with goods coming in from the other side, the Prices Commission established a price for the consumer which practically cut out the middleman. The Government have always protested that they wished trade to be carried on on the usual lines, but when the control of a commodity is handed over to one manufacturer, who is protected by considerable tariffs, it is somebody's duty to see that the rest of the community get a proper deal. I want to suggest that, in the case of a number of industries promoted under the present Government, no provision was made for anybody, except the manufacturer, to enable them to hold stocks, and that, I suggest, is the root kernel why, in a number of industries here, goods have given out, even though made by native manufacturers, much earlier than they did during the last war. At that time we had only a storage capacity to enable us to cope with the handing out of supplies to consumers.

If one goes over some of the major supplies which were mentioned by the Minister, it may be said that petrol is probably the one that has hit industry hardest, because it has given a sense of insecurity to the whole country. Undoubtedly, negotiations went on between the petrol companies and the Minister on the question of additional storage. The Minister has his story about that, and other people have heard other stories. Whether the petrol was to be stored in the Park or on the North Wall, the fact remains that no provision was made for additional storage. Timber was another thing the Minister referred to. He was quite right in saying that, before the war, supplies came from the Baltic countries, and that after the war supplies would have to be brought from Canada or from some part of the Americas. In my opinion, one of the major reasons why small stocks of timber were held here at the outbreak of the war—when I say small, I mean they were not up to normal—was due to the action of the Government in closing down housing grants in Dublin.

Surely, one would think that, coming up to a time when supplies would be short, and when it looked as if there would be an outbreak of war, they would have pressed forward with the supply of houses to the very utmost. That would have meant that an extra supply of houses would be available if supplies were cut off. In any event, nobody could contend that we have over-built, having regard to the requirements of the people in Dublin. An eloquent testimony to the short supply of houses is found in the fact that, in Dublin, houses unfit for human habitation, more or less, cannot be further cleared out. That is taking place only a short time after the outbreak of war, and one hesitates to think what will happen if the war goes on for a considerable period.

Naturally, if we are to have supplies, we must have ships. I know that ships figure later on our programme.

The next Estimate is for shipping.

It seems impossible to distinguish in discussion between a ship and what is in a ship. One cannot talk of what is in a ship and later talk about a ship. A question which is exercising some people's minds is whether we are worthy to have ships. Have preparations been made so that, when they arrive, they can be worked to the utmost advantage? How are the goods in those ships to be insured? Are they to be insured at rates which would compare with the present rates in the international market? The position of Irish seamen sailing in ships has never been cleared up. From an answer to a question, it was proposed that a Bill would shortly be brought in, but I think some of the shipping companies here have only been protected by the Government promising to see them through in respect of workmen's compensation, and that a Bill is to provide for the relatives of seamen and their dependents under the war clause. Another matter that strikes one is that we have no provision around the coast for salvaging wrecks. I should like to tell the Minister about a ship——

That would be a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

This ship was carrying supplies—500 standards of timber. I shall refer to the 500 standards of timber, and I shall not mention the ship or the problem of salvage.

Questions on salvage should be addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I shall merely mention it in connection with the transit of the supplies. A ship with 500 standards of timber was coming into an Irish port. It developed engine trouble and fell out of convoy. A submarine, possibly of unknown origin, put a couple of torpedoes into her and the ship's crew took to the boats. The vessel drifted on to an island close to the Irish coast. She lay there for some time and some enterprising people removed the deck cargo. I think that there were advertisements in some of the local papers: "Salvage of the wreck, So-and-so, for disposal". When the ship was relieved of her cargo she took to the sea again; a vessel laden with timber is very difficult to sink. She was found by a tug belonging to a neighbouring country and she was towed into another port. One would like to know from the Minister how far, under present conditions, that could be catered for, or if such a thing is going to happen again. The question of supplies is, of course, getting more and more important, as the Minister recognises. We should like to have the consolation of knowing that some of the things that happened in the past would not repeat themselves in the future at the cessation of hostilities which, I suppose, is bound to come some time.

I am in agreement with Deputy O'Higgins in emphasising the necessity of a complete understanding between the public and the Department of Supplies. I also agree that that Department has great responsibility, and that its duties are of supreme importance to the community. But when Deputy O'Higgins urged that this Government should have laid in huge supplies before the war—supplies which would tide us over the past few years and perhaps a few years more—I should like to know what the answer would be if the war had suddenly stopped and the question was put: "Why did you do that?"

The great difficulty that every Government encountered in doing those things was that almost every country in the world believed that a war was going to take place, and every country was doing its best to lay in supplies. Quite a number of them chartered vessels from other countries which had made a practice of hiring out vessels. As soon as the war appeared to be inevitable it was obvious that the greatest difficulty would arise in chartering ships or even in getting produce. As far as I remember, when the war did start cargoes of grain were purchased and ships were chartered. Many of those ships belonged to Norwegian owners. Few people at that time dreamed that Germany would suddenly invade Norway, but after Norway had been invaded and Norwegian ships were scattered in all directions, Greece was the next country to which people who wished to charter ships looked. Greece was then suddenly invaded with the result that it was found impossible to get cargoes into this country.

Many statements made here to-day, even those by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, were, I am afraid, made for a very definite purpose. In the first instance, he stated that it was essential that there should be an understanding between the Department of Supplies and the public. Then he proceeded at once to create as much misunderstanding as was possible. I think that that attitude at a time like this is wrong. It is human to err. I shall not deny that mistakes have been made. I am not sure that they were not but, in order to try to mislead the public, statements were made here that have no foundation whatever in fact. Almost every statement that Deputy O'Higgins made was refuted on many occasions for the last six months in this House, and reasons were given which explained certain matters to the satisfaction of all of us. Deputy O'Higgins made an excellent speech; the beginning was good and, at the conclusion, he gave good sound advice to the public. I shall come to that at a later stage, but I think it very unfortunate that attempts should be made to mislead the public instead of trying to get people thoroughly to understand the present situation. The only remedy which the Deputy suggested to relieve the scarcity of tea, petrol and other provisions was that direct representation should be made by Ministers here to Ministers in Great Britain.

As far as I know, one of the reasons for bringing a representative of the British Government to this country and for appointing a representative of our Government in Britain was to avoid traffic backwards and forwards and to enable negotiations between the two Governments to be conducted by these representatives, which is the ordinary way of conducting intergovernmental business. It is quite possible that it may be very difficult to carry on communication with the British Government at certain times. There may be occasions in the near future when ships may not be able to ply between this country and Great Britain, but a representative was appointed by the Dáil for that purpose. There was opposition to it. A good many people opposed that method, but it was set up for the purpose of facilitating such negotiations.

Great Britain is at war and, as Deputy O'Higgins stated, she is fighting for her very existence. I am quite sure that she finds the struggle extremely difficult. We were led to believe that there was any amount of tea in Great Britain but there was no attempt made to suggest that there was any amount of tobacco there. I do not know how much tea was destroyed in Great Britain as a result of the various bombings, but I am quite sure a very considerable quantity was destroyed and that the British cannot import very large quantities of tea at the moment. I quite believe that Britain made an agreement with representatives of this country in good faith to supply us with the normal amount of tea, but that, at a certain date, she was compelled to break that agreement. A country at war has not very much to give and it wants quite a lot. I do not think that any useful purpose could be served at all by direct representation in this matter or that you are going to get from a country at war things that she may need herself very badly. We realised long ago, and when the war started it was emphasised here, that we would gradually reach the situation in which we now find ourselves or possibly a worse situation, a situation in which we would be extremely thankful if we were able to feed the people of the country, not to talk about keeping them employed or of having stores filled with raw materials, tanks filled with petrol, etc.

At the same time there are a few matters which strike me, travelling through the country. One matter mentioned by Deputy O'Higgins, and on which I am in agreement with him, is the question of prices. I have not very much knowledge of what is happening in Dublin but I do know that the ordinary member of the public in the city has some idea of the price of the different parts, say, of a side of bacon, as the prices are generally marked up. Similarly, the public have some knowledge of the prices of different parts of a side of beef or mutton, but down the country there is hardly anything at all to indicate prices. Few shops, apart from one or two in the larger towns, mark up their prices. The rest charge a flat price for various cuts of meat and whether you get a top cut or a lower cut the same price is charged. Creamery butter in the country is sold at 1/10 per lb., whereas it can be purchased in Dublin at 1/7. I think the Minister might take some steps to rectify that position. If it is the law that the price of these commodities should be definitely exhibited, I think shopkeepers should be made to mark them up.

I am not so sure that the 6d. on tea is simply put on without any question of the price to the retailer, but I think that the original price of the tea, the cost of the tea to the retailer, should be decided in some way or another. So far as smuggled tea is concerned, in my constituency we know something about it. A very reasonable amount of tea has come in there which is sold at 6/- per lb. A good deal of flour comes in, exchanged possibly for sugar, and there is quite a number of motor cars moving about on petrol which they possibly got in exchange for sugar.

How that abuse is to be stopped it is not easy to see, but it is my opinion that quite a large quantity of sugar has found its way into Northern Ireland where they want it badly and that they gave us in exchange something which they did not want quite so badly, but that it all was bought by sugar is doubtful. There may be more than sugar crossing over and quite possibly people in Northern Ireland who had the capital to lay in stores of goods are not averse from selling for the currency of this country. However, it is rather annoying to the public here, and the prices of white flour and tea are continually brought up. As I see it, the great difficulty is that there is no indication in the shops as to the price of tea, the price of butter, the price of beef or mutton, or of the different cuts of bacon. The result is that very often the public have a grievance. They are very often misled and have to pay extremely high prices. As a matter of fact, things can be purchased more cheaply in Dublin than down the country, and I ask the Minister to do whatever he can in the matter.

The last point I want to mention is the importance of petrol, paraffin and coal supplies for threshing operations. Quite a few threshing mills in County Meath operate on coal. That coal was always supplied by the farmers. The necessity for a good supply of paraffin oil for harvesting operations is quite obvious, and I am sure the Minister is doing all he can to see that it will be available, but I hope he will let us know exactly how the coal will be made available—whether it will be through the local merchant or whether the owner of the mill will advise farmers as to what coal merchant he is to get it from, because the farmer may have to travel over a very large area and it would be a calamity if there was any difficulty about it. Farmers will be extremely anxious to get rid of their corn, and, as there will be a much bigger harvest this year than last, there may be difficulty about labour. Consequently, definite appointments have to be made and no delay, arising out of a farmer's having to look for coal and being disappointed, can be tolerated. That has occurred in regard to paraffin oil, to some extent, and I hope that, for the coming harvest, things will be so arranged that there will be no disappointments.

So far as petrol is concerned, I had to do my turn on Sunday last as a member of the Local Security Force, and I had an opportunity of counting the number of cars that passed. I may tell the Minister quite honestly that it surprised me. I do not know how many, out of the number that passed, could have been said to be on medical service. Three or four were on military service, but the rest were being used for purely social purposes of one description or another. I think there should be a tightening up in that respect, and also in respect of prices in country shops in order to prevent the exploitation to some extent of the community. In regard to butter, I know that there may be a difference of 1d. in the lb. between the price in Dublin and the price in the country. Some people, mostly workers, prefer creamery butter to farmers' butter, and it would be reasonable to charge an extra 1d.—perhaps freights have gone up—but the difference between the price of 1/10 and 1/7 in Dublin is very irritating. So far as other grievances are concerned, I think there is a thorough understanding of the position. The public realise that there is a world war in progress, that ships have been sunk and millions of pounds' worth of goods lost. They know that, because of the war, they are liable to disappointment in regard to many things, but we should not have them disturbed and annoyed in respect of those commodities which we produce here. Every effort should be made to organise our own production to see that goods are properly distributed and proper prices charged.

Deputy O'Reilly must be one of the most innocent members of the House. He alleges that Deputy O'Higgins made certain accusations which, in his view, were not in accordance with the facts. I think that most of the charges he made here have been made in the Dáil before, and so far as I know—and I think within the recollection of most Deputies—no adequate answer has been given to them. Although Deputy O'Reilly, in his own quiet way, was probably trying to defend the Minister, he has given away the position and has made the case that most of us have been attempting to make. He has proved, so far as it can be proved, in respect of one or two articles the existence of profiteering which we have all been accusing the Minister of encouraging, or of refusing to stop in recent times. Deputy O'Reilly rather astonished me.

The two items in regard to which one would expect there would be no profiteering were the two items selected by him as being instances of profiteering, that is, butter and bacon. They are both dear enough in relation to the price the producer gets, but that is another argument. There is no reason why butter should be 1/10 in Meath, or why bacon should be sold at the prices at which Deputy O'Reilly suggested it is being sold, but if such a position does exist—and I am quite ready to believe that Deputy O'Reilly would not suggest it existed, if it did not—it is adequate confirmation of everything every Deputy in Opposition has said as to the manner in which the consumer is being mulcted, and of the fact that it is high time that some action were taken to provide a list of fixed prices for different articles.

There are two or three things to which I wish to refer, and I shall begin with flour. I suppose the question of flour has been debated over and over again, and to-day at Question Time, and later on during the debate, it was suggested that there might be some alteration in the quality of the flour, or at least in the bread at the present time. Accusations were made that the bread turns stale quickly and that a lot of it is wasted. I think that every Deputy is satisfied of that. At least, in my own district and in other districts, everybody I spoke to had the same to say, that the bread becomes stale quickly, that a lot of it is wasted and that there is an undue consumption of flour which is not afterwards used in the form of bread. The Minister stated to-day that, possibly, after the harvest we would have an admixture of other cereals, such as oats and barley, in the flour. I suggest to the Minister that we might begin now and accustom the people's tastes to what they will eventually have to consume in larger quantities. Why not make the experiment now of changing the process of making bread by substituting a quantity of oats or barley for the pollard in the flour? As far as some bakers, with whom I personally had conversations, had any satisfactory explanation to give as to the quality of the bread, it was generally that it was not the bran in the flour that was at fault, but generally that it was the pollard, and that the existence of the pollard in the flour made it the stodgy, sodden article with which everybody is familiar.

The Minister is looking for suggestions, and I make that suggestion to him. Incidentally, I think he said that he was going to proceed against some people who were extracting the pollard, but I suggest to him that, with a view to making a form of bread that people could consume, he might allow the millers to abstract the pollard and substitute oats and barley. Oatenmeal bread is used quite a lot through the country, and at any rate oaten flour produces a light bread which does not get into the sodden state which the bread with a high percentage of pollard gets into. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. Probably, we shall have to adopt the admixture of oats or barley early in September, and it would not be a bad idea to accustom the people's tastes to it now, and I believe it would have a very good effect on the quality of the loaf we are consuming.

The next article of consumption that I want to refer to is oil, both petrol and paraffin. I do not want to go back six months or 12 months and start again the argument of what might have been. I think that everybody in the House is satisfied, and that everybody outside the House is satisfied, that the whole matter would not have been in the deplorable condition in which it is, if it had been properly handled originally.

At any rate, at the moment the position is deplorable. Deputy O'Reilly a moment ago said that when he was on duty as a memmer of the Local Security Force some days ago, he could not help noticing the numerous motor cars that passed him on the road. We all see it everywhere—cars go leór driving through the country. They are evidently not driving on the four gallons a month that were offered to some of us and refused. They have got petrol somewhere. They either got it from some illegal source or they stored it during the previous year. If the numbers of people whom one sees driving motor cars stored petrol from their coupons last year, it is a deplorable example of the results of whatever rationing the Minister did attempt in connection with petrol. There is certainly evidence all around the country, in Dublin and everywhere else, of people having sufficient petrol to engage in pleasures and other social obligations not vitally necessary. Every Deputy in this House knows it. On the other hand, we find men, to whom a few gallons of petrol are vitally necessary, left without any opportunity of procuring it.

With regard to paraffin oil the position is probably worse. Again, we might have had all the paraffin oil we needed, but we have not got it. One wonders if, in the coming harvest, there is going to be enough common paraffin to suit the needs of the harvesters. We hope there will be. The suggestion was made by some Deputy to the Minister to-day that a portion of the paraffin which has been allocated for the saving of the harvest might be allocated to householders. I am as anxious as anybody that some paraffin should be available for householders because the position of families in the country is desperate without some form of light. At the moment, paraffin cannot be procured. Most people are only saved from grave discomfort by the length of the days and the long evenings at the moment, but in a month or two, when the shorter days arrive, I do not know what the condition of householders in the country will be. Candles are getting scarcer and scarcer and one can only assume, from the position as one sees it, that in a few months' time they will be unprocurable, and what the condition of the ordinary householder will be then, I cannot see. I do believe that, just as in the case of the distribution of other commodities, there is, possibly, something wrong with the distribution of paraffin, and that some allowance might be made to householders without encroaching on the supply that is allocated for the harvesting of the crops.

Coal is another subject that has been discussed over and over again, and I do not want to enter into a discussion of it very deeply. It is another of the commodities of which we might have had a sufficient supply if we had been wise in time, but we have not. The position in Dublin may be bad, but the position in some parts of the country is much worse. A lot of us, according to the Minister, were entitled to get a small amount of coal. I think the Minister suggested that the ration was to be about five cwts., at least up to this. I know some people who have not seen a cwt. of coal for months and months, or any coal for that matter. In my own particular case, although I believe I should be entitled to five cwts. of coal per month, I have not got a cwt. of coal for the last four months. Deputy O'Reilly suggested that there was no need for any understanding between the public and the Minister, because it already existed. Well, I suppose I am better informed—or at least I ought to be, but apparently I am not—than the ordinary voter down the country, and I am not clear in my mind as to why I could not get five cwts. of coal. That is the position. I could not get it, and what chance have the people, who are less able to take care of themselves than I, to get the coal?

Now, tea is another of the subjects that one would have thought had been thrashed out enough, but it is not. We had Deputy O'Reilly, again in defence of the Minister, getting up and attacking us in connection with the manner in which tea has been profiteered. The mere fact that tea has been profiteered is proof that some people are selling tea over and above the niggardly half ounce that we are supposed to get. Every Deputy has common knowledge of the fact that tea can be procured if you can dive your hand deep enough into your pocket to buy it at 5/-, 6/- and 7/- a pound. Deputy O'Reilly substantiates everything that we said in that regard. Deputy O'Higgins said that the excuse that would probably be given would be that it was due to smuggling, but we all know that huge stocks exist in the country that were never smuggled but were bought in the ordinary way at 2/- or 3/- a pound and are now being sold at 6/-. Yet, the unfortunate old age pensioner, or people in similar circumstances, struggling to get along with a half ounce of tea, is supposed to have a perfect understanding of the position as it stands. These people are told that if we are not actually at war we are economically in a state of war and that they must be prepared to make sacrifices. The general public, and the poor especially, are quite willing to make sacrifices if they know that everybody else is making the same sacrifice, if they know that the sacrifice is general. The poor man or woman who has to do with half an ounce of tea does not believe there is any necessity for his or her sacrifice if somebody in the next street or the next parish can get all the tea he wants if he has money enough to pay for it.

We are told there is a perfect arrangement as regards the rationing of tea. It is pure bosh to suggest there is. There is tea available and the Minister should get after it and endeavour to secure a reasonable distribution of it. The people on whom this bears most heavily are the poor people who live singly, the old person who has no relatives, the old pensioner who lives on his own, or where two old people live together. It weighs more heavily on them than where there would be a family of six or eight. A large family can get along in some way, each person getting half an ounce of tea, but the unfortunate person who lives on his own cannot possibly manage with such a meagre allowance. There certainly is enough tea in the country to give all the people who live singly some extra allowance. The niggardly half ounce is by no means sufficient. I believe that if the Minister has the will to do it, he can make that extra allowance.

So far as sugar is concerned, one cannot be satisfied with the position that exists. One cannot be satisfied that the position in regard to sugar is not going to be as bad a month or two hence as the position of tea and other commodities is now. The Minister has in mind, we are told, an order restricting the sugar supplies of some wholesalers for the future, so as to prevent smuggling. I do not know whether he has actually made the order, or intends to make it, but I know that so far as some country districts are concerned, such an arrangement has been in operation for a couple of weeks. Retailers in some towns in my constituency have not got their ordinary supplies of sugar from the wholesalers within the last three or four weeks and they have been told that possibly they will not get as much again, and the result is that they have to curtail supplies to ordinary consumers.

It is all very well for the Minister to say he is restricting the supplies of people who are known to have got too much sugar within the last six or eight months and who have been able to smuggle it across the Border. Then we are told that people who did not get very large supplies may possibly get a little more. That is not working out in practice. The whole effect of the order will bring about much the same muddle as we have in regard to tea and other commodities. It is time an effort was made to distribute whatever commodities we have in a really equitable manner. We should give poor people just as fair a crack of the whip as the rich. If there are to be sacrifices, let them be equally distributed. Let us not have in regard to other commodities the same position we have in the case of tea. The poor pensioner has to do with half an ounce, but his wealthy neighbour can have as many pounds of tea as he wishes. As the Minister says, it may be difficult to prove that, but the fact is that everybody knows it is happening. If the Minister investigates the position—and he has the machinery of the State at his back—I believe it can be remedied and the Minister will save enough tea to make an adequate quantity available for men and women living singly, for old age pensioners and particularly for the poor.

You can visualise the lot of an unfortunate old age pensioner struggling to live on 10/- a week, having to hire a room and to live on the balance. Probably he has to do without his ounce of tobacco and his only luxury is the cup of tea. Consider the difficulties of a man in that position when he tries to stretch a half an ounce of tea over two or three days. The whole position is not creditable to the Department. Deputy O'Reilly made quite a good case for the Opposition when he said that in connection with the articles where one would have expected the possibility of profiteering was least, butter and bacon, there was undue and excessive profiteering in his constituency. He said that creamery butter was being sold at 1/10 and, if that is possible, then anything is possible in this country.

Butter is a commodity that concerns my constituency considerably, because it is an area that does not produce butter. Would it be possible for the Department to make an arrangement whereby butter will be issued by the wholesalers to the retailers, making a due allowance for carriage, and they could then indicate to the retailers in the various districts what would be a reasonable and fair retail price? I think that the wholesalers would be in a much better position to fix the price, so that the profit in the various districts would be the same. Then if the retailer in one part of the country makes the same profit as the retailer in another part, even though there may be some small disparity in the price, I do not think the consumer would have any great reason to complain. Take as an example Guinness' stout. I suppose it is due largely to the organisation behind it that the public know exactly what to pay for the stout. I think it ought to be possible, in a highly developed industry such as butter production, to do the same thing in the creameries. I know that it cannot be done in respect of all commodities, but I believe it could be done in the case of butter. As I have said, butter is an important commodity in a constituency like mine, where there is very little home-made butter.

With regard to petrol, for the sake of public peace of mind I think the Department ought to do something by way of investigation in connection with the large numbers of motor cars that can be seen gathered outside cinemas, dog tracks, racecourses and football matches. There ought to be some check carried out by the Guards with relation to the quantities of petrol used in these vehicles. I would not confine the check to the people who are using cars and who have got no coupons for petrol supplies. I think that if a doctor or a veterinary surgeon is allowed petrol for professional purposes, that does not entitle him to drive to a place of amusement any more than a man who does so without having petrol coupons.

The action of owners of cars, who are entitled to have petrol, or who have it whether they are entitled to it or not, and use them to go to places of amusement is very provocative. If they had any commonsense they would not do that. It would not be imposing an impossible task on the Guards to take notice of such practice, and if it was done once or twice it would not be necessary again. I listened to the speeches in which the Minister was pilloried for not taking proper precautions to secure adequate supplies of petrol. I do not agree with the view taken by the average person on that matter. I heard other views put forward suggesting that the petrol distributing companies were annoyed with the Minister about the oil refinery project and that they refused to co-operate with him in getting supplies. As another view has not been eradicated from the public mind yet the Minister might usefully review that position for the benefit of the public, explaining the reasons why the creation of the oil refinery was not proceeded with. I am satisfied that sufficient storage could not have been provided here for petrol without the co-operation of the different interests concerned. Of course any stick is good enough to beat the dog with, and it will be produced no matter what commodity is affected. The question of retail prices of commodities like butter should be dealt with in various districts.

I listened carefully to the Minister's opening speech, and I was rather impressed by a remark he used in connection with questions put to him about the importation of white flour. He said that it was perfectly legal to import white flour or to bring it across the Border. Doubtless that expression would apply to a great many things about which the public complain, that it is perfectly legal to do this, that and the other thing, and as a result some persons are obtaining commodities because they are able to pay more for them than the poorer sections of the population. Undoubtedly it is legal to do that if the Minister has no power to interfere. My quarrel with the Minister would be that he should not leave matters in such a way that it is legal to do anything which has the effect of placing the poorer section of the community at a disadvantage compared with those who are better off. I instanced the importation of white flour, concerning which the Minister could take drastic powers under the Emergency Powers Act.

I understand that the exportation of white flour from Northern Ireland is illegal there, and as large quantities are coming here, sooner or later there will be repercussions, and as a result of investigations some people will get into trouble. It is obvious, whether we allow it or not, that something is being given in return for the imports of flour, and that something is sugar, so that even if there is more white flour here, there will be less sugar. Consequently, there is no resulting benefit to the supply situation here. The Minister should try to co-ordinate his authority, if necessary, by taking additional power, with a view to having every commodity necessary in daily use available to rich and poor alike at the same price. It is openly discussed and is generally conceded that if a person is prepared to pay a certain price he can obtain quantities of certain commodities. In my opinion that is all wrong. If there is a commodity of which there is liable to be a shortage it should be subject to general control and price fixing.

The Minister painted what I think was the most terrible picture ever painted in this House with regard to supplies and the reactions upon the life of the country. I will instance one commodity with which he dealt—fuel. We all know that a shortage of coal, as well as substitutes, such as petrol and other things, will bring about a general stoppage of industry The Minister stated that he was told by his advisers that in a short time pit props might have to be burned as fuel. I take it he was referring to fuel for industry or for the railways. If that is in contemplation, the situation is indeed a very serious one. I do not know if Deputies realise that of all the timber that could be used for fuel purposes, larch timber is probably one of the least useful as fuel. It is not of very much use in an open fire, as it sends out sparks of a highly inflammable nature. It is a valuable timber for use in the manufacture of wooden parts of farm implements. While it is a valuable wood for export purposes, and for use on farms, it is not suitable for ordinary fires, and I understand it is contemplated using it to make up for the lack of fuel supplies that may arise within the next few months.

That is a very serious situation indeed. I do not know whether the reasons given, as to why our coal supplies should be so short in the future, are adequate. I suppose the usual explanation given for that is lack of shipping space and so on. However, it seems to me that our coal supply should not be curtailed to the drastic extent indicated. I gather the Minister contemplates that, for the purpose of meeting the fuel situation, he will have to call upon the timber resources of the country, and he mentioned the burning of pit props. In my opinion, plans should be made immediately to obtain the necessary supplies. I have personal knowledge of the growing and marketing of timber. I have been approached by no less than three different bodies this year as to what I would be able to do in the way of contributing to the supply of timber. I was approached by the parish council, by the county council and by the Minister for Supplies. That indicates a lack of co-ordination. In my own small way I have been able to supply to a local parish council a certain amount of timber for the needy and the poorer members of the community, with no intention of making any commercial profit, or anything of that kind, from it. If the Minister is going to call upon the timber owners of the country to make up, in the next few months, the gap there is in the fuel situation, then I suggest he will have to work out a better plan than he has in existence at the moment. He should let the owners of timber know what classes of timber they will be permitted to cut and market, then fix a reasonable price, a price, if you like, that can be changed from time to time, according to the exigencies of the situation, but at the same time a reasonable price at which the timber can be marketed. The Minister may not be aware that timber cannot be advantageously cut and brought out of the woods at every season of the year. I am making these suggestions to him in all sincerity. I know that he has sent out a notice to owners who have a substantial quantity of timber asking them to fill in returns and stating that he is in touch with the Forestry Department. I want to say to him that I think it should be left to individual owners to cut and sell timber to the appropriate authority at what would be a reasonable price. If that is not done then the fuel situation, if it is to be relieved by supplies of timber, will be in a chaotic situation when the critical time arrives.

Some Deputies referred to the number of private motor-cars on the roads. The Minister, I think, agreed to release a certain number of gallons of petrol for each private car licensed, starting as from the 1st of May. I do not want to criticise the number of private cars on the road. I agree with what the Minister said, that when a number of people see a private car on the road, simply because it is not a commercial van or lorry, or perhaps because they know the driver is not a doctor or a veterinary surgeon, they immediately jump to the conclusion that the car is being used on private business. But a very large number of people employ their cars in connection with their business, and thereby provide a great deal of employment. My only regret is that the Minister cannot see his way to increase the petrol ration for private cars. I think it was Deputy O'Reilly who said that when on duty on Sunday last with the Local Security Force in the County Meath he was astonished at the number of private cars he saw on the road. I do not think he need be astonished. We all know that last week-end was so fine that people entitled to six or four gallons of petrol decided, I suppose, to use it up on that day. We all know there is a certain leakage here and a certain leakage there, but at the same time I do not think it is right to condemn the general members of the motoring public in the way they have been condemned and attempt to put them off the road altogether. Their petrol allowance, at the moment, is very small. It would represent only a very small fraction of what is being loosened for commercial purposes.

The Minister, in his speech, foreshadowed a very gloomy outlook for the future. I am not concerned with what brought about that position. Somebody, I suppose, is to blame, but, at all events, we seem to be facing a very serious situation. In conclusion, I would impress on the Minister the importance of looking into the question of timber to which I have referred. The matter is very important and we should start planning now. It is a problem that probably his Department has never yet dealt with. Consequently, they will be newcomers to it. My fear is that it may be dealt with from the point of view of keeping one eye on the Forestry Department, one on the county council and another on somebody else. The Minister should see to it that steps are taken to get the necessary supplies from those who have the timber in a businesslike way.

I do not believe there is any blame due to the Minister in connection with supplies. Nobody could think that the position was going to develop as it did, or that the war was going to continue for such a long period. I wonder where would we be if steps had not been taken, in its early years, by this Government to make the country self-sufficient? If the farmers had not been encouraged to grow more wheat and beet to give us our flour and sugar requirements, I wonder where would we find ourselves after 19 or 20 months of war? Where could we get supplies of flour and sugar to-day?

What I am principally concerned with is the question of prices. There is very little use in anyone thinking that farmers are going to deliver wheat to the millers at the end of next harvest at 40/- a barrel, or £16 a ton, and then pay £21 a ton for a mixture of oats, barley, pulp or dust shavings. The farmer will not do that. Instead, he will feed the wheat to his cattle. Now that we have the time to do it, we should start looking into these matters. The sooner we do so the better for everyone concerned. The farmer is not going to sell his wheat at £16 a ton and then pay £21 a ton for a mixture to feed his live stock. I suggest that prices should be fixed now for wheat, oats and barley, to cover the full 12 months. Let the farmer know before he sells his crop what he is going to pay for his seed and for his feeding stuffs. Let us not have a repetition of the scandal we had last winter. The farmer got £8 a ton for his oats, and had it sold back to him, three months later, at £21 per ton.

That was not profiteering.

No. We had the other scandalous case that I mentioned in the House some time ago, of the gentleman who stood to make £66,000 of a profit on the farmers' wheat. He was not even a miller, he was only a storekeeper. Things of that kind have got to be finished with now. That is if there is to be any hope at all of getting in the harvest as it should be got in, and finishing it up properly.

I would advise the Minister, too, that licences for the purchase of wheat should go out to the millers and to nobody else. It is a scandal to have nine or ten jacks-in-the-box getting rich quickly out of the farmers. Men who never even see the wheat get 1/- while the bigger fellows get 5/- a barrel out of it. The farmer's price, on the other hand, is cut to the bone. I do not know what consideration was given to the fixing of a hard and fast price for wheat and stuff of that description. The Minister made an admission to-day. He said that this year, although the farmer is getting only the same price for beet as he got last year, the yield and sugar content will be less than normal owing to the deficiency in artificial manures. If that is a fact, the farmer is entitled to the cost of producing what he sells, whoever pays for it. Artificial manures were double the price they were last year. I do not know what the reason for it was but if the price of artificial manures was doubled, if the farmer could not get the manures he wanted, if his yield is going to be reduced because of that and the sugar content of his crop is to be less, then he is entitled to be compensated for the loss he has suffered in these respects.

With regard to petrol and oil supplies, I think that, unless it is definitely certain that there is enough petrol and tractor oil for the harvest and the delivery of the harvest, not a single gallon should be given to any private car—I do not care to what use that private car is being put. Our first duty is to see that the harvest is cut and threshed so that people will have food for the coming year. Supplies of petrol for that purpose should be actually in stock before any private car owner gets a gallon of petrol. If that is not done, we may find tractors idle in the field without any means of cutting the harvest or we may find ourselves afterwards without any means of threshing or delivering the harvest. These operations have first claim on whatever petrol-petroleum is in the country. Unless the Minister has adequate supplies of petrol in stock, private owners should be cut off at once.

As regards coal, I have seen the notices sent out and, to my mind, the whole scheme has been prepared by people who have no knowledge whatsoever of the country, people who were, evidently, born in some corner of Dublin, taken from there to the Department of Supplies and who never saw outside the doors of their offices.

They would not have come from Cork.

If they came from Cork, they would know something about the country. Will any Deputy tell me that it is usual in his area for the coal for steam threshing to be supplied by the threshing-mill owner instead of by the farmer concerned? The threshing-mill owner is, under this scheme, to keep the coal in his yard. He may be threshing 25 or 30 miles from that yard, and how is he to shift the coal from the yard to the place of the threshing? The whole thing was prepared by civil servants, who knew nothing about the country or conditions in the country.

The Minister omitted to touch on our supplies of iron and steel which are, to my mind, amongst the most important of our commodities—amongst the essentials. What is the position in regard to them? The only factory for the manufacture of merchant iron and steel in the State is at present idle. It was opened by the Minister at the end of August, 1939, and it worked on imported billets. I happened to go into this matter very closely a few months ago. I got a return from the chief engineer in that factory which showed that it would take a period of five months to finish two open-hearth furnaces there. After that period of five months, the factory could be completely run on scrap iron and steel, and the needs of this country in merchant iron and steel could be supplied from there. As I have said, the factory was opened by the Minister for Supplies three or four days before the outbreak of the war. By the following February—February of 1940—that factory should have been running on our own scrap iron and scrap steel. Any man with any knowledge of business would know very well that we would not be able to import billets from abroad during the war—that we were not going to get them from any country at war. Still that position was allowed to continue until these supplies were finished up. Worse than that, scrap iron and scrap steel, which should form the raw material for that industry, was allowed to be exported. I got a reply from the Minister on that question a few months ago. When I dealt with the matter in debate, the Minister said that no scrap iron was exported.

I do not know where the Minister got his information but I presume that he reads the Statistics of the Port of Dublin. It was stated there that there were exported from that port, in 1939, 15,894 tons of scrap iron and, in 1940, 17,443 tons of scrap iron. In three months of 1940 there were exported from Cork Port 3,800 tons of scrap iron. If the Minister's statement is correct—that he gave no licences for the export of scrap iron—I wonder what his Departmental officials were doing and what the customs authorities were doing when they allowed this scrap iron to be exported. What were the customs authorities doing when they allowed that scrap to be exported? Here were the raw materials of an industry being sent out of this country in a time of war, being sent out of a town where there are over 350 unemployed at the moment, all of whom are experts in iron and steel work.

It is all very well to ask the farming community to do their part. It is all very well to come along to a farmer and say: "Very well, your farm is yours, certainly, but if you are not going to produce food on that farm in this emergency, if you are not going to plough the land and till it, we shall issue an order against you, take that land from you and till it." Surely all citizens in this country should have equal rights. If it is right and just for the Government to exercise that power in regard to a farmer, the same power should be exercised in regard to an industrialist who refuses to produce or who is unable to produce essential supplies for the country in this emergency. There is no doubt that iron and steel are amongst our most essential commodities to-day. I listened to a statement by the Minister on the occasion of the opening of this factory and I agreed with every word he said, that to supply our own iron and steel is absolutely essential. I would go a step further and say that if it is considered good policy to place the production of turf under the control of the Government, and to have our sugar under the control of the Government through the Sugar Company, then it should be equally good policy to have our iron and steel under the control of the Government and not under the control of every Jack-tail and Harry-Tricky who comes along. The state of affairs carried on in that place for the past 18 months was a scandal and should not be allowed anywhere, a state of affairs where you had the only factory in this country which could convert scrap iron into merchantable iron and steel, and the chief director of that factory holding the sole agency in this country from the British Government for the export of scrap iron and steel. That is a condition which would not be allowed to exist anywhere, no matter where one went. The place is now in the hands of a receiver.

I think this is about the fourth of those industries to which I have alluded here, which immediately went into the hands of the receiver as soon as they found the "gaff" was blown on them. In my opinion, it is the duty of the Government to-day to step in and buy over that place at the lowest possible figure, and to work that industry for the good of this State. Every day that that factory is left there idle is going to mean that other factories dependent on that factory for their materials will be idle for a further day, a further week, or a further month, with consequent growing unemployment for those working in these factories. There is one factory alone in Cork—City Metal Products—which gives employment to between 180 and 230 persons. That factory will be closed down within the next two months owing to the lack of iron which they formerly received from Haulbowline, with the result that 200 persons are going to be thrown on the unemployed list again. That condition of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.

I would seriously suggest to the Minister that the Government should buy in the place at a reasonable figure. If the open hearth furnaces were kept going, they would provide immediate employment for over 200 men who are at present going around Cobh idle. In all, with both open hearth and merchant mill working, employment could be found for about 400 persons, and the continuance of this industry would mean that other industries, which are dependent on its products, would be kept going. It would take only a period of five months to put these furnaces in full working order, and I cannot see for the life of me why the Minister for Supplies, who is responsible for seeing that the agricultural community in this country are provided with shoes for their horses and plough parts for their ploughs, does not take some steps to keep a factory which produces the raw materials for these articles in full operation. I, perhaps, have laboured the matter too far. This is the fourth time I have mentioned it in this House, but I am thankful for one thing, that the remarks I made on previous occasions had the result of hunting the thieves out of it. Now that the coast is clear, I suggest that this should be made a national industry, run by the State on the same basis as the sugar company or the Peat Development Board.

That is Communism.

Let it be what it may, I do not care; it is better than trickyism, than allowing a gentleman to hold the factory there and to draw £16,000 or £17,000 commission on the export of scrap out of this country since the war started. There is no good in burking things here at present. Let us have it out straight; that is the position. I suggest to the Minister that is one of the most serious problems with which we are faced to-day. It is a problem he should deal with and deal with at once. There is no good in evading the issue. The issue is there and it will have to be dealt with.

I do not know what steps the Minister is going to take in regard to white flour. I was in Glanmire the other night when three sacks of white flour were raffled. I saw it sold at 7/- a stone. I do not know where it came from. While I was there 40 lbs. of tea were raffled at 10/- a lb.—120 tickets at 1d each. Tea is being freely sold at about 7/- a lb. That is a price which is beyond the reach of the ordinary working man in this country. We are told that everybody is to make an equal sacrifice, but I would ask the Minister to look at this point of view. Some months before it became necessary to ration, notification was issued to people to buy in stocks. That gave an opportunity to the man with money to lay in supplies. The poor devil earning 30/- or 35/- a week from Martin Corry could not do it; no farm labourer could do it; no county council road worker could do it; and no unfortunate devil drawing the dole could do it. Surely, now that tea is rationed, the Minister should take some steps to check up on all the stocks of tea in the country, find out what stocks there are and ration them, and so put an end to this type of scandal.

As I say, I was present at a carnival in Glanmire last Sunday night and I saw what happened there. A gentleman came along with an old teapot and a lb. of tea. "Have one good night, lads," he said, and tickets were then sold at 1d. each. There were 120 of them and the lb. of tea was duly raffled and handed over. A lb. of tea for 10/- and there were at least 40 or 50 lbs. of tea raffled in that manner. I want to know where it came from and I am entitled to know whether the Minister has checked up on the tea in the country. If he has, where did that tea come from, and what poor devil must do without his half ounce in order that that condition of affairs may continue? The same applies to white flour. If Deputies look at to-day's Cork Examiner, they will see a notice:

"New supply of white flour just arrived; put in your order while it lasts."

All one must do is walk down and hand out 7/- a stone for it. Surely my workman cannot pay 7/- a stone for white flour to feed his wife and children.

That is not profiteering.

I do not know where it came from, nor do I know what it cost, but I know it is there. I want to know from the Minister if it is illegal to sell white flour in this country to-day?

It is not, or any kind of flour. The Deputy knows that quite well. He can buy all the flour he wants, or advertise it for sale.

But it is illegal for a baker to take the bran and pollard out of his flour and convert it into white flour. The proper thing to do is to fix the price of white flour at the same figure as brown flour.

Then there will be none.

All the better.

Who benefits by that?

Who will benefit by having it there? If there are to be equal sacrifices, why should I have white flour and my workman brown flour?

The Deputy is talking as much nonsense as a member of Fine Gael.

I am not. I am not talking the kind of nonsense the Minister talked when he told me there was no export of scrap iron from this country, in spite of the Dublin Port and Docks Board figures. If the Minister doubts my words, the Cork Examiner is down in the Library, and he can look at it.

That is a reliable guide all right.

Let him send down to the Civic Guards who were lining up the people for their pounds of tea in Glanmire last Sunday night, and find out where the tea came from. There is a very simple way of finding out, but if there are pounds of tea to be raffled at 10/- a pound, and if my workman is to get only three ounces for himself, his wife and four children, it does not represent equality of sacrifice. I definitely object to having one law for the poor and another for the rich.

A pound of tea for a penny is not very exorbitant.

Perhaps the Minister would like if some of the boys went down and seized the whole lot.

The man who got the pound of tea paid only a penny.

I guarantee that the next time it is put up we will seize it.

Who are "we"?

The poor devils the Minister thinks can do with three ounces a week are going to have their share before any fellow gets rich quickly out of it.

The man who got it paid only a penny.

Yes, but the fellows who sold it got 10/-. What is the Minister's fixed price for tea? Has the Prices Commission examined that yet?

A pound of tea for a penny.

No, a pound of tea for 10/-.

The man paid only a penny.

He did, but the profiteer got 10/-.

The man got the tea for a penny a pound.

We will find out what the price is next time because we will do a bit of cleaning up in that area and find out how much tea is there. There must be more where that came from.

That was a charity carnival, was it not?

There was a lot of charity in a pound of tea for 10/-.

A pound of tea for a penny is good value.

And there was a lot of charity about 7/- a stone for white flour. These are matters which should be rectified. We are to have sacrifices in this country, and, in my opinion, we are only at the beginning of the sacrifices. Hitler might finish off John Bull this year, but the Yank is not done yet, nor is the Russian and the rest of them, and, in my opinion, we are in for nine or ten years of it before the world gets back to normal. If we succeed in keeping out of the scrap, well and good, but we ought at least to see that we have sufficient here for our own people and that such things as I have described are not allowed to continue. That is what the Department is there for—to check profiteering and to put an end to it on all sides. If it is good for Martin Corry to grow wheat at 40/- a barrel, he does not want to see a gentleman drawing £40, £50, or £100 merely for looking at that wheat. If wheat is to be produced by the farmer at 40/- a barrel, and delivered to the miller, the miller's costings must be checked up, together with the baker's costings, until it finally reaches the consumer. If we are to find ourselves in a position in which we cannot increase the wages of the ordinary road worker, who is to be kept down to the rate of wages he received before the war, we should see that his food is made as cheap as possible and that nobody will get rich quick on the bread of the poor. That has happened, and happened scandalously, in the past. Unless we deal with it between now and the next harvest, it will happen again, with this danger—and it is a grave danger—that if the whole thing is not straightened up before the harvest, the millers will get no wheat to mill.

It has been happening for the past eight years at the hands of the millers, the Minister and the Deputy.

I am glad Deputy Mulcahy has mentioned that matter, lest I should have forgotten it. The Deputy was one of the genuises who believed that no Irishman should mill any flour, that if any profits were made they should be made by a decent Englishman and not by an Irishman, and that if anybody was to be paid for milling flour it was to be an English worker and not an Irish worker.

The Deputy has the telescope to the blind eye now.

I gave the figures here and if Deputy Mulcahy exerts himself a little—I admit he is fairly energetic at times—he can look them up in the Library. Let him take the prices of imported wheat and imported flour from 1928 to 1931 and compare them with the prices of wheat and flour in this country from 1933 to 1936.

He will find this much out: that if there is profiteering in flour to-day by Irish flour millers, there was five times the profiteering when flour milling here was in the hands of the British. I am prepared to challenge Deputy Mulcahy any time he wishes on that and have it out with him.

Let him have it out with the Minister. The Deputy has enough on hands now between himself and the Minister.

Well, when Deputy Mulcahy was a Minister himself, we had a few rattles also, and he was all the better for them. I taught him a few lessons since, on a few occasions, and he took my advice and profited by it, and the country profited by his taking my advice. That is what I am here for —giving advice, and I do not care whether he takes it or not. I do not care whether either of you take my advice, but I try to give it.

See how it will work on the Minister.

The Minister is a very sensible man, and I find him on all occasions open to reason. As regards the question of flour and profiteering, however, which Deputy Mulcahy mentioned, I sincerely advise him, if he wishes to remain in public life any longer—and, goodness knows, his Party ruined themselves enough already over this matter—not to mention flour, or wheat, or beet, or sugar, while this war is on at any rate, because the people, unfortunately for yourselves, have fairly long memories, and they will remember what was said by what I suppose I may call his second-in-command or assistant-leader, Deputy Dillon, when he said that he would not be found dead in a field of wheat. The people remember that to-day, and when they turn over their loaf of bread and look at it they say: "Well, at any rate, we would not have even this if it had not been for Seán Lemass; we would be eating nettles or looking across the water for Deputy Dillon's shipping." So, the less you say about wheat the better for yourselves. You did your best to damn that policy and you failed, and it was a damned good job for this country that you did fail.

Would the Deputy come back to the Estimate now?

As a matter of fact, Sir, I was finished with the Estimate and was about to sit down when Deputy Mulcahy pulled me up and, of course, when he pulled me up I had to deal with him. I think I have dealt with all the matters that I wished to speak on in connection with this Vote. They are more than serious, and certainly serious enough to get earnest attention. Unless we succeed definitely in putting an end to the profiteering that went on as regards the farming community last harvest we are going to find ourselves in a very serious position this harvest. You will find that farmers will not part with their wheat and that, to my mind, is serious enough for anything. I heard the Minister's statement on the coal supplies, and I also heard his statement as regards the reserve he was keeping, and I am wondering what the reserve is for. I suggest seriously to the Minister that the first call on that reserve of coal should be to provide for the steam threshers for this harvest. That should be the first call, I think. Unless he is prepared to do that, things will be serious, and for heaven's sake, whatever else he does, let him change the rule that he made of having the steam-thresher owners buy their coal, because that is a completely unworkable scheme. It cannot be worked, and there is no use in pretending that it can. Let him issue to each farmer, according to the amount of threshing that he has, a permit for the coal necessary for that threshing, and see that he gets it.

The regulation in regard to that was probably issued by individuals who did not know what were the conditions obtaining amongst the farming community in that matter. It is certainly a matter that should be looked into and to which, in my opinion, the Minister should devote serious attention. There is no use in causing people any more annoyance or trouble than they have already, and if petrol and kerosene are as scarce as the Minister says, there is no use in having a situation where a farmer is threshing in one part of the country and a lorry with a ton of coal or so having to travel 20 or 30 miles down to him. That is a wilful waste of petrol, and we cannot afford any waste of petrol. These are things that the Minister should look into and see that they are attended to. I do not wish to detain the House further.

During the period of the emergency, the question of essential supplies of food and fuel for our people, and of raw material for the production of that food and raw material for industry, ranks as one of the vital economic problems that should command the active, intelligent and constant vigilance and attention of the Government, and particularly of the responsible Minister, the Minister for Supplies. While nobody, in justice, can blame the Government for the diminution, and almost total disappearance in recent months, of essential supplies from overseas as a result of the enforcement of the blockade and consequent reduction in shipping and the impossibility of chartering tonnage for the conveyance of our normal import requirements, and although we heard warnings over the radio on several occasions last summer from the Minister of the possibility, and almost certainty, of such a situation as we now experience developing, it appears to me that the Minister failed to realise or appreciate the gravity of the situation that was pending or to anticipate the rapid deterioration of the shipping position, because it is now manifest to all that, having given the warning, he himself failed to organise and make use of the opportunity that was then given of making every possible provision for the accummulation of stocks of essential commodities to off-set in some degree the menace that is now threatening the existence of our people in finding ourselves almost completely cut away from the rest of the world. The inability and ineptitude of the Minister to keep proper and vigilant watch over the supply position since the inception of the war has landed the country in the present mess, and the futility of his attempt to defend measures that were taken by his Department and his specious arguments in that attempt have deceived nobody.

They at least deceived me.

The country has experienced, during the early months of this year, with reference to flour, petrol and other commodities, a series of assurances from the Minister, followed almost immediately by a successive series of jolts and disappointments. That has completely shaken the confidence of the country. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m., until Wednesday, 18th June, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share